Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
080817 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 8, 2017 — 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 6:00 PM - The City Council will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—PENDING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880. Next in Order: Ordinance: 17-05 Resolution: 17-44 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Maryann Edwards Prelude Music: Ava Sarnowski Invocation: Pastor Dave Cope of Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship Flag Salute: Council Member Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Edwards PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Award from City of Temecula to Matt Wiechec Presentation from City of Temecula to Outgoing Police Chief Jeff Kubel 1 PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, 10 minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of July 25, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of July 25, 2017. 3 Approve the List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: 2 RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2017. 5 Approve the Purchase of Two BMW Police Motorcycles for the Temecula Police Department from Power Sports Unlimited dba: BMW Motorcycles of Escondido RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council approve the purchase of two BMW Police Motorcycles from Power Sports Unlimited dba: BMW Motorcycles of Escondido for a total amount of $61,337.36. 6 Approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Quality Code Publishing for Municipal Code Services RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Quality Code Publishing for Municipal Code Services. 7 Ratify Standard Agreement with the State of California to Utilize the Services of the Office of Administrative Hearings RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council ratify the Standard Agreement with the State of California to utilize the services of the Office of Administrative Hearings. 8 Approve Plans and Specifications, and Authorize the Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: 3 RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE SOLICITATION OF CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE, PW06-09, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LA PAZ AND TEMECULA PARKWAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) AND CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15332, CLASS 32 IN- FILL PROJECT 9 Approve a Transfer of Funds and Award a Construction Contract to RJ Noble Company, Inc. for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road, PW 10-13 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve a transfer of funds, in the amount of $300,000, from Measure S Funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 2017-18 Capital Improvement Program Budget for Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide; 9.2 Award a Construction Contract to RJ Noble Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,418,872.50, for Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road (Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road), PW10-13; 9.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $141,887.25, which is equal to 10% of the Contract amount; 9.4 Make a finding that Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road, PW10-13, is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 10 Accept Improvements and File the Notice of Completion for the Citywide Sidewalk Proiect (Ynez Road between Pauba Road and Portraits Lane), PW15-12 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Accept the Improvements of the Citywide Sidewalk Project (Ynez Road between Pauba Road and Portraits Lane), PW15-12, as complete; 10.2 Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the Contract amount; 10.3 Release the Labor and Materials Bond seven months after filing the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. 4 11 Approve the Agreement between City of Temecula and Redhawk Community Association for Sidewalk Maintenance for Portions of Redhawk Community RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF MEANDERING SIDEWALKS IN PORTIONS OF REDHAWK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION COMMON AREAS WHERE SIDEWALKS MEANDER AROUND THE LEGAL BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN ASSOCIATION'S COMMON AREAS AND CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY; AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: CSD 17-01 Resolution: CSD 17-05 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 12 Approve the Action Minutes of July 25, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of July 25, 2017. 13 Approve a Sponsorship Agreement with the Temecula Valley Woman's Club for Use of the Community Recreation Center (CRC) Kitchen and Multi -Purpose Room Recommendation: 13.1 That the Board of Directors approve a Sponsorship Agreement with the Temecula Valley Woman's Club for in-kind facility use in the amount of $1,102, for the use of the Community Recreation Center (CRC) kitchen and multi- purpose room. 6 CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 7 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: TPFA 17-01 Resolution: TPFA 17-09 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maryann Edwards ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Edwards TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Authority Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Temecula Public Financing Authority request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 14 Approve the Action Minutes of July 25, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of July 25, 2017. TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS TPFA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 8 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — No Meeting TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY — No Meeting RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 15 Adopt the 2016 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program Nexus Study Update and Updated Fee Schedule RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.08, WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM, AND FINDING THIS ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA 15.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE APPLICABLE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 9 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports and public Closed Session information) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula, 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694- 6444. 10 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT Item No. 1 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: August 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JULY 25, 2017 – 7:00 PM 6:00 PM - The City Council convened in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1. Conference with Legal Counsel—Pending Litigation. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. RIC1512880; Aghapy Group v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court No. MCC1601065; City of Temecula v. All In Holistic et al., Riverside County Superior Court No. MCC1700077. 2. Conference with Legal Counsel—Potential Litigation. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (4) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City based on the claims of Nature Works, Inc., Nancy Moran and Valerie Salatino. At 6:00 PM Mayor Edwards called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:01 PM CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Maryann Edwards Prelude Music: Temecula Valley Conservatory of the Summer Arts Chamber Music Invocation: Carrie Lewis of Baha'is of Temecula Flag Salute: Council Member James "Stew" Stewart ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Edwards PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Award from the American Cancer Society, Inc. to the City of Temecula for Sponsoring the Relay for Life Event Presentation of Proclamation for National Hospitality House Week and 10th Anniversary of Jacob's House Presentation by Matrix Consulting Group Regarding Law Enforcement Joint Powers Action Minutes 072517 1 Authority Study PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals addressed the City Council: • Bob Knapp • Janice Knapp • June Earley • Mark Schabel CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of July 11, 2017 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of July 11, 2017. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Approve the License Agreement for Police Sub -Station and the Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Partial Funding of Police Services at the Promenade Mall, both with Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. Action Minutes 072517 2 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve a three-year License Agreement with Forest City Commercial Management, Inc. for the City of Temecula Police Sub -Station at the Promenade Mall at no cost; 4.2 Approve the Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Agreement for Partial Funding of Police Services By and Between the City of Temecula and Forest City Commercial Management, Inc., to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2020, in the amount of $102,499 annually. 5 Adopt Resolution to Establish the Amount of the Voter Approved Measure C Annual Special Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2017-18 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE AMOUNT OF THE SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 TO PROVIDE FOR RECREATION AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS AND THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, AND ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6 Adopt Ordinance 17-03 to Approve an Amendment to the CaIPERS Contract to Provide for Sharing Employer Cost by Classic Local Miscellaneous Members in the Management and Confidential Employees Group (Second Reading) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA Action Minutes 072517 3 7 Adopt Ordinance 17-04 Amending the Temecula Municipal Code Providing for the Election of City Council Members By District, Establishing District Boundaries, Identifying District Numbers and Establishing the Election Order of Each District (Second Reading) — Approved Staff Recommendation (3-2, Rahn and Stewart in opposition); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, and Edwards with Rahn and Stewart in opposition. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.08 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL BY DISTRICTS, ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARIES AND IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF EACH DISTRICT, AND ESTABLISHING THE ELECTION ORDER OF EACH DISTRICT 8 Receive Report Regarding Status of Upcoming Vacancies on Boards and Commissions — Receive and file RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council receive the report regarding the status of upcoming vacancies on Boards and Commissions. 9 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with Michael Baker International, Inc. for Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement for Consultant Services with Michael Baker International, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $10,760, for additional design services; 9.2 Authorize an increase to the contingency in the amount of $1,076, and increase the City Manager's authority to approve Extra Work Authorizations by the same amount. 10 Award a Contract to Best Contracting Services, Inc. for the Temecula Children's Museum — Roof Rehabilitation, PW16-02 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. Action Minutes 072517 4 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Award a Contract to Best Contracting Services, Inc., in the amount of $193,100, for the Temecula Children's Museum — Roof Rehabilitation, PW16-02; 10.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $19,310, which is equal to 10% of the Contract amount; 11 Approve a Three -Year Agreement for Contractor Services with Counts Unlimited, Inc. for Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for Fiscal Years 2017-20 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That the City Council approve a three-year Agreement for Contractor Services with Counts Unlimited, Inc., in the amount of $30,000 annually, for a total agreement amount of $90,000, for Citywide Traffic Count Data Collection for Fiscal Years 2017-20. 12 Approve an Agreement for the Installation and Maintenance of Electrical and Telecommunication Lines in Public Right of Way on Pechanga Parkway Between the City of Temecula and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Rahn abstained); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Stewart and Edwards with Rahn abstaining as his spouse is employed by the Tribal Government. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION LINES IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON PECHANGA PARKWAY BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA RECESS: At 8:09 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting and Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 8:11 PM, the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL Action Minutes 072517 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 15 Community Development Department Monthly Report 16 Fire Department Monthly Report 17 Police Department Monthly Report 18 Public Works Department Monthly Report BOARD/COMMISSION REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson reported that the City Council authorized the service of a lawsuit against Nature Works, Inc. and the defense of the three related Claims. There were no other reportable actions under the Brown Act in regards to the Closed Session items. ADJOURNMENT At 8:23 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, August 8, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. *** Adjourned in Memory of Sarah Naggar *** Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 072517 6 Item No. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: August 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Fiscal Services Manager Pam Espinoza, Accounting Tech I RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $5,137,396.88. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of August, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of August, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 07/13/2017 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 3,595,408.01 07/20/2017 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 1,017,784.91 07/13/2017 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 524,203.96 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 08/08/2017 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 5,137,396.88 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 2,801,778.34 002 MEASURE S FUND 6,687.37 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 6,871.97 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 3,407.86 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4,704.17 170 MEASURE A FUND 1,877.12 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 304,027.18 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 73,382.81 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 1,265.34 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 17,708.98 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 16,849.13 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 576,475.53 300 INSURANCE FUND 474,380.70 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 77,681.71 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 117,393.94 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 6,025.32 340 FACILITIES 27,730.18 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 50,718.09 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 76.59 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 123.49 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 1,494.98 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 32.30 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 169.30 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 34.20 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 64.81 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 459.13 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 27.71 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 35.11 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 29.60 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 330.88 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 1,327.76 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 87.33 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 34.42 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 84.02 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 27.43 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 271.39 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 887.73 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 355.83 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 5,057.08 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 30.73 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 1,106.56 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 14,436.85 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 73.74 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 27.67 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 33.93 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 9,671.16 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 27.45 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 7,808.00 $ 4,613,192.92 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 273,327.82 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 408.06 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 2,965.20 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 151,162.73 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 321.52 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 2,158.66 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 375.47 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 1,603.52 300 INSURANCE FUND 565.64 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 1,716.17 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 26,230.75 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 4,005.93 340 FACILITIES 12,075.98 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 20.54 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 46.32 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 36.56 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 4.89 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 55.67 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTR 8.36 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 7.99 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 224.37 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 2.02 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 9.47 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 2.92 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 126.15 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 26.94 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 8.17 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 6.86 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 31.55 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 0.71 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 116.98 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 62.50 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 175.47 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 286.88 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 3.78 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 7.55 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 161.36 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 51.84 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 1.32 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 7.55 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 249.15 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 2.48 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 45,540.16 524,203.96 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 5,137,396.88 apChkLst Final Check List 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 3405 07/10/2017 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' FY 17/18 REQUIRED EMPLOYER UAL RETIREMENT) PAYMENT 3407 07/10/2017 000245 PERS- HEALTH INSUR PREMIUM 3408 07/13/2017 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT Amount Paid Check Total 2,088,146.00 2,088,146.00 PERS HEALTH PAYMENT 104,738.00 PERS HEALTH PAYMENT 0.00 SUPPORT PAYMENT 1,008.45 3409 07/13/2017 017429 COBRA ADVANTAGE INC., DBA: CHILD CARE REIMBURSEMENT FSA FLEX ADVANTAGE PAYMENT 104,738.00 1,008.45 19, 545.31 19, 545.31 3410 07/13/2017 000194 I CMA RETIREMENT -PLAN I CMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 9,083.30 9,083.30 303355 PAYMENT 3411 07/13/2017 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) STATE TAXES PAYMENT 26,109.96 26,109.96 3412 07/13/2017 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PAYMENT 93,671.52 93,671.52 3413 07/13/2017 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT 5,933.92 5,933.92 SOLUTION PAYMENT 3414 07/13/2017 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT 11,382.49 11,382.49 SOLUTION 3415 07/13/2017 019088 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE LOAN REPAYMENT SOLUTION PAYMENT 442.44 442.44 3417 07/11/2017 018098 ACME ADMINISTRATORS, INC WORKERS COMP CLAIM WITH ACME 20,000.00 20,000.00 3418 07/11/2017 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE JUN '17TUMF PAYMENT 75,085.88 75,085.88 COUNCIL OF 3419 07/11/2017 005460 U S BANK CFD 03-01 CROWNE HILL REFUND 50,718.09 50,718.09 PRIOR ADMIN Pagel apChkLst Final Check List 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 3420 07/13/2017 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC SUPPLIES:SUMMER DAY CAMP 24.52 RETURNED ITEMS: FIRE DEPT -56.99 MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SERVICES 289.28 MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SERVICES 19.90 MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SERVICES 38.05 MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SERVICES 379.54 SUPPLIES:TVM 522.20 MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SVCS 46.45 USE TAX: OFFICE SUPPLIES: PREVENTI( -3.05 SUPPLIES:TVM 366.01 MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SERVICES 39.06 OFFICE FURNITURE:HISTORY MUSEUM 304.25 USE TAX: MISC ITEMS: HUMAN SVCS -3.14 USE TAX: OFFICE SUPPLIES PREVENTIC -3.57 USE TAX: OFC FURNITURE:HISTORY MU -29.45 USE TAX: MISC SUPPLIES -VAR. FIRE -200.00 USE TAX: MISC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION -14.27 USE TAX: DRY ICE MEACHINE: PPW -1.93 USE TAX:MISC OFC ITEMS: PPW -3.32 USE TAX: MISC OFC ITEMS: PPW -1.42 USE TAX: OFFICE FURNITURE:HISTORY -3.62 DRY ICE MACHINE:PPW 97.82 MISC OFC ITEMS: PPW 35.66 MISC OFC ITEMS: PPW 108.67 MISC. TOOLS & SUPPLIES: PREVENTION 177.27 MISC SUPPLIES - VAR. FIRE STATIONS 2,488.36 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PREVENTION 246.56 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PREVENTION 37.89 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PREVENTION 23.36 4,924.09 183869 07/13/2017 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 455.00 455.00 183870 07/13/2017 018098 ACME ADMINISTRATORS, INC JUL 17 WORKERS COMP CLAIM WITH 1,250.00 1,250.00 ACME 183871 07/13/2017 010904 AFECO INC SMALL TOOLS AND EQUIP: STA73 3,985.17 3,985.17 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183872 07/13/2017 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT Description USE TAX: ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET USE TAX: ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STRE USE TAX: ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STRE USE TAX: ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STRE USE TAX: ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PWSTRE ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT Amount Paid Check Total -12.00 -17.76 -7.17 -29.86 -9.48 1,931.78 1,030.95 1,305.00 3,247.22 962.25 183873 07/13/2017 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA 570.94 (AFN) POLICE PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA POLIC 127.14 183874 07/13/2017 000101 APPLE ONE INC JUN TEMP STAFF SVCS: CLERK/SUPP 11,627.26 SVCS/IT 183875 07/13/2017 004307 ARCH CHEMICALS, INC. JUN WATER QUALITY MAINT: LAKE/DUCK POND 183876 07/13/2017 017797 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. LIABILITY/PROP INS. 7/1/2017-6/30/2018 183877 07/13/2017 018941 AZTEC LANDSCAPING, INC. 183878 07/13/2017 020016 BELLUCCI, JANICE 8,400.93 698.08 11,627.26 3,900.00 3,900.00 523,642.30 523,642.30 JUN POWERWASHING SRVCS: VAR 989.92 RESTROOMS JUN RESTROOM MAINTSRVCS:VAR PAF 6,149.18 RELEASE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT PMT 3,000.00 7,139.10 3,000.00 183879 07/13/2017 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: BARNETT, 145.00 145.00 SOC BEA 183880 07/13/2017 017429 COBRA ADVANTAGE INC., DBA: JUN FLEX PROCESSING FEES FLEX ADVANTAGE 305.50 305.50 183881 07/13/2017 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 24.00 24.00 CHARITIES, C/O WELLS FARGO PAYMENT BANK 183882 07/13/2017 007179 COMPUTER SERVICE EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE -EMP COMPANY EQUIP:PW 183883 07/13/2017 012353 CONSTRUCTION TESTING MAY INSPECTION SVCS: PW15-06 183884 07/13/2017 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 EVENT SUPPLIES: TVE2 98,227.59 98,227.59 1,472.00 1,472.00 205.15 205.15 Page :3 apChkLst 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183885 07/13/2017 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 183886 07/13/2017 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 183887 07/13/2017 000209 CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES 183888 07/13/2017 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& LUBRICANTS 183889 07/13/2017 002528 EAGLE GRAPHIC CREATIONS INC 183890 07/13/2017 007319 EAGLE ROAD SERVICE & TIRE INC 183891 07/13/2017 020017 ESQUIVEL, CHRISTY 183892 07/13/2017 017432 EYEMED VISION CARE 183893 07/13/2017 019469 FALCON ENGINEERING SERVICES 183894 07/13/2017 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 183895 07/13/2017 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 183896 07/13/2017 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. 183897 07/13/2017 013076 GAUDET, YVONNE M. Description SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES SUPPLIES: SPECIAL EVENTS EMERG PLUMBING SRVCS: CRC PLUMBING REPAIRS: FIRE STATION 92 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE: STA 12 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE : STA 73 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD USE TAX: RECOGNITION PLAQUES: PD & YAT RECOGNITION PLAQUES: POLICE & YAT veh & equip tire purch: pw street maint veh & equip tire srvc: pw street maint VEHICLE & EQUIP TIRE SVC: PW VEHICLE & EQUIP TIRE SVC: PW REFUND:CANCELLED:BL# 043715 REFUND:CANCELLED:BL# 043715 VISION PLAN PAYMENT JUN 17 CONST MGMT SRVCS: PW04-08 SUPPORT PAYMENT SUPPORT PAYMENT JUNE INTERNET SVCS:EOC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Amount Paid Check Total 135.28 428.50 981.93 443.07 210.00 308.80 259.61 379.13 -9.57 1,040.90 267.00 1,010.78 36.70 100.71 35.00 1.00 1,208.67 148,957.26 453.03 150.00 134.70 1,545.71 653.07 568.41 379.13 1,031.33 1,415.19 36.00 1,208.67 148,957.26 453.03 150.00 134.70 537.60 537.60 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183898 07/13/2017 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC Description Amount Paid Check Total MISC OFC SUPPLIE: TCSD 39.41 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PLANNING MIISC. OFC SUPPLIES:AQUATICS MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: PLANNING MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: STA 12 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: PLANNING MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CODE ENFORCE)/ MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CODE ENFORCE)/ OFFICE SUPPLIES:BLDG & SAFETY 183899 07/13/2017 009475 GOLDEN STATE TECHNOLOGY, GETAC T800 MINI RUGGED INC TABLETS:POLICE 183900 07/13/2017 016552 GONZALES, MARK ALLEN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 376.28 101.09 143.06 164.56 69.24 32.61 160.72 312.41 1,399.38 10,501.21 10,501.21 360.00 360.00 183901 07/13/2017 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES: STA 12 444.68 HARDWARE SUPPLIES: STA73 6.51 FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES: STA 12 43.49 FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES: STA 12 30.41 HARDWARE SUPPLIES STA: 95 36.95 HARDWARE SUPPLIES - MEDICS 210.41 FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES: STA 12 23.91 HARDWARE/SUPPLIES: TCC 79.33 875.69 183902 07/13/2017 012748 HARDY & HARPER INC RETENTION RELEASE: WINCHESTER 4,357.57 4,357.57 183903 07/13/2017 019932 HEARTSAVERS OF TEMECULA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 225.00 225.00 183904 07/13/2017 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, CPR PROGRAM: MEDICS 101.87 THE 183905 07/13/2017 003624 HOWELL, ANN MARIE 183906 07/13/2017 010530 I P C INDUSTRIES INC 183907 07/13/2017 017226 IMSA CERTIFICATION 183908 07/13/2017 012883 JACOB'S HOUSE INC 183909 07/13/2017 002531 KATY FM RADIO CPR PROGRAM: MEDICS 699.15 CPR PROGRAM: MEDICS 296.76 BUILDING SUPPLIES:MRC 347.25 1,445.03 INSIDE TEMECULA: CITY MGR 490.00 490.00 golf cart rentals:various special 536.63 536.63 MEMBER CERTIFICATION RENEWAL: 100.00 100.00 URIBE, R. EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 40.00 40.00 PAYMENT RADIO SIMULCAST:4TH OF JULY 2017 1,500.00 1,500.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 183910 07/13/2017 019508 LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES, MAY ENVIRON COMPLIANCE SVCS: INC. PW NPDES Amount Paid Check Total 10,139.58 10,139.58 183911 07/13/2017 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & MAY HR LEGAL SVCS FOR 657.00 WHITMORE TE060-00001 BILLING ADJ: INCORRECT CLIENT BILLE -27.00 183912 07/13/2017 017413 LINFIELD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FY16-17 PARKS & LIGHT ASSESS. 5,503.03 (MEAS C) 183913 07/13/2017 004813 M & J PAUL ENTERPRISES INC INFLATABLES:SUMMER DAY CAMP 183914 07/13/2017 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. 630.00 5,503.03 1,025.00 1,025.00 MAY 2017 DESIGN SVCS: PW17-04 7,236.18 MAY 17 DESIGN & ENVIRON SVCS: PW1 5,750.67 12,986.85 183915 07/13/2017 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. STAFF/VOLUNTEER 998.00 998.00 UNIFORMS:HUMAN SRVCS 183916 07/13/2017 020018 MURPHY, MARY REFUND:CREDIT:PICNIC 30.00 30.00 RENTAL:TEMEKU HILLS 183917 07/13/2017 004490 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING INC lighting control link srvc fee:var parks 4,675.00 4,675.00 183918 07/13/2017 019019 MUSIC CONNECTION LLC STTLMNT: SPEAKEASY AT THE MERC 7/8/17 183919 07/13/2017 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS 442.40 442.40 AUTO PARTS & MISC SUPPLIES: ADM 157.13 15 Auto parts & misc supplies: Sta 92 5.43 Auto parts & misc supplies: Sta 92 210.57 373.13 183920 07/13/2017 001323 NESTLE WATERS NORTH 5/23-6/22 WATER FOR 123.83 123.83 AMERICA POOLS:AQUATICS 183921 07/13/2017 020021 NICOLALDE, LUIS REFUND:ENG GRAD DEP:LD12-083GR 3,000.00 3,000.00 183922 07/13/2017 010334 OBMANN, REBECCA REIMB:REFRESHMENTS FOR YOUTH 79.90 79.90 SMR PRGMS 183923 07/13/2017 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 187.45 DIV OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 113.08 183924 07/13/2017 019000 OMERTRI LLC, LAURENT'S LE RFRSHMNTS: TREKKERS MTG OF 810.00 COFFEE SHOP BROKERS 183925 07/13/2017 019711 OWEN GROUP, INC., OWEN MAY ADA TRANSITION PLAN UPDATE DESIGN GROUP SRVCS:PW 300.53 810.00 47,113.50 47,113.50 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 183926 07/13/2017 017815 OWEN-LYNCH, LISA DESIGN SERVICES:CULTURALARTS 2,750.00 2,750.00 183927 07/13/2017 017888 PACIFIC HYDROBLASTING INC POWERWASH WALKWAYS: OLD TOWN 2,800.00 2,800.00 183928 07/13/2017 019093 PEREZ, FRANK REIMB:REFRESHMENTS/CDBGAPPL. 132.78 132.78 WRKSHP 183929 07/13/2017 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 253.48 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 328.06 581.54 183930 07/13/2017 017431 PLIC - SBD GRAND ISLAND DENTAL INSURANCE PAYMENT 10,323.60 10,323.60 183931 07/13/2017 005820 PRE -PAID LEGAL SERVICES PREPAID LEGAL SERVICES PAYMENT 342.85 342.85 INC 183932 07/13/2017 020007 PRESTIA-SCHAUB, KATHRYN L. SEC. DEPOSIT:MERC RENTAL 6/30/17 250.00 RENTAL:MERC 6/30/17 -120.00 130.00 183933 07/13/2017 010652 QUALITY CODE PUBLISHING MUNICIPAL CODES SERVICES: CITY 3,757.70 3,757.70 CLERK 183934 07/13/2017 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC TRAFFIC LEGEND SUPPLIES:PW 192.60 STREET MAINT USE TAX/TRAF LEGEND SUPPLIES:PWS -1.70 190.90 183935 07/13/2017 000220 ROBINSON PRINTING & COMBS FOR CIP, AOB, & 853.69 CREATIVE CAFR:FINANCE BLANK STOCK FORAOB & CIP:FINANCE 933.08 CAFRTAB DIVIDERS:FINANCE 393.68 AOB TAB DIVIDERS:FINANCE 481.76 CIP TAB DIVIDERS:FINANCE 426.30 3,088.51 183936 07/13/2017 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC SUPPLIES:CULTURALARTS 487.14 487.14 183937 07/13/2017 004274 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH 183938 07/13/2017 009980 SANBORN, GWYNETH A. 183939 07/13/2017 020020 SCHECHTER, CRAIG 183940 07/13/2017 013376 SECURITY SIGNAL DEVICES INC LOCKSMITH SRVCS:SKATE PARK LOCKSMITH SRVCS:STN 92 LOCKSMITH SRVCS:THEATER LOCKSMITH SRVCS:THEATER USE TAX/LOCKSMITH SRVCS:STN 92 USE TAX/LOCKSMITH SRVCS:THEATER COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 7/1 REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC EMERG FIRE SYSTEM REPAIR: THEATER 210.00 116.97 172.66 152.00 -0.16 -0.19 675.00 200.00 651.28 675.00 200.00 347.50 347.50 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183941 07/13/2017 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC 183942 07/13/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Description RENTAL:JAZZ @ THE MERC 6/29/17 JAZZ @ THE MERC 6/29 JAZZ @ THE MERC 7/6 JUN 2-36-641-3839:27498 ENTERPRISE CIR W JUN 2-30-520-4414:32781 TEM PKWY LS2 JUN 2-29-295-3510:32211 WOLF VLY RD JUN 2-00-397-5042:43200 BUS PARK DR # JUN 2-25-393-4681:41951 MORAGA RD JUN 2-35-403-6337:41375 MCCABE CT JUN 2-35-664-9053:29119 MARGARITA JUN 2-29-223-8607:42035 2ND ST PED JUN 2-35-707-0010:33451 S HWY-79 PED JUN 2-29-953-8249:46497 WOLF CREEK [ JUN 2-29-953-8082:31523 WOLF VLY RD JUN 2-00-397-5067:TCSD SVC LEV C JUN 2-36-641-3912 27498 ENTERPRISE C JUN 2-31-536-3226:28690 MERCEDES ST 183943 07/13/2017 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY JUN 091-085-1632-0:41951 MORAGA/POOL 183944 07/13/2017 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JULY GEN USAGE::0141,0839,2593,9306 Amount Paid Check Total -215.00 1,277.00 616.00 30.24 1,678.00 1,029.65 1,900.63 4,830.92 791.68 1,236.90 912.92 599.35 98.75 28.79 30.02 2,259.01 26.72 1,812.16 15, 587.74 814.68 814.68 567.23 567.23 183945 07/13/2017 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC REFRESHMENTS/FOOD:SUMMER DAY 348.44 CAMP REFRESHMENTS:FUTURE PHYSICIANS i 131.58 SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK 103.88 583.90 183949 07/13/2017 007762 STANDARD INSURANCE BASIC LIFE INSURANCE PAYMENT 7,928.00 7,928.00 COMPANY 183950 07/13/2017 012723 STANDARD INSURANCE VOLUNTARY SUPP LIFE INSURANCE 878.06 878.06 COMPANY PAYMENT 183951 07/13/2017 015648 STEIN, ANDREW 183952 07/13/2017 003599 TY LIN INTERNATIONAL USE TAX/SUPPLIES:SPECIAL EVENT -3.95 PGRM MISC SUPPLIES:SPECIAL EVENT PGRM 625.33 621.38 4/29-5/26 SRVCS:F.V.PKWY/I15IMPRV 60,725.93 60,725.93 PH II 183953 07/13/2017 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 UNION DUES PAYMENT 183954 07/13/2017 011275 TEM. VLY GIRLS SOFTBALL REFUND:SNACK BAR DEP:SPORTS ASSOC. PARK 4,942.00 4,942.00 200.00 200.00 Page:8 apChkLst 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183955 07/13/2017 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LLC 183956 07/13/2017 017295 TEMECULA PIZZA FACTORY 183957 07/13/2017 008311 TEMECULA VALLEY ATHLETIC CLUB 183958 07/13/2017 003862 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR.BRNCH 37 183959 07/13/2017 016311 TIERCE, NICHOLAS 183960 07/13/2017 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 183961 07/13/2017 019100 TNT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLC 183962 07/13/2017 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL 183963 07/13/2017 017430 TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CO 183964 07/13/2017 018222 TVUSD 183965 07/13/2017 002185 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 183966 07/13/2017 002110 UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA 183967 07/13/2017 007987 WALMART 183968 07/13/2017 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 183969 07/13/2017 012343 WEST COAST PERFORMING 183970 07/13/2017 003835 WEST COAST SAFETY SUPPLY CO. Description MOTORCYCLE REPAI R/MAI NT:TEM. P. D. USE TAX/MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:F REFRESHMENTS:CRC TEEN ACTIVITI ES TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS ELEVATOR SAFETY TESTS: CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR SAFETY TESTS: PRKG STRUT JUN GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES:THEATER JULY HIGH SPEED INTERNET:LIBRARY JULY HIGH SPEED INTERNET:COAX DJ & SOUND:SMR CONCERT SERIES 6/29 PW EQUIP PARTS: STREET MAINT DIV TRANSAMERICA ACCIDENT A DVA NTAG PAYMENT REFUND:SEC DEP:POOL RENTAL:CRC REFUND:SEC DEP:POOL RENTAL:CRC ADD'L POSTAGE:THEATER SEASON BROCHURE MISC PARTS & SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT SUPPLIES:SPORTS FACILITIES CLEANING SUPPLIES:LIBRARY/CIVIC CENTER RENTAL:"TICKET TO RIDE/BEATLES TRIBUTE" "TICKET TO RIDE...TRIBUTE TO BEATLEE RENTAL:"DIRECT...LAS VEGAS! SALUTE. "DIRECT... LAS VEGAS! SALUTE TO SINAI Amount Paid Check Total 323.71 -1.94 98.31 787.50 1,137.50 566.00 495.25 7,785.00 593.32 32.41 787.00 186.54 2,821.88 150.00 150.00 827.94 38.75 133.58 430.91 -1,791.54 7,470.00 -1,826.95 6,696.00 321.77 98.31 1,925.00 1,061.25 7,785.00 625.73 787.00 186.54 2,821.88 300.00 827.94 38.75 133.58 430.91 10,547.51 USE TAX/PARTS & SUPPLIES:PW -1.64 CATCH BASIN PARTS & SUPPLIES:PW CATCH BASIN CI 204.27 202.63 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 183971 07/13/2017 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE JUNE '17 MSHCP PAYMENT COUNTY Amount Paid Check Total 1,992.00 1,992.00 1001686 06/29/2017 019987 BARNETT, DERRICK REFUND:CREDIT:PICNIC 40.00 40.00 RENTAL:RRSP 1001687 06/29/2017 019988 CLEVENGER, KIM REFUND:MULTISPORT CAMP 2315.203 64.00 64.00 1001688 06/29/2017 019989 COMPTON, BRITTANY REFUND:GET SMART WITH ART 41.60 41.60 1320.206 1001689 06/29/2017 019990 CONCEPCION, CATHERINE REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0405.203 60.00 60.00 1001690 06/29/2017 019990 CONCEPCION, CATHERINE REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0405.203 576.00 576.00 1001691 06/29/2017 019990 CONCEPCION, CATHERINE REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0400.203 388.00 388.00 1001692 06/29/2017 019990 CONCEPCION, CATHERINE REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0400.203 40.00 40.00 1001693 06/29/2017 019991 COOPER, JENNIFER REFUND:CREDITONACCOUNT:TCSD 34.00 34.00 1001694 06/29/2017 019991 COOPER, JENNIFER REFUND:CREDIT ON ACCOUNT:TCSD 10.00 10.00 1001695 06/29/2017 019992 DURMENT, LIZETH REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1001696 06/29/2017 019993 GUYMON, JONAH REFUND:BIGFOOT'S COMPUTER 105.00 105.00 CAMP 1001697 06/29/2017 019994 HORTON, JEN REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF 150.00 150.00 CTR A/B 1001698 06/29/2017 017855 MARTINEZ, FERNANDO REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:RRSP 1001699 06/29/2017 019995 WILLIAMS, DEE REFUND:SEMI-PRIVATE LESSONS 10.00 10.00 5202.304 1001700 06/29/2017 019995 WILLIAMS, DEE REFUND:SEMI-PRIVATE LESSONS 20.00 20.00 5202.305 Grand total for UNION BANK: 3,595,408.01 Pagel 0 apChkLst 07/13/2017 10:12:49AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 129 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 3,595,408.01 Page:11 apChkLst 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3406 07/07/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 014777 SARKIS CONCEPTS, INC. 006952 PAY PAL 020037 TEMECULA 10 CINEMAS 020037 TEMECULA 10 CINEMAS 019825 GETTY IMAGES 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 006952 PAY PAL 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF 018911 DISCOUNT DANCE INC 020035 MOBILE MONEY INC. 016883 MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT 020035 MOBILE MONEY INC. 020036 MI GUADALAJARA 019751 STRYDER TRANSPORTATION 018911 DISCOUNT DANCE INC 3416 07/20/2017 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT) 3421 07/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 020023 BONANNOS 007485 MGM GRAND HOTEL LLC 3423 07/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 014821 CPE STORE INC, THE 006952 PAY PAL 000154 C S M F O Description KH RFRSHMNTS: COMMUNITY WORKSHOP AT MRC KH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANSACTION KH RFRSHMNTS: SUMMER DAY CAMP EXCURSION KH RFRSHMNTS: SUMMER DAY CAMP EXCURSION KH DIGITAL IMAGES FOR PROMOTIONAL FLYERS KH PRINTING SVCS FOR TV WOMENS CLUB KH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANSACTION KH HEALTH PERMIT FOR VENDORS KH HEALTH PERMITS FOR VENDORS KH USE TAX: PORTABLE DANCE FLOORS FOR FA KH ATM RENTAL FOR SPORTS PARK KH MEMBERSHIP: GILLILAND, ROBIN KH ATM RENTAL FOR RONALD REAGAN SPORTS KH RFRSHMNTS: MTG NATURE WORKS PROJ KH SENIOR EXCURSION TRANSPORTATION KH PORTABLE DANCE FLOORS FOR FACILITY PERS RETIREMENT PAYMENT JC ICSC RECON GLOBAL REAL EST CONV 5/20 - JC ICSC RECON GLOBAL REAL EST CONV 5/20 - JH TRAINING/EDUCATION: GRACIANO, R. JH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANSACTION JH JOB POSTING Amount Paid Check Total 246.62 318.50 21.85 1,184.40 149.00 119.02 377.70 533.00 12.63 -4.80 750.00 85.00 750.00 43.78 836.00 535.45 89,438.61 16.35 15.70 242.10 60.10 275.00 5,958.15 89,438.61 32.05 577.20 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 3424 07/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Description Amount Paid Check Total 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES MR ANNUAL CONF REGISTRATION: 525.00 9/13-9/15 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES MR AIRFARE: LEAGUE OF CA CITIES 185.95 710.95 9/13-15 3425 07/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 020024 THE BRIDGE ON THIRD 007959 ONEIL SOFTWARE INC 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 006692 SAM'S CLUB 006952 PAY PAL 001104 ARMA RO RFRSHMNTS: CLOSED CNCL MTG 166.39 5/23 RO RECORDS LOCATION BARCODE 20.88 LABELS RO SUPPLIES FOR COUNCIL CLOSED 23.58 SESSION RO RFRSHMNTS: CLOSED CNCL MTG 131.63 5/31 ROARMA MEMBERSHIP DUES: 230.00 FLORES RO INLAND EMPIRE CHAPTER ASSOC 33.33 000733 ABBEY PARTY RENTS RO TABLECLOTH RENTAL:CNCL 106.07 WORKSHOP 5/31 006692 SAM'S CLUB RO RFRSHMNTS: CLOSED CNCL MTG 7.98 719.86 5/23 3426 07/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 005569 LEARNING FOR LIFE CORPORATION 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE, LLC 000203 JOBS AVAILABLE INC IG STAFF TRAINING CREDIT -163.80 IG RFRSHMNTS: MEETING SUPPLIES 83.74 FOR IG RECRUITMENTADVERTISING 362.00 020027 SHUTTERFLY IG USE TAX: CARDS FOR -0.69 RECOGNITION 020027 SHUTTERFLY IG USE TAX: CARDS FOR -1.06 RECRUITMENT 008668 WES FLOWERS IG SUNSHINE FUND 66.86 020027 SHUTTERFLY IG CARDS FOR RECRUITMENT 170.18 020027 SHUTTERFLY IG CARDS FOR RECOGNITION 193.89 007282 AMAZON.COM, INC IG LABELS FOR RECRUITMENT 16.83 3427 07/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 006952 PAY PAL PT USE TAX: FIBER OPTIC LIGHTING -33.69 AT LIBR 006952 PAY PAL PT FIBER OPTIC LIGHTING AT LIBRARY 446.69 001587 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS PTADVERTISING FEE FOR SR 295.00 ASSN. ENGINEER 020028 PRECOR INCORPORATED 727.95 PT STAPS FOR GYM EQUIPMENT IN 115.42 823.42 CIVIC CTR Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 3429 07/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Description Amount Paid Check Total 013338 APPLE STORE MH IPAD FOR FIRE PREVENTION: 1,179.54 WIGLE, E. 006952 PAY PAL MH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO 312.26 TRANSACTION 013851 STORM SOURCE, LLC MH APPOINTMENT PLUS:IT 20.00 019968 4INKJETS MH TONER CARTRIDGES FOR MRC 274.52 1,786.32 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 3430 07/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 019592 URBAN CAFE 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE, LLC 019070 BECKY'S BAKESHOP 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE, LLC 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER Description GB REGISTRATION: ANNUAL CONF: BUTLER, G. GB AIRFARE: LEAGUE OF CA CITIES CONF GB USE TAX:SUPPLIES: YOUTH & TVE2 PRGM GB USE TAX: SUPPLIES: YOUTH & TVE2 PRGM GB MONTHLY PITCH PRACTICE AT TVE2 GB SUPPLIES: YOUTH & TVE2 PROGRAM GB SUPPLIES: YOUTH & TVE2 PROGRAM GB RFRSHMNTS: INTERCHANGE MTG W/HOSPITAL GB RFRSHMNTS: GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONY GB RFRSHMNTS: GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONY Amount Paid Check Total 525.00 185.95 -15.06 -11.03 163.13 273.28 370.35 204.33 120.00 112.88 GB SW REGIONAL FORECAST: KEMIE, 50.00 OF K. 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 GB SUPPLIES: YOUTH & TVE2 PRGM 162.13 000198 INTL COUNCIL OF SHOPPING GB MEMBERSHIP CANCELLATION -570.00 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 GB USE TAX: SUPPLIES: YOUTH & -22.05 TVE2 PRGM 020029 CAMDEN TRADESHOW & GB ICSC RECON TABLE RENTAL 180.00 EVENT 019070 BECKY'S BAKESHOP GB RFRSHMNTS FOR ICSC 144.00 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER GB SW REGIONAL FORECAST: 50.00 OF WALKER, C. 009486 SHELL OIL GB FUEL: ICSC CONF: 5/21-5/24 35.03 007034 HERTZ RENT -A -CAR GB CAR RENTAL: ICSC CONF: 211.14 5/21-5/24 019072 TOPGOLF GB RFSHMNTS: ICSC CONF 5/21-5/24 35.00 019953 CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT GB LODGING: ICSC CONF 5/21-5/24 54.99 CORP 019321 VISIT TEMECULA VALLEY GB STATE OF TOURISM - DAMKO, C. 30.00 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 GB SUPPLIES: YOUTH & TVE2 PRGM 475.55 016504 ARBY'S ROAST BEEF GB RFSHMNTS: ICSC CONF 5/21-5/24 6.98 015421 SURVEYMONKEY.COM GB RENEWAL: ONLINE SURVEY 204.00 PROGRAM Page4 apChkLst 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 3431 07/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 020026 REI.COM 020026 REI.COM 007102 RENAISSANCE 014777 SARKIS CONCEPTS, INC. 020032 CHALLENGER WATER 020032 CHALLENGER WATER 3432 07/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 017444 PINPROSPLUS 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES 006937 SOUTHWEST AI RLI NES 017444 PINPROSPLUS 017932 MENIFEE VALLEY CHAMBER OF 183972 07/20/2017 016764 ABM BUILDING SERVICES, LLC 183973 07/20/2017 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 183974 07/20/2017 005037 AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH INC 183975 07/20/2017 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALLEYS 183976 07/20/2017 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS, INC 183977 07/20/2017 013482 BAS SECURITY Description GB USE TAX: SUPPLIES: YOUTH & TVE2 PRGM CD USE TAX: COOLER PURCHASE FOR ENGINES CD COOLER PURCHASE FOR ENGINES CD LODGING: CFED CONF: HAYES, MATT CD RFSHMNTS: STAFF MTG 6/1/17 CD REPAIRS & PARTS FOR WATER FILTRATION CD USE TAX: PARTS FOR WATER FILTRATION AA USE TAX: PROMO ITEMS FOR PU'ESKA AA REGIST: ANNUAL CONF: ADAMS 9/13 AA AIRFARE: LEAGUE OF CA CITIES CONF: AA PROMO ITEMS:PU'ESKA EVENT AA STATE OF CITY: EDWARDS, LOWREY, DAMKO PREV MAINT ON HVACS: CIVIC CENTER PREV MAINT ON HVACS: CIVIC CENTER PREV MAINT ON HVACS: CIVIC CENTER prev maint on hvac units: civic center USE TAX: ASPHALT SUPPLIES: ST. MAINT. ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT DIV RETENTION: JUN RESIDENTIAL SLURRY SEAL JUN RESIDENTIAL SLURRY SEAL: PW17 MAY ANIMAL CONTROL SRVCS:CITY OF TEMECUL UNIFORM SHIRTS:INFO TECH USE TAX: UNIFORMS - LIFEGURADS USE TAX: UNIFORM SHIRTS: INFO TECH UNIFORMS-LIFEGUARDS:AQUATICS SECURITY SVCS: RONALD REAGAN 7/3-7/4 SECURITY SRVCS:TCSD FACILITIES Amount Paid Check Total -31.69 -22.05 2,397.94 585.36 129.38 133.73 -1.23 -208.69 525.00 185.95 2,593.69 135.00 217.62 74.56 685.95 74.56 -2.39 476.72 -7,920.00 158,400.00 10,000.00 406.49 -23.24 -3.74 2,527.35 2,282.45 2,943.91 3,223.13 3,230.95 1,052.69 474.33 150,480.00 10,000.00 2,906.86 607.50 2,889.95 Pages apChkLst 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 183978 07/20/2017 014284 BLAKELY'S TRUCK SERVICE 183979 07/20/2017 012583 BLANCAY PRICE 183980 07/20/2017 018408 BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL SERVICE 183981 07/20/2017 003138 CAL MAT 183982 07/20/2017 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS 183983 07/20/2017 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE-ACCTING 183984 07/20/2017 003577 CALIF STATE BOARD OF 183985 07/20/2017 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY INC 183986 07/20/2017 020014 CASSON, G. AUSTIN 183987 07/20/2017 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST. 183988 07/20/2017 011922 CORELOGIC, INC. 183989 07/20/2017 013379 COSSOU, CELINE 183990 07/20/2017 014521 COSTAR GROUP INFORMATION, INC Description EQUIP &VEH REPAIRS: PW STREET MAINT EQUIP & VEH REPAIRS: PW STREET MAI EQUIP & VEH REPAIRS: PW STREET MAI EQUIP & VEH REPAIRS: PW STREET MAI JUN 17 LDSCP PLAN CK & INSP. SVCS JUN FOUNTAIN MAINT: TOWN SQUARE & CIV CT JUN MAINT SVCS FOR POOLS:CRC & TE USE TAX: ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT USE TAX: ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET P ASPHALT MATERIAL: PW STREET MAI NT USE TAX: ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET P ASPHALT MATERIAL: PW STREET MAINT ASPHALT MATERIAL: PW STREET MAI NT MEMBERSHIP DUES: KODANI, KIM JUN 17 ALCOHOL ANALYSIS:TEMECULA POLICE STATE ADMIN COST: IMPLEMENTATION MEAS S JUN CLAIM ADJUSTER SVCS: RISK MGMT ARTWORK PURCH:FALLEN HEROES MEMORIAL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: MPSC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: VAR FACILITIES JUN PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION SFTWR: CODE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS JUL 17 WEB SUBSCRIPTION:ECO DEV 183991 07/20/2017 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 TV REPLACEMENT:LIBRARY Amount Paid Check Total 503.82 135.28 595.72 444.58 14,447.00 925.00 1,050.00 -1.51 -1.70 164.21 -2.22 241.22 184.48 295.00 1,120.00 6,687.37 2,421.00 13,000.00 146.81 400.20 1,943.32 257.00 1,120.00 840.00 433.67 1,679.40 14,447.00 1,975.00 584.48 295.00 1,120.00 6,687.37 2,421.00 13,000.00 2,490.33 257.00 1,960.00 433.67 420.24 420.24 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 183992 07/20/2017 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA#491 SUPPLIES: HUMAN SVCS 794.02 SUPPLIES: HUMAN SVCS 869.20 1,663.22 183993 07/20/2017 000209 CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE : STA 73 328.03 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE : STA 73 69.87 397.90 183994 07/20/2017 001233 DANS FEED & SEED INC SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT DIV 12.45 12.45 183995 07/20/2017 012600 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES CREDIT: EXCEEDED PO AMOUNT -382.93 INC NOV & DEC DSGN SVC MARGARITA RD; 1,695.00 1,312.07 183996 07/20/2017 010461 DEMCO INC SUPPLIES:LIBRARY 1,888.47 1,888.47 183997 07/20/2017 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL& FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PW LAND 110.51 LUBRICANTS DEV 183998 07/20/2017 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: INFO TECH FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE DEP' FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC DIV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV,NF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPEI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PW STREET FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PW PARKS N JUN WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD BLDG JUN WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD D JUN WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD LI 183999 07/20/2017 013367 ELECTRO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY Misc small tools & equip: pw traffic - 184000 07/20/2017 011202 EMH SPORTS USA, INC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 184001 07/20/2017 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. 184002 07/20/2017 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 184003 07/20/2017 003747 FINE ARTS NETWORK 36.93 51.60 91.67 304.89 162.58 210.17 264.92 833.63 933.93 125.91 3,000.83 51.42 324.97 502.30 1,813.44 1,813.44 1,120.00 1,120.00 LANDSCAPE IMPRVMNTS:HARV LAKE 8,990.00 PARK REPLACE I RRIG VALVE:WOLF CREEK SL 1,031.00 PLANT INSTALLATION: MARGARITA RO111 5,296.00 LDSCP IMPRVMENTS: NICOLAS PARK 25,324.00 IRRIGATION REPAIRS:VAR PARKS:MEDI/ 244.60 6/22-627 EXP MAIL SVCS: 60.34 CIP/CLERK/PLAN 6/8-6/12 EXP MAIL SVCS: CIP/CLERK/PLA 142.99 7/1 EXP MAIL SVCS: HUMAN RESOURCE 84.55 STTLMNT: SWAN LAKE & MIXED 7,020.63 REPERTOIRE 7/ STTMNT: PETER PAN JR 3,005.12 STTLMT: CLASSIC ROCK GREATEST HIT 4,137.40 40,885.60 287.88 14,163.15 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 184004 07/20/2017 000380 FIRST STUDENT CHARTER 184005 07/20/2017 003633 FOOTHILL EASTERN TRANSPORTN. 184006 07/20/2017 014865 FREIZE UHLER, KIMBERLY 184007 07/20/2017 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. Description Amount Paid Check Total TRANSP:SUMMER DAY CAMP 521.30 521.30 TOLL ROADS USAGE:VAR. DEPTS 100.80 100.80 WORKFORCE DEV SUPPLIES: ECON 709.79 DEV JR WOMEN STEM: ECON DEV 423.85 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: ECON DEV 1,621.60 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: ECON DEV 1,032.58 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: ECON DEV 1,409.66 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: ECON DEV 837.58 WORKFORCE DEV SUPPLIES: ECON DE' 1,619.08 WORKFORCE DEV SUPPLIES: ECON DE' 642.71 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: ECON DEV 536.13 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: ECON DEV 315.38 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: ECON DEV 583.99 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: ECON DEV 485.45 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: ECON DEV 570.94 10,788.74 JUL INTERNET SVCS:LIBRARY JUL INTERNET SVCS:C. MUSEUM, GIFT JUL INTERNET SVCS:EXT DMV LINE:COI` JUL INTERNET SVCS:FIRE STN 95 JUL INTERNET SVCS:TCC JUL INTERNET SVCS:SKATE PARK JUL INTERNET SVCS:LIBRARY JULY INTERNET SVCS:SR CTR, SKATE P, JULY INTERNET SVCS:CITY HALL 184008 07/20/2017 009097 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS USE TAX: SOUND/LIGHTING SUPPLIES 184009 07/20/2017 016184 FUN EXPRESS, LLC SOUND/LIGHTING & MISC SUPPLIES: TH 7.42 126.98 107.84 121.57 146.98 41.94 7.42 203.65 291.98 -202.00 2,510.58 USE TAX: RECREATION SUPPLIES -38.88 USE TAX: SUPPLIES: HIGH HOPES PRGI\ -19.99 SUPPLIES: HIGH HOPES PRGM 248.39 Supplies:Aquatics 528.89 RECREATION SUPPLIES:CRC 483.20 USE TAX: SUPPLIES:AQUATICS -42.55 184010 07/20/2017 003946 G T ENTERTAINMENT DJ/ANNOUNCING - 4TH OF JULY PARADE 1,055.78 2,308.58 1,159.06 350.00 350.00 Page:8 apChkLst 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 184011 07/20/2017 001937 GALLS, LLC 184012 07/20/2017 013076 GAUDET, YVONNE M. 184013 07/20/2017 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC 184014 07/20/2017 019719 GOLDFIELD STAGE COMPANY, MCCLINTOCK ENTERPRISE INC 184015 07/20/2017 014173 GOLDSTAR ASPHALT PRODUCTS 184016 07/20/2017 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 184017 07/20/2017 002109 HD SUPPLY CONSTR. SUPPLY LTD Description equip:police volunteers equip:police volunteers equip:police volunteers equip:police volunteers equip:police volunteers equip:police volunteers equip:police volunteers equip:police volunteers TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS CREDIT: OFFICE SUPPLIES: PUBLIC WORKS MISC. OFC SUPPLIES: FIRE STATIONS OFFICE EQUIPMENT: TVE2 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: STA 12 TRANSP SVCS:SUMMER DAY CAMP 6/27 ASPHALT SUPPLIES:PW STREET MAINT DIV USE TAX: ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET P Misc small tools & equip: pw traffic Misc small tools & equip: pw traffic JUN MAINT. SUPPLIES: PARKING GARAG JUN MAINT SUPPLIES: TCSD & PUBLIC V JUN MISC SMALL TOOLS: CIVIC CENTER JUN MISC SMALL TOOLS: CIVIC CENTER JUN MISC SMALL TOOLS: THEATER JUN MISC SMALL TOOLS: TVM JUN MISC SMALL TOOLS: CIVIC CENTER JUN MISC SMALL TOOLS: CIVIC CENTER JUN TOOLS AND SUPPLIES: VARIOUS PF JUN HARDWARE SUPPLIES: TCC JUN MISC SMALL TOOLS: LIBRARY MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES &TOOLS:B PARTS AND SUPPLIES:PW STREET MAIN JUN MISC SMALL TOOLS:MPSC JUN MISC SMALL TOOLS: VAR. DEPTS. MISC SUPPLIES:PW STREET MAINT DIV MISC SUPPLIES:PW STREET MAINT DIV 184018 07/20/2017 004811 HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY MINI DVD WRITER:INFO TECH Amount Paid Check Total 15.23 16.32 19.55 9.78 9.78 3.27 5.45 21.73 1,529.50 -79.12 -56.60 1,154.93 34.78 587.94 2,017.51 -18.55 167.55 214.98 397.63 476.46 427.95 309.77 451.28 143.18 85.60 39.68 2,076.84 38.04 517.90 217.92 3,373.13 36.09 2,074.41 204.34 616.63 272.58 101.11 1,529.50 1,053.99 587.94 1,998.96 11,048.41 820.97 272.58 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 184019 07/20/2017 019017 HEWLETT-PACKARD LEASE/PURCH OF TECH FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE:IT 184020 07/20/2017 019877 HOKULIA SHAVE ICE OF REFRESHMENTS:NIGHT...LUMINARIES TEMECULA, WKM ENTERPRISE EVENT 184021 07/20/2017 010210 HOME DEPOT SUPPLY INC, THE 184022 07/20/2017 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE Amount Paid Check Total 75,151.94 75,151.94 850.00 850.00 MISC TOOLS & SUPPLIES: MEDICS 4,921.42 MAINT SUPPLIES: CONF CTR 737.91 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:CIV CTR & 256.52 GARAGE TCC/CERT SUPPLIES 470.81 TOOLS AND SUPPLIES: VARIOUS PARKS 1,528.77 USE TAX: TOOLS & SUPPLIES: VAR. PAR -14.06 MISC MAI NT SUPPLIES: OLD TOWN 4,501.61 MAINT SUPPLIES: THEATER 443.79 MAINT SUPPLIES: TVM 261.88 184023 07/20/2017 010530 I P C INDUSTRIES INC GOLF CART RENTALS:VAR SPECIAL EVENTS 184024 07/20/2017 016564 IMPACT TELECOM JUN 800 SERVICES:CIVIC CENTER 5,659.33 7,449.32 650.00 650.00 61.38 61.38 184025 07/20/2017 012342 INLAND CUTTER SERVICE INC PAPER FOLDER MAINT:CENTRAL 295.00 295.00 SVCS 184026 07/20/2017 014435 INLAND EROSION CONTROL EROSION CONTROL ROCK BAGS: PW SRVCS MAINT 1,200.00 1,200.00 184027 07/20/2017 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS 805.67 805.67 INC 184028 07/20/2017 012285 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR. 1,384.38 LOCATIONS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: THEATER 256.63 184029 07/20/2017 015358 KELLY PAPER COMPANY, INC. PAPER/BINDING/PCKG SUPP:CENTRAL 835.55 SRV paper/binding/pckg supp:central services 752.00 184030 07/20/2017 001091 KEYSER MARSTON MAY PROPOSED ALTAIR SP FISCAL 5,860.00 ASSOCIATES INC IMP JUN 17 AFFRDBL HOUSING ANALYSIS:C( 2,312.50 JUN '17 FISCAL IMPCTANALYSIS: CYPRE 1,800.00 JUN PROPOSED ALTAIR SP FISCAL IMPA 4,632.50 184031 07/20/2017 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC PUMP & MOTOR GASKET: FOC 502.26 VAR MAINT EQUIP: MARG SPLASH PAD 184032 07/20/2017 003605 LAKE ELSINORE STORM Mother/son date night:balance payment 1,641.01 1,587.55 14,605.00 206.41 708.67 3,300.00 3,300.00 Pagel 0 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 184033 07/20/2017 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 184034 07/20/2017 011145 LODATO, JILL CHRISTINE Amount Paid Check Total 1,368.50 1,368.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 420.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 779.00 1,199.00 184035 07/20/2017 005090 LOS RANCHITOS HOME, PROP. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT 25.00 25.00 OWNERS ASSOC. 184036 07/20/2017 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS signs and supplies:pw street maint div 2,552.91 2,552.91 184037 07/20/2017 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSN JUN SOFTBALL OFFICIATING SVCS 2,331.00 2,331.00 184038 07/20/2017 014392 MC COLLOUGH, JILL DENISE APR PLANTSCAPE SRVCS:CIV 500.00 CENTER APR PLANTSCAPE SRVCS: LIBRARY 200.00 184039 07/20/2017 018675 MDG ASSOCIATES, INC. MAY CDBG ADMIN SVCS 3,100.00 184040 07/20/2017 009835 MIRACLE PLAYGROUND SALES SHADE STRUCTURE: MARGARITA INC PARK 184041 07/20/2017 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC 184042 07/20/2017 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. ELECTRICAL SUPPLI ES:SENIOR CENTER EMERG SURGE PROTECTOR: SPLASH F ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: FOC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES:VAR PARK SITE: 700.00 3,100.00 1,398.57 1,398.57 994.46 1,048.51 209.69 570.86 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,450.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 184043 07/20/2017 009443 MUNYON, DENNIS G. License Fee for old town parking lot;pw 184044 07/20/2017 015164 NATURES IMAGE, INC RET: JUN ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION: FVP JUN PECHANGA PKWY ENVIRON MITIGP JUN PECHANGA PKWY ENVIRON MITIGP 2,823.52 882.00 3,332.00 2,875.00 2,875.00 -14.75 -47.25 945.00 883.00 184045 07/20/2017 015164 NATURES IMAGE, INC JUN ENVIRO MITIGATION:FVP 295.00 295.00 OVERCROSSI NG Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 184046 07/20/2017 001323 NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA Description Amount Paid Check Total 5/23-6/22 WATER DELIV. SVC: PBSP 47.20 5/23-6/22 WATER DELIV. SVC: SKATE PAF 5/23-6/22 DRINKING WATER:TES POOL 5/23-6/22 WATER DELIV. SVC: MRC 5/23-6/22 BOTTLED WATER SVCS - TVE2 5/23-6/22 DELIV. DRINKING WATER: TPL 5/23-6/22 DELIV. DRINKING WATER: IWTC 5/23-6/22 DELIV. DRINKING WATER: TCC 5/23-6/22 DELIV. DRINKING WATER: FOC 5/23-6/22 DELIV. DRINKING WATER: CRC 5/23-6/22 DELIV. DRINKING WATER: THE/ 5/23-6/22 DELIV. DRINKING WATER: TVM bottled water delivery services for city 184047 07/20/2017 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:CM OFFICE 6.45 0.06 38.85 40.40 82.32 36.54 24.04 140.30 75.14 46.67 29.87 27.32 595.16 764.58 764.58 184048 07/20/2017 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:POLICE 537.91 537.91 184049 07/20/2017 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:FIRE PREV 234.62 234.62 184050 07/20/2017 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW STREET MAINT CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW STREET 184051 07/20/2017 019000 OMERTRI LLC, LAURENT'S LE REFRESHMENTS:JULY 4 VIP TENT COFFEE SHOP 184052 07/20/2017 007959 ONEIL SOFTWARE INC BAR CODING SOFTWARE LIC RENEWAL:CITY CLE 48.17 77.38 125.55 1,062.50 1,062.50 1,319.69 1,319.69 184053 07/20/2017 019677 P2R MURRIETA INC DBA, POLE EXCURSION:TEEN CAMP 6/27 575.20 575.20 POSITION RACEWAY INC 184054 07/20/2017 019334 PARK CONSULTING GROUP, JUN CONSULTING SERVICES:INFO INC TECH 184055 07/20/2017 003663 PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO JUN TRIBAL MONITORING:I-15/795 INTRCHG 184056 07/20/2017 019859 PGI - PACIFIC GRAPHICS INC. PRINTING SRVCS:THEATER 2017/18 BROCHURE 184057 07/20/2017 010338 POOL& ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS INC 4,500.00 4,500.00 6,123.60 6,123.60 15,132.82 15,132.82 VAR CHEMICAL SUPPLIES:FACILITIES 768.49 MAINT USE TAX:POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES/FA -7.07 761.42 Page:12 apChkLst 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 13 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 184058 07/20/2017 011549 POWER SPORTS UNLIMITED 184059 07/20/2017 012904 PROACTIVE FIRE DESIGN 184060 07/20/2017 019015 PROJECT RADIAN 184061 07/20/2017 014354 PROQUEST, LLC 184062 07/20/2017 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 184063 07/20/2017 017886 PYRITZ PYROTECHNICS GROUP, LLC 184064 07/20/2017 020030 RAMIREZ, ANTONIO 184065 07/20/2017 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 184066 07/20/2017 000907 RANCHO TEMECULA CAR WASH 184067 07/20/2017 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT 184068 07/20/2017 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO TECHNOLOGY 184069 07/20/2017 005705 RIVERSIDE CO PURCH & FLEET SRV Description VEHICLE MAI NT& REPAIR:POLICE VEHICLE MAI NT& REPAIR:POLICE VEHICLE MAI NT& REPAIR:POLICE USE TAX/VEHICLE MAI NT& REPAIR:POL USE TAX/VEHICLE MAI NT& REPAIR:POL JUN FIRE PLANCHECK CONSULTANT: PREVENTIO TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 8/1/17-7/31/18 ANCESTRY RENEWAL:LIBRARY JUN UNIFORM/FLR MTS/TWL RENTALS:PKS/C.C. BALANCE DUE:4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS PARTIAL REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC JUN VAR WATER METERS:PW CIP JUN VAR WATER METERS:PW JRC JUN VAR WATER METERS:PW CIP JUN VAR WATER METERS:PW MAINT JUN VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LE JUN VAR WATER METERS:PW MAINT JUN VAR WATER METERS:PW OLD TOW JUN VAR WATER METERS:PW FAC JUNE VAR WATER METERS:PW VAR SITE JUN COMM WATER METER:28640 PUJOL JUN VAR WATER METERS:FIRE STNS APR VEHICLE DETAILING SRVCS:POLICE/B&S CLEAN-UP CREW:4TH OF JULY/RRSP TRASH:DEBRIS CLEANUP CITYWIDE JUN EMERG. RADIO RENTAL:TEMECULA POLICE JUN '17 FUEL USAGE:POLICE MAY '17 FUEL USAGE:POLICE Amount Paid Check Total 329.88 361.20 25.50 -1.13 -1.42 3,261.70 672.00 1,680.00 1,050.00 709.35 17, 500.00 149.45 57.93 127.95 471.90 180.27 55, 360.54 231.11 1,177.10 4,092.31 924.84 10.46 802.60 35.98 5,975.00 3,000.00 2,839.80 20.08 714.03 3,261.70 2,352.00 1,050.00 709.35 17, 500.00 149.45 63,437.01 35.98 8,975.00 2,839.80 10.82 30.90 Page:13 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 14 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 184070 07/20/2017 004773 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS JUN '17 BOOKING FEES:POLICE Amount Paid Check Total 42,195.56 42,195.56 184071 07/20/2017 012984 ROTARY CLUB OF OLD TOWN REFUND:SEC 200.00 200.00 DEP:AMPHITHEATER:CRC 184072 07/20/2017 004274 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH USE TAX:LOCKSMITH SRVCS/SAM HICKS PARK INSTALL DOORLOCK SYS:SAM HICKS PP LOCKSMITH REPAIRS: HARV LAKE PARK 184073 07/20/2017 009980 SANBORN, GWYNETH A. COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 7/15/17 184074 07/20/2017 017699 SARNOWSKI, SHAWNA, M PRESTON 184075 07/20/2017 018012 SAUNDERS, CATHY PHOTOGRAPHY: WORKFORCE DEV/MARG. PRK PHOTOGRAPHY:THEATER PHOTOGRAPHER:4TH OF JULY PARADE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 184076 07/20/2017 011511 SCUBA CENTER TEMECULA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 184077 07/20/2017 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC JAZZ @ THE MERC 7/13/17 184078 07/20/2017 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW USE TAX/SIGNAGE:4TH OF JULY 184079 07/20/2017 013029 SITEIMPROVE INC -18.47 3,508.61 46.71 3,536.85 773.25 773.25 150.00 600.00 150.00 900.00 254.10 277.20 214.20 275.10 437.50 546.00 -6.97 1,020.60 437.50 546.00 SIGNAGE:4TH OF JULY 756.97 750.00 WEBSITE SCAN SERVICE:INFO TECH 1,874.00 1,874.00 184080 07/20/2017 018940 SMITH, DONALD E PUPPET SHOW:CULTURE QUEST 75.00 75.00 SUMMER CAMP Page:14 apChkLst 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 15 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 184081 07/20/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 184082 07/20/2017 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 184083 07/20/2017 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 184084 07/20/2017 019868 SOUTHWESTERN RIVERSIDE 184085 07/20/2017 005786 SPRINT 184086 07/20/2017 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC (Continued) Description JUN 2-29-458-7548:32000 RANCHO CAL JUN 2-31-404-6020:28771 OT FRONT ST JUN 2-37-303-0485:27498 ENTERPRISE C JUNE 2-39-043-8521:29028 OT FRONT ST JUN 2-01-202-7330:VARIOUS LS -1-E JUN 2-31-031-2590:28301 RANCHO CAL JUN 2-29-479-2981:31454 TEM PKWY TC' JUN 2-29-974-7899:26953 YNEZ RD LS3 JUN 2-36-171-5626:BUTTERFIELD/LA SEF JUN 2-05-791-8807:31487 TEM PKWY LS JUN 2-36-122-7820:31777 DEPORTOLA RI JUN 2-30-066-2889:30051 RANCHO VISTA JUN 2-31-936-3511:46488 PECHANGA PK' JUN 2-29-657-2563:42902 BUTTERFIELD JUN 2-10-331-2153:28816 PUJOL ST JUN 2-20-798-3248:42081 MAIN ST JUN 2-02-351-5281:30875 RANCHO VISTA JUN 2-02-502-8077:43210 BUS PARK DR JUN 2-28-629-0507:30600 PAUBA RD JUN 2-39-737-1063:42061 MAIN ST JUN 2-25-350-5119:45602 REDHAWK PKV JUN 2-27-805-3194:42051 MAIN ST JUNE 2-36-531-7916:44205 MAIN ST PED JUN 2-35-421-1260:41955 4TH ST LS3 JUN 2-29-657-2332:45538 REDWOOD RD JUN 2-29-953-8447:31738 WOLF VLY RD JUN 2-30-220-8749:45850 N WOLF CREEP UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING:VALLEJO AVE. PEST CONTROL SRVCS:STN 95 REFUND:SEC DEP:AMPHITHEATER:CRC MAY 26 - JUN 25 CELLULAR USAGE/EQUIP REFRESHMENTS:YOUTH PRGMS 6/19 REFRESHMENTS:STEM PRGM 6/29 REFRESHMENTS:STEM PRGM 6/30 REFRESHMENTS:STEM PRGM 6/22 REFRESHMENTS:YOUTH PRGMS 6/26 REFRESHMENTS:YOUTH PRGMS 6/28 Amount Paid Check Total 249.85 1,035.99 54.71 24.09 73,143.58 18.76 94.24 152.40 24,263.14 8,095.37 24.30 24.45 47.33 189.29 1,574.78 2,725.60 9,526.15 460.92 11,492.80 24.09 26.90 6,623.61 173.51 19.09 23.81 22.68 346.12 42, 336.03 80.00 200.00 4,427.14 166.04 81.32 82.32 74.32 162.53 167.53 140,457.56 42, 336.03 80.00 200.00 4,427.14 734.06 Page:15 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 16 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 184088 07/20/2017 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE Description OFFICE SUPPLIES:PD OLD TOWN OFFICE OFFICE SUPPLIES: PD MALL STOREFRC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CM OFFICE CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/POLICE OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES:CRC OFFICE SUPPLIES:HUMAN SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES:TVM OFFICE SUPPLIES:TVM OFFICE SUPPLIES:TVM OFFICE SUPPLIES:TVM OFFICE SUPPLIES:TVM OFFICE SUPPLIES:TVM OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW LAND DEV OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW LAND DEV OFFICE SUPPLIES:CONTRACT CLASSES OFFICE SUPPLIES:CONTRACT CLASSES OFFICE SUPPLIES:CONTRACT CLASSES OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCSDADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW LAND DEV OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW LAND DEV OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW LAND DEV OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW CI CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/CONTRACTE OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCC/MRC/CONTRACT OFFICE SUPPLIES:CRC OFFICE SUPPLIES:CRC OFFICE SUPPLIES:MPSC SUPPLIES:SUMMER DAY CAMP OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW CI CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/PW CIP OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW CIP OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCSDADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCSDADMIN CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/CM OFFICE CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/CM OFFICE OFFICE SUPPLIES:CM OFFICE CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/CM OFFICE OFFICE SUPPLIES:CM OFFICE CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/POLICE CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/POLICE CREDIT:OFFICE SUPPLIES/POLICE OFFICE SUPPLIES:PD OLD TOWN OFFIC Amount Paid Check Total 90.96 739.61 110.33 -3.39 212.28 4.80 94.84 543.74 139.18 79.49 35.16 53.28 419.66 24.50 80.99 110.91 14.24 73.06 294.09 15.43 76.41 15.67 86.10 80.36 -110.91 1,139.18 44.32 6.51 633.22 39.19 22.72 -47.27 47.27 24.35 155.03 143.13 46.14 -6.39 -103.93 35.87 -110.33 127.88 -158.21 -32.57 -215.15 41.76 Page:16 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 17 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description OFFICE SUPPLIES:THEATER REC SUPPLIES:CRC SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK OFFICE SUPPLIES:MPSC OFFICE SUPPLIES:MPSC OFFICE SUPPLIES:MPSC OFFICE SUPPLIES:MPSC OFFICE SUPPLIES:MPSC Amount Paid Check Total 485.62 44.72 129.63 412.36 33.57 33.04 135.60 229.51 6,617.56 184089 07/20/2017 008023 STATER BROTHERS MARKETS COMMUNITY PRGM SUPP: BC/ADMIN 233.31 233.31 6/30 184090 07/20/2017 016262 STEVE ADAMIAK GOLF TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 787.50 787.50 INSTRUCTION 184091 07/20/2017 007698 SWANK MOTIONS PICTURES, MOVIE RENTALS: MOVIES IN PARK 590.51 INC. 6/23 MOVIE RENTALS:MOVIES IN PARK 7/14 543.00 USE TAX/MOVIE RENTALS: MOVIES IN Pi -47.51 1,086.00 184092 07/20/2017 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS USE TAX/MOTORCYCLE -2.25 LLC REPAIR/MAINT:TEM.P.D. USE TAX/MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:1 -0.42 MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:TEM.P.D. 1,284.44 MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:TEM.P.D. 80.03 MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:TEM.P.D. 357.53 USE TAX/MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT:1 -3.90 1,715.43 184093 07/20/2017 017295 TEMECULA PIZZA FACTORY REFRESHMENTS:TCSD SPECIAL 519.07 519.07 EVENTS 6/28 184094 07/20/2017 008311 TEMECULA VALLEY ATHLETIC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,480.50 CLUB TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 773.50 2,254.00 184095 07/20/2017 000668 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC DJ & SOUND SRVCS:2017 4TH OF JULY 20,425.00 20,425.00 184096 07/20/2017 019100 TNT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP DJ & SOUND SRVCS:MOVIES IN PARK 1,400.00 LLC 7/14 DJ & SOUND SRVCS:CONCERT SERIES 787.00 DJ & SOUND SRVCS:CONCERT SERIES 787.00 2,974.00 184097 07/20/2017 013474 TOWN & COUNTRY TOWING TOWING SRVCS:POLICE 75.00 75.00 184098 07/20/2017 019795 TUSKER SURPLUS METALS SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:FIRE 205.81 205.81 184099 07/20/2017 017579 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL PRE EMPLOY DRUG SCREENINGS:HR 154.00 PRE EMPLOY DRUG SCREENINGS:HR 50.00 204.00 184100 07/20/2017 012549 UPODIUM VEHICLE MAI NT SUPPLIES: STA 12 179.28 VEHICLE MAI NT SUPPLIES:STN 95 339.55 518.83 Pagel 7 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 18 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 184101 07/20/2017 014848 VALUTEC CARD SOLUTIONS, JUN TICKETING SRVCS:THEATER 66.13 66.13 LLC 184102 07/20/2017 020031 VIQUEZ, MICHELLE REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC 200.00 200.00 184103 07/20/2017 009101 VISION ONE, INC. JUN SHOWARE TICKETING 2,302.20 2,302.20 SRVCS:THEATER 184104 07/20/2017 018147 WADDLETON, JEFFREY L. DJ/ANNOUNCER SRVCS:4TH OF JULY 450.00 450.00 PARADE 184105 07/20/2017 007987 WALMART SUPPLIES:DAY CAMP 139.03 139.03 184106 07/20/2017 003730 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC 6/16-30/17 TREE TRIM SRVCS:PARKS, MEDIAN 4/16-30/17 TREE TRIM SRVCS:CITY R -O-1 6/1-15/17 TREE TRIM SRVCS:HARVESTO 5/16-31/17 TREE TRIM SRVCS:HARVEST( 5/16-31/17 TREE TRIM SRVCES:PHEASAI 6/1-30/17 TREE TRIM SRVCS:CITY R -O -V\ 184107 07/20/2017 013286 WEST SAFETY SERVICES, INC. JUL ENTERPRISE 911 SERVICES: IT 184108 07/20/2017 007949 WESTERN ARTS ALLIANCE ANN'L CONF:B.BARNETT 9/5-8/17 SEATTLE,WA 184109 07/20/2017 018871 WONDER SCIENCE 1001701 07/13/2017 016447 ANDERSON, KETURAH 1001702 07/13/2017 016447 ANDERSON, KETURAH 1001703 07/13/2017 020033 BULLMASTER, PARIS 10,000.00 915.00 2,854.00 7,132.00 767.00 8,170.00 29,838.00 300.00 300.00 490.00 490.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 3,780.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 2,268.00 6,048.00 REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0400.204 240.00 240.00 REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0400.204 20.00 20.00 REFUND:ADMISSION:PENNYPICKLES 20.00 20.00 (4) 1001704 07/13/2017 020033 BULLMASTER, PARIS REFUND:ADMISSION:PENNYPICKLES 20.00 20.00 (4) 1001705 07/13/2017 020034 CARTER, TARA REFUND:ADVANCED TODDLER SWIM 45.00 45.00 LESSONS 1001706 07/13/2017 020038 CLEMENT, MICHELLE REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0410.204 188.00 188.00 1001707 07/13/2017 020038 CLEMENT, MICHELLE REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0410.204 20.00 20.00 Page:18 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 19 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 1001708 07/13/2017 020039 FLUBACHER, MARK REFUND:SWEETTREATS BAKING CAMP Amount Paid Check Total 80.00 80.00 1001709 07/13/2017 020040 MELTON, JENNIFER REFUND:LEVEL 2 SWIM LESSONS 45.00 45.00 5102.301 1001710 07/13/2017 020040 MELTON, JENNIFER REFUND:ADVANCED TODDLER SWIM 45.00 45.00 LESSONS 1001711 07/13/2017 020041 NAVARRO, SHAWN 1001712 07/13/2017 020041 NAVARRO, SHAWN 1001713 07/13/2017 019035 PARK, HYEJUNG 1001714 07/13/2017 020042 REDEN, STEVEN 1001715 07/13/2017 020042 REDEN, STEVEN 1001716 07/13/2017 020043 SHAHEEN, CATHERINE 1001717 07/13/2017 020044 SOCIAL SECURITY 567 1001718 07/13/2017 020044 SOCIAL SECURITY 567 1001719 07/13/2017 020045 STANFIELD, JENNIFER 1001720 07/13/2017 020046 STILES, JAIME 1001721 07/13/2017 020047 TUIMAVAVE, VANESSA REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0400.204 910.00 910.00 REFUND:SUMMER DAY CAMP 0400.204 80.00 80.00 REFUND:LEVEL 5/6 SWIM LESSONS 36.00 36.00 REFUND:EARLY DROP OFF/LATE 184.00 184.00 PICKUP REFUND:EARLY DROP OFF/LATE 20.00 20.00 PICKUP REFUND:PARENT N ME SWM 45.00 45.00 LESSONS REFUND:RENTAL CREDIT:COMM RM 87.50 87.50 B:LIBRARY REFUND:RENTAL CREDIT:COMM RM 87.50 87.50 B:LIBRARY REFUND:13THE MUSICAL TEEN 160.00 160.00 THEATER REFUND:DISNEY MUSICAL THEATER 465.00 465.00 CAMP REFUND:LEVEL 2 SWIM LESSONS 11.75 11.75 1001722 07/13/2017 020047 TUIMAVAVE, VANESSA REFUND:LEVEL 2 SWIM LESSONS 24.25 24.25 1001723 07/13/2017 017112 YAMANAKA, CHRISTINA REFUND:SOFTBALL CONDITIONING & 80.00 80.00 AGILITY 1001724 07/13/2017 019640 BAKER, TREVOR REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF CTR A/B 200.00 200.00 Page:19 apChkLst Final Check List 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 20 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 1001725 07/13/2017 020048 EVANGELO, CAROLINA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF CTR A/B 1001726 07/13/2017 020049 ROMERO, HELEN REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL: TCC 1001727 07/13/2017 018306 SHURRAB, MOAMER REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC RENTAL:HARVESTON Amount Paid Check Total 200.00 200.00 150.00 150.00 200.00 200.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 1,017,784.91 Page20 apChkLst 07/20/2017 4:04:51 PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 21 176 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 1,017,784.91 Page21 Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: August 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2017 PREPARED BY: Rudy J. Graciano, Revenue Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2017. BACKGROUND: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City for the next six months. Current market values are derived from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) reports, Union Bank of California trust and custody statements, and from US Bank trust statements. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy and Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of June 30, 2017. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 2017 Investments City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary June 30, 2017 Par Market Book % of Value Value Value Portfolio Term City of Temecula 41000 Main Street P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92590 (951)694-6430 Days to YTM YTM Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 53,114,909.50 53,114,909.50 53,114,909.50 42.43 1 1 0.751 0.762 Retention Escrow Account 600,720.92 600,720.92 600,720.92 0.48 1 1 0.000 0.000 Letter of Credit 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 1 0.000 0.000 Local Agency Investment Funds 44,480,076.02 44,432,956.99 44,480,076.02 35.53 1 1 0.965 0.978 Federal Agency Callable Securities 18,000,000.00 17,892,140.00 18,000,000.00 14.38 1,364 1,010 1.468 1.489 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 9,000,000.00 8,973,770.00 8,993,680.00 7.18 1,095 473 1.180 1.197 Investments 125,195,707.44 125,014,498.41 125,189,387.44 100.00% 276 180 0.957 0.971 Cash Passbook/Checking (not included in yield calculations) Total Cash and Investments 5,141,551.51 5,141,551.51 5,141,551.51 130,337,258.95 130,156,049.92 0.000 0.000 130,330,938.95 276 180 0.957 0.971 Total Earnings June 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Fiscal Year Ending Current Year Average Daily Balance Effective Rate of Return 98,472.93 129,115,580.27 0.93% Reporting period 06/01/2017-06/30/2017 Run Date: 07/26/2017 - 11:40 922,905.49 115,683,256.01 0.80% 922,90549 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM1) 73.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2017 Page 1 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 233358006-1 01-2 REFRESI ASSURANCE CO BOND INSURANCE 12/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348006-6 01-02RESA11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348000-6 01-02SPTAX11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 233358006-6 01-2 REF RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 12/01/2016 504,410.21 504,410.21 504,410.21 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 233358000-6 01-2 REF ST First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 12/01/2016 910,709.55 910,709.55 910,709.55 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 104348016-6 01-2RESB11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 276213009-6 03-02 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 03/16/2017 1,978.56 1,978.56 1,978.56 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 276213008-6 03-02 IMPR First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 03/15/2017 1,236,413.23 1,236,413.23 1,236,413.23 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 276213006-6 03-02 RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 03/16/2017 743,506.88 743,506.88 743,506.88 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 164741008-6 03-03IMP First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 301,872.21 301,872.21 301,872.21 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 164741006-6 03-03RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 390.58 390.58 390.58 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 164741000-6 03-03SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 1,571,558.51 1,571,558.51 1,571,558.51 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 164742000-6 03-06SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2016 244,805.32 244,805.32 244,805.32 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 94669921-6 03-1ACQ11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 975,614.90 975,614.90 975,614.90 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 94669911-6 03-1ACQA11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 145.17 145.17 145.17 0.650 0.641 0.650 1 94669917-6 03-1 RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.000 0.000 1 94669916-6 03-1RESB11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 148,025.51 148,025.51 148,025.51 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 94669000-6 03-1SPTAX11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 693,833.74 693,833.74 693,833.74 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 276213000-6 03-2 SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 03/16/2017 554,282.41 554,282.41 554,282.41 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 793593011-6 03-2ACQ11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.460 0.454 0.460 1 793593009-6 03-2EMWD11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.460 0.454 0.460 1 793593007-6 03-2IMPR11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.460 0.454 0.460 1 793593016-6 03-2LOC11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.460 0.454 0.460 1 793593000-6 03-2SPTX First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.460 0.454 0.460 1 94686001-6 03-4ADMIN11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 509.78 509.78 509.78 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 94686005-6 03-4PREP11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 13.03 13.03 13.03 0.690 0.681 0.690 1 94686000-6 03-4RED11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 80,769.22 80,769.22 80,769.22 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 94686006-6 03-4RES11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 34,063.39 34,063.39 34,063.39 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 276213023-6 16-01 CAPINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 03/16/2017 1,186,530.71 1,186,530.71 1,186,530.71 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 276213029-6 16-01 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 03/16/2017 4,654.24 4,654.24 4,654.24 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 276213028-6 16-01 IMP First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 03/16/2017 6,418,030.42 6,418,030.42 6,418,030.42 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 276213026-6 16-01 RESERV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 03/16/2017 3,157,239.75 3,157,239.75 3,157,239.75 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 233358009-6 233358009-6 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 12/01/2016 204.72 204.72 204.72 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 94434160-6 RDA-02INT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 49.04 49.04 49.04 0.650 0.641 0.650 1 94434161-6 RDA-02PRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 1.21 1.21 1.21 0.830 0.819 0.830 1 107886000-6 RDA-06AINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 28.95 28.95 28.95 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 Run Date: 07/26/2017 - 11:40 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2017 Page 2 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 107886001-6 RDA06APRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2016 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.000 0.000 1 107886010-6 RDA06BINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 217.45 217.45 217.45 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 107886011-6 RDA06BPRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 1.46 1.46 1.46 0.680 0.671 0.680 1 107886016-6 RDA06BRES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 202,115.00 202,115.00 202,115.00 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 107886020-6 RDA07INT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 1,188.28 1,188.28 1,188.28 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 107886021-6 RDA07PRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 7.52 7.52 7.52 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 107886028-6 RDA07PROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 210,376.58 210,376.58 210,376.58 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 107886026-6 RDAO7RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 1,104,081.25 1,104,081.25 1,104,081.25 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 136343008-6 RDA10APROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 07/01/2016 20,017.00 20,017.00 20,017.00 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 136343018-6 RDA10BPROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 5,203,920.81 5,203,920.81 5,203,920.81 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 136343000-6 RDA1OINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 158,391.00 158,391.00 158,391.00 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 136343001-6 RDA1OPRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.000 0.000 1 136343006-6 RDA1ORSRV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 1,263,919.80 1,263,919.80 1,263,919.80 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 146161000-6 RDA11AINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 46.69 46.69 46.69 0.660 0.651 0.660 1 146161001-6 RDA11APRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund CI 08/01/2016 7.80 7.80 7.80 0.640 0.631 0.640 1 94669902-3 03-1 BOND3 First American Treasury 07/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-1 RDA 02 INT1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94434161-2 RDA 02 PRIN2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 136343018-2 RDA 10B CIP2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 146161008-3 RDA11APROJ Federated Institutional Tax Fr 08/01/2016 7,311,300.58 7,311,300.58 7,311,300.58 0.640 0.631 0.640 1 146161006-3 RDA11ARSRV Federated Institutional Tax Fr 08/01/2016 1,311,492.41 1,311,492.41 1,311,492.41 0.640 0.631 0.640 1 94669921-5 03-01 ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669911-5 03-01 ACQA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669917-5 03-01 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669906-5 03-01 RESA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 94669916-5 03-01 RESB11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669000-5 03-01 SPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 164742006-5 03-06 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 164742000-5 03-06 SPEC Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669902-5 03-lbond fd Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593011-5 03-2 ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 793593009-5 03-2 EMWD11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 793593016-5 03-2 LOC1 1 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 793593010-5 03-2 PWADM11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593006-5 03-2 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593000-5 03-2 SPTX Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 Run Date: 07/26/2017 - 11:40 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2017 Page 3 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 793593007-5 03-2-IMPR11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94686001-5 03-4 ADMIN11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94686005-5 03-4 PREP11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686006-5 03-4 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669917-1 03-01-1 RES CA Local Agency Investment Fun 777,471.03 777,471.03 777,471.03 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 276213008-1 03-02 IMP CA Local Agency Investment Fun 03/15/2017 15,028,605.91 15,028,605.91 15,028,605.91 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 164742006-1 03-06 RES -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 310,988.41 310,988.41 310,988.41 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 94669911-1 03-1 ACQ A2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 94669921-1 03-1 ACQ B2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 793593011-1 03-2-1 ACQUI CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 793593009-1 03-2-1 EMWD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 793593007-1 03-2-1 IMPRO CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 793593010-1 03-2-1 PW AD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 793593006-3 03-2-3 RESER CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 744727011-1 03-3 ACQ 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 164741006-1 0303-1 RES CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,441,116.23 1,441,116.23 1,441,116.23 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 107886028-1 RDA 07 PRO -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 107886026-1 RDA 07 RES -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 136343018-1 RDA 10B CIP1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 107886006 RDA 06 RES A MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434166 RDA TABs RES MBIA Surety Bond 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 233358050-1 01-2 SPECESC U.S. Treasury 12/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.360 0.355 0.360 1 Subtotal and Average 52,649,934.70 53,114,909.50 53,114,909.50 53,114,909.50 0.751 0.762 1 Retention Escrow Account ARMY CORPS Army Corps Union Bank Subtotal and Average 600,720.92 600,646.90 600,720.92 600,720.92 600,720.92 600,720.92 600,720.92 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 Letter of Credit 104348006-1 02008 ASSURANCE CO BOND INSURANCE 07/01/2016 Subtotal and Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 Local Agency Investment Funds SYSCITY CITY CA Local Agency Investment Fun 20,111,681.49 20,090,376.60 20,111,681.49 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 SYSRDA RDA CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,769.04 1,767.17 1,769.04 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 SYSTCSD TCSD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 24,366,625.49 24,340,813.22 24,366,625.49 0.978 0.965 0.978 1 Run Date: 07/26/2017 - 11:40 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP Investment # Issuer Average Balance City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2017 Purchase Date Par Value Market Value Page 4 Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Subtotal and Average 47,250,076.02 44,480,076.02 44,432,956.99 44,480,076.02 0.965 0.978 1 Federal Agency Callable Securities 3130A4G89 3130AAME5 3130AANA2 3130AAW38 3130AB3N4 3134G67C1 3134G8QB8 3134G8PP8 3134GAXX7 3134GBAB8 3134GBGZ9 3134GBNK4 3136G2EC7 3136G2WT0 3136G2XH5 3136G3CL7 3136G3TE5 3136G3X59 01207 01226 01227 01228 01231 01210 01219 01220 01224 01229 01232 01234 01205 01216 01217 01218 01221 01222 Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp Federal National Mtg Assn Federal National Mtg Assn Federal National Mtg Assn Federal National Mtg Assn Federal National Mtg Assn Federal National Mtg Assn Subtotal and Average 18,000,000.00 03/24/2015 1,000,000.00 998,360.00 1,000,000.00 1.650 1.627 1.650 815 09/24/2019 01/30/2017 1,000,000.00 997,730.00 1,000,000.00 2.020 1.948 1.975 1,669 01/25/2022 01/30/2017 1,000,000.00 999,480.00 1,000,000.00 1.750 1.726 1.750 1,125 07/30/2020 03/22/2017 1,000,000.00 995,170.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.479 1.500 1,725 03/22/2022 04/28/2017 1,000,000.00 997,720.00 1,000,000.00 1.550 1.529 1.550 850 10/29/2019 06/22/2015 1,000,000.00 997,520.00 1,000,000.00 1.200 1.184 1.200 356 06/22/2018 03/29/2016 1,000,000.00 996,530.00 1,000,000.00 1.270 1.253 1.270 636 03/29/2019 03/30/2016 1,000,000.00 990,970.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.661 1.684 1,187 09/30/2020 11/30/2016 1,000,000.00 993,890.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 517 11/30/2018 03/27/2017 1,000,000.00 997,020.00 1,000,000.00 1.670 1.647 1.670 1,000 03/27/2020 04/27/2017 1,000,000.00 998,610.00 1,000,000.00 2.000 1.973 2.000 1,671 01/27/2022 05/30/2017 1,000,000.00 999,200.00 1,000,000.00 1.625 1.603 1.625 1,063 05/29/2020 02/27/2015 1,000,000.00 997,670.00 1,000,000.00 1.300 1.282 1.300 606 02/27/2019 01/27/2016 1,000,000.00 994,590.00 1,000,000.00 1.450 1.430 1.450 940 01/27/2020 02/24/2016 1,000,000.00 991,120.00 1,000,000.00 1.400 1.381 1.400 968 02/24/2020 03/24/2016 1,000,000.00 984,300.00 1,000,000.00 1.420 1.401 1.420 1,181 09/24/2020 06/29/2016 1,000,000.00 976,970.00 1,000,000.00 1.250 1.233 1.250 1,094 06/29/2020 08/23/2016 1,000,000.00 985,290.00 1,000,000.00 1.100 1.085 1.100 783 08/23/2019 18, 000,000.00 17, 892,140.00 18, 000,000.00 1.468 1.489 1,010 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 3133EDNDO 3133EEHU7 3133EGJ30 3130A4AJ1 3130A5MH9 3130A8ZV8 3130AAYM4 3130ABDX1 3135GOPQ0 Run Date: 07/26/2017 - 11:40 01196 01202 01225 01206 01211 01223 01230 01233 01194 Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal National Mtg Assn Subtotal and Average 8,993,680.00 06/11/2014 01/14/2015 11/18/2016 02/27/2015 06/26/2015 08/23/2016 03/14/2017 05/24/2017 11/26/2013 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,110.00 1,000,210.00 989,740.00 998,830.00 1,000,410.00 987,350.00 999,190.00 998,640.00 999,290.00 9,000,000.00 8,973,770.00 1,000,000.00 1.200 1.179 1.195 194 01/11/2018 1,000,000.00 1.410 1.391 1.410 562 01/14/2019 1,000,000.00 1.100 1.085 1.100 870 11/18/2019 1,000,000.00 1.140 1.124 1.140 241 02/27/2018 1,000,000.00 1.360 1.341 1.360 543 12/26/2018 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 783 08/23/2019 1,000,000.00 1.125 1.110 1.125 256 03/14/2018 1,000,000.00 1.400 1.381 1.400 692 05/24/2019 993,680.00 0.875 1.026 1.040 117 10/26/2017 8,993,680.00 1.180 1.197 473 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2017 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Page 5 Total and Average 129,115,580.27 Run Date: 07/26/2017 - 11:40 125 ,195, 707.44 125 , 014, 498.41 125,189,387.44 0.957 0.971 180 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash June 30, 2017 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Page 6 Passbook/Checking Accounts 1453718479 WORKERS COMP BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNC 07/01/2016 5,669.64 5,669.64 5,669.64 0.000 0.000 1 SYSPetty Cash Petty Cash City of Temecula 07/01/2016 3,261.00 3,261.00 3,261.00 0.000 0.000 1 SYSGen Ck Acct Gen Ck Acct Union Bank of California 5,124,272.52 5,124,272.52 5,124,272.52 0.000 0.000 1 SYSParking Ck PARKING CITA Union Bank of California 07/01/2016 8,348.35 8,348.35 8,348.35 0.000 0.000 1 Average Balance 0.00 1 Total Cash and Investments 129,115,580.27 Run Date: 07/26/2017 - 11:40 130, 337, 258.95 130,156, 049.92 130,330,938.95 0.957 0.971 180 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Cash and Investments Report CITY OF TEMECULA Through June 2017 Fund # Fund Name Beginning Balance Receipts Disbursements Fund Total 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,653,695.70 $ 9,221,866.67 $ 7,265,281.78 $ 34,610,280.59 002 MEASURE S FUND $ - 1,930,230.85 158.03 $ 1,930,072.82 100 STATE GAS TAX FUND 292,422.51 189,780.45 39.48 482,163.48 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 7,882,554.44 71,614.42 651.20 7,953,517.66 125 PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT 288,343.58 334.00 5,853.95 282,823.63 135 BUSINESS INCUBATOR RESOURCE 89,580.46 3,048.71 5,402.68 87,226.49 145 TEMECULA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASSET TEAM 236,953.07 - 19.40 236,933.67 150 AB 2766 FUND 67,917.72 36,187.86 1,953.83 102,151.75 160 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES 8,351.43 16,666.66 2.05 25,016.04 161 LARRY ROBINSON REWARD 25,579.46 - 2.09 25,577.37 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 618,557.71 125,300.00 32,330.28 711,527.43 170 MEASURE A FUND 5,995,670.46 285,399.05 12,163.27 6,268,906.24 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 2,843,915.51 434,436.04 1,162,609.54 2,115,742.01 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 249,641.64 - 74,780.62 174,861.02 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING 4,020,513.28 1,270.07 3,764,528.07 257,255.28 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT 25,782.08 - 2.11 25,779.97 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 427,784.76 234.01 16,831.52 411,187.25 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 223,427.49 11,413.85 32,788.48 202,052.86 198 PUBLIC ART 65,873.11 2,542.98 5.60 68,410.49 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 11,649,820.04 90,200.43 638,810.52 11,101,209.95 273 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL IMPROVEMENT FUND 975,225.61 534.46 - 975,760.07 275 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND 301,706.86 165.35 - 301,872.21 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 16,389,071.63 677.23 10.21 16,389,738.65 278 CFD-RORIPAUGH II 6,414,515.05 3,515.37 - 6,418,030.42 300 INSURANCE FUND 405,138.09 - 60,065.03 345,073.06 305 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 791,618.22 146,227.89 8,766.26 929,079.85 310 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FUND 1,580,256.85 - 129.37 1,580,127.48 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 305,637.59 81.29 252,237.23 53,481.65 325 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND 418,549.99 - 34.27 418,515.72 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 433,273.14 - 47,181.94 386,091.20 340 FACILITIES 418,307.77 23,320.65 154,268.49 287,359.93 380 SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 16,731,964.82 1,316,169.81 1,002,095.07 17,046,039.56 381 REDEVELOPMEN PROPERTY TAX TRUST 788,665.70 3,407,001.00 869,938.49 3,325,728.21 395 2011 FINANCING LEASE 2001 & 2008 COPS 534,291.89 49.15 534,341.04 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 89,911.01 - 7.36 89,903.65 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 1,523,021.23 490,318.11 499,819.22 1,513,520.12 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,689,772.64 421,215.32 420,990.58 1,689,997.38 474 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 121,238.30 40,843.95 40,803.59 121,278.66 475 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,359,099.39 897,318.60 896,977.24 3,359,440.75 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 592,115.30 144,438.34 144,386.32 592,167.32 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,363,499.93 555,174.69 568,970.29 1,349,704.33 478 CFD-RORIPAUGH II 4,393,373.39 2,381.78 15,002.65 4,380,752.52 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 26,210.14 - 12,677.54 13,532.60 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 84,161.44 - 4,417.81 79,743.63 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 26,636.29 - 4,781.14 21,855.15 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 4,691.60 - 1,028.15 3,663.45 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 27,168.75 - 4,093.18 23,075.57 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 29,670.85 - 5,234.03 24,436.82 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 13,078.74 - 6,250.02 6,828.72 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 105,869.50 - 20,357.77 85,511.73 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 23,415.62 - 568.15 22,847.47 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 14,119.89 - 3,621.34 10,498.55 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 3,568.76 - 1,264.87 2,303.89 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 107,411.94 - 18,575.84 88,836.10 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP 25,420.56 - 8,945.85 16,474.71 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 8,771.34 - 2,352.36 6,418.98 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 6,353.24 - 2,409.73 3,943.51 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 48,076.20 - 2,838.22 45,237.98 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 2,284.59 - 1,321.44 963.15 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 66,453.75 - 24,033.20 42,420.55 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 91,318.48 - 6,266.21 85,052.27 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 168,803.26 - 21,033.62 147,769.64 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 240,054.32 - 53,129.33 186,924.99 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 5,587.17 370.50 471.39 5,486.28 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 15,513.47 - 1,011.06 14,502.41 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 115,510.38 - 15,389.93 100,120.45 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 58,249.44 - 12,526.74 45,722.70 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERVTRADITION 2,085.96 0.01 1,076.45 1,009.52 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 8,795.94 - 1,101.04 7,694.90 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 455,084.78 - 54,952.00 400,132.78 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 2,842.03 0.01 292.38 2,549.66 530 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 30 FUTURE ZONES 34,135.81 - 2.79 34,133.02 Grand Total: $ 129,107,983.09 $ 19,870,329.56 $ 18,822,262.73 $ 130,156,049.92 Journal Entries completed after May's Treasurer's Report was issued are reflected in the Receipts ' Disbursements columns. Item No. 5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jeff Kubel, Chief of Police August 8, 2017 Approve the Purchase of Two BMW Police Motorcycles for the Temecula Police Department from Power Sports Unlimited dba: BMW Motorcycles of Escondido PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Motorcycles from Power amount of $61,337.36. Jeff Kubel, Chief of Police Mary Vollmuth, Purchasing Manager That the City Council approve the purchase of two BMW Police Sports Unlimited dba: BMW Motorcycles of Escondido for a total BACKGROUND: The Temecula Police Department is committed to obtaining the best technology to ensure officer safety and enhance enforcement for public safety. Since 2009, the Temecula Police Department has been evaluating the performance and emergency features of the BMW Police motorcycles within its fleet. The BMW Police motorcycle continues to rate high in performance and comes fully built by the factory with all emergency lighting, radio communication, safety and GPS components and accessories installed by the dealership. Two motorcycles within the Temecula Police fleet have reached their useful life and the repairs required for the equipment to remain operational and meet safety standards are cost prohibitive. Both motorcycles are scheduled for disposal via public auction. A Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide and service BMW Police motorcycles was conducted in July of 2015. Power Sports Unlimited dba: BMW Motorcycles of Escondido was deemed the best qualified and lowest priced regional dealership for the purchase and maintenance of Temecula Police motorcycles. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds for the purchase are included in the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Police Department Operating Budget. ATTACHMENTS: Quote — R1200 RT -P Motor Pricing Form R 1200 RT -P Motor Pricing Form Color 1 Night Black & Alpine White III 4 Night Black (special order) O Alpine White III (special order) 0 Saphir Blue (Michigan State Police Blue) O Glacier Silver Metallic .,South Carolina State Police) Quotation: City of Temecula 4 Dynamic ESA 4 Keyless Ride w/two transmitters O Gear Shift Assist Pro 0 GPS Preparation 0 Dynamic Package (204, 219. 224, SAC) O Chrome Exhaust O LED Auxiliary Headlight O Fire Extinguisher O High Seat Black 0 Low Seat Black 50.00 The Options Below are Standard Order Deck - Removal is only by Special Order - Option Delete Healed Seat Tire Pressure Monitoring Cruise Control Weather Protection Item Description Emergency Warning Lights (10) Red LED -X Light 5 Blue LED -X Light O Amber LED -X Light 0 White LED -X Light t7 Green LED -X Light Rear Duplex Emergency Warning Light (1) 0 Duplex LED -X Red / Red 0 Duplex LED -X Blue / Blue 1 Duplex LED -X Red / Blue 0 Duplex LED -X Blue / Amber 0 Duplex LED -X Green / Green 0 Duplex LED -X Amber / Amber Take -Down (4) Alley (2) TS (2) BT (2) Saddlebag 6 White Torus LED TDL/Alley 2 Auxiliary LED Turn Signals 2 Auxiliary LED Brake/Tail Light 1 Saddlebag LED Lights w/sensor switch 0 Red ID Lights (replacing blue ID lights) 0 Round Blue License Plate ID Light Kit Option Code 753 716 751 755 N99 Option Code 191 193 222 272 238 350 562 666 610 776 K52SF Retail Price 5950.00 5475.00 5475.00 5204.55 5325.00 5150.00 $550.00 $175.00 50.00 1 1 1 Qty Per Revised 6/13/2017 0 Standard Blue Pod ID tights Blue License Plate ID Lights Motorcycle 518 5159.09 530 5250.00 538 5350.00 649 5247.73 BMW P/N 63 17 2 361 718 63 17 2 361 719 63 17 2 361 720 63 17 2 361 721 63 17 2 450 782 63 17 2 361 728 63 17 2 361 729 63 17 2 361 730 63 17 2 361 731 631.72450783 63 17 2 450 784 Light (1) Red ID (1) 63 17 2 361 722 63 17 2 361 725 63 17 2 361 726 63 17 2 361 727 63 17 2 361 724. 71 60 2 452 876 Order # 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 2 1 0 0 Retail $108.36 $108.36 $108.36 $117.09 $117.09 $345.88 5378.25 $362.07 $362.07 $362.07 $362.07 $76.91 $72.82 $56.64 5143.61 5107.33 $130.59 Non -BMW Options or Additional Labor Operations Provided by Dealer pvp wireless kit for motorola apx7500 (P# PVSPRT12P15GDPDC) SPECIALTY MADE LIDAR / TICKET PRINTER / PDA HOLDER P#MDRSPMNT Units Quotation valid for 60 days 1 from date noted helow. 5/1/2017 Note: Parts prices subject to change without notice Final price is always determined by the selling authorized BMW Motorrad USA delaer_ Labor to install agency provided radio Totat Price - Page 1 Total Price - Page 2 Total Price • Page 3 Total Price - Page 4 519,900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5159.09 5250.00 5350.00 5247.73 Total Retail $541.82 $541.82 50.00 50 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $362.07 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $461.44 $145.65 $113 27 $143.61 $0.00 $0 00 $883.00 $525 00 S0 00 $300 00 S0 00 54,017.68 51,014.94 $1,316.65 50.00 Dealer Basic Assembly ! Preparation $ 450.00 Motorcycle Freight $495.00 Total Retail Price per Unit with Options 7.75% State Sales Tax (if applicable) Total Retail Price per Unit with Options $28,201.09 $2,185.58 $30,386.67 1❑/a LOCCOA . a U tic t4L thg R 1200 RT -P Motor Pricing Form Quotation for: City of Temecula Additional Accessories K52 SF Qty Item Description Per Additional Accessories BMW P/N Order # Retail Total Retail Dealer Installed Options / Retrofits 0 Hill Start Control - Enabling Code 77 23 8 536 874 0 5189.99 50 00 0 Shift Assistant Pro (hardware) 23 41 8 536 884 0 5525.31 $0 00 0 Shift Assistant Pro - Enabling Code 13 61 8 545 879 0 $43.08 $0.00 0 Ride Modes Pro - Enabling Code 13 61 8 534 237 0 5213 51 $0 00 0 BMW HP Sport Muffler 2017-) 77 11 8 392 780 0 51,104.00 $0.00 0 Fire Extinguisher w/Bracket (1 Kg Dry Powder) 72 60 0 000 335 0 $62.89 50 00 0 Fire Extinguisher Mount Kit (for LH saddlebag) 46 54 7 694 900 0 $89.82 $0,00 0 LED Auxiliary Headlights (order 2) 63 17 8 532 147 0 $132.36 $0.00 0 Bolt 6 x 40 (order 2) 63 12 7 699 141 0 $4.46 50.00 0 M6 Hex Nut (order 2) 07 12 9 905 826 0 $1.32 $0.00 0 Adaptor Cable (order 2) 61 12 8 555 760 0 549 36 $0.00 Requires Activation by Dealer - No Code Needed Convenience Options 0 Extra Ignition Key - No Keyless Ride 51 25 8 540 950 0 574.53 50.00 0 Extra Ignition Key - Keyless Fob Transmitter 66 12 8 555 168 0 $140.33 50.00 0 Police Side Stand Extension / Base 71 60 2 412 389 0 $31.76 $0.00 1 Map Light 71 60 2 452 819 1 5104.12 5104.12 0 Work Light 71 60 7 705 570 0 540.59 50.00 1 Note Pad Holder 65 14 0 421 315 1 542.35 542 35 0 POLICE Decal Set 82 00 0 419 312 0 $70.51 $0.00 0 Rear Flashlight Holder - Right or Left 71 60 2 452 836 0 $117.65 $0.00 0 Rear Flashlight / PR24 Holder - Right 71 60 2 452 838 0 $176.47 $0.00 0 Rear Flashlight / PR24 Holder - Left 71 60 2 452 839 0 $176.47 50.00 0 PR24 Holder - Left (LAPD -Style) 71 60 2 452 842 0 $205.88 $0.00 0 Ticket Book Holder (LAPD Style) 71 60 2 452 848 0 5111.76 $0.00 0 Rear Vertical Shotgun Mount 65 14 0 445 541 0 5471.18 $0.00 1 M4 Combat Assault Rifle Mount 71 60 2 452 894 1 5676.47 $676.47 1 Shotgun / Assault Rifle Mounting Bracket 71 60 2 452 840 1 $52.06 552.06 0 LAPD Rear Gun Lock Release 71 6o 2 452 877 0 $58.82 $0.00 0 Gun Lock Variable Timer (required for above) 71 60 2 452 395 0 $54.12 50.00 0 Heated Seat - Low 52 53 8 544 786 0 5371.54 50.00 0 Heated Seat - High 52 53 8 544 792 0 5371.54 50.00 0 Tire Pressure Gauge 82 12 0 140 377 0 $41.14 $0.00 1 BMW Motorrad Battery Charger (2.5 Ah) 77 02 8 551 897 1 5139.94 $139.94 0 DVD Repair Manuals R Models K5x 01 59 8 555 666 0 $88.84 50.00 0 Motorcycle Full Cover 71 60 2 212 962 0 $95.59 $0.00 0 Motorcycle Half Cover 71 60 2 212 204 0 534.41 50 00 Video Integration 0 L3 Mobile Vision Display Mount 71 60 2 409 959 0 $34.41 $0.00 0 Video System Camera Mount 71 60 2 407 779 0 $19.41 $0.00 0 Road Warrior Display Head Mount 71 60 2 409 960 0 $34.41 50.00 0 Road Warrior Processor Mount - Radio Box 65 14 2 153 832 0 534 86 30.00 0 Video System Icon Connection Plug 71 60 2 407 780 0 $8 53 $0.00 Note: Prices subject to change without notice Always verify accuracy of part pricing before submitting quotations. Final price is always determined by the selling authorized BMW Motorcycle dealer. R 1200 RT -P Motor Pricing Form K52 SF Quotation for: City of Temecula 3 Additional Accessories USA Qty Item Description Per Additional Accessories BMW P/NOrder # Retail GPS Navigation 1 BMW Navigator VI GPS Kit Complete 77 52 8 355 998 1 5759.20 1 GPS Dashboard - Upper* 77 31 8 545 867 1 3120.28 1 GPS Dashboard - Lower* 77 31 8 545 668 1 3101.75 1 GPS Release Push Button* 46 63 8 542 042 1 34.82 1 GPS Mount Cradle* 77 52 7 721 941 1 5137.79 0 Car Kit for Navigator V 77 52 8 544 460 0 3128.00 Storage Options O Saddlebag Liners (each) 71 60 7 704 109 0 581.82 0 Tank Top Bag 77 45 8 543 227 0 3277.84 Radio Options 1 Radio Power Plug Connector -, : 6r1 2 :H2 '187 1 39.41 1 Radio Speaker Plug 71 6fi ? 152 d4.1 1 39.41 1 Helmet Headset Interface Plug 71 60 2 407 782 1 39.41 0 Microphone Attachment Mount (need kit below) 71 60 2 408 075 0 325.59 O Kustom/Stalker/MIC Remote Attachment Kit 71 GO 2 452 841 0 311.76 1 Radio "Y" Power Harness 7: 60 2 452 880 1 335.29 1 Radio Quick Mounting Plate 71 60 2 408 076 1 $26.47 O Siren PA Cable Kit 71 60 2 447 074 0 $26.04 1 Low Band Antenna Mount 71 60 2 448 421 0 341.62 O 800 MHz Antenna Ground Plate 65 14 0 403 652 0 534.93 Accessory Connection Plugs 1 Accessory Connection Plugs (3) 11 60 2 452 846 1 39.41 1 Tyco DUAC Release Tool 71 50 ? 452 847 1 351.76 O Extension Cable - Power Socket 61 12 7 712 581 0 344.73 0 Power Socket Receptacle 61 34 7 694 306 0 330.28 O Power Socket Plug - DIN 61 13 8 060 106 0 322.52 Engine Protection 0 Valve Cover Guards - Stainless Steel 77 14:8 533 745 0 3201.79 0 Sump / Engine Protection Guard 11 84 8 532 939 0 5116.88 O Fillister Head Screws M6 x 20 (order 5) ' 07 12,9 908 076 0 32.52 0 Grommet (order 5) 13 53 1-341 283 0 51.74 0 Bushing (order 5) 11 84 8 544 832 0 53.61 0 Bracket front (order 1) 11 84 8 532 937 0 528.00 0 Bracket Rear (order 1) 11 848 532 940 0 545.66 O C -Clip Nut M6 (have been included w/brackets) 07 14 7 693 887 0 52.02 0 Fillister Head Screws M8 x 25 (order 5) 0712 9 907 382 0 $1.52 Note' Prices subject to change without notice. Always verify accuracy of part pricing before submitting quotations Final price is always determined by the selling authorized BMW Motorcycle dealer. Total Retail $759.20 $120 28 $101 75 $4 82 $137 79 $0 00 $0 00 50.00 $9 41 S9 41 $9.41 $0 00 $0.00 $35.29 $26 47 $0 00 $41 62 $0 00 $9 41 $51 76 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 50 00 50.00 $0 00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 50 00 R 1200 RT -P Motor Pricing Form K52 SF Quotation for: City of Temecula I Thr Radar Options O Front 12v Power Outlet (lighter style) 71 60 2 407 785 0 $53.88 $0 00 0 Front Single USB Power Outlet 71 60 2 446 871 0 $49.41 $0 00 0 Fused Front Power Socket Harness 71 60 2 409 958 0 529.12 50 00 0 Radar Connection Plug 11 60 2 452 549 0 $8.24 $0 00 0 Kustom Eagle Display Head Mount 71 80 2 407 787 0 $42.35 $0 00 O Kustom Raptor Display Head Mount 71 60.2 452 851 0 542.35 $0 00 0 Kustom Raptor Radar Counter Mount 71 60 2 452 852 0 531.33 $0 00 0 Kustom Ka Band Front & Rear Antenna Mounts 71 GO 2 452 852 0 564.38 $0.00 O Kustom K Band Front & Rear Antenna Mounts 71 60 2 452 584 0 567.06 50 00 0 Kustom Radar Remote Control Mounting Plate 71 50 2 452 855 0 521.18 $0 00 0 KustomiStalker/MIC Remote Attachment Mount 71 60 2452 841 0 511.76 $0 00 0 MPH Bee 111 Display Head Mount 71 60 2 409 957 0 $417.58 50 00 0 Stalker DSR 2X Display Head Mount 7 180 ? 452 856 0 541.47 50 00 0 Stalker DSR LED Display Head Mount 71 60 2 449 791 0 541.47 50 00 0 Stalker Dual Waterproof Display Head Mount 71 60 2 407793 0 545.88 50.00 0 Stalker Front & Rear Antenna Mounts 71 60 2 45:: 258 0 564.41 $0 00 O Stalker Radar Remote Control Mounting Plate 71 60 2 452 537 0$2294 50 00 0 Stalker Radar Counter Mount (radio box lid) 71 60 2 407 795 0 $24..71 $0.00 0 Radar 1 Lidar Gun Adaptor Plate 71 60 2 409 956 0 521.18 50 00 0 Kustom Talon Radar Gun Mount 65 14 0 415 855 0 5191.76 50.00 0 LT1 Ultralite 20120 Lidar Gun Mount 71 60 2 452 85r 0 5191.76 50.00 0 Kustom Pro Laser 3 Lidar Gun Mount 71 80 2 452 886 0 $191,76 50.00 0 Kustom Pro -Laser 4 Lidar Gun Mount 71 80 2 407 795 0 5191.76 50 00 0 Stalker II Radar Holster Mount 65 14 0 431 464 0 563.53 50.00 O Stalker Lidar Gun Mount (not XLR) 65 14 0 415 846 0 $153.41 50.00 0 Decatur Genesis Radar Holster Mount 65 14 0 445 545 0 5116.92 $500.0000 Note: Prices subject to change without notice Always verify accuracy of part pricing before submitting quotations Final price is always determined by the selling authorized BMW Motorcycle dealer, Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager It CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: August 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Quality Code Publishing for Municipal Code Services PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement with Quality Code Publishing for Municipal Code Services. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula utilizes the services of Quality Code Publishing for municipal codification purposes. Codification is the process of collecting and restating the laws of the City, as adopted by various ordinances, in the form of the City's municipal code. On July 1, 2010, the City entered into a five-year agreement with Quality Code Publishing for said services in the amount of $30,000. On July 1, 2015, the City entered into an amendment to the agreement extending the term by three years to July 1, 2018. The payment amount remained unchanged. Due to an increase in the number and length of ordinances adopted from July 2015 to the present, it is necessary to increase the amount of the agreement by $10,000. As the total agreement amount is proposed to change from $30,000 to $40,000, Council approval is also required. It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the second amendment to the agreement with Quality Code Publishing for municipal code services. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs associated with the proposed second amendment to the agreement are covered by the approved Fiscal Year 2017-2018 annual operating budget for the City Clerk's Office and the related purchase order will be processed upon Council approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Second Amendment to Agreement for Vendor Services 2. First Amendment to Agreement for Vendor Services 3. Agreement for Vendor Services SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND QUALITY CODE PUBLISHING MUNICIPAL CODE SERVICES THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of August 8, 2017 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Quality Code Publishing, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2010, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Vendor Services," in the amount of $30,000. b. On July 1, 2015, the City and Consultant entered into the First Amendment to that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Vendor Services to extend the term of the agreement to July 1, 2018. c. The parties now desire to increase the payment in the amount of $10,000 and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 4 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Vendor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit A, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The Second Amendment amount shall not exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), for additional government code services for a total Agreement amount of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) for the total term of the agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. 3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA QUALITY CODE PUBLISHING (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation) By: By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor Nancy Helmer, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONSULTANT Quality Code Publishing Nancy Helmer, President 7701 15th Avenue Northwest, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 216-9500 (206) 216-9900 nancyh@qcode.us 2 PM Initials: Date: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND QUALITY CODE PUBLISHING THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of July 1, 2015 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Quality Code Publishing (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect the following facts and purposes: a. On July 1, 2010 the City and Consultant entered into an Agreement entitled "Agreement to Codify Adopted City of Temecula Ordinances into the Municipal Code" in the amount of $30,000. The term of the agreement was for five -years, expiring June 30, 2015. The total cost of the agreement over the five-year period was not to exceed $30,000. b. The parties now desire to extend the term of the agreement to June 30, 2018 and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement entitled "TERM" is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later that June 30, 2018, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Section 11 of the Agreement entitled "NOTICES" is hereby amended to read as follows: Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as stated in Exhibit A of the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first written above. CITY OF TEMECULA By: Aaron Adams, City Manager ATTEST: By: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Quality Code Publishing (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Nancy L. Helmer President VENDOR Quality Code Publishing Nancy L. Helmer �7 7e l 8015 15th Avenue NW, Suite -01 Seattle, Washington 98117 (206) 216-9500 or (800) 328-4348 (206) 216-9900 nancyh@gcode.us Acting PM Initials: Date: ,(p �-! IN WITNESS WHEREOF„ the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first written above. CITY OF TEMECULA Quality Code Publishing (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Aaron Adams, City Manager ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Nancy L. H = mer Presiden VENDOR Quality Code Publishing Nancy L. Helmer 7701 15t" Ave. NW Seattle, Washington 98117 Phone (206) 216-9500 or (800) 328-4348 Fax (206) 216-9900 nancyh@gcode.us Acting PM Initial Date: 61.)14-1 AGREEMENT FOR VENDOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND QUALITY CODE PUBLISHING THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of July 1, 2010, between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Quality Code Publishing ("Vendor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2010, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2015, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES. Vendor shall codify the adopted City of Temecula Ordinances into the Temecula Municipal Code. 3. PERFORMANCE. Vendor shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Vendor shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Vendor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. 4. PAYMENT. a. The City agrees to pay Vendor monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit A, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit A other than the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed $30,000.00 (thirty thousand dollars) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Vendor will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. If the City disputes any of vendor's fees it shall give written notice to Vendor within 30 days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the vendor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Vendor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay, to Vendor the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Vendor will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4. Aareements\Ouality Code Puhlishina - 2010 1 6. DEFAULT OF VENDOR. a. The Vendor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Vendor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Vendor for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Vendor. If such failure by the Vendor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Vendor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Vendor, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Vendor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Vendor with written notice of the default. The Vendor shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Vendor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Vendor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Vendor shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Vendor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Vendor's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City. 9. INDEPENDENT VENDOR. a. Vendor is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent vendor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Vendor shall at all times be under Vendor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Vendor or any of Vendor's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Vendor shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Vendor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Vendor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Vendor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Vendor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Vendor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. Aareements\Ouality Code Puhlishina - 2010 2 10. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Vendor shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Vendor shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Vendor to comply with this section. 11. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. To City: Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Use this Address for a Delivery City of Temecula Service or Hand Deliveries ONLY: Attn: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 The City intends to relocate to a new City Hall on or about September of 2010. After the City has relocated Use this Address for a Delivery Service or Hand Deliveries ONLY: Call 951-694-6444 to determine if the City has relocated. To Vendor: City of Temecula Attn: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590. Quality Code Publishing 8015 15th Avenue NW, Suite #1 Seattle, Washington 98117 Attn: Nancy L. Helmer (800) 328-4348 Fax (206) 216-9900 12. ASSIGNMENT. The Vendor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Upon termination of this Agreement, Vendor's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Vendor. Agreements\0uality Code Puhlishina - 2010 3 13. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Vendor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 14. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Vendor, or Vendor's sub -vendors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Vendor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the Vendor or Vendor's sub -vendors on this project. Vendor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 19. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Vendor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Vendor and has the authority to bind Vendor to the performance of its obligations hereunder. Aareements\ouality Code Puhlishina - 2010 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA 01)142_ Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager Attest: Susan W. s, MMC, City Approved As to Form: Ierk Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney VENDOR Quality Code Publishina 8015. 15th Avenue NW, Suite #1 Seattle, Washington 98117 Phone (206) 216-9500 (800) 328-4348 Fax (206) 216-9900 B Name: L. Helmer Title: President (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) FSM Initials: - Date: 40,3 (-0 Agreements\Mality Code Publishing - 2010 5 EXHIBIT A PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE 1. SUPPLEMENT SERVICES. Supplement charge per page (30 copies) $20.00 2. ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING SERVICES. Initial data conversion N/C Database updating, per supplement (up to 50 pages) $75.00 Additional cost per page, if any, over 50 pages $1.00 One copy of the Code on CD-ROM $25.001 3. INTERNET SERVICES. One-time Set-up Fee N/C Monthly Storage and Maintenance Fee $40.00 4. CODEALERT (Optional). Monthly updating $25.00 Charge per ordinance $30.00 5. Shipping and handling will be prepaid by QCP and invoiced to the City upon delivery. 6. If a sales tax is applicable to this work, the amount of such tax will be added to the costs quoted in this contract. 7. Payment Schedule: Balance due upon delivery of products and services to the City. Balances which remain unpaid more than 45 days after delivery are subject to a late charge of 1.5% per month. 8. These prices are guaranteed not to increase before July 1, 2013. If QCP finds it necessary to request a price increase after June 30, 2013, QCP would notify the City in writing on or before April 1st of 2013 or 2014 to negotiate the amount and date of implementation of the increase. 'Price assumes the City also subscribes to QCP's Internet Services. EXHIBIT A PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE Revised March 10, 2014 1. SUPPLEMENT SERVICES. Supplement charge per page (28 copies) $22.00 2. ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING SERVICES. Initial data conversion N/C Database updating, per supplement (up to 50 pages) $75.00 Additional cost per page, if any, over 50 pages $1.00 One copy of the Code on CD-ROM $25.001 3. INTERNET SERVICES. One-time Set-up Fee N/C Monthly Storage and Maintenance Fee $40.00 4. CODEALERT (Optional). Monthly updating $25.00 Charge per ordinance $30.00 5. Shipping and handling will be prepaid by QCP and invoiced to the City upon delivery. 6. If a sales tax is applicable to this work, the amount of such tax will be added to the costs quoted in this contract. 7. Payment Schedule: Balance due upon delivery of products and services to the City. Balances which remain unpaid more than 45 days after delivery are subject to a late charge of 1.5% per month. 8. These prices are guaranteed not to increase before July 1, 2017. If QCP finds it necessary to request a price increase after June 30, 2017, QCP would notify the City in writing on or before April V` of 2017 or 2018 to negotiate the amount and date of implementation of the increase. 'Price assumes the City also subscribes to QCP's Internet Services. Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: August 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Ratify Standard Agreement with the State of California to Utilize the Services of the Office of Administrative Hearings PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ratify the Standard Agreement with the State of California to utilize the services of the Office of Administrative Hearings. BACKGROUND: The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is a quasi-judicial tribunal that hears administrative disputes. From time to time, the City of Temecula utilizes the services of OAH to conduct hearings and issue related decisions. A massage appeal hearing is an example of when OAH services are utilized. The City previously entered into an agreement with OAH in August 2007 (attached). While the City has not had any appeals over the last few years, that need arose recently with the filing of a massage appeal. When requesting hearing and decision services, OAH notified the City that they had updated their local government agreement since the City last utilized their services. Future services could be provided after the new agreement was executed (attached). The standard maximum amount allowable by the State in the agreement is $48,000. There is no set term in the standard agreement as the services are used on an as needed basis up to the maximum amount allowable. In order to be able to continue to utilize OAH services in the future as necessary, it is recommended that the City ratify the standard agreement with the State to utilize said services. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no specific fiscal impact associated with the proposed recommendation as the services are only utilized and invoiced as needed. In addition, appellants are required to submit a deposit to cover the anticipated cost of the hearing at the time an appeal is filed. Costs incurred by the City's attorneys are billed through the approved annual budget for the City Attorney's office. ATTACHMENTS: Agreements Dated August 2007 and June 2017 AGREEMENT IS AVIREEMENT, made and, entered into on 4 t 3•i 2,77 , at Sacramento, County of Sacramento, State of California, by and between the State of California, hereinafter called STATE, through its duly appointed Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the City of Temecula, hereinafter called CITY. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the services of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Department of General Services, may be needed by CITY for conducting hearings and issuing proposed decisions; and WHEREAS, STATE has the authority to contract with CITY for the rendering of hearing services pursuant to Government Code Section 27727, and is amenable to the furnishing of such services when required personnel are available by STATE, ;I .R&ORE, IT .IS,MUTUALLY AGREED.between the parties hereto as fgllows: I. Upon request of CITY, STATE will furnish the services of Administrative Law Judges to CITY for the purpose of conducting hearings under the authority of Government Code Section 27727. The assignment of Administrative Law Judges for hearings will be at the discretion of the Director and/or Presiding Administrative Law Judges, who may elect to hear the matter themselves. 2. In consideration of the performance of such services by STATE, CITY agrees to pay to STATE the cost of rendering such services. In the event a calendared ease is taken off calendar, or needs to be re-calendared, other than by the Office of Administrative Hearings, and the Office of Administrative Hearings is unable to schedule the Administrative Law Judge for another case, CITY agrees to pay STATE for the original hearing time or until the Judge is assigned to another case, whichever occurs first. Every effort will be made to promptly reassign the scheduled administrative law judge in the event a calendared matter is cancelled, taken off calendar, settled, re-calendared or continued. Costs shall be computed in accordance with the rates set forth in the Department of General Services Price Book current with the term of this Agreement. STATE agrees to submit invoices for services which are rendered hereunder. 3. This Agreement commences effective the date of first above written and shall continue in full force and effect until either party shall notify in writing the other party of its determination to terminate the Agreement, which termination shall occur sixty (60) days after the mailing of such notice. Z - T T ESS WHEREOF; this Agree es: a executed by a on behalf of the parties hereto and year first above written. OFFICE OF ADMINTSTRAT.IVE HEARIN R.ONAL 1 . DDRICHH, Director and Chief Admin trative Law Ju4ge (0A11 22, V. 1/05) CITY OF TEMECULA SHAWN D. NELSON City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM ETER M. THORSON City Attorney STANDARD AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between: AGREEMENT NUMBER 130503 LOCAL AGENCY'S NAME City of Temecula CONTRACTORS NAME Department of General Services / Office of Administrative Hearings 2 The term of this Agreement is Upon the date of approval and execution by all parties through five years 3. The maximum amount of this Agreement is $ 48,000.00 Forty Eight Thousand Dollars and No Cents 4. The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following exhibits which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement Exhibit A — Scope of Work Exhibit B — Budget Detail and Payment Provisions Exhibit C — General Terms and Conditions IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. 2 pages 1 pages 1 pages CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR'S NAME Office of Administrative Hearings BY (Authorized Sipnalun!) PRINTED NA AND TfTLE F PERSON SIGNING DATE SIGN D(1Rghuu t pe) it r7 Cheryl Hill, Staff Services Manager II ADDRESS 2349 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95833 LOCAL AGENCY DATE SIGNED(Do nu, type) er penalty of pe 'ry that I have full authority to execute this agreement on behalf of the Local Agency. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING Aaron Adams, City Manager ADDRESS 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK 1. Upon request of City of Temecula (hereinafter referred to as "Local Agency''), Department of General Services, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) agrees to furnish the services of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to the Local Agency, for the purpose of conducting hearings pursuant to Government Code section 27727 when required personnel are available by OAH. The assignment of ALJs for hearings will be at the discretion of the Director and/or Presiding Administrative Law Judges, who may elect to hear the matter themselves. The Local Agency agrees to provide OAH a written request for hearing with all pleadings, documents, papers, or other materials that have been provided to the other party. The Local Agency agrees to provide OAH copies of all applicable laws and ordinances governing the hearing. The Local Agency agrees that OAH will not be able to schedule a hearing or mediation until these materials are provided. The Local Agency agrees to inform OAH if the hearing is to be recorded or if a court reporter is required. The Local Agency agrees to inform OAH 30 days prior to the hearing if any accommodations or interpreters are required. In consideration of the performance of such services by OAH, the Local Agency agrees to pay to OAH the cost of rendering such services at the rate established at the time the services are rendered. In the event a calendared case is taken off calendar, or needs to be re-calendared, other than by OAH, and OAH is unable to schedule the ALJ for another case, the Local Agency agrees to pay OAH for the original hearing time or until the ALJ is assigned to another case, whichever occurs first. Every effort will be made to promptly reassign the scheduled ALJ in the event a calendared matter is cancelled, taken off calendar, settled, re-calendared or continued. The costs of OAH's services include filing fees, ALJ hourly rates, any reasonable costs related to any requested accommodations, and translator/interpreter fees as required. All costs associated with providing a record of the hearing (reporter/transcription, etc.) shall be billed directly to the Local Agency. ALJ hourly rates and filing fees charged by OAH will be the rates set forth in the Department of General Services' Price Book at the time the services are rendered. Rates for court reporters will be the current contract rates at the time the services are rendered, which vary by geographical location. Fees for translator/interpreters and transcription services will be based on current contract rates at the time the services are rendered. All rates are subject to change annually. The Local Agency further agrees to be responsible for the full costs of any service provided by OAH regardless of any agreement the Local Agency may have with a third party. The contract is effective upon approval and execution of all signatures to this contract. The term of this contract is five years from the effective date of the contract and may be extended by amendment. 2 2. The services shall be performed at a location convenient for all parties. 3. The project representatives during the term of this agreement will be: Office of Administrative Hearings Local Agency: City of Temecula Name: Alan Alvord Name: Randi Johl, City Clerk Phone: 619-525-4475 Phone: (951) 694-6421 Fax: 916-263-0545 Fax: (951) 694-6449 Email: Alan.Alvord(a�dgs.ca.gov Email: randi.johl@temeculaca.gov Direct all inquiries to: Office of Administrative Hearings Section/Unit: City Clerk's Office Local Agency: City of Temecula Address: 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Section/Unit: City Clerk's Office Attention: Tim Dean Email: randi.johl@temeculaca.gov Attention: Randi Johl, City Clerk _Address: 2349 Gateway Oaks Dr. Suite 200 Address: 41000 Main Street Sacramento, CA 95833 Temecula, California 92590 Phone: 916-263-0653 Phone: (951)694-6421 Fax: 916-263-0545 Fax: (951) 694-6449 Email: tim.dean(cr�dgs.ca.gov Email: randi.johl@temeculaca.gov 4. OAH will retain the administrative record, including electronic recording for 30 days following the issuance of a decision / proposed decision. After 30 days, OAH will transmit the complete record to the Local Agency unless the Local Agency directs otherwise. Decisions / Proposed Decisions and closed case files shall be directed to: Local Agency: City of Temecula Section/Unit: City Clerk's Office Attention: Randi Johl, City Clerk Address: 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Phone: (951) 694-6421 Fax: 951-694-6449 Email: randi.johl@temeculaca.gov 3 EXHIBIT B 1. INVOICING AND PAYMENT A. For services rendered in accordance with the Scope of Work, and upon receipt and approval of the invoices, the Local Agency agrees to compensate the Department of General Services, Office of Administrative Hearings, for actual expenditures incurred in accordance with the rates specified herein. Compensation for services rendered by OAH pursuant to this agreement shall not be dependent on the decision rendered by the ALJ in a hearing involving the Local Agency. OAH charges will include filing fees, Administrative Law Judge hourly rates, and translator/interpreter fees as required. All costs associated with providing a record of the hearing (reporter/transcription, etc.) shall be billed directly to the Local Agency. ALJ hourly rates and filing fees charged by OAH will be the rates set forth in the Department of General Services' Price Book at the time the services are rendered. Rates for court reporters will be the current contract rates at the time the services are rendered, which vary by geographical location. Fees for translator/interpreters and transcription services will be based on current contract rates at the time the services are rendered. All rates are subject to change annually. Any training required of the ALJs by the Local Agency to conduct these hearings will be paid out of the contract funds by the Local Agency at the prevailing ALJ hourly rate. The Price Book is available at http://www.dgs.ca.govlofs/Pricebook.aspx B. The OAH shall be paid not more frequently than monthly, in arrears, upon submission of an original invoice, which properly details all charges, expenses, direct and indirect costs. 4 EXHIBIT C GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. APPROVAL: This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both parties. 2. AMENDMENT: No amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the parties and approved as required. No oral understanding or Agreement not incorporated in the Agreement is binding on any of the parties. 3. CANCELLATION/TERMINATION: A. This agreement may be cancelled or terminated without cause by either party by giving 30 calendar days advance written notice to the other party. Such notification shall state the effective date of termination or cancellation and include any final performance and/or payment/invoicing instructions/requirements. B. Upon receipt of a notice of termination or cancellation from the Local Agency, OAH shall take immediate steps to stop performance and to cancel or reduce subsequent contract costs. C. OAH shall be entitled to payment for all allowable costs authorized under this agreement, including authorized non -cancelable obligations incurred up to the date of termination or cancellation, provided such expenses do not exceed the stated maximum amounts payable. 4. GOVERNING LAW: This contract is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 5. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES: In the event of a dispute, the Local Agency shall file a "Notice of Dispute" with the Director of OAH within 10 days of discovery of the problem. Within 10 days, the Director of OAH shall meet with the Local Agency for purposes of resolving the dispute. The Director of OAH shall make the final administrative decision regarding a dispute. 5 Item No. 8 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works / City Engineer DATE: August 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve Plans and Specifications, and Authorize the Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE SOLICITATION OF CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE, PW06-09, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LA PAZ AND TEMECULA PARKWAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) AND CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15332, CLASS 32 IN -FILL PROJECT BACKGROUND: On February 23, 2016, the City Council awarded a Construction Contract to Aghapy Group, Inc. (AGI), in the amount of $1,471,777, to construct the improvements for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 (Project). The Project is located at the northeasterly corner of La Paz Street and Temecula Parkway and consists of a total of 157 parking spaces, site lighting (LED with down -shielding), drainage, landscaping and irrigation using recycled water, perimeter sidewalks, and bicycle lockers. Construction began on March 24, 2016, and it was scheduled for completion in October 2016. On September 15, 2016, City staff notified the Contractor that the Contract is being terminated under Section 6-4 of the Specifications "Termination of Contract for Default" due to demonstrated incompetence, failure to perform, and violations of the terms of the contract. All work is currently suspended. The Project construction is approximately 40% complete. The City has taken over the project site and staff is seeking authorization to rebid the remaining work because the performance bond surety has refused to take over the project after Contractor's default. The City is pursuing further actions with the surety company. The Plans and Specifications of the Project required updating to reflect existing conditions. The updated Plans and Specifications are needed to rebid the Project and complete the construction with a new contractor. A revised set of Plans and Specifications has been prepared by Michael Baker International (MBI). The updated Plans and Specifications for the Project are complete and the Project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The Contract Documents are available for review in the office of the Director of Public Works. The Engineer's estimate to complete the project is $1,090,000. On January 8, 2014, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) approved federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for the project in the amount of $1,300,750. Due to this federal funding component, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document was required. In order to satisfy this requirement, a Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) was prepared. This was followed by an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist, a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), and an Archeological Survey Report (ASR). Final approval of these documents was achieved via the issuance of the federal Categorical Exclusion determination by Caltrans on August 27, 2015. This Project is exempt from CEQA requirements pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15332, In -Fill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. The conditions of Section 15332 of the CEQA guidelines are as follows: (a) The Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies, as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. (f) Specifically, the Temecula Park & Ride Focused Traffic Impact Analysis; the Noise Technical Memorandum; and the Lighting Technical Memorandum prepared by Michael Baker International, which are incorporated herein by reference and on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works, confirm that the Project will not result in any significant traffic, noise, or light impacts. Indeed, the Project is specifically designed to reduce traffic and improve air quality because it will take as many as 157 cars off the road by providing residents with a convenient area from which to coordinate carpooling and use commuter busing. The Temecula Park and Ride project meets all of the above criteria. FISCAL IMPACT: The Temecula Park and Ride is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18. The Project is funded with AB 2766 (State funds available for programs that reduce air pollution) and General Fund, as well as federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Developer Impact Funds (DIF — Police Facilities) are being utilized to fund security camera system infrastructure. Adequate funds are available in the project accounts to construct the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Determination Form 3. Project Description 4. Project Location RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE SOLICITATION OF CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE, PW06-09, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LA PAZ AND TEMECULA PARKWAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) AND CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTION 15332, CLASS 32 IN -FILL PROJECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The proposed Project consists of a total of 157 parking spaces, site lighting (LED with down -shielding), drainage, landscaping and irrigation using recycled water, perimeter sidewalks, and bicycle lockers to be located at the easterly corner of La Paz Street and Temecula Parkway ("Project"). B. On February 23, 2016, the City Council awarded a Construction Contract to Aghapy Group, Inc. (AGI), in the amount of $1,471,777, to construct the improvements for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 (Project). Construction began on March 24, 2016 and it was scheduled for completion in October 2016. On September 15, 2016, City staff notified the Contractor that the Contract is being terminated under Section 6-4 of the Specifications "Termination of Contract for Default" due to demonstrated incompetence, failure to perform, and violations the terms of the contract. All work is currently suspended. The Project construction is approximately 40% complete. The City has taken over the project site and staff is seeking authorization to rebid the remaining work because the performance bond surety has refused to take over the project after Contractor's default. We are pursuing further actions with the surety company. The Plans and Specifications of the Project required updating to reflect existing conditions. The updated Plans and Specifications are needed to rebid the Project and complete the construction with a new contractor. A revised set of Plans and Specifications has been prepared by Michael Baker International (MBI). C. On January 8, 2014, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) approved federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for the Project in the amount of $1,300,750. Due to this federal funding component, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document was required. In order to satisfy this requirement, a Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) was prepared. This was followed by an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist, a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), and an Archeological Survey Report (ASR). Final approval of these documents was achieved via the issuance of the federal Categorical Exclusion determination by Caltrans on August 27, 2015. D. The Project is otherwise exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32, In -Fill Development Project based upon the studies conducted in connection with the Project and the NEPA studies finding that: (1) The Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (2) the proposed Project occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (3) the Project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (4) approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) the Project site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Specifically, the Temecula Park & Ride Focused Traffic Impact Analysis; the Noise Technical Memorandum; and the Lighting Technical Memorandum prepared by Michael Baker International, which are incorporated herein by reference and on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works, confirm that the Project will not result in any significant traffic, noise, or light impacts. Indeed, the Project is specifically designed to reduce traffic and improve air quality because it will take as many as 157 cars off the road by providing residents with a convenient area from which to coordinate carpooling and use commuter busing. Section 2. Based on the findings set forth above, the City Council hereby approves the plans and specifications and authorizes the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Temecula Park and Ride, PW06-09 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of August, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of August 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION/CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION FORM 081RIV)Temecula CML 5459 (023) Dist. -Co. -Rte. (or Local Agency) P.M./P.M. E.A/Project No. Federal -Aid Project No. (Local Project)IProject No. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (Briefly describe project including need, purpose, location, limits, right-of-way requirements, and activities involved in this box. Use Continuation Sheet, if necessary.) The local agency proposes to provide a parking area for ridesharing commuters. The project is located at the northeast corner of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Road, and is being constructed on City -owned property; no new right of way will be acquired. Proposed facilities will include 157 parking spaces, sight lighting, drainage, landscaping, irrigation system, and bicycle lockers, Equipment staging areas are anticipated to be on the construction site. Construction activities include mass grading, storm drain instillation, and site improvements. Construction access will be from Vallejo Ave. CEQA COMPLIANCE (for State Projects only) Based on an examination of this proposal and supporting information, the following statements are true and exceptions do not apply (See 14 CCR 15300 et seq.): • If this project falls within exempt class 3, 4, 5, 6 or 11, it does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law. • There will not be a significant cumulative effect by this project and successive projects of the same type in the same place, aver time. • There is not a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. • This project does not damage a scenic resource within an officially designated state scenic highway. • This project is not located on a site included on any list compiled pursuant to Govt. Code § 65962.5 ("Cortese List"). • This project does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. CALTRANS CEQA DETERMINATION (Check one) ❑ Exempt by Statute. (PRC 21080[b]; 14 CCR 15260 et seq.) Based on an examination of this proposal, supporting information, and the above statements, the project is: ❑ Categorically Exempt. Class . (PRC 21084; 14 CCR 15300 et seq.) ❑ Categorically Exempt. General Rule exemption. [This project does not fall within an exempt class, but it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment (CCR 15061 [b][3].) Print Name: Environmental Branch Chief Print Name: Project Manager/DLA Engineer N/A N/A Signature Date Signature Date NEPA COMPLIANCE In accordance with 23 CFR 771.117, and based on an examination of this proposal and supporting information, the State has determined that this project: • does not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the environment as defined by NEPA and is excluded from the requirements to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and • has considered unusual circumstances pursuant to 23 CFR 771.117(b). CALTRANS NEPA DETERMINATION (Check one) El 23 USC 326: The State has determined that this project has no significant impacts on the environment as defined by NEPA, and that there are no unusual circumstances as described in 23 CFR 771.117(b). As such, the project is categorically excluded from the requirements to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. The State has been assigned, and hereby certifies that it has carried out the responsibility to make this determination pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title 23, United States Code, Section 326 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated June 07, 2013, executed between the FHWA and the State. The State has determined that the project is a Categorical Exclusion under: 1 23 CFR 771.117(c): activity (c)(13) ID 23 CFR 771.117(d): activity (d)( ) D Activity _ listed in Appendix A of the MOU between FHWA and the State ❑ 23 USC 327: Based on an examination of this proposal and supporting information, the State has determined that the project is a CE under 23 USC 327. Aaron Burton Sean Yeung Print Name: E / ental Prin Name: Project Manager/DLA Engineer ignatur;" Date Signature r0 ate Date of Categorical. Exclusion Checklist completion: 8/26/15 Date of ECR or equivalent : 8/26/15 Briefly list environmental commitments on continuation.sheet. Reference additional information, as appropriate (e.g., CE checklist, additional studies and design conditions). February 12, 2014 Page 1 oft CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONICATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION FORM Continuation Sheet 08IRIVITemecula CML 5459 (023) Dist. -Co. -Rte. (or Local Agency) P,M./P,M. E.A/Project No. Federal -Aid Project No. (Local Project)!Project No. Continued from page 1: Project Description: The local agency proposes to provide a parking area for ridesharing commuters. The project is located at the northeast corner of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Road, and is being constructed on City -owned property; no new right of way will be acquired. Proposed facilities will include 157 parking spaces, sight lighting, drainage, landscaping, irrigation system, and bicycle lockers. Equipment staging areas are anticipated to be on the construction site. Construction activities include mass grading, storm drain instillation, and site improvements. Construction access will be from Vallejo Ave. Cultural: CR -1 If buried cultural resources are encountered during construction, it is Caltrans policy that work stop in that area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. CR -2 In the event that human remains are found, the county coroner shall be notified and All construction activities within 60 feet of the discovery shall stop. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who will then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The person who discovered the remains will contact the District 8 Division of Environmental Planning: Gabrielle Duff, DEBC; (909) 383-6933 and Gary Jones, DNAC: (909 383-7505. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable. C R-3 The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians considers the project area to have a potential to contain artifacts that the Tribe would consider to have sacred nature. The Tribe will provide a Pechanga monitor for all ground disturbing activities associated with construction. February 12.2014 Page 2 of 2 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE Infrastructure / Other Project Project Description: This project includes the acquisition of property, design, and construction of a Park and Ride facility in the vicinity of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street. The Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) covers camera system infrastructure, and other identified Information Technology needs. Benefit / Core Value: This project enables and encourages Temecula residents to carpool when commuting. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of A Sustainable City. Project Status: The project is anticipated to be complete in Fiscal Year 2017-18. Department: Public Works -Account No. 210.165.747 PW06-09 Level: I Project Cost: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected 2019-20 Projected 2020-21 Projected 2021-22 Projected and Future Total Project Years Cost Administration Acquisition $ 463,155 $ 187,530 $ 78,085 $ 258,170 $ 541,240 $ 187,530 Construction $ 639,119 $ 1,024,843 $ 482,844 $ 2,146,806 Construction Engineering $ 216,989 $ 54,481 $ 76,000 $ 347,470 Design/Environmental $ 195,566 $ 100,189 $ 300,674 $ 295,755 Information Technology $ 1,738,595 $ 1,355,498 $ 558,844 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,652,937 Equipment $ 2,100 $ 97,900 $ 100,000 MSHCP $ 34,136 $ 34,136 Totals $ 1,738,595 $ 1,355,498 $ 558,844 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,652,937 Source of Funds: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Expenditures Budget Appropriation Projected 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Total Project Projected Projected Projected Cost AB 2766 $ 864,215 $ 258,170 $ 1,122,385 CMAC)`" $ 99,800 $ 1,200,950 $ 1,300,750 DIF (Police Facilities) $ 2,100 $ 97,900 $ 100,000 General Fund') $ 772,480 $ 56,648 $ 300,674 $ 1,129,802 Total Funding: $ 1,738,595 $ 1,355,498 $ 558,844 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,652,937 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 lit 1 (1) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds approved by the RCTC on January 8, 2014. (2) On 01/24/2017, City Council Approved $330,000 Additional Appropriation from General Fund Contributions 139 TEMECULA PARK AND RIDE Infrastructure / Other Projects Location Aerial Data - March 2010 0 150 300 Feet 600 138 Item No. 9 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: August 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve a Transfer of Funds and Award a Construction Contract to RJ Noble Company, Inc. for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road, PW 10-13 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Chris White, Associate Engineer - CIP RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve a transfer of funds, in the amount of $300,000, from Measure S Funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 2017-18 Capital Improvement Program Budget for Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide; 2. Award a Construction Contract to RJ Noble Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,418,872.50, for Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road (Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road), PW10-13; 3. Authorize the City Manager to approve Change Orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $141,887.25, which is equal to 10% of the Contract amount; 4. Make a finding that Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road, PW10-13, is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. BACKGROUND: As part of the Capital Improvement Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-12, the City Council approved appropriations to support a Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program that would implement the recommended maintenance activities identified in the previously completed Pavement Management System (PMS). The PMS prioritized the areas in need of repairs and identified the recommended method for these repairs. On November 22, 2011, City Council approved the Plans and Specifications, and authorized staff to solicit construction bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road, PW 10-13. On July 10, 2017, five bids were electronically opened and publicly posted on PlanetBids. The results were as follows: Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found RJ Noble Company, Inc., to be the lowest responsible bidder. RJ Noble Company, Inc. has successfully completed similar projects for other public agencies. The Engineer's Estimate for the project was $1,011.000. The project's duration is forty-five working days or approximately two months and one week. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is an element of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) to conserve open space, nature preserves and wildlife to be set aside in some areas. It is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in Western Riverside County. The City of Temecula is a permittee to the MSHCP and as such is required to abide by the Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Fee Remittance and Collection Policy adopted by Resolution 07-04 on September 10, 2007. The RCA is a joint regional authority formed by the County and the Cities to provide primary policy direction for implementation of the MSHCP. Beginning July 1, 2008, the RCA required that locally funded Capital Improvement Projects contribute applicable MSHCP fees within 90 -days of construction contract award. Fees outside the public right of way are calculated on a cost per acre of disturbed area basis, while fees for typical right of way improvements projects are 5% of construction costs. Projects funded by TUMF or Measure A are exempt from MSHCP fees, as those programs contribute directly to the MSHCP. The Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road project consists of constructing improvements within the existing right of way. There is no new disturbed area, thus, the project is exempt from MHSCP fees. FISCAL IMPACT: The Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road, PW 10-13 project is included in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22, and is funded with Measure A and Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. With the transfer of $300,000 of Measure "S" funds from the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide project, adequate funds will be available in the project accounts for the contract amount of $1,418,872.50, plus the 10% contingency amount of $141,887.25, for a total encumbrance of $1,560,759.75. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract 2. Project Description 3. Project Location Base Bid 1. RJ Noble Company, Inc. $1,418,872.50 2. Griffith Company $1,498,995.00 3. Harry h. Joh Company, Inc. $1,632,098.70 4 All American Asphalt $1,811,770.00 5 Hardy and Harper $2,296,000.00 Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found RJ Noble Company, Inc., to be the lowest responsible bidder. RJ Noble Company, Inc. has successfully completed similar projects for other public agencies. The Engineer's Estimate for the project was $1,011.000. The project's duration is forty-five working days or approximately two months and one week. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is an element of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) to conserve open space, nature preserves and wildlife to be set aside in some areas. It is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in Western Riverside County. The City of Temecula is a permittee to the MSHCP and as such is required to abide by the Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Fee Remittance and Collection Policy adopted by Resolution 07-04 on September 10, 2007. The RCA is a joint regional authority formed by the County and the Cities to provide primary policy direction for implementation of the MSHCP. Beginning July 1, 2008, the RCA required that locally funded Capital Improvement Projects contribute applicable MSHCP fees within 90 -days of construction contract award. Fees outside the public right of way are calculated on a cost per acre of disturbed area basis, while fees for typical right of way improvements projects are 5% of construction costs. Projects funded by TUMF or Measure A are exempt from MSHCP fees, as those programs contribute directly to the MSHCP. The Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road project consists of constructing improvements within the existing right of way. There is no new disturbed area, thus, the project is exempt from MHSCP fees. FISCAL IMPACT: The Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Winchester Road, PW 10-13 project is included in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-22, and is funded with Measure A and Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. With the transfer of $300,000 of Measure "S" funds from the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide project, adequate funds will be available in the project accounts for the contract amount of $1,418,872.50, plus the 10% contingency amount of $141,887.25, for a total encumbrance of $1,560,759.75. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract 2. Project Description 3. Project Location CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — WINCHESTER ROAD (JEFFERSON AVENUE TO YNEZ ROAD) PROJECT NO. PW10-13 FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPL-5459(024) THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 8th day of August, 2017, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and RJ Noble Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Contractor." WITNESSETH: That City and Contractor, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — WINCHESTER ROAD (JEFFERSON AVENUE TO YNEZ ROAD), PROJECT NO. PW10-13, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPL-5459(024), Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (latest edition) where specifically referenced in the Plans and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — WINCHESTER ROAD (JEFFERSON AVENUE TO YNEZ ROAD), PROJECT NO. PW10-13, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPL-5459(024). Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 990 Park Center Drive, Suite E Vista, CA 92081 (760) 734-1113 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provision, and Technical Specifications for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — WINCHESTER ROAD (JEFFERSON AVENUE TO YNEZ ROAD), PROJECT NO. PW10-13, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPL-5459(024). In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. 1 Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. 2. SCOPE OF WORK. Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM — WINCHESTER ROAD (JEFFERSON AVENUE TO YNEZ ROAD), PROJECT NO. PW10-13, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPL-5459(024). All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by City. 3. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of City or its authorized representatives. 4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The City agrees to pay, and Contractor agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY- TWO DOLLARS and FIFTY CENTS ($1,418,872.50), the total amount of the base bid. Contractor agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed forty-five working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by City. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by City. 5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS. a. Lump Sum Bid Schedule. Before submittal of the first payment request, the Contractor shall submit to the Director of Public Works a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the Director of Public Works may require. This schedule, as approved by the Director of Public Works, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the Contractor's payment requests. b. Unit Price Bid Schedule. Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the City, the Contractor shall be paid a sum equal to 95% of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (301h) day of each successive month as the 2 work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the Contractor filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the City on forms provided by the City. c. Payment for Work Performed. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. d. Payment of Interest. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. 7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES / EXTENSION OF TIME. a. Liquidated Damages. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, Contractor agrees to forfeit and pay to City the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to Contractor. b. Extension of Time. Contractor will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, including delays caused by City. Within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence of such delay, Contractor shall give written notice to City. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, Contractor shall provide written documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to City. Contractor's failure to provide such notice and documentation shall constitute Contractor's waiver, discharge, and release of such delay claims against City. 8. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, Contractor shall submit to City, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the Contractor has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by Contractor of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the City related to the payment. Contractor shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. 9. PREVAILING WAGES. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1720, 1720.9, 1725.5, 1771.1(a), 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. This project, work, or service will be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (DI R) pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4. 3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet website at: http://www.dir.ca.gov The Federal minimum wage rates for this project as predetermined by the United States Secretary of Labor are included in Exhibit "B" of the project specifications. Future effective general prevailing wage rates which have been predetermined are on file with the California Department of Industrial Relations and are referenced but not printed in the general prevailing wage rates. Contractor shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and if there is a difference between the minimum wage rates predetermined by the Secretary of Labor and the general prevailing wage rates determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations for similar classifications of labor, Contractor shall pay not less than the higher wage rate. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of Contractor alone. Contractor agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (Contractor's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by Contractor, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City. The Contractor shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the City for any and all costs incurred by the City as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The City shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the Contractor. 12. GRATUITIES. Contractor warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to City's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Contractor warrants that none of its partners, members or shareholders are related by blood or marriage to any employee of the City who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or who will administer this project nor are they in any way financially associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. Contractor further warrants that no person in its employ nor any person with an ownership interest in the Contractor has been employed by the City within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 4 14. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, Contractor shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever the Contractor has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, Contractor shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to City. 16. BOOKS AND RECORDS. Contractor's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the City. 17. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by City and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plants of Contractor and any of its suppliers. Contractor shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. 18. DISCRIMINATION. Contractor represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap. 19. CONTRACT ASSURANCE. The Contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The Contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Failure by the Contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such remedy, as recipient deems appropriate. 20. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. 21. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the Contract or the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the Contractor covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest 5 comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 22. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this Contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, as amended. 23. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the Contractor as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the City addressed as follows: Mailing and Delivery Address: Patrick A. Thomas, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 24. CLAIM DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event of any dispute or controversy with the City over any matter whatsoever, the Contractor shall not cause any delay or cessation in or of work, but shall proceed with the performance of the work in dispute. The Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided that pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the parties. The disputed work will be categorized as an "unresolved dispute" and payment, if any, shall be as later determined by mutual agreement or a court of law. The Contractor shall keep accurate, detailed records of all disputed work, claims and other disputed matters. All claims arising out of or related to the Contract or this project, and the consideration and payment of such claims, are subject to the Government Claims Act (Government Code Section 810 et seq.) with regard to filing claims. All such claims are also subject to Public Contract Code Section 9204 and Public Contract Code Section 20104 et seq. (Article 1.5), where applicable. This Contract hereby incorporates those provisions as though fully set forth herein. Thus, the Contractor or any Subcontractor must file a claim in accordance with the Government Claims Act as a prerequisite to filing a construction claim in compliance with Section 9204 and Article 1.5 (if applicable), and must then adhere to Article 1.5 and Section 9204, as applicable, pursuant to the definition of "claim" as individually defined therein. 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR: RJ Noble Company, Inc. 15505 E. Lincoln Avenue Orange, Ca. 92865-6620 (714) 637-1550 By: Michael J. Carver, President By: Steve Mendoza, Secretary Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney By: Maryann Edwards, Mayor 7 here C,1,rorn o Wine Country Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - WINCHESTER ROAD Circulation Project Project Description: This project includes the environmental processing, design, construction of pavement rehabilitation, and reconstruction of Winchester Road, from Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road, as recommended in the Pavement Management System. Benefit / Core Value: This project improves pavement conditions so that the transportation needs of the public, business industry, and government can be met. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: Design is complete. Construction is scheduled to be completed during in Fiscal Year 2016-17. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.650 PW 10-13 Level: I Project Cost: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2017 Carryover Budget 2017-18 Adopted Appropriation 2018-19 Projected I 2021-22 Projected 2019-20 2020-21 and Future Total Project Years Cost Projected Projected Administration $ 16,511 $ 137,464 $ 153,975 Construction $ 1,276,000 $ 1,276,000 Construction $ 16,511 $ 1,513,464 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,529,975 Engineering $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Design $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Totals $ 16,511 $ 1,513,464 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,529,975 Source of Funds: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2017 Carryover Budget 2017-18 Adopted Appropriation 2018-19 Projected 2019-20 Projected 2020-21 Projected 2021-22 Total Project Projected Cost Measure A $ 16,511 $ 867,274 $ 883,785 STP(') $ 646,190 $ 646,190 Total Funding: $ 16,511 $ 1,513,464 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,529,975 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 (1) Surface Transportation Program (STP). STP will only pay 80% PAVEMENT REHABILITION PROGRAM - WINCHESTER ROAD Circulation Project Location Aerial Data - March 2010 0 200 400 Feet 800 4 CC Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager It CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: August 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Accept Improvements and File the Notice of Completion for the Citywide Sidewalk Project (Ynez Road between Pauba Road and Portraits Lane), PW15-12 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Chris White, Associate Engineer -CIP RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Accept the Improvements of the Citywide Sidewalk Project (Ynez Road between Pauba Road and Portraits Lane), PW15-12, as complete; 2. Direct the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the Contract amount; 3. Release the Labor and Materials Bond seven months after filing the Notice of Completion, if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On December 13, 2016, the City Council awarded a Construction Contract to LC Paving & Sealing, Inc., in the amount of $64,462, and authorized the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed a 10% contingency of $6,446.20. The project installed sidewalk on the east side of Ynez Road between Pauba Road and Portraits Lane. The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. All work is warranted for a period of one year from April 27, 2017, the date the work was substantially complete. The retention for this project will be released pursuant to the provisions of Public Contract Code Section 7107. The Citywide Sidewalk Project (Ynez Road Sidewalk between Pauba Road and Portraits Lane) is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2017-21, and is funded with General Fund Contributions. The original Contract amount was $64,462. There is one Contract Change Order totaling $4,536, which resulted in a final Contract amount of $68,998. Sufficient funds are available in the Citywide Sidewalk account to cover the increase. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of the acceptance of the project and filing the Notice of Completion. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release 3. Maintenance Bond RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES Pursuant to Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. 3. The Nature of Interest is a Contract which was awarded by the City of Temecula to LC Paving & Sealing, Inc., 330 Rancheros Drive, Suite 208, San Marcos, California. 92069 to perform the following work of improvement: Citywide Sidewalk Project (Ynez Road between Pauba Road and Portraits Lane), Project No. PW15-12 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on August 8, 2017. That upon said contract Argonaut Insurance Company, 20335 Ventura Blvd., Suite 426 Woodland Hills, California 91364, was surety for the bond given by the said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: Citywide Sidewalk Project (Ynez Road between Pauba Road and Portraits Lane), Project No. PW15-12 6. The location of said property is: East side of Ynez Road from Pauba Road to Portraits Lane, Temecula, California. Dated at Temecula, California, this 8th day of August, 2017. City of Temecula Randi Johl, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 8th day of August, 2017. City of Temecula Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE for YNEZ ROAD SIDEWALK (Pauba Road to Portraits Lane) PROJECT NO. PW15-12 This is to certify that L.C. PAVING & SEALING, INC (hereinafter the "Contractor") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the Contractor or by any of the Contractor's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of its Contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as YNEZ ROAD SIDEWALK (Pauba Road to Portraits Lane), PROJECT NO. PW15- 12, situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: YNEZ ROAD, TEMECULA, CA ADDRESS OR DESCRIBE LOCATION OF WORK The Contractor declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the Contractor. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the Contractor hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute NONE NONE Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 7100, the Contractor does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the Contractor by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the Contractor has not disputed above. Dated: 07/11/2017 By: CONTRAC OR: L.C. PAVING & SEALING, INC. D Signature MARISA HAAS, OFFICE MANAGER Print Name and Title RELEASE R-1 CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BOND NO. CMGP0000184 MAINTENANCE BOND for YNEZ ROAD SIDEWALK (Pauba Road to Portraits Lane) PROJECT NO. PW15-12 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT LC Paving & Sealing, Inc. 330 Rancheros Dr. Ste. 208 San Marcos, CA 92069 NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR a Corporation (hereinafter called "Principal"), and (fill in whether a Corporation, Partnership, or Individual) Argonaut Insurance Company 20335 Ventura Blvd, Ste. 426 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY (hereinafter called "Surety"), are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TEMECULA (hereinafter called "Owner") in the penal sum of Six Thousand, Four Hundred Forty -Six DOLLARS AND Twenty CENTS ($6,446.20 ) in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than ten percent (10%) of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the Contract, for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a certain Contract with the Owner, dated the 13th day of December , 2016 , a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of YNEZ ROAD SIDEWALK (Pauba Road to Portraits lane), PROJECT NO. PW15-12: WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee for the period of one year after approval of the final estimate on said job, by the Owner, against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period; and WH AS, the said Contract has been completed, and was the final estimate approved on this the } day of PTO 1 , 20 fl . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year from the date of approval of the final estimate on said job pursuant to the Contract, the work done under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor workmanship in the execution of said work, and the carrying out of the terms of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were furnished thereunder, then this obligation shall remain in full force and virtue, otherwise this instrument shall be void. MAINTENANCE BOND MB -1 As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified, costs and reasonable expenses and fees shall be included, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City of Temecula in successfully enforcing this obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract, or to the work, or to the Specifications. Signed and sealed this 12th (Seal) SURETY: By: day of July Argonaut,lnsurance Company Gab Iia Gr (Name) Attorney -In -Fact (Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: PRINCI B , 20 17 LC Pg & Sealing, Inc. (Nape) (Title) V A --ri-(6 By: (Name) Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney (Title) NOTE: Signatures of two corporate officers required for corporations. A Notarial Acknowledgement or Jurat must be attached for each of the Surety and Principal Signatures. MAINTENANCE BOND MB -2 MARISA ANN HAAS Commission • 2122991 Notary Public - California g San Diego County =T , ' * •My Comm, Expires =and 2819 ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of SAN DIEGO before me MARISA HAAS, NOTARY PUBLIC (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared JOSE A. SALINAS who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand a Signature 1 (Seal) CMGP0000184 Argonaut Insurance Company $1,612.00 Deliveries Only: 225 W. Washington, 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 United States Postal Service: P.O. Box 469011, San Antonio, TX 78246 POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the Argonaut Insurance Company, a Corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois and having its principal office in the County of Cook, Illinois does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint: Gabriella Grady. Shilo Lee Losing, Stephanie Hope Shur Their true and lawful agent(s) and attorney(s)-in-fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above, to make, execute, seal and deliver for and on its behalf as surety, and as its act and deed any and all bonds, contracts, agreements of indemnity and other undertakings in suretyship provided, however, that the penal sum of any one such instrument executed hereunder shall not exceed the sum of: 510,000,000.00 This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed and sealed under and by the authority of the following Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of Argonaut Insurance Company: "RESOLVED, That the President, Senior Vice President, Vice President, Assistant Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and each of them hereby is authorized to execute powers of attorney, and such authority can be executed by use of facsimile signature, which may be attested or acknowledged by any officer or attorney, of the Company, qualifying the attorney or attorneys named in the given power of attorney, to execute in behalf of, and acknowledge as the act and deed of the Argonaut Insurance Company, all bond undertakings and contracts of suretyship, and to affix the corporate seal thereto." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Argonaut Insurance Company has caused its official seal to be hereunto affixed and these presents to be signed by its duly authorized officer on the 18th day of July, 2013. STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HARRIS SS: ,,,.,,,,,,eArgonaut Insurance Company : : r �-x 8 SEAL 1948 by• Joshua C. Betz Senior Vice President On this 18th day of July, 2013 A.D., before tne, a Notary Public of the State of Texas, in and for the County of Harris, duly commissioned and qualified, came THE ABOVE OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, to me personally known to be the individual and officer described in, and who executed the preceding instrument, and he acknowledged the execution of same, and being by me duly sworn, deposed and said that he is the officer of the said Company aforesaid, and that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company, and the said Corporate Seal and his signature as officer were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said corporation, and that Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of said Company, referred to in the preceding instrument is now in force. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed my Official Seal at the County of Harris, the day and year first above written. KATHLEEN M MEEKS NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF TEXAS MY COMM. EXP 07-15-2017 ILµ�1 %'m. `afYktuJlrr (Notary Public) I, the undersigned Officer of the Argonaut Insurance Company, Illinois Corporation, do hereby certify that the original POWER OF ATTORNEY of which the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy is still in full force and effect and has not been revoked. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and affixed the Seal of said Company, on the 12th day of July 2017. Sarah Heineman , VP -Underwriting Surety THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT VALID UNLESS THE WORDS ARGO POWER OF ATTORNEY ARE IN BLUE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON AUTHENTICITY OF THIS DOCUMENT CALL (210) 321 - 8400. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of LOS ANGELES On :111! 1 2 2017 Date ) before me, SHIRLEY GIGGLES; NOTARY PUBLIC personally appeared Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer GABRIELLA GRADY Name(s) of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. x SHtfiLEY GIGGLES Notary Public - Calitornia z Los Angeles County z Commission # 2163817�2�- M Comm Expires Seo Place Notary Seal Above WITNESS my hand nd official seal. Signato OPTIONAL ' • s re of Notary Public Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: _ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator L I Other: Signer Is Representing: '�.s.•a• 5 _ r w: a: •e. v0.: -_ � .{.V.0 '1I.>.` .' 'G...T_ f.-. _yCf.... _ _ ©2014 National Notary Association • www.NationalNotary.org • 1 -800 -US NOTARY (1-800-876-6827) Item #5907 This Space for Filing Use Only p r State of California 1 ,..„,-•m Secretary of State 0R„,> Statement of Information (Domestic Stock and Agricultural Cooperative Corporations) FEES (Filing and Disclosure): $25.00. If this is an amendment, see instructions. IMPORTANT - READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM 1. CORPORATE NAME 2. CALIFORNIA CORPORATE NUMBER No Change Statement (Not applicable if agent address of record is a P.O. Box address. See instructions.) 3. If there have been any changes to the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State, or no statement of information has been previously filed, this form must be completed in its entirety. If there has been no change in any of the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State, check the box and proceed to Item 17. Complete Addresses for the Following (Do not abbreviate the name of the city. Items 4 and 5 cannot be P.O. Boxes.) 4. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE CITY STATE ZIP CODE 5. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA, IF ANY CITY STATE ZIP CODE 6. MAILING ADDRESS OF CORPORATION, IF DIFFERENT THAN ITEM 4 CITY STATE ZIP CODE Names and Complete Addresses of the Following Officers (The corporation must list these three officers. A comparable title for the specific officer may be added; however, the preprinted titles on this form must not be altered.) 7. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 8. SECRETARY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 9. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE Names and Complete Addresses of All Directors, Including Directors Who are Also Officers (The corporation must have at least one director. Attach additional pages, if necessary.) 10. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 11. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 12. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 13. NUMBER OF VACANCIES ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IF ANY: Agent for Service of Process If the agent is an individual, the agent must reside in California and Item 15 must be completed with a California street address, a P.O. Box address is not acceptable. If the agent is another corporation, the agent must have on file with the California Secretary of State a certificate pursuant to California Corporations Code section 1505 and Item 15 must be left blank. 14. NAME OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS 15. STREET ADDRESS OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA, IF AN INDIVIDUAL CITY STATE ZIP CODE Type of Business 16. DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION 17. BY SUBMITTING THIS STATEMENT OF INFORMATION TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CORPORATION CERTIFIES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS TRUE AND CORRECT. DATE TYPE/PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM TITLE SIGNATURE SI-200 (REV 01/2013) Page 1 of 1 APPROVED BY SECRETARY OF STATE Item No. 11 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: August 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Approve the Agreement between City of Temecula and Redhawk Community Association for Sidewalk Maintenance for Portions of Redhawk Community PREPARED BY: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF MEANDERING SIDEWALKS IN PORTIONS OF REDHAWK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION COMMON AREAS WHERE SIDEWALKS MEANDER AROUND THE LEGAL BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN ASSOCIATION'S COMMON AREAS AND CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY; AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA BACKGROUND: The Redhawk Community Association manages and maintains the common areas and facilities of the Redhawk community, including landscaping areas adjacent to City right of way. In a portion of these areas, the sidewalk meanders back and forth between the Association's common area and the City's right of way. In order to clarify maintenance responsibilities and provide for efficient maintenance of the sidewalks in these areas, it is proposed for the City to provide maintenance of all sidewalks within both the right of way and Association common area. Proposed Agreement: According to the proposed Agreement, the City shall maintain all sidewalks, including those sidewalks located on Association common property. The Association shall continue to maintain the landscaping within the common area properties. The Association shall pay the City the sum of four thousand eight hundred dollars ($4,800) per year for the City's costs of providing sidewalk maintenance services. The City's maintenance of sidewalks shall include the following tasks: 1. Investigate complaints from citizens or the Association concerning the condition of a portion of a sidewalk in the Sidewalk Area. 2. Make necessary repairs to the affected portion of the sidewalk including grinding, ramping, removal of invasive roots, and, when necessary, replacement in accordance with the City's standards for sidewalk repairs. 3. Provide traffic controls and safety warnings in accordance with City standards. 4. With respect to the Sidewalk Area, City shall maintain a record of complaints received regarding sidewalks and City work to inspect and repair the portions of sidewalk described in these complaints. City shall maintain such records in the same form and duration as it maintains records for other sidewalks within City rights of way outside of the Sidewalk Area. FISCAL IMPACT: Redhawk Community Association shall pay City $4,800 per year for cost of providing sidewalk maintenance services. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 17 2. Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF MEANDERING SIDEWALKS IN PORTIONS OF REDHAWK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION COMMON AREAS WHERE SIDEWALKS MEANDER AROUND THE LEGAL BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN ASSOCIATION'S COMMON AREAS AND CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY; AND FINDING THE CITY'S ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Approval of Agreement. The City Council hereby approves that certain agreement entitled "Agreement for Sidewalk Maintenance for Portions of Redhawk Community" ("Agreement") between the City of Temecula ("City") and Redhawk Community Association ("Association"), and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City in the form presented to the City Council with such non -substantive changes as may be approved by the City Attorney as necessary and convenient to implement the purposes of the Agreement. Section 2. City Manager Authority. The City Manager is authorized and directed to take all actions necessary and convenient to implement the Agreement and to enter into such additional agreements as may be necessary and convenient to implement the agreements, including but not limited to, executing operating memoranda and agreements, certifications, escrow, amendments to the Agreement, and similar agreements and actions. Section 3. CEQA. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City's approval of the Agreement is exempt from CEQA and further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be filed in compliance with CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Agreement provides for the maintenance of sidewalks that meander back and forth between the Association's common areas and the City's right of way. As such, there is no possibility that the Agreement will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of August, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of August, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE FOR PORTIONS OF REDHAWK COMMUNITY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of 8th day of August, 2017, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Redhawk Community Association, a California non-profit corporation ("Association"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The parties agree that the following Recitals set for the facts and purposes upon which this Agreement is based and are true and correct: A. Association manages and maintains the common areas and facilities of the Redhawk community located in the southern portion of the City of Temecula. B. City manages and maintains sidewalks within the City's rights of way. C. A portion of the Redhawk common areas and the City's rights of way includes meandering sidewalks with adjoining landscaping. This area is described and depicted on Exhibit A and shall be referred to as the "Sidewalk Area." D. The meandering sidewalks in the Sidewalk Area meander around the legal boundary line between the Association's common areas and the City's rights of way. E. The Association and the City desire to clarify maintenance responsibilities of the sidewalks in the Sidewalk Area and provide for the efficient maintenance of the sidewalks. 2. Term. This Agreement shall commence on August 8, 2017, and shall remain and continue in effect until June 30, 2019, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. Sidewalk Maintenance Responsibilities; Cost. A. City agrees to maintain all sidewalks in the Sidewalk Area, including those sidewalks located on Association common area property. B. Association shall pay to the City the sum of Four Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($4,800) per year for the City's costs of maintaining the sidewalks in the Sidewalk Area. This amount is payable in advance on July 1st of each year, beginning July 1, 2017. This amount shall be subject to an annual adjustment each year based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) — All Urban Consumers — Los Angeles, Riverside and Orange County — CA for the twelve-month period prior to the year in which the change will be effective. C. City's maintenance of the sidewalks shall consist of the following tasks: § Investigate complaints from citizens or the Association concerning the condition of a portion of a sidewalk in the Sidewalk Area. § Make necessary repairs to the affected portion of the sidewalk including grinding, ramping, removal of invasive roots, and, when necessary, replacement in accordance with the City's standards for sidewalk repairs. 1 § Provide traffic controls and safety warnings in accordance with City standards. § With respect to the Sidewalk Area, City shall maintain a record of complaints received regarding sidewalks and City work to inspect and repair the portions of sidewalk described in these complaints. City shall maintain such records in the same form and duration as it maintains records for other sidewalks within City rights of way outside of the Sidewalk Area. 4. Termination of Agreement. Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason, with or without cause on sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other. 5. Indemnification. City agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Association, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, or liability of any kind or nature which the Association, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of City's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of the Association. 6. General Provisions. A. Notices. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: To City: To Association: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: City Manager The Avalon Management Group, Inc. Attn: John Ellett 43529 Ridge Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 B. Assignment. The City shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof without prior written consent of the Association, provided, however, that City may employ contractors to perform the required maintenance of the sidewalks in the Sidewalk Area. C. Independent Contractor. City is and shall at all times remain as to the Association a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of City shall at all times be under City's exclusive direction and control. Neither Association nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of City or any of City's officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. City shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, 2 employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the Association. City shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against Association, or bind Association in any manner. D. Authority to Execute this Agreement. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of City warrant and represent that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the City and has the authority to bind City to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Association warrant and represent that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Association and has the authority to bind Association to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA a municipal corporation Maryann Edwards, Mayor Attest: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney 4 REDHAWK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit corporation By: Name: Harry Garnett Title: President By: Name: Terry Koen Title: Vice President [Two signatures required for Association or evidence of corporate authority] EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION AND DEPICTION OF SIDEWALK AREA 6 4Peirarti) 0010- ts° See Detail A-29 See Detail A-1 See Detail A-25 See Detail A-7 See Detail A-9 ----- See See DetailA 10 See Detail A-11 #zs See Detail A 12 See Detail A-13 See Detail A-20 See Detail A-21 See Detail A-19 See Detail A-18 edhawk Community Redhawk HOA Boundary 00 DETAIL A-1 v -7 v EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA APN, 960-320-001 N APN: 961-161-024 APN, 961-161-018 APN, 961-161-019 N❑TE1 NOT TO SCALE LTAIL A -P CURB FACE EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA APN: 961-161-024 APNI 961-161-022 N • CURB FACE N❑TE: N❑T T❑ SCALE EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA APN' 960-053-005 AIL A-3 APNI 961-183-009 APNI 961-183-011 APN: 961-183-024 ?/'NOTE: N❑T T❑ SCALE APN; 961-183-014 D - TAIL A -L EXISTING Ili SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA APN: 960-081-010 CURB FACE 7 APN: 961-183-002 APN: 961-183-024 CURB FACE APN: 961-183-005 450 ode NOTE! NOT TO SCALE APN: 961-183-004 APNI 961-183-003 rTAIL A -b a .� c a .a - • a . .1, EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECIJLA N APN, 961-202-001 NOTEg NOT TQ SCALE CURB FACE v Os • • APN 960-081-010 CURB FACE APN1 961-202-001 CURB FACE All A -A / NOTE: NOT TO SCALE APN1 962-270-056 • .b \,. v s. EXISTING HOA SIDEVALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA DHTAIL A-7 APN1 961-202-005 APN1 961-202-004 APN+ 961-202-003 APN; 961-202-001 APN1 961-202-002 / CURB FACE AM! 962-270-056 CURB FACE P EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA N❑TE: N❑T T❑ SCALE DI- TAI A-8 APN: 961-192-027 EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA iPN 962-270-05 CURB FACE APNi 961-192-026 / APN: 961-192-025 CURB FACE / APN' 961-192-024 leo, / APNi 962-270-054 APN; 962-270-043 APN: 962-270-044 APN: 962-270-045 APN: 962-270-046 NOTE: NOT TO SCALE 5 APN: 961-272-010 APN, 961-272-001 Db AIL A-9 IN: 962-270- 48 AP 96 270-054 APN: 962-270-0 APN' 962-270-049 CURB FACE CURB FACE APN, 961-272-011 APN: 962-270-050 APN' 962-270-051 APN 962-270-052 / NOTE! NOT TO SCALE > `-7 . > .v • ' e "I. \ . '7 . _ a 'e . 9 EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA D p 7 v EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA NON -CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALK APNI 961-271-011 DI- TAIL A APNi 961-271-018 CURB FACE 1 APN: 961-271-010 NOTE: NOT TO SCALE APN; 961-271017/ DETAIL A-11 ! ' APN: 961-271-005 . v \ EXISTING HDA SIDEWALK TD BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY ®F TEMECULA NON -CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALK APN3 961-271-004 APN: 961-271-003 NOTE: TE SCALE APN+ 961-2271-D16 100' R/W _,LTA=L A -1P APN: 962-072-029 APN' 962-072-006 APN; 962-072-007 APN, 962-072-008 EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA NON_CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALK APN: 962-072-009 NOTE: NOT TO SCALE 1 3 _ A-13 \ \ CURB FACE \ APN, 962-072-029 APN: 962-072-028 APN: 962-072-019 NOTE: NOT TO SCALE A-1/ APN+ 962-072-020 APN1 962-072-021 7 \ \ APN1 962-072-028 ///4 EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY TH CITY OF TEMECULA NOTE: NOT T❑ SCALE NEIN-CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALK N 1 APNI 962-072-027 ARM 962-073-005 APN 962-073-002 • APNI 962-073-009 DE I A=L A -lb APN1 962-073-003 APNI 962-073-004 EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO HE MAINTAINED HY THE CITY IF TEMECULA CURB FACE NOTES NOT T❑ SCALE //A DI - AID A-16 APNI 962-073-004 API+ 962-091-023 EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA NON -CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALK NOTE1 NOT TO SCALE D - TAIL A-17 EKISTIN6 MUA SIIEVALK TO BE MAINTADNED BY THE CITY la TEMECULA NUN -CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALK APNI 962-040-012 RfD`\PARK �A y APN* 962-091-016 F TAIL A-18 EXISTING HDA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA NON -CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALK APN' 962-040-012 OM OOP 011711, OM 1M CURB FACE REDHAWK PARKWAY - CURB FACE MID Oa ARM 962-190-006 -TAII A-19 -o APNI 962-210-028 EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY or TEMECULA NON -CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALK NOTE; NOT T❑ SCALE NAIL A --P CURB FACE /r - APN: 962-210-028 EXISTING HDA SIDEWALK TL7 BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA UR APN: 962-221-021 NOTE: NOT TO SCALE APN: 962-210-028 APN: 962-210-027 DEIAI A-21 APN: 962-221-021 EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK T❑ BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA • NOTE: NOT TO SCALE 3 CURB FACE DPTAIL A -P 7 NOTE; NOT T❑ SCALE N 7 ///4 EXISTING H0A SIDEWALK T❑ BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY DF TEMECULA NUN -CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALK DETAIL A -P3 APN' 962-040-012 CURB FACE 7 7 7 CURB FACE / APN: 962-030-003 -7 -7 D EXISTING HDA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA NON -CITY MAINTAINED SIDEWALK NOTE: NOT TO SCALE FTAI A -P/ APN: 961-271-003 co APN: 961-271-003 APN: 961-271-016 WOLF V ALLEY ROAD APN: 962-072-004 APN: 962-072-029 APN: 962-072-005 w R7 CURB FACE CURB FACE D . o D, EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA NOTE: NOT TO SCALE 5 - I AIL A-25 APN; 961-230-007 APN; APN+ 961-230-006 961-230-005 CURB FACE APN; 961-261-029 APN; 962-072-029 APN; 962-072-002 / CURB FACE 0 -13 APN; 962-253-036 APN; 962-253-034 APN; 962-253-035 EXISTING NCA SIDEVALN TOHE PAUNCHED HP THE CITY OF TEMECULA APN: 962-253-033 NOTE; NOT T❑ SCALE AIL 6-26 APN1 961-261-015 /CURB FACE I APN, 961-261-014 / APN, 961-261-030 / CURB FACE ARM 962-253-037 NOTE, NOT TD SCALE APN, 962-253-030 APN* 962-253-029 EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA FIATI A -P/ APN, 961-263-003 APN: 961-263-004 APN: 961-263-021 ee APN, 961-263-002 CURB FACE NOTE: NOT T❑ SCALE APN: 962-253-038 v EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK T❑ BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXISTING HOA SIDEWALK TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA _,LTAIL A-88 APNi 961-263-021 APN' 962-252-D18 APN: 962-252-017 NOTE; NOT TO SCALE DETAIL A-29 APN: 960-010-043 EXISTING HOA S I EEWALx TO BE MAINTAINED DY THE CITY OF TEIECULA R/W NOTE: NOT TO SCALE APN' 961-080-026 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSENT Item No. 12 ACTION MINUTES July 25, 2017 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District meeting convened at 8:09 PM CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar (absent), Rahn, Stewart, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 13 Approve the Action Minutes of July 11, 2017 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Naggar absent) Motion by Edwards, Second by Stewart; and electronic vote reflected approval by Edwards, Rahn, Stewart and Comerchero with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of July 11, 2017. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 8:10 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, August 8, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes 072517 1 Item No. 13 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Director of Community Services DATE: August 8, 2018 SUBJECT: Approve a Sponsorship Agreement with the Temecula Valley Woman's Club for Use of the Community Recreation Center (CRC) Kitchen and Multi - Purpose Room PREPARED BY: Mylene Waterman, Senior Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve a Sponsorship Agreement with the Temecula Valley Woman's Club for in-kind facility use in the amount of $1,102, for the use of the Community Recreation Center (CRC) kitchen and multi-purpose room. BACKGROUND: The Temecula Valley Woman's Club holds their annual fundraising event, known as the Annual Holiday Home Tour in November. This event attracts thousands of people who tour decorated homes in area. Several locations offer visitors a guided tour of each home which is beautifully decorated in holiday decor. Also available for sale are handmade baked goods which adds to their fundraising. The Women's Club is requesting City sponsorship for the use of the CRC kitchen and multi-purpose room for the preparation, baking, and packaging of baked goods to be sold at the Tour on November 11 and 12, 2017. Proceeds from the Temecula Valley Woman's Club Holiday Home Tour go toward several important causes including but not limited to: • Many scholarships for high school students including the Dollars for Scholars program • Animal and horse rescue facilities • Rancho Damacitas group home for children • Oak Grove autism educational treatment center • Domestic violence awareness and prevention • Military support and support of the City's Fallen Heroes Memorial • Women's health including Michelle's Place • Local arts including the Temecula Theater Foundation to benefit the Old Town Temecula Community Theater • Temecula & Murrieta libraries and the Temecula Valley Museum FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS: Sponsorship Agreement SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TEMECULA VALLEY WOMAN'S CLUB THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of this 8th day of August, 2017, by and between the Temecula Community Services District, a community services district (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Temecula Valley Woman's Club (TVWC), a California nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Nonprofit"). In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. RECITALS This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: a. The Nonprofit shall utilize the Community Recreation Center (CRC) kitchen and multi-purpose room for the preparation of the Holiday Home Tour baked boods used for fundraising on six intermittent days beginning October 28, 2017 through November 9, 2017. b. Alcohol will not be served. c. The City desires to be a Sponsor of the Event. 2. TERM This Agreement shall commence on August 8, 2017, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than November 10, 2017, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. CONSIDERATION a. In exchange for providing the Nonprofit with in-kind city -support services valued at an amount not to exceed One Thousand One Hundred Two Dollars and No Cents ($1102.00) as listed in Exhibit B, the City of Temecula shall be designated as a Sponsor of the Event. As a Sponsor the City shall receive sponsor benefits as listed in Exhibit A. In the event that City support services exceeds One Thousand One Hundred Two Dollars and No Cents ($1102.00), the Nonprofit may seek City authorization for payment above that amount. 4. WRITTEN REPORT Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the Event, the Nonprofit shall prepare and submit to the Director of Community Services a written report evaluating the Event, its attendance, media coverage, and description of the materials in which the City has listed as a Sponsor. The report shall also include samples of media, press clippings, flyers, pamphlets, etc., in a presentation notebook format. In addition, complete financial statements including a balance sheet, income statement and budget to actual comparison report of the Event must be included in such a written report. 5. PERMITS The Nonprofit shall file applications for a Temporary Use Permit and Special Event Permit with the City no later than thirty (30) days prior to the first day of the Event. The City retains its governmental jurisdiction to determine whether to issue the permits and the nature and scope of Conditions of Approval. The Nonprofit shall comply with all conditions of approval for the Temporary Use Permit, the Special Event Permit, or any other City -issued permits. Failure to comply with the Conditions of Approval of such permits shall constitute a default of this Agreement and is grounds for termination of this Agreement. 6. MEETING ATTENDANCE The Nonprofit shall attend all City pre -event planning meetings and event recap meetings if warranted. 7. INDEMNIFICATION The Nonprofit shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and representatives from any and all suits, claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, actions, liability or damages of whatsoever kind and nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of the Nonprofit's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement. 8. INSURANCE The Nonprofit shall secure and maintain from a State of California admitted insurance company, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement an insurance policy of comprehensive general liability against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by September 28, 2017, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Recipient owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Recipient has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: Two million ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3) Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. Worker's Compensation insurance is required only if Consultant employs any employees. Consultant warrants and represents to the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agencythat it has no employees and that it will obtain the required Worker's Compensation Insurance upon the hiring of any employees. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the NonProfit; products and completed operations of the Recipient; premises owned, occupied or used by the Nonprofit; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Nonprofit. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Nonprofit's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Nonprofit's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state: should the policy be canceled before the expiration date the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Nonprofit shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Nonproft shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Nonprofit's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 9. GOVERNING LAW The City and the Nonprofit understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 10. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Nonprofit shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Nonprofit to comply with this section. 11. ASSIGNMENT The Nonprofit shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. 12. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: Mailing Address: City of Temecula To Recipient: Attn: General Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Temecula Valley Woman's Club Attn: Juanita Brown, President P.O. Box 1056 Temecula, CA 92593-1056 15. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. The Nonprofit shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit shall at all times be under the Nonprofit's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Recipient or any of the Nonprofit's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. The Nonprofit shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. No employee benefits shall be available to the Nonprofit in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to the Nonprofit as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to the Nonprofit for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to the Nonprofit for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 17. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit and has the authority to bind the Nonprofit to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The General Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES TEMECULA VALLEY WOMAN'S CLUB DISTRICT (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, TCSD President Juanita Brown, President ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, General NONPROFIT Counsel Peggy Baumann, Vice President Temecula Valley Woman's Club Juanita Brown, President P.O. Box 1056 Temecula, CA 92593-1056 (951) 302-1370 www.tvwc.com PM Initials Date: �- EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TEMECULA SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS The Temecula Valley Woman's Club (TVWC) provides numerous benefits and services for the citizens of the City of Temecula as a direct result of funding generated from the annual Holiday Home Tour. In 2016, TVWC members provided over 31,000 volunteer hours and the organization made cash donations totaling almost $100,000 to various local organizations, groups and facilities including but not limited to: • High school student scholarships • Children's services • Women's services • Military support • Local arts and libraries In addition to the above, the non-profit shall include: • City of Temecula logo/name on advertisements • City of Temecula name on all press releases • City of Temecula logo/name on event poster • City of Temecula logo/name on event flyers **Press Releases will be distributed to all local media, however, publication cannot be guaranteed. Press Releases can also be provided to all sponsors for distribution to their clients, agents, employees, etc. EXHIBIT "B" IN-KIND SERVICES ESTIMATED VALUE OF CITY SUPPORT SERVICES AND COSTS The estimated value for support provided by the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District for the Temecula Valley Woman's Club is as follows. PROVIDED: 38 hours of use at the CRC kitchen and Multi -Purpose Room VALUE: $1102.00 REQUESTED DATES AND HOURS OF USE: • Oct 28 — 9:00 am to 4:00 pm • Nov 2— 12:00 pm to 5:00 pm • Nov 3, 6, 7 — 9:00 am to 4:00 pm • Nov 9— 12:00 pm to 5:00 pm TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CONSENT Item No. 14 ACTION MINUTES July 25, 2017 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING The Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting convened at 8:10 PM CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maryann Edwards ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar (absent), Rahn, Stewart, Edwards TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS (None) TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR 14 Authorize Fiscal Year 2017-18 Special Tax Levies for the Community Facilities Districts - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0-1, Naggar absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Rahn, Stewart and Edwards with Naggar absent. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-01 (CROWNE HILL) 14.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 01-02 (HARVESTON) 14.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-06 (HARVESTON II) TPFA Action Minutes 072517 1 14.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-02 (RORIPAUGH RANCH) 14.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-03 (WOLF CREEK) 14.6 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 17-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 16-01 (RORIPAUGH RANCH PHASE 2) TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS TPFA ADJOURNMENT At 8:11 PM, the Temecula Public Financing Authority meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, August 8, 2017, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Maryann Edwards, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] TPFA Action Minutes 072517 2 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 15 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: August 8, 2017 SUBJECT: Adopt the 2016 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program Nexus Study Update and Updated Fee Schedule PREPARED BY: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.08, WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM, AND FINDING THIS ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE APPLICABLE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE: The proposed Ordinance amends in full Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program, to provide the legal basis for a revised TUMF schedule. The actual TUMF schedule will be established through the Resolution. In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, the proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 15.08 and 2016 Nexus Study identify or determine the following: 1) the purpose of the revised fees; 2) the use to which the revised fees is to be put, including identification of any facilities to be financed; 3) how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; 4) how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development project upon which the fees are imposed; and 5) how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the cost of the public facilities or portion or the public facility attributable to the development on which the fees are imposed. SUMMARY OF RESOLUTION: follows: The resolution will establish the Fee Schedule for TUMF as 1) $9,418.00 per single family residential unit 2) $6,134.00 per multi -family residential unit 3) $1.77 per square foot of an industrial project 4) $7.50 per square foot of a retail commercial project 5) $4.56 per square foot of a service commercial project 6) $2.19 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office For single family residential, the fee shall be frozen at the current amount of $8,873.00 between November 1, 2017 and June 30, 2019; then, phased in by increasing to $9,146.00 between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020; and finally, increasing to $9,418.00 on July 1, 2020. For retail commercial, the fee was reduced from the current amount of $10.49/sf to $7.50/sf based on the adoption of the new fee schedule by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. Since the fee amount was reduced, the new fee for retail commercial of $7.50/sf was made effective on July 11, 2017. BACKGROUND: The City/County is a Member Jurisdiction of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and eighteen (18) cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, in 2002-2003 the WRCOG Member Jurisdictions developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials due to new development in Western Riverside County could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") on future residential, commercial and industrial development. As a Member Jurisdiction of WRCOG and as a TUMF Participating Jurisdiction, the City participated in the preparation of a certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study," ("2002 Nexus Study") and the second major update of the TUMF network entitled the "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study; 2009 Update ("2009 Nexus Study"), both later adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. Based on the 2002 and 2009 Nexus Studies, the City adopted and implemented ordinances authorizing the City's participation in a TUMF Program. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.), WRCOG has prepared a new nexus study ("2016 Nexus Study") to update the fees. On July 10, 2017, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2016 Nexus Study and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions update their fees by amending their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the attached Ordinance (amending Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code) and Resolution (establishing and revising the TUMF Fee Schedule) will have no direct fiscal impact on the City. TUMF fees are collected by the City and passed through to WRCOG to administer the TUMF program. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 2. Resolution ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.08, WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM, AND FINDING THIS ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 15.08, WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM, of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.08.010. Title. This Chapter shall be known as the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program of 2017." 15.08.020 Findings. In adopting this Chapter, the City Council finds and determines that: A. The City is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and 18 cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the WRCOG Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in Western Riverside County (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") on future residential, commercial and industrial development. As a Member Agency of WRCOG and as a TUMF Participating Jurisdiction, the City participated in the preparation of a certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study," dated October 18, 2002 (the "2002 Nexus Study") prepared in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.) and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. The City also participated in the second major update of the TUMF network entitled the "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study; 2009 Update" ("2009 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. Based on the 2002 and 2009 Nexus Studies, the City adopted and implemented ordinances authorizing the City's participation in a TUMF Program. B. WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2016 Update" ("2016 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On July 10, 2017, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2016 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program. C. Consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of Ordinance No. 10-02, the City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds and determines, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential. D. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied. E. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional system. Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments will be mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF. F. The City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the 2016 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that compromise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. G. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2016 Nexus Study. The need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements. H. The City Council finds and determines that the 2016 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional system. The City Council hereby adopts the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2016 Update and its findings, a true, correct and complete copy of which is attached to Ordinance No. 17-_ as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein. 15.08.030 Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Class 'A' Office" means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on-site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class `A" Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of three stories (exception will be made for March JPA, where height requirements exist); (ii) minimum of 10,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/ exits for commercial uses within the building. B. "Class `B' Office" means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on-site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class `B" Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of two stories; (ii) minimum of 15,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame, concrete or masonry shell construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for commercial uses within the building. C. "Development Project" or "Project" means any project undertaken for the purposes of development, including the issuance of a permit for construction. D. "Disabled Veteran" means any veteran who is retired or is in process of medical retirement from military service who is or was severely injured in a theatre of combat operations and has or received a letter of eligibility for the Veterans Administration Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Grant Program. E. "Government/Public Buildings, Public Schools and Public Facilities" means any owned and operated facilities by a government entity in accordance with Section 15.08.040.F., Exemptions. A new development that is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency for government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities shall apply only if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The new development being constructed is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency. (b) The project shall have a deed restriction placed on the property that limits the use to government/public facility for the term of the lease, including all extension options, for a period of not less than 20 years. Any change in the use of the facility from government shall trigger the payment of the TUMF in effect at the time of the change is made. (c) No less than ninety percent (90%) of the total square footage of the building is leased to the government agency during the term of deed restriction the long term and any extensions thereof. (d) The new development is constructed at prevailing wage rates. (e) A copy of the lease is provided to the applicable jurisdiction and to WRCOG. (f) Based on the facts and circumstances WRCOG determines that the intent of the lease is to provide for a long-term government use, and not to evade payment of TUMF. F. "Gross Acreage" means the total property area as shown on a land division of a map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road rights of way and property lines. G. "Guest Dwellings" and "Detached Second Units" mean, according to the State of California legal definition, as follows: 1) The second unit is not intended for sale and may be rented; 2) The lot is zoned for single- family dwellings; 3) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling; 4) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling; and 5) Are ministerially amended by each jurisdiction's local codes. H. "Habitable Structure" means any structure or part thereof where persons reside, congregate or work and which is legally occupied in whole or part in accordance with applicable building codes, and state and local laws. "Industrial Project" means any development project that proposes any industrial or manufacturing use allowed within certain zones by Title 17, Zoning of the Temecula Municipal Code, including Business Park Zone (BP), Light Industrial District Zone (LI), a Specific Plan providing for industrial or manufacturing uses, or a Planned Development Overlay District providing for industrial or manufacturing uses. J. "Long -Term Lease" as used in the TUMF Program, shall mean a lease with a term of no less than twenty (20) years. K. "Low Income Residential Housing" means "Residential Affordable Units": (A) for rental housing, the units shall be made available, rented and restricted to "lower income households" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) at an "affordable rent" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053). Affordable units that are rental housing shall be made available, rented, and restricted to lower income households at an affordable rent for a period of at least fifty-five (55) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new residential development. and (B) for for -sale housing, the units shall be sold to "persons or families of low or moderate income" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093) at a purchase price that will not cause the purchaser's monthly housing cost to exceed "affordable housing cost (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) Affordable units that are for - sale housing units shall be restricted to ownership by persons and families of low or moderate income for at least forty-five (45) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residential development. L. "Mixed -Use Development" as used in the TUMF Program, means Developments with the following criteria: (1) three or more significant revenue- producing uses, and (2) significant physical and functional integration of project components. M. "Multi -Family Residential Unit" means a development project that has a density of greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per gross acre. N. "Non -Profit Organization" means an organization operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial port of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, the non-profit may be a 501(c) (3) charitable organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. O. "Non -Residential Unit" means retail commercial, service commercial and industrial development which is designed primarily for non - dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels. P. "Recognized Financing District" means a Financing District as defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan as may be amended from time to time. Q. "Residential Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential occupancy including single-family and multi -family dwellings. "Residential Dwelling Unit" shall not include hotels or motels. R. "Retail Commercial Project" means any development project that proposes any retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project allowed within certain zones by Title 17, Zoning, of the Temecula Municipal Code, including Neighborhood Commercial Zone (NP), Community Commercial Zone (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial Zone (HT) and Service Commercial Zone (SC), Professional Office Zone (PO), Business Park Zone (BP) a Specific Plan providing for retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project, or a Planned Development Overlay District providing for retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project, which can include any eating/dining facility residing on the retail commercial development premises. S. "Service Commercial Project" means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal, and medical offices eating/dining facilities, and other uses related to personal or professional services. T. "Single Family Residential Unit" means each residential dwelling unit in a development that has a density of eight (8) units to the gross acre or less. U. "TUMF Administrative Plan" means that the TUMF Administration Plan adopted by the WRCOG Execution Committee May 5, 2003, as amended, setting forth detailed administration procedures and requirements for the TUMF program. V. "TUMF Participating Jurisdiction" means a jurisdiction in Western Riverside County which has adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing participation in the TUMF Program and complies with all regulations established in the TUMF Administrative Plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the WRCOG. 15.08.040 Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. A. Adoption of TUMF Schedule. The City Council shall adopt an applicable TUMF schedule through a separate resolution, which may be amended from time to time. B. Fee Calculation. The fees shall be calculated according to the calculation methodology fee set forth in the WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. In addition to data in the Fee Calculation Handbook, WRCOG Staff and the local agency may consider the following items when establishing the appropriate fee calculation methodology: • Underlying zoning of the site • Land -use classifications in the latest Nexus Study • Project specific traffic studies • Latest Standardized reference manuals such as the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual • Previous TUMF calculations for similar uses • WRCOG staff shall approve final draft credit / reimbursement agreement prior to execution WRCOG shall have final determination regarding the appropriate methodology to calculate the fee based on the information provided. In case of a conflict between the applicant, WRCOG, and/or the local agency regarding the fee calculation methodology, the dispute resolution process in the TUMF Administrative Plan will apply. C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to the Resolution reference is subsection A, above, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect the changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Chapter, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the Regional System. WRCOG shall review the TUMF Program no less than every four (4) years after the effective date of this Chapter. D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System as depicted in the 2016 Nexus Study. E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the City, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following types of new development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter and in TUMF Administrative Plan: 1. Low income residential housing as described in Subsection K. of 15.08.020, Definitions, and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. 2. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities as described in Subsection E. of 15.08.020, Definitions, and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Airports that are public use airports and are appropriately permitted by Caltrans or other state agency. 3. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq, prior May 28, 2003, the effective date of Ordinance No. 03-01, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited, provided that if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended by amendment or by any other manner after May 28, 2003, the TUMF shall be imposed. 4. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any habitable structure in use on or after January 1, 2000, provided that the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof. 5. Guest Dwellings and Detached Second Units as described in Subsection G. of Section 15.08.020, Definitions, and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. 6. Kennels (including catteries) established in connection with an existing single family residential unit. 7. Any sanctuary, or other activity under the same roof of a church or other house of worship that is not revenue generating and is eligible for a property tax exemption (excluding concert venues, coffee/snack shops, book stores, for-profit pre-school day -cares, etc., which would be assessed TUMF.) 8. Any nonprofit corporation or nonprofit organization offering and conducting full-time day school at the elementary, middle school or high school level for students between the ages of five and eighteen years. 9. New single-family homes, constructed by non-profit organizations, specially adapted and designed for maximum freedom of movement and independent living for qualified "Disabled Veterans." 10. Other uses may be exempt as determined by the WRCOG Executive Committee as further defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan. G. Credit. Regional System improvements may be credited toward the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan and the following: 1. Regional Tier a. Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on the Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for all costs associated with the arterial component based on approved Nexus Study for the Regional System effective at the time the credit agreement is entered into. WRCOG staff must pre -approve any credit agreements that deviate from the standard WRCOG approved format. b. Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off-site improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits shall be determined by WRCOG and the City in consultation with the developer. All such credits must have prior written approval from WRCOG. c. The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the Nexus Study for the Regional System at the time the credit agreement is entered into or actual costs, whichever is less. 2. Local Tier a. The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a Recognized Financing District has been established. b. If there is a Recognized Financing District established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan. 15.08.050 Reimbursements. Should the developer construct Regional System improvements in excess of the TUMF fee obligation, the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the 2016 Nexus Study effective at the time the agreement was entered into, whichever is less. Reimbursements shall be enacted through an agreement between the developer and the City, contingent on funds being available and approved by WRCOG. In all cases, however, reimbursements under such special agreements must coincide with construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled in the five-year Zone Transportation Improvement Program's adopted annually by WRCOG. 15.08.060 Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees. A. Authority of the Building Department. The Director of Building & Safety, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized to levy and collect the TUMF and make all determinations required by this Chapter in a manner consistent with the TUMF Administrative Plan. B. Payment. Payment of the fees shall be as follows: 1. The fees shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, whichever comes first (the "Payment Date"). However, this section should not be construed to prevent payment of the fees prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. Fees may be paid at the issuance of a building permit, and the fee payment shall be calculated based on the fee in effect at that time, provided the developer tenders the full amount of his/her TUMF obligation. If the developer makes only a partial payment prior to the Payment Date, the amount of the fee due shall be based on the TUMF fee schedule in place on the Payment Date. The fees shall be calculated according to fee schedule set forth in this Chapter, or resolution adopted pursuant thereto, and the calculation methodology set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. 2. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment is due under this Chapter, not the date the the ordinance adopting this chapter is initially adopted. The City shall not enter into a development agreement which freezes future adjustments of the TUMF. 3. If all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee, the property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee. The obligation to pay the fee shall run with the land and be binding on all the successors in interest to the property. 4. Fees shall not be waived. C. Disposition of Fees. All fees collected hereunder shall be transmitted to the Executive Director of WRCOG along with a corresponding Remittance Report by the tenth (10) day of the close of the month for the previous month in which the fees were collected for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, TUMF Administrative Plan, and the Mitigation Fee Act. D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provisions of the TUMF Administrative Plan. Appealable issues shall be the application of the fee, application of credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay and application of exemption. E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Building and Safety, or his/her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 15.08.070. 15.08.070 Appointment of the TUMF Administrator. A. WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to receive all fees generated from the TUMF within the City, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and the Mitigation Fee Act. The detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Chapter shall be contained in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Furthermore, the TUMF Administrator shall use the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time, for the purpose of calculating a developer's TUMF obligation. In addition to detailing the methodology for calculating all TUMF obligations of different categories of new development, the purpose of the Fee Calculation Handbook is to clarify for the TUMF Administrator, where necessary, the definition and calculation methodology for uses not clearly defined in the respective TUMF ordinances. B. WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1 %) of the revenue raised by the TUMF Program. The TUMF Administrative Plan further outlines the fiscal responsibilities and limitations of the Administrator. 15.08.08- Effect. No provisions of this Chapter shall entitle any person who has already paid the TUMF to receive a refund, credit or reimbursement of such payment. This Chapter does not create any new TUMF. Section 2 Procedural Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On August 8, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the 2016 Nexus Study, the amendments to Chapter 15.08, and the fees set forth in this Resolution. The public hearing was noticed at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing and the City Council made the 2016 Nexus Study available to the public during this period. B. The City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public at the public hearing relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the public hearing. Section 3. CEQA. The City Council hereby determines, in accordance with 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines") that the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program as described in this Ordinance is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 and Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The Ordinance establishes a funding mechanism for potential transportation improvements and does not approve the construction nor cause the construction of any specific transportation improvements within Riverside County. This Ordinance will have no effect on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(d)and 15062, the City Manager is hereby directed to cause a Notice of Exemption to be prepared, executed and filed for the foregoing determination in the manner required by law, that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, not environmental impact assessment is necessary. Section 4. Severability. If any one or more of the terms, provisions or sections of this Ordinance shall to any extent be judged invalid, unenforceable and/or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, then each and all of the remaining terms, provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable. Section 5. Judicial Review. In accordance with State law, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced within ninety (90) days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective November 1, 2017. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 17- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 8th day of August, 2017, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of, , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE APPLICABLE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declares as follows: A. The City is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and 18 cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the WRCOG Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in Western Riverside County (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") on future residential, commercial and industrial development. As a Member Agency of WRCOG and as a TUMF Participating Jurisdiction, the City participated in the preparation of a certain "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study," dated October 18, 2002 (the "2002 Nexus Study") prepared in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.) and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. The City also participated in the second major update of the TUMF network entitled the "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study; 2009 Update" ("2009 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. Based on the 2002 and 2009 Nexus Studies, the City adopted and implemented ordinances authorizing the City's participation in a TUMF Program. B. WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2016 Update" ("2016 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On July 10, 2017, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2016 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program. C. Consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of Ordinance No. 10-02, the City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds and determines, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential. D. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied. E. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional System. Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments will be mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF. F. The City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the 2016 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that compromise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. G. The fees collected pursuant to Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2016 Nexus Study. The need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements. H. The City Council finds and determines that the 2016 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional system. The City Council adopted the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2016 Update and its findings, a true, correct and complete copy of which is attached to Ordinance No. 17-_ as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein. J. Section 15.08.040.C, Fee Adjustment, of the Temecula Municipal Code authorizes periodic review and adjustment to the applicable TUMF in accordance with any adjustments made by the WRCOG Executive Committee. K. The fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities described or identified in the 2016 Nexus Study. L. The City Council hereby determines, in accordance with 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines") that the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program as described in Ordinance 17- and the fees adopted pursuant thereto by this Resolution is not a "project" within the meaning of Section 15378 and Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The Program establishes a funding mechanism for potential transportation improvements and does not approve the construction nor cause the construction of any specific transportation improvements within Riverside County. This Program will have no effect on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(d)and 15062, the City Manager is hereby directed to cause a Notice of Exemption to be prepared, executed and filed for the foregoing determination in the manner required by law, that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, not environmental impact assessment is necessary. The City Council hereby finds that in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). M. On August 8, 2017, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the 2016 Nexus Study, the amendments to Chapter 15.08, and the fees set forth in this Resolution. The public hearing was duly noticed at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing and the City Council made the 2016 Nexus Study available to the public during this period. N. The City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public at the public hearing relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the public hearing. Section 2. TUMF Schedule. In accordance with Section 15.08.040.C., Fee Adjustment, of the Temecula Municipal Code, there is hereby adopted the following fee schedule and phasing schedule for the TUMF, which supersedes the fee schedule set forth in Resolution No. 10-05: A. There is hereby adopted the following TUMF fee schedule: No. Fee Amount Land Use Type 1 $ 9,418.00 per single family residential unit 2 $ 6,134.00 per multi -family residential unit 3 $ 1.77 per square foot of an industrial project 4 $ 7.50 per square foot of a retail commercial project 5 $ 4.56 per square foot of a service commercial project 6 $ 2.19 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office B. For single-family residential and retail commercial projects only, the fees set forth in Section 2.A above shall be phased in as follows: From November 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019, the fee schedule shall be as follows: No. Fee Amount Land Use Type 1 $ 8,873.00 per single family residential unit 2 $ 6,134.00 per multi -family residential unit 3 $ 1.77 per square foot of an industrial project 4 $ 7.50 per square foot of a retail commercial project effective July 11, 2017 5 $ 4.56 per square foot of a service commercial project 6 $ 2.19 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office From July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, the fee schedule shall be as follows: No. Fee Amount Land Use Type 1 $ 9,146.00 per single family residential unit 2 $ 6,134.00 per multi -family residential unit 3 $ 1.77 per square foot of an industrial project 4 $ 7.50 per square foot of a retail commercial project effective July 11, 2017 5 $ 4.56 per square foot of a service commercial project 6 $ 2.19 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office C. The fee of $7.50 per square foot of a retail commercial project shall be effective as of July 11, 2017. The retail commercial project component of TUMF was reduced and became effective on July 11, 2017 which is the date immediately following adoption of the retail commercial project component by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. Section 3. Except for the retail commercial project component of TUMF, the terms of this Resolution shall become effective on the effective date of Ordinance No. 17- , which date is not less than sixty (60) days from the adoption of this Resolution. The TUMF of $7.50 per square foot of a retail commercial project shall be effective as of July 11,2017. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 8th day of August, 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of August, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" 2016 NEXUS STUDY WRCOG TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY 2016 UPDATE FINAL REPORT Prepared for the Western Riverside Council of Governments In Cooperation with The City of Banning The City of Beaumont The City of Calimesa The City of Canyon Lake The City of Corona The City of Eastvale The City of Hemet The City of Jurupa Valley The City of Lake Elsinore The City of Menifee The City of Moreno Valley The City of Murrieta The City of Norco The City of Perris The City of Riverside The City of San Jacinto The City of Temecula The City of Wildomar The County of Riverside Eastern Municipal Water District March Joint Powers Authority Morongo Band of Mission Indians Riverside County Superintendent of Schools Riverside Transit Agency Western Municipal Water District Prepared by WSP As adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee, July 10, 2017 XX ) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS i LIST OF TABLES ii ES.0 Executive Summary iii ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study iii ES.2 Future Growth vi ES.3 Need for the TUMF vi ES.4 The TUMF Network viii ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis x ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation x ES.7 Conclusions xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History 2 1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process 4 1.3.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List 6 1.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs 7 1.3.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component 8 1.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments 8 1.3.5. Computing the Fee for Non -Residential Developments 9 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH 12 2.1 Recent Historical Trend 12 2.2 Available Demographic Data 12 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis 13 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF 19 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels 19 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels 22 3.3 The TUMF Concept 23 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK 25 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network 25 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network 28 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs 31 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System 36 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding 39 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs 39 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost 41 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation 51 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS 53 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements 53 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components 54 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non -Residential Developments 57 6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION 58 6.1 Residential Fees 58 6.2 Non -Residential Fees 59 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 61 8.0 APPENDICES 62 WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update i July 10, 2017 LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County xii Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 13 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 15 Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) 16 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) 18 Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline to 2040 No -Build) ....20 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction 34 Table 4.2 - Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County 34 Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures 38 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates 44 Table 4.5 - TUMF Transit Cost Estimates 51 Table 4.6 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build Scenarios to 2040 TUMF Build Scenario) 52 Table 5.1 - 2040 Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone 55 Table 5.2 - 2040 Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone 55 Table 5.3 - Backbone -Secondary Network Share Calculation 56 Table 5.4 - Peak Period VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2012 - 2040) 57 Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share 59 Table 6.2 - Fee Calculation for Non -Residential Share 60 Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County 61 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process v Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) vii Figure ES.3 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements .. ix Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process 5 Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 14 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 15 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) 17 Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) 18 Figure 4.1 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County 27 Figure 4.2 - The Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County 29 Figure 4.3 - Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) 30 Figure 4.4 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements 43 WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update ii July 10, 2017 ES.O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000's, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the economic recession of the late 2000's, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, has slowed this rate of growth, the region is expected to rebound and the projected growth in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for southwest Riverside County. In August 2000, the concept was expanded to include the entire WRCOG sub- region. The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Riverside Transit Agency and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute toward addressing the impacts of new growth on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Draft Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. The results of the first review of the Program were WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update iii July 10, 2017 documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015. The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015 where it was resolved to "delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study". The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016 enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is illustrated in Figure ES.1. Each technical step is denoted with a number on the flow chart with the numbers correlating to the detailed description of each step provided in Section 1.3 of the Nexus Study Report. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM), steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in the Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the final results of the third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program to incorporate the revisions completed during 2016. This version of the document also incorporates revisions in response to comments received during the 45 day review of the earlier Draft TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update iv July 10, 2017 Figure ES.I - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process TUMF Road Project List 0 1...T.t)1,1•.• I rts.0 LDS 0 °. Fossil CarPaciD . _ 1hew I 0 ,.... c,,,„ 0 IWO P)xlcop i PatiCcti)r) EItt*PDAti ._ CO. . T pi. i T 0 . tapiCri Drtcsoma Allipthrtat. I. Pim OiresSoeirserl v. Mom Roidj Project Ust . .1— it, ..1_ .• V, isassiatedDrxis al P3AF Prop: u Residential Fee Calculation (Table 6.1 & Appendix IQ Fends 109 Tne•teri Rates • EclarsiD oDeoritlimattes be SO STD CO Rtad Prni Casts itanterussleID Devale.reet lom Der *issuer losstAii esermas TUMF Road Project Cost Estimates 411)- TUMF Ct.rtp. 0 upoosoo Dart Standsne1 Gnu llof Frans T. Ceeaswesiers AI TUMF Transit Component CVFT& CoropeNenurr dpion 4,1 ,4 44ppendm 13.) • r 0 itre,S Stee. 0 T UMFlisroJi 0 Uriems:Zrons0 • FF -1- 20.41Fiwvi &44nhp '4{. AtcFmmel 'tx onir GrawIte *ti, situ . . CO' trAil= to SFO MRI ()Mere Or Preiner Dowarineetalth 42177 — Foci— per DU Fee pe—ir 6F es DM Nears Study and Schedule of Fees C)—mwtrn. Fee Dalailation=lbook 1 (Appicable to sane pmject types) MOW hoi pH Olt ITI.Ine•Den Dais es Welke Code afikesi Non -Residential Fee Calculation (Table 6.2 & Appendix L) ve-emore-im Mssrent 1 IIPIPIRP SIPE Pan It) IrLin L 1,4, Sias 14J 0 I. OM Ft/mallet &ma" EMP1.4.00 OW* SW*, S.r4. tr-I tos Sector les 2.3 L.2 i .111 0 Growth In 118F for I Flatd,Sondee,Induetrid:j A Public Satins _ . o Gprorn otInso kr I Sown, indrebul. &non Vase sin. KEY °Reference to Description in Text Other Inputs Computodons Items ter KO ! Adoption WRCOGvAdopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study -2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ES.2 Future Growth For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR provided demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts as well as providing the demographic basis for the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM). RCCDR data was used as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. As directed by the WRCOG Executive Committee, the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS demographics forecasts were utilized as the basis for this 2016 Update of the TUMF Nexus Study. A major distinction between RCCDR data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data used for this 2016 Update is the change in the base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2035 to 2040. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. The population of Western Riverside County is projected to increase by 37% in the period between 2012 and 2040. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 87%. Figure ES.2 illustrates the forecast growth in population, household and employment for Western Riverside County. ES.3 Need for the TUMF The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the TUMF study area included total vehicle miles of travel (VMT), total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure, particularly the arterial roadways, with the peak period VMT on the TUMF Network estimated to increase by 63% between 2012 and 2040. By 2040, 57% of the total VMT on the TUMF Network is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing peak period LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on the TUMF Network will increase over 4.9% per year. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update vi July 10, 2017 Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) 2,500,000 2,000,000 1500,000 1,000,000 500,000 ,429,633 ,773, 539,631 366,588 '1, cy Jam„ PP \O.' S e"q 09 0qa , ) rl ODP a e e 201,328 101,729 120,736 526,092 253,372 Household Type: O Single -Family D Multi -Family Employment Sector: ▪ Industrial ® Retail ® Service L3 Government As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. Weekday system ridership for RTA bus transit services is approximately 31,016 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2015. By 2025, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 46,572 riders per weekday. This represents an average increase of 1,414 weekday riders each year. Based on this rate of ridership growth, weekday ridership is estimated to increase by 41,011 riders per weekday between 2012 and 2040. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer -distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update vii July 10, 2017 The fee should be assessed proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each use on the transportation system. ES.4 The TUMF Network The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the TUMF Network) is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied select performance guidelines were identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. This framework was reviewed by representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions and private sector stakeholders, and endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The TUMF Network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance". The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system and on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. Figure ES.3 illustrates the TUMF improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.76 billion. Accounting for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $2.96 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $2.71 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $92.6 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $43.3 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $1 12.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update viii July 10, 2017 rirnssolL Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program 1 Figure ES.3 ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis There is a reasonable relationship between the future growth and the need for improvements to the TUMF system. These factors include: • Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. • Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. • The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. > Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. • Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. > Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of peak period trips between zones. The overall result is that 50.7% of the regional travel is attributable to the backbone network and 49.3% is assigned to the secondary network. In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, peak period growth in VMT between 2012 and 2040 was derived from RivTAM and aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home-based person trips represent 71.0% of the total future person trips, and the non -home-based person trips represent 29.0% of the total future person trips. ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $2.96 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update x July 10, 2017 costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.96 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 71.0% ($2.10 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 29.0% ($858.7 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. ES.7 Conclusions Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be demonstrated that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. ➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways; • The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County; ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development; ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program; • Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automotive travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. The fair share fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table ES.1. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update xi July 10, 2017 Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Change Single Family Residential DU Multi Family Residential DU Industrial SF GFA Retail SF GFA Service SF GFA Government/Public SF GFA 173,043 77,039 64,710,138 17,920,500 105,21 1,915 2,696,349 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE Fee Per Unit $9,418 $6,134 $1.77 $12.31 $4.56 $16.08 Total Revenue ($ million) $1,629.8 $472.5 $114.8 $220.5 $480.0 $43.4 $2,961.0 WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update xii July 10, 2017 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY 1.1 Background Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000's, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the economic recession of the late 2000's, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, slowed this rate of growth, the regional economy is continuing to rebound and the projected rate of development in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. Development exactions only provide improvements near the development site, and the broad-based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. In anticipation of the continued future growth projected in Riverside County, several county -wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development. Regional arterial highways in Western Riverside County are forecast to carry significant traffic volumes by 2040. While some localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while these programs are effective locally, they are insufficient in their ability to meet the regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Former Riverside County Supervisor Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process for a regional TUMF Program before applying the concept countywide. From February 1999 to September 2000, the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure System WRCOG 1 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee scenarios and a draft Implementation Agreement. In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in developing a TUMF for that area of the county. Interest in the development of a northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete and disparate fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF Program and provide overall guidance to all other staff committees. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future new development will contribute toward addressing its indirect cumulative traffic impacts on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act), which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows: 1) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee's use and the type of project for which the fee is required. 2) The fee must not exceed the project's proportional "fair share" of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make improvements for existing development. 1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for WRCOG 2 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Riverside Transit Agency and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. A current list of the standing WRCOG TUMF related committees and committee membership is included in Appendix A. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. Its purpose was to establish the nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that would be used to improve regional transportation facilities. It also identified the proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development. Consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, the WRCOG Executive Committee has established that the TUMF Nexus Study will be subject of a comprehensive review of the underlying program assumptions at least every five years to confirm the Nexus. Acknowledging the unprecedented and unique nature of the TUMF Program, the Executive Committee determined that the first comprehensive review of the Program should be initiated within two years of initial adoption of the Program primarily to validate the findings and recommendations of the study and to correct any program oversights. The results of the first review of the Program were documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015. The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015 where it was resolved to "delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study". The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016 enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the final results of the third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program to incorporate the revisions completed during 2016. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. To ensure new development continues to contribute a fair share of the cost to mitigate its cumulative regional transportation impacts in the period between the comprehensive review of program assumptions completed at least every five years, the WRCOG 3 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 WRCOG Executive Committee has also established that the TUMF Schedule of Fees will be reviewed annually, and adjusted, as needed, on July 1st to reflect current costs. The revised schedule of fees will be recalculated in February of each year based on the percentage increase or decrease in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the twelve (12) month period from January of the prior year to January of the current year, and the percentage increase or decrease in the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Median Sales Price of Existing Single Family Homes in the Riverside/San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area for the twelve (12) month period from the 3rd Quarter of the second year prior to the 3rd Quarter of the prior year (to coincide with the publication of the most recently updated index). If approved by the Executive Committee, the resultant percentage change for each of the indices will be applied to the unit cost assumptions for roadway and bus transit costs, and land acquisition costs, respectively, to reflect the combined effects of changes in eligible project costs on the resultant per unit fee for each defined land use category. 1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process In coordination with WRCOG, city and county representatives, developers, and other interested parties reviewed and updated the underlying assumptions of the Nexus Study as part of this comprehensive program review. In particular, the most recent socioeconomic forecasts developed by SCAG as the basis for the 2016 RTP/SCS were incorporated, as resolved by the WRCOG Executive Committee at the September 14, 2015 meeting. This use of the most recent SCAG forecasts resulted in a shift of the program base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as a shift in the program horizon year from 2035 to 2040. Furthermore, the TUMF Network was re-examined in detail based on travel demand forecasts derived from the most recent version of the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM) to more accurately reflect future project needs to address the cumulative regional impacts of new development in Western Riverside County as well as eliminating those projects having been completed prior to the commencement of the Nexus review in 2016. The subsequent chapters of this Nexus Study document describe the various assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of each major variable in the TUMF calculation, and ultimately leading to the determination of the TUMF Schedule of Fees that indicates the maximum "fair share" fee for each of the various use types defined in the TUMF program. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is summarized in this section, including the flow chart in Figure 1.1 that illustrates the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step that was followed to determine the TUMF Schedule of Fees and establish the program nexus is summarized below, with the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to the steps described. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of RivTAM, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in this Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step. WRCOG 4 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process 0 SCAR Data on 2012 tearririsll Ern pfni-.nt 40 -rows TUMF Road Protect List 0 SCW Fcfse tt lot TINTO lum6 Dissmccere TUMF WS Ai l LRawDirmI stmtDukkiamPlertkadaSs We 1411=4 ---f otTUIFF Prefer.. } Residential Fee Calculation (Table 6.1 & Appendix Ip 0 Alt/14b Ma. 111nisormel TFaanAttedou oFsepIConti Aee1ONw pan•-•. Or C6 4b1 1111H! Me. Uniepte .1 6VISFo.rr1 MF f IRnR Gti"C.Ii Ss0. MFD 1 'Ens In !IM Mad PtoieCt Eslunates now Simdrif 0OCCUR las OntelnietKin (i) / IIPIKRNPD MOW&I) I TUMF Transit Component CY Stunoleot Oats AmBuapOk to SR) 6 MFD I } COSew el CA17 ICFmrlSa s, PvtiTx Situ, Fon par DU Feepor SF >o� Fve CMnietisi 1,d6o5 ItdotraNc H serer prodm broad T ino•ani,ash IT I n.:,,d„y lrW u., -..vr u max., Ram by'Sftliat (LI h11 LAI Ns* L l i. n1.MT+� �i1 Cro"uekY-Ii L Non-Residential Fee Calculation (Table 6.2 &Appendix L) Riverside & SB TUN% CCO,STP!IT (MN 1yr RrefalEv iXioN I Gmeetel Ulm RO11; ei,Cct9a»od b,l 0— e'a11An10kF Me 4YtiOr.-SIdo1., KEY ®Reference to Description in Text 011ier Inputs li Collpumbn .t.. bmf kr Rowdd i.e. AdW1kn pw Iks WRCOG 5 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 1.1.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List The roadway network in Western Riverside County must be evaluated to determine how new development activity will impact the performance of the network, and how the resultant traffic impacts can be mitigated by completing various roadway improvements. The following steps integrate the latest SCAG socio-economic forecasts into RivTAM as the basis for determining future roadway deficiencies and identifying the list of eligible improvements to address these future deficiencies. The rational and methodology for accomplishing these steps is further explained in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report, with the resultant TUMF Network described in Chapter 4. 1) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2012 as its base year. This officially -adopted dataset was updated for the base for the TUMF 2016 Nexus Update, including redistribution of the SCAG data to correspond to the RivTAM TAZ structure. 2) The RivTAM model1 has datasets available that represent the capacity of the different facilities in the road network for several different study years. For this nexus update, the RivTAM 2012 base network that was developed following the adoption of the SCAG 2012 RTP was selected as the one most closely resembling current conditions. This network was subsequently reviewed and updated, including a detailed review by WRCOG and participating jurisdictions, as well as partner entities, including BIA, to identify projects that were completed on the arterial network in the period between 2012 and December 2015. The arterial network was then recoded to reflect the changes to the TUMF Network to create a 2015 existing network as the basis for analysis. 3) RivTAM was run using the 2012 socio-economic data (SED) and the 2015 road network to produce the baseline volumes on the roads in the TUMF Network. 4) The baseline volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio was then determined. The target LOS for TUMF facilities is "D", meaning that facilities with LOS "E" or "F", i.e. those with a V/C ratio of 0.9 or higher, are deemed to have inadequate capacity. The result of this step is a list of roads that have existing capacity deficiencies. 5) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2040 as its forecast horizon year. This officially -adopted dataset was also used as the future base year for the TUMF update calculation. 6) RivTAM was run using the arterial road network for 2015 with the land use assumptions for 2040. This "No Build" scenario was used to determine where 1 The macro -level traffic forecasting was conducted using the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM). RivTAM is a version of SCAG's six -county model with additional detail (traffic analysis zones and local roads) added within Riverside County. It was developed for use in traffic studies in Riverside County as a replacement for several older models that covered different portions of the county. RivTAM has both the geographic scope needed to analyze all TUMF facilities and conformity with regional planning assumptions. There is a memorandum of understanding among the jurisdictions of Riverside County that encourages the use of the RivTAM model for use in traffic studies. WRCOG 6 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 deficiencies would occur in the roadway system if development occurred as expected but no roadway improvements were implemented. 7) Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies showed where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to new development. Comparing the existing and future traffic volume to capacity ratio on the roads that are currently deficient shows the portion of the future deficiency that is attributable to new development. 8) It is generally acknowledged that the TUMF program cannot and should not attempt to fund every roadway improvement needed in Western Riverside County. WRCOG has adopted a set of selection criteria that was used to choose which roadway improvements would be eligible for TUMF funding. 9) The selection criteria were applied to the forecast deficiencies to identify projects for the TUMF Project List. The project list was subsequently reviewed to confirm the eligibility of proposed projects, including projects previously included in the TUMF program, as well as additional projects requested for inclusion as part of the current update. The project list was then subsequently updated to reflect those projects considered eligible for TUMF funding as part of the 2016 Nexus. 1.1.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs The estimated costs of proposed improvements on the TUMF Network are calculated based on the prices of construction materials, labor and land values for the various eligible project types included as part of the TUMF program. The approach and outcomes of the following steps is described in Chapter 4 of this report. 10) The TUMF program has design standards covering the road project components that are eligible for TUMF funding. This ensures that projects in jurisdictions with different design standards are treated equally2. 11) The unit costs for the various construction components were updated based on the current cost values for labor and materials such as cement, asphalt, reinforcing steel, etc., as derived from Caltrans cost database, RCTC and other sources, effective March 2016. Additionally, the ROW cost components per square foot for various land use types were also updated based on current property valuations in Riverside County as researched by Overland, Pacific and Cutler in March 2016. 12) The design standards and the unit costs were combined to create conceptual engineering cost estimates for different eligible project types (road costs per lane -mile, typical costs per arterial -freeway interchange, bridge costs per linear foot, etc.). The unit costs from the previous step were then applied to the project list to estimate the costs of the improvements on the TUMF project list. 2 A jurisdiction may choose to design to a higher standard, but if it does so TUMF will only fund up to the equivalent of what costs would have been had the TUMF design standards been followed. WRCOG 7 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 13) The percentage of each project that was attributable to new development was then applied to the costs of TUMF road projects to find the total road project cost that is attributable to new development. 1.1.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component A portion of the TUMF funding is made available for transit services that provide an alternative to car travel for medium -to -long distance intra -regional trips. The eligible transit projects and their associated costs are determined using the following steps, with additional explanation provided in Chapter 4 of this report. 14) The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) commissioned a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that was completed in January 2015. This analysis looked at existing and future ridership and identified potential projects to expand and improve transit service in Riverside County. 15) The COA's ridership figures for 2015 and 2025 were extrapolated to 2012 and 2040 to match the analysis years used for TUMF road projects. 16) The growth in ridership between 2012 and 2040 was compared to total ridership in 2040 to determine the portion of 2040 ridership that is attributable to existing passengers and the portion attributable to new growth. 17) As was the case for road improvements, possible transit projects from the COA were screened using a set of criteria to determine whether they should receive TUMF funding. The COA project list was then reviewed by WRCOG and RTA staff to confirm the validity of the project list and to reflect any changes in RTA project recommendations established since the adoption of the COA to establish a final recommended transit project list to be included as part of the program. The result was the TUMF Transit Project List. 18) RTA provided information on current costs for transit infrastructure. 19) The cost information was then used to determine the cost of the items on the TUMF Transit Project List. 20) The percent attribution from Step 21 was applied to the project cost estimates from Step 24 to determine the cost of transit improvements that are attributable to new development. 21) The costs for road and transit projects that are attributable to new development are then combined along with information on other (non-TUMF) funds to determine the total cost for TUMF projects that is to be cover by new development through the imposition of the fees. The available alternate funding sources were reviewed as part of the Nexus update, specifically including the completion of a detailed review of available federal, state and local funding sources administered by RCTC. 1.1.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments Having determined the total project costs to be covered by new development under the TUMF program, it is necessary to divide these costs among different types of WRCOG 8 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 developments roughly in proportion to their expected traffic impacts. The following steps described the process for determining the proportion attributable to new residential development. These approach for accomplishing these steps along with the findings of this analysis are described in detail in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report. 22) California legislation encourages the use of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the primary indicator of traffic impacts because it takes into account both to the number of vehicle trips and the average length of those trips to reflect the proportional impact to the roadway network. As a result, the methodology for determining the relative distribution of traffic impacts between residential and non-residential uses for the purposes of TUMF was revised from a trip based approach used in the earlier nexus studies to a VMT based approach for the 2016 update. The RivTAM 2012 existing and 2040 no -build model runs were examined to determine the VMT of various trip types that would take place in Western Riverside County (excluding through trips). The results were compared to determine the growth in VMT for each trip type. Per WRCOG policy (based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) recommended practice) trips originating in or destined for a home are attributed to residential development while trips where neither the origin nor the destination are a home are attributed to non-residential development. 23) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socio-economic forecasts were used to estimate the number of single-family and multi -family dwelling units that will be developed during the 2012 to 2040 period. 24) The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE's) trip generation rates, which come from surveys of existing sites for various development types, were then used to estimate the daily number of trips that will be generated by future single- and multi -family developments that will occur in the region from 2012 to 2040. 25) The cost to be covered by residential development was divided into the portion attributable to new single-family dwellings and portion attributable to new multi- family development to calculate the cost share for each use. 26) The cost share for single-family dwellings and multi -family dwellings was divided by the number of dwellings of each type to determine the fee level required from each new dwelling unit to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments. 1.1.5. Computing the Fee for Non -Residential Developments A process similar to that used for residential units was used to determine the fee level for non-residential development. However, the determination of fees for non-residential development involves additional steps due to the additional complexity of accounting for a greater variety of development types within each use category. Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report provide additional explanation regarding the methodology for accomplishing these steps along with the results of this analysis. 27) Like most impact fee programs, TUMF groups similar development projects together into general use categories in order to simplify the administration of the program. TUMF groups the various land use categories found in ITE's Trip WRCOG 9 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Generation Manual into four non-residential categories (industrial, retail, service, and government/public sector) based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is also used by the U.S. Census Bureau and SCAG for demographic classifications, and is the basis for such classifications in the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model as well as and the RivTAM model. The ITE trip generation rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. The median value for the trip - generation rates for all uses within each category was used in the nexus study to represent the trip -generation characteristics for the category as a whole. 28) The trip -generation rates of retail uses and service uses were adjusted to take into account the share of pass -by trips these uses generate. Pass by trip rates for various retail and service uses were derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual to determine the median value of all uses as the basis for the adjustment. The ITE pass by trip rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy and updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. 29) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socio economic forecasts included non-residential employment for 2012 and 2040. These forecasts were used to estimate the growth in employment in each of the four non-residential uses. 30) The SCAG employment forecasts are denominated in jobs while development applications are typically denominated in square feet of floorspace. The ratio of floorspace per employee was determined as a median value derived from four studies, including a comprehensive study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties conducted in 1990, an OCTA study conducted in 2001, a SCAG study (including a specific focus on Riverside County) conducted in 2001, and the Riverside County General Plan adopted in 2015. It should be noted the SCAG study and Riverside County General Plan were identified and included as part of the 2016 Nexus Update in response to a recommendation made during the review of the prior draft 2015 Nexus Study. 31) The forecast growth in employees was multiplied by the floorspace per employee to produce a forecast of the floorspace that will be developed for each of the four non-residential use types. 32) The trip -generation rate for each of the four uses was multiplied by the forecast of new floorspace to estimate the number of trips generated by each use. 33) The amount of project costs to be covered by non-residential development was split between the four non-residential uses to determine the TUMF cast share for each. 34) The TUMF cost share for each of the four non-residential uses was divided by the forecast growth in floorspace to determine the fee level required from each new square foot of non-residential development to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments. 35) WRCOG has adopted a TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook that allows for fee adjustments to be made to account for unusual circumstances for certain types of residential and non-residential development (fuel filling stations, golf courses, high -cube warehouses, wineries, electric charging stations, etc.) These WRCOG 10 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 adjustments are intended to calculate a fairer proportional fee based on the unique trip generation characteristics of these particular development types. The outcome of this process is a schedule of fees for the various use categories identified as part of the TUMF program. The study conclusions including the Schedule of Fees is presented in Chapter 7 of this report. The schedule of fees represents the maximum fee permissible under California law for the purposes of the TUMF program. The WRCOG Executive Committee has the option to adopt lower fees, however, in doing so each use category subject to a lower fee would not be contributing a fair share of the cost of their impacts. This would in turn create a funding gap for the program that would necessitate identifying additional project funding from some other source in order to ensure the cumulative regional impacts of new development are being mitigated fully in accordance with the program. WRCOG 11 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH 2.1 Recent Historical Trend Western Riverside County experienced robust growth in the period from the late 1990's to the mid 2000's. The results of Census 2000 indicate that in the year 2000, Western Riverside County had a population of 1.187 million representing a 30% increase (or 2.7% average annual increase) from the 1990 population of 912,000. Total employment in Western Riverside County in 2000 was estimated by the SCAG to be 381,000 representing a 46% increase (or 3.9% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261,000. Despite the impacts of the Great Recession and the associated residential mortgage and foreclosure crisis, Western Riverside County continued to grow due to the availability of relatively affordable residential and commercial property, and a generally well-educated workforce. By 2010, the population of the region had grown to 1.742 million, a further 47% growth in population from 2000. Similarly, total employment in the region had also grown from 2000 to 2010 with 434,000 employees estimated to be working in Western Riverside County. This represents a 12% increase from the 381,000 employees working in the region in 2000. 2.2 Available Demographic Data A variety of alternate demographic information that quantifies future population, household and employment growth is available for Western Riverside County. For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by SCAG. SCAG is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand forecasts for Southern California. Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR was responsible for establishing and maintaining demographic information and ensuring data consistency through a centralized data source of demographic characteristics. RCCDR provided demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts as well as providing the demographic basis for RivTAM. RCCDR forecasts were utilized as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. WRCOG 12 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 The functions of the RCCDR have been subsequently integrated into the Riverside County Information Technology - Geographic Information Systems (RCIT-GIS) group, and their role in the development and distribution of SED has recently diminished. Although RCIT-GIS, WRCOG and other regional partners participated in the process to develop regional demographic forecasts as part of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG remained the lead agency in the compilation and dissemination of the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2016, including those specific to Western Riverside County. For this reason, the SCAG forecasts adopted for the 2016 RTP/SCS were used as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update, with the adopted SCAG data being disaggregated to correlate to the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure utilized for RivTAM. 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis A major distinction between RCCDR data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data used for this 2016 Update is the change in the base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2035 to 2040. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data were compared to the RCCDR 2007 data used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2012 data reflects a modest increase in population, a very slight decline in households, and a modest decline in overall employment, with a notable shift in employment away from industry and government/public sector to retail. These changes reflect a restructuring of the regional economy in response to the influences of the Great Recession during this time. Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type 2009 Update (2007) 2016 Update (2012) Change Percent Total Population 1,569,393 1,773,935 204,542 13% Total Households 530,289 525,149 -5,140 -1% Single -Family 395,409 366,588 -28,821 -7% Multi -Family 134.880 158.561 23,681 18% Total Employment 515,914 460,787 -55,127 -11% Industrial 175,571 120,736 -54,835 -31% Retail 39,576 65,888 26.312 66% Service 256.813 253.372 -3.441 - I% Government/Public Sector 43.954 20.791 -23.163 -53% Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008; SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 13 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 1,800,000 1,600,000 I ,400,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 175,571 L 256:813 Household Type: O Single -Family EE Multi -Family Employment Sectors: D Industrial ® Retail ® Service • Government Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 compare the socioeconomic forecasts for the program horizon year of 2035 used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and 2040 for this study. The most recent forecasts reflect a reduction in the horizon year population, households and overall employment in Western Riverside County, as well as shifts in the projected growth in employment sectors away from government/public sector and service towards retail. These changes are considered to be consistent with the influence of the economic recession on the rate of growth in Western Riverside County. WRCOG 14 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type 2009 Update (2035) 2016 Update (2040) Change Percent Total Population 2,537,583 2,429,633 -107,950 -4% Total Households 881.968 775,231 -106,737 -12% Single -Family 552,154 539.631 -12,523 -2% Multi -Family _ 329.814 235,600 � -94,214 -29% Total Employment 1,090,833 861,455 -229,378 -21% TUMF Industrial 276,782 201,328 -75,454 -27% TUMF Retail 87,170 101,729 14,559 17% TUMF Service 595.039 528.092 , -66,947 -11% TUMF Government/Public Sector 131,842 30,306 -101,536 j -77% Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008; SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ,537,583 500,000 2.429.633 276,782 1 552,154 539,631 329:8'i4.y35,„'--- '600 595,039 201,328 _ 131.842 r9 oA ° ops 528.092 Household Type: o Single -Family ® Multi -Family Employment Sectors: O lndustrial O Retail OService O Government WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 15 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3 summarize the socioeconomic data obtained from SCAG and used as the basis for completing this Nexus Study analysis. The SCAG employment data for 2012 and 2040 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including: Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the EDD Major Groups were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. Appendix B provides a table detailing the EDD Major Groups and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each non- residential sector type. Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) SED Type 2012 2040 Change Percent Total Population 1,773,935 2,429,633 655,698 37% Total Households 525,149 775,231 250,082 48% Single -Family 366.588 539.631 173,043 47% Multi -Family 158,561 235.600 77,039 49% Total Employment 460,787 861,455 400,668 87% TUMF Industrial 120,736 201,328 80,592 67% TUMF Retail 65,888 101,729 35,841 54% TUMF Service 253,372 528,092 274.720 108% TUMF Government/Public Sector 20,791 30,306 9,515 46% Source: SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 WRCOG 16 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 ?,429.633 .773.935 Qat' o J\ow�o (10 201,328 �401�724 • 120.736 528,092 253.372 1 Household Type: ❑ Single -Family 13 Multi -Family Employment Sector: o Industrial 11 Retail QService n Government The combined effects of the changes in the base year and horizon year socioeconomic data is a notable reduction in the total growth in population, households and employment for the current Nexus Update compared to the 2009 Nexus Update. Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4 provide a comparison of the changes in population, households and employment between the 2016 Nexus Update and the 2009 Nexus Update. The table and figure clearly illustrate the reduction in the rate of growth in Western Riverside County largely attributable to the effects of the economic recession. This reduced rate of growth in the region will serve as the basis for reevaluating the level of impact of new development on the transportation system in the next section, as well as providing the basis for the determination of the fair share fee for each land use type. WRCOG 17 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) SED Type 2009 Update (2007-2035) 2015 Update (2012-2040) Difference Percent Total Population 968,190 655,698 -312,492 -32% Total Households 351,679 250,082 -101,597 -29% Single -Family 156,745 173,043 16,298 10% Multi -Family 194,934 77,039 -117,895 =60% Total Employment 574,919 400,668 -174,251 -30% TUMF Industrial 101,211 80,592 -20,619 -20% TUMF Retail 47,594 35.841 -1 1153 -25% TUMF Service 338,226 274.720 -63,506 -19% TUMF Government/Public Sector 87.888 9,515 -78,373 -89% Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008; SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 101,211 '17.594 156,745. _ ‘461- • tiQ 338,226 87,888 l 03- rbc* Fo- 80,592 3510 274.720 Household Type: ❑ Single -Family ▪ Multi -Family Employment Sector: o Industrial o Retail ❑ Service 3 Government WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 18 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF All new development has some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing VMT, traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)3. In order to meet the increased travel demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become necessary to sustain pre -development traffic conditions. The projected growth in Western Riverside County (37% growth in population and 87% growth in employment in under 30 years) and the related growth in VMT can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development. Development exactions generally provide only a fraction of the improvements with improvements confined to the area immediately adjacent to the respective development, and the broad-based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then describes the TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments' fair share of needed improvements. The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2040 No -Build travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivTAM. The Year 2040 No -Build scenario evaluates the effects of 2040 population, employment and resultant traffic generation on the 2015 existing arterial highway network. 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the existing arterial highway system in Western Riverside County, existing (2012) and 3 The Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp 2-2, 2-3) describes LOS as a "quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience." Letters are used to designate each of six LOS (A to F), with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, LOS C or D is typically used in planning efforts to ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users. Therefore, LOS E represents the threshold for unacceptable LOS. WRCOG 19 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 future (2040) SED were modeled on the existing (2015) arterial highway network using RivTAM. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for the AM and PM peak periods for each of the two scenarios. The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total VMT, total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). These results were tabulated in Table 3.1. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix C. Total Arterial VMT, VHT, VHD and LOS E Threshold VMT were calculated to include all principal arterials, minor arterials and major connectors, respectively. Regional values for each threshold were calculated for a total of all facilities including arterials, freeways, freeway ramps and High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline to 2040 No -Build) Measure of Performance* Peak Periods (Total) 2012 2040 % Change % Annual VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 19,532,437 29,277,587 50% 1.5% VMT - FREEWAYS 11,019,155 14,487,570 31% 1.0% VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 8,513,282 14,790,016 74% 2.0% TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 5,585,202 9,089,495 63% 1.8% VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 575,154 1,361,907 137% 3.1% VHT - FREEWAYS 296,542 736,433 148% 3.3% VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 278,611 625,474 124% 2.9% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 181,151 396,981 119% 2.8% VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 175,765 739,075 320% 5.3% VHD - FREEWAYS 117,430 502,549 328% 5.3% VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 58,334 236,527 305% 5.1% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 45,080 172,944 284% 4.9% VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6,188,644 16,966,992 174% 3.7% VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,532,703 10,156,363 124% 2.9% VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 1,655,941 6,810,629 31 1% 5.2% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 1,462,061 5,160,911 253% 4.6% % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 26% 57% * Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016. NOTES: Volume is adjusted by PCE factor VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios). LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 20 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values: VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT - (Free-flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90) Note: Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2010 Edition of the t•iiuhwav Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 14-5, Chapter 14, Page 14-5). The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build, and the average annual change between 2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build. As can be seen from the RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development will cause VMT on the arterial highway network to increase by approximately 74% by the year 2040 (approximately 2.0% per year). In the absence of additional improvements to the transportation network in Western Riverside County, the growth in VMT will cause congestion on the highway system to increase almost exponentially, with the most significant increase in congestion observed on the arterial highway system that includes the TUMF Network. Many facilities will experience a significant increase in vehicle delay and deterioration in LOS to unacceptable levels as a result of new development and the associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010), LOS C or D are required to "ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users." LOS E is generally recognized to represent the threshold of unacceptable operating service and the onset of substantial systemic traffic congestion. The Congestion Management Program for Riverside County (CMP) published by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2011 designates LOS E as the "traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS E for any segment or intersection along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways" in Riverside County. "The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality." 4 The CMP provides a mechanism for monitoring congestion on the highway system and, where congestion is observed, establishes procedures for developing a deficiency plan to address improvement needs. The reactive nature of the CMP to identify and remediate existing congestion differs from the proactive nature of the TUMF program to anticipate and provide for future traffic needs. For this reason, the TUMF program follows the guidance of the Highway Capacity Manual in establishing LOS E as the threshold for unacceptable level of service, and subsequently as the basis for measuring system performance and accounting for existing needs. This approach ensures a more conservative accounting of existing system needs as part of the 4 Congestion Management Program for Riverside County - Executive Summary (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 201 1) Page ES -3, ES -1 WRCOG 21 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 determination of the "fair share" of mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of future new development on the transportation system. The continuing need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County's transportation infrastructure, and in particular, the arterial highway network. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure with the total VMT on the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA; also referred to as the TUMF Network) estimated to increase by approximately 63% or 1.8% compounded annually. As shown in Table 3.1, the VMT on arterial facilities within the TUMF Network experiencing LOS of E or worse will increase by approximately 253% or 4.6% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2012 and 2040. By 2040, 57% of the total VMT on the TUMF arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the TUMF arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on TUMF arterial highways will increase by approximately 4.9% per year. The combined influences of increased travel demand and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlight the continuing need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the TUMF arterial highway system to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development. The RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve these roadways to accommodate the anticipated growth in VMT and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the additional travel demand. 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to use an automobile, and particularly for those who do not readily have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. While some future transit trips will be accommodated by inter -regional transit services such as Metrolink, a substantial number of the trips within Western Riverside County will be served by bus transit services and for this reason the provision of regional bus transit service is considered integral to addressing the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new developments. Regional bus transit services within Western Riverside County are primarily provided by RTA. To support the evaluation of regional bus service WRCOG 22 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 needs to accommodate new development, daily transit trip forecasts were derived from the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis5. Weekday projected system ridership for 2015 and 2025 were interpolated to 2012 and 2040 to represent existing and future transit trips consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section 3.1. The interpolated year 2012 and year 2040 existing and future transit ridership were compared in order to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. The weekday projected system ridership indicates that RTA bus transit services accommodate approximately 31,016 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2015. By 2025, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 46,572 riders per weekday. This represents an increase in projected weekday ridership of 15,556 between 2015 and 2025, or an average increase of 1,414 weekday riders each year. Based on these projected weekday ridership levels and rate of ridership growth each year, the interpolated weekday ridership for 2012 is 26,773 while the interpolated weekday ridership for 2040 would be 67,785. This translates into an increase of 41,011 riders per weekday between 2012 and 2040. Weekday projected system ridership for 2015 and 2025, as presented in Table 7 of the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis Executive Summary, along with the interpolated weekday system ridership in 2012 and 2040 are included in Appendix D. The significant future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all types of transportation infrastructure and services to accommodate this growth. Furthermore, bus transit ridership is expected to grow as the improved services being planned and implemented by RTA attracts new riders and encourages existing riders to use transit more often as an alternative to driving. Attracting additional riders to bus transit services contributes to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development by reducing the number of trips that need to be served on the highway system. The need to provide additional bus transit services within Western Riverside County to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand. 3.3 The TUMF Concept A sizable percentage of trip -making for any given local community extends beyond the bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education, shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere. As new development occurs within a particular local community, this migration of trips of all purposes by new residents and the new business that serve them contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their community and in the other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute uniformly to paying the fair share cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer -distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee is intended to be used primarily to improve transportation 5 Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), Comprehensive Operational Analysis Executive Summary, January 2015, Table 7 WRCOG 23 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (in particular, arterial roadways and regional bus transit services). Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer -distance trips (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region), while using a second portion of the fee revenues for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter -community trips within a specific subregion or zone (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the communities most directly served by these roads - in effect, a return -to -source of that portion of the funds). Reflecting the importance of public transit service in meeting regional travel needs, a third portion of fee revenues was reserved for improvements to regional bus transit services (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region). Much, but not all, of the new trip -making in a given area is generated by residential development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the transportation system as they travel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e. new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.). With the exception of commute trips by local residents coming to and from work, and the trips of local residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and services, the travel demands of new businesses are not directly attributable to residential development. The consideration of different sources of new travel demand is therefore reflected in the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for their related transportation impacts. In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following: ➢ A uniform fee that is levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County. ➢ The fee is assessed roughly proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation system. > A portion of the fee is used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer -distance trips within the region; a portion of the fee is returned to the subregion or zone in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee is used to fund improvements to regional bus transit services that serve longer -distance trips between the communities within the region. WRCOG 24 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network An integral element of the initial Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system. As a result, this system also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Network does not include the freeways of Western Riverside County as these facilities primarily serve longer distance inter -regional trips and a significant number of pass-through trips that have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County6. The TUMF Network is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The RSHA for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transportation network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build -out (not including freeways). 2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County. 3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day in the future horizon year. 4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in the future horizon year. 5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services. 6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi -modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Appendix E includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the RSHA. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was 6 Since pass -though trips have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County, new development within Western Riverside County cannot be considered responsible for mitigating the impacts of pass through trips. The impact of pass- through trips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass through trips (and other inter -regional freeway trips) is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Western Riverside County Freeway Strotecic Pion, Pha e 11— Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination Final Report dated May 31, 2008. WRCOG 25 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The RSHA is illustrated in Figure 4.1. As stated previously, the RSHA represents those regional significant highway facilities that primarily serve inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and therefore also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. Consistent with the declining rate of new development forecast for Western Riverside County post the Great Recession, the TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update to ensure facilities generally still met the previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly proportional to the impacts needing to be mitigated. This review process resulted in the removal of various facilities from the TUMF Network, as well as various changes in the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network are discussed in Section 4.3 of this report. WRCOG 26 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 a Legend TUM1II A. Cour. y Regional System of Highways and Arterials - Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program I Figure 4.1 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network As indicated previously, the TUMF roadway network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance." Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at general plan build-out7, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts8, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2040. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The backbone network is illustrated in Figure 4.2. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the RSHA for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are considered significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG APD or zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3. 7 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at general plan buildout, in some cases it was determined that sufficient demand for all additional lanes facilities may not exist on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF Program (2040). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF Program. 8 Area Planning Districts (APD) are the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area. Area Planning Districts are interchangeably referred to as TUMF Zones. WRCOG 28 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials - Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program 1 Figure 4.2 - ■�i f 64 . . an Nliktiteiam Central Zone e-"riballii$111614A-71) 111: Pass Zone -Northwest Zone Legend Ma a..k., InI UM Zone Hou.,iun a 1111111 HernetfSan Jacinto Zone Southwest Zone #1, WRCOG Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program 1 Figure 4.3 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs For the purpose of calculating a "fair share" fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development. Estimates of the cost to improve the network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were originally developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)9, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates10 (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998. The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF Program. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were originally varied to account for variations in construction cost (and in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs which originally included consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses - code 1), suburban (developed residential uses - code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses - code 3) land uses, respectively. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were originally varied to account for variations in cost associated with new complex, new standard (or fully reconstructed), or major (or partially reconstructed) or minor (individual ramp improvements) interchange improvements. As part of the 2016 TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were revised to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within 9 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Redlonal Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) 10 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG 31 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update to reflect the effects of the ongoing recovery from the economic recession that has seen the costs of materials, labor and land acquisition in California rebound from relative historical lows. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions developed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update. In addition, supplemental categories were added to the cost assumptions to better delineate the need to mitigate the cumulative multi -species habitat impacts of TUMF arterial highway improvements in accordance with the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and to account for the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) MSHCP adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003 states that "each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts." This provision is reiterated in the MSHCP Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Report (David Taussig and Associates, Inc., July 1, 2003) section 5.3.1.2 which states that "over the next 25 years, regional infrastructure projects are expected to generate approximately $250 million in funding for the MSHCP" based on mitigation at 5% of construction costs. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP, the TUMF Program will incorporate a cost element to account for the required MSHCP contribution to mitigate the multi -species habitat impacts of constructing TUMF projects. In accordance with the MSHCP Nexus Report, an amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will be specifically included as part of TUMF Program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the MSHCP Nexus Report are included in Appendix F. Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate as part of the current Nexus Update. Table 4.1 also includes a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions, and the 2009 Nexus Update unit cost assumptions. Cost estimates are provided in current year values as indicated. To estimate the cost of improving the regional transportation system to provide for future traffic growth from new development, the transportation network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed network improvements. The initial list of improvements needed to provide for the traffic generated by new development was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. A consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to provide for future traffic growth associated with new development. This initial list of proposed improvements has since been revised and updated as part of each subsequent Nexus Update to reflect the changing levels of new development and the associated travel demand and transportation system impacts to be mitigated as part of the TUMF program. WRCOG 32 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 As discussed in Section 2.3, the effects of the economic recession since the 2009 Nexus Update have included a reduction in the rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County. As indicated in Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4, the anticipated rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County has been reduced overall by 32% for population, 29% for households and 30% for employment. This reduced rate of socioeconomic growth is reflected in a reduction in the forecast horizon year population, households and employment depicted in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2, with the 2040 forecasts used as the basis for the 2016 Nexus Update being reduced by 4% for population, 12% for households and 21% for employment compared to the 2035 horizon year forecasts used as the basis for the 2009 Nexus Update, despite the horizon year being extended out by 5 years in the most recent SCAG forecasts. This reduced rate of forecasted socioeconomic growth has a commensurate impact on the forecasted daily traffic in the region as demonstrated by the 2009 Nexus Update VMT compared to the 2016 Nexus Update VMT in Table 4.2. As shown in the table, the forecast daily traffic is reduced by about 7% in the year 2040 as the basis for the 2016 Nexus Update compared to the year 2035 as used for the 2009 Nexus Update. As a result of the reduced traffic growth in the region, it is anticipated that the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the arterial highway and transit systems in the region is also reduced necessitating a reduction in the projects identified on the TUMF Network to mitigate the impacts of new development. WRCOG 33 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Component Type Original Cost Assumptions as published October 18, 2002 Cost Assumptions per 2009 Nexus Update October 5, 2009 Cost Assumptions per 2016 Nexus Update Description Terrain 1 $550,000 $628,000 $692,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain Terrain 2 $850,000 $761,000 $878,000 Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain Terrain 3 $1,150,000 $895,000 $1,064,000 Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous terrain Landuse 1 $900,000 $1,682,000 $2,509,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas Landuse 2 $420,000 $803,000 $2,263,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - suburban areas Landuse 3 $240,000 $237,000 5287,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - rural areas Interchange 1 n/a $43,780,000 550,032,000 Complex new interchange/interchange modification cost Interchange 2 $20,000,000 $22,280,000 525,558,000 total caNew interchange/interchangest modification Interchange 3 $10,000,000 $10,890,000 $12,343,000 Major interchange improvement total cost Bridge 1 $2,000 $2,880 53,180 Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot RRXing 1 $4,500,000 $4,550,000 $6,376,000 New Rail Grade Crossing per lane RRXing 2 $2,250,000 $2,120,000 $2,733,000 Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lane Planning 10% 10% 10% Planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment costs based on construction cost only Engineering 25% 25% 25% Project study report, design, permitting and construction oversight costs based on construction cost only Contingency 10% 10% 10% Contingency costs based on total segment cost Administration 3% 4% TUMF program administration based on total TUMF eligible network cost MSHCP 5% 5% TUMF component of MSHCP based on total TUMF eligible construction cost Table 4.2 - Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County Measure of Performance 2016 Nexus Update 2009 Nexus Update Daily Daily _ 2012 Baseline 2040 No -Build 2007 2035 VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 36,844,082 56,574,656 39,187,718 60,772,353 VMT - FREEWAYS 21,798,155 30,678,958 24,056,704 32,920,502 VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 15,045,927 25,895,698 15,131,014 27,851,851 TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 10,059,547 16,515,642 Source: Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016; RivTAM provided by Iteris (2008) WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 34 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 A peer review process utilizing real world experience and perspectives from both the private and public sectors was critical in developing a realistic network of proposed improvements to mitigate the additional traffic resulting from future development in Western Riverside County. Representatives of private development firms and the BIA have continued to participate in the process of developing and updating the TUMF Program. This involvement has included active participation of private developer staff at various workshops conducted at critical milestone points in the process of completing the Nexus update, as well as a formal review of the TUMF Network and associated elements of the Nexus Study by the BIA and their hired consultant staff. As part of the 2015 Nexus Update, the list of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and validated during the subsequent Nexus updates was reviewed for accuracy and, where necessary, amended to remove or modify projects that have changed in need to mitigate impacts based on changes in the patterns of growth and travel demand within the region. Projects completed since the adoption of the 2009 Nexus Update were also removed from the network to reflect the fact that mitigation at these locations is no longer required. The specific network changes were screened by the WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines including travel demand and traffic performance, and were subsequently reviewed by representatives of the public and privates sectors at a series of workshop meetings conducted between November 2014 and January 2015. In response to the release of the 2015 Nexus Update draft study document, the TUMF Network was further reviewed by a consultant team hired by the BIA, with findings and recommendations provided in a letter dated August 8, 2015. A final review of the TUMF Network and associated improvements was conducted by WRCOG staff in cooperation with the Public Works Committee during the summer and fall of 2016 specifically in conjunction with the 2016 Nexus Update to include consideration of the revised travel forecasts based on the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS demographic forecasts. Based on the findings of the network screening, workshop meetings and other reviews, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect necessary network corrections and modifications to project assumptions. Matrices summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of both the 2015 and 2016 TUMF Nexus Updates were developed and are included in Appendix G. Eligible arterial highway and street improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include: 1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes; 2. Construction of new Network roadway segments; 3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures; 4. Construction of new Network bridge structures; 5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways; 6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways; 7. Grade separation of existing Network at -grade railroad crossings; WRCOG 35 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 All eligible improvement types provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. Following the comprehensive update of the TUMF Program, the estimated total cost to improve the RSHA for Western Riverside County is $3.45 billion with this cost including all arterial highway and street planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs, but not including transit, MSHCP or program administration costs that will be subsequently described. It should be noted that the full cost to improve the TUMF Network cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for the previous obligation of other funds to complete necessary improvements and unfunded existing needs. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 describe the adjustments to the total TUMF Network improvement need to account for existing needs and obligated funds. In addition to the arterial highway and street improvement costs indicated above, the TUMF Nexus Update included specific consideration for the TUMF Program obligation to the MSHCP program to mitigate the impact of TUMF network improvements on species and habitat within Western Riverside County. The TUMF obligation to MSHCP was calculated at a rate of 5% of the total construction (capital) cost of new lane segments, bridges and railroad grade separations on the TUMF Network. The total obligation to the MSHCP as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $45.4 million, although the total obligation specific to the TUMF program is reduced to account for MSHCP obligations associated with improvements addressing existing needs and therefore excluded from TUMF. The TUMF 2016 Nexus Update similarly includes specific consideration of the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. The average cost for WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program was calculated at a rate of 4% of the total eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridges and railroad grade separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. Administration costs incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe benefit and overhead costs for WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and support participating jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services to support the implementation of the TUMF program. The total cost for WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $1 12.2 million. The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Section 4.7, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF Program, and the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment following adjustments for obligated funding and unfunded existing needs as described in subsequent sections. 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System In addition to the roadway network, public transportation plays a key role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter -community trips is generally provided in the form of public bus transit services and in particular express bus WRCOG 36 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 or other high frequency services between strategically located community transit centers. In Western Riverside County, these bus transit services are typically provided by RTA. Transit needs to serve future regional travel in Western Riverside County via bus transit include vehicle acquisitions, transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, maintenance facilities and other associated capital improvements to develop express bus or other high frequency inter -community transit bus services within the region. Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF Program as they typically serve longer inter -regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter -regional highway system. The network of regionally significant bus transit services represents those express bus and other high frequency transit bus services that primarily support inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional highway system and inter- regional commuter rail services. As a result, this portion of the bus transit system also represents the extents of the network of bus services that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Bus Transit Network is the system of bus services that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The Bus Transit Network for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transit network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Bus transit routes (or corridors comprised of multiple overlapping routes) proposed to have a frequency of greater than three buses per direction during peak hours at ultimate build out. 2. Routes or corridors that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities, both within and adjoining western Riverside County. 3. Routes or corridors with forecast weekday bus ridership in excess of 1,000 person trips per day by 2040. 4. Routes or corridors that are proposed to provide timed interconnections with at least four other routes or corridors at ultimate build out. 5. Routes or corridors that utilize the majority of travel along the TUMF RSHA. 6. Routes or corridors that provide direct access to areas of forecast population and employment growth, major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi -modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Express bus routes and other high -frequency bus transit routes and corridors in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified by RTA based on service information developed as part of the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis completed in January 2015. The TUMF Bus Transit Network was subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, and the WRCOG Executive Committee as the basis for the transit component of the 2016 Nexus Update. Updated cost estimates for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers and transfer facilities, express bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus and other high WRCOG 37 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 frequency bus transit service within the region were provided by RTA. The updated transit unit cost data provided by RTA are shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures Component Type" Cost Assumptions as published October 18, 2002 Cost Assumptions per 2009 Nexus Update October 5, 2009 Cost Assumptions per 2015 Nexus Update Description Transit Center 1 $6,000,000 $5,655,000 $6,000,000 Relocation/expansion of existing Regional Transit Center with up to 14 bus bays and park and ride Transit Center 2 $9,000,000 New Regional Transit Center with up to 14 bus bays and park and ride Transfer Facility $1,000,000 Multiple route transfer hub 0 & M Facility $50,000,000 Regional Operations andMaintenance Facility Bus Stop $10,000 $27,000 $40,000 Bus Stop Amenities Upgrade on TUMF Network BRT Service Capital $540,000 $550,000 $60,000 BRT/Limited Stop Service Capital (per stop**) Vehicle Fleet 1 $155,000 Medium Sized Bus Contract Operated Vehicle Fleet 2 $325,125 $550,000 $585,000 Large Sized Bus Directly Operated COA Study $950,000 Comprehensive Operational Analysis Study component of Nexus Study Update * Transit Cost Component Types were restructured as part of the 2015 Nexus Update in accordance with the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis (January 2015) ** BRT Service Capital Cost Assumption was based on a per mile unit in 2009 Nexus Update. 2016 Nexus Update uses a per stop unit cost for BRT Service Capital The estimated total cost for future RTA bus transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $153.1 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Section 4.7. WRCOG 38 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements, including most recently California Senate Bill (SB) 1 Transportation Funding approved by Governor Brown on April 28, 2017. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the funded cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF Program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds. To determine the availability of obligated funds, each jurisdiction in Western Riverside County (including the County of Riverside, the participating cities, and RCTC) was asked to review their current multi-year capital improvement programs to identify transportation projects on the TUMF system. A detailed table identifying the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $303.5 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated TUMF network cost was subsequently reduced by this amount. 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table 3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter -community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter -community transit services will partially reflect this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated by existing demand, rather than the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need. In the initial TUMF Nexus Study, the cost of existing improvement needs was estimated by identifying the roadway segments on the TUMF network that operate at LOS E or F according to the modeled 2000 base year volumes. The application of the LOS E threshold is consistent with national traffic analysis guidance that stipulates LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS for arterial roadway facilities. The cost to improve these roadway segments with existing unacceptable LOS was calculated using the same method applied to estimate the overall system improvement cost. This method estimated the share of the particular roadway segment (including all associated ROW, interchange, structure and soft costs) that was experiencing unacceptable LOS, and reduced the estimated cost to reflect the relative share. The adjusted value reflected the maximum eligible under the TUMF Program to improve only those portions of the segment (and the relative share of associated improvement costs) that were not experiencing an existing need and were therefore considered to be exclusively addressing the cumulative impacts of new development. WRCOG 39 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 By the application of this methodology, the initial TUMF Nexus Study did not account for the incremental cumulative impact of new development on those segments with an identified existing need. For this reason, the methodology to account for existing need was reviewed as part of the TUMF 2005 update to provide for the inclusion of incremental traffic growth on those segments with existing need. As part of the 2016 Nexus Update, the methodology to account for existing need on arterial segments was further refined to utilize peak period traffic conditions as the basis for the calculation, rather than daily traffic conditions. Peak period performance measures typically reflect the highest level of demand for transportation facilities and therefore are typically utilized as the basis for project design making peak period a more appropriate basis for determining existing need (and future mitigation needs) as part of the TUMF program. The existing need methodology for the 2016 Nexus Update was also expanded to include spot improvements on the TUMF Network (including interchanges, bridges and railroad crossings). Due to limitations in previously available traffic forecast data, prior versions of the TUMF Nexus Study only determined existing need for arterial segments and did not explicitly include existing need for spot improvements. To account for existing need in the TUMF Network as part of the 2016 Nexus Update, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted. This was done by identifying the portion of any TUMF facility in the RivTAM 2012 Baseline scenario with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of greater than 0.9 (the threshold for LOS E), and extracting the share of the overall facility cost to improve that portion. This cost adjustment provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those TUMF segments with an existing high level of congestion. The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology: 1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivTAM 2012 Baseline scenario assigned traffic on the 2015 existing network and delineating those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an average directional v/c exceeding 0.90. a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for network segments, which was calculated by: i. Determining the length for the portion of each segment (model link), and calculating the ratio of link length to the overall segment length ii. Generating the average directional v/c for each link, for both directions in AM and PM periods, and multiplying by link/segment length ratio iii. Determining the maximum peak -period peak -direction v/c for each link, representing the highest directional v/c in either AM or PM iv. Calculating weighted average v/c for each TUMF segment, based on the sum of all weighted max v/c values of each link within a segment WRCOG 40 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 b. A similar method was used to determine existing need for spot improvements including interchanges, railroad crossings and bridges. However, no weighting was used in the calculation of existing need for spot improvements. For these facilities, the peak -period peak -direction v/c values (highest directional v/c in either AM or PM) were utilized in the existing need calculation. This was based on the individual link within a network segment where a bridge or railroad crossing is located, or on - and off -ramps in the case of interchanges. 2. Initial costs of addressing the existing need were calculated by estimating the share of a particular roadway segments "new lane" cost, or individual spot improvement cost (including all associated ROW and soft costs). 3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average directional base year v/c for the TUMF facilities (delineated under step one) with the horizon year v/c for the corresponding segments and spot improvements calculated based on the RivTAM 2040 No -Build scenario assigned traffic on the 2012 existing network using the same methodology as the base year v/c. 4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2040 No -Build scenario v/c in excess of LOS E. 5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in v/c over the base year, TUMF will 'discount' the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the incremental v/c growth through 2040 No -Build compared to the 2012 Baseline v/c (up to a maximum of 100%). The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $431.7 million. Appendix H includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment and spot improvement experiencing unacceptable LOS. For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $60.5 million representing 39.5% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix H includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost. 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost A total of $303.5 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available revenue sources, the funded portion of these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement need is WRCOG 41 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 $492.2 million. These improvements are needed to mitigate existing transportation deficiencies and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through the TUMF. Based on the estimated costs described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the total value to complete the identified TUMF network and transit improvements, and administer the program is $3.76 billion. Having accounted for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $2.96 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $2.71 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $92.6 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $43.3 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $1 12.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. Figure 4.4 illustrates the various improvements to the RSHA included as part of the TUMF network cost calculation. Table 4.4 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations for each of the individual segments. This table also identifies the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment having accounted for obligated funding and unfunded existing need. A detailed breakdown of the individual cost components and values for the various TUMF Network segments is included in Appendix H. Table 4.5 outlines the detailed transit component cost estimates. It should be noted that the detailed cost tables (and fee levels) are subject to regular review and updating by WRCOG and therefore WRCOG should be contacted directly to obtain the most recently adopted version of these tables (and to confirm the corresponding fee level). WRCOG 42 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Pass Zone IL ormi 1111 011111L ..Northwest Zonle ICentral Zone 1:711741.11, I I I I I I PS -1) 1Ph 111111M, • Pigl joinak op.1-1,rriet/San Jacinto Zone 4744.1t iort Southwest Zone a a Legend Ultimata Hurrinar of Canna 2 Laras 4 lann La^oa La^cs Railroad Crossings • Naar HauGiade CIC6Sng Iniurchanglia 0 0 Bridgini tlildpc Imprommenr 7runua Con.r Opef.Llon I 40.1 C00.41 FlapaLinh #01.1 Cowry Parlowly Nole The lg. le,fies Ale sub, 10 hotIner cilans Onseo Or h. :ocAroOridelerrnmel.07 a Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program I Figure 4.4 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates AREA PLAN DISI CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Elhanac Goetz Murrieta 0.99 $0 $0 Cenlral Menifee Elhanac Murrieta 1-215 0,90 50 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac 1-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897.000 $15.766,003 Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews 0,61 $1,617.000 $1.617.000 Cenlral Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossing 0.00 $36,980,000 $33,018,000 Central Menifee Menifee SR -74 (Pinacalel Simpson 2.49 90 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge 0,00 50 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate 0.64 50 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Aldergale Newport 0.98 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland 1.07 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Holland Gorbani 1,03 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Carboni ScoR 1.00 $2,635,000 $2,635,000 Cenlral Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City Limit 0.53 $0 90 Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta 1.81 $0 $0 Cenlral Menifee Newport Morriela 1-215 2.05 $5,405,000 $5,405,000 Cenlral Menifee Newport 1-215 Menifee 0.95 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Menifee Lindenberger 0.77 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Lindenberger SR -79 (Winchester) 3.58 $0 50 Cenlral Menifee Scott 1-215 Briggs 2.04 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott 1-215 interchange 0.00 §37,060,000 $37,060.000 Cenlral Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta 1.01 $2,654,000 $2,654,000 Central Menifee SCo11 Murrieta -215 1.94 510,254,000 $10.254,000 Central Menifee SR -74 Matthews Briggs 1.89 54,994,003 54,994,003 Central Moreno Volley Alessandro 1-215 Perris 3.52 56,394,030 $6,394,030 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Perris Nason 2.00 $22,632.000 $22,632,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Nason Moreno Beach 0.99 $6.922.000 $6.922,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs 4,13 $10.902,000 510,902,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR -60 AJessandro 1.67 $4.411,000 $3.724,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR -60 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Central Moreno Valley Penis Reche Vista Ironwood 2.09 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Ironwood Sunnymead 0.52 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris SR -60 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Sunnymead Cactus 2.00 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Penis Cactus Harley Knox 3.50 $0 $0 Central Moreno Volley Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit Heacock 0.44 $3,310,000 $1,705,030 Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz 0.30 52.100,000 $2,100,000 Central Perris Case Goetz 1-215 2.36 516.486.000 $13,538.000 Cenlral Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $1,126,020 $495,000 Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz 2.24 $7,327,000 57,327,030 Central Penis Elhanac San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $7,376.003 $7.378,030 Central Penis Ethanac I-215 Sherman 0.35 52,435,000 $1,945,003 Central Perris Goetz Case Elhanac 2,00 $5,267,000 $2,506,000 Central Penis Goetz San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $3,688,000 $1,925.000 Central Penis Mid -County (Placentia) 1-215 Penis 0.87 $13,127,000 $12,627,000 Central Penis Mid -County (Placentia) 1-215 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 512,354,000 Centro) Perris Mid -County Perris Evans 1.57 $32,902,000 $32,902,000 Central Penis Mid -County Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge 0.00 $8,299,000 $8,299,000 Central Perris Perris Harley Knox Ramona 1.00 $0 50 Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus 2.49 $6,578,000 $6,578,000 Cenlral Perris Perris CiVusNuevo 0.50 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Nuevo 11th 1.75 $12,206,000 $9,034,000 Central Penis Perris -215 overcrossing bridge 0.03 $2,767,000 $1,356,000 Cenlral Penis Ramona 1-215 Perris 1.47 $52,769,00 52,769,000 Cenlral Perris Ramona 1-215 interchange 0.03 $17,897,000 $5,965,000 Central Penis Ramona Perris Evans 1,00 $0 $0 Central Penis Ramona Evans Mid-Counly (2,800 11 E of Rider) 2.62 $0 $0 Central Penis SR -74 (41h) Ellis 1-215 2.29 $0 90 Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR -74 Keystone 1.07 $5,646,000 55,646,030 Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge 4,98 $15,815,000 $8,105.000 Cenlral Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR -74 (Pinacate) 4.07 510,737,000 $10,737,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-Counly Evans Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) 0,77 $8,587,000 $8,587,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-Counly (Ramona) Ramona (2,80011 E of Rider) Pico Avenue 0.44 $1,161,000 $1,161.000 Central Unincorporated Md-Counly (Ramona) Pico Avenue Bridge 5,95531,413,000 $25,287,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-Counly (Ramona) San Jacinto River bridge 0.03' $23,978,000 $15,035,000 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino County Reche Vista 3.35 512,457,000 $9,429,000 Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Moreno Valley Cily Limit 1.22 $9,180,000 $4,729,000 Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR -79 (Winchester) 3.04 §16,042,000 $0 Central Unincorporated SR -74 Ethanac Ellis 2,68 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco I -IS Temescol Canyon 0.66 $2.306.000 $2,306,000 Northwest Corona Cajalco 1-15 interchange 0-00 $72,546,000 $44,251,003 Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln 2,60 $19,330,000 $7.282.000 Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge 0.03'55,534,000 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California 2,81 $1l $0 Northwest Corona Foothill California -IS 0,89 $6,207.000 $4,304,000 Northwest Corona Green River 5R-91 Dominguez Ranch 0.52 $3.624,000 $1,000 Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades 0.56 $4,214.000 $1,639,000 Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande 2.01 $0 50 Northwest Easlvale Schleisman San Bernardino County 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek 0.65 $2,271,000 $2.271,000 Northwest Easlvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge 0.00 $923.000 $923.000 Northwest Easlvale Schleismon 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Harrison 0,87 $0 $0 Northwest Easlvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner 0,50 $0 $0 Northwest Easlvale Schleisman Sumner Scholar 0.50 $3,493,000 $3,493,000 Northwest Easlvale Schleisman Scholar AStreet 0.31 50 $0 Northwest Easlvale Schleisman AStreet Hamner 0.27 $0 50 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren SR -60 Bellegrave 1.43 59,976,000 $3,628,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana River 3.60 925,115,030 $7,444,000 WRCOG 44 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIS1 CIN Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Nodhwesl Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Nodhwesl Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorpora led Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorpora led Northwest Unincorpora led Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorpora led Northwest Unincorporated Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Unincorpora led Pass Unincorpora led San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated Son Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated Southwest Canyon Lake Southwest Canyon Lake Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Murrieta Southwest Munieta Southwest Murriela Soulhwesl Murrieta Southwest Murrieta Soulhwesl Murrieta Southwest Murriela Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Soulhwesl Temecula Southwest Unincorpora led Soulhwesl Unincorpora led Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Wildomor Southwest Wildomar Soulhwesl Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Subtotal STREETNAME Alessandro Arlington Arlington Van Buren Van Buren Van Buren Van Buren Alessandro Alessandro Cajalco Cajalco Cajalco Cajalco Cajalco Cajalco Van Buren Van Buren Beaumont Potrero Potrero Potrero Po hero Potrero SR -79 (Beaumont) SR -79 (Beaumont) SR -79 (Beaumont) SR -79 (Lamb Canyon) Domenigoni Domenigoni SR -74 Mid -County (Ramona) Mid -County (Ramona) Ramona Ramona Ramona Ramona Domenigoni Domenigoni Gilman Springs Mid -County (Ramona) SR -74 SR -79 (Hemet Bypass) SR -79 (Hemet Bypass) SR -79 (Hemet Bypass) SR -79 (San Jacinto Bypas SR -79 (Sanderson) SR -79 (Sanderson) SR -79 (Winchester) Goetz Railroad Canyon Railroad Canyon Railroad Canyon SR -74 Clinton Keith Clinton Keith Clinton Keith French Valley (Dote) French Valley (Date) Whilewood Whilewood French Valley (Date) French Valley (Dote) French Valley (Date) French Valley (Cherry) French Valley (Cherry) Western Bypass (Diaz) Western Bypass (Vincent Western Bypass (Vincent Western Bypass (Vincent SR -79 (Winchester) SR -79 (Winchester) Benton Clinton Keith Clinton Keith SR -74 SR -79 (Winchester( SR -79 (Winchester) SR -79 (Winchester) SR -79 (Winchester) Bundy Canyon Bundy Canyon Bundy Canyon Clinton Keith Clinton Keith $EGMENIFROM Arlington North Magnolia Santa Ana River SR -91 Wood Trautwein Trautwein Vista Grande EI Sobrante Harley John Harvil Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash La Sierra Mockingbird Canyon Orange Terrace Oak Valley (14th) SEGMENTA? Trautwein Magnolia Alessandro SR -91 Mockingbird Canyon Trautwein Orange Terrace Vista Grande 1-215 Harley John Harvil 1-215 La Sierra bridge El Sobranle Wood 1-215 1-10 Oak Valley (San Smoleo Car SR -60 SR -60 UP Noble Creek SR -60 1-10 1-10 Mellow California Warren Sanderson Winchester Warren Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemel Sanderson State Main Cedar SR -79 (Winchester) San Diego Aqueduct Bridge Bridge Briggs SR -74 (Florida) San Diego Aqueduct Domenigoni s) Avid -County (Ramona) Gilman Springs San Jacinto River Domenigoni Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills 1-15 1-15 1-15 Copper Craft Toulon 1-215 Murrieta Hol Springs Winchester Creek Menifee City Limit Keller Margarita Ynez 1-15 Jefferson Murrieta Creek Cherry Mon Rancho California Mord-15 Mon Murrieta Creek Murrieta Hot Springs 1-15 SR -79 Whitewood Warm Springs Creek 1-15 Keller Thompson La Alba Hunter 1-15 Monte Vista 1-15 Palomar f-15 interchange railroad crossing bridge 4th Mellow interchange Colilornia Gilman Springs Sanderson State Warren Sanderson Bypc interchange State Main Cedar SR -74 Warren bridge Sanderson Warren SR -79 (Winchester) Domenigoni bridge Winchester SR -74 (Honda) Ramona bridge Keller Newport Goetz Canyon Hills interchange interchange Toulon 1-215 Whitewood Winchester Creek Margarita Keller Clinton Keith Ynez Jefferson interchange Diaz bridge Rancho California SR -79 (Front) interchange bridge Jefferson interchange Eastern Bypass SR -79 bridge Elhanac Thompson La Alba Hunter Murriela Hot Springs Monte Vista Sunset interchange 1-15 Copper Cretl MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE 2,21 $0 50 5.92 $7.031,000 $7,031.000 2,02 $13,957,000 $10,001,000 3.44 $7.456,000 $7,456,000 3.10 $20,845.000 $10,847,000 0.43 $0 $0 1.27 $3,470,000 53,470,000 1,22 $0 50 1.26 $0 $0 0.76 $4.806,000 $3.465.000 5.79 $80,889,000 566.905,000 0.28 5749,000 5749.000 3.21 $23,864,000 523,864,000 0.00 $3,229,000 $3,229,000 6.11 545,421,000 $45,421,000 4.41 $30,785.000 528,309,000 1.89 $7,637,000 57,637,000 1.37 $0 $0 0.72 $1,615,000 51,615.000 0.00 $37.060,000 523,760,000 0,00 $7,927,000 57,927,000 0,00 52,306,000 $2,306,000 0,45 $2.376.000 52.376,000 0.80 $0 $0 0.00 517,897,000 $5,369,000 0.38 $0 $0 4.87 $0 $0 1.77 34,674,000 $4,674,000 2.14 $0 $0 2.59 516,085,000 516,085,000 1,73 $12,065,000 $12,065,000 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 2.39 $0 $0 2.66 $0 $0 2.08 $11,623,000 $11,139,000 1.10 $0 $0 3.10 $8,173,000 $8,173,000 0.00 52.767,000 52.767.000 2.95 $7,782,000 57.782,000 2,35 $12,396,000 $11.045,000 3.53 $9,301,000 59,301.000 3.22 $16,990.000 $16,990,000 0.00 $5,534,000 $5,534,000 1.50 $7,914,000 57,914,000 6.50 $34,296,000 $30,076,000 1.92 $5.060,000 $2,376,000 0.00 512,910,000 $6,100,000 4.90 $0 50 0.50 $0 50 1.95 $0 $0 2.29 $3,021,000 53,021,000 000 572,546,000 $28,636,000 0,00 937.060,000 $17.725.000 0.83 50 $0 0.83 $2,187,000 $2,187,000 0.75 $0 $0 0.24' 53,352,000 53,352,000 0.61 $0 50 0.55' 50 $0 2.00 $2,111,000 52,111,000 0.91 $0 50 0.73 510,199,000 510,199,000 0.00' 572,546,000 555.760,000 0.56 $5.711.000 55.711.000 0.00 57.746,000 $7,746.000 2.14 $5,382,000 $5,382,000 1.48 $21.961,000 521,961,000 0.00 $37.060.000 520,682.000 0.00 $5.534,000 $5,534,000 2.70 $0 $0 0.00' $17.897.000 $8,442,000 2.40 $0 $0 2,54 520,104,000 $3,604,000 0,00' 533,200,000 $27,052,000 4.89 513,064,000 513.064,000 2,47 517,220,000 517,220.000 1.81 512,652,000 $12,652,000 0.50 53,514,000 $2,771,000 1.14 $513,000 $513,000 032' $793,000 5793,000 3.10 $9,850.000 $9,850,000 0.130' $17.897.000 57,159,000 0.55 $0 $0 2.48 85.627.000 8417580) 225.78' 51,643,535.000' 51.227.935.000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 45 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIS1CITy STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott 3.05 $0 $0 Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane 2,61 36.884,000 36.593.000 Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanila 1,36 $0 $0 Central Menifee Hollond Antelope Houn 1.00 $13,971,000 $13.971,000 Central Menifee Holland 1-215 overcrossing bridge 0.00 $6,455,C00 $6,455,000 Central Menifee McCall 1-215 Aspel 1.23 $0 $0 Central Menifee McCall 1-215 interchange 0,00 517,897,000 $16,930,000 Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee 0.95 $2,517,000 32,517,000 Central Menifee Murriela Elhanac McCall 1.95 30 $0 Central Menifee Murriela McCall Newport 2,03 30 30 Central Menifee Murriela Newport Bundy Canyon 3.00 $0 30 Central Moreno Valley Caclus 1-215 Heacock 1.81 32,022,000 $0 Central Moreno Valley Cactus 1-215 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR -60 0.28 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Day SR -60 inlerchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Cenlral Moreno Valley Day SR -60 Eucalyptus 0.77 50 30 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus 1-215 Towngale 1.00 54,050,000 $4,050,000 Central Moreno Volley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick 0.67 $0 30 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock 1.01 30 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching 1.01 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach 2.42 $339,000 30 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore 228 516,882,000 516.882.000 Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR -60 Alessandro 1.55 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus San Michele 2.79 $4,482,000 $4,482,000 Central Moreno Volley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus 4.73 30 30 Central Moreno Volley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox 0.74 $1,958,000 $1,532,000 Cenlral Moreno Volley Ironwood SR -60 Day 1.33 $2,695,000 $2,695,000 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock 2.01 $0 50 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy 1.00 50 50 Cenlral Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander 3.14 $0 30 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR -60 1.37 $9,548,000 $9,548,000 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR -60 overcrossing bridge 0.00 $2,306.000 $2,306,000 Central Moreno Volley Nason SR -60 Alessandro 1.51 $0 30 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR -60 0.43 $0 $0 Central Moreno Volley Pigeon Pass/CEfAP Corridor Cantorini Ironwood 3.23 30 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust 0.35 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro 2,68 $18,721,000 $18,013.000 Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR -60 interchange 0.00 337,060,000 $37,060,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR -60 Eucalyptus 0.26 $1,817,000 $1,817,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR -60 interchange 0.00 337,060.000 $19.096.000 Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona 0.99 30 $0 Central Penis Evans Ramona Morgan 0.59 $1,562,000 $1,562,000 Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider 0.49 $0 30 Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia 0.58 $0 30 Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo 1.50 $1,347,000 $1,347,000 Central Penis Evans Nuevo 1-215 1.99 $10,521,000 $10,521,000 Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $7,378,000 $7.378,000 Central Penis Goetz Lesser Ethanac 1.04 $2,745,000 31,238,000 Central Penis Harley Knox 1-215 Indian 1.53 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox 1-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $7,110,000 Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Perris 0.50 50 $0 Central Penis Harley Knox Perris Redlands 0,50 50 $0 Central Perris Nuevo 1-215 Muriela 1,36 $9,480,000 $9.480,000 Central Perris Nuevo 1-215 interchange 0,00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Cenlral Penis Nuevo Murriela Dunlap 1.00 $2,035.000 $2,035,000 Cenlral Perris Nuevo Penis Valley Slorm Channel bridge 0.00 $2,767,000 $2,767,000 Central Perris SR -74 (Matthews) 1-215 Ethanac 1,25 $0 30 Central Perris SR -74 (Matthews) 1-215 inlerchange 0.00 $17.897.000 $8,815,000 Central Unincorporated Briggs SR -74 (Pinacate) Simpson 2,50 $6,596,000 56,596.000 Central Unincorporaled Briggs Simpson Newport 1.53 30 $0 Central Unincorporated Briggs Salt Creek Bridge 0.00 $0 50 Central Unincorporaled Cenler (Main) 1-215 Mt Vernon 1.50 50 $0 Central Unincorporaled Cenler (Main) 1-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 317,897,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $7,927,000 $7.927,000 Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR -74 2.65 56,989,000 $6,989,000 Cenlral Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP CorridsCenler Pigeon Pass 0.61 $2.252,000 $2,252,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee 2,00 $5,273,000 $5,273,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge 000 $3.688,000 33,688,000 Central Unincorporaled Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Cantarini Mount Vernon 3,38 $25,146,000 $25.146,000 Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis 0,44 $0 $Ll Central Unincorporaled Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley Cily Limit 3.20 30 $0 Central Unincorporaled Redlands San imoteo Canyon Locust 2.60 $0 50 WRCOG 46 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIS1CITY Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Corona Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Eastvale Northwest Junipa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Volley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Junipa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Jurupa Valley Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Northwest Norco Norihwesl Norco Northwest Norco STREETNAME dth Auto Center Cajalco Hidden Volley Lincoln Magnolia Magnolia Magnolia Magnolia Main Main Main Main Main McKinley McKinley McKinley McKinley McKinley Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Railroad Railroad Railroad River Serlas Club Archibald Hamner Hamner Hamner Hamner Hamner Limonite Limonite Limonite Limonite Limonite Limonite Limonite Limonite Armstrong Bellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Etiwanda Etiwanda Limonite Limonite Limonite Limonite Limonite Markel Market Mission Mission Riverview Rubidoux Rubidoux Valley 1st 1st 2nd 6th 6th Arlington California Corydon Hamner Hamner Hidden Valley Hidden Valley Norco North River SEGMENTFROM SR -91 Railroad Bedford Canyon Norco Hills Parkridge 61h Temescal Creek Sherborn Bridge Rimpau Grand Ontario Hidden Valley Parkridge SR -91 Hidden Valley Promenade SR -91 Mington Channel BNSF 1-15 Lincoln Buena Vista Main Kellogg Fullerton Rimpau Auto Club BNSF Buena Vista Corydon SR -91 San Bernardino County Mission Bellegrave Amberhill Limonite Schleisman 1-15 1-15 East Center Hamner Sumner Harrison Archibald Cucamonga Creek San Bernardino County Cantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville San Bernardino County SR -60 1-15 Wineville Eliwanda Van Buren Clay Rubidoux Santa Ana River Milliken SR -60 Limonite San Bernardino County SR -60 Armstrong Parkridge Mountain River Hamner I-15 North Mington River Santa Ana River Santa Ana River 1-15 Hamner Corydon California Archibald SEGMENTTO Magnolia SR -91 I-15 McKinley Ontario Sherborn Bridge bridge Rimpau Ontario Ontario Foothill Parkridge SR -91 S. Grand Promenade SR -91 Magnolia bridge railroad crossing El Cerrito Buena Vista Main Kellogg Fullerton Rimpau 1-15 Buena Vista railroad crossing Main (al Grand) Main Green River River Bellegrave Amberhill Limonite Schleisman Santa Ana River East Center interchange Hamner Sumner Harrison Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.) bridge Valley Van Buren Bellegrave SR -60 Limonite Wineville Etiwanda Van Buren Clay Riverview Santa Ana River bridge 5R-60 Santa Ana River Mission Mission interchange Mission Mountain Hamner 1-15 California interchange Mington 61h 51h bridge Hidden Valley Norco Hills I-15 Hamner Mington Corydon NILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM IUMF SHARE 4.50 $0 50 0.48 $0 $0 0.15 51.049.000 51,049,003 0,59 50 50 3.20 $0 50 0,47 $3,283,000 $3.283,000 0.00 52.767.000 52,767,000 0,52 $0 $0 1.17 $0 $0 0.88 $2.325,000 $575.000 0.89 $0 $0 0,35 52.427,000 $1.912.000 0.86 $0 $0 0.86 $0 $0 0,40 $0 $0 0,33 $0 50 0.31 52.346,000 $2,346,000 0.03 $923,000 $923.000 0.00 555,472,000 50 0.89 56,217,000 54,924,000 0,32 $2,242.000 51,883.000 0.65 $0 $0 0.78 $0 $0 0.32 52.410,000 $1,785,000 0,42 $0 50 0.60 50 $0 2,45 50 $0 0.00 $15,851,000 515,851,000 0.58 54,052,000 $3,203.000 2,27 50 $0 0.96 50 $0 3.63 51.725,000 51,725,000 3,03 52.158,000 52.158.000 0.20 $528.000 $528,000 0.71 53,222,000 $3.222.000 1.00 $0 50 1,00 52,638,000 52.638,000 0.35 $0 50 0.00 517,897,000 50 0.27 $0 $0 1.00 $1,319,000 $1.319.000 0.50 50 $0 0.49 51.293.000 $1,293,000 1.12 $5.910,000 $5,910.000 0.00 $3,688,000 $3.688,000 1,53 $1,601,000 $1,601,000 0.29 5759.000 $759.000 1.82 52,400,000 $2,400,000 1.00 50 $0 3.00 $0 $0 0.40 50 $0 0.99 50 50 2.72 014.345.000 $12,319,000 0,79 $1.672,000 51,672,000 2.45 $0 $0 1,74 54,605,000 54,314,000 0.00' 59,222,000 57,849.000 1.61 $0 50 7.39 $0 $0 0.95 $0 $0 2.65 $0 50 0.00' 517.897.000 58.948,000 0.48 $0 50 0.26 5677,000 $677,000 0.26 $0 $0 1.44 $3.789,000 $3,789,000 1.71 $0 $0 0.00' 517,897,000 $5,593,000 0.97 $2,570.000 $2.570.000 0.98 56,848,000 $6,848,000 1.46 50 $0 0.00 $22.132.000 $0 3.05 521.325,000 $21,325,000 1.52 $0 50 0.13 $0 $0 1.20 $0 $0 0.81 50 $0 1.14 $1.114,000 $803,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 47 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIS1CITY Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporoled Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Norlhwesl Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated Northwest Unincorporated STREETNAME 141h 151 3rd 3rd Adams Adams Adams Buena Vista Canyon Crest Canyon Crest Canyon Crest Canyon Crest Central Central Central Central Chicago Chicago Columbia Columbia Iowa Iowa Iowa JFK La Siena La Sierra La Siena Lemon (NB One way) Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Madison Madison Magnolia Magnolia Magnolia Magnolia Main Market Marlin Luther King Mission Inn Redwood (SB One way) Traulwein Tyler Tyler Tyler Tyler Tyler University University Victoria Victoria Washington Wood Wood Wood Cantu-Galleano Ranch Dos Lagos (Weirick) El Cerrito El Sobranle Harley John Harley John La Sierra La Siena Mockingbird Canyon Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon Washington Wood SEGMENTFROM Markel Market SR -91 BNSF Mington SR -91 SR -91 Santa Ana River Martin Luther King Central Country Club Via Vista Chicago SR -91 Alessandro Van Buren Alessandro Spruce Main 1-215 Center 3rd University Trautwein Mington SR -91 Indiana Mission Inn Van Buren Jefferson Washington SR -91 BNSF BNSF Railroad BNSF Tyler Harrison 1st 14th 14th Redwood Mission Inn Alessandro SR -91 SR -91 Magnolia Hole Wells Redwood SR -91 Lincoln Madison Victoria JFK Von Buren Bergamont Hamner Temescal Canyon 1-15 Mockingbird Canyon Washington Scottsdale Victoria El Sobranle Van Buren Ontario Tuscany Dos Lagos Leroy Dawson Canyon I-15 1-15 Park Canyon Hermosa Krameria SEGMENTTO Martin Luther King Main 1-215 railroad crossing SR -91 Lincoln interchange Redwood Centro! Country Club Via Vista Alessandro 1-215/SR-60 Magnolia SR -91 Magnolia Spruce Columbia Iowa interchange 3rd University Martin Luther King Wood SR -91 Indiana Victoria University Jefferson Washington Victoria Victoria railroad crossing Tyler railroad crossing Harrison 14th San Bernardino County Santa Ana River I -215/5R-60 Lemon University Van Buren Magnolia interchange Hole Wells Minglon SR -91 I-215/SR-60 Mington Washington Hermosa Van Buren Bergamonl Krameria W ineville 1-15 Ontario Cajalco Scotlsdale Cajalco El Sobranle Cajalco El Sobranle Tuscany Dos Lagos Leroy Dawson Canyon I-15 interchange Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail Harley John Cajalco MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE 0,89 50 $0 0.08 50 50 1,34 $0 $0 0.00 $36.980,000 $36,980,000 1,56 50 $0 0.54 50 $0 0,00 517,897,000 517.897,000 0.30 50 $0 0,95 50 $0 0.59 $0 50 0.94 52.990.000 $1.855.000 0.68 $0 50 2,15 $0 $0 0.76 $0 $0 2.05 $0 50 3.53 50 $0 3.42 $0 50 0.75 $0 $0 1.09 $0 50 0.00 517,897,000 $17,897,000 2.25 513,815,000 513,815,000 0.51 $0 $0 0.51 53,530.000 $3,265,000 0.48 50 50 3,56 $0 50 0,19 $0 50 0.78 50 $0 0.08 $0 $0 2,00 $0 $0 1,00 $4,331,000 $4,331,000 1.43 58,193,000 $8,193,000 0.86 $0 50 0,00 515,851,800 510,851,000 2,70 50 50 0.00 515,851,000 515,851,000 0.65 50 50 5.98 50 50 2,19 50 50 2.03 $0 $0 2.11 56,340,000 56,340,000 0.79 50 $0 0,08 50 50 2,19 50 $0 0.43 $0 50 0,00' $37.060,000 53,089,000 0,27 50 $0 1.06 $0 $0 1.35 59.443,000 59,443,000 0.86 $0 50 2.01 50 $0 0.16 $0 50 0.52 50 50 2,05 $14,352,000 514,352,000 0,70 $923,000 5923,000 0,11 $0 $0 0,39 $0 $0 0,94 $0 50 0,21 $0 50 0.56 $0 50 1.05 $3,337,000 93,226,000 0,12 50 50 1.19 $3,134,000 $3.134,000 2,22 50 $0 2,36 50 50 3.29 $10,454,000 59,003,000 0,65 51,644,000 5740,000 0,91 50 50 1.10 53,507,000 53,507.000 1.89 55,994,000 $5,994,000 0.28 $0 $0 0.00' 517,897,000 517,897.000 3,41 512,661,000 512,661,000 2.55 $8,094,000 58,094,000 3.96 57,840.000 57.840.000 2.99 57,880,000 57,880,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 48 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIS1 CIN Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Bunning Pass Banning Pass Bunning Pass Banning Po55 Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Banning Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Beaumont Pass Calimesa Pass Calimesa Pass Calimesa Pass Calimesa Pass Calimesa Pass Calimesa Pass Calimesa Pass Colimesa Pass Calimesa Pass Calimesa Pass Unincorporated Pass Unincorporated Pass Unincorporated Pass Unincorporated Pass Unincorporated Pass Unincorporated Pass Unincorporated Pass Unincorporated San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemel San Jacinto Hemel San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto Hemet San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinlo San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinlo San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated STREETNAME 81h Highland Springs Highland Springs Highland Springs Highland Springs 1 -ID Bypass South 1-I D Bypass South 1-10 Bypass South 1-10 Bypass South Lincoln Ramsey Ramsey SR -243 Sun Lakes Sun Lakes Sun Lakes Sunset Sunset Wilson Wilson 151 1st 619 Desert Lown Oak Valley (14th) Oak Valley (141h) Oak Valley (14th) Oak Valley (14th) Oak Valley (STC) Oak Valley (STC) Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Bryant Calimesa Calimesa Tukwet Canyon County Line County Line Desert Lawn Singleton Singleton Singleton Cherry Valley Cherry Valley Cherry Valley Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC) Oak Valley (STC) Cherry Valley Cherry Valley Sanderson Sanderson Sanderson Sanderson Sanderson SR -74 (Honda) SR -74 (Florida) SR-74/SR-79 (Florida) Slate Slate State Slate Stetson Slelson Warren Warren Esplanade Esplanade Esplanade Sanderson SR -79 (North Ramona) SR -79 (San Jacinto) 5R-79 (San Jacinto Slate Slate State State Warren Gilman Springs Gilman Springs SR -79 (Winchester) SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO Wilson 1-10 Wilson (8th) Sun Lakes 1-10 interchange Oak Valley (141h) Wilson (8th) Cherry Valley Oak Valley (14th) 1-10 Morongo Trail (Apache Trail) 1-10 interchange San Gorgonio bridge UP railroad crossing Sunset SR -243 1-10 Blh 81h Highland Springs 1-10 Wesley Highland Horne Sunset Smith Creek bridge Highland Springs Highland Home Ramsey Lincoln 1-10 interchange Highland Home 81h Highland Springs Highland Home Viele Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Highland Springs 1-10 Highland Springs Champions Oak Valley (STC Highland Springs Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Oak View Oak View 1-10 1-10 interchange Beaumont City Limits Cherry Valley (J SI / Central Over Cherry Valley (J St / Central 01-10 6th 1-10 County Line County Line 1 -ID Roberts Roberts 1-10 Palmer Avenue L Condit I-10 Noble 1-10 San Timoleo Wash Oak Valley (STC) San Bernardino County UP Bellflower Highland Springs Acacia Domenigoni RR Crossing Stetson Menlo Warren Columbia Cawston Domenigoni Chambers Florida Stetson Cawston Warren Esplanade Salt Creek Ramona Mountain State Ramona State North Ramona Blvd 7th Ramona Gilman Springs San Jacinto River Quandt Ranch Ramona Sanderson Massacre Canyon Wash SR -74 (Florida) 1st interchange Avenue L 1-10 interchange Palmer Bryanl inlerchonge Champions Condit Roberts interchange Desert Lawn interchange bridge San Bernardino County Beaumont Cily Limits railroad crossing Noble Bellflower Menlo Stetson Acacia RR Crossing Esplanade Cawslon Ramona Columbia Chambers Stetson Esplanade Florida State Cawston Domenigoni bridge Mountain State Warren Esplanade San Jacinto 716 SR -74 Esplanade Quandt Ranch bridge Ramona Esplanade State bridge Domenigoni I4LES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE 0 54 $0 $0 0.76 32,661,000 $2,661,000 0.00 317,897,000 $17,897,000 0.73 35.128,000 $5,128,000 1.53 $0 $0 329 $22,952,000 $22,952,000 0,00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 0.00 $2.767,000 $2,767,000 0.00 $18,490,000 $18,490,000 2,01 $0 30 1.70 $0 $0 3.55 $0 $0 0.62 $0 $0 1.00 $13,971.000 $13.971,000 0.00 $3,688,000 33,688,000 1.33 $0 $0 0.28 $0 $0 0.00 $17,897,000 $17.897,000 2.51 $0 $0 1.01 $0 30 128 $0 $0 1,10 $0 $0 2 24 $0 $0 0.99 $912.000 $912,000 1.13 $0 $0 140 $0 $0 0.65 32,270,000 $2.270,000 000 $37,060,000 $11,660,000 3 46 $0 $0 167 $0 $0 0.53 $3.018,000 $3,018,000 0.00 $8,949,000 $0 0,38 $0 $0 0.80 $0 $0 0.00 337,060.000 $37,060,000 0.50 $0 $0 1.86 36.497,000 $6,497,000 0.00 $17.897,000 $17.897,000 1,42 $0 $0 1.86 $11,834,000 $11,834,000 0.85 $0 $0 0,00 337,060,000 $37,060,000 3.40 $0 $0 0.00 $37,060,000 $36,617,000 0.00 $0 $0 2,81 $0 $0 5.65 $0 $0 0.00 318,490,000 $18,490,000 1.47 $7,757,000 $7,757,000 0.44 $0 $0 0.98 $0 $0 1.08 $0 $0 0.42 $0 $0 0.58 $0 $0 1.00 $0 $0 1,02 $0 $0 2.58 $0 $0 4.03 $0 $0 1.31 $0 $0 0.51 $0 $O 1.74 $0 $0 1.25 $9,377,000 $9,377,000 2.52 $0 $0 1.00 32,635,000 $2,635.000 4.99 $13,163,000 $13,163,000 0.00' $2,767,000 $2,490,000 020 $2.794.000 $2,794,000 2,55 $0 50 3.53 $9,320,000 $9,320,000 3.55 $0 50 1.02 $0 $0 0.25 $1,722,000 $1,722,000 2,25 $0 $0 1.99 $0 $0 0 76 32,007,000 $1.138,000 000' 34,611,000 $3,162,000 0 70 $0 $0 3.47 $9.156.000 $9.156.000 2 54 $6,714,000 $3,462,000 000 $923,000 $570,000 3.23' $0 $0 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 49 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DSSLCITY Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Loke Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Loke Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Lake Elsinore Southwest Munieta Southwest Murriela Southwest Munieta Southwest Murriela Southwest Murriela Southwest Murrielo Southwest Murrieta Southwest Murriela Southwest Murrieta Southwest Murrieta Southwest Murrieta Southwest Murrieta Southwest Murriela Southwest Murrieta Southwest Murrieta Southwest Murrieta Southwest Murriela Southwest Murrieta Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Temecula Southwest Unincorporaled Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Unincorporated Southwest Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Southwest Wildomar Schiele! TWaf4 Network Transit AdminlstraHon MSHCP Total STREETN,M4E Corydon Diamond Franklin (integral to Railroad Gand Grand Lake Lake Lake Mission Nichols Nichols SR -74 (Collier/Riverside) SR -74 (Grand) SR -74 (Riverside) Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon California Oaks California Oaks California Oaks Jackson Jefferson Jefferson Jeflerson Keller Keller Los Alamos Murrieta Hol Springs Murrieta Hot Springs Murriela Hol Springs Nutmeg Whitewood Whilewood Whitewood Ynez Jefferson Margarita Old Town Front Pechanga Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy Rancho California Rancho California Rancho California Rancho California SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy( SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy) Briggs Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Horsethief Canyon Indian Truck Trail Murrieta Hot Springs Pala Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon Baxter Bailer Bundy Canyon Central Central Grand Grand Mission Palomar Palomar SEGIENTfBOM Mission Mission 1-15 Lincoln Tot 1-15 1-15 Temescal Wash Railroad Canyon 1-15 1-15 1-15 Riverside Lakeshore I-15 Temescal Wash Jefferson 1-15 Jackson Whitewood Palomar Nutmeg Murrieta Hol Springs 1-215 1-215 Jeflerson Jefferson 1-215 Margarita Jefferson Clinton Keith Los Alamos Murriela Hot Springs Jackson Cherry Murrieta Hot Springs Rancho California SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto Jefferson 1-15 Margarita Butterfield Stage 1-15 Pechanga Pkwy Scott Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos La Serena Rancho California Pauba SR -79 (Winchester) Auld Tucalota Creek Temescal Canyon Temescal Canyon 512-79 (Winchester) Pechanga Horsethief Canyon Wash Indian Truck Troll Indian Wash 1-15 1-15 Mission Baxter Grand Ortega Corydon Bundy Canyon Clinton Keith Mission SEGMENT10 Canna 1-15 interchange Toll SR -74 (Riverside) Lincoln interchange bridge Bundy Canyon Lake interchange Lakeshore SR -74 (Ortega) Grand Lake bridge 1-15 Jackson Clinton Keith Ynez Nutmeg Murriela Hot Springs Cherry Whitewood interchange 1-215 1-215 Margarita SR -79 (Winchester) Clinton Keith Los Alamos Murriela Hot Springs Jackson SR -79 (Winchester) Rancho California SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy) I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy Margarita interchange Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage SR -79 (Winchester) Calle Chapos La Serena Rancho California Pauba SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy) Auld Murriela Hot Springs bridge 1-15 1-15 Pourroy San Diego County bridge 1-15 bridge Palomar interchange 1-15 Palomar Palomar Corydon Central Palomar Jefferson anion/faith MILES TOTAL COST MA10MLfM T41MF SHARE 1,53 $2,019.000 $2019,000 0 24 $0 $0 0,00 $37.060.000 $14,629,000 1.29 $0 00 0,86 $1,357,000 $1,357,000 3.10 $14,794,000 $13,592,000 0.00 $17,897,000 $7,291.000 0.00 $1,973,000 $822,000 2.39 $0 $0 1.80 $3,324,000 53.324,000 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 2.10 829,357,000 $28,315,000 0.64 $8,892,000 07.495,000 1.74 821.830,000 021.830,000 1.21 $3.846,000 03,846.000 0.00 $2,270,000 $2.270,000 0.32 $555,000 $555,000 0.50 50 50 1.76 $0 $0 0.53 $0 $0 1.02 $2,691,000 $2.691,000 2.37 $21,520,000 521,520,000 2.26 $0 $0 0.75 $1,571,000 $1,571,000 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 1.77 $0 $0 1 11 $0 50 1.48 $0 $0 1-01 $2,660,000 $2,660,000 1,97 $0 $0 2.01 $0 50 1.93 50 $0 0.80 $8,066,000 $8,066,000 1.22 $0 $0 2.29 $0 50 7.38 50 $0 1.45 50 $0 1,32 $0 $0 1,44 $0 $0 1.89 $6,824,000 $6.824,000 0.00 $17,897.000 $12,009,000 1.96 50 $0 4.26' $32.064.000 $32,064,000 0 64 01,692,000 $1,576,000 308 $0 $0 339 $8,950,000 58,950,000 0 82 $0 $0 0.70 $0 $0 0.90 $2,860,000 $2.860,000 0.85 $0 50 1 69 $269,000 $269,000 2 28 $7,245,000 $7.245.000 2 23 814,172,000 $14,172,000 0.00' $3.688,000 53,688,000 0.17 $0 $0 0.18 50 $0 1.75 $0 $0 1.38 $0 50 0.00 $2,214,000 $2,214,000 2,57 $8.166,000 $8,166,000 0.00 $941,000 $941,000 0,37 $974,000 5921,000 0,00' 017,897,000 $7.159.000 0.94 $6,537,000 $6,537.000 0.74 $5,143,000 $5,143,000 0.51 $3,570,000 $3,570,000 4,96 $34,648.000 $25,011,000 2.02' $0 00 0.84 $0 $0 0,74 $1,941,000 51,691,000 2.79 07.358.03 17.358.000 17399 81.833,495,000 11.484,916.500 726.37 1 1.446.070.002 3 2,713.07100 $ 153,120,000 '$ 92,639,000 $ 112,220.400 $ 112,220,400 $ 45.401,000 $ 43,308,000 $ 3,756,761,400 $ 2961,038,400 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 50 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.5 - TUMF Transit Cost Estimates AREA PLAN DIST LEAD AGENCY PROJECT NAME LOCATION UNITS (number/ length in mtlesl UNIT COST TOTAL MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest RTA Riverside Mobility Hub al Vine Street Riverside i H.900.00(1 M $.162,01100 Central RTA Moreno Valley Mobility Hub Moreno Valley 1 $9,000,000 $9.000.000 85,445,000 Northwest RTA Jurupa Valley Mobility Hub Jurupa Valley 1 $9,000,000 $9,O00,000 $5,445,000 Pass RSA Banning Mobility Hub Banning 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 Southwest RTA Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake Mobility Hb Lake Elsinore 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 Southwest RTA Temecula/Murrieta Mobility Hub Temecula t $9.000.000 $9,000,000 55,445,000 San Jacinro RTA Hemet Mobility Hub Hemet 1 $9,000.000 $9.000.000 $5,445,000 San Jacinto RTA Son Jacinto Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $9,000,000 $9J]IXJdxlO 55,445,000 San Jacinto RTA MI. San Jacinto College Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 5605,000 Regional RTA Regional Operations and Maintenance Facilit Riverside 1 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $30,251,000 Regional RTA Annual Transit Enhancements Program Various locations region wid 290 $40.000 $11400,000 $7,018,000 Central RTA Central Corridor RapidLink Implementation UCR, Riverside to Perris 421 $60.000 $2.520.000 $1,525,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Medium Buses Various locations region wid 7 $155,000 $1.085,000 $656,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Large Buses Various locations region wid 29 $585,000 516,965,000 510.264,000 Regional RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis Study Various locations region wid t $950,000` 5950.000 $575,000 Total $153,120,000 $92.639,000 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation To assess the effectiveness of the proposed TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development in Western Riverside County, the proposed network improvements were added to the 2015 existing network in RivTAM and the model was run with 2040 socioeconomic data to determine the relative impacts on horizon year traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements, the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for the 2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build scenarios were again calculated for the 2040 TUMF Build scenario. The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in Table 3.1 for the no -build conditions. The 2040 TUMF Build comparison results are provided in Table 4.6. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix H. As shown in Table 4.6, the 2040 VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will decrease with the addition of the TUMF Network improvements while the share of VMT on the regional arterial highway system experiencing daily LOS E or worse will be reduced to 38% (which is still above the level experienced in 2012). It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system increases as a result of freeway trips being diverted to the arterial system to benefit from the proposed TUMF improvements. Despite a greater share of the total VMT in 2040, the arterial system is able to more efficiently accommodate the increased demand with the proposed TUMF improvements. Although VMT on the TUMF improved arterial system increases by approximately 9% in 2040 compared to the No Build condition, VHT on the arterial system decreases by approximately 11% indicating traffic is able to move more efficiently. Additionally, a notable benefit is observed on the freeway system with VMT and VHT being substantially reduced following TUMF Network improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all area motorists would be reduced by over one third from the levels that would be experienced under the 2040 No -Build scenario. These results highlight the overall effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development commensurate with the level of impact being created. WRCOG 51 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.6 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build Scenarios to 2040 TUMF Build Scenario) Measure of Performance* Peak Periods (Total) 2012 Baseline 2040 No -Build 2040 Build VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 19,532,437 29,277,587 31,022,272 VMT - FREEWAYS 11,019,155 14,487.570 13,41 1,377 VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 8,513,282 14,790,016 17,610,895 TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 5,585,202 9,089,495 9,902,433 VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 575,154 1,361,907 1,180,647 VHT - FREEWAYS 296,542 736,433 530,849 VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 278,611 625,474 649,797 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 181,151 396,981 354,639 VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 175,765 739,075 489,238 VHD - FREEWAYS 117,430 502,549 312,669 VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 58,334 236,527 176,569 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 45,080 172,944 114,833 VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6,188,644 16,966,992 14.299,498 VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,532,703 10,156,363 8,982,566 VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 1,655,941 6,810,629 5,316,932 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 1,462,061 5,160,911 3,735,762 of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 26% 57% 38% * Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016. NOTES: Volume is adjusted by PCE factor VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios). LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. WRCOG 52 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for transportation system improvements on the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of this new development, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept. 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements Previous sections of this report documented the projected residential and employment growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system improvements that will serve these future inter -community travel demands. The following points coalesce this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system. ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing. Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Current projections estimate the population is projected to grow from a level of approximately 1.77 million in 2012 to a future level of about 2.43 million in 2040, while employment is projected to grow from a level of about 461,000 in 2012 to approximately 861,000 in 2040 (as shown in Table 2.3). ➢ Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County. Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since longer -distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system wilt be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development. To maintain transportation service at or near its current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing WRCOG 53 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, or grade separation of at -grade rail crossings. The completion of improvements to the arterial roadway system would enhance regional mobility, and reduce the total peak period vehicles hours of travel (VHT) by approximately 13%, reduce peak period vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by approximately 34%, and reduce the share of traffic experiencing congestion in the peak periods by 16% (as shown in Table 4.6). The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined during future project programming activities as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available. D Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter -community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion. D Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, the public transportation infrastructure and service will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new Western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation. For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed. 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and the public transportation system. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle trips that are relatively local (between WRCOG 54 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future combined AM and PM peak period travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the Year 2040 No -Build scenario trip tables from RivTAM. The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the TAZs in the model and the five WRCOG TUMF zones (i.e. Northwest, Southwest, Central, Hemet/San Jacinto and Pass). The TAZs were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region). Table 5.1 shows the estimated peak period vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of peak period vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix I includes the detailed RivTAM outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2. Table 5.1 - 2040 Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To From Central Hemet/San Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside WRCOG TOTAL Central 285,556 15,102 60,146 6,274 34,821 41,799 443,699 Hemet/San Jacinto 14,876 190,792 7,396 5,256 17,138 13,851 249,310 Northwest 64,066 8,082 742,299 6,569 25,648 211,686 1,058,350 Pass 6,721 5,563 6,536 103,901 1,791 32,830 157,341 Southwest 34,785 17,514 24,135 1,785 452,345 28,424 558,988 Outside WRCOG 43,352 14,690 212,699 33,337 29,242 333,320 TOTAL 449,357 251,743 1,053,210 157,123 560,984 328,590 2,801,008 Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No -Build scenario Table 5.2 - 2040 Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To From Central Hemet/San Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside WRCOG TOTAL Central 64.4% 3.4% 13.6% 1.4% 7.8% 9.4% 100% Hemet/San Jacinto 6.0% 76.5% 3.0% 2.1% 6.9% 5.6% 100% Northwest 6.1% 0.8% 70.1% 0.6% 2.4% 20.0% 100% Pass 4.3% 3.5% 4.2% 66.0% 1.1% 20.9% 100% Southwest 6.2% 3.1% 4.3% i 0.3% 80.9% 5.1% 100% Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No -Build scenario WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 55 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the backbone and secondary highway networks as derived from the peak period trip values provided in Table 5.1. Peak period vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their inter- regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Peak period trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Peak period trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lane -miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra -zonal trips. The backbone network includes approximately 40.5% of the lane -miles on the future TUMF system, and the secondary network includes approximately 59.5% of the lane -miles. The backbone network is therefore assigned all of the inter -zonal peak period trips plus 40.5% of the intra -zonal peak period trips. The secondary network is assigned 59.5% of the intra -zonal peak period trips and none of the inter -zonal peak period trips. The overall result is that 50.7% of the regional travel is assigned to the backbone network and 49.3% is assigned to the secondary network. Table 5.3 - Backbone -Secondary Network Share Calculation Calculation Value Description Input Values Backbone Value Backbone Share Secondary Value Secondary Share Total Western Riverside County Peak Period Vehicle Trips1 2,801.008 Less Internal/External Peak Period Vehicle Trips 661,q 10 Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips Internal to Western Riverside County 2,139,098 Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between TUMF Zones 364,205 49 Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within TUMF Zones 1,774,893 , TUMF Future Network Lane Miles 3,151.1 1,277.7 40.5% 1,873.4 ,S .`;7t, Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between TUMF Zones 364,205 364,205 100.0% 0 0.0% Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within TUMF Zones (as share of intra- zonal trips) 1,774,893 719,679 40.5% 1,055,214 59.5% Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips Assigned 2,139,098 _ 1,083,884 50.7% 1,055,214 49.3% Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No -Build scenario; TUMF Nexus Study Exhibit H-2 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 56 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non -Residential Developments In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, the growth in peak period VMT between the 2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build Scenarios from RivTAM were aggregated by trip purpose. RivTAM produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes: home -based -work (HBW), home -based -other (HBO), home -based -school (HBSC), work -based -other (WBO), and other -based -other (OBO). NCHRP Report #187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978) details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel demand modeling. Chapter 2 of this report, which details trip generation estimation, states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non Work) trips are generated at the households, whereas the NHB (Non -Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere." In accordance with NCHRP Report # 187, growth in peak period VMT was aggregated into home-based growth in peak period VMT (combining the first three purposes: HBW, HBO, HBS) and non -home-based growth in peak period VMT (combining the last two purposes: WBO, OBO). The home-based growth in peak period VMT represent 71.0% of the total future growth in VMT in the peak periods, and the non -home-based growth in peak period VMT represent 29.0% of the total future growth in VMT in the peak period as shown in Table 5.4. Appendix J includes the RivTAM outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 - Peak Period VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2012 - 2040) VEHICLE TRIP PURPOSE 2012 BASELINE PEAK PERIOD VMT 2040 NO -BUILD PEAK PERIOD VMT PEAK PERIOD VMT GROWTH PEAK PERIOD VMT GROWTH SHARE Home -Based -Work 5,849,895 8,331,921 2,482,026 52.9% Home -Based -Other 2,214,102 2,932.929 718,827 15.3% Home -Based -School (K-12) 413,303 542,911 129,608 2.8% Work -Based -Other 945.539 1 1,583,034 637.496 13.6% Other -Based -Other 1,772,020 2,493.667 721,647 15.4% TOTAL 11,194,859 15.884.463 4.689.605 100.00% Home -Based Trips (Residential Uses 3,330,462 71.0% Non -Home -Based Trips (Non -Residential Uses) 1,359,143 29.0% Based on RivTAM Year 2012 Baseline Scenario, September 2016 and RivTAM Year 2040 No Build Scenario, September 2016 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 57 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.76 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $303.5 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $492.2 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $2.96 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.96 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 71.0% ($2.10 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 29.0% ($858.7 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. 6.1 Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $2.10 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2040, the fee will be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between 2012 and 2040. The projected residential growth from year 2012 to 2040 is 250,082 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.3. Different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between lower density "single-family" dwelling units and higher density "multi -family" dwelling units, the TUMF was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, single family dwelling units are those housing units with a density of less than 8 units per acre while multi -family units are those with a density of 8 or more units per acre. According to the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS forecasts included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 69.2% of the growth in residential dwelling units in the region between 2012 and 2040. Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 9.52 vehicle trips per dwelling unit per day, whereas apartments, condominiums and townhouses (considered to be representative of higher density multi -family dwelling units) generate a median of 6.20 vehicle trips per unit per day. The growth in dwelling units for single-family and multi -family, respectively, were multiplied by the corresponding trip generation rates to determine the weighted proportion of the WRCOG 58 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 change in trips attributable to each use type as the basis for determining the per unit fee required to levy the necessary $2.10 billion to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and multi -family dwelling units. Appendix K includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share Residential Sector 2012 Dwelling Units 2040 Dwelling Units Dwelling Unit Change Trip Generation Rate Trip Change Percentage of Trip Change Fee/DU Single -Family 366,588 539,631 173,043 9.52 1,647,369 77.5% $9,418 Multi -Family 158,561 235,600 77,039 6.20 477,642 22.5% $6,134 Total 525,149 775,231 250,082 2,125,011 100.0% Household data based on SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and WSP, April 2016; Trip Generation based on ITE Trio Generation (2012). 6.2 Non -Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $858.7 million. Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socioeconomic data included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B. From the 2040 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee derived from four sources including: Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas (PBQD), Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Subarea Model Guidelines Manual, June 2001; SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001; and the County of Riverside, General Plan, As Amended December 15, 2015. Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non-residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix L. To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of non- residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation -- Ninth Edition (2012), and were weighted based on a calculated value of trips per employee as derived from the employee conversion factors and ITE typical trip generation rates per square foot of development, before being assigned to the non-residential categories as follows: Industrial - 3.8 trips per employee, Retail - 16.2 trips per employee, Service - 4.6 trips per WRCOG 59 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 employee, and Government/Public - 12.0 trips per employee11. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip -making, and the $858.7 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories on the basis of the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non-residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 - Fee Calculation for Non -Residential Share Non -Residential Sector Employment Change Trip Generation Rate per Employee Trip Change Percentage of Trip Change Change in Square Feet of Gross Floor Area Fee/SF Industrial 80,592 3.8 302,220 13.4% 64,710,138 $1.77 Retail 35,841 16.2 i 580,624 25.7% 17,920,500 $12.31 Service 274,720 4.6 1,263,712 55.9% 105,211,915 $4.56 Government/Public 9,515 12.0 114,180 5.1% 2,696,349 $16.08 Total 400,668 2,260,736 100.0% 190,538,901 Employment Change data based on SCAG 20 6 RTP/SCS; Trip Generation based on ITE (2012); Change in Square Feet conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990), OCTA (2001), SCAG (2001) and County of Riverside (2015). 11 The median trip generation rate for 'Retail' and 'Service' was reduced to reflect the influence of pass -by trips using the weekday PM peak median pass -by trip rate for select uses as derived from the ITE Trio Generation Handbook (June 2004). WRCOG 60 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be seen that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the ongoing TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: ➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. ➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1. Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Change Fee Per Unit Total Revenue ($ million) Single Family Residential DU 173,043 $9,418 $1,629.8 Multi Family Residential DU 77,039 $6,134 $472.5 Industrial SF GFA 64,710,138 $1.77 $1 14.8 Retail SF GFA 17,920,500 $12.31 $220.5 Service SF GFA 105,21 1,915 $4.56 $480.0 Government/Public SF GFA 2,696,349 $16.08 $43.4 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $2,961.0 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 61 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS City Council Meeting 8/8/17 Date: REQUEST TO SPEAK FOR PLANNING COMMISSION 2k\ After completing, please return to the Minute Clerk. Tha You! �f wish to speak on Agenda Item No.:l "D For ❑ Against L Subjecj 4_113 f Name: / !(� Assessor's Parcel No.: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: The Planning Commission Chairman will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Thank you! I wish to speak on: REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA Date: ' 7 Ni> Public Comment Circle One: CICOUN SD ! SARDA / THAI TPFA Subject: _ 'eA14 Agenda Item No. For n Against n Request to Speak forms for Public Comments or items listed on the Consent Calendar may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council commencing the Public Comment period. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the Agenda, a Request to Speak form may be submitted to the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. Ma. r -c' ` J/Z- Name: Phone Number:() ( Address: Email address: i'1nr-Zti �( + .hCrtie ea% �,b a + Zc YI i A -C t If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional.