HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum to CVAG 2018 TUMF Nexus Study (42697392.1)55575.17003\42697392.1
1
ADDENDUM TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT’S
NEXUS REPORT - TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018
FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE DATED MARCH 2018
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (“CVAG”) previously caused to be
prepared and subsequently approved an impact fee nexus study entitled the Nexus Report –
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule Update (the “Study”) dated
March 2018. The Study established TUMF applicable to all new development in the Coachella
Valley area to be imposed through each of CVAG’s member agencies, including the City of
Palm Springs (“City”). The Study accounted for the TUMF fee schedule to be increased annually
through the application of an annual inflation adjustment (“Inflation Adjustment”) to ensure the
fee revenue collected keeps pace with current costs of the proposed projects. CVAG’s Executive
Committee determines the amount of the Inflation Adjustment each year.
The purpose of this addendum to CVAG’s Study (the “Addendum”) is to allow the City
to comply with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, section 66000 et
seq.) (the “Act”), which governs the adoption of fees or charges, or increases to existing fees or
charges. Here, the City is seeking approval to increase the existing TUMF with CVAG’s
proposed Inflation Adjustment.
1. Inflation Adjustment
The Inflation Adjustment defined in the Study referenced a consumer price index (“CPI”)
for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area. However, this index was discontinued at the
beginning of 2018. As such, a comparable replacement CPI for the Coachella Valley area was
selected. The replacement index selected is the All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”), All Items for
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA (the “Index”) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(“BLS”). CVAG has described the method of calculating the year-over-year change in the Index,
measured as of December in the calendar year which ends in the previous fiscal year. However,
the Index only publishes data every other month starting in January and as such there is no data
published for the month of December for which a calculation can be based upon. Therefore,
rather than changing the method by which CVAG calculates the percent change each year, it has
elected to approximate a December data point based upon guidance from the BLS. To
approximate a data point for an unreported month, the BLS has advised taking the square root of
the product of the indexes for the preceding and subsequent months, in this case November and
January. Therefore, CVAG approximates the year-over-year change using this method.
According to CVAG, the justification for the Inflation Adjustment is to ensure the TUMF
revenue collected keeps pace with the costs of constructing the projects defined in the Study.
Keeping pace with inflation ensures projects can be timely completed as needed to accommodate
new development. Timely completion of projects ensures those who have paid the TUMF
receive the benefit of their contributions towards the program while at the same time mitigates
the expected impacts to the existing community. Without the Inflationary Adjustments many
projects would become delayed, underfunded, and potentially not able to be completed at all due
to insufficient funds available to complete such projects.
55575.17003\42697392.1
2
All CVAG documents related to the 2025 Inflation Adjustment are attached to this
Addendum for review and inspection. A summary of the documents follows:
1. Attachment 1 – Nexus Report – Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
2018 Fee Schedule Update;
2. Attachment 2 – CVAG Staff Report on TUMF Inflation Adjustment for Calendar
Year 2025 dated April 29, 2024 and includes a letter in support of the Inflation
Adjustment from the Desert Valleys Builders Association; and
3. Attachment 3 – CVAG Revised Fee Schedule for the Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee Effective January 1, 2025 dated May 1, 2024.
2. Requirement to Proportionally Calculate the Fee per Square Footage on Housing
Projects
Pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(A) of the Act, a nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022,
“shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square
footage of proposed units of the development.” An exemption to this requirement is authorized
pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(B) of the Act, which states a nexus study need not comply with
the requirements of subparagraph (A) if certain findings are made. While, the City is not
adopting a nexus study at this time, it is attempting to adopt the Inflation Adjustment which
would increase the TUMF. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution the City seeks to provide
this missing requirement to the existing Study. By making this finding the City does not concede
that such finding is required to impose the Inflation Adjustment and reserves the right to argue
any applicable legal defenses available to it should the TUMF and/or the Inflation Adjustment be
challenged.
The findings required pursuant to section 66016.5(5)(B) of the Act include:
i. An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate
fees imposed on a housing development project.
ii. An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable
relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
iii. That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise
ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
Addressing each finding in turn – Finding (i), the City’s general plan identifies the use of
privately held land, including in some instances, the number of dwelling units authorized per
acre. However, there is no similar planning metric for which the City could rely upon to
determine what the square footage would be for each dwelling unit. Therefore, the square
footage of each dwelling unit is determined by the property owner/developer at the time of
development. In the case of a developer, that determination is based upon what they perceive is
marketable and subject to change with market conditions. There simply is no way to accurately
forecast what type of product mix will be developed. Without the ability to forecast the total
number of square feet expected at build out, the City would be guessing at a rate per square foot.
55575.17003\42697392.1
3
This creates the potential for failing to collect enough TUMF to complete projects, or
alternatively, collecting too much depending on the final build out. Therefore, using square
footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.
Finding (ii), the TUMF is calculated based upon the demands created by class of property
(i.e., traffic trips generated by land use type). In other words, the Study determined the average
demands of average land use classes of property. Given, the limitation of the data and inability to
forecast market conditions, this approach created a reasonable basis for applying the TUMF in an
equitable and proportional manner across all potential classes of land use. Again, the City simply
does not have the ability to generate the kind of information needed to meet the residential
square footage requirement of the Act. Therefore, this alternative basis of calculating the fee
bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the
development.
Finding (iii), the metrics in the Study calculate the estimated impacts on a land use basis.
For example, as noted above land uses are evaluated for their increase in traffic trips. The
application of this metric does not increase or decrease based upon the size of the development
project but rather the individual unit. Therefore, by the very nature of the calculation, smaller
developments will have smaller impacts and larger developments will have larger impacts. These
impacts drive the fee. Therefore, the fee structure does not charge disproportionate fees on
smaller developments.
55575.17003\42697392.1
A-1
ATTACHMENT 1
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) 2018 FEE SCHEDULE
UPDATE NEXUS REPORT
Draft Nexus Report
Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) 2018 Fee Schedule
Update
Prepared for:
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
In Association with:
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of La Quinta
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Rancho Mirage
County of Riverside
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
In Association with:
Michael Baker International
Fehr & Peers
Rodriguez Consulting Group
March 2018
EPS #144043
Table of Contents
1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS ................................................................................ 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
Summary of the TUMF Calculation ............................................................................. 3
2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND ........................................................................ 5
TUMF Boundary ...................................................................................................... 5
Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts................................................................. 6
3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS ..................................................................................... 8
TUMF Project Selection ............................................................................................ 8
TUMF Project Costs ................................................................................................. 9
4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION ....................................................................................... 11
Application of Transportation Demand Model ............................................................. 11
TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects ...................................................................... 11
TUMF Operational, Safety, and ATP Projects .............................................................. 13
Summary of TUMF Cost Allocation ........................................................................... 13
5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS ........................................................................ 15
Obligated Funds .................................................................................................... 15
Other External Funding .......................................................................................... 16
Developer Funded Improvements ............................................................................ 16
State and Federal Transportation Funding................................................................. 16
Local Match .......................................................................................................... 17
Measure A ........................................................................................................... 17
Summary of Other Funding Sources ........................................................................ 18
6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION ..................................................................... 20
Overview of Nexus Findings .................................................................................... 20
The TUMF Calculation ............................................................................................ 21
7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION .............................................................. 24
Elimination of Land Use Exemptions......................................................................... 24
Simplification of Land Use Categories ....................................................................... 24
Application of Annual Inflation Adjustment ................................................................ 25
Appendices
APPENDIX A: TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
APPENDIX B: Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation ................................................................ 3
Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories .............................. 4
Table 3 Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 – 2040) ............................... 7
Table 4 Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs ....................................................... 10
Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies ..................................... 12
Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development ............................. 14
Table 7 Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off-set TUMF Costs .............................. 15
Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off-set TUMF Costs .......................... 18
Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources ............................................. 19
Table 10 Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip (ADT) .............................................. 21
Figure 1 CVAG TUMF Boundary ...................................................................................... 6
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
1. REPORT OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
Introduction
This Nexus Report provides the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and its
member jurisdictions with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of an
updated Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Impact fees are one-time charges on
new development approved and collected by jurisdictions to cover the cost of regional
transportation-related capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new growth.1
The fees are typically collected upon issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy.
Initially established in 1989, the CVAG TUMF is a one-time fee charged on all new development
occurring within the CVAG region designed to cover the “fair share” cost of regional serving
transportation projects and improvements needed to serve growth. The program relies on local
agencies (e.g., cities and the County) to collect TUMF as development occurs. The TUMF Nexus
Report establishes a nexus or reasonable relationship between the updated fee amount and the
proportion of transportation improvement costs attributable to new development.
This Nexus Report has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) with support from
a broader consultant team, led by Michael Baker International, that has been retained by the
CVAG to assist in developing key components of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The
analysis and methodology incorporate input from CVAG staff, it’s member jurisdictions, the TUMF
Nexus Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders.
Institutional Context
The CVAG TUMF program is a component of Riverside County’s Measure A. Measure A is a one-
half percent sales tax program that provides funding for a wide variety of transportation projects
and services throughout Riverside County. It was originally approved by voters of Riverside
County in 1988 and given a 30-year extension in 2002. Cities and the county in the Coachella
Valley must participate in the TUMF program to assist in the financing of the priority regional
arterial system in order to receive local Measure A funds.
If a city or the county chooses not to levy the TUMF, the funds they would otherwise receive
from Measure A for local streets and roads is added to the Measure A funds for the Regional
Arterial Program. A portion of the Measure A revenues for the Coachella Valley area is returned
to the cities and the county in the Coachella Valley to assist with the funding of local street and
road improvements. These funds supplement existing federal, state, and local funds. Local street
improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments are typically paid for by
the developers.
Other key components of the RTP that have been updated as part of this study process, and
used as critical inputs in the TUMF update, include:
1 New development includes any construction activity that requires a building permit and creates
additional impacts on a jurisdictions regional transportation infrastructure once completed (e .g.,
through additional travel demand or “trips”).
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS): The TPPS identifies and prioritizes
the regional arterial transportation projects in the CVAG region.
Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE): The RACE provides costs estimates for the
projects included in the TPPS.
Active Transportation Plan (ATP): The Regional ATP defines the bicycle, pedestrian, and
low speed electric vehicle (LSEV) networks designed to provide a multimodal compliment
and/or alternative to automobiles. The Regional ATP projects are included in the TPPS.
The TPPS, RACE, and ATP were formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27,
2016. Since the TPPS, RACE, and ATP provide the underlying basis for the TUMF program, these
updates have necessitated update of the TUMF program to reaffirm the nexus between projected
development and needed transportation system improvements. The reevaluation of the TUMF
nexus also provides the opportunity to address important policy issues including, fee land use
categories, exemptions, cost indexing, and other factors, as described further in Chapter 7.
Legal Context
A Nexus Report provides a legal basis and necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of
transportation impact fees consistent with Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code
Section 66000 et seq.). The Mitigation Fee Act allows jurisdictions to adopt, by resolution, the
Transportation Impact Fee consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings
provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments
of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling ordinance.
Impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital and
infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the jurisdictions
in which it is charged. As such impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection,
between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. Impact
fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other
facilities and infrastructure. In addition, impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover
the cost of existing needs/ deficiencies in the transportation capital improvement network.
In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development
project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify how the fee is to be used;
3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of
development project for which the fee is being used;
4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development
project for which the fee is imposed; and
5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public
facility.
These statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this TUMF, as documented in
subsequent chapters. If the transportation impact fee is adopted, this Nexus Study and the
technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by CVAG to
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
ensure accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent
that transportation improvement requirements, costs, and development potential changes over
time, the TUMF will need to be updated. Further information on the implementation and
administration of the TUMF is provided in Chapter 7.
Summary of the TUMF Calculation
Table 1 shows summarizes the TUMF calculation per trip consistent with nexus requirements
and the associated analysis contained in this Technical Report. These transportation impact fees
are designed to cover the cost of regional transportation improvements required to support new
development after existing deficiencies and known other funding sources have been taken into
account. The fees apply to all new residential and non-residential projects, except those
exempted by State or federal law or other means.
Table 1 Summary of TUMF per trip Calculation
While per trip sets the basis for the TUMF, individual land use categories will pay different fees
depending on their trip rates per unit. Table 2 provides an illustrative calculation of the fee level
for various land use categories. The actual land use categories and their specific application,
including various discounts, will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7.
Net TUMF Cost See Table 9 = a $263,335,000
Growth in ADT (2015 - 2040)See Table 3 = b 1,074,520
Avg. TUMF / ADT = a / b $245
Category Source Formula Amount
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Table 2 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories
Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family Detached $2,310 per dwelling
Multi-Family $1,790 per dwelling
Non-Residential
Industrial $1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office $2,390 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail2 $6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.
[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass-through trips.
Fee Per Unit1
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
2. TUMF BOUNDARY AND TRAVEL DEMAND
This chapter documents the land use and travel demand assumptions and forecasts that underlie
the TUMF calculations. These factors drive the traffic generation and attraction in the CVAG
region and, in turn, are critical in determining how to allocate new transportation improvement
costs between existing and new development.
TUMF Boundar y
The TUMF boundaries define the geography (i.e. cities and unincorporated areas) where new
development will be subject to the TUMF. In order to assure accurate and timely implementation
of the TUMF program, the applicable boundary should be easily identified and understood by
developers and jurisdictions responsible for fee collection. Good boundary devices are easily
identified, stay relatively constant over time, and can be related to data collection or analysis
zones in order to facilitate future analysis updates.
As part of an update to the TUMF in 2005 (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005), the CVAG TUMF
Boundary Determination established a roughly defined area within which there exists a
“reasonable relationship” between new development and traffic conditions on TUMF roadways.
Formal boundary lines were defined based on the results of the analysis in relation to easily
administered features. This boundary is illustrated in Figure 1 and includes the CVAG core, as
well as outlying areas along the I-10 east, SR74 south, SR86 south, and SR111 south corridors.
The boundary corresponds to several easily defined features:
The Riverside County line to the north and south,
Joshua Tree National Park to the northeast,
Township line 10E-11E to the east, and
The WRCOG/CVAG border to the west.
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Figure 1 CVAG TUMF Boundary
Travel Demand Assumptions and Forecasts
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees must establish a reasonable
relationship, or nexus, between the cost of new capital facilities and improvements allocated to
future development and the contribution of growth to the need for these facilities. For
transportation impact fees, recently updated and adopted traffic models are generally used as a
key tool to estimate the allocation of costs of new transportation facilities between existing and
future development.
Based on direction from the CVAG Executive Committee, the Riverside County Traffic Analysis
Model (RIVTAM) has been used to calculate the TUMF. Specifically, as part of this study process,
the RIVTAM model has been updated to reflect the latest 2040 socio-economic forecasts and
roadway network assumptions in the CVAG region consistent with SCAG’s 2016 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). In addition to the Federal Transportation Improvement Program
(FTIP) and projects identified in the 2016 RTP, the TPPS projects were also added to the model
to estimate the daily trips generated in the CVAG region by Year 2040.2
Table 3 shows the estimated growth in the number of daily vehicle trips ends in the CVAG
region between existing (2015) and 2040 based on the updated RIVTAM model. As shown, the
2 For transportation modeling purposes, even projects not included in the TUMF calculation but
included as part of the RTP or FTIP are considered to be part of the regional network in 2040.
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
existing 2015 vehicle trip ends were estimated to be 3,141,640 and the total growth was
estimated to be an additional 1,074,520 trip ends over the next 25 years, or by 2040.3 Based
on this projection, the future growth in trip ends will represents about 25 percent of total trips in
2040. In other words, future growth is expected to account for roughly 25 percent of total trips
ends within the CVAG region by 2040. This proportion is used to allocate a portion of the cost for
TUMF eligible projects to future growth, as described further in subsequent chapters.
Table 3 Estimated Growth in Trip Ends in CVAG Region (2015 – 2040)
3 Trip ends are those that either start or end in the CVAG region. Through trips (i.e. those that pass
through but do not stop in the CVAG region), are excluded from this calculation as described further in
Chapter 4.
2015 2040 (with TPPS)Total Growth as % of
2040 total
Average
Annual
Total for CVAG Regional
Network 3,141,640 4,216,160 1,074,520 25.5%1.2%
Source: F&P; RIVTAM
Avg. Daily Trip (ADT) Ends in Year:2015 - 2040 Growth in ADT
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
3. TUMF PROJECTS AND COSTS
This chapter documents the transportation facilities included in the TUMF as well as their
estimated cost. Development impact fees are derived from a list of planned regional
transportation capital improvement projects and associated costs that are needed in part or in
full to accommodate new growth. Consequently, the capital improvements included in the fee
program need to be described in sufficient detail to generate cost estimates.4
TUMF Project Selection
As noted in Chapter 1, the TPPS, as well as the RACE and ATP provide the core elements of the
TUMF calculation by providing the list of potentially eligible projects and their corresponding
costs. Updates to these documents were prepared by the consultant team, led by Michael Baker
International, and formally approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on June 27, 2016.
While the projects included in the TPPS represent the universe of transportation facilities and
improvements potentially eligible for funding through TUMF, not all of them need to be included
in the program. A key component of the TUMF study process is to identify which of these eligible
projects should be included in the TUMF based on both nexus and policy considerations.
Accordingly, as part of this study, CVAG obtained input from member jurisdictions and the TUMF
Nexus Committee to consider options for reducing the cost of the TUMF program.
The policy direction resulting from this consultation was to identify and remove projects from
TUMF consideration where there was uncertainty in the likelihood of that project moving forward
in the next 15-25 years. After meeting with each of the individual jurisdictions, CVAG found that
nearly all projects scoring below 7.5 points on the TPPS met the criteria and thus should be
“removed” from TUMF consideration. Jurisdictions pointed out that these projects may become
more certain in the future, when the TUMF Nexus study is repeated.
CVAG, with concurrence from its members and the TUMF Nexus Committee, determined that the
regional priority in the TPPS necessitated the inclusion of projects scoring above 7.5 points. By
removing TPPS projects scoring 7.5 points and lower, jurisdictions acknowledge that regional
funding will not be available for those projects until or unless the TUMF project list (those TPPS
projects scoring above 7.5 points) is amended.
The ATP includes a comprehensive listing of all active transportation projects within the
jurisdictions of the CVAG member agencies that were determined to have regional significance.
Specifically, it includes local and regional bike plans as well as pedestrian improvement to transit
hubs. In addition, the TPPS includes other regional transportation projects, such as CV Link, that
correspond to long-term planning efforts and cannot analyzed in the same way as traditional
TPPS projects. These projects were tested for regional significance based on factors that were
agreed upon as part of the RTP study process. Based on CVAG committee direction, ATP and
4 Impact fees programs do not, in themselves, represent actual approval of a City plan or capital
project (and as such do require clearance through the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA).
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
these regional planning projects were not ranked against one another but are simply listed as
part of the regional transportation system to be considered for funding.
In addition to this policy-based approach, TPPS projects focused on the resurfacing of existing
arterials have been removed from the TUMF calculation based on nexus considerations (i.e., the
costs of these projects are excluded from TUMF). These projects are needed to maintain the
current regional arterial network rather than help accommodate growth. Based on the
requirements of AB 1600, projects focused primarily on the operation and maintenance of
existing facilities should be excluded from development impact fee programs. It should be noted
that this is a relatively minor adjustment since total cost of these projects is only $940,000.
Based on the process and criteria described above, about 80 TPPS projects were removed from
TUMF consideration, or about 30 percent of the total.5 Eliminating these projects removed about
$605 million from TUMF consideration. A detailed list of the projects included and removed from
the TPPS is provided in Appendix A.
TUMF Project Costs
As described earlier, the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) study provides a uniform
methodology to create planning-level cost estimates for transportation projects included in the
TPPS. As further described in the RACE, these costs estimates include construction, right-of-
way, and impact factors to cover other related project conditions.6 The costs for CV Link and
Regional Signal Synchronization were estimated from other planning efforts and added to the
overall TPPS cost.
Table 4 provides cost estimates for TPPS projects after removing those that scored at or below
7.5 points. As shown, the total delivery cost for the projects included as part of the TUMF
calculations is estimated at approximately $2.809 billion, including the TPPS, ATP, and two other
regional projects. The cost estimates for each project are attached to this Report as Appendix
B (with further detail available in the RACE).
5 This total excludes ATP and other Regional Projects such as CV Link.
6 Impact factors are multipliers applied to the project’s construction cost to account for special
conditions likely add to its complexity in the construction process. These include project conditions like
the existence of utilities structures, nearby drainage facilities, and medians that add complexity and
costs.
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Table 4 Summary of TUMF Projects and Total Costs
The bulk of the TUMF project costs, or approximately 76.3 percent, are identified as “Capacity
Improvement Projects.” These projects are so-named because they expand the capacity of the
regional transportation network by adding lanes or entirely new arterials and connections,
allowing the network to better accommodate growth. The projects referred to as “Widening or
Updating of Cross-Sections” and “Other Operational Improvements”, which combine for about 13
percent of costs, provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, but do not
expand the network capacity in a measurable way. ATP and other regional projects such as CV
Link and valley-wide signal synchronization, combine for slightly less than 11 percent of total
costs.
Type of Projects
$ Amount %
Buildable Projects $2,506,140,000 89.2%
--$2,143,490,000 76.3%
--$69,910,000 2.5%
--$292,570,000 10.4%
--$170,000 0.01%
ATP Regional Projects $157,700,000 5.6%
--$149,700,000 5.3%
--$8,000,000 0.3%
$146,100,000 5.2%
--$99,400,000 3.5%
--$46,700,000 1.7%
Regional Traffic System Costs $2,809,940,000 100%
TUMF Project Cost
Capacity Improvement Projects
Widening or Updating Cross-Sections
CV Link
Valley-wide Signal Synchronization
Other Operational Improvements
Resurface or Reconstruction Only
Regional Bicycle Projects
Regional Pedestrian Improvements
Other Regional Transportation Projects
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
4. TUMF COST ALLOCATION
This Chapter describes how the cost of TUMF eligible projects (described in Chapter 3) are
allocated to new development. Under the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees cannot
include the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to address “existing deficiencies”. In
other words, the cost of new capital facilities and improvements needed solely to address the
needs of existing users must be excluded from the TUMF calculation.
Application of Transportation Demand Model
As noted in Chapter 2, the nexus calculations provided in this Report utilize RIVTAM projections
to allocate the cost of the TUMF eligible projects between new and existing development. The
RIVTAM model is a mathematical representation of travel demand in the CVAG region between
Base Year 2008 and Future Year 2040, updated by Fehr & Peers as part of this study effort. The
model uses socioeconomic data, such as number of jobs and households to estimate the
expected travel in, between, and through CVAG. Existing 2015 origin-destination (O-D) trip
table and daily volumes were developed using the interpolation between the Base Year 2008
Model and Future Year 2040 Model.
The traffic growth in CVAG was estimated using the change in origin-destination (O-D) trip tables
between existing 2015 Model and Future Year 2040 Model. In order to capture the trips only
associated with the Coachella Valley region, the external-to-external trips (meaning trips starting
from and ending at areas outside of the Coachella Valley) were excluded from traffic growth. For
external-to-internal or internal-to-external trips (meaning trips having one end in CVAG and the
other end outside of CVAG), only half of those trips were included in the traffic growth
calculation.
For the purpose of the TUMF, the number of trip ends was used to calculate the fee which is
consistent with the 2005 TUMF study. Any internal-to-internal trip (meaning trips traveling
inside CVAG) is considered as two trip ends and any external-to-internal or internal-to-external
trip is considered to have one trip end in Coachella Valley.
The results from the traffic demand model are applied differently depending on the type of TUMF
project under consideration. Specifically, this nexus analysis employs different cost allocation
methodologies depending on whether the project is primarily designed to increases the overall
travel capacity within the CVAG region versus those that are primarily designed for other
purposes, such as safety or bicycle / pedestrian access. The cost allocation methodology for each
category of TUMF improvement is described separately below.
TUMF Capacity Improvement Projects
As described in Chapter 3, the TPPS identified a number of projects as “capacity
improvements.” These projects are so-named because they expand the capacity of the regional
transportation network by adding lanes to existing facilities or adding entirely new arterials and
connections, allowing the network to accommodate growth. For these projects the RIVTAM
model was used to estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth. Specifically, the existing
2015 daily volumes were compared to capacity to develop the existing volume/capacity (v/c)
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
ratio to determine whether the project is experiencing an existing deficiency based on level of
service (LOS) criteria. Consistent with the 2005 TUMF study, LOS D or worse is considered to be
unacceptable LOS for arterial roadway network.
Any project’s roadway segment with a v/c ratio exceeding 0.62 (LOS D or worse) were
considered to operate with existing deficiency, and a fair share calculation was then performed to
estimate the portion of costs attributable to growth for the project. The fair share percentage
was calculated by subtracting the existing volumes from future demand and then divided by the
future demand, and the percentage was applied to the project’s total cost to estimate the portion
of costs attributable to growth. For projects with roadway segments operating at LOS C or better
(or v/c ratio of 0.62 or less), it is assumed 100 percent of the project’s cost is attributable to
growth.
Table 5 shows the list of TUMF projects experiencing a v/c ratio above 0.62 and how the cost of
these projects has been allocated between new and existing development. Overall, out of the
190 TUMF projects (excluding ATP) 13 are estimated to operate with an existing deficiency. As
shown in Table 5, out of the $121.7 million in total cost estimated for these projects,
approximately $54.4 million is allocated to the TUMF. The remaining $67 million, or about 55
percent, is attributable to existing deficiencies.
Table 5 TUMF Capacity Improvements with Existing Deficiencies
Street Name
Segment
#Segment Description
Cost
Considered
in TUMF
Fair
Share
Factor
Cost
Contributed
to Future
Growth
ADT V/C ADT V/C
a b c e = a * d
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy
111/SPRR $22,011,480 21,120 0.85 49,420 0.48 0.57 $12,604,712
AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC $55,222,500 20,260 0.82 37,930 0.35 0.47 $25,725,852
AVE 50 50I2 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl.
Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $3,356,880 20,150 0.72 38,870 0.37 0.48 $1,616,691
Dillon Rd.DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to
Hwy 111 $4,062,858 19,440 0.71 46,870 0.43 0.59 $2,377,730
Hwy. 74 Hwy.74A Highway 111 to El Paseo $450,240 38,960 0.63 39,080 0.34 0.00 $1,383
Hwy. 111 Hwy.111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr $3,537,600 47,240 0.72 67,580 0.58 0.30 $1,064,735
Hwy. 111 Hwy.111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave $4,924,800 53,240 0.81 73,300 0.64 0.27 $1,347,769
Hwy. 111 Hwy.111H Miles Ave to Washington St
(incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl)$7,573,400 46,430 0.70 62,300 0.43 0.25 $1,929,211
Indian Cyn Dr.INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave $165,000 20,370 0.68 37,920 0.56 0.46 $0
Indian Cyn Dr.INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave $1,722,800 24,960 0.85 45,050 0.31 0.45 $768,281
Indian Cyn Dr.INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,379,840 21,780 0.78 39,410 0.26 0.45 $3,301,360
Indian Cyn Dr.INCN13
Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes
Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at
Mission Cr.)
$6,945,600 16,460 0.62 27,730 0.40 0.41 $2,822,824
Palm Dr.PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd $4,024,416 28,340 0.85 35,290 0.24 0.20 $792,567
Total $121,377,414 $54,353,115
[1] Data provided by Fehr & Peers based on updated RIVTAM.
d = (c - b)
/ c
Existing Year
20151
Future Year
2040 w/ TPPS1
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
As noted, the bulk of the capacity improvement projects, in terms of both number and costs,
currently operate with a v/c ratio below 0.62. Consequently, these projects are assumed to be
entirely attributable to new development.
TUMF Operational, Safety, an d ATP Projects
In addition to “capacity improvement projects”, other regional projects are included in the TUMF
calculation because they improve the regional network for both existing and new users. While
these projects provide a variety of benefits to both new and existing commuters, they do not
expand the network capacity in a measurable way. The TUMF projects that fall into this category
include operational improvements such as reconfiguring intersections, adding turn lanes at
intersections, adding traffic signals, and ATP projects (e.g. bike / pedestrian facility and transit
station improvements, and CV Link).
Since these improvements and facilities associated with the project categories above are
designed to serve and benefit both existing and new development, the costs are allocated in
proportion to growth. Specifically, 25 percent of the cost of these projects are allocated to
growth reflecting the estimated share of new trip ends to total trip ends in 2040 (see Table 3 in
Chapter 2).
Summary of TUMF Cost Allocation
Table 6 summarizes the allocation of TUMF eligible project costs between new and existing
development based on the methodology described above. As shown, overall, about 80 percent of
the TUMF eligible project costs are allocated to new development. This amount includes 97
percent of the cost of “Capacity Improvement Projects” since the majority of these projects are
not currently needed given level of service standards assumed for this analysis (i.e. v/c ratios of
0.62 or less).
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Table 6 Allocation of TUMF Eligible Project Costs to New Development
Type of Projects
Buildable Projects $2,505,970,000 $2,169,010,747
--$2,143,490,000 96.9%$2,076,630,000
--$69,910,000 25.5%$17,817,088
--$292,570,000 25.5%$74,563,659
ATP Regional Projects $157,700,000 $40,191,028
--$149,700,000 25.5%$38,152,168
--$8,000,000 25.5%$2,038,860
$146,100,000 $37,234,681
--$99,400,000 25.5%$25,332,836
--$46,700,000 25.5%$11,901,845.28
Total $2,809,770,000 80%$2,246,436,456
[2] Cost allocation based on new trips from 2015 - 2040 divided by total trips in 2040, as shown in Table 3.
Project Costs
Proportion of Costs
Allocated to Growth
[1] Cost allocation based on RIVTAM analysis. For projects with no existing deficiencies, 100 percent of costs
are allocated to growth.
Other Regional Transportation Projects
Capacity Improvement Projects1
Widening or Updating Cross-Sections2
Other Operational Improvements2
Valley-wide Signal Synchronization2
CV Link2
Regional Bicycle Projects2
Regional Pedestrian Improvements2
Total Costs
Allocated to
Growth
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
5. OTHER FUNDING FOR TUMF PROJECTS
It is a common practice in calculation of a development impact fee to deduct any obligated or
projected revenue from other funding sources from the total cost of planned capital facilities and
improvements. Accordingly, this section identifies and quantifies the separate external revenue
or funding sources (other than the TUMF itself) and deducts these amounts from the TUMF
calculation.
CVAG has programming authority for Measure A, State and Federal formula funds. Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the regional transportation planning agency
responsible for administration of funds throughout Riverside County. Due to the diverse needs of
sub-regions throughout the County, programming decisions within Coachella Valley are typically
delegated to CVAG. Competitive grant funding and programming is typically managed directly by
RCTC or State and Federal sponsoring agencies.
Obligated Funds
TUMF project costs should exclude funding that has already been secured or is obligated from
other external sources. As of November, 2016, CVAG has approximately $232 million allocated to
TPPS projects from available sources. Programming decisions are made periodically and
obligation values are updated as needed. A list of current projects and funding commitments is
summarized in Table 7.
Table 7 Summary of Obligated Funds Available to Off-set TUMF Costs
Type of Projects
$ Amount %
Buildable Projects $2,505,970,000 89.2%$145,886,000
--$2,143,490,000 76.3%$102,956,000
--$69,910,000 2.5%$1,972,000
--$292,570,000 10.4%$40,958,000
ATP Regional Projects $157,700,000 5.6%$8,300,000
--$149,700,000 5.3%$8,300,000
--$8,000,000 0.3%$0
$146,100,000 5.2%$77,767,625
--$99,400,000 3.5%$75,000,000
--$46,700,000 1.7%$2,767,625
Regional Traffic System Costs $2,809,770,000 100%$231,953,625
[1] Only includes portion of obligated funding applicable to TUMF related costs.
CV Link
Valley-wide Signal Synchronization
Other Operational Improvements
Regional Bicycle Projects
Regional Pedestrian Improvements
Other Regional Transportation Projects
Obligated
Funding1 Project Cost
Capacity Improvement Projects
Widening or Updating Cross-Sections
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Although a significant portion of obligated funds are under CVAG’s control, competitive funding
from State and/or federal sources, such as Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, is
determined by others. ATP projects in the CVAG region, including major infrastructure projects
such as CV Link, have received approximately $75 million in grants an d funding allocations from
CMAQ and various other sources. The values are deducted from the TPPS and ATP gross
network.
Other E xternal F unding
As part of the TUMF study effort, CVAG staff identified and estimated the level of non-TUMF
external funding assumptions inherent in each jurisdiction's ability to move specific TPPS projects
forward. These external funding assumptions have been removed from the TUMF obligation.
Specifically, CVAG staff have worked with member jurisdictions to identify and estimate the
additional, external (i.e. non-TUMF) funding assumptions associated with the all TPPS projects
rated above 7.5 points. The total external funding estimate from all the jurisdictions was
$328,032,689. Consequently, this amount has been removed from the TUMF calculation.
Developer Funded Impro vements
Section 6 (d) (2) of the CVAG TUMF model ordinance indicates that CVAG will “establish an
estimate of the value of customary developer dedications to the extent they have been included
in the total cost of the regional system.” Dedications are right of way and/or completed roadway
segments that are required to be completed by developers as part of their development
approvals. In previous TUMF Nexus Studies, the estimated value of developer dedications has
been used to offset or reduce the TUMF collection target.
This reduction of the TUMF collection target provides an appropriate program ‘credit’ to
developers for completing actual improvements to the arterial system. While the value of
developer contributions is difficult to quantify, they are real and should be accounted for in the
TUMF. As part of the initial TUMF calculation in 1988 it was estimated that such dedications
represented 25 percent of the value of total TPPS (regional system) costs. This estimate was
affirmed in 2005. It is recommended that we retain the 25 percent estimate for the value of
developer dedications for the 2018 Nexus Study, excluding CV Link.
State and Federal Transportation Funding
CVAG receives transportation funding from a variety of State and federal sources, much of which
is allocated by formula or agreement through RCTC. This includes funding through the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding
(CMAQ), the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP), and other sources. While the funding
levels from State and Federal sources can vary significantly from year to year, for the purposes
of the TUMF analysis, CVAG projects that the region will receive about $172 million from these
sources over the next 25 years, or an average of about $6.86 million per year.7
7 Based on the last call for projects in 2013 for federal grant funds STP, CVAG received $21,458,175,
or about 33 percent of the total pot for Riverside County. For CMAQ funds, CVAG is averaging about
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Local Match
The CVAG share of regional road system project costs has been set by the Executive Committee
at 75 percent of qualified project costs, has been applied after any external funding comes off
the top. Local jurisdictions are required to provide the remaining 25 percent of project costs, as
well as 100 percent of unqualified project costs. For the purposes of the TUMF, CVAG has
indicated that projects on the TPPS will be funded with 75 percent regional funds with a 25
percent local match requirement. Accordingly, this analysis assumes that the TUMF costs are
reduced by 25 percent to account for this local match.
Measure A
In accordance with RCTC Ordinance No.02-001, Riverside County Transportation Commission
Transportation Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax (Measure A), 50 percent of
the sales tax revenue generated by Measure A within the Coachella Valley is allocated to CVAG
for use on the Regional Arterial System. This sales tax was approved through 2038. CVAG uses
this revenue to complete projects included in the TPPS. CVAG intends to continue to utilize this
revenue for projects included in the TPPS
For the purpose of determining the share of Measure A revenues that will likely be available for
completing future TPPS projects, an average of actual revenues between 2007 and 2016
(adjusted for inflation) and projected growth in trips through 2040 was used. In addition, it is
assumed that 80 percent of the Measure A revenue would be used to off-set TUMF costs, with
the remaining available to cover future project costs not covered by TUMF (e.g., the amount
allocated to “existing deficiencies”). This methodology yields average annual Measure A revenues
available to off-set TUMF costs of about $22.8 million per year or $461 million over 25 years, as
shown in Table 8.
$6 million per year. These two sources would combine for about $171,458,175 over a 25-year period
($21,458,175 + $6 million times 25 years).
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Table 8 Estimated Measure A Revenues Available To Off-set TUMF Costs
Summary of Other Funding Sources
Table 9 summarizes the assumptions above to estimate the total revenue that is likely to be
available to off-set TUMF project costs over the next 25 years. As shown, the total TUMF Costs of
$2.176 billion (i.e., the TPPS costs attributable to growth) are reduced by an additional $1.934
billion to account for other funding sources, leaving a net TUMF cost of about $242.7 million.
Type of Projection
Based on 2007-16 Growth Rate In Measure A $s $20,308,586 $487,406,064
Based on 2010-16 Growth Rate in Measure A $s $26,270,481 $630,491,536
Based on SCAG Trip Growth (2017 - 2040)$21,934,342 $526,424,215
Average of All Projections $22,837,803 $548,107,272
25 Year Total $570,945,075
Allocation to TUMF Eligible Projects @ 80% [1]$456,475,736
[1] Equals to proportion of total TUMF costs allocated to growh, as shown in Table 6.
Total Projected
Through 2040
Average Annual
Amount
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Table 9 Net TUMF Costs After Funding from Other Sources
TUMF Cost Allocation See Table 6 = a $2,246,436,000
Obligated Funding See Table 7 = b $231,953,625
External Funding CVAG Jurisdiction data = c $328,000,000
CV Link Costs Allocated to Growth See Table 6 = d $25,332,836
Developer Funded Improvements CVAG Estimate e = 25% * (a - d)$555,276,000
State and Federal Funding CVAG Estimate = f $171,458,000
Subtotal g = a - b - c - e - f $959,748,000
25% Local Match CVAG Policy h = g * 25%$239,937,000
Measure A Funding to TUMF See Table 8 = i $456,476,000
Net TUMF Costs j = g - h - i $263,335,000
Category Amount
(rounded)FormulaSource
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
6. NEXUS FINDINGS AND FEE CALCULATION
This chapter summarizes the nexus findings presents in the previous chapters and calculates and
presents the final TUMF calculations.
Overview of Nexus Findings
A “nexus” or relationship between new development in the CVAG region and transportation
improvements and their costs must be established before incorporating transportation
improvement costs into a transportation impact fee calculation. To determine the appropriate
costs to include in the new transportation fee calculation, it is necessary to conduct a series of
steps:
Identify Total Costs of Transportation Improvements. The identification of the
required transportation improvement projects and their associated costs is the first step (see
Chapter 3).
Remove Existing Deficiencies. Next, it is necessary to evaluate whether there is an
existing deficiency at any of the project locations, and if so, the magnitude of that deficiency.
Existing deficiencies are accounted for by reducing the project cost that is included in the Fee
Program with funding required from other sources (see Chapter 4)
Determine Proportionate Allocation to New Development. Once existing deficiencies
are identified, it is necessary to determine the proportion of the remaining project cost that is
attributable to new development in Cupertino, and therefore can be the subject of a fee
program (see Chapter 4).
Account for Known Funding. To the extent there is dedicated funding for any of the
transportation improvements, this portion of costs should not be included in the
transportation fee calculation. For this TIF calculation, funding from external sources has
been excluded (see Chapter 5).
The technical calculations described above and further detailed in subsequent sections establish
the following nexus findings, consistent with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Purpose
The TUMF will help maintain adequate levels of transportation service in the CVAG region. It is
levied on all new development throughout the Coachella Valley to mitigate the cumulative
regional impacts on the transportation system.
Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to fund regional transportation improvements, including roadway,
intersection, interchange, and traffic signal improvements, ATP facilities and other regional
serving projects. The list of eligible transportation projects and costs are summarized in Chapter
3 and further detailed in the Appendix B and the TPPS.
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Relationship
New development in the CVAG region will increase demands for, and travel on, the region’s
transportation network. Transportation fee revenue will be used to fund additional
transportation capacity necessary to accommodate this growth. New development will benefit
from the increased transportation capacity.
Need
Each new development project will add to the incremental need for transportation capacity and
improvements. The transportation improvements considered in this Study have been identified
and are necessary to support the future transportation needs in the CVAG region.
Proportionality
The fee levels are tied to fair share cost allocations to new development based on the RIVTAM
transportation model and adapted for this study purpose. Recognizing that some improvements
within the Coachella Valley will be completed by developer dedications or using alternate funding
sources, the TUMF program establishes the share of unfunded improvement costs in rough
proportionality to the number of trips generated by new development and assigns the fair-share
fee to new developments on this basis.
The TUMF Calculation
The data and analysis described above provide the core components of the TUMF calculation.
The final step in the TUMF calculation is to estimate the fee per trip and by land use category
(i.e. different types of residential and non-residential development). These calculations are
described below.
TUMF per Trip
The TUMF rate per trip is calculated by dividing the net TUMF cost above by the projected growth
in average daily trips (ADT) over from 2015 – 2040. Specifically, the fee per trip is calculated by
dividing the aggregate fee program cost of $263.3 million by the total number of trips generated
by new development, or 1.074,520, as shown in Table 10. The results in a TUMF of $245 per
ADT.
Table 10 Calculation of TUMF per Average Daily Trip (ADT)
Net TUMF Cost See Table 9 = a $263,335,000
Growth in ADT (2015 - 2040)See Table 3 = b 1,074,520
Avg. TUMF / ADT = a / b $245
Category Source Formula Amount
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
TUMF by Land Use
This average TUMF per trip amount will be used as the basis for calculating the actual TUMF
obligation for particular types of development based on ADT generation factors for specific land
use categories. Table 11 provides the ADT rates for generalized land use categories based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition released in
2017). The actual land use categories and their specific application, including various discounts,
will be included in the TUMF Handbook, as described in Chapter 7. In addition, CVAG may
update these rates and land use categories over time as conditions change and new data
becomes available.
Table 11 Trip Rate Assumptions for illustrative Land Use Categories
Table 12 calculates the TUMF for each land use categories defined above based on the fee per
trip. It should be noted that, the TUMF per trip rate for retail is reduced by 35 percent to
account “linked” and pass-through trips, or trips that are part of multi-purpose commute (e.g.,
stopping at a retail store on the way to or from work). Typically, retail-based trips often involve
multiple stops. To recognize this traffic pattern, an adjustment for pass-through trips, or
percentage of new trip adjustment, takes into account vehicle trips using the adjacent roadway
that enter a site as an intermediate stop on the way to another destination. For example, some
drivers will stop for fuel on their way home from work. The pass-by adjustment reduces total
number of vehicle trips to account for the sharing of the one trip for two destinations (fuel and
then home).
Land Use Category ITE Code ITE Land Use Description
Residential
Single Family Detached 9.44 dwelling 210 Single-Family Detached Housing
Multi-Family 7.32 dwelling 220 Multifamily Housing Low Rise
Non-Residential
Industrial 4.96 1000 sq. ft.110 General Light Industrial
Office 9.74 1000 sq. ft.710 General Office Building
Retail 37.75 1000 sq. ft.820 Shopping Center
ITE Daily Trip Rate / Unit
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
Table 12 Illustrative TUMF Calculation for Selected Land Use Categories
Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family Detached $2,310 per dwelling
Multi-Family $1,790 per dwelling
Non-Residential
Industrial $1,220 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office $2,390 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail2 $6,010 per 1,000 sq. ft.
[1] Based on a TUMF of $245 per ADT.
[2] Includes a discount of 35% percent to account for pass-through trips.
Fee Per Unit1
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
7. TUMF IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
This chapter summarizes the implementation and administrative issues and procedures
associated with the TUMF program. Implementation and administrative elements of this Updated
TUMF are specified in the CVAG TUMF Handbook as well as the CVAG TUMF model ordinance.
This TUMF update incorporates a number of modifications requested by CVAG’s member
jurisdictions and other stakeholders. The key elements of these documents that are expected to
be modified as part of this update are described below.
Elimination of Land Use Exemptions
The 2012 TUMF policy handbook exempts a number of land use categories from paying the fee
(examples include affordable housing, public buildings, and some religious structures). It is
proposed that the new TUMF update will eliminate any TUMF land use exemptions except those
required by State or federal law (for example, public schools are statutorily exempt from AB
1600 impact fees). In other words, all new development that increases trips in the CVAG region
will be subject to the TUMF unless otherwise exempt due to State and / or federal law.
While the goal is to eliminate all exemptions, consistent with State or federal law, CVAG has also
proposed a TUMF discount for Transit Oriented Residential Development projects. With the new
Handbook, CVAG is also considering an exemption for Affordable housing (below 80% of the
ACI).
Regional fee programs approach affordable housing fees in a variety of ways; charge a full fee,
allow fee reductions of a stated percentage, and completely exempting fees. These are evenly
implemented throughout programs in California. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual does not include affordable housing as a land use. Programs that charge a fee
often simply define a reduction of 20% or 50% of the fee for affordable housing but don’t
provide a methodology on how it was arrived at other than it was a policy decision.
Simplification of Land Use Categories
The current TUMF Manual defines over 35 separate land use categories, and numerous sub-
categories, each with different fee rates based upon trip generation. Concerns have been raised
by developers and CVAG member agencies that this structure is overly complicated and
confusing. Consequently, CVAG has simplified the land use categories which eliminate factors
that override the basic fee rate of a land use.
For example, under the current TUMF Program, the highest TUMF rates are for convenience
markets and fast food restaurants. When convenience stores are located within shopping
centers it can create confusion because under the current TUMF Manual, shopping centers are
defined as having at least three business establishments which may be housed in one or more
buildings; have a total building floor area of at least 10,000 square feet (sq. ft.), and that the
largest establishment not contain more than 50 percent of the floor area.
Under the new TUMF Program, it proposed that the land use categories be simplified and
consolidated. For example, convenience stores, restaurants and shopping centers are proposed
Draft TUMF Nexus Report
March 27, 2018
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 P:\144000s\144043CVAG\Deliverables\DraftNexusReport5.docx
to be charged strictly as “retail” and charged one flat rate. Therefore, TUMF would apply to each
new building based on square footage without any additional factors.
Application of Annual Inflation Adjustment
It is common practice to include an annual adjustment factor so that the fee revenues keep pace
with inflation. By way of example, the Coachella Valley Local Development Mitigation Fee is
revised annually by means of an adjustment at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the
average percentage change over the previous calendar year set forth in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area. Accordingly, it is proposed that an
inflation adjustment for TUMF be reviewed by CVAG’s Executive Committee on an annual basis.
Such inflation adjustment shall be the same as the Coachella Valley Local Development
Mitigation Fee.
APPENDIX A:
TPPS Projects Included in the TUMF
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Ye s No
20TH AVE 20A Worsley Rd to N Indian Canyon Dr No
20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link)Ye s
20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link)Ye s
20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Ye s
AVE 44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing Ye s
AVE 44 44B Monroe St to Low W ater Xing Ye s
AVE 44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd Ye s
AVE 48 48B1 Jefferson St to Madison St No
AVE 48 48B Madison St to W side of All-Amer. Canal (Excl. Br. At
All-Amer. Canal)No
AVE 48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St Ye s
AVE 48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR-86 Ye s
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR Ye s
AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC Ye s
AVE 50 50B1 Washington St to E side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at
Evac. Chnl)Ye s
AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at All-Amer. Canal)Ye s
AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St Ye s
AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St Ye s
AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St Ye s
AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St Ye s
AVE 50 50I2 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at W hitewater Chnl) Ye s
AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR Ye s
AVE 50 50K SR-86S to I-10 IC Ye s
AVE 50 50L Br. at All-Amer. Canal (in 50K)Ye s
AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 I-10 IC Ye s
AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at All-Amer.
Canal)Ye s
AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St Ye s
AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St Ye s
AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St Ye s
AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St Ye s
AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St Ye s
AVE 52 52H Intersection of Ave 52 and SR-86 No
AVE 52 52IA Harrison St to Shady Ln Ye s
AVE 52 52IB Shady Ln to Hwy 111 Ye s
AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR-86S IC Ye s
AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at W hitewater Chnl)Ye s
AVE 52 52M SR-86S to Pierce St Ye s
AVE 54 54A Van Buren St to Harrison St Ye s
AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St Ye s
AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 Ye s
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56B Monroe St to Jackson St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56C Jackson St to 0.25 miles W of Van Buren St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56D 0.25 mi. W of Van Buren St to Harrison St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56E Harrison St to Tyler St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56F Tyler St to Polk St No
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd)Ye s
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56I SPRR to SR-86 (Incl. Br. at W hitewater Chnl)Ye s
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Ye s No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
58TH AVE 58A Jefferson St to Madison St No
58TH AVE 58B Madison St to Monroe St No
58TH AVE 58C Monroe St to Jackson St No
58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St Ye s
58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St Ye s
66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR-86 IC Ye s
66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low W ater Xing Ye s
66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge)Ye s
BOB HOPE DR BH1-6 Frank Sinatra Dr to Gerald Ford Dr No
BOB HOPE DR BH2-6 Gerald Ford to Dinah Shore Dr No
BOB HOPE DR BH3-6 Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd (southbound only)No
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN1 Terrace Rd to E Palm Canyon Dr No
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2 E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl.
Cath Cyn Br.)Ye s
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN4 N side of W hitewater Br. to Dinah Shore Dr No
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN5 Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd No
COOK ST (formerly CHASE
SCHOOL RD)CHSC1 I-10 IC to Ramon Rd Ye s
COOK ST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr Ye s
COOK ST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of W hitewater Br.Ye s
COOK ST CK6 S side of W hitewater Br. to Fred W aring Dr Ye s
COOK ST CK7 Br. at W hitewater Chnl No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC4 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC5 Portola Ave to Cook St Ye s
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC6 Cook St to Eldorado Dr No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC7 Eldorado Dr to Oasis Club Dr No
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC8 Oasis Club Dr to Washington St Ye s
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY1 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr Ye s
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY2 Dinah Shore Dr/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave Ye s
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR CROSLY3A Br. at Palm Cyn Chnl No
DA VALL DR DVALL1 Dinah Shore to Ramon Rd No
DA VALL DR DVALL2 Ramon Rd to McCallum W ay No
DA VALL DR DVALL3 McCallum Way to 30th Ave No
DA VALL DR DVALL4 30th Ave to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR)No
DA VALL DR DVALL5 Future Da Vall I-10 IC Ye s
DA VALL DR DVALL6 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl)Ye s
DATE PALM DR DPLM0A Hwy 111 (E Palm Cyn Dr) to Gerald Ford Dr (Incl. at
Cath. Cyn Br., excludes W W Br.)No
DATE PALM DR DPLM0B Gerald Ford Dr to Dinah Shore Dr No
DATE PALM DR DPLM0C Dinah Shore Dr to Ramon Rd No
DATE PALM DR DPLM1 Ramon Rd to McCallum W ay No
DATE PALM DR DPLM2 McCallum Way to 30th Ave No
DATE PALM DR DPLM3 30th Ave to Vista Chino No
DILLON RD DLN1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr Ye s
DILLON RD DLN2 Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr Ye s
DILLON RD DLN3 N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at
Mission Cr.)Ye s
DILLON RD DLN4 Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr Ye s
DILLON RD DLN5 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Ye s
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Ye s No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
DILLON RD DLN6 Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd Ye s
DILLON RD DLN7 Bennett Rd to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd (Incl. Br. At
Wide Cyn Chnl)No
DILLON RD DLN8 Thousand Palms Cyn Rd to Sunny Rock Rd No
DILLON RD DLN9 Sunny Rock Rd to Ave 44 (Incl. Br. over All-Amer.
Canal)No
DILLON RD DLN10 Ave 44 to I-10 IC Ye s
DILLON RD DLN11 I-10 IC to N side of W hitewater Br.No
DILLON RD DLN12 Br. at W hitewater Chnl Ye s
DILLON RD DLN13 S side of W hitewater Br. to Hwy 111 Ye s
DILLON RD DLN14 Dillon Rd I-10 IC Ye s
DILLON RD DLN15 Dillon Rd SR-86S IC Ye s
DUNE PALMS RD DUNEP1 Br. at W hitewater Chnl No
DUNE PALMS RD DUNEP2 Highway 111 to Blackhawk W ay (formerly W estward
Ho)No
E PALM CYN DR PLCN7 Palm Cyn Dr to Sunrise W ay No
E PALM CYN DR PLCN8 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr Ye s
E PALM CYN DR PLCN9 Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn
Wash)Ye s
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11A Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr Ye s
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11B Date Palm Dr to E Cath. City limits Ye s
FRANK SINATRA DR FS6 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave Ye s
FRANK SINATRA DR FS7 Portola Ave to Cook St No
FRANK SINATRA DR FS8 Cook St to Eldorado Dr No
FRANK SINATRA DR FS9 Eldorado Dr to Tamarisk Row Dr No
FRED WARING DR FW1 Bridge at Whitewater River No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT1A Intersection of Gene Autry Trl and Mesquite Ave /
Dinah Shore Dr No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2A E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way Ye s
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2B Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash Ye s
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2C N of Palm Canyon Wash Bridge to 0.18 mi south of
Mesquite Ave No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2D 0.18 mi S of Mesquite Ave to Mesquite Ave No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2E Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd Ye s
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2F Ramon to Escena Way No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2G Escena W ay to Vista Chino No
GENE AUTRY TR GAT3 Future W hitewater Rvr Br.Ye s
GERALD FORD DR GFD4 Cook St to Frank Sinatra Dr No
GERALD FORD DR GFD5 Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr Ye s
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY1 Golf Center Pkwy. I-10 IC Ye s
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY4 Ave 45 to Hwy 111 Ye s
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF1 Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50 Ye s
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF2 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Ye s
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF3 Ave 52 to Ave 54 Ye s
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF4 Ave 54 to Ave 56 No
HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY DR & E HAC0A SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr Ye s
HACIENDA AVE (currently 13TH AV HAC0B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd Ye s
HACIENDA AVE HAC1A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr Ye s
HACIENDA AVE HAC1B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr Ye s
HACIENDA AVE HAC2 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd No
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Ye s No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
HACIENDA AVE HAC3 Mountain View Rd to Dillon Rd (Long Cyn Rd)No
HARRISON ST HARSN1 Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52 Ye s
HARRISON ST HARSN2 Ave 52 to Ave 54 No
HARRISON ST HARSN3 Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd)Ye s
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74A Highway 111 to El Paseo Ye s
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74B El Paseo to Mesa View Dr No
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74C Mesa View Dr to S Palm Desert City Limits No
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr Ye s
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave Ye s
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111H Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn
Chnl)Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN1 Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN2 Tahquitz Cyn W ay to Alejo Rd Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN3 Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN4 Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN5 Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN6 Racquet Club Rd to Sunrise Pkwy No
INDIAN CYN DR INCN7 Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN8 Garnet Ave to 20th Ave Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN11 Dillon Rd to 14th Ave Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN12 14th Ave to Pierson Blvd Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN13 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at
Mission Cr.)Ye s
INDIAN CYN DR INCN14 Mission Lakes Blvd to SR-62 No
INDIO BLVD INDIO0 I-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad
bridges)Ye s
INDIO BLVD INDIO1 Jefferson St to Madison St (over All-Amer. Canal)Ye s
JACKSON ST JAC2A1 I-10 IC to 43rd Ave Ye s
JACKSON ST JAC2A2 43rd Ave to Ave 44 Ye s
JACKSON ST JAC4 Ave 48 to Ave 50 Ye s
JACKSON ST JAC5 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Ye s
JACKSON ST JAC6 Jackson St I-10 IC Ye s
JEFFERSON ST JEF1A Intersection of Jefferson St and Dunbar Dr No
JEFFERSON ST JEF2A 58th Ave to 62th Ave Ye s
JEFFERSON ST JEF9A1 40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39 Ye s
JEFFERSON ST JEF9B Ave 39 to Ave 38 No
KEY LARGO AVE KL1 Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at I-10 and
RR)Ye s
LANDAU BLVD LAN1 Vista Chino to Verona Rd Ye s
LANDAU BLVD LAN2 Verona Rd to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link)Ye s
LANDAU BLVD LAN3 Future Landau Blvd I-10 IC (missing link)Ye s
LANDAU BLVD LAN4 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link)Ye s
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM1 Mission Lakes Blvd to Pierson Blvd No
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM2 Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl Ye s
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at
Mission Cr.)Ye s
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM4 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave Ye s
MADISON ST MAD5 Ave 52 to Ave 50 Ye s
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Ye s No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
MADISON ST MAD7A 0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48 Ye s
MADISON ST MAD7B Ave 48 to Hwy 111 Ye s
MADISON ST MAD9 Miles Ave to Fred W aring Dr (Incl. Br. over W W Chnl
and All-Amer. Canal, missing link)Ye s
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK0 SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr Ye s
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd No
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr No
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK3 Palm Dr to Eastern Terminus at Verbena Dr No
MONROE ST MON1 0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42 Ye s
MONROE ST MON6 Monroe St I-10 IC Ye s
MONROE ST MON7 Ave 54 to 58th Ave No
MONROE ST MON8A 58th Ave to Ave 60 No
MONROE ST MON8B Ave 60 to 62nd Ave No
MONROE ST MON9 I-10 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander Ye s
MONTEREY AVE MNT1-6 Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr Ye s
MONTEREY AVE MNT2-6 Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater
River)Ye s
MONTEREY AVE MNT3-6 Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr Ye s
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV0 Pierson Blvd at E Terminus of Desert View Ave to
Hacienda Ave No
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1A Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln Ye s
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1B Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd Ye s
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV2 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave No
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV3 20th Ave to Varner Rd No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN1 Vista Chino to Tachevah Dr No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN2 Tachevah Dr to Alejo Rd No
N PALM CYN DR PLCN3 Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd Ye s
N PALM CYN DR PLCN4 Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd Ye s
N PALM CYN DR PLCN5 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Br at Tahquitz Crk.)Ye s
N PALM CYN DR PLCN6 Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr Ye s
PALM DR PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd Ye s
PALM DR PD2 Varner Rd to 20th Ave No
PALM DR PD3 20th Ave to Dillon Rd Ye s
PALM DR PD4 Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl Ye s
PALM DR PD5 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Hacienda Ave No
PALM DR PD6 Hacienda Ave to Pierson Blvd No
PALM DR PD7 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd Ye s
PIERSON BLVD PRS1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS2 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (Incl. Br. at
Mission Cr.)No
PIERSON BLVD PRS3A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS3B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr No
PIERSON BLVD PRS4A Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd No
PIERSON BLVD PRS4B Miracle Hill Rd to Eastern Terminus of Desert View Av.No
POLK ST PLK1 Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48 Ye s
PORTOLA AVE POR1 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr Ye s
PORTOLA AVE POR2 Magnesia Falls Dr to Country Club Dr (Excl. Br. at
Whitewater Chnl)No
PORTOLA AVE POR3 Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr Ye s
PORTOLA AVE POR4A Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln Ye s
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Ye s No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
PORTOLA AVE POR5B Dinah Shore Dr to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR)Ye s
PORTOLA AVE POR6 Future Portola Ave I-10 IC Ye s
RAMON RD RAM1 S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr Ye s
RAMON RD RAM2 S Indian Cyn to Sunrise W ay (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl
Xing)Ye s
RAMON RD RAM3 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr Ye s
RAMON RD RAM3A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way Ye s
RAMON RD RAM4 Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd Ye s
RAMON RD RAM4A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive Ye s
RAMON RD RAM5 El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl Ye s
RAMON RD RAM5A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd Ye s
RAMON RD RAM7 Br. at W hitewater Rvr Ye s
RAMON RD RAM15 Monterey Ave to Thousand Palms Cyn Rd No
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV1 Monroe St to Jackson St Ye s
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV2 Jackson St to Van Buren St Ye s
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV3 Van Buren St to Harrison St Ye s
S VALLEY PKWY SV4 Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link)Ye s
S VALLEY PKWY SV5 Tyler St to Polk St (missing link)Ye s
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV6 Polk St to Fillmore St No
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV7 Fillmore St to Pierce St (Incl. Br. at W hitewater Chnl)No
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV8 Pierce St to SR-86 Ye s
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND AVE SV9 Future Ave 62 SR-86 IC Ye s
THOUSAND PALMS CYN RD THPL1 Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd Ye s
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR / 14TH
AVE TBP1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd Ye s
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr Ye s
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP3 Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd Ye s
TYLER ST TYL1 Ave 50 to I-10 frontage road Ye s
VAN BUREN ST VANB2 Ave 48 to Ave 50 Ye s
VAN BUREN ST VANB3 Ave 50 to Ave 52 Ye s
VAN BUREN ST VANB4 Ave 52 to Ave 54 No
VAN BUREN ST VANB5 Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd Ye s
VARNER RD VRNR0 20th Ave to Palm Dr Ye s
VARNER RD VRNR1 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd Ye s
VARNER RD VRNR2 Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr Ye s
VARNER RD VRNR3 Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd Ye s
VARNER RD VRNR6 Monterey Ave to Cook St No
VARNER RD VRNR7B Ave 38 to W ashington St Ye s
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR9 Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. over All-Amer.
Canal)Ye s
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR10A Madison St to Clinton St No
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR10B Clinton St to Monroe St Ye s
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR11 Monroe St to Gore St Ye s
VISTA CHINO VC1 N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise W ay Ye s
VISTA CHINO VC1A Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr Ye s
VISTA CHINO VC2 Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl Ye s
VISTA CHINO VC2AA Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise W ay Ye s
VISTA CHINO VC2AB Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive Ye s
VISTA CHINO VC2A Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl Ye s
VISTA CHINO VC3 Gene Autry Trl to W side of W hitewater Rvr Ye s
Appendix A
TPPS Projects Included and Excluded From TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description
Ye s No
Included in TUMF?
(Yes/No)
VISTA CHINO VC4 Future W hitewater Rvr Br.Ye s
VISTA CHINO VC5 E side of W hitewater Rvr to Landau Blvd No
VISTA CHINO VC7 Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr Ye s
WASHINGTON ST WSH9 I-10 IC to Ave 38 Ye s
WASHINGTON ST WSH10A Ave 38 to Coyote Song Way No
WASHINGTON ST WSH10B Coyote Song Way to Ramon Rd No
WORSLEY RD WORS1 20th Ave to Dillon Rd No
WORSLEY RD WORS2 Dillon Rd to 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd No
WORSLEY RD WORS3 1 mile S of Pierson Blvd to Pierson Blvd No
WORSLEY RD WORS4 Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr Ye s
Total 188 94
APPENDIX B:
Detailed TUMF Project Cost Estimates
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description Project Costs
20TH AVE 20B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd (missing link)$11,208,000
20TH AVE 20C Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr (missing link)$15,974,400
20TH AVE 20D Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $7,036,800
AVE 44 44A Ave 44 Br./Low Water Xing $14,313,000
AVE 44 44B Monroe St to Low Water Xing $7,411,950
AVE 44 44C Low Water Xing to Dillon Rd $12,083,250
AVE 48 48E Jackson St to Van Buren St $5,315,970
AVE 48 48F Van Buren St to W of SR-86 $2,275,088
AVE 48 48H Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR $22,011,480
AVE 50 50A Future Ave 50 SR-86S IC $55,222,500
AVE 50 50B1 Washington St to E side of Br. at Evac. Chnl (Incl. Br. at
Evac. Chnl)$8,799,480
AVE 50 50C Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. at All-Amer. Canal)$7,131,405
AVE 50 50D Madison St to Monroe St $4,977,480
AVE 50 50E Monroe St to Jackson St $2,304,030
AVE 50 50F Jackson St to Van Buren St $12,084,000
AVE 50 50G Van Buren St to Harrison St $14,301,582
AVE 50 50I2 Cabazon Rd to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl) $3,356,880
AVE 50 50J Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR $21,687,600
AVE 50 50K SR-86S to I-10 IC $45,177,600
AVE 50 50L Br. at All-Amer. Canal (in 50K)$3,952,320
AVE 50 50M Future Ave 50 I-10 IC $62,687,500
AVE 52 52B Jefferson St to Madison St (Excl. Br. at All-Amer. Canal)$2,075,940
AVE 52 52D Monroe St to Jackson St $4,195,800
AVE 52 52E Jackson St to Calhoun St $2,660,400
AVE 52 52F1 Calhoun St to Van Buren St $2,699,400
AVE 52 52F2 Van Buren St to Frederick St $4,689,300
AVE 52 52G Frederick St to Harrison St $6,190,104
AVE 52 52IA Harrison St to Shady Ln $13,286,328
AVE 52 52IB Shady Ln to Hwy 111 $1,629,900
AVE 52 52K Future Ave 52 SR-86S IC $53,782,500
AVE 52 52L Hwy 111 to SR-86S (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl)$22,536,194
AVE 52 52M SR-86S to Pierce St $20,556,880
AVE 54 54A Van Buren St to Harrison St $4,794,900
AVE 54 54B Harrison St to Tyler St $4,560,300
AVE 54 54C Tyler St to Hwy 111 $6,380,750
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56G Polk St to Highway 111 (Grapefruit Blvd)$1,155,714
AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD 56I SPRR to SR-86 (Incl. Br. at Whitewater Chnl)$13,329,000
58TH AVE 58D Jackson St to Van Buren St $4,583,040
58TH AVE 58E Van Buren St to Harrison St $4,583,040
66TH AVE 66A Future 66th Ave SR-86 IC $46,934,500
66TH AVE 66B 66th Ave Br./Low Water Xing $2,826,960
66TH AVE 66C Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR (Bridge)$48,044,000
CATHEDRAL CYN DR CTHCN2 E Palm Canyon Dr to N side of Whitewater Br. (Incl. Cath
Cyn Br.)$4,815,850
COOK ST (formerly CHASE
SCHOOL RD)CHSC1 I-10 IC to Ramon Rd $25,501,600
COOK ST CK4 Frank Sinatra Dr to Country Club Dr $3,997,488
COOK ST CK5 Country Club Dr to N side of Whitewater Br.$6,228,320
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description Project Costs
COOK ST CK6 S side of Whitewater Br. to Fred Waring Dr $1,212,030
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC5 Portola Ave to Cook St $3,714,480
COUNTRY CLUB DR CC8 Oasis Club Dr to Washington St $3,812,300
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF
CLUB DR CROSLY1 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave/Dinah Shore Dr $2,283,600
CROSSLEY RD / GOLF
CLUB DR CROSLY2 Dinah Shore Dr/Mesquite Ave to 34th Ave $2,928,100
DA VALL DR DVALL5 Future Da Vall I-10 IC $71,647,500
DA VALL DR DVALL6 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (Incl. Br. at Long Cyn Chnl)$24,753,600
DILLON RD DLN1 SR-62 to N Indian Canyon Dr $29,522,800
DILLON RD DLN2 Intersection of Dillon Rd & N Indian Canyon Dr $956,500
DILLON RD DLN3 N Indian Canyon Dr to Palm Dr (Incl. Future Br. at Mission
Cr.)$12,887,680
DILLON RD DLN4 Intersection of Dillon Rd & Palm Dr $956,500
DILLON RD DLN5 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $5,353,920
DILLON RD DLN6 Mountain View Rd to Bennett Rd $11,495,760
DILLON RD DLN10 Ave 44 to I-10 IC $9,427,480
DILLON RD DLN12 Br. at Whitewater Chnl $1,487,125
DILLON RD DLN13 S side of Whitewater Br. to Hwy 111 $4,062,858
DILLON RD DLN14 Dillon Rd I-10 IC $18,150,000
DILLON RD DLN15 Dillon Rd SR-86S IC $15,360,000
E PALM CYN DR PLCN8 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr $1,531,200
E PALM CYN DR PLCN9 Farrell Dr to Gene Autry Trl (Incl. Br. at Palm Cyn Wash)$7,725,600
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11A Cathedral Canyon Dr to Date Palm Dr $2,166,000
E PALM CYN DR PLCN11B Date Palm Dr to E Cath. City limits $2,483,800
FRANK SINATRA DR FS6 Monterey Ave to Portola Ave $4,750,434
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2A E Palm Cyn to Eagle Way $631,450
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2B Bridge over Palm Canyon Wash $6,655,700
GENE AUTRY TR GAT2E Mesquite Ave to Ramon Rd $957,600
GENE AUTRY TR GAT3 Future Whitewater Rvr Br.$233,900,000
GERALD FORD DR GFD5 Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr and Bob Hope Dr $1,099,332
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY1 Golf Center Pkwy. I-10 IC $19,481,100
GOLF CENTER PKWY GPKWY4 Ave 45 to Hwy 111 $2,725,800
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF1 Ave 48/Dillon Rd to Ave 50 $4,978,000
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF2 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $12,157,200
GRAPEFRUIT BLVD GRPF3 Ave 52 to Ave 54 $12,772,500
HACIENDA AVE (now RUBY
DR and ESTRADA AVE)HAC0A SR62 to N Indian Canyon Dr $34,336,000
HACIENDA AVE (now 13TH
AVE)HAC0B N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd $12,503,040
HACIENDA AVE HAC1A Little Morongo Rd to Cholla Dr $7,793,280
HACIENDA AVE HAC1B Cholla Dr to Palm Dr $2,653,200
HARRISON ST HARSN1 Grapefruit Blvd to Ave 52 $3,677,200
HARRISON ST HARSN3 Ave 54 to Ave 56 (Airport Blvd)$9,694,080
HIGHWAY 74 HWY74A Highway 111 to El Paseo $450,240
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111F Cook St to Eldorado Dr $3,537,600
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111G Eldorado Dr to Miles Ave $4,924,800
HIGHWAY 111 HWY111H Miles Ave to Washington St (incl. Br. Over Deep Cyn Chnl)$7,573,400
INDIAN CYN DR INCN1 Ramon Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Way $5,847,600
INDIAN CYN DR INCN2 Tahquitz Cyn Way to Alejo Rd $2,123,550
INDIAN CYN DR INCN3 Alejo Rd to Tachevah Dr $2,383,200
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description Project Costs
INDIAN CYN DR INCN4 Tachevah Dr to Vista Chino $1,463,550
INDIAN CYN DR INCN5 Vista Chino to Racquet Club Rd $1,440,900
INDIAN CYN DR INCN7 Sunrise Pkwy to Garnet Avenue $204,099,790
INDIAN CYN DR INCN9 20th Ave to 19th Ave $1,722,800
INDIAN CYN DR INCN10 19th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,379,840
INDIAN CYN DR INCN11 Dillon Rd to 14th Ave $5,510,000
INDIAN CYN DR INCN12 14th Ave to Pierson Blvd $4,903,440
INDIAN CYN DR INCN13 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd (Incl. Future Br. at
Mission Cr.)$6,945,600
INDIO BLVD INDIO0 I-10 Interchange to Jefferson St (includes 2 railroad bridges)$21,888,720
INDIO BLVD INDIO1 Jefferson St to Madison St (over All-Amer. Canal)$2,920,195
JACKSON ST JAC2A1 I-10 IC to 43rd Ave $17,915,106
JACKSON ST JAC2A2 43rd Ave to Ave 44 $10,967,500
JACKSON ST JAC4 Ave 48 to Ave 50 $5,615,280
JACKSON ST JAC5 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $2,047,650
JACKSON ST JAC6 Jackson St I-10 IC $19,826,100
JEFFERSON ST JEF2A 58th Ave to 62th Ave $13,518,000
JEFFERSON ST JEF9A1 40th Ave to 0.27 mi S of Ave 39 $1,011,840
KEY LARGO AVE KL1 Dinah Shore Dr. to Varner Rd (Incl. flyover at I-10 and RR)$23,868,000
LANDAU BLVD LAN1 Vista Chino to Verona Rd $832,000
LANDAU BLVD LAN2 Verona Rd to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR, missing link)$19,280,000
LANDAU BLVD LAN3 Future Landau Blvd I-10 IC (missing link)$71,647,500
LANDAU BLVD LAN4 I-10 IC to Varner Rd (missing link)$22,614,400
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM2 Pierson Blvd to Two Bunch Palms Trl $4,506,240
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM3 Two Bunch Palms Trl to Dillon Rd (Incl. Future Br. at Mission
Cr.)$14,539,120
LITTLE MORONGO RD LM4 Dillon Rd to 20th Ave $19,768,320
MADISON ST MAD5 Ave 52 to Ave 50 $6,608,460
MADISON ST MAD7A 0.25 mi N of Ave 49 to Ave 48 $898,920
MADISON ST MAD7B Ave 48 to Hwy 111 $1,450,140
MADISON ST MAD9 Miles Ave to Fred Waring Dr (Incl. Br. over WW Chnl and All-
Amer. Canal, missing link)$18,607,200
MISSION LAKES BLVD MSLK0 SR 62 to Indian Canyon Dr $29,315,840
MONROE ST MON1 0.25 mi N of Ave 42 to Ave 42 $1,754,280
MONROE ST MON6 Monroe St I-10 IC $2,400,000
MONROE ST MON9 I-10 Interchange to 900 ft N of Oleander $15,467,750
MONTEREY AVE MNT1-6 Highway 111 to Fred Waring Dr $1,240,800
MONTEREY AVE MNT2-6 Fred Waring Dr to Clancy Lane (Incl. Br. at Whitewater River)$13,247,266
MONTEREY AVE MNT3-6 Clancy Lane to Country Club Dr $3,557,376
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1A Hacienda Ave to Brunner Ln $4,016,160
MOUNTAIN VIEW RD MTV1B Brunner Ln to Dillon Rd $3,315,840
N PALM CYN DR PLCN3 Alejo Rd to Tahquitz Cyn Rd $1,182,150
N PALM CYN DR PLCN4 Tahquitz Cyn Rd to Ramon Rd $1,310,850
N PALM CYN DR PLCN5 Ramon Rd to Mesquite Ave (Incl. Br at Tahquitz Creek)$6,437,440
N PALM CYN DR PLCN6 Mesquite Ave to E Palm Cyn Dr $1,436,200
PALM DR PD1 I-10 IC to Varner Rd $4,024,416
PALM DR PD3 20th Ave to Dillon Rd $7,736,256
PALM DR PD4 Dillon Rd to Two Bunch Palms Trl $5,359,464
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description Project Costs
PALM DR PD7 Pierson Blvd to Mission Lakes Blvd $4,241,952
POLK ST PLK1 Polk St from Ave 52 to Ave 48 $19,754,280
PORTOLA AVE POR1 Hwy 111 to Magnesia Falls Dr $5,638,410
PORTOLA AVE POR3 Country Club Dr to Frank Sinatra Dr $4,180,000
PORTOLA AVE POR4A Frank Sinatra Dr to Julie Ln $2,606,400
PORTOLA AVE POR5B Dinah Shore Dr to I-10 IC (Incl. Br. over RR)$23,026,500
PORTOLA AVE POR6 Future Portola Ave I-10 IC $71,647,500
RAMON RD RAM1 S Palm Cyn Dr to S Indian Cyn Dr $372,240
RAMON RD RAM2 S Indian Cyn to Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl Xing)$4,279,950
RAMON RD RAM3 Sunrise Way to Farrell Dr $2,574,880
RAMON RD RAM3A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Sunrise Way $1,051,947
RAMON RD RAM4 Farrell Dr to El Cielo Rd $1,717,600
RAMON RD RAM4A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Farrell Drive $957,177
RAMON RD RAM5 El Cielo Rd to Gene Autry Trl $8,367,900
RAMON RD RAM5A Intersection of Ramon Rd and Crossley Rd $1,051,947
RAMON RD RAM7 Br. at Whitewater Rvr $24,864,323
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV1 Monroe St to Jackson St $4,494,240
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV2 Jackson St to Van Buren St $4,741,440
S VALLEY PKWY / AVE 60 SV3 Van Buren St to Harrison St $5,269,440
S VALLEY PKWY SV4 Harrison St to Tyler St (missing link)$9,583,600
S VALLEY PKWY SV5 Tyler St to Polk St (missing link)$10,562,080
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND
AVE SV8 Pierce St to SR-86 $3,892,200
S VALLEY PKWY / 62ND
AVE SV9 Future Ave 62 SR-86 IC $46,550,500
THOUSAND PALMS CYN
RD THPL1 Ramon Rd to Dillon Rd $17,252,840
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR /
14TH AVE TBP1 N Indian Canyon Dr to Little Morongo Rd $12,522,240
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP2 Little Morongo Rd to Palm Dr $5,422,560
TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TBP3 Palm Dr to Miracle Hill Rd $4,278,787
TYLER ST TYL1 Ave 50 to I-10 frontage road $11,854,020
VAN BUREN ST VANB2 Ave 48 to Ave 50 $3,519,200
VAN BUREN ST VANB3 Ave 50 to Ave 52 $4,690,800
VAN BUREN ST VANB5 Ave 54 to Ave 56/Airport Blvd $5,332,536
VARNER RD VRNR0 20th Ave to Palm Dr $20,249,600
VARNER RD VRNR1 Palm Dr to Mountain View Rd $6,295,000
VARNER RD VRNR2 Mountain View Rd to Date Palm Dr $12,505,200
VARNER RD VRNR3 Date Palm Dr to Ramon Rd $47,489,880
VARNER RD VRNR7B Ave 38 to Washington St $11,293,450
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR9 Jefferson St to Madison St (Incl. Br. over All-Amer. Canal)$9,872,400
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR10B Clinton St to Monroe St $4,952,640
VARNER RD / AVE 42 VRNR11 Monroe St to Gore St $2,327,424
VISTA CHINO VC1 N Palm Canyon Drive to Sunrise Way $5,288,420
VISTA CHINO VC1A Intersection of Vista Chino and N Palm Canyon Dr $984,150
VISTA CHINO VC2 Sunrise Way to Gene Autry Trl $5,668,080
VISTA CHINO VC2AA Intersection of Vista Chino and Sunrise Way $1,073,547
VISTA CHINO VC2AB Intersection of Vista Chino and Farrell Drive $967,677
VISTA CHINO VC2A Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trl $1,014,039
VISTA CHINO VC3 Gene Autry Trl to W side of Whitewater Rvr $1,185,600
Appendix B
List of Costs for Projects Considered in TUMF
Street Name Segment
Number Segment Description Project Costs
VISTA CHINO VC4 Future Whitewater Rvr Br.$94,701,810
VISTA CHINO VC7 Date Palm Dr to Da Vall Dr $20,625,000
WASHINGTON ST WSH9 I-10 IC to Ave 38 $3,055,200
WORSLEY RD WORS4 Pierson Blvd to N Indian Canyon Dr $11,646,600
Total $2,505,969,566
55575.17003\42697392.1
A-2
ATTACHMENT 2
CVAG STAFF REPORT ON TUMF INFLATION ADJUSTMENT
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025
ITEM 7H
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Executive Committee
April 29, 2023
STAFF REPORT
Subject: TUMF Inflation Adjustment for Calendar Year 2025
Contact: Peter Satin, Conservation Program Manager (psatin@cvag.org)
Recommendation: Adopt a 3.6-percent increase in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) rates to take effect January 1, 2025, and update the TUMF Handbook to reflect the
revised fee upon its effective date
Transportation Committee: Concurred (Meeting of April 1)
Background: The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) was established in 1989 as a
one-time impact fee charged on all new development occurring within the CVAG region. Monies
collected through the TUMF program are applied to transportation-related capital facilities and
infrastructure required to serve new growth within the Coachella Valley and are intended to
compliment revenue generated through Riverside County’s Measure A sales tax. To date, TUMF
has provided less than the intended share of match toward Measure A funding.
The current TUMF rates were adopted in 2018 upon the completion of a revised Nexus Study,
Transportation Project Prioritization Study, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate, and Active
Transportation Plan. Prior to their adoption, the fee had remained unchanged at $192/trip for over
a decade. The 2018 Nexus Study originally proposed a revised fee of $751/trip; however, this fee
was reduced to the current $245/trip after re-evaluating which regional transportation projects
would likely be built in the near-term. This rate equates to $2,313 for a single-family dwelling, as
compared to the $10,104 currently charged by Western Riverside Council of Governments for
similar development.
The 2018 TUMF Handbook allows for the consideration of an annual inflation adjustment:
The inflation factor shall be the same one utilized by the Coachella Valley Local
Development Mitigation Fee, based on the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Consumer
Price Index (CPI). Such CPI will be reviewed annually by the Executive Committee which
will determine whether or not to apply the inflation factor.
The Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) inflation factor is calculated on the CPI for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U), All items, as the over-the-year percent change, measured as of
December in the calendar year which ends in the previous fiscal year. The Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario CPI is measured every other month, and does not include data for the month
of December. To approximate a data point for an unrecorded month, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) recommends taking the square root of the product of the indexes for the preceding
and subsequent months, in this case November and January. This approximated December data
point can then be used to calculate the over-the-year percent change.
Applying regular increases due to inflation is a preferred approach to infrequent increases to catch
up over time. An inflation factor of 7.4-percent was applied across each of CVAG’s TUMF
categories by the Executive Committee at its April 2023 meeting. In accordance with California’s
Mitigation Fee Act, and to allow member jurisdictions time to update their local TUMF ordinances
as needed, implementation of the inflation factor did not go into effect until January 1, 2024.
The CPI-U, All items for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area rose by 3.58-
percent for calendar year 2023. BLS notes that some entities choose to calculate “core” inflation
on the CPI-U, less food and energy (the latter of which includes motor fuel), as these items tend
to be more volatile in their pricing. Removing these volatile items from the regional CPI results in
an inflation factor of 4.72-percent, largely due to reductions in the price of fuel and other energy
sources. CVAG staff recommend applying the CPI-U, All items inflation factor of 3.58-percent to
the current fee assessments, as described in the below table.
TUMF Category Current Rate Proposed Rate Difference
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Single family detached $2,740 $2,840 $100
Multi-family attached $1,580 $1,635 $55
Nursing/congregate care $585 $605 $20
Transit oriented single family $2,330 $2,415 $85
Transit oriented multi-family $1,345 $1,395 $50
Non-Residential (per 1,000 sq. ft)
Retail $7,130 $7,385 $255
Office $2,835 $2,935 $100
Industrial $1,440 $1,490 $50
Fuel - gas (per dispensing unit) $10,220 $10,585 $365
Fuel - electric (per dispensing unit) $105 $110 $5
Hotel (per room) $4,165 $4,315 $150
Golf course (per acre) $1,090 $1,130 $40
The revised rates would be implemented January 1, 2025 so that member jurisdictions will have
sufficient time to amend local ordinances. The rates listed in the TUMF Handbook will also be
updated at that time to reflect the adjustment.
This information was provided to the Desert Valleys Builders Association (DVBA) for comment on
March 8, 2024. They have submitted a letter (attached) indicating support for a “periodic,
systematic, and standard increase.”
Fiscal Analysis: Based on TUMF revenues generated in fiscal year 2022-2023, adjusting current
TUMF rates based on the CPI-U, All items inflation rate of 3.56-percent would result in additional
revenue of $275,774.
Revising the TUMF Handbook will have no fiscal impact.
Attachments: DVBA comment letter dated March 21, 2023
55575.17003\42697392.1
A-3
ATTACHMENT 3
CVAG REVISED TUMF FEE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2025
May 1, 2024
REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
EFFECTIVE JAUARY 1, 2025
The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) is a development impact fee designed to
offset the effects of population growth on transportation infrastructure within the Coachella
Valley. It is charged on any construction that will result in an increase in vehicular trips.
The TUMF is collected by the permitting jurisdiction in accordance with an adopted local
ordinance, which further allows for an annual adjustment for inflation based on the Consumer
Price Index for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area. This inflation factor
has been applied to the current fee schedule and results in the revised rates that will be
assessed on new development starting January 1, 2025.
TUMF Category
Assessment
Unit
Rate as of
January 1, 2025
Single family detached Dwelling unit $2,840
Multi-family attached Dwelling unit $1,635
Nursing/congregate care Dwelling unit $605
Retail 1,000 sq. ft. $7,385
Office 1,000 sq. ft. $2,935
Industrial 1,000 sq. ft. $1,490
Fuel - gas Dispensing unit $10,585
Fuel - electric Dispensing unit $110
Hotel Room $4,315
Golf course Acre $1,130
For any question regarding the application of TUMF, please contact the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments at (760) 346-1127 or by emailing cvag@cvag.org.
55575.17003\42697392.1
A-4
ATTACHMENT 4
CVAG Executive Committee Minutes of
April 29, 2024
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2024 PAGE 1
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING
April 29, 2024
1.CALL TO ORDER
The Executive Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Scott Matas, Mayor of the
City of Desert Hot Springs, at 4:30 p.m. at the CVAG Conference Room, 73-710 Fred
Waring Drive, Suite 104, in the City of Palm Desert. Zoom videoconferencing was
available from the City of Blythe and Riverside County’s District 5 Office in Moreno Valley.
2.ROLL CALL
A roll call was taken, and it was determined that a quorum was present. Those in attendance
were as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT AGENCY
Mayor Steven Hernandez, Past Chair City of Coachella
Mayor Jeffrey Bernstein City of Palm Springs
Councilmember Waymond Fermon City of Indio
Tribal Member Brenda Soulliere Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Mayor Greg Sanders City of Indian Wells
Mayor Mark Carnevale City of Cathedral City
Councilmember Kathleen Kelly City of Palm Desert
Mayor Linda Evans City of La Quinta
Mayor Joseph DeConinck City of Blythe (via Zoom)
Supervisor V. Manuel Perez County of Riverside 4th District **
Mayor Pro Tem Ted Weill, Vice Chair City of Rancho Mirage (left at 8C)
Mayor Scott Matas, Chair City of Desert Hot Springs
** Supervisor Perez left at the start of Item 8C and his alternate, Deputy Chief of Staff Pat
Cooper, stayed for the remainder of the meeting
MEMBERS NOT PRESENT AGENCY
Tribal Chair Darrell Mike Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
Tribal Vice Chair Joseph Mirelez Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Tribal Chair Reid Milanovich Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Supervisor Kevin Jeffries County of Riverside 1st District
Supervisor Karen Spiegel County of Riverside 2nd District
Supervisor Chuck Washington County of Riverside 3rd District
Supervisor Yxstian Gutierrez County of Riverside 5th District
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ITEM 7A
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2024 PAGE 2
Chair Matas introduced Supervisor V. Manuel Perez, who led the committee in a moment of
silence in remembrance of former state Assemblyman Brian Nestande before leading the
Executive Committee in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS (IF ANY)
The committee has requested to move Agenda Item 8A, regarding CV Sync,to the
end of the Discussion/Action agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS
Brad Anderson, resident of Rancho Mirage, addressed the committee and expressed
his opposition to items 7C/7E/7G/7H/7L/7J/7K/7L/8A/8C due to meeting protocol not
allowing him to hear the presentations prior to public comment. Mr. Anderson asked
the Committee to change public comment practice.
Management Analyst Elysia Regalado read a public comment emailed from Donald
Zeigler, resident of Palm Desert, to the Committee and provided members with a
printed copy.
6. CHAIR / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
Executive Director Tom Kirk kicked off a recognition of longtime Riverside County
Transportation Commission Executive Director Anne Mayer, who is retiring on April
30, 2024. Members of the Executive Committee took a moment to thank Ms. Mayer
for her dedication and partnership with CVAG and their individual jurisdictions
throughout the years. Ms. Mayer addressed the committee and thanked CVAG for
their relentless efforts and partnership.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER KELLY AND SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM
WEILL
A. Approve the Minutes of the February 26, 2024 Executive Committee Meeting
B. Authorize the Executive Director, in consultation with the CVAG Chair, to execute
the contracts necessary to host an in-person dinner event for the 2024 CVAG
General Assembly
C. Adopt Updated CVAG Policy No. 21-04 Procurement Policy & Procedures
D. Authorize the Executive Director to execute a services contract with Veralink
Corporation for managed information technology services for a total amount not-
to-exceed $80,080 through June 30, 2025, with an option to extend for two one-
year terms
E. Authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment No. 3 with the Politico
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2024 PAGE 3
Group at a cost of $6,000 each month, plus pre-approved travel costs, through
October 2026 for state lobbying services
F. Authorize the Executive Director to execute Amendment No. 3 to the
Professional Services Agreement with Hoy Civil Engineering, increasing the
annual amount by $47,952, incorporating annual increases to adjust for inflation
and extending the contract through December 2027
G. Accept the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Annual and Five-Year
Report for Fiscal Year 2022/2023
H. Adopt a 3.6-percent increase in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
rates to take effect January 1, 2025, and update the TUMF Handbook to reflect
the revised fee upon its effective date
I. Authorize the Executive Director to commit regional transportation funding to
CVAG’s non-infrastructure grant application to maximize leveraging points in the
application for Cycle 7 of the state’s Active Transportation Program, with the
condition that actual expenditure of funds would be dependent on securing the
grant funding
J. Approve Amendment Six to the AB 2766 Memorandum of Understanding between
CVAG and the member jurisdictions to maintain the contributions at 75% for the
Regional PM 10 Street Sweeping Program, through June 30, 2026
K. Authorize the Executive Director to take any necessary steps for CVAG to submit
grant applications to the Governor’s Office of Planning & Research’s Integrated
Climate Adaptation Resiliency Program, including letters of commitment and
agreements between partnering agencies
L. Resolution Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 declaring that certain real
property located east of Bob Hope Drive & South of Ramon Road (APN: 658-010-010) is
Exempt Surplus Land and Finding that such declaration is not a Project subject to
Environmental Review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 12 AYES AND 7 MEMBERS ABSENT
MAYOR HERNANDEZ AYE
MAYOR BERNSTEIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER FERMON AYE
TRIBAL CHAIR MIKE ABSENT
TRIBAL VICE CHAIR MIRELEZ ABSENT
TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBER SOULLIERE AYE
TRIBAL CHAIR MILANOVICH ABSENT
MAYOR SANDERS AYE
MAYOR CARNEVALE AYE
COUNCILMEMBER KELLY AYE
MAYOR EVANS AYE
MAYOR DECONINCK AYE
SUPERVISOR JEFFRIES ABSENT
SUPERVISOR SPIEGEL ABSENT
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2024 PAGE 4
SUPERVISOR WASHINGTON ABSENT
SUPERVISOR PEREZ AYE
SUPERVISOR GUTIERREZ ABSENT
MAYOR PRO TEM WEILL AYE
MAYOR MATAS AYE
7.1 ITEM(S) HELD OVER FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
8. DISCUSSION / ACTION
Agenda Item 8A was moved to the end of the discussion/action items.
B. Regional Pavement Management Program
Transportation Director Jonathan Hoy presented the staff report and discussed next steps.
IT WAS MOVED BY SUPERVISOR PEREZ AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
FERMON TO DIRECT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO UPDATE THE 2011
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS REPORT AND RETURN WITH POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A REGIONAL PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR CVAG’S REGIONAL ARTERIAL ROADWAY NETWORK
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 12 AYES AND 7 MEMBERS ABSENT
MAYOR HERNANDEZ AYE
MAYOR BERNSTEIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER FERMON AYE
TRIBAL CHAIR MIKE ABSENT
TRIBAL VICE CHAIR MIRELEZ ABSENT
TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBER SOULLIERE AYE
TRIBAL CHAIR MILANOVICH ABSENT
MAYOR SANDERS AYE
MAYOR CARNEVALE AYE
COUNCILMEMBER KELLY AYE
MAYOR EVANS AYE
MAYOR DECONINCK AYE
SUPERVISOR JEFFRIES ABSENT
SUPERVISOR SPIEGEL ABSENT
SUPERVISOR WASHINGTON ABSENT
SUPERVISOR PEREZ AYE
SUPERVISOR GUTIERREZ ABSENT
MAYOR PRO TEM WEILL AYE
MAYOR MATAS AYE
C. Next Steps for the Arts and Music Line Project
Transportation Program Manager Randy Bowman presented the staff report.
Brief member discussion ensued.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2024 PAGE 5
IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR HERNANDEZ AND SECONDED BY MAYOR EVANS TO
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS
FOR THE ARTS & MUSIC LINE PROJECT:
1. EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH ALBERT A. WEBB
ASSOCIATES TO EXTEND THE TERM TO DECEMBER 31, 2025, FOR AN
ADDITIONAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $2,234,565; AND AUTHORIZE THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND/OR LEGAL COUNSEL TO MAKE CLARIFYING
CHANGES/REVISIONS BEFORE EXECUTION; AND
2. NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITIES OF COACHELLA, INDIO, AND LA QUINTA TO
ADJUST THE LOCAL SHARE OF PRE-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 11 AYES AND 8 MEMBERS ABSENT
MAYOR HERNANDEZ AYE
MAYOR BERNSTEIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER FERMON AYE
TRIBAL CHAIR MIKE ABSENT
TRIBAL VICE CHAIR MIRELEZ ABSENT
TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBER SOULLIERE AYE
TRIBAL CHAIR MILANOVICH ABSENT
MAYOR SANDERS AYE
MAYOR CARNEVALE AYE
COUNCILMEMBER KELLY AYE
MAYOR EVANS AYE
MAYOR DECONINCK AYE
SUPERVISOR JEFFRIES ABSENT
SUPERVISOR SPIEGEL ABSENT
SUPERVISOR WASHINGTON ABSENT
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF COOPER AYE
SUPERVISOR GUTIERREZ ABSENT
MAYOR PRO TEM WEILL ABSENT
MAYOR MATAS AYE
D. Construction Contract award with Granite Construction for CV Link Multi-Modal
Transportation Corridor Project- Segment 6, Project No. CVL-2024-001A
Director of Transportation Jonathan Hoy presented the staff report.
Brief member discussion ensued with Mr. Hoy answering questions from the committee.
IT WAS MOVED BY MAOYR EVANS AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
FERMON TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH GRANITE CONSTRUCTION IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $21,560,761, INCLUSIVE OF A 10% CONTINGENCY, FOR
SEGMENT 6 OF CV LINK
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 11 AYES AND 8 MEMBERS ABSENT
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2024 PAGE 6
MAYOR HERNANDEZ AYE
MAYOR BERNSTEIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER FERMON AYE
TRIBAL CHAIR MIKE ABSENT
TRIBAL VICE CHAIR MIRELEZ ABSENT
TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBER SOULLIERE AYE
TRIBAL CHAIR MILANOVICH ABSENT
MAYOR SANDERS AYE
MAYOR CARNEVALE AYE
COUNCILMEMBER KELLY AYE
MAYOR EVANS AYE
MAYOR DECONINCK AYE
SUPERVISOR JEFFRIES ABSENT
SUPERVISOR SPIEGEL ABSENT
SUPERVISOR WASHINGTON ABSENT
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF COOPER AYE
SUPERVISOR GUTIERREZ ABSENT
MAYOR PRO TEM WEILL ABSENT
MAYOR MATAS AYE
E. Contract Amendment with Alta Planning & Design for CV Link
Mr. Hoy presented the staff report and the updates since it was reviewed by the
Transportation Committee. Member discussion ensued.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER FERMON AND SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER KELLY TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 13 TO THE AGREEMENTWITH ALTA PLANNING &
DESIGN FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $334,000
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 11 AYES AND 8 MEMBERS ABSENT
MAYOR HERNANDEZ AYE
MAYOR BERNSTEIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER FERMON AYE
TRIBAL CHAIR MIKE ABSENT
TRIBAL VICE CHAIR MIRELEZ ABSENT
TRIBAL COUNCILMEMBER SOULLIERE AYE
TRIBAL CHAIR MILANOVICH ABSENT
MAYOR SANDERS AYE
MAYOR CARNEVALE AYE
COUNCILMEMBER KELLY AYE
MAYOR EVANS AYE
MAYOR DECONINCK AYE
SUPERVISOR JEFFRIES ABSENT
SUPERVISOR SPIEGEL ABSENT
SUPERVISOR WASHINGTON ABSENT
CHIEF OF STAFF COOPER AYE
SUPERVISOR GUTIERREZ ABSENT
MAYOR PRO TEM WEILL ABSENT
MAYOR MATAS AYE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2024 PAGE 7
A. Presentation: CV Sync and the before/after comparison of regional signal
synchronization improvements
Program Manager Kristopher Gunterson discussed the construction of CV Sync and
ongoing efforts to improve signal timing. That included a video that simultaneously
showed the commute of a vehicle driving westbound on Ramon Road before and after the
synchronization of the traveled road, and discussed the improved travel time with
synchronization.
No action was taken as this was an informational item.
9. INFORMATION
a) Executive Committee Attendance
b) Status of I-10 Interchange Projects
c) CVAG Regional Arterial Program- Project Status Update
d) Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Program- Project Status Update
e) Update on broadband installation in the City of Indio
f) Lithium Extraction at the Salton Sea
g) Update on the Coachella Valley Energy Commission
h) Update on the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Application and the Region’s
Priority Climate Action Plan
i) Update on Distributed Energy Resources & Microgrids
j) Information sharing from Desert Healthcare District/Foundation about ongoing
hospital lease negotiations with Tenet
These items were included in the agenda packet for members’ information.
10. LEGISLATIVE ITEMS –
a) Update from the League of California Cities
b) Recap of CVAG’s Legislative Advocacy Efforts
Program Manager Emmauel Martinez presented the staff report with legislative
updates and bills on watch, as well as a budget update.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
None
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 2024 PAGE 8
12. ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held on Monday, June 3, 2024 at
4:30 p.m. at the CVAG Conference Room, 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 104, Palm
Desert, 92260.
13. ADJOURNMENT – Chair Matas adjourned the meeting at 5:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elysia Regalado, Management Analyst