Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - Agenda Packets - Regular Meeting 8/6/2019
AGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2019 5:30 CLOSED SESSION 6:30 PM OPEN SESSION COMMUNITY CENTER 625 S. PICO AVENUE SAN JACINTO, CA 92583 951-487-7339 City of San Jacinto Page 1 Updated 8/1/2019 2:36 PM RUSS UTZ, MAYOR ANDREW KOTYUK, MAYOR PRO TEM ALONSO LEDEZMA, COUNCILMEMBER JOEL LOPEZ, COUNCILMEMBER CRYSTAL RUIZ, COUNCILMEMBER 1. ORGANIZATION 1.1. Public Comments on Closed Session Items 1.2. Closed Session 1.2.1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS: Gov. Code section 54957.6; Agency Representative: City Attorney; Unrepresented Employee: City Manager 1.3. Closed Session Report 1.4. Roll Call 1.5. Invocation - Pastor Gwen Lute from Community Church of Christ 1.6. Pledge of Allegiance - Boxing for Christ 1.7. Special Presentations 1.7.1. Councilmember Crystal Ruiz - Boxing for Christ 1.7.2. Rick Bishop, Western Riverside Council of Governments 1.7.3. Paul Jones II, General Manager, Eastern Municipal Water District 1.8. Mayor / Council Member Reports / Discussions 1.9. Late Items 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. JOINT CONSENT CALENDARS City of San Jacinto Page 2 Updated 8/1/2019 2:36 PM 3.A. Consent Calendar - City Council 3.A.1. Waiver of Full Reading of Ordinance(s), and Reading by Title Only 3.A.2. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 16, 2019 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the City Council regular meeting minutes of July 16, 2019. Department: City Clerk 3.A.3. Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Treasurer’s Report for the month ending June 30, 2019. Department: Finance 3.A.4. Ordinance 19-14 – An Ordinance of the City of San Jacinto Amending Ordinance No 19-14 to Include a Process for WRCOG Calculation and Collection of Fees Under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Ordinance No. 19-14, titled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 17-05 TO INCLUDE A PROCESS FOR WRCOG CALCULATION AND COLLECTION OF FEES UNDER THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM Department: Engineering 3.A.5. Statement of Investment Policy RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve the revised Statement of Investment Policy and adopt Resolution No. 3779. Department: Finance 3.B. Consent Calendar - Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jacinto 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1. Adoption of Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15, which established a Temporary Moratorium on Industrial Hemp Cultivation RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt, by a 4/5 vote, the Extension for the Interim Urgency Ordinance City of San Jacinto Page 3 Updated 8/1/2019 2:36 PM titled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO EXTENDING URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 19-15, WHICH ESTABLISHES A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE CULTIVATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP BY “ESTABLISHED AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS” AND OTHERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SAN JACINTO; 2. Find that the Ordinance is necessary for continued preservation of the public peace, health or safety based on the facts and reasons set forth in the Ordinance; and 3. Find that the Ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, sections 15060, subdivision (c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15061, subdivision (b)(3) (there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment), and that the ordinance is categorically exempt from review under CEQA under the Class 8 Categorical Exemption, 14 C.C.R. § 15308 (regulatory activity to assure protection of the environment). Department: City Manager 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS - CITY COUNCIL 5.1. Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. Department: Finance 6. DISCUSSION ITEM - HOUSING AUTHORITY 6.1. Reduction of Affordability Period Related to Affordability Covenants Recorded in Conjunction with Former San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency Down Payment Assistance Program Grants RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Directors of the Housing Authority of the City of San Jacinto (“Housing Authority”), as the successor to the former San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency (“former RDA”), by motion: 1. Adopt an amendment to the Down Payment Assistance Program (“DPAP”) to reduce the affordability period applicable to recorded DPAP Affordability Covenants from 45 years to five years, consistent with similar affordability period requirements imposed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”); and City of San Jacinto Page 4 Updated 8/1/2019 2:36 PM 2. Authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to execute such documents as necessary to implement this change, including release of Affordability Covenants upon expiration of the reduced affordability period. Department: Finance 7. CITY MANAGER UPDATE 8. FUTURE REQUESTS FROM CITY COUNCIL TO STAFF 9. ADJOURNMENT DOCUMENTS RELATED TO OPEN SESSION AGENDAS (SB343) - Any public record, relating to an open session agenda item, that is distributed within 72 hours prior to the meeting is available for public inspection at the public counter located in the Administration Building of City Hall, 595 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, CA 92583. I, Angela Walton, City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto, do hereby certify that I caused to be posted the foregoing agenda this 1st day of August 2019 as requested by law. Angela Walton, City Clerk August 6, 2019 TO: City Council REQUESTED BY: Angela Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY: Robert A. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Minutes RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the City Council regular meeting minutes of July 16, 2019. ATTACHMENTS: 7-16-19 Regular Meeting Minutes draft 3.A.2 Packet Pg. 5 ACTION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL – REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019 5:30 PM CLOSED SESSION 6:30 PM OPEN SESSION SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY CENTER 625 S. PICO AVE SAN JACINTO, CA 92583 951-487-7339 1. ORGANIZATION Mayor Pro Tem Andrew Kotyuk called the meeting to order at 5:36 pm. 1.1 Public Comments on Closed Session Items There were no public comments on Closed Session items. Mayor Pro Tem Kotyuk adjourned the Regular meeting to Closed Session at 5:38 pm. 1.2 Closed Session 1.2.1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Gov. Code section 54957.6; Agency Representative: City Attorney; Unrepresented Employee: City Manager 1.3 Closed Session Report City Attorney Michael J. Maurer stated there was no report. 1.4 Roll Call City Clerk Angela Walton conducted the roll call: Present: Kotyuk, Ledezma, Lopez, Ruiz Absent: Utz RUSS UTZ, MAYOR ANDREW KOTYUK, MAYOR PRO TEM ALONSO LEDEZMA, COUNCILMEMBER JOEL LOPEZ, COUNCILMEMBER CRYSTAL RUIZ, COUNCILMEMBER 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 7-16-19 Regular Meeting Minutes draft (Minutes) M/S/C (Lopez/Ledezma) moved to excuse the absence of Mayor Russ Utz. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Kotyuk, Ledezma, Lopez, Ruiz Nays: None Absent: Utz Abstain: None 1.5 Invocation Pastor Skylar Dunham of 412 Church gave the invocation. 1.6 Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by the San Jacinto Police Explorers. 1.7 Mayor/Council Member Reports / Discussions Councilmembers provided their reports. 1.8 Late Items There were no late items. City Attorney Michael Maurer stated that Staff requested items 3.A.4. and 3.A.5. be pulled from Consent Calendar. Item 3.A.4. will be moved to Public Hearing. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public Speakers: Ope Aina Dena Droualt 3. JOINT CONSENT CALENDARS City Council Consent Calendar Item 3.A and Successor Agency Item 3.B Consent Calendars were heard concurrently. 3.A Consent Calendar – City Council 3.A.1. Waiver of Full Reading of Ordinance(s), and Reading b y Title Onl y 3.A.2. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 2, 2019 / City Clerk / Approve 3.A.3. Warrants and Disbursements – June 2019 / Finance / Approve 3.B Consent Calendar – Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jacinto 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 7-16-19 Regular Meeting Minutes draft (Minutes) Mayor Pro Tem Kotyuk recused himself from Item 3.A.3., Warrants and Disbursements line item 125807. M/S/C (Ruiz/Ledezma) moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Kotyuk, Ledezma, Lopez, Ruiz Nays: None Absent: Utz Abstain: None 3.A.5. Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Service Employees International Union Local 721 and San Jacinto Management Association Tom Prill, Deputy City Manager, presented the staff report. City Attorney Maurer clarified that Council would be voting on the proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the changes Deputy City Manager Prill presented. M/S/C (Ledezma/Ruiz) moved to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with Service Employees International Union Local 721 and San Jacinto Management Association as presented. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Kotyuk, Ledezma, Lopez, Ruiz Nays: None Absent: Utz Abstain: None 4. PUBLIC HEARING 3.A.4. Code Enforcement Administrative Citations Tax Roll 19/20: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, confirming the collection and assessment of unpaid nuisance abatement costs and administrative citations on the County property tax roll for fiscal year 2019- 2020. City Attorney Maurer presented the staff report. Mayor Pro Tem Kotyuk opened the Public Hearing at 6:53 pm. There were no public speakers. Mayor Pro Tem Kotyuk closed the Public Hearing at 6:54 pm. M/S/C (Ruiz/Ledezma) moved to Code Enforcement Administrative Citations Tax Roll 19/20. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Kotyuk, Ledezma, Lopez, Ruiz Nays: None Absent: Utz Abstain: None 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 7-16-19 Regular Meeting Minutes draft (Minutes) 4.1 CR&R Delinquent Tax Roll Placement: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, adopting a report determining the amount of delinquent residential solid waste charges billed during calendar year 2018 and unpaid; determining that such delinquent charges constitute a special assessment and lien; and directing that such charges be collected via the Riverside County tax roll. Michelle Holmes, Finance Director presented the staff report. Alex Braicovich, Senior Regional Vice President of CR&R Inc. answered questions from the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Kotyuk opened the Public Hearing at 6:56 pm. There were no public speakers. Mayor Pro Tem Kotyuk closed the Public Hearing at 6:57 pm. M/S/C (Ruiz/Ledezma) moved to approve CR&R Delinquent Tax Roll Placement. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Kotyuk, Ledezma, Lopez, Ruiz Nays: None Absent: Utz Abstain: None 4.2 Resolution 3768 Establishing Cannabis Oriented Businesses Application Fees: Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California, establishing the filing fees for cannabis oriented businesses land use and regulatory permits and the annual renewal fee of cannabis oriented businesses regulatory permit. Travis Randel, Community Development Director presented the staff report. City Attorney Maurer clarified the filing fees for this program. Mayor Pro Tem Kotyuk opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 pm. There were no public speakers. Mayor Pro Tem Kotyuk closed the Public Hearing at 7:06 pm. M/S/C (Ruiz/Lopez) moved to approve Resolution 3768 Establishing Cannabis Oriented Business Application Fees. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Kotyuk, Ledezma, Lopez, Ruiz Nays: None Absent: Utz Abstain: None 4.3 Amending Ordinance 17-05: An Ordinance of the City of San Jacinto amending Ordinance No. 17-05 to include a process for WRCOG calculation and collection of fees under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (Tumf) Program. Stuart McKibbin, Principal Engineer presented the staff report. 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 7-16-19 Regular Meeting Minutes draft (Minutes) City Attorney Maurer clarified this is the first read of Ordinance 19-14. Mayor Pro Tem Kotyuk opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 pm. There were no public speakers. Mayor Pro Tem Kotyuk closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 pm. M/S/C (Ruiz/Ledezma) moved to amend Ordinance 17-05. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Kotyuk, Ledezma, Lopez, Ruiz Nays: None Absent: Utz Abstain: None 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS 5.1 Approve Resolution and Agreement for Professional Assistance: A resolution of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto appointing Robert Brady to perform extra help services and approving employment contract. City Attorney Maurer presented the staff report. M/S/C (Ruiz/Ledezma) moved to Approve. Motion carried 4/0. Ayes: Kotyuk, Ledezma, Lopez, Ruiz Nays: None Absent: Utz Abstain: None 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS 6.1 Reduction of Affordability Period Related to Affordability City Attorney Maurer stated Item 6.1 would be brought back to Council at their regular meeting on August 6, 2019 as a joint City Council and Housing Authority agenda discussion. 7. FUTURE REQUESTS TO STAFF There were no requests. 8. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pro Tem adjourned the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 7:19 pm. 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 7-16-19 Regular Meeting Minutes draft (Minutes) CITY OF SAN JACINTO: ____________________ Russ Utz, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Angela Walton, City Clerk Approved as read: Approved as Amended: 3.A.2.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 7-16-19 Regular Meeting Minutes draft (Minutes) August 6, 2019 TO: City Council REQUESTED BY: Tom Prill, Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: Robert A. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Treasurer’s Report for the month ending June 30, 2019. BACKGROUND: The Treasurer’s Report is required to be presented to the governing body at least quarterly in accordance with California Government Code Section 53600 et. seq. DISCUSSION: Total Cash and City Investments increased 2.93% during the month. This includes cash, cash in bank and cash with trustee. The attached Treasurer’s report is a “snapshot” report of our cash position on the last day of the month in all of our accounts. A section demonstrating compliance with the adopted Investment Policy and a chart depicting historical interest rates for certain positions is also included. Detailed statements of investments from Chandler Asset Management and Public Trust Advisors have also been included. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature 3.A.3 Packet Pg. 12 TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDING JUNE 30, 2019 5/31/2019 6/30/2019 % change 6/30/2019 COMPUTED INVESTMENT INSTITUTION INTEREST JUNE PURCHASE MATURITY PREV. MONTH CURRENT from prior MARKET ACCR. INT.AVERAGE TYPE SERIAL #RATE YIELD INTEREST DATE DATE BALANCE BALANCE month VALUE & MKT. VALUE DURATION STATE POOL L.A.I.F.2.441%2.468%$39,889 Various Open $19,884,399 N $19,884,399 0.00%$20,007,653 $123,254 MONEY MARKET Bank of Hemet 0.150%0.150%$876 Various Open $6,266,160 Q $7,827,035 24.91%$7,827,035 $0 DEMAND Acct - old Bank of Hemet 0.000%0.000%N/A Various Open $951,846 Q $808,925 -15.02%$808,925 $0 DEMAND Acct - new Bank of Hemet 0.000%0.000%N/A Various Open $29,896 Q $87,301 192.02%$87,301 $0 PAYROLL Account Bank of Hemet 0.000%0.000%N/A Various Open $8,867 Q $9,887 11.50%$9,887 $0 Water Construction Bank of Hemet 0.000%0.000%N/A Various Open $0 Q $0 0.00%$0 $0 MONEY MARKET Rabobank 0.050%0.050%$2 Various Open $52,155 Q $76,709 47.08%$76,709 $0 MONEY MARKET Rabobank 0.200%0.200%$98 Various Open $645,382 Q $620,928 -3.79%$620,928 $0 CCA Lockbox River City Bank 0.000%0.000%$0 Various Open $668,814 Q $641,614 -4.07%$641,614 $0 MANAGED Acct - CAM Chandler / U.S. Bank - Gov't Ob Fund 1.990%2.008%$240 Various Various $66,721 L $118,097 77.00%$118,097 $0 0.00 MANAGED Acct - CAM Chandler / U.S. Bank - Agency 1.910%1.927%$13,053 Various Various $4,726,334 C $4,793,457 1.42%$4,857,512 $64,055 1.79 MANAGED Acct - CAM Chandler / U.S. Bank - Commercial 2.320%2.345%$0 Various Various $0 E $198,436 100.00%$198,575 $139 0.31 MANAGED Acct - CAM Chandler / U.S. Bank - US Corporate 2.390%2.416%$3,125 Various Various $2,454,047 F $2,454,047 0.00%$2,482,324 $28,277 1.77 MANAGED Acct - CAM Chandler / U.S. Bank - US Treasury 2.090%2.110%$1,181 Various Various $2,912,004 A $2,646,265 -9.13%$2,700,743 $54,478 2.11 MANAGED Acct - CAM Chandler / U.S. Bank - Asset-Backed Sec.2.650%2.682%$0 Various Various $462,723 J $431,314 -6.79%$434,833 $3,519 0.76 MANAGED Acct - PTA PTA / U.S. Bank - Gov't Ob Fund 1.980%1.998%$73 Various Various $40,163 L $28,747 -28.42%$28,747 $0 0.00 MANAGED Acct - PTA PTA / U.S. Bank - Agency 2.358%2.384%$0 Various Various $1,100,247 C $1,100,247 0.00%$1,119,422 $19,175 1.59 MANAGED Acct - PTA PTA / U.S. Bank - Agency CMBS 2.563%2.593%$686 Various Various $319,688 C $319,688 0.00%$325,410 $5,722 2.99 MANAGED Acct - PTA PTA / U.S. Bank - US Corporate 2.197%2.219%$8,709 Various Various $1,992,858 F $1,992,858 0.00%$2,007,247 $14,389 0.82 MANAGED Acct - PTA PTA / U.S. Bank - US Treasury 2.438%2.465%$9,056 Various Various $6,884,591 A $6,919,649 0.51%$7,064,024 $144,375 2.13 MANAGED Acct - PTA PTA / U.S. Bank - Municipal Bonds 0.000%0.000%$0 Various Various $0 D $0 0.00%$0 $0 0.00 MANAGED Acct - PTA PTA / U.S. Bank - Asset-Backed Sec.2.885%2.923%$0 Various Various $197,430 J $197,430 0.00%$200,006 $2,576 0.39 CASH Cash in EOC Lockbox 0.000%0.000%N/A Various n/a $5,000 Q $5,000 0.00%$5,000 $0 CASH Cash on Hand 0.000%0.000%N/A Various n/a $850 Q $850 0.00%$850 $0 TOTAL CITY INVESTMENTS & FUNDS 1.906%1.923%$76,988 $49,670,175 $51,162,883 3.01%$51,622,844 $459,961 Annual Return Based on Previous Month Balance 1.436% RESTRICTED CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT (BOND FUNDS) Trustee STREETLIGHT ACQUISITION Mutual Fund Wilmington Blackrock Liquidity Funds XXXXX3-00X 2.080%2.100%Various Open $443,037 K $469,067 5.88%$469,067 $0 CFD NO. 2002-1 Mutual Fund Union Bank Blackrock Prov. T-Fund XXXX16090X 1.950%1.968%Various Open $1,814,097 K $1,817,609 0.19%$1,817,609 $0 2005 RDA SAN JACINTO TAX ALLOCATION BONDS Mutual Fund Union Bank Blackrock Prov. T-Fund XXXX75750X 1.754%1.768%Various Open $24 K $24 0.00%$24 $0 TOTAL CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT $2,257,158 $2,286,700 1.31%$2,286,700 $0 TOTAL ALL FUNDS $51,927,333 $53,449,583 2.93%$53,909,544 $459,961 Page 1 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) TREASURER'S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDING JUNE 30, 2019 5/31/2019 6/30/2019 % change 6/30/2019 COMPUTED INVESTMENT INSTITUTION INTEREST JUNE PURCHASE MATURITY PREV. MONTH CURRENT from prior MARKET ACCR. INT.AVERAGE TYPE SERIAL #RATE YIELD INTEREST DATE DATE BALANCE BALANCE month VALUE & MKT. VALUE DURATION PER INVESTMENT POLICY:Maximum %Current %In Compliance? Level 1 - Investments U.S. Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds 100%18%Yes A $9,565,914 Negotiable CDs 30%0%Yes B $0 Obligations issued by U.S. Government Agencies 100%12%Yes C $6,213,392 Municipal Bonds 100%0%Yes D $0 Commercial Paper 25%0%Yes E $198,436 Medium Term Notes 30%8%Yes F $4,446,905 Repurchase Agreements 100%0%Yes G $0 Banker's Acceptances 40%0%Yes H $0 Time Deposits & CDARS 30%0%Yes I $0 Mortgage pass-through / asset-backed securities 20%1%Yes J $628,744 Mutual Funds (Limited to U.S. Treasuries)18%4%Yes K $2,286,700 Mutual Funds (Limited to U.S. Govt. Sec.)18%0%Yes L $146,844 Level 2 - Investments Money Market Funds (non-brokered)20%0%Yes M $0 LAIF 70%37%Yes N $19,884,399 RCIF 70%0%Yes O $0 Other JPA Pool 50%0%Yes P $0 Cash & Demand Accounts n/a n/a n/a Q $10,078,249 $53,449,583 I CERTIFY THAT THESE INVESTMENTS COMPLY WITH ALL STATE LAWS PERTAINING TO THE INVESTMENT OF LOCAL AGENCY FUNDS AND THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO'S INVESTMENT POLICIES. CITY OF SAN JACINTO MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SIX MONTH CASH FLOW REQUIREMENTS AS PER GOVERNMENT CODE 53646(b)(3). KALEENA RICHARDS, TREASURER City of San Jacinto Reviewed By: Finance Director - 07/29/2019 Page 2 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) - 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 7/168/169/1610/1611/1612/161/172/173/174/175/176/177/178/179/1710/1711/1712/171/182/183/184/185/186/187/188/189/1810/1811/1812/181/192/193/194/195/196/19Interest Rates -7/16 to 6/19 LAIF LAMMA-BoH MMA-Rabo PIMMA-Rabo Chandler BLX / PTA 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) MONTHLY ACCOUNT STATEMENT City of San Jacinto - Account #10167 JUNE 1, 2019 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019 Information contained herein is confidential. We urge you to compare this statement to the one you receive from your qualified custodian. Please see Important Disclosures. CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT chandlerasset.com Chandler Team: For questions about your account, please call (800) 317-4747, or contact operations@chandlerasset.com Custodian US Bank Christopher Isles (503) 464-3685 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) ACCOUNT SUMMARY Beg. Values as of 5/31/19 End Values as of 6/30/19 Market Value 10,683,472 10,741,257 Accrued Interest 51,749 50,829 Total Market Value 10,735,221 10,792,086 Income Earned 18,415 18,493 Cont/WD -996 Par 10,657,939 10,667,758 Book Value 10,632,236 10,650,653 Cost Value 10,621,830 10,641,617 TOP ISSUERS Government of United States 25.0% Federal Home Loan Bank 19.0% Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp 13.8% Federal National Mortgage Assoc 9.9% Federal Farm Credit Bank 2.3% Wal-Mart Stores 1.9% Apple Inc 1.9% Berkshire Hathaway 1.9% Total 75.7% PORTFOLIO CHARACTERISTICS Average Modified Duration 1.78 Average Coupon 2.01% Average Purchase YTM 2.10% Average Market YTM 1.97% Average S&P/Moody Rating AA/Aa1 Average Final Maturity 1.94 yrs Average Life 1.85 yrs CREDIT QUALITY (S&P)MATURITY DISTRIBUTIONSECTOR ALLOCATION Portfolio Summary As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 PERFORMANCE REVIEW Annualized TOTAL RATE OF RETURN 1M 3M YTD 1YR 2YRS 3YRS 5YRS 10YRS 6/30/2012 City of San Jacinto 0.54%1.43%2.58%4.17%2.23%1.57%1.42%N/A 1.21% ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Treasury Index 0.52%1.44%2.44%3.96%2.00%1.29%1.21%N/A 1.02% ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Corp/Govt Rated AAA-A Index 0.55%1.46%2.59%4.16%2.16%1.49%1.37%N/A 1.22% Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 1 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Category StandardCommentMunicipal Securities "A" rating category or better by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuerCompliesTreasury Issues No LimitationCompliesAgency Issues No LimitationCompliesSupranationals"AA" rated or better by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 10% max per issuer; U.S. dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ("IBRD"), the International Finance Corporation ("IFC") or the Inter‐American Development Bank ("IADB") CompliesBanker’s Acceptances"A‐1" short term debt rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; and "A" long‐term debt rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; 40% maximum; 5% max per issuer; 180 days max maturity Complies Commercial Paper"A‐1" short term debt rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; and "A" long‐term debt rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; 25% maximum; 5% max per issuer; 270 days max maturity; Issuer is a corporation organized and operating in the U.S. with assets > $500 million CompliesNegotiable Certificates of Deposit"A" long‐term issuer rated category or higher by at least two NRSROs; and/or "A‐1" short term rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuerComplies Federally Insured Certificates of Deposit (CDs)/ Time Deposit (TDs)20% maximum (combined FDIC insured and collateralized TD/ CD); Amount per institution is limited to maximum covered under federal insuranceComplies Collateralized Certificates of Deposit (CDs)/Time Deposit (TDs)/ "A" long‐term debt rated category or higher by at least two NRSROs; and/or "A‐1" short term debt rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; 20% maximum (combined FDIC and collateralized TD/ CD)Complies Corporate Medium Term Notes"A" rated category or better by at least two NRSROs; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer; Issued by corporations organized and operating within the U.S. or by depository institutions licensed by the U.S. or any state and operating within the U.S. Complies Mutual Fund & Money Market Mutual FundHighest rating or "AAA" rated by two NRSROs; SEC registered adviser with AUM >$500 million and experience > 5 years; 20% maximum in Mutual Funds and Money Market Mutual Funds; 10% max per one Mutual Fund; 20% max in Money Market Mutual Fund CompliesAsset‐Backed (ABS), Mortgage‐Backed Securities; Mortgage Pass‐Throughs; Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs)"AA" rated category or better by at least two NRSROs; "A" issuer debt rated category or higher by at least two NRSROs; 20% maximum; 5% max per issuerComplies Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 70% of the portfolio may be invested in LAIF, up to the maximum permitted balance; Not used by investment adviserCompliesLocal Government Investment Pools and Joint Powers Authority PoolsRiverside County Investment Fund‐ 70% max of the total portfolioJPA Pools‐ 50% max of the total portfolioRepurchase Agreements 102% collateralized; 1 year max maturityCompliesProhibited SecuritiesInverse floaters; Ranges notes, Interest‐only strips from mortgaged backed securities; Zero interest accrual securities; Margin purchasing or selling; Reverse repurchase agreements; Foreign currency denominated securities CompliesMax Callables 20% maximum callable securities (does not include "make whole call" securities)CompliesMax Per Issuer5% of portfolio per issuer (except U.S. Government, its Agencies and enterprises, Money Market Mutual Funds, Mutual Funds, LAIF, LGIP, Supranationals, or unless otherwise specified in the investment policy)CompliesMaximum maturity 5 yearsComplies City of San JacintoAs of June 30, 2019 Assets managed by Chandler Asset Management are in full compliance with state law and with the City's investment policy.Statement of Compliance3.A.3.aPacket Pg. 18Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) BOOK VALUE RECONCILIATION BEGINNING BOOK VALUE $10,632,236.10 Acquisition + Security Purchases $417,491.42 + Money Market Fund Purchases $469,930.74 + Money Market Contributions $0.00 + Security Contributions $0.00 + Security Transfers $0.00 Total Acquisitions $887,422.16 Dispositions - Security Sales $0.00 - Money Market Fund Sales $417,558.51 - MMF Withdrawals $995.77 - Security Withdrawals $0.00 - Security Transfers $0.00 - Other Dispositions $0.00 - Maturites $420,000.00 - Calls $0.00 - Principal Paydowns $31,557.24 Total Dispositions $870,111.52 Amortization/Accretion +/- Net Accretion $1,106.54 $1,106.54 Gain/Loss on Dispositions +/- Realized Gain/Loss $0.00 $0.00 ENDING BOOK VALUE $10,650,653.28 CASH TRANSACTION SUMMARY BEGINNING BALANCE $66,720.87 Acquisition Contributions $0.00 Security Sale Proceeds $0.00 Accrued Interest Received $0.00 Interest Received $18,133.68 Dividend Received $239.82 Principal on Maturities $420,000.00 Interest on Maturities $0.00 Calls/Redemption (Principal)$0.00 Interest from Calls/Redemption $0.00 Principal Paydown $31,557.24 Total Acquisitions $469,930.74 Dispositions Withdrawals $995.77 Security Purchase $417,491.42 Accrued Interest Paid $67.09 Total Dispositions $418,554.28 ENDING BOOK VALUE $118,097.33 Reconciliation Summary As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto California Account #10167 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 3 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Holdings Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration ABS 43814QAC2 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 282.12 04/26/2017 1.72% 280.76 281.76 99.93 3.41% 281.93 0.17 0.00% 0.17 Aaa / NR AAA 0.79 0.03 89238BAB8 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 83,374.12 01/23/2018 2.12% 83,365.60 83,370.05 99.93 2.49% 83,314.83 77.82 0.77% (55.22) Aaa / AAA NR 1.30 0.19 65478VAD9 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 24,952.09 02/12/2018 1.87% 24,752.28 24,846.37 99.73 2.47% 24,884.33 3.66 0.23% 37.96 Aaa / NR AAA 1.55 0.24 47788BAD6 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 81,052.43 07/26/2018 3.16% 79,846.14 80,191.68 99.74 2.27% 80,844.03 65.56 0.75% 652.35 Aaa / NR AAA 2.30 0.58 47789JAB2 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 45,000.00 03/05/2019 2.87% 44,997.95 44,998.17 100.59 2.20% 45,264.87 57.00 0.42% 266.70 Aaa / NR AAA 2.46 0.88 43815HAC1 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 70,000.00 08/21/2018 2.98% 69,990.40 69,992.43 101.25 2.10% 70,875.28 57.36 0.66% 882.85 Aaa / NR AAA 3.15 1.44 65478WAE5 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 130,000.00 04/16/2019 2.56% 128,080.47 128,236.39 99.25 2.19% 129,026.43 79.73 1.20% 790.04 Aaa / NR AAA 3.55 0.93 Total ABS 434,660.76 2.65% 431,313.60 431,916.85 2.27% 434,491.70 341.30 4.03% 2,574.85 Aaa / AAA AAA 2.59 0.76 AGENCY 3133EFW52 FFCB Note 1.15% Due 7/1/2019 250,000.00 04/08/2016 1.00% 251,222.50 250,000.00 100.00 1.15% 250,000.00 1,437.50 2.33% 0.00 Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.00 0.00 3137EADK2 FHLMC Note 1.25% Due 8/1/2019 170,000.00 08/28/2015 1.41% 168,951.10 169,977.28 99.92 2.21% 169,857.54 885.42 1.58% (119.74) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.09 0.09 313380FB8 FHLB Note 1.375% Due 9/13/2019 190,000.00 10/25/2017 1.63% 189,110.80 189,904.22 99.83 2.20% 189,679.09 783.75 1.76% (225.13) Aaa / AA+ NR 0.21 0.20 3137EADM8 FHLMC Note 1.25% Due 10/2/2019 155,000.00 09/24/2015 1.34% 154,443.55 154,964.75 99.76 2.20% 154,624.12 478.99 1.44% (340.63) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.26 0.25 3137EAEE5 FHLMC Note 1.5% Due 1/17/2020 260,000.00 03/08/2017 1.72% 258,408.80 259,695.17 99.65 2.15% 259,078.30 1,776.67 2.42% (616.87) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.55 0.54 3135G0A78 FNMA Note 1.625% Due 1/21/2020 245,000.00 12/10/2015 1.61% 245,149.45 245,020.30 99.74 2.09% 244,366.43 1,769.44 2.28% (653.87) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.56 0.55 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 4 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Holdings Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration AGENCY 3135G0T29 FNMA Note 1.5% Due 2/28/2020 205,000.00 08/28/2017 1.48% 205,102.50 205,027.17 99.62 2.09% 204,212.19 1,050.63 1.90% (814.98) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.67 0.65 3137EAEF2 FHLMC Note 1.375% Due 4/20/2020 250,000.00 07/27/2017 1.54% 248,900.00 249,675.63 99.49 2.01% 248,730.50 677.95 2.31% (945.13) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.81 0.79 3137EADR7 FHLMC Note 1.375% Due 5/1/2020 225,000.00 08/24/2016 1.05% 227,637.00 225,597.98 99.43 2.07% 223,715.25 515.63 2.08% (1,882.73) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.84 0.82 313383HU8 FHLB Note 1.75% Due 6/12/2020 130,000.00 10/14/2015 1.38% 132,181.40 130,444.74 99.75 2.02% 129,672.40 120.07 1.20% (772.34) Aaa / AA+ NR 0.95 0.94 3130A5Z77 FHLB Note 1.83% Due 7/29/2020 125,000.00 10/27/2015 1.46% 127,132.50 125,483.99 99.81 2.01% 124,758.38 965.83 1.16% (725.61) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.08 1.06 3137EAEK1 FHLMC Note 1.875% Due 11/17/2020 225,000.00 01/18/2018 2.19% 223,042.50 224,043.04 99.97 1.90% 224,929.13 515.63 2.09% 886.09 Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.39 1.35 3130A3UQ5 FHLB Note 1.875% Due 12/11/2020 225,000.00 01/28/2016 1.53% 228,642.75 226,083.81 99.96 1.90% 224,917.43 234.38 2.09% (1,166.38) Aaa / AA+ NR 1.45 1.42 3130A7CV5 FHLB Note 1.375% Due 2/18/2021 200,000.00 03/10/2016 1.61% 197,812.00 199,275.11 99.27 1.83% 198,531.60 1,015.97 1.85% (743.51) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.64 1.60 3135G0N82 FNMA Note 1.25% Due 8/17/2021 315,000.00 01/26/2017 2.02% 304,579.80 310,113.37 98.86 1.80% 311,424.12 1,465.63 2.90% 1,310.75 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.13 2.08 313378WG2 FHLB Note 2.5% Due 3/11/2022 300,000.00 03/13/2018 2.65% 298,323.00 298,868.20 101.82 1.81% 305,449.50 2,291.67 2.85% 6,581.30 Aaa / AA+ NR 2.70 2.58 313379Q69 FHLB Note 2.125% Due 6/10/2022 200,000.00 06/20/2017 1.87% 202,370.00 201,403.72 100.87 1.82% 201,740.20 247.92 1.87% 336.48 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.95 2.84 3135G0T94 FNMA Note 2.375% Due 1/19/2023 290,000.00 10/17/2018 3.07% 281,993.10 283,307.82 101.97 1.80% 295,699.95 3,099.38 2.77% 12,392.13 Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.56 3.36 3137EAEN5 FHLMC Note 2.75% Due 6/19/2023 200,000.00 11/13/2018 3.08% 197,176.00 197,561.40 103.54 1.82% 207,079.00 183.33 1.92% 9,517.60 Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.97 3.75 313383YJ4 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 9/8/2023 200,000.00 12/27/2018 2.73% 205,630.00 205,022.68 106.35 1.79% 212,704.00 2,118.75 1.99% 7,681.32 Aaa / AA+ NR 4.19 3.88 3130A0F70 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 12/8/2023 220,000.00 01/30/2019 2.71% 226,593.40 226,031.55 106.39 1.87% 234,051.62 474.38 2.17% 8,020.07 Aaa / AA+ AAA 4.44 4.12 3130A1XJ2 FHLB Note 2.875% Due 6/14/2024 210,000.00 Various 1.96% 219,055.20 218,990.64 104.71 1.87% 219,897.94 285.10 2.04% 907.30 Aaa / AA+ NR 4.96 4.61 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 5 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Holdings Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration Total Agency 4,790,000.00 1.91% 4,793,457.35 4,796,492.57 1.91% 4,835,118.69 22,394.02 45.01% 38,626.12 Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.88 1.79 COMMERCIAL PAPER 62479MXN8 MUFG Bank Ltd/NY Discount CP 2.27% Due 10/22/2019 200,000.00 06/20/2019 2.32% 198,436.22 198,574.94 99.29 2.32% 198,574.94 0.00 1.84% 0.00 P-1 / A-1 NR 0.31 0.31 Total Commercial Paper 200,000.00 2.32% 198,436.22 198,574.94 2.32% 198,574.94 0.00 1.84% 0.00 P-1 / A-1 NR 0.31 0.31 MONEY MARKET FUND FI 31846V203 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 118,097.33 Various 1.99% 118,097.33 118,097.33 1.00 1.99% 118,097.33 0.00 1.09% 0.00 Aaa / AAA AAA 0.00 0.00 Total Money Market Fund FI 118,097.33 1.99% 118,097.33 118,097.33 1.99% 118,097.33 0.00 1.09% 0.00 Aaa / AAA AAA 0.00 0.00 US CORPORATE 084670BL1 Berkshire Hathaway Note 2.1% Due 8/14/2019 200,000.00 01/26/2017 1.70% 201,976.00 200,093.99 99.96 2.37% 199,928.80 1,598.33 1.87% (165.19) Aa2 / AA A+ 0.12 0.12 06406HCW7 Bank of New York Callable Note Cont 8/11/2019 2.3% Due 9/11/2019 150,000.00 10/26/2016 1.55% 153,034.50 150,122.70 100.00 2.27% 150,004.05 1,054.17 1.40% (118.65) A1 / A AA- 0.20 0.11 166764AN0 Chevron Corp Callable Note Cont 10/15/2019 2.193% Due 11/15/2019 130,000.00 01/05/2016 2.12% 130,341.90 130,026.34 99.98 2.25% 129,968.93 364.28 1.21% (57.41) Aa2 / AA NR 0.38 0.37 46625HKA7 JP Morgan Chase Callable Note Cont 12/23/2019 2.25% Due 1/23/2020 125,000.00 08/11/2017 1.91% 125,970.00 125,197.61 99.97 2.30% 124,961.75 1,234.38 1.17% (235.86) A2 / A- AA- 0.57 0.55 857477AS2 State Street Bank Note 2.55% Due 8/18/2020 125,000.00 11/29/2016 2.18% 126,620.00 125,494.97 100.44 2.15% 125,555.50 1,177.60 1.17% 60.53 A1 / A AA- 1.14 1.10 02665WAZ4 American Honda Finance Note 2.45% Due 9/24/2020 150,000.00 10/07/2016 1.72% 154,161.00 151,301.39 100.21 2.28% 150,310.50 990.21 1.40% (990.89) A2 / A NR 1.24 1.20 91159HHL7 US Bancorp Callable Note 1X 12/29/2020 2.35% Due 1/29/2021 125,000.00 05/02/2017 2.12% 126,012.50 125,415.17 100.30 2.15% 125,372.50 1,240.28 1.17% (42.67) A1 / A+ AA- 1.59 1.45 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 6 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Holdings Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration US CORPORATE 17275RBD3 Cisco Systems Note 2.2% Due 2/28/2021 150,000.00 09/20/2017 1.98% 151,108.50 150,537.03 100.06 2.16% 150,085.95 1,127.50 1.40% (451.08) A1 / AA- NR 1.67 1.61 369550BE7 General Dynamics Corp Note 3% Due 5/11/2021 125,000.00 05/15/2018 3.25% 124,128.75 124,455.97 101.62 2.11% 127,024.00 520.83 1.18% 2,568.03 A2 / A+ NR 1.87 1.80 808513AW5 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 4/21/2021 3.25% Due 5/21/2021 150,000.00 05/30/2018 3.01% 151,011.00 150,632.47 101.94 2.15% 152,904.60 541.67 1.42% 2,272.13 A2 / A A 1.89 1.75 931142EJ8 Wal-Mart Stores Note 3.125% Due 6/23/2021 200,000.00 Various 2.96% 200,929.00 200,621.83 102.18 2.00% 204,364.00 138.89 1.89% 3,742.17 Aa2 / AA AA 1.98 1.92 68389XBK0 Oracle Corp Callable Note Cont 8/01/21 1.9% Due 9/15/2021 200,000.00 10/12/2017 2.11% 198,458.00 199,129.79 99.49 2.14% 198,987.60 1,118.89 1.85% (142.19) A1 / AA- A 2.21 2.14 89236TDP7 Toyota Motor Credit Corp Note 2.6% Due 1/11/2022 130,000.00 01/28/2019 2.98% 128,629.80 128,823.18 101.05 2.17% 131,360.19 1,596.11 1.23% 2,537.01 Aa3 / AA- A+ 2.54 2.41 06051GEU9 Bank of America Corp Note 3.3% Due 1/11/2023 130,000.00 01/28/2019 3.29% 130,059.80 130,053.50 103.08 2.39% 134,001.01 2,025.83 1.26% 3,947.51 A2 / A- A+ 3.54 3.28 037833AK6 Apple Inc Note 2.4% Due 5/3/2023 200,000.00 05/20/2019 2.63% 198,284.00 198,331.60 100.99 2.13% 201,980.40 773.33 1.88% 3,648.80 Aa1 / AA+ NR 3.84 3.64 24422EUR8 John Deere Capital Corp Note 3.45% Due 1/10/2024 150,000.00 03/14/2019 2.95% 153,322.50 153,124.17 105.04 2.27% 157,553.85 2,458.13 1.48% 4,429.68 A2 / A A 4.53 4.13 Total US Corporate 2,440,000.00 2.39% 2,454,047.25 2,443,361.71 2.20% 2,464,363.63 17,960.43 23.00% 21,001.92 A1 / A+ A+ 1.88 1.77 US TREASURY 912828UB4 US Treasury Note 1% Due 11/30/2019 125,000.00 10/26/2016 1.05% 124,819.76 124,975.65 99.54 2.12% 124,419.00 105.87 1.15% (556.65) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.42 0.41 912828UV0 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 3/31/2020 195,000.00 11/17/2015 1.61% 191,054.95 194,322.29 99.34 2.01% 193,720.41 551.43 1.80% (601.88) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.75 0.74 912828L32 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 8/31/2020 200,000.00 11/03/2015 1.56% 198,289.73 199,585.54 99.38 1.91% 198,765.60 919.16 1.85% (819.94) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.17 1.15 912828M98 US Treasury Note 1.625% Due 11/30/2020 205,000.00 Various 1.71% 204,350.30 204,765.42 99.68 1.85% 204,351.38 282.16 1.90% (414.04) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.42 1.39 912828N89 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 1/31/2021 160,000.00 04/04/2018 2.41% 155,500.00 157,470.93 99.30 1.83% 158,875.04 917.68 1.48% 1,404.11 Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.59 1.55 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 7 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Holdings Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration US TREASURY 912828Q78 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 4/30/2021 210,000.00 05/25/2017 1.66% 207,753.05 208,948.80 99.26 1.79% 208,449.57 486.48 1.94% (499.23) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.84 1.80 912828WN6 US Treasury Note 2% Due 5/31/2021 200,000.00 04/29/2019 2.29% 198,820.31 198,916.30 100.43 1.77% 200,859.40 338.80 1.86% 1,943.10 Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.92 1.87 912828S76 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 7/31/2021 260,000.00 11/29/2017 1.98% 252,169.53 255,549.67 98.71 1.76% 256,648.34 1,220.10 2.39% 1,098.67 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.09 2.04 912828T34 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 9/30/2021 125,000.00 05/30/2018 2.59% 119,194.34 121,081.89 98.68 1.73% 123,349.63 353.48 1.15% 2,267.74 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.25 2.20 912828G53 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due 11/30/2021 220,000.00 04/26/2017 1.81% 220,653.86 220,344.08 100.32 1.74% 220,696.08 349.39 2.05% 352.00 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.42 2.35 912828W89 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due 3/31/2022 200,000.00 04/26/2018 2.75% 193,531.25 195,470.97 100.44 1.71% 200,882.80 942.62 1.87% 5,411.83 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.75 2.66 912828M80 US Treasury Note 2% Due 11/30/2022 200,000.00 04/11/2019 2.31% 197,851.56 197,976.41 100.90 1.73% 201,804.60 338.80 1.87% 3,828.19 Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.42 3.29 9128284D9 US Treasury Note 2.5% Due 3/31/2023 210,000.00 Various 2.95% 206,053.12 206,713.37 102.79 1.73% 215,857.11 1,319.67 2.01% 9,143.74 Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.75 3.55 912828Y61 US Treasury Note 2.75% Due 7/31/2023 175,000.00 12/27/2018 2.59% 176,223.63 176,088.56 103.96 1.74% 181,931.58 2,007.42 1.70% 5,843.02 Aaa / AA+ AAA 4.09 3.82 Total US Treasury 2,685,000.00 2.09% 2,646,265.39 2,662,209.88 1.81% 2,690,610.54 10,133.06 25.03% 28,400.66 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.19 2.11 TOTAL PORTFOLIO 10,667,758.09 2.10% 10,641,617.14 10,650,653.28 1.97% 10,741,256.83 50,828.81 100.00% 90,603.55 Aa1 / AA AAA 1.94 1.78 TOTAL MARKET VALUE PLUS ACCRUED 10,792,085.64 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 8 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Transaction Ledger As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss ACQUISITIONS Purchase 06/03/2019 31846V203 239.82 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%239.82 0.00 239.82 0.00 Purchase 06/08/2019 31846V203 3,712.50 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%3,712.50 0.00 3,712.50 0.00 Purchase 06/10/2019 31846V203 2,125.00 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%2,125.00 0.00 2,125.00 0.00 Purchase 06/11/2019 31846V203 2,109.38 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%2,109.38 0.00 2,109.38 0.00 Purchase 06/12/2019 31846V203 1,137.50 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%1,137.50 0.00 1,137.50 0.00 Purchase 06/14/2019 31846V203 150,000.00 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%150,000.00 0.00 150,000.00 0.00 Purchase 06/14/2019 31846V203 1,218.75 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%1,218.75 0.00 1,218.75 0.00 Purchase 06/15/2019 31846V203 1,181.25 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%1,181.25 0.00 1,181.25 0.00 Purchase 06/15/2019 31846V203 270,000.00 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%270,000.00 0.00 270,000.00 0.00 Purchase 06/17/2019 3130A1XJ2 105,000.00 FHLB Note 2.875% Due 6/14/2024 104.301 1.97%109,516.05 25.16 109,541.21 0.00 Purchase 06/17/2019 31846V203 2,796.35 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%2,796.35 0.00 2,796.35 0.00 Purchase 06/17/2019 31846V203 6,740.69 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%6,740.69 0.00 6,740.69 0.00 Purchase 06/17/2019 31846V203 106.88 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%106.88 0.00 106.88 0.00 Purchase 06/17/2019 31846V203 4,335.52 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%4,335.52 0.00 4,335.52 0.00 Purchase 06/17/2019 31846V203 149.50 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%149.50 0.00 149.50 0.00 Purchase 06/17/2019 31846V203 18,030.52 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%18,030.52 0.00 18,030.52 0.00 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 9 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Transaction Ledger As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss ACQUISITIONS Purchase 06/19/2019 3130A1XJ2 105,000.00 FHLB Note 2.875% Due 6/14/2024 104.323 1.96%109,539.15 41.93 109,581.08 0.00 Purchase 06/19/2019 31846V203 2,750.00 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%2,750.00 0.00 2,750.00 0.00 Purchase 06/20/2019 62479MXN8 200,000.00 MUFG Bank Ltd/NY Discount CP 2.27% Due 10/22/2019 99.218 2.32%198,436.22 0.00 198,436.22 0.00 Purchase 06/21/2019 31846V203 172.08 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%172.08 0.00 172.08 0.00 Purchase 06/23/2019 31846V203 3,125.00 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%3,125.00 0.00 3,125.00 0.00 Subtotal 879,930.74 887,422.16 67.09 887,489.25 0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 879,930.74 887,422.16 67.09 887,489.25 0.00 DISPOSITIONS Sale 06/17/2019 31846V203 109,541.21 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%109,541.21 0.00 109,541.21 0.00 Sale 06/19/2019 31846V203 109,581.08 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%109,581.08 0.00 109,581.08 0.00 Sale 06/20/2019 31846V203 198,436.22 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 2.01%198,436.22 0.00 198,436.22 0.00 Subtotal 417,558.51 417,558.51 0.00 417,558.51 0.00 Paydown 06/17/2019 43814QAC2 2,792.79 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 100.000 2,792.79 3.56 2,796.35 0.00 Paydown 06/17/2019 47788BAD6 6,607.74 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 100.000 6,607.74 132.95 6,740.69 0.00 Paydown 06/17/2019 47789JAB2 0.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 100.000 0.00 106.88 106.88 0.00 Paydown 06/17/2019 65478VAD9 4,303.34 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 100.000 4,303.34 32.18 4,335.52 0.00 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 10 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Transaction Ledger As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss DISPOSITIONS Paydown 06/17/2019 65478WAE5 0.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 100.000 0.00 149.50 149.50 0.00 Paydown 06/17/2019 89238BAB8 17,853.37 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 100.000 17,853.37 177.15 18,030.52 0.00 Paydown 06/21/2019 43815HAC1 0.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 100.000 0.00 172.08 172.08 0.00 Subtotal 31,557.24 31,557.24 774.30 32,331.54 0.00 Maturity 06/14/2019 313379EE5 150,000.00 FHLB Note 1.625% Due 6/14/2019 100.000 150,000.00 0.00 150,000.00 0.00 Maturity 06/15/2019 912828R85 270,000.00 US Treasury Note 0.875% Due 6/15/2019 100.000 270,000.00 0.00 270,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 420,000.00 420,000.00 0.00 420,000.00 0.00 Security Withdrawal 06/05/2019 31846V203 891.60 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 891.60 0.00 891.60 0.00 Security Withdrawal 06/25/2019 31846V203 104.17 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 1.000 104.17 0.00 104.17 0.00 Subtotal 995.77 995.77 0.00 995.77 0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 870,111.52 870,111.52 774.30 870,885.82 0.00 OTHER TRANSACTIONS Interest 06/08/2019 3130A0F70 220,000.00 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 12/8/2023 0.000 3,712.50 0.00 3,712.50 0.00 Interest 06/10/2019 313379Q69 200,000.00 FHLB Note 2.125% Due 6/10/2022 0.000 2,125.00 0.00 2,125.00 0.00 Interest 06/11/2019 3130A3UQ5 225,000.00 FHLB Note 1.875% Due 12/11/2020 0.000 2,109.38 0.00 2,109.38 0.00 Interest 06/12/2019 313383HU8 130,000.00 FHLB Note 1.75% Due 6/12/2020 0.000 1,137.50 0.00 1,137.50 0.00 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 11 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Transaction Ledger As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss OTHER TRANSACTIONS Interest 06/14/2019 313379EE5 150,000.00 FHLB Note 1.625% Due 6/14/2019 0.000 1,218.75 0.00 1,218.75 0.00 Interest 06/15/2019 912828R85 270,000.00 US Treasury Note 0.875% Due 6/15/2019 0.000 1,181.25 0.00 1,181.25 0.00 Interest 06/19/2019 3137EAEN5 200,000.00 FHLMC Note 2.75% Due 6/19/2023 0.000 2,750.00 0.00 2,750.00 0.00 Interest 06/23/2019 931142EJ8 200,000.00 Wal-Mart Stores Note 3.125% Due 6/23/2021 0.000 3,125.00 0.00 3,125.00 0.00 Subtotal 1,595,000.00 17,359.38 0.00 17,359.38 0.00 Dividend 06/03/2019 31846V203 66,720.87 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 0.000 239.82 0.00 239.82 0.00 Subtotal 66,720.87 239.82 0.00 239.82 0.00 TOTAL OTHER TRANSACTIONS 1,661,720.87 17,599.20 0.00 17,599.20 0.00 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 12 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Income Earned As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Trade Date Settle Date Units Book Value: Begin Book Value: Acq Book Value: Disp Book Value: End Prior Accrued Inc. Received Ending Accrued Total Interest Accr. Of Discount Amort. Of Premium Net Accret/Amort Income Earned Total Income FIXED INCOME 02665WAZ4 American Honda Finance Note 2.45% Due 09/24/2020 10/07/2016 10/13/2016 150,000.00 151,387.96 0.00 0.00 151,301.39 683.96 0.00 990.21 306.25 0.00 86.57 (86.57) 219.68 219.68 037833AK6 Apple Inc Note 2.4% Due 05/03/2023 05/20/2019 05/22/2019 200,000.00 198,295.90 0.00 0.00 198,331.60 373.33 0.00 773.33 400.00 35.70 0.00 35.70 435.70 435.70 06051GEU9 Bank of America Corp Note 3.3% Due 01/11/2023 01/28/2019 01/30/2019 130,000.00 130,054.74 0.00 0.00 130,053.50 1,668.33 0.00 2,025.83 357.50 0.00 1.24 (1.24) 356.26 356.26 06406HCW7 Bank of New York Callable Note Cont 8/11/2019 2.3% Due 09/11/2019 10/26/2016 10/31/2016 150,000.00 150,212.47 0.00 0.00 150,122.70 766.67 0.00 1,054.17 287.50 0.00 89.77 (89.77) 197.73 197.73 084670BL1 Berkshire Hathaway Note 2.1% Due 08/14/2019 01/26/2017 01/31/2017 200,000.00 200,158.08 0.00 0.00 200,093.99 1,248.33 0.00 1,598.33 350.00 0.00 64.09 (64.09) 285.91 285.91 166764AN0 Chevron Corp Callable Note Cont 10/15/2019 2.193% Due 11/15/2019 01/05/2016 01/08/2016 130,000.00 130,033.79 0.00 0.00 130,026.34 126.71 0.00 364.28 237.57 0.00 7.45 (7.45) 230.12 230.12 17275RBD3 Cisco Systems Note 2.2% Due 02/28/2021 09/20/2017 09/22/2017 150,000.00 150,563.52 0.00 0.00 150,537.03 852.50 0.00 1,127.50 275.00 0.00 26.49 (26.49) 248.51 248.51 24422EUR8 John Deere Capital Corp Note 3.45% Due 01/10/2024 03/14/2019 03/18/2019 150,000.00 153,180.84 0.00 0.00 153,124.17 2,026.88 0.00 2,458.13 431.25 0.00 56.67 (56.67) 374.58 374.58 3130A0F70 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 12/08/2023 01/30/2019 01/31/2019 220,000.00 226,143.17 0.00 0.00 226,031.55 3,568.13 3,712.50 474.38 618.75 0.00 111.62 (111.62) 507.13 507.13 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 13 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Income Earned As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Trade Date Settle Date Units Book Value: Begin Book Value: Acq Book Value: Disp Book Value: End Prior Accrued Inc. Received Ending Accrued Total Interest Accr. Of Discount Amort. Of Premium Net Accret/Amort Income Earned Total Income 3130A1XJ2 FHLB Note 2.875% Due 06/14/2024 Various Various 210,000.00 0.00 219,055.20 0.00 218,990.64 0.00 (67.09) 285.10 218.01 0.00 64.56 (64.56) 153.45 153.45 3130A3UQ5 FHLB Note 1.875% Due 12/11/2020 01/28/2016 01/29/2016 225,000.00 226,145.27 0.00 0.00 226,083.81 1,992.19 2,109.38 234.38 351.57 0.00 61.46 (61.46) 290.11 290.11 3130A5Z77 FHLB Note 1.83% Due 07/29/2020 10/27/2015 10/28/2015 125,000.00 125,520.84 0.00 0.00 125,483.99 775.21 0.00 965.83 190.62 0.00 36.85 (36.85) 153.77 153.77 3130A7CV5 FHLB Note 1.375% Due 02/18/2021 03/10/2016 03/11/2016 200,000.00 199,238.75 0.00 0.00 199,275.11 786.81 0.00 1,015.97 229.16 36.36 0.00 36.36 265.52 265.52 313378WG2 FHLB Note 2.5% Due 03/11/2022 03/13/2018 03/14/2018 300,000.00 298,833.69 0.00 0.00 298,868.20 1,666.67 0.00 2,291.67 625.00 34.51 0.00 34.51 659.51 659.51 313379EE5 FHLB Note Due 06/14/2019 09/24/2015 09/25/2015 0.00 150,018.49 0.00 150,000.00 0.00 1,130.73 1,218.75 0.00 88.02 0.00 18.49 (18.49) 69.53 69.53 313379Q69 FHLB Note 2.125% Due 06/10/2022 06/20/2017 06/21/2017 200,000.00 201,442.89 0.00 0.00 201,403.72 2,018.75 2,125.00 247.92 354.17 0.00 39.17 (39.17) 315.00 315.00 313380FB8 FHLB Note 1.375% Due 09/13/2019 10/25/2017 10/26/2017 190,000.00 189,865.39 0.00 0.00 189,904.22 566.04 0.00 783.75 217.71 38.83 0.00 38.83 256.54 256.54 313383HU8 FHLB Note 1.75% Due 06/12/2020 10/14/2015 10/15/2015 130,000.00 130,483.19 0.00 0.00 130,444.74 1,067.99 1,137.50 120.07 189.58 0.00 38.45 (38.45) 151.13 151.13 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 14 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Income Earned As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Trade Date Settle Date Units Book Value: Begin Book Value: Acq Book Value: Disp Book Value: End Prior Accrued Inc. Received Ending Accrued Total Interest Accr. Of Discount Amort. Of Premium Net Accret/Amort Income Earned Total Income 313383YJ4 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 09/08/2023 12/27/2018 12/28/2018 200,000.00 205,121.17 0.00 0.00 205,022.68 1,556.25 0.00 2,118.75 562.50 0.00 98.49 (98.49) 464.01 464.01 3133EFW52 FFCB Note 1.15% Due 07/01/2019 04/08/2016 04/11/2016 250,000.00 250,031.19 0.00 0.00 250,000.00 1,197.92 0.00 1,437.50 239.58 0.00 31.19 (31.19) 208.39 208.39 3135G0A78 FNMA Note 1.625% Due 01/21/2020 12/10/2015 12/11/2015 245,000.00 245,023.28 0.00 0.00 245,020.30 1,437.67 0.00 1,769.44 331.77 0.00 2.98 (2.98) 328.79 328.79 3135G0N82 FNMA Note 1.25% Due 08/17/2021 01/26/2017 01/31/2017 315,000.00 309,924.94 0.00 0.00 310,113.37 1,137.50 0.00 1,465.63 328.13 188.43 0.00 188.43 516.56 516.56 3135G0T29 FNMA Note 1.5% Due 02/28/2020 08/28/2017 08/29/2017 205,000.00 205,030.54 0.00 0.00 205,027.17 794.38 0.00 1,050.63 256.25 0.00 3.37 (3.37) 252.88 252.88 3135G0T94 FNMA Note 2.375% Due 01/19/2023 10/17/2018 10/19/2018 290,000.00 283,153.15 0.00 0.00 283,307.82 2,525.42 0.00 3,099.38 573.96 154.67 0.00 154.67 728.63 728.63 3137EADK2 FHLMC Note 1.25% Due 08/01/2019 08/28/2015 08/31/2015 170,000.00 169,955.29 0.00 0.00 169,977.28 708.33 0.00 885.42 177.09 21.99 0.00 21.99 199.08 199.08 3137EADM8 FHLMC Note 1.25% Due 10/02/2019 09/24/2015 09/25/2015 155,000.00 154,953.38 0.00 0.00 154,964.75 317.53 0.00 478.99 161.46 11.37 0.00 11.37 172.83 172.83 3137EADR7 FHLMC Note 1.375% Due 05/01/2020 08/24/2016 08/25/2016 225,000.00 225,656.80 0.00 0.00 225,597.98 257.81 0.00 515.63 257.82 0.00 58.82 (58.82) 199.00 199.00 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 15 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Income Earned As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Trade Date Settle Date Units Book Value: Begin Book Value: Acq Book Value: Disp Book Value: End Prior Accrued Inc. Received Ending Accrued Total Interest Accr. Of Discount Amort. Of Premium Net Accret/Amort Income Earned Total Income 3137EAEE5 FHLMC Note 1.5% Due 01/17/2020 03/08/2017 03/09/2017 260,000.00 259,649.45 0.00 0.00 259,695.17 1,451.67 0.00 1,776.67 325.00 45.72 0.00 45.72 370.72 370.72 3137EAEF2 FHLMC Note 1.375% Due 04/20/2020 07/27/2017 07/28/2017 250,000.00 249,642.53 0.00 0.00 249,675.63 391.49 0.00 677.95 286.46 33.10 0.00 33.10 319.56 319.56 3137EAEK1 FHLMC Note 1.875% Due 11/17/2020 01/18/2018 01/19/2018 225,000.00 223,986.19 0.00 0.00 224,043.04 164.06 0.00 515.63 351.57 56.85 0.00 56.85 408.42 408.42 3137EAEN5 FHLMC Note 2.75% Due 06/19/2023 11/13/2018 11/14/2018 200,000.00 197,510.91 0.00 0.00 197,561.40 2,475.00 2,750.00 183.33 458.33 50.49 0.00 50.49 508.82 508.82 369550BE7 General Dynamics Corp Note 3% Due 05/11/2021 05/15/2018 05/18/2018 125,000.00 124,431.97 0.00 0.00 124,455.97 208.33 0.00 520.83 312.50 24.00 0.00 24.00 336.50 336.50 43814QAC2 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 04/15/2020 04/26/2017 05/01/2017 282.12 3,070.55 0.00 2,792.79 281.76 1.90 3.56 0.17 1.83 4.00 0.00 4.00 5.83 5.83 43815HAC1 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 08/22/2022 08/21/2018 08/28/2018 70,000.00 69,992.23 0.00 0.00 69,992.43 57.36 172.08 57.36 172.08 0.20 0.00 0.20 172.28 172.28 46625HKA7 JP Morgan Chase Callable Note Cont 12/23/2019 2.25% Due 01/23/2020 08/11/2017 08/16/2017 125,000.00 125,231.49 0.00 0.00 125,197.61 1,000.00 0.00 1,234.38 234.38 0.00 33.88 (33.88) 200.50 200.50 47788BAD6 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 07/26/2018 07/30/2018 81,052.43 86,695.88 0.00 6,607.74 80,191.68 70.91 132.95 65.56 127.60 103.54 0.00 103.54 231.14 231.14 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 16 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Income Earned As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Trade Date Settle Date Units Book Value: Begin Book Value: Acq Book Value: Disp Book Value: End Prior Accrued Inc. Received Ending Accrued Total Interest Accr. Of Discount Amort. Of Premium Net Accret/Amort Income Earned Total Income 47789JAB2 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 03/05/2019 03/13/2019 45,000.00 44,998.11 0.00 0.00 44,998.17 57.00 106.88 57.00 106.88 0.06 0.00 0.06 106.94 106.94 65478VAD9 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 01/15/2021 02/12/2018 02/14/2018 24,952.09 29,124.89 0.00 4,303.34 24,846.37 4.29 32.18 3.66 31.55 24.82 0.00 24.82 56.37 56.37 65478WAE5 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 01/17/2023 04/16/2019 04/18/2019 130,000.00 128,173.18 0.00 0.00 128,236.39 79.73 149.50 79.73 149.50 63.21 0.00 63.21 212.71 212.71 68389XBK0 Oracle Corp Callable Note Cont 8/01/21 1.9% Due 09/15/2021 10/12/2017 10/16/2017 200,000.00 199,097.44 0.00 0.00 199,129.79 802.22 0.00 1,118.89 316.67 32.35 0.00 32.35 349.02 349.02 808513AW5 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 4/21/2021 3.25% Due 05/21/2021 05/30/2018 06/01/2018 150,000.00 150,661.22 0.00 0.00 150,632.47 135.42 0.00 541.67 406.25 0.00 28.75 (28.75) 377.50 377.50 857477AS2 State Street Bank Note 2.55% Due 08/18/2020 11/29/2016 12/02/2016 125,000.00 125,530.83 0.00 0.00 125,494.97 911.98 0.00 1,177.60 265.62 0.00 35.86 (35.86) 229.76 229.76 89236TDP7 Toyota Motor Credit Corp Note 2.6% Due 01/11/2022 01/28/2019 01/30/2019 130,000.00 128,785.01 0.00 0.00 128,823.18 1,314.44 0.00 1,596.11 281.67 38.17 0.00 38.17 319.84 319.84 89238BAB8 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 01/23/2018 01/31/2018 83,374.12 101,222.24 0.00 17,853.37 83,370.05 94.48 177.15 77.82 160.49 1.18 0.00 1.18 161.67 161.67 91159HHL7 US Bancorp Callable Note 1X 12/29/2020 2.35% Due 01/29/2021 05/02/2017 05/05/2017 125,000.00 125,437.94 0.00 0.00 125,415.17 995.49 0.00 1,240.28 244.79 0.00 22.77 (22.77) 222.02 222.02 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 17 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Income Earned As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Trade Date Settle Date Units Book Value: Begin Book Value: Acq Book Value: Disp Book Value: End Prior Accrued Inc. Received Ending Accrued Total Interest Accr. Of Discount Amort. Of Premium Net Accret/Amort Income Earned Total Income 9128284D9 US Treasury Note 2.5% Due 03/31/2023 Various Various 210,000.00 206,641.35 0.00 0.00 206,713.37 889.35 0.00 1,319.67 430.32 72.02 0.00 72.02 502.34 502.34 912828G53 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due 11/30/2021 04/26/2017 04/27/2017 220,000.00 220,355.77 0.00 0.00 220,344.08 11.27 0.00 349.39 338.12 0.00 11.69 (11.69) 326.43 326.43 912828L32 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 08/31/2020 11/03/2015 11/04/2015 200,000.00 199,556.42 0.00 0.00 199,585.54 694.97 0.00 919.16 224.19 29.12 0.00 29.12 253.31 253.31 912828M80 US Treasury Note 2% Due 11/30/2022 04/11/2019 04/15/2019 200,000.00 197,927.77 0.00 0.00 197,976.41 10.93 0.00 338.80 327.87 48.64 0.00 48.64 376.51 376.51 912828M98 US Treasury Note 1.625% Due 11/30/2020 Various Various 205,000.00 204,751.83 0.00 0.00 204,765.42 9.10 0.00 282.16 273.06 13.59 0.00 13.59 286.65 286.65 912828N89 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 01/31/2021 04/04/2018 04/05/2018 160,000.00 157,340.12 0.00 0.00 157,470.93 735.36 0.00 917.68 182.32 130.81 0.00 130.81 313.13 313.13 912828Q78 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 04/30/2021 05/25/2017 05/31/2017 210,000.00 208,901.67 0.00 0.00 208,948.80 251.09 0.00 486.48 235.39 47.13 0.00 47.13 282.52 282.52 912828R85 US Treasury Note Due 06/15/2019 02/26/2018 02/27/2018 0.00 269,873.88 0.00 270,000.00 0.00 1,090.38 1,181.25 0.00 90.87 126.12 0.00 126.12 216.99 216.99 912828S76 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 07/31/2021 11/29/2017 11/30/2017 260,000.00 255,374.23 0.00 0.00 255,549.67 977.69 0.00 1,220.10 242.41 175.44 0.00 175.44 417.85 417.85 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 18 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Income Earned As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Trade Date Settle Date Units Book Value: Begin Book Value: Acq Book Value: Disp Book Value: End Prior Accrued Inc. Received Ending Accrued Total Interest Accr. Of Discount Amort. Of Premium Net Accret/Amort Income Earned Total Income 912828T34 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 09/30/2021 05/30/2018 05/31/2018 125,000.00 120,938.90 0.00 0.00 121,081.89 238.22 0.00 353.48 115.26 142.99 0.00 142.99 258.25 258.25 912828UB4 US Treasury Note 1% Due 11/30/2019 10/26/2016 10/31/2016 125,000.00 124,970.84 0.00 0.00 124,975.65 3.42 0.00 105.87 102.45 4.81 0.00 4.81 107.26 107.26 912828UV0 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 03/31/2020 11/17/2015 11/18/2015 195,000.00 194,248.09 0.00 0.00 194,322.29 371.62 0.00 551.43 179.81 74.20 0.00 74.20 254.01 254.01 912828W89 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due 03/31/2022 04/26/2018 04/27/2018 200,000.00 195,335.64 0.00 0.00 195,470.97 635.25 0.00 942.62 307.37 135.33 0.00 135.33 442.70 442.70 912828WN6 US Treasury Note 2% Due 05/31/2021 04/29/2019 04/30/2019 200,000.00 198,869.85 0.00 0.00 198,916.30 10.93 0.00 338.80 327.87 46.45 0.00 46.45 374.32 374.32 912828Y61 US Treasury Note 2.75% Due 07/31/2023 12/27/2018 12/28/2018 175,000.00 176,110.47 0.00 0.00 176,088.56 1,608.60 0.00 2,007.42 398.82 0.00 21.91 (21.91) 376.91 376.91 931142EJ8 Wal-Mart Stores Note 3.125% Due 06/23/2021 Various Various 200,000.00 200,647.62 0.00 0.00 200,621.83 2,743.05 3,125.00 138.89 520.84 0.00 25.79 (25.79) 495.05 495.05 Total Fixed Income 10,349,660.76 10,565,515.23 219,055.20 451,557.24 10,333,981.01 51,749.04 18,066.59 50,828.81 17,146.36 2,046.20 1,078.38 967.82 18,114.18 18,114.18 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 19 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Income Earned As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Trade Date Settle Date Units Book Value: Begin Book Value: Acq Book Value: Disp Book Value: End Prior Accrued Inc. Received Ending Accrued Total Interest Accr. Of Discount Amort. Of Premium Net Accret/Amort Income Earned Total Income CASH & EQUIVALENT 31846V203 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y Various Various 118,097.33 66,720.87 469,930.74 418,554.28 118,097.33 0.00 239.82 0.00 239.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 239.82 239.82 62479MXN8 MUFG Bank Ltd/NY Discount CP 2.27% Due 10/22/2019 06/20/2019 06/20/2019 200,000.00 0.00 198,436.22 0.00 198,574.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 138.72 0.00 138.72 138.72 138.72 Total Cash & Equivalent 318,097.33 66,720.87 668,366.96 418,554.28 316,672.27 0.00 239.82 0.00 239.82 138.72 0.00 138.72 378.54 378.54 TOTAL PORTFOLIO 10,667,758.09 10,632,236.10 887,422.16 870,111.52 10,650,653.28 51,749.04 18,306.41 50,828.81 17,386.18 2,184.92 1,078.38 1,106.54 18,492.72 18,492.72 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 20 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 07/01/2019 Maturity 3133EFW52 250,000.00 FFCB Note 250,000.00 1,437.50 251,437.50 07/10/2019 Interest 24422EUR8 150,000.00 John Deere Capital Corp Note 3.45% Due 1/10/2024 0.00 2,587.50 2,587.50 07/11/2019 Interest 06051GEU9 130,000.00 Bank of America Corp Note 3.3% Due 1/11/2023 0.00 2,145.00 2,145.00 07/11/2019 Interest 89236TDP7 130,000.00 Toyota Motor Credit Corp Note 2.6% Due 1/11/2022 0.00 1,690.00 1,690.00 07/15/2019 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,447.50 106.88 1,554.38 07/15/2019 Paydown 43814QAC2 282.12 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 28.06 0.33 28.39 07/15/2019 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 5,145.71 122.93 5,268.64 07/15/2019 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,560.55 149.50 4,710.05 07/15/2019 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 7,271.35 145.90 7,417.25 07/17/2019 Interest 3137EAEE5 260,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.5% Due 1/17/2020 0.00 1,950.00 1,950.00 07/19/2019 Interest 3135G0T94 290,000.00 FNMA Note 2.375% Due 1/19/2023 0.00 3,443.75 3,443.75 07/21/2019 Interest 3135G0A78 245,000.00 FNMA Note 1.625% Due 1/21/2020 0.00 1,990.63 1,990.63 07/21/2019 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 4,569.84 172.08 4,741.92 07/23/2019 Interest 46625HKA7 125,000.00 JP Morgan Chase Callable Note Cont 12/23/2019 2.25% Due 1/23/2020 0.00 1,406.25 1,406.25 07/27/2019 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,292.61 27.45 1,320.06 07/29/2019 Interest 91159HHL7 125,000.00 US Bancorp Callable Note 1X 12/29/2020 2.35% Due 1/29/2021 0.00 1,468.75 1,468.75 07/29/2019 Interest 3130A5Z77 125,000.00 FHLB Note 1.83% Due 7/29/2020 0.00 1,143.75 1,143.75 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 21 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 07/31/2019 Interest 912828Y61 175,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.75% Due 7/31/2023 0.00 2,406.25 2,406.25 07/31/2019 Interest 912828N89 160,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 1/31/2021 0.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 07/31/2019 Interest 912828S76 260,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 7/31/2021 0.00 1,462.50 1,462.50 JUL 2019 274,315.62 24,956.95 299,272.57 08/01/2019 Maturity 3137EADK2 170,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.25% Due 8/1/2019 170,000.00 1,062.50 171,062.50 08/11/2019 Call 06406HCW7 150,000.00 Bank of New York Callable Note Cont 8/11/2019 2.3% Due 9/11/2019 150,000.00 1,437.50 151,437.50 08/14/2019 Maturity 084670BL1 200,000.00 Berkshire Hathaway Note 2.1% Due 8/14/2019 200,000.00 2,100.00 202,100.00 08/15/2019 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,566.57 144.26 4,710.83 08/15/2019 Paydown 43814QAC2 282.12 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 28.10 0.29 28.39 08/15/2019 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 4,981.94 115.13 5,097.07 08/15/2019 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,451.04 103.44 1,554.48 08/15/2019 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 7,000.41 133.18 7,133.59 08/17/2019 Interest 3135G0N82 315,000.00 FNMA Note 1.25% Due 8/17/2021 0.00 1,968.75 1,968.75 08/18/2019 Interest 857477AS2 125,000.00 State Street Bank Note 2.55% Due 8/18/2020 0.00 1,593.75 1,593.75 08/18/2019 Interest 3130A7CV5 200,000.00 FHLB Note 1.375% Due 2/18/2021 0.00 1,375.00 1,375.00 08/21/2019 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 4,430.38 160.85 4,591.23 08/27/2019 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,294.88 26.03 1,320.91 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 22 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 08/28/2019 Interest 3135G0T29 205,000.00 FNMA Note 1.5% Due 2/28/2020 0.00 1,537.50 1,537.50 08/28/2019 Interest 17275RBD3 150,000.00 Cisco Systems Note 2.2% Due 2/28/2021 0.00 1,650.00 1,650.00 08/31/2019 Interest 912828L32 200,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 8/31/2020 0.00 1,375.00 1,375.00 AUG 2019 543,753.32 14,783.18 558,536.50 09/08/2019 Interest 313383YJ4 200,000.00 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 9/8/2023 0.00 3,375.00 3,375.00 09/11/2019 Interest 313378WG2 300,000.00 FHLB Note 2.5% Due 3/11/2022 0.00 3,750.00 3,750.00 09/13/2019 Maturity 313380FB8 190,000.00 FHLB Note 1.375% Due 9/13/2019 190,000.00 1,306.25 191,306.25 09/15/2019 Interest 68389XBK0 200,000.00 Oracle Corp Callable Note Cont 8/01/21 1.9% Due 9/15/2021 0.00 1,900.00 1,900.00 09/15/2019 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,454.60 99.99 1,554.59 09/15/2019 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 4,817.83 107.57 4,925.40 09/15/2019 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,572.61 139.00 4,711.61 09/15/2019 Paydown 43814QAC2 282.12 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 28.13 0.26 28.39 09/15/2019 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 6,728.67 120.93 6,849.60 09/21/2019 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 4,290.41 149.96 4,440.37 09/24/2019 Interest 02665WAZ4 150,000.00 American Honda Finance Note 2.45% Due 9/24/2020 0.00 1,837.50 1,837.50 09/27/2019 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,297.17 24.60 1,321.77 09/30/2019 Interest 912828UV0 195,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 3/31/2020 0.00 1,096.88 1,096.88 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 23 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 09/30/2019 Interest 9128284D9 210,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.5% Due 3/31/2023 0.00 2,625.00 2,625.00 09/30/2019 Interest 912828T34 125,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 9/30/2021 0.00 703.13 703.13 09/30/2019 Interest 912828W89 200,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due 3/31/2022 0.00 1,875.00 1,875.00 SEP 2019 213,189.42 19,111.07 232,300.49 10/02/2019 Maturity 3137EADM8 155,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.25% Due 10/2/2019 155,000.00 968.75 155,968.75 10/15/2019 Call 166764AN0 130,000.00 Chevron Corp Callable Note Cont 10/15/2019 2.193% Due 11/15/2019 130,000.00 1,187.88 131,187.88 10/15/2019 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 4,653.38 100.26 4,753.64 10/15/2019 Paydown 43814QAC2 282.12 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 28.16 0.23 28.39 10/15/2019 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 6,456.12 109.15 6,565.27 10/15/2019 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,458.15 96.54 1,554.69 10/15/2019 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,578.65 133.75 4,712.40 10/20/2019 Interest 3137EAEF2 250,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.375% Due 4/20/2020 0.00 1,718.75 1,718.75 10/21/2019 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 4,149.92 139.41 4,289.33 10/22/2019 Maturity 62479MXN8 200,000.00 MUFG Bank Ltd/NY Discount CP 2.27% Due 10/22/2019 200,000.00 0.00 200,000.00 10/27/2019 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,299.45 23.17 1,322.62 10/31/2019 Interest 912828Q78 210,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 4/30/2021 0.00 1,443.75 1,443.75 OCT 2019 507,623.83 5,921.64 513,545.47 11/01/2019 Interest 3137EADR7 225,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.375% Due 5/1/2020 0.00 1,546.88 1,546.88 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 24 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 11/03/2019 Interest 037833AK6 200,000.00 Apple Inc Note 2.4% Due 5/3/2023 0.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 11/11/2019 Interest 369550BE7 125,000.00 General Dynamics Corp Note 3% Due 5/11/2021 0.00 1,875.00 1,875.00 11/15/2019 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,461.72 93.07 1,554.79 11/15/2019 Paydown 43814QAC2 282.12 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 28.19 0.20 28.39 11/15/2019 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 4,488.59 93.20 4,581.79 11/15/2019 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,584.70 128.48 4,713.18 11/15/2019 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 6,182.75 97.86 6,280.61 11/17/2019 Interest 3137EAEK1 225,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.875% Due 11/17/2020 0.00 2,109.38 2,109.38 11/21/2019 Interest 808513AW5 150,000.00 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 4/21/2021 3.25% Due 5/21/2021 0.00 2,437.50 2,437.50 11/21/2019 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 4,008.91 129.21 4,138.12 11/27/2019 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,301.73 21.74 1,323.47 11/30/2019 Interest 912828M98 205,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.625% Due 11/30/2020 0.00 1,665.63 1,665.63 11/30/2019 Interest 912828G53 220,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due 11/30/2021 0.00 2,062.50 2,062.50 11/30/2019 Interest 912828M80 200,000.00 US Treasury Note 2% Due 11/30/2022 0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 11/30/2019 Interest 912828WN6 200,000.00 US Treasury Note 2% Due 5/31/2021 0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 11/30/2019 Maturity 912828UB4 125,000.00 US Treasury Note 1% Due 11/30/2019 125,000.00 625.00 125,625.00 NOV 2019 147,056.59 19,285.65 166,342.24 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 25 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 12/08/2019 Interest 3130A0F70 220,000.00 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 12/8/2023 0.00 3,712.50 3,712.50 12/10/2019 Interest 313379Q69 200,000.00 FHLB Note 2.125% Due 6/10/2022 0.00 2,125.00 2,125.00 12/11/2019 Interest 3130A3UQ5 225,000.00 FHLB Note 1.875% Due 12/11/2020 0.00 2,109.38 2,109.38 12/12/2019 Interest 313383HU8 130,000.00 FHLB Note 1.75% Due 6/12/2020 0.00 1,137.50 1,137.50 12/14/2019 Interest 3130A1XJ2 210,000.00 FHLB Note 2.875% Due 6/14/2024 0.00 3,018.76 3,018.76 12/15/2019 Paydown 43814QAC2 282.12 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 28.23 0.16 28.39 12/15/2019 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 4,323.46 86.40 4,409.86 12/15/2019 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 5,908.58 87.04 5,995.62 12/15/2019 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,465.29 89.60 1,554.89 12/15/2019 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,590.76 123.21 4,713.97 12/19/2019 Interest 3137EAEN5 200,000.00 FHLMC Note 2.75% Due 6/19/2023 0.00 2,750.00 2,750.00 12/21/2019 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 3,867.37 119.35 3,986.72 12/23/2019 Call 46625HKA7 125,000.00 JP Morgan Chase Callable Note Cont 12/23/2019 2.25% Due 1/23/2020 125,000.00 1,171.88 126,171.88 12/23/2019 Interest 931142EJ8 200,000.00 Wal-Mart Stores Note 3.125% Due 6/23/2021 0.00 3,125.00 3,125.00 12/27/2019 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,304.02 20.31 1,324.33 DEC 2019 146,487.71 19,676.09 166,163.80 01/10/2020 Interest 24422EUR8 150,000.00 John Deere Capital Corp Note 3.45% Due 1/10/2024 0.00 2,587.50 2,587.50 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 26 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 01/11/2020 Interest 06051GEU9 130,000.00 Bank of America Corp Note 3.3% Due 1/11/2023 0.00 2,145.00 2,145.00 01/11/2020 Interest 89236TDP7 130,000.00 Toyota Motor Credit Corp Note 2.6% Due 1/11/2022 0.00 1,690.00 1,690.00 01/15/2020 Paydown 43814QAC2 282.12 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 28.26 0.13 28.39 01/15/2020 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,596.83 117.93 4,714.76 01/15/2020 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 5,633.60 76.70 5,710.30 01/15/2020 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 4,157.99 79.84 4,237.83 01/15/2020 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,468.87 86.12 1,554.99 01/17/2020 Maturity 3137EAEE5 260,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.5% Due 1/17/2020 260,000.00 1,950.00 261,950.00 01/19/2020 Interest 3135G0T94 290,000.00 FNMA Note 2.375% Due 1/19/2023 0.00 3,443.75 3,443.75 01/21/2020 Maturity 3135G0A78 245,000.00 FNMA Note 1.625% Due 1/21/2020 245,000.00 1,990.63 246,990.63 01/21/2020 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 3,725.30 109.85 3,835.15 01/27/2020 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,306.31 18.88 1,325.19 01/29/2020 Interest 91159HHL7 125,000.00 US Bancorp Callable Note 1X 12/29/2020 2.35% Due 1/29/2021 0.00 1,468.75 1,468.75 01/29/2020 Interest 3130A5Z77 125,000.00 FHLB Note 1.83% Due 7/29/2020 0.00 1,143.75 1,143.75 01/31/2020 Interest 912828Y61 175,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.75% Due 7/31/2023 0.00 2,406.25 2,406.25 01/31/2020 Interest 912828N89 160,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 1/31/2021 0.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 01/31/2020 Interest 912828S76 260,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 7/31/2021 0.00 1,462.50 1,462.50 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 27 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount JAN 2020 525,917.16 21,877.58 547,794.74 02/15/2020 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,472.46 82.63 1,555.09 02/15/2020 Paydown 43814QAC2 282.12 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 28.29 0.10 28.39 02/15/2020 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 3,992.18 73.53 4,065.71 02/15/2020 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,602.91 112.64 4,715.55 02/15/2020 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 5,357.80 66.84 5,424.64 02/17/2020 Interest 3135G0N82 315,000.00 FNMA Note 1.25% Due 8/17/2021 0.00 1,968.75 1,968.75 02/18/2020 Interest 3130A7CV5 200,000.00 FHLB Note 1.375% Due 2/18/2021 0.00 1,375.00 1,375.00 02/18/2020 Interest 857477AS2 125,000.00 State Street Bank Note 2.55% Due 8/18/2020 0.00 1,593.75 1,593.75 02/21/2020 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 3,582.71 100.69 3,683.40 02/27/2020 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,308.60 17.44 1,326.04 02/28/2020 Interest 17275RBD3 150,000.00 Cisco Systems Note 2.2% Due 2/28/2021 0.00 1,650.00 1,650.00 02/28/2020 Maturity 3135G0T29 205,000.00 FNMA Note 1.5% Due 2/28/2020 205,000.00 1,537.50 206,537.50 02/29/2020 Interest 912828L32 200,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 8/31/2020 0.00 1,375.00 1,375.00 FEB 2020 225,344.95 9,953.87 235,298.82 03/08/2020 Interest 313383YJ4 200,000.00 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 9/8/2023 0.00 3,375.00 3,375.00 03/11/2020 Interest 313378WG2 300,000.00 FHLB Note 2.5% Due 3/11/2022 0.00 3,750.00 3,750.00 03/15/2020 Interest 68389XBK0 200,000.00 Oracle Corp Callable Note Cont 8/01/21 1.9% Due 9/15/2021 0.00 1,900.00 1,900.00 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 28 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 03/15/2020 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 5,081.18 57.46 5,138.64 03/15/2020 Paydown 43814QAC2 282.12 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 28.32 0.07 28.39 03/15/2020 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,608.99 107.35 4,716.34 03/15/2020 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 3,826.02 67.48 3,893.50 03/15/2020 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,476.05 79.14 1,555.19 03/21/2020 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 3,439.59 91.88 3,531.47 03/24/2020 Interest 02665WAZ4 150,000.00 American Honda Finance Note 2.45% Due 9/24/2020 0.00 1,837.50 1,837.50 03/27/2020 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,310.91 16.00 1,326.91 03/31/2020 Interest 912828W89 200,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due 3/31/2022 0.00 1,875.00 1,875.00 03/31/2020 Interest 9128284D9 210,000.00 US Treasury Note 2.5% Due 3/31/2023 0.00 2,625.00 2,625.00 03/31/2020 Interest 912828T34 125,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 9/30/2021 0.00 703.13 703.13 03/31/2020 Maturity 912828UV0 195,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 3/31/2020 195,000.00 1,096.88 196,096.88 MAR 2020 214,771.06 17,581.89 232,352.95 04/15/2020 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,479.66 75.63 1,555.29 04/15/2020 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 3,659.52 61.68 3,721.20 04/15/2020 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,615.08 102.05 4,717.13 04/15/2020 Paydown 43814QAC2 282.12 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.39% Due 4/15/2020 28.36 0.03 28.39 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 29 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 04/15/2020 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 4,803.73 48.57 4,852.30 04/20/2020 Maturity 3137EAEF2 250,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.375% Due 4/20/2020 250,000.00 1,718.75 251,718.75 04/21/2020 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 3,295.94 83.42 3,379.36 04/27/2020 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,313.21 14.56 1,327.77 04/30/2020 Interest 912828Q78 210,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 4/30/2021 0.00 1,443.75 1,443.75 APR 2020 269,195.50 3,548.44 272,743.94 05/01/2020 Maturity 3137EADR7 225,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.375% Due 5/1/2020 225,000.00 1,546.88 226,546.88 05/03/2020 Interest 037833AK6 200,000.00 Apple Inc Note 2.4% Due 5/3/2023 0.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 05/11/2020 Interest 369550BE7 125,000.00 General Dynamics Corp Note 3% Due 5/11/2021 0.00 1,875.00 1,875.00 05/15/2020 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,621.18 96.74 4,717.92 05/15/2020 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 4,525.47 40.16 4,565.63 05/15/2020 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 3,492.68 56.13 3,548.81 05/15/2020 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,483.28 72.12 1,555.40 05/17/2020 Interest 3137EAEK1 225,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.875% Due 11/17/2020 0.00 2,109.38 2,109.38 05/21/2020 Interest 808513AW5 150,000.00 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 4/21/2021 3.25% Due 5/21/2021 0.00 2,437.50 2,437.50 05/21/2020 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 3,151.75 75.32 3,227.07 05/27/2020 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,315.51 13.12 1,328.63 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 30 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 05/31/2020 Interest 912828WN6 200,000.00 US Treasury Note 2% Due 5/31/2021 0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 05/31/2020 Interest 912828M80 200,000.00 US Treasury Note 2% Due 11/30/2022 0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 05/31/2020 Interest 912828G53 220,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due 11/30/2021 0.00 2,062.50 2,062.50 05/31/2020 Interest 912828M98 205,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.625% Due 11/30/2020 0.00 1,665.63 1,665.63 MAY 2020 243,589.87 18,450.48 262,040.35 06/08/2020 Interest 3130A0F70 220,000.00 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 12/8/2023 0.00 3,712.50 3,712.50 06/10/2020 Interest 313379Q69 200,000.00 FHLB Note 2.125% Due 6/10/2022 0.00 2,125.00 2,125.00 06/11/2020 Interest 3130A3UQ5 225,000.00 FHLB Note 1.875% Due 12/11/2020 0.00 2,109.38 2,109.38 06/12/2020 Maturity 313383HU8 130,000.00 FHLB Note 1.75% Due 6/12/2020 130,000.00 1,137.50 131,137.50 06/14/2020 Interest 3130A1XJ2 210,000.00 FHLB Note 2.875% Due 6/14/2024 0.00 3,018.76 3,018.76 06/15/2020 Paydown 47788BAD6 81,052.43 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.82% Due 10/15/2021 3,325.49 50.83 3,376.32 06/15/2020 Paydown 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due 1/17/2023 4,627.28 91.43 4,718.71 06/15/2020 Paydown 89238BAB8 83,374.12 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.1% Due 10/15/2020 4,246.39 32.24 4,278.63 06/15/2020 Paydown 47789JAB2 45,000.00 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.85% Due 12/15/2021 1,486.91 68.59 1,555.50 06/19/2020 Interest 3137EAEN5 200,000.00 FHLMC Note 2.75% Due 6/19/2023 0.00 2,750.00 2,750.00 06/21/2020 Paydown 43815HAC1 70,000.00 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.95% Due 8/22/2022 3,007.03 67.57 3,074.60 06/23/2020 Interest 931142EJ8 200,000.00 Wal-Mart Stores Note 3.125% Due 6/23/2021 0.00 3,125.00 3,125.00 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 31 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Cash Flow Report As of June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto Account #10167 Payment Date Transaction Type CUSIP Quantity Security Description Principal Amount Income Total Amount 06/27/2020 Paydown 65478VAD9 24,952.09 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.32% Due 1/15/2021 1,317.83 11.67 1,329.50 JUN 2020 148,010.93 18,300.47 166,311.40 TOTAL 3,459,255.96 193,447.31 3,652,703.27 Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 32 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Important DisclosuresCity of San Jacinto Account #10167 Chandler Asset Management, Inc. ;͞Chandler͟Ϳis an SEC registered investment adviser. For additional information about our firm, please see our current disclosures (Form ADV). To obtain a copy of our current disclosures, you may contact your client service representative by calling the number on the front of this statement or you may visit our website at www.chandlerasset.com. Information contained in this monthly statement is confidential and is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as specific investment or legal advice. The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed to be reliable as of the date of this statement, but may become outdated or superseded at any time without notice. Custody: Your qualified custodian bank maintains control of all assets reflected in this statement and we urge you to compare this statement to the one you receive from your qualified custodian. Chandler does not have any authority to withdraw or deposit funds from/to the custodian account. Valuation: Prices are provided by IDC, an independent pricing source. In the event IDC does not provide a price or if the price provided is not reflective of fair market value, Chandler will obtain pricing from an alternative approved third party pricing source in accordance with our written valuation policy and procedures. Our valuation procedures are also disclosed in Item 5 of our Form ADV Part 2A. Performance: Performance results are presented gross-of-advisory fees and represent the client ͛s Total Return. The deduction of advisory fees lowers performance results. These results include the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Therefore, clients should not assume that future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy will be profitable or equal to past performance levels. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Economic factors, market conditions or changes in investment strategies, contributions or withdrawals may materially alter the performance and results of your portfolio. Source ice Data Indices, LLC ("ICE"), used with permission. ICE PERMITS USE OF THE ICE INDICES AND RELATED DATA ON AN "AS IS" BASIS; ICE, ITS AFFILIATES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS, EXPRESS AND/OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, INCLUDING THE INDICES, INDEX DATA AND ANY DATA INCLUDED IN, RELATED TO, OR DERIVED THEREFROM. NEITHER ICE DATA, ITS AFFILIATES OR THEIR RESPECTIVE THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS GUARANTEE THE QUALITY, ADEQUACY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INDICES OR THE INDEX DATA OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF, AND THE INDICES AND INDEX DATA AND ALL COMPONENTS THEREOF ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS AND LICENSEE'S USE IS AT LICENSEE'S OWN RISK. ICE DATA, ITS AFFILIATES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE THIRD PARTY DO NOT SPONSOR, ENDORSE, OR RECOMMEND CHANDLER, OR ANY OF ITS PRODUCTS OR SERVICES. Index returns assume reinvestment of all distributions. Historical performance results for investment indexes generally do not reflect the deduction of transaction and/or custodial charges or the deduction of an investment management fee, the incurrence of which would have the effect of decreasing historical performance results. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Ratings: Ratings information have been provided by Moody͛s, S&P and Fitch through data feeds we believe to be reliable as of the date of this statement, however we cannot guarantee its accuracy. Security level ratings for U.S. Agency issued mortgage-backed securities ;͞MBS͟Ϳreflect the issuer rating because the securities themselves are not rated. The issuing U.S. Agency guarantees the full and timely payment of both principal and interest and carries a AA+/Aaa/AAA by S&P, Moody ͛s and Fitch respectively. Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 33 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Benchmark Index & DisclosuresCity of San Jacinto California Account #10167 Benchmark Index Disclosure ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Treasury Index The ICE BAML 1-3 Year US Treasury Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated sovereign debt publicly issued by the US government in its domestic market. Qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than three years remaining term to final maturity, a fixed coupon schedule and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion. Qualifying securities must have at least 18 months to final maturity at the time of issuance. (Index: G1O2. Please visit www.mlindex.ml.com for more information) ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Corp/Govt Rated AAA-A Index The ICE BAML 1-3 AAA-A Year US Corporate & Government Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated investment grade debt publicly issued in the US domestic market, including US Treasury, US agency, foreign government, supranational and corporate securities. Qualifying securities must be rated AAA through A3 (based on an average of Moody͛s, S&P and Fitch). In addition, qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than three years remaining term to final maturity, at least 18 months to final maturity at point of issuance, a fixed coupon schedule and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion for US Treasuries and $250 million for all other securities. (Index: GVPB. Please visit www.mlindex.ml.com for more information) Execution Time: 7/1/2019 9:22:53 PMChandler Asset Management - CONFIDENTIAL Page 34 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) City of San Jacinto Public Trust Advisors LLC 595 S. San Jacinto Ave.550 South Hope Street San Jacinto, CA 92583 Suite 560 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Monthly Investment Report for Period Ended June 30, 2019 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Investment Management Portfolio Review Page Investment Portfolio Summary Comparison 3 Total Return Performance Summary 4 Investment Portfolio Maturity Distribution 5 Investment Portfolio Maturity Distribution By Security Type 6 Investment Portfolio Rating Distribution 7 Investment Portfolio Security Distribution - Market Value 8 Investment Portfolio Security Distribution - Historical Cost 9 Investment Portfolio Compliance 10 Additional Disclosure 11 Portfolio Holdings Detail 12 City of San Jacinto Summary 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) City of San Jacinto June 1, 2019 Beginning Balance June 30, 2019 Ending Balance Portfolio Characteristic June 1, 2019 Beginning Balance June 30, 2019 Ending Balance Historical Cost 10,534,977.69$ 10,558,619.44$ Book Yield Gross 2.42%2.40% Book Value 10,544,941.18$ 10,569,598.62$ Market Yield Gross 2.07%1.88% Accrued Interest 62,900.86 57,242.02 Weighted Average Coupon 2.28%2.26% Book Value Plus Accrued 10,607,842.04$ 10,626,840.64$ Duration 1.83 Years 1.82 Years Net Unrealized Gain/Loss 88,499.97 118,016.98 Weighted Effective Maturity 1.90 Years 1.87 Years Market Value Plus Accrued(2)10,696,342.01$ 10,744,857.62$ Weighted Final Maturity 1.90 Years 1.88 Years Net Pending Transactions 72.54 4,693.99 Market Value Plus Accrued Net(2)10,696,414.55$ 10,749,551.61$ City of San Jacinto June 2019 Net Income Portfolio Compliance Compliant Interest Income 19,879.62$ Security Distribution YES Net Amortization/Accretion 1,149.15 Maturity Distribution YES Net Realized Gain/Loss(3)2,695.45 Rating Distribution YES Miscellaneous Income - Net Income 23,724.22$ City of San Jacinto Summary Comparison for the period June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 (1) Payables represent amounts due to settle security transactions that have been executed but have not settled as of period end. The funds used to settle these trades may come from a variety of sources including cash within the portfolio, proceeds from future security transactions including maturities and sales, or other sources including money market funds. For reporting purposes, a payable is created for over-period settlements which are reflected in the detailed holdings. (2) Market Value Plus Accrued Net represents the market value of the portfolio net payables and recievables from transactions that settle in the following reporting period. (3) MBS paydowns may result in negative realized losses rather than amortization in as a result of accounting method. Page 3 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Trailing Month Trailing 3 Months Trailing 12 Months Year to Date Total Return Performance Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic City of San Jacinto 0.50%1.42%4.00%2.51% BofA ML 1-3 Year U.S. Treasuries 0.52%1.44%3.96%2.44% Trailing 3 Years Trailing 5 Years Since Inception* Total Return Performance Annualized Annualized Annualized City of San Jacinto 1.40%1.28%1.12% BofA ML 1-3 Year U.S. Treasuries 1.29%1.21%1.04% *Total return since inception date: December 1, 2012 Annualized total return performance presented for investment periods longer than one year. Return information obtained from Bloomberg. City of San Jacinto Total Return June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 0.50% 1.42% 4.00% 2.51% 1.40% 1.12% 0.52% 1.44% 3.96% 2.44% 1.29% 1.04% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% Trailing Month Trailing 3 Months Trailing 12 Months Year to Date Trailing 3 Years Trailing 5 Years Since Inception*YieldTotal Return Performance vs. Benchmark City of San Jacinto BofA ML 1-3 Year U.S. Treasuries Page 4 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Maturity Distribution June 1, 2019 Beginning Balance June 30, 2019 Ending Balance Portfolio Allocation Distribution Change 0-3 Months 115,235.67$ 279,537.38$ 2.60%1.52% 3-6 Months 419,595.82 245,109.12 2.28%-1.64% 6-9 Months 451,294.74 753,744.74 7.01%2.80% 9-12 Months 673,466.19 777,753.99 7.24%0.94% 1-2 Years 3,882,904.18 3,593,128.44 33.44%-2.86% 2-3 Years 4,677,351.43 4,241,482.93 39.47%-4.25% 3-4 Years 476,493.98 854,101.02 7.95%3.49% 4-5 Years - - 0.00%0.00% 5-6 Years - - 0.00%0.00% 6 Years +- - 0.00%0.00% Total Portfolio 10,696,342.01$ 10,744,857.62$ 100.00% City of San Jacinto Maturity Distribution Market Value Basis June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 0-3 M 3-6 M 6-9 M 9-12 M 1-2 Yr 2-3 Yr 3-4 Yr 4-5 Yr 5-6 Yr 6 Yr + Maturity Distribution Comparison June 1, 2019 June 30, 2019 0-3 M 2.60% 3-6 M 2.28% 6-9 M 7.01% 9-12 M 7.24% 1-2 Yr 33.44% 2-3 Yr 39.47% 3-4 Yr 7.95% Maturity Distribution Page 5 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Security Distribution 0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years Total Portfolio Cash -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Money Market Funds 28,747 - - - - - - - 28,747 Certificates of Deposit - - - - - - - - - Commercial Paper - - - - - - - - - U.S. Treasury Notes - - - - 2,608,017 3,927,316 528,691 - 7,064,025 U.S. Agency Notes - - - - - - - - - Federal Inst. (GSE)*- - - - 985,111 134,311 325,410 - 1,444,832 Corporate Notes 250,790 45,103 753,745 777,754 - 179,856 - - 2,007,248 Asset Backed (ABS)- 200,006 - - - - - - 200,006 Municipal Bonds - - - - - - - - - Total 279,537$ 245,109$ 753,745$ 777,754$ 3,593,128$ 4,241,483$ 854,101$ -$ 10,744,858$ *Mortgage backed securities shown to effective maturity. City of San Jacinto Maturity Distribution Market Value Basis as of June 30, 2019 $- $5,000,000 0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years Maturity Distribution By Type Municipal Bonds Asset Backed (ABS) Corporate Notes Federal Inst. (GSE)* U.S. Agency Notes U.S. Treasury Notes Commercial Paper Certificates of Deposit Money Market Funds Cash Page 6 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) S&P Rating Distribution June 30, 2019 Ending Balance Portfolio Allocation Short Term Rating Distribution A-1+-$ 0.00% A-1 - 0.00% A-2 - 0.00% Total Short Term Ratings -$ 0.00% Long Term Rating Distribution AAA Rating 454,788.26$ 4.23% AA Rating 9,126,682.07 84.94% A Rating 1,163,387.29 10.83% Below A - 0.00% Not Rated - 0.00% Total Long Term Rating 10,744,857.62$ 100.00% Total Portfolio 10,744,857.62$ 100.00% Moody's Rating Distribution June 30, 2019 Ending Balance Portfolio Allocation Short Term Rating Distribution P-1 -$ 0.00% P-2 - 0.00% Total Short Term Ratings -$ 0.00% Long Term Rating Distribution Aaa Rating 8,963,644.79$ 83.42% Aa Rating 617,825.54 5.75% A Rating 1,163,387.29 10.83% Below A - 0.00% Not Rated - 0.00% Total Long Term Rating 10,744,857.62$ 100.00% Total Portfolio 10,744,857.62$ 100.00% City of San Jacinto Rating Distribution Market Value Basis as of June 30, 2019 AAA Rating 4.23% AA Rating 84.94% A Rating 10.83% Portfolio Allocation By Standard and Poors' Rating Aaa Rating 83.42% Aa Rating 5.75% A Rating 10.83% Portfolio Allocation By Moody's Rating Page 7 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Security Distribution June 1, 2019 Beginning Balance Portfolio Allocation June 30, 2019 Ending Balance Book Yield Portfolio Allocation Change in Allocation Permitted by Policy*Compliant Cash -$ 0.00%-$ 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES LGIP - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES U.S. Treasury Notes 7,009,158.63 65.53%7,064,024.52 2.44%65.74%0.21%NO U.S. Agency Notes - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES FNMA 133,432.95 1.25%134,311.17 2.65%1.25%0.00%NO FHLMC 1,305,084.78 12.20%1,310,520.85 2.38%12.20%0.00%NO FFCB - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES FHLB - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Fed Instrumentality Subtotal 1,438,517.73$ 13.45%1,444,832.01$ 2.41%13.45%0.00%NO Asset Backed Securities 199,386.75 1.86%200,006.15 2.89%1.86%0.00%NO Commercial Paper - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Corporate Notes 2,009,115.44 18.78%2,007,247.55 2.20%18.68%-0.10%NO Bankers Acceptances - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Money Market Funds 40,163.46 0.38%28,747.39 1.98%0.27%-0.11%YES Municipal Bonds - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Intergovernmental Funds - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Certificates of Deposit - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Total Portfolio Market Value 10,696,342.01$ 100.00%10,744,857.62$ 2.40%100.00% *Permitted allocation based on aggregate assets as defined within the investment policy. City of San Jacinto Market Value Basis Security Distribution June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 $- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 CashLGIPUSTAgencyFNMAFHLMCFFCBFHLBABSCPCorpBAMMFMuniInter GovCDAsset Balance By Security Type (in millions) June 1, 2019 June 30, 2019 UST 65.74% FNMA 1.25% FHLMC 12.20% ABS 1.86% Corp 18.68% MMF 0.27% Ending Portfolio Allocation Page 8 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Security Distribution June 1, 2019 Beginning Balance Portfolio Allocation June 30, 2019 Ending Balance Book Yield Portfolio Allocation Change in Allocation Permitted by Policy*Compliant Cash -$ 0.00%-$ 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES U.S. Treasury Notes 6,884,591.24 65.35%6,919,649.06 2.44%65.54%0.19%NO U.S. Agency Notes - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES FNMA 129,906.40 1.23%129,906.40 2.65%1.23%0.00%NO FHLMC 1,290,028.50 12.25%1,290,028.50 2.38%12.22%-0.03%NO FFCB - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES FHLB - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Fed Instrumentality Subtotal 1,419,934.90$ 13.48%1,419,934.90$ 2.40%13.45%-0.03%NO Asset Backed Securities 197,429.69 1.87%197,429.69 2.89%1.87%0.00%NO Commercial Paper - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Corporate Notes 1,992,858.40 18.92%1,992,858.40 2.20%18.87%-0.04%NO Bankers Acceptances - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Money Market Funds 40,163.46 0.38%28,747.39 1.98%0.27%-0.11%YES Municipal Bonds - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Intergovernmental Funds - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Certificates of Deposit - 0.00%- 0.00%0.00%0.00%YES Total Portfolio Historical Cost 10,534,977.69$ 100.00%10,558,619.44$ 2.40%100.00% *Permitted allocation based on aggregate assets as defined within the investment policy. City of San Jacinto Historical Cost Basis Security Distribution June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 $- $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 CashUSTAgencyFNMAFHLMCFFCBFHLBABSCPCorpBAMMFMuniInter GovCDAsset Balance By Security Type (in millions) June 1, 2019 June 30, 2019 UST 65.54% FNMA 1.23% FHLMC 12.22%ABS 1.87% Corp 18.87% MMF 0.27% Ending Portfolio Allocation Page 9 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Policy Section Description Compliance Requirement Compliant Policy Section Description Compliance Requirement Compliant IX. 1 Municipal Bonds Rated in 4 highest general classifications by nationally recognized rating service; 5% issuer limitation Compliant IX. 14 Pass-Through Securities Issuer debt rated at least A by 2 NRSRO; Must be rated in the AA category by 2 NRSRO's; 20% total portfolio limit, 5-year maturity limit Compliant IX. 2 U.S. Treasury No limitations Compliant IX. 15 Money Market Funds Registerd with SEC under 1940 Act, have highest ranking by 2 NRSRO's; Retained advisor registered (or exempt from registration) with 5-years experience investing in securities authorized by CA 53601 and at least $500 million of assets; 20% total portfolio limit, 10% per fund limit Compliant IX. 3 Federal Agency No limitations Compliant IX. 16 Mutual Funds Authorize by CA Government Code Section 53601 Compliant IX. 4 Bankers Acceptances Rated A1 or better and have long term debt rated A or better by 2 NRSRO's; Maturity ≤ to 180 days, 40% total portfolio limit, 5% issuer limit Compliant X.A.1 Futures and Opions Prohibited Compliant IX. 5 Federally Insured Time Deposits Limited to amounts covered under federal insurance; 5-year maturity limit Compliant X.A.2 Inverse Floaters, Range Notes, and Mortgage Derived IO Strips Prohibited Compliant IX. 6 Time Deposits Fully collateralized per CA law, 20% limit when combined with IX. 5; Issuer must have long-term debt rated A or higher or short-term debt rated A1 or higher by 2 NRSRO's, 5-year maturity limit Compliant X.A.3 Potentail Zero Accrual Securities Prohibited Compliant IX.7 CDARS 30% limit in combination of CD's (including CDARS); 5-year maturity limit Compliant X.A.5 Purchasing Securities on Margin Prohibited Compliant IX. 8 Negotiable CD's Issuer must have long-term debt rated A or higher and/or short- term debt rated A1 or higher by 2 NRSRO's; Maturity ≤ to 5 years, 30% total portfolio limit, 5% issuer limit Compliant X.A.6 Reverse Repos or other leverage Prohibited Compliant IX. 9 Repurchase Agreements Collateralized at 102% in accordance with policy;1-year maturity limit, no % portfolio limit, collateral held by custodian bank;Subject to master repurchase agreement substantially in SIFMA's form Compliant X.A.7 Foreign Currency Securities Prohibited Compliant IX. 10 Commercial Paper Issuer is organized and operating in the U.S. with assets of at least $500 million; Issuer short-term ratings of A1 or higher and long- term ratings of A or higher ny 2 NRSRO; Maturity ≤ 270 days; 25% total portfolio limit; 5% issuer limit Compliant X.B.2 Single Issuer Limitation 5% issuer limitation, except U.S. Government and its agencies & enterprises Compliant IX. 11 Local Agency Investment Fund 70% total portfolio limit, up to the maximum permitted balance Compliant X.C.2 Callable Security Limitation 20% of total portfolio (excluding Make Whole Call securities)Compliant IX. 12 Local Government Investment Pools Riveride County Investment Fund limited to 70% of the portfolio; JPA Pools limited to 50% of the portfolio Compliant X.C.3 Maximum Security Maturity Individual security maturities limited to 5-years or less Compliant IX. 13 Corporate Bonds Corporations organized and operating in the U.S. or depository institutions licensed by the U.S. or any state and operating in the U.S.; Rated in the A category or better by 2 NRSRO's, 5-year maturity limit; 30% total portfolio limit, 5% issuer limit Compliant X.C.4 Portfolio Duration Limitation Average portfolio duration will be managed to be approximatly equal to the Market Benchmark selected by the City (typically +/- 20 of benchmark duration) Compliant City of San Jacinto Portfolio Compliance June 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 Page 10 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Additional Disclosure This statement is for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations. P lease review the contents of this statement carefully. Should you have any questions regarding the information presented, calculation methodology, investment portfolio or security detail, or any other facet of your statement, please feel free to contact us. Public Trust Advisor’s monthly statement is intended to detail our investment advisory activity as well as the activity of an y accounts held by clients in pools that are managed by Public Trust Advisors. The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes and settles all investm ents transactions. The custodian statement is the official record of security and cash holdings transactions. Public Trust Advisors recognizes that clients ma y use these reports to facilitate record keeping; therefore the custodian bank statement and the Public Trust Advisors statement should be reconciled and differences resolved. Many custodians use a settlement date basis which may result in the need to reconcile due to a timing difference. Please contact your relationshi p manager or our toll free number 855- 395-3954 with questions regarding your account. Public Trust Advisors does not have the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian. Our clients retai n responsibility for their internal accounting policies; implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transa ctions. Pricing sources from our reporting platform are provided by Clearwater reporting platform and are established by Clearwater’s internal pricing procedures. Clearwater utilizes a hierarchical pricing model which starts with one of the industry’s pricing sources, S&P Capital IQ. Se curities with short maturities and infrequent secondary market trades are typically priced via mathematical calculations. The Securities in this investment por tfolio, including shares of mutual funds, are not guaranteed or otherwise protected by Public trust Advisors, the FDIC (except for certain non -negotiable certificates of deposit) or any government agency, unless otherwise specifically stated. Investment in fixed income securities involves risks, including the possible lo ss of the amount invested. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Beginning and Ending Balances based on Market Value plus Accrued Interest on a Trade Date basis. Public Trust Advisors is an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is required to mai ntain a written disclosure statement of our background and business experience. If you would like to receive a copy of our current disclosure statement, privacy p olicy, or code of ethics please contact Service Operations at the address below. Public Trust Advisors 717 17th Street, Suite 1850 Denver, CO 80202 Page 11 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Portfolio Holdings Portfolio Income Portfolio Transactions Issuer Concentration Security Concentration Portfolio Activity Summary City of San Jacinto Detail Page 12 3.A.3.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Month End Report Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)Month End (M6 Y2019)06/01/2019 - 06/30/2019Dated: 07/11/2019Locked Down3.A.3.aPacket Pg. 63Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Holdings Report Trade Date (San Jacinto, City of (66779))1Income Detail Report Trade Date (San Jacinto, City of (66779))4Transactions Realized Gain Loss Report (San Jacinto, City of (66779))6Issuer Concentration with Yield GASB 40 Trade Date (San Jacinto, City of(66779))7Security Type GASB 40 Trade Date (San Jacinto, City of (66779))12Portfolio Activity Summary (San Jacinto, City of (66779))16Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/20193.A.3.aPacket Pg. 64Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Description,Identifier,Security Type,CouponEffective Maturity,Final Maturity,Callable,Next Call DateOriginal Cost,Current Units,Market PriceTrade Date,Settle DateMoodysRating,S&P Rating,Fitch RatingBook Value,Book Value + AccruedAccrued Balance,Net Unrealized Gain/LossMarket Value,Market Value + AccruedCCCIT 16A1 A117305EFW0ABS1.75011/19/201911/19/2019Y---197,429.69200,000.0099.798909/20/201809/24/2018AaaAAA---199,138.62199,546.95408.33459.20199,597.82200,006.15FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP3137EAEK1AGCY BOND1.87511/17/202011/17/2020N---448,533.00450,000.0099.968512/06/201712/08/2017AaaAA+---449,303.74450,334.991,031.25554.51449,858.25450,889.50FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP3137EAEL9AGCY BOND2.37502/16/202102/16/2021N---521,808.00525,000.00100.865904/17/201804/19/2018AaaAA+---523,139.21527,814.994,675.786,406.77529,545.97534,221.76FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION3135G0U92AGCY BOND2.62501/11/202201/11/2022N---129,906.40130,000.00102.076701/09/201901/11/2019AaaAA+---129,920.66131,532.121,611.462,779.05132,699.71134,311.17MICROSOFT CORP594918BN3CORP1.10008/08/201908/08/2019N---74,922.7575,000.0099.881008/01/201608/08/2016AaaAAA---74,997.2675,324.97327.71-86.5174,910.7575,238.46INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP459200JN2CORP1.90001/27/202001/27/2020N---299,712.00300,000.0099.799601/24/201701/27/2017A1A---299,943.84302,382.182,438.33-545.04299,398.80301,837.13MICROSOFT CORP594918BV5CORP1.85002/06/202002/06/2020N---149,899.50150,000.0099.785701/30/201702/06/2017AaaAAA---149,979.48151,097.191,117.71-300.93149,678.55150,796.26WALT DISNEY CO25468PDP8CORP1.95003/04/202003/04/2020N---298,956.00300,000.0099.736703/15/201703/20/2017A2A---299,755.77301,657.021,901.25-545.67299,210.10301,111.35APPLE INC037833CS7CORP1.80005/11/202005/11/2020N---124,872.50125,000.0099.756705/04/201705/11/2017Aa1AA+---124,962.69125,275.19312.50-266.82124,695.88125,008.38INTEL CORP458140AZ3CORP1.85005/11/202005/11/2020N---249,905.00250,000.0099.640705/08/201705/11/2017A1A+---249,972.19250,614.55642.36-870.44249,101.75249,744.11APPLE INC037833CZ1CORP1.50009/12/201909/12/2019N---119,896.80120,000.0099.822109/05/201709/12/2017Aa1AA+---119,989.65120,534.65545.00-203.13119,786.52120,331.52GILEAD SCIENCES INC375558BR3CORP1.85009/20/201909/20/2019N---54,980.7555,000.0099.881009/14/201709/21/2017A3A---54,997.8555,283.31285.47-63.3054,934.5555,220.02WAL-MART STORES INC931142DY6CORP1.75010/09/201910/09/2019N---44,999.1045,000.0099.830210/11/201710/20/2017Aa2AA---44,999.8645,179.23179.38-76.2744,923.5945,102.96WALMART INC931142EG4CORP2.85006/23/202006/23/2020N---324,899.25325,000.00100.669806/20/201806/27/2018Aa2AA---324,949.39325,155.23205.832,227.46327,176.85327,382.68AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP02665WCH2CORP3.00006/16/202006/16/2020N---74,898.7575,000.00100.700107/11/201807/16/2018A2A---74,948.0275,041.7793.75577.0675,525.0775,618.82AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP02665WCP4CORP3.37512/10/202112/10/2021N---174,916.00175,000.00102.577910/03/201810/10/2018A2A---174,930.16175,274.69344.534,581.17179,511.33179,855.86Holdings Report Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/201913.A.3.aPacket Pg. 65Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Description,Identifier,Security Type,CouponEffective Maturity,Final Maturity,Callable,Next Call DateOriginal Cost,Current Units,Market PriceTrade Date,Settle DateMoodysRating,S&P Rating,Fitch RatingBook Value,Book Value + AccruedAccrued Balance,Net Unrealized Gain/LossMarket Value,Market Value + AccruedFHMS K024 A23137AXHP1FHLMC CMO2.57308/20/202209/25/2022Y---319,687.50320,000.00101.476105/02/201905/07/2019AaaAA+---319,676.39320,362.53686.135,047.06324,723.46325,409.59FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y31846V203MMFUND2.00006/30/201906/30/2019N---28,747.3928,747.391.0000------AaaAAAm---28,747.3928,747.390.000.0028,747.3928,747.39UNITED STATES TREASURY9128284B3US GOV2.37503/15/202103/15/2021N---339,455.47340,000.00100.964803/26/201803/28/2018AaaAA+---339,682.87342,052.712,369.843,597.45343,280.32345,650.16UNITED STATES TREASURY9128283X6US GOV2.25002/15/202102/15/2021N---325,952.35330,000.00100.679707/26/201807/30/2018AaaAA+---327,385.78330,175.282,789.504,857.23332,243.01335,032.51UNITED STATES TREASURY9128284P2US GOV2.62505/15/202105/15/2021N---328,723.83330,000.00101.543007/26/201807/30/2018AaaAA+---329,139.07330,245.431,106.355,952.83335,091.90336,198.25UNITED STATES TREASURY9128285A4US GOV2.75009/15/202109/15/2021N---298,722.65300,000.00102.218809/24/201809/26/2018AaaAA+---299,042.17301,463.372,421.207,614.23306,656.40309,077.60UNITED STATES TREASURY912828Y20US GOV2.62507/15/202107/15/2021N---436,803.13440,000.00101.730509/24/201809/26/2018AaaAA+---437,655.95442,984.275,328.319,958.25447,614.20452,942.51UNITED STATES TREASURY912828F21US GOV2.12509/30/202109/30/2021N---428,491.99435,000.00100.843812/17/201812/20/2018AaaAA+---429,702.35432,025.922,323.578,968.18438,670.53440,994.10UNITED STATES TREASURY9128285L0US GOV2.87511/15/202111/15/2021N---437,090.04435,000.00102.632812/17/201812/20/2018AaaAA+---436,724.75438,322.021,597.279,727.93446,452.68448,049.95UNITED STATES TREASURY9128285R7US GOV2.62512/15/202112/15/2021N---250,664.06250,000.00102.191401/10/201901/15/2019AaaAA+---250,565.20250,852.09286.894,913.30255,478.50255,765.39UNITED STATES TREASURY9128284T4US GOV2.62506/15/202106/15/2021N---440,928.13440,000.00101.668001/10/201901/15/2019AaaAA+---440,760.29441,265.20504.926,578.91447,339.20447,844.12UNITED STATES TREASURY912828WY2US GOV2.25007/31/202107/31/2021N---436,940.63440,000.00100.992201/10/201901/15/2019AaaAA+---437,482.78441,612.344,129.566,882.90444,365.68448,495.24UNITED STATES TREASURY912828D72US GOV2.00008/31/202108/31/2021N---246,748.05250,000.00100.531202/13/201902/15/2019AaaAA+---247,211.65248,882.851,671.204,116.35251,328.00252,999.20UNITED STATES TREASURY9128283Q1US GOV2.00001/15/202101/15/2021N---183,106.64185,000.00100.250002/13/201902/15/2019AaaAA+---183,472.36185,179.271,706.911,990.14185,462.50187,169.41UNITED STATES TREASURY912828W55US GOV1.87502/28/202202/28/2022N---98,101.56100,000.00100.371102/13/201902/15/2019AaaAA+---98,326.1298,952.82626.702,044.98100,371.10100,997.80UNITED STATES TREASURY912828XG0US GOV2.12506/30/202206/30/2022N---148,089.85150,000.00101.179702/13/201902/15/2019AaaAA+---148,296.38148,305.048.663,473.17151,769.55151,778.21Holdings Report Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/201923.A.3.aPacket Pg. 66Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) * Filtered By: Description ¹ "Payable" and Description ¹ "Receivable". * Weighted by: Market Value + Accrued.Description,Identifier,Security Type,CouponEffective Maturity,Final Maturity,Callable,Next Call DateOriginal Cost,Current Units,Market PriceTrade Date,Settle DateMoodysRating,S&P Rating,Fitch RatingBook Value,Book Value + AccruedAccrued Balance,Net Unrealized Gain/LossMarket Value,Market Value + AccruedUNITED STATES TREASURY912828G87US GOV2.12512/31/202112/31/2021N---284,242.97285,000.00100.964803/26/201903/28/2019AaaAA+---284,316.77284,333.2316.463,432.91287,749.68287,766.14UNITED STATES TREASURY9128286H8US GOV2.37503/15/202203/15/2022N---286,425.00285,000.00101.781203/26/201903/28/2019AaaAA+---286,304.86288,291.341,986.483,771.56290,076.42292,062.90UNITED STATES TREASURY912828SF8US GOV2.00002/15/202202/15/2022N---314,778.52315,000.00100.707005/29/201905/31/2019AaaAA+---314,786.80317,153.652,366.852,440.25317,227.05319,593.90UNITED STATES TREASURY912828V72US GOV1.87501/31/202201/31/2022N---313,621.88315,000.00100.351605/29/201905/31/2019AaaAA+---313,666.59316,130.252,463.662,440.95316,107.54318,571.20UNITED STATES TREASURY912828B90US GOV2.00002/28/202102/28/2021N---314,310.94315,000.00100.300805/29/201905/31/2019AaaAA+---314,344.79316,450.502,105.711,602.73315,947.52318,053.23UNITED STATES TREASURY912828WG1US GOV2.25004/30/202104/30/2021N---315,922.85315,000.00100.839805/29/201905/31/2019AaaAA+---315,883.31317,077.401,194.091,762.06317,645.37318,839.46UNITED STATES TREASURY912828C57US GOV2.25003/31/202103/31/2021N---315,762.89315,000.00100.777305/29/201905/31/2019AaaAA+---315,729.06317,510.621,781.561,719.43317,448.49319,230.05UNITED STATES TREASURY912828L57US GOV1.75009/30/202209/30/2022N---374,765.63375,000.00100.070306/26/201906/27/2019AaaAA+---374,766.54376,416.131,649.59497.09375,263.63376,913.22------------05/15/202105/16/2021------10,558,619.4410,593,747.39---------Aa1AA---10,569,598.6210,626,840.6457,242.02118,016.9810,687,615.6110,744,857.62Holdings Report Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/201933.A.3.aPacket Pg. 67Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Identifier,DescriptionFinal MaturityEnding Current UnitsEarned InterestIncomeRealized Gain,Realized LossAccretion IncomeAmortization ExpenseMisc IncomeNet Earned IncomeInterest PaymentReceived,Ending Interest Due912828L57UNITED STATES TREASURY09/30/2022375,000.0071.720.000.000.910.000.0072.630.000.003137AXHP1FHMS K024 A209/25/2022320,000.00686.130.000.00-6.860.000.00679.27686.130.00912828XG0UNITED STATES TREASURY06/30/2022150,000.00264.010.000.0045.540.000.00309.560.001,593.759128286H8UNITED STATES TREASURY03/15/2022285,000.00551.800.000.000.00-37.940.00513.860.000.00912828W55UNITED STATES TREASURY02/28/2022100,000.00152.850.000.0049.400.000.00202.260.000.00912828SF8UNITED STATES TREASURY02/15/2022315,000.00522.100.000.008.020.000.00530.110.000.00912828V72UNITED STATES TREASURY01/31/2022315,000.00489.470.000.0043.270.000.00532.740.000.003135G0U92FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION01/11/2022130,000.00284.380.000.002.500.000.00286.880.000.00912828G87UNITED STATES TREASURY12/31/2021285,000.00501.630.000.0023.270.000.00524.900.003,028.139128285R7UNITED STATES TREASURY12/15/2021250,000.00539.290.000.000.00-18.060.00521.233,281.250.0002665WCP4AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP12/10/2021175,000.00492.190.000.002.260.000.00494.452,953.130.009128285L0UNITED STATES TREASURY11/15/2021435,000.001,019.530.000.000.00-57.610.00961.920.000.00912828F21UNITED STATES TREASURY09/30/2021435,000.00757.680.000.00187.440.000.00945.120.000.009128285A4UNITED STATES TREASURY09/15/2021300,000.00672.550.000.0034.250.000.00706.800.000.00912828D72UNITED STATES TREASURY08/31/2021250,000.00407.610.000.00101.940.000.00509.550.000.00912828WY2UNITED STATES TREASURY07/31/2021440,000.00820.440.000.0097.160.000.00917.600.000.00912828Y20UNITED STATES TREASURY07/15/2021440,000.00957.180.000.0091.970.000.001,049.150.000.009128284T4UNITED STATES TREASURY06/15/2021440,000.00949.150.000.000.00-30.680.00918.475,775.000.009128284P2UNITED STATES TREASURY05/15/2021330,000.00706.180.000.0036.660.000.00742.850.000.00912828WG1UNITED STATES TREASURY04/30/2021315,000.00577.790.000.000.00-38.260.00539.520.000.00912828C57UNITED STATES TREASURY03/31/2021315,000.00580.940.000.000.00-32.740.00548.210.000.009128284B3UNITED STATES TREASURY03/15/2021340,000.00658.290.000.0014.830.000.00673.120.000.00912828B90UNITED STATES TREASURY02/28/2021315,000.00513.590.000.0032.760.000.00546.350.000.003137EAEL9FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP02/16/2021525,000.001,039.060.000.0092.540.000.001,131.600.000.009128283X6UNITED STATES TREASURY02/15/2021330,000.00615.330.000.00130.040.000.00745.370.000.009128283Q1UNITED STATES TREASURY01/15/2021185,000.00306.630.000.0080.670.000.00387.300.000.00912828A83UNITED STATES TREASURY12/31/20200.00579.972,695.450.007.380.000.003,282.810.000.003137EAEK1FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP11/17/2020450,000.00703.130.000.0040.760.000.00743.880.000.00931142EG4WALMART INC06/23/2020325,000.00771.880.000.004.180.000.00776.064,631.250.0002665WCH2AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP06/16/202075,000.00187.500.000.004.390.000.00191.891,125.000.00Income Detail Report Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)06/01/2019 - 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/201943.A.3.aPacket Pg. 68Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) * Filtered By: Description ¹ "Payable" and Description ¹ "Receivable". * Weighted by: Ending Market Value + Accrued.Identifier,DescriptionFinal MaturityEnding Current UnitsEarned InterestIncomeRealized Gain,Realized LossAccretion IncomeAmortization ExpenseMisc IncomeNet Earned IncomeInterest PaymentReceived,Ending Interest Due037833CS7APPLE INC05/11/2020125,000.00187.500.000.003.510.000.00191.010.000.00458140AZ3INTEL CORP05/11/2020250,000.00385.420.000.002.620.000.00388.030.000.0025468PDP8WALT DISNEY CO03/04/2020300,000.00487.500.000.0029.200.000.00516.700.000.00594918BV5MICROSOFT CORP02/06/2020150,000.00231.250.000.002.810.000.00234.060.000.00459200JN2INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP01/27/2020300,000.00475.000.000.008.070.000.00483.070.000.0017305EFW0CCCIT 16A1 A111/19/2019200,000.00291.670.000.00185.690.000.00477.360.000.00931142DY6WAL-MART STORES INC10/09/201945,000.0065.630.000.000.040.000.0065.670.000.00375558BR3GILEAD SCIENCES INC09/20/201955,000.0084.790.000.000.800.000.0085.590.000.00037833CZ1APPLE INC09/12/2019120,000.00150.000.000.004.260.000.00154.260.000.00594918BN3MICROSOFT CORP08/08/201975,000.0068.750.000.002.160.000.0070.910.000.0031846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y06/30/201928,747.3972.110.000.000.000.000.0072.1172.5472.11------05/16/202110,593,747.3919,879.622,695.450.001,364.44-215.290.0023,724.2218,524.304,693.99Income Detail Report Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)06/01/2019 - 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/201953.A.3.aPacket Pg. 69Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) * Does not Lock Down. * Filtered By: Type = Buy or Type = Sell or Type = Call Redemption or Type = Put Redemption or Type = Corporate Action Sell or Type = Cash Transfer or Type = Maturity or Type = Coupon or Type = Principal Paydown or Type = Money Market Funds. * Weighted by: AbsoluteValue of Principal. * MMF transactions are expanded. * The Transaction Detail/Trading Activity reports provide our most up-to-date transactional details. As such, these reports are subject to change even after the other reports on the website have been locked down. While these reports can be useful tools in understanding recent activity,due to their dynamic nature we do not recommend using them for booking journal entries or reconciliation.IdentifierDescriptionCurrent UnitsTypeSettle DatePricePrincipalRealized Gain/LossAmount31846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y0.00Money Market Funds05/31/2019---0.000.0072.543137AXHP1FHMS K024 A20.00Coupon06/01/2019---0.000.00686.1331846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y72.54Buy06/04/20191.00072.540.00-72.5431846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y2,953.13Buy06/10/20191.0002,953.130.00-2,953.1302665WCP4AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP0.00Coupon06/10/2019---0.000.002,953.139128284T4UNITED STATES TREASURY0.00Coupon06/15/2019---0.000.005,775.009128285R7UNITED STATES TREASURY0.00Coupon06/15/2019---0.000.003,281.2502665WCH2AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP0.00Coupon06/16/2019---0.000.001,125.0031846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y10,181.25Buy06/17/20191.00010,181.250.00-10,181.25931142EG4WALMART INC0.00Coupon06/23/2019---0.000.004,631.2531846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y4,631.25Buy06/24/20191.0004,631.250.00-4,631.25CCYUSDUS DOLLAR0.00Cash Transfer06/25/2019---0.000.00-104.1731846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y581.96Buy06/25/20191.000581.960.00-581.9631846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y-29,836.20Sell06/27/20191.000-29,836.200.0029,836.20912828A83UNITED STATES TREASURY-340,000.00Sell06/27/2019100.746-342,536.722,695.45346,507.30912828L57UNITED STATES TREASURY375,000.00Buy06/27/201999.938374,765.630.00-376,343.5031846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG Y0.00Money Market Funds06/30/2019---0.000.0072.11912828G87UNITED STATES TREASURY0.00Coupon06/30/2019---0.000.003,028.13912828XG0UNITED STATES TREASURY0.00Coupon06/30/2019---0.000.001,593.75------23,583.93---------20,812.842,695.454,693.99Transactions Realized Gain Loss ReportSan Jacinto, City of (66779)06/01/2019 - 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/201963.A.3.aPacket Pg. 70Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Apple Inc.Citibank Credit Card Issuance TrustFederal Home Loan Mortgage CorporationIdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue037833CS7CORPAPPLE INCApple Inc.125,000.00FixedN0.8561.8352.08305/11/202005/11/2020312.50124,962.69125,275.19124,695.88125,008.381.167%037833CZ1CORPAPPLE INCApple Inc.120,000.00FixedN0.2051.5442.35909/12/201909/12/2019545.00119,989.65120,534.65119,786.52120,331.521.121%---CORPAPPLE INCApple Inc.245,000.00FixedN0.5371.6922.21801/13/202001/13/2020857.50244,952.34245,809.84244,482.39245,339.892.288%IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue17305EFW0ABSCCCIT 16A1 A1Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust200,000.00FixedY0.3872.8852.26611/19/201911/19/2019408.33199,138.62199,546.95199,597.82200,006.151.868%17305EFW0ABSCCCIT 16A1 A1Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust200,000.00FixedY0.3872.8852.26611/19/201911/19/2019408.33199,138.62199,546.95199,597.82200,006.151.868%Issuer Concentration with Yield GASB 40 Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/201973.A.3.aPacket Pg. 71Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Federal National Mortgage Association, Inc.Gilead Sciences, Inc.Government of the United StatesIdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue3137AXHP1FHLMC CMOFHMS K024 A2Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation320,000.00FixedY2.9912.5632.04008/20/202209/25/2022686.13319,676.39320,362.53324,723.46325,409.593.038%3137EAEK1AGCY BONDFEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGECORPFederal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation450,000.00FixedN1.3591.9891.89811/17/202011/17/20201,031.25449,303.74450,334.99449,858.25450,889.504.209%3137EAEL9AGCY BONDFEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGECORPFederal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation525,000.00FixedN1.5842.5991.83402/16/202102/16/20214,675.78523,139.21527,814.99529,545.97534,221.764.955%---------Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation1,295,000.00Fixed---1.8562.3791.90706/01/202106/10/20216,393.161,292,119.341,298,512.511,304,127.681,310,520.8512.202%IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue3135G0U92AGCY BONDFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGEASSOCIATIONFederal National Mortgage Association, Inc.130,000.00FixedN2.4202.6501.78401/11/202201/11/20221,611.46129,920.66131,532.12132,699.71134,311.171.242%3135G0U92AGCY BONDFEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGEASSOCIATIONFederal National Mortgage Association,Inc.130,000.00FixedN2.4202.6501.78401/11/202201/11/20221,611.46129,920.66131,532.12132,699.71134,311.171.242%IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue375558BR3CORPGILEAD SCIENCES INCGilead Sciences, Inc.55,000.00FixedN0.2271.8682.36309/20/201909/20/2019285.4754,997.8555,283.3154,934.5555,220.020.514%375558BR3CORPGILEAD SCIENCES INCGilead Sciences, Inc.55,000.00FixedN0.2271.8682.36309/20/201909/20/2019285.4754,997.8555,283.3154,934.5555,220.020.514%IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue9128284B3US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States340,000.00FixedN1.6652.4311.80003/15/202103/15/20212,369.84339,682.87342,052.71343,280.32345,650.163.212%9128283X6US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States330,000.00FixedN1.5852.7521.82502/15/202102/15/20212,789.50327,385.78330,175.28332,243.01335,032.513.109%9128284P2US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States330,000.00FixedN1.8262.7691.78605/15/202105/15/20211,106.35329,139.07330,245.43335,091.90336,198.253.135%9128285A4US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States300,000.00FixedN2.1302.9001.72409/15/202109/15/20212,421.20299,042.17301,463.37306,656.40309,077.602.869%912828Y20US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States440,000.00FixedN1.9662.8961.76007/15/202107/15/20215,328.31437,655.95442,984.27447,614.20452,942.514.188%912828F21US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States435,000.00FixedN2.1862.6871.74209/30/202109/30/20212,323.57429,702.35432,025.92438,670.53440,994.104.104%9128285L0US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States435,000.00FixedN2.2922.7011.74111/15/202111/15/20211,597.27436,724.75438,322.02446,452.68448,049.954.177%9128285R7US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States250,000.00FixedN2.3812.5291.71312/15/202112/15/2021286.89250,565.20250,852.09255,478.50255,765.392.390%9128284T4US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States440,000.00FixedN1.9102.5341.75706/15/202106/15/2021504.92440,760.29441,265.20447,339.20447,844.124.186%Issuer Concentration with Yield GASB 40 Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/201983.A.3.aPacket Pg. 72Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Honda Motor Co., Ltd.Intel CorporationInternational Business Machines CorporationIdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue912828WY2US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States440,000.00FixedN2.0192.5341.76407/31/202107/31/20214,129.56437,482.78441,612.34444,365.68448,495.244.158%912828D72US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States250,000.00FixedN2.1072.5331.74908/31/202108/31/20211,671.20247,211.65248,882.85251,328.00252,999.202.352%9128283Q1US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States185,000.00FixedN1.5042.5511.83501/15/202101/15/20211,706.91183,472.36185,179.27185,462.50187,169.411.735%912828W55US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States100,000.00FixedN2.5832.5281.73202/28/202202/28/2022626.7098,326.1298,952.82100,371.10100,997.800.939%912828XG0US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States150,000.00FixedN2.8732.5211.72106/30/202206/30/20228.66148,296.38148,305.04151,769.55151,778.211.420%912828G87US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States285,000.00FixedN2.4072.2241.73012/31/202112/31/202116.46284,316.77284,333.23287,749.68287,766.142.692%9128286H8US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States285,000.00FixedN2.6072.2001.70003/15/202203/15/20221,986.48286,304.86288,291.34290,076.42292,062.902.714%912828SF8US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States315,000.00FixedN2.5382.0261.72402/15/202202/15/20222,366.85314,786.80317,153.65317,227.05319,593.902.968%912828V72US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States315,000.00FixedN2.5012.0441.73501/31/202201/31/20222,463.66313,666.59316,130.25316,107.54318,571.202.958%912828B90US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States315,000.00FixedN1.6302.1271.81602/28/202102/28/20212,105.71314,344.79316,450.50315,947.52318,053.232.956%912828WG1US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States315,000.00FixedN1.7912.0931.78304/30/202104/30/20211,194.09315,883.31317,077.40317,645.37318,839.462.972%912828C57US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States315,000.00FixedN1.7092.1141.79803/31/202103/31/20211,781.56315,729.06317,510.62317,448.49319,230.052.970%912828L57US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States375,000.00FixedN3.1401.7701.72709/30/202209/30/20221,649.59374,766.54376,416.13375,263.63376,913.223.511%---US GOVUNITED STATES TREASURYGovernment of the United States6,945,000.00FixedN2.1262.4381.75809/10/202109/10/202140,435.256,925,246.466,965,681.707,023,589.277,064,024.5265.717%IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue02665WCH2CORPAMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPHonda Motor Co., Ltd.75,000.00FixedN0.9493.0742.26306/16/202006/16/202093.7574,948.0275,041.7775,525.0775,618.820.707%02665WCP4CORPAMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPHonda Motor Co., Ltd.175,000.00FixedN2.3433.3922.28712/10/202112/10/2021344.53174,930.16175,274.69179,511.33179,855.861.680%---CORPAMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPHonda Motor Co., Ltd.250,000.00FixedN1.9303.2972.28007/03/202107/03/2021438.28249,878.17250,316.45255,036.40255,474.682.386%IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue458140AZ3CORPINTEL CORPIntel Corporation250,000.00FixedN0.8551.8632.26905/11/202005/11/2020642.36249,972.19250,614.55249,101.75249,744.112.331%458140AZ3CORPINTEL CORPIntel Corporation250,000.00FixedN0.8551.8632.26905/11/202005/11/2020642.36249,972.19250,614.55249,101.75249,744.112.331%Issuer Concentration with Yield GASB 40 Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/201993.A.3.aPacket Pg. 73Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Microsoft CorporationThe Walt Disney CompanyU.S. BancorpWalmart Inc.IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue459200JN2CORPINTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINESCORPInternational Business Machines Corporation300,000.00FixedN0.5691.9332.24801/27/202001/27/20202,438.33299,943.84302,382.18299,398.80301,837.132.801%459200JN2CORPINTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINESCORPInternational Business MachinesCorporation300,000.00FixedN0.5691.9332.24801/27/202001/27/20202,438.33299,943.84302,382.18299,398.80301,837.132.801%IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue594918BN3CORPMICROSOFT CORPMicrosoft Corporation75,000.00FixedN0.1111.1352.16408/08/201908/08/2019327.7174,997.2675,324.9774,910.7575,238.460.701%594918BV5CORPMICROSOFT CORPMicrosoft Corporation150,000.00FixedN0.5941.8732.20702/06/202002/06/20201,117.71149,979.48151,097.19149,678.55150,796.261.400%---CORPMICROSOFT CORPMicrosoft Corporation225,000.00FixedN0.4331.6282.19312/07/201912/07/20191,445.42224,976.74226,422.15224,589.30226,034.722.101%IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue25468PDP8CORPWALT DISNEY COThe Walt Disney Company300,000.00FixedN0.6712.0722.33903/04/202003/04/20201,901.25299,755.77301,657.02299,210.10301,111.352.800%25468PDP8CORPWALT DISNEY COThe Walt Disney Company300,000.00FixedN0.6712.0722.33903/04/202003/04/20201,901.25299,755.77301,657.02299,210.10301,111.352.800%IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue31846V203MMFUNDFIRST AMER:GVT OBLG YU.S. Bancorp28,747.39FixedN0.0001.9801.98006/30/201906/30/20190.0028,747.3928,747.3928,747.3928,747.390.269%31846V203MMFUNDFIRST AMER:GVT OBLG YU.S. Bancorp28,747.39FixedN0.0001.9801.98006/30/201906/30/20190.0028,747.3928,747.3928,747.3928,747.390.269%IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue931142DY6CORPWAL-MART STORES INCWalmart Inc.45,000.00FixedN0.2791.7512.35010/09/201910/09/2019179.3844,999.8645,179.2344,923.5945,102.960.420%931142EG4CORPWALMART INCWalmart Inc.325,000.00FixedN0.9692.8662.16006/23/202006/23/2020205.83324,949.39325,155.23327,176.85327,382.683.061%---CORP---Walmart Inc.370,000.00FixedN0.8852.7302.18305/23/202005/23/2020385.21369,949.25370,334.46372,100.44372,485.653.482%Issuer Concentration with Yield GASB 40 Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/2019103.A.3.aPacket Pg. 74Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Summary * Grouped by: Issuer Concentration. * Groups Sorted by: Issuer Concentration. * Filtered By: Description ¹ "Payable" and Description ¹ "Receivable". * Weighted by: Ending Market Value + Accrued, except Book Yield by Base Book Value + Accrued.IdentifierSecurity TypeDescription,Issuer ConcentrationEnding Current UnitsCoupon TypeCallableDurationBookYieldYieldEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityEnding AccruedBalanceEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued% of MarketValue------------10,593,747.39Fixed---1.8162.3951.87805/15/202105/16/202157,242.0210,569,598.6210,626,840.6410,687,615.6110,744,857.62100.000%Issuer Concentration with Yield GASB 40 Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/2019113.A.3.aPacket Pg. 75Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) ABSAGCY BONDIdentifier,Description,Security Type% of MarketValue +AccruedCoupon TypeCallableDurationS&PRating,Moody'sRatingEnding Current UnitsEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityBookYield,YieldEnding AccruedBalanceOriginal CostEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued17305EFW0CCCIT 16A1 A1ABS1.861%FixedY0.387AAAAaa200,000.0011/19/201911/19/20192.8852.266408.33197,429.69199,138.62199,546.95199,597.82200,006.1517305EFW0CCCIT 16A1 A1ABS1.861%FixedY0.387AAAAaa200,000.0011/19/201911/19/20192.8852.266408.33197,429.69199,138.62199,546.95199,597.82200,006.15Identifier,Description,Security Type% of MarketValue +AccruedCoupon TypeCallableDurationS&PRating,Moody'sRatingEnding Current UnitsEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityBookYield,YieldEnding AccruedBalanceOriginal CostEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued3137EAEK1FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPAGCY BOND4.196%FixedN1.359AA+Aaa450,000.0011/17/202011/17/20201.9891.8981,031.25448,533.00449,303.74450,334.99449,858.25450,889.503137EAEL9FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPAGCY BOND4.972%FixedN1.584AA+Aaa525,000.0002/16/202102/16/20212.5991.8344,675.78521,808.00523,139.21527,814.99529,545.97534,221.763135G0U92FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGEASSOCIATIONAGCY BOND1.250%FixedN2.420AA+Aaa130,000.0001/11/202201/11/20222.6501.7841,611.46129,906.40129,920.66131,532.12132,699.71134,311.17------AGCY BOND10.418%FixedN1.594AA+Aaa1,105,000.0002/19/202102/19/20212.3581.8537,318.491,100,247.401,102,363.611,109,682.101,112,103.941,119,422.42Security Type GASB 40 Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/2019123.A.3.aPacket Pg. 76Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) CORPFHLMC CMOMMFUNDIdentifier,Description,Security Type% of MarketValue +AccruedCoupon TypeCallableDurationS&PRating,Moody'sRatingEnding Current UnitsEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityBookYield,YieldEnding AccruedBalanceOriginal CostEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued594918BN3MICROSOFT CORPCORP0.700%FixedN0.111AAAAaa75,000.0008/08/201908/08/20191.1352.164327.7174,922.7574,997.2675,324.9774,910.7575,238.46037833CZ1APPLE INCCORP1.120%FixedN0.205AA+Aa1120,000.0009/12/201909/12/20191.5442.359545.00119,896.80119,989.65120,534.65119,786.52120,331.52375558BR3GILEAD SCIENCES INCCORP0.514%FixedN0.227AA355,000.0009/20/201909/20/20191.8682.363285.4754,980.7554,997.8555,283.3154,934.5555,220.02931142DY6WAL-MART STORES INCCORP0.420%FixedN0.279AAAa245,000.0010/09/201910/09/20191.7512.350179.3844,999.1044,999.8645,179.2344,923.5945,102.96459200JN2INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINESCORPCORP2.809%FixedN0.569AA1300,000.0001/27/202001/27/20201.9332.2482,438.33299,712.00299,943.84302,382.18299,398.80301,837.13594918BV5MICROSOFT CORPCORP1.403%FixedN0.594AAAAaa150,000.0002/06/202002/06/20201.8732.2071,117.71149,899.50149,979.48151,097.19149,678.55150,796.2625468PDP8WALT DISNEY COCORP2.802%FixedN0.671AA2300,000.0003/04/202003/04/20202.0722.3391,901.25298,956.00299,755.77301,657.02299,210.10301,111.35037833CS7APPLE INCCORP1.163%FixedN0.856AA+Aa1125,000.0005/11/202005/11/20201.8352.083312.50124,872.50124,962.69125,275.19124,695.88125,008.38458140AZ3INTEL CORPCORP2.324%FixedN0.855A+A1250,000.0005/11/202005/11/20201.8632.269642.36249,905.00249,972.19250,614.55249,101.75249,744.1102665WCH2AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPCORP0.704%FixedN0.949AA275,000.0006/16/202006/16/20203.0742.26393.7574,898.7574,948.0275,041.7775,525.0775,618.82931142EG4WALMART INCCORP3.047%FixedN0.969AAAa2325,000.0006/23/202006/23/20202.8662.160205.83324,899.25324,949.39325,155.23327,176.85327,382.6802665WCP4AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPCORP1.674%FixedN2.343AA2175,000.0012/10/202112/10/20213.3922.287344.53174,916.00174,930.16175,274.69179,511.33179,855.86------CORP18.681%FixedN0.823A+A11,995,000.0005/02/202005/02/20202.1972.2498,393.821,992,858.401,994,426.162,002,819.971,998,853.742,007,247.55Identifier,Description,Security Type% of MarketValue +AccruedCoupon TypeCallableDurationS&PRating,Moody'sRatingEnding Current UnitsEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityBookYield,YieldEnding AccruedBalanceOriginal CostEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued3137AXHP1FHMS K024 A2FHLMC CMO3.029%FixedY2.991AA+Aaa320,000.0008/20/202209/25/20222.5632.040686.13319,687.50319,676.39320,362.53324,723.46325,409.593137AXHP1FHMS K024 A2FHLMC CMO3.029%FixedY2.991AA+Aaa320,000.0008/20/202209/25/20222.5632.040686.13319,687.50319,676.39320,362.53324,723.46325,409.59Security Type GASB 40 Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/2019133.A.3.aPacket Pg. 77Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) US GOVIdentifier,Description,Security Type% of MarketValue +AccruedCoupon TypeCallableDurationS&PRating,Moody'sRatingEnding Current UnitsEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityBookYield,YieldEnding AccruedBalanceOriginal CostEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued31846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG YMMFUND0.268%FixedN0.000AAAmAaa28,747.3906/30/201906/30/20191.9801.9800.0028,747.3928,747.3928,747.3928,747.3928,747.3931846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG YMMFUND0.268%FixedN0.000AAAmAaa28,747.3906/30/201906/30/20191.9801.9800.0028,747.3928,747.3928,747.3928,747.3928,747.39Identifier,Description,Security Type% of MarketValue +AccruedCoupon TypeCallableDurationS&PRating,Moody'sRatingEnding Current UnitsEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityBookYield,YieldEnding AccruedBalanceOriginal CostEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued9128283Q1UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV1.742%FixedN1.504AA+Aaa185,000.0001/15/202101/15/20212.5511.8351,706.91183,106.64183,472.36185,179.27185,462.50187,169.419128283X6UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV3.118%FixedN1.585AA+Aaa330,000.0002/15/202102/15/20212.7521.8252,789.50325,952.35327,385.78330,175.28332,243.01335,032.51912828B90UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV2.960%FixedN1.630AA+Aaa315,000.0002/28/202102/28/20212.1271.8162,105.71314,310.94314,344.79316,450.50315,947.52318,053.239128284B3UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV3.217%FixedN1.665AA+Aaa340,000.0003/15/202103/15/20212.4311.8002,369.84339,455.47339,682.87342,052.71343,280.32345,650.16912828C57UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV2.971%FixedN1.709AA+Aaa315,000.0003/31/202103/31/20212.1141.7981,781.56315,762.89315,729.06317,510.62317,448.49319,230.05912828WG1UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV2.967%FixedN1.791AA+Aaa315,000.0004/30/202104/30/20212.0931.7831,194.09315,922.85315,883.31317,077.40317,645.37318,839.469128284P2UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV3.129%FixedN1.826AA+Aaa330,000.0005/15/202105/15/20212.7691.7861,106.35328,723.83329,139.07330,245.43335,091.90336,198.259128284T4UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV4.168%FixedN1.910AA+Aaa440,000.0006/15/202106/15/20212.5341.757504.92440,928.13440,760.29441,265.20447,339.20447,844.12912828Y20UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV4.215%FixedN1.966AA+Aaa440,000.0007/15/202107/15/20212.8961.7605,328.31436,803.13437,655.95442,984.27447,614.20452,942.51912828WY2UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV4.174%FixedN2.019AA+Aaa440,000.0007/31/202107/31/20212.5341.7644,129.56436,940.63437,482.78441,612.34444,365.68448,495.24912828D72UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV2.355%FixedN2.107AA+Aaa250,000.0008/31/202108/31/20212.5331.7491,671.20246,748.05247,211.65248,882.85251,328.00252,999.209128285A4UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV2.877%FixedN2.130AA+Aaa300,000.0009/15/202109/15/20212.9001.7242,421.20298,722.65299,042.17301,463.37306,656.40309,077.60912828F21UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV4.104%FixedN2.186AA+Aaa435,000.0009/30/202109/30/20212.6871.7422,323.57428,491.99429,702.35432,025.92438,670.53440,994.109128285L0UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV4.170%FixedN2.292AA+Aaa435,000.0011/15/202111/15/20212.7011.7411,597.27437,090.04436,724.75438,322.02446,452.68448,049.959128285R7UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV2.380%FixedN2.381AA+Aaa250,000.0012/15/202112/15/20212.5291.713286.89250,664.06250,565.20250,852.09255,478.50255,765.39912828G87UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV2.678%FixedN2.407AA+Aaa285,000.0012/31/202112/31/20212.2241.73016.46284,242.97284,316.77284,333.23287,749.68287,766.14Security Type GASB 40 Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/2019143.A.3.aPacket Pg. 78Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Summary * Grouped by: Security Type. * Groups Sorted by: Security Type. * Filtered By: Description ¹ "Payable" and Description ¹ "Receivable". * Weighted by: Ending Market Value + Accrued, except Book Yield by Base Book Value + Accrued.Identifier,Description,Security Type% of MarketValue +AccruedCoupon TypeCallableDurationS&PRating,Moody'sRatingEnding Current UnitsEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityBookYield,YieldEnding AccruedBalanceOriginal CostEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued912828V72UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV2.965%FixedN2.501AA+Aaa315,000.0001/31/202201/31/20222.0441.7352,463.66313,621.88313,666.59316,130.25316,107.54318,571.20912828SF8UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV2.974%FixedN2.538AA+Aaa315,000.0002/15/202202/15/20222.0261.7242,366.85314,778.52314,786.80317,153.65317,227.05319,593.90912828W55UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.940%FixedN2.583AA+Aaa100,000.0002/28/202202/28/20222.5281.732626.7098,101.5698,326.1298,952.82100,371.10100,997.809128286H8UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV2.718%FixedN2.607AA+Aaa285,000.0003/15/202203/15/20222.2001.7001,986.48286,425.00286,304.86288,291.34290,076.42292,062.90912828XG0UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV1.413%FixedN2.873AA+Aaa150,000.0006/30/202206/30/20222.5211.7218.66148,089.85148,296.38148,305.04151,769.55151,778.21912828L57UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV3.508%FixedN3.140AA+Aaa375,000.0009/30/202209/30/20221.7701.7271,649.59374,765.63374,766.54376,416.13375,263.63376,913.22---UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV65.743%FixedN2.126AA+Aaa6,945,000.0009/10/202109/10/20212.4381.75840,435.256,919,649.066,925,246.466,965,681.707,023,589.277,064,024.52Identifier,Description,Security Type% of MarketValue +AccruedCoupon TypeCallableDurationS&PRating,Moody'sRatingEnding Current UnitsEndingEffectiveMaturity,Final MaturityBookYield,YieldEnding AccruedBalanceOriginal CostEnding Book Value,Book Value + AccruedMarket Value,Ending Market Value +Accrued---------100.000%Fixed---1.816AAAa110,593,747.3905/15/202105/16/20212.3951.87857,242.0210,558,619.4410,569,598.6210,626,840.6410,687,615.6110,744,857.62Security Type GASB 40 Trade DateSan Jacinto, City of (66779)As of 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/2019153.A.3.aPacket Pg. 79Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Identifier,Description,Security TypeInterest/DividendReceivedTransfers In/OutPurchasesPurchasedAccruedIncomeSalesDisposed AccruedMaturities andRedemptionsPaydownsNet RealizedGain/LossBeginning OriginalCost,Ending Original CostBeginning MarketValue,Ending Market Value31846V203FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG YMMFUND72.540.0018,420.130.00-29,836.200.000.000.000.0040,163.4628,747.3940,163.4628,747.39CCYUSDCashCASH0.00-104.170.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00CCYUSDReceivableCASH0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0072.544,693.9972.544,693.99594918BN3MICROSOFT CORPCORP0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0074,922.7574,922.7574,813.2574,910.75459200JN2INTERNATIONAL BUSINESSMACHINES CORPCORP0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00299,712.00299,712.00298,951.50299,398.80594918BV5MICROSOFT CORPCORP0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00149,899.50149,899.50149,493.45149,678.5525468PDP8WALT DISNEY COCORP0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00298,956.00298,956.00298,857.00299,210.10037833CS7APPLE INCCORP0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00124,872.50124,872.50124,276.25124,695.88458140AZ3INTEL CORPCORP0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00249,905.00249,905.00248,537.25249,101.75037833CZ1APPLE INCCORP0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00119,896.80119,896.80119,706.48119,786.52375558BR3GILEAD SCIENCES INCCORP0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0054,980.7554,980.7554,913.0454,934.55931142DY6WAL-MART STORES INCCORP0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0044,999.1044,999.1044,880.1244,923.593137EAEK1FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGECORPAGCY BOND0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00448,533.00448,533.00448,933.05449,858.259128284B3UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00339,455.47339,455.47342,284.46343,280.32912828A83UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.00-342,536.72-3,970.580.000.002,695.45339,707.810.00341,739.780.003137EAEL9FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGECORPAGCY BOND0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00521,808.00521,808.00528,015.60529,545.97931142EG4WALMART INCCORP4,631.250.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00324,899.25324,899.25326,563.25327,176.8502665WCH2AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPCORP1,125.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0074,898.7574,898.7575,451.2775,525.079128283X6UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00325,952.35325,952.35331,263.24332,243.019128284P2UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00328,723.83328,723.83334,112.13335,091.90Portfolio Activity SummarySan Jacinto, City of (66779)06/01/2019 - 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/2019163.A.3.aPacket Pg. 80Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Identifier,Description,Security TypeInterest/DividendReceivedTransfers In/OutPurchasesPurchasedAccruedIncomeSalesDisposed AccruedMaturities andRedemptionsPaydownsNet RealizedGain/LossBeginning OriginalCost,Ending Original CostBeginning MarketValue,Ending Market Value17305EFW0CCCIT 16A1 A1ABS0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00197,429.69197,429.69199,270.08199,597.829128285A4UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00298,722.65298,722.65305,589.90306,656.40912828Y20UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00436,803.13436,803.13446,170.12447,614.2002665WCP4AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPCORP2,953.130.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00174,916.00174,916.00179,156.77179,511.33912828F21UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00428,491.99428,491.99436,903.13438,670.539128285L0UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00437,090.04437,090.04444,787.50446,452.683135G0U92FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGEASSOCIATIONAGCY BOND0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00129,906.40129,906.40132,105.87132,699.719128285R7UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV3,281.250.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00250,664.06250,664.06254,453.00255,478.509128284T4UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV5,775.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00440,928.13440,928.13446,015.68447,339.20912828WY2UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00436,940.63436,940.63442,801.48444,365.68912828D72UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00246,748.05246,748.05250,341.75251,328.009128283Q1UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00183,106.64183,106.64184,906.02185,462.50912828W55UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0098,101.5698,101.5699,882.80100,371.10912828XG0UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00148,089.85148,089.85150,984.30151,769.55912828G87UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00284,242.97284,242.97286,502.80287,749.689128286H8UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00286,425.00286,425.00288,685.05290,076.423137AXHP1FHMS K024 A2FHLMC CMO686.130.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00319,687.50319,687.50323,485.15324,723.46912828SF8UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00314,778.52314,778.52315,750.65317,227.05912828V72UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00313,621.88313,621.88314,606.25316,107.54912828B90UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00314,310.94314,310.94314,963.15315,947.52912828WG1UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00315,922.85315,922.85316,673.28317,645.37Portfolio Activity SummarySan Jacinto, City of (66779)06/01/2019 - 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/2019173.A.3.aPacket Pg. 81Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) * Weighted by: Ending Market Value + Accrued. * Holdings Displayed by: Lot.Identifier,Description,Security TypeInterest/DividendReceivedTransfers In/OutPurchasesPurchasedAccruedIncomeSalesDisposed AccruedMaturities andRedemptionsPaydownsNet RealizedGain/LossBeginning OriginalCost,Ending Original CostBeginning MarketValue,Ending Market Value912828C57UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00315,762.89315,762.89316,451.84317,448.49912828L57UNITED STATES TREASURYUS GOV0.000.00374,765.63-1,577.870.000.000.000.000.000.00374,765.630.00375,263.63---------18,524.30-104.17393,185.76-1,577.87-372,372.92-3,970.580.000.002,695.4510,535,050.2310,563,313.4310,633,513.6910,692,309.60Portfolio Activity SummarySan Jacinto, City of (66779)06/01/2019 - 06/30/2019Return to Table of ContentsDated: 07/11/2019183.A.3.aPacket Pg. 82Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) Additional Disclosure:The information on this website is for general purposes only and is not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations. All information presented on this website is obtained via electronic data transfer from theCustodian. While this information is reconciled on a daily basis, when available, accuracy is relied upon from the Custodian. Please review the data carefully. Should you have any questions regarding the informationpresented, calculation methodology, investment portfolio or security detail, or any other facet of the data, please feel free to contact us.This data is intended to detail our investment advisory activity as well as the activity of any client accounts managed by Public Trust Advisors, LLC (Public Trust). The custodian bank maintains the control of assets andexecutes and settles all investment transactions. The custodian statement is the official record of security and cash holdings transactions. Public Trust recognizes that clients may use these reports to facilitate record keeping;therefore it is recommended that the client reconcile this statement with their custodian bank statement. Many custodians use a settlement date basis which may result in the need to reconcile due to a timing difference.Please contact your relationship manager or call our toll free number 855-395-3954 with questions regarding your account.Public Trust does not have the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian. Our clients retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies; implementing and enforcing internal controls andgenerating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions.Pricing sources from our reporting platform are provided by Clearwater Analytics®. Clearwater utilizes a hierarchical pricing model with multiple options for pricing sources. These options include custodial pricing, S&P CapitalIQ and other sources. Since multiple pricing hierarchies are offered through Clearwater Analytics, and client preferences regarding pricing sources may differ, it is important to verify the specific pricing hierarchy for eachportfolio. Securities with short maturities and infrequent secondary market trades are typically priced via mathematical calculations. The securities in this investment portfolio, including shares of mutual funds, are notguaranteed or otherwise protected by Public Trust, the FDIC (except for certain non-negotiable certificates of deposit) or any government agency, unless otherwise specifically stated. Investing involves risk, including thepossible loss of principal.Past performance is not an indicator of future performance or results.Public Trust statements present beginning and ending balances and are based on Market Value plus accrued interest on a Trade Date basis. Customized reports made available to the end user either from Public Trust orthrough the online reporting platform may present information and portfolio analytics using various optional methods including, but not limited to, historical cost, amortized cost, and market value. Custom reports may also differfrom the information received from the custodian as a result of additional formulas and filters created based on end user preferences.The investment advisor providing these services is Public Trust Advisors, LLC, an investment adviser registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, asamended. Registration with the SEC does not imply a certain level of skill or training. Public Trust is required to maintain a written disclosure brochure of our background and business experience. If you would like to receive acopy of our current disclosure brochure, privacy policy, or code of ethics please contact us at the address below.Public Trust Advisors717 17th St. Suite 1850Denver, CO 802023.A.3.aPacket Pg. 83Attachment: 2018-19 June Treasurers Report with signature (Treasurer’s Report at June 30, 2019) August 6, 2019 TO: City Council REQUESTED BY: Habib Motlagh, City Engineer APPROVED BY: Robert A. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Amending Ordinance 17-05 RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Ordinance No. 19-14, titled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 17-05 TO INCLUDE A PROCESS FOR WRCOG CALCULATION AND COLLECTION OF FEES UNDER THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM DISCUSSION: WRCOG’s TUMF Program is a regional fee program designed to provide transportation and transit infrastructure that mitigates the impact of new growth in western Riverside County. WRCOG administers the program in partnership with its member agencies. Each member agency elects to participate in the TUMF Program through adoption of an ordinance and membership in WRCOG. In an effort to create additional efficiencies in the TUMF Program, and at the recommendation of WRCOG Executive Committee, WRCOG has implemented a revision in the TUMF process to give member agencies th e option to shift responsibility of calculation and collection of TUMF from the member agency to WRCOG. On December 18, 2018 the City Council authorized WRCOG to calculate and collect TUMF fees for development on behalf of the City; and authorized legal counsel to amend the TUMF ordinance and bring it back to Council for approval. As previously discussed, the WRCOG calculation and collection of fees would significantly reduce staff time spent performing those functions. Second, staff participation in the new audit process would be significantly reduced as WRCOG staff would simply verify that TUMF Calculation Worksheets were submitted for all building permits issued by the City within a given time period. Finally, the City would no longer have responsibil ity for errors or omissions related to the TUMF. Per WRCOG’s memo dated May 28, 2019 the new fee calculation process would be as follows: 1 – The developer and City staff finalize project-related information including the type of use and the intensity of that use. This information generally includes either the number of units for a residential project and the type of residential use (multi-family or single-family). For 3.A.4 Packet Pg. 84 nonresidential projects, the information is the type of use (service, retail, or industrial) and the square footage of the building. 2 – City staff completes a TUMF Calculation Worksheet for each project and submits to WRCOG. If there is additional information to consider such as a TUMF exemption, credit agreement, or other information, it should be submitted at this time. The TUMF Calculation Worksheet is submitted electronically. 3 – WRCOG reviews the TUMF Calculation Worksheet and calculates the TUMF obligation of each project. These calculations will be completed within 48 hours of submittal. 4 – WRCOG emails the developer and City indicating the TUMF obligation for the project in question. This email will also contain payment instructions. 5 – Developer pays their TUMF obligation. The developer has the option of payment electronically or paying at WRCOG’s office via check. 6 – WRCOG transmits receipt to developer and member agency verifying payment of TUMF. The City shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for any Development Project until WRCOG has provided written evidence that it has collected the fee. Staff has determined that the proposed amendment is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program (TUMF) as described in this Ordinance is not a “project” within the meaning of Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The proposed process for Western Riverside Council of Governments to calculate and collect the fee does not approve the construction nor cause the construction of any specific transportation improvements within Riverside County, as result, the proposed amendment will have no effect on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(d) and 15062, a Notice of Exemption will be prepared, executed, and filed for the foregoing determination in the manner required by law. FISCAL IMPACT: Reduction in staff time spend administering TUMF. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 19-14 WRCOG TUMF Network List (Exhibit A) TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) 3.A.4 Packet Pg. 85 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ORDINANCE NO. 19-14 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 17-05 TO INCLUDE A PROCESS FOR WRCOG CALCULATION AND COLLECTION OF FEES UNDER THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM The City Council of the City of San Jacinto, California “(City”) ordains as follows: Section 1. Title. This Ordinance shall be known as Amendment No. 1 to the “Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2018” (“Ordinance”). Section 2. Findings. A. The City is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (“WRCOG”), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and 18 cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the WRCOG Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in Western Riverside County (the “Regional System”) could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (“TUMF”) on future residential, commercial and industrial development. B. WRCOG, upon the recommendation of the WRCOG Executive Committee, now desires to adopt a process in which WRCOG calculates and collects TUMF on behalf of member agencies under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2018. C. The findings set forth in Ordinance No.17-05 remain true and correct, and by this reference are incorporated into this Ordinance No. 19-14 as if set forth in full herein. This Ordinance No.19-14 shall amend and supersede the provisions of Ordinance No.17-05, and to the extent any provisions herein conflict with any provisions of Ordinance No. 17-05 or any other ordinance of the City, the City Council finds and determines that it is the intent of the City Council that the provisions herein shall control. Section 3. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. “Class ‘A’ Office” means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) voice and data, on-site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class ‘A” Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of three stories (exception will be made for March JPA, where height requirements exist); (ii) minimum of 10,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/ exits for commercial uses within the building. B. “Class ‘B’ Office” means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on-site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/of fice coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class ‘B” Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of two stories; (ii) minimum of 15,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel f rame, concrete or masonry shell construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for commercial uses within the building. C. “Development Project” or “Project” means any project undertaken for the purposes of development, including the issuance of a permit for construction. D. “Gross Acreage” means the total property area as shown on a land division of a map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road rights of way and property lines. E. “Habitable Structure” means any structure or part thereof where persons reside, congregate or work and which is legally occupied in whole or part in accordance with applicable building codes, and state and local laws. F. “Industrial Project” means any development project that proposes any industrial or manufacturing use allowed in the following Ordinance No.19-14 zoning classifications: I-P, M-S-C, M-M, M-H, M-R, M-R-A, A-1, A-P, A-2, A-D, W -E, or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone. G. “Low Income Residential Housing” means ”Residential Affordable Units”: (A) for rental housing, the units shall be made available, rented and restricted to “lower income households” (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) at an “affordable rent” (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053), ). Affordable units that are rental housing shall be made available, rented, and restricted to lower income households at an affordable rent for a period of at least fifty-five (55) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new residential development. and (B) for for - sale housing, the units shall be sold to “persons or families of low or moderate income” (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093) at a purchase price that will not 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) cause the purchaser’s monthly housing cost to exceed “affordable housing cost (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) Affordable units that are for -sale housing units shall be restricted to ownership by persons and families of low or moderate income for at least forty-five (45) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residential development. H. “Multi-Family Residential Unit” means a development project that has a density of greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per gross acre. I. “Non-Residential Unit” means retail commercial, service commercial and industrial development which is designed primarily for non -dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels. J. “Recognized Financing District” means a Financing District as defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan as may be amended from time to time. K. “Residential Dwelling Unit” means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential occupancy including single-family and multi-family dwellings. “Residential Dwelling Unit” shall not include hotels or motels. L. “Retail Commercial Project” means any development project that proposes any retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project allowed in the following Ordinance No. 19-14 classifications: R-1, R-R, R-R-O, R-1-A, R- A, R-2, R-2-A, R-3, R-3-A, R-T, R-T-R, R-4, R-5, R-6, C-1/C-P, C-T, C-P-S, C-R, C-O, R- V-C, C-V, W -2, R-D, N-A, W -2-M, W -1, or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone, which can include any eating/dining facility residing on the retail commercial development premises. M. “Service Commercial Project” means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal, and medical offices eating/dining facilities, and other uses related to personal or professional services. N. “Single Family Residential Unit” means each residential dwelling unit in a development that has a density of eight (8) units to the gross acre or less. O. “TUMF Participating Jurisdiction” means a jurisdiction in Western Riverside County which has adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing participation in the TUMF Program and complies with all regulations established in the TUMF Administrative Plan, as adopted and amended from time t o time by the WRCOG. P. “Disabled Veteran” means any veteran who is retired or is in process of medical retirement from military service who is or was severely injured in a theatre of 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) combat operations and has or received a letter of eligibility for the V eterans Administration Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Grant Program. Q. “Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities” means any owned and operated facilities by a government entity in accordance with Section 4. Exemptions, Subsection F of this Ordinance. A new development that is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency for government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities shall apply only if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The new development being constructed is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency. (b) The project shall have a deed restriction placed on the property that limits the use to government/public facility for the term of the lease, including all extension options, for a period of not less than 20 years. Any change in the use of the facility from government shall trigger the payment of the TUMF in effect at the time of the change is made. (c) No less than ninety percent of the total square footage of the building is leased to the government agency during the term of deed restriction the long term and any extensions thereof. (d) The new development is constructed at prevailing wage rates. (e) A copy of the lease is provided to the applicable jurisdiction and to WRCOG. (f) Based on the facts and circumstances WRCOG determines that the intent of the lease is to provide for a long-term government use, and not to evade payment of TUMF. R. “Non-profit Organization” means an organization operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a s ubstantial port of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, the non -profit may be a 501(c) (3) charitable organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. S. “Long-Term Lease” as used in the TUMF Program, a “long-term lease” shall mean a lease with a term of no less than twenty years. T. “Mixed-Use Development” as used in the TUMF Program, means Developments with the following criteria: (1) three or more significant revenue-producing uses, and (2) significant physical and functional integration of project components. U. “Guest Dwellings” and “Detached Second Units” according to the State of California legal definition as following: 1) The second unit is not intended for sale and may be rented; 2) The lot is zoned for single -family dwellings; 3) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling; 4) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling; and 5) Are ministerially amended by each jurisdiction’s local codes. .V. “TUMF Administrative Plan” means that the TUMF Administration Plan adopted by the WRCOG Execution Committee May 5, 2003, as amended, setting forth detailed administration procedures and requirements for the TUMF program. Section 4. Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. A. Adoption of TUMF Schedule. The City Council shall adopt an applicable TUMF schedule through a separate resolution, which may be amended from time to time. B. Fee Calculation. The fees shall be calculated by WRCOG according to the calculation methodology fee set forth in the WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. In addition to data in the Fee Calculation Handbook, WRCOG Staff may consider the following items when establishing the appropriate fee calculation methodology: Underlying zoning of the site Land-use classifications in the latest Nexus Study Project specific traffic studies Latest Standardized reference manuals such as the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual Previous TUMF calculations for similar uses WRCOG staff shall approve final draft credit / reimbursement agreement prior to execution WRCOG shall have final determination regarding the appropriate methodology to calculate the fee based on the information provided by the local agency. In case of a conflict between the applicant, WRCOG, and/or the local agency regarding the fee calculation methodology, the dispute resolution process in the TUMF Administrative Plan will apply. C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to the Resolution reference is subsection A, above, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect the changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the Regional System. WRCOG shall review the TUMF Program no less than every four (4) years after the effective date of this Ordinance. D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System as depicted in Exhibit “A” and identified in the 2016 Nexus Study, Exhibit “B.” 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the City, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following types of new development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance and in TUMF Administrative Plan: 1. Low income residential housing as described in Section 3 Definitions, Subsection G of this Ordinance and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. 2. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities as described in Section 3. Definitions, Subsection Q. of this Ordi nance and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Airports that are public use airports and are appropriately permitted by Caltrans or other state agency. 3. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq, prior to the effective date of Ordinance No.17-05, wherein the imposition of new fees is expressly prohibited, provided that if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended by amendment or by any other manner after the effective date of Ordinance No.19-14, the TUMF shall be imposed. 4. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any habitable structure in use on or after January 1, 2000, provided that the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof. 5. Guest Dwellings and Detached Second Units as described in this Ordinance in Section 3. Definitions, Subsection U. and in the Administrative Plan 6. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single family residential unit. 7. Any sanctuary, or other activity under the same roof of a church or other house of worship that is not revenue generating and is eligible for a property tax exemption (excluding concert venues, coffee/snack shops, book stores, for - profit pre-school day-cares, etc., which would be assessed TUMF.) 8. Any nonprofit corporation or nonprofit organization offering and conducting full-time day school at the elementary, middle school or high school level for students between the ages of five and eighteen years. 9. New single-family homes, constructed by non-profit organizations, specially adapted and designed for maximum freedom of movement and independent living for qualified Disabled Veterans.” 10. Other uses may be exempt as determined by t he WRCOG Executive Committee as further defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan. G. Credit. Regional System improvements may be credited toward the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan and the following: Regional Tier i. Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on the Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for all costs 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) associated with the arterial component based on approved Nexus Study for the Regional System effective at the tim e the credit agreement is entered into. WRCOG staff must pre-approve any credit agreements that deviate from the standard WRCOG approved format. ii. Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off-site improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits shall be determined by WRCOG and the City in consultation with the developer. All such credits must have prior written approval from WRCOG. iii. The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the Nexus Study for the Regional System at the time the credit agreement is entered into or actual costs, whichever is less. Local Tier i. The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a Recognized Financing District has been established. ii. If there is a Recognized Financing District established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan. Section 5. Reimbursements. Should the developer construct Regional System improvements in excess of the TUMF fee obligation, the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the approved Nexus Study effective at the time the agreement was entered into, whichever is less. Reimbursements shall be enacted through an agreement between the developer and the City, contingent on funds being available and approved by WRCOG. In all cases, however, reimbursements under such special agreements must coincide with construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled in the five -year Zone Transportation Improvement Program’s adopted annually by WRCOG. Section 6. Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees. A. Authority of the Building Department. The Director of Building & Safety, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized provide WRCOG with development project specifics for the calculation of TUMF in a manner consistent with the TUMF Administrative Plan. B. Payment and Collection. Payment of the fees shall be as follows: i. All fees collected hereunder shall be collected by WRCOG for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, TUMF Administrative Plan, and the Mitigation Fee Act. ii. The fees shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, whichever comes first (the “Payment Date”). However, this section should not be construed to prevent payment of the fees prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) Fees may be paid at the issuance of a building permit, and the fee payment shall be calculated based on the fee in effect at that time, provided the developer tenders the full amount of his/her TUMF obligation. If the developer makes only a partial payment prior to the Payment Date, the amount of the fee due shall be based on the TUMF fee schedule in place on the Payment Date. The fees shall be calculated according to fee schedule set forth in the Ordinance and the calculation methodology set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. iii. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment is due under this Ordinance, not the date the Ordinance is initially adopted. The City shall not enter into a development agreement which freezes future adjustments of the TUMF. iv. If all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee, the property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee. The obligation to pay the fee shall run with the land and be binding on all the successors in interest to the property. v. Fees shall not be waived. C. Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The City shall not issue a certificate of occupancy for any Development Project until WRCOG has provided written evidence that it has collected the fee. D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provisions of the TUMF Administrative Plan. Appealable issues shall be the application of the fee, application of credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay and application of exemption. E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Building and Safety, or his/her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 7 of this Ordinance. Section 7. Appointment of the TUMF Administrator. WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to collect all fees generated from the TUMF within the City, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act. The detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Ordnance shall be contained in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Furthermore, the TUMF Administrator shall use the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time, for the purpose of calculating a developer’s TUMF obligation. In addition to detailing the methodology for calculating all TUMF obligations of different categories of new development, the purpose of the Fee Calculation Handbook is to clarify for the TUMF Administrator, where necessary, the definition and calculation methodology for uses not clearly defined in the respective TUMF ordinances. 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1%) of the revenue raised by the TUMF Program. The TUMF Administrative Plan further outlines the fiscal responsibilities and limitations of the Administrator. Section 8. Effect. No provisions of this Ordinance shall entitle any person who has already paid the TUMF to receive a refund, credit or reimbursement of such payment. This Ordinance does not create any new TUMF. Section 9. Severability. If any one or more of the terms, provisions or sections of this Ordinance shall to any extent be judged invalid, unenforceable and/or voidable for any rea son whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, then each and all of the remaining terms, provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable. Section 10. No Procedural Defenses. Prohibition of Jurisdictions from raising procedural defenses, including without limitation a statute of limitations, laches, the California Government Tort Claims Act, and necessary parties in a dispute with WRCOG regarding the matters set forth herein. Section 11. Judicial Review. In accordance with State law, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced within 31 days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Section 12. Ordinance No. 19-14 This Ordinance supersedes the provisions of Ordinance No. 17-05 provided this Ordinance is not declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction. If, for whatever reason, this Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable by a court o f competent jurisdiction, Ordinance No.17-05 all other related ordinances and polices shall remain in full force and effect. Section 13. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 31 days after the date of adoption . 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 16th day of July, 2019. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 6th day of August 2019, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF SAN JACINTO: __________________________ Russell Utz, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Angela Walton, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP __________________________ Michael J. Maurer, City Attorney 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) I, Angela Walton, duly appointed City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 19 -14 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto on the 16th day of July 2019. Ordinance No. 19-14 was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of August 2019. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL of the city of San Jacinto the 6th day of August 2019. ___________________________ Angela Walton, City Clerk City of San Jacinto 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) EXHIBIT “A” MAP OF REGIONAL SYSTEM 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) EXHIBIT “B” NEXUS STUDY 3.A.4.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Ordinance No. 19-14 (Amending Ordinance 17-05) EXHIBIT H-1 WRCOG TUMF 2016 Nexus Update - TUMF Network Detailed Cost EstimateUpdated: May 1, 2017AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAMESEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORKMILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSEINTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING NEWLNCOSTROWCOSTINTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOSTPLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COSTMAXIMUM TUMF SHARECentral Menifee Ethanac Goetz Murrieta Backbone 0.99 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Ethanac Murrieta I-215 Backbone 0.90 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Ethanac I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$15,766,000Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews Backbone 0.61 2 4 0% 1.23 1 3 0 0 0 $848,000 $352,000 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $212,000 $120,000 $1,617,000$1,617,000Central Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossingBackbone 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,504,000$2,550,000$6,376,000$2,550,000$36,980,000$33,018,000Central Menifee Menifee SR-74 (Pinacate)Simpson Backbone2.49220%0.0013000 $0$0 $0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 200 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate Backbone 0.64 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Menifee Aldergate Newport Backbone 0.98 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland Backbone 1.07 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Menifee Holland Garbani Backbone 1.03 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Menifee Garbani Scott Backbone 1.00 2 4 0% 2.00 1 3 0 0 0 $1,382,000$573,000 $0 $0 $0 $138,000 $346,000 $196,000 $2,635,000$2,635,000Central Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City Limit Backbone 0.53 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta Backbone 1.81 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Newport Murrieta I-215 Backbone 2.05 4 6 0% 4.10 1 3 0 0 0 $2,835,000$1,176,000$0 $0 $0 $284,000 $709,000 $401,000 $5,405,000$5,405,000Central Menifee Newport I-215 Menifee Backbone 0.95 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Newport Menifee LindenbergerBackbone0.77 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Newport LindenbergerSR-79(Winchester)Backbone3.58 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Scott I-215 Briggs Backbone2.04440%0.0013000 $0$0 $0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0Central Menifee Scott I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$37,060,000Central Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta Backbone 1.01 2 4 0% 2.01 1 3 0 0 0 $1,392,000$578,000 $0 $0 $0 $139,000 $348,000 $197,000 $2,654,000$2,654,000Central Menifee Scott Murrieta I-215 Backbone 1.94 2 6 0% 7.77 1 3 0 0 0 $5,379,000$2,231,000$0 $0 $0 $538,000 $1,345,000$761,000 $10,254,000$10,254,000Central Menifee SR-74 Matthews Briggs Backbone 1.89 4 6 0% 3.79 1 3 0 0 0 $2,620,000$1,086,000$0 $0 $0 $262,000 $655,000 $371,000 $4,994,000$4,994,000Central Moreno ValleyAlessandro I-215 Perris Backbone 3.52 4 6 74% 1.83 1 2 0 0 0 $1,267,000$4,142,000$0 $0 $0 $127,000 $317,000 $541,000 $6,394,000$6,394,000Central Moreno ValleyAlessandro Perris Nason Backbone 2.00 2 6 19% 6.48 1 2 0 0 0 $4,484,000$14,664,000$0 $0 $0 $448,000 $1,121,000$1,915,000$22,632,000$22,632,000Central Moreno ValleyAlessandro Nason Moreno Beach Backbone 0.99 2 4 0% 1.98 1 2 0 0 0 $1,371,000$4,485,000$0 $0 $0 $137,000 $343,000 $586,000 $6,922,000$6,922,000Central Moreno ValleyAlessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs Backbone 4.13 2 4 0% 8.26 1 3 0 0 0 $5,719,000$2,372,000$0 $0 $0 $572,000 $1,430,000$809,000 $10,902,000$10,902,000Central Moreno ValleyGilman Springs SR-60 Alessandro Backbone 1.67 2 4 0% 3.34 1 3 0 0 0 $2,314,000$960,000 $0 $0 $0 $231,000 $579,000 $327,000 $4,411,000$3,724,000Central Moreno ValleyGilman Springs SR-60 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Central Moreno ValleyPerris Reche Vista Ironwood Backbone 2.09 2 2 90% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyPerris Ironwood Sunnymead Backbone 0.52 4 4 80% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyPerris SR-60 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$0Central Moreno ValleyPerris Sunnymead Cactus Backbone 2.00 4 4 25% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyPerris Cactus Harley KnoxBackbone 3.50 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyReche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit HeacockBackbone 0.44 2 4 0% 0.88 2 2 0 0 0 $773,000 $1,991,000$0 $0 $0 $77,000 $193,000 $276,000 $3,310,000$1,705,000Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz Backbone 0.30 2 4 0% 0.60 1 2 0 0 0 $416,000 $1,360,000$0 $0 $0 $42,000 $104,000 $178,000 $2,100,000$2,100,000Central Perris Case Goetz I-215 Backbone 2.36 2 4 0% 4.72 1 2 0 0 0 $3,266,000$10,681,000$0 $0 $0 $327,000 $817,000 $1,395,000$16,486,000$13,538,000Central Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 122 0 $0 $0 $0 $776,000 $0 $78,000 $194,000 $78,000 $1,126,000$495,000Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz Backbone 2.24 0 4 38% 5.56 1 3 0 0 0 $3,844,000$1,594,000$0 $0 $0 $384,000 $961,000 $544,000 $7,327,000$7,327,000Central Perris Ethanac San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 400 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,088,000$0 $509,000 $1,272,000$509,000 $7,378,000$7,378,000Central Perris Ethanac I-215 Sherman Backbone 0.35 2 4 0% 0.70 1 2 0 0 0 $482,000 $1,578,000$0 $0 $0 $48,000 $121,000 $206,000 $2,435,000$1,945,000Central Perris Goetz Case Ethanac Backbone 2.00 2 4 0% 3.99 1 3 0 0 0 $2,763,000$1,146,000$0 $0 $0 $276,000 $691,000 $391,000 $5,267,000$2,506,000Central Perris Goetz San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 400 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,544,000$0 $254,000 $636,000 $254,000 $3,688,000$1,925,000Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia)I-215 Perris Backbone 0.87 0 6 28% 3.76 1 2 0 0 0 $2,601,000$8,505,000$0 $0 $0 $260,000 $650,000 $1,111,000$13,127,000$12,627,000Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia)I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$12,354,000Central Perris Mid-County Perris Evans Backbone 1.57 0 6 0% 9.42 1 2 0 0 0 $6,519,000$21,317,000$0 $0 $0 $652,000 $1,630,000$2,784,000$32,902,000$32,902,000Central Perris Mid-County Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge Backbone 0.00 0 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,724,000$0 $572,000 $1,431,000$572,000 $8,299,000$8,299,000Central Perris Perris Harley KnoxRamona Backbone 1.00 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus Backbone 2.49 4 6 0% 4.99 1 3 0 0 0 $3,451,000$1,431,000$0 $0 $0 $345,000 $863,000 $488,000 $6,578,000$6,578,000Central Perris Perris Citrus Nuevo Backbone 0.50 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris Perris Nuevo 11th Backbone 1.75 2 4 0% 3.49 1 2 0 0 0 $2,418,000$7,908,000$0 $0 $0 $242,000 $605,000 $1,033,000$12,206,000$9,034,000Central Perris Perris I-215 overcrossingbridge Backbone 0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908,000$0 $191,000 $477,000 $191,000 $2,767,000$1,356,000Central Perris Ramona I-215 Perris Backbone 1.47 4 6 73% 0.79 1 2 0 0 0 $549,000 $1,794,000$0 $0 $0 $55,000 $137,000 $234,000 $2,769,000$2,769,000Central Perris Ramona I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$5,965,000Central Perris Ramona Perris Evans Backbone 1.00 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris Ramona Evans Mid-County (2,800 ft E of Rider)Backbone 2.62 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris SR-74 (4th)Ellis I-215 Backbone 2.29 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR-74 Keystone Backbone 1.07 0 4 0% 4.28 1 3 0 0 0 $2,962,000$1,228,000$0 $0 $0 $296,000 $741,000 $419,000 $5,646,000$5,646,000Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge Backbone 4.98 2 4 0% 9.95 2 3 0 0 0 $8,739,000$2,857,000$0 $0 $0 $874,000 $2,185,000$1,160,000$15,815,000$8,105,000Central Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR-74 (Pinacate)Backbone 4.07 2 4 0% 8.14 1 3 0 0 0 $5,633,000$2,336,000$0 $0 $0 $563,000 $1,408,000$797,000 $10,737,000$10,737,000Central Unincorporated Mid-County Evans Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider)Backbone 0.77 0 6 0% 4.62 3 3 0 0 0 $4,916,000$1,326,000$0 $0 $0 $492,000 $1,229,000$624,000 $8,587,000$8,587,000Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)Ramona(2,800 ft E of Rider)Pico Avenue Backbone 0.44 4 6 0% 0.88 1 3 0 0 0 $609,000 $253,000 $0 $0 $0 $61,000 $152,000 $86,000 $1,161,000$1,161,000Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)Pico Avenue Bridge Backbone 5.95 2 6 0% 23.81 1 3 0 0 0 $16,479,000$6,835,000$0 $0 $0 $1,648,000$4,120,000$2,331,000$31,413,000$25,287,000Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 2 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 1,300 0 $0 $0 $0 $16,536,000$0 $1,654,000$4,134,000$1,654,000$23,978,000$15,835,000Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino CountyReche Vista Backbone 3.35 0 4 50% 6.70 3 3 0 0 0 $7,131,000$1,924,000$0 $0 $0 $713,000 $1,783,000$906,000 $12,457,000$9,429,000Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Backbone 1.22 2 4 0% 2.44 2 2 0 0 0 $2,142,000$5,522,000$0 $0 $0 $214,000 $536,000 $766,000 $9,180,000$4,729,000Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR-79 (Winchester)Backbone 3.04 2 6 0% 12.16 1 3 0 0 0 $8,415,000$3,490,000$0 $0 $0 $842,000 $2,104,000$1,191,000$16,042,000$0Central Unincorporated SR-74 Ethanac Ellis Backbone 2.68 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 Temescal Canyon Backbone 0.66 4 6 50% 0.66 1 2 0 0 0 $457,000 $1,494,000$0 $0 $0 $46,000 $114,000 $195,000 $2,306,000$2,306,000Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 1 0 0 $0 $0 $50,032,000$0 $0 $5,003,000$12,508,000$5,003,000$72,546,000$44,251,000Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln Backbone 2.60 0 4 0% 10.40 3 3 0 0 0 $11,066,000$2,985,000$0 $0 $0 $1,107,000$2,767,000$1,405,000$19,330,000$7,282,000Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge Backbone 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 3 3 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,816,000$0 $382,000 $954,000 $382,000 $5,534,000$0Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California Backbone 2.81 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Foothill California I-15 Backbone 0.89 2 4 0% 1.78 1 2 0 0 0 $1,230,000$4,021,000$0 $0 $0 $123,000 $308,000 $525,000 $6,207,000$4,304,000Northwest Corona Green River SR-91 Dominguez Ranch Backbone 0.52 4 6 0% 1.04 1 2 0 0 0 $718,000 $2,347,000$0 $0 $0 $72,000 $180,000 $307,000 $3,624,000$1,000Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades Backbone 0.56 4 6 0% 1.12 2 2 0 0 0 $983,000 $2,535,000$0 $0 $0 $98,000 $246,000 $352,000 $4,214,000$1,639,000Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande Backbone 2.01 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Eastvale Schleisman San Bernardino County600' e/o Cucamonga CreekBackbone 0.65 5 6 0% 0.65 1 2 0 0 0 $450,000 $1,471,000$0 $0 $0 $45,000 $113,000 $192,000 $2,271,000$2,271,000Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 5 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 200 0 $0 $0 $0 $636,000 $0 $64,000 $159,000 $64,000 $923,000 $923,000Northwest Eastvale Schleisman 600' e/o Cucamonga CreekHarrison Backbone0.87660%0.0012000 $0$0 $0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner Backbone 0.50 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Sumner ScholarBackbone 0.50 2 4 0% 1.00 1 2 0 0 0 $692,000 $2,263,000$0 $0 $0 $69,000 $173,000 $296,000 $3,493,000$3,493,000Northwest Eastvale Schleisman ScholarA StreetBackbone 0.31 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Eastvale Schleisman A StreetHamnerBackbone 0.27 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Jurupa ValleyVan Buren SR-60 Bellegrave Backbone 1.43 4 6 0% 2.86 1 2 0 0 0 $1,976,000$6,464,000$0 $0 $0 $198,000 $494,000 $844,000 $9,976,000$3,628,000Northwest Jurupa ValleyVan Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana RiverBackbone 3.60 4 6 0% 7.19 1 2 0 0 0 $4,976,000$16,272,000$0 $0 $0 $498,000 $1,244,000$2,125,000$25,115,000$7,444,000Northwest Riverside Alessandro Arlington Trautwein Backbone 2.21 6 6 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Arlington North Magnolia Backbone 5.92 2 4 83% 2.01 1 2 0 0 0 $1,393,000$4,556,000$0 $0 $0 $139,000 $348,000 $595,000 $7,031,000$7,031,000Northwest Riverside Arlington Magnolia Alessandro Backbone 2.02 4 6 8% 3.71 2 2 0 0 0 $3,257,000$8,395,000$0 $0 $0 $326,000 $814,000 $1,165,000$13,957,000$10,001,000Northwest Riverside Van Buren Santa Ana RiverSR-91 Backbone 3.44 4 669%2.13 1 2 0 0 0 $1,477,000$4,831,000$0 $0 $0 $148,000 $369,000 $631,000 $7,456,000$7,456,000Northwest Riverside Van Buren SR-91 Mockingbird Canyon Backbone 3.10 4 64%5.97 1 2 0 0 0 $4,130,000$13,505,000$0 $0 $0 $413,000 $1,033,000$1,764,000$20,845,000$10,847,000Northwest Riverside Van Buren Wood Trautwein Backbone 0.43 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Van Buren Trautwein Orange Terrace Backbone 1.27 5 622%0.99 1 2 0 0 0 $687,000 $2,248,000$0 $0 $0 $69,000 $172,000 $294,000 $3,470,000$3,470,0003.A.4.b Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: WRCOG TUMF Network List (Exhibit A) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) EXHIBIT H-1 WRCOG TUMF 2016 Nexus Update - TUMF Network Detailed Cost EstimateUpdated: May 1, 2017AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAMESEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORKMILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSEINTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING NEWLNCOSTROWCOSTINTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOSTPLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COSTMAXIMUM TUMF SHARENorthwest Unincorporated Alessandro Trautwein Vista Grande Backbone 1.22 6 6 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Vista Grande I-215 Backbone 1.26 6 6 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco El Sobrante Harley John Backbone 0.76 2 6 0% 3.02 2 3 0 0 0 $2,656,000$868,000 $0 $0 $0 $266,000 $664,000 $352,000 $4,806,000$3,465,000Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harley John Harvil Backbone 5.79 2 6 0% 23.16 1 2 0 0 0 $16,026,000$52,409,000$0 $0 $0 $1,603,000$4,007,000$6,844,000$80,889,000$66,905,000Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harvil I-215 Backbone 0.28 4 6 0% 0.57 1 3 0 0 0 $393,000 $163,000 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 $98,000 $56,000 $749,000 $749,000Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Canyon La Sierra Backbone 3.21 2 6 0% 12.84 3 3 0 0 0 $13,662,000$3,685,000$0 $0 $0 $1,366,000$3,416,000$1,735,000$23,864,000$23,864,000Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Wash bridge Backbone 0.00 2 6 0% 0.00 3 3 0 175 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,226,000$0 $223,000 $557,000 $223,000 $3,229,000$3,229,000Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco La Sierra El Sobrante Backbone 6.11 2 6 0% 24.44 3 3 0 0 0 $26,004,000$7,014,000$0 $0 $0 $2,600,000$6,501,000$3,302,000$45,421,000$45,421,000Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Mockingbird Canyon Wood Backbone 4.41 4 6 0% 8.81 1 2 0 0 0 $6,099,000$19,946,000$0 $0 $0 $610,000 $1,525,000$2,605,000$30,785,000$28,309,000Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Orange Terrace I-215 Backbone 1.89 4 6 42% 2.19 1 2 0 0 0 $1,513,000$4,949,000$0 $0 $0 $151,000 $378,000 $646,000 $7,637,000$7,637,000Pass Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)I-10 Backbone 1.37 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Beaumont Potrero Oak Valley (San Timoteo CanySR-60 Backbone 0.72 2 4 15% 1.22 1 3 0 0 0 $847,000 $351,000 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $212,000 $120,000 $1,615,000$1,615,000Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$23,760,000Pass Beaumont Potrero UP railroad crossingBackbone 0.00 2 4 50% 0.00 1 3 0 0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,466,000$547,000 $1,367,000$547,000 $7,927,000$7,927,000Pass Beaumont Potrero Noble Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 2 4 50% 0.00 1 3 0 500 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,590,000$0 $159,000 $398,000 $159,000 $2,306,000$2,306,000Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 4th Backbone 0.45 0 4 0% 1.80 1 3 0 0 0 $1,246,000$517,000 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $312,000 $176,000 $2,376,000$2,376,000Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont)I-10 Mellow Backbone 0.80 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont)I-10 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$5,369,000Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Beaumont)Mellow California Backbone 0.38 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Lamb Canyon)California Gilman Springs Backbone4.87440%0.0023000 $0$0 $0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Warren Sanderson Backbone 1.77 4 6 0% 3.54 1 3 0 0 0 $2,452,000$1,017,000$0 $0 $0 $245,000 $613,000 $347,000 $4,674,000$4,674,000San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Sanderson State Backbone 2.14 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Winchester Warren Backbone 2.59 4 6 11% 4.61 1 2 0 0 0 $3,187,000$10,421,000$0 $0 $0 $319,000 $797,000 $1,361,000$16,085,000$16,085,000San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona)Warren Sanderson Backbone 1.73 4 6 0% 3.45 1 2 0 0 0 $2,390,000$7,817,000$0 $0 $0 $239,000 $598,000 $1,021,000$12,065,000$12,065,000San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona)Sanderson/SR-79(Hemet Bypainterchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$37,060,000San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sanderson State Backbone 2.39 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona State Main Backbone 2.66 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Main CedarBackbone 2.08 0 4 60% 3.33 1 2 0 0 0 $2,303,000$7,531,000$0 $0 $0 $230,000 $576,000 $983,000 $11,623,000$11,139,000San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona CedarSR-74 Backbone1.10440%0.0012000 $0$0 $0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni SR-79 (Winchester)Warren Backbone 3.10 4 6 0% 6.20 1 3 0 0 0 $4,287,000$1,778,000$0 $0 $0 $429,000 $1,072,000$607,000 $8,173,000$8,173,000San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni San Diego Aqueductbridge Backbone 0.00 4 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908,000$0 $191,000 $477,000 $191,000 $2,767,000$2,767,000San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman SpringsBridge Sanderson Backbone 2.95 2 4 0% 5.90 1 3 0 0 0 $4,082,000$1,693,000$0 $0 $0 $408,000 $1,021,000$578,000 $7,782,000$7,782,000San Jacinto Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)Bridge Warren Backbone 2.35 2 6 0% 9.40 1 3 0 0 0 $6,503,000$2,697,000$0 $0 $0 $650,000 $1,626,000$920,000 $12,396,000$11,045,000San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Briggs SR-79 (Winchester)Backbone 3.53 4 6 0% 7.05 1 3 0 0 0 $4,879,000$2,024,000$0 $0 $0 $488,000 $1,220,000$690,000 $9,301,000$9,301,000San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)SR-74(Florida)Domenigoni Backbone 3.22 0 4 0% 12.88 1 3 0 0 0 $8,913,000$3,697,000$0 $0 $0 $891,000 $2,228,000$1,261,000$16,990,000$16,990,000San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)San Diego Aqueductbridge Backbone 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,816,000$0 $382,000 $954,000 $382,000 $5,534,000$5,534,000San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)Domenigoni Winchester Backbone 1.50 0 4 0% 6.00 1 3 0 0 0 $4,152,000$1,722,000$0 $0 $0 $415,000 $1,038,000$587,000 $7,914,000$7,914,000San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (San Jacinto Bypass)Mid-County(Ramona)SR-74(Florida)Backbone 6.50 0 4 0% 26.00 1 3 0 0 0 $17,992,000$7,462,000$0 $0 $0 $1,799,000$4,498,000$2,545,000$34,296,000$30,076,000San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson)Gilman Springs Ramona Backbone 1.92 4 6 0% 3.84 1 3 0 0 0 $2,654,000$1,101,000$0 $0 $0 $265,000 $664,000 $376,000 $5,060,000$2,376,000San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson)San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 4 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 1,400 0 $0 $0 $0 $8,904,000$0 $890,000 $2,226,000$890,000 $12,910,000$6,100,000San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Domenigoni Keller Backbone4.90660%0.0012000 $0$0 $0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0Southwest Canyon LakeGoetz Railroad Canyon Newport Backbone 0.50 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Canyon LakeRailroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz Backbone 1.95 6 6 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 Canyon Hills Backbone 2.29 4 6 50% 2.29 1 3 0 0 0 $1,585,000$657,000 $0 $0 $0 $159,000 $396,000 $224,000 $3,021,000$3,021,000Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 1 0 0 $0 $0 $50,032,000$0 $0 $5,003,000$12,508,000$5,003,000$72,546,000$28,636,000Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$17,725,000Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon Backbone 0.83 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Toulon I-215 Backbone 0.83 4 6 0% 1.66 1 3 0 0 0 $1,147,000$476,000 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 $287,000 $162,000 $2,187,000$2,187,000Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith I-215 Whitewood Backbone 0.75 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date)Murrieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek Backbone 0.24 0 4 0% 0.96 1 2 0 0 0 $664,000 $2,172,000$0 $0 $0 $66,000 $166,000 $284,000 $3,352,000$3,352,000Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date)Winchester Creek Margarita Backbone0.61440%0.0012000 $0$0 $0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller Backbone 0.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith Backbone 2.00 0 4 80% 1.60 1 3 0 0 0 $1,107,000$459,000 $0 $0 $0 $111,000 $277,000 $157,000 $2,111,000$2,111,000Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date)Margarita YnezBackbone 0.91 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date)YnezJefferson Backbone 0.73 0 4 0% 2.92 1 2 0 0 0 $2,021,000$6,608,000$0 $0 $0 $202,000 $505,000 $863,000 $10,199,000$10,199,000Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date)I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 1 0 0 $0 $0 $50,032,000$0 $0 $5,003,000$12,508,000$5,003,000$72,546,000$55,760,000Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry)Jefferson Diaz Backbone 0.56 0 4 27% 1.64 1 2 0 0 0 $1,132,000$3,700,000$0 $0 $0 $113,000 $283,000 $483,000 $5,711,000$5,711,000Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry)Murrieta Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 420 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,342,000$0 $534,000 $1,336,000$534,000 $7,746,000$7,746,000Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz)Cherry Rancho California Backbone 2.14 0 4 82% 1.54 1 2 0 0 0 $1,066,000$3,487,000$0 $0 $0 $107,000 $267,000 $455,000 $5,382,000$5,382,000Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroRancho California SR-79 (Front)Backbone 1.48 0 4 8% 5.45 3 2 0 0 0 $5,795,000$12,325,000$0 $0 $0 $580,000 $1,449,000$1,812,000$21,961,000$21,961,000Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroI-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 3 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$20,682,000Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroMurrieta Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 3 2 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,816,000$0 $382,000 $954,000 $382,000 $5,534,000$5,534,000Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester)Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson Backbone 2.70 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester)I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 1 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$8,442,000Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Eastern Bypass Backbone 2.40 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR-79 Backbone 2.54 0 6 0% 15.24 1 3 0 0 0 $10,546,000$4,374,000$0 $0 $0 $1,055,000$2,637,000$1,492,000$20,104,000$3,604,000Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 0 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 1,200 0 $0 $0 $0 $22,896,000$0 $2,290,000$5,724,000$2,290,000$33,200,000$27,052,000Southwest Unincorporated SR-74 I-15 Ethanac Backbone 4.89 4 6 16% 8.22 2 3 0 0 0 $7,219,000$2,360,000$0 $0 $0 $722,000 $1,805,000$958,000 $13,064,000$13,064,000Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Keller Thompson Backbone 2.47 4 6 0% 4.93 1 2 0 0 0 $3,412,000$11,157,000$0 $0 $0 $341,000 $853,000 $1,457,000$17,220,000$17,220,000Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Thompson La Alba Backbone 1.81 4 6 0% 3.62 1 2 0 0 0 $2,507,000$8,197,000$0 $0 $0 $251,000 $627,000 $1,070,000$12,652,000$12,652,000Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)La Alba HunterBackbone 0.50 4 6 0% 1.01 1 2 0 0 0 $696,000 $2,277,000$0 $0 $0 $70,000 $174,000 $297,000 $3,514,000$2,771,000Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)HunterMurrieta Hot Springs Backbone 1.14 4 6 83% 0.39 1 3 0 0 0 $269,000 $112,000 $0 $0 $0 $27,000 $67,000 $38,000 $513,000 $513,000Southwest Wildomar Bundy CanyonI-15 Monte Vista Backbone 0.32 2 6 61% 0.50 2 3 0 0 0 $438,000 $143,000 $0 $0 $0 $44,000 $110,000 $58,000 $793,000 $793,000Southwest Wildomar Bundy CanyonMonte Vista Sunset Backbone 3.10 2 4 0% 6.20 2 3 0 0 0 $5,444,000$1,779,000$0 $0 $0 $544,000 $1,361,000$722,000 $9,850,000$9,850,000Southwest Wildomar Bundy CanyonI-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 2 3 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$7,159,000Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar I-15 Backbone 0.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith I-15 Copper Craft Backbone 2.48 2 6 57% 4.27 1 3 0 0 0 $2,952,000$1,224,000$0 $0 $0 $295,000 $738,000 $418,000 $5,627,000$4,275,000SubtotalBackbone 255.28 428.86 16 8,117 2 $327,451,000$391,451,000$389,845,000$87,526,000$30,970,000$83,583,000$208,968,000$122,731,000$1,642,525,000$1,227,955,0003.A.4.b Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: WRCOG TUMF Network List (Exhibit A) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) EXHIBIT H-1 WRCOG TUMF 2016 Nexus Update - TUMF Network Detailed Cost EstimateUpdated: May 1, 2017AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAMESEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORKMILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSEINTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING NEWLNCOSTROWCOSTINTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOSTPLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COSTMAXIMUM TUMF SHARECentral Menifee Briggs Newport Scott Secondary3.05 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane Secondary2.61 2 4 0% 5.22 1 3 0 0 0 $3,611,000$1,498,000$0 $0 $0 $361,000 $903,000 $511,000 $6,884,000$6,593,000Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita Secondary1.36 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Holland Antelope Haun Secondary1.00 0 4 0% 4.00 1 2 0 0 0 $2,768,000$9,052,000$0 $0 $0 $277,000 $692,000 $1,182,000$13,971,000$13,971,000Central Menifee Holland I-215 overcrossingbridge Secondary0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 350 0 $0 $0 $0 $4,452,000$0 $445,000 $1,113,000$445,000 $6,455,000$6,455,000Central Menifee McCall I-215 Aspel Secondary1.23 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee McCall I-215 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$16,930,000Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee Secondary0.95 2 4 0% 1.91 1 3 0 0 0 $1,320,000$548,000 $0 $0 $0 $132,000 $330,000 $187,000 $2,517,000$2,517,000Central Menifee Murrieta Ethanac McCall Secondary1.95 2 2 37% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport Secondary2.03 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy CanyonSecondary3.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyCactus I-215 HeacockSecondary1.81 4 6 84% 0.58 1 2 0 0 0 $401,000 $1,310,000$0 $0 $0 $40,000 $100,000 $171,000 $2,022,000$0Central Moreno ValleyCactus I-215 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$37,060,000Central Moreno ValleyDayIronwood SR-60 Secondary0.28 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyDaySR-60 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Central Moreno ValleyDaySR-60 Eucalyptus Secondary0.77 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyEucalyptus I-215 Towngate Secondary1.00 4 6 42% 1.16 1 2 0 0 0 $802,000 $2,624,000$0 $0 $0 $80,000 $201,000 $343,000 $4,050,000$4,050,000Central Moreno ValleyEucalyptus Towngate FrederickSecondary0.67 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyEucalyptus FrederickHeacockSecondary1.01 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyEucalyptus HeacockKitchingSecondary1.01 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyEucalyptus KitchingMoreno Beach Secondary2.42 2 4 98% 0.10 1 2 0 0 0 $67,000 $219,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,000 $17,000 $29,000 $339,000 $0Central Moreno ValleyEucalyptus Moreno Beach TheodoreSecondary2.28 0 4 47% 4.83 1 2 0 0 0 $3,345,000$10,938,000$0 $0 $0 $335,000 $836,000 $1,428,000$16,882,000$16,882,000Central Moreno ValleyFrederickSR-60 Alessandro Secondary1.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyHeacockCactus San Michele Secondary2.79 2 4 77% 1.28 1 2 0 0 0 $888,000 $2,904,000$0 $0 $0 $89,000 $222,000 $379,000 $4,482,000$4,482,000Central Moreno ValleyHeacockReche Vista Cactus Secondary4.73 4 4 90% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyHeacockSan Michele Harley KnoxSecondary0.74 2 4 0% 1.48 1 3 0 0 0 $1,027,000$426,000 $0 $0 $0 $103,000 $257,000 $145,000 $1,958,000$1,532,000Central Moreno ValleyIronwood SR-60 DaySecondary1.33 2 4 71% 0.77 1 2 0 0 0 $534,000 $1,746,000$0 $0 $0 $53,000 $134,000 $228,000 $2,695,000$2,695,000Central Moreno ValleyIronwood DayHeacockSecondary2.01 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyLasselle Alessandro John F KennedySecondary1.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyLasselle John F KennedyOleanderSecondary3.14 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyMoreno Beach Reche Canyon SR-60 Secondary1.37 2 4 0% 2.73 1 2 0 0 0 $1,892,000$6,186,000$0 $0 $0 $189,000 $473,000 $808,000 $9,548,000$9,548,000Central Moreno ValleyMoreno Beach SR-60 overcrossingbridge Secondary0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 250 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,590,000$0 $159,000 $398,000 $159,000 $2,306,000$2,306,000Central Moreno ValleyNason SR-60 Alessandro Secondary1.51 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyPigeon Pass Ironwood SR-60 Secondary0.43 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyPigeon Pass/CETAP CorridorCantarini Ironwood Secondary3.23 2 2 80% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyReche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust Secondary0.35 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Moreno ValleyRedlands Locust Alessandro Secondary2.68 2 4 0% 5.36 1 2 0 0 0 $3,709,000$12,130,000$0 $0 $0 $371,000 $927,000 $1,584,000$18,721,000$18,013,000Central Moreno ValleyRedlands SR-60 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$37,060,000Central Moreno ValleyTheodoreSR-60 Eucalyptus Secondary0.26 2 4 0% 0.52 1 2 0 0 0 $360,000 $1,177,000$0 $0 $0 $36,000 $90,000 $154,000 $1,817,000$1,817,000Central Moreno ValleyTheodoreSR-60 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$19,096,000Central Perris Evans OleanderRamona Secondary0.99 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan Secondary0.59 4 6 0% 1.18 1 3 0 0 0 $819,000 $340,000 $0 $0 $0 $82,000 $205,000 $116,000 $1,562,000$1,562,000Central Perris Evans Morgan RiderSecondary0.49 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris Evans RiderPlacentia Secondary0.58 2 2 79% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo Secondary1.50 0 4 83% 1.02 1 3 0 0 0 $706,000 $293,000 $0 $0 $0 $71,000 $177,000 $100,000 $1,347,000$1,347,000Central Perris Evans Nuevo I-215 Secondary1.99 0 4 0% 7.98 1 3 0 0 0 $5,519,000$2,289,000$0 $0 $0 $552,000 $1,380,000$781,000 $10,521,000$10,521,000Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge Secondary0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 400 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,088,000$0 $509,000 $1,272,000$509,000 $7,378,000$7,378,000Central Perris Goetz LesserEthanac Secondary1.04 2 4 0% 2.08 1 3 0 0 0 $1,440,000$597,000 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $360,000 $204,000 $2,745,000$1,238,000Central Perris Harley KnoxI-215 Indian Secondary1.53 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris Harley KnoxI-215 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$7,110,000Central Perris Harley KnoxIndian Perris Secondary0.50 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris Harley KnoxPerris Redlands Secondary0.50 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris Nuevo I-215 Murrieta Secondary1.36 4 6 0% 2.71 1 2 0 0 0 $1,878,000$6,142,000$0 $0 $0 $188,000 $470,000 $802,000 $9,480,000$9,480,000Central Perris Nuevo I-215 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap Secondary1.00 2 4 23% 1.54 1 3 0 0 0 $1,067,000$443,000 $0 $0 $0 $107,000 $267,000 $151,000 $2,035,000$2,035,000Central Perris Nuevo Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge Secondary0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908,000$0 $191,000 $477,000 $191,000 $2,767,000$2,767,000Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews)I-215 Ethanac Secondary1.25 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews)I-215 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$8,815,000Central Unincorporated Briggs SR-74 (Pinacate)Simpson Secondary2.50 0 4 50% 5.00 1 3 0 0 0 $3,460,000$1,435,000$0 $0 $0 $346,000 $865,000 $490,000 $6,596,000$6,596,000Central Unincorporated Briggs Simpson Newport Secondary1.53 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Unincorporated Briggs Salt Creek Bridge Secondary0.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 600 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Unincorporated Center (Main)I-215 Mt Vernon Secondary1.50 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Unincorporated Center (Main)I-215 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Central Unincorporated Center (Main)BNSF railroad crossingSecondary0.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,466,000$547,000 $1,367,000$547,000 $7,927,000$7,927,000Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR-74 Secondary2.65 2 4 0% 5.30 1 3 0 0 0 $3,666,000$1,520,000$0 $0 $0 $367,000 $917,000 $519,000 $6,989,000$6,989,000Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP CorridorCenterPigeon Pass Secondary0.61 2 4 0% 1.21 3 3 0 0 0 $1,289,000$348,000 $0 $0 $0 $129,000 $322,000 $164,000 $2,252,000$2,252,000Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee Secondary2.00 2 4 0% 4.00 1 3 0 0 0 $2,766,000$1,147,000$0 $0 $0 $277,000 $692,000 $391,000 $5,273,000$5,273,000Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge Secondary0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 400 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,544,000$0 $254,000 $636,000 $254,000 $3,688,000$3,688,000Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP CorridorCantarini Mount Vernon Secondary3.38 0 4 0% 13.53 3 3 0 0 0 $14,396,000$3,883,000$0 $0 $0 $1,440,000$3,599,000$1,828,000$25,146,000$25,146,000Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis Secondary0.44 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit Secondary3.20 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust Secondary2.60 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3.A.4.b Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: WRCOG TUMF Network List (Exhibit A) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) EXHIBIT H-1 WRCOG TUMF 2016 Nexus Update - TUMF Network Detailed Cost EstimateUpdated: May 1, 2017AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAMESEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORKMILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSEINTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING NEWLNCOSTROWCOSTINTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOSTPLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COSTMAXIMUM TUMF SHARENorthwest Corona 6th SR-91 Magnolia Secondary4.50 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Auto CenterRailroad SR-91 Secondary0.48 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Cajalco Bedford Canyon I-15 Secondary0.15 2 4 0% 0.30 1 2 0 0 0 $208,000 $679,000 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $52,000 $89,000 $1,049,000$1,049,000Northwest Corona Hidden Valley Norco Hills McKinley Secondary0.59 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Lincoln Parkridge Ontario Secondary3.20 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Magnolia 6th Sherborn Bridge Secondary0.47 4 6 0% 0.94 1 2 0 0 0 $650,000 $2,127,000$0 $0 $0 $65,000 $163,000 $278,000 $3,283,000$3,283,000Northwest Corona Magnolia Temescal Creek bridge Secondary0.00 4 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908,000$0 $191,000 $477,000 $191,000 $2,767,000$2,767,000Northwest Corona Magnolia Sherborn Bridge Rimpau Secondary0.52 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario Secondary1.17 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Main Grand Ontario Secondary0.88 2 4 0% 1.76 1 3 0 0 0 $1,219,000$506,000 $0 $0 $0 $122,000 $305,000 $173,000 $2,325,000$575,000Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foothill Secondary0.89 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Main Hidden Valley Parkridge Secondary0.35 4 6 0% 0.70 1 2 0 0 0 $481,000 $1,573,000$0 $0 $0 $48,000 $120,000 $205,000 $2,427,000$1,912,000Northwest Corona Main Parkridge SR-91 Secondary0.86 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Main SR-91 S. Grand Secondary0.86 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona McKinley Hidden Valley Promenade Secondary0.40 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona McKinley Promenade SR-91 Secondary0.33 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona McKinley SR-91 Magnolia Secondary0.31 4 6 0% 0.62 1 1 0 0 0 $431,000 $1,564,000$0 $0 $0 $43,000 $108,000 $200,000 $2,346,000$2,346,000Northwest Corona McKinley Arlington Channel bridge Secondary0.00 4 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 100 0 $0 $0 $0 $636,000 $0 $64,000 $159,000 $64,000 $923,000 $923,000Northwest Corona McKinley BNSF railroad crossingSecondary0.00 4 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,256,000$3,826,000$9,564,000$3,826,000$55,472,000$0Northwest Corona Ontario I-15 El Cerrito Secondary0.89 4 6 0% 1.78 1 2 0 0 0 $1,232,000$4,028,000$0 $0 $0 $123,000 $308,000 $526,000 $6,217,000$4,924,000Northwest Corona Ontario Lincoln Buena Vista Secondary0.32 4 6 0% 0.64 1 2 0 0 0 $444,000 $1,453,000$0 $0 $0 $44,000 $111,000 $190,000 $2,242,000$1,883,000Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Vista Main Secondary0.65 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Ontario Main KelloggSecondary0.78 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton Secondary0.32 4 6 0% 0.64 1 1 0 0 0 $443,000 $1,607,000$0 $0 $0 $44,000 $111,000 $205,000 $2,410,000$1,785,000Northwest Corona Ontario Fullerton Rimpau Secondary0.42 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Ontario Rimpau I-15 Secondary0.60 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Buena Vista Secondary2.45 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Railroad BNSF railroad crossingSecondary0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,932,000$1,093,000$2,733,000$1,093,000$15,851,000$15,851,000Northwest Corona Railroad Buena Vista Main (at Grand)Secondary0.58 2 4 0% 1.16 1 2 0 0 0 $803,000 $2,625,000$0 $0 $0 $80,000 $201,000 $343,000 $4,052,000$3,203,000Northwest Corona River Corydon Main Secondary2.27 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR-91 Green River Secondary0.96 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Eastvale Archibald San Bernardino CountyRiver Secondary3.63 2 4 82% 1.31 1 3 0 0 0 $905,000 $375,000 $0 $0 $0 $91,000 $226,000 $128,000 $1,725,000$1,725,000Northwest Eastvale HamnerMission Bellegrave Secondary3.03 2 6 73% 1.64 1 3 0 0 0 $1,132,000$470,000 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $283,000 $160,000 $2,158,000$2,158,000Northwest Eastvale HamnerBellegrave Amberhill Secondary0.20 4 6 0% 0.40 1 3 0 0 0 $277,000 $115,000 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $69,000 $39,000 $528,000 $528,000Northwest Eastvale HamnerAmberhill Limonite Secondary0.71 2 6 14% 2.44 1 3 0 0 0 $1,690,000$701,000 $0 $0 $0 $169,000 $423,000 $239,000 $3,222,000$3,222,000Northwest Eastvale HamnerLimonite Schleisman Secondary1.00 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Eastvale HamnerSchleisman Santa Ana RiverSecondary1.00 2 6 50% 2.00 1 3 0 0 0 $1,384,000$574,000 $0 $0 $0 $138,000 $346,000 $196,000 $2,638,000$2,638,000Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 East CenterSecondary0.35 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$0Northwest Eastvale Limonite East CenterHamnerSecondary0.27 5 6 100% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Eastvale Limonite HamnerSumner Secondary1.00 4 6 50% 1.00 1 3 0 0 0 $692,000 $287,000 $0 $0 $0 $69,000 $173,000 $98,000 $1,319,000$1,319,000Northwest Eastvale Limonite Sumner Harrison Secondary0.50 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Eastvale Limonite Harrison Archibald Secondary0.49 4 6 0% 0.98 1 3 0 0 0 $678,000 $281,000 $0 $0 $0 $68,000 $170,000 $96,000 $1,293,000$1,293,000Northwest Eastvale Limonite Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.)Secondary1.12 0 4 0% 4.48 1 3 0 0 0 $3,100,000$1,286,000$0 $0 $0 $310,000 $775,000 $439,000 $5,910,000$5,910,000Northwest Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge Secondary0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 200 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,544,000$0 $254,000 $636,000 $254,000 $3,688,000$3,688,000Northwest Jurupa ValleyArmstrongSan Bernardino CountyValley Secondary1.53 2 4 67% 1.01 2 3 0 0 0 $885,000 $289,000 $0 $0 $0 $89,000 $221,000 $117,000 $1,601,000$1,601,000Northwest Jurupa ValleyBellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Van Buren Secondary0.29 2 4 0% 0.58 1 3 0 0 0 $398,000 $165,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $100,000 $56,000 $759,000 $759,000Northwest Jurupa ValleyCantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville Bellegrave Secondary1.82 0 4 75% 1.82 1 3 0 0 0 $1,259,000$522,000 $0 $0 $0 $126,000 $315,000 $178,000 $2,400,000$2,400,000Northwest Jurupa ValleyEtiwanda San Bernardino CountySR-60 Secondary1.00 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Jurupa ValleyEtiwanda SR-60 Limonite Secondary3.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Jurupa ValleyLimonite I-15 Wineville Secondary0.40 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Jurupa ValleyLimonite Wineville Etiwanda Secondary0.99 3 4 100% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Jurupa ValleyLimonite Etiwanda Van Buren Secondary2.72 2 6 0% 10.87 1 3 0 0 0 $7,525,000$3,121,000$0 $0 $0 $753,000 $1,881,000$1,065,000$14,345,000$12,319,000Northwest Jurupa ValleyLimonite Van Buren Clay Secondary0.79 4 6 20% 1.27 1 3 0 0 0 $877,000 $364,000 $0 $0 $0 $88,000 $219,000 $124,000 $1,672,000$1,672,000Northwest Jurupa ValleyLimonite Clay Riverview Secondary2.45 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Jurupa ValleyMarket RubidouxSanta Ana RiverSecondary1.74 2 4 0% 3.49 1 3 0 0 0 $2,415,000$1,002,000$0 $0 $0 $242,000 $604,000 $342,000 $4,605,000$4,314,000Northwest Jurupa ValleyMarket Santa Ana Riverbridge Secondary0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 1,000 0 $0 $0 $0 $6,360,000$0 $636,000 $1,590,000$636,000 $9,222,000$7,849,000Northwest Jurupa ValleyMission Milliken SR-60 Secondary1.61 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Jurupa ValleyMission SR-60 Santa Ana RiverSecondary7.39 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Jurupa ValleyRiverview Limonite Mission Secondary0.95 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Jurupa ValleyRubidouxSan Bernardino CountyMission Secondary2.65 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Jurupa ValleyRubidouxSR-60 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 2 3 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$8,948,000Northwest Jurupa ValleyValley ArmstrongMission Secondary0.48 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Norco 1st Parkridge Mountain Secondary0.26 2 4 0% 0.51 1 3 0 0 0 $355,000 $147,000 $0 $0 $0 $36,000 $89,000 $50,000 $677,000 $677,000Northwest Norco 1st Mountain HamnerSecondary0.26 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Norco 2nd River I-15 Secondary1.44 2 4 0% 2.87 1 3 0 0 0 $1,988,000$824,000 $0 $0 $0 $199,000 $497,000 $281,000 $3,789,000$3,789,000Northwest Norco 6th HamnerCalifornia Secondary1.71 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Norco 6th I-15 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$5,593,000Northwest Norco Arlington North Arlington Secondary0.97 2 4 0% 1.95 1 3 0 0 0 $1,348,000$559,000 $0 $0 $0 $135,000 $337,000 $191,000 $2,570,000$2,570,000Northwest Norco California Arlington 6th Secondary0.98 2 4 0% 1.96 1 2 0 0 0 $1,357,000$4,437,000$0 $0 $0 $136,000 $339,000 $579,000 $6,848,000$6,848,000Northwest Norco Corydon River 5th Secondary1.46 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Norco HamnerSanta Ana Riverbridge Secondary0.00 2 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 1,200 0 $0 $0 $0 $15,264,000$0 $1,526,000$3,816,000$1,526,000$22,132,000$0Northwest Norco HamnerSanta Ana RiverHidden Valley Secondary3.05 4 6 0% 6.11 1 2 0 0 0 $4,225,000$13,817,000$0 $0 $0 $423,000 $1,056,000$1,804,000$21,325,000$21,325,000Northwest Norco Hidden Valley I-15 Norco Hills Secondary1.52 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Norco Hidden Valley HamnerI-15 Secondary0.13 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Norco Norco Corydon HamnerSecondary1.20 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Norco North California Arlington Secondary0.81 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Norco River Archibald Corydon Secondary1.14 2 4 86% 0.32 1 2 0 0 0 $221,000 $722,000 $0 $0 $0 $22,000 $55,000 $94,000 $1,114,000$803,0003.A.4.b Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: WRCOG TUMF Network List (Exhibit A) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) EXHIBIT H-1 WRCOG TUMF 2016 Nexus Update - TUMF Network Detailed Cost EstimateUpdated: May 1, 2017AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAMESEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORKMILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSEINTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING NEWLNCOSTROWCOSTINTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOSTPLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COSTMAXIMUM TUMF SHARENorthwest Riverside 14th Market Martin Luther KingSecondary0.89 4 4 0% 0.00 1 200 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside 1st Market Main Secondary0.08 2 2 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside 3rd SR-91 I-215 Secondary1.34 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside 3rd BNSF railroad crossingSecondary0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,504,000$2,550,000$6,376,000$2,550,000$36,980,000$36,980,000Northwest Riverside Adams Arlington SR-91 Secondary1.56 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 Lincoln Secondary0.54 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Northwest Riverside Buena Vista Santa Ana RiverRedwood Secondary0.30 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther KingCentral Secondary0.95 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Country Club Secondary0.59 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Country Club Via Vista Secondary0.94 2 4 0% 1.88 2 3 0 0 0 $1,653,000$540,000 $0 $0 $0 $165,000 $413,000 $219,000 $2,990,000$1,855,000Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro Secondary0.68 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Central Chicago I-215/SR-60 Secondary2.15 4 4 0% 0.00 1 200 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Central SR-91 Magnolia Secondary0.76 4 4 30% 0.00 1 200 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Central Alessandro SR-91 Secondary2.05 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia Secondary3.53 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Chicago Alessandro Spruce Secondary3.42 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia Secondary0.75 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa Secondary1.09 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 00$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Columbia I-215 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 00$0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Northwest Riverside Iowa Center3rd Secondary2.25 4 6 12% 3.96 1 2 0 0 0 $2,737,000$8,951,000$0 $0 $0 $274,000 $684,000 $1,169,000$13,815,000$13,815,000Northwest Riverside Iowa 3rd University Secondary0.51 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Iowa University Martin Luther KingSecondary0.51 2 4 0% 1.01 1 2 0 0 0 $699,000 $2,287,000$0 $0 $0 $70,000 $175,000 $299,000 $3,530,000$3,265,000Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwein Wood Secondary0.48 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside La Sierra Arlington SR-91 Secondary3.56 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside La Sierra SR-91 Indiana Secondary0.19 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside La Sierra Indiana Victoria Secondary0.78 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Lemon (NB One way)Mission Inn University Secondary0.08 3 3 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van Buren Jefferson Secondary2.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Lincoln Jefferson Washington Secondary1.00 2 4 38% 1.24 1 2 0 0 0 $858,000 $2,806,000$0 $0 $0 $86,000 $215,000 $366,000 $4,331,000$4,331,000Northwest Riverside Lincoln Washington Victoria Secondary1.43 2 4 18% 2.35 1 2 0 0 0 $1,623,000$5,309,000$0 $0 $0 $162,000 $406,000 $693,000 $8,193,000$8,193,000Northwest Riverside Madison SR-91 Victoria Secondary0.86 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Madison BNSF railroad crossingSecondary0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,932,000$1,093,000$2,733,000$1,093,000$15,851,000$10,851,000Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF Railroad TylerSecondary2.70 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF railroad crossingSecondary0.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,932,000$1,093,000$2,733,000$1,093,000$15,851,000$15,851,000Northwest Riverside Magnolia TylerHarrison Secondary0.65 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Magnolia Harrison 14th Secondary5.98 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino CountySecondary2.19 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana RiverSecondary2.03 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Martin Luther King14th I-215/SR-60 Secondary2.11 4 6 57% 1.82 1 2 0 0 0 $1,256,000$4,108,000$0 $0 $0 $126,000 $314,000 $536,000 $6,340,000$6,340,000Northwest Riverside Mission Inn Redwood Lemon Secondary0.79 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Redwood (SB One way)Mission Inn University Secondary0.08 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Trautwein Alessandro Van Buren Secondary2.19 4 4 0% 0.00 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside TylerSR-91 Magnolia Secondary0.43 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside TylerSR-91 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$3,089,000Northwest Riverside TylerMagnolia Hole Secondary0.27 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside TylerHole Wells Secondary1.06 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside TylerWells Arlington Secondary1.35 2 4 0% 2.70 1 2 0 0 0 $1,871,000$6,118,000$0 $0 $0 $187,000 $468,000 $799,000 $9,443,000$9,443,000Northwest Riverside University Redwood SR-91 Secondary0.86 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside University SR-91 I-215/SR-60 Secondary2.01 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Victoria Lincoln Arlington Secondary0.16 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Victoria Madison Washington Secondary0.52 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Washington Victoria Hermosa Secondary2.05 2 4 0% 4.11 1 2 0 0 0 $2,844,000$9,299,000$0 $0 $0 $284,000 $711,000 $1,214,000$14,352,000$14,352,000Northwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren Secondary0.70 2 450%0.70 1 3 0 0 0 $484,000 $201,000 $0 $0 $0 $48,000 $121,000 $69,000 $923,000 $923,000Northwest Riverside Wood Van Buren Bergamont Secondary0.11 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamont Krameria Secondary0.39 4 40%0.0013000 $0$0 $0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated Cantu-Galleano Ranch HamnerWineville Secondary0.94 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos(Weirick)Temescal Canyon I-15 Secondary0.21 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated El Cerrito I-15 Ontario Secondary0.56 2 4 100% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated El Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Cajalco Secondary1.05 2 4 0% 2.10 2 3 0 0 0 $1,844,000$603,000 $0 $0 $0 $184,000 $461,000 $245,000 $3,337,000$3,226,000Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Washington Scottsdale Secondary0.12 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Scottsdale Cajalco Secondary1.19 2 4 0% 2.38 1 3 0 0 0 $1,644,000$682,000 $0 $0 $0 $164,000 $411,000 $233,000 $3,134,000$3,134,000Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra Victoria El Sobrante Secondary2.22 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra El Sobrante Cajalco Secondary2.36 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren El Sobrante Secondary3.29 2 4 0% 6.58 2 3 0 0 0 $5,777,000$1,888,000$0 $0 $0 $578,000 $1,444,000$767,000 $10,454,000$9,003,000Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Ontario TuscanySecondary0.65 2 4 20% 1.03 2 3 0 0 0 $908,000 $297,000 $0 $0 $0 $91,000 $227,000 $121,000 $1,644,000$740,000Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon TuscanyDos Lagos Secondary0.91 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos LeroySecondary1.10 2 4 0% 2.21 2 3 0 0 0 $1,938,000$633,000 $0 $0 $0 $194,000 $485,000 $257,000 $3,507,000$3,507,000Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon LeroyDawson Canyon Secondary1.89 2 4 0% 3.77 2 3 0 0 0 $3,312,000$1,083,000$0 $0 $0 $331,000 $828,000 $440,000 $5,994,000$5,994,000Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dawson Canyon I-15 Secondary0.28 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 2 3 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 Park Canyon Secondary3.41 2 4 0% 6.81 3 3 0 0 0 $7,249,000$1,955,000$0 $0 $0 $725,000 $1,812,000$920,000 $12,661,000$12,661,000Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail Secondary2.55 2 4 0% 5.09 2 3 0 0 0 $4,473,000$1,462,000$0 $0 $0 $447,000 $1,118,000$594,000 $8,094,000$8,094,000Northwest Unincorporated Washington Hermosa Harley John Secondary3.96 2 4 25% 5.94 1 3 0 0 0 $4,113,000$1,706,000$0 $0 $0 $411,000 $1,028,000$582,000 $7,840,000$7,840,000Northwest Unincorporated Wood Krameria Cajalco Secondary2.99 2 4 0% 5.97 1 3 0 0 0 $4,134,000$1,714,000$0 $0 $0 $413,000 $1,034,000$585,000 $7,880,000$7,880,0003.A.4.b Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: WRCOG TUMF Network List (Exhibit A) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) EXHIBIT H-1 WRCOG TUMF 2016 Nexus Update - TUMF Network Detailed Cost EstimateUpdated: May 1, 2017AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAMESEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORKMILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSEINTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING NEWLNCOSTROWCOSTINTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOSTPLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COSTMAXIMUM TUMF SHAREPass Banning8th Wilson I-10 Secondary0.54 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass BanningHighland Springs Wilson (8th)Sun Lakes Secondary0.76 4 6 50% 0.76 1 2 0 0 0 $527,000 $1,724,000$0 $0 $0 $53,000 $132,000 $225,000 $2,661,000$2,661,000Pass BanningHighland Springs I-10 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Pass BanningHighland Springs Oak Valley (14th)Wilson(8th)Secondary0.73 2 4 0% 1.47 1 2 0 0 0 $1,016,000$3,322,000$0 $0 $0 $102,000 $254,000 $434,000 $5,128,000$5,128,000Pass BanningHighland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley (14th)Secondary1.53 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass BanningI-10 Bypass South I-10 Morongo Trail (Apache Trail)Secondary3.29 0 2 0% 6.57 1 2 0 0 0 $4,547,000$14,871,000$0 $0 $0 $455,000 $1,137,000$1,942,000$22,952,000$22,952,000Pass BanningI-10 Bypass South I-10 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Pass BanningI-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio bridge Secondary0.00 0 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908,000$0 $191,000 $477,000 $191,000 $2,767,000$2,767,000Pass BanningI-10 Bypass South UP railroad crossingSecondary0.00 0 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,752,000$1,275,000$3,188,000$1,275,000$18,490,000$18,490,000Pass BanningLincoln Sunset SR-243 Secondary2.01 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass BanningRamsey I-10 8th Secondary1.70 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass BanningRamsey 8th Highland Springs Secondary3.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass BanningSR-243 I-10 Wesley Secondary0.62 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass BanningSun Lakes Highland Home Sunset Secondary1.00 0 4 0% 4.00 1 2 0 0 0 $2,768,000$9,052,000$0 $0 $0 $277,000 $692,000 $1,182,000$13,971,000$13,971,000Pass BanningSun Lakes Smith Creek bridge Secondary0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 200 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,544,000$0 $254,000 $636,000 $254,000 $3,688,000$3,688,000Pass BanningSun Lakes Highland SpringsHighland Home Secondary1.33 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass BanningSunset Ramsey Lincoln Secondary0.28 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass BanningSunset I-10 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Pass BanningWilson Highland Home 8th Secondary2.51 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass BanningWilson Highland SpringsHighland Home Secondary1.01 2 4 100% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Beaumont 1st Viele Pennsylvania Secondary1.28 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Beaumont 1st Pennsylvania Highland Springs Secondary1.10 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Beaumont 6th I-10 Highland Springs Secondary2.24 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (STC)Secondary0.99 2 4 65% 0.69 1 3 0 0 0 $478,000 $198,000 $0 $0 $0 $48,000 $120,000 $68,000 $912,000 $912,000Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)Highland Springs Pennsylvania Secondary1.13 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)Pennsylvania Oak View Secondary1.40 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)Oak View I-10 Secondary0.65 2 4 50% 0.65 1 2 0 0 0 $450,000 $1,470,000$0 $0 $0 $45,000 $113,000 $192,000 $2,270,000$2,270,000Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)I-10 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$11,660,000Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC)Beaumont City Limits Cherry Valley (J St / Central OverlaSecondary3.46 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC)Cherry Valley (J St / Central OvI-10 Secondary1.67 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania 6th 1st Secondary0.53 2 4 18% 0.86 1 2 0 0 0 $598,000 $1,955,000$0 $0 $0 $60,000 $150,000 $255,000 $3,018,000$3,018,000Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania I-10 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 50% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $6,172,000$0 $0 $617,000 $1,543,000$617,000 $8,949,000$0Pass Calimesa Bryant County Line Avenue LSecondary0.38 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Calimesa Calimesa County Line I-10 Secondary0.80 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Calimesa Calimesa I-10 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$37,060,000Pass Calimesa Tukwet Canyon Roberts Palmer Secondary0.50 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Calimesa County Line Roberts Bryant Secondary1.86 2 2 0% 1.86 1 2 0 0 0 $1,287,000$4,209,000$0 $0 $0 $129,000 $322,000 $550,000 $6,497,000$6,497,000Pass Calimesa County Line I-10 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Palmer Champions Secondary1.42 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Calimesa Singleton Avenue LCondit Secondary1.86 0 4 0% 7.45 2 3 0 0 0 $6,539,000$2,138,000$0 $0 $0 $654,000 $1,635,000$868,000 $11,834,000$11,834,000Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts Secondary0.85 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Calimesa Singleton I-10 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$37,060,000Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Desert Lawn Secondary3.40 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley I-10 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$36,617,000Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley San Timoteo Wash bridge Secondary0.00 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC)San Bernardino CountySecondary2.81 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Unincorporated Oak Valley (STC)San Bernardino CountyBeaumont City Limits Secondary5.65 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Pass Unincorporated Oak Valley (STC)UP railroad crossingSecondary0.00 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,752,000$1,275,000$3,188,000$1,275,000$18,490,000$18,490,000Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Bellflower Noble Secondary1.47 0 4 0% 5.88 1 3 0 0 0 $4,069,000$1,688,000$0 $0 $0 $407,000 $1,017,000$576,000 $7,757,000$7,757,000Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Bellflower Secondary0.44 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo Secondary0.98 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigoni Stetson Secondary1.08 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson RR CrossingAcacia Secondary0.42 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR CrossingSecondary0.58 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplanade Secondary1.00 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida)Warren Cawston Secondary1.02 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida)Columbia Ramona Secondary2.58 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/SR-79 (Florida)Cawston Columbia Secondary4.03 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet State Domenigoni Chambers Secondary1.31 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson Secondary0.51 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet State Florida Esplanade Secondary1.74 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson Florida Secondary1.25 2 4 0% 2.49 1 1 0 0 0 $1,724,000$6,252,000$0 $0 $0 $172,000 $431,000 $798,000 $9,377,000$9,377,000San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cawston State Secondary2.52 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Warren Cawston Secondary1.00 2 4 0% 2.00 1 3 0 0 0 $1,382,000$573,000 $0 $0 $0 $138,000 $346,000 $196,000 $2,635,000$2,635,000San Jacinto Hemet Warren Esplanade Domenigoni Secondary4.99 2 4 0% 9.98 1 3 0 0 0 $6,905,000$2,864,000$0 $0 $0 $691,000 $1,726,000$977,000 $13,163,000$13,163,000San Jacinto Hemet Warren Salt Creek bridge Secondary0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 300 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,908,000$0 $191,000 $477,000 $191,000 $2,767,000$2,490,000San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Ramona Mountain Secondary0.20 0 4 0% 0.80 1 2 0 0 0 $554,000 $1,810,000$0 $0 $0 $55,000 $139,000 $236,000 $2,794,000$2,794,000San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Mountain State Secondary2.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Warren Secondary3.53 2 4 0% 7.06 1 3 0 0 0 $4,889,000$2,028,000$0 $0 $0 $489,000 $1,222,000$692,000 $9,320,000$9,320,000San Jacinto San Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade Secondary3.55 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (North Ramona)State San Jacinto Secondary1.02 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto)North Ramona Blvd 7th Secondary0.25 2 4 0% 0.49 1 2 0 0 0 $341,000 $1,116,000$0 $0 $0 $34,000 $85,000 $146,000 $1,722,000$1,722,000San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto)7th SR-74 Secondary2.25 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade Secondary1.99 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto San Jacinto State Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch Secondary0.76 2 4 0% 1.52 1 3 0 0 0 $1,053,000$437,000 $0 $0 $0 $105,000 $263,000 $149,000 $2,007,000$1,138,000San Jacinto San Jacinto State San Jacinto River bridge Secondary0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 500 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,180,000$0 $318,000 $795,000 $318,000 $4,611,000$3,162,000San Jacinto San Jacinto State Quandt Ranch Ramona Secondary0.70 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0San Jacinto San Jacinto Warren Ramona Esplanade Secondary3.47 2 4 0% 6.94 1 3 0 0 0 $4,803,000$1,992,000$0 $0 $0 $480,000 $1,201,000$680,000 $9,156,000$9,156,000San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Sanderson State Secondary2.54 2 4 0% 5.09 1 3 0 0 0 $3,522,000$1,461,000$0 $0 $0 $352,000 $881,000 $498,000 $6,714,000$3,462,000San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Massacre Canyon Wash bridge Secondary0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 100 0 $0 $0 $0 $636,000 $0 $64,000 $159,000 $64,000 $923,000 $570,000San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)SR-74(Florida)Domenigoni Secondary3.23 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3.A.4.b Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: WRCOG TUMF Network List (Exhibit A) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) EXHIBIT H-1 WRCOG TUMF 2016 Nexus Update - TUMF Network Detailed Cost EstimateUpdated: May 1, 2017AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAMESEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORKMILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSEINTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING NEWLNCOSTROWCOSTINTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOSTPLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COSTMAXIMUM TUMF SHARESouthwest Lake Elsinore Corydon Mission Grand Secondary1.53 2 4 50% 1.53 1 3 0 0 0 $1,059,000$439,000 $0 $0 $0 $106,000 $265,000 $150,000 $2,019,000$2,019,000Southwest Lake Elsinore Diamond Mission I-15 Secondary0.24 4 6 100% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin (integral to Railroad CI-15 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$14,629,000Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Lincoln Toft Secondary1.29 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Toft SR-74 (Riverside)Secondary0.86 2 4 40% 1.03 1 3 0 0 0 $712,000 $295,000 $0 $0 $0 $71,000 $178,000 $101,000 $1,357,000$1,357,000Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 Lincoln Secondary3.10 2 6 25% 9.31 2 3 0 0 0 $8,175,000$2,672,000$0 $0 $0 $818,000 $2,044,000$1,085,000$14,794,000$13,592,000Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 2 3 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$7,291,000Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake Temescal Wash bridge Secondary0.00 2 6 0% 0.00 2 3 0 107 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,361,000$0 $136,000 $340,000 $136,000 $1,973,000$822,000Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy CanyonSecondary2.39 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake Secondary1.80 2 4 30% 2.52 1 3 0 0 0 $1,744,000$723,000 $0 $0 $0 $174,000 $436,000 $247,000 $3,324,000$3,324,000Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 2 0 0 $0 $0 $25,558,000$0 $0 $2,556,000$6,390,000$2,556,000$37,060,000$37,060,000Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Collier/Riverside)I-15 Lakeshore Secondary2.10 2 6 0% 8.41 1 2 0 0 0 $5,816,000$19,021,000$0 $0 $0 $582,000 $1,454,000$2,484,000$29,357,000$28,315,000Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Grand)Riverside SR-74 (Ortega)Secondary0.64 2 6 0% 2.55 1 2 0 0 0 $1,762,000$5,761,000$0 $0 $0 $176,000 $441,000 $752,000 $8,892,000$7,495,000Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Riverside)Lakeshore Grand Secondary1.74 2 6 10% 6.25 1 2 0 0 0 $4,325,000$14,144,000$0 $0 $0 $433,000 $1,081,000$1,847,000$21,830,000$21,830,000Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon I-15 Lake Secondary1.21 2 4 0% 2.42 2 3 0 0 0 $2,125,000$695,000 $0 $0 $0 $213,000 $531,000 $282,000 $3,846,000$3,846,000Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash bridge Secondary0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 246 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,565,000$0 $157,000 $391,000 $157,000 $2,270,000$2,270,000Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jefferson I-15 Secondary0.32 4 6 75% 0.16 1 2 0 0 0 $110,000 $359,000 $0 $0 $0 $11,000 $28,000 $47,000 $555,000 $555,000Southwest Murrieta California Oaks I-15 Jackson Secondary0.50 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jackson Clinton Keith Secondary1.76 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Jackson Whitewood YnezSecondary0.53 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Palomar NutmegSecondary1.02 0 4 50% 2.04 1 3 0 0 0 $1,412,000$585,000 $0 $0 $0 $141,000 $353,000 $200,000 $2,691,000$2,691,000Southwest Murrieta Jefferson NutmegMurrieta Hot Springs Secondary2.37 2 6 35% 6.16 1 2 0 0 0 $4,264,000$13,943,000$0 $0 $0 $426,000 $1,066,000$1,821,000$21,520,000$21,520,000Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Murrieta Hot Springs Cherry Secondary2.26 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 Whitewood Backbone 0.75 2 4 70% 0.45 1 2 0 0 0 $311,000 $1,018,000$0 $0 $0 $31,000 $78,000 $133,000 $1,571,000$1,571,000Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 2 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$17,897,000Southwest Murrieta Los Alamos Jefferson I-215 Secondary1.77 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson I-215 Secondary1.11 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs I-215 Margarita Secondary1.48 6 6 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot SpringsMargarita SR-79 (Winchester)Secondary1.01 4 6 0% 2.02 1 3 0 0 0 $1,395,000$579,000 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $349,000 $197,000 $2,660,000$2,660,000Southwest Murrieta NutmegJefferson Clinton Keith Secondary1.97 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Clinton Keith Los Alamos Secondary2.01 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Los Alamos Murrieta Hot Springs Secondary1.93 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson Secondary0.80 0 4 33% 2.14 2 2 0 0 0 $1,882,000$4,852,000$0 $0 $0 $188,000 $471,000 $673,000 $8,066,000$8,066,000Southwest Murrieta YnezJackson SR-79 (Winchester)Secondary1.22 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California Secondary2.29 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Temecula Margarita Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Secondary7.38 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Temecula Old Town Front Rancho California I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Secondary1.45 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Via Gilberto Secondary1.32 6 6 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy Secondary1.44 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Margarita Secondary1.89 4 6 52% 1.81 1 1 0 0 0 $1,255,000$4,549,000$0 $0 $0 $126,000 $314,000 $580,000 $6,824,000$6,824,000Southwest Temecula Rancho California I-15 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 1 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$12,009,000Southwest Temecula Rancho California Margarita Butterfield Stage Secondary1.96 4 4 0% 0.00 1 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Temecula Rancho California Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks Secondary4.26 2 4 0% 8.52 1 1 0 0 0 $5,896,000$21,377,000$0 $0 $0 $590,000 $1,474,000$2,727,000$32,064,000$32,064,000Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)I-15 Pechanga Pkwy Secondary0.64 6 8 0% 1.28 1 3 0 0 0 $887,000 $368,000 $0 $0 $0 $89,000 $222,000 $126,000 $1,692,000$1,576,000Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage Secondary3.08 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-79 (Winchester)Secondary3.39 2 4 0% 6.78 1 3 0 0 0 $4,695,000$1,947,000$0 $0 $0 $470,000 $1,174,000$664,000 $8,950,000$8,950,000Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos Secondary0.82 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Calle Chapos La Serena Secondary0.70 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage La Serena Rancho California Secondary0.90 2 4 0% 1.80 2 3 0 0 0 $1,580,000$517,000 $0 $0 $0 $158,000 $395,000 $210,000 $2,860,000$2,860,000Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Rancho California Pauba Secondary0.85 4 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Pauba SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Secondary1.69 2 4 95% 0.17 2 3 0 0 0 $148,000 $49,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $37,000 $20,000 $269,000 $269,000Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage SR-79 (Winchester)Auld Secondary2.28 2 4 0% 4.56 2 3 0 0 0 $4,004,000$1,309,000$0 $0 $0 $400,000 $1,001,000$531,000 $7,245,000$7,245,000Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Auld Murrieta Hot Springs Secondary2.23 0 4 0% 8.92 2 3 0 0 0 $7,832,000$2,560,000$0 $0 $0 $783,000 $1,958,000$1,039,000$14,172,000$14,172,000Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Tucalota Creekbridge Secondary0.00 0 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 200 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,544,000$0 $254,000 $636,000 $254,000 $3,688,000$3,688,000Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon I-15 Secondary0.17 2 2 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon I-15 Secondary0.18 6 6 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Unincorporated Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Winchester)PourroySecondary1.75 4 4 0% 0.00 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechanga San Diego County Secondary1.38 2 2 0% 0.00 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Horsethief Canyon Wash bridge Secondary0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 240 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,526,000$0 $153,000 $382,000 $153,000 $2,214,000$2,214,000Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Truck Trail I-15 Secondary2.57 2 4 0% 5.14 2 3 0 0 0 $4,513,000$1,475,000$0 $0 $0 $451,000 $1,128,000$599,000 $8,166,000$8,166,000Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Wash bridge Secondary0.00 2 4 0% 0.00 2 3 0 102 0 $0 $0 $0 $649,000 $0 $65,000 $162,000 $65,000 $941,000 $941,000Southwest Wildomar BaxterI-15 Palomar Secondary0.37 2 4 0% 0.74 1 3 0 0 0 $511,000 $212,000 $0 $0 $0 $51,000 $128,000 $72,000 $974,000 $921,000Southwest Wildomar BaxterI-15 interchange Secondary0.00 0 0 0% 0.00 1 3 3 0 0 $0 $0 $12,343,000$0 $0 $1,234,000$3,086,000$1,234,000$17,897,000$7,159,000Southwest Wildomar Bundy CanyonMission I-15 Secondary0.94 2 4 0% 1.87 1 2 0 0 0 $1,295,000$4,235,000$0 $0 $0 $130,000 $324,000 $553,000 $6,537,000$6,537,000Southwest Wildomar Central BaxterPalomar Secondary0.74 2 4 0% 1.47 1 2 0 0 0 $1,019,000$3,332,000$0 $0 $0 $102,000 $255,000 $435,000 $5,143,000$5,143,000Southwest Wildomar Central Grand Palomar Secondary0.51 2 4 0% 1.02 1 2 0 0 0 $707,000 $2,313,000$0 $0 $0 $71,000 $177,000 $302,000 $3,570,000$3,570,000Southwest Wildomar Grand Ortega Corydon Secondary4.96 2 4 0% 9.92 1 2 0 0 0 $6,865,000$22,449,000$0 $0 $0 $687,000 $1,716,000$2,931,000$34,648,000$25,011,000Southwest Wildomar Grand Corydon Central Secondary2.02 2 2 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Wildomar Mission Bundy CanyonPalomar Secondary0.84 4 4 0% 0.00 1 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Southwest Wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Jefferson Secondary0.74 2 4 0% 1.47 1 3 0 0 0 $1,018,000$422,000 $0 $0 $0 $102,000 $255,000 $144,000 $1,941,000$1,691,000Southwest Wildomar Palomar Mission Clinton Keith Secondary2.79 2 4 0% 5.58 1 3 0 0 0 $3,860,000$1,601,000$0 $0 $0 $386,000 $965,000 $546,000 $7,358,000$7,358,000SubtotalSecondary473.09 367.31 31 7,695 8 $274,398,000$360,018,000$508,612,000$60,115,000$127,526,000$97,069,000$242,686,000$133,071,000$1,803,495,000$1,484,916,000TotalsNetwork728.37 796.17 47 15,812 10 601,849,000$ 751,469,000$ 898,457,000$ 147,641,000$ 158,496,000$ 180,652,000$ 451,654,000$ 255,802,000$ 3,446,020,000$ 2,712,871,000$Transit153,120,000$ 92,639,000$Administration112,220,400$ 112,220,400$MSHCP45,401,000$ 43,308,000$Total3,756,761,400$ 2,961,038,400$3.A.4.b Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: WRCOG TUMF Network List (Exhibit A) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY 2016 UPDATE FINAL REPORT Prepared for the Western Riverside Council of Governments In Cooperation with The City of Banning The City of Beaumont The City of Calimesa The City of Canyon Lake The City of Corona The City of Eastvale The City of Hemet The City of Jurupa Valley The City of Lake Elsinore The City of Menifee The City of Moreno Valley The City of Murrieta The City of Norco The City of Perris The City of Riverside The City of San Jacinto The City of Temecula The City of Wildomar The County of Riverside Eastern Municipal Water District March Joint Powers Authority Morongo Band of Mission Indians Riverside County Superintendent of Schools Riverside Transit Agency Western Municipal Water District Prepared by WSP As adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee, July 10, 2017 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... ii ES.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. iii ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study ............................................................. iii ES.2 Future Growth .................................................................................................................. vi ES.3 Need for the TUMF ........................................................................................................... vi ES.4 The TUMF Network .......................................................................................................... viii ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis ......................................................................................................... x ES.6 Fair-Share Fee Calculation ............................................................................................. x ES.7 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY ..................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History ................................................................................................ 2 1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process .............................................................................................. 4 1.3.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List ................................................................. 6 1.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs ......................................................... 7 1.3.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component .............................................................. 8 1.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments ............................................ 8 1.3.5. Computing the Fee for Non-Residential Developments .................................... 9 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH ................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 Recent Historical Trend .................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Available Demographic Data ..................................................................................... 12 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis .............................. 13 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF ........................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels ............................................................................. 19 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels ...................................................................................... 22 3.3 The TUMF Concept ......................................................................................................... 23 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK ............................................................................................................ 25 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network ........................................................... 25 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network ........................................................... 28 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs ...................................................................... 31 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System .......................................... 36 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding ........................................................................................... 39 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs ..................................................................... 39 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost ........................................................................................ 41 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation .............................................................................................. 51 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 53 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements .......................................... 53 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components............................................................... 54 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments ............... 57 6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION......................................................................................... 58 6.1 Residential Fees .............................................................................................................. 58 6.2 Non-Residential Fees ...................................................................................................... 59 7.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 61 8.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 62 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 ii LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County .............. xii Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ................. 13 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ............ 15 Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) ........................................................................................................ 16 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) .......................................................... 18 Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline to 2040 No-Build) ........................................................................................................ 20 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction ..................................... 34 Table 4.2 – Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County ......................................... 34 Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures ............................................................. 38 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates .................................................................................. 44 Table 4.5 – TUMF Transit Cost Estimates ...................................................................................... 51 Table 4.6 – Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build Scenarios to 2040 TUMF Build Scenario) ................................... 52 Table 5.1 - 2040 Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone ................................................. 55 Table 5.2 - 2040 Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone .................................. 55 Table 5.3 - Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation ............................................. 56 Table 5.4 - Peak Period VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2012 - 2040) ........................................................................................................... 57 Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share .................................................................... 59 Table 6.2 - Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share ........................................................... 60 Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County ............... 61 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process .................................. v Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) ........................................................................................................ vii Figure ES.3 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials–TUMF Network Improvements .. ix Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process .................................... 5 Figure 2.1 – Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ............... 14 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ........... 15 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) ........................................................................................................ 17 Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) .......................................................... 18 Figure 4.1 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County ..... 27 Figure 4.2 - The Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County .................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 4.3 - Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) ...................... 30 Figure 4.4 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials–TUMF Network Improvements ... 43 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 iii ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000’s, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the economic recession of the late 2000’s, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, has slowed this rate of growth, the region is expected to rebound and the projected growth in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for southwest Riverside County. In August 2000, the concept was expanded to include the entire WRCOG sub- region. The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Riverside Transit Agency and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute toward addressing the impacts of new growth on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their “fair share” toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Draft Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. The results of the first review of the Program were 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 iv documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015. The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015 where it was resolved to “delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study”. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016 enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is illustrated in Figure ES.1. Each technical step is denoted with a number on the flow chart with the numbers correlating to the detailed description of each step provided in Section 1.3 of the Nexus Study Report. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM), steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in the Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the final results of the third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program to incorporate the revisions completed during 2016. This version of the document also incorporates revisions in response to comments received during the 45 day review of the earlier Draft TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOGTUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 vFigure (6.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process 3.A.4.cPacket Pg. 111Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 vi ES.2 Future Growth For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR provided demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts as well as providing the demographic basis for the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM). RCCDR data was used as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. As directed by the WRCOG Executive Committee, the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS demographics forecasts were utilized as the basis for this 2016 Update of the TUMF Nexus Study. A major distinction between RCCDR data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data used for this 2016 Update is the change in the base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2035 to 2040. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. The population of Western Riverside County is projected to increase by 37% in the period between 2012 and 2040. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 87%. Figure ES.2 illustrates the forecast growth in population, household and employment for Western Riverside County. ES.3 Need for the TUMF The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the TUMF study area included total vehicle miles of travel (VMT), total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure, particularly the arterial roadways, with the peak period VMT on the TUMF Network estimated to increase by 63% between 2012 and 2040. By 2040, 57% of the total VMT on the TUMF Network is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing peak period LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on the TUMF Network will increase over 4.9% per year. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 vii Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 20,791 30,306 253,372 528,092158,561 235,600 65,888 101,729 1,773,935 2,429,633 366,588 539,631 120,736 201,328 Industrial Retail Service Government Single-Family Multi-Family Household Type: Employment Sector: As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. Weekday system ridership for RTA bus transit services is approximately 31,016 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2015. By 2025, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 46,572 riders per weekday. This represents an average increase of 1,414 weekday riders each year. Based on this rate of ridership growth, weekday ridership is estimated to increase by 41,011 riders per weekday between 2012 and 2040. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer-distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 viii The fee should be assessed proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each use on the transportation system. ES.4 The TUMF Network The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the TUMF Network) is the system of roadways that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied select performance guidelines were identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. This framework was reviewed by representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions and private sector stakeholders, and endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The TUMF Network was refined to distinguish between facilities of “Regional Significance” and facilities of “Zonal Significance”. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the “backbone” highway network for Western Riverside County. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the “secondary” network) represent the balance of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system and on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. Figure ES.3 illustrates the TUMF improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.76 billion. Accounting for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $2.96 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $2.71 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $92.6 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $43.3 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $112.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) &< &< &< &< &< &< ¬!2 ·|}þ·|}þ ·|}þ &< &< &< &< &< &< &< ¬!1 ¬!2 ¬!1 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!3 ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"$# &< &< &<&< &< ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!3¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 !D(1 !D(1 !D(1 !D(2·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< ¬!1 ¬!1 ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 !D(1 !D(2 !D(2 !D(2 !D(2 !D(2 !D(1 ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"$# ¾¾¿ ¾¾¿ ¾ ¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿ ¾¿¾¾¿¾¿ &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 !D(2 !D(1 !D(1 ·|}þ !"$# !"$# n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ #7 1st County Line 6th Lincoln Wilson Cherry Valley Sa LAKE PERRIS SAN JACINTO RIVER SAN JACINTO RESERVOIR BAUTISTA CREEK F.C. CHANNEL LITTLE LAKE DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE University Schleisman 1st Cantu-Galleano Ranch Central 6th 2nd 6th St Van Buren Limonite Mission Esplanade Stetson Ave Patton Ave Stetson SR-74/SR-79 (Florida)SR-74 (Florida) Mid County Pkwy r ta Clinton Keith KellerBundyCanyon Ramona McCall Ellis Newport Eucalyptus Placentia Holland Rd Nuevo Ethanac SR 74 4th Ironwood un n Cajalco Alessandro Alessandro SR-74 Harley Knox Blvd Ethanac Nuevo py Center St Cactus Ellis Scott 0 4 8 122Miles Northwest Zone Southwest Zone Hemet/San Jacinto Zone Pass Zone Central Zone Los Angeles County San Bernardino County Riverside County San Diego County Imperial County Orange County WRCOG Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program | Figure ES.3 Disclaiming: Western Riverside Council of Governments assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information represented on this map is subject to updates, modifications and may not be complete or appropriate for all purposes ¹ Note: The RTA facilities are subject to further change based on final location determination Legend Interchanges Ultimate Number of Lanes Bridges Railroad Crossings ¬!3 Major Interchange Improvement ¬!2 New Interchange or Interchange Modification ¬!1 Complex New Interchange or Interchange Modification !D(1 New Rail Grade Crossing !D(2 Existing Rail Grade Crossing Improvement Bridge Improvement&< Operation & Maintenance Facility#7 n£Transit Transfer Facility n£Transit Center Central Corridor RapidLink¾¾¿¾¾¿ 2 Lanes Mid County Parkway Railroads Freeways Lakes & Rivers TUMF Zone Boundary Streets & Roads City Boundaries 4 Lanes 6 Lanes 8 Lanes 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 x ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis There is a reasonable relationship between the future growth and the need for improvements to the TUMF system. These factors include: Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of peak period trips between zones. The overall result is that 50.7% of the regional travel is attributable to the backbone network and 49.3% is assigned to the secondary network. In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, peak period growth in VMT between 2012 and 2040 was derived from RivTAM and aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home-based person trips represent 71.0% of the total future person trips, and the non-home-based person trips represent 29.0% of the total future person trips. ES.6 Fair-Share Fee Calculation The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $2.96 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their “fair share” of the 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 xi costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.96 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 71.0% ($2.10 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 29.0% ($858.7 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. ES.7 Conclusions Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be demonstrated that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways; The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County; Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development; Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program; Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automotive travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional “fair share” of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. The fair share fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table ES.1. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 xii Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Change Fee Per Unit Total Revenue ($ million) Single Family Residential DU 173,043 $9,418 $1,629.8 Multi Family Residential DU 77,039 $6,134 $472.5 Industrial SF GFA 64,710,138 $1.77 $114.8 Retail SF GFA 17,920,500 $12.31 $220.5 Service SF GFA 105,211,915 $4.56 $480.0 Government/Public SF GFA 2,696,349 $16.08 $43.4 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $2,961.0 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY 1.1 Background Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000’s, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the economic recession of the late 2000’s, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, slowed this rate of growth, the regional economy is continuing to rebound and the projected rate of development in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. Development exactions only provide improvements near the development site, and the broad-based county-level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County’s half-cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. In anticipation of the continued future growth projected in Riverside County, several county-wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development. Regional arterial highways in Western Riverside County are forecast to carry significant traffic volumes by 2040. While some localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while these programs are effective locally, they are insufficient in their ability to meet the regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Former Riverside County Supervisor Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process for a regional TUMF Program before applying the concept countywide. From February 1999 to September 2000, the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure System 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 2 Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee scenarios and a draft Implementation Agreement. In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in developing a TUMF for that area of the county. Interest in the development of a northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete and disparate fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF Program and provide overall guidance to all other staff committees. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future new development will contribute toward addressing its indirect cumulative traffic impacts on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their “fair share” toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act), which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows: 1) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee’s use and the type of project for which the fee is required. 2) The fee must not exceed the project’s proportional “fair share” of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make improvements for existing development. 1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 3 representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Riverside Transit Agency and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. A current list of the standing WRCOG TUMF related committees and committee membership is included in Appendix A. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. Its purpose was to establish the nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that would be used to improve regional transportation facilities. It also identified the proportional “fair share” of the improvement cost attributable to new development. Consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, the WRCOG Executive Committee has established that the TUMF Nexus Study will be subject of a comprehensive review of the underlying program assumptions at least every five years to confirm the Nexus. Acknowledging the unprecedented and unique nature of the TUMF Program, the Executive Committee determined that the first comprehensive review of the Program should be initiated within two years of initial adoption of the Program primarily to validate the findings and recommendations of the study and to correct any program oversights. The results of the first review of the Program were documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015. The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015 where it was resolved to “delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study”. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016 enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the final results of the third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program to incorporate the revisions completed during 2016. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. To ensure new development continues to contribute a fair share of the cost to mitigate its cumulative regional transportation impacts in the period between the comprehensive review of program assumptions completed at least every five years, the 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 4 WRCOG Executive Committee has also established that the TUMF Schedule of Fees will be reviewed annually, and adjusted, as needed, on July 1st to reflect current costs. The revised schedule of fees will be recalculated in February of each year based on the percentage increase or decrease in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the twelve (12) month period from January of the prior year to January of the current year, and the percentage increase or decrease in the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Median Sales Price of Existing Single Family Homes in the Riverside/San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area for the twelve (12) month period from the 3rd Quarter of the second year prior to the 3rd Quarter of the prior year (to coincide with the publication of the most recently updated index). If approved by the Executive Committee, the resultant percentage change for each of the indices will be applied to the unit cost assumptions for roadway and bus transit costs, and land acquisition costs, respectively, to reflect the combined effects of changes in eligible project costs on the resultant per unit fee for each defined land use category. 1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process In coordination with WRCOG, city and county representatives, developers, and other interested parties reviewed and updated the underlying assumptions of the Nexus Study as part of this comprehensive program review. In particular, the most recent socioeconomic forecasts developed by SCAG as the basis for the 2016 RTP/SCS were incorporated, as resolved by the WRCOG Executive Committee at the September 14, 2015 meeting. This use of the most recent SCAG forecasts resulted in a shift of the program base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as a shift in the program horizon year from 2035 to 2040. Furthermore, the TUMF Network was re-examined in detail based on travel demand forecasts derived from the most recent version of the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM) to more accurately reflect future project needs to address the cumulative regional impacts of new development in Western Riverside County as well as eliminating those projects having been completed prior to the commencement of the Nexus review in 2016. The subsequent chapters of this Nexus Study document describe the various assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of each major variable in the TUMF calculation, and ultimately leading to the determination of the TUMF Schedule of Fees that indicates the maximum “fair share” fee for each of the various use types defined in the TUMF program. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is summarized in this section, including the flow chart in Figure 1.1 that illustrates the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step that was followed to determine the TUMF Schedule of Fees and establish the program nexus is summarized below, with the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to the steps described. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of RivTAM, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in this Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOGTUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 5 Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process 3.A.4.cPacket Pg. 123Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 6 1.1.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List The roadway network in Western Riverside County must be evaluated to determine how new development activity will impact the performance of the network, and how the resultant traffic impacts can be mitigated by completing various roadway improvements. The following steps integrate the latest SCAG socio-economic forecasts into RivTAM as the basis for determining future roadway deficiencies and identifying the list of eligible improvements to address these future deficiencies. The rational and methodology for accomplishing these steps is further explained in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report, with the resultant TUMF Network described in Chapter 4. 1)The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2012 as its base year. This officially-adopted dataset was updated for the base for the TUMF 2016 Nexus Update, including redistribution of the SCAG data to correspond to the RivTAM TAZ structure. 2)The RivTAM model1 has datasets available that represent the capacity of the different facilities in the road network for several different study years. For this nexus update, the RivTAM 2012 base network that was developed following the adoption of the SCAG 2012 RTP was selected as the one most closely resembling current conditions. This network was subsequently reviewed and updated, including a detailed review by WRCOG and participating jurisdictions, as well as partner entities, including BIA, to identify projects that were completed on the arterial network in the period between 2012 and December 2015. The arterial network was then recoded to reflect the changes to the TUMF Network to create a 2015 existing network as the basis for analysis. 3)RivTAM was run using the 2012 socio-economic data (SED) and the 2015 road network to produce the baseline volumes on the roads in the TUMF Network. 4)The baseline volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio was then determined. The target LOS for TUMF facilities is “D”, meaning that facilities with LOS “E” or “F”, i.e. those with a V/C ratio of 0.9 or higher, are deemed to have inadequate capacity. The result of this step is a list of roads that have existing capacity deficiencies. 5)The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2040 as its forecast horizon year. This officially-adopted dataset was also used as the future base year for the TUMF update calculation. 6)RivTAM was run using the arterial road network for 2015 with the land use assumptions for 2040. This “No Build” scenario was used to determine where 1 The macro-level traffic forecasting was conducted using the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM). RivTAM is a version of SCAG’s six-county model with additional detail (traffic analysis zones and local roads) added within Riverside County. It was developed for use in traffic studies in Riverside County as a replacement for several older models that covered different portions of the county. RivTAM has both the geographic scope needed to analyze all TUMF facilities and conformity with regional planning assumptions. There is a memorandum of understanding among the jurisdictions of Riverside County that encourages the use of the RivTAM model for use in traffic studies. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 7 deficiencies would occur in the roadway system if development occurred as expected but no roadway improvements were implemented. 7) Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies showed where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to new development. Comparing the existing and future traffic volume to capacity ratio on the roads that are currently deficient shows the portion of the future deficiency that is attributable to new development. 8) It is generally acknowledged that the TUMF program cannot and should not attempt to fund every roadway improvement needed in Western Riverside County. WRCOG has adopted a set of selection criteria that was used to choose which roadway improvements would be eligible for TUMF funding. 9) The selection criteria were applied to the forecast deficiencies to identify projects for the TUMF Project List. The project list was subsequently reviewed to confirm the eligibility of proposed projects, including projects previously included in the TUMF program, as well as additional projects requested for inclusion as part of the current update. The project list was then subsequently updated to reflect those projects considered eligible for TUMF funding as part of the 2016 Nexus. 1.1.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs The estimated costs of proposed improvements on the TUMF Network are calculated based on the prices of construction materials, labor and land values for the various eligible project types included as part of the TUMF program. The approach and outcomes of the following steps is described in Chapter 4 of this report. 10) The TUMF program has design standards covering the road project components that are eligible for TUMF funding. This ensures that projects in jurisdictions with different design standards are treated equally2. 11) The unit costs for the various construction components were updated based on the current cost values for labor and materials such as cement, asphalt, reinforcing steel, etc., as derived from Caltrans cost database, RCTC and other sources, effective March 2016. Additionally, the ROW cost components per square foot for various land use types were also updated based on current property valuations in Riverside County as researched by Overland, Pacific and Cutler in March 2016. 12) The design standards and the unit costs were combined to create conceptual engineering cost estimates for different eligible project types (road costs per lane-mile, typical costs per arterial-freeway interchange, bridge costs per linear foot, etc.). The unit costs from the previous step were then applied to the project list to estimate the costs of the improvements on the TUMF project list. 2 A jurisdiction may choose to design to a higher standard, but if it does so TUMF will only fund up to the equivalent of what costs would have been had the TUMF design standards been followed. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 8 13) The percentage of each project that was attributable to new development was then applied to the costs of TUMF road projects to find the total road project cost that is attributable to new development. 1.1.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component A portion of the TUMF funding is made available for transit services that provide an alternative to car travel for medium-to-long distance intra-regional trips. The eligible transit projects and their associated costs are determined using the following steps, with additional explanation provided in Chapter 4 of this report. 14) The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) commissioned a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that was completed in January 2015. This analysis looked at existing and future ridership and identified potential projects to expand and improve transit service in Riverside County. 15) The COA’s ridership figures for 2015 and 2025 were extrapolated to 2012 and 2040 to match the analysis years used for TUMF road projects. 16) The growth in ridership between 2012 and 2040 was compared to total ridership in 2040 to determine the portion of 2040 ridership that is attributable to existing passengers and the portion attributable to new growth. 17) As was the case for road improvements, possible transit projects from the COA were screened using a set of criteria to determine whether they should receive TUMF funding. The COA project list was then reviewed by WRCOG and RTA staff to confirm the validity of the project list and to reflect any changes in RTA project recommendations established since the adoption of the COA to establish a final recommended transit project list to be included as part of the program. The result was the TUMF Transit Project List. 18) RTA provided information on current costs for transit infrastructure. 19) The cost information was then used to determine the cost of the items on the TUMF Transit Project List. 20) The percent attribution from Step 21 was applied to the project cost estimates from Step 24 to determine the cost of transit improvements that are attributable to new development. 21) The costs for road and transit projects that are attributable to new development are then combined along with information on other (non-TUMF) funds to determine the total cost for TUMF projects that is to be cover by new development through the imposition of the fees. The available alternate funding sources were reviewed as part of the Nexus update, specifically including the completion of a detailed review of available federal, state and local funding sources administered by RCTC. 1.1.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments Having determined the total project costs to be covered by new development under the TUMF program, it is necessary to divide these costs among different types of 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 9 developments roughly in proportion to their expected traffic impacts. The following steps described the process for determining the proportion attributable to new residential development. These approach for accomplishing these steps along with the findings of this analysis are described in detail in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report. 22) California legislation encourages the use of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the primary indicator of traffic impacts because it takes into account both to the number of vehicle trips and the average length of those trips to reflect the proportional impact to the roadway network. As a result, the methodology for determining the relative distribution of traffic impacts between residential and non-residential uses for the purposes of TUMF was revised from a trip based approach used in the earlier nexus studies to a VMT based approach for the 2016 update. The RivTAM 2012 existing and 2040 no-build model runs were examined to determine the VMT of various trip types that would take place in Western Riverside County (excluding through trips). The results were compared to determine the growth in VMT for each trip type. Per WRCOG policy (based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) recommended practice) trips originating in or destined for a home are attributed to residential development while trips where neither the origin nor the destination are a home are attributed to non-residential development. 23) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socio-economic forecasts were used to estimate the number of single-family and multi-family dwelling units that will be developed during the 2012 to 2040 period. 24) The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE’s) trip generation rates, which come from surveys of existing sites for various development types, were then used to estimate the daily number of trips that will be generated by future single- and multi-family developments that will occur in the region from 2012 to 2040. 25) The cost to be covered by residential development was divided into the portion attributable to new single-family dwellings and portion attributable to new multi- family development to calculate the cost share for each use. 26) The cost share for single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings was divided by the number of dwellings of each type to determine the fee level required from each new dwelling unit to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments. 1.1.5. Computing the Fee for Non-Residential Developments A process similar to that used for residential units was used to determine the fee level for non-residential development. However, the determination of fees for non-residential development involves additional steps due to the additional complexity of accounting for a greater variety of development types within each use category. Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report provide additional explanation regarding the methodology for accomplishing these steps along with the results of this analysis. 27) Like most impact fee programs, TUMF groups similar development projects together into general use categories in order to simplify the administration of the program. TUMF groups the various land use categories found in ITE’s Trip 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 10 Generation Manual into four non-residential categories (industrial, retail, service, and government/public sector) based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is also used by the U.S. Census Bureau and SCAG for demographic classifications, and is the basis for such classifications in the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model as well as and the RivTAM model. The ITE trip generation rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. The median value for the trip- generation rates for all uses within each category was used in the nexus study to represent the trip-generation characteristics for the category as a whole. 28) The trip-generation rates of retail uses and service uses were adjusted to take into account the share of pass-by trips these uses generate. Pass by trip rates for various retail and service uses were derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual to determine the median value of all uses as the basis for the adjustment. The ITE pass by trip rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy and updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. 29) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socio economic forecasts included non-residential employment for 2012 and 2040. These forecasts were used to estimate the growth in employment in each of the four non-residential uses. 30) The SCAG employment forecasts are denominated in jobs while development applications are typically denominated in square feet of floorspace. The ratio of floorspace per employee was determined as a median value derived from four studies, including a comprehensive study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties conducted in 1990, an OCTA study conducted in 2001, a SCAG study (including a specific focus on Riverside County) conducted in 2001, and the Riverside County General Plan adopted in 2015. It should be noted the SCAG study and Riverside County General Plan were identified and included as part of the 2016 Nexus Update in response to a recommendation made during the review of the prior draft 2015 Nexus Study. 31) The forecast growth in employees was multiplied by the floorspace per employee to produce a forecast of the floorspace that will be developed for each of the four non-residential use types. 32) The trip-generation rate for each of the four uses was multiplied by the forecast of new floorspace to estimate the number of trips generated by each use. 33) The amount of project costs to be covered by non-residential development was split between the four non-residential uses to determine the TUMF cast share for each. 34) The TUMF cost share for each of the four non-residential uses was divided by the forecast growth in floorspace to determine the fee level required from each new square foot of non-residential development to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments. 35) WRCOG has adopted a TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook that allows for fee adjustments to be made to account for unusual circumstances for certain types of residential and non-residential development (fuel filling stations, golf courses, high-cube warehouses, wineries, electric charging stations, etc.) These 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 11 adjustments are intended to calculate a fairer proportional fee based on the unique trip generation characteristics of these particular development types. The outcome of this process is a schedule of fees for the various use categories identified as part of the TUMF program. The study conclusions including the Schedule of Fees is presented in Chapter 7 of this report. The schedule of fees represents the maximum fee permissible under California law for the purposes of the TUMF program. The WRCOG Executive Committee has the option to adopt lower fees, however, in doing so each use category subject to a lower fee would not be contributing a fair share of the cost of their impacts. This would in turn create a funding gap for the program that would necessitate identifying additional project funding from some other source in order to ensure the cumulative regional impacts of new development are being mitigated fully in accordance with the program. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 12 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH 2.1 Recent Historical Trend Western Riverside County experienced robust growth in the period from the late 1990’s to the mid 2000’s. The results of Census 2000 indicate that in the year 2000, Western Riverside County had a population of 1.187 million representing a 30% increase (or 2.7% average annual increase) from the 1990 population of 912,000. Total employment in Western Riverside County in 2000 was estimated by the SCAG to be 381,000 representing a 46% increase (or 3.9% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261,000. Despite the impacts of the Great Recession and the associated residential mortgage and foreclosure crisis, Western Riverside County continued to grow due to the availability of relatively affordable residential and commercial property, and a generally well-educated workforce. By 2010, the population of the region had grown to 1.742 million, a further 47% growth in population from 2000. Similarly, total employment in the region had also grown from 2000 to 2010 with 434,000 employees estimated to be working in Western Riverside County. This represents a 12% increase from the 381,000 employees working in the region in 2000. 2.2 Available Demographic Data A variety of alternate demographic information that quantifies future population, household and employment growth is available for Western Riverside County. For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by SCAG. SCAG is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand forecasts for Southern California. Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR was responsible for establishing and maintaining demographic information and ensuring data consistency through a centralized data source of demographic characteristics. RCCDR provided demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts as well as providing the demographic basis for RivTAM. RCCDR forecasts were utilized as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 13 The functions of the RCCDR have been subsequently integrated into the Riverside County Information Technology – Geographic Information Systems (RCIT-GIS) group, and their role in the development and distribution of SED has recently diminished. Although RCIT-GIS, WRCOG and other regional partners participated in the process to develop regional demographic forecasts as part of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG remained the lead agency in the compilation and dissemination of the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2016, including those specific to Western Riverside County. For this reason, the SCAG forecasts adopted for the 2016 RTP/SCS were used as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update, with the adopted SCAG data being disaggregated to correlate to the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure utilized for RivTAM. 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis A major distinction between RCCDR data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data used for this 2016 Update is the change in the base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2035 to 2040. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data were compared to the RCCDR 2007 data used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2012 data reflects a modest increase in population, a very slight decline in households, and a modest decline in overall employment, with a notable shift in employment away from industry and government/public sector to retail. These changes reflect a restructuring of the regional economy in response to the influences of the Great Recession during this time. Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type 2009 Update (2007) 2016 Update (2012) Change Percent Total Population 1,569,393 1,773,935 204,542 13% Total Households 530,289 525,149 -5,140 -1% Single-Family 395,409 366,588 -28,821 -7% Multi-Family 134,880 158,561 23,681 18% Total Employment 515,914 460,787 -55,127 -11% Industrial 175,571 120,736 -54,835 -31% Retail 39,576 65,888 26,312 66% Service 256,813 253,372 -3,441 -1% Government/Public Sector 43,954 20,791 -23,163 -53% Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008; SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 14 Figure 2.1 – Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 43,954 20,791 256,813 253,372134,880 158,561 39,576 65,888 1,569,393 1,773,935 395,409 366,588 175,571 120,736 Employment Sectors: Industrial Retail Service Government Single-Family Multi-Family Household Type: Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 compare the socioeconomic forecasts for the program horizon year of 2035 used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and 2040 for this study. The most recent forecasts reflect a reduction in the horizon year population, households and overall employment in Western Riverside County, as well as shifts in the projected growth in employment sectors away from government/public sector and service towards retail. These changes are considered to be consistent with the influence of the economic recession on the rate of growth in Western Riverside County. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 15 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type 2009 Update (2035) 2016 Update (2040) Change Percent Total Population 2,537,583 2,429,633 -107,950 -4% Total Households 881,968 775,231 -106,737 -12% Single-Family 552,154 539,631 -12,523 -2% Multi-Family 329,814 235,600 -94,214 -29% Total Employment 1,090,833 861,455 -229,378 -21% TUMF Industrial 276,782 201,328 -75,454 -27% TUMF Retail 87,170 101,729 14,559 17% TUMF Service 595,039 528,092 -66,947 -11% TUMF Government/Public Sector 131,842 30,306 -101,536 -77% Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008; SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 131,842 30,306 595,039 528,092329,814 235,600 87,170 101,729 2,537,583 2,429,633 552,154 539,631 276,782 201,328 Employment Sectors: Industrial Retail Service Government Single-Family Multi-Family Household Type: 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 16 Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3 summarize the socioeconomic data obtained from SCAG and used as the basis for completing this Nexus Study analysis. The SCAG employment data for 2012 and 2040 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including: Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the EDD Major Groups were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. Appendix B provides a table detailing the EDD Major Groups and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each non- residential sector type. Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) SED Type 2012 2040 Change Percent Total Population 1,773,935 2,429,633 655,698 37% Total Households 525,149 775,231 250,082 48% Single-Family 366,588 539,631 173,043 47% Multi-Family 158,561 235,600 77,039 49% Total Employment 460,787 861,455 400,668 87% TUMF Industrial 120,736 201,328 80,592 67% TUMF Retail 65,888 101,729 35,841 54% TUMF Service 253,372 528,092 274,720 108% TUMF Government/Public Sector 20,791 30,306 9,515 46% Source: SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 17 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 20,791 30,306 253,372 528,092158,561 235,600 65,888 101,729 1,773,935 2,429,633 366,588 539,631 120,736 201,328 Industrial Retail Service Government Single-Family Multi-Family Household Type: Employment Sector: The combined effects of the changes in the base year and horizon year socioeconomic data is a notable reduction in the total growth in population, households and employment for the current Nexus Update compared to the 2009 Nexus Update. Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4 provide a comparison of the changes in population, households and employment between the 2016 Nexus Update and the 2009 Nexus Update. The table and figure clearly illustrate the reduction in the rate of growth in Western Riverside County largely attributable to the effects of the economic recession. This reduced rate of growth in the region will serve as the basis for reevaluating the level of impact of new development on the transportation system in the next section, as well as providing the basis for the determination of the fair share fee for each land use type. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 18 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) SED Type 2009 Update (2007-2035) 2015 Update (2012-2040) Difference Percent Total Population 968,190 655,698 -312,492 -32% Total Households 351,679 250,082 -101,597 -29% Single-Family 156,745 173,043 16,298 10% Multi-Family 194,934 77,039 -117,895 -60% Total Employment 574,919 400,668 -174,251 -30% TUMF Industrial 101,211 80,592 -20,619 -20% TUMF Retail 47,594 35,841 -11,753 -25% TUMF Service 338,226 274,720 -63,506 -19% TUMF Government/Public Sector 87,888 9,515 -78,373 -89% Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008; SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 87,888 9,515 338,226 274,720194,934 77,039 47,594 35,841 968,190 655,698 156,745 173,043 101,211 80,592 Industrial Retail Service Government Employment Sector: Single-Family Multi-Family Household Type: 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 19 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF All new development has some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing VMT, traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)3. In order to meet the increased travel demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become necessary to sustain pre-development traffic conditions. The projected growth in Western Riverside County (37% growth in population and 87% growth in employment in under 30 years) and the related growth in VMT can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development. Development exactions generally provide only a fraction of the improvements with improvements confined to the area immediately adjacent to the respective development, and the broad-based county-level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County’s half-cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then describes the TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments’ fair share of needed improvements. The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2040 No-Build travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivTAM. The Year 2040 No-Build scenario evaluates the effects of 2040 population, employment and resultant traffic generation on the 2015 existing arterial highway network. 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the existing arterial highway system in Western Riverside County, existing (2012) and 3 The Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp 2-2, 2-3) describes LOS as a “quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience.” Letters are used to designate each of six LOS (A to F), with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, LOS C or D is typically used in planning efforts to ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users. Therefore, LOS E represents the threshold for unacceptable LOS. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 20 future (2040) SED were modeled on the existing (2015) arterial highway network using RivTAM. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for the AM and PM peak periods for each of the two scenarios. The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total VMT, total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). These results were tabulated in Table 3.1. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix C. Total Arterial VMT, VHT, VHD and LOS E Threshold VMT were calculated to include all principal arterials, minor arterials and major connectors, respectively. Regional values for each threshold were calculated for a total of all facilities including arterials, freeways, freeway ramps and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline to 2040 No-Build) Measure of Performance* Peak Periods (Total) 2012 2040 % Change % Annual VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 19,532,437 29,277,587 50% 1.5% VMT - FREEWAYS 11,019,155 14,487,570 31% 1.0% VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 8,513,282 14,790,016 74% 2.0% TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 5,585,202 9,089,495 63% 1.8% VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 575,154 1,361,907 137% 3.1% VHT - FREEWAYS 296,542 736,433 148% 3.3% VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 278,611 625,474 124% 2.9% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 181,151 396,981 119% 2.8% VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 175,765 739,075 320% 5.3% VHD - FREEWAYS 117,430 502,549 328% 5.3% VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 58,334 236,527 305% 5.1% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 45,080 172,944 284% 4.9% VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6,188,644 16,966,992 174% 3.7% VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,532,703 10,156,363 124% 2.9% VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 1,655,941 6,810,629 311% 5.2% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 1,462,061 5,160,911 253% 4.6% % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 26% 57% * Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016. NOTES: Volume is adjusted by PCE factor VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios). LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 21 The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values: The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build, and the average annual change between 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build. As can be seen from the RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development will cause VMT on the arterial highway network to increase by approximately 74% by the year 2040 (approximately 2.0% per year). In the absence of additional improvements to the transportation network in Western Riverside County, the growth in VMT will cause congestion on the highway system to increase almost exponentially, with the most significant increase in congestion observed on the arterial highway system that includes the TUMF Network. Many facilities will experience a significant increase in vehicle delay and deterioration in LOS to unacceptable levels as a result of new development and the associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010), LOS C or D are required to “ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users.” LOS E is generally recognized to represent the threshold of unacceptable operating service and the onset of substantial systemic traffic congestion. The Congestion Management Program for Riverside County (CMP) published by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2011 designates LOS E as the “traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS E for any segment or intersection along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways” in Riverside County. “The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality.” 4 The CMP provides a mechanism for monitoring congestion on the highway system and, where congestion is observed, establishes procedures for developing a deficiency plan to address improvement needs. The reactive nature of the CMP to identify and remediate existing congestion differs from the proactive nature of the TUMF program to anticipate and provide for future traffic needs. For this reason, the TUMF program follows the guidance of the Highway Capacity Manual in establishing LOS E as the threshold for unacceptable level of service, and subsequently as the basis for measuring system performance and accounting for existing needs. This approach ensures a more conservative accounting of existing system needs as part of the 4 Congestion Management Program for Riverside County – Executive Summary (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2011) Page ES-3, ES-1 VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT – (Free-flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90) Note: Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2010 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 14-5, Chapter 14, Page 14-5). 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 22 determination of the “fair share” of mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of future new development on the transportation system. The continuing need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County’s transportation infrastructure, and in particular, the arterial highway network. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure with the total VMT on the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA; also referred to as the TUMF Network) estimated to increase by approximately 63% or 1.8% compounded annually. As shown in Table 3.1, the VMT on arterial facilities within the TUMF Network experiencing LOS of E or worse will increase by approximately 253% or 4.6% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2012 and 2040. By 2040, 57% of the total VMT on the TUMF arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the TUMF arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on TUMF arterial highways will increase by approximately 4.9% per year. The combined influences of increased travel demand and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlight the continuing need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the TUMF arterial highway system to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development. The RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve these roadways to accommodate the anticipated growth in VMT and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the additional travel demand. 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to use an automobile, and particularly for those who do not readily have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. While some future transit trips will be accommodated by inter-regional transit services such as Metrolink, a substantial number of the trips within Western Riverside County will be served by bus transit services and for this reason the provision of regional bus transit service is considered integral to addressing the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new developments. Regional bus transit services within Western Riverside County are primarily provided by RTA. To support the evaluation of regional bus service 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 23 needs to accommodate new development, daily transit trip forecasts were derived from the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis5. Weekday projected system ridership for 2015 and 2025 were interpolated to 2012 and 2040 to represent existing and future transit trips consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section 3.1. The interpolated year 2012 and year 2040 existing and future transit ridership were compared in order to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. The weekday projected system ridership indicates that RTA bus transit services accommodate approximately 31,016 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2015. By 2025, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 46,572 riders per weekday. This represents an increase in projected weekday ridership of 15,556 between 2015 and 2025, or an average increase of 1,414 weekday riders each year. Based on these projected weekday ridership levels and rate of ridership growth each year, the interpolated weekday ridership for 2012 is 26,773 while the interpolated weekday ridership for 2040 would be 67,785. This translates into an increase of 41,011 riders per weekday between 2012 and 2040. Weekday projected system ridership for 2015 and 2025, as presented in Table 7 of the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis Executive Summary, along with the interpolated weekday system ridership in 2012 and 2040 are included in Appendix D. The significant future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all types of transportation infrastructure and services to accommodate this growth. Furthermore, bus transit ridership is expected to grow as the improved services being planned and implemented by RTA attracts new riders and encourages existing riders to use transit more often as an alternative to driving. Attracting additional riders to bus transit services contributes to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development by reducing the number of trips that need to be served on the highway system. The need to provide additional bus transit services within Western Riverside County to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand. 3.3 The TUMF Concept A sizable percentage of trip-making for any given local community extends beyond the bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education, shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere. As new development occurs within a particular local community, this migration of trips of all purposes by new residents and the new business that serve them contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their community and in the other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute uniformly to paying the fair share cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer-distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee is intended to be used primarily to improve transportation 5 Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), Comprehensive Operational Analysis Executive Summary, January 2015, Table 7 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 24 facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (in particular, arterial roadways and regional bus transit services). Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer-distance trips (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region), while using a second portion of the fee revenues for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter-community trips within a specific subregion or zone (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the communities most directly served by these roads – in effect, a return-to-source of that portion of the funds). Reflecting the importance of public transit service in meeting regional travel needs, a third portion of fee revenues was reserved for improvements to regional bus transit services (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region). Much, but not all, of the new trip-making in a given area is generated by residential development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the transportation system as they travel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e. new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.). With the exception of commute trips by local residents coming to and from work, and the trips of local residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and services, the travel demands of new businesses are not directly attributable to residential development. The consideration of different sources of new travel demand is therefore reflected in the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for their related transportation impacts. In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following: A uniform fee that is levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County. The fee is assessed roughly proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation system. A portion of the fee is used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer-distance trips within the region; a portion of the fee is returned to the subregion or zone in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee is used to fund improvements to regional bus transit services that serve longer-distance trips between the communities within the region. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 25 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network An integral element of the initial Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system. As a result, this system also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Network does not include the freeways of Western Riverside County as these facilities primarily serve longer distance inter-regional trips and a significant number of pass-through trips that have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County6. The TUMF Network is the system of roadways that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The RSHA for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transportation network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build-out (not including freeways). 2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County. 3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day in the future horizon year. 4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in the future horizon year. 5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services. 6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Appendix E includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the RSHA. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was 6 Since pass-though trips have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County, new development within Western Riverside County cannot be considered responsible for mitigating the impacts of pass through trips. The impact of pass- through trips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass through trips (and other inter-regional freeway trips) is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Plan, Phase II – Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination, Final Report dated May 31, 2008. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 26 subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The RSHA is illustrated in Figure 4.1. As stated previously, the RSHA represents those regional significant highway facilities that primarily serve inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and therefore also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. Consistent with the declining rate of new development forecast for Western Riverside County post the Great Recession, the TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update to ensure facilities generally still met the previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly proportional to the impacts needing to be mitigated. This review process resulted in the removal of various facilities from the TUMF Network, as well as various changes in the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network are discussed in Section 4.3 of this report. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) ·|}þ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"$# ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"$# ·|}þ !"$# !"$# 1st County Line 6th Lincoln Wilson Cherry Valley Sa LAKE PERRIS SAN JACINTO RIVER SAN JACINTO RESERVOIR BAUTISTA CREEK F.C. CHANNEL LITTLE LAKE DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE Schleisman 6th St 1st Central Cantu-Galle ano Ranch 6th Martin Luther King 2nd Van Buren Limonite Mission Esplanade Stetson Ave Patton Ave Stetson SR-74/SR-79 (Florida)SR-74 (Florida) Mid County Pkwy Clinton Keith KellerBundyCanyon Murrieta Hot Springs Ramona McCall Ellis Newport Eucalyptus Placentia Holland Rd Nuevo Ethanac SR 74 4th Ironwood un n Cajalco Alessandro Alessandro SR-74 Harley Knox Blvd Ethanac Nuevo py Center St Cactus Ellis Scott 0 4 8 122Miles Los Angeles County San Bernardino County Riverside County San Diego County Imperial County Orange County WRCOG Regional System of Highways and Arterials - Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program | Figure 4.1Disclaiming: Western Riverside Council of Governments assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information represented on this map is subject to updates, modifications and may not be complete or appropriate for all purposes ¹Legend TUMF Network Mid County Parkway Freeways Lakes & Rivers Streets & Roads City Boundaries 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 28 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network As indicated previously, the TUMF roadway network was refined to distinguish between facilities of “Regional Significance” and facilities of “Zonal Significance.” Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at general plan build-out7, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts8, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2040. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the “backbone” highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The backbone network is illustrated in Figure 4.2. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the “secondary” network) represent the balance of the RSHA for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are considered significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG APD or zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3. 7 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at general plan buildout, in some cases it was determined that sufficient demand for all additional lanes facilities may not exist on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF Program (2040). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF Program. 8 Area Planning Districts (APD) are the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area. Area Planning Districts are interchangeably referred to as TUMF Zones. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) ·|}þ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"$# ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"$# ·|}þ !"$# !"$# 1st County Line 6th Lincoln Wilson Cherry Valley Sa LAKE PERRIS SAN JACINTO RIVER SAN JACINTO RESERVOIR BAUTISTA CREEK F.C. CHANNEL LITTLE LAKE DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE Arlington Schleisman 6th St 1st Central Cantu-Galle ano Ranch 6th Martin Luther King 2nd Van Buren Limonite Mission Esplanade Stetson Ave Patton Ave Stetson SR-74/SR-79 (Florida)SR-74 (Florida) Mid County Pkwy Clinton Keith Keller Murrieta Hot Springs Ramona McCall Ellis Newport Eucalyptus Placentia Holland Rd Nuevo Ethanac SR 74 4th Ironwood un n Cajalco Alessandro Alessandro SR-74 Harley Knox Blvd Ethanac Nuevo py Center St Cactus Ellis Scott 0 4 8 122Miles Los Angeles County San Bernardino County Riverside County San Diego County Imperial County Orange County WRCOG Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials - Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program | Figure 4.2Disclaiming: Western Riverside Council of Governments assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information represented on this map is subject to updates, modifications and may not be complete or appropriate for all purposes ¹Legend Backbone Network Mid County Parkway Freeways Lakes & Rivers Streets & Roads City Boundaries Secondary Network 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) ·|}þ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"$# ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"$# ·|}þ !"$# !"$# 1st County Line 6th Lincoln Wilson Cherry Valley Sa LAKE PERRIS SAN JACINTO RIVER SAN JACINTO RESERVOIR BAUTISTA CREEK F.C. CHANNEL LITTLE LAKE DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE Schleisman 6th St 1st Central Cantu-Galle ano Ranch 6th Martin Luther King 2nd Van Buren Limonite Mission Esplanade Stetson Ave Patton Ave Stetson SR-74/SR-79 (Florida)SR-74 (Florida) Mid County Pkwy Clinton Keith KellerBundyCanyon Murrieta Hot Springs Ramona McCall Ellis Newport Eucalyptus Placentia Holland Rd Nuevo Ethanac SR 74 4th Ironwood un n Cajalco Alessandro Alessandro SR-74 Harley Knox Blvd Ethanac Nuevo py Center St Cactus Ellis Scott 0 4 8 122Miles Northwest Zone Southwest Zone Hemet/San Jacinto Zone Pass Zone Central Zone Los Angeles County San Bernardino County Riverside County San Diego County Imperial County Orange County WRCOG Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program | Figure 4.3Disclaiming: Western Riverside Council of Governments assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information represented on this map is subject to updates, modifications and may not be complete or appropriate for all purposes TUMF Zone Boundary ¹Legend TUMF Network Mid County Parkway Freeways Lakes & Rivers Streets & Roads City Boundaries 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 31 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs For the purpose of calculating a “fair share” fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development. Estimates of the cost to improve the network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were originally developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)9, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates10 (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998. The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF Program. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were originally varied to account for variations in construction cost (and in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs which originally included consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses – code 1), suburban (developed residential uses – code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses – code 3) land uses, respectively. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were originally varied to account for variations in cost associated with new complex, new standard (or fully reconstructed), or major (or partially reconstructed) or minor (individual ramp improvements) interchange improvements. As part of the 2016 TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were revised to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within 9 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) 10 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 32 Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update to reflect the effects of the ongoing recovery from the economic recession that has seen the costs of materials, labor and land acquisition in California rebound from relative historical lows. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions developed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update. In addition, supplemental categories were added to the cost assumptions to better delineate the need to mitigate the cumulative multi-species habitat impacts of TUMF arterial highway improvements in accordance with the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and to account for the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) MSHCP adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003 states that “each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts.” This provision is reiterated in the MSHCP Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Report (David Taussig and Associates, Inc., July 1, 2003) section 5.3.1.2 which states that “over the next 25 years, regional infrastructure projects are expected to generate approximately $250 million in funding for the MSHCP” based on mitigation at 5% of construction costs. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP, the TUMF Program will incorporate a cost element to account for the required MSHCP contribution to mitigate the multi-species habitat impacts of constructing TUMF projects. In accordance with the MSHCP Nexus Report, an amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will be specifically included as part of TUMF Program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the MSHCP Nexus Report are included in Appendix F. Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate as part of the current Nexus Update. Table 4.1 also includes a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions, and the 2009 Nexus Update unit cost assumptions. Cost estimates are provided in current year values as indicated. To estimate the cost of improving the regional transportation system to provide for future traffic growth from new development, the transportation network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed network improvements. The initial list of improvements needed to provide for the traffic generated by new development was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. A consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to provide for future traffic growth associated with new development. This initial list of proposed improvements has since been revised and updated as part of each subsequent Nexus Update to reflect the changing levels of new development and the associated travel demand and transportation system impacts to be mitigated as part of the TUMF program. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 33 As discussed in Section 2.3, the effects of the economic recession since the 2009 Nexus Update have included a reduction in the rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County. As indicated in Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4, the anticipated rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County has been reduced overall by 32% for population, 29% for households and 30% for employment. This reduced rate of socioeconomic growth is reflected in a reduction in the forecast horizon year population, households and employment depicted in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2, with the 2040 forecasts used as the basis for the 2016 Nexus Update being reduced by 4% for population, 12% for households and 21% for employment compared to the 2035 horizon year forecasts used as the basis for the 2009 Nexus Update, despite the horizon year being extended out by 5 years in the most recent SCAG forecasts. This reduced rate of forecasted socioeconomic growth has a commensurate impact on the forecasted daily traffic in the region as demonstrated by the 2009 Nexus Update VMT compared to the 2016 Nexus Update VMT in Table 4.2. As shown in the table, the forecast daily traffic is reduced by about 7% in the year 2040 as the basis for the 2016 Nexus Update compared to the year 2035 as used for the 2009 Nexus Update. As a result of the reduced traffic growth in the region, it is anticipated that the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the arterial highway and transit systems in the region is also reduced necessitating a reduction in the projects identified on the TUMF Network to mitigate the impacts of new development. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 34 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Component Type Original Cost Assumptions as published October 18, 2002 Cost Assumptions per 2009 Nexus Update October 5, 2009 Cost Assumptions per 2016 Nexus Update Description Terrain 1 $550,000 $628,000 $692,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain Terrain 2 $850,000 $761,000 $878,000 Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain Terrain 3 $1,150,000 $895,000 $1,064,000 Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous terrain Landuse 1 $900,000 $1,682,000 $2,509,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas Landuse 2 $420,000 $803,000 $2,263,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - suburban areas Landuse 3 $240,000 $237,000 $287,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - rural areas Interchange 1 n/a $43,780,000 $50,032,000 Complex new interchange/interchange modification cost Interchange 2 $20,000,000 $22,280,000 $25,558,000 New interchange/interchange modification total cost Interchange 3 $10,000,000 $10,890,000 $12,343,000 Major interchange improvement total cost Bridge 1 $2,000 $2,880 $3,180 Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot RRXing 1 $4,500,000 $4,550,000 $6,376,000 New Rail Grade Crossing per lane RRXing 2 $2,250,000 $2,120,000 $2,733,000 Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lane Planning 10% 10% 10% Planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment costs based on construction cost only Engineering 25% 25% 25% Project study report, design, permitting and construction oversight costs based on construction cost only Contingency 10% 10% 10% Contingency costs based on total segment cost Administration 3% 4% TUMF program administration based on total TUMF eligible network cost MSHCP 5% 5% TUMF component of MSHCP based on total TUMF eligible construction cost Table 4.2 – Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County Measure of Performance 2016 Nexus Update 2009 Nexus Update Daily Daily 2012 Baseline 2040 No-Build 2007 2035 VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 36,844,082 56,574,656 39,187,718 60,772,353 VMT - FREEWAYS 21,798,155 30,678,958 24,056,704 32,920,502 VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 15,045,927 25,895,698 15,131,014 27,851,851 TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 10,059,547 16,515,642 Source: Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016; RivTAM provided by Iteris (2008) 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 35 A peer review process utilizing real world experience and perspectives from both the private and public sectors was critical in developing a realistic network of proposed improvements to mitigate the additional traffic resulting from future development in Western Riverside County. Representatives of private development firms and the BIA have continued to participate in the process of developing and updating the TUMF Program. This involvement has included active participation of private developer staff at various workshops conducted at critical milestone points in the process of completing the Nexus update, as well as a formal review of the TUMF Network and associated elements of the Nexus Study by the BIA and their hired consultant staff. As part of the 2015 Nexus Update, the list of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and validated during the subsequent Nexus updates was reviewed for accuracy and, where necessary, amended to remove or modify projects that have changed in need to mitigate impacts based on changes in the patterns of growth and travel demand within the region. Projects completed since the adoption of the 2009 Nexus Update were also removed from the network to reflect the fact that mitigation at these locations is no longer required. The specific network changes were screened by the WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines including travel demand and traffic performance, and were subsequently reviewed by representatives of the public and privates sectors at a series of workshop meetings conducted between November 2014 and January 2015. In response to the release of the 2015 Nexus Update draft study document, the TUMF Network was further reviewed by a consultant team hired by the BIA, with findings and recommendations provided in a letter dated August 8, 2015. A final review of the TUMF Network and associated improvements was conducted by WRCOG staff in cooperation with the Public Works Committee during the summer and fall of 2016 specifically in conjunction with the 2016 Nexus Update to include consideration of the revised travel forecasts based on the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS demographic forecasts. Based on the findings of the network screening, workshop meetings and other reviews, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect necessary network corrections and modifications to project assumptions. Matrices summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of both the 2015 and 2016 TUMF Nexus Updates were developed and are included in Appendix G. Eligible arterial highway and street improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include: 1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes; 2. Construction of new Network roadway segments; 3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures; 4. Construction of new Network bridge structures; 5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways; 6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways; 7. Grade separation of existing Network at-grade railroad crossings; 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 36 All eligible improvement types provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. Following the comprehensive update of the TUMF Program, the estimated total cost to improve the RSHA for Western Riverside County is $3.45 billion with this cost including all arterial highway and street planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs, but not including transit, MSHCP or program administration costs that will be subsequently described. It should be noted that the full cost to improve the TUMF Network cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for the previous obligation of other funds to complete necessary improvements and unfunded existing needs. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 describe the adjustments to the total TUMF Network improvement need to account for existing needs and obligated funds. In addition to the arterial highway and street improvement costs indicated above, the TUMF Nexus Update included specific consideration for the TUMF Program obligation to the MSHCP program to mitigate the impact of TUMF network improvements on species and habitat within Western Riverside County. The TUMF obligation to MSHCP was calculated at a rate of 5% of the total construction (capital) cost of new lane segments, bridges and railroad grade separations on the TUMF Network. The total obligation to the MSHCP as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $45.4 million, although the total obligation specific to the TUMF program is reduced to account for MSHCP obligations associated with improvements addressing existing needs and therefore excluded from TUMF. The TUMF 2016 Nexus Update similarly includes specific consideration of the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. The average cost for WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program was calculated at a rate of 4% of the total eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridges and railroad grade separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. Administration costs incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe benefit and overhead costs for WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and support participating jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services to support the implementation of the TUMF program. The total cost for WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $112.2 million. The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Section 4.7, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF Program, and the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment following adjustments for obligated funding and unfunded existing needs as described in subsequent sections. 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System In addition to the roadway network, public transportation plays a key role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter-community trips is generally provided in the form of public bus transit services and in particular express bus 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 37 or other high frequency services between strategically located community transit centers. In Western Riverside County, these bus transit services are typically provided by RTA. Transit needs to serve future regional travel in Western Riverside County via bus transit include vehicle acquisitions, transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, maintenance facilities and other associated capital improvements to develop express bus or other high frequency inter-community transit bus services within the region. Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF Program as they typically serve longer inter-regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter-regional highway system. The network of regionally significant bus transit services represents those express bus and other high frequency transit bus services that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional highway system and inter- regional commuter rail services. As a result, this portion of the bus transit system also represents the extents of the network of bus services that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Bus Transit Network is the system of bus services that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The Bus Transit Network for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transit network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Bus transit routes (or corridors comprised of multiple overlapping routes) proposed to have a frequency of greater than three buses per direction during peak hours at ultimate build out. 2. Routes or corridors that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities, both within and adjoining western Riverside County. 3. Routes or corridors with forecast weekday bus ridership in excess of 1,000 person trips per day by 2040. 4. Routes or corridors that are proposed to provide timed interconnections with at least four other routes or corridors at ultimate build out. 5. Routes or corridors that utilize the majority of travel along the TUMF RSHA. 6. Routes or corridors that provide direct access to areas of forecast population and employment growth, major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Express bus routes and other high-frequency bus transit routes and corridors in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified by RTA based on service information developed as part of the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis completed in January 2015. The TUMF Bus Transit Network was subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, and the WRCOG Executive Committee as the basis for the transit component of the 2016 Nexus Update. Updated cost estimates for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers and transfer facilities, express bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus and other high 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 38 frequency bus transit service within the region were provided by RTA. The updated transit unit cost data provided by RTA are shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures Component Type* Cost Assumptions as published October 18, 2002 Cost Assumptions per 2009 Nexus Update October 5, 2009 Cost Assumptions per 2015 Nexus Update Description Transit Center 1 $6,000,000 Relocation/expansion of existing Regional Transit Center with up to 14 bus bays and park and ride Transit Center 2 $6,000,000 $5,655,000 $9,000,000 New Regional Transit Center with up to 14 bus bays and park and ride Transfer Facility $1,000,000 Multiple route transfer hub O & M Facility $50,000,000 Regional Operations and Maintenance Facility Bus Stop $10,000 $27,000 $40,000 Bus Stop Amenities Upgrade on TUMF Network BRT Service Capital $540,000 $550,000 $60,000 BRT/Limited Stop Service Capital (per stop**) Vehicle Fleet 1 $155,000 Medium Sized Bus Contract Operated Vehicle Fleet 2 $325,125 $550,000 $585,000 Large Sized Bus Directly Operated COA Study $950,000 Comprehensive Operational Analysis Study component of Nexus Study Update * Transit Cost Component Types were restructured as part of the 2015 Nexus Update in accordance with the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis (January 2015) ** BRT Service Capital Cost Assumption was based on a per mile unit in 2009 Nexus Update. 2016 Nexus Update uses a per stop unit cost for BRT Service Capital The estimated total cost for future RTA bus transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $153.1 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Section 4.7. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 39 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements, including most recently California Senate Bill (SB) 1 Transportation Funding approved by Governor Brown on April 28, 2017. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the funded cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF Program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds. To determine the availability of obligated funds, each jurisdiction in Western Riverside County (including the County of Riverside, the participating cities, and RCTC) was asked to review their current multi-year capital improvement programs to identify transportation projects on the TUMF system. A detailed table identifying the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $303.5 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated TUMF network cost was subsequently reduced by this amount. 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table 3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter-community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter-community transit services will partially reflect this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated by existing demand, rather than the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need. In the initial TUMF Nexus Study, the cost of existing improvement needs was estimated by identifying the roadway segments on the TUMF network that operate at LOS E or F according to the modeled 2000 base year volumes. The application of the LOS E threshold is consistent with national traffic analysis guidance that stipulates LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS for arterial roadway facilities. The cost to improve these roadway segments with existing unacceptable LOS was calculated using the same method applied to estimate the overall system improvement cost. This method estimated the share of the particular roadway segment (including all associated ROW, interchange, structure and soft costs) that was experiencing unacceptable LOS, and reduced the estimated cost to reflect the relative share. The adjusted value reflected the maximum eligible under the TUMF Program to improve only those portions of the segment (and the relative share of associated improvement costs) that were not experiencing an existing need and were therefore considered to be exclusively addressing the cumulative impacts of new development. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 40 By the application of this methodology, the initial TUMF Nexus Study did not account for the incremental cumulative impact of new development on those segments with an identified existing need. For this reason, the methodology to account for existing need was reviewed as part of the TUMF 2005 update to provide for the inclusion of incremental traffic growth on those segments with existing need. As part of the 2016 Nexus Update, the methodology to account for existing need on arterial segments was further refined to utilize peak period traffic conditions as the basis for the calculation, rather than daily traffic conditions. Peak period performance measures typically reflect the highest level of demand for transportation facilities and therefore are typically utilized as the basis for project design making peak period a more appropriate basis for determining existing need (and future mitigation needs) as part of the TUMF program. The existing need methodology for the 2016 Nexus Update was also expanded to include spot improvements on the TUMF Network (including interchanges, bridges and railroad crossings). Due to limitations in previously available traffic forecast data, prior versions of the TUMF Nexus Study only determined existing need for arterial segments and did not explicitly include existing need for spot improvements. To account for existing need in the TUMF Network as part of the 2016 Nexus Update, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted. This was done by identifying the portion of any TUMF facility in the RivTAM 2012 Baseline scenario with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of greater than 0.9 (the threshold for LOS E), and extracting the share of the overall facility cost to improve that portion. This cost adjustment provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those TUMF segments with an existing high level of congestion. The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology: 1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivTAM 2012 Baseline scenario assigned traffic on the 2015 existing network and delineating those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an average directional v/c exceeding 0.90. a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for network segments, which was calculated by: i. Determining the length for the portion of each segment (model link), and calculating the ratio of link length to the overall segment length ii. Generating the average directional v/c for each link, for both directions in AM and PM periods, and multiplying by link/segment length ratio iii. Determining the maximum peak-period peak-direction v/c for each link, representing the highest directional v/c in either AM or PM iv. Calculating weighted average v/c for each TUMF segment, based on the sum of all weighted max v/c values of each link within a segment 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 41 b. A similar method was used to determine existing need for spot improvements including interchanges, railroad crossings and bridges. However, no weighting was used in the calculation of existing need for spot improvements. For these facilities, the peak-period peak-direction v/c values (highest directional v/c in either AM or PM) were utilized in the existing need calculation. This was based on the individual link within a network segment where a bridge or railroad crossing is located, or on- and off-ramps in the case of interchanges. 2. Initial costs of addressing the existing need were calculated by estimating the share of a particular roadway segments “new lane” cost, or individual spot improvement cost (including all associated ROW and soft costs). 3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average directional base year v/c for the TUMF facilities (delineated under step one) with the horizon year v/c for the corresponding segments and spot improvements calculated based on the RivTAM 2040 No-Build scenario assigned traffic on the 2012 existing network using the same methodology as the base year v/c. 4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2040 No-Build scenario v/c in excess of LOS E. 5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in v/c over the base year, TUMF will ‘discount’ the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the incremental v/c growth through 2040 No-Build compared to the 2012 Baseline v/c (up to a maximum of 100%). The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $431.7 million. Appendix H includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment and spot improvement experiencing unacceptable LOS. For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $60.5 million representing 39.5% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix H includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost. 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost A total of $303.5 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available revenue sources, the funded portion of these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement need is 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 42 $492.2 million. These improvements are needed to mitigate existing transportation deficiencies and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through the TUMF. Based on the estimated costs described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the total value to complete the identified TUMF network and transit improvements, and administer the program is $3.76 billion. Having accounted for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $2.96 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $2.71 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $92.6 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $43.3 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $112.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. Figure 4.4 illustrates the various improvements to the RSHA included as part of the TUMF network cost calculation. Table 4.4 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations for each of the individual segments. This table also identifies the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment having accounted for obligated funding and unfunded existing need. A detailed breakdown of the individual cost components and values for the various TUMF Network segments is included in Appendix H. Table 4.5 outlines the detailed transit component cost estimates. It should be noted that the detailed cost tables (and fee levels) are subject to regular review and updating by WRCOG and therefore WRCOG should be contacted directly to obtain the most recently adopted version of these tables (and to confirm the corresponding fee level). 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) &< &< &< &< &< &< ¬!2 ·|}þ·|}þ ·|}þ &< &< &< &< &< &< &< ¬!1 ¬!2 ¬!1 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!3 ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"$# &< &< &<&< &< ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!3¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 !D(1 !D(1 !D(1 !D(2·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< ¬!1 ¬!1 ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 !D(1 !D(2 !D(2 !D(2 !D(2 !D(2 !D(1 ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ ·|}þ !"#$ !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"$# !"#$ !"$# ¾¾¿ ¾¾¿ ¾ ¾¾¿¾¾¿¾¾¿ ¾¿¾¾¿¾¿ &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< ¬!2 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 ¬!2 ¬!3 ¬!3 !D(2 !D(1 !D(1 ·|}þ !"$# !"$# n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ n£ #7 1st County Line 6th Lincoln Wilson Cherry Valley Sa LAKE PERRIS SAN JACINTO RIVER SAN JACINTO RESERVOIR BAUTISTA CREEK F.C. CHANNEL LITTLE LAKE DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE University Schleisman 1st Cantu-Galleano Ranch Central 6th 2nd 6th St Van Buren Limonite Mission Esplanade Stetson Ave Patton Ave Stetson SR-74/SR-79 (Florida)SR-74 (Florida) Mid County Pkwy r ta Clinton Keith KellerBundyCanyon Ramona McCall Ellis Newport Eucalyptus Placentia Holland Rd Nuevo Ethanac SR 74 4th Ironwood un n Cajalco Alessandro Alessandro SR-74 Harley Knox Blvd Ethanac Nuevo py Center St Cactus Ellis Scott 0 4 8 122Miles Northwest Zone Southwest Zone Hemet/San Jacinto Zone Pass Zone Central Zone Los Angeles County San Bernardino County Riverside County San Diego County Imperial County Orange County WRCOG Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program | Figure 4.4 Disclaiming: Western Riverside Council of Governments assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information represented on this map is subject to updates, modifications and may not be complete or appropriate for all purposes ¹ Note: The RTA facilities are subject to further change based on final location determination Legend Interchanges Ultimate Number of Lanes Bridges Railroad Crossings ¬!3 Major Interchange Improvement ¬!2 New Interchange or Interchange Modification ¬!1 Complex New Interchange or Interchange Modification !D(1 New Rail Grade Crossing !D(2 Existing Rail Grade Crossing Improvement Bridge Improvement&< Operation & Maintenance Facility#7 n£Transit Transfer Facility n£Transit Center Central Corridor RapidLink¾¾¿¾¾¿ 2 Lanes Mid County Parkway Railroads Freeways Lakes & Rivers TUMF Zone Boundary Streets & Roads City Boundaries 4 Lanes 6 Lanes 8 Lanes 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 44 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Ethanac Goetz Murrieta 0.99 $0 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac Murrieta I-215 0.90 $0 $0 Central Menifee Ethanac I-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $15,766,000 Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews 0.61 $1,617,000 $1,617,000 Central Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossing 0.00 $36,980,000 $33,018,000 Central Menifee Menifee SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson 2.49 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge 0.00 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate 0.64 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Aldergate Newport 0.98 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland 1.07 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Holland Garbani 1.03 $0 $0 Central Menifee Menifee Garbani Scott 1.00 $2,635,000 $2,635,000 Central Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City Limit 0.53 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta 1.81 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Murrieta I-215 2.05 $5,405,000 $5,405,000 Central Menifee Newport I-215 Menifee 0.95 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Menifee Lindenberger 0.77 $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Lindenberger SR-79 (Winchester) 3.58 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott I-215 Briggs 2.04 $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott I-215 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 Central Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta 1.01 $2,654,000 $2,654,000 Central Menifee Scott Murrieta I-215 1.94 $10,254,000 $10,254,000 Central Menifee SR-74 Matthews Briggs 1.89 $4,994,000 $4,994,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro I-215 Perris 3.52 $6,394,000 $6,394,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Perris Nason 2.00 $22,632,000 $22,632,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Nason Moreno Beach 0.99 $6,922,000 $6,922,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs 4.13 $10,902,000 $10,902,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 Alessandro 1.67 $4,411,000 $3,724,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Central Moreno Valley Perris Reche Vista Ironwood 2.09 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Ironwood Sunnymead 0.52 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris SR-60 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Sunnymead Cactus 2.00 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Cactus Harley Knox 3.50 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit Heacock 0.44 $3,310,000 $1,705,000 Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz 0.30 $2,100,000 $2,100,000 Central Perris Case Goetz I-215 2.36 $16,486,000 $13,538,000 Central Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $1,126,000 $495,000 Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz 2.24 $7,327,000 $7,327,000 Central Perris Ethanac San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $7,378,000 $7,378,000 Central Perris Ethanac I-215 Sherman 0.35 $2,435,000 $1,945,000 Central Perris Goetz Case Ethanac 2.00 $5,267,000 $2,506,000 Central Perris Goetz San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $3,688,000 $1,925,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 Perris 0.87 $13,127,000 $12,627,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $12,354,000 Central Perris Mid-County Perris Evans 1.57 $32,902,000 $32,902,000 Central Perris Mid-County Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge 0.00 $8,299,000 $8,299,000 Central Perris Perris Harley Knox Ramona 1.00 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus 2.49 $6,578,000 $6,578,000 Central Perris Perris Citrus Nuevo 0.50 $0 $0 Central Perris Perris Nuevo 11th 1.75 $12,206,000 $9,034,000 Central Perris Perris I-215 overcrossing bridge 0.00 $2,767,000 $1,356,000 Central Perris Ramona I-215 Perris 1.47 $2,769,000 $2,769,000 Central Perris Ramona I-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $5,965,000 Central Perris Ramona Perris Evans 1.00 $0 $0 Central Perris Ramona Evans Mid-County (2,800 ft E of Rider) 2.62 $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (4th) Ellis I-215 2.29 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR-74 Keystone 1.07 $5,646,000 $5,646,000 Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge 4.98 $15,815,000 $8,105,000 Central Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR-74 (Pinacate) 4.07 $10,737,000 $10,737,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County Evans Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) 0.77 $8,587,000 $8,587,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) Pico Avenue 0.44 $1,161,000 $1,161,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Pico Avenue Bridge 5.95 $31,413,000 $25,287,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $23,978,000 $15,835,000 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino County Reche Vista 3.35 $12,457,000 $9,429,000 Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit 1.22 $9,180,000 $4,729,000 Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) 3.04 $16,042,000 $0 Central Unincorporated SR-74 Ethanac Ellis 2.68 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 Temescal Canyon 0.66 $2,306,000 $2,306,000 Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 interchange 0.00 $72,546,000 $44,251,000 Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln 2.60 $19,330,000 $7,282,000 Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge 0.00 $5,534,000 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California 2.81 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Foothill California I-15 0.89 $6,207,000 $4,304,000 Northwest Corona Green River SR-91 Dominguez Ranch 0.52 $3,624,000 $1,000 Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades 0.56 $4,214,000 $1,639,000 Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande 2.01 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman San Bernardino County 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek 0.65 $2,271,000 $2,271,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge 0.00 $923,000 $923,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Harrison 0.87 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner 0.50 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Sumner Scholar 0.50 $3,493,000 $3,493,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Scholar A Street 0.31 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman A Street Hamner 0.27 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren SR-60 Bellegrave 1.43 $9,976,000 $3,628,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana River 3.60 $25,115,000 $7,444,000 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 45 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Riverside Alessandro Arlington Trautwein 2.21 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Arlington North Magnolia 5.92 $7,031,000 $7,031,000 Northwest Riverside Arlington Magnolia Alessandro 2.02 $13,957,000 $10,001,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Santa Ana River SR-91 3.44 $7,456,000 $7,456,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren SR-91 Mockingbird Canyon 3.10 $20,845,000 $10,847,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Wood Trautwein 0.43 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Trautwein Orange Terrace 1.27 $3,470,000 $3,470,000 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Trautwein Vista Grande 1.22 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Vista Grande I-215 1.26 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco El Sobrante Harley John 0.76 $4,806,000 $3,465,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harley John Harvil 5.79 $80,889,000 $66,905,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harvil I-215 0.28 $749,000 $749,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Canyon La Sierra 3.21 $23,864,000 $23,864,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Wash bridge 0.00 $3,229,000 $3,229,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco La Sierra El Sobrante 6.11 $45,421,000 $45,421,000 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Mockingbird Canyon Wood 4.41 $30,785,000 $28,309,000 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Orange Terrace I-215 1.89 $7,637,000 $7,637,000 Pass Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 1.37 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Potrero Oak Valley (San Timoteo CanSR-60 0.72 $1,615,000 $1,615,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $23,760,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero UP railroad crossing 0.00 $7,927,000 $7,927,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero Noble Creek bridge 0.00 $2,306,000 $2,306,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 4th 0.45 $2,376,000 $2,376,000 Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 Mellow 0.80 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $5,369,000 Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Beaumont) Mellow California 0.38 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Lamb Canyon) California Gilman Springs 4.87 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Warren Sanderson 1.77 $4,674,000 $4,674,000 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Sanderson State 2.14 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Winchester Warren 2.59 $16,085,000 $16,085,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Warren Sanderson 1.73 $12,065,000 $12,065,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemet Bypainterchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sanderson State 2.39 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona State Main 2.66 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Main Cedar 2.08 $11,623,000 $11,139,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Cedar SR-74 1.10 $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni SR-79 (Winchester) Warren 3.10 $8,173,000 $8,173,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni San Diego Aqueduct bridge 0.00 $2,767,000 $2,767,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Bridge Sanderson 2.95 $7,782,000 $7,782,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Bridge Warren 2.35 $12,396,000 $11,045,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) 3.53 $9,301,000 $9,301,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni 3.22 $16,990,000 $16,990,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) San Diego Aqueduct bridge 0.00 $5,534,000 $5,534,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) Domenigoni Winchester 1.50 $7,914,000 $7,914,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (San Jacinto Bypass) Mid-County (Ramona) SR-74 (Florida) 6.50 $34,296,000 $30,076,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) Gilman Springs Ramona 1.92 $5,060,000 $2,376,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $12,910,000 $6,100,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Domenigoni Keller 4.90 $0 $0 Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport 0.50 $0 $0 Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz 1.95 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 Canyon Hills 2.29 $3,021,000 $3,021,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 interchange 0.00 $72,546,000 $28,636,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 I-15 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $17,725,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon 0.83 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Toulon I-215 0.83 $2,187,000 $2,187,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith I-215 Whitewood 0.75 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Murrieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek 0.24 $3,352,000 $3,352,000 Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Winchester Creek Margarita 0.61 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller 0.55 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith 2.00 $2,111,000 $2,111,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Margarita Ynez 0.91 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Ynez Jefferson 0.73 $10,199,000 $10,199,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) I-15 interchange 0.00 $72,546,000 $55,760,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Jefferson Diaz 0.56 $5,711,000 $5,711,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Murrieta Creek bridge 0.00 $7,746,000 $7,746,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz) Cherry Rancho California 2.14 $5,382,000 $5,382,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroRancho California SR-79 (Front) 1.48 $21,961,000 $21,961,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroI-15 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $20,682,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent MoroMurrieta Creek bridge 0.00 $5,534,000 $5,534,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson 2.70 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) I-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $8,442,000 Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Eastern Bypass 2.40 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR-79 2.54 $20,104,000 $3,604,000 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge 0.00 $33,200,000 $27,052,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-74 I-15 Ethanac 4.89 $13,064,000 $13,064,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Keller Thompson 2.47 $17,220,000 $17,220,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Thompson La Alba 1.81 $12,652,000 $12,652,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) La Alba Hunter 0.50 $3,514,000 $2,771,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs 1.14 $513,000 $513,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 Monte Vista 0.32 $793,000 $793,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset 3.10 $9,850,000 $9,850,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $7,159,000 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar I-15 0.55 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith I-15 Copper Craft 2.48 $5,627,000 $4,275,000 Subtotal 255.28 $1,642,525,000 $1,227,955,000 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 46 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott 3.05 $0 $0 Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane 2.61 $6,884,000 $6,593,000 Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita 1.36 $0 $0 Central Menifee Holland Antelope Haun 1.00 $13,971,000 $13,971,000 Central Menifee Holland I-215 overcrossing bridge 0.00 $6,455,000 $6,455,000 Central Menifee McCall I-215 Aspel 1.23 $0 $0 Central Menifee McCall I-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $16,930,000 Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee 0.95 $2,517,000 $2,517,000 Central Menifee Murrieta Ethanac McCall 1.95 $0 $0 Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport 2.03 $0 $0 Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy Canyon 3.00 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 Heacock 1.81 $2,022,000 $0 Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR-60 0.28 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 Eucalyptus 0.77 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus I-215 Towngate 1.00 $4,050,000 $4,050,000 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick 0.67 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock 1.01 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching 1.01 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach 2.42 $339,000 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore 2.28 $16,882,000 $16,882,000 Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR-60 Alessandro 1.55 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus San Michele 2.79 $4,482,000 $4,482,000 Central Moreno Valley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus 4.73 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox 0.74 $1,958,000 $1,532,000 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood SR-60 Day 1.33 $2,695,000 $2,695,000 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock 2.01 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy 1.00 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander 3.14 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR-60 1.37 $9,548,000 $9,548,000 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR-60 overcrossing bridge 0.00 $2,306,000 $2,306,000 Central Moreno Valley Nason SR-60 Alessandro 1.51 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR-60 0.43 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Cantarini Ironwood 3.23 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust 0.35 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro 2.68 $18,721,000 $18,013,000 Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR-60 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 Eucalyptus 0.26 $1,817,000 $1,817,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $19,096,000 Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona 0.99 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan 0.59 $1,562,000 $1,562,000 Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider 0.49 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia 0.58 $0 $0 Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo 1.50 $1,347,000 $1,347,000 Central Perris Evans Nuevo I-215 1.99 $10,521,000 $10,521,000 Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $7,378,000 $7,378,000 Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac 1.04 $2,745,000 $1,238,000 Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 Indian 1.53 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $7,110,000 Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Perris 0.50 $0 $0 Central Perris Harley Knox Perris Redlands 0.50 $0 $0 Central Perris Nuevo I-215 Murrieta 1.36 $9,480,000 $9,480,000 Central Perris Nuevo I-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap 1.00 $2,035,000 $2,035,000 Central Perris Nuevo Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge 0.00 $2,767,000 $2,767,000 Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 Ethanac 1.25 $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $8,815,000 Central Unincorporated Briggs SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson 2.50 $6,596,000 $6,596,000 Central Unincorporated Briggs Simpson Newport 1.53 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Briggs Salt Creek Bridge 0.00 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 Mt Vernon 1.50 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $7,927,000 $7,927,000 Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR-74 2.65 $6,989,000 $6,989,000 Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP CorridoCenter Pigeon Pass 0.61 $2,252,000 $2,252,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee 2.00 $5,273,000 $5,273,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $3,688,000 $3,688,000 Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Cantarini Mount Vernon 3.38 $25,146,000 $25,146,000 Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis 0.44 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit 3.20 $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust 2.60 $0 $0 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 47 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Corona 6th SR-91 Magnolia 4.50 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Auto Center Railroad SR-91 0.48 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Cajalco Bedford Canyon I-15 0.15 $1,049,000 $1,049,000 Northwest Corona Hidden Valley Norco Hills McKinley 0.59 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Lincoln Parkridge Ontario 3.20 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Magnolia 6th Sherborn Bridge 0.47 $3,283,000 $3,283,000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Temescal Creek bridge 0.00 $2,767,000 $2,767,000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Sherborn Bridge Rimpau 0.52 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario 1.17 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main Grand Ontario 0.88 $2,325,000 $575,000 Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foothill 0.89 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main Hidden Valley Parkridge 0.35 $2,427,000 $1,912,000 Northwest Corona Main Parkridge SR-91 0.86 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Main SR-91 S. Grand 0.86 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Hidden Valley Promenade 0.40 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Promenade SR-91 0.33 $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley SR-91 Magnolia 0.31 $2,346,000 $2,346,000 Northwest Corona McKinley Arlington Channel bridge 0.00 $923,000 $923,000 Northwest Corona McKinley BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $55,472,000 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario I-15 El Cerrito 0.89 $6,217,000 $4,924,000 Northwest Corona Ontario Lincoln Buena Vista 0.32 $2,242,000 $1,883,000 Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Vista Main 0.65 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Main Kellogg 0.78 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton 0.32 $2,410,000 $1,785,000 Northwest Corona Ontario Fullerton Rimpau 0.42 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario Rimpau I-15 0.60 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Buena Vista 2.45 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Railroad BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $15,851,000 $15,851,000 Northwest Corona Railroad Buena Vista Main (at Grand) 0.58 $4,052,000 $3,203,000 Northwest Corona River Corydon Main 2.27 $0 $0 Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR-91 Green River 0.96 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Archibald San Bernardino County River 3.63 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Mission Bellegrave 3.03 $2,158,000 $2,158,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Bellegrave Amberhill 0.20 $528,000 $528,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Amberhill Limonite 0.71 $3,222,000 $3,222,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Limonite Schleisman 1.00 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Schleisman Santa Ana River 1.00 $2,638,000 $2,638,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 East Center 0.35 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite East Center Hamner 0.27 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Hamner Sumner 1.00 $1,319,000 $1,319,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Sumner Harrison 0.50 $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Harrison Archibald 0.49 $1,293,000 $1,293,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.) 1.12 $5,910,000 $5,910,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge 0.00 $3,688,000 $3,688,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Armstrong San Bernardino County Valley 1.53 $1,601,000 $1,601,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Bellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Van Buren 0.29 $759,000 $759,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Cantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville Bellegrave 1.82 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda San Bernardino County SR-60 1.00 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda SR-60 Limonite 3.00 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite I-15 Wineville 0.40 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Wineville Etiwanda 0.99 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Etiwanda Van Buren 2.72 $14,345,000 $12,319,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Van Buren Clay 0.79 $1,672,000 $1,672,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Clay Riverview 2.45 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Rubidoux Santa Ana River 1.74 $4,605,000 $4,314,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Santa Ana River bridge 0.00 $9,222,000 $7,849,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission Milliken SR-60 1.61 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission SR-60 Santa Ana River 7.39 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Riverview Limonite Mission 0.95 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux San Bernardino County Mission 2.65 $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux SR-60 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $8,948,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Valley Armstrong Mission 0.48 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 1st Parkridge Mountain 0.26 $677,000 $677,000 Northwest Norco 1st Mountain Hamner 0.26 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 2nd River I-15 1.44 $3,789,000 $3,789,000 Northwest Norco 6th Hamner California 1.71 $0 $0 Northwest Norco 6th I-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $5,593,000 Northwest Norco Arlington North Arlington 0.97 $2,570,000 $2,570,000 Northwest Norco California Arlington 6th 0.98 $6,848,000 $6,848,000 Northwest Norco Corydon River 5th 1.46 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River bridge 0.00 $22,132,000 $0 Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River Hidden Valley 3.05 $21,325,000 $21,325,000 Northwest Norco Hidden Valley I-15 Norco Hills 1.52 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Hidden Valley Hamner I-15 0.13 $0 $0 Northwest Norco Norco Corydon Hamner 1.20 $0 $0 Northwest Norco North California Arlington 0.81 $0 $0 Northwest Norco River Archibald Corydon 1.14 $1,114,000 $803,000 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 48 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Riverside 14th Market Martin Luther King 0.89 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 1st Market Main 0.08 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 3rd SR-91 I-215 1.34 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 3rd BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $36,980,000 $36,980,000 Northwest Riverside Adams Arlington SR-91 1.56 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 Lincoln 0.54 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Northwest Riverside Buena Vista Santa Ana River Redwood 0.30 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther King Central 0.95 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Country Club 0.59 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Country Club Via Vista 0.94 $2,990,000 $1,855,000 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro 0.68 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Chicago I-215/SR-60 2.15 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central SR-91 Magnolia 0.76 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Alessandro SR-91 2.05 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia 3.53 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Chicago Alessandro Spruce 3.42 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia 0.75 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa 1.09 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Columbia I-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Northwest Riverside Iowa Center 3rd 2.25 $13,815,000 $13,815,000 Northwest Riverside Iowa 3rd University 0.51 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Iowa University Martin Luther King 0.51 $3,530,000 $3,265,000 Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwein Wood 0.48 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Arlington SR-91 3.56 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Sierra SR-91 Indiana 0.19 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Indiana Victoria 0.78 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lemon (NB One way) Mission Inn University 0.08 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van Buren Jefferson 2.00 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Jefferson Washington 1.00 $4,331,000 $4,331,000 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Washington Victoria 1.43 $8,193,000 $8,193,000 Northwest Riverside Madison SR-91 Victoria 0.86 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Madison BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $15,851,000 $10,851,000 Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF Railroad Tyler 2.70 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF railroad crossing 0.00 $15,851,000 $15,851,000 Northwest Riverside Magnolia Tyler Harrison 0.65 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia Harrison 14th 5.98 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino County 2.19 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana River 2.03 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Martin Luther King 14th I-215/SR-60 2.11 $6,340,000 $6,340,000 Northwest Riverside Mission Inn Redwood Lemon 0.79 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Redwood (SB One way) Mission Inn University 0.08 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Trautwein Alessandro Van Buren 2.19 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 Magnolia 0.43 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $3,089,000 Northwest Riverside Tyler Magnolia Hole 0.27 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler Hole Wells 1.06 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler Wells Arlington 1.35 $9,443,000 $9,443,000 Northwest Riverside University Redwood SR-91 0.86 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside University SR-91 I-215/SR-60 2.01 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Victoria Lincoln Arlington 0.16 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Victoria Madison Washington 0.52 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Washington Victoria Hermosa 2.05 $14,352,000 $14,352,000 Northwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren 0.70 $923,000 $923,000 Northwest Riverside Wood Van Buren Bergamont 0.11 $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamont Krameria 0.39 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Cantu-Galleano Ranch Hamner Wineville 0.94 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos (Weirick) Temescal Canyon I-15 0.21 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated El Cerrito I-15 Ontario 0.56 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated El Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Cajalco 1.05 $3,337,000 $3,226,000 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Washington Scottsdale 0.12 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Scottsdale Cajalco 1.19 $3,134,000 $3,134,000 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra Victoria El Sobrante 2.22 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra El Sobrante Cajalco 2.36 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren El Sobrante 3.29 $10,454,000 $9,003,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Ontario Tuscany 0.65 $1,644,000 $740,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Tuscany Dos Lagos 0.91 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos Leroy 1.10 $3,507,000 $3,507,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Leroy Dawson Canyon 1.89 $5,994,000 $5,994,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dawson Canyon I-15 0.28 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 Park Canyon 3.41 $12,661,000 $12,661,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail 2.55 $8,094,000 $8,094,000 Northwest Unincorporated Washington Hermosa Harley John 3.96 $7,840,000 $7,840,000 Northwest Unincorporated Wood Krameria Cajalco 2.99 $7,880,000 $7,880,000 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 49 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Pass Banning 8th Wilson I-10 0.54 $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs Wilson (8th) Sun Lakes 0.76 $2,661,000 $2,661,000 Pass Banning Highland Springs I-10 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Pass Banning Highland Springs Oak Valley (14th) Wilson (8th) 0.73 $5,128,000 $5,128,000 Pass Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley (14th) 1.53 $0 $0 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 Morongo Trail (Apache Trail) 3.29 $22,952,000 $22,952,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio bridge 0.00 $2,767,000 $2,767,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South UP railroad crossing 0.00 $18,490,000 $18,490,000 Pass Banning Lincoln Sunset SR-243 2.01 $0 $0 Pass Banning Ramsey I-10 8th 1.70 $0 $0 Pass Banning Ramsey 8th Highland Springs 3.55 $0 $0 Pass Banning SR-243 I-10 Wesley 0.62 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Home Sunset 1.00 $13,971,000 $13,971,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge 0.00 $3,688,000 $3,688,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Springs Highland Home 1.33 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sunset Ramsey Lincoln 0.28 $0 $0 Pass Banning Sunset I-10 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Pass Banning Wilson Highland Home 8th 2.51 $0 $0 Pass Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home 1.01 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 1st Viele Pennsylvania 1.28 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 1st Pennsylvania Highland Springs 1.10 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 6th I-10 Highland Springs 2.24 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (STC) 0.99 $912,000 $912,000 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Highland Springs Pennsylvania 1.13 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Pennsylvania Oak View 1.40 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Oak View I-10 0.65 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $11,660,000 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) Beaumont City Limits Cherry Valley (J St / Central Overl 3.46 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) Cherry Valley (J St / Central OI-10 1.67 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania 6th 1st 0.53 $3,018,000 $3,018,000 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania I-10 interchange 0.00 $8,949,000 $0 Pass Calimesa Bryant County Line Avenue L 0.38 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Calimesa County Line I-10 0.80 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Calimesa I-10 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 Pass Calimesa Tukwet Canyon Roberts Palmer 0.50 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa County Line Roberts Bryant 1.86 $6,497,000 $6,497,000 Pass Calimesa County Line I-10 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Palmer Champions 1.42 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Singleton Avenue L Condit 1.86 $11,834,000 $11,834,000 Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts 0.85 $0 $0 Pass Calimesa Singleton I-10 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Desert Lawn 3.40 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley I-10 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $36,617,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley San Timoteo Wash bridge 0.00 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC) San Bernardino County 2.81 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Oak Valley (STC) San Bernardino County Beaumont City Limits 5.65 $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Oak Valley (STC) UP railroad crossing 0.00 $18,490,000 $18,490,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Bellflower Noble 1.47 $7,757,000 $7,757,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Bellflower 0.44 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo 0.98 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigoni Stetson 1.08 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson RR Crossing Acacia 0.42 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR Crossing 0.58 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplanade 1.00 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Warren Cawston 1.02 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Columbia Ramona 2.58 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/SR-79 (Florida) Cawston Columbia 4.03 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Domenigoni Chambers 1.31 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson 0.51 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Florida Esplanade 1.74 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson Florida 1.25 $9,377,000 $9,377,000 San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cawston State 2.52 $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Warren Cawston 1.00 $2,635,000 $2,635,000 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Esplanade Domenigoni 4.99 $13,163,000 $13,163,000 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Salt Creek bridge 0.00 $2,767,000 $2,490,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Ramona Mountain 0.20 $2,794,000 $2,794,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Mountain State 2.55 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Warren 3.53 $9,320,000 $9,320,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade 3.55 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (North Ramona) State San Jacinto 1.02 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) North Ramona Blvd 7th 0.25 $1,722,000 $1,722,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) 7th SR-74 2.25 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade 1.99 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch 0.76 $2,007,000 $1,138,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto State San Jacinto River bridge 0.00 $4,611,000 $3,162,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Quandt Ranch Ramona 0.70 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Warren Ramona Esplanade 3.47 $9,156,000 $9,156,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Sanderson State 2.54 $6,714,000 $3,462,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Massacre Canyon Wash bridge 0.00 $923,000 $570,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni 3.23 $0 $0 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 50 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISTCITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Southwest Lake Elsinore Corydon Mission Grand 1.53 $2,019,000 $2,019,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Diamond Mission I-15 0.24 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin (integral to Railroad I-15 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $14,629,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Lincoln Toft 1.29 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Toft SR-74 (Riverside) 0.86 $1,357,000 $1,357,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 Lincoln 3.10 $14,794,000 $13,592,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $7,291,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake Temescal Wash bridge 0.00 $1,973,000 $822,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy Canyon 2.39 $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake 1.80 $3,324,000 $3,324,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 interchange 0.00 $37,060,000 $37,060,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Collier/Riverside) I-15 Lakeshore 2.10 $29,357,000 $28,315,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Grand) Riverside SR-74 (Ortega) 0.64 $8,892,000 $7,495,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Riverside) Lakeshore Grand 1.74 $21,830,000 $21,830,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon I-15 Lake 1.21 $3,846,000 $3,846,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash bridge 0.00 $2,270,000 $2,270,000 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jefferson I-15 0.32 $555,000 $555,000 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks I-15 Jackson 0.50 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jackson Clinton Keith 1.76 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jackson Whitewood Ynez 0.53 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Palomar Nutmeg 1.02 $2,691,000 $2,691,000 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Nutmeg Murrieta Hot Springs 2.37 $21,520,000 $21,520,000 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Murrieta Hot Springs Cherry 2.26 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 Whitewood 0.75 $1,571,000 $1,571,000 Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $17,897,000 Southwest Murrieta Los Alamos Jefferson I-215 1.77 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson I-215 1.11 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs I-215 Margarita 1.48 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Margarita SR-79 (Winchester) 1.01 $2,660,000 $2,660,000 Southwest Murrieta Nutmeg Jefferson Clinton Keith 1.97 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Clinton Keith Los Alamos 2.01 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Los Alamos Murrieta Hot Springs 1.93 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson 0.80 $8,066,000 $8,066,000 Southwest Murrieta Ynez Jackson SR-79 (Winchester) 1.22 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California 2.29 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Margarita Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) 7.38 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Old Town Front Rancho California I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) 1.45 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto 1.32 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy 1.44 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Margarita 1.89 $6,824,000 $6,824,000 Southwest Temecula Rancho California I-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $12,009,000 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Margarita Butterfield Stage 1.96 $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks 4.26 $32,064,000 $32,064,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) I-15 Pechanga Pkwy 0.64 $1,692,000 $1,576,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage 3.08 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-79 (Winchester) 3.39 $8,950,000 $8,950,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos 0.82 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Calle Chapos La Serena 0.70 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage La Serena Rancho California 0.90 $2,860,000 $2,860,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Rancho California Pauba 0.85 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Pauba SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) 1.69 $269,000 $269,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage SR-79 (Winchester) Auld 2.28 $7,245,000 $7,245,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Auld Murrieta Hot Springs 2.23 $14,172,000 $14,172,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Tucalota Creek bridge 0.00 $3,688,000 $3,688,000 Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon I-15 0.17 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon I-15 0.18 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Winchester) Pourroy 1.75 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechanga San Diego County 1.38 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Horsethief Canyon Wash bridge 0.00 $2,214,000 $2,214,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Truck Trail I-15 2.57 $8,166,000 $8,166,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Wash bridge 0.00 $941,000 $941,000 Southwest Wildomar Baxter I-15 Palomar 0.37 $974,000 $921,000 Southwest Wildomar Baxter I-15 interchange 0.00 $17,897,000 $7,159,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Mission I-15 0.94 $6,537,000 $6,537,000 Southwest Wildomar Central Baxter Palomar 0.74 $5,143,000 $5,143,000 Southwest Wildomar Central Grand Palomar 0.51 $3,570,000 $3,570,000 Southwest Wildomar Grand Ortega Corydon 4.96 $34,648,000 $25,011,000 Southwest Wildomar Grand Corydon Central 2.02 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Mission Bundy Canyon Palomar 0.84 $0 $0 Southwest Wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Jefferson 0.74 $1,941,000 $1,691,000 Southwest Wildomar Palomar Mission Clinton Keith 2.79 $7,358,000 $7,358,000 Subtotal 473.09 $1,803,495,000 $1,484,916,000 Totals Network 728.37 3,446,020,000$ 2,712,871,000$ Transit 153,120,000$ 92,639,000$ Administration 112,220,400$ 112,220,400$ MSHCP 45,401,000$ 43,308,000$ Total 3,756,761,400$ 2,961,038,400$ 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 51 Table 4.5 – TUMF Transit Cost Estimates AREA PLAN DIST LEAD AGENCY PROJECT NAME LOCATION UNITS (number/ length in miles)UNIT COST TOTAL MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest RTA Riverside Mobility Hub at Vine Street Riverside 1 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $3,630,000 Central RTA Moreno Valley Mobility Hub Moreno Valley 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 Northwest RTA Jurupa Valley Mobility Hub Jurupa Valley 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 Pass RTA Banning Mobility Hub Banning 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 Southwest RTA Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake Mobility Hb Lake Elsinore 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 Southwest RTA Temecula/Murrieta Mobility Hub Temecula 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 San Jacinto RTA Hemet Mobility Hub Hemet 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 San Jacinto RTA San Jacinto Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,445,000 San Jacinto RTA Mt. San Jacinto College Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $605,000 Regional RTA Regional Operations and Maintenance Facilit Riverside 1 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $30,251,000 Regional RTA Annual Transit Enhancements Program Various locations region wide 290 $40,000 $11,600,000 $7,018,000 Central RTA Central Corridor RapidLink Implementation UCR, Riverside to Perris 42 $60,000 $2,520,000 $1,525,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Medium Buses Various locations region wide 7 $155,000 $1,085,000 $656,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Large Buses Various locations region wide 29 $585,000 $16,965,000 $10,264,000 Regional RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis Study Various locations region wide 1 $950,000 $950,000 $575,000 Total $153,120,000 $92,639,000 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation To assess the effectiveness of the proposed TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development in Western Riverside County, the proposed network improvements were added to the 2015 existing network in RivTAM and the model was run with 2040 socioeconomic data to determine the relative impacts on horizon year traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements, the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for the 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build scenarios were again calculated for the 2040 TUMF Build scenario. The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in Table 3.1 for the no-build conditions. The 2040 TUMF Build comparison results are provided in Table 4.6. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix H. As shown in Table 4.6, the 2040 VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will decrease with the addition of the TUMF Network improvements while the share of VMT on the regional arterial highway system experiencing daily LOS E or worse will be reduced to 38% (which is still above the level experienced in 2012). It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system increases as a result of freeway trips being diverted to the arterial system to benefit from the proposed TUMF improvements. Despite a greater share of the total VMT in 2040, the arterial system is able to more efficiently accommodate the increased demand with the proposed TUMF improvements. Although VMT on the TUMF improved arterial system increases by approximately 9% in 2040 compared to the No Build condition, VHT on the arterial system decreases by approximately 11% indicating traffic is able to move more efficiently. Additionally, a notable benefit is observed on the freeway system with VMT and VHT being substantially reduced following TUMF Network improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all area motorists would be reduced by over one third from the levels that would be experienced under the 2040 No-Build scenario. These results highlight the overall effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development commensurate with the level of impact being created. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 52 Table 4.6 – Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build Scenarios to 2040 TUMF Build Scenario) Measure of Performance* Peak Periods (Total) 2012 Baseline 2040 No-Build 2040 Build VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 19,532,437 29,277,587 31,022,272 VMT - FREEWAYS 11,019,155 14,487,570 13,411,377 VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 8,513,282 14,790,016 17,610,895 TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 5,585,202 9,089,495 9,902,433 VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 575,154 1,361,907 1,180,647 VHT - FREEWAYS 296,542 736,433 530,849 VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 278,611 625,474 649,797 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 181,151 396,981 354,639 VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 175,765 739,075 489,238 VHD - FREEWAYS 117,430 502,549 312,669 VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 58,334 236,527 176,569 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 45,080 172,944 114,833 VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6,188,644 16,966,992 14,299,498 VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,532,703 10,156,363 8,982,566 VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 1,655,941 6,810,629 5,316,932 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 1,462,061 5,160,911 3,735,762 % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 26% 57% 38% * Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016. NOTES: Volume is adjusted by PCE factor VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios). LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 53 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for transportation system improvements on the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of this new development, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept. 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements Previous sections of this report documented the projected residential and employment growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system improvements that will serve these future inter-community travel demands. The following points coalesce this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system. Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing. Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Current projections estimate the population is projected to grow from a level of approximately 1.77 million in 2012 to a future level of about 2.43 million in 2040, while employment is projected to grow from a level of about 461,000 in 2012 to approximately 861,000 in 2040 (as shown in Table 2.3). Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays. The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County. Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since longer-distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County. Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development. To maintain transportation service at or near its current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 54 roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, or grade separation of at-grade rail crossings. The completion of improvements to the arterial roadway system would enhance regional mobility, and reduce the total peak period vehicles hours of travel (VHT) by approximately 13%, reduce peak period vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by approximately 34%, and reduce the share of traffic experiencing congestion in the peak periods by 16% (as shown in Table 4.6). The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined during future project programming activities as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available. Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter-community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion. Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, the public transportation infrastructure and service will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new Western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation. For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed. 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and the public transportation system. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle trips that are relatively local (between 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 55 adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future combined AM and PM peak period travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the Year 2040 No-Build scenario trip tables from RivTAM. The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the TAZs in the model and the five WRCOG TUMF zones (i.e. Northwest, Southwest, Central, Hemet/San Jacinto and Pass). The TAZs were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region). Table 5.1 shows the estimated peak period vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of peak period vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix I includes the detailed RivTAM outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2. Table 5.1 - 2040 Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To From Central Hemet/San Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside WRCOG TOTAL Central 285,556 15,102 60,146 6,274 34,821 41,799 443,699 Hemet/San Jacinto 14,876 190,792 7,396 5,256 17,138 13,851 249,310 Northwest 64,066 8,082 742,299 6,569 25,648 211,686 1,058,350 Pass 6,721 5,563 6,536 103,901 1,791 32,830 157,341 Southwest 34,785 17,514 24,135 1,785 452,345 28,424 558,988 Outside WRCOG 43,352 14,690 212,699 33,337 29,242 333,320 TOTAL 449,357 251,743 1,053,210 157,123 560,984 328,590 2,801,008 Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No-Build scenario Table 5.2 - 2040 Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To From Central Hemet/San Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside WRCOG TOTAL Central 64.4% 3.4% 13.6% 1.4% 7.8% 9.4% 100% Hemet/San Jacinto 6.0% 76.5% 3.0% 2.1% 6.9% 5.6% 100% Northwest 6.1% 0.8% 70.1% 0.6% 2.4% 20.0% 100% Pass 4.3% 3.5% 4.2% 66.0% 1.1% 20.9% 100% Southwest 6.2% 3.1% 4.3% 0.3% 80.9% 5.1% 100% Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No-Build scenario 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 56 Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the backbone and secondary highway networks as derived from the peak period trip values provided in Table 5.1. Peak period vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their inter- regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Peak period trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Peak period trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lane-miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra-zonal trips. The backbone network includes approximately 40.5% of the lane-miles on the future TUMF system, and the secondary network includes approximately 59.5% of the lane-miles. The backbone network is therefore assigned all of the inter-zonal peak period trips plus 40.5% of the intra-zonal peak period trips. The secondary network is assigned 59.5% of the intra-zonal peak period trips and none of the inter-zonal peak period trips. The overall result is that 50.7% of the regional travel is assigned to the backbone network and 49.3% is assigned to the secondary network. Table 5.3 - Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation Calculation Value Description Input Values Backbone Value Backbone Share Secondary Value Secondary Share Total Western Riverside County Peak Period Vehicle Trips 2,801,008 Less Internal/External Peak Period Vehicle Trips -661,910 Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips Internal to Western Riverside County 2,139,098 Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between TUMF Zones 364,205 Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within TUMF Zones 1,774,893 TUMF Future Network Lane-Miles 3,151.1 1,277.7 40.5% 1,873.4 59.5% Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between TUMF Zones 364,205 364,205 100.0% 0 0.0% Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within TUMF Zones (as share of intra- zonal trips) 1,774,893 719,679 40.5% 1,055,214 59.5% Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips Assigned 2,139,098 1,083,884 50.7% 1,055,214 49.3% Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No-Build scenario; TUMF Nexus Study Exhibit H-2 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 57 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, the growth in peak period VMT between the 2012 Baseline and 2040 No-Build Scenarios from RivTAM were aggregated by trip purpose. RivTAM produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes: home-based-work (HBW), home-based-other (HBO), home-based-school (HBSC), work-based-other (WBO), and other-based-other (OBO). NCHRP Report #187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978) details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel demand modeling. Chapter 2 of this report, which details trip generation estimation, states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non Work) trips are generated at the households, whereas the NHB (Non-Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere." In accordance with NCHRP Report #187, growth in peak period VMT was aggregated into home-based growth in peak period VMT (combining the first three purposes: HBW, HBO, HBS) and non-home-based growth in peak period VMT (combining the last two purposes: WBO, OBO). The home-based growth in peak period VMT represent 71.0% of the total future growth in VMT in the peak periods, and the non-home-based growth in peak period VMT represent 29.0% of the total future growth in VMT in the peak period as shown in Table 5.4. Appendix J includes the RivTAM outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 - Peak Period VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2012 - 2040) VEHICLE TRIP PURPOSE 2012 BASELINE PEAK PERIOD VMT 2040 NO-BUILD PEAK PERIOD VMT PEAK PERIOD VMT GROWTH PEAK PERIOD VMT GROWTH SHARE Home-Based-Work 5,849,895 8,331,921 2,482,026 52.9% Home-Based-Other 2,214,102 2,932,929 718,827 15.3% Home-Based-School (K-12) 413,303 542,911 129,608 2.8% Work-Based-Other 945,539 1,583,034 637,496 13.6% Other-Based-Other 1,772,020 2,493,667 721,647 15.4% TOTAL 11,194,859 15,884,463 4,689,605 100.00% Home-Based Trips (Residential Uses) 3,330,462 71.0% Non-Home-Based Trips (Non-Residential Uses) 1,359,143 29.0% Based on RivTAM Year 2012 Baseline Scenario, September 2016 and RivTAM Year 2040 No Build Scenario, September 2016 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 58 6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.76 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $303.5 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $492.2 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $2.96 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their “fair share” of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.96 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 71.0% ($2.10 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 29.0% ($858.7 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. 6.1 Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $2.10 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2040, the fee will be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between 2012 and 2040. The projected residential growth from year 2012 to 2040 is 250,082 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.3. Different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between lower density “single-family” dwelling units and higher density “multi-family” dwelling units, the TUMF was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, single family dwelling units are those housing units with a density of less than 8 units per acre while multi-family units are those with a density of 8 or more units per acre. According to the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS forecasts included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 69.2% of the growth in residential dwelling units in the region between 2012 and 2040. Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 9.52 vehicle trips per dwelling unit per day, whereas apartments, condominiums and townhouses (considered to be representative of higher density multi-family dwelling units) generate a median of 6.20 vehicle trips per unit per day. The growth in dwelling units for single-family and multi-family, respectively, were multiplied by the corresponding trip generation rates to determine the weighted proportion of the 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 59 change in trips attributable to each use type as the basis for determining the per unit fee required to levy the necessary $2.10 billion to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and multi-family dwelling units. Appendix K includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share Residential Sector 2012 Dwelling Units 2040 Dwelling Units Dwelling Unit Change Trip Generation Rate Trip Change Percentage of Trip Change Fee/DU Single-Family 366,588 539,631 173,043 9.52 1,647,369 77.5% $9,418 Multi-Family 158,561 235,600 77,039 6.20 477,642 22.5% $6,134 Total 525,149 775,231 250,082 2,125,011 100.0% Household data based on SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and WSP, April 2016; Trip Generation based on ITE Trip Generation (2012). 6.2 Non-Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $858.7 million. Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socioeconomic data included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B. From the 2040 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee derived from four sources including: Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas (PBQD), Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Subarea Model Guidelines Manual, June 2001; SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001; and the County of Riverside, General Plan, As Amended December 15, 2015. Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non-residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix L. To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of non- residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation – Ninth Edition (2012), and were weighted based on a calculated value of trips per employee as derived from the employee conversion factors and ITE typical trip generation rates per square foot of development, before being assigned to the non-residential categories as follows: Industrial – 3.8 trips per employee, Retail – 16.2 trips per employee, Service – 4.6 trips per 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 60 employee, and Government/Public – 12.0 trips per employee11. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip-making, and the $858.7 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories on the basis of the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non-residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 - Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share Non-Residential Sector Employment Change Trip Generation Rate per Employee Trip Change Percentage of Trip Change Change in Square Feet of Gross Floor Area Fee/SF Industrial 80,592 3.8 302,220 13.4% 64,710,138 $1.77 Retail 35,841 16.2 580,624 25.7% 17,920,500 $12.31 Service 274,720 4.6 1,263,712 55.9% 105,211,915 $4.56 Government/Public 9,515 12.0 114,180 5.1% 2,696,349 $16.08 Total 400,668 2,260,736 100.0% 190,538,901 Employment Change data based on SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; Trip Generation based on ITE (2012); Change in Square Feet conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990), OCTA (2001), SCAG (2001) and County of Riverside (2015). 11 The median trip generation rate for ‘Retail’ and ‘Service’ was reduced to reflect the influence of pass-by trips using the weekday PM peak median pass-by trip rate for select uses as derived from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (June 2004). 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study – 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 61 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be seen that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the ongoing TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional “fair share” of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1. Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Change Fee Per Unit Total Revenue ($ million) Single Family Residential DU 173,043 $9,418 $1,629.8 Multi Family Residential DU 77,039 $6,134 $472.5 Industrial SF GFA 64,710,138 $1.77 $114.8 Retail SF GFA 17,920,500 $12.31 $220.5 Service SF GFA 105,211,915 $4.56 $480.0 Government/Public SF GFA 2,696,349 $16.08 $43.4 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $2,961.0 3.A.4.c Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: TUMF Nexus Study (Exhibit B) (Amending Ordinance 17-05) August 6, 2019 TO: City Council REQUESTED BY: Tom Prill, Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: Robert A. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Statement of Investment Policy RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve the revised Statement of Investment Policy and adopt Resolution No. 3779. BACKGROUND: Section 53646 of the Government Code of the State of California requires the City to review its Statement of Investment Policy annually and make revisions if necessary. The City Council last reviewed and approved the policy on October 16, 2018, with several changes at that time. The Statement of Investment Policy is legally required and provides authority to invest in allowable securities and within specified durations as detailed within the guidelines of the adopted policy. The policy cannot be more liberal than that allowed by California Government Code §53600 et. seq.; however, it can be more restrictive. DISCUSSION: The primary objectives of the Statement of Investment policy are to ensure the following: Legality: Sections 53601 and 53635 of the Government Code outlines what investments are allowable for California agencies. Safety: It is the primary duty and responsibility of the Treasurer to protect, preserve and maintain cash and investments on behalf of the citizens of the City of San Jacinto. Generally, the higher the yield, the greater the risk an investment carries. Maturity: The longer an investment is held, the greater the degree of market risk (the risk that changes in the financial market will reduce the value of a security). Investment in instruments with varying maturities provides a natural hedge against changes in interest rates. Liquidity: To meet disbursement requirements, an adequate portion of the investment portfolio should be liquid and easily converted to cash, such as in an investment pool or money market. Risk: The investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account risk 3.A.5 Packet Pg. 180 constraints. Yields should become a consideration only after the basic requirements of legality, safety, maturity, and liquidity have been met. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy 3.A.5 Packet Pg. 181 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) RESOLUTION NO. 3779 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA, REVISING THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY WHEREAS, Section 53646 of the Government Code of the State of California requires that the Treasurer or Chief Fiscal Officer shall annually render to the legislative body of his/her agency for review and/or amendment, a Statement of Investment Policy; and WHEREAS, any changes to the City’s Statement of Investment must be considered in public session of legislative body; and WHEREAS, the City’s Statement of Investment Policy was last reviewed on October 16, 2018, with several changes; and WHEREAS, the City’s Statement of Investment Policy has not been significantly revised. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Jacinto hereby rescinds previous investment policy resolutions and approves the Statement of Investment Policy, as attached hereto in Exhibit “A”. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 6th day of August 2019, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF SAN JACINTO: _____________________ Russ Utz, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Angela Walton, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP ______________________________ Michael J. Maurer, City Attorney 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) CERTIFICATION State of California ) County of Riverside) ss City of San Jacinto) I, Angela Walton, duly appointed City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 3779 was duly passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto on the 6th day of August 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL of the city of San Jacinto this 6th day of August 2019. _____________________________ Angela Walton, City Clerk City of San Jacinto 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) EXHIBIT “A” 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) CITY OF SAN JACINTO STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY I. INTRODUCTION The City of San Jacinto’s (City) investment program will conform with federal, state, and other legal requirements, including California Government Code Sections 16429.1-16429.4, 53600- 53609 and 53630-53686. The following investment policy addresses the methods, procedures and practices, which must be exercised to ensure effective and judicious fiscal and investment management of the City’s funds. It is the policy of the City to invest public funds in a manner that will provide a market rate of return, given its requirements for preserving principal and meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City. All investments will comply with this Investment Policy and governing laws. This Investment Policy was endorsed and adopted by the City’s governing body (City Council) and is effective as of August 6, 2019. This Investment Policy replaces any previous Investment Policy of the City. II. PUBLIC TRUST All participants in the investment process shall act as custodians of the public trust. Investment officials shall recognize that the investment portfolio is subject to public review and evaluation. The overall program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. In a diversified portfolio, it must be recogniz ed that occasional measurement losses are inevitable, and must be considered within the context of the overall portfolio’s investment return, provided that adequate diversification has been implemented. III. SCOPE This Investment Policy applies to all the Cit y’s financial assets and investment activities with the following exceptions: A. Proceeds of debt issuance shall be invested in accordance with the City’s general investment philosophy as set forth in this policy; however, such proceeds are invested in accordance with permitted investment provisions of their specific bond indentures. Pooling of Funds: Except for cash in certain restricted and special funds, the City will consolidate cash and reserve balances from all funds to maximize investment earnings and to increase efficiencies with regard to investment pricing, safekeeping and administration. Investment income will be allocated to the various funds based on their respective participation and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. IV. GENERAL OBJECTIVES The overriding objectives of the investment program are to preserve principal, provide sufficient liquidity, and manage investment risks. 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) 1. Safety: It is the primary duty and responsibility of the City Treasurer to protect, preserve and maintain cash and investments placed in his/her trust on behalf of the citizens of the City. Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments will be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. The objective will be to mitigate credit risk and interest rate risk. 2. Liquidity: The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. Since all cash requirements cannot be anticipated, investments in securities shall be those with active secondary or resale markets. 3. Return: The investment portfolio will be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints for safety and liquidity needs. Yields should become a consideration only after the basic requirements of safety and liquidity have been met. V. PRUDENCE, INDEMNIFICATION AND ETHICS A. Prudent Investor Standard: Management of the City’s investments is governed by the Prudent Investor Standard as set forth in the California Government Code 53600.3: “…all governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law.” In keeping with the objectives (Section IV), in addition to safeguarding the principle and maintaining the liquidity needs of the City, a prudent investor should also optimize return or yield to the greatest extent possible. B. Indemnification: The City Treasurer, Finance Director and other authorized persons responsible for managing City funds, acting in accordance with written procedures and the investment policy and exercising due diligence, will be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported within 30 days and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. C. Ethics: Officers and employees involved in the investment process are prohibited from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. VI. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) A. Authority to manage the City’s investment program is derived from California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. The City Council is responsible for the City’s cash management, including the administration of this Investment Policy. Management responsibility for the cash management of City funds is hereby delegated to the City Treasurer and the Finance Director. The City Treasurer and Finance Director will be responsible for all transactions undertaken and will establish a system of procedures and controls to regulate the activities of subordinate employees. B. The City may engage the services of one or more external investment managers to assist in the management of the City’s investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City’s objectives. Such external managers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Investment Policy. Such managers must be registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. VII. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, DEPOSITORIES, AND BROKER/DEALERS A list will be maintained of financial institutions and depositories authorized to provide investment services. In addition, a list will be maintained of approved security broker/dealers selected by conducting a process of due diligence. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). A. The City Treasurer and Finance Director will determine which financial institutions are authorized to provide investment services to the City. Institutions eligible to transact investment business with the City include: 1. Primary government dealers as designated by the Federal Reserve Bank; 2. Nationally or state-chartered banks; 3. The Federal Reserve Bank; and, 4. Direct issuers of securities eligible for purchase. B. Selection of financial institutions and broker/dealers authorized to engage in transactions with the City will be at the sole discretion of the City. C. All financial institutions which desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions (and which are not dealing only with the investment adviser) must supply the Finance Director with a statement certifying that the institution has reviewed the California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. and the City’s Investment Policy. D. Selection of broker/dealers used by an external investment adviser retained by the City will be at the sole discretion of the investment adviser, provided they meet all of the requirements as stated. E. Public deposits will be made only in qualified public depositories as established by State law. Deposits will be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), or, to the extent the amount exceeds the insured maximum, will be collateralized in accordance 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) with State law. Financial institutions that do not offer FDIC insurance will not be invested in. A written contract of deposit of public funds must be obtained from the financial institution, indicating the institution’s policy and process of FDIC insurance and collateralization. VIII. DELIVERY, SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY, AND COMPETITIVE TRANSACTIONS A. Delivery-versus-payment: Settlement of all investment transactions will be completed using standard delivery-vs.-payment procedures. B. Third-party safekeeping: To protect against potential losses by collapse of individual securities dealers, and to enhance access to securities, interest payments and maturity proceeds, all securities owned by the City will be held in safekeeping by a third party bank custodian, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the City. C. Competitive transactions: All investment transactions will be conducted on a competitive basis which can be executed through a bidding process involving at least three separate brokers/financial institutions or through the use of a nationally recognized trading platform. IX. AUTHORIZED AND SUITABLE INVESTMENTS All investments will be made in accordance with Sections 53600 et seq. of the Government Code of California and as described within this Investment Policy. Percentage limitations and minimum credit ratings described in this section will be applicable at th e time of purchase. Permitted investments under this policy will include: 1. MUNICIPAL SECURITIES include obligations of the City of San Jacinto, the State of California and any local agency within the State of California, provided that: The securities are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”). No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be in Municipal Securities. The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years. 2. MUNICIPAL SECURITIES (REGISTERED TREASURY NOTES OR BONDS) of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of the other 49 states, in addition to California. The securities are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be in Municipal Securities. The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years. 1. U.S. Treasury and other government obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in U.S. Treasuries. 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) 2. Federal Agency or United States government-sponsored enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government -sponsored enterprises. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in government-sponsored enterprises. 3. Banker’s acceptances, provided that: a. They are issued by institutions with short term debt obligations rated ”A-1” or higher, or the equivalent, by at least two NRSROs; and have long-term debt obligations which are rated in the ”A” category or higher by at least two NRSROs; b. The maturity does not exceed 180 days; and, c. No more than 40% of the total portfolio may be invested in banker’s acceptances and no more than 5% per issuer. 4. Federally insured time deposits (Non-negotiable certificates of deposit) in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions, provided that: a. The amount per institution is limited to the maximum covered under federal insurance; and, b. No more than 20% of the portfolio will be invested in a combination of federally insured and collateralized time deposits; and, c. The maturity of such deposits does not exceed 5 years. 5. Collateralized time deposits (Non-negotiable certificates of deposit) in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions in excess of insured amounts which are fully collateralized with securities in accordance with California law, provided that: a. No more than 20% of the portfolio will be invested in a combination of federally insured and collateralized time deposits; b. They are issued by institutions which have long-term debt obligations which are rated in the ”A” category or higher by at least two NRSROs; and/or have short term obligations rated ”A-1” or higher, or the equivalent, by at least two NRSROs; and, c. The maturity of such deposits does not exceed 5 years. 6. Certificate of Deposit Placement Service (CDARS), provided that: a. No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in a combination of certificates of deposit including CDARS; and, b. The maturity of CDARS deposits does not exceed five years. 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) 7. Negotiable certificates of deposit (NCDs), issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, a savings association or a federal association, a state or federal credit union, or by a federal licensed or state licensed branch of a foreign bank, provided that: a. They are issued by institutions which have long-term obligations which are rated in the ”A” category or higher by at least two NRSROs; and/or have short term debt obligations rated ”A-1” or higher, or the equivalent, by at least two NRSROs; b. The maturity does not exceed five years; and, c. No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in NCDs and no more than 5% per issuer. 8. COLLATERALIZED BANK DEPOSITS. The City’s deposits with financial institutions will be collateralized with pledged securities per California Government Code, Section 53651. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the Agency may invest in collateralized bank deposits. 9. Repurchase agreements collateralized with securities authorized under Sections VI and VIII(2 and 3) of this policy maintained at a level of at least 102% of the market value of the repurchase agreements, provided that: a. The maximum maturity of repurchase agreements will be 1 year; b. There is no limit to the amount to be invested in repurchase agreements; c. Securities used as collateral for repurchase agreements will be delivered to the City’s custodian bank (See Section VII B); and, d. The repurchase agreements are the subject of a master repurchase agreement between the City and the provider of the repurchase agreement. The master repurchase agreement will be substantially in the form developed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA). 10. Commercial paper, provided that: a. The maturity does not exceed 270 days from the date of purchase; b. The issuer is a corporation organized and operating in the United States with assets in excess of $500 million; c. They are issued by institutions whose short term obligations are rated ”A-1” or higher, or the equivalent, by at least two NRSROs; and whose long-term obligations are rated ”A” category or higher by at least two NRSROs; and, d. No more than 25% of the portfolio is invested in commercial paper and no more than 5% per issuer. 11. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), provided that: 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) a. No more than 70% of the total portfolio may be invested in LAIF, up to the maximum permitted balance; and, b. LAIF’s investments in instruments prohibited by or not specified in the City’s policy do not exclude it from the City’s list of allowable investments, provided that the fund’s reports allow the City Treasurer and Finance Director to adequately judge the risk inherent in LAIF’s portfolio. 12. Local government investment pools and Joint Powers Authority Pools a. Riverside County Investment Fund, no more than 70% of the total portfolio; and, b. JPA Pools, no more than 50% of the total portfolio. 13. Corporate medium term notes (MTNs), provided that: a. Such notes have a maximum maturity of five years; b. Are issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States; c. Are rated ”A” category or better by at least two NRSROs; and, d. Holdings of medium-term notes may not exceed 30% of the portfolio and no more than 5% per issuer. 14. Mortgage pass-through, mortgage-backed, collateralized mortgage obligations, and asset-backed securities, provided that such securities: a. have a maximum stated final maturity of five years; b. be issued by an issuer having an “A” category or higher rating for the issuer’s debt as provided by at least two NRSROs; c. be rated in a rating category of “AA” category or its equivalent or better by at least two NRSROs; and, d. Purchase of securities authorized by this subdivision may not exceed 20% of the portfolio. 17. MUTUAL FUNDS AND MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUNDS that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940, provided that: e. MUTUAL FUNDS that invest in the securities and obligations as authorized under California Government Code, Section 53601 (a) to (k) and (m) to (q) inclusive and that meet either of the following criteria: 1. Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two (2) NRSROs; or 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) 2. Have retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience investing in the securities and obligations authorized by California Government Code, Section 53601 and with assets under management in excess of $500 million. 3. No more than 10% of the total portfolio may be invested in shares of any one mutual fund. b. MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUNDS registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and issued by diversified management companies and meet either of the following criteria: 1. Have attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two (2) NRSROs; or 2. Have retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of $500 million. 3. No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in Money Market Mutual Funds. c. No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities. 18. SUPRANATIONALS, provided that: Issues are US dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank. The securities are rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by a NRSRO. No more than 30% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities. No more than 10% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years. X. PORTFOLIO RISK MANAGEMENT A. Prohibited investment vehicles and practices 1. State law notwithstanding, any investments not specifically described herein are prohibited, including, but not limited to futures and options. 2. In accordance with Government Code Section 53601.6, investment in inverse floaters, range notes, or mortgage derived interest-only strips is prohibited. 3. Investment in any security that could result in a zero interest accrual if held to maturity is prohibited. 4. Trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates is prohibited. 5. Purchasing or selling securities on margin is prohibited. 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) 6. The use of reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending or any other form of borrowing or leverage is prohibited. 7. The purchase of foreign currency denominated securities is prohibited. B. Mitigating credit risk in the portfolio Credit risk is the risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all of its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. The City will mitigate credit risk by adopting the following strategies: 1. The diversification requirements included in Section VIII are designed to mitigate credit risk in the portfolio; 2. No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be invested in securities of any single issuer, other than the US Government, its agencies and enterprises, Money Market Mutual Funds, Mutual Funds, LAIF, LGIPs, Supranationals, or unless otherwise specified in this investment policy; 3. The City may elect to sell a security prior to its maturity and record a capital gain or loss in order to improve the quality, liquidity or yield of the portfolio in response to market conditions or City’s risk preferences; and, 4. If securities owned by the City are downgraded by either Moody’s or S&P to a level below the quality required by this Investment Policy, it will be the City’s policy to review the credit situation and make a determination as to whether to sell or retain such securities in the portfolio. a. If a security is downgraded, the City Treasurer and Finance Director will use discretion in determining whether to sell or hold the security based on its current maturity, the economic outlook for the issuer, and other relevant factors. b. If a decision is made to retain a downgraded security in the portfolio, its presence in the portfolio will be monitored and reported monthly to the governing board. C. Mitigating market risk in the portfolio Market risk is the risk that the portfolio value will fluctuate due to changes in the general level of interest rates. The City recognizes that, over time, longer-term portfolios have the potential to achieve higher returns. On the other hand, longer-term portfolios have higher volatility of return. The City will mitigate market risk by providing adequate liquidity for short-term cash needs, and by making longer-term investments only with funds that are not needed for current cashflow purposes. The City further recognizes that certain types of securities, including variable rate securities, securities with principal paydowns prior to maturity, and securities with embedded options, will affect the market risk profile of the portfolio differently in different interest rate environments. The City, therefore, adopts the following strategies to control and mitigate its exposure to market risk: 1. The City will maintain a minimum of three months of budgeted operating expenditures in short term investments to provide sufficient liquidity for expected disbursements; 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) 2. The maximum percent of callable securities (does not include “make whole call” securities as defined in the Glossary) in the portfolio will be 20%; 3. The maximum stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio will be five years, except as otherwise stated in this policy; and, 4. The duration of the portfolio will at all times be approximately equal to the duration (typically plus or minus 20%) of a Market Benchmark Index selected by the City based on the City’s investment objectives, constraints and risk tolerances. The City’s current Benchmark will be documented in the investment procedures manual. XI. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND EVALUATION) A. Overall objective: The investment portfolio will be designed with the overall objective of obtaining a total rate of return throughout economic cycles, commensurate with investment risk constraints and cash flow needs. B. Specific objective: The investment performance objective for the portfolio will be to earn a total rate of return over a market cycle which is approximately equal to the return on the Market Benchmark Index as described in the City’s investment procedures manual. The performance of the City’s investments shall be compared to the total return of a benchmark that closely corresponds to the portfolio’s duration, universe of allowable securities, risk profile, and other relevant characteristics. XII. PROCEDURES AND INTERNAL CONTROLS A. Procedures The City Treasurer and Finance Director will establish written investment policy procedures in a separate investment procedures manual to assist investment staff with day-to-day operations of the investment program consistent with this policy. Such procedures will include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the City Treasurer and Finance Director. B. Internal Controls The City Treasurer and Finance Director are responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or misuse. The internal control structure will be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. Internal controls will be described in the City’s investment procedures manual. XIII. REPORTING, DISCLOSURE AND PROGRAM EVALUATION A. Monthly reports Monthly investment reports will be submitted by the City Treasurer to the City Council. These reports will disclose, at a minimum, the following information about the risk characteristics of the City’s portfolio: 1. An asset listing showing par value, cost and accurate and complete market value of each security, type of investment, issuer, and interest rate; 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) 2. A one-page summary report that shows: a. Average maturity of the portfolio and modified duration of the portfolio; b. Maturity distribution of the portfolio; c. Average portfolio credit quality; and, d. Time-weighted total rate of return for the portfolio for the prior one month, three months, twelve months, year to date, and since inception compared to the Benchmark Index returns for the same periods; 3. A statement of compliance with investment policy, including a schedule of any transactions or holdings which do not comply with this policy or with the California Government Code, including a justification for their presence in the portfolio and a timetable for resolution; and, 4. A statement that the City has adequate funds to meet its cash flow requirements for the next six months. 5. A list of transactions for the period. B. Annual reports 1. The investment policy will be reviewed and adopted at least annually within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity and return, and its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. 2. A comprehensive annual report will be presented in conjunction with the investment policy review. This report will include comparisons of the City’s return to the Benchmark Index return, suggest policies and improvements that might enhance the investment program, and will include an investment plan for the coming year. C. Periodic audit The City Treasurer may establish a process of periodic independent review by an external expert to assure compliance with internal controls. Prepared by: Thomas Prill, Deputy City Manager Approved as to legal form: ___________________________________ Michael Maurer, City Attorney Approved: _____________________________________ 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) Russ Utz, Mayor Date: August 6, 2019 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) Appendix I Authorized Personnel The following investments (as defined in Section IX) can only be made by joint approval of the City Treasurer and Finance Director. When an external investment adviser is retained, approval of a proposed portfolio structure by the City Treasurer and Finance Director will suffice. Municipal bonds (City, State, Agency) U.S. Treasury obligations Federal Agency obligations Banker’s acceptances Time deposits, federally insured or collateralized, including CDARS Negotiable certificates of deposit Repurchase agreements Commercial paper Corporate medium term notes Mortgage pass-through and asset-backed securities Mutual funds The following investments (as defined in Section IX) can be made by the Finance Director or his designee: Money market mutual funds (non-brokered) Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) County Pooled Investment Funds Joint Powers Authority Pool Bank deposits, federally insured or collateralized 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) Appendix II GLOSSARY OF INVESTMENT TERMS© Agencies. Shorthand market terminology for any obligation issued by a government-sponsored entity (GSE), or a federally related institution. Most obligations of GSEs are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Examples are: FDIC. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provides insurance backed by the full faith and credit of the US government to certain bank deposits and debt obligations. FFCB. The Federal Farm Credit Bank System provides credit and liquidity in the agricultural industry. FFCB issues discount notes and bonds. FHLB. The Federal Home Loan Bank provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLB issues discount notes and bonds. FHLMC. Like FHLB, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLMC, also called “FreddieMac” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities. FNMA. Like FHLB and FreddieMac, the Federal National Mortgage Association was established to provide credit and liquidity in the housing market. FNMA, also known as “FannieMae,” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities. GNMA. The Government National Mortgage Association, known as “GinnieMae,” issues mortgage pass-through securities, which are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. PEFCO. The Private Export Funding Corporation assists exporters. Obligations of PEFCO are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. TVA. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides flood control and power and promotes development in portions of the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi River valleys. TVA currently issues discount notes and bonds. Asked. The price at which a seller offers to sell a security. ASSET BACKED SECURITIES. Securities supported by pools of installment loans or leases or by pools of revolving lines of credit. Average Life. In mortgage-related investments, including CMOs, the average time to expected receipt of principal payments, weighted by the amount of principal expected. Banker’s Acceptance. A money market instrument created to facilitate international trade transactions. It is highly liquid and safe because the risk of the trade transaction is transferred to the bank which “accepts” the obligation to pay the investor. Benchmark. A comparison security or portfolio. A performance benchmark is a partial market index, which reflects the mix of securities allowed under a specific investment policy. Bid. The price at which a buyer offers to buy a security. Broker. A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a transaction for which the broker receives a commission. A broker does not sell securities from his own position. Callable. A callable security gives the issuer the option to call it from the investor prior to its maturity. The main cause of a call is a decline in interest rates. If interest rates decline since an issuer issues securities, it will likely call its current securities and reissue them at a lower rate of interest. Callable securities have reinvestment risk as the investor may receive its principal back when interest rates are lower than when the investment was initially made. Certificate of Deposit (CD). A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate. Large denomination CDs may be marketable. Collateral. Securities or cash pledged by a borrower to secure repayment of a loan or repurchase agreement. Also, securities pledged by a financial institution to secure deposits of public monies. 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) Certificate of Deposit Account Registry System (CDARS). A private placement service that allows local agencies to purchase more than $250,000 in CDs from a single financial institution (must be a participating institution of CDARS) while still maintaining FDIC insurance coverage. CDARS facilitates the trading of deposits between the California institution and other participating institutions in amounts that are less than $250,000 each so that FDIC coverage is maintained. Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMO). Classes of bonds that redistribute the cash flows of mortgage securities (and whole loans) to create securities that have different levels of prepayment risk, as compared to the underlying mortgage securities. COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS (CMO). Classes of bonds that redistribute the cash flows of mortgage securities (and whole loans) to create securities that have different levels of prepayment risk, as compared to the underlying mortgage securities. Commercial Paper. The short-term unsecured debt of corporations. Cost Yield. The annual income from an investment divided by the purchase cost. Because it does not give effect to premiums and discounts which may have been included in the purchase cost, it is an incomplete measure of return. Coupon. The rate of return at which interest is paid on a bond. Credit Risk. The risk that principal and/or interest on an investment will not be paid in a timely manner due to changes in the condition of the issuer. Current Yield. The annual income from an investment divided by the current market value. Since the mathematical calculation relies on the current market value rather than the investor’s cost, current yield is unrelated to the actual return the investor will earn if the security is held to maturity. Dealer. A dealer acts as a principal in security transactions, selling securities from and buying securities for his own position. Debenture. A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer. Delivery vs. Payment (DVP). A securities industry procedure whereby payment for a security must be made at the time the security is delivered to the purchaser’s agent. Derivative. Any security that has principal and/or interest payments which are subject to uncertainty (but not for reasons of default or credit risk) as to timing and/or amount, or any security which represents a component of another security which has been separated from other components (“Stripped” coupons and principal). A derivative is also defined as a financial instrument the value of which is totally or partially derived from the value of another instrument, interest rate, or index. Discount. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is below par. Some short-term securities, such as T-bills and banker’s acceptances, are known as discount securities. They sell at a discount from par, and return the par value to the investor at maturity without additional interest. Other securities, which have fixed coupons, trade at a discount when the coupon rate is lower than the current market rate for securities of that maturity and/or quality. Diversification. Dividing investment funds among a variety of investments to avoid excessive exposure to any one source of risk. Duration. The weighted average time to maturity of a bond where the weights are the present values of the future cash flows. Duration measures the price sensitivity of a bond to changes in interest rates. (See modified duration). Federal Funds Rate. The rate of interest charged by banks for short-term loans to other banks. The Federal Reserve Bank through open-market operations establishes it. Federal Open Market Committee: A committee of the Federal Reserve Board that establishes monetary policy and executes it through temporary and permanent changes to the supply of bank reserves. 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) Haircut: The margin or difference between the actual market value of a security and the value assessed by the lending side of a transaction (i.e. a repo). Leverage. Borrowing funds in order to invest in securities that have the potential to pay earnings at a rate higher than the cost of borrowing. Liquidity: The speed and ease with which an asset can be converted to cash. LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF). A voluntary investment fund open to government entities and certain non-profit organizations in California that is managed by the State Treasurer’s Office. LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL. Investment pools that range from the State Treasurer’s Office Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) to county pools, to Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs). These funds are not subject to the same SEC rules applicable to money market mutual funds. Make Whole Call. A type of call provision on a bond that allows the issuer to pay off the remaining debt early. Unlike a call option, with a make whole call provision, the issuer makes a lump sum payment that equals the net present value (NPV) of future coupon payments that will not be paid because of the call. With this type of call, an investor is compensated, or "made whole." Margin: The difference between the market value of a security and the loan a broker makes using that security as collateral. Market Risk. The risk that the value of securities will fluctuate with changes in overall market conditions or interest rates. Market Value. The price at which a security can be traded. Marking to Market. The process of posting current market values for securities in a portfolio. Maturity. The final date upon which the principal of a security becomes due and payable. Medium Term Notes. Unsecured, investment-grade senior debt securities of major corporations which are sold in relatively small amounts on either a continuous or an intermittent basis. MTNs are highly flexible debt instruments that can be structured to respond to market opportunities or to investor preferences. Modified Duration. The percent change in price for a 100 basis point change in yields. Modified duration is the best single measure of a portfolio’s or security’s exposure to market risk. Money Market. The market in which short-term debt instruments (Tbills, discount notes, commercial paper, and banker’s acceptances) are issued and traded. Mortgage Pass-Through Securities. A securitized participation in the interest and principal cash flows from a specified pool of mortgages. Principal and interest payments made on the mortgages are passed through to the holder of the security. MUNICIPAL SECURITIES. Securities issued by state and local agencies to finance capital and operating expenses. Mutual Fund. An entity which pools the funds of investors and invests those funds in a set of securities which is specifically defined in the fund’s prospectus. Mutual funds can be invested in various types of domestic and/or international stocks, bonds, and money market instruments, as set forth in the individual fund’s prospectus. For most large, institutional investors, the costs associated with investing in mutual funds are higher than the investor can obtain through an individually managed portfolio. NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STATISTICAL RATING ORGANIZATION (NRSRO). A credit rating agency that the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States uses for regulatory purposes. Credit rating agencies provide assessments of an investment's risk. The issuers of investments, especially debt securities, pay credit rating agencies to provide them with ratings. The three most prominent NRSROs are Fitch, S&P, and Moody's. NEGOTIABLE CD. A short-term debt instrument that pays interest and is issued by a bank, savings or federal association, state or federal credit union, or state-licensed branch of a foreign 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) bank. Negotiable CDs are traded in a secondary market and are payable upon order to the bearer or initial depositor (investor). Premium. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is above par. Prepayment Speed. A measure of how quickly principal is repaid to investors in mortgage securities. Prepayment Window. The time period over which principal repayments will be received on mortgage securities at a specified prepayment speed. Primary Dealer. A financial institution (1) that is a trading counterparty with the Federal Reserve in its execution of market operations to carry out U.S. monetary policy, and (2) that participates for statistical reporting purposes in compiling data on activity in the U.S. Government securities market. Prudent Person (Prudent Investor) Rule. A standard of responsibility which applies to fiduciaries. In California, the rule is stated as “Investments shall be managed with the care, skill, prudence and diligence, under the circumstances then prevailing, that a prudent person, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters, would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims to accomplish similar purposes.” Realized Yield. The change in value of the portfolio due to interest received and interest earned and realized gains and losses. It does not give effect to changes in market value on securities, which have not been sold from the portfolio. Regional Dealer. A financial intermediary that buys and sells securities for the benefit of its customers without maintaining substantial inventories of securities and that is not a primary dealer. Repurchase Agreement (RP, Repo). Short-term purchases of securities with a simultaneous agreement to sell the securities back at a higher price. From the seller’s point of view, the same transaction is a reverse repurchase agreement. Safekeeping. A service to bank customers whereby s ecurities are held by the bank in the customer’s name. Structured Note. A complex, fixed income instrument, which pays interest, based on a formula tied to other interest rates, commodities or indices. Examples include inverse floating rate notes which have coupons that increase when other interest rates are falling, and which fall when other interest rates are rising, and "dual index floaters," which pay interest based on the relationship between two other interest rates - for example, the yield on the ten-year Treasury note minus the Libor rate. Issuers of such notes lock in a reduced cost of borrowing by purchasing interest rate swap agreements. SUPRANATIONAL. A Supranational is a multi-national organization whereby member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in the decision making to promote economic development in the member countries. Total Rate of Return. A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains, and losses in the portfolio. U.S. Treasury Obligations. Securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Treasuries are considered to have no credit risk, and are the benchmark for interest rates on all other securities in the US and overseas. The Treasury issues both discounted securities and fixed coupon notes and bonds. Treasury Bills. All securities issued with initial maturities of one year or less are issued as discounted instruments, and are called Treasury bills. The Treasury currently issues three- and six-month Tbills at regular weekly auctions. It also issues “cash management” bills as needed to smooth out cash flows. Treasury Notes. All securities issued with initial maturities of two to ten years are called Treasury notes, and pay interest semi-annually. 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) Treasury Bonds. All securities issued with initial maturities greater than ten years are called Treasury bonds. Like Treasury notes, they pay interest semi-annually. Volatility. The rate at which security prices change with changes in general economic conditions or the general level of interest rates. Yield to Maturity. The annualized internal rate of return on an investment which equates the expected cash flows from the investment to its cost. Copyright 2018 by Chandler Asset Management, Inc. 3.A.5.a Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 08-06-19 Resolution - Statement of Investment Policy (Statement of Investment Policy) August 6, 2019 TO: City Council REQUESTED BY: Robert Johnson, City Manager APPROVED BY: Robert A. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt, by a 4/5 vote, the Extension for the Interim Urgency Ordinance titled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO EXTENDING URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 19-15, WHICH ESTABLISHES A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE CULTIVATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP BY “ESTABLISHED AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS” AND OTHERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SAN JACINTO; 2. Find that the Ordinance is necessary for continued preservation of the public peace, health or safety based on the facts and reasons set forth in the Ordinance; and 3. Find that the Ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, sections 15060, subdivision (c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15061, subdivision (b)(3) (there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment), and that the ordinance is categorically exempt from review under CEQA under the Class 8 Categorical Exemption, 14 C.C.R. § 15308 (regulatory activity to assure protection of the environment). DISCUSSION: Recent changes in federal and state laws regarding industrial hemp will likely soon allow the growing of industrial hemp in California. The State is currently promulgating regulations to address certain elements of industrial hemp cultivation; however, the full regulatory scheme has not been established. Cultivation of industrial hemp poses several challenges at the local level including concerns over public safety, enforcement, and compatibility with the existing land uses because although industrial hemp is distinct from cannabis in that it is not allowed to have levels of THC that cause psychoactive effects, it is otherwise virtually indistinguishable from cannabis. A temporary moratorium regarding the growing of industrial hemp will allow time for the State to finalize regulations and for staff to better understand whether cultivation of industrial hemp us compatible with the City of San Jacinto and, if so, under what local controls. On July 2, 2019, the City Council passed an Interim Urgency Ordinance pursuant to Government 4.1 Packet Pg. 203 Code section 65858 that imposed a temporary moratorium on the cultivation of industrial hemp within the city limits of San Jacinto. By statute, that original Interim Urgency Ordinance automatically expires 45 days from the date of its adoption, but may be extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days by a 4/5ths vote following a noticed public hearing. State law would further allow an additional extension for another year beyond that, if warranted. At the initial hearing, the City Council proposed a change to the proposed ordinance by indicating that the moratorium does not apply to properties who had registered industrial hemp sites with the County Agricultural Commissioner prior to adoption of the ordinance (i.e., on or before July 2, 2019). The Council adopted the moratorium with this change. This extension will extend the same ordinance previously adopted by Council, including the exception for sites registered on or before July 2. If passed, the extended term of this ordinance would allow staff time to prepare a permanent ordinance regarding the regulation of industrial hemp within the city limits of San Jacinto. It is requested that the City Council provide staff direction regarding the substance of such an ordinance and/or the process for developing such regulations. The findings supporting the moratorium are set forth in more detail in the ordinance, but some of the reasons to adopt the moratorium and study potential regulation of industrial hemp can be summarized as follows: 1. There is concern over the potential for pollen adversely affecting legal cannabis sites. Pollinating hemp plants could cross-pollinate with permitted cannabis sites resulting in decreased bud production, which could ruin crop productivity. This was a problem in both Oregon and Colorado, and measures should be taken to not repeat those experiences. This would not be consistent with the City’s prior efforts to establish a healthy environment for the legal cannabis industry, which the City already regulates and imposes taxes upon. 2. There are varieties of hemp that cannot be differentiated from cannabis being sold in the illicit market. There is the strong potential for illicit cannabis to be grown under a registration issued by the Agricultural Commissioner which would end up being sold in the illicit market. This could hamper the enforcement efforts by creating ambiguity, as well as enable the cultivation of cannabis without payment of the City tax established by the citizens. 3. Many view hemp as a way to return to unregulated cultivation of cannabis which would undo the progress that has been made to protect special areas around cities and community plan areas from odor and noise and other public nuisances. 4. There would be an immediate financial impact to the City due the need to have THC field test kits. These kits are expensive and unless multiple kits are immediately purchased enforcement efforts could be hampered and produce inconsistent results. 4.1 Packet Pg. 204 To staff’s knowledge, there are no industrial hemp sites that are currently operating within the City. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate fiscal impact for adopting the extension for this interim ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 19-16 Ordinance 19-15 4.1 Packet Pg. 205 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ORDINANCE NO. 19-16 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO EXTENDING URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 19-15, WHICH ESTABLISHES A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE CULTIVATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP BY “ESTABLISHED AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS” AND OTHERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SAN JACINTO The City Council of the City of San Jacinto ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Purpose of Authority The purpose of this ordinance is to extend Urgency Ordinance No. 19 -15, which establishes a temporary moratorium on the cultivation of industrial hemp for commercial purposes or by “Established Agricultural Research Institutions,” as defined by California Food and Agricultural Code § 81000(c) while City staff determines the impact of such unregulated cultivation and develops reasonable regulations to mitigate such impacts. This ordinance extending Urgency Ordinance No. 3393 is adopted pursuant to California Constitution Article XI, Section 7, Government Code §§ 65800 et seq., particularly 65858, and other applicable law. SECTION 2. Findings and Declarations The City Council of the City of San Jacinto makes the following findings in support of the enactment of this interim urgency moratorium extension ordinance: A. On July 2, 2019, the San Jacinto City Council (“City Council”) adopted a 45- day interim urgency ordinance, Ordinance No. 19-15 (“Ordinance”), pursuant to Government Code Sections 25123, 25131 and 65858. The Ordinance temporarily prohibits the cultivation of industrial hemp within the city limits of San Jacinto. B. Pursuant to Government Code section 65858, after notice and public hearing, the City Council may by four-fifths vote extend the Ordinance for 10 months and 15 days, if the Council finds and determines that the adoption of the Ordinance as an urgency ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare pursuant to Government Code sections 25123 and 65858, and is necessary to provide additional time to prepare the studies and reports required to consider a comprehensive and permanent ordinance. After an initial extension, the Ordinance may be extended for another year following notice and another public hearing. C. In enacting the Ordinance, the City Council made several findings and declarations constituting the grounds upon which the Ordinance is based, including: (a) the original exclusion of industrial hemp from the City’s cannabis land use regulations 4.1.a Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Ordinance 19-16 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) was made without full appreciation of the potential interest in industrial hemp nor full understanding of the potential impacts that such a use may have on the public health, safety and welfare and was not a conscious acknowledgement that the use was appropriate within the City without regulation whatsoever; (b) various inconsistencies and potential conflicts exist between federal and state law; (c) industrial hemp and cannabis plants are virtually indistinguishable absent a laboratory test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels which are difficult to reliably test until the plant is close to maturity; (d) there has been an enormous amount of interest in cultivating industrial hemp for pro duction of cannabidiol (CBD) within the San Jacinto’s city limits; (e) the City understands the potential harmful effects of cannabis, including odor nuisance and public safety, and it remains unclear if industrial hemp grown for CBD will have similar odors thus implicating these same potential impacts and risks to public health, safety and welfare; (f) the City has previously experienced an insurgence of cannabis related activity which resulted in a large increase in public services, including public safet y and law enforcement, and because cultivation of industrial hemp appears virtually identical to cannabis, additional regulations are needed in order to deter or prevent individuals from associating industrial hemp with cannabis and provide law enforcement greater ability to distinguish between lawful industrial hemp cultivation and illegal cannabis cultivation; (g) industrial hemp can serve as hosts to mites and other insects and there are few pesticides registered for hemp that address such mites or other insects; (h) absent regulation, the cultivation of industrial hemp and cannabis may pose incompatibility issues due to cross -pollination; and (i) the cultivation of industrial hemp prior to adoption of reasonable state and local regulations creates an urgent and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens and existing agriculture within the City. D. In enacting the ordinance, the City Council found that current laws and regulations were incapable of preventing these deleterious effects to the public health, safety and welfare and that an urgency ordinance was needed while a permanent ordinance was studied and prepared. As a result, the City Council, as the legislative body of the City of San Jacinto, determined that there is a need to consider and study potential changes in the City’s General Plan and/or land use ordinances to assure appropriate oversight of industrial hemp cultivation in the City. E. The state and federal law governing the definition, regulation and cultivation of industrial hemp remain complex, evolving, and as yet incomplete and uncertain, causing multiple issues which may adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of residents or of visitors to the City of San Jacinto. F. On August 6, 2019, prior to the expiration of the Ordinance and in accordance with the requirements of Government Code section 65858, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on whether to extend the Ordinance for up to 10 months and 15 days. The City Council heard and considered all evidence, both written and oral, that was duly presented during said hearing. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Ordinance 19-16 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) G. The City Councils’ findings and declarations as contained in the Ordinance remain and continue to be true under the present circumstances and are incorporated herein in their entirety by this reference. H. As stated in those findings and declarations contained in the Ordinance, the City is contemplating amendments to its zoning ordinance to establish reasonable standards for the cultivation of industrial hemp within the City limits. The City continues to need more time to complete the necessary studies and reports to fully evaluate and support such contemplated amendments, while the current and immediate threat to health, safety, and welfare continues to exist. I. The allowance of cultivation of industrial hemp prior to the adoption of reasonable regulations creates an urgent and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare of the citizens and existing agriculture within the City of San Jacinto. J. The City of San Jacinto has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its residents and businesses, in preventing the establishment of nuisances. K. The extension of the Ordinance is necessary for continued study of a permanent industrial hemp ordinance. In light of said findings and declarations contained herein and in the Ordinance, a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare continues to exist, necessitating the extension of the Ordinance for an additional 10 months and 15 days beyond the original 45-day period, until and through July 1, 2020 pursuant to Government Code section 65858. SECTION 3. Applicability This ordinance applies within the city limits of San Jacinto. SECTION 4. Extension Based on all of the foregoing findings and declarations, Ordinance No. 3393 shall be extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days, until and through July 1, 2020. SECTION 5. Environmental Determination This ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guide lines §15061(b)(3)), the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15060(c)(2)) and because it consists of regulations and restrictions on activities to assure the maintenan ce, restoration, or enhancement of natural resources and the environment (Class 7 and Class 8, CEQA Guidelines §§15307, 15308). This Ordinance is also exempt from CEQA 4.1.a Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Ordinance 19-16 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) because it is an urgency measure necessary to protect the City of San Jacinto from a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. (Public Resources Code §21080(b)(4); CEQA Guidelines §15269.) There are no unusual circumstances. Each exemption stands as a separate and independent basis for determining that this ordinance is not subject to CEQA. SECTION 6. Effective Date This ordinance extending urgency Ordinance No. 19-15 is necessary for the protection of public health, safety and welfare, and shall take effect immediately upon adoption. SECTION 7. Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions or other applications of the ordinance, and the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 6th day of August, 2019 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 20th day of August, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF SAN JACINTO: _______________________ Russ Utz, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Angela Walton, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP _______________________________ Michael J. Maurer, City Attorney 4.1.a Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Ordinance 19-16 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) CERTIFICATION I, Angela Walton, duly appointed City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 19-16 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto on the 6th day of August 2019. Ordinance No. 19- 16 was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto on the 20th day of August 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL of the City of San Jacinto this 20th day of August, 2019. ______________________________ Angela Walton, City Clerk 4.1.a Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Ordinance 19-16 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ORDINANCE NO. 19-15 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO DECLARING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE CULTIVATION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP BY “ESTABLISHED AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS” AND OTHERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF SAN JACINTO, WHICH SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY WHEREAS, the City of San Jacinto does not currently regulate the cultivation of industrial hemp within City limits but such cultivation may be authorized in certain zones within the City as a legal non-conforming agricultural use; WHEREAS, the City currently regulates the cultivation of cannabis, requiring cultivators to obtain a special regulatory permit and a special cannabis land use perm it prior to engaging in cannabis cultivation activities; WHEREAS, cannabis cultivators within the City must comply with certain development and design standards and pay the City’s cannabis cultivation tax; WHEREAS, the City’s ordinances regulating cultivation of cannabis specifically exclude industrial hemp from the definition of cannabis. WHEREAS, the City Council intends to study, within a reasonable time, land use regulations related to the cultivation of industrial hemp and whether to develop unique regulations as it did for the cultivation of cannabis; and WHEREAS, the City Council therefore intends to adopt a moratorium on all new industrial hemp cultivation uses while the City Council studies potential regulations. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Jacinto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council makes the following findings in support of the enactment of this interim urgency moratorium ordinance: A. Pursuant to Article XI, section 7, of the California Constitution, the City may adopt and enforce ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws to protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. B. Pursuant to Government Code section 65858, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, the City may, as an urgency measure, adopt an interim 4.1.b Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Ordinance 19-15 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) ordinance prohibiting land uses that may be in conflict with contemplated land use regulations that the city is studying or considering or intends to study within a reasonable time. C. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(b), the City may enact an ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, which contains a declaration setting forth the facts constituting the urgency, requiring passage by a four-fifths vote, and which shall be effective immediately. D. The state and federal law governing the definition and cultivation of industrial hemp is complex, evolving, and as yet incomplete and uncertain, causing multiple issues which may adversely affect the public peace, health, or safety of residents of or visitors to the City, as outlined below. E. In 2013 the California Legislature adopted the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act, (SB 566 (Leno), Food and Agricultural Code (FAC) sections 81000-81011, addressing the cultivation of industrial hemp, but it did not become effective until the Attorney General could certify that cultivation was authorized by federal law. As originally adopted, FAC § 81006 provided that industrial hemp shall be grown only as a densely planted fiber or oilseed crop, or both, in acreages of not less than five acres at the same time, and no portion of an acreage of industrial hemp shall include plots of less than one contiguous acre. Pruning, tending, and culling of individual plants was prohibited, as was possession, outside of a field of lawful cultivation, of resin, flowering tops, or leaves that were removed from the hemp plant, even though only non-psychoactive varieties of Cannabis sativa L. were permitted to be cultivated as industrial hemp. SB 566 also amended the definition of “marijuana” (now referred to as “cannabis”) in Health and Safety Code § 11018 to exclude industrial hemp, and established the definition of industrial hemp in § 11018.5. This definition and the prescribed cultural practice restrictions effectively prohibited cultivation of Cannabis sativa L. as feminized plants for higher levels of cannabidiol (CBD) for purposes of CBD extract or CBD oil production from the leaves or flowering tops. F. The 2014 Farm Bill, P.L. 113-79, § 7606, 7 U.S.C.A § 5940, authorized an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. § 1001)) or a State department of agriculture to grow or cultivate industrial hemp if: (1) grown or cultivated for purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research; and (2) the growing or cultivating of industrial hemp is a llowed under the laws of the State in which such institution of higher education or State department of agriculture is located and where the research occurs. 4.1.b Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Ordinance 19-15 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) G. Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), passed by the voters in November 2016, included provisions affecting the regulation of industrial hemp. Section 3 included among AUMA’s purposes subsections (f) that products be “comprehensively tested by independent testing services for the presence of contaminants, including mold and pesticides, before it can be sold,” (h) “licensed nonmedical marijuana businesses to follow strict environmental and product safety standards as a condition of maintaining their license,” and (aa) to allow industrial hemp to be grown as an agricultural product, and for agricultural or academic research, and regulated separately from the strains of cannabis with higher delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. Section 9 amended the definition of industrial hemp in Health and Safety Code § 11018.5, and amended provisions of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act but left in place requirements for its dense planting as a fiber or oilseed crop, and restrictions on pruning, tending, or culling. Section 9.6 of AUMA amended the effective date of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act to January 1, 2017, without regard to federal law. AUMA also added a definition of “marijuana products” as Health and Safety Code § 11018.1, which “means marijuana that has undergone a process whereby the plant material has been transformed into a concentrate, including, but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or topical product containing marijuana or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients.” One promise of AUMA was that cannabis-derived products for human consumption by ingestion or topical application would be produced while adhering to product safety and environmental standards, and be tested for contaminants. Industrial hemp regulation was still inconsistent with its cultivation for production of cannabidiol (CBD). H. In 2017, SB 94, the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis-Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), was enacted to integrate cannabis regulation provisions of AUMA with the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act originally adopted by the Legislature in 2015. MAUCRSA also amended the provision related to the regulation of industrial hemp in Health and Safety Code § 11018.5 (b) which left regulation of cannabis products for human consumption with applicable production quality standards and product testing in place. I. In September 2018, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1409, in which the definition of industrial hemp in Health and Safety Code § 11018.5 (a) was yet again amended, deleting the reference to its being a crop for fiber or oilseed production. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act was also amended to its current form, including amendment of § 81006 to remove requirement for dense planting and restrictions against pruning, tending, or culling. SB 1409 includes the finding, “By removing limitations on the manner in which industrial hemp may be grown and the uses for which it may be grown, this act removes barriers to the growth of industrial hemp as an agricultural product, and for agricultural or academic research.” However, the bill does not address the product safety or testing requirements of other law regarding cannabis products. In § 81007, the California Department of Food and Agriculture is authorized establish by regulation an 4.1.b Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Ordinance 19-15 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) agricultural pilot program pursuant to Section 7606 of the federal Agricultural-Act of 2014, 7 U.S.C.A. § 5940. The Department has not yet adopted regulations to participate in, or promote, research projects recognized by federal law. J. In December 2018, the President signed into law the 2018 Federal Farm Bill, H.R. 2, P.L. 115334, which removed industrial hemp from the federal list of controlled substances and authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture to create quality control standards for commercial hemp production, further giving states that desire to have primary regulatory authority over the production of hemp the ability to adopt their own state plans. The state plan may include a reference to a law of the state regulating the production of hemp, to the extent consist with federal law. K. FAC Section 81001 calls for the Industrial Hemp Advisory Board to advise the California Secretary of Food and Agriculture and make recommendations to the Secretary pertaining to the cultivation of industrial hemp, including but not limited to, developing the requisite industrial hemp seed law and regulations, enforcement mechanisms, and the setting of an assessment rate. L. The California Department of Food and Agriculture has to date only adopted a regulation for the registration fee fo r growers of industrial hemp for commercial purposes and seed breeders in California, 3 C.C.R. § 4900, effective 4/25/2019. M. Under FAC Section 81006 subdivisions (d)(3) and (5) the CDFA is required to establish regulations for sampling procedures and approved laboratories for sample testing of all commercial industrial hemp crops no more than 30 days before harvest, which regulations have yet to be promulgated, published or adopted. Therefore, the cultivation of industrial hemp for commercial purposes as defined under FAC Division 24 is not yet authorized within the State of California and the City of San Jacinto until the requisite regulations, and enforcement mechanisms, are adopted. N. Despite the current prohibition on the cultivation of industrial hemp for commercial purposes, FAC Division 24 exempts cultivation by an "Established Agricultural Research Institution" from some of the regulatory requirements enumerated therein. However, before cultivating industrial hemp, an established agricultural research institution shall provide the Global Positioning System coordinates of the planned cultivation site to the commissioner of the county in which the site is located. O. The Public typically advocates for the unregulated cultivation of industrial hemp predominantly on the basis of making medicinal CBD available at a cheaper cost. Production of CBD for medicinal purposes is permissible and regulated under the Medicinal and Adult Use Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), Business and Professions Code section 26000, et seq., which requires testing of product for purity (free of pesticides, mold, heavy metals, contaminants, etc.), potency, and cannabinoid content, whereas CBD oil production under the Industri al Hemp 4.1.b Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Ordinance 19-15 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) Farming Law, Food and Agriculture Code section 81000 — 81011, as yet includes no such safeguards to protect the health of consumers within the California regulated cannabis marketplace. P. Due to the fact that industrial hemp and cannabis are derivatives of the same plant, Cannabis sativa L., the appearance and odor of industrial hemp and cannabis are indistinguishable, particularly when hemp is cultivated with feminized flowering plants for high levels of cannabidiol (CBD) for purposes o f CBD extract or oil production, it will be extremely difficult to differentiate between the two plants. Q. The current City Land Use Ordinance related to commercial cannabis production does not address the unique legal, land use, environmental, and public health, safety, and welfare issues and impacts associated with concomitant commercial cannabis and Industrial Hemp cultivation. R. Division 24 of the FAC, allows an “Established Agricultural Research Institution” to cultivate or possess industrial hemp with a greater than .3 % THC level, causing such plant to no longer conform to the legal definition of industrial h emp, thereby resulting in such “research” plants constituting cannabis. S. The definition of “Established Agricultural Research Institution” as provided in FAC Section 81000 is vague. Without clear guidelines, the ability and likelihood that cultivators will exploit the “Establish Agricultural Research Institution” exemption to grow industrial hemp with more than .3% THC is a compelling concern. T. Due to the fact that industrial hemp and cannabis are indistinguishable, the cultivation of industrial hemp by an “Established Agricultural Research Institution,” or others, prior to the adoption of reasonable regulations poses similar threats to the public health, safety or welfare as the cultivation of cannabis, and threatens the integrity and the viability of the City of San Jacinto’s potential position in the California cannabis regulated marketplace, and the cannabis industry’s role in the City’s economy. U. The cultivation of industrial hemp prior to the adoption of reasonable regulations will create an increased likelihood of conflict between cannabis cultivators and industrial hemp producers. V. Industrial hemp can serve as a host to mites and other insects. At this time, there are no pesticides registered for hemp that specifically address such mites or other insects. The pesticides that have been approved for hemp are not always effective, which allows for such insects to move into other nearby crops. W. There is concern over the potential for pollen adversely affecting legal cannabis sites. Pollinating hemp plants could cross-pollinate with permitted cannabis sites resulting in decreased bud production, which could ruin crop productivity. 4.1.b Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Ordinance 19-15 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) X. There is a strong potential for illicit cannabis to be grown under a registration for industrial hemp issued by the Agricultural Commissioner, which would end up being sold in the illicit market. This could hamper the enforcement efforts by creating ambiguity, as well as enable the cultivation of cannabis without payment of the City tax established by the citizens. Y. Many view hemp as a way to return to unregulated cultivation of ca nnabis which would undo the progress that has been made to protect special areas around cities and community plan areas from odor and noise and other public nuisances, as well as the protections contained in the State’s regulatory framework for cannabis. Z. There would be an immediate financial impact to the City due the need to have THC field test kits. These kits are expensive and unless multiple kits are immediately purchased enforcement efforts could be hampered and produce inconsistent results. AA. The cultivation of industrial hemp prior to the adoption of reasonable regulations is harmful to the welfare of residents, creates a nuisance, and threatens the safety and crops of any nearby cannabis cultivators. BB. There is an urgent need for the City Council to assess the impacts of industrial hemp grown by “Established Agricultural Research Institutions” and others and to explore reasonable regulatory options relating thereto. CC. The allowance of cultivation of industrial hemp as defined by FAC Section 81000, prior to the adoption of reasonable regulations, creates an urgent and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare of the citizens and existing agriculture in the City of San Jacinto. DD. The City has a compelling interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its residents and businesses, in preventing the establishment of nuisances. EE. In order to ensure the effective implementation of the City’s Commercial Cannabis Land Use Ordinance objectives and policies, a moratorium on the establishment and/or approval of industrial hemp cultivation is necessary. FF.CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance to temporarily prohibit Industrial Hemp cultivation in all zones is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, sections 15060, subdivision (c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15061, subdivision (b)(3) (there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment). In addition to the foregoing general exemptions, the City Council further finds that the ordinance is categorically 4.1.b Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Ordinance 19-15 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) exempt from review under CEQA under the Class 8 Categorical Exemption, 14 C.C.R. § 15308 (regulatory activity to assure protection of the environment). SECTION 2. Declaration of Urgency. A. Based on the findings set forth above, the City Council finds and declares that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare arising from the absence of reasonable regulations in the San Jacinto Municipal Code regulating cultivation of Industrial Hemp in the areas throughout the City. B. Based on the findings above, the City Council determines that this interim urgency ordinance is urgently needed for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare pursuant to the Government Code section 36937(b) and 65858, and is necessary to provide additional time to prepare the studies and reports required to consider a comprehensive ordinance and/or general plan amendment addressing regulation of Industrial Hemp cultivation in the areas and zones throughout the City of San Jacinto. SECTION 3. Moratorium. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Sections 36937(b) and 65858, during the term of this ordinance, including any extensions hereto, a moratorium is hereby placed on the following: A. Cultivation of Industrial Hemp by any person or entity for any purposes, which is expressly prohibited in all zoning districts in the City. Additionally, during this interim ordinance, including any extension hereto, “Established Agricultural Research Institutions” as defined in FAC Section 81000, will similarly be prohibited from cultivating industrial hemp for agricultural or academic research purposes. B. Acceptance of any application for or issuance of a registration , permit or entitlement, or approval of any type, that authorizes the establishment, operation, maintenance, development or construction of any facility or use for the purpose of the cultivation of Industrial Hemp in the City. This moratorium shall not apply to any person or entity that has acquired a vested right to cultivate industrial hemp in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The moratorium shall not apply to persons or entities who have registered industrial hemp sites with the County Agricultural Commissioner. The moratorium shall also apply to sites containing non-conforming agricultural uses if the site (or the persons or entities owning or operating the site) have not acquired vested rights to specifically engage in the cultivation of industrial hemp. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create any vested rights or grant any rights to engage in industrial hemp cultivation activities. 4.1.b Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Ordinance 19-15 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) SECTION 4. Effective Date. Pursuant to Government Code sections 36937(b) and 65858, this urgency ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. SECTION 5. Enforceability. Violations of this ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance and may be enforced and abated through any available remedy provided by the San Jacinto Municipal Code or other law. SECTION 6. Expiration. This moratorium shall be of no further force or effect upon the expiration of forty-five (45) days from the date of adoption, unless extended in accordance with Government Code Section 65858. SECTION 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions or other applications of the ordinance, and the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 2nd day of July 2019. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 16th day of July, by the following vote: ORDINANCE NO. 19-15 AYES: NAY S: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 4.1.b Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Ordinance 19-15 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) CITY OF SAN JACINTO: ___________________________ Russ Utz, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Angela Walton, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP _______________________________ Michael J. Maurer, City Attorney 4.1.b Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Ordinance 19-15 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF SAN JACINTO ) CERTIFICATION I, Angela Walton, duly appointed City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 19 -15 was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Jacinto on the 16th day of July, by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL of the City of San Jacinto this 16th day of July, 2019. _________________________ Angela Walton, City Clerk 4.1.b Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Ordinance 19-15 (Extension for Interim Urgency Ordinance 19-15) August 6, 2019 TO: City Council REQUESTED BY: Tom Prill, Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: Robert A. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File. DISCUSSION: In May 2012, the City Council approved the use of two Investment Advisors to control a portfolio of $10 million each. Chandler Asset Management has maintained one portfolio for 7 years and 2 months, while Public Trust Advisors (formerly BLX) has maintained another portfolio for 6 years and 10 months. Both Chandler and PTA will be in attendance to make brief presentations (attached) and to answer questions from the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 Annual Portfolio Review_2019 5.1 Packet Pg. 221 CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. | 800.317.4747 | www.chandlerasset.com INVESTMENT REPORT Period Ending June 30, 2019 City of San Jacinto, California 5.1.a Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) SECTION 1 Economic Update SECTION 2 Account Profile SECTION 3 Portfolio Holdings SECTION 4 Transactions Table of Contents As of June 30, 2019 1 5.1.a Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) SECTION |Section 1 |Economic Update 2 5.1.a Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) kept the target fed funds rate unchanged in June at a range of 2.25%-2.50%.In the policy statement, the Fed noted that market-based measures of inflation have declined and uncertainties about the economic outlook have increased. With regard to future policy adjustments, the Fed removed the word “patient”from the policy statement, and indicated they are prepared to act as appropriate to incoming data in order to sustain the economic expansion. The Fed did not make any changes to their balance sheet normalization program, and the runoff remains on track to end in September. There was one dissenting vote amongst the FOMC members, James Bullard, who was in favor of lowering the fed funds rate by 25 basis points. Economic Update ▪ ▪ ▪ In ourview,US domesticeconomicdataremains consistent with aslow growth environment; the US labormarket is strong, wages are growing modestly, and inflation remains contained. However, headwinds to the economy have increased. Ongoing global trade disputes, slowing global economic growth,an uncertain outlook for Brexit, and geopolitical tensions have made the outlook uncertain. The trajectory of economic growth is likely to hinge on the outcome of ongoing trade negotiations as well as policy action by the majorglobal central banks.We believe there is ahigh level of political pressure to make progress toward atrade agreement with Chinabefore the election cycle heats up this fall.We also believe adovish collective stance by major global central banks should help to combat the headwinds to global economic growth. Treasury yields declined further in June.At month-end, the 3-month T-bill yield was down 25 basis points to 2.09%, the 2- yearTreasury yield was down 17 basis point to 1.76%, and the 10-year Treasury yield was down 12 basis points to 2.01%.An inversion of the yield curve in which the 10-yearTreasury yield is lowerthan the 3-month T-bill yield is generally viewed as a powerful predictive signal of an upcoming recession. Although our 6-month forecast does not call for a recession,we believe downside risks to the economy are building. Notably, sovereign 10-yearbond yields around the world were under pressure in June and the yields on both the 10-year German Bund and 10-year Japanese Government Bond remained negative at month-end. Source: Bloomberg 3 5.1.a Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) U.S. nonfarm payrolls rose by 224,000 in June, well above the consensus forecast of 165,000. April and May payrolls were revised down by a total of just 11,000.On a trailing 3-month basis payrolls increased an average of 171,000, more than enough to absorb new entrants into the labor market. The unemployment rate ticked up to 3.7%in June from 3.6%in May as the participation rate also increased to 62.9% from 62.8%. A broader measure of unemployment called the U-6, which includes those who are marginally attached to the labor force and employed part time for economic reasons, also edged up to 7.2%in June from 7.1%in May. Wages rose 0.2%in June (slightly below expectations), following and upwardly revised 0.3% increase in May. On a year-over-year basis, wages were up 3.1% in June, versus up 3.2% in May. Source: US Department of Labor Source: US Department of Labor 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 MOM Change In (000's)Nonfarm Payroll (000's) 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 11.0% Unemployment Rate Underemployment Rate (U6) Unemployment Rate (U3)Rate (%)Employment 4 5.1.a Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was up just 1.6% year-over-year in June, versus up 1.8% year-over-year in May. Core CPI (CPI less food and energy) was up 2.1% year-over-year in June, versus up 2.0% year-over-year in May. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index was up 1.5% year-over-year in May, versus up 1.6% year-over-year in April. Core PCE, which is the Fed's primary inflation gauge, was up 1.6% year-over- year in May, unchanged from April, remaining below the Fed’s 2.0% inflation target. Source: US Department of Labor Source: US Department of Commerce 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% Consumer Price Index (CPI) CPI YOY % Change Core CPI YOY % ChangeYOY( %) Change0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) PCE Price Deflator YOY % Change PCE Core Deflator YOY % ChangeYOY( %) ChangeInflation 5 5.1.a Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Retail sales in June were stronger than expected,up 0.4%in the month versus expectations of 0.1%, following an increase of 0.4%in May. Excluding autos and gas, retail sales were even stronger in June, up 0.7% (outpacing expectations of 0.4%). On a year-over-year basis, total retail sales were up 3.4% year-over-year in June, versus 2.9% year-over-year in May. The Consumer Confidence Index declined to 121.5 in June from 131.3 in May, falling below expectations, largely driven by concerns regarding the escalation in trade and tariff tensions. Despite the sharp decline in confidence in June, the index remains strong relative to longer-term historical levels. Source: US Department of Commerce Source: The Conference Board 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% Retail Sales YOY % Change YOY (%) Change100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 Index LevelConsumer Confidence Consumer 6 5.1.a Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) The Leading Economic Index (LEI) declined 0.3%in June,on a month-over-month basis, following a 0.1% increase in May.It was the first monthly contraction since December 2018.On a year-over-year basis, the index was up just 1.6%in June (the slowest pace since December 2016)versus up 2.5%in May. The Conference Board believes that economicgrowth will remain slow in the second half of the year. The Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI) remained negative in June at -0.02versus -0.03 in May.On a3-month movingaverage basis, the index was little changed at -0.26 in June versus -0.27 in May. The CFNAI suggests that the economy is slowing but is not indicative of a recession. Negative values are generally consistent with below-average growth. Periods of economic contraction have historically been associated with values below -0.70 on a 3-month moving average basis. -0.4% -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% Leading Economic Indicators (LEI)MOM ( %) Change-0.70 -0.50 -0.30 -0.10 0.10 0.30 0.50 0.70 Chicago Fed National Activity Index (CFNAI)3 Month AverageSource: The Conference Board Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Economic Activity 7 5.1.a Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Housing starts were nearly in line with expectations in June, down 0.9%to a 1.253 million annualized rate. Multi-family starts fell 9.2%to an annualized rate of 406,000, while single-family starts rose 3.5%to an annualized rate of 847,000. Total housing starts were up 6.2% year-over- year in June, driven by growth in multi-family starts. According to the Case-Shiller20-City home price index, home prices were up just 2.5% year- over-year in April, versus up 2.6% in March. The year-over-year pace of growth is at a 7-year low. Source: US Department of Commerce Source: S&P 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 MOM Change (In Thousands of Units)Housing Starts Multi Family Housing Starts Single Family Housing Starts 1.5% 2.5% 3.5% 4.5% 5.5% 6.5% 7.5% S&P/Case -Shiller 20 City Composite Home Price Index YOY( %) ChangeHousing 8 5.1.a Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing index decreased to 51.7 in June from 52.1 in May. The June reading was slightly better than expected but still came in at the lowest level since October 2016.Nevertheless, a reading above 50.0 suggests the manufacturing sector is expanding. The Industrial Production index was up 1.3% year-over-year in June versus up 2.1% year-over-year in May.On amonth-over- month basis, production was flat, just below the consensus forecast of 0.1%. However, the manufacturing component of the index increased 0.4%in June, exceeding expectations of 0.2%, following a 0.2% increase in May. Capacity Utilization decreased to 77.9%in June from 78.1%in May, and remains below the long-run average of 79.8% indicating there is still excess capacity for growth. Source: Institute for Supply Management Source: Federal Reserve 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 Institute of Supply Management Purchasing Manager Index EXPANDING CONTRACTING 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% Industrial Production YOY( %) ChangeManufacturing 9 5.1.a Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) According to the third estimate, first quarterGDP grew at an annualized pace of 3.1%, unchanged from the second estimate and in line with the consensus. Despite the government shutdown and ongoing global trade disputes, GDP growth accelerated in the first quarter from 2.2%in the fourth quarter. Net exports and state and local government spending advanced in the first quarter, while consumer spending and business investment moderated. Residential investment contracted in the quarter. The consensus estimate for second quarter GDP growth is 1.8%. Overall, the consensus view calls for GDP growth of 2.5% this year versus 2.9% last year, which is consistent with moderate economic growth. Source: US Department of Commerce Source: US Department of Commerce 6/18 9/18 12/18 3/19 2.6% 2.4% 1.7% 0.6% -0.1% 2.5% 0.7% 1.1% 1.2% -2.0% -0.1% 0.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% -0.1% 0.5% 4.2% 3.4% 2.2% 3.1% Net Exports and Imports Personal Consumption Expenditures Gross Private Domestic Investment Federal Government Expenditures State and Local (Consumption and Gross Investment) Components of GDP Total -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) GDP QOQ % Change GDP YOY % Change Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 10 5.1.a Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Source: Bloomberg The shape of the Treasury yield curve has changed significantly on ayear-over-yearbasis.As of month-end in June, the 3-month T-bill yield was up nearly 18 basis points, the 2-Year Treasury yield was down 77 basis points, and the 10-Year Treasury yield was down nearly 86 basis points, year-over-year. The current shape of the yield curve implies thatmarket participants are pricing-in multiple rate cuts.We believe the decline in long-term Treasury yields reflects a high level of market participants'nervousness about the outlook for global economic growth and adecline in global inflation expectations. Source: Bloomberg 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% US Treasury Note Yields 2-Year 5-Year 10-YearYield (%)0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% US Treasury Yield Curve Jun-19 Mar-19 Jun-18Yield (%)Bond Yields 11 5.1.a Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Section 2|SECTION |Section 2 |Account Profile 12 5.1.a Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Objectives Chandler Asset Management Performance Objective The performance objective for the accounts is to achieve a rate of return over a market cycle that equals or exceeds the return on a market index of similar duration and sector allocation. Investment Objectives The City of San Jacinto’s investment objectives,in order of priority,are to provide safety to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio,provide sufficient liquidity for cash needs and a market rate of return consistent with the investment program. Strategy In order to achieve these objectives,the portfolio invests in high quality fixed income securities consistent with the investment policy and California Government Code. As of June 30, 2019 13 5.1.a Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Category Standard Comment Municipal Securities "A" rating category or better by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer Complies Treasury Issues No Limitation Complies Agency Issues No Limitation Complies Supranationals "AA" rated or better by a NRSRO; 30% maximum; 10% max per issuer; U.S. dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ("IBRD"), the International Finance Corporation ("IFC") or the Inter-American Development Bank ("IADB") Complies Banker’s Acceptances "A-1" short term debt rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; and "A" long-term debt rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; 40% maximum; 5% max per issuer; 180 days max maturity Complies Commercial Paper "A-1" short term debt rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; and "A" long-term debt rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; 25% maximum; 5% max per issuer; 270 days max maturity; Issuer is a corporation organized and operating in the U.S. with assets > $500 million Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit "A" long-term issuer rated category or higher by at least two NRSROs; and/or "A-1" short term rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer Complies Federally Insured Certificates of Deposit (CDs)/ Time Deposit (TDs) 20% maximum (combined FDIC insured and collateralized TD/ CD); Amount per institution is limited to maximum covered under federal insurance Complies Collateralized Certificates of Deposit (CDs)/Time Deposit (TDs)/ "A" long-term debt rated category or higher by at least two NRSROs; and/or "A-1" short term debt rated or higher by at least two NRSROs; 20% maximum (combined FDIC and collateralized TD/ CD)Complies Corporate Medium Term Notes "A" rated category or better by at least two NRSROs; 30% maximum; 5% max per issuer; Issued by corporations organized and operating within the U.S. or by depository institutions licensed by the U.S. or any state and operating within the U.S. Complies Mutual Fund & Money Market Mutual Fund Highest rating or "AAA" rated by two NRSROs; SEC registered adviser with AUM >$500 million and experience > 5 years; 20% maximum in Mutual Funds and Money Market Mutual Funds; 10% max per one Mutual Fund; 20% max in Money Market Mutual Fund Complies Asset-Backed (ABS), Mortgage-Backed Securities; Mortgage Pass-Throughs; Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs) "AA" rated category or better by at least two NRSROs; "A" issuer debt rated category or higher by at least two NRSROs; 20% maximum; 5% max per issuer Complies Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 70% of the portfolio may be invested in LAIF, up to the maximum permitted balance; Not used by investment adviser Complies Local Government Investment Pools and Joint Powers Authority Pools Riverside County Investment Fund- 70% max of the total portfolio JPA Pools- 50% max of the total portfolio Repurchase Agreements 102% collateralized; 1 year max maturity Complies Prohibited Securities Inverse floaters; Ranges notes, Interest-only strips from mortgaged backed securities; Zero interest accrual securities; Margin purchasing or selling; Reverse repurchase agreements; Foreign currency denominated securities Complies Max Callables 20% maximum callable securities (does not include "make whole call" securities)Complies Max Per Issuer 5% of portfolio per issuer (except U.S. Government, its Agencies and enterprises, Money Market Mutual Funds, Mutual Funds, LAIF, LGIP, Supranationals, or unless otherwise specified in the investment policy)Complies Maximum maturity 5 years Complies City of San Jacinto Assets managed by Chandler Asset Management are in full compliance with state law and with the City's investment policy. Compliance As of June 30, 2019 14 5.1.a Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Portfolio Characteristics City of San Jacinto 6/30/2019 3/31/2019 Benchmark*Portfolio Portfolio Average Maturity (yrs)1.87 1.94 1.87 Average Modified Duration 1.81 1.78 1.72 Average Purchase Yield n/a 2.10%2.02% Average Market Yield 1.80%1.97%2.44% Average Quality**AAA AA/Aa1 AA/Aa1 Total Market Value 10,792,086 10,642,758 *ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Treasury Index **Benchmark is a blended rating of S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch. Portfolio is S&P and Moody’s respectively. As of June 30, 2019 15 5.1.a Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) City of San Jacinto Sector Distribution ABS 4.0% Agency 45.0% Money Market Fund FI 1.1% US Corporate 23.0% US Treasury 25.0% Commercial Paper 1.8% June 30, 2019 March 31, 2019 ABS 3.9% Agency 46.8% Money Market Fund FI 0.1% US Corporate 23.1% US Treasury 26.2% As of June 30, 2019 16 5.1.a Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Issue Name Investment Type % Portfolio Government of United States US Treasury 25.03% Federal Home Loan Bank Agency 18.99% Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp Agency 13.83% Federal National Mortgage Association Agency 9.85% Federal Farm Credit Bank Agency 2.33% Wal-Mart Stores US Corporate 1.89% Apple Inc US Corporate 1.88% Berkshire Hathaway US Corporate 1.87% Oracle Corp US Corporate 1.85% MUFG Bank Ltd/NY Commercial Paper 1.84% Deere & Company US Corporate 1.48% Nissan ABS ABS 1.43% Charles Schwab Corp/The US Corporate 1.42% Honda Motor Corporation US Corporate 1.40% Cisco Systems US Corporate 1.40% Bank of New York US Corporate 1.40% Bank of America Corp US Corporate 1.26% Toyota Motor Corp US Corporate 1.23% ChevronTexaco Corp US Corporate 1.21% General Dynamics Corp US Corporate 1.18% State Street Bank US Corporate 1.17% US Bancorp US Corporate 1.17% John Deere ABS ABS 1.17% JP Morgan Chase & Co US Corporate 1.17% First American Govt Oblig Fund Money Market Fund FI 1.09% Toyota ABS ABS 0.77% Honda ABS ABS 0.66% TOTAL 100.00% Issuers City of San Jacinto –Account #10167 As of June 30, 2019 17 5.1.a Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) AAA AA A <A NR 06/30/19 1.9%83.2%11.7%0.0%3.3% 03/31/19 2.3%83.4%11.7%0.0%2.6% Source: S&P Ratings June 30, 2019 vs. March 31, 2019 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% AAA AA A <A NR 6/30/2019 3/31/2019 Quality Distribution City of San Jacinto As of June 30, 2019 18 5.1.a Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 0.50 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5+ City of San Jacinto ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Treasury Index Portfolio Compared to the Benchmark as of June 30, 2019 0 -0.25 0.25 -0.50 0.50 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5+ Portfolio 11.0% 5.6% 17.5% 26.5% 18.2% 15.4% 5.7% 0.0% Benchmark*0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 54.9% 42.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% *ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Treasury Index Duration Distribution City of San Jacinto As of June 30, 2019 19 5.1.a Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Total Rate of Return Annualized Since Inception 06/30/2012 Total rate of return: A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time.It is the internal rate of return,which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value;it includes interest earnings,realized and unrealized gains and losses in the portfolio. Investment Performance City of San Jacinto 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 12 months 2 years 3 years 5 years 10 years Since Inception City of San Jacinto ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Treasury Index ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Corp/Govt Rated AAA-A Index Annualized TOTAL RATE OF RETURN 3 months 12 months 2 years 3 years 5 years 10 years Since Inception City of San Jacinto 1.43%4.17%2.23%1.57%1.42%N/A 1.21% ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Treasury Index 1.44%3.96%2.00%1.29%1.21%N/A 1.02% ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Corp/Govt Rated AAA-A Index 1.46%4.16%2.16% 1.49% 1.37% N/A 1.22% As of June 30, 2019 20 5.1.a Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) SECTION |Section 3 |Portfolio Holdings 21 5.1.a Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Holdings Report City of San Jacinto -Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration ABS 43814QAC2 Honda Auto Receivables 2016-2 A3 1.390% Due 04/15/2020 282.12 04/26/2017 1.72% 280.76 281.76 99.93 3.41% 281.93 0.17 0.00% 0.17 Aaa / NR AAA 0.79 0.03 89238BAB8 Toyota Auto Receivables Owner 2018-A A2A 2.100% Due 10/15/2020 83,374.12 01/23/2018 2.12% 83,365.60 83,370.05 99.93 2.49% 83,314.83 77.82 0.77% (55.22) Aaa / AAA NR 1.30 0.19 65478VAD9 NAROT 2016-B A3 1.320% Due 01/15/2021 24,952.09 02/12/2018 1.87% 24,752.28 24,846.37 99.73 2.47% 24,884.33 3.66 0.23% 37.96 Aaa / NR AAA 1.55 0.24 47788BAD6 John Deere Owner Trust 2017-B A3 1.820% Due 10/15/2021 81,052.43 07/26/2018 3.16% 79,846.14 80,191.68 99.74 2.27% 80,844.03 65.56 0.75% 652.35 Aaa / NR AAA 2.30 0.58 47789JAB2 John Deere Owner Trust 2019-A A2 2.850% Due 12/15/2021 45,000.00 03/05/2019 2.87% 44,997.95 44,998.17 100.59 2.20% 45,264.87 57.00 0.42% 266.70 Aaa / NR AAA 2.46 0.88 43815HAC1 Honda Auto Receivables Owner 2018-3 A3 2.950% Due 08/22/2022 70,000.00 08/21/2018 2.98% 69,990.40 69,992.43 101.25 2.10% 70,875.28 57.36 0.66% 882.85 Aaa / NR AAA 3.15 1.44 65478WAE5 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.380% Due 01/17/2023 130,000.00 04/16/2019 2.56% 128,080.47 128,236.39 99.25 2.19% 129,026.43 79.73 1.20% 790.04 Aaa / NR AAA 3.55 0.93 TOTAL ABS 434,660.76 2.65% 431,313.60 431,916.85 2.27% 434,491.70 341.30 4.03% 2,574.85 Aaa / AAA Aaa 2.59 0.76 Agency 3133EFW52 FFCB Note 1.150% Due 07/01/2019 250,000.00 04/08/2016 1.00% 251,222.50 250,000.00 100.00 1.15% 250,000.00 1,437.50 2.33% 0.00 Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.00 0.00 3137EADK2 FHLMC Note 1.250% Due 08/01/2019 170,000.00 08/28/2015 1.41% 168,951.10 169,977.28 99.92 2.21% 169,857.54 885.42 1.58% (119.74) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.09 0.09 313380FB8 FHLB Note 1.375% Due 09/13/2019 190,000.00 10/25/2017 1.63% 189,110.80 189,904.22 99.83 2.20% 189,679.09 783.75 1.76% (225.13) Aaa / AA+ NR 0.21 0.20 3137EADM8 FHLMC Note 1.250% Due 10/02/2019 155,000.00 09/24/2015 1.34% 154,443.55 154,964.75 99.76 2.20% 154,624.12 478.99 1.44% (340.63) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.26 0.25 3137EAEE5 FHLMC Note 1.500% Due 01/17/2020 260,000.00 03/08/2017 1.72% 258,408.80 259,695.17 99.65 2.15% 259,078.30 1,776.67 2.42% (616.87) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.55 0.54 3135G0A78 FNMA Note 1.625% Due 01/21/2020 245,000.00 12/10/2015 1.61% 245,149.45 245,020.30 99.74 2.09% 244,366.43 1,769.44 2.28% (653.87) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.56 0.55 3135G0T29 FNMA Note 1.500% Due 02/28/2020 205,000.00 08/28/2017 1.48% 205,102.50 205,027.17 99.62 2.09% 204,212.19 1,050.63 1.90% (814.98) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.67 0.65 3137EAEF2 FHLMC Note 1.375% Due 04/20/2020 250,000.00 07/27/2017 1.54% 248,900.00 249,675.63 99.49 2.01% 248,730.50 677.95 2.31% (945.13) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.81 0.79 As of June 30, 2019 22 5.1.a Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Holdings Report City of San Jacinto -Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration 3137EADR7 FHLMC Note 1.375% Due 05/01/2020 225,000.00 08/24/2016 1.05% 227,637.00 225,597.98 99.43 2.07% 223,715.25 515.63 2.08% (1,882.73) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.84 0.82 313383HU8 FHLB Note 1.750% Due 06/12/2020 130,000.00 10/14/2015 1.38% 132,181.40 130,444.74 99.75 2.02% 129,672.40 120.07 1.20% (772.34) Aaa / AA+ NR 0.95 0.94 3130A5Z77 FHLB Note 1.830% Due 07/29/2020 125,000.00 10/27/2015 1.46% 127,132.50 125,483.99 99.81 2.01% 124,758.38 965.83 1.16% (725.61) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.08 1.06 3137EAEK1 FHLMC Note 1.875% Due 11/17/2020 225,000.00 01/18/2018 2.19% 223,042.50 224,043.04 99.97 1.90% 224,929.13 515.63 2.09% 886.09 Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.39 1.35 3130A3UQ5 FHLB Note 1.875% Due 12/11/2020 225,000.00 01/28/2016 1.53% 228,642.75 226,083.81 99.96 1.90% 224,917.43 234.38 2.09% (1,166.38) Aaa / AA+ NR 1.45 1.42 3130A7CV5 FHLB Note 1.375% Due 02/18/2021 200,000.00 03/10/2016 1.61% 197,812.00 199,275.11 99.27 1.83% 198,531.60 1,015.97 1.85% (743.51) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.64 1.60 3135G0N82 FNMA Note 1.250% Due 08/17/2021 315,000.00 01/26/2017 2.02% 304,579.80 310,113.37 98.86 1.80% 311,424.12 1,465.63 2.90% 1,310.75 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.13 2.08 313378WG2 FHLB Note 2.500% Due 03/11/2022 300,000.00 03/13/2018 2.65% 298,323.00 298,868.20 101.82 1.81% 305,449.50 2,291.67 2.85% 6,581.30 Aaa / AA+ NR 2.70 2.58 313379Q69 FHLB Note 2.125% Due 06/10/2022 200,000.00 06/20/2017 1.87% 202,370.00 201,403.72 100.87 1.82% 201,740.20 247.92 1.87% 336.48 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.95 2.84 3135G0T94 FNMA Note 2.375% Due 01/19/2023 290,000.00 10/17/2018 3.07% 281,993.10 283,307.82 101.97 1.80% 295,699.95 3,099.38 2.77% 12,392.13 Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.56 3.36 3137EAEN5 FHLMC Note 2.750% Due 06/19/2023 200,000.00 11/13/2018 3.08% 197,176.00 197,561.40 103.54 1.82% 207,079.00 183.33 1.92% 9,517.60 Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.97 3.75 313383YJ4 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 09/08/2023 200,000.00 12/27/2018 2.73% 205,630.00 205,022.68 106.35 1.79% 212,704.00 2,118.75 1.99% 7,681.32 Aaa / AA+ NR 4.19 3.88 3130A0F70 FHLB Note 3.375% Due 12/08/2023 220,000.00 01/30/2019 2.71% 226,593.40 226,031.55 106.39 1.87% 234,051.62 474.38 2.17% 8,020.07 Aaa / AA+ AAA 4.44 4.12 3130A1XJ2 FHLB Note 2.875% Due 06/14/2024 210,000.00 Various 1.96% 219,055.20 218,990.64 104.71 1.87% 219,897.94 285.10 2.04% 907.30 Aaa / AA+ NR 4.96 4.61 TOTAL Agency 4,790,000.00 1.92% 4,793,457.35 4,796,492.57 1.91% 4,835,118.69 22,394.02 45.01% 38,626.12 Aaa / AA+ Aaa 1.88 1.79 As of June 30, 2019 23 5.1.a Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Holdings Report City of San Jacinto -Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration Commercial Paper 62479MXN8 MUFG Bank Ltd/NY Discount CP 2.270% Due 10/22/2019 200,000.00 06/20/2019 2.32% 198,436.22 198,574.94 99.29 2.32% 198,574.94 0.00 1.84% 0.00 P-1 / A-1 NR 0.31 0.31 TOTAL Commercial Paper 200,000.00 2.32% 198,436.22 198,574.94 2.32% 198,574.94 0.00 1.84% 0.00 P-1 / A-1 NR 0.31 0.31 Money Market Fund FI 31846V203 First American Govt Obligation Fund Class Y 118,097.33 Various 1.99% 118,097.33 118,097.33 1.00 1.99% 118,097.33 0.00 1.09% 0.00 Aaa / AAA AAA 0.00 0.00 TOTAL Money Market Fund FI 118,097.33 1.99% 118,097.33 118,097.33 1.99% 118,097.33 0.00 1.09% 0.00 Aaa / AAA Aaa 0.00 0.00 US Corporate 084670BL1 Berkshire Hathaway Note 2.100% Due 08/14/2019 200,000.00 01/26/2017 1.70% 201,976.00 200,093.99 99.96 2.37% 199,928.80 1,598.33 1.87% (165.19) Aa2 / AA A+ 0.12 0.12 06406HCW7 Bank of New York Callable Note Cont 8/11/2019 2.300% Due 09/11/2019 150,000.00 10/26/2016 1.55% 153,034.50 150,122.70 100.00 2.27% 150,004.05 1,054.17 1.40% (118.65) A1 / A AA- 0.20 0.11 166764AN0 Chevron Corp Callable Note Cont 10/15/2019 2.193% Due 11/15/2019 130,000.00 01/05/2016 2.12% 130,341.90 130,026.34 99.98 2.25% 129,968.93 364.28 1.21% (57.41) Aa2 / AA NR 0.38 0.37 46625HKA7 JP Morgan Chase Callable Note Cont 12/23/2019 2.250% Due 01/23/2020 125,000.00 08/11/2017 1.91% 125,970.00 125,197.61 99.97 2.30% 124,961.75 1,234.38 1.17% (235.86) A2 / A- AA- 0.57 0.55 857477AS2 State Street Bank Note 2.550% Due 08/18/2020 125,000.00 11/29/2016 2.18% 126,620.00 125,494.97 100.44 2.15% 125,555.50 1,177.60 1.17% 60.53 A1 / A AA- 1.14 1.10 02665WAZ4 American Honda Finance Note 2.450% Due 09/24/2020 150,000.00 10/07/2016 1.72% 154,161.00 151,301.39 100.21 2.28% 150,310.50 990.21 1.40% (990.89) A2 / A NR 1.24 1.20 91159HHL7 US Bancorp Callable Note 1X 12/29/2020 2.350% Due 01/29/2021 125,000.00 05/02/2017 2.12% 126,012.50 125,415.17 100.30 2.15% 125,372.50 1,240.28 1.17% (42.67) A1 / A+ AA- 1.59 1.45 17275RBD3 Cisco Systems Note 2.200% Due 02/28/2021 150,000.00 09/20/2017 1.98% 151,108.50 150,537.03 100.06 2.16% 150,085.95 1,127.50 1.40% (451.08) A1 / AA- NR 1.67 1.61 369550BE7 General Dynamics Corp Note 3.000% Due 05/11/2021 125,000.00 05/15/2018 3.25% 124,128.75 124,455.97 101.62 2.11% 127,024.00 520.83 1.18% 2,568.03 A2 / A+ NR 1.87 1.80 808513AW5 Charles Schwab Corp Callable Note Cont 4/21/2021 3.250% Due 05/21/2021 150,000.00 05/30/2018 3.01% 151,011.00 150,632.47 101.94 2.15% 152,904.60 541.67 1.42% 2,272.13 A2 / A A 1.89 1.75 931142EJ8 Wal-Mart Stores Note 3.125% Due 06/23/2021 200,000.00 Various 2.96% 200,929.00 200,621.83 102.18 2.00% 204,364.00 138.89 1.89% 3,742.17 Aa2 / AA AA 1.98 1.92 As of June 30, 2019 24 5.1.a Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Holdings Report City of San Jacinto -Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration 68389XBK0 Oracle Corp Callable Note Cont 8/01/21 1.900% Due 09/15/2021 200,000.00 10/12/2017 2.11% 198,458.00 199,129.79 99.49 2.14% 198,987.60 1,118.89 1.85% (142.19) A1 / AA- A 2.21 2.14 89236TDP7 Toyota Motor Credit Corp Note 2.600% Due 01/11/2022 130,000.00 01/28/2019 2.98% 128,629.80 128,823.18 101.05 2.17% 131,360.19 1,596.11 1.23% 2,537.01 Aa3 / AA- A+ 2.54 2.41 06051GEU9 Bank of America Corp Note 3.300% Due 01/11/2023 130,000.00 01/28/2019 3.29% 130,059.80 130,053.50 103.08 2.39% 134,001.01 2,025.83 1.26% 3,947.51 A2 / A- A+ 3.54 3.28 037833AK6 Apple Inc Note 2.400% Due 05/03/2023 200,000.00 05/20/2019 2.63% 198,284.00 198,331.60 100.99 2.13% 201,980.40 773.33 1.88% 3,648.80 Aa1 / AA+ NR 3.84 3.64 24422EUR8 John Deere Capital Corp Note 3.450% Due 01/10/2024 150,000.00 03/14/2019 2.95% 153,322.50 153,124.17 105.04 2.27% 157,553.85 2,458.13 1.48% 4,429.68 A2 / A A 4.53 4.13 TOTAL US Corporate 2,440,000.00 2.40% 2,454,047.25 2,443,361.71 2.20% 2,464,363.63 17,960.43 23.00% 21,001.92 A1 / A+ A+ 1.88 1.77 US Treasury 912828UB4 US Treasury Note 1.000% Due 11/30/2019 125,000.00 10/26/2016 1.05% 124,819.76 124,975.65 99.54 2.12% 124,419.00 105.87 1.15% (556.65) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.42 0.41 912828UV0 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 03/31/2020 195,000.00 11/17/2015 1.61% 191,054.95 194,322.29 99.34 2.01% 193,720.41 551.43 1.80% (601.88) Aaa / AA+ AAA 0.75 0.74 912828L32 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 08/31/2020 200,000.00 11/03/2015 1.56% 198,289.73 199,585.54 99.38 1.91% 198,765.60 919.16 1.85% (819.94) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.17 1.15 912828M98 US Treasury Note 1.625% Due 11/30/2020 205,000.00 Various 1.71% 204,350.30 204,765.42 99.68 1.85% 204,351.38 282.16 1.90% (414.04) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.42 1.39 912828N89 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 01/31/2021 160,000.00 04/04/2018 2.41% 155,500.00 157,470.93 99.30 1.83% 158,875.04 917.68 1.48% 1,404.11 Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.59 1.55 912828Q78 US Treasury Note 1.375% Due 04/30/2021 210,000.00 05/25/2017 1.66% 207,753.05 208,948.80 99.26 1.79% 208,449.57 486.48 1.94% (499.23) Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.84 1.80 912828WN6 US Treasury Note 2.000% Due 05/31/2021 200,000.00 04/29/2019 2.29% 198,820.31 198,916.30 100.43 1.77% 200,859.40 338.80 1.86% 1,943.10 Aaa / AA+ AAA 1.92 1.87 912828S76 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 07/31/2021 260,000.00 11/29/2017 1.98% 252,169.53 255,549.67 98.71 1.76% 256,648.34 1,220.10 2.39% 1,098.67 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.09 2.04 912828T34 US Treasury Note 1.125% Due 09/30/2021 125,000.00 05/30/2018 2.59% 119,194.34 121,081.89 98.68 1.73% 123,349.63 353.48 1.15% 2,267.74 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.25 2.20 912828G53 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due 11/30/2021 220,000.00 04/26/2017 1.81% 220,653.86 220,344.08 100.32 1.74% 220,696.08 349.39 2.05% 352.00 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.42 2.35 912828W89 US Treasury Note 1.875% Due 03/31/2022 200,000.00 04/26/2018 2.75% 193,531.25 195,470.97 100.44 1.71% 200,882.80 942.62 1.87% 5,411.83 Aaa / AA+ AAA 2.75 2.66 As of June 30, 2019 25 5.1.a Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Holdings Report City of San Jacinto -Account #10167 CUSIP Security Description Par Value/Units Purchase Date Book Yield Cost Value Book Value Mkt Price Mkt YTM Market Value Accrued Int. % of Port. Gain/Loss Moody/S&P Fitch Maturity Duration 912828M80 US Treasury Note 2.000% Due 11/30/2022 200,000.00 04/11/2019 2.31% 197,851.56 197,976.41 100.90 1.73% 201,804.60 338.80 1.87% 3,828.19 Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.42 3.29 9128284D9 US Treasury Note 2.500% Due 03/31/2023 210,000.00 Various 2.95% 206,053.12 206,713.37 102.79 1.73% 215,857.11 1,319.67 2.01% 9,143.74 Aaa / AA+ AAA 3.75 3.55 912828Y61 US Treasury Note 2.750% Due 07/31/2023 175,000.00 12/27/2018 2.59% 176,223.63 176,088.56 103.96 1.74% 181,931.58 2,007.42 1.70% 5,843.02 Aaa / AA+ AAA 4.09 3.82 TOTAL US Treasury 2,685,000.00 2.10% 2,646,265.39 2,662,209.88 1.81% 2,690,610.54 10,133.06 25.03% 28,400.66 Aaa / AA+ Aaa 2.19 2.11 TOTAL PORTFOLIO 10,667,758.09 2.11% 10,641,617.14 10,650,653.28 1.97% 10,741,256.83 50,828.81 100.00% 90,603.55 Aa1 / AA Aaa 1.94 1.78 TOTAL MARKET VALUE PLUS ACCRUALS 10,792,085.64 As of June 30, 2019 26 5.1.a Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) SECTION |Section 4 |Transactions 27 5.1.a Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Transaction Ledger City of San Jacinto -Account #10167 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss ACQUISITIONS Purchase 04/15/2019 912828M80 200,000.00 US Treasury Note 2% Due: 11/30/2022 98.926 2.31%197,851.56 1,494.51 199,346.07 0.00 Purchase 04/18/2019 65478WAE5 130,000.00 Nissan Auto Receivables Owner 2016-C A4 1.38% Due: 01/17/2023 98.523 2.56%128,080.47 14.95 128,095.42 0.00 Purchase 04/30/2019 912828WN6 200,000.00 US Treasury Note 2% Due: 05/31/2021 99.410 2.29%198,820.31 1,659.34 200,479.65 0.00 Purchase 05/22/2019 037833AK6 200,000.00 Apple Inc Note 2.4% Due: 05/03/2023 99.142 2.63%198,284.00 253.33 198,537.33 0.00 Purchase 06/17/2019 3130A1XJ2 105,000.00 FHLB Note 2.875% Due: 06/14/2024 104.301 1.97%109,516.05 25.16 109,541.21 0.00 Purchase 06/19/2019 3130A1XJ2 105,000.00 FHLB Note 2.875% Due: 06/14/2024 104.323 1.96%109,539.15 41.93 109,581.08 0.00 Purchase 06/20/2019 62479MXN8 200,000.00 MUFG Bank Ltd/NY Discount CP 2.27% Due: 10/22/2019 99.218 2.32%198,436.22 0.00 198,436.22 0.00 Subtotal 1,140,000.00 1,140,527.76 3,489.22 1,144,016.98 0.00 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS 1,140,000.00 1,140,527.76 3,489.22 1,144,016.98 0.00 DISPOSITIONS Maturity 04/09/2019 912796UW7 95,000.00 US Treasury Bill 2.391% Due: 04/09/2019 100.000 95,000.00 0.00 95,000.00 0.00 Maturity 04/15/2019 3137EADZ9 235,000.00 FHLMC Note 1.125% Due: 04/15/2019 100.000 235,000.00 0.00 235,000.00 0.00 Maturity 04/30/2019 912828ST8 150,000.00 US Treasury Note 1.25% Due: 04/30/2019 100.000 150,000.00 0.00 150,000.00 0.00 Maturity 05/06/2019 037833AQ3 195,000.00 Apple Inc Note 2.1% Due: 05/06/2019 100.000 195,000.00 0.00 195,000.00 0.00 Maturity 06/14/2019 313379EE5 150,000.00 FHLB Note 1.625% Due: 06/14/2019 100.000 150,000.00 0.00 150,000.00 0.00 March 31, 2019 through June 30, 2019 As of June 30, 2019 28 5.1.a Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Transaction Ledger City of San Jacinto -Account #10167 Transaction Type Settlement Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss Maturity 06/15/2019 912828R85 270,000.00 US Treasury Note 0.875% Due: 06/15/2019 100.000 270,000.00 0.00 270,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 1,095,000.00 1,095,000.00 0.00 1,095,000.00 0.00 TOTAL DISPOSITIONS 1,095,000.00 1,095,000.00 0.00 1,095,000.00 0.00 March 31, 2019 through June 30, 2019 As of June 30, 2019 29 5.1.a Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Important Disclosures 2019 Chandler Asset Management,Inc, An Independent Registered Investment Adviser. Information contained herein is confidential.Prices are provided by IDC,an independent pricing source.In the event IDC does not provide a price or if the price provided is not reflective of fair market value,Chandler will obtain pricing from an alternative approved third party pricing source in accordance with our written valuation policy and procedures.Our valuation procedures are also disclosed in Item 5 of our Form ADV Part 2A. Performance results are presented gross-of-advisory fees and represent the client’s Total Return.The deduction of advisory fees lowers performance results.These results include the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings.Past performance may not be indicative of future results.Therefore,clients should not assume that future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy will be profitable or equal to past performance levels.All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss.Economic factors,market conditions or changes in investment strategies, contributions or withdrawals may materially alter the performance and results of your portfolio. Index returns assume reinvestment of all distributions.Historical performance results for investment indexes generally do not reflect the deduction of transaction and/or custodial charges or the deduction of an investment management fee,the incurrence of which would have the effect of decreasing historical performance results.It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Source ice Data Indices,LLC ("ICE"),used with permission. ICE permits use of the ICE indices and related data on an "as is"basis; ICE,its affiliates and their respective third party suppliers disclaim any and all warranties and representations, express and/or implied,including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use,including the indices,index data and any data included in,related to,or derived therefrom.Neither ICE data,its affiliates or their respective third party providers guarantee the quality,adequacy,accuracy,timeliness or completeness of the indices or the index data or any component thereof,and the indices and index data and all components thereof are provided on an "as is"basis and licensee's use it at licensee's own risk. ICE data,its affiliates and their respective third party do not sponsor,endorse,or recommend chandler asset management,or any of its products or services. This report is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a specific investment or legal advice.The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed to be reliable as of the date of publication,but may become outdated or superseded at any time without notice.Any opinions or views expressed are based on current market conditions and are subject to change.This report may contain forecasts and forward-looking statements which are inherently limited and should not be relied upon as indicator of future results.Past performance is not indicative of future results.This report is not intended to constitute an offer,solicitation,recommendation or advice regarding any securities or investment strategy and should not be regarded by recipients as a substitute for the exercise of their own judgment. Fixed income investments are subject to interest, credit and market risk.Interest rate risk:the value of fixed income investments will decline as interest rates rise.Credit risk:the possibility that the borrower may not be able to repay interest and principal.Low rated bonds generally have to pay higher interest rates to attract investors willing to take on greater risk.Market risk:the bond market in general could decline due to economic conditions,especially during periods of rising interest rates. Ratings information have been provided by Moody’s,S&P and Fitch through data feeds we believe to be reliable as of the date of this statement, however we cannot guarantee its accuracy. Security level ratings for U.S.Agency issued mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”)reflect the issuer rating because the securities themselves are not rated.The issuing U.S.Agency guarantees the full and timely payment of both principal and interest and carries a AA+/Aaa/AAA by S&P,Moody’s and Fitch respectively. As of June 30, 2019 30 5.1.a Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Benchmark Disclosures ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Treasury Index The ICE BAML 1-3 Year US Treasury Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated sovereign debt publicly issued by the US government in its domestic market.Qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than three years remaining term to final maturity,a fixed coupon schedule and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion.Qualifying securities must haveat least 18 months to final maturity at the time of issuance.(Index:G1O2.Please visit www.mlindex.ml.com for more information) ICE BAML 1-3 Yr US Corp/Govt Rated AAA-A Index The ICE BAML 1-3 AAA-A Year US Corporate &Government Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated investment grade debt publicly issued in the US domestic market,including US Treasury, US agency,foreign government, supranational and corporate securities.Qualifying securities must be rated AAA through A3 (based on an average of Moody’s,S&P and Fitch).In addition, qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than three years remaining term to final maturity,at least 18 months to final maturity at point of issuance,a fixed coupon scheduleand a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion for US Treasuriesand $250 million for all other securities.(Index:GVPB.Please visit www.mlindex.ml.com for more information) As of June 30, 2019 31 5.1.a Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Presentation - 08-06-19 for PE 06-30-19 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) Presented By: Mark Creger, Director, Senior Portfolio Manager City of San Jacinto Annual Portfolio Review For the Period Ended July 31, 2019 5.1.b Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©2 Table of Contents Section Page # Economic Update 3 Portfolio Details 8 Portfolio Performance 12 Portfolio Compliance 13 Portfolio Strategy Review and Outlook 14 5.1.b Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©3 Economic Update: U.S. Expansion Reaches A Record Source: Bloomberg ➢As we enter July,the U.S.economy is entering its 121st month of expansion, marking the longest stretch of uninterrupted growth in modern American history.After growing at an annualized rate of 3.1%in the first quarter of 2019,economic activity is expected to have slowed in the second quarter as fading tailwinds from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and uncertainties surrounding slowing global growth and persistent trade tensions weigh on domestic activity. ➢While still expanding,activity in the U.S.manufacturing and service sectors has moderated year to date reflecting the rising risks to the U.S.economy from slowing global growth. ➢The New York Federal Reserve’s 12-month forward recession probability indicator has climbed to over 30%,a reading that has preceded all recent recessions. ➢PTA Perspective:Fears of a domestic economic slowdown have fueled rising expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts and helped to propel Treasury yields lower as investors seek the safety of government-backed debt amidst rising uncertainty. Gross Domestic Product: Longest Expansion in Modern History NY Fed Recession Probability: Indicator Rises to Post-Crisis Peak ISM Indices: Manufacturing & Services Cools a Global Growth Slows 5.1.b Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©4 Economic Update: U.S. Labor Market Still Strong But Cooling Source: Bloomberg ➢Activity in U.S.labor markets continues to reflect generally solid domestic economic fundamentals but has cooled in 2019.In particular,payroll growth remains solid but has decelerated relative to prior years.Following a disappointing May report,nonfarm payrolls rebounded in June posting a 224K job gain.Year-to-date,monthly payrolls have averaged 180K jobs per month,down from 226K jobs per month during same period last year. ➢The unemployment rate edged higher to 3.7%in June but remains near its lowest level in 50 years.Importantly,the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator and has historically bottomed just prior to periods of economic downturn. ➢After reaching 3.4%YoY in February,average hourly earnings receded over the quarter rising at annual rate of 3.1%in June.Reflecting the low level of unemployment,average hourly earnings have trended higher over the past 18 months which has helped to support consumer spending. ➢PTA Perspective:Current labor market conditions remain generally sound though the lack of passthrough of rising wage pressures to broader consumer prices has reinforced concerns that the Fed’s 2%inflation target remains elusive. U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls: Payroll Growth Continues but has Moderated U.S. Unemployment: Joblessness Remains Near Historic LowsAverage Hourly Earnings: Wage Growth Reaches Post-Crisis High 5.1.b Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©5 Economic Update: U.S. Inflation Fails to Consolidate at 2% Target Source: Bloomberg ➢Despite a prolonged period of historically accommodative monetary policy, measures of core inflation have failed to consolidate around the Fed’s stated 2.0%target.The Consumer Price Index (CPI)declined over the quarter to 1.65%from 1.86%last quarter.Further,while core CPI rose moderately to 2.13%through June,the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge (core PCE)has fallen over the past 18 months from nearly 2.0%to 1.6%through May. ➢Reflecting growing skepticism in the Fed’s ability to achieve their 2.0% inflation target against a backdrop of slowing global growth and elevated geopolitical and trade risks,market-based measures of inflation expectations have fallen in recent months. ➢Despite concerns that the ongoing trade dispute with China may finally spur consumer inflation,commodity prices have remained generally contained on concerns that further escalation may dampen global growth and reduce demand. ➢PTA Perspective:Continued benign readings on core inflation amidst a backdrop of slowing growth have helped reinforce market expectations of Federal Reserve rate cuts which have helped to push interest rate lower and pressure the yield curve flatter. Consumer Inflation: The Fed’s 2% Inflation Target Remains Elusive $82 $83 $84 $85 $86 $87 $88 $89 $90 $91 $92 05/03/1805/18/1806/02/1806/17/1807/02/1807/17/1808/01/1808/16/1808/31/1809/15/1809/30/18Bloomberg Commodity Index Bloomberg Commodity Index: Growth Concerns Limit Increases Inflation Expectations: TIPS Spreads Decline on Growth Concerns 5.1.b Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©6 Economic Update: The Federal Reserve’s Dovish Pivot Source: Bloomberg ➢After raising rates by 25 basis points (0.25%)at the December 2018 FOMC meeting,the Fed held rates unchanged at the March and June 2019 FOMC meetings as signs of slowing global growth and ongoing trade tensions clouded the economic outlook.The Fed’s balance sheet has been reduced from a peak of $4.5 trillion to $3.8 trillion at quarter end and is expected to remain elevated to ensure ample reserves in the banking system. ➢The Federal Reserve held rates unchanged over the quarter but dropped its pledge to be “patient”in regard to future rate adjustments in favor of “closely monitoring the implications of incoming information.”Market-based measures of policy expectations in the Fed Funds Futures markets moved markedly lower,reflecting expectations for 3 rate cuts in 2019 and 1 cut in 2020. ➢The Fed’s December 2018 “Dot Plot”reflected median expectations for 3 additional rate hikes through 2020.In a sharp pivot,the June 2019 “Dot Plot” was amended to reflect expectations for no further hikes in 2019 and one rate cut in 2020. ➢PTA Perspective:Concerns that the Fed may have overtightened monetary policy amidst a backdrop of slowing global growth have fueled market expectations for a policy reversal and lower future interest rates. Monetary Policy: Rising Rates and Balance Sheet Run-Off Federal Reserve Dot Plot: Dovish Pivot Reflects Potential Rate Cuts Effective Federal Funds Implied Probabilities: As of July 31, 2019 Meeting Hike Prob Cut Prob 1-1.25%1.25-1.5$1.5-1.75%1.75-2%2-2.25%Fwd Rate 07/31/19 0.00%100.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%17.00%83.00%2.11% 09/18/19 0.00%100.00%0.00%0.00%11.60%61.90%26.60%1.94% 10/30/19 0.00%100.00%0.00%5.30%34.50%45.80%14.50%1.83% 12/11/19 0.00%100.00%2.00%16.60%38.80%33.70%8.90%1.73% 01/29/20 0.00%100.00%6.30%23.10%37.30%26.40%6.30%1.66% 03/18/20 0.00%100.00%11.00%27.10%34.30%20.80%4.50%1.59% 04/29/20 0.00%100.00%13.20%28.10%32.40%18.50%3.90%1.55% 06/10/20 0.00%100.00%16.20%28.90%29.70%15.60%3.10%1.50% 07/29/20 0.00%100.00%17.70%29.00%27.90%14.10%2.70%1.47% 09/16/20 0.00%100.00%19.70%28.80%25.50%12.10%2.30%1.43% 11/05/20 0.00%100.00%20.20%28.70%24.80%11.60%2.10%1.42% 12/16/20 0.00%100.00%21.20%28.20%23.20%10.50%1.90%1.38% 01/27/21 0.00%100.00%21.50%28.00%22.70%10.10%1.80%1.39% 5.1.b Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©7 Economic Update: U.S. Treasury Yield Curve Collapses Source: Bloomberg ➢U.S.Treasury yields collapsed over the past year as mounting global concerns increased expectations of a Fed rate cuts in 2019 and 2020.Furthermore, escalating tensions between the U.S.and its trading partners has placed additional stress on an already slowing global economy.Over the past year; two-year Treasury yields have fallen 85 basis points (0.85%)to 1.82%while ten-year Treasury yields have fallen 93 basis points (0.93%)to 2.03%over the same period. ➢While the yield curve steepened modestly over the quarter,the persistent flatness and intermittent inversions of the yield curve remain an area of intense focus for market participants given the slope of the curve’s historical track record of foreshadowing periods of slowing economic growth. ➢After widening during the first half of the 2nd quarter,investment grade corporate bond yield spreads haver again narrowed relative to U.S.Treasuries as global investors continued to hunt for yield. ➢PTA Perspective:Rising global and domestic growth concerns have pressured intermediate and longer term interest rates dramatically lower while short-term rates remain anchored by Fed Policy. U.S Treasury Yield Curve: Rates Sharply Lower on Growth Concerns Bloomberg Barclays US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index: OAS Yield Curve Slope: 5-2 & 10-2 Year Treasury Yield Spreads 5.1.b Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©8 Portfolio Details: June 30, 2019 PORTFOLIO SUMMARY INFORMATION SECTOR & CREDIT QUALITY DISTRIBUTION COUPON DISTRIBUTION Total Par Value 10,593,747 Market Value 10,687,615.61 Accrued Interest 57,314.13 Total Market Value 10,744,929.73 Amortized Book Value 10,569,598.62 Net Unrealized Gain/Loss 118,016.98 Effective Maturity 1.88 Modified Duration 1.82 Average Coupon 2.258% Average Yield on Cost 2.395% Average Yield on Market 1.879% Average S&P Rating AA 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 0% - 1%1% - 2%2% - 3%3% - 4%4% - 5%5% - 6%6% - 7%$ (000)MV w/o Acc Sector (U.S.)MV w/o Acc Cash & Equivalents 28,747.39 U.S. Treasuries 7,023,589.27 Federal Agencies 1,112,103.94 Agency Mortgage Backed Securities 324,723.46 Corporates 1,998,853.74 Asset Backed Securities 199,597.82 S&P Quality MV w/o Acc AAA 452,934.51 AA 9,076,999.50 A 1,157,681.60 Below A 0.00 4.2% 84.9% 10.8%0.0% AAA AA A Below A 0.3% 65.7% 10.4% 3.0% 18.7% 1.9% Cash & Equivalents U.S. Treasuries Federal Agencies Agency Mortgage Backed Securities Corporates Asset Backed Securities 5.1.b Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©9 Portfolio Details: June 30, 2019 MATURITY DISTRIBUTION DURATION AND YIELD DISTRIBUTION Maturity (Yrs)MV w/o Acc 0.00 - 0.49 522,900.62 0.50 - 0.99 1,524,787.00 1.00 - 1.49 449,858.25 1.50 - 1.99 3,124,004.29 2.00 - 2.49 2,770,077.32 2.50 - 2.99 1,444,231.50 3.00 - 3.49 851,756.63 3.50 - 3.99 0.00 4.00 - 4.49 0.00 4.50 - 4.99 0.00 5.00+0.00 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 0.00 - 0.490.50 - 0.991.00 - 1.491.50 - 1.992.00 - 2.492.50 - 2.993.00 - 3.493.50 - 3.994.00 - 4.494.50 - 4.995.00+$ (000)MV w/o Acc Mod Dur % Held (MV)YTW Mod Dur 0.00 - 0.49 4.893%2.275%0.26 0.50 - 0.99 14.267%2.233%0.77 1.00 - 1.49 4.209%1.898%1.36 1.50 - 1.99 33.418%1.797%1.73 2.00 - 2.49 25.664%1.778%2.23 2.50 - 2.99 14.038%1.790%2.68 3.00 - 3.49 3.511%1.727%3.14 3.50 - 3.99 4.00 - 4.49 4.50 - 4.99 5.00+ 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%0.00 - 0.490.50 - 0.991.00 - 1.491.50 - 1.992.00 - 2.492.50 - 2.993.00 - 3.493.50 - 3.994.00 - 4.494.50 - 4.995.00+Yield (%)Market Value Percentage (%)Modified Duration Bucket % of Market Value (Left Axis) Portfolio Yield (Right Axis) 5.1.b Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©10 Portfolio Details: June 30, 2019 PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS Purchase Original Yield Amortized Market Market Value Accrued Market Value Yield Gain/Moody's S&P Effective Modified % Market CUSIP Issuer Name Coupon Maturity Par Value Date Cost Value on Cost Book Value Price w/o Accrued Interest w/ Accrued on Market Loss Rating Rating Maturity Duration Value Cash & Equivalents 31846V203 First American Funds, Inc.2.000%06/30/19 28,747 28,747.39 1.980%28,747.39 100.000 28,747.39 72.11 28,819.50 1.980%0.00 Aaa AAAm 0.00 0.00 0.27% Total Cash & Equivalents 28,747 28,747.39 1.980%28,747.39 28,747.39 72.11 28,819.50 1.980%0.00 Aaa AAA 0.00 0.00 0.27% U.S. Treasury Bonds 9128283Q1 Treasury, United States Department of 2.000%01/15/21 185,000 02/15/19 183,106.64 2.551%183,472.36 100.250 185,462.50 1,706.91 187,169.41 1.835%1,990.14 Aaa AA+1.55 1.50 1.74% 9128283X6 Treasury, United States Department of 2.250%02/15/21 330,000 07/30/18 325,952.35 2.752%327,385.78 100.680 332,243.01 2,789.50 335,032.51 1.825%4,857.23 Aaa AA+1.63 1.59 3.11% 912828B90 Treasury, United States Department of 2.000%02/28/21 315,000 05/31/19 314,310.94 2.127%314,344.79 100.301 315,947.52 2,105.71 318,053.23 1.816%1,602.73 Aaa AA+1.67 1.63 2.96% 9128284B3 Treasury, United States Department of 2.375%03/15/21 340,000 03/28/18 339,455.47 2.431%339,682.87 100.965 343,280.32 2,369.84 345,650.16 1.800%3,597.45 Aaa AA+1.71 1.66 3.21% 912828C57 Treasury, United States Department of 2.250%03/31/21 315,000 05/31/19 315,762.89 2.114%315,729.06 100.777 317,448.50 1,781.56 319,230.05 1.798%1,719.43 Aaa AA+1.75 1.71 2.97% 912828WG1 Treasury, United States Department of 2.250%04/30/21 315,000 05/31/19 315,922.85 2.093%315,883.31 100.840 317,645.37 1,194.09 318,839.46 1.783%1,762.06 Aaa AA+1.84 1.79 2.97% 9128284P2 Treasury, United States Department of 2.625%05/15/21 330,000 07/30/18 328,723.83 2.769%329,139.07 101.543 335,091.90 1,106.35 336,198.25 1.786%5,952.83 Aaa AA+1.88 1.83 3.14% 9128284T4 Treasury, United States Department of 2.625%06/15/21 440,000 01/15/19 440,928.13 2.534%440,760.29 101.668 447,339.20 504.92 447,844.12 1.757%6,578.91 Aaa AA+1.96 1.91 4.19% 912828Y20 Treasury, United States Department of 2.625%07/15/21 440,000 09/26/18 436,803.13 2.896%437,655.95 101.731 447,614.20 5,328.31 452,942.51 1.760%9,958.25 Aaa AA+2.04 1.97 4.19% 912828WY2 Treasury, United States Department of 2.250%07/31/21 440,000 01/15/19 436,940.63 2.534%437,482.78 100.992 444,365.68 4,129.56 448,495.24 1.764%6,882.90 Aaa AA+2.09 2.02 4.16% 912828D72 Treasury, United States Department of 2.000%08/31/21 250,000 02/15/19 246,748.05 2.533%247,211.65 100.531 251,328.00 1,671.20 252,999.20 1.749%4,116.35 Aaa AA+2.17 2.11 2.35% 9128285A4 Treasury, United States Department of 2.750%09/15/21 300,000 09/26/18 298,722.65 2.900%299,042.17 102.219 306,656.40 2,421.20 309,077.60 1.724%7,614.23 Aaa AA+2.21 2.13 2.87% 912828F21 Treasury, United States Department of 2.125%09/30/21 435,000 12/20/18 428,491.99 2.687%429,702.35 100.844 438,670.53 2,323.57 440,994.10 1.742%8,968.18 Aaa AA+2.25 2.19 4.10% 9128285L0 Treasury, United States Department of 2.875%11/15/21 435,000 12/20/18 437,090.04 2.701%436,724.75 102.633 446,452.68 1,597.27 448,049.95 1.741%9,727.93 Aaa AA+2.38 2.29 4.18% 9128285R7 Treasury, United States Department of 2.625%12/15/21 250,000 01/15/19 250,664.06 2.529%250,565.20 102.191 255,478.50 286.89 255,765.39 1.713%4,913.30 Aaa AA+2.46 2.38 2.39% 912828G87 Treasury, United States Department of 2.125%12/31/21 285,000 03/28/19 284,242.97 2.224%284,316.77 100.965 287,749.68 16.46 287,766.14 1.730%3,432.91 Aaa AA+2.51 2.41 2.69% 912828V72 Treasury, United States Department of 1.875%01/31/22 315,000 05/31/19 313,621.88 2.044%313,666.59 100.352 316,107.54 2,463.66 318,571.20 1.735%2,440.95 Aaa AA+2.59 2.50 2.96% 912828SF8 Treasury, United States Department of 2.000%02/15/22 315,000 05/31/19 314,778.52 2.026%314,786.80 100.707 317,227.05 2,366.85 319,593.90 1.724%2,440.25 Aaa AA+2.63 2.54 2.97% 912828W55 Treasury, United States Department of 1.875%02/28/22 100,000 02/15/19 98,101.56 2.528%98,326.12 100.371 100,371.10 626.70 100,997.80 1.732%2,044.98 Aaa AA+2.67 2.58 0.94% 9128286H8 Treasury, United States Department of 2.375%03/15/22 285,000 03/28/19 286,425.00 2.200%286,304.86 101.781 290,076.42 1,986.48 292,062.90 1.700%3,771.56 Aaa AA+2.71 2.61 2.71% 912828XG0 Treasury, United States Department of 2.125%06/30/22 150,000 02/15/19 148,089.85 2.521%148,296.38 101.180 151,769.55 8.66 151,778.21 1.721%3,473.17 Aaa AA+3.00 2.87 1.42% 912828L57 Treasury, United States Department of 1.750%09/30/22 375,000 06/27/19 374,765.63 1.770%374,766.54 100.070 375,263.63 1,649.59 376,913.22 1.727%497.09 Aaa AA+3.25 3.14 3.51% Total U.S. Treasury Bonds 6,945,000 6,919,649.06 2.438%6,925,246.46 7,023,589.27 40,435.25 7,064,024.52 1.758%98,342.81 Aaa AA+2.20 2.13 65.72% Federal Agency Bonds 3137EAEK1 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 1.875%11/17/20 450,000 12/08/17 448,533.00 1.989%449,303.74 99.969 449,858.25 1,031.25 450,889.50 1.898%554.51 Aaa AA+1.39 1.36 4.21% 3137EAEL9 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 2.375%02/16/21 525,000 04/19/18 521,808.00 2.599%523,139.21 100.866 529,545.98 4,675.78 534,221.76 1.834%6,406.77 Aaa AA+1.64 1.58 4.95% 3135G0U92 Federal National Mortgage Association, Inc.2.625%01/11/22 130,000 01/11/19 129,906.40 2.650%129,920.66 102.077 132,699.71 1,611.46 134,311.17 1.784%2,779.05 Aaa AA+2.54 2.42 1.24% Total Federal Agency Bonds 1,105,000 1,100,247.40 2.357%1,102,363.61 1,112,103.94 7,318.49 1,119,422.42 1.854%9,740.33 Aaa AA+1.64 1.59 10.41% Agency Mortgage Backed Securities 3137AXHP1 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 2.573%09/25/22 320,000 05/07/19 319,687.50 2.563%319,676.39 101.476 324,723.46 686.13 325,409.59 2.040%5,047.06 Aaa AA+3.14 2.99 3.04% Total Agency Mortgage Backed Securities 320,000 319,687.50 2.563%319,676.39 324,723.46 686.13 325,409.59 2.040%5,047.06 Aaa AA+3.14 2.99 3.04% Corporate Bonds 594918BN3 Microsoft Corporation 1.100%08/08/19 75,000 08/08/16 74,922.75 1.135%74,997.26 99.881 74,910.75 327.71 75,238.46 2.164%-86.51 Aaa AAA 0.11 0.11 0.70% 037833CZ1 Apple Inc.1.500%09/12/19 120,000 09/12/17 119,896.80 1.544%119,989.65 99.822 119,786.52 545.00 120,331.52 2.359%-203.13 Aa1 AA+0.20 0.20 1.12% 375558BR3 Gilead Sciences, Inc.1.850%09/20/19 55,000 09/21/17 54,980.75 1.868%54,997.85 99.881 54,934.55 285.47 55,220.02 2.363%-63.30 A3 A 0.22 0.23 0.51% 931142DY6 Walmart Inc.1.750%10/09/19 45,000 10/20/17 44,999.10 1.751%44,999.86 99.830 44,923.59 179.38 45,102.97 2.350%-76.27 Aa2 AA 0.28 0.28 0.42% 459200JN2 International Business Machines Corporation 1.900%01/27/20 300,000 01/27/17 299,712.00 1.933%299,943.84 99.800 299,398.80 2,438.33 301,837.13 2.248%-545.04 A1 A 0.58 0.57 2.80% 594918BV5 Microsoft Corporation 1.850%02/06/20 150,000 02/06/17 149,899.50 1.873%149,979.48 99.786 149,678.55 1,117.71 150,796.26 2.207%-300.93 Aaa AAA 0.61 0.59 1.40% 25468PDP8 TWDC Enterprise 18 Corp.1.950%03/04/20 300,000 03/20/17 298,956.00 2.072%299,755.77 99.737 299,210.10 1,901.25 301,111.35 2.339%-545.67 A2 A 0.68 0.67 2.80% 037833CS7 Apple Inc.1.800%05/11/20 125,000 05/11/17 124,872.50 1.835%124,962.69 99.757 124,695.88 312.50 125,008.38 2.083%-266.82 Aa1 AA+0.87 0.86 1.17% 458140AZ3 Intel Corporation 1.850%05/11/20 250,000 05/11/17 249,905.00 1.863%249,972.19 99.641 249,101.75 642.36 249,744.11 2.269%-870.44 A1 A+0.87 0.86 2.33% 02665WCH2 American Honda Finance Corporation 3.000%06/16/20 75,000 07/16/18 74,898.75 3.074%74,948.02 100.700 75,525.08 93.75 75,618.83 2.263%577.06 A2 A 0.96 0.95 0.71% 931142EG4 Walmart Inc.2.850%06/23/20 325,000 06/27/18 324,899.25 2.866%324,949.39 100.670 327,176.85 205.83 327,382.68 2.160%2,227.46 Aa2 AA 0.98 0.97 3.06% 02665WCP4 American Honda Finance Corporation 3.375%12/10/21 175,000 10/10/18 174,916.00 3.392%174,930.16 102.578 179,511.33 344.53 179,855.86 2.287%4,581.17 A2 A 2.45 2.34 1.68% Total Corporate Bonds 1,995,000 1,992,858.40 2.198%1,994,426.16 1,998,853.74 8,393.82 2,007,247.55 2.249%4,427.58 A1 A+0.84 0.82 18.70% 5.1.b Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©11 Portfolio Details: June 30, 2019 PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS (CONTINUED) Purchase Original Yield Amortized Market Market Value Accrued Market Value Yield Gain/Moody's S&P Effective Modified % Market CUSIP Issuer Name Coupon Maturity Par Value Date Cost Value on Cost Book Value Price w/o Accrued Interest w/ Accrued on Market Loss Rating Rating Maturity Duration Value Asset Backed Securities 17305EFW0 Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust 1.750%11/19/19 200,000 09/24/18 197,429.69 2.885%199,138.62 99.799 199,597.82 408.33 200,006.15 2.266%459.20 Aaa AAA 0.39 0.39 1.87% Total Asset Backed Securities 200,000 197,429.69 2.885%199,138.62 199,597.82 408.33 200,006.15 2.266%459.20 Aaa AAA 0.39 0.39 1.87% Portfolio Totals 2.258%10,593,747 10,558,619.44 2.395%10,569,598.62 100.886 10,687,615.61 57,314.13 10,744,929.73 1.879%118,016.98 Aa1 AA 1.88 1.82 100% 5.1.b Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©12 Portfolio Performance: June 30, 2019 Source: Bloomberg, ICE BAML, PTA calculations Notes: 1.Performance on trade-date basis, gross (i.e., before fees). 2. ICE BofA Merrill Lynch Indices provided by Bloomberg Financial Markets. 3.Includes money market fund in performance computations. 4.Returns presented for less than 12 months are presented on an unannualized periodic basis 5.Returns presented for 12 months or longer are presented on an annualized basis. 6.Since inception performance is calculated from December 1, 2012 to present. Total Return Current Prior 3 Prior 12 Year to 3-Years 5-Years 12/01/12 as of 06/30/2019 Month Months Months Date City of San Jacinto 0.50 1.42 4.00 2.51 1.40 1.28 1.12 ICE BofA Merrill 1-3 Year Treasury 0.52 1.44 3.96 2.44 1.29 1.21 1.04 ICE BofA Merrill 1-3 Year AAA-A Corp & Govt 0.55 1.46 4.16 2.59 1.49 1.37 1.21 Average Annualized Returns 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 Prior 3 Months Prior 12 Months Year to Date Inception City of San Jacinto ICE BofA Merrill 1-3 Year Treasury ICE BofA Merrill 1-3 Year AAA-A Corp & Govt 5.1.b Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©13 Portfolio Compliance: June 30, 2019 PORTFOLIO COMPLIANCE Section Description Compliance Requirement PTA Comment IX. 2 U.S. Treasury No limitations Compliant IX. 3 Federal Agency No limitations Compliant IX. 11 LAIF 70% total portfolio limit, up to the maximum permitted balance Compliant IX. 1 Municipal Bonds Rated in 4 highest general classifications by nationally recognized rating service; 5% issuer limitation Compliant IX. 4 Bankers Acceptances Rated A1 or better and have long term debt rated A or better by 2 NRSRO's; Maturity ≤ to 180 days, 40% total portfolio limit, 5% issuer limit Compliant IX. 5 Federally Insured Time Deposits Limited to amounts covered under federal insurance; 5-year maturity limit Compliant IX. 6 Time Deposits Fully collateralized per CA law, 20% limit when combined with IX. 5; Issuer must have long-term debt rated A or higher or short-term debt rated A1 or higher by 2 NRSRO's, 5-year maturity limit Compliant IX. 7 CDARS 30% limit in combination of CD's (including CDARS); 5-year maturity limit Compliant IX. 8 Negotiable CD's Issuer must have long-term debt rated A or higher and/or short-term debt rated A1 or higher by 2 NRSRO's; Maturity ≤ to 5 years, 30% total portfolio limit, 5% issuer limit Compliant IX. 9 Repurchase Agreements Collateralized at 102% in accordance with policy; 1-year maturity limit, no % portfolio limit, collateral held by custodian bank; Subject to master repurchase agreement substantially in SIFMA's form Compliant IX. 10 Commercial Paper Issuer is organized and operating in the U.S. with assets of at least $500 million; Issuer short-term ratings of A1 or higher and long-term ratings of A or higher by 2 NRSRO's; Maturity ≤ 270 days; 25% total portfolio limit; 5% issuer limit Compliant IX. 12 Local Government Investment Pools Riverside County Investment Fund limited to 70% of the portfolio; JPA Pools limited to 50% of the portfolio Compliant Section Description Compliance Requirement PTA Comment IX. 16 Mutual Funds Authorized by CA Government Code Section 53601 Compliant X.A.1 Futures and Options Prohibited Compliant X.A.3 Potential Zero Accruals Prohibited Compliant X.A.5 Purchases on Margin Prohibited Compliant X.A.6 Reverse Repos & Leverage Prohibited Compliant X.A.7 Foreign $ Securities Prohibited Compliant X.B.2 Single Issuer Limitation 5% issuer limitation, except U.S. Government and its agencies & enterprises Compliant X.C.2 Callable Securities 20% of total portfolio (excluding Make Whole Call securities)Compliant X.C.3 Maximum Maturity Individual security maturities limited to 5 years or less Compliant Corporate Bonds Corporations organized and operating in the U.S. or depository institutions licensed by the U.S. or any state and operating in the U.S.; Rated in the A category or better by 2 NRSRO's, 5-year maturity limit; 30% total portfolio limit, 5% issuer limit CompliantIX. 13 IX. 14 Pass-Through Securities Issuer debt rated at least A by 2 NRSRO; Must be rated in the AA category by 2 NRSRO's; 20% total portfolio limit, 5-year maturity limit Compliant IX. 15 Money Market Funds Registered with SEC under 1940 Act, have highest ranking by 2 NRSRO's; Retained advisor registered (or exempt from registration) with 5 years experience investing in securities authorized by CA 53601 and at least $500 million of assets; 20% total portfolio limit, 10% per fund limit Compliant X.A.2 Inverse Floaters, Range Notes, and IO Strips Prohibited Compliant X.C.4 Portfolio Duration Limitation Average portfolio duration will be managed to be approximatly equal to the Market Benchmark selected by the City (typically +/- 20 of benchmark duration)Compliant 5.1.b Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 ©14 Portfolio Strategy Review and Outlook Portfolio Strategy Review The City of San Jacinto’s portfolio remains invested in high credit quality securities of appropriate maturity and duration. The portfolio is invested is U.S.Treasury &Agency securities as well as high-quality corporate and pass-through bonds that generate a yield premium over Treasuries. As concerns over global and domestic growth weighed on market sentiment and expectations for rate cuts by the Federal Reserve grew,PTA extended portfolio duration to effectively neutral relative to its benchmark. During the year,PTA reduced the portfolio’s allocation to non- government securities as yield spreads to duration-matched Treasury securities remained narrow and offered little protection against possible spread widening. PTA modestly increased the portfolio’s allocation to the agency CMBS and ABS sectors to take advantage of relatively attractive spreads to duration-matched Treasuries. To avoid cashflow uncertainty and protect the portfolio duration from substantial and unpredictable movements,PTA continued to favor non-callable security structures. PTA continued to emphasize safety and liquidity in its management strategies and executed numerous rebalancing transactions over the year designed to maintain an appropriate risk/return profile. Please see Page 12 for portfolio return information. The Federal Reserve raised the Federal Funds rate at the September and December 2018 FOMC meetings.In response to mounting growth concerns,the Fed reduced the Fed Funds rate by 25 basis points at its July 31,2019 FOMC meeting for the first time in more than a decade. Market implied expectations are pricing in two additional rate cuts over the next 12 months.At the July 31,2019 FOMC meeting,the Fed noted that it is prepared to “act as appropriate”to keep the expansion going. At present,PTA anticipates maintaining portfolio duration approximately neutral to the benchmark and may execute tactical rebalancing transactions as incoming data shapes forward interest rate expectations. As the credit cycle matures and credit spreads for highly rated non-governmental issuers remain narrow,PTA will remain diligent in its allocation to corporate and non-governmental bonds and review opportunities to increase that allocation should valuations become more attractive. PTA will continue to pursue prudent strategies for adding value which include opportunities that capitalize on sector spreads,yield curve value,duration rebalancing,optionality, and security swaps to generate additional earnings for the portfolio. Portfolio Strategy Outlook 5.1.b Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS™ 2019 © Disclosures This presentation is for informational purposes only. All information is assumed to be correct, but the accuracy has not been confirmed and therefore is not guaranteed to be correct. Information is obtained from third party sources that may or may not be verified. The information presented should not be used in making any investment decisions. The presentation is not a recommendation to buy, sell, implement, or change any securities or investment strategy, function, or process. Any financial and/or investment decision should be made only after considerable research, consideration, and involvement with an experienced professional engaged for the specific purpose. All comments and discussion presented are purely based on opinion and assumptions, not fact. These assumptions may or may not be correct based on foreseen and unforeseen events. All calculations and results presented and are for discussion purposes only and should not be used for making and calculations and/or decisions. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Any financial and/or investment decision may incur losses. Public Trust Advisors is an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is required to maintain a written disclosure statement of our background and business experience. If you would like to receive a copy of our current disclosure statement, privacy policy, or code of ethics, please contact Service Operations at the address below. The investment advisor providing these services is Public Trust Advisors, LLC (Public Trust), an investment adviser registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended. Registration with the SEC does not imply a certain level of skill or training. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources that we believe to be reliable, but its accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. There is no guarantee that investment strategies will achieve the desired results under all market conditions, and each investor should evaluate its ability to invest long-term, especially during periods of a market downturn. This information may contain statements, estimates, or projections that constitute “forward-looking statements” as defined under U.S. federal and other jurisdictions’ securities laws. Any such forward looking statements are inherently speculative and are based on currently available information, operating plans, and projections about future events and trends. As such, they are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties. Actual results and performance may be significantly different from historical experience and our present expectations or projections. The materials in the attached are opinions of Public Trust Advisors, LLC and should not be construed as investment advice. Performance comparisons will be affected by changes in interest rates. Investment returns fluctuate due to changes in market conditions. Investing involves risk including the possible loss of principal. Information provided is from similarly managed discretionary portfolios for public entities. No assurance can be given that the performance objectives of a given strategy will be achieved. 15 5.1.b Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Annual Portfolio Review_2019 (Investment Portfolio Review with Advisors) August 6, 2019 TO: City Council REQUESTED BY: Tom Prill, Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: Robert A. Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Reduction of Affordability Period Related to Affordability Covenants RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Directors of the Housing Authority of the City of San Jacinto (“Housing Authority”), as the successor to the former San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency (“former RDA”), by motion: 1. Adopt an amendment to the Down Payment Assistance Program (“DPAP”) to reduce the affordability period applicable to recorded DPAP Affordability Covenants from 45 years to five years, consistent with similar affordability period requirements imposed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”); and 2. Authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to execute such documents as necessary to implement this change, including release of Affordability Covenants upon expiration of the reduced affordability period. DISCUSSION: In 2009, the former RDA implemented the DPAP to provide qualified homebuyers with non- repayable grants, generally in the amount of $10,000, to purchase homes within the City of San Jacinto (“DPAP Grants”). The DPAP Grants were designed to provide qualified homebuyers with an amount not to exceed 6% of the home sales price for use as a down payment or to pay closing costs. The purpose of the program was to increase the supply of affordable housing within the City of San Jacinto (the “City”). The DPAP Grants were funded by using proceeds from the former RDA’s 2005 tax-exempt bonds. DPAP Grants were provided to persons and families with an income level under 120% of Area Median Income (AMI), and meeting other requirements of the program (“Qualified Homebuyer”). In order to receive the DPAP Grant, a Qualified Homebuyer was required to agree to occupy the home as a primary residence, and to record a 45 year affordability covenant against the property (“Affordability Covenant”). During the 45 year period, the property may be sold, devised or transferred only to another Qualified Homebuyer at an affordable housing price (which is an amount established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development). As the successor to the former RDA, the Housing Authority currently manages the Affordability Covenants associated with the DPAP. 6.1 Packet Pg. 269 Tax-exempt bonds may not be used for making loans, as doing so will threaten the tax -exempt status of the funds, and could have negative tax implications for the City. Therefore, the DPAP funds were specifically provided as non-repayable grants, and the Affordability Covenant associated with the DPAP is a “lock-down” covenant. This means that for the full Affordability Covenant period the Qualified Homebuyer cannot simply buy-out the covenant (pay the funds back to the Housing Authority) to remove the covenant from title. Thus, for 45 years, the Qualified Homebuyer is restricted from selling their property to any willing buyer at fair market value, and must instead find another Qualified Homebuyer, and sell their property at an affordable housing price. During the downturn in the economy, the Housing Authority experienced several hardship circumstances where a Qualified Homebuyer had to sell their property (to move out of state, or for other reasons), and was unable to locate another Qualified Homebuyer. The Housing Authority made case-by-case documented hardship findings, and allowed release of several Affordability Covenants based on repayment of the grant, which funds were used for bond redemptions. Following these issues, the City and the Housing Authority undertook a study to see if market conditions would justify release of covenants under extenuating circumstances. The study did not find changed market conditions that would provide such a justification (in 2014), but did find that it could be difficult to find qualified homebuyers who would be able to obtain financing. The Housing Authority has now had some recent issues that have led the agency to revisit the DPAP. The term of the Affordability Covenant, 45 years, was based on former RDA rules for covenants for single-family affordable housing that are no longer in effect. The 45 year lock - down covenant, based on the limited amount of the DPAP Grant (most grants were $10,000 or less), seems to be excessive, especially in comparison with similar programs implemented by HUD. The Housing Authority compared the DPAP with HUD assisted single family residential assistance programs and noted a large disparity. For the HOME Investment Partnerships program (“HOME”), the resale (or “lock-down” period) for an affordability covenant, where under $15,000 of HOME funding is provided, is five years. The longest affordability covenant period required by HUD under the HOME program is 15 years, and that is for a HOME program investment of over $40,000. If the total HOME investment in the unit is: The period of affordability is: Under $15,000 5 years Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 years Over $40,000 15 years 6.1 Packet Pg. 270 In comparison, the DPAP Affordability Covenant period seems to be excessive, especially where there are no current redevelopment laws that would require such a long covenant period. The 45 year Affordability Covenant period, if it is not shortened, will inhibit the free exchange of property within the City. It can be difficult, time consuming and sometimes impossible to locate another Qualified Homebuyer, rather than to sell a home to an interested buyer who makes an offer. Thus, the Affordability Covenant is very burdensome to City residents who accepted the DPAP Grant, who have lived in their homes for well over five years, and who may now want to move for a variety of factors. It is also time consuming for Housing Authority staff to address these issues on a case-by-case basis. This is especially difficult since there are no longer redevelopment funds or any other funding source available to pay staff costs related to managing the Affordability Covenants. In order to avoid putting staff in the position of making case-by case decisions related to requests for release of Affordability Covenants; to ensure all past DPAP Grant recipients are treated in a consistent manner; and to encourage the free market for housing to thrive in the City, following implementation of a more reasonable affordability period, staff recommends that the Housing Authority change the DPAP to shorten the Affordability Covenant period to be a period consistent with the requirements of HUD under the HOME Program. This would provide for an affordability period of five years. Staff proposes that for any current Affordability Covenants that have been maintained on title for over five years, staff will grant a release of the covenant upon request of the Qualified Homebuyer. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff believes that the change will have a positive financial impact by reducing staff time involved in making case-by-case findings and decisions related to requests for release of Affordability Covenants. Bond counsel also does not recommend accepting repayment of the grant funds as a practice, as this could threaten the tax-exempt status of the bonds. However, changing the affordability period will have no effect on the status of the tax-exempt bonds. Shortening the affordability period may also help increase the tax base in the City by allowing free market housing transactions to occur after the amended affordability period has already expired. 6.1 Packet Pg. 271