Loading...
11 November 25, 2019 Budget & ImplementationTime: Date: Location: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Budget and Implementation Committee 9:30 a.m. November 25, 2019 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administration Center 4080 Lemon St, First Floor, Riverside CA 92501 COMMITTEE MEMBERS Linda Krupa, Chair / Russ Brown, City of Hemet Lloyd White, Vice Chair / Julio Martinez, City of Beaumont Larry Smith / Linda Molina, City of Calimesa Randall Bonner / Jeremy Smith, City of Canyon Lake Raymond Gregory / Mark Carnevale, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Megan Beaman Jacinto, City of Coachella Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs STAFF Anne Mayer, Executive Director Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY Annual Budget Development and Oversight Competitive Federal and State Grant Programs Countywide Communications and Outreach Programs Countywide Strategic Plan Legislation Public Communications and Outreach Programs Short Range Transit Plans Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Lisa Middleton / Jon R. Roberts, City of Palm Springs Rusty Bailey, / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Michael Naggar/ Maryann Edwards, City of Temecula Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District II Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District III Commentsare welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide commentsto the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE www. rctc. orq AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Monday, November 25, 2019 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, California In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.orq. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Budget and Implementation Committee November 25, 2019 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 1 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2019; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. APPOINTMENT OF UNDERWRITERS FOR COMMISSION FINANCINGS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 87 1) Approve the selection of the following firms to provide underwriting services to the Commission in connection with long-term debt financings for a three-year period, with an option to extend for an additional two one-year periods: a) BofA Securities, Inc. (BofA); b) Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (Goldman Sachs); c) J.P. Morgan Chase O.P. Morgan); d) Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC (Siebert); and e) Wells Fargo Securities (Wells Fargo); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Budget and Implementation Committee November 25, 2019 Page 3 9. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE SALT CREEK TRAIL Page 90 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the additional amount of $594,203 for a total amount of $5,684,203 to fully fund construction of the Salt Creek Trail project; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study (LRTS); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. TRANSIT AND INTERCITY RAIL CAPITAL PROGRAM MASTER AGREEMENT Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 93 Page 452 1) Approve Agreement No. 20-25-017-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for implementing projects when the Commission is the lead agency for transit projects funded by the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 19-018, "Resolution of The Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Authorization for The Execution of A Master Agreement and Program Supplements For The State -Funded Projects" 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. BYLAWS OF THE CITIZENS AND SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ADVISORY COUNCIL Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 512 1) Approve the revised bylaws of the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Council (CAC/SSTAC); Budget and Implementation Committee November 25, 2019 Page 4 2) Rename the CAC/SSTAC to the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council (CSTAC); and 3) Forward to Commission for final action. 13. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 14. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 15. ADJOURNMENT The next Budget and Implementation Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Monday, December 23, 2019, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 6 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Monday, September 23, 2019 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Budget and Implementation Committee was called to order by Chair Linda Krupa at 9:32 a.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Rusty Bailey Randall Bonner Raymond Gregory Linda Krupa Bob Magee Scott Matas Larry Smith Karen Spiegel* Chuck Washington *Arrived after the meeting was called to order Steven Hernandez Lisa Middleton Michael Naggar Lloyd White 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Chuck Washington led the Budget and Implementation Committee in a flag salute. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — AUGUST 26, 2019 M/S/C (Bailey/Smith) to approve the minutes of August 26, 2019 meeting as submitted. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 23, 2019 Page 2 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. M/S/C (Gregory/Washington) to approve the following Consent Calendar item(s): Abstain: Bonner 7A. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS 1) Receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 1, 2019; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7B. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2019; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7C. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2019; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Manager, presented an update for the state and federal legislative activities. Anne Mayer referred to SB 277 and stated that Senator Roth is a co-author of this bill and that the Riverside County Delegation was unanimous in its support for the bill. She explained in the Legislature it was 70-0 votes in favor of SB 277, full Riverside County Delegation voted in support of this bill, and the on the Senate side the vote was 37-1. The Commission hopes that the Governor will approve that bill and expressed appreciation to the Riverside County Delegation. At this time, Commissioner Karen Spiegel joined the meeting. RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 23, 2019 Page 3 1) Receive and file an update on state and federal legislation; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. 2020 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ADOPTED FUND ESTIMATE AND PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Shirley Medina, presented the 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) adopted Fund Estimate and project recommendations, highlighting the following: • 2020 STIP Adoption — March 25, 2020 CTC meeting; Statewide new programming capacity - $407 million; and Riverside County new programming capacity - $21.274 million • Lower STIP Fund Estimate: o SB 1 increased the incremental excise tax to 17.8 cents per gallon with annual adjustments for inflation beginning in FY 2020/21, which will stabilize revenues in future STIP cycles o Fuel efficiencies o Over programming and project advancements in 2018 STIP • Table that demonstrates each STIP cycle and how much has been received since 2008 • 2020 STIP Fund Estimate for Riverside County • 2020 STIP Programming — Western Riverside County Project recommendation: 71/91 interchange, $66,376,513 • Coachella Valley Recommendation - $4,472,007 upon approval of CVAG Executive Committee end of September o 2 percent PPM - $425,480 — proposed programming in FY 2022/23 o 2018 STIP carryover project: 1-15 French Valley interchange, $47,600 programming in FY 2020/21 • Next steps: CTC 2020 STIP Adoption — March 25, 2019; STIP submittal due date — December 15, 2019; and County's submit proposed STIP projects to SCAG — September 28, 2019 M/S/C (Washington/Smith) to: 1) Approve programming $16,376,513 of 2020 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Western Riverside County and Palo Verde Valley funding capacity and $50 million made available from the STIP AB 3090 replacement placeholder for a total of $66,376,513 to the State Route 71/State Route 91 (71/91) Direct Connector project, and forward to the California Transportation Commission (CTC); 2) Include programming $4,472,007 of 2020 STIP Coachella Valley funding capacity based on the project recommendation by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and forward to the CTC; RCTC Budget and Implementation Committee Minutes September 23, 2019 Page 4 3) Include programming Planning, Programming, and Monitoring (PPM) funds (2 percent of STIP programming capacity) in the amount of $425,480 in Fiscal Year 2022/23; 4) Submit the 2020 STIP submittal to CTC by the statutory deadline of December 15, 2019; 5) Forward the Riverside County 2020 STIP project recommendations to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to conduct regional performance measures analysis as required by the CTC STIP guidelines; 6) Approve Agreement No. 07-71-028-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 07-71-028-00, with the city of Blythe (Blythe) to trade $89,649 of Palo Verde Valley STIP funds with Measure A Western Riverside County Highway funds to facilitate delivery of local arterial projects; 7) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute Agreement No. 07-71-028-03 on behalf of the Commission upon CTC adoption of the 2020 STIP in March 2020; 8) Authorize the Executive Director to seek and pursue competitive funding opportunities for the 71/91 Interchange project; and 9) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the consent calendar. 11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 11A. Anne Mayer announced on September 27 is the 2019 Mobility 21 Southern California Transportation Summit and several Commissioners will be attending. Chair Washington will be on a Chairman's Roundtable Panel on Friday morning. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Budget and Implementation Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 9:48 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Mobley Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 25, 2019 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Megan Kavand, Senior Financial Analyst Michele Cisneros, Deputy Finance Director THROUGH: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2019; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prior to Fiscal Year 2013/14, the Commission's quarterly investment reports reflected investments primarily concentrated in the Riverside County Pooled Investment Fund. Other investments included the state Local Agency Investment Fund and mutual funds. As a result of significant project financings such as the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project or 91 CIP) and the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (1-15 ELP), the Commission determined it would be prudent to engage an investment manager for the bond proceeds and other required funds. Additionally, the Commission desired to engage an investment manager to provide investment advisory and management services related to the Commission's operating funds. In May 2013, following a competitive procurement, the Commission awarded two investment management services agreements to Logan Circle Partners, L.P. (Logan) for the 91 Project's proceeds generated from the issuance of sales tax revenue bonds and toll revenue bonds and to Payden & Rygel Investment Management (Payden & Rygel) for Commission operating funds. At its April 2017 meeting and based on a competitive procurement, the Commission awarded an investment management services agreement to Logan related to the issuance of the sales tax revenue bonds for the 1-15 ELP. Commencing in July 2013, Logan invested the 91 Project debt proceeds and subsequent 91 Project equity contributions in separate accounts of the Short -Term Actively Managed Program (STAMP). Consistent with financing expectations, the Commission expended substantially all of the 91 Project debt proceeds and equity contributions, except for the toll Agenda Item 7A 1 revenue bonds debt service reserve, and subsequent to commencement of operations, established other required accounts. The Commission authorized Payden & Rygel to make specific investments for the Commission's operating funds beginning with the third quarter of FY 2014/15. In July 2017, the 1-15 ELP project and 91 Project completion financing (2017 Financing) was completed and sales tax bond proceeds were in accounts of a separate STAMP portfolio during the first quarter of FY 2017/18. The quarterly investment report for the first quarter of FY 2019/20, as required by state law and Commission policy, reflects the investment activities resulting from the 91 Project, 2017 Financing, and available operating cash. The quarterly investment report includes the following information: • Investment Portfolio Report; • 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Investment Category; • 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Account; • 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account; • 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Summary of investments by credit rating, industry group, asset class, security type, and market sector; • 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Toll Revenue Series A & Series B Reserve Fund Summary of investments by credit rating, industry group, asset class, security type, and market sector; • 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Residual Fund Required Retained Balance Summary of investments by credit rating, industry group, asset class, security type, and market sector; • 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio TIFIA Reserve Fund Summary of investments by credit rating, industry group, asset class, security type, and market sector; • 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio by Investment Category; • 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio by Account; • 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account; • 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Summary of investments by credit rating, industry group, asset class, security type, and market sector; • 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio 1-15 ELP Sales Tax Senior Lien TIFIA Project Fund Summary of investments by credit rating, industry group, asset class, security type, and market sector; • 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Ramp Up Fund Summary of investments by credit rating, industry group, asset class, security type, and market sector; • Logan Circle Partners, L.P. Short Duration Third Quarter 2019 Review; • Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio by Investment Category; • Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio Transaction Report; • Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio Third Quarter 2019 Review; and • County of Riverside Investment Report for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2019. The Commission's investments were in full compliance with the Commission's investment policy adopted on March 13, 2019, and investments securities permitted under the indenture for the Agenda Item 7A 2 Commission's sales tax revenue bonds and the master indentures for the Commission's toll revenue bonds. Additionally, the Commission has adequate cash flows for the next six months. Attachments: 1) Investment Portfolio Report 2) 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Investment Category 3) 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Account 4) 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account 5) 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Summary of Investments 6) 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Toll Revenue Series A & Series B Reserve Fund Summary of Investments 7) 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Residual Fund Required Retained Balance Summary of Investments 8) 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio TIFIA Reserve Fund Summary of Investments 9) 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio by Investment Category 10) 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio by Account 11) 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account 12) 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Summary of Investments 13) 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio 1-15 ELP Sales Tax Senior Lien TIFIA Project Fund Summary of Investments 14) 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Ramp Up Fund Summary of Investments 15) Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio by Investment Category 16) Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio Transaction Report 17) Logan Circle Partners, L.P. Short Duration Quarterly Review 18) Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio Quarterly Review 19) County of Riverside Investment Report Agenda Item 7A 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Investment Portfolio Report Period Ended: September 30, 2019 RATING COUPON PAR PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD TO PURCHASE MARKET UNREALIZED FAIR VALUE MOODYS / S&P RATE VALUE DATE DATE MATURITY COST VALUE GAIN (LOSS) OPERATING FUNDS City National Bank Deposits 28,692,137 A3/BBB+ N/A N/A County Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund 461,380,398 Aaa-bf/AAA-V1 N/A 2.22% Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 3,824,959 N/A N/A N/A Subtotal Operating Funds 493,897,493 FUNDS HELD IN TRUST County Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund: Local Transportation Fund 71,989,976 Aaa-bf/AAA-V1 N/A 2.22% Subtotal Funds Held in Trust 71,989,976 COMMISSION MANAGED PORTFOLIO US Bank Payden & Rygel Operating 53,461,309 See attached report for details First American Government Obligation Fund 42,621,783 N/A N/A N/A Subtotal Commission Managed Portfolio 96,083,093 STAMP PORTFOLIO for 91 CIP Series A & Series B Reserve Fund Residual Fund Required Retained Balance TIFIA Reserve Fund Subtotal STAMP Portfolio - 91 CIP STAMP PORTFOLIO for 2017 Financing Sales Tax 115 ELP Project Revenue Fund Sales Tax Revenue Fund Ramp Up Fund Subtotal STAMP Portfolio - 2017 Financing TOTAL All Cash and Investments $500,000,000 $450,000,000 $400,000,000 $350,000,000 $300,000,000 $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 $50,000,000 $- 18,452,103 23,745,846 20,130,897 62,328,846 57,519,699 8,254,209 65,773,909 $ 790,073,317 Nature of Investments • STAMP Portfolio for 91 CIP Reserve • STAMP Portfolio for 91 CIP Residual Fund • STAMP Portfolio for 91 CIP TIFIA Reserve Fund • STAMP Portfolio for 2017 Financing 115 ELP Project Revenue Fund • STAMP Portfolio for 2017 Financing Ramp Up Fund • Commission Managed Portfolio • Trust Funds • Operating Funds See attached report for details See attached report for details See attached report for details See attached report for details See attached report for details See attached report for details 0.43% Money Market Funds 22.56% Fixed Income 0.48% LAIF 5.39% Mutual Funds 71.14% County Pool/Cash 4 5 ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Investment Category for quarter ended September 30, 2019 Source Account Account Identifier Security Type Category Issuer Final Maturity Trade Date Current Face Value Next Call Original Cost Date Base Market Value Base Net Total Unrealized Gain/Loss Coupon Summarized Yield Credit Rating 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137EADB2 Agency Freddie Mac O1/13/2022 --- 950,000.00 942,921.50 --- 964,630.00 14,887.84 2.375 1.685 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137EADR7 Agency Freddie Mac 05/01/2020 05/15/2015 150,000.00 148,903.50 --- 149,559.00 (307.41) 1.375 1.881 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3135GOD75 Agency Federal National Mortgage Association 06/22/2020 05/06/2015 600,000.00 593,490.00 --- 598,326.00 (719.47) 1.500 1.887 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3130AFFX0 Agency Federal Home Loan Banks 11/16/2028 09/11/2019 185,000.00 205,766.25 --- 206,164.00 504.61 3.250 1.880 AAA 256350018 MIM-ROTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137EADB2 Agency Freddie Mac O1/13/2022 06/06/2019 500,000.00 505,766.50 --- 507,700.00 2,619.48 2.375 1.685 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137EADR7 Agency Freddie Mac 05/O1/2020 06/07/2019 175,000.00 173,909.75 --- 174,485.50 201.43 1.375 1.881 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3135GOD75 Agency Federal National Mortgage Association 06/22/2020 06/07/2019 650,000.00 646,269.00 --- 648,186.50 805.68 1.500 1.887 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136G4TH6 Agency Federal National Mortgage Association O1/30/2020 06/13/2019 300,000.00 300,289.38 --- 300,159.00 6.76 1.980 1.862 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3130AFFX0 Agency Federal Home Loan Banks 11/16/2028 09/11/2019 200,000.00 222,450.00 --- 222,880.00 545.53 3.250 1.880 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377REV3 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 10/20/2039 07/01/2019 80,246.45 81,838.84 --- 81,905.94 112.26 3.500 2.351 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377RVK8 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 04/20/2039 --- 96,801.84 98,733.12 --- 98,052.52 21.63 3.000 2.461 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137ABFH9 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 06/25/2021 07/22/2019 100,000.00 102,574.22 --- 102,637.00 321.34 3.989 2.054 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137AJMF8 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 10/25/2021 --- 52,024.86 53,425.42 --- 52,768.81 68.72 2.968 2.084 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38375XCM4 Agency CMO Govemment National Mortgage Association 11/16/2037 05/14/2019 64,050.08 65,864.00 --- 66,114.42 377.59 5.000 2.767 _AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38376GB33 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 10/16/2044 01/23/2015 18,597.48 19,089.67 --- 18,585.02 (21.21) 3.474 2.476 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137ASNH3 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 09/25/2021 07/03/2013 17,060.27 16,671.75 --- 17,023.93 _ (0.36) 1.459 2.223 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137ATRW4 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 05/25/2022 --- 282,110.00 278,085.13 --- 284,567.18 5,282.71 2.373 1.961 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137AUPE3 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 06/25/2022 --- 150,000.00 151,611.80 --- 151,440.00 709.88 2.396 1.963 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377RSZ9 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 06/16/2039 --- 32,788.02 33,817.20 --- 33,148.36 (30.03) 4.500 2.173 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136A72D3 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 04/25/2022 07/03/2013 259,368.58 246,400.15 --- 262,237.19 6,202.80 2.482 1.824 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136A5KR6 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 10/25/2022 01/25/2019 64,508.37 63,621.38 --- 64,210.99 439.10 1.750 2.115 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137AXHPI Agency CMO Freddie Mac 09/25/2022 09/29/2017 140,000.00 142,089.06 --- 142,273.60 1,105.63 2.573 1.941 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378B7F0 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 12/16/2042 --- 450,000.00 427,324.22 --- 447,277.50 10,026.56 2.273 2.399 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378CRT6 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 10/20/2040 05/22/2014 44,082.12 42,566.80 --- 44,069.34 1,237.27 2.000 1.984 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378HXH4 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 09/16/2027 03/08/2019 15,734.42 15,259.75 --- 15,445.22 157.73 1.250 2.067 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377JZ89 _ Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 10/20/2039 07/05/2013 42,075.87 43,362.80 --- 43,452.59 452.91 3.500 1.984 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378TAF7 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 07/20/2041 07/05/2013 110,626.18 110,642.85 --- 111,682.66 1,108.05 2.500 2.128 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137B4HDI Agency CMO Freddie Mac 12/15/2042 03/20/2019 40,195.99 41,514.93 --- 42,109.32 588.18 4.500 2.202 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38376GY53 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association O1/16/2040 08/06/2019 63,186.07 63,385.99 --- 63,514.00 163.26 3.526 2.465 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377LQT8 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 12/20/2037 --- 1,127.66 1,128.06 --- 1,126.55 (Lll) 3.000 1.919 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31398QTP2 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 05/15/2038 06/26/2018 45,832.37 46,729.33 --- 46,238.91 194.93 4.500 2.577 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137A5FP4 Agency CMO Freddie Mac O1/15/2021 --- 78,280.96 78,289.81 --- 78,529.89 281.27 2.500 2.070 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38376T5Z1 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association O1/16/2039 01/26/2015 66,309.90 69,277.27 --- 67,778.00 (465.09) 3.000 2.041 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38376WA62 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 10/20/2039 --- 183,972.19 188,600.19 --- 190,195.97 841.79 4.000 2.922 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38375CBH2 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 03/16/2035 03/19/2019 14,449.57 14,361.51 --- 14,426.16 16.88 1.250 2.364 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377QKH9 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 08/20/2040 08/20/2019 51,014.26 51,940.88 --- 52,085.55 135.31 3.000 2.258 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38380AZ34 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 04/20/2046 11/28/2016 129,838.26 133,474.75 --- 133,994.39 991.54 3.000 2.388 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 _ 38378CDK0 Agency CMO Govemment National Mortgage Association 03/20/2035 03/16/2018 12,469.96 12,528.41 --- 12,504.25 16.68 3.000 2.171 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378AWX5 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Associatiom O1/20/2036 03/28/2018 60,440.82 60,766.63 --- 60,805.28 202.02 3.000 2.140 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378DDC6 Agency CMO Govemment National Mortgage Association 04/20/2038 06/20/2018 71,461.31 71,944.23 --- 71,692.85 33.80 3.500 2.540 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38379HLE3 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 05/20/2043 10/18/2018 98,296.94 98,158.71 --- 101,040.40 2,884.73 3.500 2.167 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378VC45 _ Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 12/16/2041 11/23/2018 _ 139,338.98 134,309.72 --- 139,136.93 4,607.26 2.250 2.275 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377JM59 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 10/20/2039 11/21/2018 74,681.96 72,814.90 --- 74,563.21 1,603.82 2.500 2.525 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137B5A60 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 10/15/2028 03/20/2019 _ 23,515.84 23,251.29 --- 23,652.70 389.08 2.500 2.177 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136ADFF1 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 04/25/2023 06/10/2019 128,213.03 126,369.97 --- 126,946.28 500.41 1.500 2.194 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 383797M99 _ Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 02/16/2041 08/28/2019 54,183.13 54,532.36 --- 54,907.01 379.64 2.500 1.812 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137A1N90 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 06/25/2020 06/26/2018 63,881.49 64,465.41 --- 64,262.86 284.80 3.531 2.174 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38377REV3 Agency CMO Govemment National Mortgage Association 10/20/2039 07/01/2019 171,956.67 175,368.93 --- 175,512.73 240.57 3.500 2.351 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137ABFH9 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 06/25/2021 03/15/2019 206,000.00 209,846.41 --- 211,432.22 2,518.71 3.989 2.054 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31394GUX9 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 08/15/2023 07/02/2019 31,824.29 33,176.82 --- 33,412.64 298.83 5.500 2.125 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137APP53 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 10/25/2020 05/18/2018 1,683.65 1,662.94 --- 1,680.57 2.81 1.781 2.223 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38378BXQ7 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association O1/16/2036 06/17/2019 _ 180,301.49 178,498.47 --- 178,868.09 (66.88) 1.537 3.096 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31397LUK3 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 06/25/2023 10/10/2018 138,053.44 140,836.08 --- 141,166.55 1,265.76 4.500 2.107 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137ATRW4 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 05/25/2022 08/19/2019 _ 100,000.00 101,109.38 --- 100,871.00 (187.33) 2.373 1.961 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3136A72D3 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 04/25/2022 07/26/2019 36,114.60 36,325.97 --- 36,514.03 180.02 2.482 1.824 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3136A5KR6 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 10/25/2022 01/25/2019 99,094.19 97,731.64 --- 98,637.36 674.52 1.750 2.115 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137AYCE9 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 10/25/2022 08/13/2019 360,000.00 367,790.63 --- 367,196.40 (263.29) 2.682 1.934 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137A2PV7 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 09/15/2022 06/03/2019 30,358.89 29,827.60 --- 30,458.46 590.16 1.500 1.273 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137GAUY1 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 10/15/2022 08/15/2019 162,560.24 160,883.83 --- 161,965.26 1,049.97 1.500 1.703 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137A1LC5 _ Agency CMO Freddie Mac 08/15/2020 01/17/2018 3,380.35 3,369.26 --- 3,372.78 (2.32) 2.000 2.639 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137A5FP4 Agency CMO Freddie Mac O1/15/2021 01/30/2018 27,983.91 28,053.87 --- 28,072.90 63.96 2.500 2.070 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38375CBH2 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 03/16/2035 03/19/2019 25,348.79 25,194.33 --- 25,307.73 29.60 1.250 2.364 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38378CDK0 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 03/20/2035 01/30/2018 22,445.93 22,652.85 --- 22,507.65 (10.45) 3.000 2.171 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38378AWX5 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association O1/20/2036 01/30/2018 20,146.94 20,342.11 --- 20,268.43 20.40 3.000 2.140 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31358TPC7 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 02/25/2023 02/11/2019 98,513.03 98,815.69 --- 98,813.49 218.17 2.868 2.647 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3837404J7 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 07/20/2020 06/14/2019 71,389.49 72,237.25 --- 72,211.90 172.13 5.500 1.826 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38376PRM4 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 05/20/2038 06/18/2019 36,548.90 36,731.64 --- 36,787.93 84.80 4.000 2.282 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38377REV3 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 10/20/2039 07/O1/2019 85,978.34 87,684.47 --- 87,756.37 120.28 3.500 2.351 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137A6B27 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 10/25/2020 06/27/2019 248,008.62 253,472.55 --- 252,460.37 75.83 4.333 2.084 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137A2B26 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 08/25/2020 06/13/2019 219,325.01 221,929.49 --- 221,577.48 461.31 3.808 2.243 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137ABFH9 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 06/25/2041. --- 149,000.00 152,765.01 --- 152,929.13 726.47 3.989 2.054 AAA Page 2 of 37 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Investment Category for quarter ended September 30, 2019 Source Account 256350018 Account MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Rcse e Identifier 3137AH6C7 Securi Category AgencyCMO e Issuer Freddie Mac Final Maturity 07/25/2021 Trade Date 06/07/2019 Current Face Value 337,679.59 Next Call Original Cost Date 343,654.94 Base Market Value 342,407.10 Base Net Total Unrealized Gain/Loss (363.48) Coupon 3.230 Summarized Yield Credit Rating 2.260 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38376V2E6 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 07/16/2039 08/06/2019 124,473.02 129,529.74 --- 130,665.56 1,196.18 4.000 1.665 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AJMF8 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 10/25/2021 06/07/2019 331 067.26 336 291.92 --- 335 801.52 282.64 2.968 2.084 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378BSZ3 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 04/16/2040 06/25/2019 251,778.86 250,362.61 --- 250,779.30 291.97 2.141 2.361 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378BXQ7 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 01/16/2036 06/17/2019 243,407.01 240,972.94 --- 241,471.92 (90.30) 1.537 3.096 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137ATRW4 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 05/25/2022 06/28/2019 300,000.00 302,496.09 --- 302,613.00 373.98 2.373 1.961 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AUPE3 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 06/25/2022 06/28/2019 200,000.00 201,773.44 --- 201,920.00 321.33 2.396 1.963 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136A5KR6 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 10/25/2022 06/10/2019 194,302.33 192,845.06 --- 193,406.59 437.01 1.750 2.115 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AXHP1 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 09/25/2022 06/28/2019 150,000.00 152,232.42 --- 152,436.00 392.44 2.573 1.941 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BIUG5 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 01/25/2023 06/25/2019 200,000.00 204,101.56 --- 203,880.00 103.72 2.637 1.955 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378TAF7 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 07/20/2041 07/05/2019 119,845.02 120,069.74 --- 120,989.54 930.29 2.500 2.128 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136AGFQ0 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 12/25/2038 06/18/2019 184,558.40 186,887.00 --- 187,040.71 242.05 3.500 2.466 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137B6DF5 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 11/15/2026 06/18/2019 188,216.59 186,260.90 --- 188,728.54 2,413.45 2.000 1.847 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38376GY53 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 01/16/2040 08/06/2019 70,016.99 70,238.53 --- 70,380.38 180.90 3.526 2.465 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BDICF2 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 09/15/2040 --- 76,152.70 77,748.55 --- 78,269.74 559.62 3.500 2.017 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38377YTIA Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 05/20/2040 06/17/2019 218,960.30 216,291.72 --- 216,400.65 104.04 2.000 2.419 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38377QICH9 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 08/20/2040 08/20/2019 55,041.69 56,041.47 --- 56,197.56 145.98 3.000 2.258 AAA 256350018 M1M-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378BCG2 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 03/16/2037 06/25/2019 65,874.90 65,463.18 --- 65,602.84 311.16 2.105 2.675 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378WUY7 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 06/20/2041 06/12/2019 181,275.26 181,558.51 --- 182,299.47 754.01 2.500 2.096 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378CNY9 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 11/20/2038 06/25/2019 200,000.00 202,593.75 --- 202,130.00 20.29 3.500 2.534 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31397ALNI Agency CMO Freddie Mac 04/15/2032 06/18/2019 190,544.63 190,425.55 --- 190,603.70 264.48 2.378 2.355 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136ADFFI Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 04/25/2023 06/10/2019 135,754.97 133,803.49 --- 134,413.71 529.84 1.500 2.194 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AS7D0 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 04/15/2039 06/14/2019 197,536.20 196,054.68 --- 197,449.28 1,362.78 2.000 1.987 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137B3HX9 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 07/15/2038 06/20/2019 101,165.62 100,849.48 --- 101,596.59 823.91 2.478 2.230 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136AGZA3 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 09/25/2030 06/25/2019 31,534.57 31,745.21 --- 31,883.97 148.95 3.000 2.257 AAA 256350018 MIIVI-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38379JM99 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 02/16/2041 08/28/2019 58,351.06 58,727.15 --- 59,130.63 408.85 2.500 1.812 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381PEB0 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 11/01/2020 09/26/2014 247,264.94 260,362.26 --- 249,168.88 76.43 3.370 2.310 AAA 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3138NJAE8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 12/01/2020 09/13/2018 17,773.76 17,979.27 --- 17,757.23 (163.20) 3.630 3.779 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381N7G2 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 10/01/2020 09/25/2018 17,910.95 17,976.72 --- 18,013.04 33.42 3.270 2.369 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381SVJ8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 11/01/2021 02/22/2019 106,270.34 106,801.70 --- 108,661.42 2,039.20 3.330 2.128 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31417YICF3 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 01/01/2030 --- 126,087.58 132,133.91 --- 135,184.80 3,742.55 4.500 2.165 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 36202F2H8 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 01/20/2027 --- 143,521.14 147,929.02 --- 147,370.38 354.94 3.000 1.884 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381R5T7 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 09/01/2021 08/29/2018 130,000.00 132,747.27 --- 133,868.80 2,220.75 3.770 2.119 AAA 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136AC7J4 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/25/2023 02/21/2018 48,798.20 47,995.70 --- 49,772.70 1,521.64 2.605 1.880 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3138L33G8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 06/01/2020 11/12/2015 100,000.00 99,875.00 --- 99,707.00 (141.93) 2.010 2.238 AAA 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137BIU75 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 01/25/2023 08/29/2016 380,000.00 394,917.97 --- 384,643.60 (2,142.18) 2.522 1.997 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378KWU9 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 11/16/2041 --- 158,063.15 150,196.20 --- 154,805.47 2,305.22 1.400 2.388 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378ICXW4 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 02/16/2037 12/11/2014 100,381.64 99,895.42 --- 99,430.02 (764.57) 1.705 2.464 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137B IBSO Agency MBS Freddie Mac 11/25/2022 07/31/2019 360,000.00 363,360.94 --- 365,432.40 2,257.96 2.510 1.950 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3138L1W62 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 12/01/2022 02/21/2019 164,661.70 163,684.02 --- 164,171.01 409.86 2.500 2.567 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3138EICXL4 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/01/2023 --- 255,888.06 252,250.74 --- 258,853.80 5,030.06 2.353 1.915 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136AHAEO Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 04/25/2023 10/28/2016 111,299.92 113,699.82 --- 113,799.71 951.26 2.707 1.331 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378B6A2 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 11/16/2052 01/22/2015 112,395.85 108,852.74 --- 110,645.85 113.09 1.826 2.335 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136A7MN9 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 05/25/2022 08/29/2016 287,465.86 295,685.59 --- 289,935.19 (738.12) 2.349 1.876 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378KSL4 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 12/16/2046 --- 425,000.00 415,829.11 --- 430,979.75 12,167.44 2.814 2.606 AAA 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381Q6B7 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 06/01/2021 07/15/2016 181,129.26 200,883.67 --- 187,477.84 (519.76) 4.295 2.032 AAA 256350023 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378KRS0 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 07/16/2043 05/08/2015 450,000.00 434,460.94 --- 450,373.50 8,138.92 2.389 2.345 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378XP62 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 05/16/2055 05/14/2015 256,145.07 259,306.86 --- 257,218.31 (1,498.64) 2.500 2.391 AAA 256350023 MIEVI-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38379ICDN5 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 09/16/2055 08/05/2015 138,439.67 134,902.96 --- 138,313.69 1,241.91 2.138 2.468 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381T4E7 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/01/2022 10/25/2016 256,449.34 267,939.49 --- 261,126.98 (210.05) 2.670 1.717 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3138EJPZ5 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01/2022 08/29/2016 198,405.16 210,735.73 --- 203,045.86 (2,169.26) 3.022 1.910 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3620ARB67 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 05/15/2025 06/10/2019 109,858.38 113,857.91 --- 114,273.59 564.86 4.000 1.944 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137FBAJ5 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 08/25/2027 06/26/2019 200,000.00 211,593.75 --- 216,298.00 5,039.19 3.281 2.137 AAA 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3138LFGP7 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 10/01/2028 08/07/2019 275,000.00 284,356.45 --- 283,096.00 (1,118.38) 2.550 2.207 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137F4D41 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 01/25/2028 04/01/2019 35,000.00 36,714.84 --- 38,665.55 2,039.79 3.600 2.194 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381QB54 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/01/2021 11/07/2018 129,481.44 132,162.12 --- 132,510.02 1,485.28 4.410 2.251 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137FNAD2 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 11/25/2028 08/01/2019 134,874.69 137,566.52 --- 140,137.50 2,624.41 2.631 1.970 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31416BVR6 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 12/01/2020 01/17/2018 13,523.22 13,827.49 --- 13,948.66 331.50 5.000 -4.692 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31381RLL6 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01/2021 11/02/2018 52,475.83 53,254.78 --- 53,795.60 811.43 3.840 2.027 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31381SVJ8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 11/01/2021 02/22/2019 85,016.27 85,441.35 --- 86,929.13 1,631.36 3.330 2.128 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3128MMPP2 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 03/01/2027 05/10/2019 230,439.95 229,431.78 --- 232,843.44 3,405.45 2.500 2.098 AAA 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3128MMPY3 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 06/01/2027 05/10/2019 211,517.30 210,591.91 --- 213,736.12 3,125.06 2.500 2.103 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137B2GW4 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 03/25/2020 06/29/2018 91,913.95 91,317.94 --- 91,822.03 139.50 2.313 2.136 AAA 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137APP6I Agency MBS Freddie Mac 01/25/2022 09/06/2019 15,000.00 15,244.92 --- 15,192.60 (45.30) 2.789 2.067 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38378KW47 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 08/16/2035 06/13/2019 118,848.71 118,180.18 --- 118,425.61 127.67 2.150 2.512 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3138L1W62 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 12/01/2022 02/21/2019 125,917.77 125,170.13 --- 125,542.53 313.42 2.500 2.567 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3138EICXL4 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/01/2023 08/21/2019 55,327.15 55,949.58 --- 55,968.39 42.03 2.353 1.915 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31381RZ23 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 08/01/2021 11/02/2018 60,517.77 61,416.08 --- 62,043.43 920.93 3.840 2.129 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137AXHN6 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 02/25/2022 01/25/2018 24,409.92 24,074.29 --- 24,345.24 152.77 1.749 1.877 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3136AMM48 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/25/2022 08/01/2019 353,246.70 355,233.71 --- 356,669.66 1,506.75 2.509 1.976 AAA 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137AWQG3 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 04/25/202t --- 48,375.91 47,476.42 --- 48,109.84 386.90 1.583 1.928 AAA Page 3 of 37 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Investment Category for quarter ended September 30, 2019 Source Account Account Identifier Securi Category Issuer Final Maturity Trade Date Current Face Value Original Cost Next Call Date Base Market Value Base Net Total Unrealized Gain/Loss Coupon Summarized Yield Credit Rating 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3 397UPF0 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 06/25/2021 03/15/2019 150,092.08 152,249.65 --- 152,736.70 1,033.45 3.763 1.969 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137B IUF7 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 09/25/2022 01/25/2018 14,283.35 14,073.57 --- 14,259.36 117.44 1.785 1.827 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3620ARB67 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 05/15/2025 06/10/2019 71 957.23 74 576.93 --- 74 849.20 369.98 4.000 1.944 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31418CQM9 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 10/01/2027 09/11/2019 60,052.01 61,581.47 --- 61,484.25 (101.42) 3.000 2.122 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3140J6DU8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 08/01/2031 07/26/2019 212,125.44 213,550.65 --- 214,231.84 675.83 2.500 2.133 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3138L2GH4 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01/2021 --- 125,307.97 122,654.63 --- 125,212.73 1,770.10 1.870 1.854 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31381QB54 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/01/2021 11/07/2018 99,269.11 101,324.30 --- 101,591.02 1,138.72 4.410 2.251 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3138L8H23 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 12/01/2021 05/02/2019 68,303.62 68,090.24 --- 68,195.70 102.15 2.730 2.734 AAA 256350018 M1M-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3620AFYR2 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 12/15/2024 06/12/2019 104,521.85 107,922.90 --- 108,691.23 832.37 4.000 1.877 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 36297GCD0 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 02/15/2025 06/12/2019 105,129.59 109,552.44 --- 108,351.82 (932.55) 4.500 2.877 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31381SVJ8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 11/01/2021 07/22/2019 85,016.28 86,464.21 --- 86,929.14 593.34 3.330 2.128 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138EJRP5 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 06/01/2021 06/18/2019 150,846.32 155,396.82 --- 155,435.07 808.66 4.356 1.961 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31381R5T7 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 09/01/2021 06/20/2019 101,000.00 103,840.63 --- 104,005.76 538.37 3.770 2.119 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137B IU75 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 01/25/2023 06/27/2019 375,000.00 378,618.16 --- 379,582.50 1,313.61 2.522 1.997 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378KWU9 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 11/16/2041 --- 96,993.30 92,739.18 --- 94,994.27 2,083.66 1.400 2.388 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378KW47 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 08/16/2035 06/13/2019 307,521.03 305,791.23 --- 306,426.26 330.35 2.150 2.512 AAA 256350018 M1M-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BIBS0 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 11/25/2022 --- 645,000.00 652,086.14 --- 654,733.05 3,129.85 2.510 1.950 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138EKXL4 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/01/2023 08/21/2019 51,869.20 52,452.73 --- 52,470.37 39.40 2.353 1.915 AAA 256350018 M1M-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136AHAEO Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 04/25/2023 06/28/2019 133,123.43 134,352.16 --- 136,113.38 1,937.18 2.707 1.331 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136A7MN9 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 05/25/2022 08/22/2019 158,106.21 159,384.66 --- 159,464.35 135.23 2.349 1.876 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AWQG3 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 04/25/2022 06/07/2019 309,605.82 306,171.12 --- 307,902.98 1,447.24 1.583 1.928 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31397UPF0 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 06/25/2021 06/10/2019 300,184.15 305,109.05 --- 305,473.39 1,213.55 3.763 1.969 AAA 256350018 MIEVI-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31381Q6B7 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 06/01/2021 07/01/2019 181,129.26 186,711.72 --- 187,477.84 1,506.95 4.295 2.032 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BM6P6 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 08/25/2022 06/28/2019 200,000.00 205,437.50 --- 204,542.00 (424.00) 3.090 2.157 AAA 256350018 M1M-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138EJPZ5 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01/2022 07/22/2019 223,205.81 227,277.57 --- 228,426.59 62.54 3.022 1.910 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BSRZ8 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 09/25/2022 06/28/2019 183,972.07 187,601.21 --- 187,829.97 225.71 2.838 1.945 AAA 256350018 M1M-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138L2QG5 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 01/01/2028 09/09/2019 264,602.19 280,778.08 --- 280,213.72 (496.36) 3.010 2.223 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3620ARB67 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 05/15/2025 06/10/2019 219,716.76 227,715.83 --- 228,547.18 1,129.71 4.000 1.944 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378NWU3 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 06/16/2048 06/27/2019 165,513.73 167,841.27 --- 169,985.91 2,000.74 2.542 2.358 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137FBAJ5 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 08/25/2027 06/26/2019 200,000.00 211,593.75 --- 216,298.00 5,039.19 3.281 2.137 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138LFGP7 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 10/01/2028 08/07/2019 300,000.00 310,207.03 --- 308,832.00 (1,220.04) 2.550 2.207 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3620C4SU5 Agency MBS Govemment National Mortgage Association 09/15/2025 06/12/2019 99,977.95 103,676.35 --- 103,996.06 412.38 4.000 2.107 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137F4D41 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 01/25/2028 06/27/2019 150,000.00 163,248.05 --- 165,709.50 2,817.88 3.600 2.194 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137F4CY6 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 09/25/2024 06/28/2019 190,000.00 195,907.81 --- 198,285.90 2,662.38 2.920 1.946 AAA 256350018 M1M-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137FGZN8 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 02/25/2023 06/18/2019 269,041.88 268,915.77 --- 268,985.38 292.84 2.424 2.312 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BP4K2 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 03/25/2026 09/09/2019 200,000.00 210,125.00 --- 209,302.00 (743.80) 2.849 2.060 AAA 256350018 M1M-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3620A9T35 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 11/15/2024 06/13/2019 176,185.08 181,924.86 --- 183,207.82 1,288.38 4.000 1.850 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137FL6P4 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 01/25/2029 09/09/2019 275,000.00 307,108.40 --- 305,637.75 (1,303.64) 3.563 2.215 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31419AM53 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 08/01/2024 06/28/2019 119,294.27 123,693.24 --- 123,449.29 97.18 5.500 2.327 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137FNAD2 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 11/25/2028 08/01/2019 149,860.76 152,851.68 --- 155,708.33 2,916.01 2.631 1.970 AAA 256350018 MIEVI-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138LFP51 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 10/01/2028 09/09/2019 200,000.00 207,601.56 --- 205,838.00 (1,715.56) 2.570 2.224 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 87165LBB6 Asset Backed Synchrony Credit Card Master Note Trust 2016-2 05/17/2021 08/02/2019 160,000.00 160,387.50 --- 160,531.20 176.35 2.210 2.011 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 02587AAJ3 Asset Backed American Express Credit Account Master Trust 02/18/2020 --- 221,000.00 218,887.00 --- 220,825.41 479.86 1.930 2.147 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 43814TAD4 Asset Backed Honda Auto Receivables 2007-1 Owner Trust 06/21/2023 10/11/2018 200,000.00 196,375.00 --- 199,990.00 2,201.72 2.050 2.062 AAA 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 05584PAD9 Asset Backed BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2017-2 02/20/2020 10/11/2018 99,958.92 99,060.85 --- 99,950.92 183.44 2.070 2.117 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 65478HAD0 Asset Backed NAROT_I7-C 04/18/2022 09/25/2018 70,000.00 68,908.98 --- 70,016.80 504.06 2.120 2.099 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 17305EGK5 Asset Backed Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust 01/20/2023 07/19/2019 100,000.00 100,625.00 --- 100,736.00 189.81 2.490 1.915 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 65478DAD9 Asset Backed Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-A Owner Trust 05/16/2022 06/29/2018 85,000.00 84,561.72 --- 85,402.05 594.80 2.650 2.156 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38013FAD3 Asset Backed GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-4 10/16/2023 07/24/2019 75,000.00 76,374.02 --- 76,327.50 80.94 3.210 2.174 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 47789JAB2 Asset Backed John Deere Owner Trust 2019 10/15/2021 03/05/2019 105,000.00 104,995.21 --- 105,484.05 486.59 2.850 2.108 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31680YAB3 Asset Backed Fifth Third Auto Trust 2019-1 05/16/2022 04/30/2019 155,000.00 154,991.46 --- 155,601.40 606.84 2.660 2.123 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 65478LAB5 Asset Backed Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2019-B 10/15/2021 07/16/2019 80,000.00 79,993.00 --- 80,126.40 131.94 2.270 2.016 AAA 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 477870AB5 Asset Backed John Deere Owner Trust 2019-B 05/16/2022 07/16/2019 90,000.00 89,999.66 --- 90,207.00 207.12 2.280 2.046 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 14315PAB1 Asset Backed Carmax Auto Owner Trust 2019-3 12/15/2022 07/24/2019 120,000.00 119,994.61 --- 120,254.40 259.14 2.210 2.028 AAA 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 26209AAEI Asset Backed Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-4 01/16/2024 09/09/2019 80,000.00 79,989.10 --- 79,900.00 (89.26) 2.230 2.299 AA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 62888VAA6 CMG NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-RI 10/07/2020 01/22/2019 88,599.16 88,630.32 --- 88,637.26 19.52 2.679 2.551 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 62888VAA6 CMG NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R1 10/07/2020 05/10/2019 0.01 0.01 --- 0.01 0.00 2.679 2.551 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 62888UAB6 CMG NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R2 11/05/2020 03/15/2019 162,007.24 162,247.73 --- 162,263.21 94.44 2.699 2.112 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 62888VAA6 CMG NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R1 10/07/2020 06/24/2019 21,846.37 21,836.13 --- 21,855.76 17.52 2.679 2.551 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38141EA58 Corporate The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 03/15/2020 --- 200,000.00 208,651.00 --- 202,876.00 670.34 5.375 2.201 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06051GEC9 Corporate Bank of America Corporation 07/01/2020 --- 200,000.00 207,806.00 --- 205,330.00 1,863.13 5.625 2.035 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 61747WAF6 Corporate Morgan Stanley 01/25/2021 --- 200,000.00 213,237.00 --- 209,276.00 1,864.63 5.750 2.163 A 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 637432MU6 Corporate National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation 06/15/2020 06/21/2019 200,000.00 199,972.00 05/15/2020 200,314.00 334.13 2.350 2.095 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 254010AC5 Corporate Dignity Health 11/01/2019 03/15/2018 24,000.00 23,897.52 --- 24,000.48 5.88 2.637 2.586 BBB 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 40428HPN6 Corporate HSBC USA Inc. 11/13/2019 06/29/2018 100,000.00 99,140.00 --- 100,022.00 96.64 2.375 2.171 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 084659AB7 Corporate Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company 02/01/2020 04/22/2019 250,000.00 249,475.00 01/01/2020 250,185.00 411.71 2.400 2.097 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06051GFN4 Corporate Bank of America Corporation 04/21/2020 01/25/2018 100,000.00 99,537.00 --- 100,107.00 224.15 2.250 2.055 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 05531FAU7 Corporate BB&T Corporation 06/29/2020 04/15/2019 250,000.00 249,642.50 05/29/2020 250,882.50 1,101.68 2.625 2.086 A 256350021 MIEVI-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 94974BGM6 Corporate Wells Fargo & Company 07/22/2020 04/15/2019 200,000.00 199,590.00 --- 200,944.00 1,204.33 2.600 2.009 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 375558BB8 Corporate Gilead Sciences, Inc. 09/01/2020 --- 135,000.00 133,439.10 --- 135,650.70 1,395.17 2.550 2.017 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 780082AC7 Corporate Royal Bank of Canada 10/14/20b --- 200,000.00 196,622.00 --- 200,130.00 1,747.96 2.100 2.036 AAA Page 4 of 37 par RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06416CAC2 06406FAB9 172967LC3 06367TPX2 86787EAS6 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Investment Category for quarter ended September 30, 2019 Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69353RFC7 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 55279HAN0 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31677QBK4 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 17401QAN1 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69353RFH6 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 90331HNP4 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69371RP34 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 14913Q2X6 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 86787EBD8 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 025816CE7 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 05531FBJ1 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 23337UX79 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 50000EX33 CP The Bank of Nova Scotia The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation Citigroup Inc. Bank of Montreal SunTrust Bank PNC Bank, National Association Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company Fifth Third Bank Citizens Bank, National Association PNC Bank, National Association U.S. Bank National Association PACCAR Financial Corp. Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation SunTrust Bank American Express Company BB&T Corporation DTE Gas Company Koch Industries, Inc. 04/26/2021 -- 200,000.00 194,126.00 Neat Call 05/03/2021 10/11/2018 200,000.00 193,708.00 04/03/2021 199,970.00 200,150.00 12/08/2021 --- 450,000.00 449,617.50 11/08/2021 456,637.50 12/12/2019 --- 200,000.00 197,898.00 200,016.00 O1/31/2020 O1/25/2018 100,000.00 100,644.00 12/31/2019 100,116.00 05/19/2020 10/10/2018 08/17/2020 10/11/2018 10/30/2020 06/21/2019 10/30/2020 04/15/2019 O1/22/2021 04/22/2019 04/26/2021 10/11/2018 05/10/2021 04/30/2019 05/17/2021 05/14/2019 05/17/2022 05/14/2019 05/20/2022 05/15/2019 03/16/2023 09/09/2019 10/07/2019 09/06/2019 10/03/2019 09/09/2019 250,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 120,000.00 50,000.00 100,000.00 165,000.00 425,000.00 375,000.00 245,222.50 04/19/2020 244,707.50 07/17/2020 199,810.00 09/30/2020 247,950.00 249,005.00 12/22/2020 249,395.00 03/26/2021 200,250.00 120,000.00 50,000.00 04/17/2022 100,000.00 04/19/2022 164,877.90 02/13/2023 424,202.18 374,490.00 249,910.00 250,152.50 200,374.00 250,535.00 251,562.50 254,082.50 200,116.00 120,274.80 50,125.50 100,320.00 164,902.65 424,859.75 374,958.75 Base Net Total Unrealized ., 3,324.82 4,132.28 6,949.52 336.66 32.40 Summarized 1.875 1.884 AAA 2.050 1.999 A 2.900 2.179 A 2.100 2.047 AA 2.786 2.251 A 1,823.01 2.000 2.056 2,713.41 2.050 1.972 525.12 2.200 2.010 1,982.86 2.250 2.033 2,307.99 2.500 1.982 4,461.98 3.150 2.031 (82.58) 2.441 2.337 274.80 2.514 2.357 125.50 2.714 2.596 320.00 2.756 2.599 23.36 2.200 2.218 14.17 0.000 1.697 1.25 0.000 1.320 A A A A A AA A A A A A AA AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69372BXU9 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 21687BXM8 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 93884FX98 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 53154MXH2 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 21201CX43 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 23336KXQ0 CP 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 CCYUSD Currency 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fond CCYUSD Currency 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund CCYUSD Currency 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve CCYUSD Currency 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31846V401 MM Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31846V401 MM Fund PACCAR Financial Corp. Co6peratieve Rabobank U.A., New York Branch Washington Gas Light Company Liberty Utilities Co. Continental Rubber of America, Corp. DTE Electric Company UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA First American Funds, Inc. - Government Obligations Fund 10/28/2019 09/25/2019 10/21/2019 09/25/2019 10/09/2019 09/25/2019 10/17/2019 09/26/2019 10/04/2019 09/27/2019 10/24/2019 09/27/2019 09/30/2019 09/30/2019 09/30/2019 09/30/2019 09/30/2019 First American Funds, Inc. - Government Obligations Fund 09/30/2019 425,000.00 425,000.00 425,000.00 475,000.00 475,000.00 400,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 424,220.83 424,389.18 424,652.92 474,368.25 474,796.80 399,400.00 (199 798.78) (0.00) (651,917.62) 248,509.29 712,819.77 424,371.00 424,536.75 424,813.00 474,582.00 474,924.00 399,496.00 (199 798.78) (0.00) (651,917.62) (224,772.81) 248,509.29 712,819.77 8.50 0.000 1.903 6.61 0.000 1.869 11.33 0.000 1.760 63.33 0.000 1.864 11.09 0.000 1.440 7.11 0.000 1.890 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 1.520 1.370 0.00 1.520 1.520 AAA AAA AAA AA AA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31846V401 MM Fund First American Funds, Inc. - Government Obligations Fund 09/30/2019 0.00 281,048.25 281,048.25 0.00 1.520 1.520 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 072024W W8 Muni 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 4581XOCZ9 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 459058GK3 Bay Area Toll Authority Non -US Gov Inter -American Development Bank Non -US Gov International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828SA9 TIPS 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828UH1 TIPS 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828V49 TIPS 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 9128285W6 TIPS 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 9128286N5 TIPS 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828SA9 TIPS United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury 04/01/2022 09/20/2019 09/14/2022 09/30/2019 08/21/2020 O1/15/2022 O1/15/2023 02/05/2018 O1/15/2027 O1/15/2029 04/15/2024 O1/15/2022 06/29/2018 95,000.00 650,000.00 315,000.00 470,414.95 194,510.75 297,385.20 254,015.00 269,568.60 204,035.40 95,000.00 652,067.00 315,116.40 472,717.60 192,012.67 296,042.35 269,274.49 273,933.38 200,689.42 95,186.20 651,917.50 315,163.80 465,720.21 192,814.62 300,457.19 269,393.07 272,795.34 201,999.13 186.20 2.128 2.047 (149.50) 1.750 1.647 103.72 2.040 2.013 (5,879.32) 0.125 0.563 (26.85) 0.125 0.391 4,089.70 0.375 0.232 351.80 0.875 0.216 (1,016.49) 0.500 0.235 131.81 0.125 0.563 AA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828UH1 TIPS United States Department of The Treasury O1/15/2023 100,034.10 98,163.78 99,161.80 461.30 0.125 0.391 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 9128286N5 TIPS 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828UH1 TIPS 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828V49 TIPS 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 9128285W6 TIPS 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 9128286N5 TIPS 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828B58 US Gov 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828G38 US Gov 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828XB I US Gov 256350023 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828L57 US Gov 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828L99 US Gov 256350023 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828Y53 US Gov 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828UF5 US Gov 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828VA5 US Gov 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828V V9 US Gov 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828B58 US Gov 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828L57 US Gov 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828Y53 US Gov 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 9128285H9 US Gov 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828B58 US Gov 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828XB 1 US Gov 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828L57 US Gov 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828L99 US Gov 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828Y53 US Gov 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 658886DZ6 VRDN 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 56052FHZ1 VRDN United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury North Dakota Housing Finance Agency Maine State Housing Authority 04/15/2024 O1/15/2023 06/06/2019 O1/15/2027 06/25/2019 O1/15/2029 04/15/2024 08/01/2019 O1/31/2021 11/15/2024 04/18/2017 05/15/2025 09/30/2022 10/31/2020 07/31/2020 09/30/2019 12/31/2019 04/30/2020 08/31/2020 O1/31/2021 09/30/2022 07/31/2020 10/31/2020 O1/31/2021 06/26/2019 05/15/2025 09/11/2019 09/30/2022 09/10/2019 10/31/2020 06/25/2019 417,068.40 666,894.00 308,006.10 264,175.60 294,999.60 1,375,000.00 1,350,000.00 1,125,000.00 1,400,000.00 210,000.00 200,000.00 970,000.00 925,000.00 1,060,000.00 550,000.00 1,320,000.00 1,400,000.00 800,000.00 1,500,000.00 450,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,300,000.00 07/31/2020 09/30/2019 225,000.00 07/01/2038 06/29/2018 100,000.00 11/15/2052 06/29/2018 100,000.00 424,444.11 662,811.45 310,401.25 279,038.60 299,221.13 1,405,890.24 1,369,037.11 1,143,342.78 1,386,564.45 208,983.98 199,805.08 955,677.54 901,532.23 1,047,463.28 541,754.30 1,326,527.35 1,399,880.28 799,675.60 1,506,269.53 462,076.17 1,006,210.94 1,292,179.69 224,780.71 100,000.00 100,000.00 10/30/2019 422,060.71 661,078.68 311,187.80 280,168.79 298,530.75 1,381,283.75 1,394,145.00 1,156,815.00 1,406,944.00 209,031.90 199,798.00 968,030.90 921,059.50 1,062,607.60 552,513.50 1,326,547.20 1,398,586.00 798,736.00 1,506,855.00 462,726.00 1,004,960.00 1,294,007.00 224,772.75 100,000.00 100,000.00 (2,194.78) 0.500 0.235 (2,090.08) 0.125 0.391 868.75 0.375 0.232 1,441.53 0.875 0.216 (550.99) 0.500 0.235 (1,951.86) 2.125 1.776 30,942.76 2.250 1.583 21,154.09 2.125 1.597 14,660.03 1.750 1.580 (631.86) 1.375 1.806 (7.08) 1.957 2.110 1,374.73 1.125 1.935 4,523.43 1.125 1.861 8,481.78 2.125 1.853 7,135.98 2.125 1.776 (829.83) 1.750 1.580 (1,310.76) 1.957 2.110 (1,058.85) 1.959 2.140 1,597.53 2.125 1.776 748.20 2.125 1.597 (1,150.52) 1.750 1.580 316.39 1.375 1.806 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA (7.96) 1.957 2.110 AAA 0.00 2.050 2.050 AA 0.00 2.100 2.100 AA 62,328,846.39 297,195.03 Page 5 of 37 INFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 256350018 256350018 256350018 256350018 256350018 256350018 256350018 /5615001R MIM-ROTC 91 TIFIA Reserve MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve MTV-RCTC 91 TIFIA Receive 3137EADB2 3137EADR7 3I35GOD75 3136G4TH6 3I30AFFX0 38374C417 38376PRM4 1R177RFV1 Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency CMO Agency CMO 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Account for quarter ended September 30, 2019 Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Federal National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Federal Home Loan Banks Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association C..nv. ent Narinnal Mnrtvane A.ccnniarinn 01/13/2022 05/01/2020 06/22/2020 01/30/2020 11/16/2028 07/20/2020 05/20/2038 10/20/2010 06/06/2019 06/07/2019 06/07/2019 06/13/2019 09/11/2019 06/14/2019 06/18/2019 07/01n019 500,000.00 175,000.00 650 000.00 300,000.00 200,000.00 71,389.49 36,548.90 R5 07R 14 505,766.50 173,909.75 646 269.00 300,289.38 222,450.00 72,237.25 36,731.64 R7 fiR447 507,700.00 174,485.50 648 186.50 300,159.00 222,880.00 72,211.90 36,787.93 R7 756 17 2,619.48 201.43 805.68 6.76 545.53 172.13 84.80 12(12R 2.375 1.375 1.500 1.980 3.250 5.500 4.000 1.500 1.685 1.881 1.887 1.862 1.880 1.826 2.282 151 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37A6B27 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137A2B26 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37ABFH9 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 10/25/2020 06/27/2019 248,008.62 253,472.55 252,460.37 75.83 4.333 2.084 AAA 08/25/2020 06/13/2019 219,325.01 221,929.49 --- 221,577.48 461.31 3.808 2.243 AAA 06/25/2021 --- 149,000.00 152,765.01 --- 152,929.13 726A7 3.989 2.054 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AH6C7 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 07/25/2021 06/07/2019 337,679.59 343,654.94 --- 342,407.10 (363.48) 3.230 2.260 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38376V2E6 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 07/16/2039 08/06/2019 124,473.02 129,529.74 130,665.56 1,196.18 4.000 1.665 AAA 75615001 R MTM-RCTC 91 TTFIA Reserve 1117AIMFR Avencv CMO Freddie Mac 10/95/2021 06/07/9019 111.067.26 116 791.92 --- 115.R01.59 2R2.64 2.96R 2.OR4 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378BSZ3 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378BXQ7 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37ATRW4 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AUPE3 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I36A5KR6 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 04/16/2040 06/25/2019 251,778.86 250,362.61 250,779.30 291.97 2.141 2.361 AAA 01/16/2036 06/17/2019 243,407.01 240,972.94 --- 241,471.92 (90.30) 1.537 3.096 AAA 05/25/2022 06/28/2019 300,000.00 302,496.09 302,613.00 373.98 2.373 1.961 AAA 06/25/2022 06/28/2019 200,000.00 201,773.44 --- 201,920.00 321.33 2.396 1.963 AAA 10/25/2022 06/10/2019 194,302.33 192,845.06 193,406.59 437.01 1.750 2.115 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137A)CHP1 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37B1UG5 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378TAF7 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I36AGFQ0 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 25615001R MTM-RCTC 91 TTFIA Reserve 3137B6DF5 Avencv CMO Frelit M 09/25/2022 06/28/2019 150,000.00 152,232.42 --- 152,436.00 392.44 2.573 1.941 AAA 01/25/2023 06/25/2019 200,000.00 204,101.56 203,880.00 103.72 2.637 1.955 AAA 07/20/2041 07/05/2019 119,845.02 120,069.74 --- 120,989.54 930.29 2.500 2.128 AAA 12/25/2038 06/18/2019 184,558.40 186,887.00 187,040.71 242.05 3.500 2.466 AAA 11/15/7026 06/1R/9019 1RR 91659 1R6.760.90 --- 1RR .77R.54 941145 2.000 1.R47 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38376GY53 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 01/16/2040 08/06/2019 70,016.99 70,238.53 70,380.38 180.90 3.526 2.465 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BDKF2 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 09/15/2040 --- 76,152.70 77,748.55 --- 78,269.74 559.62 3.500 2.017 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38377YTI4 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 05/20/2040 06/17/2019 218,960.30 216,291.72 216,400.65 104.04 2.000 2.419 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38377QKH9 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 08/20/2040 08/20/2019 55,041.69 56,041.47 --- 56,197.56 145.98 3.000 2.258 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378BCG2 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 03/16/2037 06/25/2019 65,874.90 65,463.18 --- 65,602.84 311.16 2.105 2.675 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378WUY7 Agency CMO Government National Mort gage Association 06/20/2041 06/12/2019 181,275.26 181,558.51 --- 182,299.47 754.01 2.500 2.096 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378CNY9 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 11/20/2038 06/25/2019 200,000.00 202,593.75 202,130.00 20.29 3.500 2.534 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31397ALN1 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 04/15/2032 06/18/2019 190,544.63 190,425.55 --- 190,603.70 264.48 2.378 2.355 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I36ADFF1 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 04/25/2023 06/10/2019 135,754.97 133,803.49 134,413.71 529.84 1.500 2.194 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AS7D0 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 04/15/2039 _ 06/14/2019 197,536.20 196,054.68 --- 197,449.28 1,362.78 2.000 1.987 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37B3HX9 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 07/15/2038 06/20/2019 101,165.62 100,849.48 101,596.59 823.91 2.478 2.230 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136AGZA3 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 09/25/2030 06/25/2019 31,534.57 31,745.21 --- 31,883.97 148.95 3.000 _ 2.257 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 383791M99 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 02/16/2041 08/28/2019 58,351.06 58,727.15 59,130.63 408.85 2.500 1.812 AAA 95e15n01R TM_ROI, 01 TIFIA R 5.5515 1A2nAFVR2 12/15/202d 0,11,010 1nA 591 R5 1070, On __ 1,1R A0121 R1917 Anon 1477 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 36297GCD0 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 02/15/2025 06/12/2019 105,129.59 109,552.44 --- 108,351.82 (932.55) 4.500 2.877 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31381SVJ8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 11/01/2021 07/22/2019 85,016.28 86,464.21 --- 86,929.14 593.34 3.330 2.128 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I38EJRP5 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 06/01/2021 06/18/2019 150,846.32 155,396.82 155,435.07 808.66 4.356 1.961 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31381R5T7 Agency MBS 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37B1U75 Agency MBS 25A15nn1R _RrTr 01 TIFIA Rcccrarc 1R17RICWI TO At-rpm-,nARR Federal National Mortgage Association Freddie Mac 09/01/2021 06/20/2019 101,000.00 103,840.63 --- 104,005.76 538.37 3.770 2.119 AAA 01/25/2023 06/27/2019 375,000.00 378,618.16 379,582.50 1,313.61 2.522 1.997 AAA 11 /1 A/2041 ___ 06 001 1n 02 710 14 ___ Od 00A 77 2 ARA AA 1 don 2 1RR A A A 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378KW47 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137B1BS0 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I38EKX14 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136AHAE0 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I36A7MN9 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 08/16/2035 06/13/2019 307,521.03 305,791.23 306,426.26 330.35 2.150 2.512 AAA 11/25/2022 --- 645,000.00 652,086.14 --- 654,733.05 3,129.85 2.510 1.950 AAA 03/01/2023 08/21/2019 51,869.20 52,452.73 --- 52,470.37 39A0 2.353 1.915 AAA 04/25/2023 06/28/2019 133,123.43 134,352.16 --- 136,113.38 1,937.18 2.707 1.331 AAA 05/25/2022 08/22/2019 158,106.21 159,384.66 159,464.35 135.23 2.349 1.876 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 25A14001R MTAA 14,14'. 01 TTFIA R 3137AWQG3 Agency MBS 3I397UPF0 Agency MBS 111R1Q6B7 Agency MRR Freddie Mac Federal National Mortgage Association F1 Nnr;..,.n1 rr,.o,.a A 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37BM6P6 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138E1PZ5 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association_ 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37BSRZ8 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138L2QG5 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3620ARB67 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 04/25/2022 06/07/2019 309,605.82 306,171.12 06/25/2021 06/10/2019 300,184.15 305,109.05 nA/01/2021 07/01,010 .11/0/A 1RA 71172 307,902.98 305,473.39 I R7 d77 Rd 1,447.24 1,213.55 1 50A 05 1.583 1.928 3.763 1.969 A 205 WO AAA AAA AAA 08/25/2022 06/28/2019 200,000.00 205,437.50 204,542.00 (424.00) 3.090 2.157 AAA 07/01/2022 07/22/2019 223,205.81 227,277.57 --- 228,426.59 62.54 3.022 1.910 AAA 09/25/2022 06/28/2019 183,972.07 187,60121 --- 187,829.97 225.71 2.838 1.945 AAA 01/01/2028 09/09/2019 264,602.19 280,778.08 --- 280,213.72 (496.36) 3.010 2.223 AAA 05/15/2025 06/10/2019 219,716.76 227,715.83 228,547.18 1,129.71 4.000 1.944 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378NWU3 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37FBAJ5 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 06/16/2048 06/27/2019 165,513.73 167,841.27 --- 169,985.91 2,000.74 2.542 2.358 AAA 08/25/2027 06/26/2019 200,000.00 211,593.75 216,298.00 5,039.19 3.281 2.137 AAA 7 7 Al104 All 00 l 4 CA 22n7 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3620C4S1J5 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137F4D41 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37F4CY6 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137FGZN8 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37BP4K2 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 09/15/2025 06/12/2019 99,977.95 103,676.35 103,996.06 412.38 4.000 2.107 AAA 01/25/2028 06/27/2019 150,000.00 163,248.05 --- 165,709.50 2,817.88 3.600 2.194 AAA 09/25/2024 06/28/2019 190,000.00 195,907.81 198,285.90 2,662.38 2.920 1.946 AAA 02/25/2023 06/18/2019 269,041.88 268,915.77 --- 268,985.38 292.84 2.424 2.312 AAA 03/25/2026 09/09/2019 200,000.00 210,125.00 --- 209,302.00 (743.80) 2.849 2.060 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 25A15nn1R _RrTr 01 TIFIA R 3620A9T35 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 3I37FL6P4 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 11A10AAA41 AAARC FaA 110nNI narr,.o,.a A��,..InH 11/15/2024 06/13/2019 176,185.08 181,924.86 01/25/2029 09/09/2019 275,000.00 307,108.40 0R/01/202d ne/9R,r110 110204 27 1/1A012d 183,207.82 305,637.75 121 Ado 70 1,288.38 (1,303.64) 07 1 R 4.000 1.850 3.563 2.215 5 Sr. 127 AAA AAA AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3I37FNAD2 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 11/25/2028 08/01/2019 149,860.76 152,851.68 155,708.33 2,916.01 2.631 1.970 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138LFP51 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 10/01/2028 09/09/2019 200,000.00 207,601.56 --- 205,838.00 (1,715.56) 2.570 2.224 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 62888VAA6 CMO NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R1 10/07/2020 06/24/2019 21,846.37 21,836.13 21,855.76 17.52 2.679 2.551 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve CCYUSD Currency UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 09/30/2019 --- 0.00 --- (224,772.81) 0.00 0.000 0.000 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31846V401 MIA Fund First American F1mds Inc. - Government Obligations Fund 09/302019 --- 0.00 281 048.25 --- 281 048.25 0.00 1.520 1.520 AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828UH1 TIPS 9I2828V49 TIPS United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury 01/15/2023 06/06/2019 666,894.00 662,811.45 --- 661,078.68 (2,090.08) 0.125 0.391 AAA 01/15/2027 06/252019 308,006.10 310,401.25 --- 311,187.80 868.75 0.375 0.232 AAA 10 Page 6 of 37 11 OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Account for quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 3 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 9128285 6 TIPS 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 9128286N5 TIPS 256350018 MIM-RCTC 9I TIFIA Reserve 912828B58 US Gov 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 75A1cnn1R MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828XB1 US Gov 912R7RI 57 iM any United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury i Inif Rfatec Denartmnnt of 1Rn Trencnry 01/15/2029 04/15/2024 01/31/2021 05/15/2025 09/10/2022 08/01/2019 06/26/2019 09/112019 n9/10/M19 264,175.60 294 999.60 1,500,000.00 450,000.00 1 AAA AAA AA 279,038.60 299 221.13 1,506,269.53 462,076.17 1 AAA.21Q94 280,168.79 298,530.75 1,506,855.00 462,726.00 1 004.9An On 1,441.53 (550.99) 1,597.53 748.20 11 150_5/1 0.875 0.500 2.125 2.125 1 75A 0.216 0.235 1.776 1.597 1 5RA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828L99 US Gov 912828Y53 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury 10/31/2020 06/25/2019 1,300,000.00 07/31/2020 09/30/2019 225,000.00 19,765,125.93 1,292,179.69 224,780.71 20,318,496.62 1,294,007.00 224,772.75 20,130,897.26 316.39 (7.96) 47,174.91 1.375 1.806 1.957 2.110 AAA AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 75A151,11 1M-RrTr 7n11 Rae:A..1.mA 3137A1N90 Agency CMO 1u1771XFu1 Freddie Mac 06/25/2020 06/26/2018 101,AP/010 07/n1/1A10 63,881.49 171 05A A7 64,465.41 c 1AR 01 64,262.86 175 517 71 284.80 IAA 57 3.531 2.174 Son 7 151 AAA AAA 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137ABFH9 31394GUX9 3137APP53 38378BXQ7 31397LUK3 Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Government National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association 06/25/2021 08/15/2023 10/25/2020 01/16/2036 06/252023 03/15/2019 07/02/2019 05/18/2018 06/17/2019 10/102018 206,000.00 31,824.29 1,683.65 180,301.49 138,053.44 209,846.41 33,176.82 1,662.94 178,498.47 140.836.08 211,432.22 33,412.64 1,680.57 178,868.09 141,166.55 2,518.71 298.83 2.81 (66.88) 1,265.76 3.989 5.500 1.781 1.537 4.500 2.054 2.125 2.223 3.096 2.107 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 75A15A0/1 NUM-RCTC 7nli Rec:dnaIFnnA 3137ATRW4 Agency CMO 3136A72D3 Agency CMO 111AASKRA Aoencv rMD Freddie Mac Federal National Mortgage Association FnAnraI National Mnrfvave A.ccnniafi 05/25/2022 04252022 10/25/2022 08/19/2019 07262019 A1/25/2019 100,000.00 36,114.60 99 A94 19 101,109.38 36,325.97 97 711 A4 100,871.00 36,514.03 9R 6171A (187.33) 180.02 674.52 2.373 1.961 2.482 1.824 1 75A 2115 AAA AAA AAA 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137AYCE9 3137A2PV7 3137GAUY1 3137A1LC5 3137A5FP4 Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Freddie Mac 1025/2022 08/132019 09/15/2022 06/03/2019 10/15/2022 08/152019 08/15/2020 01/17/2018 01/152021 01/302018 360,000.00 30,358.89 162,560.24 3,380.35 27.983.91 367,790.63 29,827.60 160,883.83 3,369.26 28.053.87 367,196.40 30,458.46 161,965.26 �372.78 28.072.90 (263.29) 590.16 1,049.97 (2.32) 63.96 2.682 1.500 1.500 2.000 2.500 1.934 1.273 1.703 2.639 2.070 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 756151 J1 MIM-RCTC 701 i Recidnal Fond 38375CBH2 Agency CMO 38378CDK0 Agency CMO 11217RAWX5 Aoenry CMD Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association nnvemment Nafinnal Mnrtoaoe A.c.cnniafinn 03/16/2035 03202035 nl/2n/701A 03/19/2019 01/302018 01/10/201R 25,348.79 22,445.93 20.14A 94 25,194.33 22,652.85 ma4z.11 225307.73 22,507.65 20 2AR 41 29.60 (10.45) 2n nn 1.250 2.364 3.000 2.171 l non 21411 AAA AAA AAA 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31358TPC7 31416BVR6 31381RLL6 31381SVJ8 3128MMPP2 Agency CMO Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Freddie Mac 0225/2023 12/01/2020 07/01/2021 11/01/2021 03/01/2027 02/112019 01/17/2018 11/022018 02/22/2019 05/102019 98,513.03 13,523.22 52,475.83 85,016.27 230.439.95 98,815.69 13,827.49 53,254.78 85,441.35 229.431.78 98,813.49 13,948.66 53,795.60 86,929.13 232,843.44 218.17 2.868 2.647 331.50 5.000 -4.692 811.43 3.840 2.027 1,631.36 3.330 2.128 3,405.45 2.500 2.098 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3128MMPY3 3137B2GW4 3137APP61 38378KW47 3138L1 W62 3138EKXL4 31381RZ23 3137AXHN6 Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Government National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Freddie Mac 06/01/2027 0325/2020 01/25/2022 08/162035 12/01/2022 03/01/2023 08/01/2021 0225/2022 05/10/2019 06/292018 09/06/2019 06/132019 02/21/2019 08/212019 11/02/2018 01/252018 211,517.30 91,913.95 15,000.00 118,848.71 125,917.77 55,327.15 60,517.77 24,409.92 210,591.91 91,317.94 15,244.92 118,180.18 125,170.13 55,949.58 61,416.08 24,074.29 213,736.12 91,822.03 15,192.60 118,425.61 125,542.53 55,968.39 62,043.43 24,345.24 3,125.06 139.50 (45.30) 127.67 313.42 42.03 920.93 152.77 2.500 2.103 2.313 2.136 2.789 2.067 2.150 2.512 2.500 2.567 2.353 1.915 3.840 2.129 1.749 1.877 GA4 7, 7 coo 1 074 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA eee 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137AWQG3 31397UPF0 3137BIUF7 3620ARB67 31418CQM9 Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Freddie Mac Federal National Mortgage Association Freddie Mac Government National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association 0425/2022 06/25/2021 0925/2022 05/15/2025 10/01/2027 03/15/2019 01/252018 06/10/2019 09/112019 48,375.91 150,092.08 14,283.35 71,957.23 60,052.01 47,476.42 152,249.65 14,073.57 74,576.93 61,581.47 48,109.84 152,736.70 14,259.36 74,849.20 61,484.25 386.90 1,033.45 117.44 369.98 (101.42) 1.583 3.763 1.785 4.000 3.000 1.928 1.969 1.827 1.944 2.122 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 75A15nn71 MiM-RrTr 7n11 Rec:A..1P., 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3140J6DU8 Agency MBS 3138L2GH4 Agency MBS 111R1QRc4 Ananr„MRC 3138L8H23 87165LBB6 02587AAJ3 43814TAD4 05584PAD9 Agency MBS Asset Backed Asset Backed Asset Backed Asset Backed Federal National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Synchrony Credit Card Master Note Trust 2016-2 American Express Credit Account Master Trust Honda Auto Receivables 2007-1 Owner Trust BMW Vehicle Lease Trust 2017-2 08/01/2031 07/01/2021 AVM /pOp 1 12/01/2021 05/17/2021 02/18/2020 06/21/2023 0220/2020 07/26/2019 /n7nn1 R 05/022019 08/02/2019 10/11/2018 10/112018 212,125.44 125,307.97 007A011 68,303.62 160,000.00 221,000.00 200,000.00 99,958.92 213,550.65 122,654.63 1 n1 1741n 68,090.24 160,387.50 218,887.00 196,375.00 99,060.85 214,231.84 125,212.73 M cco M 68,195.70 160,531.20 220,825.41 199,990.00 99,950.92 675.83 1,770.10 1 11R 79 102.15 176.35 479.86 2,201.72 183A4 2.500 2.133 1.870 1.854 441n /51 2.730 2.210 1.930 2.050 2.070 2.734 2.011 2.147 2.062 2.117 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 65478HAD0 Asset Backed 17305EGK5 Asset Backed NAROT l7-C Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust 04/18/2022 09/25/2018 0120/2023 07/192019 70,000.00 100,000.00 68,908.98 100,625.00 70,016.80 100,736.00 504.06 189.81 2.120 2.099 2.490 1.915 AGA 1GA AAA AAA eee 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38013FAD3 477891AB2 31680YAB3 65478LAB5 477870AB5 Asset Backed Asset Backed Asset Backed Asset Backed Asset Backed GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-, Jolm Deere Owner Trust 2019 Fifth Third Auto Trust 2019-1 Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2019-B John Deere Owner Trust 2019-B 10/16/2023 10/15/2021 05/16/2022 10/15/2021 05/16/2022 07/242019 03/05/2019 04/302019 07/16/2019 07/162019 75,000.00 105,000.00 155,000.00 80,000.00 90,000.00 76,374.02 104,995.21 154,991.46 79,993.00 89,999.66 76,327.50 105,484.05 155,601.40 80,126.40 90,207.00 80.94 486.59 606.84 131.94 207.12 3.210 2.174 2.850 2.108 2.660 2.123 2.270 2.016 2.280 2.046 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 14315PAB1 26209AAE1 62888VAA6 62888UAB6 38141EA58 06051GEC9 61747WAF6 637432MU6 254010AC5 40428HPN6 084659AB7 06051GFN4 05531FAU7 Asset Backed Asset Backed CMO CMO Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Carmax Auto Owner Trust 2019-3 Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-4 NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R1 NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R2 The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Bank of America Corporation Morgan Stanley National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation Dignity Health HSBC USA Inc. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company Bank of America Corporation BB&T Corporation 12/15/2022 01/16/2024 10/07/2020 11/05/2020 03/15/2020 07/01/2020 01/25/2021 06/15/2020 11/01/2019 11/13/2019 02/01/2020 0421/2020 06/29/2020 07/24/2019 09/092019 05/10/2019 03/152019 06/212019 03/15/2018 06/292018 04/22/2019 01/252018 04/15/2019 120,000.00 80,000.00 0.01 162,007.24 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 24,000.00 100,000.00 250,000.00 100,000.00 250,000.00 119,994.61 --- 79,989.10 0.01 162,247.73 208,651.00 --- 207,806.00 213,237.00 --- 199,972.00 05/15/2020 23,897.52 --- 99,140.00 --- 249,475.00 01/01/2020 99,537.00 --- 249,642.50 05/29/2020 120,254.40 79,900.00 0.01 162,263.21 202,876.00 205,330.00 209,276.00 200,314.00 24,000.48 100,022.00 250,185.00 100,107.00 250,882.50 259.14 (89.26) 0.00 94.44 670.34 1,863.13 1,864.63 334.13 5.88 96.64 411.71 224.15 1,101.68 2.210 2.028 2.230 2.299 2.679 2.551 2.699 2.112 5.375 2.201 5.625 2.035 5.750 2.163 2.350 2.095 2.637 2.586 2.375 2.171 2.400 2.097 2.250 2.055 2.625 2.086 AAA AA AAA AAA A A A A BBB A A A A 12 Page 7 of 37 INFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Account for quarter ended September 30, 2019 25635002 MIM-RCTC 20 Residual Fund 94974BGM6 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 375558BB8 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 780082AC7 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06416CAC2 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06406FAB9 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 172967LC3 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund Wells Fargo & Company Gilead Sciences, Inc. Royal Bank of Canada The Bank of Nova Sco The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation Cirigroup Inc. 06367TPX2 Corporate Bank of Montreal 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 86787EAS6 Corporate SWTrnst B 07/22/2020 04/15/2019 200,000.00 199,590.00 --- 200,944.00 1,204.33 2.600 2.009 A 09/O1/2020 135,000.00 133439.10 --- 135,650.70 1,395.17 2.550 2.017 A 10/14/2020 --- 200,000.00 196,622.00 --- 200,130.00 1,747.96 2.100 2.036 AAA 04/26/2021 --- 200,000.00 194,126.00 --- 199,970.00 3,324.82 1.875 1.884 AAA 05/03/2021 10/11/2018 200,000.00 193,708.00 04/03/2021 200,150.00 4,132.28 2.050 1999 A 2/08/2021 450,000.00 449,617.50 11/08/2021 456,637.50 6,949.52 2.900 2.179 A 2/12/2019 --- 200,000.00 197,898.00 --- 200,016.00 336.66 2.100 2.047 AA 01/31/2020 0 /25/2018 100,000.00 ]00,644.00 12/31/2019 100,116.00 32.40 2.786 2.251 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69353RFC7 Corporate PNC Bank, National Association 05/19/2020 10/10/2018 250,000.00 245,222.50 04/19/2020 249,910.00 1,823.01 2.000 2.056 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 55279HAN0 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company 31677QBK4 Corporate Fifth Third Bank 7401QAN1 Corporate Citizens Bank, National Association 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69353RFH6 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 90331HNP4 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69371RP34 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 14913Q2X6 Corporate PNC Bank, National Association U.S. Bank National Assoc PACCAR Financial Corp. Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation 08/17/2020 ]0/11/2018 250,000.00 244,707.50 07/17/2020 250,152.50 2,713.41 2.050 1.972 A 0/30/2020 06/21/2019 200,000.00 199,810.00 09/30/2020 200.374.00 525.12 2.200 2.010 A 0/30/2020 04/15/2019 250,000.00 247,950.00 --- 250,535.00 1,982.86 2.250 2.033 A O1/22/2021 04/22/2019 250,000.00 249,005.00 12/22/2020 251,562.50 2,307.99 2.500 1.982 A 04/26/2021 ]0/11/2018 250,000.00 249,395.00 03/26/2021 254,082.50 4,461.98 3.150 2.031 AA 05/10/2021 04/30/2019 200,000.00 200,250.00 --- 200,116.00 (82.58) 2A41 2.337 A 05/17/2021 05/14/2019 120,000.00 120,000.00 --- 120,274.80 274.80 2.514 2.357 A 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 86787EBD8 Corporate StmTrus[ Bank 05/17/2022 05/14/2019 50,000.00 50,000.00 04/17/2022 50,125.50 125.50 2.714 2.596 A 256350021 MINA-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 025816CE7 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 05531FBI1 Corporate 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 23337UX79 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 50000EX33 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69372BXU9 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 21687BXM8 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 93884FX98 CP American Express Company BB&T Corporation DTE Gas Company Koch Industries, Inc PACCAR Financial Corp CoOperatieve Rabobank U.A., New York Branch Washington Gas Light Company 05/20/2022 05/15/2019 100,000.00 ]00,000.00 04/19/2022 100,320.00 320.00 2.756 2.599 A 03/16/2023 09/092019 165,000.00 164,877.90 02/13/2023 164,902.65 23.36 2.200 2.218 A 0/07/2019 09/06/2019 425,000.00 424,202.18 --- 424,859.75 14.17 0.000 1.697 AA 0/03/2019 09/09/2019 375,000.00 374,490.00 --- 374,958.75 1.25 0.000 I320 AAA 0/28/2019 09/25/2019 425,000.00 424,220.83 --- 424,371.00 8.50 0.000 1.903 AAA 0/21/2019 09/252019 425,000.00 424,389.18 --- 424,536.75 6.61 0.000 1.869 AAA 0/09/2019 09/25/2019 425,000.00 424,652.92 --- 424,813.00 11.33 0.000 1.760 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 53154MXH2 CP Liberty Utilities Co. 0/17/2019 09/262019 475,000.00 474,368.25 --- 474,582.00 63.33 0.000 1.864 AA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 21201CX43 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 23336KXQ0 CP 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund Continental Rubber of America, Corp DTE Electric Company CCYUSD Currency UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund CCYUSD Currency 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31846V401 MIA Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0/04/2019 09/27/2019 475,000.00 474,796.80 --- 474,924.00 11.09 0.000 1.440 AA 024/2019 09/272019 400.000.00 399,400.00 --- 399,496.00 Zll 0.000 1.890 AAA 09/30/2019 09/30/2019 First American Funds, Inc. - Government Obligations Fund 09/30/2019 072024WW8 Muni Bay Area Toll Authority 4581XOCZ9 Non -US Gov Inter -American Development 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (651,917.62) 0.00 712,819.77 04/O1/2022 09/202019 95,000.00 95,000.00 09/14/2022 09/30/2019 650,000.00 652,067.00 (0.00) (651,917.62) 712,819.77 95,186.20 651,917.50 0.00 0.000 0.000 AAA 0.00 0.000 0.000 AAA 0.00 1.520 1.520 AAA 86.20 2.128 2.047 AA (149.50) 1.750 1.647 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 459058GK3 Non US Gov International Bank for Reconstruction and Developmen 08212020 --- 315,000.00 315,116.40 315,163.80 03.72 2.040 2.013 AAA 256350021 MBA-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 25635002 1 MIN-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828SA9 TIPS United States Department of The Treasury 912828UH1 TrpS United States Department of The Treasury 9128286N5 TIPS 912828UF5 US Go 912828VA5 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury 01/15/2022 06/29/2018 204,035.40 200,689.42 01/152023 --- 100,034.10 98,163.78 04/15/2024 417,068.40 424,444.1 2/31/2019 --- 970,000.00 955,677.54 04/30/2020 --- 925,000.00 901,532.23 201,999.13 99,161.80 31.81 O.125 0.563 AAA 461.30 0.125 0.391 AAA 422,060.71 (2,194.78) 0.500 0.235 AAA 968,030.90 1,374.73 L125 1935 AAA 921,059.50 4,523.43 1.125 1.86 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828V V9 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury O8/31/2020 --- 1,060,000.00 1,047,463.28 1,062,607.60 8,481.78 2.125 1.853 AAA 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828B58 US Gov 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund United States Department of The Treasury 912828L57 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 912828Y53 US Gov 9128285H9 US Go United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury 658886DZ6 VRDN North Dakota Housing Finance Agency 56052FHZ1 VRDN Maine State Housing Authority O]/31/2021 550,000.00 541,754.30 09/30/2022 --- 1,320,000.00 1,326,527.35 07/31/2020 1,400,000.00 1,399,880.28 0/31/2020 --- 800,000.00 799,675.60 552,513.50 7,135R8 2.125 1376 AAA 1,326,547.20 (829.83)___.750 1.580 AAA 398,586.00 (1,310.76) 1.957 2.110 AAA 798,736.00 (1,058.85L__ 959 2.140 AAA 07/O1/2038 06/29/2018 100,000.00 ]00,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 2.050 2.050 AA 1/152052 06/29/2018 100,000.00 100,000.00 10/30/2019 100,000.00 0.00 2.100 2.100 23,595,673.23 23,6 5,689. 9 23,745,846.47 88,121.03 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MINA -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-SrLien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MBA -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137EADB2 Agency Freddie Mac 3137EADR7 Agency Freddie Mac 313500D75 Agency Federal National Mortgage Association 3130AFFX0 Agency Federal Home Loan Banks 38377REV3 Agency CMO Government National Mort gage Associatio 38377RVK8 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 3137ABFH9 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 0l/13/2022 --- 950,000.00 942,921.50 --- 964,630.00 14,887.84 2.375 1.685 AAA 05/O1/2020 05/15/2015 150,000.00 148,903.50 --- 149,559.00 (307A1) 1.375 1.881 AAA 06/22/2020 05/06/2015 600,000.00 593,490.00 --- 598,326.00 (719.47) 1.500 1.887 AAA 1/16/2028 09/112019 185,000.00 205,766.25 --- 206,164.00 504.61 3250 1.880 AAA 0/20/2039 07/01/2019 80,246.45 81,838.84 --- 81,905.94 112.26 3.500 2.351 AAA 04202039 --- 96,801.84 98,733.12 --- 98,052.52 21.63 3.000 2.461 AAA 06/25/2021 07/22/2019 100,000.00 ]02,574.22 --- 102,637.00 321.34 3.989 2.054 AAA 256350023 MIM-SLLien Reserve Fund- 3137AIMF8 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 0252021 --- 52,024.86 53,425.42 --- 52,768.81 68.72 2.968 2.084 AAA 256350023 MBA -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MINA -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38375XCM4 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 8376GB33 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 3137ASNH3 Agency CMO Freddie 3137ATRW4 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 3137AUPE3 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 38377RSZ9 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 3136A72D3 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Associatio 1/16/2037 05/14/2019 64,050.08 65,864.00 --- 66,114.42 377.59 5.000 2.767 AAA 0/16/2044 0 /23/2015 18,597.48 19,089.67 --- 18,585.02 (21.21) 3A74 2.476 AAA 09/25/2021 07/032013 17,060.27 16,671.75 --- 17,023.93 (0.36) 1.459 2.223 AAA 05/25/2022 --- 282,110.00 278,085.13 --- 284,567 8 5,282.71 2.373 1961 AAA 06/25/2022 150,000.00 151,611.80 --- 151,440.00 709.88 2.396 1.963 AAA 06/16/2039 --- 32,788.02 33,817.20 --- 33,148.36 (30.03) 4.500 2.173 AAA 04/25/2022 07/03/2013 259,368.58 246,400.15 --- 262,237.19 6,202.80 2.482 1.824 AAA 256350023 MBA -Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 3136A5KR6 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 10/25/2022 01/25/2019 64,508.37 63,621.38 --- 64,210.99 439.10 1.750 2.115 AAA 256350023 MINA -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MIM-Sr In Reserve Fund-1 3137AXHP1 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 38378B7F0 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 38378CRT6 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Associatio 38378HXH4 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 383771Z89 Agency CMO 8378TAF7 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Associatio Government National Mortgage Association 3137B4HD1 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 09/25/2022 09/29/2017 140,000.00 142,089.06 --- 142,273.60 1,105.63 2.573 1.941 AAA 2/16/2042 --- 450,000.00 427,324.22 --- 447,277.50 10,026.56 2.273 2.399 AAA 0/20/2040 05/22/2014 44,082.12 42,566.80 --- 44,069.34 1,237.27 2.000 1.984 AAA 09/16/2027 03/08/2019 15,734.42 15,259.75 --- 15,445.22 157.73 1.250 2.067 AAA 0/20/2039 07/05/2013 42,075.87 43,362.80 --- 43,452.59 452.91 3.500 1.984 AAA 0720/2041 07/052013 110,626.18 110,642.85 --- 111,682.66 1,108.05 2.500 2.128 AAA 2/15/2042 03/20/2019 40,195.99 41,514.93 --- 42,109.32 588.18 4.500 2.202 AAA 256350023 MIM-SLLien Reserve Fund- 38376GY53 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 01/162040 08/062019 63,186.07 63,385.99 --- 63,514.00 163.26 3.526 2.465 AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-SLLien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MIM-SrLien Reserve Fund- 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund- 38377LQT8 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Associatio 31398OTP2 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 3I37A5FP4 Agency CMO Freddie M 38376T5Z1 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 2/20/2037 1,127.66 1,128.06 --- 1,126.55 (1.11) 3.000 1.919 AAA 05/152038 06262018 45,832.37 46,729.33 --- 46,238.91 194.93 4.500 2.577 AAA 01/15/2021 78,280.96 78289.81 --- 78,529.89 281.27 2.500 2.070 AAA O1/16/2039 0 /26/2015 66,309.90 69,27727 --- 67,778.00 (465.091 3.000 2.041 AAA 13 Page 8 of 37 OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio by Account for quarter ended September 30, 2019 Source Account Account 256350023 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 7561500/1 MIM-Sr i.ien9 Security Type Identifier Category 38376WA62 Agency CMO 38375CBH2 Agency CMO H9 Aeencv CAM1 Issuer Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association (;nvemment National IV rfvaveA en pace Nat Call Final Maturity Trade Date Value Original Cost Date 10/20/2039 --- 183,972.19 188,600.19 --- 051/70/7041 0R/7N7019 14 449.57 14 361.51 51 ALA 76 51 940 RR Base Net Total Base Market Value Unrealized Gain/Loss Coupon Yield 190.195.97 14,426.16 57 ORS 55 16.88 115.11 000 2.922 1.250 2.364 1 AM 7.75R Summarized Credit Rating AAA AAA AAA 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 MIM-Sr lien Reserve Fund-1 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 38380AZ34 38378CDK0 38378AWX5 38378DDC6 38379HLE3 Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association 04/20/2046 03/20/2035 0120/2036 04/20/2038 05/20/2043 11/28/2016 03/16/2018 03/28/2018 06/20/2018 10/18/2018 129,838.26 12,469.96 60,440.82 71,461.31 98,296.94 133,474.75 12,528.41 60,766.63 71,944.23 98,158.71 133,994.39 12,504.25 60,805.28 71,692.85 101,040.40 991.54 16.68 202.02 33.80 2,884.73 3.000 2.388 3.000 2.171 3.000 2.140 3.500 2.540 3.500 2.167 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 956150091 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378VC45 38377JM59 3137R5A60 Agency CMO Agency CMO Aeencv CMO Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Freddie Mac 12/16/2041 10/20/2039 1 nil 5/707R 11/23/2018 11/212018 01/70/9019 139,338.98 74,681.96 91 515.R4 134,309.72 72,814.90 91 751.99 139,136.93 74,563.21 91 659 70 4,607.26 1,603.82 189.OR 2.250 2.275 2.500 2.525 2.500 2.177 AAA AAA AAA 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 Mkt -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 Mkt -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 3136ADFF1 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 383791M99 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 31381PEB0 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 3138NJAE8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 3I381N7G2 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 04/25/2023 02/16/2041 11/01/2020 12/01/2020 10/01/2020 06/10/2019 08/28/2019 09/26/2014 09/13/2018 09/25/2018 128,213.03 54,183.13 247,264.94 17,773.76 17.910.95 126,369.97 54,532.36 260,362.26 17,979.27 17.976.72 126,946.28 54,907.01 249,168.88 17,757.23 18,013.04 500.41 379.64 76.43 (163.20) 33.42 1.500 2.500 3.370 3.630 3270 2.194 1.812 2.310 3.779 2.369 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 956150091 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381SVJ8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 31417YKF3 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 36202F2H8 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 31381R5T7 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 3136AC714 Aeencv MBS Federal Natinnal Mmrtvave Assnciation 11 /01 /2021 02/22/2019 01/01/2030 01/20/2027 --- 09/01/2021 08/29/2018 01/95/7071 07/71 /901 R 106,270.34 126,087.58 143,521.14 130,000.00 4R.79R.70 106,801.70 132,133.91 147,929.02 132,747.27 47.995.70 108,661.42 135,184.80 147,370.38 133,868.80 49.779 70 2,039.20 3,742.55 354.94 2,220.75 1.521.64 3.330 2.128 4.500 2.165 3.000 1.884 3.770 2.119 7 605 1.RR0 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 3I38L33G8 3137B1U75 38378KWU9 Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association Freddie Mac Government National Mortgage Association 06/01/2020 01/25/2023 11/16/2041 11/12/2015 08/29/2016 100,000.00 380,000.00 158,063.15 99,875.00 394,917.97 150,196.20 99,707.00 384,643.60 154,805.47 (141.93) (2,142.18) 2,305.22 2.010 2.238 2.522 1.997 1.400 2.388 AAA AAA AAA 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 756150091 Mkt -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 MINI -Sr Gen Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378KXW4 3137BIBS0 3138L1 W62 3138EKXIA 3136AHAE0 Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Aeencv MBS Government National Mortgage Association Freddie Mac Federal National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Federal Natinnal MmO- Assmciati 02/16/2037 12/11/2014 11/252022 07/31/2019 12/01/2022 02/21/2019 03/012023 --- 04/25/2023 10/7R/9016 100,381.64 360,000.00 164,661.70 255,888.06 111 999.99 99,895.42 363,360.94 163,684.02 252,250.74 111 699.R2 99,430.02 365,432.40 164,171.01 258,853.80 111 799.71 (764.57) 1.705 2,257.96 2.510 409.86 2.500 5,030.06 2.353 951.26 2.707 2.464 1.950 2.567 1.915 1.10 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378B6A2 3136A7MN9 38378KSIA Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association 11/16/2052 05/25/2022 12/16/2046 01/222015 08/29/2016 112,395.85 287,465.86 425,000.00 108,852.74 295,685.59 415,829.11 110,645.85 289,935.19 430,979.75 113.09 (738.12) 12,167.44 1.826 2.335 2.349 1.876 2.814 2.606 AAA AAA AAA 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 1,41.1/111 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 Mkt -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 Mart -Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 MINI -Sr Gen Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 31381Q6B7 38378KRS0 38378XP62 38379KDN5 31381T4E7 3138EJPZ5 3620ARB67 3137FBAJ5 Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Freddie Mac 06/01/2021 07/16/2043 05/16/2055 09/162055 03/01/2022 07/01/2022 05/15/2025 0825/2027 07/15/2016 05/082015 05/14/2015 08/052015 10/25/2016 08/292016 06/10/2019 06/262019 181,129.26 450,000.00 256,145.07 138,439.67 256,449.34 198,405.16 109,858.38 200,000.00 200,883.67 434,460.94 259,306.86 134,902.96 267,939.49 210,735.73 113,857.91 211,593.75 187,477.84 450,373.50 257,218.31 138,313.69 261,126.98 203,045.86 114,273.59 216,298.00 1411104 (519.76) 8,138.92 (1,498.64) 1,241.91 (210. 5 (2,16926) 564.86 5,039.19 4.295 2.032 2.389 2.345 2.500 2.391 2.138 2.468 2.670 1.717 3.022 1.910 4.000 1.944 3281 2.137 CGA IA, AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA eee 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 MINI -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 Mkt -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 3I37F4D41 31381QB54 3I37FNAD2 62888VAA6 CCYUSD Agency MBS Agency MBS Agency MBS CMO Currency Freddie Mac Federal National Mortgage Association Freddie Mac NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0125/2028 03/01/2021 1125/2028 10/07/2020 09/30/2019 04/012019 11/07/2018 08/012019 01/22/2019 35,000.00 129,481.44 134,874.69 88,599.16 0.00 36,714.84 132,162.12 137,566.52 88,630.32 (199,798.78) 38,665.55 132,510.02 140,137.50 88,637.26 (199,798.78) 2,039.79 1,485.28 2,624.41 19.52 0.00 3.600 4.410 2.631 2.679 0.000 2.194 2.251 1.970 2.551 0.000 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31846V401 9I2828SA9 912828UH1 MM Fund TIPS Ti. First American Funds, Inc. - Government Obligations Fund United States Department of The Treasury 09/30/2019 01/15/2022 01/15/9099 07/05/701R 0.00 470,414.95 10451975 248,509.29 472,717.60 107 n17 67 248,509.29 465,720.21 107 R14 67 0.00 (5,879.32) !76 R51 1.520 1.370 0.125 0.563 0195 0301 AAA AAA AAA 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 Mkt -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Gen Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 9I2828V49 9128285W6 9I28286N5 912828B58 912828G38 TIPS TIPS TIPS US Gov US Gov United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury 01/15/2027 01/15/2029 04/15/2024 01/31/2021 11/152024 04/182017 297,385.20 254,015.00 269,568.60 1,375,000.00 1,350,000.00 296,042.35 269,274.49 273,933.38 1,405,890.24 1,369,037.11 300,457.19 269,393.07 272,795.34 1,381,283.75 1,394,145.00 4,089.70 351.80 (1,016.49) (1,951.86) 30,942.76 0.375 0.875 0.500 2.125 2.250 0.232 0.216 0.235 1.776 1.583 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 MIM-Sr Gen Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 Mkt -Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lim Reserve Fund-1 912828XB1 9I2828I57 912828L99 9I2828Y53 US Gov US Gov US Gov US Gov United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury 05/15/2025 09/30/2022 10/31/2020 07/31/2020 09/30/2019 1,125,000.00 1,400,000.00 210,000.00 200,000.00 18,133,943.46 1,143,342.78 1,386,564.45 208,983.98 199,805.08 18,329,03796 1,156,815.00 1,406,944.00 209,031.90 199,798.00 18,452,102.66 21,154.09 2.125 1.597 14,660.03 1.750 1.580 (631.86) 1.375 1.806 (7.08) 1.957 2.110 161,899.09 AAA AAA AAA AAA 61,494,742.63 62,263,223.77 62,328,846.39 297,195.03 14 Page 9 of 37 15 INRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account Quarter ended Se a tember 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 4 Base Base Change In Source Beginning Base Base Maturities and Net Total Realized Amortization/A Net Unrealized Account Account Identifier Description Markel Value Base Purchases Base Sales Redemptions Base Pas dossns Gain/Loss ceretion Gain/Loss 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137A6B27 FI MS K010 A2 254.432.65 Ending Base Ending Accrued Market Value Income Balance (1,159.11) (22.99) (1,090.55) 300.38 252,460.37 895.52 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828E58 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1,506,855.00 (970.45) 970.45 1,506,855.00 5,370.24 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138E7RP5 FN AL2293 156,612.74 - - - (728.09) (20.83) (757.14) 328.38 155,435.07 547.57 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31397UPF0 FNA 1 lM1 A3 321,934.67 - - - (15,940.16) (248.36) (748.43) 475.67 305,473.39 941.33 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AH6C7 RIMS K015 A2 356,979.00 - - - (12,320.41) (203.00) (742.47) (1,306.02) 342,407.10 908.92 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31381Q6B7 FN 468066 - 187,289.55 - - (560.55) (16.27) (741.84) 1,506.95 187,477.84 648.29 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137A2B26 FI MS K009 A2 224,443.60 - - - (2,672.18) (27.68) (718.36) 552.09 221,577.48 695.99 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AJMF8 FHMS K016 A2 338,656.28 - - - (1,806.99) (26.67) (643.70) (377.40) 335,801.52 818.73 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137EADB2 FREDDIE MAC 507,385.00 (544.53) 859.53 507,700.00 2,572.92 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BM6P6 FHMS K721 A2 205,234.00 (471.50) (220.50) 204,542.00 515.00 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378CNY9 GNR 127E MD 202,582.00 (469.63) 17.63 202,130.00 583.33 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137F4D41 FHMS K074 A2 162,687.00 (356.43) 3,378.93 165,709.50 450.00 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31419AM53 FN AE0379 133,932.53 - - - (9,925.90) (352.88) (354.27) 149.81 123,449.29 546.77 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31381R5T7 FN 468958 104,491.57 (350.71) (135.10) 104,005.76 317.31 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137B1U75 FIMS KS01 A2 378,063.75 (349.27) 1,868.02 379,582.50 788.13 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3620ARB67 GN 737261 247,093.93 - - - (18,374.92) (663.24) (340.45) 831.87 228,547.18 732.39 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137FBAJ5 FI MS KIR3 A2 210,864.00 (334.94) 5,768.94 216,298.00 546.83 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137B1UG5 FHMS K027 A2 203,668.00 (315.34) 527.34 203,880.00 439.50 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 36297GCD0 GN 711168 113,861.41 - - - (5,391.86) (226.17) (312.94) 421.38 108,351.82 394.24 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137F4CY6 FHMS KBX1 Al 195,933.70 (284.29) 2,636.49 198,285.90 462.33 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137E1E50 RIMS K026 A2 253,647.50 (278.30) 403.30 253,772.50 522.92 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137ABFH9 FHMS Kelly A2 83,131.11 (265.22) 270.08 83,135.97 269.26 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137ATRW4 RIMS K020 A2 302,151.00 (257.07) 719.07 302,613.00 593.25 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38374C4J7 GNR 0385G TW 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137FGZN8 FHMS KIO2 A 99,323.32 - - - (26,538.36) (298.39) (251.55) (23.12) 72,211.90 327.20 334,226.86 (65,864.84) 23.88 (220.02) 819.50 268,985.38 108.70 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137ABFH9 FHMS Kelly A2 69,789.08 - - - - - (218.60) 222.68 69,793.16 226.04 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137E1E50 FHMS K026 A2 398,687.70 (204.63) 2,477.48 400,960.55 826.21 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AXHPI FHMS K024 A2 152,214.00 (188.86) 410.86 152,436.00 321.63 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3130AG5X9 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 500,365.00 - (500,045.00) - - (26.79) (184.62) (108.59) 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136AHAE0 FNA 13M14 APT 138,449.50 - - - (2,978.32) (25.11) (178.33) 845.65 136,113.38 300.30 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AUPE3 RIMS K021 A2 201,652.00 (174.77) 442.77 201,920.00 399.33 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137FL6P4 FHMS K089 A2 307,108.40 (167.01) (1,303.64) 305,637.75 816.52 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138LFGP7 FN AN2905 310,207.03 (154.99) (1,220.04) 308,832.00 637.50 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378BCG2 GNR 122 AB 151,295.57 (86,524.04) 546.92 (149.57) 433.97 65,602.84 115.56 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136AGFQ0 FNR 1392B A 209,875.78 - - - (22,630.15) (284.04) (133.59) 212.71 187,040.71 538.30 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3620C4SU5 GN 748531 112,011.85 - - - (7,954.07) (295.38) (129.44) 363.10 103,996.06 333.26 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138151(78 FN 469617 - 86,832.40 - - (362.03) (6.01) (128.55) 593.34 86,929.14 235.92 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136G4TH6 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 300,276.00 - - - - - (115.75) (1.25) 300,159.00 1,224.33 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3130AFFX0 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 222,450.00 (115.53) 545.53 222,880.00 2,437.50 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3620AFYR2 GN 728920 119,731.77 - - - (10,887.82) (353.20) (101.65) 302.13 108,691.23 348.41 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828L57 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1,006,210.94 - - - - (100.42) (1,150.52) 1,004,960.00 47.81 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828XEI UNITED STATES TREASURY 462,076.17 (98.37) 748.20 462,726.00 3,611.92 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31397ALN1 FHR 3196C FA 224,725.74 (34,093.50) 19.85 (86.45) 38.07 190,603.70 201.34 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BP4K2 FHMS KIR1 A2 210,125.00 (79.20) (743.80) 209,302.00 474.83 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137133FM FHR 4231C FB 120,684.25 (18,954.07) 58.02 (75.86) (115.76) 101,596.59 111.39 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3620A9T35 GN 723370 206,108.12 (22,477.18) (729.14) (71.58) 377.60 183,207.82 587.28 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138L2QG5 FN AM2254 280,778.08 (68.00) (496.36) 280,213.72 663.71 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38376V2E6 GNR 1019B UA 132,881.64 - - (3,221.05) (130.72) (60.50) 1,196.18 130,665.56 41491 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137FNAD2 FHMS K095 Al 152,993.70 - - (139.24) (2.75) (59.39) 2,916.01 155,708.33 328.57 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136A7MN9 FNA 12M8 A2 159,703.96 - - (316.74) (2.58) (55.51) 135.23 159,464.35 309.54 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38377REV3 GNR 10158C HA 93,571.36 - - (5,772.35) (111.97) (50.95) 120.28 87,756.37 250.77 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138LFP5l FN AN3143 207,601.56 (48.00) (1,715.56) 205,838.00 428.33 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38376PRM4 GNR 09118C YE 50,523.85 (13,587.40) (64.19) (46.60) (37.74) 36,787.93 121.83 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38376GY53 GNR 1195 C 70,929.52 - - (688.81) (2.10) (39.14) 180.90 70,380.38 205.73 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BDKF2 FHR 4384A LA 55,137.82 - - (1,330.15) (29.32) (26.85) 321.92 54,073.43 153.45 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 313500022 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION - 227,610.00 (227,245.50) - - (338.41) (26.09) 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BDKF2 FHR 4384A LA 26,035.38 (1,821.40) (33.33) (21.84) 37.50 24,196.31 68.66 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138EKXL4 FN AL3382 52,557.75 - - (103.85) (1.17) (21.77) 39.40 52,470.37 101.71 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378WUY7 GNR 13124F CP 203,637.52 (21,039.12) (32.11) (19.93) (246.90) 182,299.47 377.66 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136AGZA3 FNR 13101E A 34,541.61 (2,593.41) (17.51) (17.07) (29.65) 31,883.97 78.84 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378TAF7 GNR 1371A GA 123,557.15 - - (3,480.88) (6.41) (10.61) 930.29 120,989.54 249.68 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137BSRZ8 FHMS KJ09 A2 207,494.15 (20,015.53) (382.35) (9.44) 743.14 187,829.97 435.09 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 383797M99 GNR 1545E AG 58,727.15 (5.37) 408.85 59,130.63 121.56 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 31846V401 FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG D 5,093,730.60 4,878,844.09 (9,691,526.44) - - - - - 281,048.25 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve CCYUSD Cash 489.16 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve CCYUSD Payable (5,029,416.31) - - - - - - - (224,772.81) 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve CCYUSD Receivable 14,925.35 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3134GTED FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 600,000.00 - - (600,000.00) 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828Y53 UNITED STATES TREASURY - 224,780.71 - - - - - (7.96) 224,772.75 776.10 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 62888VAA6 NGN 10R1 IA 24,478.11 (2,594.34) 1.12 2.09 (31.21) 21,855.76 40.64 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38377QKH9 GNR 1118A PG 57,418.44 - - (1,352.40) (24.86) 10.40 145.98 56,197.56 137.60 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828Y53 UNITED STATES TREASURY - 349,618.21 (349,617.84) - - (16.18) 15.81 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828Y53 UNITED STATES TREASURY 799,152.00 - (799,175.58) - - (598.59) 23.32 598.85 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3130AFEN3 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 599,712.00 - (599,646.00) - - (133.44) 31.51 35.93 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378KWU9 GNR 1396 A 35,430.09 - - (1,170.06) 52.91 37.17 832.96 35,183.06 41.91 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38377YTL4 GNR 11136D GA 233,591.33 (18,077.56) 220.37 39.97 626.54 216,400.65 364.93 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AS7D0 FHR 4084A TC 221,223.40 (22,755.37) 169.58 46.76 (1,235.09) 197,449.28 329.23 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137B6DF5 FHA 4272E YG 201,218.78 (13,040.43) 135.69 79.99 334.50 188,728.54 313.69 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136ADFF1 FNR 1336D KC 153,491.76 (19,637.25) 280.34 97.17 181.69 134,413.71 169.69 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 9128285W6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 150,352.36 119.20 388.55 150,860.12 263.82 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3136A5KR6 FNR 1231G AD 221,478.92 (28,654.81) 207.13 130.59 244.77 193,406.59 283.36 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378KWU9 GNR 1396 A 60,513.90 (1,989.10) 84.24 135.67 1,066.50 59,811.21 71.25 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378NWU3 GNR 1417A AM 170,070.80 (1,112.90) (15.76) 144.01 899.76 169,985.91 350.56 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 38378BSZ3 GNR l253AA 253,558.95 16 (3,392.77) 19.19 157.51 436.43 250,779.30 449.26 Page 10 of 37 INRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account Quarter ended Se a tember 30, 2019 Source Account Account Identifier Description Beginning Base Markel Value Base Purchases Base Sales Base Base Change In Base Maturities and Net Total Realized Amortization/A Net Unrealized Redemptions Base Pa ',downs Gain/Loss eeretion Gain/Loss Ending Base Ending Accrued Market Value Income Balance 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137AWQG3 RIMS K023 Al 38378KW47 GNR 13138 A 334,613.06 313,379.37 (27,947.34) 300.09 (7,455.28) 40.78 269.67 323.78 667.50 137.61 307,902.98 306,426/6 408.42 550.98 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 9128285W6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 127,807.73 333.27 1,167.68 129,308.67 226.13 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 9128286N5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 38378BXQ7 GNR 1289 A 262,155.22 298,693.33 (21,238.52) 211.64 388.41 653.13 (550.99) (309.54) 298,530.75 241,471.92 681.08 311.76 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3137EADR7 FREDDIE MAC 497,145.00 (323,880.38) 326.85 753.85 I40.18 174,485.50 1,002.60 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3135GOD75 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 646,685.00 902.87 598.64 648,186.50 2,681.25 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3138EJPZ5 FN AL2239 308,302.03 (79,572.88) (1,453.06) 1,087.96 62.54 228,426.59 562.11 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828V49 UNITED STATES TREASURY 308,833.83 1,188.57 1,165.41 311,187.80 244.81 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828L99 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1,291,576.00 1,447.97 983.03 1,294,007.00 7,480.30 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 3133841(N FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 998,470.00 (1,000,000.00) 1,524.31 5.69 256350018 MN4-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828276 UNITED STATES TREASURY 998,280.00 (1,000,000.00) 1,601.56 118.44 256350018 MIM-RCTC 91 TIFIA Reserve 912828UH1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 660,398.87 3,018.59 (2,338.77) 661,078.68 176.69 19,985,164.61 11,110,476.14 (12,491,136.74) (2,600,000.00) (692,245.49) (4,524.39) (1,049.10) 34,983.23 20,130,897.26 57,020.29 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 61747WAF6 MORGAN STANLEY 105,033.00 (706.37) 311.37 104,638.00 1,054.17 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38141EA58 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 102,058.00 (680.43) 60.43 101,438.00 238.89 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 61747WAF6 MORGAN STANLEY 105,033.00 (679.05) 284.05 104,638.00 1,054.17 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06051GEC9 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 103,238.00 (572.21) (0.79) 102,665.00 1,406.25 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06051GEC9 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 103,238.00 (570.98) (2.02) 102,665.00 1,406/5 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38141EA58 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 102,058.00 (516.84) (103.16) 101,438.00 238.89 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137ABFH9 FHMS KAN A2 211,419.86 (440.14) 452.50 211,432.22 684.78 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137AYCE9 FHMS K025 A2 367,790.63 (330.94) (263.29) 367,196.40 804.60 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31381QB54 FN 467260 102,627.69 (564.25) (7.72) (279.99) (184.71) 101,591.02 364.81 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31397UPF0 FNA 11M1 A3 160,967.34 (7,970.09) (96.36) (265.17) 100.98 152,736.70 470.66 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 46625HHS2 1PMORGAN CHASE & CO 102,220.00 (102,220.00) 1,192.87 (174.80) (1,018.07) 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31358TPC7 FNR G935 F 38013FAD3 GMCAR 184 A3 112,389.53 76,374.02 (13,525.82) (31.17) (155.73) (127.46) 136.68 80.94 98,813.49 76,327.50 47.10 100.31 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828L57 UNITED STATES TREASURY 529,778.32 (114.36) (2,059.96) 527,604.00 25.10 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3620ARB67 GN 737261 80,923.26 (6,017.79) (217.21) (111.50) 272.44 74,849.20 239.86 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38377REV3 GNR 10158C HA 187,142.71 (11,544.69) (223.95) (10191) 240.57 175,512.73 501.54 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3134GTAE3 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 550,671.00 (550,000.00) (97.45) (573.55) 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137A1N90 FHMS K008 A2 86787EAS6 SUNTRUST BANK 65,514.15 100,179.00 (1,118.51) (2.21) (96.05) (84.52) (34.52) 21.52 64,262.86 100,116.00 187.97 479.73 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 17305E.GK5 CCCIT 18A1 Al 100,625.00 (78.81) 189.81 100,736.00 491.08 256351)021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31381RZ23 FN 468861 62.553.87 (335.851 (3.581 (78.381 (92.631 62.043.43 193.66 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 46625HHS2 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3136AMM48 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31381RLL6 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828L57 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31394GUX9 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31381SVJ8 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828L57 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137ATRW4 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31416BV11.6 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 62888UAB6 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 87165LBB6 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69371RP34 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 86564FXA6 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3138EKXL4 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828Y53 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 51500VCC1 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 459058GK3 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137APP61 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828Y53 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 459058GK3 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137A5FP4 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 62888VAA6 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 62888VAA6 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 62888VAA6 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38378CDK0 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 459058GK3 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3138L81123 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31846V401 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund CCYUSD MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund CCYUSD MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund CCYUSD MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 56052FHZ1 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 658886DZ6 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 459058GK3 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3134GTBJ1 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 86787EBD8 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 14913Q2X6 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 025816CE7 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 072024W W8 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 4581XOCZ9 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 26209AAE1 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 477870AB5 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 14315PAB1 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 47789JAB2 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 05531FBM MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3136A72D3 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 65478LAB5 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO FNA 15M4B AV2 FN 468431 UNITED STATES TREASURY FHR 2666B OD FN 469617 UNITED STATES TREASURY FHMS K020 A2 FN 995324 NGN 10R2 2A SYNCT 162 A PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank LW. (New York Branch) FN AL3382 UNITED STATES TREASURY Landesbank Hessen -Thuringen Gimzentrale INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM FHMS K018 A2 UNITED STATES TREASURY INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM FHR 3791E DA NGN 10R1 IA _ NGN I0R1 IA NGN 10R1 IA GNR 111690 AK INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM FN AM7448 FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG D Cash Payable Receivable MAINE ST HSG AUTH MTG PUR NORTH DAKOTA ST HSG FIN AGY MTG REV INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP SUNTRUST BANK CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP AMERICAN EXPRESS CO BAY AREA TOLL AUTH CALIF TOLL BRDG REV INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK DRIVE 194 B 1DOT 19B A2 CARMX 193 A2A 1DOT 2019 A2 BB&T CORP FNA 12M9 A2 NALT 19B A2A 344,634.30 500,020.00 220,072.60 299,682.00 65,021.45 31,117.22 76,154.10 31,277.57 40,796.84 30,038.14 15,004.95 68,563.52 48,056.65 8,737.50 100,000.00 100,000.00 15,004.95 500,000.00 50,078.00 120,289.20 100,395.00 105,618.45 40,888.00 - (40,888.00) - - 452.32 (74.17) (378.14) 370,036.54 - - (14,720.03) (79.78) (73.82) 1,506.75 54,233.97 - - - (271.20) (2.84) (73.05) (91.29) 277,545.90 - - - - (69.44) (1,112.46) 35,450.43 - - (2,180.92) (91.49) (64.21) 298.83 87,595.32 - - - (551.95) (2.11) (57.52) (54.61) 423,035.16 - - - - (54.43) (897.53) 101,109.38 - - - - (51.05) (187.33) 20,953.19 - - - (6,955.27) (58.41) (39.02) 48.18 169,840.10 - - - (7,708.98) (8.74) (37.76) 178.59 160,387.50 - - - - (32.65) 176.35 200,264.00 - - - - (31.12) (116.88) 600,028.33 - (600,000.00) - - (28.33) 56,061.60 - - (110.77) (1.25) (23.22) - - - (18.53) (500,000.00) - - (11.87) (10.73) 15,244.92 - - - - (7.02) - - - - - (5.77) - - (5.52) - - - (3,063.45) (2.85) (3.34) (68,001.00) - (8,071.29) 17.54 (293) - (27,928.98) - (3,314.99) 3.02 (1.93) (_36429.10) - (432390) 8.66 (1.70) 12,312,905.75 (11,648,142.63) 95,000.00 652,067.00 79,989.10 89,999.66 119,994.61 164,877.90 7,354.83 79,993.00 (500,000.00) (7,517.32) (21.36) (1.26) (0.76) (379.40) 1.15 (0.70) (745.97) 43.88 (4.30) 0.16 0.22 0.65 0.98 1.39 1.41 1.46 42.03 35.78 (8.13) 52.53 (45.30) 20.77 17.87 25.32 (96.43) (34.69) (5099) 9.46 3.61 11.14 2.85 (43.88) 47.50 (14.40) (75.00) 186.20 (149.50) (89.26) 207.12 259.14 (135.38) 23.36 32.94 131.94 356,669.66 53,795.60 276,364.00 33,412.64 86,929.13 422,083.20 100,871.00 13,948.66 162,263.21 160,531.20 200,116.00 55,968.39 344,651.55 220,114.40 15,192.60 299,697.00 65,033.80 28,072.90 0.01 22,507.65 15,007.80 68,195.70 712,819.77 (0.00) (651,917.62) 100,000.00 100,000.00 15,007.80 50,125.50 120,274.80 100,320.00 95,186.20 651,917.50 79,900.00 90,207.00 120,254.40 105,484.05 164,902.65 6,638.91 80,126.40 738.58 167.92 13.15 145.86 235.92 20.08 197.75 56.35 303.59 157.16 678.06 108.49 1,190.02 598.34 34.86 1,034.80 176.78 58.30 56.11 40.80 155.39 869.04 558.70 40.80 162.07 360.30 321.53 28.08 568.75 64.42 91.20 117.87 133.00 151.25 13.58 80.71 256350021 MN4-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 9128285H9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 499,265.00 17 (99,849.16) - - (148.99) 1.59 99.56 399,368.00 1,381.11 Page 11 of 37 INRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account Quarter ended Se a tember 30, 2019 Source Account Account Identifier ReSCHpllon Beginning Base Markel Value Base Purchases Base Sales Base Base Change In Base Maturities and Net Total Realized Amortization/A Net Unrealized Redemptions Base Pavdowns Gain/Loss ceretlon Gain/Loss Ending Base Ending Accrued Market Value Income Balance 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 89114QAS7 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK 100,000.00 (100,000.00) 1.59 (1.59) 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 89114QAS7 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK 100,000.00 (100,000.00) 1.63 (1.63) 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31680YAB3 FITAT 191 A2A 155,674.25 1.97 (74.82) 155,601.40 183.24 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137A1LC5 FHB. 371OF AB 5,946.93 (2,587.53) 5.48 2.60 5.30 3,372.78 5.63 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 65479AAD4 NALT 17A A3 17,994.27 (18 003.45) 4.85 2.65 1.68 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 055657AC4 BMWLT 171 A3 24,510.99 (24,522.76) 2.45 3.88 5.44 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31418CQM9 FN MA3159 61,581.47 4.21 (101.42) 61,484.25 150.13 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 369550BA5 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP 314016DU8 FN BM1914 3136A72D3 FNA 12M9 A2 25,124.00 218,109.17 33,098.00 (25,124.50) (4,528.09) (3,356.89) 158.88 (30.71) (19.47) 4.36 5.64 6.39 (162.74) 675.83 147.08 214,231.84 29,875.12 441.93 61.12 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 637432MU6 NATIONAL RURAL UTRATIES COOP FINANCE CORP 200,118.00 7.39 188.61 200,314.00 1,383.89 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 04056BVF4 Arizona Public Service Company 3137APP53 RIMS K018 Al 6,988.16 124,992.43 (125,000.00) (5,334.62) 39.45 7.57 7.60 (20.02) 1,680.57 2.50 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3130AGE68 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 31418AU48 FN MA1502 750,217.50 70,877.71 (63,483.94) (750,000.00) (7,292.07) 169.24 887.39 7.74 7.85 (394.48) (996.94) 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 65479AAD4 NALT 17A A3 10,796.56 (10,802.07) 15.16 8.27 (17.92) 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38378AWX5 GNR 11157E QA 3138L2GH4 FN AM1999 24,281.81 34,529.13 (4,005.18) (148.55) 0.79 8.47 10.16 0.44 149.92 20,268.43 34,541.45 50.37 53.87 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 172967LC3 CITIGROUP INC 252,592.50 14.55 1,080.45 253,687.50 2,275.69 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137B1UF7 FHMS K027 Al 254010AC5 DIGNIFY HEALTH 15,408.00 23,974.08 (1,196.95) 12.86 16.00 16.04 19.45 10.36 14,259.36 24,000.48 21.25 263.70 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 0258MOEE5 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP 19,979.00 (19,980.40) 76.39 16.09 (91.07) 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 0258MOEE5 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP 19,979.00 (19,980.40) 77.04 16.20 (91.83) 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 0258MOEE5 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP 19,979.00 (19,980.40) 77.47 16.27 (92.34) 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31282/IMPP2 FH G18429 172967LC3 CITIGROUP INC 249,547.47 202,074.00 (16,781.17) 73.70 18.37 20.15 (14.94) 855.85 232,843.44 202,950.00 480.08 1,820.56 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31282/IMPY3 FH G18438 226,032.75 (12392.78) 54.00 22.10 20.05 213,736.12 440.66 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137AWQG3 FHMS K023 Al 20,913.32 (1,746.71) 24.75 22.77 29.81 19,243.94 25.53 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 04056BVC1 Arizona Public Service Company 139,974.33 (140,000.00) 25.67 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137AXHN6 FHMS K024 Al 26,639.32 (2,375.11) 23.12 27.40 30.50 24,345/4 35.58 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3138L1W62 FN AM1568 126,096.02 (590.66) 3.32 30.10 3.75 125,542.53 262.33 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137GAUY1 FHA 3737J MA 164,307.59 (3,459.44) 36.13 31.O1 1,049.97 161,965.26 203.20 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 369550BA5 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP 200,992.00 (200,996.00) 1,241.16 31.10 (1,268.26) 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 05916SVE7 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 499,968.75 (500,000.00) 31.25 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 46625HKA7 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 99,969.00 (100,055.00) 142.89 33.68 (90.56) 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3136A5KR6 FNR 1231G AD 31677QBK4 FIFTH THIRD BANK (OHIO) 112,954.25 199,788.00 (14,613.94) 164.54 34.31 36.50 98.20 549.50 98,637.36 200,374.00 144.51 1,845.56 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137A2PV7 FHB. 3760D BA 0258MOEE5 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP 32,676.99 99,895.00 (99,902.00) (2,265.26) 38.65 139.13 37.46 40.17 (29.37) (172.31) 30,458.46 37.95 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137AWQG3 FHMS K023 Al 9128285H9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 31,369.97 399,412.00 (2,620.06) 38.45 45.01 46.18 32.53 (90.18) 28,865.90 399,368.00 38.29 1,381.11 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 375558BB8 GILEAD SCIENCES INC 35,102.90 48.60 17.20 35,168.70 74.38 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 65478DAD9 NAROT 18A A3 85,443.70 50.42 (92.07) 85,402.05 100.11 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06051GFN4 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 99,983.00 52.51 71.49 100,107.00 1,000.00 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828Y53 UNITED STATES TREASURY 754,199.70 55.53 (17.78) 754,237.45 2,604.25 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 90331HNP4 US BANK NA 254,535.00 58.97 (511.47) 254,082.50 3,390.63 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 31397LIJK3 FNR 0845C DB 166,093.41 (24,302.54) (302.71) 66.65 (388.26) 141,166.55 517.70 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828UF5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 29,854.80 67.82 16.48 29,939.10 85.29 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 05531FAU7 BB&T CORP 250,515.00 73.46 294.04 250,882.50 1,677.08 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3137B2GW4 FHMS K713 A2 96,255.99 (4,508.86) 13.21 77.96 (16.27) 91,822.03 177.16 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 94974BGM6 WELLS FARGO & CO 200,658.00 80.95 205.05 200,944.00 996.67 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828V V9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 50,117.00 85.82 (79.82) 50,123.00 90.49 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 0258MOEE5 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP 99,895.00 (99,902.00) 426.31 87.84 (507.15) 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 2333610(Q° DTE Electric Company 38375CBH2 GNR 1257F LD 65,426.00 399,400.00 (40,324.14) 93.72 88.89 90.03 7.11 22.12 399,496.00 25,307.73 26.41 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 161571FK5 CRAFT 124 A 114,881.55 (115,000.00) 94.26 24.19 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 780082AC7 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 100,048.00 105.73 (88.73) 100,065.00 974.17 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 21201CX43 Continental Rubber of America, Corp. 474,796.80 116.11 11.09 474,924.00 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 38378KW47 GNR 13138 A 121,112.80 (2,881.26) 15.75 125.13 53.18 118,425.61 212.94 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 13607RAB6 CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE 99,849.00 (100,000.00) 126.53 24.47 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 05584PAD9 BMWLT 172 A3 144,071.39 (44,317.35) 98.87 136.76 (38.75) 99,950.92 63.22 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 21687BXM8 Coaperatieve Rabobank U.A., New York Branch 424,389.18 140.96 6.61 424,536.75 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69353RFH6 PNC BANK NA 250,837.50 141.65 583.35 251,562.50 1,197.92 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69372BXU9 PACCAR Financial Corp. 424,220.83 141.67 8.50 424,371.00 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828VA5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 39,706.40 141.82 (18.62) 39,829.60 188.32 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 93884FX98 Washington Gas Light Company 424,652.92 148.75 11.33 424,813.00 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 53154MXH2 Liberty Utilities Co. 474,368.25 474,582.00 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 375558BB8 GILEAD SCIENCES INC 100,294.00 100,482.00 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69,980.40 70,016.80 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828UH1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 33,019.94 33,053.93 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 40428HPN6 HSBC USA INC (NEW) 99,973.00 100,022.00 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 249,897.50 250,185.00 1,000.00 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 46640QU82 J.P. Morgan Securities LLC 374,827.50 (375,000.00) 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 97684HU82 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 374,827.50 (375,000.00) 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06416CAC2 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 99,655.00 99,985.00 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 120,753.16 120,904.41 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06367TPX2 BANK OF MONTREAL 99,888.00 100,008.00 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06367TPX2 BANK OF MONTREAL 99,888.00 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 04056BVK3 Arizona Public Service Company 499,786.11 (500,000.00) 256350021 MISI-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828L57 UNITED STATES TREASURY 100,070.00 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 13607RAB6 CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE 99,849.00 (100,000.00) 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 02587AA.13 99,796.00 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69350BUBO PPG Industries, Inc. 324,785.50 (325,000.00) 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 3138L2GH4 FN AM1999 91,168.11 Page 12 of 37 INRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account Quarter ended Se a tember 30, 2019 Source Account Account Identifier DCBcrlption Beginning Base Markel Value Base Purchases Base Sales Base Base Change In Base Maturities and Net Total Realized Amortization/A Net Unrealized Redemptions Base Pavdowns Gain/Loss ceretlon Gain/Loss Ending Base Ending Accrued Market Value Income Balance 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 92780KVD7 Virginia Electric and Power Company 9128286N5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 499,746.67 212,282.49 (500,000.00) 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 9128286N5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 211,448.22 253.33 260.45 (1,512.58) 211,030.35 481.45 264.34 (682.20) 211,030.35 481A5 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 780082AC7 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 100,048.00 278.46 (261.46) 100,065.00 974.17 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828VA5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 69,486.20 278.48 (62.88) 69,701.80 329.55 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 71112KUH2 The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company 912828E58 UNITED STATES TREASURY 06416CAC2 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 266,211.05 99,655.00 474,709.06 (475,000.00) 290.94 304.33 329.80 (304.33) 0.20 266,211.05 99,985.00 948.74 807.29 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 17401QAN1 Citizens Bk PA 249,512.50 330.76 691.74 250,535.00 2,359.38 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 50000EV84 Koch Industries, Inc. 912828UH1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 66,039.89 299,668.50 (300,000.00) 331.50 352.62 (284.63) 66,107.87 17.67 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 17275REG6 CISCO SYSTEMS INC 149,677.50 (150,000.00) 387.00 (64.50) 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 04056BUH1 Arizona Public Service Company 399,612.67 (400,000.00) 387.33 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 43814TAD4 HARDT 171 A4 199,756.00 418.95 (184.95) 199,990.00 113.89 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 49327M2P8 KEYBANK NA 249,695.00 (250,000.00) 445.15 (140.15) 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 50000EX33 Koch Industries, Inc. 38378BXQ7 GNR 1289 A 912828V V9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 194,189.05 461,076.40 374,490.00 (15,732.24) 156.77 467.50 483.80 485.14 1.25 (229.29) (429.94) 374,958.75 178,868.09 461,131.60 230.94 832.49 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828VA5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 134,009.10 496.33 (80.53) 134,424.90 635.56 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828E58 UNITED STATES TREASURY 286,302A5 550.65 (550.65) 286,302.45 1,020.35 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 06406FAB9 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP 199,596.00 606.89 (52.89) 200,150.00 1,685.56 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 23337UX79 DTE Gas Company 424,202.18 643.40 14.17 424,859.75 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828VA5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 55279HAN0 MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST CO 198,532.00 249,537.50 676.67 722.87 (60.67) (107.87) 199,148.00 250,152.50 941.58 626.39 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 69353RFC7 PNC BANK NA 249,335.00 745.83 (170.83) 249,910.00 1,833.33 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 97684HV57 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 399,244.00 (400,000.00) 756.00 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828UF5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 233,862.60 790.59 (130.24) 234,522.95 668.12 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 02360SW61 Ameren Corporation 499,050.00 (500,000.00) 950.00 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 26055BW91 The Dow Chemical Company 499,009.72 (500,000.00) 990.28 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 023605V70 Ameren Corporation 474,006.46 (475,000.00) 993.54 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828VV9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 912828SA9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 551,287.00 201,918.49 1,013.57 1,074.62 (947.57) (993.98) 551,353.00 201,999.13 995.36 54.06 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828UF5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 278,644.80 1,130.86 (344.06) 279,431.60 796.06 256350021 M1M-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828UF5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 422,943.00 1,391.30 (197.05) 424,137.25 1,208.31 256350021 MIM-RCTC 2013 Residual Fund 912828VA5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 476,476.80 2,003.12 (524.72) 477,955.20 2,259.78 21,071,577.68 26,068,437.22 (12,672,863.51) (9,590,000.00) (487,275.29) 4,669.20 21,442.76 (9,486.46) 23,745,846.47 70,999.81 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381Q6B7 FN 468066 189,089.28 (865.85) (36.15) (1,021.01) 311.57 187,477.84 648.29 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828E58 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 733,336.10 (684.89) 684.89 733,336.10 2,613.52 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137B1U75 FHMS KS01 A2 383,104.60 (668.29) 2,207.29 384,643.60 798.63 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828XB1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 991,458.00 (630.85) 11,745.85 1,002,573.00 7,825.83 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377UN20 GNR 1162A PA 0.56 614.85 (615.41) 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828G38 UNITED STATES TREASURY 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381PEB0 FN 466430 1,381,428.00 251,033.79 (1,226.78) (10.50) (609.78) (468.13) 13,326.78 (159.49) 1,394,145.00 249,168.88 11,473.17 694.40 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381QB54 FN 467260 133,862.20 (735.97) (10.08) (365.20) (240.93) 132,510.02 475.84 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137EADB2 FREDDIE MAC 202,954.00 (352.92) 478.92 203,080.00 1,029.17 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381T4E7 FN 470721 262,314.94 (1,671.14) (32.96) (351.48) 867.63 261,126.98 570.60 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137FBA15 FHMS KIR3 A2 210,864.00 (334.94) 5,768.94 216,298.00 546.83 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136A7MN9 FNA 12M8 A2 290,548.39 (1,755.01) (20.85) (328.41) 1,491.07 289,935.19 562.81 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137EADB2 FREDDIE MAC 202,954.00 (270.18) 396.18 203,080.00 1,029.17 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31398QTP2 FHR 3747C HW 63,405.87 (16,917.75) (165.68) (270.02) 186.49 46,238.91 171.87 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828E58 UNITED STATES TREASURY 236,073.95 (266.77) 266.77 236,073.95 841.34 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137ABFH9 FHMS KAIV A2 102,574.22 (258.56) 321.34 102,637.00 33142 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828E58 UNITED STATES TREASURY 100,457.00 (249.92) 249.92 100,457.00 358.02 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381R5T7 FN 468958 134,494.10 (248.30) (377.00) 133,868.80 408.42 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378VC45 GNR 13116D MA 144,824.60 (6,191.45) 201.62 (235.95) 538.11 139,136.93 261.26 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137E1E50 FHMS K026 A2 363,360.94 (186.50) 2,257.96 365,432.40 753.00 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828E58 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3620ARB67 GN 737261 145,662.65 123,546.96 (9,187.46) (331.62) (180.22) (170.23) 180.22 415.93 145,662.65 114,273.59 519.12 366.19 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378CRT6 GNR 1213E EG 47,258.97 (3,023.28) 74.70 (150.62) (90.43) 44,069.34 73.47 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 36202F2H8 G2005276 128,320.89 (9,625.29) (297.53) (143.13) 739.78 118,994.72 289.72 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3138LFGP7 FN AN2905 284,356.45 (142.07) (1,118.38) 283,096.00 584.38 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137AXHP1 FHMS K024 A2 142,066.40 (112.09) 319.29 142,273.60 300.18 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38375XCM4 GNR 0847B PC 72,474.28 (6,068.23) (166.73) (110.78) (14.13) 66,114.42 266.88 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828E58 UNITED STATES TREASURY 115,525.55 (110.32) 110.32 115,525.55 411.72 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3130AFFX0 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 205,766.25 (106.86) 504.61 206,164.00 2,254.69 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38376GB33 GNR 116 BA 3137AUPE3 FHMS K021 A2 116,494.03 145,189.44 (97,661.70) (332.85) (104.91) (94.87) 190.45 287.83 18,585.02 145,382.40 53.84 287.52 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136AHAE0 FNA 13M14 APT 115,896.44 (2,631.21) (36.19) (82.48) 653.14 113,799.71 251.07 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381SV.18 FN 469617 109,494.16 (68993) (2.64) (71.90) (68.27) 108,661.42 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377JM59 GNR 10111F PE 80,819.67 140.27 114.69 74,563.21 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 72,654.97 454.73 69,279.09 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Re.rve Fund-1 3137FNAD2 RIMS K095 Al 137,694.33 2,624.41 140,137.50 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 34,975.78 26,441.30 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Re.rve Fund-1 38377REV3 GNR 10158C HA 87,333.27 81,905.94 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828VV9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 912828E58 UNITED STATES TREASURY 100,234.00 50,228.50 (100,246.09) 50,228.50 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137AIMF8 FHMS K016 A2 29,027.68 28,782.99 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137F4D41 RIMS K074 A2 32,537.40 33,141.90 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 64,009.56 63,514.00 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Re.rve Fund-1 3137AJMF8 RIMS K016 A2 24,109.00 23,985.82 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 17,868.29 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Re.rve Fund-1 72,547.98 216.38 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 8,871.91 Page 13 of 37 INRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account Quarter ended Se a tember 30, 2019 Source Account Account Identifier Description Beginning Base Markel Value Base Purchases Base Sales Base Base Change In Base Maturities and Net Total Realized Amortization/A Net Unrealized Redemptions Base Pavdouns Gain/Loss ceretlon Gain/Loss Ending Base Ending Accrued Market Value Income Balance 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 313500022 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 202,320.00 (201,996.00) (300.81) (23.19) 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377RVK8 GNR 10166F GP 19,665.62 (957.18) 12.31 (11.22) 19.60 18,729.13 46.23 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31417YKF3 FN MA0293 69,117.21 (3,453.79) (158.27) (8.14) 408.69 65,905.71 230.51 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137F4D41 FHMS K074 A2 5,422.90 (5.60) 106.35 5,523.65 15.00 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137A5FP4 FHR 3791E DA 52,052.60 (5,124.52) (4.76) (5.58) 42.35 46,960.09 97.52 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38379JM99 GNR 1545E AG 62888VAA6 NGN 10R11A 99,272.31 54,532.36 (10,521.49) (2.57) (4.99) (4.83) 379.64 (106.17) 54,907.01 88,637.26 112.88 164.80 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31381N7G2 FN 466295 18,157.47 (101.88) (0.36) (2.84) (39.35) 18,013.04 48.81 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137AUPE3 FHMS K021 A2 236,941.10 (230,806.95) 7,135.07 (1.15) (7,210.47) 6,057.60 11.98 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31846V401 FIRST AMER:GVT OBLGD 322,791.18 1,946,250.30 (2,020,532.19) 248,509.29 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 CCYUSD Cash (231,218.46) 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 CCYUSD Payable (199,798.78) (199,798.78) 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377UN20 GNR 1162A PA 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38375KCX8 GNR 0726C MA 881.41 (882.42) 1.01 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377F2N0 GNR 1073E LN 912828Y53 UNITED STATES TREASURY 77.97 199,805.08 (78.05) (0.02) 0.09 (7.08) 199,798.00 689.87 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377LQT8 GNR 10128D KE 2,560.03 (2,293.17) 2.40 1.48 (3.42) 267.32 0.67 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378CDK0 GNR 11169G AK 16,687.86 (4,176.29) (4.24) 1.78 (4.85) 12,504.25 31.17 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377JZ89 GNR 10117A GK 46,892.51 (3,639.02) (78.56) 3.02 274.65 43,452.59 122.72 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377LQT8 GNR 10128D KE 8,228.67 (7,370.89) 7.05 4.20 (9.80) 859.23 2.15 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137ATRW4 FHMS K020 A2 36202F2H8 G2 005276 125,896.25 30,599.59 (2,295.26) (1.09) 6.02 6.04 186.48 66.38 126,088.75 28,375.66 247.19 69.09 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378KWU9 GNR 1396 A 14,280.87 (512.11) 4.61 6.43 293.42 14,073.23 16.76 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 31418AU48 FN MA1502 38378DDC6 GNR 1216E GB 63,209.66 98,435.05 (56,615.80) (6,503.16) (26,663.66) 791.38 (60.57) 7.00 7.37 (889.09) (25.35) 71,692.85 208.43 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137B5A60 FHR 4257G EK 25,185.78 (1,574.85) 17.33 8.80 15.65 23,652.70 48.99 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3138L33G8 FN AM3498 99,656.00 9.15 41.85 99,707.00 167.50 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378HXH4 GNR 12119 KB 16,472.49 (1,100.35) 31.62 9.31 32.16 15,445.22 16.39 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377QKH9 GNR 1118A PG 38378KXW4 GNR 13105 A 101,024.94 53,217.09 (1,253.45) (1,660.66) (23.03) 3.29 9.64 15.50 135.31 46.96 52,085.55 99,430.02 127.54 142.63 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137A5FP4 FHR 3791E DA 34,993.34 (3,445.06) 9.69 16.81 (4.98) 31,569.81 65.56 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137ASNH3 FHMS K019 Al 33,371.51 (16 445.26) 44.33 18.70 34.65 17,023.93 20.74 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137B4HD1 FHR 4247A AK 47,347.26 (4,842.17) (156.09) 19.26 (258.94) 42,109.32 150.74 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136A5KR6 FNR 1231G AD 73,531.00 (9,513.39) 107.12 22.33 63.93 64,210.99 94.07 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378AWX5 GNR 11157E QA 72,845.44 (12,015.53) (25.13) 23.75 (23.25) 60,805.28 151.10 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378KWU9 GNR 1396 A 53,553.25 (1,920.40) 21.40 25.66 1,094.68 52,774.59 62.87 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 383791I.E3 GNR 14184H WK. 111,831.93 (10 857.45) 18.88 29.43 17.61 101,040.40 286.70 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828L99 UNITED STATES TREASURY 149,028.00 38.52 241.98 149,308.50 863.11 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3138L1W62 FN AM1568 164,894.80 (772.41) 4.35 39.36 4.91 164,171.01 343.05 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136AC714 FNA 13M62A 50,982.66 (1 418 161 16.68 40.76 150.76 49,772.70 105.93 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3138EKXL4 38378XP62 38378KSL4 38375CBH2 3138EKXL4 38378TAF7 38376WA62 38378B6A2 38376WA62 FN AL3382 GNR 14166 PL GNR 1374 AL GNR 1257F LD FN AL3382 GNR 1371A GA GNR 1015C PD GNR 1312A AB GNR 1015C PD 14,011.09 258,570.58 218,434.50 37,294.76 17,513.87 117,427.68 34,015.17 108,041.09 139,732.78 (84.26) (6,531.14) (22,985.96) (105.33) (5,875.32) (2,563.78) (679.34) (10,531.91) 2.59 (64.37) 53.43 2.66 5.82 (84.17) 11.56 (180.23) 45.34 46.15 47.61 51.32 52.40 57.60 67.39 69.18 83.82 17.34 5,197.09 9,683.64 12.61 26.52 66.87 (410.98) 3,203.36 (1,660.83) 13,992.10 257,218.31 228,165.75 14,426.16 17,490.12 111,682.66 31,023.62 110,645.85 127,443.64 27.12 533.64 527.70 15.05 33.90 230.47 100.03 171.03 410.91 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3136ADFF1 FNR 1336D KC 144,964.44 (18,546.29) 264.76 91.77 171.60 126,946.28 160.27 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137EADR7 FREDDIE MAC 472,287.75 (323,258.00) (1,370.97) 98.25 1,801.97 149,559.00 859.38 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378KSL4 GNR 1374 AL 38378B7F0 GNR 1333 B 194,164.00 190,884.00 100.22 108.28 8,549.78 7,797.72 202,814.00 198,790.00 469.06 378.83 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 9128286N5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 93,218.61 112.86 (684.00) 92,647.47 211.37 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 9128285W6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 164,366.84 126.86 (2,857.86) 161,635.84 282.66 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38379KDN5 GNR 1529 AD 145,921.74 (11,535.92) 122.93 154.61 3,650.32 138,313.69 246.65 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377RVK8 GNR 10166F GP 31,233.63 (1,520.23) (29.87) 174.71 (111.97) 29,746.27 73.42 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3134G9V38 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 249,242.50 (249,865.00) 3,090.26 175.19 (2,642.95) 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828XB1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 152,532.00 177.27 1,532.73 154,242.00 1,203.97 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38380AZ34 GNR 16147C DA 137,434.36 (5,063.99) (116.12) 178.32 1,561.82 133,994.39 324.60 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828L99 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3138EJPZ5 FN AL2239 38378KWU9 GNR 1396 A 645,788.00 274,41239 35,702.17 (587,121.10) (71,314.50) (1,280.27) (997.83) (2,278.15) 76.53 185.23 187.23 196.44 1,869.10 2,038.48 488.19 59,723.40 203,045.86 35,183.06 345.24 499.65 41.91 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828L57 UNITED STATES TREASURY 550,385.00 209.77 2,133.23 552,728.00 26.30 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378KWU9 GNR 1396 A 53,553.25 (1,920.40) 106.84 211.08 823.82 52,774.59 62.87 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38377RVK8 GNR 10166F GP 52,056.05 (2,533.71) (26.23) 212.27 (131.27) 49,577.12 122.36 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828V49 UNITED STATES TREASURY 58,571.93 226.43 220.02 59,018.38 46.43 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38376WA62 GNR 1015C PD 34,788.24 (2,622.05) (165.35) 230.31 (502.44) 31,728.71 102.30 256350023 MIM-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3137ATRW4 RIMS K020 A2 158,236.48 8.37 158,478.43 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 9128286N5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 180,245.97 180,147.86 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 238,605.00 9,577.94 248,487.50 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 3135GOD75 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 596,940.00 1,056.57 598,326.00 2,475.00 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fimd-1 9128285W6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 106,506.44 910.11 107,757.23 188.44 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 291,769.93 262,237.19 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fimd-1 3138EKXL4 FN AL3382 227,680.27 227,371.58 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828L57 UNITED STATES TREASURY 850,595.00 3,205.22 854,216.00 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 38378KRSO GNR 1378 AG 437,323.50 12,595.01 450,373.50 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 558,123.50 558,470.00 2,830.21 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828SA9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 185,091.95 185,165.87 49.55 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828UH1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 192,616.34 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fimd-1 912828V49 UNITED STATES TREASURY 239,612.45 1,031.48 256350023 M1M-Sr Lien Reserve Fund-1 912828SA9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 280,442.35 1,095.92 18,241,276.78 Page 14 of 37 IVRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account Quarter ended September 30, 2019 Source Base Base Change In Beginning Base Base Maturities and Net Total Realized Amortization/A Net Unrealized Ending Base Ending Accrued 59,298,019.07 41,342,074.19 (28,934,441.381 (12,190,000.00) (1,708,117.4M 5,115.21 21,279.30 135,125.12 62,328,846.39 188,460.20 21 Page 15 of 37 FirRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Summary of Investments for quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 5 C rcda Rating Base Market Value + Accrued 60, 0 00 , 000 50.000.000 40.000,000 30.000,000 20.000.000 10.000.000 0 , AAA AA + AA F Al Asset Clas Cash (-1.727%) -. Money Market � Funds (1.387%) Fixed Income (99.739%) Chart calculated by: Base Market Value • Accrued *Negative cash reflects securities in transit at month end Industry Group Other (13.240%) Malty -National (1.549%) Agency Collet PAC CMO (2.702%] Agency Collet CMO _ (6.003%) Banks (6.620%) FNMA Collateral (7.940%). Commercial MBS (22.101 %1 --Sovereign (39.63896) Chart calculated by: Bane Market Value • Accrued Security Type AGCY BOND (6.067..5) FFILMC 17.363%) CORP (8.261%) FHLMC CMO (7.903%) Chart calculated by: Base Market Value • Accrued Market Sector Other (0.735%) AS3el Backed — Utility (3.139%) / Agency (6.067%] Financial IS.Ogg%) Government (35.321%) Mortgage Backed (41.134%1 Chart calculated by: Baae Markel Value 1- Accrued 22 23 rijr RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Series A & Series B Reserve Fund Summary of Investments for quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 6 ti r Credit Rating Base Market Value t Accrued 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 r AAA 1� Asset Class 'Fixed Income (99.740.41 Chart Calculated 6y: Base Market value + Accrued *Negative cash reflects securities in transit at month end Industry Group Other (0.260%), GNMA Collates[ (0.619%) GNMA2 couateral (0.79a%) Agency Collet PAC CMO (3.415%) Agency Collet CMO (6.662%) FNMA Collateral'. (12.200%) 1 Commercial MBS' (25.009%) Sovereign (49.737%) Chart calculated 6y: Base Market Value + Accrued. Security Type AGCY BOND (70.421 %1 ONMA crop' t10.417%) Chart Calculated 6y: Base Market value + Accrued Market Secto Cash (0.26019 Agency (70.421%) Goren -Intent (39.316%) Mortgage Backed (50.003%) Chart Calculated 6y: Bats Market Value + ACCfued 24 25 rijr RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio Residual Fund Required Retained Balance Summary of Investments for quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 7 Credit Rating Base Market Value t Accrued 17,500,000 15,000,000 _ 12,500,000 10,000,000 7,500,000 5,000,000 2,500,000 AA+ AA AA- A+ ' A A- BBB+ A-7+ A-2 ' Asset Class Cash (-2.740%)•, Money Market Funds i2.993%4 Fixed Income (99.747%) Chad calculated by: Base Market value + Accrued *Negative cash reflects securities in transit at month end Industry Group Other (26.610%) Electric (3.670%) Diversified Finan Dery (3.856%) Multi -National"-, , (4.067%) FNMA Collateral 14.076%) Commercial MI35 (7.500%) Soversipn (32.629%) Banks (17.378%) Chart calculated by: Base Market Value + Accrued. SUPRANATIONAL (4,067%) FHLMC CMG [4A(6.] FNMA {6222%)- ASS (6917%) Other A(12403050 • CP (14.371%); US GOV [29.588%} CORP (21A/35% ) Chad calculated by: Base Market value + Accrued Market Secto Other (0.253741 Municipal (1.24695] Asset Backed (6.917%) Industrial (7.373%) Utility I8.292%) Mortgage Backed (17908%) Government (36.696%) Financial (21.230%) Chart calculated 6y: Base Market Value + Accrued 26 27 rilE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 91 CIP STAMP Portfolio TIFIA Reserve Fund Summary of Investments for quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 8 Credit Rating Base Market Value t Accrued 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 AAA 1� Asset Class Cash (-1.117%y k9oncy Marke[ FIIndS (7.39210 `Fixed Income (90_725%) Chad calculated 6y: Base Market value + Accrued *Negative cash reflects securities in transit at month end Industry Group Cash (0.275%) Agency Collet PAC CM0 (3.507%) _ GNMA C0!litteral� (3.642%) FNMA Collate rat (6.606%) Agency Collet CMO (8.652%) f Commercial MBS (35.850%) -Sovereign 09265%) Chart calculated 6y: Base Market Value + Accrued. Security Type Other (9.57474 \ TIPS (7.691%) GNMA CMG e_9o1 %] ASCY BOND ■ (9230%) FNMA (11.393,79 US GOV (22-344%) (16.155%) FNLMC CMO {14.511%] Chad calculated 6y: Base Market value + Accrued Market Secto Cash (0.275%] Agency {9.230%) Government 00.035%) Mortgage Backed (60.460%) Chad calculated 6y: Bose Market Value + Accrued 28 29 COUNTY RIVERSIDEPlir TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTACHMENT 9 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio by Investment Category for quarter ended September 30, 2019 Source Account nt Identifier - Category Ma Maturity Trade Date 10/25/2018 Current Face Value 375,000.00 Original Cost 375,000.00 Neat Call Date --- Base Market Value 375,026.25 Base Net Total Unrealized Gain/Loss 26.25 Coupon 1.890 Summarized Yield Credit Rating 1.839 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 3135G0U68 Agency Federal National Mortgage Association 10/30/2019 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 3130AG5X9 Agency Federal Home Loan Banks 10/09/2020 06/13/2019 1,700,000.00 1,701,020.00 10/09/2019 1,700,255.00 185.26 2.520 1.897 AAA 240907004 MDA-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 3130AH2K8 Agency Federal Home Loan Banks 09/10/2020 09/09/2019 2,075,000.00 2,075,000.00 12/10/2019 2,075,041.50 41.50 2.050 2.043 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137EADB2 Agency Freddie Mac 01/13/2022 09/30/2019 400,000.00 406,425.20 --- 406,160.00 (265.20) 2.375 1.685 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3130AECJ7 Agency Federal Home Loan Banks 05/28/2020 07/03/2018 350,000.00 350,150.50 --- 351,704.50 1,649.21 2.625 1.878 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38377REV3 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 10/20/2039 07/01/2019 37,257.28 37,996.60 --- 38,027.76 52.12 3.500 2.351 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137AH6C7 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 07/25/2021 11/29/2018 96,479.88 96,653.25 --- 97,830.60 1,232.87 3.230 2.260 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38376V2E6 Agency CMO Government National Mort gage Association 07/16/2039 08/06/2019 24,203.09 25,186.34 --- 25,407.19 232.59 4.000 1.665 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137AJMF8 Agency CMO Freddie Mac ] 0/25/2021 11/29/2018 94,590.65 94,276.58 --- 95,943.29 1,632.01 2.968 2.084 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38375XCM4 Agency CMO _ Government National Mort gage Association 11/16/2037 05/14/2019 _ 28,205.54 _ 29,004.33 --- 29,114.60_ 166.28 _ 5.000 2.767 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 383742C76 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 08/16/2037 01/31/2018 65,565.61 67,204.75 --- 66,638.92 (221.18) 4.000 3.107 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38375JCJ2 Agency CMO Government National Mort gage Association 12/16/2037 01/31/2018 6,099.76 6,118.82 --- 6,096.71 (3.98) 5.305 3.013 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38378BXQ7 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association O1/16/2036 06/17/2019 18,030.15 17,849.85 --- 17,886.81 (6.69) 1.537 3.096 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38376YPU9 Agency CMO _ Government National Mortgage Association 12/20/2038 05/10/2019 25,709.48 25,532.73 --- 25,735.19 189.08 2.500 2.267 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137ATRW4 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 05/25/2022 09/26/2018 ]00,000.00 97,238.28 --- 100,871.00 2,919.67 2.373 1.961 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137ASR97 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 01/25/2022 02/27/2018 25,612.27 25,035.99 --- 25,494.96 249.29 1.573 1.865 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3136A72D3 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 04/25/2022 07/26/2019 16,415.73 16,511.79 --- 16,597.29 81.85 2.482 1.824 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137AYCE9 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 10/25/2022 08/13/2019 100,000.00 102,164.06 --- 101,999.00 (73.13) 2.682 1.934 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31397QWZ7 Agency CMO Federal Natonal Mortgage Association 09/25/2029 09/28/2018 41,243.71 41,604.59 --- 41,517.98 213.69 4.000 2.439 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38378HXH4 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 09/16/2027 03/08/2019 7,152.01 6,780.38 --- 7,020.56 218.72 1.250 2.067 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3139216N4 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 04/25/2023 12/05/2017 371,294.88 403,924.59 --- 385,467.21 (8,750.97) 5.500 2.536 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B84S3 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 02/15/2029 01/31/2018 96,790.56 95,580.68 --- 96,860.25 1,089.19 _ 2.000 1.921 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137A5FP4 Agency CMO Freddie Mac O1/15/2021 01/30/2018 47,991.34 48,111.32 --- 48,143.95 109.68 2.500 2.070 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38375CBH2 Agency CMO _ Government National Mort gage Association 03/16/2035 03/19/2019 6,41623 6,377.13 --- 6,405.84 7.49 1.250 2.364 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31398N2K9 Agency CMO Federal National Mortgage Association 11/25/2025 01/31/2018 60.71 60.94 --- 60.66 (0.10) 3.500 2.613 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38377QKH9 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 08/20/2040 08/20/2019 22,822.16 23,236.71 --- 23,301.42 60.52 3.000 2.258 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38378CDK0 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 03/20/2035 01/30/2018 52,373.83 52,856.65 --- 52,517.86 (24.40) 3.000 2.171 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38378AWX5 Agency CMO Government National Mort gage Association 01/20/2036 01/30/2018 100,734.70 101,710.57 --- 101,342.13 101.98 3.000 2.140 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38378DDC6 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 04/20/2038 06/20/2018 42,876.79 43,166.54 --- 43,015.71 20.28 3.500 2.540 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38376PJ35 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 05/16/2037 10/30/2018 840.28 843.17 --- 839.46 (0.82) 4.000 2.440 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38379HLE3 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 05/20/2043 ] 0/18/2018 70,212.10 70,113.37 --- 72,171.72 2,060.52 3.500 2.167 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38378VC45 Agency CMO Government National Mort gage Association 12/16/2041 11/23/2018 62,462.30 60,207.80 --- 62,371.73 2,065.33 2.250 2.275 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 383771M59 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association ] 0/20/2039 11/21/2018 33,552.75 32,713.94 --- 33,499.40 720.55 2.500 2.525 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137ARBX3 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 03/15/2039 03/14/2019 40,571.29 39,994.42 --- 40,490.96 535.85 2.378 2.476 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38376YFF3 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 03/20/2039 06/03/2019 8,841.27 8,907.58 --- 8,951.70 52.42 4.000 2.432 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 383791M99 Agency CMO _ Government National Mortgage Association 02/16/2041 08/28/2019 23,618.29 _ 23,770.51 --- 23,933.83 165.49 2.500 1.812 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue 31416BTW8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association O1/01/2024 09/03/2019 435,104.39 453,868.28 --- 454,644.93 577.34 5.500 2.050 AAA 240907004 M1M-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 3137B2GW4 Agency MBS _ Freddie Mac _ 03/25/2020 06/29/2018 551,483.68 547,907.66 --- 550,932.20 837.01 2.313 2.136 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue 3137B7YX1 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 04/25/2023 08/19/2019 556,699.82 563,745.55 --- 562,088.67 (1,514.67) 2.592 1.929 AAA 240907004 M1M-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 3137FJXN4 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 02/25/2023 08/27/2019 362,890.25 362,550.05 --- 362,596.31 125.11 2.474 2.401 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31283K5N4 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 08/01/2020 12/05/2017 209,955.42 214,684.46 --- 216,650.90 2,580.99 5.000 -4.139 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3620A9W V9 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 12/15/2024 05/23/2018 11,394.45 11,643.71 --- 11,881.68 287.06 4.000 1.734 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3138NJAE8 Agency MBS Federal Natonal Mortgage Association 12/01/2020 09/13/2018 31,597.79 31,963.15 --- 31,568.41 (290.13) 3.630 3.779 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31381N7G2 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 10/01/2020 09/25/2018 35,821.90 35,953.43 --- 36,026.08 66.85 3.270 2.369 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31381RLL6 Agency MBS Federal Natonal Mortgage Association 07/01/2021 11/02/2018 45,237.78 45,909.30 --- 46,375.51 699.51 3.840 2.027 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31381 SVJ8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 11/01/2021 02/22/2019 42,508.14 42,720.68 --- 43,464.57 815.68 3.330 2.128 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3136AC7J4 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/25/2023 02/21/2018 40,665.16 39,996.42 --- 41,477.25 1,268.03 2.605 1.880 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31418AU48 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01/2023 05/21/2019 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 (0.00) 2.500 1.356 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B1U75 Agency MBS Freddie Mac O1/25/2023 02/27/2018 120,000.00 117,965.63 --- 121,466.40 2,845.96 2.522 1.997 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38378KWU9 Agency MBS Government National Mort gage Association 11/16/2041 05/03/2019 35,923.45 33,700.68 --- 35,183.06 1,257.16 1.400 2.388 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B3NW4 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 09/25/2022 09/26/2018 82,463.44 81,754.77 --- 83,356.52 1,474.04 2.778 1.938 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38378KW47 Agency MBS Government National Mort gage Association 08/16/2035 06/13/2019 59,424.35 59,090.09 --- 59,212.80 63.83 2.150 2.512 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137AXHN6 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 02/25/2022 01/25/2018 58,208.29 57,407.92 --- 58,054.03 364.30 1.749 1.877 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31418ASD1 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 04/01/2023 01/31/2018 54,858.48 54,325.70 --- 54,795.39 358.92 2.000 1.996 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3136AMM48 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/25/2022 09/26/2018 84,106.36 82,849.42 --- 84,921.35 1,750.43 2.509 1.976 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B IUF7 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 09/25/2022 01/25/2018 30,607.20 30,157.65 --- 30,555.78 251.67 1.785 1.827 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137BQBY2 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 03/25/2022 08/16/2019 63,759.08 64,170.02 --- 63,966.93 (186.35) 2.183 1.968 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3138EJPZ5 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01/2022 07/22/2019 24,800.64 25,253.06 --- 25,380.73 6.94 3.022 1.910 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3620ARB67 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 05/15/2025 05/23/2018 24,168.84 24,742.86 --- 25,140.18 511.25 4.000 1.944 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31418CQM9 Agency MBS _ Federal National Mortgage Association 10/01/2027 09/11/2019 23,353.56 23,948.35 --- 23,910.54 (39.44) 3.000 2.122 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 314016DU8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 08/01/2031 07/26/2019 82,113.07 82,664.77 --- 82,928.46 261.61 2.500 2.133 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3138L2GH4 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01/2021 07/26/2019 _ 21,604.82 21,488.36 --- 21,588.40 93.70 1.870 _1.854 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3136A96F0 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 11/25/2022 02/27/2018 56,377.13 54,643.97 --- 56,820.25 1,643.19 2.184 1.817 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137FGZN8 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 02/25/2023 06/18/2019 40,356.28 40,337.36 --- 40,347.81 43.93 2.424 2.312 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31381QB54 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/01/2021 11/07/2018 56,108.63 57,270.26 --- 57,421.01 643.62 4.410 2.251 AAA 240907004 M1M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 87165LBB6 Asset Backed Syncbrony Credit Card Master Note Trust 2016-2 05/17/2021 08/02/2019 525,000.00 526,271.48 --- 526,743.00 578.64 2.210 2.011 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue 161571HJ6 Asset Backed Chase Issuance Trust O1/15/2020 03/23/2018 500,000.00 501,347.66 --- 500,275.00 331.47 2.328 2.165 AAA 240907004 M1M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 02587AAJ3 Asset Backed American Express Credit Account Master Trust 02/18/2020 06/29/2018 650,000.00 640,351.56 --- 649,486.50 1,786.39 1.930 2.147 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 05522RCW6 Asset Backed Ba Credit Card Trust - Series 2017-1 03/16/2020 09/04/2019 750,000.00 749,677.73 --- 749,550.00 (171.60) 1.950 2.090 AAA 240907004 M1M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 65478DAD9 Asset Backed Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-A Owner Trust 05/16/2022 06/29/2018 600,000.00 596,906.25 --- 602,838.00 4,198.62 2.650 2.156 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 38013FAD3 Asset Backed GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-, ]0/16/2023 07/24/2019 350,000.00 356,412.11 --- 356,195.00 377.68 3.210 2.174 AAA 240907004 M1M-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 47789JAB2 Asset Backed Jobn Deere Owner Trust 2019 10/15/2021 03/05/2019 530,000.00 529,975.83 --- 532,443.30 2,456.11 2.850 2.108 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 65479PAA7 Asset Backed Nissan Auto Lease Trust, 2019-A 04/15/2020 04/09/2019 162,233.65 162,233.65 --- 162,282.32 48.67 2.599 2.096 AAA 240907004 M1M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 31680YAA5 Asset Backed Fifth Third Auto Trust 2019-1 ObjlA2020 04/30/2019 84,920.25 84,920.25 --- 84,934.68 14.44 2.576 2.343 AAA Page 20 of 37 PIFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio by Investment Category for quarter ended September 30, 2019 Source Account Account Identifier Secu Type Category Issuer Ma Maturity Trade Date Current Face Value Original Cost Neat Call Date Base Market Value Base Net Total Unrealized Gain/Loss Coupon Summarized Yield Credit Rating 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 65478LAB5 Asset Backed Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2019-B 10/15/2021 07/16/2019 260,000.00 259,977.25 --- 260,410.80 428.80 2.270 2.016 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 477870AB5 Asset Backed John Deere Owner Trust 2019-B 05/16/2022 07/16/2019 290,000.00 289,998.90 --- 290,667.00 667.40 2.280 2.046 AAA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 14315PAB1 Asset Backed Carmax Auto Owner Trust 2019-3 12/15/2022 07/24/2019 380,000.00 379,982.94 --- 380,805.60 820.62 2.210 2.028 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 26209AAE1 Asset Backed Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-4 01/16/2024 09/09/2019 _260,000.00 _ 259,964.59 --- 259,675.00_ (290.12) 2.230 2.299 AA 240907004 MM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 63873NV99 CD Natixis, New York Branch 11/15/2019 08/16/2019 1,500,000.00 1,501,342.06 --- 1,500,735.00 71.34 2.530 2.125 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 65602VMU7 CD Norinchukin Bank NY Branch 12/11/2019 09/04/2019 1,475,000.00 1,475,824.30 --- 1,475,575.25 (28.10) 2.300 2.089 AAA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 83050PBF5 CD Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (publ.) 10/07/2019 09/23/2019 850,000.00 850,093.95 --- 850,068.00 27.74 2.410 1.983 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 62888VAA6 CMO NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R1 10/07/2020 01/22/2019 341,046.10 341,166.00 --- 341,192.75 75.17 2.679 2.551 AAA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 62888UAB6 CMO NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R2 11/05/2020 03/15/2019 243,010.87 243,371.59 --- 243,394.83 141.66 2.699 2.112 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE _ 62888 VAA6 CMO NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R1 10/07/2020 05/10/2019 _ 0.01 _ 0.01 --- 0.01 0.00 2.679 2.551 AAA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 38141EA58 Corporate The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 03/15/2020 07/26/2017 500,000.00 540,800.00 --- 507,190.00 (128.62) 5.375 2.201 A 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 40428HPN6 Corporate HSBC USA Inc. 11/13/2019 07/26/2017 1,000,000.00 _ 1,010,720.00 --- 1,000,220.00 (343.91) 2.375 2.171 A 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 17401QAB7 Corporate Citizens Bank, National Association 12/04/2019 07/26/2017 1,000,000.00 1,008,450.00 11/04/2019 1,000,130.00 (227.02) 2.450 2.294 A 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 61747YDW2 Corporate Morgan Stanley 01/27/2020 07/25/2017 500,000.00 506,130.00 --- 500,750.00 (63.90) 2.650 2.175 A 240907004 MM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 780082AA1 Corporate Royal Bank of Canada 02/05/2020 07/26/2017 1,500,000.00 1,497,390.00 --- 1,498,440.00 (1,191.30) 1.875 2.171 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 172967JJ1 Corporate Citigroup Inc. 02/18/2020 07/25/2017 500,000.00 503,600.00 --- 500,435.00 (119.20) 2.400 2.165 A 240907004 MM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 06051GFN4 Corporate Bank of America Corporation 04/21/2020 12/04/2017 1,000,000.00 997,850.00 --- 1,001,070.00 1,579.61 2.250 2.055 A 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 31677QBG3 Corporate Fifth Third Bank 06/14/2021 07/23/2019 500,000.00 500,110.00 05/14/2021 501,600.00 1,498.59 2.250 2.048 A 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 24422ETJ8 Corporate John Deere Capital Corporation 10/09/2019 07/26/2017 1,125,000.00 1,114,650.00 --- 1,124,786.25 (107.94) 1.250 1.999 A 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 06367TPX2 Corporate Bank of Montreal 12/12/2019 07/26/2017 1,000,000.00 1,005,160.00 --- 1,000,080.00 (361.87) 2.100 2.047 AA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 14912L6Y2 Corporate Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation 01/10/2020 07/26/2017 1,000,000.00 1,008,020.00 --- 1,000,150.00 (775.85) 2.100 2.036 A 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 5148XIXA6 CP Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg, New York Branch 10/10/2019 08/19/2019 1,500,000.00 1,495,320.00 --- 1,499,265.00 75.00 0.000 1.764 AAA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 23337UX79 CP DTE Gas Company 10/07/2019 09/06/2019 1,500,000.00 1,497,184.17 --- 1,499,505.00 50.00 0.000 1.697 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 _ 50000EX33 CP Koch Industries, Inc. 10/03/2019 09/09/2019 1,500,000.00 _ 1,497,960.00 --- 1,499,835.00 5.00 _ 0.000 _1.320 AAA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 02361LXG2 CP Ameren Illinois Company 10/16/2019 09/16/2019 1,200,000.00 1,197,740.00 --- 1,199,016.00 146.00 0.000 1.845 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 21201CX43 CP Continental Rubber of America, Corp. 10/04/2019 09/27/2019 1,000,000.00 999,572.22 --- 999,840.00 23.33 0.000 1.440 AA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 23336KXQ0 CP DTE Electric Company 10/24/2019 09/27/2019 600,000.00 599,100.00 --- 599,244.00 10.67 0.000 1.890 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE CCYUSD Currency UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 09/30/2019 --- 0.00 (406,160.27) --- (406,160.27) 0.00 0.000 0.000 AAA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 31846V203 MM Fund First American Funds, Inc. - Govemment Obligations Fund 09/30/2019 09/27/2019 0.00 208,396.50 --- 208,396.50 0.00 1.670 1.520 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31846V203 MM Fund First American Funds, Inc. - Government Obligations Fund 09/30/2019 --- 0.00 427,856.57 --- 427,856.57 0.00 1.670 1.670 AAA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 392274A89 Muni Greater Orlando Aviation Authority 10/01/2019 07/26/2017 700,000.00 724,094.00 --- 700,000.00 0.00 3.483 3.424 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 048506DN6 Muni Atlantic County Improvement Authority 06/17/2020 07/05/2019 265,000.00 267,210.10 --- 267,011.35 340.93 3.250 2.170 NA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 072024WU2 Muni Bay Area Toll Authority 04/01/2020 09/20/2019 425,000.00 425,000.00 --- 425,148.75 148.75 2.025 1.955 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 _ 459058GK3 Non -US Gov International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 08/21/2020 _ --- 1,510,000.00 _ 1,510,367.00 --- 1,510,785.20 614.84 2.040 2.013 AAA 240907004 MM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 45818WCP9 Non -US Gov Inter -American Development Bank 09/16/2022 09/10/2019 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 --- 1,500,435.00 435.00 2.282 2.219 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828SA9 TIPS United States Department of The Treasury 01/15/2022 --- 328,723.70 _ 326,362.68 --- 325,443.04 (1,918.36) 0.125 0.563 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828UH1 TIPS United States Department of The Treasury 01/15/2023 02/05/2018 83,361.75 82,291.14 --- 82,634.84 (11.50) 0.125 0.391 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 9128286N5 TIPS United States Department of The Treasury 04/15/2024 --- 162,758.40 165,636.73 --- 164,706.62 (856.51) 0.500 0.235 AAA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 912828UF5 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 12/31/2019 06/29/2018 3,700,000.00 3,627,156.25 --- 3,692,489.00 4,623.16 1.125 1.935 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 912828Y53 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 07/31/2020 --- 5,550,000.00 5,551,119.32 --- 5,544,394.50 (6,103.89) 1.957 2.110 AAA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 9128285H9 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 10/31/2020 12/06/2018 5,300,000.00 5,299,852.27 --- 5,291,626.00 (8,289.70) 1.959 2.140 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828UF5 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 12/31/2019 --- 335,000.00 328,527.73 --- 334,319.95 339.53 1.125 1.935 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828VA5 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 04/30/2020 - 665,000.00 648,627.54 --- 662,167.10 2,571.62 1.125 1.861 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828VV9 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 08/31/2020 --- 775,000.00 766,685.54 --- 776,906.50 5,670.59 2.125 1.853 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828B58 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 01/31/2021 07/05/2018 320,000.00 316,212.50 --- 321,462.40 3,454.39 2.125 1.776 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828F62 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 10/31/2019 02/20/2019 700,000.00 695,132.81 --- 699,657.00 234.29 1.500 2.070 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828L57 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 09/30/2022 - 110,000.00 110,892.58 --- 110,545.60 (327.45) 1.750 1.580 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828Y53 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 07/31/2020 --- 450,000.00 449,998.47 --- 449,545.50 (439.10) 1.957 2.110 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 9128285H9 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 10/31/2020 12/06/2018 500,000.00 499,986.06 --- 499,210.00 (782.05) 1.959 2.140 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 _ 97689P2K3 VRDN Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority 09/01/2037 07/18/2019 1,300,000.00 _ 1,300,000.00 10/30/2019 1,300,000.00 0.00 _ 2.080 _2.080 AA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 64986U4H7 VRDN New York State Housing Finance Agency 11/01/2048 07/02/2018 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 10/15/2019 1,400,000.00 0.00 2.100 2.100 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 56052FHZ1 VRDN Maine State Housing Authority 11/15/2052 07/18/2019 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 10/30/2019 1,400,000.00 0.00 2.100 2.100 AA 240907004 M M-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 196479G29 VRDN Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, Inc. 04/01/2040 07/18/2019 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 10/15/2019 1,500,000.00 0.00 2.100 2.100 AAA 65,465,671.78 65,725,863.59 65,773,908.55 34,838.82 31 Page 21 of 37 ATTACHMENT 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio by Account for quarter ended September 30, 2019 Source Account Account 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 Identifier 3135G0U68 3130AG5X9 3130AH2K8 Security Typ Category Issuer Final Maturity Agency Agency Agency Federal National Mortgage Association Federal Homo Loan Banks Federal Home Loan Banks 10/30/2019 10/09/2020 09/10/2020 eat Call Base Net Total Summarized Trade Date Current Face Value Original Cost Date Base Market Value Unrealized Gain/Loss Coupon Yield Credit Rating 10/25/2018 06/13/2019 09/09/2019 375,000.00 1,700,000.00 2,075,000.00 375,000.00 --- 1,701,020.00 10/09/2019 2,075,000.00 12/10/2019 375,026.25 1,700,255.00 2,075,041.50 26.25 185.26 41.50 1.890 2.520 2.050 1.839 1.897 2.043 AAA AAA AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 31416BTW8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 01/01/2024 09/03/2019 435,104.39 453,868.28 454,644.93 577.34 5.500 2.050 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 3137B2GW4 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 03/25/2020 06/29/2018 551,483.68 547,907.66 550,932.20 837.01 2.313 2.136 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 3137B7YX1 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 04/25/2023 08/19/2019 556,699.82 563,745.55 562,088.67 (1,514.67) 2.592 1.929 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 3137FJXN4 AgencylOBS Freddie Mac 02/25/2023 08/27/2019 362,890.25 362,550.05 362,596.31 125.11 2.474 2.401 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 87165LBB6 Asset Backed Synchrony Credit Card Master Note Trust 2016-2 05/17/2021 08/02/2019 525,000.00 526,271.48 526,743.00 578.64 2.210 2.011 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 161571HJ6 Asset Backed Chase Issuance Trust 01/15/2020 03/23/2018 500,000.00 501,347.66 500,275.00 331A7 2.328 2.165 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 02587AAJ3 Asset Backed American Express Credit Accoart Master Trust 02/18/2020 06/29/2018 650,000.00 640,351.56 649,486.50 1,786.39 1.930 2.147 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 05522RCW6 Asset Backed Ba Credit Card Trust - Series 2017-1 03/16/2020 09/04/2019 750,000.00 749,677.73 749,550.00 (171.60) 1.950 2.090 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 65478DAD9 Asset Backed Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-A Owner Trust 05/16/2022 06/29/2018 600,000.00 596,906.25 602,838.00 4,198.62 2.650 2.156 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 38013FAD3 Asset Backed GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2018-4 10/16/2023 07/24/2019 350,000.00 356,412.11 356,195.00 377.68 3.210 2.174 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 47789JAB2 Asset Backed John Deere Owner Trust 2019 10/15/2021 03/05/2019 530,000.00 529,975.83 532,443.30 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 65479PAA7 Asset Backed Nissan Auto Lease Trust, 2019-A 04/15/2020 04/09/2019 162,233.65 162,233.65 162,282.32 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 31680YAA5 Asset Backed Fifth Third Auto Trust 2019-1 05/15/2020 04/30/2019 84,920.25 84,920.25 84,934.68 2,456.11 2.850 2.108 48.67 2.599 2.096 AAA AAA 14.44 2.576 2.343 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 65478LAB5 Asset Backed Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2019-B 10/15/2021 07/16/2019 260,000.00 259,977.25 260,410.80 428.80 2.270 2.016 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 477870AB5 Asset Backed John Deere Owner Trust 2019-B 05/16/2022 07/16/2019 290,000.00 289,998.90 290,667.00 667.40 2.280 2.046 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 14315PAB1 Asset Backed Carmax Auto Owner Trust 2019-3 12/15/2022 07/24/2019 380,000.00 379,982.94 380,805.60 820.62 2.210 2.028 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 26209AAE1 Asset Backed Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-4 01/16/2024 09/09/2019 260,000.00 259,964.59 259,675.00 (290.12) 2.230 2.299 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 63873NV99 CD Natxis, New York Branch 11/15/2019 08/16/2019 1,500,000.00 1,501,342.06 1,500,735.00 71.34 2.530 2.125 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 65602VMU7 CD Norinchukin Bank NY Branch 12/11/2019 09/04/2019 1,475,000.00 1,475,824.30 1,475,575.25 (28.10) 2.300 2.089 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 83050PBF5 CD Skandinaviska Enskilda Harken AB (pub1J 10/07/2019 09/23/2019 850,000.00 850,093.95 850,068.00 27.74 2.410 1.983 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 62888VAA6 CMO NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R1 10/07/2020 01/22/2019 341,046.10 341,166.00 341,192.75 75.17 2.679 2.551 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 62888UAB6 CMO NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R2 11/05/2020 03/15/2019 243,010.87 243,371.59 243,394.83 141.66 2.699 2.112 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 38141EA58 Corporate The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 03/15/2020 07/26/2017 500,000.00 540,800.00 507,190.00 (128.62) 5.375 2.201 A 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 40428HPN6 Corporate HSBC USA Inc. 11/13/2019 07/26/2017 1,000,000.00 1,010,720.00 1,000,220.00 (343.91) 2.375 2.171 A 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 17401QAB7 Corporate Citizens Bank, National Association 12/04/2019 07/26/2017 1,000,000.00 1,008,450.00 11 /04/2019 1,000,130.00 (227.02) 2.450 2.294 A 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 61747YDW2 Corporate Morgan Stanley 01/27/2020 07/25/2017 500,000.00 506,130.00 500,750.00 (63.90) 2.650 2.175 A 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 780082AA1 Corporate Royal Bank of Canada 02/05/2020 07/26/2017 1,500,000.00 1,497,390.00 1,498,440.00 (1,191.30) 1.875 2.171 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 172967JJ1 Corporate Citlgroup Inc. 02/18/2020 07/25/2017 500,000.00 503,600.00 500,435.00 (119.20) 2.400 2.165 A 24n9n7n04 MIM-RCTC Tnll RBvenlle: - I-15 n6n51GFN4 Cmmnratc Rank of America Cmmnmtinn n4/71/2112n 12MA/7017 1 n0f1_000.00 997 850 nn 1 n01 n711_nn 1 57961 225n 2_ns5 A 240907004 240907004 240907004 240907004 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 31677QBG3 24422ETJ8 06367TPX2 14912L6Y2 5148XIXA6 Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate CP Fifth Third Bank John Deere Capital Corporation Bank of Montreal Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation Landesbank Haden-WOrttemberg, New York Branch 06/14/2021 10/09/2019 12/12/2019 01/10/2020 10/10/2019 07/23/2019 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 07/26/2017 08/19/2019 500,000.00 1,125,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 500,110.00 05/14/2021 1,114,650.00 --- 1,005,160.00 --- 1,008,020.00 --- 1,495,320.00 --- 501,600.00 1,124,786.25 1,000,080.00 1,000,150.00 1,499,265.00 1,498.59 (107.94) (361.87) (775.85) 75.00 2.250 1.250 2.100 2.100 0.000 2.048 1.999 2.047 2.036 1.764 A A AA A AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 23337UX79 CP DTE Gas Company 10/07/2019 09/06/2019 1,500,000.00 1,497,184.17 1,499,505.00 50.00 0.000 1.697 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 50000EX33 CP Koch Industries, Inc. 10/03/2019 09/09/2019 1,500,000.00 1,497,960.00 1,499,835.00 5.00 0.000 1.320 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 02361LXG2 CP Ameren Illinois Company 10/16/2019 09/16/2019 1,200,000.00 1,197,740.00 1,199,016.00 146.00 0.000 1.845 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 2120ICX43 CP Continental Rubber of America, Corp. 10/04/2019 09/27/2019 1,000,000.00 999,572.22 999,840.00 23.33 0.000 1.440 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 2333610(00 CP DTE Electric Company 10/24/2019 09/27/2019 600,000.00 599,100.00 599,244.00 10.67 0.000 1.890 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 31846V203 MM Fund First American Funds, Inc. - Government Obligations Fund 09/30/2019 09/27/2019 208,396.50 208,396.50 1.670 1.520 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 392274A89 Muni Greater Orlando Aviation Authority 10/01/2019 07/26/2017 700,000.00 724,094.00 700,000.00 3A83 3.424 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 048506DN6 Muni Atlantic County Improvement Authority 06/17/2020 07/05/2019 265,000.00 267,210.10 267,011.35 340.93 3.250 2.170 NA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 072024WU2 Muni Bay Area Toll Authority 04/01/2020 09/20/2019 425,000.00 425,000.00 425,148.75 148.75 2.025 1.955 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 459058GK3 Non -US Gov International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 08/21/2020 1,510,000.00 1,510,367.00 1,510,785.20 614.84 2.040 2.013 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 45818WCP9 Non -US Gov Inter -American Development Bank 09/16/2022 09/10/2019 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,435.00 435.00 2.282 2.219 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 912828UF5 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 12/31/2019 06/29/2018 3,700,000.00 3,627,156.25 3,692,489.00 4,623.16 1.125 1.935 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 912828Y53 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 07/31/2020 5,550,000.00 5,551,119.32 5,544,394.50 (6,103.89) 1.957 2.110 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 9128285H9 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 10/31/2020 12/06/2018 5,300,000.00 5,299,852.27 5,291,626.00 (8,289.70) 1.959 2.140 AAA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 97689P2K3 VRDN Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority 09/01/2037 07/18/2019 1,300,000.00 1,300,000.00 10/30/2019 1,300,000.00 2.080 2.080 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 64986U4H7 VRDN New York State Housing Finance Agency 11/01/2048 07/02/2018 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 10/15/2019 1,400,000.00 2.100 2.100 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 56052FHZ1 VRDN Maine State Housing Authority 11/15/2052 07/18/2019 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 10/30/2019 1,400,000.00 2.100 2.100 AA 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 I96479G29 VRDN Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, Inc. 04/01/2040 07/18/2019 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 10/15/2019 1,500,000.00 2.100 2.100 AAA 57,282,389.01 57,521,861.48 57,519,699.44 3,650.40 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prl RAMP UP RESERVE 3137EADB2 Agency Freddie Mac 01/13/2022 09/30/2019 400,000.00 406,42520 406,160.00 AAA Federal Home Loan Banks 350,000.00 350,150.50 351,704.50 1,649.21 AAA Government Nafional Mortgage Associafion 37,257.28 37,996.60 38,027.76 52.12 AAA Freddie Mac 96,479.88 96,653.25 97,830.60 1,232.87 AAA Government Nafional Mortgage Association 24,203.09 25,186.34 25,407.19 AAA Freddie Mac 94,590.65 94,276.58 95,943.29 1,632.01 AAA Government Nafional Mortgage Association 28,205.54 29,004.33 29,114.60 166.28 AAA Government National Mortgage Association Government Nafional Mortgage Associafion 65,565.61 6,099.76 67,204.75 6,118.82 66,638.92 6,096.71 AAA AAA Govemment National Mortgage Association 18,030.15 17,849.85 17,886.81 AAA Government Nafional Mortgage Association 25,709.48 25,532.73 25,735.19 189.08 AAA Freddie Mac 100,000.00 97,238.28 100,871.00 AAA Freddie Mac 25,612.27 25,035.99 25,494.96 AAA Federal National Mortgage Association 16,415.73 16,511.79 16,597.29 AAA Freddie Mac 100,000.00 102,164.06 101,999.00 AAA Federal National Mortgage Association 41,243.71 41,604.59 41,517.98 AAA Government National Mortgage Association 7,152.01 6,780.38 7,020.56 218.72 AAA Federal National Mortgage Association 371,294.88 403,924.59 385,467.21 AAA Freddie Mac 96,790.56 95,580.68 96,860.25 AAA Freddie Mac Government National Mortgage Association Federal National Mortgage Association 32 Page 22 of 37 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio by Account for quarter ended September 30, 2019 Source Account Account Identifier Security Type Category Issuer �rt Call Base Net Total Summarized Final Maturity Trade Date Current Face Value Original Cost Date Base Market Value Unrealized Gain/Loss Coupon Yield Credit Rating 240907020 240907020 240907020 240907020 240907020 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE RCTC I-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE RCTC I-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38377QKH9 38378CDK0 38378AWX5 38378DDC6 38376P135 38379HLE3 Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Govemment National Mortgage Association Government National Mortgage Association Govemment National Mortgage Association 08/20/2040 03/20/2035 01/20/2036 04/20/2038 05/16/2037 05/20/2043 08/20/2019 01/30/2018 01/30/2018 06/20/2018 10/30/2018 10/18/2018 22,822.16 52,373.83 100,734.70 42,876.79 840.28 70,212.10 23,236.71 52,856.65 101,710.57 43,166.54 843.17 70,113.37 23,301.42 60.52 3.000 52,517.86 (24.40) 3.000 101,342.13 101.98 3.000 43,015.71 20.28 3.500 839.46 (0.82) 4.000 72,171.72 2,060.52 3.500 2.258 2.171 2.140 2.540 2.440 2.167 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 38378VC45 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 12/16/2041 11/23/2018 62,462.30 60,207.80 62,371.73 2,065.33 2.250 2.275 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38377JM59 Agency CMO Govemment National Mortgage Association 10/20/2039 1121/2018 33,552.75 32,713.94 33,499.40 720.55 2.500 2.525 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 3137ARBX3 Agency CMO Freddie Mac 03/15/2039 03/14/2019 40,571.29 39,994.42 40,490.96 535.85 2.378 2.476 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38376YFF3 Agency CMO Govemment National Mortgage Association 03/20/2039 06/03/2019 8,841.27 8,907.58 8,951.70 52A2 4.000 2.432 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 383797M99 Agency CMO Government National Mortgage Association 02/16/2041 08/28/2019 23,618.29 23,770.51 23,933.83 165.49 2.500 1.812 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31283K5N4 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 08/01/2020 12/05/2017 209,955A2 214,684.46 216,650.90 2,580.99 5.000 -4.139 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 3620A9WV9 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 12/15/2024 05/23/2018 11,394A5 11,643.71 11,881.68 287.06 4.000 1.734 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 3138NJAE8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 12/012020 09/13/2018 31,597.79 31,963.15 31,568.41 (290.13) 3.630 3.779 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 31381N7G2 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 10/01/2020 09/25/2018 35,821.90 35,953.43 36,026.08 66.85 3.270 2.369 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 3138IRLL6 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01/2021 11/02/2018 45,237.78 45,909.30 46,375.51 699.51 3.840 2.027 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 31381SV18 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 11/01/2021 02/22/2019 42,508.14 42,720.68 43,464.57 815.68 3.330 2.128 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3136AC7J4 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/25/2023 02/21/2018 40,665.16 39,996.42 41,477.25 1,268.03 2.605 1.880 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 31418AU48 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01/2023 05/21/2019 0.00 0.00 (0.00) 2.500 1.356 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B11275 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 01/25/2023 02/27/2018 120,000.00 117,965.63 121,466.40 2,845.96 2.522 1.997 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 38378KWU9 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 11/16/2041 05/03/2019 35,923.45 33,700.68 35,183.06 1,257.16 1.400 2.388 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B3NW4 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 09/25/2022 09/26/2018 82,463A4 81,754.77 83,356.52 1,474.04 2.778 1.938 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 38378KW47 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 08/16/2035 06/13/2019 59,424.35 59,090.09 59,212.80 63.83 2.150 2.512 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137AXHN6 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 02/25/2022 0125/2018 58,208.29 57,407.92 58,054.03 364.30 1.749 1.877 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 31418ASD1 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 04/01/2023 01/31/2018 54,858.48 54,325.70 54,795.39 358.92 2.000 1.996 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3136AMM48 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/25/2022 09/26/2018 84,106.36 82,849.42 84,921.35 1,750.43 2.509 1.976 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B1UF7 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 09/25/2022 01/25/2018 30,607.20 30,157.65 30,555.78 251.67 1.785 1.827 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137BQBY2 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 03/25/2022 08/16/2019 63,759.08 64,170.02 63,966.93 (186.35) 2.183 1.968 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 3138EJPZ5 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01/2022 07/22/2019 24,800.64 25,253.06 25,380.73 6.94 3.022 1.910 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3620ARB67 Agency MBS Government National Mortgage Association 05/15/2025 05/23/2018 24,168.84 24,742.86 25,140.18 511.25 4.000 1.944 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 31418CQM9 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 10/01/2027 09/11/2019 23,353.56 23,948.35 23,910.54 (39.44) 3.000 2.122 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3140J6DU8 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 08/01/2031 07/26/2019 82,113.07 82,664.77 82,928.46 261.61 2.500 2.133 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 3138L2GH4 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 07/01 /2021 07/26/2019 21,604.82 21,488.36 21,588.40 93.70 1.870 1.854 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3136A96F0 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 11/25/2022 02/27/2018 56,377.13 54,643.97 56,820.25 1,643.19 2.184 1.817 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 3137FGZN8 Agency MBS Freddie Mac 02/25/2023 06/18/2019 40,356.28 40,337.36 40,347.81 43.93 2.424 2.312 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3138IQB54 Agency MBS Federal National Mortgage Association 03/01/2021 11/07/2018 56,108.63 57,270.26 57,421.01 643.62 4.410 2.251 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 62888VAA6 CMO NCUA Guaranteed Notes Trust 2010-R1 10/07/2020 05/10/2019 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 2.679 2.551 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE CCYUSD Currency UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 09/30/2019 (406,160.27) (406,160.27/ 0.000 0.000 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 31846V203 MM Fund First American Funds, Inc. - Government Obligations Fund 09/30/2019 427,856.57 427,856.57 1.670 1.670 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828SA9 TIPS United States Department of The Treasury 01/15/2022 328,723.70 326,362.68 325,443.04 (1,918.36) 0.125 0.563 AAA 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 912828UH1 TIPS United States Department of The Treasury 01/15/2023 02/05/2018 83,361.75 82,291.14 82,634.84 (11.50) 0.125 0.391 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 9128286N5 TIPS United States Deparuent of The Treasury 04/15/2024 162,758A0 165,636.73 164,706.62 (856.51) 0.500 0.235 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Ph RAMP UP RESERVE 912828UF5 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury 12/31/2019 335,000.00 328,527.73 334,319.95 339.53 1.125 1.935 AAA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pri RAMP UP RESERVE 912828VA5 US Gov 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828 V V9 US Gov 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828B58 US Gov 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pri RAMP UP RESERVE 912828F62 US Gov 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828L57 US Gov 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Pri RAMP UP RESERVE 912828Y53 US Gov 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 9128285H9 US Gov United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury United States Department of The Treasury 04/30/2020 08/31/2020 01/31/2021 07/05/2018 10/31/2019 02/20/2019 665,000.00 775,000.00 320,000.00 700,000.00 09/302022 --- 110,000.00 07/31/2020 450,000.00 10/312020 12/062018 500,000.00 8,183,282.77 648,627.54 766,685.54 316,212.50 695,132.81 110,892.58 449,998A7 499,986.06 8,204,002.11 662,167.10 776,906.50 321,462.40 699,657.00 110,545.60 449,545.50 499,210.00 2,571.62 1.125 1.861 5,670.59 2.125 1.853 3,454.39 2.125 1.776 234.29 1.500 2.070 AAA AAA AAA AAA (327.45) 1.750 1.580 AAA (439.10) 1.957 2.110 AAA (782.05) 1.959 2.140 AAA 8,254,209.11 31,188.43 Total 65,465,671.78 65,725,863.59 65,773,908.55 34,838.82 127 33 Page 23 of 37 rir RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account Quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 11 Base Base Change In Source Beginning Base Base Maturities and Net Total Realized Amortization/A Net Unrealized Ending Base Ending Accrued 240907004 MIM-RCTC TOIRevenue:-I-15 8141EA58 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 240907094 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 392274A89 GREATER ORLANDO AVIATION AUTH ORLANDO FLA ARPT FAC 240907004 MIM-RCTC TOIRevenue:-I-15 240907094 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 40428HPN6 HSBC USA INC (NEW) 17401QAB7 CITIZENS BANK NA 14912L6Y2 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP 615711116 CHAFE 171 A 3130AG5X9 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 510,290.00 701,911.00 999,730.00 999,950.09 998,880.00 509,575.09 1,701,241.00 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 63873NV99 Natixis, New York Branch 1,501,342.06 (3,984.74) (2,868.23) (1,206.51) (966.04) (843.98) 814.42) (802.05) (678.40) 884.74 957.2 1,696.51 146.04 2,113.98 514.42 (183.95) 507,190.00 709,000.09 1,000,220.00 1,099,130.09 1,000,150.00 509,275.09 1,700,255.00 1,509,735.09 71.34 I,194.44 12,190.50 9,104.17 7,962.50 4,725.00 484.90 20,468.00 14,652.92 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 61747YDW2 MORGAN STANLEY 38013FAD3 GMCAR 184 A3 06367TPX2 BANK OF MONTREAL 048506DN6 ATLANTIC CNTY N J IMPT AUTH REV 90261X11E5 UBS AG(STAMFORD BRANCH) 172967111 CTDGROUP INC 912828Y53 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 500,570.00 998,880.00 849,881.00 509,000.09 4, 195.548.00 356,412.11 267,210A0 (499,433.10) (850,000.00) (671.15) (635.61) (594.79) (564.61) (539.68) (459.66) (365.32) (256.70) 815.61 377.68 1,764.61 340.93 578.66 800.32 1075.95 500,750.00 356,195.09 1,000,080.00 267,011.35 509,435.00 3,6%263.00 2,355.56 468.13 6,358.33 2,464.13 1,433.33 12,762.55 _40907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 65602VMU7 Normchukin Bank NY Branch 46625HKA7 WMORGAN CHASE & CO 3134GTAE3 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 0258MOEE5 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP 70914PPD8 PENNSYLVANIA(COMMONWEALTH OF) 3137B7YX1 FHMS K037 Al 87165LBB6 SYNCT 162 A 3137MXN4 FHMS KI03 A 86564FXA6 Surctitomo Mitsui Trust Bank Ltd. (New York Branch) 499,845.00 1,091,220.09 499,475.00 305,222.65 1,475,824.30 - - - (220.95) (28.10) 1,475,575.25 10,554.44 (500,275.00) - - (140.13) (201.28) 771.41 - - (499,510.00) 575,469.34 - 526,271.48 418,012.21 1,509,070.83 (1,000,000.00) (177.18) (1,042.82) - - (1,289:55) (159.81) 1,484.36 - - (305,000.00) - (146.50) (76.15) - - - (11,577.26) (147:62) (141.13) (1,514.67) 562,088.67 1,202.47 (107.12) 578.64 526,743.09 515.67 - (55,514.21) 50.24 (77.04) 125.11 362,596.31 149.65 (1,500,000.00) - (70.83) - 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 62888UAB6 NGN 10R22A 83050PBF5 Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB(publ.) 89114MC70 Toronto -Dominion Bally New York Branch 51500VCCI Landesbank Hessen -Thuringen Girozentrale 51500VCC1 Landesbank Hessen-Thiuingen Gnozeraale 912828Y53 UNITED STATES TREASURY 459058GK3 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM 254,760.16 - - - (11,563.45) (13.13) (56.64) 267.88 243,394.83 455.39 850,093.95 - - - - (53.69) 27.74 850,068.09 6,71453 1,500,075.00 - - (1,500,000.00) - - (45.90) (29.10) - - 1,400,056.09 - - (1,400,099.00) - - (30.95) (25.06) 1,250,050.00 - - (1,250,000.00) - - (29.68) (20.32) - - 449,523.00 - - - - - (25.29) 47.79 449,545.50 1,552.20 500,165.00 - - - - - (24.28) 119.28 500,260.00 1,359.86 _40907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 62888VAA6 NGN IORI IA 382, 130.42 (40,500.57) (9.84) (18.58) (408.69) 341, 192.75 634.37 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-1-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 459058GK3 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM 65602V1W7 Norinchukin Bank NY Branch 89114QAS7 TORONTO-DOMINION BANK 4590580K3 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM 31677QBG3 FIFTH THIRD BANK (OHIO) 3130ABQH2 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 58769DAD2 MBALT 17A A3 300,099.00 - - - - - (14.63) 71.63 300,156.00 815.92 1,509,030.09 - - (1,500,099.00) - - (12.33) (17.67) - - 1,000,000.00 - - (1,000,000.00) - - (11.31) 11.31 - - 185,061.05 - - - - - (9.31) 44.46 185,096.20 503.15 500,110.00 - - - - (8.59) 1,498.59 501,600.00 3,343.75 1,509,030.09 - - (1,500,000.00) - - (4.41) (25.59) - - 85,599.53 - - - (85,637.20) (0.01) (1.94) 39.62 - - 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 '40907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 65478GAC4 NAROT 17B A2B 31846V203 FIRST AMER:GVT OBLGY 4590580K3 INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPM 2,827.71 - - 314,888.54 68,389,772.62 (68,496,264.66) 525, 173.25 - - (2,827.63) (0.02) (0.02) (0.04) - - - - - 208,396.50 - - - 99.75 525,273.09 1427.85 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 56052FHZ1 MAINE ST HSG AUTH MTG PUR 64986U4H7 NEW YORK ST HSG FM AGY REV 65479PAA7 NALT 19A Al 3130AH2K8 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 072024WU2 BAY AREA TOLL AUTH CALIF TOLL BRDG REV 97689P2K3 WISCONSIN HSG & ECONOMIC DEV AUTH HOME OWNERSHIP R 3135G0U68 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 1,409,000.09 463,113.46 375,082.50 1,400,000.00 2,075,000.00 425,000.00 1,409,000.00 (100,000.00) - - - - 1,400,000.00 12,166.58 - 1,409,000.09 2,169.42 (300,745.54) (0.00) - (85.59) 162,282.32 175.67 41.50 2,075,041.50 2,481.35 - - - 148.75 425,148.75 119.53 1,309,000.09 2,123.33 - - - (56.25) 375,026.25 1,471.35 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 3134GTB11 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 2,509,000.09 - - (2,500,000.00) 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 31680YAA5 MAT 191 Al 3130AGHC2 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 196179G29 COLORADO HSG & FIN AUTH 45818WCP9 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 26209AAE1 DRIVE 194B 477870AB5 MOT 19B A2 14315PAB1 CARMX 193 A2A 323,726.15 - - - (238,744.41) (0.00) - (47.06) 84,934.68 91.13 2,091,560.09 - - (2,000,000.00) - - - (1,560.09) - - 1,500,000.00 - - - - - - 1,500,000.00 17,428.36 1,509,000.09 - - - - 435.09 1,509,435.09 1,189.67 259,964.59 - - - - 0.53 (290.12) 259,675.00 209.37 289,998.90 - - - - 0.70 667.40 290,667.09 293.87 379,982.94 - - - - 2.04 820.62 380,805.60 373.24 240907094 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 65478LAB5 NALT 19B A2A 259,977.25 4.75 428.80 260,410.80 262.31 240907004 MIM-RCTC TOIRevenue:-I-15 477891AB2 MOT 2019 A2 533,121.70 - - - - - 4.96 (683.36) 532,443.30 671.33 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 58769DAD2 MBALT 17A A3 5,322.25 - - - (5,324.59) 0.00 7.58 (5.24) - - 240907004 MIM-RCTC TOIRevenue:-I-15 31416BTW8 FN 995265 - 19,355.73 - - - - 8.50 24.62 19,388.85 85.05 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: -I-15 9128285H9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 5,292,209.00 - - - - - 19.58 (602.58) 5,291,626.00 18,299.75 240907004 MIv1-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 3I OAGE68 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 2,000,580.00 - - (2,000,000.00) - 451.30 20.64 (1,051.94) - - 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 64972HV66 NEW YORK N Y CITY TRANSITIONAL FM AUTH BLDG AM R 665,172.90 - - (665,099.00) - - 26.20 (199.10) - - 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 05522RCW6 BACCT 171A - 749,677.73 - - - - 43.87 (171.60) 749,550.00 650.00 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 65479AAD4 NALT 17A A3 305,902.58 (306,058.67) 82.48 45.02 28.59 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 912828Y53 UNITED STATES TREASURY 23336KXQ0 DTE Electric Company 31416BTW8 FN 995265 06051GEN4 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 21201CX43 Cominental Rubber of America, Corp. 780082AA1 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 04056BVK3 Arizona Public Service Company 1,496,190:00 1,398,516:00 - - - - 102.67 599,100.09 - - - - 133.33 434,512.55 - - - - 190.81 999,830.09 - - - - - 228.54 999,572.22 - - - - 244.45 - - - - 267.78 1,499,728.76 - (1,500,000.00) - - 271.24 (32.67) 10.67 552.72 1,011.46 23.33 1,982.22 1,398,586.00 599,244.09 435,256.08 1,001,070.00 999,840.00 1,498,440.00 4,829.07 1,909.18 10,099.00 4,375.00 '40907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 49327M2P8 KEYBANK NA 998,780.00 - - (1,000,NM 00) - - 318.16 901.84 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 05916SUA6 Baltimore Gas and Electric Company 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 65478DAD9 NAROT 18A A3 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 466400082 LP. Morgan Securities LLC 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 97684HVE8 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 3137B2GW4 FHMS K713 A2 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 976841M82 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue:-I-15 02360SU89 Ameren Corporation 674,670:56 - (675,000.00) - - 329,44 - - - 603,132.09 - - - - 355.93 (649.93) 602,838.00 706.67 849,609.00 - - (850,000.00) - - 390.05 0.95 - - 1,199,566.00 - (1,200,099.00) - - 434.00 - - - 577,535.95 - - - (27,053.14) 79.23 467.74 (97.59) 550,932.20 1,062.98 1,499,310.09 - - (1,500,099.00) - - 708.75 (18.75) - - 1,499,310.00 - - (1,500,000.00) - 758.33 (68.33) - - 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: -I-15 92780KYD7 Virginia Electric and Power Company 1,499,240.09 - (1,500,099.00) - - 760.00 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue: -I-15 313384KM0 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS ,834,180.37 - (1,835,000.00) - - 819.63 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: -I-15 92780KUA4 Virginia Electric mat Power Company 1,349,203.50 (1,350,099.00) - - 850.50 (54.00) 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue: -I-15 71112KUH2 The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company 499,081.25 - (1,500,000.00) - - 918.75 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: -I-15 69350BU60 PPG lnlustries, Inc. 1,499,010.09 (1,500,099.00) - - 1,083 (93.33) 240907004 MIM-RCTC TOIRevenue:-I-15 43357MWT3 Hitachi Capita America Corp. 598,878.67 - (600,000.00) - - 1,121. 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 02361LX02 Armen Illinois Company 1,197,740.09 - - - - 1,130.00 146.00 1,199,016.00 240907004 MIM-RCTC ToI Revenue: -I-15 24422E1'18 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP 122,108.75 1,216.82 1,460.68 1,124,786.25 6,718.75 240907094 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue:-I-15 04056BUHI Arizona Public Service Company 3,418,547.51 (1,500,099.00) 1,452.49 Page 24 of 37 rir RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account Quarter ended September 30, 2019 Base Base Change In Beginning Base Base Maturities and Net Total Realized Amortization/A Net Unrealized Ending Base Ending Accrued 240907004 MIM-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 02587AA13 AMXCA 171 A 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 50000EX33 Koch Industries, Inc. 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 50000EUN2 Koch Industries, Inc. 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 06416CAA6 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 23337UX79 DTE Gas Company 648,674.00 1,497,960.00 1,498,033.34 (1,500,000.00) 1,524,329.00 (1,525 000.00) 1,497.184.17 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 78355BUP5 Ryder System, Inc. 9127%V W6 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 1,497,825:00 - 1,996,925.00 (699,457.19) (1,300,000.00) (1,500 000.00) 1,497.33 1,870.00 1,966.66 (684.83) 5.00 649A86.50 1,499,835.00 557.56 2,206.79 2,270.83 2,337.50 (1,535.79) - 50.00 1,499,505.00 (162.50) 55.11 2,477.08 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 17275RBG6 CISCO SYSTEMS INC 63873KWD5 Natixis, New York Branch 1,047,742:50 1,497,287.51 (1,050,000.00) (1,500,000.00) 2,708.98 (451.48) 2,712.49 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 97684HV65 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 1,497,266/5 (1,500,000.00) 2,73335 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 36960MW66 General Electric Company 1,497,162.50 - (1,500,000.00) 2,837.50 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 02360SW61 Ameren Corporation 1,497,150.00 - (1,500,000.00) 2,850.00 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 26055BW91 The Dow Chemical Company 1,497,029.16 - (1,500,000.00) 2,970.84 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 97684HV57 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 1,596,976.00 - (1,600,000.00) 3,024.00 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 02360SV70 Ameren Corporation 1,4%,862.50 - (1,500,000.00) 3,137.50 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 69350BV86 PPG Industries, Inc. 1,496,850.00 - (1,500,000.00) 3,150.00 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 69350BW36 PPG Industries, Inc. 1,546,762.22 - (1,550,000.00) 3,237.78 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 5148X1XA6 Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg New York Branch 26055BV84 The Dow Chemical Company 912796VY2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1,495,320.00 1,4%,115.00 - (1,500,000.00) 4,992,222.20 (4,996,278.33) - 3,870.00 75.00 1,499,265.00 3,885.00 - - 167.23 3,888.90 - - 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 9127%VX4 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 3,494,658.13 (3,498,706.94) 91.87 3,956.94 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 9128282T6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 1,996,560.00 (2,000,000.00) 4,032.45 (592.45) 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 313384KH1 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 2,195,583.50 (2,200,000.00) 4,416.50 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 9128282T6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 2,995,546.88 (3,000,000.00) 4,453.12 240907004 MRV1-RCTC Ton Revere:-I-15 9127%VU0 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 3,993,619.12 (4,000,000.00) 6,380.88 240907004 MIM-RCTC Toll Revenue: - I-15 912828UF5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3,682,092.00 12,267.50 (1,870.50) 3,692,489.00 10,519.36 67,069,23555 140930,87731 (79,189,925.22) (70,305,000.00) (1,085,546.67) (1,29399) 88,648.71 12,70356 57,519,699.44 226,793.61 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31283KSN4 FH G11753 302,666.97 - - - (85,724.63) (2,105.77) (1,75895) 3,573.28 216,650.90 874.81 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 3139216N4 FNR 0323B EQ 31381QB54 FN 467260 38378VC45 GNR 13116D MA 429,568.44 58,006.% 64,921.37 (42,376.18) (31892) (2,775.48) (2,671.01) (4.37) 90.38 (995.86) (158.26) (105.77) 1,941.82 (104.40) 241.22 385,467.21 57,421.01 62,371.73 1,701.77 206.20 117.12 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137AYCE9 FHMS K025 A2 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pr1 RAMP UP RESERVE 31381RLL6 FN 468431 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31381,11AE8 FN FN0004 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 38375XCM4 GNR 0847B PC 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B84S3 FHR 4305A CT 46,753.43 31,765.84 31,915.28 107,109.05 102,164.06 (233.80) (199.53) (2,672.25) (10,466.51) (9193) (2.44) (62.97) (1.82) (51.64) (73.42) (48.78) 103.85 (47.80) (73.13) (78.70) 55.55 (6.22) 161.66 101,999.00 46,375.51 31,568.41 29,114.60 %,860.25 223.50 144.76 95.58 117.52 161.32 _40907020 RCTC I-15 Pr, RAMP UP RESERVE 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE '40907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 3137ARBX3 FHR 4061C CF 31397QWZ7 FNR 1115E VB 3137FGZN8 FHMS KIO2 A 3134GTAE3 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 383771M59 GNR IOI I IF PE 43,961.04 53,999.12 50,134.03 175,213.50 36,310.28 (175,000.00) (3,491.97) 48.10 (47.15) (12,368.33) (23.94) (4497) (9,879.73) 3.59 (33.00) (31.01) (2,894.57) 63.03 (30.86) 20.95 40,490.96 42.87 (43.89) 41,517.98 137.48 122.92 40,347.81 16.31 (182.49) - - 51.53 33,499.40 69.90 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31381SV18 FN 469617 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 38377REV3 GNR 10158C HA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3130AEC17 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 912828Y53 UNITED STATES TREASURY 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137AH6C7 FHMS K015 A2 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 3137BQBY2 FHMS K722 Al 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3620ARB67 GN 737261 43,797.67 - - - (275.97) (1.06) (28.76) (27.31) 43,464.57 117.96 40,547.59 - - (2,501.35) (48.52) (22.08) 52.12 38,027.76 108.67 351,858.50 - - - - - (20.81) (133.19) 351,704.50 3,139.06 399,576.00 (74,906.73) - - (107.67) (20.38) 130.54 324,671.75 1,121.04 101994.00 - - - (3,520.12) (4.70) (17.19) (621.40) 97,830.60 259.69 64,674.93 - - (501.68) (3.21) (16.76) (186.35) 63,966.93 115.99 27,180.32 - - - (2,021.24) (39.28) (16.29) 36.67 25,140.18 80.56 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 38376V2E6 GNR 1019B UA 25,838.10 - - (626.31) (25.42) (11.76) 232.59 25,407.19 80.68 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3620A9W V9 GN 723460 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 912828L57 UNITED STATES TREASURY 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 62888VAA6 NGN lOR11A 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 38376YFF3 GNR 1046E CH 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 912828L57 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 3137A5FP4 FHR 3791E DA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31381N7G2 FN 466295 12,618.50 33,997.36 10,639.20 53,364.85 36,314.95 60,433.59 25,231.45 (30,357.59) (801.10) (14.48) (8.88) 87.64 11,881.68 3798 (7.78) (128.21) 60,297.60 2.87 (3,603.25) (27.32) (7.37) (1.83) - - (1,660.04) (11.34) (6.99) (9.13) 8,951.70 29.47 (6.31) (101.14) 25,124.00 1.20 (5,253.71) (4.88) (5.73) 43.42 48,143.95 99.98 (203.76) (0.72) (5.67) (78.71) 36,026.08 97.61 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 912828L57 UNITED STATES TREASURY 25,227.54 (5.45) (98.09) 25, 124.00 1.20 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38378CDK0 GNR 11169G 70,089.00 ( 7,540.38) (49.88) (2.94) 22.06 52,517.86 130.93 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 383791M99 GNR 1545E AG 23,770.51 2.17) 165.49 23,933.83 49.20 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38375/02 GNR 0668 D 10,283.33 - - - (4, 181.01) (0.70) (1.84) (3.08) 6,096.71 2697 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 62888VAA6 NGN IORI ]A 43,516.63 - (38,857.72) - (4,612.16) 10.02 (1.67) (55.10) 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 62888VAA6 NGN OR IA 14958.84 - (13,357.33) - (1,585.43) .18 (0.62) (18.63) 0.01 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pr1 RAMP UP RESERVE 31398N2K9 FNR 10123B DL 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 31846V203 FIRST AMER:GVT OBLGY 484.22 - - - (424.14) 61,060.21 1,012,046.73 (645,250.37) - - 0.12 (0.05) 0.51 60.66 0.18 - - 427,856.57 - 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 38377F2N0 GNR 1073E LN 389.86 - - - (390.311 (0.02) - 0.47 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3134GT1111 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 125,000.00 - - (125,000.00) - 10.97 - (10.97) 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 3130AGHC2 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 100,078.00 - - (100,000.00) - - - (78.00) 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE CCYUSD Payable 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE CCYUSD Receivable 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3137EADB2 FREDDIE MAC 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 38375KCX8 GNR 0726C MA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3136A72D3 FNA 12M9 A2 '40907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 31418ASD1 FN MA1415 (406,160.27) - 2,446.88 - - - - - - - - 406,425.20 - - - - (265.20) 406,160.00 2,058:33 2,896:07 - - - (2,899.38) - - 3.31 - 3,677.41 - - (372.98) (2.15) 0.71 16.48 3,319.46 6.79 951.92 - - - (97.88) 0.95 0.90 0.29 856.18 1.43 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38376P135 GNR 09116C NH 27,621:93 - - - (26,776:96) 7.28 1.60 (14.39) 839.46 2.80 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 31418CQM9 FN MA3159 23,948.35 - - - 1.64 (39.44) 23,910.54 58.38 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 9128285H9 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 499,265:00 - - - - - 1.85 (56.85) 499,210.00 1,726.39 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 314016DU8 FN BM1914 84,429.36 - - (1,752.81) (11.89) 2.18 261.61 82,928.46 171.07 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 3136A72D3 FNA 12M9 A2 - 14,710.22 - - (1,491.94) (8.67) 2.84 65.38 13,277.83 27.16 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pr1 RAMP UP RESERVE 31418AU48 FN MA1502 27,978.04 - (25,059.45) - (2,878.45) 350.29 3.10 (393.53) - - 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38377QKH9 GNR 1118A PG - 23,807.65 - - (560.75) (10.31) 4.31 60.52 23,301.42 57.06 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 38378DDC6 GNR 1216E GB 59,061.0 (15,998.20) (3 34) 4.42 (15.21) 43,015.71 125.06 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 138L2GH4 FN AM1999 21,580.71 - - (92.85) 0.50 6.35 93.70 21,588.40 33.67 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 38378HXH4 GNR 12119 KB 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38376YPU9 GNR 1050D EA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 7A1MF8 FHMS K016 A2 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38379HLE3 GNR 14184H WIC 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 912828Y53 UNITED STATES TREASURY 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38375CBH2 GNR 1257E LD 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pd RAMP UP RESERVE 3136AC714 FNA 13M6 2A 7,487.50 0,675.22 96,758.94 79,879.% 124,867.50 16,560.49 42,485.55 35 (500.15) 24.74 6.96 1.51 7,020.56 7.45 (4,991.22) 32.54 10.63 8.02 25,735.19 53.56 (516.29) 1.62 19.72 (320.69) 95,943.29 233.92 (7,755.33) 13.49 21.02 12.58 72,171.72 204.79 22.11 (15.86) 124,873.75 431.17 (10,206.76) 23.72 22.79 5.60 6,405.84 6.68 (1,181.80) 13.90 33.97 125.63 41,477.25 88.28 Page 25 of 37 rir RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Transaction Report by Account Quarter ended September 30, 2019 Beginning Base Base Base Change In Base Maturities and Net Total Realized Amortization/A Net Unrealized Ending Base Ending Accrued 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B1UF7 FHMS K027 Al 240907020 RCTC I-15 Prj RAMP UP RESERVE 38378AWX5 GNR 11157E QA 210907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 3137ASR97 FHMS K020 Al 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 383742C76 GNR 0832B PA 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 38378BXQ7 GNR 1289 A 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 31418ASD1 FN MA1415 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 383781CW47 GNR 13138 A 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B3NW4 RIMS K031 Al 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 3137AXHN6 FHMS K024 Al 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 3136A96F0 FNA 12M17 A2 33,017.16 121,409.06 27,827.30 72,747.88 19,418.91 59,970.72 60,556.39 89,767.14 63,524.55 63,695.30 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 9128286N5 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 3136AMM48 FNA 15M4B AV2 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 9128286N5 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 88,594.58 82,841.95 82,516.38 (3,776.38) 43.98 101.87 (2,564.88) (20,025.88) (2428.15) 27.54 (8558) 37.76 4.28 42.35 44.25 41.68 2.18 13.81 30,555.78 101,342.13 25,494.% 45.53 251.84 57 (5,120.37) (1,573.23) (6,166.14) (95.07) 15.68 52.17 47.07 48.38 51.52 (94039) 66,638.92 (22.93) 17,886.81 0.94 53,939/1 218.55 23.09 90.00 (1,440.64) 7.89 62.57 26.59 59,212.80 106A7 (6,447.49) 49.38 63.94 (76.45) 83,356.52 90.90 (5,663.73) 55.14 65.34 (7, 135.89) 152.83 66.17 72.74 58,054.03 41.85 56,820.25 101.64 (590.28) 82,353.31 (42.71) 84,921.35 103.16 (266.23) 82,353.31 84.84 02.60 187.88 75.85 187.88 240907020 RCTC 1-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 3137B1U75 RIMS KS01 A2 120,980.40 42 374.58 121A66.40 252.20 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 3138EJPZ5 FN AL2239 34,255.78 (8,841.43) ( 61.45) 120.89 6.94 25,380.73 62A6 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 3137ATRW4 RIMS K020 A2 00,717.00 83.06 (29.06) 100,871.00 97.75 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 38378KWU9 GNR 1396 A 5,702.17 (1,280.27) 76.54 196.44 488.19 35,183.06 41.9 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pry RAMP UP RESERVE 9128281JF5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 89,080.40 - (99,664.06) - - 30.82 334.57 35.57 89,817.30 255.88 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 912828B58 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 21,462.40 - - - - - 369.00 (369.00) 321,462.40 1, 145.65 240907020 RCTC I-15 PO RAMP UP RESERVE 912828SA9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 78,523.86 - - - - - 372.02 (340.66) 78,555.22 21.02 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 912828SA9 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 78,523.86 - - - - - 378.09 (346.73) 78,555.22 21.02 240907020 RCTC I-15 PO RAMP UP RESERVE 912828UH1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 82,549.86 - - - - - 396.17 (311.19) 82,634.84 22.09 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 912828V V9 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 476,111.50 - - - - - 500.96 (443.96) 476,168.50 859.6 240907020 RCTC I-15 PO RAMP UP RESERVE 912828V V9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 00,702.00 - - - - - 514.89 (478.89) 300,738.00 542.9 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 912828VA5 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 163,788.90 - - - - - 606.62 (98.42) 164,297.10 776.80 240907020 RCTC I-15 PO RAMP UP RESERVE 912828SA9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 68,265.41 - - - - - 749.93 (682.74) 168,332.61 45.05 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 912828UF5 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 243,814.20 - - - - - 812.31 (123.86) 244,502.65 6%.55 240907020 RCTC I-15 PO RAMP UP RESERVE 912828VA5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 496,330.00 - - - - - 1,691.67 (151.67) 497,870.00 2,353.94 240907020 RCTC I-15 Pp RAMP UP RESERVE 912828E62 UNTIED STATES TREASURY 698,551.00 - - - - - 1,770.35 (664.35) 699,657.00 4,394.02 8,204,094.7E 2,158,127.51 (927,453.25) (400,000.00) (373,642.09) (4,281.44) 6,381.52 (410.72) 8,254,209.11 28,092.28 75,273,330/7 143,089,005.02 (80,117,378.47) (70,705,000.00) (1,459.188.76) (5,575.43) 95,030.23 12,292.84 65,773,90855 254,885.89 36 Page 26 of 37 37 FrRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Summary of Investments for quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 12 Credit Rating Base Market Value + Accrued 50,000,000 40,000.000 _ 30,000.000 20,000 000 10.000.000 AA NA I A-1, A-2 Asset Class Cash(-0.512%) Money MarKet Funds (0.954%) Fixed Income (U9.545%) Chart calculated by: Base Market Value r Accrued `Negative cash reflects securities in transit at month end Other (17.559%) C9 15.843%) AGCY BONG" 17.478%] ABS (B.120%) VRON (8.532%) Security Type US GOV CP (11.05064) Industry Group Other (20.098%) Electric (2.729%) Credit Card ABS� (3.577%) Commercial MOS (3.965%) Multi -National (4.583%) US Municipals 00.663%) Sovereign (36.279%) BanKa [18.025%) Chart calculated by: Base Market Value r Accrued CORP (13.154%) Chart calculated by: Base Market Value r Accrued Market Sector Other (5.346%) Industrial (7.02170 Agency (7A75%)_' Asset Backed (5.120%) �• Mortgage Baelma (8.445%) Municipsl {10.663%) Government 03.370%] Financial (19.557%) Chart calculated by: Base Markel Value + Accrued 38 39 PERIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Sales Tax 115 ELP Project Revenue Fund Summary of Investments for quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 13 t� Credit Rating Base Market Value + Accrued 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 0 AAA AA= AA AA- A 1 A - NA A-1+ A-2 Asset Class Cash (0.006%)., Money Market Funds 10.361%) Fixed Income (99.531%) Chart calculsted 6y: Base Market value + Accrued *Negative cash reflects securities in transit at month end Security Type Industry Group Other (19.2R5%) AulcmOh lie ASS (2.920%) Electric (3.174%)J Credit Card ABSr (4.205%) Multi -National (5.223%) US Municipal.. (12.192%) ----Sovereign (32.469%) Banks 003909%) Chart calculated 6y: Base Market Value . Accrued Market Secto Other (4.739%) Utility (5.710%) � Agency (7.229%) Industrial (8.028%)`- Asset Sacked (9.2a4%) Municipal (12.192%) Government (30.463..0) Financial (22.3131%) Chart calculated 6y: Base Market Value + Accrued 40 41 rijr RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 2017 Financing STAMP Portfolio Ramp Up Fund Summary of Investments for quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 14 Credit Rating Base Market Value + Accrued 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 1� Asset Class Cash (-4.933%) Money Market Funds 15.107%) ,-Fixed Income (99.766%) Chart Calculated 6y: Base Markel Value + Accnmd *Negative cash reflects securities in transit at month end Industry Group Other (0.234%) GNMA Collateral (0.449%) Agency Going PAC CMO (2.132%) FGLMC Collateral (2.827%) FNMA Collateral (5.i 27%) Agency Collet CMO/ (12.603%) Commercial MRS' (13.772%) Sovereign (62.858%) Chart calculated 6y: Base Market Value + Accrued. Security Type Other (9.264%) FNMA CMO (3.361%) TIPS {6.924%)— rsitagi rpormv. . FNMA (7.345Ye) FHLMC CMO (7.354%) GNMACMCV (7.801%) AGCY BOND (9218%) US GOV (46.717%) Chart Calculated 6y: Base Markel value + Accrued Market Sector Cash (0.234%) Agency (9.218%) Modge go Backed (36.910%) "Government (53.640%) Chart Calculated 6y: Base Market Value + AGCrued 42 43 OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio by Investment Category for Quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 15 Account Number: 001050990415 Name: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS COMM CUSIP Security Type Category Issuer Next Call Final Maturity Trade Date Date Original Cost Base Market Value Unrealized Gain/Loss Accrued Income Coupon Yield Credit Rating Ul UdilUNZ I axaote Muni ALAMtUA l:N I Y l:A J I Z.bbb% b/U1/Z1 Ub/U1/ZUZI U4/Z4/ZUlif Z0b,000.UU Z0b,d4Z.i30 3,134Z.db 2,43b.1U Z.b/U ZA:SZ31 /Z4/4 HA+ AA+ 037833DL1 Credit APPLE INC 1.700% 9/11/22 09/11/2022 09/11/2019 524,910.75 524,181.00 (729.75) 495.83 1.700 1.703867780 053015AD5 Credit AUTOMATIC DATA 2.250% 9/15/20 09/15/2020 09/15/2015 08/15/2020 451,930.72 451,242.00 (688.72) 450.00 2.250 2.242688834 AA 05582QAD9 Asset -Backed BMW VEHICLE OWNER 1.160% 11/25/20 11/25/2020 07/20/2016 9,898.14 9,889.78 (8.36) 1.91 1.160 1.160034801 N/A 05584PAD9 Asset -Backed BMW VEHICLE LEASE 2.070% 10/20/20 10/20/2020 10/25/2017 66,639.23 66,633.95 (5.28) 42.15 2.070 2.070000000 N/A 05588CAC6 Asset -Backed BMW VEHICLE OWNER 1.920% 1/25/24 01/25/2024 09/18/2019 329,955.65 330,138.60 182.95 228.80 1.920 1.922653262 AAA 06050TMJ8 Credit BANK OF AMERICA MTN 3.335% 1/25/23 01/25/2023 01/25/2019 01/25/2022 520,000.00 533,842.40 13,842.40 3,179.37 3.340 3.254198257 A+ 06406FAA1 Credit BANK OF NY MTN 2.500% 4/15/21 04/15/2021 02/19/2016 03/15/2021 755,648.77 755,745.00 96.23 8,645.83 2.500 2.479101177 A 06406RAK3 Credit BANK OF NY MTN 1.950% 8/23/22 08/23/2022 08/23/2019 99,968.00 100,054.00 86.00 205.83 1.950 1.954319045 A 072024WN8 Taxable Muni BAY AREA CA TOLL 2.184% 4/01/23 04/01/2023 09/26/2019 680,000.00 682,910.40 2,910.40 206.27 2.180 2.177163706 AA 084670BQ0 Credit BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY 2.200% 3/15/21 03/15/2021 03/15/2016 02/15/2021 466,436.01 473,444.49 7,008.48 460.53 2.200 2.189141856 AA 13063BFS6 Taxable Muni CALIFORNIA ST BUILD 6.650% 3/01/22 03/01/2022 04/01/2010 466,154.70 463,492.25 (2,662.45) 2,355.21 6.650 6.147844094 AA- 13063DGA0 Taxable Muni CALIFORNIA ST 2.800% 4/01/21 04/01/2021 04/25/2018 500,008.42 507,275.00 7,266.58 7,000.00 2.800 2.767865086 AA- 13066YTY5 Taxable Muni CALIFORNIA ST DEPT 1.713% 5/01/21 05/01/2021 09/28/2016 102,868.78 103,862.21 993.43 741.69 1.710 1.712571857 AA 13077CT38 Taxable Muni CALIFORNIA ST 1.982% 11/01/19 11/01/2019 08/05/2015 130,110.80 130,014.30 (96.50) 1,073.58 1.980 1.981980180 AA- 144141 DC9 Credit PROG ENERGY CAROLINA 2.800% 5/15/22 05/15/2022 05/18/2012 02/15/2022 253,792.50 254,737.50 945.00 2,644.44 2.800 2.745447949 A 156549AA5 Taxable Muni CENTURY HOUSING CORP 3.824% 11/01/20 11/01/2020 02/07/2019 110,000.00 111,338.70 1,338.70 1,752.67 3.820 3.779888699 AA- 166764AU4 Credit CHEVRON CORP 3.05025% 3/03/22 03/03/2022 03/03/2015 503,177.62 502,770.00 (407.62) 1,186.21 2.660 3.031846591 AA 17325FAQ1 Credit CITIBANK NA 3.400% 7/23/21 07/23/2021 07/23/2018 06/23/2021 254,855.00 255,872.50 1,017.50 1,605.56 3.400 3.325313460 A+ 17325FAY4 Credit CITIBANK NA 2.844% 5/20/22 05/20/2022 05/22/2019 05/20/2021 511,772.50 515,202.00 3,429.50 5,197.41 2.840 2.812778162 A+ 20772JKP6 Taxable Muni CONNECTICUT ST 2.401% 10/15/21 10/15/2021 11/16/2012 120,216.00 120,663.60 447.60 1,328.55 2.400 2.389316244 A 20772KGM5 Taxable Muni CONNECTICUT ST SER A 2.921% 4/15/23 04/15/2023 04/11/2019 301,695.00 307,464.00 5,769.00 4,138.08 2.920 2.861116825 A 210518CT1 Credit CONSUMERS ENERGY CO 2.850% 5/15/22 05/15/2022 05/08/2012 02/15/2022 380,906.25 382,616.25 1,710.00 4,037.50 2.850 2.797243979 A 212204JC6 Taxable Muni CONTRA COSTA CA 1.652% 8/01/22 08/01/2022 09/12/2019 300,000.00 298,866.00 (1,134.00) 261.57 1.650 1.662072157 AA+ 30231GAV4 Credit EXXON MOBIL 2.222% 3/01/21 03/01/2021 03/03/2016 02/01/2021 495,685.00 502,620.00 6,935.00 925.83 2.220 2.211649480 AA+ 30231GBB7 Credit EXXON MOBIL 1.902% 8/16/22 08/16/2022 08/16/2019 300,000.00 301,305.00 1,305.00 713.25 1.900 1.897559710 AA+ 3130AF5B9 Agencies F H L B DEB 3.000% 10/12/21 10/12/2021 10/12/2018 619,597.00 636,436.20 16,839.20 8,731.67 3.000 2.926258291 AA+ 3130AGWK7 Agencies F H L B DEB 1.500% 8/15/24 08/15/2024 08/16/2019 149,647.50 149,190.00 (457.50) 281.25 1.500 1.513485153 AA+ 3134GBTL6 Agencies F H L M C M T N 2.100% 6/29/22 06/29/2022 06/29/2017 12/29/2019 484,720.00 500,440.00 15,720.00 2,683.33 2.100 2.099769025 AA+ 3135GOW33 Agencies FNMA 1.375% 9/06/22 09/06/2022 09/06/2019 597,912.00 595,746.00 (2,166.00) 572.92 1.380 1.386563943 AA+ 3136131XP4 Mortgage -Backed F N M A GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 09/25/2021 04/01/2018 157,075.96 158,136.64 1,060.68 460.61 3.560 3.497843324 N/A 3137ATRW4 Mortgage -Backed F H L M C MULTICLASS 2.373% 5/25/22 05/25/2022 09/01/2012 190,988.56 191,654.90 666.34 375.73 2.370 2.356715099 N/A 3137131U75 Mortgage -Backed F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.522% 1/25/23 01/25/2023 05/07/2013 160,739.29 161,955.20 1,215.91 336.27 2.520 2.493154601 N/A 3137636J2 Mortgage -Backed F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.320% 2/25/23 02/25/2023 07/01/2013 386,757.48 385,380.90 (1,376.58) 1,023.67 3.320 3.203149506 N/A 3137BQR90 Mortgage -Backed F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.272% 1/25/23 01/25/2023 07/01/2016 250,784.87 252,027.50 1,242.63 473.33 2.270 2.256228960 N/A 3137FJYA1 Mortgage -Backed F H L M C MLTCL MT 9.43859% 5/25/23 05/25/2023 11/01/2018 247,284.87 254,660.85 7,375.98 711.79 3.450 9.178914120 N/A 31846V203 FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y • 863,961.88 863,961.88 - 1,447.12 1.431238000 41284WAC4 Asset -Backed HARLEY DAVIDSON 2.340% 2/15/24 02/15/2024 06/26/2019 589,954.33 592,271.50 2,317.17 613.60 2.340 2.332838187 N/A 419792YL4 Taxable Muni HAWAII ST SER FX 2.770% 1/01/22 01/01/2022 02/21/2019 190,000.00 193,598.60 3,598.60 1,315.75 2.770 2.715766150 AA+ 43814PAC4 Asset -Backed HONDA AUTO 1.790% 9/20/21 09/20/2021 09/29/2017 102,669.74 102,594.61 (75.13) 66.37 1.790 1.791469405 AAA 43815NAC8 Asset -Backed HONDA AUTO 1.780% 8/15/23 08/15/2023 08/27/2019 249,997.93 249,470.00 (527.93) 197.78 1.780 1.787884571 AAA 45750TAG8 Taxable Muni INLAND VLY CA DEV 3.627% 3/01/20 03/01/2020 05/15/2014 230,767.35 231,426.00 658.65 695.18 3.630 3.606658446 AA 46647PBB1 Credit JPMORGAN CHASE CO 3.207% 4/01/23 04/01/2023 03/22/2019 04/01/2022 1,050,000.00 1,075,588.50 25,588.50 17,678.59 3.210 3.135970273 A- 47787XAC1 Asset -Backed JOHN DEERE OWNER 1.780% 4/15/21 04/15/2021 03/02/2017 95,820.71 95,744.27 (76.44) 75.82 1.780 1.780908263 N/A 47789JAD8 Asset -Backed JOHN DEERE OWNER 2.910% 7/17/23 07/17/2023 03/13/2019 259,968.05 264,648.80 4,680.75 336.27 2.910 2.864004094 N/A 478160CH5 Credit JOHNSON JOHNSON 1.950% 11/10/20 11/10/2020 11/10/2017 249,732.50 250,112.50 380.00 1,909.38 1.950 1.951697977 AAA 544445AZ2 Taxable Muni LOS ANGELES CA DEPT 2.092% 5/15/20 05/15/2020 12/06/2016 98,788.00 100,035.00 1,247.00 790.31 2.090 2.089450870 AA 58769TAD7 Asset -Backed MERCEDES BENZ 1.940% 3/15/24 03/15/2024 09/25/2019 269,962.82 270,307.80 344.98 87.30 1.940 1.942389139 AAA 65478BAD3 Asset -Backed NISSAN AUTO LEASE 3.250% 9/15/21 09/15/2021 10/24/2018 199,982.52 202,246.00 2,263.48 288.89 3.250 3.217216563 AAA 65478NAD7 Asset -Backed NISSAN AUTO 3.220% 6/15/23 06/15/2023 12/12/2018 449,913.78 460,138.50 10,224.72 644.00 3.220 3.159526660 AAA 65479KAD2 Asset -Backed NISSAN AUTO 2.900% 10/16/23 10/16/2023 02/13/2019 319,951.52 325,203.20 5,251.68 412.44 2.900 2.851496052 N/A 697379UD5 Taxable Muni PALO ALTO CA 2.291% 8/01/20 08/01/2020 08/14/2012 321,873.50 326,105.00 4,231.50 1,240.96 2.290 2.281190879 AAA 717081EM1 Credit PFIZER INC 3.000% 9/15/21 09/15/2021 09/07/2018 249,662.50 255,062.50 5,400.00 333.33 3.000 2.940657531 AA- 78607QAT2 Taxable Muni SACRAMENTO CA 2.712% 11/01/19 11/01/2019 05/30/2018 130,000.00 130,061.10 61.10 1,469.00 2.710 2.711945761 AA+ 797299LR3 Taxable Muni SAN DIEGO CA PUBLIC 2.698% 10/15/19 10/15/2019 06/21/2018 500,000.00 500,130.00 130.00 6,220.39 2.700 2.698000000 N/R 797299LT9 Taxable Muni SAN DIEGO CA PUBLIC 2.994% 10/15/21 10/15/2021 06/21/2018 200,000.00 204,544.00 4,544.00 2,761.13 2.990 2.931213409 AA- 797669XT0 Taxable Muni SAN FRANCISCO CA 2.169% 7/01/20 07/01/2020 12/28/2017 100,000.00 100,125.00 125.00 542.25 2.170 2.163353647 AA+ 79770GGM2 Taxable Muni SAN FRANCISCO CITY 2.000% 8/01/20 08/01/2020 11/30/2017 44 299,607.00 300,183.00 576.00 1,000.00 2.000 1.996486184 AA- OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio by Investment Category for Quarter ended September 30, 2019 Account Number: 001050990415 CUSIP Security Type Category Name: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS COMM Issuer Next Call Final Maturity Trade Date Date Original Cost Base Market Value Unrealized Gain/Loss Accrued Income Coupon Yield Credit Rating /ViS1 NAUU laxame Muni WAN JVJt CA KtUtV Z.Z0U7o 2U01/LU Ub/Ul(LUZU 1Z/Z1/ZU1/ 1VO,Uuu.uU 1UU,033.VU 033.UU /10.30 Z.LbU L.2013yUS01 fiA AA- 79876CBQ0 Taxable Muni SAN MARCOS CA REDEV 2.000% 10/01/20 10/01/2020 12/14/2017 109,256.40 109,849.30 592.90 1,100.00 2.000 1.999720039 801096AP3 Taxable Muni SANTA ANA_CACMNTY 3.346% 9/01/21 09/01/2021 11/08/2018 240,000.00 246,338.40 6,338.40 669.20 3.350 3.263339608 AA 80136PCY7 Taxable Muni SANTA BARBARA CA 3.300% 12/01/21 12/01/2021 11/28/2018 125,000.00 128,393.75 3,393.75 1,375.00 3.300 3.218476003 AA 80168FMA1 Taxable Muni SANTA CLARA VLY CA 2.387% 6/01/21 06/01/2021 03/30/2016 397,756.00 403,432.00 5,676.00 3,182.67 2.390 2.365778963 N/A 857477AS2 Credit STATE STREET CORP 2.550% 8/18/20 08/18/2020 08/18/2015 790,887.90 791,719.36 831.46 2,400.12 2.550 2.537161960 A 882723UC1 Taxable Muni TEXAS ST REF WTR 2.036% 8/01/20 08/01/2020 02/05/2015 i 250,582.38 250,390.00 (192.38) 848.33 2.040 2.030679619 AAA 88579YBF7 Credit 3M COMPANY MTN 2.750% 3/01/22 03/01/2022 02/22/2019 02/01/2022 249,882.50 256,130.00 6,247.50 572.92 2.750 2.694044692 AA- 89238MAD0 Asset -Backed TOYOTA AUTO 1.730% 2/16/21 02/16/2021 03/15/2017 122,384.63 122,277.86 (106.77) 94.11 1.730 1.731281148 AAA 89238UAD2 Asset -Backed TOYOTA AUTO 1.910% 9/15/23 09/15/2023 08/14/2019 249,997.95 249,950.00 (47.95) 212.22 1.910 1.912352193 AAA 89239AAD5 Asset -Backed TOYOTA AUTO 2.910% 7/17/23 07/17/2023 02/13/2019 339,938.05 345,565.80 5,627.75 439.73 2.910 2.863722248 AAA 90290AAC1 Asset -Backed USAA AUTO OWNER 1.700% 5/17/21 05/17/2021 09/20/2017 48,577.43 48,527.17 (50.26) 36.71 1.700 1.701275957 AAA 90331 HNG4 Credit US BANK NA MTN 2.050% 10/23/20 10/23/2020 10/24/2017 09/23/2020 249,950.00 250,340.00 390.00 2,249.31 2.050 2.045255008 AA- 90331HPA5 Credit US BANK NA MTN 3.000% 2/04/21 02/04/2021 02/04/2019 01/04/2021 519,578.80 526,396.00 6,817.20 2,470.00 3.000 2.960594487 AA- 91159HHQ6 Credit US BANCORP MTN 2.92275% 1/24/22 01/24/2022 01/24/2017 12/23/2021 251,487.21 251,350.00 (137.21) 1,400.48 2.920 2.906791713 A+ 911759MU9 Agencies U S DEPT HSG & URB 2.570% 8/01/21 08/01/2021 03/28/2019 100,000.00 100,984.00 984.00 428.33 2.570 2.547556031 N/A 9128284T4 Treasuries U S TREASURY NT 2.625% 6/15/21 06/15/2021 06/15/2018 5,697,513.82 5,706,042.20 (462.42) 43,531.97 2.630 2.586997014 N/A 9128284W7 Treasuries U S TREASURY NT 2.750% 8/15/21 08/15/2021 08/15/2018 1,936,875.39 1,972,867.95 35,992.56 6,796.16 2.750 2.699810522 N/A 9128285A4 Treasuries U S TREASURY NT 2.750% 9/15/21 09/15/2021 09/15/2018 507,948.05 520,898.70 12,950.65 616.48 2.750 2.696395654 N/A 9128285F3 Treasuries U S TREASURY NT 2.875% 10/15/21 10/15/2021 10/15/2018 1,026,577.07 1,055,142.30 28,565.23 13,673.53 2.880 2.810444099 N/A 9128285L0 Treasuries U S TREASURY NT 2.875% 11/15/21 11/15/2021 11/15/2018 1,036,078.03 1,061,278.65 25,200.62 11,239.45 2.880 2.807452688 N/A 9128287C8 Treasuries U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/15/22 07/15/2022 07/15/2019 2,704,796.44 2,700,625.50 (4,170.94) 9,977.85 1.750 1.745844889 N/A 9128287F1 Treasuries U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 07/31/2021 07/31/2019 4,382,609.02 4,376,161.70 (7,259.78) 12,884.38 1.750 1.748024732 N/A 912828Y20 Treasuries U S TREASURY NT 2.625% 7/15/21 07/15/2021 07/16/2018 249,619.14 254,062.50 4,443.36 1,390.96 2.630 2.584602660 N/A 912828YA2 Treasuries U S TREASURY NT 1.500% 8/15/22 08/15/2022 08/15/2019 5,692,861.67 5,671,924.50 (20,937.17) 10,891.10 1.500 1.505933378 N/A 912828YC8 Treasuries U S TREASURY NT 1.500% 8/31/21 08/31/2021 09/03/2019 4,390,359.12 4,382,122.65 (8,879.49) 5,016.03 1.500 1.504755026 N/A 91412G2S3 Taxable Muni UNIV OF CALIFORNIA 2.112% 5/15/21 05/15/2021 09/28/2017 140,000.00 140,569.80 569.80 1,117.01 2.110 2.103543754 AA- 91412HDJ9 Taxable Muni UNIV OF CA 3.283% 5/15/22 05/15/2022 06/05/2018 285,890.41 295,097.55 9,207.14 3,534.70 3.280 3.180092216 AA- 931142EA7 Credit WALMART STORES INC 1.900% 12/15/20 12/15/2020 10/20/2017 489,760.00 501,110.00 11,350.00 2,797.22 1.900 1.898538126 AA 931142EJ8 Credit WALMART INC 3.125% 6/23/21 06/23/2021 06/27/2018 129,993.50 132,934.10 2,940.60 1,105.90 3.130 3.056683132 AA 94988J5T0 Credit WELLS FARGO MTN 3.625% 10/22/21 10/22/2021 10/23/2018 09/21/2021 529,941.70 545,348.80 15,407.10 8,485.52 3.630 3.516617838 A+ 94988J6A0 Credit WELLS FARGO MTN 2.082% 9/09/22 09/09/2022 09/11/2019 09/09/2021 550,000.00 548,735.00 (1,265.00) 636.17 2.080 2.085963330 A+ 1 1 - 1 � 53,145,854.11 53,461,309.17 305,008.78 258,979.51 45 lUir RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Account Number: 001050990415 Name: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS COMM Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio Transaction Report Quarter ended September 30, 2019 ATTACHMENT 16 Transaction Settlement Date Trade Date Date Miscellaneous CUSIP Descri .tion Units Price Commissions SEC Fees Fees Net Cash Amount Amount O erm Federal Tax Cost Gain/Loss Amount ong erm Gain/Loss Amount of anoroo x� ov nni cn 0 nnnnnn _.._..__._ 07/01/2019 07/01/2019 07/01/2019 _._.__.__ 31846V203 .... _..__. _......__ _... .._... _ ...... _..--'- -' ___.. - -"-- PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -'---- 8,235.0300 1.000000 - - _,___.-- - (8,235.03) 8,235.03 - - - - 07/01/2019 = 31846V203 INTEREST EARNED ON FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y UNIT ON 0.0000 SI- 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 467.37 - 07/01/2019 419792YL4 INTEREST EARNED ON HAWAII ST SER FX 2.770 % 1/01/22 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,900.53 - - - 07/01/2019 797669XT0 INTEREST EARNED ON SAN FRANCISCO CA 2.169% 7/01/20 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,084.50 - - - 07/02/2019 07/02/2019 07/02/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 467.3700 1.000000 - - - (467.37) 467.37 - - 07/09/2019 07/09/2019 07/09/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 35,727.6500 1.000000 - - - (35,727.65) 35,727.65 - - 07/09/2019 07/08/2019 07/09/2019 9128284P2 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.625% 5/15/21 /CITIGROUI -890,000.0000 1.013044 - - - 901,608.74 (889,376.96) - 12,231.78 07/09/2019 07/09/2019 9128284P2 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.6', 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 3,491.68 - - - 07/09/2019 9128286V7 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 2.125% 5/31/21 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (1,166.61) - - 07/09/2019 07/08/2019 07/09/2019 9128286V7 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.125% 5/31/21 /BOFA SEC -2,665,000.0000 1.004297 - - - 2,676,451.17 (2,676,499.90) (48.73) - 07/09/2019 07/09/2019 9128286V7 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.1, 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 6,034.48 - - - 07/09/2019 07/08/2019 07/09/2019 9128286Y1 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 /BM' 3,555,000.0000 0.997969 - - - (3,547,778.91) 3,547,778.91 - - 07/09/2019 07/09/2019 9128286Y1 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (4,079.51) - - - 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 115,689.8300 1.000000 - - - (115,689.83) 115,689.83 - - 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 33,563.6400 1.000000 - - - (33,563.64) 33,563.64 - - 07/15/2019 41284WAC4 INTEREST EARNED ON HARLEY DAVIDSON 2.340 % 2/15/24 $1 PV Of 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 728.65 - - - 07/15/2019 47787XAC1 INTEREST EARNED ON JOHN DEERE OWNER 1.780% 4/15/21 $1 PV I 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 215.78 - - - 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 47787XAC1 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF JOHN DEERE OWNER 1.780% 4/15/21 -14,745.3500 26.463218 - - - 14,745.35 (14,743.25) - 2.10 07/15/2019 47789JAD8 INTEREST EARNED ON JOHN DEERE OWNER 2.910% 7/17/23 $1 PV I 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 630.50 - - - 07/15/2019 58769DAD2 INTEREST EARNED ON MERCEDES BENZ AUTO 1.790 % 4/15/20 $1 PV 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 48.98 - - - 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 58769DAD2 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF MERCEDES BENZ AUTO 1.790 % 4/15/20 C -32,834.9900 0.000000 - - - 32,834.99 (32,834.24) - 0.75 07/15/2019 65478BAD3 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO LEASE 3.250 % 9/15/21 $1 PV O 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 541.67 - - - 07/15/2019 65478NAD7 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO 3.220 % 6/15/23 $1 PV ON 1: 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,207.50 - - - 07/15/2019 65479BAD2 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2.050 % 9/15/20 $1 PV O 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 375.83 - - - 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 65479BAD2 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2.050% 9/15/20 -31,343.8000 12.449333 - - - 31,343.80 (31,338.32) - 5.48 07/15/2019 65479KAD2 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO 2.900 % 10/16/23 $1 PV ON 7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 773.33 - - - 07/15/2019 89190BAD0 INTEREST EARNED ON TOYOTA AUTO 1.760 % 7/15/21 $1 PV ON 5 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 556.16 - - - 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 89190BAD0 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF TOYOTA AUTO 1.760 % 7/15/21 -30,085.2100 12.970141 - - - 30,085.21 (30,082.90) - 2.31 07/15/2019 89238MAD0 INTEREST EARNED ON TOYOTA AUTO 1.730 % 2/16/21 $1 PV ON 2 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 271.06 - - - 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 89238MAD0 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF TOYOTA AUTO 1.730% 2/16/21 -21,176.8500 18.426225 - - - 21,176.85 (21,174.36) - 2.49 07/15/2019 89239AAD5 INTEREST EARNED ON TOYOTA AUTO 2.910 % 7/17/23 $1 PV ON 8 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 824.50 - - - 07/15/2019 90290AAC1 INTEREST EARNED ON USAA AUTO OWNER 1.700 % 5/17/21 $1 PV C 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 111.09 - - - 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 07/15/2019 90290AAC1 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF USAA AUTO OWNER 1.700% 5/17/21 -9,500.9700 41.070481 - - - 9,500.97 (9,499.97) - 1.00 07/15/2019 912828Y20 INTEREST EARNED ON U S TREASURY NT 2.625 % 7/15/21 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 3,281.25 m- - - 07/17/2019 07/15/2019 07/17/2019 037833CS7 SOLD PAR VALUE OF APPLE INC 1.800% 5/11/20 /MORGAN STAP -485,000.0000 0.997500 - - - 483,787.50 (484,505.30) - (717.80) 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 037833CS7 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF APPLE INC 1.800% 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,600.50 - - - 07/17/2019 07/15/2019 07/17/2019 084664CK5 SOLD PAR VALUE OF BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY 1.300 % 8/15/19 /TD SE( -160,000.0000 0.999060 - - - 159,849.60 (159,844.80) - 4.80 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 084664CK5 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 878.22 - - - 07/17/2019 166764AN0 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON CHEVRON CORP 2.193 % 11/15/19 CURF 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (342.98) - - 07/17/2019 07/15/2019 07/17/2019 166764AN0 SOLD PAR VALUE OF CHEVRON CORP 2.193% 11/15/19 /TD SECUF -500,000.0000 0.999620 - - - 499,810.00 (500,626.74) - (816.74) 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 166764AN0 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF CHEVRON CORP 2.1 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,888.42 - - - 07/17/2019 07/15/2019 07/17/2019 17275RAX0 SOLD PAR VALUE OF CISCO SYSTEMS INC 2.450% 6/15/20/PERSHIN -600,000.0000 1.002410 - - - 601,446.00 (599,952.00) - 1,494.00 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 17275RAX0 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF CISCO SYSTEMS INC 2. 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,306.67 - - - 07/17/2019 07/15/2019 07/17/2019 17275RBG6 SOLD PAR VALUE OF CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.400 % 9/20/19 /J.P. MOR, -40,000.0000 0.998080 - - - 39,923.20 (39,955.60) - (32.40) 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 17275RBG6 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1. 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 182.00 - - - 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 2,740,289.5400 1.000000 - - - (2,740,289.54) 2,740,289.54 - - 07/17/2019 07/15/2019 07/17/2019 594918BV5 SOLD PAR VALUE OF MICROSOFT CORP 1.850 % 2/06/20 /MORGAN -500,000.0000 0.998160 - - - 499,080.00 (499,665.00) - (585.00) 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 594918BV5 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF MICROSOFT CORP 1 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 4,136.81 - - - 07/17/2019 07/15/2019 07/17/2019 742718EZ8 SOLD PAR VALUE OF PROCTER GAMBLE CO 1.750 % 10/25/19 /PERSF -150,000.0000 0.998480 - - - 149,772.00 (149,947.50) - (175.50) 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 742718EZ8 931142DY6 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF PROCTER GAMBLE CO 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 597.92 - -- - 07/17/2019 07/15/2019 SOLD PAR VALUE OF WALMART STORES INC 1.750 % 10/09/19 /TD SE( -295,000.0000 0.998730 - - - 294,625.35 (294,994.10) (368.75) 07/17/2019 07/17/2019 931142DY6 31846V203 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF WALMART STORES INC ME 0.0000 0.000000 - - 1.000000 - - - 1,405.35 - 3,049,659.64 - (3,049,659.64) - - 07/18/2019 07/18/2019 07/18/2019 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -3,049,659.6400 07/18/2019 43814PAC4 INTEREST EARNED ON HONDA AUTO 1.790% 9/20/21 $1 PV ON 1'' 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 194.94 - -- - 07/18/2019 07/18/2019 07/18/2019 43814PAC4 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF HONDA AUTO 1.790 % 9/20/21 -9,157.2100 0.000000 - - - 9,157.21 (9,156.22) - 0.99 07/18/2019 07/18/2019 07/16/2019 07/18/2019 9128286M7 9128286M7 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 2.250 % 4/15/22 CURRI SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.250 % 4/15/22 /J.P. MORG 0.0000 0.000000 - - 1.010352 - - - - - 1,848,943.36 (61.64) - - -1,830,000.0000 (1,828,735.38) 20,207.98 - 07/18/2019 07/18/2019 9128286M7 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.2 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 10,575.00 - - - 07/18/2019 9128286U9 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 2.125% 5/15/22 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (798.93) - - 07/18/2019 07/16/2019 07/18/2019 9128286U9 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.125% 5/15/22 /HSBC SEC -2,490,000.0000 1.007383 - - - 2,508,383.20 (2,512,070.97) (3,687.77) - 07/18/2019 07/18/2019 9128286U9 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.1, 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 9,202.17 - - - 07/18/2019 07/16/2019 07/18/2019 9128287A2 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.625% 6/30/21 /CIT 3,730,000.0000 0.995391 - - - (3,712,807.03) 3,712,807.03 - - 07/18/2019 07/18/2019 9128287A2 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.E 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (2,964.74) - - - 07/18/2019 07/16/2019 07/18/2019 912828WG1 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.250% 4/30/21 /BOI 3,680,000.0000 1.006133 - - - (3,702,568.75) 3,702,568.75 - - 07/18/2019 07/18/2019 912828WG1 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.2 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (17,775.00) - - - 07/22/2019 05584PAD9 INTEREST EARNED ON BMW VEHICLE LEASE 2.070 % 10/20/20 $1 PV ( 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 165.92 - - 07/22/2019 07/20/2019 07/22/2019 05584PAD9 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF BMW VEHICLE LEASE 2.070% 10/20/20 -6,262.4700 0.000000 - - - 6,262.47 (6,262.46) - 0.01 07/22/2019 07/22/2019 07/22/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 6,428.3900 1.000000 - - - (6,428.39) 6,428.39 - - 07/23/2019 07/23/2019 07/23/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 3,907.3100 1.000000 - - - (3,907.31) 3,907.31 - - 07/23/2019 N 94988J5Q6 INTEREST EARNED ON WELLS FARGO MTN 3.0915% 7/23/21 $1 PV C 0Ro0 0.000000 - - - 3,907.31 - - - 07/24/2019 07/24/2019 07/24/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 2,033 120 1.000000 - - - (2,035.58) 2,035.58 - - Page 32 of 37 1051r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Account Number: 001050990415 Name: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS COM Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio Transaction Report Quarter ended September 30, 2019 Transaction Settlement Date Trade Date Date CUSIP Descri•tion Units Price Miscellaneous Commissions SEC Fees Fees o erm Federal Tax Cost Gain/Loss Net Cash Amount Amount Amount ong erm Gain/Loss Amount 07/24/2019 07/24/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 91159HHQ6 INTEREST EARNED ON US BANCORP MTN 3.22113% 1/24/22 $1 PV C 91159HHQ6 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON US BANCORP MTN 3.22113% 1/24/22 CUR TRUST FEES COLLECTED CHARGED FOR PERIOD 06/01/2019 THRU OI 05582QAD9 INTEREST EARNED ON BMW VEHICLE OWNER 1.160% 11/25/20 $1 PV 05582QAD9 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF BMW VEHICLE OWNER 1.160% 11/25/20 06050TMJ8 INTEREST EARNED ON BANK OF AMERICA MTN 3.335% 1/25/23 $1 PV 3136B1XP4 INTEREST EARNED ON FNMA GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 $1 PV ON 3136B1XP4 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON FNMA GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 CURRI 3136B1XP4 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF FNMA GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 3136B1XP4 INTEREST EARNED ON FNMA GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 $1 PV ON 3137B1U75 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.522% 1/25/23 $1 PV OI 3137131 U75 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.522% 1/25/23 CURE 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -19,294.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -319.1200 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 2,035.58 (553.27) (147.24) 65.11 19,294.10 (19,294.01) 0.09 8,671.00 482.56 (78.03) 319.12 0.03 (323.17) (4.05) 336.27 (23.07) 07/25/2019 3137BNN26 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MT 1.77998% 7/25/19 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 1.60 07/25/2019 3137BNN26 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON F H L M C MLTCL MT 1.77998% 7/25/19 CURE 0.0000 0.000000 (0.28) 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 3137BNN26 MATURED PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL MT 1.77998% 7/25/19 1,076,-1,076.1200 1.000000 1,076.12 (1,076.12) 07/25/2019 3137FGZN8 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL 2.6305% 2/25/23 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 352.39 07/25/2019 3137FJXN4 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL 2.6805% 2/25/23 $1 PV ON 4 0.0000 0.000000 401.35 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 3137FJXN4 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL 2.6805% 2/25/23 -11,274.7600 0.000000 11,274.76 (11,274.76) 07/25/2019 3137FJYA1 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.454% 5/25/23 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 1,252.92 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 3137FJYA1 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.454 % 5/25/23 -17,321.4600 0.000000 17,321.46 (17,320.99) 0.47 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 30,940.7800 1.000000 (30,940.78) 30,940.78 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 33,012.7000 1.000000 (33,012.70) 33,012.70 07/25/2019 07/23/2019 07/25/2019 9128285Z9 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.500% 1/31/24 /NATWEST-261,000.0000 1.029453 268,687.27 (260,898.05) 7,789.22 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 9128285Z9 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.51 0.0000 07/25/2019 07/23/2019 07/25/2019 9128287A2 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.625% 6/30/21 /BM 535,000.0000 0.000000 0.996016 3,154.35 (532,868.36) 532,868.36 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 9128287A2 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.E 0.0000 0.000000 (590.61) 07/25/2019 07/23/2019 07/25/2019 912828W71 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.125% 3/31/24 /CITIGROUI-260,000.0000 1.013555 263,524.22 (257,623.44) 5,900.78 07/25/2019 07/25/2019 912828W71 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.1, 0.0000 0.000000 1,751.09 07/30/2019 07/26/2019 07/30/2019 144141 DC9 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF PROG ENERGY CAROLINA 2.800% 5/15/2: 250,000.0000 1.015170 (253,792.50) 253,792.50 07/30/2019 07/30/2019 144141DC9 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF PROG ENERGY CAROLIf 0.0000 0.000000 (1,458.33) 07/30/2019 07/26/2019 07/30/2019 17325FAQ1 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF CITIBANK NA 3.400% 7/23/21 /BMO C 250,000.0000 1.019420 (254,855.00) 254,855.00 07/30/2019 07/30/2019 17325FAQ1 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF CITIBANK NA 3.400° 0.0000 07/30/2019 07/26/2019 07/30/2019 17325FAY4 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF CITIBANK NA 2.844 % 5/20/22 /BOFA 1 250,000.0000 0.000000 1.007090 (165.28) (251,772.50) 251,772.50 07/30/2019 07/30/2019 17325FAY4 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF CITIBANK NA 2.844° 0.0000 0.000000 (1,343.00) 07/30/2019 07/26/2019 07/30/2019 210518CT1 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF CONSUMERS ENERGY CO 2.850% 5/15/2 375,000.0000 1.015750 (380,906.25) 380,906.25 07/30/2019 07/30/2019 210518CT1 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF CONSUMERS ENERGY C 0.0000 0.000000 (2,226.56) 07/30/2019 07/25/2019 07/30/2019 3137ATRW4 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MULTICLASS 2.373% 5/25/22 AN 190,000.0000 1.005508 (191,046.48) 191,046.48 07/30/2019 07/30/2019 3137ATRW4 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF F H L MC MULTICLASS 2 0.0000 0.000000 (363.20) 07/30/2019 07/30/2019 07/30/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 12,931.0100 1.000000 (12,931.01) 12,931.01 07/30/2019 9128284T4 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 2.625% 6/15/21 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 (4,269.98) 07/30/2019 07/26/2019 07/30/2019 9128284T4 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.625% 6/15/21 /CITIGROUI-615,000.0000 1.013786 623,478.21 (614,687.70) 8,790.51 07/30/2019 07/30/2019 9128284T4 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.6, 0.0000 0.000000 1,984.89 07/30/2019 9128286Y1 FED BASIS OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 ADJUSTED BY -411 0.0000 0.000000 (418.74) 07/30/2019 9128286Y1 FED BASIS OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 ADJUSTED BY 418 0.0000 0.000000 418.74 07/30/2019 9128286Y1 FED BASIS OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 ADJUSTED BY -111 0.0000 0.000000 (1,180.88) 07/30/2019 9128286Y1 FED BASIS OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 ADJUSTED BY 118 0.0000 0.000000 1,180.88 07/30/2019 9128286Y1 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 (84.66) 07/30/2019 07/25/2019 07/30/2019 9128286Y1 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 /HSBC SEC-190,000.0000 0.998398 189,695.70 (189,695.70) 07/30/2019 07/30/2019 9128286Y1 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 408.81 07/30/2019 07/26/2019 07/30/2019 9128286Y1 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 /NOMURA f-535,000.0000 0.998395 534,141.37 (534,141.37) 07/30/2019 07/30/2019 9128286Y1 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 1,151.13 07/31/2019 07/31/2019 07/31/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 187,102.9300 1.000000 (187,102.93) 187,102.93 07/31/2019 912828WG1 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 2.250% 4/30/21 CURRI 0.0000 07/31/2019 07/26/2019 07/31/2019 912828WG1 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.250% 4/30/21 /BMO CAP--185,000.0000 0.000000 1.005742 (441.14) 186,062.30 (186,112.39) (50.09) 07/31/2019 07/31/2019 912828WG1 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.2 0.0000 0.000000 1,040.63 08/01/2019 07/29/2019 08/01/2019 3137BQR90 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.272% 1/25/23 /PE 250,000.0000 1.003281 (250,820.31) 250,820.31 08/01/2019 08/01/2019 08/01/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 11,740.5500 1.000000 (11,740.55) 11,740.55 08/01/2019 31846V203 INTEREST EARNED ON FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y UNIT ON 0.0000 SI- 0.0000 0.000000 501.93 08/01/2019 697379UD5 INTEREST EARNED ON PALO ALTO CA 2.291% 8/01/20 $1 PV ON 3; 0.0000 0.000000 3,722.88 08/01/2019 79770GGM2 INTEREST EARNED ON SAN FRANCISCO CITY 2.000% 8/01/20 $1 PV C 0.0000 0.000000 3,000.00 08/01/2019 798170AC0 INTEREST EARNED ON SAN JOSE CA REDEV 2.259% 8/01/20 $1 PV O 0.0000 0.000000 2,146.05 08/01/2019 882723UC1 INTEREST EARNED ON TEXAS ST REF WTR 2.036% 8/01/20 $1 PV OP 0.0000 0.000000 2,545.00 08/01/2019 882723UC1 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON TEXAS ST REF WTR 2.036% 8/01/20 CURF 0.0000 0.000000 (287.29) 08/01/2019 911759MU9 INTEREST EARNED ON U S DEPT HSG & URB 2.570% 8/01/21 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 878.08 08/01/2019 9128286Y1 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 (4.04) 08/01/2019 07/29/2019 08/01/2019 9128286Y1 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 /BMO CAP--250,000.0000 0.998828 249,707.03 (250,044.00) (336.97) 08/01/2019 08/01/2019 9128286Y1 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 561.82 08/02/2019 08/02/2019 08/02/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 501.9300 1.000000 (501.93) 501.93 08/05/2019 08/05/2019 08/05/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 7,800.0000 1.000000 (7,800.00) 7,800.00 08/05/2019 90331HPA5 INTEREST EARNED ON US BANK NA MTN 3.000% 2/04/21 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 7,800.00 08/07/2019 08/07/2019 08/07/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 08/07/2019 9128286V7 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 2.125% 5/31/21 CURRI 91,606j40 1.000000 p 0 0.000000 (91,606.33) 91,606.33 (711.01) Page 33 of 37 1051r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Account Number: 001050990415 Name: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS COM Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio Transaction Report Quarter ended September 30, 2019 Transaction Settlement Date Trade Date Date CUSIP Descri•tion o erm ong erm Miscellaneous Federal Tax Cost Gain/Loss Gain/Loss Units Price Commissions SEC Fees Fees Net Cash Amount Amount Amount Amount 08/07/2019 08/05/2019 08/07/2019 9128286V7 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.125% 5/31/21 /NOMURA f-3,925,000.0000 1.008750 3,959,343.75 (3,941,225.99) 18,117.76 08/07/2019 08/07/2019 9128286V7 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.1, 0.0000 0.000000 15,496.24 08/07/2019 08/05/2019 08/07/2019 9128287C8 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/15/22 /BOI 3,210,000.0000 1.005547 08/07/2019 08/07/2019 9128287C8 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 08/07/2019 08/05/2019 08/07/2019 9128287F1 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 /BOI 4,280,000.0000 1.002969 (3,227,805.47) 3,227,805.47 (3,510.94) (4,292,706.25) 4,292,706.25 08/07/2019 08/07/2019 9128287F1 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 (1,424.73) 08/07/2019 912828WG1 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 2.250 % 4/30/21 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 08/07/2019 08/05/2019 08/07/2019 912828WG1 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.250% 4/30/21 /CITIGROUI-3,495,000.0000 1.010234 08/07/2019 08/07/2019 912828WG1 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.2 0.0000 0.000000 08/07/2019 08/05/2019 08/07/2019 91412G2R5 SOLD PAR VALUE OF UNIV OF CALIFORNIA 1.877 % 5/15/20 /JANNEY h-90.000.0000 0.998940 (224.94) 3,530,769.14 (3,515,790.28) 14,978.86 21,155.20 89,904.60 (90,000.00) - (95.40) 08/07/2019 ■ 08/07/2019 91412G2R5 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF UNIV OF CALIFORNIA 1., 0.0000 0.000000 384.79 - 08/08/2019 08/08/2019 08/08/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 135.457.4200 1.000000 (135,457.42) 135,457.42 08/08/2019 ■ 9128287F1 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 1 (17.91) 08/08/2019 08/06/2019 08/08/2019 9128287F1 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 /BOFA SEC-135,000.0000 1.003008 135,406.06 (135,400.22) 5.84 08/08/2019 08/08/2019 9128287F1 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 51.36 08/14/2019 08/14/2019 08/14/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -516,012.8600 1.000000 516,012.86 (516,012.86) 08/14/2019 08/06/2019 08/14/2019 89238UAD2 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF TOYOTA AUTO 1.910 % 9/15/23 /J.P. r 250,000.0000 0.999992 (249,997.95) 249,997.95 08/14/2019 08/12/2019 08/14/2019 9128287F1 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 /BOI 265,000.0000 1.003164 - - - (265,838.48) 265,838.48 08/14/2019 08/14/2019 9128287F1 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 (176.43) 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 431,037.5500 1.000000 (431,037.55) 431,037.55 08/15/2019 41284WAC4 INTEREST EARNED ON HARLEY DAVIDSON 2.340 % 2/15/24 $1 PV Or 0.0000 0.000000 1,150.50 08/15/2019 47787XAC1 INTEREST EARNED ON JOHN DEERE OWNER 1.780% 4/15/21 $1 PV I 0.0000 0.000000 193.91 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 47787XAC1 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF JOHN DEERE OWNER 1.780% 4/15/21-20.152.2800 20.571973 20,152.28 (20,149.41) - 2.87 08/15/2019 47789JAD8 INTEREST EARNED ON JOHN DEERE OWNER 2.910% 7/17/23 $1 PV I 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 630.50 08/15/2019 65478BAD3 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO LEASE 3.250 % 9/15/21 $1 PV O 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 541.67 08/15/2019 65478NAD7 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO 3.220 % 6/15/23 $1 PV ON 1: 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,207.50 08/15/2019 65479BAD2 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2.050 % 9/15/20 $1 PV O 0.0000 0.000000 322.29 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 65479BAD2 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2.050% 9/15/20-40,116.3000 10.334257 - - - 40,116.30 (40,109.29) - 7.01 08/15/2019 65479KAD2 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO 2.900 % 10/16/23 $1 PV ON 7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 773.33 08/15/2019 89190BAD0 INTEREST EARNED ON TOYOTA AUTO 1.760 % 7/15/21 $1 PV ON 5 0.0000 0.000000 512.03 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 89190BAD0 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF TOYOTA AUTO 1.760 % 7/15/21 -33.073.9100 12.534719 33,073.91 (33,071.37) - 2.54 08/15/2019 89238MAD0 INTEREST EARNED ON TOYOTA AUTO 1.730 % 2/16/21 $1 PV ON 2 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 240.53 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 89238MAD0 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF TOYOTA AUTO 1.730 % 2/16/21 -23.024.7000 18.005541 23,024.70 (23,021.99) - 2.71 08/15/2019 89239AAD5 INTEREST EARNED ON TOYOTA AUTO 2.910 % 7/17/23 $1 PV ON 8 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 824.50 08/15/2019 90290AAC1 INTEREST EARNED ON USAA AUTO OWNER 1.700 % 5/17/21 $1 PV C 0.0000 0.000000 97.63 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 90290AAC1 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF USAA AUTO OWNER 1.700% 5/17/21-10,535.6400 39.349500 - - - 10,535.64 (10,534.53) - 1.11 08/15/2019 9128284T4 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 2.625% 6/15/21 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (2,129.69) 08/15/2019 08/14/2019 08/15/2019 9128284T4 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.625% 6/15/21 /BOFA SEC-265,000.0000 1.018395 269,874.70 (268,681.45) 720.67 472.58 08/15/2019 08/15/2019 9128284T4 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 2.6', 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1.159.38 08/15/2019 9128284W7 INTEREST EARNED ON U S TREASURY NT 2.750 % 8/15/21 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 26,606.25 08/15/2019 9128284W7 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 2.750 % 8/15/21 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (569.16) 08/16/2019 08/13/2019 08/16/2019 30231GBB7 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF EXXON MOBIL 1.902 % 8/16/22 /MORI 300,000.0000 1.000000 - - - (300,000.00) 300,000.00 08/16/2019 08/15/2019 08/16/2019 3130AGWK7 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF F H L B DEB 1.500 % 8/15/24 /PERSHI 150,000.0000 0.997650 (149,647.50) 149,647.50 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -107,213.4200 1.000000 - - - 107,213.42 (107,213.42) -149,647.5000 1.000000 - - - 149,647.50 (149,647.50) 08/16/2019 9128287C8 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/15/22 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 (148.75) 08/16/2019 08/14/2019 08/16/2019 9128287C8 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/15/22 /NOMURA f-370.000.0000 1.006133 372,269.14 (372,035.20) 233.94 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 9128287C8 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 563.04 08/16/2019 08/15/2019 08/16/2019 9128287C8 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/15/22 /HSBC SEC-150.000.0000 1.007067 151,060.04 (150,825.08) 234.96 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 9128287C8 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 228.26 08/16/2019 08/14/2019 08/16/2019 9128287F1 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 /NO 330,000.0000 1.003281 (331,082.81) 331,082.81 08/16/2019 08/16/2019 9128287F1 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (251.09) 08/19/2019 08/14/2019 08/19/2019 3137B36J2 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.320 % 2/25/23 /MI 145,000.0000 1.046680 (151,768.55) 151,768.55 08/19/2019 08/19/2019 3137636J2 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3, 0.0000 0.000000 (240.70) 08/19/2019 08/14/2019 08/19/2019 3137B36J2 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.320 % 2/25/23 /MI 225,000.0000 1.046602 - - - (235,485.35) 235,485.35 08/19/2019 08/19/2019 3137636J2 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3, 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (373.50) 08/19/2019 08/14/2019 08/19/2019 3137FGZN8 SOLD PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL 2.6305% 2/25/23 /J.P. MORGA-160,755.2200 0.998594 - - - 160,529.16 (160,755.22) - (226.06) 08/19/2019 08/19/2019 3137FGZN8 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF F H L M C MLTCL 2.630 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 290.03 08/19/2019 08/14/2019 08/19/2019 3137FJXN4 SOLD PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL 2.6805 % 2/25/23 /J.P. MORGA-168.401.4300 0.998750 168,190.94 (168,401.43) (210.49) 08/19/2019 08/19/2019 3137FJXN4 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF F H L M C MLTCL 2.680, 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 309.67 08/19/2019 08/19/2019 08/19/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 08/19/2019 08/19/2019 08/19/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -274,166.9100 1.000000 274,166.91 (274,166.91) 235,399.3500 1.000000 (235,399.35) 235,399.35 08/19/2019 43814PAC4 INTEREST EARNED ON HONDA AUTO 1.790% 9/20/21 $1 PV ON 10.0000 0.000000 - - - 181.28 08/19/2019 08/18/2019 08/19/2019 43814PAC4 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF HONDA AUTO 1.790 % 9/20/21-9.552.4600 0.000000 9,552.46 (9,551.43) - 1.03 08/19/2019 857477AS2 INTEREST EARNED ON STATE STREET CORP 2.550 % 8/18/20 $1 PV C 0.0000 0.000000 - - 10,047.00 08/19/2019 857477AS2 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON STATE STREET CORP 2.550 % 8/18/20 CUP 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (1,533.25) 08/20/2019 05584PAD9 INTEREST EARNED ON BMW VEHICLE LEASE 2.070 % 10/20/20 $1 PV ( 0.0000 0.000000 155.12 08/20/2019 08/20/2019 08/20/2019 05584PAD9 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF BMW VEHICLE LEASE 2.070% 10/20/20-11,231.1300 0.000000 - - - 11,231.13 (11,231.12) - 0.01 08/20/2019 08/20/2019 08/20/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 11,386.2500 1.000000 - - - (11,386.25) 11,386.25 08/21/2019 08/21/2019 08/21/2019 3137FJXN4 DISTRIBUTED PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL 2.6805% 2/25/23 VALI-0.0100 0.000000 (0.01) 08/22/2019 08/22/2019 08/22/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 251 423,000 1.000000 - - - (251,423.66) 251,423.66 08/22/2019 9128287F1 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 CURRI Ado 0.000000 (260.64) Page 34 of 37 1051r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Account Number: 001050990415 Name: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS COM Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio Transaction Report Quarter ended September 30, 2019 Transaction Settlement Date Trade Date Date CUSIP Descri•tion Units Miscellaneous Price Commissions SEC Fees Fees Net Cash Amount Amount o erm ong erm Federal Tax Cost Gain/Loss Gain/Loss Amount Amount 08/22/2019 08/20/2019 08/22/2019 9128287F1 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 /BOFA SEC -250,000.0000 1.004648 251,162.11 (250,726.55) 435.56 08/22/2019 08/22/2019 9128287F1 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 261.55 - - - 08/23/2019 037833BS8 INTEREST EARNED ON APPLE INC 2.250% 2/23/21 $1 PV ON 5001 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 5,625.00 - - - 08/23/2019 08/20/2019 08/23/2019 06406RAK3 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF BANK OF NY MTN 1.950% 8/23/22 /CITI 100,000.0000 0.999680 - - - (99,968.00) 99,968.00 - - 08/23/2019 08/21/2019 08/23/2019 17305EGB5 SOLD PAR VALUE OF CITIBANK CREDIT 1.920% 4/07/22 /BARCLAYS -50,000.0000 0.999180 - - - 49,958.98 (49,985.60) - (26.62) 08/23/2019 08/23/2019 17305EGB5 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF CITIBANK CREDIT 1.92 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 362.67 - - - 08/23/2019 08/23/2019 08/23/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -44,021.3500 1.000000 - - - 44,021.35 (44,021.35) - - 08/26/2019 TRUST FEES COLLECTED CHARGED FOR PERIOD 07/01/2019 THRU 0 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (552.38) - - - 08/26/2019 05582QAD9 INTEREST EARNED ON BMW VEHICLE OWNER 1.160% 11/25/20 $1 PV 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 46.46 1.1 - - - 08/26/2019 08/25/2019 08/26/2019 05582QAD9 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF BMW VEHICLE OWNER 1.160% 11/25/20 -19,566.5800 0.000000 - - - 19,566.58 (19,566.49) - 0.09 08/26/2019 3136B1XP4 INTEREST EARNED ON F N M A GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 481.62 - - - 08/26/2019 3136B1XP4 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON F N M A GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (80.47) - - 08/26/2019 08/25/2019 08/26/2019 3136B1XP4 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF F N M A GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 -1,140.6700 0.000000 - - - 1,140.67 (1,154.57) - (13.90) 08/26/2019 313661XP4 INTEREST EARNED ON F N M A GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 4.08 - - - 08/26/2019 3137ATRW4 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MULTICLASS 2.373% 5/25/22 $1 PV O 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 375.73 - - - 08/26/2019 3137ATRW4 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON F H L M C MULTICLASS 2.373% 5/25/22 CURI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (26.42) - - 08/26/2019 3137B1U75 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.522% 1/25/23 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 336.27 - - - 08/26/2019 3137131 U75 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.522% 1/25/23 CUM 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (18.82) - - 08/26/2019 3137FJYA1 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.454% 5/25/23 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,203.06 - - - 08/26/2019 08/25/2019 08/26/2019 3137FJYA1 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.454% 5/25/23 -737.1400 0.000000 - - - 737.14 (737.12) 0.02 - 08/26/2019 08/26/2019 08/26/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 379.8100 1.000000 - - - (379.81) 379.81 - - 08/26/2019 08/26/2019 08/26/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 22,959.4200 1.000000 - - - (22,959.42) 22,959.42 - - 08/27/2019 08/27/2019 08/27/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -249,997.9300 1.000000 - - - 249,997.93 (249,997.93) - - 08/27/2019 08/20/2019 08/27/2019 43815NAC8 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF HONDA AUTO 1.780% 8/15/23 /SG A 250,000.0000 0.999992 - - - (249,997.93) 249,997.93 - - 09/03/2019 13063BFS6 INTEREST EARNED ON CALIFORNIA ST BUILD 6.650% 3/01/22 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 14,131.25 - - - 09/03/2019 130636FS6 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON CALIFORNIA ST BUILD 6.650% 3/01/22 CURT 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (7,912.78) - - 09/03/2019 166764AU4 INTEREST EARNED ON CHEVRON CORP 3.05025% 3/03/22 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 3,897.54 - - - 09/03/2019 166764AU4 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON CHEVRON CORP 3.05025% 3/03/22 CURI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (305.26) - - 09/03/2019 09/03/2019 09/03/2019 09/03/2019 30231GAV4 INTEREST EARNED ON EXXON MOBIL 2.222% 3/01/21 $1 PV ON 51 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 0.0000 0.000000 - - 1.000000 - - - 5,555.00 - (844,779.41) - 844,779.41 - - 844,779.4100 09/03/2019 09/03/2019 31846V203 INTEREST EARNED ON FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y UNIT ON 0.0000 SI- 45750TAG8 INTEREST EARNED ON INLAND VLY CA DEV 3.627% 3/01/20 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 - - 0.000000 - - - 581.46 - - - 0.0000 - 4,171.05 - - - 09/03/2019 09/03/2019 45750TAG8 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON INLAND VLY CA DEV 3.627% 3/01/20 CURR 54465AGK2 INTEREST EARNED ON LOS ANGELES CA 1.125% 9/01/19 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (756.19) - - - 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,518.75 - - 09/03/2019 U. 54465AGK2 ACCREDITED DISCOUNT ON LOS ANGELES CA 1.125% 9/01/19 MAF 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - 3,132.00 - - 09/03/2019 09/01/2019 09/01/2019 54465AGK2 MATURED PAR VALUE OF LOS ANGELES CA 1.125% 9/01/19 270,001 -270,000.0000 1.000000 - - - 270,000.00 (270,000.00) - - 09/03/2019 649791EJ5 INTEREST EARNED ON NEW YORK ST REF SER 3.600% 9/01/19 $1 PV 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 9,000.00 - - - 09/03/2019 649791EJ5 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON NEW YORK ST REF SER 3.600% 9/01/19 CU 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (4,884.94) - - 09/03/2019 09/01/2019 09/01/2019 649791EJ5 MATURED PAR VALUE OF NEW YORK ST REF SER 3.600% 9/01/19 500 -500,000.0000 1.000000 - - - 500,000.00 (500,000.00) - - 09/03/2019 801096AP3 INTEREST EARNED ON SANTA ANA CA CMNTY 3.346% 9/01/21 $1 PV ( 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 4,015.20 - - - 09/03/2019 88579YBF7 INTEREST EARNED ON 3M COMPANY MTN 2.750% 3/01/22 $1 PV Ot 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 3,609.38 - - - 09/03/2019 9128286Y1 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (62.76) - - 09/03/2019 08/29/2019 09/03/2019 9128286Y1 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 6/15/22 /NOMURA f -6,315,000.0000 1.008059 - - - 6,365,893.72 (6,311,080.76) 54,812.96 - 09/03/2019 09/03/2019 9128286Y1 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 24,155.74 - - - 09/03/2019 9128287A2 ACCREDITED DISCOUNT ON U S TREASURY NT 1.625% 6/30/21 MAF 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - 1,254.11 - - 09/03/2019 08/29/2019 09/03/2019 9128287A2 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.625% 6/30/21 /CITIGROUI -4,265,000.0000 1.000742 - - - 4,268,165.43 (4,246,929.50) 21,235.93 - 09/03/2019 09/03/2019 9128287A2 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.6', 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 12,241.59 - - - 09/03/2019 08/29/2019 09/03/2019 912828YA2 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.500% 8/15/22 /NO 6,365,000.0000 1.001406 - - - (6,373,950.78) 6,373,950.78 - - 09/03/2019 09/03/2019 912828YA2 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 16 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (4,929.42) - 7. - - 09/03/2019 08/29/2019 09/03/2019 912828YC8 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.500% 8/31/21 /CIT 4,265,000.0000 0.999336 - - - (4,262,167.77) 4,262,167.77 - - 09/03/2019 09/03/2019 912828YC8 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 16 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (527.27) - - - 09/04/2019 09/04/2019 09/04/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 581.4600 1.000000 - - - (581.46) 581.46 - - 09/06/2019 037833BS8 ACCREDITED DISCOUNT ON APPLE INC 2.250% 2/23/21 MARKET 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - 2,255.18 - - 09/06/2019 09/04/2019 09/06/2019 037833BS8 SOLD PAR VALUE OF APPLE INC 2.250% 2/23/21 /WELLS FARGO -500,000.0000 1.006680 - - - 503,340.00 (497,930.18) - 5,409.82 09/06/2019 N 09/06/2019 037833BS8 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF APPLE INC 2.250% 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 406.25 - - - 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 3134GTRY1 FULL CALL PAR VALUE OF F H L M C M T N 2.625% 6/06/22 /CALLS/ -260,000.0000 1.000000 - - - 260,000.00 (260,000.00) - - 09/06/2019 J. 3134GTRY1 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C M T N 2.625% 6/06/22 $1 PV ON 26 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,706.25 - - - 09/06/2019 09/05/2019 09/06/2019 3135GOW33 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF F N M A 1.375% 9/06/22 /BARCLAY 600,000.0000 0.996520 - - - (597,912.00) 597,912.00 - - 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 1,326,887.5600 1.000000 - - - (1,326,887.56) 1,326,887.56 - - 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -596,205.7500 1.000000 - - - 596,205.75 (596,205.75) - - 09/06/2019 09/05/2019 09/06/2019 9128287F1 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 /BOI 540,000.0000 1.003438 - - - (541,856.25) 541,856.25 - - 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 9128287F1 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (950.14) - - - 09/06/2019 9128287F1 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (282.58) - - 09/06/2019 09/05/2019 09/06/2019 9128287F1 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 /CITIGROUI -600,000.0000 1.004141 - - - 602,484.38 (601,706.43) 777.95 - 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 9128287F1 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,055.71 - - - 09/06/2019 09/04/2019 09/06/2019 94988J5Q6 SOLD PAR VALUE OF WELLS FARGO MTN 3.0915% 7/23/21 /J.P. MOF -500,000.0000 1.001366 - - - 500,683.00 (500,000.00) - 683.00 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 94988J5Q6 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF WELLS FARGO MTN 3.1 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,724.61 - - - 09/10/2019 09/10/2019 09/10/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -271,180.3400 1.000000 - - - 271,180.34 (271,180.34) - - 09/10/2019 09/09/2019 09/10/2019 9128287F1 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 /HSI 270,000.0000 1.002422 - - - (270,653.91) 270,653.91 - - 09/10/2019 09/10/2019 9128287F1 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (526.43) - 09/11/2019 09/11/2019 09/04/2019 09/11/2019 08/25/2019 08/26/2019 037833DL1 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF APPLE INC 1.700% 9/11/22 /GOLDM 525,000Spo 737` 7060 0.999830 - - 0.000000 - - - (524,910.75) - (737.14) 524,910.75 737.12 (0.02) - - 3137FJYA1 PAID DOWN -RV PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.454% 5/25/23 Page 35 of 37 1051r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Account Number: 001050990415 Name: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS COM Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio Transaction Report Quarter ended September 30, 2019 Transaction Settlement Date Trade Date Date CUSIP Descri•tion o erm ong erm Miscellaneous Federal Tax Cost Gain/Loss Gain/Loss Units Price Commissions SEC Fees Fees Net Cash Amount Amount Amount Amount 09/11/2019 09/11/2019 09/11/2019 09/11/2019 09/11/2019 09/11/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 09/17/2019 09/17/2019 09/17/2019 09/17/2019 09/17/2019 09/17/2019 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 09/19/2019 09/19/2019 09/19/2019 09/19/2019 09/19/2019 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 L09/20/2019 3137FJYA1 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.454% 5/25/23 $1 PV OI 3137FJYA1 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.454% 5/25/23 $1 PV OI 08/25/2019 09/11/2019 3137FJYA1 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.454% 5/25/23 09/11/2019 09/11/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 09/11/2019 09/11/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 09/04/2019 09/11/2019 94988J6A0 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF WELLS FARGO MTN 2.082% 9/09/22 /Vu 08/29/2019 09/12/2019 212204JC6 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF CONTRA COSTA CA 1.652% 8/01/22 /M 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 9128287F1 FED BASIS OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 ADJUSTED BY-58' 9128287F1 FED BASIS OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 ADJUSTED BY 581 9128287F1 FED BASIS OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 ADJUSTED BY-14: 9128287F1 FED BASIS OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 ADJUSTED BY 142 A 9128287F1 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 CURRI 09/10/2019 09/12/2019 9128287F1 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.750% 7/31/21 /HSBC SEC 09/12/2019 9128287F1 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.7 053015AD5 INTEREST EARNED ON AUTOMATIC DATA 2.250% 9/15/20 $1 PV ON 053015AD5 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON AUTOMATIC DATA 2.250% 9/15/20 CURR 084670600 INTEREST EARNED ON BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY 2.200% 3/15/21 $1 PV 09/12/2019 09/16/2019 17305EGB5 SOLD PAR VALUE OF CITIBANK CREDIT 1.920% 4/07/22 /CITIGROUP 09/16/2019 17305EGB5 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF CITIBANK CREDIT 1.92 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 09/16/2019 09/16/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 41284WAC4 INTEREST EARNED ON HARLEY DAVIDSON 2.340% 2/15/24 $1 PV Of 43815NAC8 INTEREST EARNED ON HONDA AUTO 1.780% 8/15/23 $1 PV ON 2. 47787XAC1 INTEREST EARNED ON JOHN DEERE OWNER 1.780% 4/15/21 $1 PV 1 09/15/2019 09/16/2019 47787XAC1 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF JOHN DEERE OWNER 1.780% 4/15/21 47789JAD8 INTEREST EARNED ON JOHN DEERE OWNER 2.910% 7/17/23 $1 PV 1 65478BAD3 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO LEASE 3.250% 9/15/21 $1 PV O 65478NAD7 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO 3.220% 6/15/23 $1 PV ON 1: 65479BAD2 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2.050% 9/15/20 $1 PV O 09/15/2019 09/16/2019 65479BAD2 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2.050% 9/15/20 65479KAD2 INTEREST EARNED ON NISSAN AUTO 2.900% 10/16/23 $1 PV ON 7 717081EM1 INTEREST EARNED ON PFIZER INC 3.000% 9/15/21 $1 PV ON 2501 89190BAD0 INTEREST EARNED ON TOYOTA AUTO 1.760% 7/15/21 $1 PV ON 4 09/15/2019 09/16/2019 89190BAD0 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF TOYOTA AUTO 1.760% 7/15/21 89238MAD0 INTEREST EARNED ON TOYOTA AUTO 1.730% 2/16/21 $1 PV ON 2 09/15/2019 09/16/2019 89238MAD0 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF TOYOTA AUTO 1.730% 2/16/21 89238UAD2 INTEREST EARNED ON TOYOTA AUTO 1.910% 9/15/23 $1 PV ON 4 89239AAD5 INTEREST EARNED ON TOYOTA AUTO 2.910% 7/17/23 $1 PV ON 8 90290AAC1 INTEREST EARNED ON USAA AUTO OWNER 1.700% 5/17/21 $1 PV C 09/15/2019 09/16/2019 90290AAC1 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF USAA AUTO OWNER 1.700% 5/17/21 9128285A4 INTEREST EARNED ON U S TREASURY NT 2.750% 9/15/21 $1 PV ON 09/17/2019 09/17/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 09/17/2019 09/17/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 09/12/2019 09/16/2019 65479BAD2 SOLD PAR VALUE OF NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2.050% 9/15/20 /BARCLAI 09/16/2019 65479BAD2 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2. 09/16/2019 09/17/2019 912828YC8 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.500% 8/31/21 /NO 09/17/2019 912828YC8 PAID ACCRUED INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.5 09/10/2019 09/18/2019 05588CAC6 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF BMW VEHICLE OWNER 1.920% 1/25/24 i 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 43814PAC4 INTEREST EARNED ON HONDA AUTO 1.790% 9/20/21 $1 PV ON 1, 09/18/2019 09/18/2019 43814PAC4 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF HONDA AUTO 1.790% 9/20/21 09/16/2019 65479BAD2 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2. 09/12/2019 09/16/2019 65479BAD2 SOLD -REV PAR VALUE OF NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2.050% 9/15/20 /B/ 09/12/2019 09/16/2019 65479BAD2 SOLD PAR VALUE OF NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2.050% 9/15/20 /BARCLA) 09/16/2019 65479BAD2 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF NISSAN AUTO LEASE 2. 09/19/2019 09/19/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 912828YC8 FED BASIS OF U S TREASURY NT 1.500% 8/31/21 ADJUSTED BY-741 912828YC8 FED BASIS OF U S TREASURY NT 1.500% 8/31/21 ADJUSTED BY 748 09/18/2019 09/19/2019 912828YC8 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.500% 8/31/21 /WELLS FAI 09/19/2019 912828YC8 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.5 05584PAD9 INTEREST EARNED ON BMW VEHICLE LEASE 2.070% 10/20/20 $1 PV ( 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 05584PAD9 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF BMW VEHICLE LEASE 2.070% 10/20/20 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 3134GTVK6 FULL CALL PAR VALUE OF F H L M C 2.550% 6/20/22 /CALLS/ 3134GTVK6 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C 2.550% 6/20/22 $1 PV ON 2650( 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 09/18/2019 09/20/2019 89190BAD0 SOLD PAR VALUE OF TOYOTA AUTO 1.760% 7/15/21 /BOFA SECU 09/20/2019 89190BAD0 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF TOYOTA AUTO 1.76( 912828YA2 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON U S TREASURY NT 1.500% 8/15/22 CURRI 09/19/2019 09/20/2019 912828YA2 SOLD PAR VALUE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.500% 8/15/22 /VVELLS FAI 0.0000 0.0000 -737.1400 -385.7200 -1,074,910.7500 550,000.0000 300,000.0000 30,881.0500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -330,000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -180,000.0000 0.0000 320,261.2100 149,102.4600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -14,737.0700 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -35,588.5100 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -30,058.8200 0.0000 -21,419.3400 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -9,794.4800 0.0000 112,887.2200 -546,641.9900 -112,951.3800 0.0000 400,000.0000 0.0000 330,000.0000 -329,955.6500 45,029.7600 0.0000 -9,294.4300 0.0000 112,951.3800 -112,951.3900 0.0000 269,283.2800 0.0000 0.0000 -270,000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -12,051.3000 -265,000.0000 0.0000 1,689.3800 1,239,572.0700 -285,981.8700 0.0000 0 -680,00 0 0.000000 0.000000 497.674607 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000625 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.999063 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.436957 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.180942 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.214229 0.000000 0.300638 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.657458 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.999375 0.000000 0.994766 0.000000 0.999866 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.999375 1.314256 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.996563 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.998086 0.000000 0.000000 0.993945 (1,203.06) 817.34 737.14 (737.12) 0.02 385.72 (385.72) 1,074,910.75 (1,074,910.75) (550,000.00) 550,000.00 (300,000.00) 300,000.00 (30,881.05) 30,881.05 (581.49) 581.49 (142.63) 142.63 (115.64) 330,206.25 (330,206.25) 674.80 5,062.50 (1,038.32) 5,181.00 179,831.25 (179,948.14) (116.89) 1,526.40 (320,261.21) 320,261.21 (149,102.46) 149,102.46 1,150.50 222.50 164.01 14,737.07 (14,734.97) 2.10 630.50 541.67 1,207.50 253.76 35,588.51 (35,582.30) 6.21 773.33 3,750.00 463.53 30,058.82 (30,056.52) 2.30 207.34 21,419.34 (21,416.82) 2.52 424.44 824.50 82.70 9,794.48 (9,793.45) 1.03 7,012.50 (112,887.22) 112,887.22 546,641.99 (546,641.99) - 112,880.79 (112,931.65) (50.86) 6.43 (397,906.25) 397,906.25 - (280.22) - - (329,955.65) 329,955.65 329,955.65 (329,955.65) (45,029.76) 45,029.76 167.03 9,294.43 (9,293.42) 1.01 (6.43) (112,880.79) 112,931.65 50.86 148,447.06 (112,931.66) 35,515.40 8.46 (269,283.28) 269,283.28 (748.82) 748.82 269,071.88 (269,071.88) 211.40 135.74 12,051.30 (12,051.29) 0.01 265,000.00 (265,000.00) 1,689.38 (1,689.38) 1,689.38 (1,239,572.07) 1,239,572.07 - 285,434.48 (285,959.94) - (525.46) 69.91 (148.75) - 675,882.81 (680,940.36) (5,057.55) Page 36 of 37 1051r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Account Number: 001050990415 Name: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANS COM Payden & Rygel Operating Portfolio Transaction Report Quarter ended September 30, 2019 Transaction Settlement Date Trade Date Date CUSIP Descri•tion Units Miscellaneous Price Commissions SEC Fees Fees Net Cash Amount Amount o erm ong erm Federal Tax Cost Gain/Loss Gain/Loss Amount Amount 09/20/2019 09/20/2019 912828YA2 RECEIVED ACCRUED INTEREST ON SALE OF U S TREASURY NT 1.5 0.0000 0.000000 997.83 09/24/2019 09/24/2019 09/24/2019 89190BAD0 DISTRIBUTED PAR VALUE OF TOYOTA AUTO 1.760% 7/15/21 VALI -0.0100 0.000000 - - - - (0.01) - - 09/25/2019 TRUST FEES COLLECTED CHARGED FOR PERIOD 08/01/2019 THRU 07 0.0000 0.000000 - - - (556.82) - - - 09/25/2019 05582QAD9 INTEREST EARNED ON BMW VEHICLE OWNER 1.160% 11/25/20 $1 PV 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 27.55 - - - 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 05582QAD9 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF BMW VEHICLE OWNER 1.160% 11/25/20 -18,598.5300 0.000000 - - - 18,598.53 (18,598.45) - 0.08 09/25/2019 3136B1XP4 INTEREST EARNED ON F N M A GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 478.23 - - - 09/25/2019 El 3136B1XP4 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON F N M A GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 CURRI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (79.90) - - 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 3136B1XP4 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF F N M A GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 -5,940.4400 0.000000 - - - 5,940.44 (6,009.87) - (69.43) 09/25/2019 3136B1XP4 INTEREST EARNED ON F N M A GTD REMIC 3.560% 9/25/21 $1 PV ON 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 17.46 - - - 09/25/2019 3137ATRW4 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MULTICLASS 2.373% 5/25/22 $1 PV O 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 375.73 - - - 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 1= 3137ATRW4 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON F H L M C MULTICLASS 2.373% 5/25/22 CURI 3137131 U75 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.522% 1/25/23 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (31.50) - - 0.000000 - - - 336.27 - - - 09/25/2019 3137B1U75 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.522% 1/25/23 CURF 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (18.82) - - 09/25/2019 3137636J2 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.320% 2/25/23 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 1,023.67 - - - 09/25/2019 3137B36J2 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.320% 2/25/23 CURF 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (496.42) - - 09/25/2019 3137BQR90 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.272% 1/25/23 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 473.33 - - - 09/25/2019 3137BQR90 AMORTIZED PREMIUM ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 2.272% 1/25/23 CURF 0.0000 0.000000 - - - - (35.44) - - 09/25/2019 3137FJYA1 INTEREST EARNED ON F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.454% 5/25/23 $1 PV OI 0.0000 0.000000 - - - 2,073.15 - - - 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 3137FJYA1 PAID DOWN PAR VALUE OF F H L M C MLTCL MTG 3.454% 5/25/23 -35,933.2900 1.516478 - - - 35,933.29 (35,932.32) 0.97 - 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 31846V203 PURCHASED UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y 44,818.3000 1.000000 - - - (44,818.30) 44,818.30 - - 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 09/25/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -250,060.2900 1.000000 - - - 250,060.29 (250,060.29) - - 09/25/2019 09/18/2019 09/25/2019 58769TAD7 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF MERCEDES BENZ 1.940% 3/15/24 /Mf 270,000.0000 0.999862 - - - (269,962.82) 269,962.82 - - 09/26/2019 09/20/2019 09/26/2019 072024WN8 PURCHASED PAR VALUE OF BAY AREA CA TOLL 2.184% 4/01/23/BO 680,000.0000 1.000000 - - - (680,000.00) 680,000.00 - - 09/26/2019 09/26/2019 09/26/2019 31846V203 SOLD UNITS OF FIRST AM GOVT OB FD CL Y -680,000.0000 1.000000 - - - 680,000.00 (680,000.00) - - Total - - - - 453,686.15 136,062.27 60,875.74 51 Page 37 of 37 ATTACHMENT 17 k MetLife ManagemeInvestmentnt Short & Intermediate Duration Fixed Income 3Q 2019 Themes, Outlook & Strategy MetLife Investment Management One MetLife Way Whippany, NJ 07981 metlife.com/investmentmanagement • GDP - Full -year U.S. real GDP growth will be above the 2% long-term trend, driven by the enduring strength of the U.S. consumer and firmness in the labor market. Trade frictions between the U.S./China/EU/Japan have negatively impacted business sentiment and have represented a drag on global growth, especially in Europe. Accordingly, in the U.S., business fixed investment has slowed but could rebound with substantive progress on the trade front. We expect government spending to increase as the 2020 election approaches, partially offsetting the waning impact of the 2017 stimulus package • Business - While indicators for global manufacturing and business fixed investment have shown weakness, the continued strength of the U.S. consumer has helped sustain revenue growth, especially for U.S.-centric companies. In our view, the Federal Reserve's efforts to sustain the U.S. economy's expansion by cutting its policy rate should serve to further extend the business cycle. The ongoing trade negotiation and tit -for -tat tariff escalations by the U.S. and China continue to raise manufacturing input costs and cause supply chains to be altered. Broad -based domestic labor market tightness is also serving to push up wage costs and pressure margins for service companies. We believe the lower interest rate environment is likely to reduce banks' net interest margins but their diversified business models, robust capital positions, steady fee -driven revenue, prudent asset growth, and sound asset quality continue to support strong credit fundamentals. • Consumer - We believe the U.S. consumer remains well -positioned to continue to underpin growth in the U.S. economy, driven by improved household balance sheets and sustained growth in wages. The decline in interest rates triggered by Federal Reserve policy shifts has reignited the housing market and is expected to feed into other measures of consumer spending. To date, the trade -related fits and starts between the U.S. and China have not translated into a meaningful decline in consumer confidence, especially the `present situation' component of the confidence indicator which has undoubtedly benefited from the stock market's return to near -record highs as well as a healthy labor market. • Employment - Despite a downshift in the pace of job creation in 2019 compared to 2018, the U.S. labor market remains tight at a nearly 50-year low in the unemployment rate. Average hourly earnings and the Employment Cost Index continue to offer evidence of growth in real wages. Employers remain somewhat challenged in finding qualified candidates to fill open positions while the quits rate remains at a post -recession high, exerting continued upward pressure on real wages. We are closely watching the General Motors strike negotiations as a barometer of future employment cost trends. We believe the unemployment rate will remain historically low as the replacement number of jobs needed to sustain the current unemployment rate is well below the YTD monthly average in net non -farm payroll jobs created. 1 52 2 MetLife Management • Central Banks / International - Global central banks have resumed a more dovish posture in reacting to subpar economic growth, weak inflation readings, trade -related concerns and macro uncertainties. Central bankers, including incoming ECB President Christine Lagarde, have acknowledged the limits of accommodative monetary policy and have begun to push more forcefully for increased take-up by fiscal policymakers, most clearly evident in the anemic eurozone. China, Brexit and Iran are key risks with Iran's apparent attack on Saudi Arabia's oil production facilities raising the prospect of an oil shock, although the recent spike in energy prices was quickly reversed. If global growth divergences do not close or trade disruptions persist with more lasting impact, dollar strength and the bid for safe haven assets should increase. • Residential / Commercial Real Estate - Sharply lower mortgage rates and a strong jobs market will support home sales going forward with the West and South seeing the greatest strength. House price appreciation may stabilize as improved affordability from lower rates supports prices, particularly for lower -end homes. Multi -family property rental vacancy rates remain near historic lows as rates and NOI growth in multi -family and industrial properties support commercial real estate valuations. Retail properties remain challenged by e-commerce and shifting consumer preferences. The administration's GSE reform plan sets the stage for the debate about the role of the government in the housing market but the lack of a timeframe for action and the approach of an election year make dramatic changes unlikely over the near term. • U.S. Monetary & Fiscal Policy - The Federal Reserve's policy shift toward easing as evidenced by two recent rate cuts against a reasonably solid growth backdrop and market expectations of more to come has created an uncharacteristic split within the FOMC. Recent communications from the Federal Reserve point to less dependency on domestic data in moving to a reaction function centered more on global developments. The recent spike in overnight funding markets driven by a shortage in excess bank reserves will lead to an "organic" balance sheet expansion by the Fed. Fiscal policy remains stimulative with the annual federal deficit climbing toward $1 trillion and will likely remain a source of support. We expect further talk of additional tax cut measures prior to the 2020 election which, if enacted, would represent another fiscal tailwind to growth. • Inflation - Inflation measures are close to the Federal Reserve's 2% symmetrical target, with Core PCE running at a 1.8% annual rate, above its two-year low of 1.5% posted this past spring. Its counterpart, Core CPI, is at a 10- year high of 2.4%, driven by increases in select sub- components within the goods and services sectors. We believe the tight labor market's bearing on wages as well as pass -through of tariffs will continue to exert upward pressure on inflation. Any additional monetary easing by the Fed, continued solid U.S. economic growth and/or increase in energy prices will support a move higher in our inflation expectations. Treasury/Rates/Curve Treasury yields moved lower and the yield curve flattened during a volatile third quarter, primarily due to a Federal Reserve rate cut in July followed by an escalation of the trade war with China and rising fears over global economic growth. Regarding the Fed, the FOMC's initial, cautious 25 basis point "insurance" cut on July 31 represented somewhat of a disappointment to markets, which expected more of a commitment to additional cuts in the future versus what was described as a "mid -cycle adjustment in policy" by Chair Powell. Early August's sudden ramp up in the U.S.-China trade war, triggered by President Trump's announcement of further tariffs on Chinese imports was behind the increased global growth concerns. In August alone Treasury yields were lower by 37 to 56 basis points across the curve, with 30-year yields hitting all-time lows. In early September, 10-year Treasury yields increased almost 50 basis points amid easing trade tensions and a rebound in risk assets. The European Central Bank's September 12 rate cut and announcement of a new round of bond purchases preceded another 25-basis point cut in the Fed -Funds rate at the September 18 meeting. Dovish foreign central bank actions along with low global yields against a backdrop of heightened macro concerns may serve to limit any meaningful rise in yields domestically over the near term, overall. Treasury yields closed the third quarter 13 to 42 basis points lower with the two-year Treasury yield finishing at 1.62% (-14 basis points), the five-year Treasury yield 1.54% (-23 basis points) and the 10-year Treasury yield at 1.67% (-34 basis points). The five-year less two-year Treasury interest rate differential ended the quarter at -8 basis points, 9 basis points flatter from the end of the second quarter. The longer dated ten-year less Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 53 3 MetLife Management two-year differential moved 21 basis points flatter to +4 basis points. In the very front end, the three-month Treasury bill rate declined 28 basis points to 1.81 % while 3-month Libor contracted 23 basis points to 2.09%. In the wake of the Fed's most recent rate cut delivered at the September FOMC meeting, it has clearly demonstrated a determination to not fall behind the curve in seeking to conduct monetary policy in an effort to sustain the current economic expansion. However, there is a growing split among the Fed members with a majority on one side supporting Chair Powell's consensus position to lower rates in July and September, but on the other side sit a number of members more willing to await clear evidence of a deterioration in economic conditions before continuing further down the easing path. This was highlighted by two Fed voters dissenting at September's FOMC meeting in favor of keeping rates on hold (plus one who supported a 50 basis point cut) while the full -member median dot plot forecast is for no further rate cuts this year and none in 2020, even as many more members collectively are lined up on the sides of either looking for a rate cut or even hiking the policy rate above the current target range. This has raised market uncertainty and been a source of increased interest rate volatility seen in the third quarter, in addition to greater uncertainty and noise around trade and other macro issues. As well, the market remains engaged in a bit of a tug-of- war as interest rate futures are pricing in at least three quarter -point rate cuts by the Fed through the end of 2020, which we continue to see as overly aggressive as we anticipate perhaps another cut at the upcoming October FOMC meeting and the Fed going on hold until clear evidence emerges of a drop in the pace of economic growth (which we do not envision at this juncture). On the economic data front, we continue to call for above -trend U.S. growth in the low-2% range driven by the enduring strength of the consumer, which accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity. Readings on the manufacturing sector have turned down in recent months as uncertainties have grown, tariffs escalated, and supply chains disrupted, however, the U.S. remains much more insulated than many other developed economies. We also acknowledge that the labor market has been slowly decelerating this year, but it remains healthy by virtue of touching an all-time low in the unemployment in the September non -farm payrolls report. This has translated into steady strength in key measures like retail sales and housing market indicators, which have accelerated higher this year, bolstered by the decline in interest rates. While third-quarter real GDP growth may slip below 2% on weakness centered on the declines observed across manufacturing and business investment, weighed down by the trade war and weakness in non-U.S. economies, our outlook does not incorporate a U.S. recession over the near to intermediate -term horizon absent a shock to the economy. In the event the U.S. and China are able to craft a limited trade agreement or even call a truce, we could see that outcome spur a bit of a rebound in growth. In the meantime, while global economic headwinds remain, they are being actively countered by accommodative monetary policy with a potential turn toward more of the burden being shouldered by fiscal policy support. After the third quarter's drop in interest rates, reset in the market's view on the Federal Reserve's future policy rate path and U.S. economic growth remaining on a firm footing outside of the manufacturing sector, which we believe may be nearing an end in its weakening, we see Treasury yields as biased to move higher. Although we will continue to maintain our short duration bias, we took the opportunity to snug our durations closer to home over the third quarter on rate backups. Turning to our TIPS long positioning, we increased our weighting in August as break -evens reached new lows only to see break -evens climb a bit before turning lower again in September. We continue to view TIPS as `cheap' and maintain our holdings given their low break -evens paint a more depressed inflation picture than is warranted in our evaluation in looking at current inflation measures and the likelihood that steadily rising wages will eventually translate into an uptick in consumer prices. Performance Attribution: Negative Our overall duration underweight positioning and allocation to Treasury Inflation -Protected Securities (TIPS) detracted from performance in the third quarter as interest rates fell and break -evens declined. Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 54 4 MetLife Management Investment Grade Credit While market headlines continued to be focused on the back -and -forth developments in the U.S.-China trade dispute over the quarter, the investment grade credit market proved relatively resilient in the third quarter, especially as a risk - on July gave way to escalating tensions and tariffs in August with trade noise spilling over into September. This produced a sawtooth pattern as spreads alternately tightened and widened each month, ending the quarter tighter on September's improved sentiment for risk helped by news of U.S. and Chinese senior trade negotiators scheduled to meet in early October. The backdrop for risk assets, including investment grade credit, continues to be supported by dovish central bank policy attributed to heightened uncertainty, geopolitical concerns and flagging global economic growth even as the U.S. remains less affected. Corporate earnings growth has largely slowed as U.S.-based multinationals, most notably those generating a significant share of their revenues abroad, are seeing pressure on top -line revenues, margins and operating earnings, while domestically -oriented issuers continue to post solid results. This divergence has weakened credit metrics in the aggregate, especially corporate leverage measures. As interest rates once again declined, third-quarter excess and total returns for the BAML 1-5 Year U.S. Corporate Index were 0.43% and 1.23%, respectively, as the index's option -adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 8 basis points to 73 basis points. The summer lull and trade -related volatility kept the new issue market relatively quiet through Labor Day, but the drop in interest rates and global hunger for positive -yielding fixed -income assets (negative -yielding assets in the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index totaled $14.8 trillion at quarter -end) brought issuers off the sidelines in sufficient numbers to produce a record -setting month for corporate new issuance with $148.0 billion in investment grade corporates coming to market. These new issues were readily absorbed by investors often at little or no spread concessions to existing secondary issues and were skewed to the longer end of the maturity spectrum as issuers sought to capitalize on the opportunity to lock in financing at near record low all -in yields. At a subsector level within front-end Credit, all subsectors generated positive excess returns in both July and September sandwiched around an August with negative excess returns. The best -performing subsectors over the quarter were Finance Companies (small index weight), Insurance and Technology. Lagging subsectors included Energy, Banking and Basic Industry. The second-quarter earnings season concluded with marginally positive EPS growth for the S&P 500 companies (+2.1 %), mainly driven by strength in Real Estate, Financials and Healthcare, offset in part by weakness across the Communications Services, Materials, Energy, Industrials and Utilities subsectors, chiefly due to commodity price declines, a slowdown in global growth as well as trade -related supply chain cost and margin pressures. Further growth in balance sheet debt coupled with weaker operating income in certain of these subsectors helped push aggregate leverage higher across the investment grade industrial issuer universe we track, warranting increased attention at this advanced stage of the credit cycle, although we do not see signs of an imminent end to the cycle or recession as the growth in leverage is somewhat mitigated by the decline in interest rates. We maintain our overweight in Banking, supported by historically high capital levels and the potential to generate decent operating profits in a low rate environment. We also favor selected, more U.S.-centric issuers in the Communications, Consumer Noncyclical, Midstream Energy/Pipelines, and Utilities subsectors, that are less exposed to tariff -related disruptions. We believe the resilience of the U.S. consumer can continue to support corporate fundamentals for many of these issuers. In terms of sector valuation, the tightening in credit spreads seen over the quarter has pushed spreads into the `rich' range in our view, especially given the deterioration observed in manufacturing indicators. We remain comfortable with our current defensive positioning in Credit historically, awaiting an opportunity to add exposure in our favored subsectors and issuers at wider spreads. We recognize that moderate economic growth environments like we foresee unfolding in the U.S. over the next few quarters are generally good for corporate fundamentals and returns in Credit, but the present `richness' of spreads and low all -in yields leave us content to maintain some dry powder. Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 55 5 MetLife Management Over the third quarter we reduced our Credit weightings and in turn sector duration contributions across strategies. Most of our trading activity was directed toward reducing our exposure in Credit, primarily by selling floating-rate and short -dated maturity fixed-rate bonds to fund purchases in other sectors. Despite the heavy new issue calendar, we were fairly selective given the preponderance of longer -dated issuance. Noteworthy new issue purchases included Occidental Petroleum fixed-rate 2021 and 2022's, whose proceeds were be used to help finance its purchase of Anadarko Petroleum. Additionally, we bought new issue Simon Property Group and Ameren Corp. 2024's as well as CVS Health 2024 and 2026's in some of our longer -dated portfolios. In the High Yield space, the ebbs and flows around trade headlines also generally drove risk appetite, spread movement and returns over the quarter, mirroring the investment grade credit market; however, the ICE BAML 1-5 Year U.S. Cash Pay High Yield Index saw its OAS increase 14 basis points to 426 from 412 over the period. High Yield has benefited from strong investor inflows this year but CCC's have meaningfully lagged of late, lifting the overall index OAS. In our accounts that allow High Yield, we remain very selective in evaluating opportunities, limiting our focus to shorter tenor issues in the BB space. Performance Attribution: Positive Our positioning in investment grade credit contributed positively to third-quarter portfolio performance across most strategies as credit spreads moved in a bit of a sawtooth pattern over the quarter, ending tighter. Our positioning in the Independent Energy and Technology subsectors and overweights to Banking and Health Care (including our Cigna and CVS Health positions plus hospital issues traded in the Municipals market but categorized as investment grade corporates) were positive contributors to portfolio excess return. Most other subsectors generated relatively modest, uneven excess returns with the notable exceptions of Insurance and Midstream, which weighed on performance, mainly in some of our longer -dated strategies. Agencies Government -sponsored enterprise (GSE) debt spreads were tighter by 1-2 basis points during the third quarter while U.S. dollar -denominated Supranational, Sovereign and Agency (SSA) fixed -maturity securities' spreads tightened by 4-5 basis points relative to comparable Treasuries. In addition, credit spreads on debt of Canadian provinces such as Ontario and Quebec were mostly unchanged to one basis point tighter over the quarter. We believe the tone across the various agency subsectors continues to be well supported. During the quarter, Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC) released second-quarter 2019 earnings, as both GSEs reported stronger results quarter -over -quarter. Net income for FNMA rose to $3.4 billion from $2.4 billion in the first-quarter while net income reported by FHLMC rose modestly to $1.5 billion from $1.4 billion. FNMA reported a net worth of $6.4 billion as of June 30 while FHLMC recorded $4.8 billion. As a result, FNMA will remit $3.4 billion in dividends to the U.S. Treasury, while FHLMC will distribute $1.8 billion. On the regulatory front, the Treasury released their long-awaited Housing Finance Reform Plan recommending a guarantor model with an explicit, paid for government guarantee which requires congressional legislation. The plan urged Congress to take legislative action but also encouraged the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to continue pursuing administrative reforms. Given the 2020 presidential election is a little more than a year away, we believe any substantive legislative action will be muted as Congress will be less likely to take a vote on housing -related issues that could cause them to lose support from their constituents; however, we do expect some headway to be made on the administrative front, the path of least resistance. Senate Banking Committee chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) stated that while his preference is to address Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 56 6 MetLife Management housing finance reform through legislation, the Trump administration should "begin moving forward on key administrative reforms". On the last day of the quarter the Treasury and FHFA announced they have altered the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs) for FNMA and FHLMC to allow the companies to retain additional capital ($25 billion and $20 billion, respectively). This is the first significant change to the PSPAs since December 2017 when both GSEs were each allowed to retain $3 billion in capital. The new PSPAs effectively suspend the net worth sweep which has been in place since 2012 and mandated FNMA and FHLMC to remit all earnings above a small buffer to the Treasury. We view this as a positive starting point for GSE reform. At current valuations, we remain underweight the Agency sector overall. During the quarter we reduced our floating- rate exposure and sold bonds with low durations, in addition to reinvesting the proceeds from our called agency bond positions in fixed -maturity securities in other spread sectors. In terms of our outlook, against the backdrop of slowing global growth we feel any flight to quality will bode well for the Agency sector although spreads continue to offer only a small incremental yield pickup over Treasuries. We think supply/demand dynamics will continue into the fourth quarter as the pace of supply in the Agency space will lag demand, especially with the amount of debt trading at negative yields around the globe. We expect SSA supply to slow down in the fourth quarter with negative net issuance for the rest of the year. Low net supply in SSAs and GSEs could continue to keep spreads at tight levels. We will continue to look for opportunities to add to the Agency sector and expect to use major SSA issuers to target specific duration buckets across the yield curve. Performance Attribution: Neutral Our allocations to the various Agency subsectors and security selection generated mixed performance over the quarter across our strategies. Spreads in the Agency subsectors tightened over the quarter but conversely, our underweight in higher beta names, e.g. Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), and Mexico government bonds that are in the benchmark indices that we did not own detracted from our performance. ABS Spreads on short -tenor asset -backed securities generally moved tighter over the course of the third quarter despite broader spread and rate volatility arising from trade tensions, concerns about global economic growth and Federal Reserve policy. Spreads on AAA -rated three-year credit card, prime auto and subprime auto tranches moved 8 basis points, 10 basis points, and 9 basis point tighter, respectively. Floating-rate Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) student loan tranches underperformed with three-year FFELP tranches moving wider by 7 basis points quarter -over -quarter. The underperformance of FFELP tranches was asset -specific and likely driven by the tail risk given the longer average lives in this sector which is solely floating-rate as the market comes to grips with transition risks related to LIBOR. Short -tenor, high quality asset -backed bonds continued to see strong sponsorship amid solid U.S. consumer fundamentals and the inverted yield curve, resulting in a more attractive yield profile for short bonds relative to longer -tenor alternatives. The securitization industry gathered in September for the annual ABS East conference held in Miami. Market participants generally expressed confidence in U.S. consumer fundamentals and ABS collateral performance but were somewhat cautious given trade tensions and political uncertainty. The tone amongst CLO participants was mixed, with a focus on topics including loan fundamentals, CLO supply and idiosyncratic risks associated with underlying loan portfolios. New issue volume for third quarter was $51 billion, a 20.1% decrease compared to the prior quarter, but an 11 .0% increase compared to last year's pace of $46 billion. Issuance volume was led by the auto sector with $25 billion of new deals pricing during the quarter. Compared to the prior year, issuance in the auto and equipment sectors increased 9% and 13%, respectively. Issuance in credit card and student loan sectors was down 341)/0 and 27% year - Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 57 7 MetLife Management over -year, respectively. Although credit card issuance has trended downward during the year, volume has picked up as of late, with $8.3 billion of new issue deals pricing this quarter compared to $3.1 billion in the second quarter. On a year-to-date basis, new issue volume reached $173 billion, a slight decline compared to the $179 billion issued last year through the end of the third quarter. Credit card ABS continued to exhibit strong performance, supported by healthy U.S. consumer fundamentals. The quarter -over -quarter charge -off rate on the Wells Fargo index decreased 5 basis points to 2.30% and 60+ day delinquencies decreased 4 basis points to 1.00%. Wells Fargo noted that portfolio yields, excess spread and monthly payment rates are near all-time highs, while delinquency and charge -off rates are near all-time lows. Prime auto performance remained stable during the quarter, while the subprime auto sector saw an uptick in delinquencies and losses. The 60+-day delinquency rate on the Fitch Auto ABS indices for subprime delinquencies was 5.93% in August, an increase of 43 basis points since year-end and 104 basis points higher, year -over -year. In our view, the deterioration in subprime auto performance was driven by weaker lending standards and changes in the composition of issuers funding in the ABS market. While we focus on more established issuers that continue to perform within our expectations, we are also mindful of signs of weakness in the broader auto markets. New vehicle sales in August were up 11% year -over -year, for a 17.0 million Seasonally -Adjusted Annual Rate (SAAR), supported by the Labor Day weekend, strong fleet sales and dealer incentives. According to Cox Automotive, the annual pace of new vehicle sales remains steady and is forecasted to reach 16.9 million units in September, down slightly from August's 17.0 million level, but still reflecting a stable market. The Manheim Used Vehicle Index rose 0.62% month -over -month in August. The index value at 141.3 represents a 1.2% increase from a year ago and a record high for the index. During the quarter we modestly increased our ABS exposure given our favorable view on U.S. consumer fundamentals. We focused on high -quality, liquid benchmark subsectors like credit cards and prime autos given current trade tensions and global macro volatility. We were active in both the primary and secondary market, participating in new issue transactions from CarMax, Santander, Nissan, and Prestige. We also purchased the inaugural small and mid -sized equipment securitization issued by Hewlett Packard and new issue credit card transactions from Capital One and TD Bank. Going into the fourth quarter, we anticipate maintaining an overweight to the ABS sector while continuing to position our portfolios in high -quality, shorter duration bonds. Performance Attribution: Positive Benefiting from tighter spreads, our ABS portfolio positions contributed positive excess returns after adjusting for duration and yield curve exposure. Our fixed-rate holdings were the top performers with both prime and subprime auto bonds exhibiting the strongest performance. Our floating-rate exposure also performed positively, but more modestly than our fixed-rate holdings. CMBS Short tenor commercial mortgage -backed securities showed mixed performance over the course of the quarter. Compared to like -duration Treasuries, three-year AAA -rated conduit tranches ended the quarter at a spread of 39 basis points over Treasuries, 7 basis points tighter. In contrast, five-year AAA -rated conduit tranches ended the quarter at a spread of 60 basis points over Treasuries, 4 basis points wider. We attribute the relative outperformance of three-year conduit tranches to investor preference for the higher yields offered by shorter tenor tranches due to the current inversion of the yield curve. Agency CMBS generally performed well over the quarter. Three-year and five- year Freddie Mac "K-bond" tranches were essentially flat on spread over the quarter with three-year tranches at 34 basis points over Treasuries, unchanged on the quarter, and five-year tranches at 49 basis points over Treasuries, just 1 basis point tighter. In the third quarter, $23.6 billion of new private -label CMBS and $41.4 billion of new agency CMBS came to market. This compares to $20.9 billion and $38.8 billion, respectively, in the third quarter of last year. The month of September alone saw heavy non -agency issuance with almost $10 billion coming to market. This was the second Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 58 8 MetLife Management heaviest month so far this year, behind only $14.3 billion seen in May. Notably, this year's third-quarter issuance of new single -asset, single -borrower ("SASB") securitizations lagged last year's third quarter issuance with only $4.2 billion of new SASB deals coming to market, approximately half of last year's total for the period. Similar to the trend seen in the second quarter, agency CMBS issuance was fairly balanced between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, with Freddie K-bonds totaling $16.6 billion of new issuance, compared to Fannie Mae's issuance of $14.2 billion of "DUS" (single loan pools) and $4.2 billion of "GEMs" (multi -loan pool securitizations similar to K-bonds). CMBS delinquencies continued to trend lower after ticking upward slightly at the end of the second quarter. The Trepp 30+-day delinquency rate fell 3bps in September to 2.51 %, a record low. The rate has fallen 90 basis points year - over -year and has trended down since June 2017 when it was 5.75%. Over the course of the quarter, lodging properties surpassed both industrial and multifamily properties to become the best performing subsector with a 1.47% 30+-day delinquency rate, down 94 basis points over the quarter. Industrial properties finished second with a 2.0% delinquency rate, up 6 basis points over the quarter and multifamily came in third with a 2.43% delinquency rate, up 39 basis points over the quarter. Retail properties continued to remain the worst performing property type with a 4.15% 30+-day delinquency although the rate improved 29 basis points over the quarter. For post -crisis vintages ("CMBS 2.0+"), the 30+-day delinquency rate fell 2 basis points in September but rose 38 basis points over the course of the quarter to 0.87%. Supported by strength in the industrial and apartment sub -sectors, commercial property prices continued to climb during the quarter. The September release of the RCA CPPI National All -Property Index showed prices rising 0.8% in August, to end the quarter at 139.0, a record high and a year -over -year increase of 6.7%. Bolstered by the healthy domestic economy, industrial property prices increased 1.9% over the quarter and are up 12.5% year -over - year. Apartment properties have shown the second strongest annual gain of +7.1 % and were the best performing subsector in the third quarter, with prices rising 2.5%. Office properties are currently showing the slowest year -over - year growth, up only 2.0%, worse than even the challenged retail sector, which has seen prices rise 2.2%. RCA noted that weakness in suburban office properties, +0.7% year over year, dragged down the overall sector as central business district properties have shown 7.0% year -over -year price growth. At its current level, the index is now 31% above the prior August 2007 peak of 105.7 and is 103% higher than the post -crisis low of 68.4 in June 2010. We increased our exposure to the CMBS sector across the portfolios during the third quarter. We took advantage of wider spreads to add to our Freddie Mac K-bond holdings via secondary market purchases. For example, we purchased a 2.05-year WAL Freddie-K bond in the secondary market at a spread of 42 basis points over Treasuries. We also took advantage of attractive spreads in short conduit tranches and added to our holdings in that subsector. In the new issue space, we participated in a AAA -rated 1.90-year tranche of a floating-rate SASB deal collateralized by medical office and healthcare -related properties, at a spread of 112 basis points over one -month Libor. Over the course of the quarter agency CMBS outperformed agency RMBS as investors favored more stable prepayment profiles amid elevated interest rate volatility. In addition, agency CMBS generally outperformed non - agency CMBS over the quarter. In our view, September's volume of new issue supply weighed on non -agency spreads. Going forward, we anticipate being opportunistic in the non -agency CMBS space while sourcing agency CMBS as a core holding until volatility abates somewhat. We will also look to swap existing floating-rate assets into floating-rate SASB bonds. In our view SASB deals provide attractive opportunities to gain exposure to high -quality assets, provided that deal structures remain conservative and limit the number of extension options available to borrowers. Performance Attribution: Positive Our CMBS positions added to performance over the third quarter after accounting for duration and yield curve exposure. Our non -agency positions were the best performers although our agency holdings were also generally Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 59 9 MetLife Management positive. Within non -agencies, the positive performance was led by our fixed-rate conduit tranches although our floating-rate SASB holdings also performed well. RMBS The generic agency residential mortgage -backed sector underperformed relative to comparable Treasuries in the third quarter as the rally in interest rates triggered prepayment risks. On spread, shorter duration 15-year collateral outperformed on a relative basis 30-year collateral as the Treasury curve flattened into the rally. At the end of the quarter, bonds backed by 15-year collateral were 16 basis points wider to five-year Treasuries at a spread of 66 basis points and bonds backed by 30-year collateral were 27 basis points wider to ten-year Treasuries at a spread of 88 basis points. Non -agency spreads followed agency benchmarks wider over the quarter as faster prepayment speeds impacted the sector. Despite the overall weakness in the sector, our portfolio holdings provided positive excess returns due to our focus on owning well -structured bonds with lower prepayment risk profiles. The housing market showed some mixed signals as home price growth continued to decelerate while other metrics, fueled by low mortgage rates, showed signs of strength later in the quarter. The S&P Corelogic Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index increased only 2.0% year -over -year through July, the sixteenth straight month of slowing growth and the weakest since August 2012. For the twenty cities monitored in the index, Phoenix (+5.8%), Las Vegas (+4.7%) and Charlotte (+4.6%) showed the greatest year -over -year gains, while New York (+0.9%), San Francisco (+0.2%) and Seattle (-0.6%) showed the weakest performance. Notably, Seattle showed year -over -year declines for each month during the quarter. Despite a strong labor market and lower mortgage rates, higher home prices are creating affordability challenges for many borrowers with more expensive cities and pricier homes seeing the greatest slowdown in growth. Notably however, mortgage rates continued to fall over the quarter, with the Freddie Mac 30- year commitment rate dropping 8bps to 3.65%, a level were the majority of mortgage collateral is re-financeable. In comparison, one year ago Freddie's 30-year commitment rate stood at 4.72%. The primary -secondary mortgage spread widened 4bps over the quarter, as originators grappling with capacity constraints declined to pass the entire benefit of lower interest rates on to borrowers. With housing activity typically exhibiting a 1-3 month lagged reaction to changes in mortgage rates, September data releases saw home sales and homebuilder sentiment numbers coming in better than economist estimates as the impact of lower mortgage rates took hold. Existing home sales rose 1.3% in August to a 5.49 million annualized pace, ahead of estimates of a 5.38 million pace and the highest level in more than a year. Likewise, new home sales rose 7.1 % in August to a 713,000 annualized pace, also beating estimates. Homebuilder sentiment also rose to an 11-month high with the National Association of Home Builders ("NAHB") sentiment index rising to 68 in September from an upwardly revised 67 reading in August. In a statement, NAHB Chief Economist Robert Dietz stated that "Solid household formations and attractive mortgage rates are contributing to a positive builder outlook. However, builders are expressing growing concerns regarding uncertainty stemming from the trade dispute with China". Over the course of the quarter, as the sector weakened, we increased our allocation to RMBS across portfolios. We believe that the consumer is fundamentally in good shape and that the healthy jobs market and low interest rates can help support home prices and mortgage performance. However, we are mindful of heightened prepayment risk in the current rate environment and remain defensive regarding mortgage convexity. Accordingly, we continued to increase our exposure to short -tenor CMOs collateralized with very seasoned collateral which, at current spreads, we find more attractive than CMOs backed by more recent vintages. In non -agencies, our activity was more limited and consisted of several opportunistic secondary market purchases to add to our existing portfolio holdings. We did not participate in any new issue deals. Going forward, we believe the impact of prepayments on portfolios should be manageable given the defensive nature of our holdings. Nonetheless, we do anticipate an increase in prepayment speeds in the near term and would look to maintain or modestly increased RMBS exposure across portfolios. At current spreads, we are likely to continue to prefer seasoned short -tenor agency CMOs similar to those that we have recently purchased. We remain opportunistic Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 60 10 MetLife Management in non -agencies and would add to our holdings should we find securities that offer value relative to agencies. Absent that, we are content to reinvest the prepayments from our non -agency holdings into more liquid agency alternatives. Performance Attribution: Positive After accounting for duration and yield curve exposure, our RMBS positions added to portfolio performance over the third quarter. Our agency CMO positions were our top performers, although our non -agency holdings also performed well. Our specified pool positions were mostly negative, in line with wider spreads for benchmark collateral, and our agency ARM holdings were generally flat. Municipals Overall new issuance in the municipal market was up again in the third quarter, coming in at $103 billion, up from $75 billion and $92 billion in the first and second quarters, respectively. Taxable issuance of $17 billion, however, was up significantly in the third quarter, compared to the $15.2 billion issued during the first six months of 2019. Recall the glut of advance refunding issuance back in December 2017 just before tax reform, which would prohibit the use of tax-exempt bonds for advance refundings, went into effect. After January 1, 2018, outstanding tax-exempt bonds could only be advance refunded using taxable debt. While we eventually expected to see issuers use the taxable market to advance refund, the year -and -a -half following the tax reform implementation was light as many issuers planning to advance refund got their deals done by the end of 2017. However, given the decrease in interest rates during the second and third quarters, it made sense for certain issuers to utilize the taxable market to advance refund some outstanding debt. Despite the strong demand for tax-exempt bonds as evidenced by the $23 billion of inflows to municipal bond mutual funds over the third quarter, they underperformed Treasuries across the maturity spectrum for the quarter, according to the ICE BAML indices. On the taxable side, however, municipals outperformed similar - duration Treasuries in both the front end of the yield curve as well as across the broad market. News over the quarter included Jacksonville Electric Authority's (JEA) continued attempt to void their power purchase agreement (Project J PPA) with the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG). The Project J PPA is for offtake from the Vogtle nuclear reactors under construction in Georgia. Despite the legal challenge, MEAG issued $616 million Project J bonds via a private placement on July 19. We believe the issuance is a credit positive for the project, as it shows the market's continued support. The issuance also eliminated near -term lending risk, as Project J will only need immaterial additional financing for their share of the project, absent additional cost overruns. Interestingly, four days later, JEA's Board of Directors approved a resolution to grant authority for its CEO to explore privatization of the utility. We continue to follow these developments and expect a sale to take a considerable amount of time as it must be approved by voters. In September one of our analysts attended a site visit at the Vogtle nuclear reactors where it was clear that management views Vogtle as a high priority and is aggressively trying to meet the accelerated in- service schedule. Management anticipates the two reactors will be in service November of 2021 and 2022. We view this as a credit positive for the obligors of these projects, as the final costs and in-service dates are easier to project at this point in the construction process. Fitch upgraded the State of California to AA from AA- on August 16, reflecting improved fiscal management, tax increases and revenue growth that will allow the Golden State to better withstand econom is and revenue cycles. Building up its rainy -day fund has made California less vulnerable to future economic downturns and more prepared for a potential recession. While this is a credit positive for the State, California G.O. bonds were already trading at tight levels; we saw little spread movement in our holdings following this upgrade. Debt from issuers within California is widely held across our strategies. Our municipal trading activity picked up during the third quarter as the increase in taxable issuance resulted in opportunities in both the primary and secondary markets. While the primary market continued to be oversubscribed, spreads looked reasonably attractive for high -quality rated issuers. We purchased several airport, toll road, and higher Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 61 11 MetLife Management education bonds. Additionally, the combination of lower interest rates and the timing of various issuers' ability to refinance their debt, numerous California Community College Districts came to market, refinancing their tax-exempt debt with taxable debt, and we participated in several of these issues. Given the trajectory of interest rates and the timing of issuers needs to advance refund, we expect new issue municipal supply to remain healthy in the fourth quarter. While certain Transportation, Infrastructure and Utility issuers will need to raise money for maintenance and capital projects, we expect the lion's share of the taxable issuance in the fourth quarter to be advance refundings of outstanding debt. From a credit perspective, we still favor the Transportation and Utility subsectors and are comfortable with many Healthcare credits as well. Many of the states that have struggled with their finances recently such as Connecticut, New Jersey and Illinois have seen their revenue collections rebound in 2019, although underfunded pension liabilities still pose a long-term threat. Any potential economic recession would likely be felt to a larger degree in these states, as they would have less flexibility to address their financial struggles if revenues were to decline. We continue to view the Municipal market as a defensive sector and will look for opportunities in this sector to upgrade the average credit quality of our portfolios. Performance Attribution: Neutral Performance of our municipal holdings over the third quarter ranged from neutral to slightly positive across our strategies. On an excess return basis, some of our better -performing municipal subsectors included Transportation, Power and Local Government. The majority of our holdings, however, exhibited neutral performance. Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 62 12 MetLife Management Disclaimers This document is being provided to you at your specific request. This document has been prepared by Logan Circle Partners, L.P., a U.S. Securities Exchange Commission -registered investment adviser. Logan Circle Partners, L.P. is a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. and part of MetLife Investment Management.1 For investors in the EEA, this document is being distributed by MetLife Investment Management Limited ("MIML"), authorised and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA reference number 623761), registered address Level 34 1 Canada Square London E14 5AA United Kingdom. This document is approved by MIML as a financial promotion for distribution in the UK. This document is only intended for, and may only be distributed to, investors in the EEA who qualify as a Professional Client as defined under the EEA's Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, as implemented in the relevant EEA jurisdiction. The investment strategy described herein is intended to be structured as an investment management agreement between MIML (or its affiliates, as the case may be) and a client, although alternative structures more suitable for a particular client can be discussed. For investors in Japan, this document is being distributed by MetLife Asset Management Corp. (Japan) ("MAM"), a registered Financial Instruments Business Operator ("FIBO") conducting Investment Advisory Business, Investment Management Business and Type II Financial Instruments Business under the registration entry "Director General of the Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Financial Instruments Business Operator) No. 2414" pursuant to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan ("FIEA"), and a regular member of the Japan Investment Advisers Association and the Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association of Japan. In its capacity as a discretionary investment manager registered under the FIEA, MAM provides investment management services and also sub -delegates a part of its investment management authority to other foreign investment management entities within MIM in accordance with the FIEA. This document is only being provided to investors in Japan who are Qualified Institutional Investors (tekikaku kikan toshika) as defined in Article 10 of Cabinet Office Ordinance on Definitions Provided in Article 2 of the FIEA. It is the responsibility of each prospective investor to satisfy themselves as to full compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of any relevant territory, including obtaining any requisite governmental or other consent and observing any other formality presented in such territory. MetLife, Inc. provides investment management services to affiliates and unaffiliated/third party clients through various subsidiaries.1 MetLife Investment Management ("MIM"), MetLife, Inc.'s institutional investment management business, has more than 900 investment professionals located around the globe. MIM is responsible for investments in a range of asset sectors, public and privately sourced, including corporate and infrastructure private placement debt, real estate equity, commercial mortgage loans, customized index strategies, structured finance, emerging market debt, and high yield debt. The information contained herein is intended to provide you with an understanding of the depth and breadth of MIM's investment management services and investment management experience. This document has been provided to you solely for informational purposes and does not constitute a recommendation regarding any investments or the provision of any investment advice, or constitute or form part of any advertisement of, offer for sale or subscription of, solicitation or invitation of any offer or recommendation to purchase or subscribe for any securities or investment advisory services. Unless otherwise specified, the information and opinions presented or contained in this document are provided as of the quarter end noted herein. It should be understood that subsequent developments may affect the information contained in this document materially, and MIM shall not have any obligation to update, revise or affirm. It is not MIM's intention to provide, and you may not rely on this document as providing, a complete or comprehensive analysis of MIM's investment portfolio, investment strategies or investment recommendations. No money, securities or other consideration is being solicited. No invitation is made by this document or the information contained herein to enter into, or offer to enter into, any agreement to purchase, acquire, dispose of, subscribe for or underwrite any securities or structured products, and no offer is made of any shares in or debentures of a company for purchase or subscription. Prospective clients are encouraged to seek advice from their legal, tax and financial advisors prior to making any investment. Confidentiality. By accepting receipt or reading any portion of this Presentation, you agree that you will treat the Presentation confidentially. This reminder should not be read to limit, in any way, the terms of any confidentiality agreement you or your organization may have in place with Logan Circle. This document and the information contained herein is strictly confidential (and by receiving such information you agree to keep such information confidential) and are being furnished to you solely for your information and may not be used or relied upon by any other party, or for any other purpose, and may not, directly or indirectly, be forwarded, published, reproduced, disseminated or quoted to any other person for any purpose without the prior written consent of MIM. Any forwarding, publication, distribution or reproduction of this document in whole or in part is unauthorized. Any failure to comply with this restriction may constitute a violation of applicable securities laws. Past performance is not indicative of future results. No representation is being made that any investment will or is likely to achieve profits or losses or that significant losses will be avoided. There can be no assurance that investments similar to those described in this document will be available in the future and no representation is made that future investments managed by MIM will have similar returns to those presented herein. No offer to purchase or sell securities. This Presentation does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security and may not be relied upon in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. No reliance, no update and use of information. You may not rely on this Presentation as the basis upon which to make an investment decision. To the extent that you rely on this Presentation in connection with any investment decision, you do so at your own risk. This Presentation is being provided in summary fashion and does not purport to be complete. The information in the Presentation is provided to you as of the dates indicated and MIM does not intend to update the information after its distribution, even in the event that the information becomes materially inaccurate. Certain information contained in this Presentation, includes performance and characteristics of MIM's by independent third parties, or have been prepared internally and have not been audited or verified. Use of different methods for preparing, calculating or presenting information may lead to different results for the information presented, compared to publicly quoted information, and such differences may be material. Risk of loss. An investment in the strategy described herein is speculative and there can be no assurance that the strategy's investment objectives will be achieved. Investors must be prepared to bear the risk of a total loss of their investment. No tax, legal or accounting advice. This Presentation is not intended to provide, and should not be relied upon for, accounting, legal or tax advice or investment recommendations. Any statements of U.S. federal tax consequences contained in this Presentation were not intended to be used and cannot be used to avoid penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or to promote, market or recommend to another party any tax -related matters addressed herein. Forward -Looking Statements. This document may contain or incorporate by reference information that includes or is based upon forward -looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward -looking statements give expectations or forecasts of future events. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They use words and terms such as Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 63 13 LMetLife Management "anticipate," "estimate," "expect," "project," "intend," "plan," "believe," "will," and other words and terms of similar meaning, or are tied to future periods in connection with a discussion of future performance. Forward -looking statements are based on MIM's assumptions and current expectations, which may be inaccurate, and on the current economic environment which may change. These statements are not guarantees of future performance. They involve a number of risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward -looking statements. Risks, uncertainties and other factors that might cause such differences include, but are not limited to: (1) difficult conditions in the global capital markets; (2) changes in general economic conditions, including changes in interest rates or fiscal policies; (3) changes in the investment environment; (4) changed conditions in the securities or real estate markets; and (5) regulatory, tax and political changes. MIM does not undertake any obligation to publicly correct or update any forward -looking statement if it later becomes aware that such statement is not likely to be achieved. 1.Subsidiaries of MetLife, Inc. that provide investment management services include Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC, MetLife Investment Management Limited, MetLife Investments Limited, MetLife Investments Asia Limited, MetLife Latin America Asesorias e Inversiones Limitada, MetLife Asset Management Corp. (Japan), Logan Circle Partners, L.P. and Logan Circle Partners, I LLC. L1019519061[exp0320][AII States] Views expressed were current as of June 30, 2019, are subject to change, and may not reflect the manager's current views. Securities mentioned are for informational purposes only and do not represent a recommendation or an offer to buy, hold or sell any securities, or all of the securities held in client portfolios. The performance and portfolio holdings cited here were current as of June 30, 2019 and are subject to change. This document is only for distribution to, and the use of, current clients and consultants of MetLife Investment Management. 64 ATTACHMENT 18 Payden&Rygel QUARTERLY PORTFOLIO REVIEW Riverside County Transportation Commission 3rd Quarter 2019 I wr PAYDEN.COM LOS ANGELES I BOSTON I LONDON I MILAN 65 LETTER FROM THE CEO October 2019 As we begin the fourth quarter of 2019, two trends continue to dominate the global economy. First, as we have mentioned many times, emerging market countries' share of global GDP has overtaken that of developed countries (as shown in the pie charts below). The continued growth of emerging markets has helped offset some of the recent weakness in developed markets, and expectations for global GDP growth in 2019 remain around 3%. With many central banks now shifting to easing mode, we wouldn't be surprised to see an improvement in economic activity in the near future. Share of World Output Emerging Market Countries Developed Countries 2000 2020 43% $50 Trillion $150 Trillion 57% 40% Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook The second major trend is a continuation of low and negative interest rates worldwide. This is a phenomenon the magnitude of which we have never seen before. In fact, there is currently more than $15 trillion worth of negatively yielding debt. Developed world central banks' accommodative monetary policy explains much of the trend, as they've become big buyers of "safe" assets in the last decade. Against this background, there has been a huge demand for income -producing investments, and we believe this low interest rate environment may continue for some time to come. We are managing your portfolio while remaining conscious of the need for liquidity when the environment changes. We will certainly keep you apprised immediately of any changes we see in the future. In the meantime, my very best wishes. 42-tc(29— Joan A. Payden President & CEO 66 2812 Riverside County Transportation Commission Portfolio Review and Market Update - 3rd Quarter 2019 PORTFOLIO CHARACTERISTICS (As of 9/30/2019) Portfolio Market Value Weighted Average Credit Quality Weighted Average Duration Weighted Average Yield to Maturity $53.7 million AA+ 1.89 years 1.82% SECTOR ALLOCATION mi 60% 50% 40% 30% 2 0 % 1 0 % 0% ae.§\ Giea• � ������ �a�ea 0O ogee OeG�ea �<e Peee� P�' aoe �O DURATION DISTRIBUTION 60% 5 0 % 4 0 % 30% 20% 10% 0% 0-1 1-2 2-3 3+ Years PORTFOLIO RETURNS - Periods Ending 9/30/2019 RCTC Operating Portfolio ICE BofAML 1-3 Year US Treasury Index Periods over one year are annualized Since 3rd 2019 Trailing Inception Quarter YTD 1 Yr (3/1/15) 0.64% 3.24% 4.36% 1.57% 0.58% 3.03% 4.36% 1.34% pPayden & Rygel • 333 South Grand Avenue • Los AngelA?California goo7i • (213) 625-igoo • www.payden.com Portfolio Review and Market Update - 3rd Quarter 2019 2812 MARKET THEMES It was a bumpy third quarter with geopolitical headlines driving markets. The escalating U.S.-China trade war, conflicts in the Middle East, economic slowdown in Europe, and uncertainty around an impending Brexit outcome resulted in U.S. Treasury yields continuing to fall as the curve remained partly inverted. With negative interest rates in many foreign government bonds, questions continue about whether U.S. yields will follow. The Federal Open Market Committee cut rates twice, lowering the Fed Funds target range to 1.75% to 2.00%, and is divided on the future path of rates, indicating that future rate cuts would be data dependent. The Fed also intervened in money markets, injecting cash into the system to stabilize the overnight repo market. This easier monetary policy led to tighter credit spreads and positive performance for stocks and bonds over the quarter despite increased volatility. ■ The portfolio continues to hold a diversified mix of non -government sectors for income generation. ■ We remain overweight and constructive on short -dated credit given attractive yields, lack of supply and solid fundamentals. ■ We continue to diversify our credit exposure through corporates, ABS and MBS sectors, in order to maintain diversified sources of high -quality income. As the FOMC reduced its targeted range for the Fed Funds rate, yields continued to fall with two-year notes trading in a 50 basis point range (1.4% - 1.9%) during the quarter before closing at 1.6%. The U.S. yield curve remains mostly inverted, and the market continues to price in a modest amount of additional easing from the Fed. ■ The one-year note fell from 1.93% to 1.76%, while the slope between two- and five-year maturities remained inverted over the quarter finishing at-0.08%. ■ One -month LIBOR fell 38 basis points to 2.02% and three-month LIBOR decreased 23 basis points to 2.09%. Corporate securities outperformed Treasuries, driven by both their income advantage and price performance. High -quality ABS also outperformed Treasuries but slightly underperformed corporates. We continued to reduce exposure to floating rate securities over the quarter. pPayden & Rygel • 333 South Grand Avenue • Los Angel*California goo7i • (213) 625-igoo • www.payden.com MARKET PERSPECTIVE The Upside Down World of Negative Rates During the third quarter of 2019, the market value of negative -yielding bonds surged to $17 trillion. What's behind the negative yield trend? Global central banks have moved to stimulate their respective economies by slashing short- term rates and purchasing longer -term bonds. The former move suggests rates will be low for longer and the latter move constrains the supply of available "safe" bonds for real investors. Both of these forces combined in Q3 to push interest rates lower. Ever wonder who buys negative -yielding bonds? Wonder no longer. Global central banks hold almost 80% of the world's negative -yielding debt. Rather than buying purely for investment reasons, central banks seek to boost their domestic economies. Has it worked? In terms of macroeconomic outcomes, we conclude that it hasn't. Global growth remains lackluster, and inflation is below most central bank targets. Negative yields have forced investors into new investment areas like private debt, a murky, illiquid sector which has grown from $42 billion in 2000 to $767 billion in 2018. Negative yields have also driven investors to the U.S. bond market, where positive yields still exist across the curve. In conclusion, the global low yield backdrop looks set to persist well into 2020. Negative Yielding Debt Outstanding Who Owns Negative Yielding Debt? $6 $4 $2 $0 At the recent peak, $17 trillion of debt traded with negative yields around the world. 2-year government bond yields are negative in 18 countries including Japan, Italy, and Germany. '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 Central Banks Mutual Funds Share of Total 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 79.0% 18.1% ETFs 1.6% Asset Management/ Financial Services Pension Funds/ Insurance Others 0.6% 0.4% 0.3 % r Mystery solved? Most negative yielding debt is held by central banks, although other "price -oriented" buyers have been active in the bond markets Source: The Conference Board, Federal Reserve, NBER, Payden Calculations 69 OVER 35 YEARS OF INSPIRING CONFIDENCE WITH AN UNWAVERING COMMITMENT TO OUR CLIENTS' NEEDS. LOS ANGELES I BOSTON I LONDON I MILAN PAYDEN.COM OUR STRATEGIES Multi -Sector Short Maturity Bonds U.S. Core Bond Absolute Return Fixed Income Strategic Income Global Fixed Income Liability Driven Investing Sector -Specific Emerging Markets Debt Government/Sovereign High Yield Bonds & Loans Inflation-Linked/TIPS Investment Grade Corporate Bonds Municipal Bonds (U.S.) Securitized Bonds Income -Focused Equities Equity Income Available in: Separate Accounts — Mutual Funds (U.S. and UCITS) Collective Trusts ("CITs") — Customized Solutions For more information about Payden & Rygel's strategies, contact us at a location listed below. Payden&Rygel LOS ANGELES 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071 213 625-1900 BOSTON 265 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 617 807-1990 LONDON 1 Bartholmew Lane London EC2N 2AX UK +44 (0) 20-7621-3000 MILAN Corso Matteotti, 1 20121 Milan, Italy +39 02 76067111 70 ATTACHMENT 19 County of Riverside Treasurer Pooled Investment Fund Se•tember Contents I Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund I Economy I Market Data I Portfolio Data I Compliance Report I Month End Holdings See the digital copy countytreasurer.org fo v Market Committee's -a�-� � ;' JEROME POWELL Chair, Federal Reserve Board monthly TPIF report at deo of the Federal Open r 18 pros conference. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell during the September 18 FOMC press conference. Digital Image. Federal Reserve Board. https://www.youtube.com/user/FedReserveBoard COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 72 1 Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund Monthly Commentary News of the Federal Reserve (FED) rate cut in September was pushed to the back pages as geopolitical events and domes- tic politics dominated headlines. The 2-year Treasury was 1.63% at month end, the low- est since October 2017. Back then, three straight quarters of above 3% real GDP growth and tax reform fostered expecta- tions for higher rates. Growth of real GDP fell to 2% in 2Q19. Now, investors expect slower economic growth to lead to more rate cuts. The FED cut rates in September, while in the Middle East a drone attack on Saudi Arabia caused one of the world's largest oil processing facilities to shut down. Accord- ing to Saudi Aramco, the closure impacted about 5% of the world's daily oil produc- tion, but is estimated to be fully restored by the end of September. Europe continues to lead to a messy divorce as the U.K's Brexit deadline ap- proaches on October 31, and riots in Hong Kong continue to disrupt the trading hub, crimping long-term investment decisions. On the U.S.-China trade front, additional tariffs took effect in September, and more are expected on December 15. Talks, how- ever, are scheduled to resume on October 10. September was capped off with a polit- ical firestorm over the Ukrainian 'presidential phone call' scandal. Treasurer's Statement An Abundance of Uncertainty Empowered by a tight labor market and low inflation, consumers were able to shake off tariff -related concerns to keep consum- er spending in expansionary territory in Au- gust. The rate of nonfarm payrolls contin- ued to slow down in August from 2018 lev- els, adding 130k jobs. However, initial job- less claims and the unemployment rate suggest that the labor market remains at its tightest in half a century. Industrial data for August was mixed. On one hand, the FED's industrial production index beat consensus expectations for pro- duction, manufacturing, and capacity utilization. On the other, the PMI manufac- turing index showed flat growth, highlight- ed by a 10-year low in export orders, while the ISM manufacturing index showed the sector contracted in August. Data published in September suggest that the national housing market remains firm. The number of new home sales in Au- gust brought the three-month average up to 703k, the highest since October 2007. Existing home sales grew at an annual pace of 5.490 million, the best showing of 2019. Nationwide, home price growth con- tinued to trend down towards 2.0% Y/Y in July. In Riverside County, data from Core - Logic shows house prices grew 3.9% Y/Y in August, up from 3.4%Y/Y in July. The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund is comprised of contributions from the county, schools, special districts, and other discretionary depositors throughout the County of Riverside. The primary objective of the treasurer shall be to safeguard the principal of the funds under the Treasurer's control, meet the liquidity needs of the depositor, and to maximize a return on the funds within the given parameters. The Treasurer -Tax Collector and the Capital Markets team are committed to maintaining the highest credit ratings. The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund is currently rated Aaa-bf by Moody's Investor Service and AAAf/S1 by Fitch Ratings, two of the nation's most trusted bond credit rating services. Since its inception, the Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund has been in full compliance with the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy, which is more restrictive than California Government Code 53646. 6-Month Pool Performance In the Eurozone, manufacturing activity could be a canary in the coalmine for an impending recession. Eurozone manufac- turing PMI data fell from 47.0 in July to 45.6 in August, the steepest contraction since October 2012. Confronted with low inflation and soft- ness in job growth, exports, fixed income investment, manufacturing activity, and global economic growth, Federal Reserve (FED) officials elected to cut rates to 1.75- 2.00% on September 18. FED officials are likely to cut rates by another 25bps before the end of the year to help stave off a re- cession. The Treasury bond market saw yields rise slightly in September, as investors eased off a bit on further rate cut expectations. The 2-year treasury began the month with a yield of 1.47% and ended at 1.63%. The 5- year treasury began the month with a yield of 1.35% and ended at 1.55%. The FED cut short-term interest rates by 25 bps. The in- version of the Treasury yield curve contin- ued, with the 3-month Treasury bill (1.88%) out -yielding the 10-year Treasury note (1.68%) by 20 basis points. Jon Christensen Treasurer -Tax Collector Capital Markets Team Jon Christensen Treasurer -Tax Collector Giovane Pizano Chief Investment Manager Steve Faeth Senior Investment Manager Isela Licea Assistant Investment Manager Jake Nieto Administrative Services Analyst Month End Market Month End Book Value ($)* Value ($) Paper Gain or Loss ($) Paper Gain or Book Yield Loss (%) (%) WAM (Yrs) Sep-19 Aug-19 Jul-19 Jun-19 May-19 Apr-19 6,351,986,977.01 6,417,639,034.28 6,570,927,735.30 6,838,812,308.82 7,583,793,753.68 8,177,376,431.91 6,333,085,946.48 6,389,269,000.29 6,550,099,863.71 6,81 1,213,591.28 7,563,023,912.99 8,168,198,799.92 18,901,030.53 28,370,033.99 20,827,871.59 27,598,717.54 20,769,840.69 9,177,631.99 0.30% 0.44% 0.32% 0.41 % 0.27% 0.11% 2.13 2.23 2.29 2.32 2.35 2.36 1.10 1.13 1.13 1.06 1.09 1.09 *Market values do not include accrued interest. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 73 2 Economy National Economy The U.S. labor market remains tight as real average hourly earnings climb higher and unemployment insurance claims stay at the low- est in half a century. [FRED; 10/08/2019] • Job growth has slowed down this year. Through the first eight months, nonfarm payroll growth fell from 234k per month in 2018 to 164k per month in 2019. [FRED* 10/08/2019] Despite vehicle sales trending above 17mn in August, growth in durable goods orders was flat Y/Y, indicating an overall slowdown in manufacturing. [FRED; 10/08/2019] U.S. Nonfarm Payrolls thousands M/M M/M 6 mo. trailing avg. 350.0 - 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 .�b Percent 20.0 - 15.0 - 10.0 - 5.0 0.0 -5.0 �ul li dll.11ll II I���II��II��CI as�1 State Economy California's unemployment rate fell to 4.1% in August, the lowest since data was made available in 1976. [FRED; 10/08/2019] • Job growth in CA and the Inland Empire grew around 2.0% Y/Y in August, mirroring national trends. [FRED; 10/08/2019] • Despite lower mortgage rates, home sales in Southern Califor- nia were the lowest since 2015 and home prices were un- moved Y/Y in August. [LA Times; 10/08/2019]. • CA has "fallen behind in home production relative to popula- tion growth and future needs." [UCLA Anderson; 10/09/2019] thousands 800.0 700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 U.S. New Home Sales SAAR 200.01111111 New Home Sales (LHS) 30-Year Fixed Mortgage Rate (RHS) 1� 1� ke PJ� Percent 6.0 5.0 1q 1q Foy p- 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 U.S. Durable Goods Orders Y/Y CA Monthly New Residential Building Permits New Permits New Permits 6 mo. trailing avg. . II 11,�.����I,II�IIII,III���I.. .-11 �1 �1 NO NO \9) Key Economic Indicators 1q 1q \--\'a 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 / 0 i Oq `O 1• ,* ,`5 �b 1<D �b �1 �0 at J� J6 J� Jq NP J� NP P P P P P P P P P P P Release Date Indicator Actual Consensus Prior Year 09/26/2019 09/06/2019 09/06/2019 09/12/2019 09/12/2019 09/05/2019 09/25/2019 09/05/2019 09/27/2019 Real GDP - Q/Q Change - SAAR - 2Q19 (3rd estimate) Unemployment Rate - Seasonally Adjusted Non -Farm Payrolls - M/M Change - Thousands CPI - Y/Y Change CPI Ex Food and Energy - Y/Y Change ISM Non -Manufacturing Index (> 50 indicates growth) New Home Sales - SAAR - Thousands Factory Orders - M/M Change Durable Goods Orders - New Orders - M/M Change 2.0% 3.7% 130 1.7% 2.4% 56.4 713 1.4% 0.2% 2.0% 3.7% 163 1.7% 2.3% 54.0 662 1.0% -1.2% 3.5% 3.8% 282 2.7% 2.2% 58.8 604 -0.3% 4.2% *Note: 'Prior Year' displays final estimates of indicator values from the equivalent period of the prior year. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 74 3 Market Data FOMC Meeting 09/18/2019 • The FOMC stated that data received since their last meeting in July "indicates that the labor market remains strong and that economic activity has been rising at a moderate rate." • The Federal Open Market Committee lowered the Fed Funds Target Rate to 1.75-2.00% from 2.00-2.25%. • The FOMC stated in their September 18 press release that "sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee's symmetric 2 percent objective as the most likely outcomes, but uncertainties about this outlook remain." Fed Funds Target Rate (Upper Limit) 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1 I 1.00% ,\(?) \a \$ \55 -\q \q Nq �q �q \q �q �q �q Se9 Oct peG )�� Few �•�� P�� \,1\dX y)'K U.S. Treasury Curve 2.50 1.00 0 —0— 09/03/2019 - 09/30/2019 5 10 15 Years 20 25 L 30 Treasury Curve Differentials 3 Mo 6 Mo 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 30 Yr 09/30/2019 - 09/03/2019 09/30/2019 09/03/2019 1.98 1.88 -0.10 -0.05 1.88 1.83 0.03 0.16 1.75 1.63 1.72 1.47 0.18 0.20 1.56 1.55 1.38 1.35 0.21 0.17 1.68 2.12 1.47 1.95 The US Treasury Curve and its values are subject to frequent change and will be updated monthly with each issued TPIF report. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 75 4 Market Data cont'd Percent 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 It 0.0 -1.0 U.S. Treasuries - Recession 3M-10YSpread qq 0� 00 0� 01 0 N 10 15 �A 1q J0 J0 J0 .0 J� J0 J0 J0 .0 P P P P P P P P P P P *Note: Shaded areas indicate U.S. recessions. 75.00 65.00 55.00 45.00 Nymex Crude (LHS) Percent 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 Recession 2Y Treasury Yield 0.0 qq O� 00 O<o 01 J4 J4 J4 J4 J4 J4 P P P P P P P Commodities Nymex Nat Gas (RHS) 5.00 �40 0 �0 q `q �q \q PJC) QGP O06 �� P4 28,000.00 26,000.00 24,000.00 22,000.00 Dow Jones 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1b 1b N0 1q �q 1q 1q Stocks P S PJPJPJq 4 4 4 Precious Metals Industrial Metals 200.00 180.00 160.00 ` - 140.00 120.00 - 100.00 PJA Oo Oe' Fob Qp� NJ• c PJ• 4 8,000.00 - 7,500.00 7,000.00 6,500.00 2,800.00 2,600.00 NASDAQ 100 (LHS) S&P 500 (RHS) 6,000.00 N N �0 N Nq NA NA PJ) 0 Oe, key vs. �J� PJ� 2,400.00 *Values listed for commodities and stocks are in US dollars and are as of the final business day of each month. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 76 5 Portfolio Data The County of Riverside's Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund is currently rated AAA-bf by Moody's Investor Service and AAAf/S1 by Fitch Ratings. Moody's Asset Rating (000's) Book MKT/Book % Book Yield Aaa Aal Aa2 Aa3 NR Totals: 4,882,583.56 100.31 % 77.06% 2.09% 171,944.05 100.53% 2.72% 2.27% Aaa 262,517.51 100.73% 4.15% 2.36% 77% 101,056.12 100.00% 1.60% 2.80% 915,084.70 100.08% 14.47% 2.20% 6,333,185.95 100.30% 100.00% 2.13% S&P Asset Rating (000's) Book MKT/Book % Book Yield AAA AA+ AA AA- NR Totals: 533,641.31 100.42% 8.43% 2.08% 4,535,693.68 100.31 % 71.62% 2.10% 184,788.40 100.99% 2.92% 2.53% 163,877.86 100.04% 2.59% 2.49% 915,084.70 100.08% 14.45% 2.20% 6,333,085.95 100.30% 100.00% 2.13% 12-Month Projected Cash Flow AA+ 72% 1 Aa2 Aal 4% 3% Aa3 2% NR 14% 4■11L_J AA- 3% AA 3% 0 Required Monthly Monthly Matured Month Receipts Disbursements Difference Investments Balance Actual Investments Available to Maturing Invest > 1 Year 10/2019 10/2019 11/2019 12/2019 01/2020 02/2020 03/2020 04/2020 05/2020 06/2020 07/2020 08/2020 09/2020 70.99 1,100.00 1,300.00 2,375.13 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,350.00 1,350.00 1,700.00 1,000.00 1,177.22 1,000.00 1,030.00 1,300.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 2,200.00 1,500.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 1,700.00 1,736.13 1,435.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 (200.00) 100.00 1,175.13 (1,100.00) (400.00) 150.00 150.00 (736.13) (257.78) (300.00) (270.00) 129.01 224.87 436.13 257.78 300.00 270.00 100.00 1,275.13 175.13 150.00 300.00 300.00 1,703.89 490.00 20.00 640.75 140.33 108.29 170.65 87.66 80.43 106.83 106.65 140.00 TOTALS 15,582.35 17,271.13 (1,688.78) 1,617.79 25.55% 2,371 .25 3,795.48 4,715.30 59.93% 74.45% * Values listed in Cash Flow Table are in millions of USD. Based on historic and current financial conditions within the County, the Pool is expected to maintain sufficient liquidity of funds to cover County expenses for the next twelve months. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 77 6 Portfolio Data cont' d Asset Maturity Distribution (Par Value, 000's) 2,000, 000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 25.25% 1,603,894.94 9.60% 610,000.00 0-1 Mos 1-3 Mos Asset Allocation (000's) 24.66% 1,566,581.00 3-12 Mos 17.30% 1,098,719.00 1-2 Yr 15.04% 955,310.00 2-3 Yr 8.15% 517,860.00 3-5 Yr Assets Scheduled Book Scheduled Market Mkt/Book Yield WAL (Yr.) Mat (Yr.) TREAS AGENCIES MMKT CASH CALTRUST FND COMM PAPER NCDS MEDIUM TERM NOTES MUNI LOCAL AGCY OBLIG 450,553.39 3,713,946.71 383,000.00 760,000.00 4,023.98 670,020.85 184,951.53 166,509.50 80.00 454,185.05 3,723,203.97 383,000.00 760,000.00 4,023.98 673,322.34 187,662.14 166,509.50 80.00 100.81 % 100.25% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.49% 0.00% 101.47% 100.00% 100.00% 2.41 % 2.06% 1.92% 2.17% 2.27% 2.14% 0.00% 2.65% 2.58% 2.73% 0.34 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.58 1.47 0.71 0.34 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.61 1.47 0.71 Totals: 6,333,085.95 6,351,986.98 100.30% 2.13% 0.73 1.10 *For details on the Pool's composition see Month End Portfolio Holdings, pages 9 to 13. TIMMI Pool Yield 2.50% 2.27% 2'33% 2.17% }TIMMI 2.53% 2.00% - 1.50% 2.18% 2.01 % 2.09% 2.27% 2.53% 2.52% ■ 2.53% 2.51 % 2.46% 2.30% 2.32% 2.42% 2.35% 2.36% 235% 2.31 % 2.22% 2.13% 2.32% 2.29% 2.18% 2.00% p �� oG��a �oJ �$ Se :\gb \q OeG )a-‘ \q Fe'a �q off( Ppc �q 9 op' 1 �q �\3‘ J\:\q P\o;\q ;\q Sep The Treasurer's Institutional Money Market Index (TIMMI) is a composite index of four AAA rated prime institutional money market funds. Their average yield is compared to the yield of the Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund in the above graph. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 78 7 GOVERNMENT CODE Maximum Authorized S&P/ Remaining % Limit Moody's Maturity COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY Maximum Authorized % Remaining Limit S&P/ Moody's Maturity Actual % 5 YEARS NO LIMIT NA 4 YEARS 15% AA-/Aa3/AA- 2.63% 5 YEARS NO LIMIT NA 5 YEARS 100% NA 7.11% 5 YEARS NO LIMIT NA 3 YEARS 2.50% INVESTMENT <0.01% GRADE 5 YEARS NO LIMIT AAA 5 YEARS 100% NA 58.64% 270 DAYS 40% Al/P1 270 DAYS 40% Al/Pl/F1 10.58% 5 YEARS 30% NA 1 YEAR 25% Combined Al /P 1 /F1 0.00% NA NA NA 4 YEARS 20% AA/Aa/AA 0.00% 40% max, 25% 1 YEARS NO LIMIT NA 45 DAYS in term repo Al/Pl/F1 0.00% over 7 days 92 DAYS 20% NA 60 DAYS 10% NA 0.00% 5 YEARS 30% A 3 YEARS 20% AA/Aa2/AA 2.92% NA NA NA DAILY 1.00% NA 0.06% LIQUIDITY 60 DAYS0) 20% AAA/Aaa DAILY 20% AAA by 2 Of 3 6.05% {2} LIQUIDITY RATINGS AGC. DAILY Max LIQUIDITY $50 million NA NA NA NA NA NA 12.00% NA NA NA Compliance Report Compliance Status: Full Compliance The Treasurer's Pooled Investment Fund was in full compliance with the County of Riverside's Treasurer's State- ment of Investment Policy. The County's Statement of Investment Policy is more restrictive than California Gov- ernment Code 53646. The County's Investment Policy is reviewed annually by the County of Riverside's Over- sight Committee and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Investment Category MUNICIPAL BONDS (MUNI) U.S. TREASURIES LOCAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONS (LAO) FEDERAL AGENCIES COMMERCIAL PAPER (CP) CERTIFICATE & TIME DEPOSITS (NCD & TCD) INT'L BANK FOR RECON- STRUCTION AND DEVEL- OPMENT AND INT'L FI- NANCE CORPORATION REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS (REPO) REVERSE REPOS MEDIUM TERM NOTES (MTNO) CALTRUST SHORT TERM FUND MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUNDS (MMF) LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF) CASH/DEPOSIT ACCOUNT NA 0.00% Money Market Mutual Funds maturity may be interpreted as a weighted average maturity not exceeding 60 days. 2Or must have an investment advisor with no fewer than 5 years experience and with assets under management of $500,000,000 USD. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR THIS COMPLETES THE REPORT REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 53646. 79 8 Month End Porlfolio Holdings CUSIP Descripfion Maturity Coupon Yield Par Book Market Market Unrealized Modified Years To Date To Mat Value Value Price Valve Gain/Loss Duration Maturity Fund: 1 POOL FUND 1060: MMKT ACCTS-A/365-6 FRGXX FIDELITY GOV 10/01/2019 1.955 1.955 169,000,000.00 169,000,000.00 100.000000 169,000,000.00 GOFXX FEDERATED GOV 10/01/2019 1.885 1.885 131,000,000.00 131,000,000.00 100.000000 131,000,000.00 WFFXX WELLS FARGO GOV 10/01/2019 1.901 1.901 77,000,000.00 77,000,000.00 100.000000 77,000,000.00 FGTXX GOLDMAN SACHS GOV 10/01/2019 1.830 1.830 6,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 100.000000 6,000,000.00 1.918 1.918 383,000,000.00 383,000,000.00 100.000000 763,000,000.00 1065: CLTR-A/365.6 CLTR CALTRUST SHT TERM FUND 10/01/2019 2.280 2.268 4,015,944.14 4,023,976.03 100.200000 4,023,976.03 0.00 .003 .003 2.280 2.268 4,015,944.14 4,023,976.03 100.200000 4,023,976.03 0.00 .003 .003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 1080: MGD RATE-A/365-6 CASH BANK OF THE WEST 10/01/2019 2.190 2.190 300,000,000.00 300,000,000.00 100.000000 300,000,000.00 0.00 .003 .003 190 1190 300.000.000.00 300,000.000.00 100.000000 300,000,000.00 0.00 .003 .003 1170: MGD RATE-A/360 CASH PACIFIC PREMIER BANK CASH FIRST REPUBLIC BANK CASH UB MANAGED RATE 1175: LAO-SINKING FND-A/360 LAO US DIST COURTHOUSE 1300: U.S. TREASURY BILL 912796TC3 U.S. TREASURY BILL 912796TE9 U.S. TREASURY BILL 10/01/2019 2.090 10/01/2019 2.200 10/01/2019 2.090 2.090 2.200 2.090 40,000,000.00 300,000,000.00 120,000,000.00 2 460,000,000.00 06/15/2020 2.727 2.727 80,000.00 80,000.00 40,000,000.00 300,000,000.00 120,000,000.00 460,000,000.00 100.000000 100.000000 100.000000 100.00000� 80,000.00 100.000000 80,000.00 40,000,000.00 300,000,000.00 120,000,000.00 460,000,000.00 80,000.00 100.000000 in. 80,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .003 .003 .003 .198 .198 .003 .003 .003 .710 .710 01/23/2020 2.022 2.042 25,000,000.00 24,744,504.86 99.432000 24,858,000.00 113,495.14 .309 .315 02/06/2020 1.951 1.970 25,000,000.00 24,753,415.28 99.363000 24,840,750.00 87,334.72 .346 .353 1.986 2.006 50,000,000.00 49,497,920.14 99.397500 49,698,750.00 200,829.86 .327 .3 1310: U.S. TREASURY BOND 912828U32 U.S. TREASURY BOND 11/15/2019 1.000 2.628 75,000,000.00 73,939,453.13 99.871000 74,903,250.00 963,796.87 .124 .126 9128281V2 U.S. TREASURY BOND 10/31 /2019 1.250 2.606 50,000,000.00 49,449,218.75 99.931000 49,965,500.00 516,281.25 .084 .085 912828F62 U.S. TREASURY BOND 10/31/2019 1.500 2.557 50,000,000.00 49,611,328.13 99.951000 49,975,500.00 364,171.87 .084 .085 912828T59 U.S. TREASURY BOND 10/15/2019 1.000 2.529 45,000,000.00 44,569,335.94 99.958000 44,981,100.00 411,764.06 .041 .041 912828U32 U.S. TREASURY BOND 11/15/2019 1.000 2.534 40,000,000.00 39,565,625.00 99.871000 39,948,400.00 382,775.00 .124 .126 912828U32 U.S. TREASURY BOND 11/15/2019 1.000 2.524 35,000,000.00 34,652,734.38 99.871000 34,954,850.00 302,115.62 .124 .126 912828UL2 U.S. TREASURY BOND 01/31/2020 1.375 2.462 50,000,000.00 49,539,062.50 99.813000 49,906,500.00 367,437.50 .333 .337 912828W63 U.S. TREASURY BOND 03/15/2020 1.625 2.449 15,000,000.00 14,889,257.81 99.887000 14,983,050.00 93,792.19 .452 .458 912828YC8 U.S. TREASURY BOND 08/31 /2021 1.500 1.601 15,000,000.00 14,970,703.13 99.707000 14,956,050.00-14,653.13 1.879 1.921 912828YC8 U.S. TREASURY BOND 08/31/2021 1.500 1.727 15,000,000.00 14,934,960.94 99.707000 14,956,050.00 21,089.06 1.878 1.921 912828YC8 U.S. TREASURY BOND 08/31 /2021 1.500 1.731 15,000,000.00 14,933,789.06 99.707000 14,956,050.00 22,260.94 1.878 1.921 1.218 2.456 405,000,000.00 401,055,468.77 99.873160 404,486,300.00 3,430,831.23 .337 .344 1400: FHLMC-DISC NOTE 313396RP0 FHLMC DISC NTE 1420: FHLMC-Fxd-Q 30/360 3134GTFF5 FHLMC 1YrNc9MoE 01/09/2020 1.860 1.875 40,000,000.00 39,749,530.00 99.486000 39,794,400.00 44,870.00 .271 .277 1.860 1.875 40,000,000.00 39,749,530.00 99.486000 39,794,400.00 44,870.00 .271 .277 04/08/2020 2.460 2.475 25,000,000.00 24,996,250.00 100.140000 25,035,000.00 38,750.00 .514 523 2.460 2.475 25,000,000.00 24,996,250.00 100.140000 25,03.1,000.00 38,750.00 .514.1111 1425:FHLMC-Fxd-S 30/360 3134G8TG4 FHLMC3.5YrNc6MOE 10/11/2019 1.500 1.500 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.981000 14,997,150.00-2,850.00 .030 .030 3134GABZ6 FHLMC3.5YrNc1YrE 02/25/2020 1.250 1.250 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.738000 9,973,800.00-26,200.00 .403 .405 3134GAVF8 FHLMC3.5YrNc1YrE 05/08/2020 1.200 1.200 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.593000 14,938,950.00-61,050.00 .599 .605 3134GAXZ2 FHLMC4YrNc6MoE 11/25/2020 1.370 1.370 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 99.501000 24,875,250.00-124,750.00 1.135 1.156 3134GAYK4 FHLMC4YrNc1YrE 11/30/2020 1.440 1.440 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.578000 9,957,800.00-42,200.00 1.148 1.170 3134GBK35 FHLMC 3YrNc3MOB 09/29/2020 1.800 1.800 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.874000 14,981,100.00-18,900.00 .984 1.000 3137EAEE5 FHLMC2.75Yr 01/17/2020 1.500 1.602 25,000,000.00 24,942,750.00 99.878000 24,969,500.00 26,750.00 .296 .299 3134GBTX0 FHLMC 2.75YrNc2MOB 06/29/2020 1.750 1.780 20,000,000.00 19,983,860.00 99.827000 19,965,400.00-18,460.00 .736 .748 3134G9W37 FHLMC2.5YrNc3MOB 08/10/2020 1.450 2.421 10,000,000.00 9,769,000.00 99.665000 9,966,500.00 197,500.00 .847 .863 3134GSMF9 FHLMC 5YrNc3YrE 05/26/2023 3.000 3.000 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 101.805000 15,270,750.00 270,750.00 3.404 3.655 3I34GSQL2 FHLMC 5YrNc2YrE 06/29/2023 3.100 3.100 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 100.971000 5,048,550.00 48,550.00 3.486 3.748 3134GSB53 FHLMC3YrNc1YrE 10/29/2021 3.100 3.100 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 100.097000 5,004,850.00 4,850.00 1.975 2.082 3I34GSA96 FHLMC3YrNc1YrE 11/15/2021 3.150 3.150 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 100.153000 10,015,300.00 15,300.00 2.017 2.129 3I34GSA96 FHLMC3YrNc1YrE 11/15/2021 3.150 3.150 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 100.153000 5,007,650.00 7,650.00 2.017 2.129 3I34GSA96 FHLMC3YrNc1YrE 11/15/2021 3.150 3.150 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 100.153000 5,007,650.00 7,650.00 2.017 2.129 3I34GSD44 FHLMC3YrNc1YrE 11/26/2021 3.150 3.150 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 100.196000 25,049,000.00 49,000.00 2.047 2.159 3I34GSC45 FHLMC3YrNc1YrE 11/26/2021 3.160 3.160 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 100.201000 10,020,100.00 20,100.00 2.047 2.159 3134GBXV9 FHLMC 1.6YrNclYr 07/13/2020 1.850 2.870 15,000,000.00 14,758,950.00 99.953000 14,992,950.00 234,000.00 .770 .786 3134GTCP6 FHLMC3.5YrNc6M0Q 10/17/2022 2.625 2.625 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 100.025000 25,006,250.00 6,250.00 2.876 3.049 3134GTHV8 FHLMC 5YrNc6MOE 04/22/2024 2.570 2.570 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.037000 15,005,550.00 5,550.00 4.231 4.564 3134GTHH9 FHLMC2.75YrNc9MOE 01/24/2022 2.500 2.500 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 100.196000 5,009,800.00 9,800.00 2.240 2.321 3134GTEB5 FHLMC5YrNc1YrE 04/24/2024 2.625 2.625 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.407000 15,061,050.00 61,050.00 4.230 4.570 3134GTGX5 FHLMC5YrNc1YrE 04/24/2024 2.610 2.610 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.383000 15,057,450.00 57,450.00 4.231 4.570 3134GTGX5 FHLMC5YrNc1YrE 04/24/2024 2.610 2.610 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.383000 15,057,450.00 57,450.00 4.231 4.570 3134GTKG7 FHLMC5YrNc2YrB 05/03/2024 2.600 2.600 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 101.221000 10,122,100.00 122,100.00 4.257 4.595 3134GTSF1 FHLMC3YrNc1YrE 06/10/2022 2.400 2.400 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 100.273000 5,013,650.00 13,650.00 2.576 2.696 3134GTTX1 FHLMC 5YrNc6MOE 06/20/2024 2.250 2.250 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.056000 15,008,400.00 8,400.00 4.429 4.726 3134GM4 FHLMC 1YrNclYrE 07/01/2024 2.125 2.125 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.192000 15,028,800.00 28,800.00 4.475 4.756 3134GM4 FHLMC 1YrNclYrE 07/01/2024 2.125 2.125 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.192000 15,028,800.00 28,800.00 4.475 4.756 3134GTYS6 FHLMC3YrNc1YrE 07/01/2022 2.000 2.000 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.180000 15,027,000.00 27,000.00 2.653 2.753 3134GTYP2 FHLMC2.75YrNc9MOE 04/01/2022 2.000 2.000 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.045000 15,006,750.00 6,750.00 2.417 2.504 3134GM4 FHLMC5YrNc1YrE 07/01/2024 2.125 2.125 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.192000 15,028,800.00 28,800.00 4.475 4.756 3134GTZD8 FHLMC 2YrNc3MoQ 07/08/2021 2.300 2.300 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.003000 15,000,450.00 450.00 1.719 1.773 3134GTXJ7 FHLMC5YrNc1YrE 07/08/2024 2.190 2.190 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 100.140000 50,070,000.00 70,000.00 4.486 4.775 3134GTZP1 FHLMC 1.25YrNc3MoO 10/08/2020 2.150 2.200 20,000,000.00 19,988,080.00 100.001000 20,000,200.00 12,120.00 1.003 1.025 3134GTA37 FHLMC5YrNc1YrE 07/15/2024 2.150 2.150 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.182000 15,027,300.00 27,300.00 4.511 4.795 3134GTA52 FHLMC5YrNc1YrQ 07/15/2024 2.300 2.300 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 100.205000 5,010,250.00 10,250.00 4.492 4.795 3134GTA37 FHLMC5YrNc1YrE 07/15/2024 2.150 2.150 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 100.182000 5,009,100.00 9,100.00 4.511 4.795 3134GTF57 FHLMC 1.25YrNc3MoQ 10/16/2020 2.150 2.150 17,000,000.00 17,000,000.00 100.018000 17,003,060.00 3,060.00 1.018 1.047 3134GTF24 FHLMC 1.5YrNc3MoQ 01/15/2021 2.200 2.214 15,000,000.00 14,997,000.00 100.004000 15,000,600.00 3,600.00 1.261 1.296 3134GTJ20 FHLMC 2YrNc3MOB 07/29/2021 2.300 2.300 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.008000 15,001,200.00 1,200.00 1.776 1.830 3134GTP23 FHLMC 3.9YrNc5MoQ 07/24/2023 2.300 2.300 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 100.058000 1,000,580.00 580.00 3.621 3.816 3134GTW82 FHLMC5YrNc1YrQ 08/07/2024 2.150 2.150 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 99.482000 4,974,100.00-25,900.00 4.571 4.858 3134GTW74 FHLMC 5YrNc6MoQ 08/07/2024 2.300 2.300 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 99.532000 4,976,600.00-23,400.00 4.552 4.858 3134GTW90 FHLMC 3YrNc3MoQ 08/08/2022 2.250 2.250 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 99.724000 24,931,000.00-69,000.00 2.742 2.858 3134GTX65 FHLMC 1.25YrNc3MoQ 11/12/2020 2.060 2.060 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.897000 14,984,550.00-15,450.00 1.090 1.121 3134GT6P3 FHLMC 2YrNc6MoO 09/09/2021 1.880 1.880 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 99.704000 24,926,000.00-74,000.00 1.896 1.945 80 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 9 Month End Portfolio Holdings CUSIP Description Maturity Coupon Yield Par Book Market Market Unrealized Modified Years To Date To Mat Value Value Price Value Gain/Loss Duration Maturity 3134GT5H2 FHLMC 2YrNc6MoO 3134GT6N8 FHLMC 5YrNc6MoQ 3134GT5P4 FHLMC 3YrNC4MoO 09/09/2021 09/12/2024 09/13/2022 1465: FHLMC-STEP%-530/360 3134G7S77 FHLMC 5YrNc6MOB 3134G8KU2 FHLMC 5YrNc6MOB 3134G9JX6 3134G9JW8 3134G9NU7 3134G9UM7 3134G9VA2 3134G9UX3 3134G9XA0 3134G9S40 3134G9R66 3134G9S57 3134G9T23 3134G9U47 3134G95W3 3134G96A0 3134GAEB6 3134GAEG5 3134GADP6 3134GAET7 3134GAKY9 3134GAN B6 3134GAPM0 3134GAPM0 3134GAPA6 3134GAQV9 3134GAQV9 3134GARL0 3134GASF2 3134GASF2 3134GATA2 3134GATB0 3134GATA2 3134GAUA0 3134GAYF5 3134GAYG3 3134GAYR9 3134GAA87 3134GAA87 3134G7S77 3134GBHN5 3134GBKC5 3134GBMP4 3134GBPJ5 3134GBSE3 3134GBSD5 3134GBTD4 3134GBTE2 3134GBYK2 3134GBWD0 3134GBWS7 3134GBYN6 3134G92T3 3134GBZQ8 FHLMC 5YrNc3MOB FHLMC 5YrNc3MOB FHLMC 5YrNc3MOB FHLMC 5YrNc3MOB FHLMC 5YrNc6MOB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc6MoB FHLMC 4YrNc6MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 4YrNc6MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 4.25YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc6MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc6MoB FHLMC 5YrNc6MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc6MoB FHLMC 5YrNc6MoB FHLMC 5YrNc6MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 3.5Yr FHLMC 3YrNc3MoB FHLMC 3YrNc3MoB FHLMC 3YrNc3MoB FHLMC 3YrNc6MoB FHLMC 4YrNc6MoB FHLMC 3YrNc6MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc6MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 3.5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc3MoB FHLMC 5YrNc2MoB 10/29/2020 02/26/2021 06/09/2021 05/25/2021 06/16/2021 06/30/2021 06/30/2021 06/30/2021 07/13/2021 07/27/2020 08/10/2021 08/10/2020 08/10/2021 08/25/2021 08/25/2021 08/25/2021 12/08/2020 08/24/2021 09/13/2021 09/30/2021 09/30/2021 09/30/2021 10/25/2021 10/25/2021 10/27/2020 10/27/2021 10/27/2021 10/28/2021 10/27/2021 10/27/2021 10/27/2021 11/10/2021 10/27/2021 11/30/2021 11/26/2021 12/09/2021 12/09/2021 12/30/2021 12/30/2021 10/29/2020 04/27/2020 04/27/2020 05/22/2020 05/22/2020 02/24/2021 11/24/2020 06/29/2022 06/22/2022 07/05/2022 O1/20/2021 07/27/2022 07/27/2022 08/08/2023 07/27/2022 1.860 2.125 1.860 2.150 2.000 2.000 1.750 1.625 2.000 1.625 1.700 2.000 2.000 1.750 1.500 1.750 1.750 1.625 1.500 1.625 1.750 2.000 1.625 1.625 1.750 1.750 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.400 1.400 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.550 1.500 1.500 1.550 1.750 1.650 1.900 1.900 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 1.900 1.875 1.875 2.050 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.050 2.100 1.500 2.250 1.860 2.125 1.860 2.190 2.000 2.000 1.750 1.625 2.010 1.625 1.700 2.000 2.000 1.750 1.500 1.750 1.750 1.625 1.500 1.625 1.750 2.000 1.625 1.625 1.750 1.750 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.400 1.400 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.550 1.500 1.500 1.550 1.750 1.650 1.900 1.900 2.153 2.000 2.000 2.000 1.900 1.875 1.875 2.050 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.050 2.100 2.399 2.732 1525: FNMA-Fxd-S 30/360 3136G3RL1 FNMA 3.5YrNc6MOB 3136G3WC5 FNMA4YrNc6MOE 3135GOR39 FNMA 3Yr 3136G4GU1 FNMA 3YrNc6MoB 3135GOT60 FNMA 3Yr 3135GOS46 FNMA 2.16Yr2MOB 3135G0A78 FNMA 2Yr 3135G0005 FNMA 2.25Yr 3135GOT78 FNMA 4.83Yr 3135GOT94 FNMA 5Yr 3135GOV42 FNMA 3YrNc6MOB 3135G0U43 FNMA 4.41Yr 1560: FNMA-STEP%-Q 30/360 3136G3SG1 FNMA 4.25YrNc6MoB 12/16/2019 07/13/2020 10/24/2019 11/25/2019 07/30/2020 O1/27/2020 O1/21/2020 03/06/2020 10/05/2022 01/19/2023 04/29/2022 09/12/2023 09/09/2020 1.500 1.350 1.000 1.400 1.500 1.650 1.625 1.750 2.000 2.375 2.650 2.875 2.058 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 768,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 16,500,000.00 20,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 6,705,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 17,000,000.00 14,000,000.00 4,500,000.00 20,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 7,125,000.00 10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 753,830,000.00 1.500 5,000,000.00 1.350 10,000,000.00 1.091 10,000,000.00 1.400 10,000,000.00 1.604 10,000,000.00 1.800 5,000,000.00 1.911 15,000,000.00 1.913 11,082,000.00 2.322 15,000,000.00 2.495 10,000,000.00 2.659 30,000,000.00 2.333 30,000,000.00 2.055-In51,082,000.00 1.750 1.750 15,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 767,439,640.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 14,997,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 16,500,000.00 20,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 6,705,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 17,000,000.00 14,000,000.00 4,500,000.00 20,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 7,108,968.75 10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 4,790,170.00 2,946,600.00 753,547,738.75 5,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 9,973,200.00 10,000,000.00 9,969,700.00 4,983,850.00 14,910,900.00 11,042,326.44 14,782,200.00 9,944,100.00 29,992,500.00 30,670,500.00 161,269,276.44 15,000,000.00 99.994000 99.902000 99.472000 100.016809 99.993000 99.977000 99.769000 99.798000 100.027000 99.815000 99.943000 99.940000 100.009000 99.887000 99.599000 99.817000 99.894000 99.795000 99.757000 99.699000 99.801000 100.013000 99.773000 99.716000 99.892000 99.905000 99.778000 99.778000 99.964000 99.635000 99.635000 99.925000 99.669000 99.669000 99.867000 99.608000 99.867000 99.409000 99.596000 99.966000 100.010000 99.987000 99.987000 99.993000 99.986000 99.931000 100.008000 99.994000 100.027000 100.000000 100.080000 100.032000 100.003000 100.015000 100.016000 100.027000 99.193000 100.023000 99.870037 99.936000 99.564000 99.940000 99.907000 99.728000 99.889000 99.913000 99.940000 101.016000 102.485000 100.047000 104.799000 101.080289 99.805000 24,998,500.00 24,975,500.00 49,736,000.00 768,129,090.00 14,998,950.00 9,997,700.00 14,965,350.00 19,959,600.00 15,004,050.00 14,972,250.00 14,991,450.00 9,994,000.00 15,001,350.00 14,983,050.00 14,939,850.00 14,972,550.00 9,989,400.00 14,969,250.00 9,975,700.00 14,954,850.00 19,960,200.00 20,002,600.00 16,462,545.00 19,943,200.00 14,983,800.00 14,985,750.00 9,977,800.00 6,690,114.90 9,996,400.00 14,945,250.00 14,945,250.00 9,992,500.00 14,950,350.00 14,950,350.00 9,986,700.00 16,933,360.00 13,981,380.00 4,473,405.00 19,919,200.00 9,996,600.00 20,002,000.00 9,998,700.00 9,998,700.00 7,124,501.25 9,998,600.00 19,986,200.00 10,000,800.00 19,998,800.00 15,004,050.00 15,000,000.00 20,016,000.00 15,004,800.00 20,000,600.00 10,001,500.00 20,003,200.00 20,005,400.00 4,959,650.00 3,000,690.00 752,850,296.15 4,996,800.00 9,956,400.00 9,994,000.00 9,990,700.00 9,972,800.00 4,994,450.00 14,986,950.00 11,075,350.80 15,152,400.00 10,248,500.00 30,014,100.00 31,439,700.00 162,822,150.80 14,970,750.00 -1,500.00 -24,500.00 -264,000.00 689,450.00 -1,050.00 -2,300.00 -34,650.00 -40,400.00 7,050.00 -27,750.00 -8,550.00 -6,000.00 1,350.00 -16,950.00 -60,150.00 -27,450.00 -10,600.00 -30,750.00 -24,300.00 -45,150.00 -39,800.00 2,600.00 -37,455.00 -56,800.00 -16,200.00 -14,250.00 -22,200.00 -14,885.10 -3,600.00 -54,750.00 -54,750.00 -7,500.00 -49,650.00 -49,650.00 -13,300.00 -66,640.00 -18,620.00 -26,595.00 -80,800.00 -3,400.00 2,000.00 -1,300.00 -1,300.00 15,532.50 -1,400.00 -13,800.00 800.00 -1,200.00 4,050.00 0.00 16,000.00 4,800.00 600.00 1,500.00 3,200.00 5,400.00 169,480.00 54,090.00 -697,442.60 -3,200.00 -43,600.00 20,800.00 -9,300.00 3,100.00 10,600.00 76,050.00 33,024.36 370,200.00 304,400.00 21,600.00 769,200.00 1,552,874.36 -29,250.00 1.897 1.945 4.670 4.956 2.858 2.956 �IT 1.062 1.382 1.653 1.617 1.672 1.714 1.716 1.711 1.750 .815 1.829 .851 1.826 1.865 1.867 1.867 1.169 1.863 1.915 1.962 1.961 1.963 2.020 2.020 1.058 2.026 2.026 2.032 2.023 2.023 2.025 2.057 2.025 2.114 2.101 2.136 2.133 2.183 2.183 1.061 .566 .566 .634 .634 1.375 1.128 2.645 2.628 2.664 1.282 2.722 2.720 3.706 2.705 .209 .778 .065 .152 .823 .323 .306 .428 2.878 3.142 1.082 1.411 1.693 1.652 1.712 1.751 1.751 1.751 1.786 .825 1.863 .863 1.863 1.904 1.904 1.904 1.192 1.901 1.956 2.003 2.003 2.003 2.071 2.071 1.077 2.077 2.077 2.079 2.077 2.077 2.077 2.115 2.077 2.170 2.159 2.195 2.195 2.252 2.252 1.082 .575 .575 .644 .644 1.405 1.153 2.748 2.729 2.764 1.310 2.825 2.825 3.858 2.825 1.833 .211 .786 .066 .153 .833 .326 .310 .433 3.016 3.307 2.452 2.581 3.716 3.953 1.820mm°4917 .932 .945 000.00 15,00 14,970,750.00-29.250.00 1565: FNMA-STEP%-S 30/360 3136G3DV4 FNMA5YrNc6MOB 03/30/2021 2.000 2.000 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.763000 14,964,450.00-35,550.00 1.475 1.499 3136G3PB5 FNMA5YrNc6MOB 06/09/2021 1.625 1.625 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.915000 14,987,250.00-12,750.00 1.655 1.693 3136G3TG0 FNMA 4YrNc6MoB 06/30/2020 1.750 1.750 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 99.961000 19,992,200.00-7,800.00 .741 .751 3136G3XT7 FNMA5YrNc6MOB 07/27/2021 1.500 1.500 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.572000 14,935,800.00-64,200.00 1.793 1.825 3136G3ZW8 FNMA5YrNc6MoB 07/27/2021 1.750 1.750 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 99.723000 19,944,600.00-55,400.00 1.791 1.825 3136G3Y74 FNMA 4YrNc6MoB 11/24/2020 1.750 1.750 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.935000 14,990,250.00-9,750.00 1.132 1.153 _ dn.' 1.731 1.731 100 000 000.00 100 000 000.00 99.814550 99.814,550.00-185.450.00 1700: FHLB-DISC NOTE 313384SK6 FHLB DISC NTE Ol /29/2020 2.028 2.049 25,000,000.00 24,743,683.33 99.383000 24,845,750.00 102,066.67 .325 .332 313384NK1 FHLB DISC NTE 10/25/2019 2.020 2.026 50,000,000.00 49,856,916.67 99.875000 49,937,500.00 80,583.33 .067 .068 313384MS5 FHLB DISC NTE 10/08/2019 2.030 2.034 50,000,000.00 49,906,958.33 99.963000 49,981,500.00 74,541.67 .021 .022 313384NW5 FHLB DISC NTE 11/05/2019 1.980 1.987 50,000,000.00 49,832,250.00 99.817000 49,908,500.00 76,250.00 .097 .099 313384RH4 FHLB DISC NTE O1/03/2020 1.905 1.915 60,000,000.00 59,679,325.20 99.517000 59,710,200.00 30,874.80 .255 .260 313384RQ4 FHLB DISC NTE O1/10/2020 1.875 1.885 25,000,000.00 24,861,979.17 99.481000 24,870,250.00 8,270.83 .274 .279 81 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 10 Month End Portfolio Holdings CUSIP Descripfion Maturity Coupon Yield Par Book Market Market Unrealized Modified Years To Date To Mat Value Value Price Value Gain/Loss Duration Maturity 1.975 1.983 260,000,000.00 2 72,587.30 .152 .155 1725: FHLB-Fxd-S 30/360 3130A7PV1 FH LB 5Yr 3130A7PU3 FHLB 4Yr 3130ABYZ3 FH LB 2.75YrNc9MOE 3130AC2C7 FH LB 3YrNcl YrE 3130ABZE9 FH LB 3YrNcl YrE 3130ABY34 FH LB 2.5Yr 3130ACBD5 FH LB 2.58YrNc1MOB 313379Q69 FHLB 4.5 Yr 04/05/2021 04/06/2020 05/22/2020 08/28/2020 08/28/2020 05/29/2020 06/29/2020 06/10/2022 3130ADFW7 FH LB 3Yr O1/25/2021 3130A0XD7 FH LB 3Yr 03/12/2021 3130A0XD7 FHLB3Yr 03/12/2021 313378WG2 FHLB4.08Yr 03/11/2022 313382AX1 FHLB 4.9Yr 03/10/2023 3130AE6U9 FH LB 3Yr 05/07/2021 3130AE6U9 FH LB 3Yr 05/07/2021 3130A9M40 FHLB4.17Yr 09/29/2022 3130A8R54 FHLB 4.9YrNc1Mo 07/28/2023 3130AFCU9 FH LB 3YrNc1YrE 11/26/2021 3130A8CK7 FHLB4.5Yr 06/09/2023 3130ADUJ9 FHLB11Mo 03/30/2020 313378WG2 FHLB2.91Yr 03/11/2022 3130AGT70 FHLB 1YrNc3MoB 07/29/2020 3130AGUE3 FHLB 1YrNc3MoQ 08/05/2020 3130AGWF8 FHLB 1YrNc3MoQ 08/14/2020 3130AGWJ0 FHLB 1.08YrNc3MoQ 09/11/2020 3130AGZE8 FHLB 1.4YrNc3MoQ 02/26/2021 3130AH2K8 FHLB 1YrNc3MoQ 09/10/2020 3130AGZ57 FH LB 2.16YrNc2MoB 11/26/2021 3130AH5D1 FHLB 2YrNc6MOB 09/23/2021 3130AGYJ8 FHLB 2.9YrNc5MOB O8/26/2022 1.375 1.390 5,000,000.00 4,996,350.00 99.462000 4,973,100.00 1.200 1.210 10,000,000.00 9,996,000.00 99.677000 9,967,700.00 1.600 1.600 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 99.849000 4,992,450.00 2.000 1.790 10,000,000.00 10,061,000.00 100.162000 10,016,200.00 1.650 1.650 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 99.849000 4,992,450.00 1.613 1.813 10,000,000.00 9,950,500.00 99.853000 9,985,300.00 1.650 1.861 5,350,000.00 5,321,270.50 99.942000 5,346,897.00 2.125 2.182 7,975,000.00 7,955,620.75 101.267000 8,076,043.25 2.200 2.212 15,000,000.00 14,994,900.00 100.551000 15,082,650.00 2.375 2.484 10,000,000.00 9,968,000.00 100.852000 10,085,200.00 2.375 2.489 10,000,000.00 9,966,500.00 100.852000 10,085,200.00 2.500 2.619 10,000,000.00 9,954,700.00 102.060000 10,206,000.00 2.125 2.716 11,750,000.00 11,432,397.50 101.745000 11,955,037.50 2.700 2.725 7,650,000.00 7,644,492.00 101.612000 7,773,318.00 2.700 2.703 10,000,000.00 9,999,100.00 101.612000 10,161,200.00 1.650 2.929 15,730,000.00 14,940,354.00 99.184000 15,601,643.20 1.800 2.965 3,700,000.00 3,504,196.00 99.532000 3,682,684.00 3.125 3.150 10,000,000.00 9,992,900.00 100.161000 10,016,100.00 2.050 3.147 10,000,000.00 9,540,100.00 100.001000 10,000,100.00 2.375 2.429 47,210,000.00 47,186,395.00 100.252000 47,328,969.20 2.500 2.308 30,000,000.00 30,158,100.00 102.060000 30,618,000.00 2.200 2.200 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 99.958000 24,989,500.00 2.200 2.200 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 100.006000 25,001,500.00 2.060 2.060 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 100.004000 25,001,000.00 2.100 2.100 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 100.003000 25,000,750.00 2.050 2.050 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 99.773000 24,943,250.00 2.050 2.060 25,000,000.00 24,997,500.00 100.002000 25,000,500.00 2.125 2.135 25,000,000.00 24,995,000.00 99.954000 24,988,500.00 2.050 2.050 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 100.020000 25,005,000.00 2.000 2.021 25,000,000.00 24,985,000.00 99.978000 24,994,500.00 i .i. 3 474,365,001k 472,540,375.75 10 ai7a,23 475,870,742.15 3) 1765: FHLB-STEP%-S 30/360 3130A9DH1 FHLB5YrNc3MOB 09/30/2021 2.000 2.000 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.004000 15,000,600.00 600.00 1.960 2.003 3130A9DA6 FH LB 5YrNc3MoB 09/30/2021 2.000 2.000 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.999000 14,999,850.00-150.00 1.960 2.003 3130AA2T4 FH LB 5YrNc6MoB 12/09/2021 1.600 1.600 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.821000 9,982,100.00-17,900.00 2.135 2.195 3130AA2T4 FH LB 5YrNc6MoB 12/09/2021 1.600 1.600 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.821000 9,982,100.00-17,900.00 2.135 2.195 3130AA5A2 FH LB 5YrNc1YrB 12/08/2021 1.700 1.700 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.993000 14,998,950.00-1,050.00 2.129 2.192 3130ABQVl FH LB 5YrNc6MoB 07/26/2022 2.000 2.000 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.019000 15,002,850.00 2,850.00 2.722 2.822 3130ABVZ6 FH LB 5YrNc6MoB 02/09/2022 2.000 2.000 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 100.043000 20,008,600.00 8,600.00 2.292 2.364 3130ABZW9 FH LB 5YrNc3MoB O8/24/2022 2.000 2.000 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 100.024000 10,002,400.00 2,400.00 2.799 2.901 3130AC6H2 FH LB 5YrNc3MoB O8/24/2022 2.000 2.000 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.025000 15,003,750.00 3,750.00 2.799 2.901 3130AC4T8 FH LB 5YrNc3MoB O5/24/2022 2.000 2.000 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 100.061000 20,012,200.00 12,200.00 2.558 2.649 3130A9TV3 FH LB 3.4YrNc2MoB 11/08/2021 1.500 2.579 10,000,000.00 9,690,500.00 99.852000 9,985,200.00 294,700.00 2.048 2.110 3130AA5Y0 FHLB 4.16YrNc2M oB 11/25/2022 1.750 2.436 5,100,000.00 4,967,400.00 99.832000 5,091,432.00 124,032.00 3.043 3.156 1.883 1.972 160,100,000.00 159,657,900.00 99.981282 160,070,032.00 412,132.00 431 -23,250.00 1.483 1.515 -28,300.00 .511 .518 -7,550.00 .635 .644 -44,800.00 .904 .912 -7,550.00 .905 .912 34,800.00 .654 .663 25,626.50 .736 .748 120,422.50 2.588 2.696 87,750.00 1.289 1.323 117,200.00 1.415 1.449 118,700.00 1.415 1.449 251,300.00 2.355 2.447 522,640.00 3.290 3.444 128,826.00 1.542 1.603 162,100.00 1.542 1.603 661,289.20 2.893 3.000 178,488.00 3.648 3.827 23,200.00 2.048 2.159 460,000.00 3.494 3.693 142,574.20 .492 .499 459,900.00 2.359 2.447 -10,500.00 .816 .830 1,500.00 .833 .849 1,000.00 .858 .874 750.00 .932 .951 -56,750.00 1.377 1.411 3,000.00 .930 .948 -6,500.00 2.108 2.159 5,000.00 1.931 1.984 9,500.00 2.805 2.907 yyn 1.569 1767: FHLB-Var-M A/360 3130A9FU0 FH LB 4Yr 09/22/2020 2.196 2.196 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 100.124000 10,012,400.00 12,400.00 .973 .981 3130A9FM8 FH LB 4Yr 09/22/2020 2.196 2.196 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.124000 15,018,600.00 18,600.00 .973 .981 3130A9FR7 FH LB 4Yr 09/28/2020 2.194 2.194 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 100.121000 10,012,100.00 12,100.00 .995 .997 3130A9FR7 FHLB 4Yr 09/28/2020 2.194 2.194 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.121000 15,018,150.00 18,150.00 .995 .997 _ 2.195 2.195 00,000.00 50.000.000.00 100.122500 50,061,250.00 61,250.00 .984 .989 1770: FHLB-Var-Q A/360 3130A8N F6 FH LB 3Yr 07/01/2020 2.444 2.444 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 100.196000 25,049,000.00 49,000.00 .745 .753 2.444 2.444 25,000,000.00 = 25,000,000.00 100.196000 'i00.00 1M1 49,000.00 .753 1900: FFCB-DISC NOTE 313312RT9 FFCB DISC NTE O1/13/2020 1.850 1.862 50,000,000.00 49,676,250.00 99.466000 49,733,000.00 56,750.00 .282 .288 1.850 1.862 50,000,000.00 49,676,250.00 99.466000 49,733,000.00 56,750.00 .282 .288 1925:FFCB-Fxd-S 30/360 3133EF5D5 FFCB4YrNc1YrA 04/27/2020 1.420 1.420 7,700,000.00 7,700,000.00 99.770000 7,682,290.00-17,710.00 .567 .575 3133EGSA4 FFCB4YrNc1YrA O8/24/2020 1.320 1.320 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.569000 9,956,900.00-43,100.00 .891 .901 3133EGVK8 FFCB4YrNc1YrA 09/21/2020 1.350 1.350 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.566000 9,956,600.00-43,400.00 .965 .978 3133EGXX8 FFCB4YrNc1YrA 10/13/2020 1.340 1.340 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.551000 14,932,650.00-67,350.00 1.019 1.038 3133EGC94 FFCB4YrNc3MOA 11/02/2020 1.380 1.380 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.266000 9,926,600.00-73,400.00 1.071 1.093 3133EGR49 FFCB4YrNc1YrA 12/07/2020 1.770 1.770 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.978000 9,997,800.00-2,200.00 1.163 1.189 3133EHAJ2 FFCB3YrNc1YrE 02/27/2020 1.710 1.710 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.956000 9,995,600.00-4,400.00 .407 .411 3133EHRK1 FFCB2.5Yr O1/17/2020 1.520 1.520 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.907000 9,990,700.00-9,300.00 .296 .299 3133EHUL5 FFCB 3Yr 08/10/2020 1.550 1.550 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 99.780000 4,989,000.00-11,000.00 .851 .863 3133EHZN6 FFCB 3Yr 03/20/2020 1.450 1.511 20,000,000.00 19,970,400.00 99.826000 19,965,200.00-5,200.00 .467 .471 3133EHJ95 FFCB 3Yr 10/26/2020 1.750 1.760 20,000,000.00 19,994,000.00 99.889000 19,977,800.00-16,200.00 1.050 1.074 3133EHP98 FFCB2Yr 11/06/2019 1.600 1.667 25,000,000.00 24,967,247.50 99.979000 24,994,750.00 27,502.50 .100 .101 3133EH6X6 FFCB 4Yr O1/12/2022 2.200 2.365 10,000,000.00 9,938,000.00 101.149000 10,114,900.00 176,900.00 2.203 2.288 3133EJEM7 FFCB 3Yr 03/O1/2021 2.500 2.501 10,000,000.00 9,999,700.00 100.951000 10,095,100.00 95,400.00 1.384 1.419 3133EJCE7 FFCB2.8Yr 02/12/2021 2.350 2.474 15,000,000.00 14,948,670.00 100.707000 15,106,050.00 157,380.00 1.333 1.373 3133EJKN8 FFCB 5Yr 04/11/2023 2.700 2.721 10,000,000.00 9,990,300.00 103.723000 10,372,300.00 382,000.00 3.304 3.532 3133EJNS4 FFCB 3Yr 05/10/2021 2.700 2.747 10,000,000.00 9,986,600.00 101.426000 10,142,600.00 156,000.00 1.550 1.611 3133EJD48 FFCB 5Yr 10/02/2023 3.050 3.095 10,000,000.00 9,979,300.00 105.591000 10,559,100.00 579,800.00 3.687 4.008 3133EJP52 FFCB44YrNc1YrA 11/O1/2022 3.330 3.330 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 100.114000 5,005,700.00 5,700.00 2.871 3.090 3133EHB85 FFCB 4.4YrA 04/03/2023 2.280 3.166 21,000,000.00 20,237,490.00 99.913000 20,981,730.00 744,240.00 3.299 3.510 3133EJT74 FFCB2.9Yr 11/15/2021 3.050 2.922 10,000,000.00 10,035,700.00 102.872000 10,287,200.00 251,500.00 2.022 2.129 3133EFE86 FFCB4.2YrNc1WKA 03/O1/2023 2.200 3.060 10,000,000.00 9,660,530.00 100.003000 10,000,300.00 339,770.00 3.255 3.419 3133EFX44 FFCB 3.8YrNc1 WKA 10/05/2022 2.050 3.050 10,000,000.00 9,640,870.00 99.760000 9,976,000.00 335,130.00 2.863 3.016 3133EJ3L1 FFCB 1.5Yr 06/24/2020 2.750 2.757 10,000,000.00 9,999,000.00 100.673000 10,067,300.00 68,300.00 .717 .734 3133EKBU9 FFCB 1Yr 02/27/2020 2.520 2.555 10,000,000.00 9,996,600.00 100.277000 10,027,700.00 31,100.00 .405 .411 3133EKRP3 FFCB5YrNc2YrA 06/21/2024 2.220 2.220 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 100.440000 10,044,000.00 44,000.00 4.436 4.729 3133EKTS5 FFCB4.5YrNc3MOA 01/03/2024 2.390 2.390 8,280,000.00 8,280,000.00 100.003000 8,280,248.40 248.40 4.004 4.263 3133EKTUD FFCB 5YrNc3MOA 07/03/2024 2.440 2.440 6,300,000.00 6,300,000.00 100.002000 6,300,126.00 126.00 4.441 4.762 3133EKYR1 FFCB 2.5YrNc3MOA 02/08/2022 2.160 2.160 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 99.719000 24,929,750.00-70,250.00 2.278 2.362 3133EKYL4 FFCB 1.5YrNc3MOA 02/08/2021 2.090 2.090 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 99.857000 24,964,250.00-35,750.00 1.326 1.362 3133EKYL4 FFCB 1.5YrNc3MOA 02/08/2021 2.090 2.090 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 99.857000 24,964,250.00-35,750.00 1.326 1.362 3133EKM45 FFCB 3Yr 09/06/2022 1.500 1.529 14,435,000.00 14,422,874.60 99.678000 14,388,519.30-34,355.30 2.856 2.937 82 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 11 Month End Porlfolio Holdings CUSIP Descripfion Maturity Coupon Yield Par Book Market Market Unrealized Modified Years To Date To Mat Value Value Price Value Gain/Loss Duration Maturity 3133EKM94 FFCB 4YrNc1YrA 09/11/2023 1.900 1.900 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.867000 9,986,700.00 418,959,713.70 -13,300.00 2,912,431.60 3.782 3.951 1.752 1.833 1930: FFCB-Var-M A/360 3133EDXQ0 FFCB 5Yr 3133EDXQ0 FFCB 5Yr 3133EDXQ0 FFCB 5Yr 3133EFT56 FFCB 4Yr 3133EF2Z9 FFCB 4Yr 3133EGCE3 FFCB 5Yr 3133EGCE3 FFCB 5Yr 3133EGYA7 FFCB 3Yr 3133EGZS7 FFCB 3Yr 3133EGF67 FFCB 3Yr 3133EGF67 FFCB 3Yr 3133EG4C6 FFCB 3.9Yr 3133EJDG1 FFCB 5Yr 3133EJJE0 FFCB 3.5Yr 2.027 2.137 417,715,000.00 416,047,282.10 100.297982 10/10/2019 2.119 2.119 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.006000 15,000,900.00 900.00 .027 .027 10/10/2019 2.119 2.119 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 100.006000 25,001,500.00 1,500.00 .027 .027 10/10/2019 2.119 2.412 10,000,000.00 9,997,560.00 100.006000 10,000,600.00 3,040.00 .027 .027 04/01 /2020 2.335 2.335 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 100.082000 25,020,500.00 20,500.00 .501 .504 04/13/2020 2.281 2.281 50,000,000.00 50,000,000.00 100.092000 50,046,000.00 46,000.00 .534 .537 05/25/2021 2.288 2.288 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 100.348000 10,034,800.00 34,800.00 1.640 1.652 05/25/2021 2.288 2.288 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 100.348000 10,034,800.00 34,800.00 1.640 1.652 10/11/2019 2.230 2.230 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.008000 15,001,200.00 1,200.00 .030 .030 10/24/2019 2.217 2.217 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.021000 15,003,150.00 3,150.00 .066 .066 11/14/2019 2.198 2.198 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.035000 15,005,250.00 5,250.00 .122 .123 11/14/2019 2.198 2.198 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.035000 15,005,250.00 5,250.00 .122 .123 O1/18/2022 2.281 1.874 15,000,000.00 15,139,095.00 100.162000 15,024,300.00-114,795.00 2.248 2.304 02/21 /2023 2.116 2.116 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.473000 14,920,950.00-79,050.00 3.290 3.397 10/04/2021 2.107 2.107 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.830000 14,974,500.00-25,500.00 1.967 2.014 2.217 2.205 250,000,000.00 250,136,655.00 100.029480 250,073,700.00-62,955.00 1936: FFCB-Var-SOFR-Q A/360 3133EKT63 FFCB 2Yr 09/24/2021 1.960 1.960 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.020000 15,003,000.00 3,000.00 1.939 1.986 1.960 1.960 15=1,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.020000 15,003,000.00 3,000.00 1.939 1.98g 1950: FMAC-Fxd-S 30/360 3132X0074 FAMCA 2.08Yr 02/03/2020 1.970 1.970 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 99.988000 14,998,200.00-1,800.00 .342 .345 3132X02Y6 FAMCA 1.58Yr 01 /02/2020 2.530 2.530 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 100.126000 20,025,200.00 25,200.00 .254 .258 3132X03B5 FAMCA 4.9Yr 06/30/2023 2.850 2.964 10,000,000.00 9,947,900.00 104.077000 10,407,700.00 459,800.00 3.506 3.751 3132X04F5 FAMCA 2.91 Yr 07/23/2021 2.840 2.864 10,000,000.00 9,993,300.00 101.793000 10,179,300.00 186,000.00 1.747 1.814 31422BBR0 FAMCA 1.16Yr 03/16/2020 2.640 2.640 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 100.299000 15,044,850.00 44,850.00 .454 .460 31422BEP1 FAMCA 1.08Yr 05/29/2020 2.430 2.430 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 100.300000 25,075,000.00 75,000.00 .650 .663 2.499 2.516 95,000,000.00 94,941,200.00 100.768684 95,730,250.00 789,050.00 .915 .955 1965: FMAC-Var-M A/360 3132X0AT8 FAMCA 2.5 Yr 06/02/2020 2.240 1.899 25,000,000.00 25,063,500.00 100.003000 25,000,750.00-62,750.00 .668 .674 3132X0S77 FAMCA 3Yr 04/23/2021 2.068 2.068 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 99.966000 24,991,500.00-8,500.00 1.538 1.564 3132X0U90 FAMCA 3Yr 05/10/2021 2.069 2.069 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 99.911000 9,991,100.00-8,900.00 1.583 1.611 2350: MUNIS-S 30/360 882723A33 TEXAS STATE 10/01/2019 419792JH0 HAWAII STATE 04/O1/2020 76222RUM2 RHODE ISLAND STATE 05/01 /2020 3733845L6 GEORGIA STATE 07/O1/2020 419792N E2 HAWAII STATE 10/O1/2019 419792N F9 HAWAII STATE 10/O1/2020 13063DAC2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/01 /2021 76222RWT5 RHODE ISLAND ST & PROV PLANT 04/01 /2020 76222RWU2 RHODE ISLAND ST & PROV PLANT 04/01 /2021 13063DGA0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/01 /2021 13063DAC2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/01 /2021 13063DAD0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/01 /2022 544351 MM8 CITY OF LOS ANGELES 09/01 /2021 13063DAD0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/01 /2022 13063DAD0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/01 /2022 13063DGA0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/01 /2021 419792YK6 STATE OF HAWAII 01 /01 /2021 419792YL4 STATE OF HAWAII 01 /01 /2022 419792YJ9 STATE OF HAWAII 01 /01 /2020 13063CSQ4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/01 /2020 368079HQ5 GAVILAN CMNTY CLG GO 08/01 /2020 60,063,500.00 99.972250 1.497 1.497 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 100.000000 5,000,000.00 0.00 1.660 1.660 5,055,000.00 5,055,000.00 100.000000 5,055,000.00 0.00 1.625 1.520 2,660,000.00 2,670,719.80 100.403000 2,670,719.80 0.00 3.000 1.370 6,825,000.00 7,254,770.25 106.297000 7,254,770.25 0.00 1.151 1.101 2,250,000.00 2,253,262.50 100.145000 2,253,262.50 0.00 1.370 1.319 2,250,000.00 2,254,320.00 100.192000 2,254,320.00 0.00 2.625 2.011 14,400,000.00 14,688,720.00 102.005000 14,688,720.00 0.00 2.750 2.451 3,065,000.00 3,082,378.55 100.567000 3,082,378.55 0.00 2.750 2.551 3,150,000.00 3,167,766.00 100.564000 3,167,766.00 0.00 2.800 2.799 16,000,000.00 16,000,640.00 100.004000 16,000,640.00 0.00 2.625 2.850 1,795,000.00 1,784,301.80 99.404000 1,784,301.80 0.00 2.367 2.960 1,500,000.00 1,468,800.00 97.920000 1,468,800.00 0.00 4.000 2.919 8,915,000.00 9,200,993.20 103.208000 9,200,993.20 0.00 2.367 3.120 17,695,000.00 17,256,340.95 97.521000 17,256,340.95 0.00 2.367 3.290 25,000,000.00 24,275,250.00 97.101000 24,275,250.00 0.00 2.800 2.680 10,825,000.00 10,852,170.75 100.251000 10,852,170.75 0.00 3.250 2.733 12,745,000.00 12,864,165.75 100.935000 12,864,165.75 0.00 2.770 2.770 3,500,000.00 3,500,000.00 100.000000 3,500,000.00 0.00 2.650 2.650 7,500,000.00 7,500,000.00 100.000000 7,500,000.00 0.00 1.800 2.501 14,830,000.00 14,729,897.50 99.325000 14,729,897.50 0.00 2.470 2.470 1,650,000.00 1,650,000.00 100.000000 1,650,000.00 0.00 2.539 2.583 166,610,000.00 166,509,497.05 99.939678 166,509,497.05 3 0.00 3020: COMMERCIAL PAPER 16677KY80 CHEVRON 11/08/2019 2.440 2.478 100,000,000.00 98,468,222.22 99.778333 99,778,333.33 1,310,111.11 .104 .107 03785EY65 APPLE 11/06/2019 2.510 2.549 25,000,000.00 24,620,013.89 99.790000 24,947,500.00 327,486.11 .099 .101 03785DAF3 APPLE O1/15/2020 2.430 2.470 30,000,000.00 29,518,050.00 99.387556 29,816,266.67 298,216.67 .286 .293 30229BXP7 EXXON MOBIL 10/23/2019 2.200 2.215 25,000,000.00 24,825,833.25 99.871667 24,967,916.67 142,083.42 .062 .063 63763PA90 NATL SEC CLEARING CORP O1/09/2020 2.100 2.124 25,000,000.00 24,721,458.33 99.422222 24,855,555.56 134,097.23 .271 .277 30229BXP7 EXXON MOBIL 10/23/2019 2.190 2.204 25,000,000.00 24,838,791.67 99.871667 24,967,916.67 129,125.00 .062 .063 03785EX90 APPLE 10/09/2019 2.140 2.151 35,000,000.00 34,827,313.89 99.953333 34,983,666.67 156,352.78 .024 .025 93114FX74 WAL-MART STORES INC 10/07/2019 2.150 2.160 15,000,000.00 14,928,333.33 99.965000 14,994,750.00 66,416.67 .019 .019 30229BXH5 EXXON MOBIL 10/17/2019 2.130 2.139 12,600,000.00 12,545,578.50 99.906667 12,588,240.00 42,661.50 .046 .047 63763QXN2 NATL SEC CLEARING CORP 10/22/2019 2.100 2.110 15,000,000.00 14,931,750.00 99.877500 14,981,625.00 49,875.00 .059 .060 63763QX93 NATL SEC CLEARING CORP 10/09/2019 2.100 2.108 25,000,000.00 24,909,583.33 99.953333 24,988,333.33 78,750.00 .024 .025 63763PAD1 NATL SEC CLEARING CORP O1/13/2020 1.950 1.966 50,000,000.00 49,585,625.00 99.399111 49,699,555.56 113,930.56 .282 .288 63763PAF6 NATL SEC CLEARING CORP O1/15/2020 1.950 1.967 25,000,000.00 24,790,104.17 99.387556 24,846,888.89 56,784.72 .287 .293 03785DAQ9 APPLE O1/24/2020 1.980 1.998 55,000,000.00 54,506,925.00 99.335556 54,634,555.56 127,630.56 .311 .318 63763PAF6 NATL SEC CLEARING CORP O1/15/2020 1.950 1.966 35,000,000.00 34,709,937.50 99.387556 34,785,644.44 75,706.94 .287 .293 63763PAQ2 NATL SEC CLEARING CORP O1/24/2020 1.910 1.925 15,000,000.00 14,879,829.17 99.335556 14,900,333.33 20,504.16 .312 .318 16677KZL0 CHEVRON 12/20/2019 1.950 1.962 15,000,000.00 14,907,375.00 99.531111 14,929,666.67 22,291.67 .217 .222 16677JAV8 CHEVRON O1/29/2020 1.950 1.966 33,247,000.00 32,982,270.76 99.310000 33,017,595.70 35,324.94 .325 .332 16677KYL1 CHEVRON 11/20/2019 1.990 1.999 15,000,000.00 14,936,154.17 99.708333 14,956,250.00 20,095.83 .137 .140 30229BY68 EXXON MOBIL 11/06/2019 1.970 1.977 35,000,000.00 34,883,168.06 99.790000 34,926,500.00 43,331.94 .099 .101 63763QYL5 NATL SEC CLEARING CORP 11/20/2019 2.010 2.018 25,000,000.00 24,902,291.67 99.708333 24,927,083.33 24,791.66 .137 .140 16677JA89 CHEVRON O1/08/2020 1.950 1.963 15,000,000.00 14,903,312.50 99.428000 14,914,200.00 10,887.50 .269 .274 63763QYV3 NATL SEC CLEARING CORP 11/29/2019 2.050 2.058 25,000,000.00 24,898,923.61 99.655833 24,913,958.33 15,034.72 161 164 2.12.411& 2.143 675,847,000.00 670,020,845.02 99.626444 673,322,335.71 3,301,490.69 3130: CORP-Fxd-S 30/360 594918BV5 MICROSOFT CORP 02/06/2020 1.850 2.273 6,350,000.00 6,297,739.50 99.952000 6,346,952.00 49,212.50 .349 .353 594918BV5 MICROSOFT CORP 02/06/2020 1.850 2.277 6,000,000.00 5,951,100.00 99.952000 5,997,120.00 46,020.00 .349 .353 594918BG8 MICROSOFT CORP 11/03/2020 2.000 2.543 25,000,000.00 24,649,750.00 100.166000 25,041,500.00 391,750.00 1.063 1.096 594918BV5 MICROSOFT CORP 02/06/2020 1.850 2.354 3,000,000.00 2,971,440.00 99.952000 2,998,560.00 27,120.00 .349 .353 594918BV5 MICROSOFT CORP 02/06/2020 1.850 2.373 4,097,000.00 4,057,013.28 99.952000 4,095,033.44 38,020.16 .349 .353 594918BV5 MICROSOFT CORP 02/06/2020 1.850 2.388 8,000,000.00 7,920,160.00 99.952000 7,996,160.00 76,000.00 .349 .353 594918BV5 MICROSOFT CORP 02/06/2020 1.850 2.414 16,000,000.00 15,832,480.00 99.952000 15,992,320.00 159,840.00 .349 .353 478160852 JOHNSON 8, JOHNSON 03/O1/2021 1.650 2.646 12,000,000.00 11,663,160.00 99.797000 11,975,640.00 312,480.00 1.389 1.419 594918BV5 MICROSOFT CORP 02/06/2020 1.850 2.469 10,000,000.00 9,887,000.00 99.952000 9,995,200.00 108,200.00 .349 .353 .003 .003 .495 .504 .578 .586 .740 .753 .003 .003 .986 1.005 1.450 1.504 .490 .504 1.444 1.504 1.442 1.504 1.444 1.504 2.380 2.504 1.835 1.923 2.378 2.504 2.376 2.504 1.442 1.504 1.217 1.258 2.163 2.258 .251 .255 .492 .504 820 838 1.400 1� 83 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 12 Month End Portfolio Holdings CUSIP Descripfion Maturity Coupon Yield Par Book Market Market Unrealized Modified Years To Date To Mat Value Value Price Value Gain/Loss Duration Maturity 478160852 594918AY0 931142DY6 931142DY6 478160BS2 594918BG8 JOHNSON & JOHNSON MICROSOFT CORP WALMART WALMART JOHNSON &JOHNSON MICROSOFT CORP ETotal Fund 03/01/2021 02/12/2020 10/09/2019 10/09/2019 03/01/2021 11/03/2020 1.650 1.850 1.750 1.750 1.650 2.000 1.815 2.003 2.625 2.691 2.824 2.838 3.149 2.912 2.648 2.132 12,969,000.00 16,880,000.00 25,000,000.00 22,029,000.00 10,295,000.00 10,100,000.00 187,720,000.00 12,617,410.41 16,654,820.80 24,752,750.00 21,812,234.64 9,955,059.10 9,929,41 1.00 184,951,528.73 6,352,364,944.14 6,333,085,946.48 99.797000 99.916000 99.990000 99.990000 99.797000 100.166000 99.969179 12,942,672.93 16,865,820.80 24,997,500.00 22,026,797.10 10,274,101.15 10,1 16,766.00 ,T7,662,143.42 325,262.52 21 1,000.00 244,750.00 214,562.46 319,042.05 187,355.00 2,710,614.69 99.994050 6,351,986,977.01 18,901,030.53 1.389 .365 .024 .024 1.385 1.061 .M97 .6111 1.419 .370 .025 .025 1.419 1.096 1.062 1.103 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 84 13 The Mission Inn, Downtown Riverside. Digital Image. The Mission Inn. http://www.missioninn.com/about-en.html. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR 85 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR CAPITAL MARKETS COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 4080 LEMON STREET, 4TH FLOOR, RIVERSIDE, CA 92502-2205 WWW.COUNTYTREASURER.ORG AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 25, 2019 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Appointment of Underwriters for Commission Financings STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the selection of the following firms to provide underwriting services to the Commission in connection with long-term debt financings for a three-year period, with an option to extend for an additional two one-year periods: a) BofA Securities, Inc. (BofA); b) Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (Goldman Sachs); c) J.P. Morgan Chase (J.P. Morgan); d) Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC (Siebert); and e) Wells Fargo Securities (Wells Fargo); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since approval of the 2009 Measure A, the Commission has periodically conducted procurements for the appointment of investment banking firms primarily to serve as underwriters related to the sale of debt securities. In connection with financings, underwriters may provide advice in the structure and timing of a transaction, rating agency and marketing strategy, disclosure and other matters. However, the underwriter does not assume an advisory or fiduciary responsibility other than as provided for in the bond purchase agreement executed following the sale of the debt securities. The Commission approved the most recent underwriter appointments in April 2015. These underwriters assisted the Commission in the financing of the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project completed in July 2017, and two sales tax revenue bond refinancings in December 2017 and April 2018. At its July meeting, the Commission authorized staff to continue to develop a plan of finance for the 2019-2029 Western County Highway Delivery Plan (Plan) eligible projects that includes, but is not limited to, the issuance of RCTC 91 Express Lanes surplus toll revenue bonds. Further, current low interest rates and market conditions may provide opportunities to refinance the Agenda Item 8 87 RCTC 91 Express Lanes toll revenue debt issued in July 2013, including $177 million of tax-exempt toll revenue bonds and a $421 million Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan. A refinancing of the toll debt related to the RCTC 91 Express Lanes could result in debt service savings, which could be used to fund projects in the State Route 91 corridor, and reduce the Commission's TIFIA loan administrative responsibilities. Since it has been almost five years since the last procurement for underwriting services, staff decided to solicit competitive proposals from investment banking firms to assist the Commission with future financings. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with price and other factors considered. Non -price factors include elements such as qualifications of firm, qualifications of personnel, understanding and approach, and the ability to respond to the Commission's needs for underwriting services for Commission financings as set forth under the terms of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 20-19-015-00. RFP No. 20-19-015-00 was released on September 30, 2019. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted on the Commission's PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission's website. Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 26 firms, 1 of which is located in Riverside County. Through the PlanetBids site, 21 firms downloaded the RFP; 1 of these firms is located in Riverside County. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the October 7 clarification deadline date. Twelve firms — BofA (Los Angeles/New York); Barclays (San Francisco); Citigroup Global Markets (Los Angeles); Drexel Hamilton, LLC (Lincoln/New York); Goldman Sachs (San Francisco); J.P. Morgan (San Francisco); Morgan Stanley (Los Angeles/Austin/New York); RBC Capital Markets (San Francisco/New York); Siebert (Los Angeles); Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (New York); TD Securities (USA) LLC (New York); and Wells Fargo (Los Angeles) — submitted proposals prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on October 16. All firms submitted responsive proposals, except for one firm's proposal, which was deemed non -responsive. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, the 11 firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff. The final rankings are summarized in the following table: Agenda Item 8 88 Firm Ranking BofA Goldman Sachs J.P. Morgan Wells Fargo Siebert Citigroup Global Markets Barclays RBC Capital Markets Morgan Stanley Drexel Hamilton TD Securities 1 2 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of the written proposals and calculated price, the evaluation committee recommends selection of five of the firms (BofA, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Siebert) to serve as senior and/or co -managing underwriters for Commission financings over the next three years with an option to extend for an additional two one-year periods, as these firms earned the highest total evaluation scores under the evaluation criteria terms of the RFP. Three of these firms (BofA, Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan) served as underwriters for prior Commission financings. Purchase agreements with the senior managing underwriter(s) on behalf of the underwriting team will be part of the financing documents associated with each financing. Similar to prior financings, compensation will be negotiated prior to the issuance of any bonds based on the market conditions and consideration of RFP proposed costs and will be paid at the time of issuance of any bonds. Next Steps In connection with the proposals submitted, staff noted various financing features and opportunities recommended by the proposing firms as well as structuring ideas for Commission consideration. Staff will complete its review of these recommendations and ideas in consultation with the Commission's municipal advisor and begin the development of a plan(s) of finance for the refinancing of the RCTC 91 Express Lanes toll revenue debt and/or financing of Plan projects. For each plan of finance that is developed, staff will assign an underwriting team consisting of at least two of the appointed underwriters. In choosing the senior and co -managing underwriters for each plan of finance, staff will round out the underwriting syndicate with firms having complimentary attributes in order to obtain the broadest distribution of bonds to be sold. After the plan(s) of finance have been substantially developed, staff will present them to the Commission for consideration and approvals of the plan and the various financing documents. There is no current fiscal impact as underwriting compensation will be determined and paid in connection with the specific financings. Plans of finance to be approved by the Commission will contain an estimated cost of issuance, which will include underwriting compensation. Agenda Item 8 89 AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 25, 2019 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: County of Riverside Request for Additional Funds for the Salt Creek Trail STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in the additional amount of $594,203 for a total amount of $5,684,203 to fully fund construction of the Salt Creek Trail project; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2014, the Commission approved the Multifunding Call for Projects consisting of federal CMAQ, Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG), and 2009 Measure A Western County Regional Arterial funds. The Salt Creek Trail project was approved for $5,090,000 of CMAQ funds to construct a 4-mile segment in the city of Menifee and a 1-mile segment in the city of Hemet. A Class I bike path and a soft pedestrian path will be constructed along the north side of the Salt Creek flood control channel and along Domenigoni Parkway (Attachment 1). The County of Riverside (County) is the lead agency for the project, which has gone through a lengthy and complex environmental process through the National Environmental Protection Act. The project is located within a major creek requiring extensive biological and cultural studies. The project was originally an 8-mile segment; however, a decision to remove a 3-mile segment was necessary as it would have significantly increased costs for habitat restoration. Coordination efforts with private and public property owners including Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, Caltrans, and the cities of Hemet and Menifee were also undertaken. Approval of design review, maintenance agreements, and permits were required by each of these agencies. In addition, reviews were required by Caltrans Headquarters and the Federal Highway Administration as the trail crosses under Interstate 215 necessitating an encroachment permit exception. The County also worked on securing a public trail easement as a gift with no cost to the County. Agenda Item 9 90 The County recently opened bids on the project, which came in higher than the engineer's estimate. The low bid for the project was $3,849,275. Adding in 10 percent contingency and non -bid items, the total cost of construction is $5,684,203, as summarized in the table below. The County anticipates awarding the contract in December 2019; however, the total project cost exceeds the CMAQ funding previously approved by $594,203. Construction Costs for Salt Creek Trail Project Construction Contract $ 3,849,275 10% Contingency 384,928 Agency Furnished Material 720,000 Construction Management 730,000 Total Construction 5,684,203 CMAQ Funding Approved (5,090,000) Funding Shortfall $ 594,203 The Salt Creek Trail is an important regional active transportation project and will benefit the cities of Hemet and Menifee and nearby communities. This regional trail will provide greenhouse gas and public health benefits. The ultimate length of the trail is planned to be 16 miles, and this first segment will serve as a catalyst for future extensions. Staff recommends increasing CMAQ funds for this project bringing the total of CMAQ funding for the Salt Creek Trail to $5,684,203. Currently, there are sufficient CMAQ funds to cover the $594,203 shortfall without impacting other approved CMAQ projects. Federal CMAQ funds are administered through Caltrans. Therefore, there is no fiscal impact to the Commission's budget. Attachment: Salt Creek Trail Map Agenda Item 9 91 0 1 Mile 16 MILE SALT CREEK TRAIL LEGEND Current Project - environmental document and construction limits Current Project - environmental document only Future Project 92 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 25, 2019 TO: Budget and Implementation Committee FROM: Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Long Range Transportation Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study (LRTS); and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its January 2016 workshop, the Commission approved the Strategic Assessment and recommendations to pursue additional studies to develop a vision for the future of transportation in Riverside County — including the Next Generation Rail Study, Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study, and the development of a Countywide LRTS. In 2017, the Commission approved a contract with VRPA Technologies to prepare the LRTS, which would also serve as input to the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also referred to as Connect SoCal, scheduled to be adopted by SCAG in April 2020 and federally approved in June 2020. The Riverside County LRTS effort provides data and analysis for the Commission to consider as it develops future transportation policies and strategies in addressing growth and demand on the multimodal transportation system over the next 25 years. The LRTS is the Commission's first countywide transportation study and sets the stage for additional discussion and coordination with Riverside County jurisdictions, transit operators, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Western Riverside Council of Governments, Caltrans, SCAG, and other transportation stakeholders. The study reviewed population and employment growth and its impact on the multimodal transportation system, planned projects included in the RTP/SCS, and anticipated available funding sources. The LRTS also incorporates the Commission's adopted 2019-2029 Western Riverside County Highway Delivery plan approved in July 2019. The LRTS is itself not a policy document, but rather a collection of information and analysis that reflects the current and future state of transportation in Riverside County. It is also a snapshot in time; conditions are continually changing and elements of the study may require updating in the future. Agenda Item 10 93 Key LRTS discussion topics/chapters include: • Chapter I. Introduction • Chapter II. Delivering the Promise • Chapter III. Riverside County Profile • Chapter IV. Riverside County Today - Existing Conditions • Chapter V. Riverside County in the Future — Multimodal Transportation System • Chapter VI. Major Projects and Evaluation Assumptions and Methods • Chapter VII. Funding of Roadway and Transit Capital Investment • Chapter VIII. Financial Sources Analysis • Chapter IX. Riverside County Congestion Management Program/Process • Chapter X. Study Update Process The LRTS findings primarily highlight the need for additional funding to implement planned projects for the multimodal system including strategies to reduce congestion. In order to accommodate the growth in population and employment, improvements are needed for all transportation modes in addition to programs that enhance ridesharing, increase rail and transit ridership, and promote active transportation. Building new highway capacity will be challenging as capacity enhancement projects face limited funding opportunities at the state level as competitive programs are geared toward reducing greenhouse gases (AB 32, SB 375) and vehicle miles traveled (SB 743). At the federal level, transportation funding is not expected to increase at levels needed to support transportation demand in Riverside County, and national grant funding opportunities are extremely competitive and do not award grants large enough to build the billions of dollars in capacity needs in Riverside County. Per the LRTS financial analysis, the amount of funding needed to support projects over the next 25 years totals approximately $10 billion for highways and arterials, and just over $3 billion for transit capital for a total unfunded need of $13 billion. Transit operating needs were not specifically examined; however, shortfalls in transit operating funds are expected to continue. It should be noted that SCAG as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for Southern California is mandated to prepare a RTP/SCS in accordance with state and federal statutes. SCAG's Connect SoCal is a six -county regional transportation plan that addresses several requisite elements, such as air quality conformity, land use, multimodal performance measurement, and financial forecasting to name a few. The intention of the LRTS was not to address or duplicate those specific elements conducted by SCAG, as the focus and role of the Commission is to address transportation issues. In comparing the financial assumptions between the LRTS and SCAG's Draft Connect SoCal, the LRTS is conservative and based on current known funding sources. SCAG's financial forecast assumed new funding programs, such as a mileage -based road charge fee and a federal gasoline tax increase. The LRTS will be a living document and updated periodically; it has no current fiscal impact. Future updates to the LRTS may be initiated by several activities including, but not limited to, Agenda Item 10 94 new legislative requirements; policies; planning studies; funding changes; and population, housing, employment growth forecasts. Agenda Item 10 95 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION L 616 of ii= RTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON COMMISSION December 2019 Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study M M MOTT MACDONALD December 2019 Prepared For: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Ph: (951) 787-7141 Fax: (951) 787-7920 Prepared By: VRPQ TECHNOIOG►ES. INC. 4630 W. Jennifer, Suite 105 Fresno, CA 93722 Ph: (559) 271-1200 Fax: (559) 271-1269 In Association With: iteris® c a 97 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ES-2 Framing the Issues ES-2 LRTS Goals and Objectives ES-4 The LRTS and Its Relationship to Other Agencies and Plans ES-4 Summary of Future Transportation Projects ES-8 Funding of Roadway and Transit Capital Investments ES-12 Summary of the LRTS Transportation Strategies ES-13 Chapter I. Introduction 2 Overview of Riverside County and RCTC 2 Key RCTC Partners 6 Study Purpose 9 The Critical Need for Additional Funding 11 What We Have Learned from Riverside County Residents 11 Chapter Preview 14 Chapter II. Delivering the Promise 16 Measure A Western Riverside County 10-Year Delivery Plan 16 Chapter III. Riverside County Profile 20 Future Land Use and Population Characteristics 20 Economic Development 23 Chapter IV. Riverside County Today — Existing (2016) Conditions 67 Existing Land Use and Population Characteristics 67 Travel Market and Mobility Trends 69 Freeways, Highways, and Major Arterials Roadways 76 Transit System 84 Active Transportation 92 Freight and Goods Movement 96 Aviation 104 Mobility Innovations 108 Chapter V. Riverside County in The Future — Multimodal Transportation System 112 Highways and Major Roadways 112 Rail, Transit and Paratransit System and Service Providers' Connectivity, Maintenance, and Operations 136 Transit -Oriented Development/High-Quality Transit Areas 143 Next Generation Rail Study 154 Active Transportation 158 Goods Movement 164 Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management 172 Sustainability Issues 174 Disadvantaged Communities/Environmental Justice Issues 176 December 2019 98 Page I i Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter VI. Major Projects and Evaluation Assumptions and Methods 178 Identification of Projects 178 RTP/SCS Projects 184 Evaluation Assumptions and Methods 184 Chapter VII. Funding of Roadway and Transit Capital Investments 191 Introduction 191 General Assumptions Related to Funding Sources 191 Roadway Project List Analysis 191 Roadway Sources and Uses Summary and Potential Funding Strategies 194 Transit Project List Analysis 194 Transit Sources and Uses Summary and Potential Funding Strategies 195 Chapter VIII. Financial Sources Analysis 199 Existing Major Revenue Sources 199 Federal Programs 199 State Programs 206 Local Programs 210 Measure A 211 Other Potential Revenue and Funding Opportunities 212 Chapter IX. Riverside County Congestion Management Program 217 Introduction 217 State CMP 217 Federal CMP 218 CMP System 219 Transportation Modeling 219 Performance Standards 219 RCTC Conformance and Monitoring Process 223 RCTC Deficiency Plan Process 224 Management Strategies 225 RCTC CIP Program 225 RCTC Conformance and Monitoring 226 SCAG Consistency Review 226 CMP Development, Implementation, and Update Process 226 Chapter X. Study Update Process 228 Advancement of Projects 228 Funding 229 Ongoing Monitoring and Performance -based Planning 230 December 2019 99 Page i Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study APPENDICES Appendix A - Long Range Transportation Study: State Highway and Major Roadway Projects Appendix B - Long Range Transportation Study: Major Transit Projects Appendix C - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Submitted Projects Appendix D - Key Funding Programs LIST OF TABLES Table 1— RCTC Activities and Functions 4 Table 2 — Measure A Revenue for Local Streets and Roads 5 Table 3 — RCTC and Its Partners Key Responsibilities 7 Table 4 — Policy Goals and Objectives 10 Table 5 — How the LRTS Addresses Key Public Engagement Comments 13 Table 6 — SCAG Regional Population and Employment by County, 2040 21 Table 7 — Riverside County Population and Employment, 2040 22 Table 8 —Top Industry Sectors (2015) for Riverside County Compared to SCAG Region 32 Table 9—Top Occupations (2012-2017) for Riverside County MSA 33 Table 10 — Riverside County Population Education Level, 2016 34 Table 11— Real Estate Historical Market Conditions 42 Table 12 — County and Subarea Commute Inflow/Outflow, 2015 45 Table 13 — Major Job Categories and Monthly Earnings Categories by Subarea, 2016 46 Table 14 — Western Riverside County Commute Pattern Data, 2015 48 Table 15 — Coachella Valley Commute Patterns, 2015 49 Table 16 — Palo Verde Valley Commute Patterns, 2015 50 Table 17 — Population Projections by Subarea, 2012-2040 53 Table 18 —Job Projection by Subarea, 2012-2040 53 Table 19 — SCAG Region Employment Growth by City, 2015-2040 54 Table 20 — Plan Area and Demographics 57 Table 21— Plan Area Real Estate Conditions 58 Table 22 — SCAG Regional Population and Employment by County, 2000 - 2015 68 Table 23 — Riverside County Population and Employment, 2016 69 Table 24 — Daily Person Trips 70 Table 25 — AM Peak Period (6-9 AM) Inter -County Auto and Truck Trips 75 Table 26 — AM Peak Period (6-9 AM) Inter -County Auto and Truck Trips 75 Table 27 — First and Last Mile Mobility Plan Pilot Station Locations 86 Table 28—Transit Providers and Service Offerings in Riverside County 88 Table 29 — SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS 2040 Plan: Highest Cost Riverside County Roadway Projects 113 Table 30— Potential Express Lanes Projects 114 Table 31—Transit Ridership Changes 138 Table 32 — Corridor Advantages and Disadvantages 157 December 2019 100 Page I iii Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Table 33 —18 High Priority Grade Separation Projects in Riverside County 168 Table 34 — Project Level Performance Measures — State Highway and Major Roadway Projects 186 Table 35 — Project Level Performance Measures — Major Transit Projects 189 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1— Regional Location 3 Figure 2 — 2019 - 2009 Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan 17 Figure 3 — 2019 - 2029 Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan — Evaluation Process 18 Figure 4 — Population and Employment by SCAG Region, 2018 26 Figure 5 — Population and Employment by SCAG Region, 2018 27 Figure 6 — Riverside County Population Growth by District, 1970 - 2018 29 Figure 7 — Riverside County Population and Job Growth, 1970 - 2018 30 Figure 8 — Subarea Percent of Jobs by Sector 35 Figure 9 — Concentration of Transportation and Warehousing Jobs in Riverside County 37 Figure 10 — Concentration of Transportation and Warehousing Jobs in Riverside County 38 Figure 11— Concentration of Professional, Scientific, Technical Services Job in Riverside County 39 Figure 12 — Concentration of Homes of All Employed Residents in Riverside County 40 Figure 13 — Riverside County Inflow/Outflow, 2015 44 Figure 14 — SCAG Region Employment Change, 2012-2040 52 Figure 15 — Existing and Future Daily Auto Trips in and to/from Riverside County 71 Figure 16 - Existing and Future Daily Auto Trips in and to/from Western Riverside County 72 Figure 17 — Existing and Future Truck Daily Trips in and to/from Riverside County 73 Figure 18 - Existing and Future Truck Daily Trips in and to/from Western Riverside County 74 Figure 19 — Existing, Holiday, Weekend, and Seasonal Traffic Patterns in Riverside County 76 Figure 20 — Existing Highways 80 Figure 21— Corridor System Management Plan Projects 83 Figure 22 — Riverside County Fixed -Route Service Providers and Service Areas 89 Figure 23 — Riverside County Active Transportation Plans 93 Figure 24 — Class I Bikeway 94 Figure 25 - Class II Bikeway 94 Figure 26 - Class III Bikeway 95 Figure 27 - Class IV Bikeway 95 Figure 28 — Riverside County Freight Rail Corridors 97 Figure 29 — Riverside County Major Truck Routes 98 Figure 30 — Riverside County Trucking Corridors and Major Bottlenecks 100 Figure 31— Riverside County Goods Movement Network Showing Intermodal Facilities 101 Figure 32 — Major Commodities Moved by Rail in Riverside County 103 Figure 33 — Major Commodities Moved by Truck in Riverside County 103 Figure 34 — Palm Springs International Airport Location 105 December 2019 101 Page I iv Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Figure 35 — March Air Reserve Base Location 107 Figure 36 — 2040 Plan Future Highway and Potential Express Lanes Projects 115 Figure 37 — Roadway Facility Lane Miles 117 Figure 38 — Baseline 2040 Projects (Western Riverside County) 118 Figure 39 — Baseline 2040 Projects (Eastern Riverside County) 119 Figure 40 — Plan 2040 Projects (Western Riverside County) 120 Figure 41— Plan 2040 Projects (Eastern Riverside County) 121 Figure 42 - Inland Empire East-West Multimodal Corridor 123 Figure 43 - Inland Empire North -South Multimodal Corridor 124 Figure 44 - Incidents 126 Figure 45 — Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled 126 Figure 46 — Plan 2040 Projects 128 Figure 47 — Baseline 2040 PM Peak Period Level of Service 129 Figure 48 — Plan 2040 PM Peak Period Level of Service 130 Figure 49 — Corridors with Level of Service E or F in 2040 131 Figure 50 —Transit-Oriented and Transit Supportive Land Use Policies (Western Riverside County) 144 Figure 51 - Transit -Oriented and Transit -Supportive Land Use Policies (Coachella Valley) 145 Figure 52 — Riverside County Northwest High Quality Transit Areas, 2040 146 Figure 53 — Riverside County Southwest High Quality Transit Areas, 2040 147 Figure 54 — Riverside County Coachella Valley High Quality Transit Areas, 2040 148 Figure 55 — Next Generation Rail Study Task 1 Study Process 154 Figure 56— Existing Regional Rail/Transit Services 155 Figure 57 — Bicycle Network and Areas of Pedestrian Activity (Western Riverside County) 160 Figure 58 — Bicycle Network and Areas of Pedestrian Activity (Coachella Valley) 161 Figure 59 — Riverside County Disadvantaged Communities 169 Figure 60 — Project Locations — Western Riverside County 179 Figure 61— Project Locations — Coachella Valley 180 Figure 62 — Project Locations — Palo Verde Valley 181 Figure 63 — Number of State Highway and Major Roadway Projects by Completion Year 182 Figure 64 — State Highway and Major Roadway Projects Cost by Completion Year 183 Figure 65 — Number of Major Transit Projects by Completion Year 183 Figure 66 — Major Transit Projects Cost by Completion Year 184 Figure 67 — Annual Roadway Capital Project Funding by Source (Thousands) 192 Figure 68 — Annual Roadway Capital Project Funding Sources vs. Roadway Capital Project Uses (Thousands) 193 Figure 69 —Total Cumulative Roadway Capital Project Funding Surplus/Shortfall (Thousands) 193 Figure 70 —Total Roadway Capital Project Funding vs. Total Roadway Capital Projects Uses (Thousands) 194 Figure 71— Annual Transit Capital Project Funding by Source (Thousands) 196 Figure 72 — Annual Transit Capital Project Funding Sources vs. Transit Capital Project Uses (Thousands) 196 Figure 73 —Total Cumulative Transit Capital Project Funding Surplus/Shortfall (Thousands) 197 December 2019 102 Page I v Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Figure 74—Total Transit Capital Project Funding vs. Total Transit Capital Project Uses (Thousands) 197 Figure 75 — 2016 PM Period Level of Service 221 Figure 76 — Plan 2040 PM Period Level of Service 222 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AB Assembly Bill ACV Automated/Connected Vehicle ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic ARB Air Resources Board ATM Advanced Traffic Management ATP Active Transportation Plan AZ Arizona BCI Bicycle Compatibility Index BLOS Bicycle Level of Service BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad BRT Bus Rapid Transit BTA Bicycle Transportation Account BUILD Better Utilizing Investment to Leverage Development CA California Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAV Connected and Automated Vehicles CBD Central Business District (City of Palm Springs) CCP Comprehensive Corridor Plan CDP Census Designated Place CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CETAP Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process CMA Congestion Management Agency CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program CMIA Corridor Mobility Improvement Account CMP Congestion Management Plan CMS Congestion Management System CO Carbon Monoxide CPA Community Planning Area (City of Los Angeles) CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CSMP Corridor System Management Plans CTC California Transportation Commission CV Link Coachella Valley Link CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments DBF Design -Build -Finance DCCM Dynamic Corridor Congestion Management DOF Department of Finance DPR Department of Parks and Recreation EDD Employment Development Department EEM Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation December 2019 103 Page I vi Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study EGPR Environmental Goals and Policy Report FAR Floor Area Ration FAST Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Project FY Fiscal Year GGRF Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System HCM Highway Capacity Manual HDT Heavy Duty Trucks HIOC Hoover Index of Concentration HOT High Occupancy Toll HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HQTA High Quality Transit Areas HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program 1 Interstate ICM Integrated Corridor Management IEN Information Exchange Network IEOC Inland Empire —Orange County IOD Index of Divergence ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program ITS Intelligent Transportation System LA Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LCTOP Low Carbon Transit Operations Program LEHD Longitudinal Employer— Household Dynamics LOS Level of Service LPP Local Partnership Program LRTS Long Range Transportation Study LTF Local Transportation Fund LTS Level of Traffic Stress MaaS Mobility as a Service Map 21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21' Century Act March ARB March Air Reserve Base MD Metropolitan Division MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area MSHCP Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan MUA Mixed -Use Area NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicles NHFN National Highway Freight Network NHPP National Highway Performance Program NHS National Highway System NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration December 2019 104 Page I vii Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study NMTP Non -Motorized Transportation Plan NOx Nitrogen Oxide NSFHP Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects NSFLRP Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects O&M Operation and Maintenance OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OES Occupational Employment Statistics P3 Public -Private Partnerships PBPP Performance Based Planning and Programming PeMS Performance Measurement System PM Particulate Matter Ppb Parts Per Billion PVL Perris Valley Line PVVTA Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency QCEW Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Database RCIP Riverside County Integrated Plan RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission RIITS Regional Integration of Intelligent Transportation Systems RivCOM Riverside County Model RivTAM Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model ROW Right of Way RTA Riverside Transit Agency RTP Recreational Trails Program RTP Regional Transportation Plans RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency SB Senate Bill SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCCP Solutions for Congested Corridors Program SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SGC Strategic Growth Council SHOPP State Highway Operations and Protection Program SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle Sq. Ft. Square Feet SR State Route SR2S Safe Routes to School SRTP Short Range Transit Plan STA State Transit Assistance STBG State Transportation Block Grant Program STIP State Transportation Improvement Program TA Transportation Alternatives TAP Transportation Alternatives Program TAZs Transportation Analysis Zones TCEP Trade Corridor Enhancement Program TDA Transportation Development Act TDM Transportation Demand Management TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act December 2019 105 Page I viii Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (grant program) TMA Transportation Management Agency TNCs Transportation Network Companies TOD Transit -Oriented Development TSM Transportation System Management TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee TZD Toward Zero Deaths UCR University of California, Riverside UP Union Pacific Railroad U.S. United States USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation V/C Volume to Capacity VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled YOE Year of Expenditure WLC World Logistics Center WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments December 2019 106 Page I ix YiRAF REF t R101-IT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Executive Summary 1 Express Toll Lanes Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Executive Summary Framing the Issues Riverside County is the 10th most populous county in the United States (U.S.) at 2.45 million, higher than 15 of the 50 U.S. states. The location of Riverside County and its major subareas are shown in Figure ES-1. Western Riverside County is embedded within the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area and for decades has served as a bedroom community to Orange and Los Angeles counties. Logistics and warehousing distribution centers have been located in the Inland Empire given the proximity to the seaports and availability of land. Western Riverside County has a long-standing goal to become more balanced with respect to jobs and housing. The Coachella Valley in the center of the County and the Palo Verde Valley in the east are more self-contained in terms of daily travel but are subject to spikes in seasonal and weekend travel. Riverside County's population is estimated to grow to 3.2 million by 2040 and planning for this growth will present many challenges and opportunities. This Study will address these overarching challenges along with limited transportation funding resources. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Riverside County. RCTC was created by the state legislature in 1976 and charged with coordinating transportation planning, funding and facilitation of all modes of transportation in Riverside County. The agency is governed by a 34-member Commission that includes a mayor or council member from each of Riverside County's cities, all five members of the Board of Supervisors, and a non- voting appointee of the Governor. Short and long-range transportation planning within Riverside County is a key responsibility of RCTC, including coordination and funding of public mass transit service, approval of capital development projects for public transit and highway projects, and the identification of staging and scheduling of project development and construction relative to programming documents such as the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). RCTC plans and implements transportation and transit improvements, particularly those that affect more than one jurisdiction. The agency also assists local governments with money for local streets and roads and develops plans and programs to improve commuting and goods movement. Policies adopted by RCTC also aim to ensure that all persons have equitable access to transportation. In 1988 the Measure A half -cent sales tax was approved by Riverside County voters, along with a 20- year expenditure plan. RCTC became the agency charged with implementing the mobility improvements. In 2002, voters approved an extension of Measure A until 2039. Measure A funds go back to each of the three geographic areas within Riverside County: Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley, in proportion to the sales taxes they contribute. Each of the three geographic areas has its own transportation program. December 2019 108 Page I ES-2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure ES-1- Regional Location RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION December 2019 109 Page I ES-3 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Beyond Measure A, RCTC also helps allocate state and federal transportation funds in Riverside County. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) administers the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The STIP consists of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds for projects for improvements on the multimodal transportation system. As the regional transportation planning agency, RCTC selects projects proposed for RIP funds. Caltrans selects IIP-funded projects. RCTC and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 work closely in coordinating projects for these fund sources. The CTC approves the STIP during even -numbered years. LRTS Goals and Objectives Riverside County LRTS: Policy Goals and Objectives The LRTS is driven by RCTC's four (4) core goals and underlying objectives for the people of Riverside County and the transportation system upon which they rely. These goals and objectives (Table ES-1) were also included in RCTC's Fiscal Year 2019/20 adopted budget. The LRTS and Its Relationship to Other Agencies and Plans Planning, programming and delivery of transportation projects is achieved in conjunction and in partnership with dozens of other agencies at the federal, state, regional, subregional and local levels. Table ES-2 provides a summary of its key partner agencies and their responsibilities with which RCTC collaborates. Federal Agency Partners Key federal partners include U.S. Department of Transportation and its two principal surface transportation agencies, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Other federal agencies include the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and Amtrak, which operates interstate passenger rail services with support from Caltrans. State Agency Partners The California State Transportation Agency (CaISTA) is a cabinet -level agency focused on addressing all of the state's transportation issues. Of its nine major divisions, two have substantial intersection with RCTC's operations. Caltrans, as the steward and operator of the state highway system, is involved in the implementation of RCTC-led projects on state highways. The CTC programs various state and federal funding on transportation projects, including state highways, rail, transit, and active transportation. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) sets air quality standards and in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), determines conformity between transportation and air quality plans; CARB also funds projects and programs that result in emissions reductions. December 2019 110 Page I ES-4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Utg LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table ES-1— Policy Goals and Objectives QUALITY OF LIFE RCTC is focused on improving life for the people of Riverside County and empowering them to live life at their pace. RCTC empowers the residents of Riverside County to choose how to get safely to Choice where they are going. Environmental Stewardship RCTC protects and preserves the County's environment for our residents. RCTC provides access, equity, and choice in transportation; RCTC is a mobility Mobility partner. RCTC projects are the connection to employment, schools, community nstitutions, Access parks, medical facilities and shopping in the community. RCTC facilitates the funding and delivery of projects that mitigate the impact Goods Movement of increased goods movement flow through Riverside County OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE RCTC is a responsible and conservative steward of taxpayer dollars. State of Good Repair RCTC invests in road safety and maintenance in its residents' neighborhoods. Projects are completed on -time, on -budget; RCTC delivers on its promises as a Promises Fulfilled steward of Riverside County residents' investment. Program and project delivery innovations drive results, savings, and greater Innovation economic opportunities for Riverside County residents. Information RCTC operations are transparent; customers get fast, timely, quality service. CONNECTING THE ECONOMY RCTC is a driver of economic growth in Riverside County. RCTC improves the economy by creating a robust workforce to workplace system; Workforce Mobility RCTC helps move the economy of Riverside County. Since 1976, RCTC has been responsible for connecting our County's economy as the Population Growth County's population has quadrupled from 550,000 to 2.3 million today. RCTC has invested $4 billion in the County's economy thanks to Measure A and future toll revenues, which has a multiplier impact in terms of jobs and economic Economic Impact opportunity throughout Riverside County. RESPONSIBLE PARTNER RCTC partners with local, regional, and state governments to deliver road and transit projects. RCTC invests in local priorities for maintaining streets and roads and fixing Streets and Roads potholes. RCTC is partner with transit operators to provide residents mobility choices, Transit flexibility, intercity and intercounty connectivity, and access. RCTC is a partnerwath agencies within the County to promote active transportation Active Transportation alternatives, including the building of regional trails and bicycle and pedestrian Facilities facilities in accordance with local general master and active transportation plans. Grants RCTC is a steward of state and federal grants to improve our communities. RCTC invests Measure A dollars into projects and programs that benefit local Local Measure AValue communities throughout the County. December 2019 111 Page 1 ES-5 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AA � LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table ES-2 — RCTC and Its Partners Key Responsibilities Riverside County Transportation Commission Federal Agency Partners U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration AMTRAK Federal Railroad Administration State Agency Partners California State Transportation Agency California Department of Transportation California Transportation Commission California Air Resources Board Regional Agency Partners Southern California Association of Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Regional Rail Authority/Metrolink County -Level Partners Imperial Valley Association of Governments Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority San Bernardino County Transportation Authority San Diego Association of Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Subregional Agency Partners Western Riverside Council of Governments Coachella Valley Association of Governments Tribal Governments Local Agency Partners County of Riverside and the 28Incorporated Cities Riverside County's Fixed -Route Transit Operators Legend: Primary Responsibility Secondary or Support Responsibility December 2019 112 Page I ES-6 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Regional Agency Partners As a County Transportation Commission, RCTC represents the Riverside County subregion and assists the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in carrying out its functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). SCAG, in coordination with RCTC, performs studies and develops consensus relative to regional growth forecasts, regional transportation plans, and mobile source components of the air quality plans maintained by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). RCTC also is responsible for submitting projects to SCAG for inclusion in the RTP. Per federal and state regulations, all projects programmed with federal and state funds, including locally funded regionally significant projects, are required to be included in the RTP. SCAG as the MPO is responsible for conducting analysis to enable CARB and the EPA to determine air quality conformity with adopted air plans for the six counties in the SCAG region (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties). As mentioned previously, the SCRRA or Metrolink, is a joint powers authority consisting of five county transportation commissions [Los Angeles (LA Metro), Orange (Orange County Transportation Authority or OCTA), Riverside (RCTC), San Bernardino (San Bernardino County Transportation Authority or SBCTA), and Ventura (Ventura County Transportation Commission or VCTC)]. Metrolink is the premier commuter rail system in Southern California connecting communities on a 536 route -mile network. County -Level Partners RCTC works closely with peer county -level transportation agencies in Southern California, including: ✓ Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG) ✓ Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) ✓ Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) ✓ San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) ✓ San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) ✓ Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) These above intercounty partnerships are especially important because of shared borders and transportation linkages between Riverside County and these counties. Since SANDAG is also a Metropolitan Planning Organization, the relationship with SANDAG may involve SCAG for larger MPO planning purposes. Subregional Agency Partners RCTC works with two primary subregional agencies. The Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) promotes transportation solutions in the most populous western portion of the county. In the Coachella Valley, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is the planning agency coordinating government services in the Coachella Valley. Both subregional agencies promote solutions to the common issues of the local governments and tribes that are its members. Both agencies administer Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs that complement and enhance Measure A projects and programs. CVAG, WRCOG, RCTC, and SCAG coordinate efforts to plan, fund, and implement transportation improvement projects. December 2019 113 Page I ES-7 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Tribal Governments RCTC consults with tribal governments in the development of projects and planning that have the potential to impact tribal lands. There are 11 tribal governments within Riverside County primarily located in Southwest, Central, Coachella Valley and Eastern portions of the county. Local Agency Partners Local agencies include the County of Riverside and 28 incorporated Cities. Each of these local jurisdictions controls their own local streets, which collectively represent most roadway miles in the county. Other key local partner agencies include Riverside County's seven (7) transit operators: ✓ City of Banning Transit ✓ City of Beaumont Transit ✓ City of Riverside Special Transportation Services (Paratransit only) ✓ Corona Cruiser ✓ Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency ✓ Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) ✓ SunLine Transit Agency Summary of Future Transportation Projects A major component of the LRTS is the identification and evaluation of highway, major roadway and transit projects. A total of 130 State highway and major roadway projects and 57 major local and regional transit projects were identified for inclusion in the LRTS due to their size and/or level of regional significance and are also included in Riverside County's submittal to SCAG for the 2020 RTP/SCS update. Potential express lane facilities were analyzed separately in RCTC's Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study (2019). The express lane facilities analyzed in the Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study have been documented in the LRTS, but they are not currently included in the LRTS major projects list or in the list of projects submitted to SCAG for the 2020 RTP/SCS update. Potential major transit corridors were also documented in the LRTS from a separate process, the Next Generation Rail Study (2019). Figure ES-2 through Figure ES-4 show the locations and types of projects included in the list. Projects included in the LRTS were analyzed using a project evaluation process. The purpose was to provide information on the characteristics and benefits of each project. No attempt was made to provide a prioritization of projects since RCTC and local agencies have other processes in place for prioritization. The resulting project lists include a total of $12.3 Billion in capital costs for state highway and major roadway projects and $3.98 Billion in capital costs for major transit projects. The details are included in Appendix A and B. The details and results of the project evaluation process are also included in Appendix A and B. December 2019 114 Page I ES-8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ok. A A, LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure ES-2 - Project Locations — Western Riverside County ki2 — Jurupa Vollrfy or "'a a _a Rivessidie 4) a Co rpm a f • r. Project Categories IM State Highway EN Locar H•rghways 0 Interchange .1U TrartSit War awl Trawl promft are no! Ihi.nopodre t."11.r•Arn ammo we.d.11.• COW.y Mead pow= ovst *e• net Wm. in n blows 113.12..f6 24-2$. 3042. 37..ra so RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 40 • —1_ Cherry vary k.4 alley 02, Ar fc• Eta, Carrycsi cr, V•Afoorna, 421 Darn � 41 O'ft Western Riverside County Nueva North sij.• -rac Neale! Y.104. Veri4 3.3 11 (T7 141 San Jac.olo 9 kr, • • Whrteerar, Satld4 Jam Mt Sao Joann, State Park MOW! ••• Center Carna.,12 Son Betnatdma Nolosnal Fotrst arr.ra it ~tan r ,7) December 2019 115 Page I ES-9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION E oath A 9., LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure ES-3 - Project Locations — Coachella Valley Demi Hot saw North Palm 5r77.9a Sky Vaary To Downtown ` Carth 7a � Vaffey Palm -Di' figs Preserve- 2s IB W ® r_/.. ama r) Ra •"a i M.2B. Pe!m Do.11-21, 28 r D Ls q until Sante %S.) end San Jaonlo Mountains Ketional pmtom Chows Coachella Valley 0II Indio tro tit, c c ' ; therms ettornrood vete,* 111)Arsca 0 Desert Comp l Joshua Tree Nat,onal Park Rerc a Doe Palmas CD-r ara Surorot Project Categories � Slel[3 Highway ® Local Highways n Interchange x Transit Now. Trost Rormer ... net &heron CM e,►m.p au.lo earq n wider Mere 111e011 a,a Corry Traori Pq y. Mit an net thew, .re.P Imo. 1-7. ra-.2-t. zr-xe.aau. 37. rod as 01 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JJ� North 1/RPA TECHNotocre ti r Mr. 116 December 2019 Page I ES-10 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION g -6, 5f� LRTS LONG RANGETRONSPORTATION 87NDY Figure ES-4 - Project Locations — Palo Verde Valley 0 Eagle Mount a in Dom Center Project Categories fi State Highway e! Local Highways CI Interchange I x Transit Wain Most Tranvt prgnis ern apt Vlmmrn un mass nse m bwrii,, reNowrlurnvn cn g. TWO" wa«n nat an net Main an as Lve rs: 1-7. 10. 12-18-21-2E, ]0-]2, 37. ,.d w Palo Verde Midland Cox 14-7 Mesa Verde • Pafa Verde tit glythela E4p, 9 Ease Dlylho , Rrpley 1 Rostra, plir RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION cvMMlssloN NO►th I 141PA maimpanpcx tmc 117 December 2019 Page I ES-11 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study For comparison purposes, it should be noted that the Riverside County Strategic Assessment, completed in 2016, identified $23.4 Billion in capital project costs for all projects, including many of the major LRTS projects and additional smaller projects. Any comparisons between cost estimates for the LRTS major projects and the Strategic Assessment should note that project lists and project cost estimates have changed somewhat between 2016 and 2019. SCAG is the regional agency responsible for planning and programming projects at a regional level in the Southern California area including Riverside County and the Counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and Imperial. Every four years, SCAG prepares RTP/SCS, which incorporates transportation projects considering federal, state, and/or regional funding. SCAG is currently in the process of preparing its 2020 RTP/SCS. Identification of Riverside County transportation projects for inclusion in the 2020 RTP/SCS was ongoing during the time of preparation of the LRTS. Appendix C provides a list of Riverside County transportation projects that were submitted to SCAG for inclusion in its 2020 RTP/SCS. This includes approximately 700 projects with an estimated capital cost of $20.57 Billion. Review of the 2020 RTP/SCS project list resulted in identification of $8.27 Billion in transportation improvements that were not included in the major projects described above. This $8.27 Billion in transportation improvement projects was included in the financial analysis described in the following chapter. Funding of Roadway and Transit Capital Investments As RCTC funding is limited, the LRTS aims to identify the most financially viable strategy for delivery of projects identified in the LRTS State Highway and Major Roadway projects list (Appendix A) and the Major Transit projects list (Appendix B). The LRTS uses detailed estimates of the amount and timing of funding sources and compares them to the amount and timing of funding uses to develop a Sources and Uses model. A complete list of available federal, state, regional, local and other funding programs is provided in Appendix D. Roadway Sources and Uses Summary and Potential Funding Strategies The full cost of a project is assumed to be expended in the year of Project completion (per the LRTS project lists), for projects under $100 million. Because the Roadway project list in this study only accounts for large projects, this analysis includes $7.7 billion in small project costs spread evenly over the analysis period. Figure ES-5 shows the total Roadway capital project funding, total Roadway capital project uses and the estimated total shortfall for the entire analysis period. December 2019 118 Page I ES-12 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Figure ES-5 — Total Roadway Capital Project Funding vs. Total Roadway Capital Projects Uses (Thousands) $10,598,586 $20,566,387 $(9,967,802) Total Roadway Capital Projec* Total Roadway Capital Project Total Roadway Capital Project Funding Uses Funding Surplus/(Shortfall) For the analysis period 2019 through 2045, there is total funding of $10.6 billion compared to total of uses $20.57 billion resulting in a cumulative funding shortfall of $9.97 billion. This shortfall is primarily driven by three (3) large projects from the Roadway Project list: the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) East-West Corridor, the Mid -County Parkway, and the SR- 79 widening. Transit Sources and Uses Summary and Potential Funding Strategies Figure ES-6 shows the total Transit capital project funding, total Transit capital project uses and the estimated total shortfall for the entire analysis period. For the analysis period 2019 through 2045, there is total funding of $847.04 million compared to total uses of $3.98 billion, resulting in a total cumulative funding shortfall of $3.14 billion. Large expenditures relating to major capital project completions in 2040 are the primary drivers of the shortfall. Summary of the LRTS Transportation Strategies Riverside County faces many transportation challenges further discussed in the LRTS. Chapter V provides a complete listing of issues and potential strategies that need to be considered and evaluated to address the long-term transportation demand based on projected growth in population and employment. A synopsis of key strategies included in the LRTS is provided below. All modes of travel will require strategies to ensure mobility, economic growth, and efficient use of funds. The detailed analysis and considerations underlying these strategies are found in the chapters that follow. December 2019 119 Page I ES-13 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Figure ES-6 — Total Transit Capital Project Funding vs. Total Transit Capital Project Uses (Thousands) $847,042 $3,983, 599 r $(3,136,557.40) Total Transit Capital Project Total Transit Capital Project Total Transit Capital Project Funding Uses Funding Surplus/Shortfall Regional Highway/Local Streets Network Connectivity, Maintenance, and Operations Strategies Transportation System Preservation Facing the level of maintenance and operation's needs, RCTC should place a high priority on investing in the maintenance and preservation of the multimodal transportation system by adopting "Fix -it -First" which prioritizes investments in the current infrastructure. Operational Efficiency The key strategies in operational efficiency of existing corridors are 1) Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP), 2) Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) and 3) Express Lanes. Partnering with Caltrans and local agencies will be critical in developing projects and programs to improve the operations of the state highway and roadway systems. RCTC will participate in Caltrans' Management Lanes Feasibility Study, which will provide a connectivity assessment of District 8 managed lanes in Western Riverside and San Bernardino counties and assess and prioritize future additions to the existing managed lanes system. Transportation Safety In 2015 Caltrans released an update to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which includes the following goals: ✓ A 3% per year reduction for the number and rate of fatalities; and ✓ A 1.5% per year reduction for the number and rate of severe injuries. These goals should be considered as a safety performance measure by RCTC. December 2019 120 Page I ES-14 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Mobility Innovations The key strategies in support of mobility innovations to ensure a safe and efficient transportation system for Riverside County are as follows: ✓ Incorporate technology for data gathering and managing traffic. ✓ Supportive of connected and automated vehicle (CAV)-related infrastructure projects. ✓ Engage CAV stakeholders to stay engaged with the industry best practices. ✓ Assess possible changes in agency roles and new skill requirements. Rail, Transit and Paratransit System and Service Providers' Connectivity, Maintenance, and Operations Continue to enhance programs that support rideshare and transfers to transit through incentive programs and the provision of Park and Ride facilities. Continuing to expand these programs and introduce new incentive programs may help to reduce single occupancy vehicle travel. RCTC is currently undertaking a Park and Ride study, which may lead to a more comprehensive strategy for Park and Ride in Riverside County. This study should be reviewed, and the relevant strategies will be included in future updates of the LRTS. Improve passenger convenience by investing in real-time data tools and mobile integration Increased access to transit information through real-time information sharing can help increase predictability and convenience for transit riders. Easy access to accurate, real-time transit information has been shown to result in greater satisfaction with transit, increased perceptions of safety, and increased ridership frequency (Gooze, Watkins, and Borning, 2012). Exploring and integrating with existing tools, and the creation of new tools should be considered. Support increased service coverage in rural disadvantaged areas By increasing coverage, and targeting the most vulnerable areas, there is an opportunity to both increase ridership while supporting economic development among the most vulnerable populations. Implemented thoughtfully, providing public transportation alternatives in rural areas provides the opportunity for positive environmental impacts, improved economic opportunities for rural populations, and overall will provide a more equitable service offering that does not favor urban populations over rural. Establish First and Last Mile partnerships with alternative transit providers Transit agencies are increasingly partnering with Transit Network Companies (TNCs) to increase service offerings. Opportunities exist to partner with TNCs to provide discounted transportation for economically disadvantaged riders, or those within certain geographies, helping to address first -last mile challenges. Facilitate communication among Riverside County's transit agencies to share learning and simplify service and fare structures While each transit service provider in Riverside County faces a unique context, and set of challenges, December 2019 121 Page 1 ES-15 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study RCTC can play a key role in helping to facilitate communication and information sharing between the agencies, to allow for knowledge sharing. RCTC can also help to facilitate discussions around simplifying service and fare structures through coordination between agencies that may ultimately lead to improved service and increased cost efficiencies. Transit -Oriented Development/High-Quality Transit Area Strategies TOD Policy Framework Working with the jurisdictions, SCAG and transit service providers, RCTC can help define place -types for different Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and transit supportive areas, in terms of development intensity, parking requirements, mobility and access design standards at or adjacent to Metrolink stations. In addition, the policy framework can help outline funding priority and conditions for projects that complement or support the building of TOD and transit -supportive projects. Develop a TOD Standards Toolkit In addition to developing a TOD policy, RCTC could update its TOD Policy to assist jurisdictions in getting access to relevant information on building TODs and transit -supportive communities. There are existing regional agencies and transit service providers (such as SCAG and LA Metro) that have TOD toolkits that can be utilized by local jurisdictions to facilitate transit -supportive development Active Transportation Strategies Identify local and countywide networks and prioritize network completion With both ATPs identifying regional and local networks, RCTC can work with WRCOG and CVAG on developing a strategy of ranking each network in terms of countywide importance, level of completion, and other accessibility and equity metrics to prioritize projects, ensuring networks are completed within a desired timeframe, provided funding is available. RCTC can work with jurisdictions to help incentivize projects that not only complete networks but also improve access to transit or facilitate better mobility within desired TOD and transit -supportive districts. Prioritize Safety & Security Traditionally, bicycle facilities have been classified based on physical characteristics of the facility (Class I, II, III, etc.), which often do not take into consideration the immediate context that influences the use of these facilities. Recent studies and efforts have begun to classify bicycle facilities based on the level of comfort or stress of facilities for its users. The metric rates facilities, irrespective of the facility type, on how many types of bicyclists would feel comfortable while riding it. A Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS), a Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI), or a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) type of index could be reviewed by RCTC to ensure regional and local bicycle facilities improve the level of safety along countywide networks. RCTC currently takes into consideration bicycle collision data in the evaluation of SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian projects to ensure key unsafe segments or intersections are prioritized. Pedestrian safety also is a key issue, particularly in order to increase transit ridership. RCTC can develop a strategy based on design and location -based criteria to ensure greater pedestrian safety. As done December 2019 122 Page I ES-16 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study with the safe routes to school program, RCTC can work with jurisdictions to identify safe routes to transit, or other community facilities. Similar to the recommendation to prioritize improvements at locations of bicycle collisions, pedestrian improvements can be prioritized at high collision locations across the county. In addition, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements can be prioritized along key corridors, particularly improving access to transit, and within TOD and transit -supportive districts. Goods Movement Strategies Continue Funding for Grade Separations and Quiet Zones As both freight rail and vehicle traffic congestion increase overtime, grade separation projects and quiet zones are increasingly important in addressing environmental and social health concerns. Continuing to fund these improvements is a key strategy in mitigating negative impacts from goods movement. Collaborate with local governments in disadvantaged communities to understand ways of reducing the impacts of goods movements The disadvantaged communities identified by SCAG are experiencing a disproportionate share of the negative impacts from the goods movement system. Fully understanding the experiences of these communities will be paramount in avoiding further growth in inequity. By working directly with communities, it may be possible to mitigate existing negative experiences while avoiding future environmental justice concerns. Continue to support priority grade separations and advocate for federal support While there has been great progress in reducing at grade crossings in Riverside County, ongoing effort is required to undertake all high priority projects to ensure safety and improve air quality. Continued coordination with railroads and advocacy for federal and State funding will be necessary to complete grade separations priority projects. Transportation system Management/Transportation Demand Management Strategies RCTC, with the support of member agencies can maximize opportunities to implement Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects and strategies in the following ways: ✓ Work with Caltrans and SCAG in promoting planning tools, methodologies, and priorities so that RCTC and member agencies can program TSM and TDM strategies wherever they provide cost- efficient and effective solutions to improve the transportation system. ✓ Ensuring that RCTC and member agencies have access to the latest information regarding TSM and TDM strategies and programs. ✓ Maximizing opportunities to access funding at the federal, state, and regional levels for TSM and TDM projects. December 2019 123 Page I ES-17 Chapter Introduction �1 METR01lNK 2013 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSSON tRTS ' 16.2 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION $TUDY Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter I. Introduction Overview of Riverside County and RCTC Riverside County is the 10th most populous county in the United States (U.S.) at 2.45 million, higher than 15 of the 50 U.S. states. The location of Riverside County and its major subareas are shown in Figure 1. Western Riverside County is embedded within the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area and for decades has served as a bedroom community to Orange and Los Angeles counties. Logistics and warehousing distribution centers have been located in the Inland Empire given the proximity to the seaports and availability of land. Western Riverside County has a long-standing goal to become more balanced with respect to jobs and housing. The Coachella Valley in the center of the County and the Palo Verde Valley in the east are more self- contained in terms of daily travel but are subject to spikes in seasonal and weekend travel. Riverside County's population is estimated to grow to 3.2 million by 2040 and planning for this growth will present many challenges and opportunities. This Study will address these overarching challenges along with limited transportation funding resources. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Riverside County. RCTC was created by the state legislature in 1976 and charged with coordinating transportation planning, funding and facilitation of all modes of transportation in Riverside County. Major RCTC planning activities and functions are listed in Table 1. The agency is governed by a 34-member Commission that includes a mayor or council member from each of Riverside County's cities, all five members of the Board of Supervisors, and a non -voting appointee of the Governor. Short and long-range transportation planning within Riverside County is a key responsibility of RCTC, including coordination and funding of public mass transit service, approval of capital development projects for public transit and highway projects, and the identification of staging and scheduling of project development and construction relative to programming documents such as the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). RCTC plans and implements transportation and transit improvements, particularly those that affect more than one jurisdiction. The agency also assists local governments with money for local streets and roads and develops plans and programs to improve commuting and goods movement. Policies adopted by RCTC also aim to ensure that all persons have equitable access to transportation. In 1988 the Measure A half -cent sales tax was approved by Riverside County voters, along with a 20- year expenditure plan. RCTC became the agency charged with implementing the mobility improvements. In 2002, voters approved an extension of Measure A until 2039. Measure A funds go back to each of the three geographic areas within Riverside County: Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley, in proportion to the sales taxes they contribute. Each of the three geographic areas has its own transportation program. December 2019 125 Page 12 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION H AIN rb Mil Figure 1— Regional Location RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY December 2019 126 Page 13 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION e0,, 5� LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 1— RCTC Activities and Functions Major Roadway Corridors Enhance freeway and expressway capacity Maximize efficiency of freeway system, e.g., via Operation of Express Lanes Provide roadside assistance: Freeway Service Patrol and Roadside Call Boxes Roads Provide funding for local jurisdictions to improve local arterials and roads, including signal coordination Identify and support infrastructure safety programs, e.g., roadway/rail grade separation projects Transit Support Metrolink services and plan Metrolink expansion Support fixed -route bus service Support paratransit Transportation Demand Management/Non-Motorized Transportation Implement ridesharing and other demand management services Provide funding for local jurisdictions to implement and expand bicycle and pedestrian facilities and infrastructure 5ustainability Support economic development and improve jobs/housing balance Support facilities for pedestrians, bicyclist and other low -impact modes Support transit -oriented development Support alternative fuel and other airquality improvement programs December 2019 127 Page 14 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study In addition to major highway projects, over $1 billion from Measure A funds has been used to improve local streets and roads throughout Riverside County. Table 2 shows that between 1990 and 2017 cities and unincorporated county areas received the following Measure A revenues for local streets and roads: Table 2 — Measure A Revenue for Local Streets and Roads Coachella Valley Total Local Streets and Roads Revenues *Revenue in millions Source: RCTC, 2019 $249.8 Beyond Measure A, RCTC also helps allocate state and federal transportation funds in Riverside County. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) administers the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The STIP consists of Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds for projects for improvements on the multimodal transportation system. As the regional transportation planning agency, RCTC selects projects proposed for RIP funds. Caltrans selects IIP-funded projects. RCTC and Caltrans District 8 work closely in coordinating projects for these fund sources. The CTC approves the STIP during even -numbered years. RCTC receives regional arterial funds from the Western Riverside Council of Governments' (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program. TUMF regional arterial funds are used for roadway improvement projects and the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process projects. In Western Riverside County, RCTC augments TUMF funding through the Measure A Regional Arterial (MARA) program for projects to widen existing roads and construct new roads on the regional arterial transportation system. RCTC is a member of a five -county Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) that operates Metrolink. Three Metrolink lines currently serve Riverside County providing connections to Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties. RCTC also functions as the Riverside County Congestion Management Agency. In this capacity, RCTC analyzes the performance level of the regional transportation system in a manner which ensures consideration of the impacts from new development and promotes air quality through implementation of strategies in regional transportation and air quality plans. December 2019 128 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Key RCTC Partners Planning, programming and delivery of transportation projects is achieved in conjunction and in partnership with dozens of other agencies at the federal, state, regional, subregional and local levels. Table 3 provides a summary of its key partner agencies and their responsibilities with which RCTC collaborates. Federal Agency Partners Key federal partners include U.S. Department of Transportation and its two principal surface transportation agencies, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Other federal agencies include the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and Amtrak, which operates interstate passenger rail services with support from Caltrans. State Agency Partners The California State Transportation Agency (CaISTA) is a cabinet -level agency focused on addressing all of the state's transportation issues. Of its nine major divisions two have substantial intersection with RCTC's operations. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as the steward and operator of the state highway system, is involved in the implementation of RCTC-led projects on state highways. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) programs various state and federal funding on transportation projects, including state highways, rail, transit, and active transportation. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) sets air quality standards and in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines conformity between transportation and air quality plans; CARB also funds projects and programs that result in emissions reductions. Regional Agency Partners As a County Transportation Commission, RCTC represents the Riverside County subregion and assists the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in carrying out its functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). SCAG, in coordination with RCTC, performs studies and develops consensus relative to regional growth forecasts, regional transportation plans, and mobile source components of the air quality plans maintained by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. RCTC also is responsible for submitting projects to SCAG for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan. Per federal and state regulations, all projects programmed with federal and state funds, including locally funded regionally significant projects, are required to be included in the RTP. SCAG as the MPO is responsible for conducting analysis to enable CARB and the EPA to determine air quality conformity with adopted air plans for the six counties in the SCAG region (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties). As mentioned previously, the SCRRA or Metrolink, is a joint powers authority consisting of five county transportation commissions (Los Angeles (LA Metro), Orange (OCTA), Riverside (RCTC), San Bernardino (SBCTA), and Ventura (VCTC)). Metrolink is the premier commuter rail system in Southern California connecting communities on a 536 route -mile network. December 2019 129 Page 16 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AA � LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 3 — RCTC and Its Partners Key Responsibilities Riverside County Transportation Commission Federal Agency Partners U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration AMTRAK Federal Railroad Administration State Agency Partners California State Transportation Agency California Department of Transportation California Transportation Commission California Air Resources Board Regional Agency Partners Southern California Association of Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Regional Rail Authority/Metrolink County -Level Partners Imperial Valley Association of Governments Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Orange County Transportation Authority San Bernardino County Transportation Authority San Diego Association of Governments Ventura County Transportation Commission Subregional Agency Partners Western Riverside Council of Governments Coachella Valley Association of Governments Tribal Governments Local Agency Partners u County of Riverside and the 28Incorporated Cities Riverside County's Fixed -Route Transit Operators Legend: Primary Responsibility Secondary or Support Responsibility 130 December 2019 Page 17 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study County -Level Partners RCTC works closely with peer county -level transportation agencies in Southern California, including: ✓ Imperial Valley Association of Governments (IVAG) ✓ Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) ✓ Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) ✓ San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) ✓ San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) ✓ Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) These above intercounty partnerships are especially important because of shared borders and transportation linkages between Riverside County and these counties. Since SANDAG is also a Metropolitan Planning Organization, the relationship with SANDAG may involve SCAG for larger MPO planning purposes. Subregional Agency Partners RCTC works with two primary subregional agencies. The Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) promotes transportation solutions in the most populous western portion of the county. In the Coachella Valley, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is the planning agency coordinating government services in the Coachella Valley. Both Subregional agencies promote solutions to the common issues of the local governments and tribes that are its members. Both agencies administer Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs that complement and enhance Measure A projects and programs. CVAG, WRCOG, RCTC, and SCAG coordinate efforts to plan, fund, and implement transportation improvement projects. Tribal Governments RCTC consults with tribal governments in the development of projects and planning that have the potential to impact tribal lands. There are 11 tribal governments within Riverside County primarily located in Southwest, Central, Coachella Valley and Eastern portions of the county. Local Agency Partners Local agencies include the County of Riverside and 28 incorporated Cities. Each of these local jurisdictions controls their own local streets, which collectively represent most roadway miles in the county. Other key local partner agencies include Riverside County's seven (7) transit operators: ✓ City of Banning Transit ✓ City of Beaumont Transit ✓ City of Riverside Special Transportation Services (Paratransit only) ✓ Corona Cruiser ✓ Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency ✓ Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) ✓ SunLine Transit Agency December 2019 131 Page 18 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Study Purpose The Long Range Transportation Study (LRTS) represents an important step toward strengthening transportation in the region in order to improve mobility, safety, and economic prosperity for Riverside Country residents. The LRTS dovetails with and bridges local plans and SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). It supports the County's economy and quality of life through smart planning, project development and implementation. The Study is multimodal in nature and encompasses all forms of transportation: highways, local roads, transit, rail, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The LRTS aims to: ✓ Develop strategies to address transportation challenges. ✓ Provide a realistic vision of transportation in Riverside County in 2045. ✓ Develop a list of high priority feasible and fundable projects. ✓ Comprise RCTC's input to SCAG's RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal), scheduled to be released in 2020. SCAG's RTP/SCS, is a long-range regional plan covering the six counties within the SCAG region. The Riverside County LRTS focuses only on Riverside County and its Cities. SCAG's RTP/SCS is required to address transportation and related elements such as housing, aviation, air quality conformity, public health, environmental justice, and conservation lands. The LRTS focuses on transportation projects and funding. The Study development process was guided by RCTC staff and incorporates other RCTC led planning efforts including: Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study, Next Generation Rail Study, Regional Logistics Fee Study and review of Short Range Transit Plans. Because the LRTS was occurring in between the 2016 RTP/SCS and upcoming 2020 RTP/SCS information from both cycles were used. RCTC also recently initiated a corridor plan with SBCTA, SCAG, and Caltrans called the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (IE CMCP), which is intended to meet Senate Bill (SB) 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program guidelines in addition to other discretionary funding opportunities. The IE CMCP will analyze and plan for multimodal project improvements along north -south and east -west corridors in Western Riverside and San Bernardino counties and will be more detailed as far as costs, project prioritization, and applied performance measures. Riverside County LRTS: Policy Goals and Objectives The LRTS is driven by RCTC's four (4) core goals and underlying objectives for the people of Riverside County and the transportation system upon which they rely. These goals and objectives (Table 4) were also included in RCTC's Fiscal Year 2019/20 adopted budget. December 2019 132 RNERSEDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 41. LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 4 — Policy Goals and Objectives QUALITY OF LIFE RCTC is focused on improving at their pace. life for the people of Riverside County and empowering them to live life Choice RCTC empowers the residents of Riverside County to choose how to get safely to where they are going. Environmental Stewardship RCTC protects and preserves the County's environment for our residents. Mobility RCTC provi des access, equity, and choice in transportation; RCTC is a mobility partner. RCTC projects are the connection to employment, schools, community i nstitutions, Access parks, medical facilities and shopping in the community. Goods Movement RCTC facilitates the funding and delivery of projects that mitigate the impact of increased goods movement flow through Riverside County OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE RCTC is a responsible and conservative steward of taxpayer dollars. State of Good Repair RCTC invests in road safety and maintenance in its residents' neighborhoods. Promises Fulfilled Projects are completed on -time, on -budget; RCTC delivers on its promises as a steward of Riverside County residents' investment. Innovation Program and project delivery innovations drive results, savings, and greater economic opportunities for Riverside County residents. Information CONNECTING THE ECONOMY RCTC is a driver of economic RCTC operations are transparent; customers get fast, timely, quality service. growth in Riverside County. Workforce Mobility RCTC improves the economy bycreating a robust workforce to workplace system; RCTC helps move the economy of Riverside County. Population Growth Since 1976, RCTC has been responsible for connecting our County's economy as the County's population has quadrupled from 550,000to 2.3 million today. RCTC has invested 54 billion in the County's economy thanks to Measure A and future toll revenues, which has a multiplier impact in terms of jobs and economic Econom ic Impact RESPONSIBLE PARTNER RCTC partners with local, opportunity throughout Riverside County. regional, and state governments to deliver road and transit projects Streets and Roads RCTC invests in local priorities for maintaining streets and roads and fixing potholes. Transit RCTC is a partnerwith transit operators to provide residents mobility choices, flexibility, intercity and intercounty connectivity, and access. Active Transportation Facilities RCTC is a partnerwith agencies within the County to promote active transportation alternatives, including the building of regional trails and bicycle and pedestrian facilities in accordance with local general master and active transportation plans. Grants RCTC is a steward of state and federal grants to improve our communities. Local Measure A Value RCTC invests Measure A dollars into projects and programs that benefit local communities throughout the County. December 2019 133 Page 110 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study The Critical Need for Additional Funding An important subset of the LRTS projects are those projects that are substantially funded by Riverside County's transportation sales tax (Measure A). Since 2006, RCTC has maintained a 10-Year Delivery Plan for the Riverside County Measure A Highway program. This Delivery Plan establishes priorities for the implementation of the renewed Measure A sales tax program, which began collecting sales tax revenue in July 2009 for a 30-year period. RCTC recently updated its 10-Year Measure A Delivery Plan in Western Riverside County. As discussed in more detail in the next chapter, an initial analysis by an ad hoc committee identified substantial funding shortfalls, owing to rapid population and economic growth in Western Riverside County, and concurrent increase in congestion and other transportation challenges that require new investment. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments updates its Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) for Coachella Valley on a regular basis, which also identifies funding shortfalls. This points to a need to evaluate new funding resources in the near term to support future plans and projects to accommodate the growth in population and employment. An augmentation of the current Measure A program is one potential source of additional funding. Riverside County voters have twice demonstrated willingness to support a small increase in sales tax for needed transportation projects. As with past sales tax measures, RCTC and its partners will ensure new revenues generated will fund transportation modes and projects that address transportation need equitably in all parts of Riverside County. Financing mechanisms and continued support of transportation funding increases at the federal and state levels will also play a significant role in order to implement projects and programs to keep up with the pace of the fastest growing county in the SCAG region. What We Have Learned from Riverside County Residents RCTC believes that solving Riverside County's transportation challenges requires listening to the region's residents to ensure that together a better future is created. As RCTC plans for future transportation solutions and transit improvements they look to the residents of Riverside County for feedback and assistance to better understand how people use the region's transportation and transit networks and what their needs are moving forward. RCTC has recently completed two efforts where the agency looked to the public and stakeholders for input. The first was through the Riverside County Strategic Assessment completed in January 2016 and the second was through the recently completed #Reboot My Commute campaign. December 2019 134 Page 111 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Riverside County Strategic Assessment The Riverside County Strategic Assessment identified four categories of strategic actions for RCTC to take: Plan for the Future (including the development of the Long Range Transportation Study); Maximize Our Assets; Increase Funding; and Communicate More by developing a greater public awareness. Public engagement for this effort was completed in the late summer/early fall of 2015 through a random sample telephone poll and a series of five community summits. Summit attendees had a strong focus on environmental awareness, alternative transportation options, and governance/policy issues. Top priorities identified by both engagement activities included roadway maintenance, reducing highway congestion, and improving freeway patrol services. Key needs and desires identified include: ✓ Improved accessibility to public transit including extended hours of service, more routes and improved frequency, better/easier connections, and improved access to schedules and availability information. ✓ Safer sidewalks, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible curb ramps, and first and last mile access including access for Seniors. ✓ Link land use and transportation policies. ✓ Respect the needs of users in improving quality of life. ✓ Ensure better connectivity between rural and urban area. ✓ Maximize capacity through the use of existing infrastructure and information technology. A summarization of results from both engagement activities are documented in the Riverside County Strategic Assessment, which is available on RCTC's website. #Reboot My Commute With the #Reboot My Commute campaign, RCTC acknowledged that the status quo of potholes, congestion, late trains, and delayed transportation improvements must change. RCTC asked stakeholders to join the conversation to say how and where to spend the County's limited transportation dollars to make the biggest impact so that together the future will be better for Riverside County transportation network users. Stakeholders could share their road, bus, train and active transportation experiences, pictures, and videos via text, social media, phone or webpage. Comments were accepted for a 90-day period between March and June of 2019. The campaign provided RCTC with 948 comments which were sorted into seven topics and seven geographical areas. The July 2019 RCTC Commission Agenda (Item 98 #Reboot My Commute Public Engagement Program Summary) provides a more detailed summarization of the comments that RCTC received for #Reboot My Commute engagement activities. December 2019 135 Page 112 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Addressing What We Have Learned with the Long Range Transportation Study As noted above, the LRTS provides a realistic vision for the future of transportation in Riverside County with a multimodal system including highways, roads, public transit, freight, commuter rail lines, truck routes, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Stakeholder needs and their related input will further the LRTS and assist RCTC and their partner agencies to successfully support the County's economy and quality of life with transportation projects that will improve mobility and safety. Table 5 below provides a snapshot of how select comments received from the above engagement efforts will be addressed by the LRTS. Table 5 — How the LRTS Addresses Key Public Engagement Comments BUILDING A BETTER RIVERSIDE TOGETHER Identifying how the LRTS will address what RCTC What We Heard has learned through public engagement How the LRTS Addresses the Concern Riverside County Strategic Assessment Reduce highway congestion Provides strategies for relieving congestion that are multimodal Repair highways and roadways —fix potholes, resurface Positions RCTC to help Caltrans and local agencies obtain state and regional roadway maintenance funding Expand public transit services — rail and bus, extended hours of service, more routes, improve frequency Positions RCTC to coordinate with transit operators to obtain state and federal funding to expand transit Improved safety Provides strategies for roadway safety improvements Respect the needs of the users Identifies improvements that are multimodal providing choices for all users #Reboot My Commute Reduce the need to commute —bring higher paying jobs to Riverside County Supports roadway improvements needed to encourage economic development Offer more incentives to alter commute patterns Positions RCTC and partner agencies to obtain funding for transit incentives, rideshare, and first/last mile options Stop new home construction Provides information on the future of the transportation system so that the County and cities with land use authority can make intelligent decisions regarding future growth Provide more rail and bus options, expand services to neighboring County's Provides strategies to improve rail and bus transportation Limit travel times for big rig vehicles Highlights sources of information on truck travel that will allow goods movement industry to consider new operational strategies December 2019 136 Page 113 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter Preview Chapter II, Delivering the Promise, takes a detailed look at the state of Riverside County and its transportation needs in the next ten years. Chapter III, Riverside County Profile, examines forecasts of future land use and population characteristics and assesses the connection between transportation infrastructure and economic development in Riverside County. Chapter IV, Riverside County Today - Existing (2016) Conditions, details transportations conditions and the factors underlying them. The discussion includes the following topics: ✓ Existing Land Use and Population Characteristics ✓ Travel Market and Mobility Trends ✓ Freeways, Highways, and Major Arterial Roadways ✓ Transit System ✓ Active Transportation ✓ Freight and Goods Movement ✓ Aviation ✓ Mobility Innovations Chapter V, Riverside County in The Future — Multimodal Transportation System, looks at transportation forecasts 20 - 25 years into the future. The chapter reviews the expected growth in travel demand on Riverside County's highways, major arterial roadways and major transit facilities, and examines important transportation issues and strategies affecting policy and investment decisions. Chapter VI, Major Projects and Evaluation Assumptions and Methods, identifies the highway, major roadways and transit projects that respond to the travel demands identified in Chapter V and address the strategies and issues identified in Chapter V. The centerpiece of Chapter VI is a detailed list of projects, their locations, and key characteristics in including their cost. This chapter also describes key assumptions and methodology underlying the financial analysis. Chapter VII, Funding of Roadway and Transit Capital Investment describes the funding and financing of transportation investments identified in Chapter VI. Chapter VIII, Financial Sources Analysis, highlights the amount of funding from current major revenue sources including Measure A sales tax. Since existing funding sources are insufficient, other potential revenue and funding sources are identified to reduce the projected shortfall. Chapter IX, Riverside County Congestion Management Program, describes how RCTC addresses federal Congestion Management Process requirements. Chapter X, Study Update Process, describes the next step in the LRTS Planning process. It also outlines how the LRTS will be updated going forward. December 2019 137 Page 114 Chapter II Delivering the Promise Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter II. Delivering the Promise Riverside County's transportation sales tax initiative, Measure A, was approved by the voters in 2002. Since approval of this sales tax measure, Riverside County residents have enjoyed the benefits of a large number of transportation projects that have been planned, funded, and built throughout the County. This chapter highlights the ongoing need to provide for highway and other transportation improvements over the coming years. Measure A Western Riverside County 10-Year Delivery Plan Since 2006, RCTC has maintained a Ten -Year Delivery Plan for highways in Western Riverside County. This Delivery Plan establishes priorities for the implementation of the renewed Measure A sales tax program, which began collecting sales tax revenue in July 2009 for a 30-year period. The Delivery Plan was recently updated to reflect changes in anticipated sales tax revenue, as well as changes in revenue from other sources, project costs, and the priorities of Riverside County and its Cities. Figure 2 shows a map and description of the proposed highway projects included in the 2019-2029 10- Year Delivery Plan that was approved by RCTC on July 10, 2019. Figure 3 provides a summary of the evaluation of these projects. Prioritization factors included: 1. Consequence of deferring delivery. 2. Deferred projects from the 2009-2019 Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan. 3. Projects that fulfill or enhance projects named in the Measure A Expenditure Plan approved by Riverside County voters. 4. Projects that can realistically attain sufficient funding to achieve completion of a usable segment. 5. Projects with the potential to minimize Measure A contributions, through competitiveness for state or federal grants. 6. Eligibility for "restrictive" funding sources. 7. Projects that provide a positive economic impact to the region. This evaluation process revealed that differentiating projects on objective criteria can be especially challenging given the universal need for additional transportation capacity throughout Western Riverside County. Indeed, every major transportation corridor in the region can benefit from additional investment. Full funding for all Measure A Western Riverside County 10-year Delivery Plan projects will require additional funding in the amount of approximately $5.5 billion. Project funding needs in the Coachella Valley are determined by CVAG under a separate process. Based on the funding shortfall from the Delivery Plan and projects included in the LRTS for the entire county, a potential augmentation of the Measure A sales tax should be further evaluated. December 2019 139 Page 116 RIVERSIDE COLINTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Ef4tti LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 2 — 2019 - 2009 Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan 2019-2029 Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan Eastr* SAN BERN AFIDING CO. IVEASIDE CO. ,ilirlipa Egr- V3� EL1 RI V E RSIOE CO- SAN DIEGO CO, 5 fO Miles Wino no Valley �'urr eta \C Mesa f0: laming Beaumont HNaet yak taw Menefee e Tell e:L• S 1 QA Cnm4.4ad9n '3 EL P Ccvnptecnn 0 1y191 BPen Twee Cew.erla O60 rrucR Lan. © Mkl.C«eaygeWyl. Placentia 215 91 Pac1.1“4 IIP Projwc. 1Wa!lgnment !Ad Crony Parkway: Sowrwy Coaerq u7S EmKaa L.h..Pm}n5wshein En.nsien 0 91 Cba/rWMW Rrvnrde FnP•aaa larw m71014 Inw haraya m 91 Cprrfy. 00/oTakol Reject ®5 EaP•.a. Lana. Pmlan Soosh.ro En.nca. - .ananced [baarina PF1[IAl FtMAING AVAIL/MI ••3• N:n Ca:t Pwrkwq. .�'pht of lVay and ''— rEn Me Cowry Parlarki PiAege2 7S Expraa Lana. Rr..let Su,Nem Eaeard-mo 611215 Rirmrde-Moreno Valey f�ima Laiva 2,5 »c .oec1 �j 1•.wrp 215 Peapa NuewmAlanendm •.=1a EaP'eel I. anew ra Gn11,n Inrerchrga 0.+TT SSW Car my Pa•'. , age* S aMlaeraelee 79 Raal'pemanl 15Cne;der (SR -TUC r ll •a r-255] ® •,It Cerridu Vl:lmaTa Rope, 71 m 241 m 91 C'ar/.apr U.Rimote Ralert 15 to R'e+ca SWIM 1,3 Truck Climbing Lwrw IS Corridor {1-215 ra Cauey line] ]1 wreien.g 0161),neerl+haeaw :15 ukInwe VT, r ©• A.aea m '• . VA Elnenac Corridor errsae.rw: French Venal Parkway Phew 3 Dorkrr Buad Ley Suki Deeq+-Bind Canalru[rkan Ccoonerlm. Co.trucuan CaaeLNetinn EnrR9nmema1/ Dawl+-0uH13n»e' E•Wro•mamal Coon.ruecion Cos-W..1W. E.rlrommamal m Ceawuct4n Phax ROWIEme.Pnment.l DeegJCn+awetirn Dar* &Ad Pima 2 Cdwuerkn EeYranmerwV DeeyN Csmuueckn Ememnmenulw LaWrwriam paAO^IC �w.c� DerWyJCe+woeue+ EAriraunemwl m ComvuecLan EnMimm.ntal to 6 n-rrocrwn Em ntalw Cor-ro c'on pec:0,Rig11 eT Way to Cranalwr Propn Study to RC' L Feadronmemal Enrimemannl RCM Rajecl SP,* RCTC E.rlmnmemal m RCTC Caaaboeek. F vAna medmao RCTC Enriicmmannl m RC1C canwun on Er..dmnn+.ml m RCTC Carwrvlea Em6inmmmml m gCTC CoseVacllun Emnronmennl I RCTC RCTC RCTC RCTC RCM RCTC RCTC RCTC RCM RCM Spom. RCTC RCTC RCTC RCTC RCTC RCTC RCTC LAW DPW. CeuntF Temee�r• Ema oral P COarrtru[MWa Erwlwimpnvl m CANNINMkW. Enr;ronmontalm Constroccion MCI* County Tamoc.. 1 I' Juno 24. 2019 11 RIYERSIOE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North December 2019 140 Page 117 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 3 — 2019 - 2029 Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan — Evaluation Process 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan 2019-2029 RCTC-Sponsored Group 1 and Group 2 Projects Projects Phase Sponsor Cost Available Funding Consequence of deferring delivery Deferred projects from the 2009-2019 Western County Highway Delivery Wan PRIORITIZATION FACTORS Projects that fulfill or enhance projects named in the approved Measure A expendkure plan Projects that can realistically attain su ffid a nt funding to achieve completion of a usable segment Projects with the potential to minimize Measure A contributions Eligibility for "restrict! ve" fun di ng sources Economic benefit to the region due to the constructed traffic improvement Group 1 Fully Funded: Part of The 2319-2029 Delivery Plan COMPLETE 91 ( IP C Umpleliwl Q01LD START Group 2 Group 3 7 S ELP Completion 1S/91. Express Lanes Connector SR-60 Truck Lanes Mid -County Parkway: Placentia Interchange at 1-215 91 Pachappa UP Project: Railroad reali@vnenl Desigo-Build DesiwelRild Degpt-Build Construction Construction Construction ROTC RCTC RCTC ROTC ROTC RCTC $ Ib Milan Sl 36 22 220 123 60 16 Mid County Parkway, 5emeney Lading '71/91 Interchange Construction COnStructi on RCTC ROTC 5 128 • SR-91 Corridor Operations Project (W estband awed is y lane: Green Rimer to 241) Construction RCTC 40 •I-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension (Caj at co to 74); Advanced Operations EISEN:Ness Lanes Project SoudrernI x(enyeun (Cajalco to 79) • 1-15 Express Lanes Project Scut he r n E xi en slot) (C ajal to to 79) Environmental through Construction Environmental Design -Mild phase 1 RCTC ROTC RCTC 26 33 24 ` 91 Downtown Riverside Exix ess lanes Environmental ROTC 22 Group Total $ 757 $ • project (or project phase) fully -funded based on the June FFI Committee Innovative Financing Opportunities staff report recommendations and potential July 2019 Board approval Notec The lune Fri Committee Innovative Fl nand ng Opportunities staff report estimated between $228M and $467M of proceeds available, use of $241M of proceeds are assumed above Partial Funding Lik ely Available: Pori of the 2019.2029 Delivery Plan Mid County Pal kwmy Pi EMI of Way and knvir orone n1 al Mitigation Mid -County Parkway: Package 2 Mid County Parkway 1215 Project, Nuevo to Alessandro I-15 Exptess I ane. Project Southern Fwtension (Cajalco to 74) 6015 fdrvenirJe-IVrur ens voiivy f.KiNes+ lunvs SO/215 River side•Mormio Valley r. xpl ess Lanes 80/21$River side -Moreno Volley r.xpl ess I antis 1-215 Gap Project { I-215 to Fie ncl r Vtr Iley Parr kvrayl 91 Downtownn Riser side Express Lanes Partner Agency Projects Assist with Funding in 2019-2029 ROW/Er mi o nn ent a1 Design/Construction ROTC RCTC 4o 84 Desi grr/Construction RCTC 145 D45i®+-66 Id phase 2construction ROTC 470 Environmental RCTC 38 Group 4 Lake El since e: b isitteilrodd Canyron Interchange {fully f, in dodl RCTIMA! Cajalco Road Corridor Temecula: French Valley Parleuay Phase 7 Not Part of 2019-2029 Delivery Plant RCTC Projects Design/Const ruction Environmental to Construction Desi gn/Const ruction Construction RCTC RCTC ROTC GrouP Total $ Lake Elsinore $ Environmental [0 COnstruCCIOn County Group 5 Mid County Parkway: Packages 3 and thereafter 79 Realignment 1-15 Corridor (SR-74 to 215/15 iatetdhangel SR-9I Corridor Warranty Proiech SR-91 Corridor Ultimate Proj .2035 (EB & WB general purpose lanes:71 to 241) SR-91 Corridor Ultimate Proj.: 2035 (EB & WB general purpose lanes: 1-15 to Pierce) PLO Truck Climbing Lane 1.15 Co I1 trier (215/15 interchange_ to San Diego County line) SR-71 Widening Environmental to Construction Environmental to Construction Design/Rgw to Construction Project study to Environmental Temecula Group Total $ Environmental Environmental Environmental to Construction Project Study to Environmental EtwironmenMI to Construction 10160 Interchange Environmental to Construction 215 Ultimate vicl ening(SO to San Bernardino County line) Environnn en tal to Constmcti on 6u lur qra Valley.fiiverside Pmires, Laney Environmental. Managed Freeway Projects Pilot Project Not Port of 2019-2029Delivery Plan: PartnerAgency Projects 56CTA: 15 Express Lanes RCTLMA;F[hanacCorridor Temecula: French Valley Parkway Phase 3 Environmental to Construction Environmental to Construction Environmental to Construction RCTC RCTC RCTC $ RCTC ROTC RCTC RCTC RCTC RCIC RUC RE..[[ RC[( Group Total $ SBCTA n tin ry f emecula Peni in Tnrat NJA N/A NIA N!G 342 18 197 1,335 36 452 120 608 800 1,300 35 50 25 75 35 100 500 1,000 Sl 50 4,022 $ G On millions 53 757 $125-$525 $36-$100 x nJa (project closeout) x x nJa (project closeout) MEDIUM MEDIUM x x MEDIUM x n/a (railroad constr.) x fa [no lane coast.) MEDIUM x 111Gf i x x x MEDIUM x nJa (no lane COML.) x nJa (no lane const-) x nja [no lane tonsil x x x x nja [nn lane Cans1-1 x x x x HIGH x x HIGH x x X x MEDIUM x nJa (no lane cons I.) 111Gf I x n/a HIGH x x MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM x HIGH MEDIUM nJa (no lane cons[.) n fa (no lane cons I.) nJa (no lane corsl.) nja nJa (no lane cons t.) MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM nja (no lane cons[.) n1a (benefit unknown) nJa (cost unknown) nja (Cost unknown) nJa (cost unknown) December 2019 141 Page 118 RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Chapter III Riverside County Profile - Ji --1 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter III. Riverside County Profile Future Land Use and Population Characteristics This section builds mainly on data used to develop SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS, since there are no other comparably detailed and disaggregated data for the base year (2016) and a horizon year (2040) that is close to the horizon year of the LRTS (2045). Moreover, the transportation modeling for the LRTS is based on SCAG's modeling databases, including land use and economic databases. Data presented includes: ✓ Households and Population data ✓ Employment and Major Industries data ✓ Household and Worker Income data Past growth trends, visitor, seasonal and part-time population, employment and disadvantaged communities are also discussed in this section. Table 6 shows future forecasts of population and employment for Riverside County and other counties in the region and the region as a whole. Riverside County has been and will continue to be the fastest growing county in the region in terms of population. By 2040 Riverside County will have doubled in population compared to 2000 and will have nearly 3.2 million residents. Residential growth has outpaced employment growth. Employment growth is increasing — nearly one in four net new jobs in the SCAG region will be in Riverside County, and the ratio of population to employment is projected to fall from a high of 3.7 in 2010 to 2.7 in 2040. Nonetheless, Riverside County will continue to have a higher ratio of population to jobs compared to the SCAG region as a whole: The region's population to employment ratio was 2.5 in 2010 and is projected to be 2.3 in 2040. This is because residential growth in Riverside County is also expected to be significant: Over one in four new residents added to the SCAG region between 2015 and 2040 will reside in Riverside County. Table 7 shows detailed population and employment data for Riverside County and its three principal geographic subareas for 2040. Comparing Table 6 with Table 7 indicates both areas of continuity and change between 2016 and 2040: ✓ The distribution of households by size is not expected to change. In 2040 as in 2015, 50% of households in Riverside County will be one and two -person households and 35% of households have four or more persons. ✓ The share of persons over 65 will increase, and the share of younger age cohorts will decrease. ✓ Households without a worker will continue to represent 31% of the total; the share of two and three or more worker households will increase slightly. ✓ While both population and K-12 students will increase, the K-12 student share of population will decline. ✓ Median household incomes are projected to decline slightly, controlling for inflation. ✓ The share of single-family dwellings is expected to increase slightly. ✓ The share of low -paying jobs (<$35,000) is expected to increase slightly from 56% to 58%. December 2019 143 Page 120 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ The share of jobs in construction, the professions, and education will increase; shares of jobs in other industries will be stable or declining. able 6 - SCAG Regional Population and Employment by County, 2040 2015 Number % 2040 Number % Difference (2015-2040) Number %, 0 = Q. o a Imperial 18E390 1.0% 282,024 1.3% 99,634 0.3% Los Angeles 10,158,776 54.1% 11,513,435 52.0% 1,354,659 -2.0% Orange 3,157,074 16.8% 3,464,487 15.7% 307,413 -1.2% Riverside 2,316,438 12.3% 3,167,584 14.3% 851,146 2.0% San Bernardino 2,111,258 11.2% 2,731,321 12.3% 620,063 L1% Ventura 853,188 4.5% 965,210 4.4% 112,022 -0.2% SCAG Region 18,799,123 100.0% 22,124,061 100.0% 3,344,938 HIOC* 58.19 55.00 -3.2 c °1 E o E �' Imperial 76,000 0.9% 124,609 1.3% 48,609 0.4% Los Angeles 4,463,010 55.7% 5,225,707 52.9% 762,697 -2.4% Orange 1,633,000 20.4% 1,898,685 19.2% 265,685 -1.1% Riverside 742, 000 9.3% 1,174,500 11.9% 432,500 2 5°r'o San Bernardino 729,000 9.1% 1,028,132 10.4% 299,132 L3% Ventura 363,000 4.5% 419,808 4.3% 56,808 -0.2% SCAG Region 8,006,030 100.0% 9,871,441 100.0% 1,865,411 HIOC* 63.43 59.53 -3.9 1 O D * * 0.052 0.045 -0.007 ° ns ns cc W O. Imperial 2.4 2.3 -0.1 Los Angeles 2.3 2.2 -0.1 Orange 1.9 1.8 -0.1 Riverside 3.1 2.7 -0.4 San Bernardino 2.9 2.7 -0.2 Ventura 2.4 2.3 -0.1 SCAG Region 2.3 2.2 -0.1 Note: *HIOC (Hoover Index of Concentration) measures the distribution of population and employment. If HIOC equals 0, then population and employment are perfectly de -concentrated. If HIOC equals 100, then the county's share in comparison with the entire SCAG region's population or employment would be concentrated to a single county of the SCAG region. However, if the HIOC drops to 0, then each county's share would be equal. **IOD (Index of Divergence) measures the intra- regional segregation of population. Source: CA DOF, CAEDD, SCAG December 2019 144 Page 121 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 7 - Riverside County Population and Employment, 2040 Total Population (Percent of County Western ��Totals 2,455,997 Riverside 77% Coachella 680,156 Valley Palo Verde Totals Valley % Overall Totals County % 21% 47,225 1% 3,183,378 Residential Population 2,425,776 676,758 39,172 3,141,706 Persons Age 5-17 (School Age) 458,369 19% 120,170 1896 8,933 19% 587,472 18% Persons Age 18-24 (College Age) 223,647 9% 58,431 9% 4,594 1096 286,672 9% Persons Age 16-64 (Worki ng Age) 1,479,710 60% 389,696 57% 28,798 61% 1,898,204 60% Persons 65 and over (Retirement Age) 443,890 18% 148,513 22% 8,924 19% 601,327 19% Zero -Worker Households 229,618 29% 90,226 35% 4,574 35% 324,418 31% One -Worker Households 273,291 35% 90,556 35% 4,036 31% 367,883 35% Two-Worke r Hou se h ol ds 201,054 26% 57,065 2296 3,031 23% 261,150 25% Three+Worker Households 82,214 1096 17,627 7% 1,265 1096 Ein,lo6 lo% K-12Students 490,872 2096 99,960 15% 4,723 10% 595,555 19% College Students 138,821 6% 18,044 396 5,899 12% 162,764 5% Median Household Income $55,001 $52,279 $51,791 $54,268 Low Income (435k) HHs 255,861 3396 91,601 36% 4,377 34% 351,839 33% Median: $20,491 $19,676 $21,162 $20,305 Med. Income [$35-75k] HHs 252,148 32% 81,737 32% 4,451 34% 338,336 32% Median: $51,919 $49,903 $54,375 $51,477 High Income [$75-150k] HHs 208,274 26% 60,335 24% 2,925 23% 271,534 26% Median: $98,744 $97,653 $100,263 $98,509 Very High Inc. (a$150k) HHs 69,894 996 21,801 9% 1,153 9% 92,848 9% Median: $190,285 $214,185 $206,849 $196,482 Single Family Dwelling Units 546,180 69% 177,969 7096 8,740 68% 732,889 69% Multi -Family Dwelling Units 239,997 31% 77,505 3096 4,166 326 321,668 31% Total Jobs 866,316 280,537 27,647 1,174,500 Low -wage Jobs (435k) 593,874 69% 194,084 69% 18,790 68% 806,748 69% Med.-wage Jobs (435-75k) 160038 18% 52,095 19% 5,058 1896 217,191 18% High -wage Jobs [ a$75k] 112,404 13% 34,358 12% 3,799 14% 150,561 13% Agricultural & Mininglobs 8,303 1% 6,157 296 274 1% 14,734 1% Construction Jobs 95,836 11% 32,997 12% 3,364 12% 132,197 11% Manufacturing Jobs 38,140 4% 7,849 396 775 3% 46,764 4% Wholesale Jobs 24,229 3% 6,355 2% 589 2% 31,173 3% Retail Jobs 102,046 12% 29,770 11% 2,881 1096 134,697 11% Transport Warehouse, Utilities 35,598 4% 10,611 4% 943 3% 47,152 4% Information Jobs 13,596 2% 5,292 2% 437 2% 19,325 2% FIRE Jobs 28,532 3% 9,840 4% 944 3% 39,316 3% Professional Jobs 101,228 12% 34,655 12% 3,257 12% 139,140 12% Education Jobs 238,806 28% 74,945 27% 7,711 28% 321,462 27% Arts & Entertain mentJobs 104,441 12% 39,192 14% 3,492 13% 147,125 13% Other Service Jobs 44,994 5% 14,828 5% 1,515 5% 61,337 5% Public Administration Jobs 30,567 4% 8,046 3% 1,465 5% 40,078 396 Workers Paying for Parking 9,716 1% 0 0 14,567 1% Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS December 2019 145 Page 122 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Economic Development This section assesses the connection between transportation infrastructure and economic development in Riverside County. It first provides a summary of the pertinent economic development issues and strategies. Next, it describes the important connection between transportation infrastructure and development/growth. It then provides an overview of the County's economy and the geography of jobs, followed by a description of commute patterns associated with the current set of jobs and workers. SCAG RTP forecasts of Riverside County through 2040 are also described. Finally, this section highlights some of the key opportunities and challenges for Riverside County as it looks to spur new economic development in a broad set of industries, improve the job -housing balance, enhance quality of life, reduce congestion and commute times, and increase the use of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel.l Land Use, Transportation, and Economic Development There is a dynamic connection between economic conditions, land use/development, and transportation infrastructure. Past transportation investments have played a fundamental role in the evolution of Riverside County and the locations of its jobs, households, and development. These transportation infrastructure investments have connected different areas of Riverside County, while also providing connections to the broader Southern California region and beyond. Past and current phases of growth, including the acceleration of single-family residential development starting in the mid-1980's and the more recent logistics and distribution boom, were enabled by broader regional economic growth (e.g. growth in port activity) and past transportation infrastructure investments in the County and the region. At the same time, this growth put new pressure on the County's transportation infrastructure spurring new investments to accommodate this demand. Future transportation investments in the County must respond to the needs of recent and new development, while also responding to emerging trends and changes, as well as broader County goals, such as economic development, jobs -housing balance, and community quality of life, among others. For such a large County with numerous jurisdictions, multiple focal points of economic activity and living, and an economy so inter -connected with the large regional/State economy, the demands for transportation investment are large and multi -dimensional. For this assessment, the term "economic development" is used broadly to refer to the potential role of transportation investments in supporting County growth in employment, population, income, real estate investment and other economic activity. Investments in automobile, transit, rail, bike and pedestrian infrastructure can enhance the competitive position of a neighborhood, community, or the broader region by increasing economic connectivity and integration. Transportation infrastructure can also send a positive market signal about the long-term comparative 1 In addition to data from the U.S. Census, the California Departments of Finance and Economic Development, and forecasts by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), this section seeks to incorporate the insights of the UC Riverside Center for Economic Forecasting and Development and Dr. John Husing's Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report. December 2019 146 Page 123 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study advantage and public commitment to a particular area/location. At the same time, the economic benefits of different transportation investments can vary significantly depending on the type of transportation investment, the areas and ways in which it connects, the existing or evolving socioeconomic context and local efforts to plan for and effectively harness opportunities that may arise. Broadly speaking, transportation infrastructure can be thought of as providing three types of economic benefits, including in -commute benefits, out -commute benefits, and transit/walkable area benefits. In - commute and out -commute benefits are associated with all forms of investment in transportation infrastructure, which provide improved connectivity between places of work and places of residence, while transit/walkable area benefits are more specifically associated with investments in transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure. These three types of benefits are described conceptually below and are important when considering the benefits and role of different types of transportation investments in Riverside County.2 Out -Commute Benefits Transportation infrastructure can serve households with employed residents commuting out to employment destinations. Substantial Riverside County growth has been driven by the transportation connections provided between residential growth and employment destinations in other counties and communities. This can be in the form of both automobile infrastructure (freeways, highways, and arterial roads) as well as commuter rail/transit. While automobile infrastructure carries the large majority of out -commute connections in Riverside County, increasing traffic congestion can also generate increased demand for commuter rail where provided, especially in and near major metropolitan areas. The "out -commute" model facilitates economic development in smaller to medium size cities, including many in Riverside County. Efficient transportation connections can increase the attractiveness of housing further away from major employment centers, especially if it is associated with access to lower cost and desirable communities. As this migration occurs, residential communities continue to grow outside of the cities with major employment centers and are fueled by the wages collected from employment and reinvested in the local housing market and other consumer/resident-driven uses (typically retail, service, and office uses). While Riverside County is expanding its own employment base, as with all California counties, out -commuting will remain a reality for many employed residents in many households. In -Commute Benefits The "in -commute" model has historically been associated with well -developed business and commercial districts, though this characterization is evolving. Employment centers receive a range of benefits, including the provision of employment opportunities for local residents (where there is a skills match), private investment in real estate and infrastructure, a range of tax and other public revenue z These types of benefits should also be considered in conjunction with the interconnected range of quantifiable benefits that are addressed in the Cost -Benefit Analysis portion of the LRTS (e.g. commute time savings, safety improvements). December 2019 147 Page 124 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study benefits, and spinoff benefits that often attract additional businesses. The City of Riverside is a noteworthy example of an in -commute center in Riverside County. There are also, however, communities that gradually evolve from primarily bedroom communities to successful commercial and job centers in their own right. These cities benefit from an increasing concentration of employed residents, as well as strong transportation connections to the larger metropolitan area. Transit Areas, Place -Making, and Economic Development Benefits Investment in transit and associated station areas can provide benefits at a more granular, area -specific level. In some cases, these investments provide unique opportunities for walkable and accessible mixed -use districts that combine residential, retail, and office developments. Not all transit stops/nodes will attract or be suitable for these types of development activity. However, when strong transit locations and ridership are coupled with appropriate real estate market conditions and policies that support compact development and walkable areas, transit -oriented development and communities can ensue. Even without transit service or nodes, cities can encourage new development, both residential, retail, and office, by creating attractive, compact, and walkable districts whether in historic city centers or newer centers of activity. Such areas are often popular with smaller households, including younger workers and empty nesters who in turn can spend a portion of their incomes locally. Where successful, these activity centers also bring additional benefits, such as reduced automobile congestion/travel. The development of these transit/walkable districts typically evolve incrementally over time. Riverside County Economy Riverside County in the Region Riverside County is one of the six counties that make up the core of the SCAG region. In recent decades Riverside County has served as a bedroom community to Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties. These three coastal counties have larger and more diversified employment and more expensive housing compared to Riverside County. Riverside County's position on the eastern edge of the SCAG region and the presence on 1-10 and major interstate railroads has also led to the County becoming a major warehousing and distribution center serving all of Southern California. As shown in Figure 4, based on State of California data, Riverside County currently has a population of about 2.4 million, about 11% of the Southern California total, and a jobs base of 688,000, about 7% of the Southern California total.' Like its northern neighbor San Bernardino County, with which it makes up the Inland Empire, Riverside County covers an expansive geography, with adjacencies with Orange County, San Diego County, Imperial County, the State of Arizona, as well as San Bernardino County. For the purposes of the LRTS, Riverside County is divided into three subareas — Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley - as shown in Figure 16. s Southern California total includes the SCAG region. Area is reflected in six -county area seen below in Figure 4. December 2019 148 Page 125 RIVERSIDE couNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 4 — Population and Employment by SCAG Region, 2018 Delano Yentu ra Pop.: 857.388 Emp.: 328,200 "O,v+zdThouSard Oaks Vent uw AISA Zara RhCgel LOS ANG ELES Pop.: 10,241, 278 Emp : 4.441,400' 'Los AnsprFas-Umq Basch-Cderdde MD 0 RANG E COUNTY Population 3,194,024 Emp.: 1,818,800' • Anaheim Sass Ana kvne MD Iguana SAN BERNARDINO Pap-- 2,190,258 Emp.: 727.100 RIVER SIDE Pap.: 2,384.783 Emp.: 088.400 IMPE RIAL Pop:188,334 Emp 84.930' -EI ca+ly LISA RA en( all ulrhead Ge, Yuma San Cvhs Rho Colorado Kuv OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North IVRPA TECHNOlaerexIhr. Note: Metropolitan Division (MD). Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Source: Department of Finance (Table E-1, 2018) and Employment Development Department (QCEW, Q1 2018) 149 December 2019 Page 126 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION H AT* b 6� LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Figure 5 — Population and Employment by SCAG Region, 2018 r,,h-gvtfi or. 1+440 A. e:a ra�oc WESTERN CDACHELLA PALO VERDE RIVERSIDE VALIE Y VAEII Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North 1/R'PA TECHNOIOGIES INC. Source: Department of Finance and Employment Development Department December 2019 150 Page 127 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Historical Growth The Riverside County population has increased about five -fold since 1970, increasing from 460,000 in 1970 to about 2.4 million in 2018. This represented an average annual growth of about 42,200 residents each year and an average annual growth rate of about 3.5 percent. Figure 6 shows total County population growth, as well as growth in population of the cities in the three subareas. Western Riverside County cities, which include about 67% of the County's population, added the largest number of residents over this period, with a period of accelerated growth beginning in the mid-1980's with periodic dampening of growth during economic downturns. Western Riverside County cities represent a larger share of total County population today than they did in 1970. Coachella Valley city population also grew substantially from a modest population of about 50,000 residents in 1970 to about 384,000 residents in 2018. Palo Verde Valley includes one incorporated city with a population of approximately 19,400, substantially larger than it was in 1970. The remainder of the County population lived in unincorporated areas of the County, which saw periods of growth as well as decline due to new city incorporation (and the associated shift of population). As shown in Figure 7, Riverside County's jobs base increased from 325,000 in 1990 to about 690,000 in 2016, based on State Employment Development Department (EDD) data. This represents the average annual addition of about 14,000 jobs each year, or an average annual growth rate of 2.9%. Most of this growth occurred between 1990 and 2007, a period where an average of 20,000 jobs were added each year. The Great Recession resulted in substantial job losses and it was not until 2014 that the County's job base returned to similar levels as in 2007. As discussed in more detail in sections below, in 2016 the County's jobs to population ratio (one measure of jobs and housing "balance"), was 0.29, very similar to the 0.28 ratio in 1990 (this ratio had increased to 0.32 prior to the Great Recession). The overall ratio for the Southern California economy was about 0.5, indicating the relatively larger role Riverside County has historically played in the region as a provider of housing more than of jobs. December 2019 151 Page 128 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION A owl LRTS LONG RANGE1R.NSPORf6TION STUDY Figure 6 — Riverside County Population Growth by District, 1970 - 2018 2,500,000 - 2.000.000 - 1.500.000 - c a a 1.000.000 - 500.000 0 •■•■ ••r .• �� •'■■ •••' . ................................ .... ............. ,... ••• .• ... .■•■■•.. .....■ .................... ..��...�wM A A A g A ti ff — GND GO a a a� a a Q! � g O1 a a 8 O~1 0101 01 01 01 W W W W 0) W� 01 0) CO CO a.W CO co co on CO Cr)01 01 CO Co S 8 W W W N C O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 (V lV N N hl CO 0 O O N N N O N [�Y N C. C. N N N C��7 Cr N C7 V K1 0, A. CO Western Riverside . Coachella Valley . Palo Verde Valley Riverside County Unincorporated Note: Population estimates are based on data for incorporated cities within each respective subarea. Sources: Department of Finance (2018) December 2019 152 Page 129 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Figure 7 — Riverside County Population and Job Growth, 1970 - 2018 Population and Employment 3.000.000 2,500,000 - Z000 ,000 1.500.000 1.000.000 500.000 - 0 g'§ggr`ggi ggM' ERNI0I ;: Employment Pop ul anon Source: Department of Finance (Table E-1, 2018) and Employment Development Department (QCEW, Q1 2018) December 2019 153 Page 130 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Riverside County Jobs According to U.S. Census data (that uses a different job counting procedure to the State EDD), Riverside County was the location of close to 595,000 jobs in 2015. Table 8 shows the distribution of County jobs by industry sector. As shown, the largest shares of employment in Riverside County (and collectively over 50 percent of County jobs) are in the Health Care and Social Assistance (12.6%), Retail Trade (12.6%), Accommodation and Food Services (11.7%), Education Services (10.9%), and Construction (8%). While these industry sectors also represent a significant proportion of overall jobs in the six - County SCAG region, with the exception of Health Care and Social Assistance, the Riverside County job concentrations in these industries are substantially higher than the regional average. Similarly, transportation and warehousing and public administration represented higher proportions of total jobs in Riverside County than in the region. At the same time, there are several industry sectors that represent a smaller proportion of Riverside County jobs than regional jobs. Manufacturing, Information, Finance and Insurance, Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, and Management of Companies and Enterprises, some of the industry sectors with higher average compensation, all show job concentrations (percent of the total) of 75% or less than the average for the SCAG region. In terms of current job by occupations (in the Inland Empire), 16% of workers are employed as office and administrative support, 11% are employed as transportation and moving workers, and 11% are employed as sales workers, as seen in Table 9. Between years 2012 and 2017, occupational growth was strongest for construction and extraction jobs (49.8% growth), transportation and moving jobs (40.6% growth), and personal care and service (33.1% growth). While all occupations' average wages increased in nominal dollar terms, some occupations, including education, business and financial operations, and construction, had slower wage growth. In general, there is a link between the education level of a workforce and the economic development and job opportunities in a county. Table 9 shows the levels of formal educational attainment of the persons 18 years and older in Riverside County and the State of California in years 2006 and 2016. As shown, in 2016, Riverside County showed a somewhat different distribution from the State as a whole, with about 20% of the population holding a bachelor's degree or higher relative to 30% in the State as a whole. At the same time, the level of education of the Riverside County population is increasing. As seen in Table 10, between 2006 and 2016, Riverside County showed increases in the number and proportion of the population with some college, associate degrees, bachelor's degrees, and graduate degrees (collectively, an increase from 47% to 55%). December 2019 154 Page 131 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 8 - Top Industry Sectors (2015) for Riverside County Compared to SCAG Region Industry Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Riverside 11,384 County 1.9% SCAG 55,865 Total 0.8% Riverside/ SCAG Ratio 2.38 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 324 0.1% 7,338 0.1% 0.51 Utilities 4,034 0.7% 47,773 0.7% 0.98 Construction 47,643 8.0% 301,708 4.4% 1.84 Manufacturing 39,860 6.7% 622,342 9.0% 0.75 Wholesale Trade 25,990 4.4% 401,795 5.8% 0.75 Retail Trade 74,589 12.6% 729,467 10.5% 1.19 Transportation and Warehousing 32,822 5.5% 280,891 4.1% 1.36 Information 5,782 1.0% 254,893 3.7% 0.26 Finance and Insurance 10,246 1.7% 268,270 3.9% 0.45 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 8,668 1.5% 131,596 1.9% 0.77 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 20,667 3.5% 470,825 6.8% 0.51 Management of Companies and Enterprises 2,921 0.5% 109,226 1.6% 0.31 Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 37,098 6.2% 482,502 7.0% 0.90 Educational Services 64,457 10.9% 592,144 8.6% 1.27 Health Care and Social Assistance 74,781 12.6% 909,789 13.1% 0.96 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 14,495 2.4% 149,106 2.2% 1.13 Accommodation and Food Services 69,189 11.7% 619,965 9.0% 1.30 Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 17,226 2.9% 217,481 3.1% 0.92 Public Administration 31,644 5.3% 272,111 3.9% 1.36 Total 593,820 100.0% 6,925,087 100.0% Source:OntheMap LEHD, 2015 December 2019 155 Page 132 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I. A w� LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORr6TON STUDY Table 9 - Top Occupations (2012-2017) for Riverside County MSA Occupations* Management 2012 Average Jobs % Wages 2017 Average Jobs % Wages % Changel)f2012/2017) Jobs Average Wages 48,830 4% $103,596 58,800 4% $110,838 20.4% 7.0% Business and Financial Operations 39,730 3% $66,089 50,500 4% $66,746 27.1% 1.0% Computer and Mathematical 14,330 1% $74,481 15,010 1% $78,014 4.7% 4.7% Architecture and Engineering 12,150 1% $78,963 13,790 1% $80,930 13.5% 2.5% Life, Physical, and Social Science 8,930 1% $68,804 8,620 1% $75,452 -3.5% 9.7% Community and Social Services 16,150 1% $52,116 18,510 1% $55,169 14.6% 5.9% Legal 4,590 0% $93,719 5,920 0% $99,056 29.0% 5.7% Education, Training, and Library 90,590 8% $61,162 95,590 7% $61,234 5.5% 0.1% Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 9,930 1% $47,731 11,060 1% $50,733 11.4% 6.3% Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 61,670 5% $82,143 72,860 5% $87,968 18.1% 7.1% Healthcare Support 32,800 3% $28,955 30,030 2% $34,307 -8.4% 18.5% Protective Service 33,690 3% $49,909 35,710 3% $53,258 6.0% 6.7% Food Preparation and Serving -Related 115,160 10% $21,561 137,410 10% $26,192 19.3% 21.5% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 39,640 3% $26,795 43,890 3% $30,609 10.7% 14.2% Personal Care and Service 31,230 3% $24,727 41,560 3% $28,719 33.1% 16.1% Sales and Related 123,510 11% $33,985 145,520 11% $36,980 17.8% 8.8% Office and Administrative Support 193,670 17% $34,992 215,160 16% $37,913 11.1% 8.3% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 6,420 1% $21,564 7,560 1% $24,805 17.8% 15.0% Construction and Extraction 47,700 4% $51,824 71,450 5% $53,280 49.8% 2.8% Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 42,560 4% $46,649 54,790 4% $49,643 28.7% 6.4% Production 64,470 6% $32,050 82,190 6% $35,673 27.5% 11.3% Transportation and Material Moving 104,220 9% $33,836 146,510 11% $36,908 40.6% 9.1% Total 1,141,950 $44,506 1,362,440 $47,637 19.3% 7.0% *The sum of jobs per category may differ slightly from Total jobs as a result of rounding errors. Source: Occupationa I Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results December 2019 156 Page 133 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORr6TION STUDY Table 10 — Riverside County Population Education Level, 2016 Education Level of 18+ Less than 9th grade Riverside County # MI6 % California # % Riverside County # 2016 % California # % Riverside County # Change % Cal ifomia # % 140,900 10% 2,613,411 10% 147,668 8% 2,613,696 9% 6,768 5% 285 0% 9th to 12thgrade, no diploma 177,223 12% 2,704,629 10% 170,506 10% 2,455,483 8% -6,717 -4% -249,146 -9% High school graduate (includes equivalency) 456,665 31% 6,659,027 25% 491,119 28% 6,542,555 22% 34,454 8% -116,472 -2% Some college, no degree 344,785 23% 5,997,410 22% 482,063 27% 7,283,222 24% 137,278 40% 1,285,812 21% Associate's degree 102,118 7% 1,955,359 7% 133,680 8% 2,214,667 7% 31,562 31% 259,308 13% Bachelor's degree 164,384 11% 4,581,094 17% 224,400 13% 5,781,881 19% 60,016 37% 1,200,787 26% Graduate or professional degree 82,715 6% 2,415,573 9% 124,368 7% 3,265,264 11% 41,653 50% 849,691 35% Total 1,468,790 100% 26,926,503 100% 1,773,804 10095 30,156,768 10095 305,014 21% 3,230,265 12% Source: United States Census Bureau December 2019 157 Page 134 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Geography of Jobs Riverside County has a multi -faceted economy with jobs spread across jurisdictions and subareas. Figure 8 shows the distribution of jobs by industry sector in the County's three subareas relative to the County as a whole. Each of the subareas has a substantial proportion of jobs in the healthcare and social assistance, retail trade, and accommodation and food services sectors. They all also have lower proportions of jobs in the mining, management, and utilities sectors. At the same time, there are several distinctions. Western Riverside County includes the large majority of jobs in the County, so its industry concentrations are most close to the County as a whole. However, its industry concentrations show that it is the key County subarea for the transportation and warehousing, wholesale trade, construction, and manufacturing sectors. This is reflective of its location in the regional and State economy and its interconnectivity to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and the larger Southern California economy through major transportation infrastructure. The Coachella Valley also has a distinctive economy with a particularly strong tourism/visitor sector. As a result, it has particularly high concentrations in accommodation and food services and arts and entertainment sectors. Palo Verde Valley is a smaller scale economy dominated by the public administration sector that represents 40% of its current jobs base. Figure 8 — Subarea Percent of Jobs by Sector NAG sector 62 ( Heat n Car a and Sac el Assscarce) NAILS sector 4445( Retail Trade) 1=11 13% NA KS sector 72 (Arremmodarion art Food ServC6) 96 NAIC6 9eCW r 61 ( E dJCatiotal jeer Les % NAK..5 sector 23( Construct aN $96 NAILS sector 31-33 (Marsrfs to nyj 7% NAILS 9s or 56 ( Adm nears rye and Su mart and waste Management arc! Rented elm 5e vc e1 69‘ NAKS sector 4849(Transmit aiOm and Wardlou ire3 fi% NAILS sector 92 I FL Li Ad rri nistrat on) 5% NAGS sector 42 (WnCre661eTrade) NNLS sector 54(Pr delonal, Scierr tic, am T ahn Cal .km.) 1.1 3% NAILS Naar S1(Other Service (except Pudic Adminisra ion)) . NAILS sector 71 (Art6 Ent er to rrn err( and Retreat NAILS sector 12 (Agriahum, Fcrrsry, FNrirg and FMatti re ) NAICSsec tor 521Finance ardrnsrrante) Ell 2% NAILS sector 53 (RealEsae and Cerra mtlteasin;l Er% NAI6 sector 51 (Worms ion) B NAILS stew 22 Mt e4 NAILS sector 55(Management d Compel is and Erkrpris6) 12 0% MAKS setter 21(Mnrig, marrying. and0e and GmEmma tom) 10% e ■ Coachella valley • Palo Verde Valley ■ Western Riverside O A I Riverside Cotnty 0% St; 10% 1596 2034 • Pa 1 o Verd a Va I I ey Pu ♦9 is Administration is 40% of su ha rea's j o6s- Tru ncated fo r e ra phi cal representation purposes. December 2019 158 Page 135 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Figure 9 illustrates the concentration of all primary jobs' in Riverside County with labels indicating the largest employers in the County. This "heat map" — with an ordering from relatively high to relatively low (red, to yellow, to purple, to blue) - indicates the broad geographic distribution of jobs throughout the County, as well as places with particular concentrations. For example, as shown, in absolute terms, the areas in and around and between the Cities of Riverside and Corona and in the Murrieta/Temecula area have the highest concentration of jobs. At the same time, there are also significant concentrations in the Moreno Valley/Perris area, in Hemet, in multiple locations within Coachella Valley, and in Blythe. As also shown, the largest employers in the County include the school districts and other public administration agencies, medical centers, and, in Coachella Valley, the resort/casino/hospitality employers. Riverside County has a dispersed and multi -nodal jobs distribution. This is consistent with the analysis and observations of the UC Riverside Forecasting Center that indicated that a lower proportion of Riverside County jobs proximate to its largest job center (the City of Riverside), relative to other counties. This pattern of jobs distribution, which is expected to continue into the future, has direct implications for current and future transportation needs and, arguably, makes the development of an effective Countywide transportation program more challenging than in other counties. Considering the distribution of jobs in particular industry sectors shows the degree to which different sectors cluster in particular locations. Figure 10 shows the concentration of jobs in Riverside County for transportation and warehousing jobs. This is a large industry sector in the County that has driven a lot of the County's recent economic growth and has particular transportation infrastructure needs. As shown, these jobs are particularly clustered in Western Riverside County, in and around Jurupa Valley, the Cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris, along the key transportation corridors. There are also smaller clusters elsewhere in the County. Figure 11 shows the concentration of jobs in the County for professional, scientific, and technical services. Jobs in this industry sector often provide higher paying jobs for skilled workers, often requiring office/Research and Development buildings, and, in some cases, suitable for location in transit -served areas. These jobs have a different pattern of location from the transportation and warehousing sector with the strongest concentrations in and between the Cities of Riverside and Corona, as well as in Temecula and Jurupa Valley in Western Riverside County. There are smaller clusters throughout the Coachella Valley, including Palm Springs and Palm Desert. Finally, Figure 12 shows the distribution of County employed residents, providing a comparison point to Figure 9 and the distribution of County jobs (a critical relationship discussed further in the following section on commute patterns). ' The dominant (or primary) job for an individual is defined as the job that earned the individual the most money. December 2019 159 Page 136 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION oRh A 9., LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 9 — Concentration of Transportation and Warehousing Jobs in Riverside County Top Employers and Concentration of All Primary Jobs Riverside County Source: LEND 2015 dnlano ,t 11 Ui '+S Jurupa Dnif ■ Redlands ntykhoe of Education Diatri¢!, Yucaipa [5 f :wane Valley tMiRed Corn School 6istNote • • 1 , March A111 ReserYe S. J #� ` ■ • edical Center • , Amazon f Rancho Santa • High Lo•rr SAN DIEG0 Sa 1❑m; .01l01011GIS Ca5i10. Resort d Spa San Jacinto College ■ School District Lake Els non Url'iskr• Sc pool District ■ School District uVtK Valley Unified School District ga Resort a Casino PaloVerde Valley (east County) hmnwee Vat&Pima • {oche- hied ical Center s Lehiliied School District tmaC ken Band o[Cahuitta Indians ■, 1 �. eraf ser'eSKinps Resort 8 Spa RIVERSIDE I t IMP y Spnngs Resort CaSiI.0 a School District tub •_ U siDed School pistol!! Esd NER E. Carmin. hICi6. USGS. NPS • ESRI. RCM CIS. LAFCCI , Ean. HERE ti= OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION , Noma Y RPA TECHNOIOGIE5-1NC. December 2019 160 Page 137 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9. A w� LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Figure 10 — Concentration of Transportation and Warehousing Jobs in Riverside County Concentration of Transportation and Warehousing Jobs Riverside County Source: LEH° 2015 OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North VIM PA TECHA'OIOGlEK 1HC. December 2019 161 Page 138 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9. A w� LRTS LONG RANGE1RANSPORf6TON STUDY Figure 11— Concentration of Professional, Scientific, Technical Services Job in Riverside County Concentration of Professional, Scientific, Technical Services Jobs Riverside County Sauce: LEN D 2015 OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North lY RPA TECNN'OIOG7F5. INC. December 2019 162 Page 139 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION g A w� LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TION STUDY Figure 12 — Concentration of Homes of All Employed Residents in Riverside County Concentration of Homes of All Employed Residents Riverside County Source: LEND 2015 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North INit- -i- V . Y RPA TECHNOIOGIEINC. December 2019 163 Page 140 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Workspace Real Estate Development The development of workspace provides another indication of the distribution of economic activity and jobs. Workspace development — generally divided into office, retail, and industrial space — responds to market demands and reflects historic, current, and expected near -term market trends. Over time, demand for different types of workspace can accelerate, diminish, or shift. The current state of demand can generally be seen by looking at the historic workspace development construction trends, actual and changes in vacancy rates and lease rates, as well as information about building re -use and rehabilitation. Table 11 provides 2017 information on private workspace inventory for the County and its three subareas, as well as average lease rates and vacancy rates. It also indicates the change in average lease rates and vacancy rates between years 2006 and 2017. As shown, Riverside County, as a whole, has a substantially different distribution of workspace. In the State of California, about 25% of workspace is office, 30% is retail, and 45% is industrial. In contrast, Riverside County's 205 million square feet of industrial space represents a substantially higher 60% of the County total, while the County's 35.2 million square feet of office space represents a substantially lower proportion, and the County's 100 million square feet of retail space represents 30% of the total. Controlling for relative population, the per capita office development is less than half in the State average in Riverside County, consistent for retail development, and above average for industrial. Western Riverside County has a higher industrial space per capita than the County and State averages, while the Coachella Valley has substantially more retail development per capita than both the County and State averages. As with jobs, Western Riverside County provides the majority of the workspace in the County, though the concentration of industrial space is especially high at 90% of the County total compared to 75% of the office space and 70% of the retail space. Western Riverside County's workspace distribution is 10% office space, 25% retail space, and 65% industrial space, reflecting its substantial inventory of warehouse and distribution and other industrial space. The Coachella Valley has a significantly different distribution with 20% office space, 60% retail space, and 20% industrial space, reflecting its strong visitor economy. The Palo Verde Valley private workspace inventory is more modest in scale and is predominantly retail. The percentage growth in inventory in all workspace categories since 2006 has been substantially higher in Riverside County than in the State of California as a whole. Industrial development, in particular, grew by 40% in this period, almost five times the growth in the State as a whole. The growth in retail and office space grew about three times the percentage growth in California. For industrial development, this reflects the boom in logistics and distribution space in Riverside County at a time when new industrial development is modest in much of the State. The higher growth in retail space likely reflects the relatively higher population growth in the County relative to the State as a whole, though many retail formats are struggling throughout the State as an increasing proportion of consumer expenditures shift to online shopping. The greater proportionate growth in office development may also represent a response to the increasing County population and the need for a range of professional and other services. Still, the overall level of office development in the County remains low as a proportion of total development. December 2019 164 Page 1 41 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ,T w� LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORr6TION STUDY Table 11- Real Estate Historical Market Conditions Land Use California Riverside County Western Riverside Subarea Coachella Valley Subarea Palo Verde Valley Subarea Metric %Ch. Metric %Ch. 2017 % '06-'07 2017 % '06-'07 Metric %Ch. Metric %Ch. Metric %Ch. 2017 % '06-'07 2017 % '06-'07 2017 % '06-'07 Inventory (Sq.Ft.) Office 1.47 Billion 24% 7.3% 35,239,663 10% 23.7°% 26,524,404 9% 27.2% 8,431,918 19% 14.7% 66,304 6% 0.0% Retail 1.73Billion 28% 5.5% 100,650,299 30% 14.3% 71,049,768 25% 13.8% 26,812,075 59% 17.1% 819,126 76% 3.8% Industrial 2.97 Billion 48% 8.4% 204,658,575 60% 39.5% 182,916,634 65% 43.3% 9,985,266 22% 19.755 191,4-36 1835 QO% Inventory (Sq. Ft. )/Pe r Resident Office 37.2 14.7 16.3 22A 3.4 Retail 43.8 41.7 43.7 698 42.2 Industrial 75.1 84.7 112.5 26A 9.9 Vacancy Rate Office 9.1% -0.655 8.1% 0.755 7.5% 0.9% 9.6% 1.355 3.4% -0.1% Retail 4.4% 0.8% 7.0% 0.4% 5.6% 0.685 10.3% -0.6% 8.5% -3.1% Industrial 3.5% -2.0% 5.0% -1.0% 4.8% -1.3% 3.8% -3.3% 12.0% 5.255 RentiSq.Ft. Office $32.68 17.755 $22.47 -11.5% $20.37 -12A% $20.80 -28.7% $18.90 16.755 Retail(NNN) $23.03 -10.685 $18.09 -17.9% $18.12 -14.0% $17.92 -22.9% $10.11 -40.5% Industrial (NNN) $9.39 37.3% $7.17 8.3% $5.90 -0.3% $20.63 86.7% NSA NiA Sou rce: CeStar December 2019 165 Page 142 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Commute Patterns Inter County Commute Patterns The commute patterns for Riverside County reveal that its workforce is integral to the larger region. As shown in Figure 13 and Table 12, of the 593,000 jobs in the County (based on US Census data), about 373,000 jobs (63%) are filled by County residents and 220,000 jobs (37%) are filled by in -commuters residing in other counties. Of the 778,000 employed residents living in Riverside County, 405,000 (52%) of them out -commute to other counties for their jobs, while 373,000 of them (48%) have jobs located in the County. Overall, there are 625,000 inter -County commuters (both in -commuters and out - commuters) with a net outflow of 185,000 persons. The level of in- and out -flow is substantially larger for Western Riverside County than the Coachella Valley due to its location relative to other Counties and their jobs and employed residents. In a large metropolitan area like Southern California, substantial inflows and outflows of workers are not unusual. Orange County, for example, also sees a significant proportion of its jobs filled by in - commuters and a significant proportion of its employed residents commuting out of the County for work. Differences do, however, arise between counties in terms of their relative numbers of jobs and employed residents and their jobs -to -housing ratio. A jobs to employed residence ratio of 1.0 means that there is precise balance between the number of jobs and employed residents, though it can still be accompanied by significant inflows and outflows of commuters. A jobs to employed residents balance of above 1.0, means that the County (jurisdiction) is a net provider of jobs, while below means the County is net provider of workers. As shown in Table 12, Riverside County has the lowest jobs to employed resident ratio of 0.76 of the SCAG counties. The County of Los Angeles's ratio is slightly above 1.0, Orange County's is 1.12, and San Bernardino, Imperial and Ventura Counties are between 0.8 and 0.9. These differences, which are consistent with the differences in the jobs -housing ratio, are reflective of the relative roles of Orange County and Los Angeles County as job centers and the greater role of the other counties as places of residence. A move over time towards a greater balance between jobs and employed residents doesn't necessarily reduce inter -County commuting, though when the jobs attracted are suitable for employed residents, decisions on where to work can change and distance of commutes can be reduced. As shown in Table 13, based on US Census data, of the in -commuters who work in the county, 51% work in non -goods producing and non -trade sectors (these sectors include professional services, health care, and public administration), 25%work in trade sectors, and 18%work in goods -producing sectors. About 38% of these jobs pay more than $3,333 each month ($40,000 annually). For out -commuters, there was a higher percentage in the services sector (57% relative to 51%) and a higher proportion of workers receiving more than $40,000 annually (47% relative to 38%). December 2019 166 Page 143 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 13 — Riverside County Inflow/Outflow, 2015 Note: Of the 593,820 jobs in Riverside County (based on US Census data), 373,117 jobs (63%) are filled by County residents and 220,703 jobs (37%) are filled by in -commuters residing in other counties. Of the 777,976 employed residents living in Riverside County, 404,859 (52%) of them out -commute to other counties for their jobs, while 373,117 of them (48%D) have jobs located in the County December 2019 167 Page 1 44 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9 A w� LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORr6TION STUDY Table 12 - County and Subarea Commute Inflow/Outflow, 2015 Education Level of 18+ Riverside County Empl dyed Residents 777,976 Employed Residents Employment Commute Patterns Working in the Jurisdiction Total Inflow Outflow Occupied Jobs/ Jobs/ # % # % Jr Units Housing Emp. Resident 373,117 62.8% 593,820 220,703 37.296 404,859 707,485 0.84 0.76 Subareas Palo Verde Valley 7,294 3,418 49.7% 6,872 3,454 50.3% 3,876 N/A N/A 0.94 Coachella Valley 136,443 85,537 70.4% 121,494 35,987 29.6% 50,936 NiA NiA 0.89 Western Riverside 634,239 265,241 57.0% 465,478 200,237 43.0% 368,998 N/A N/A 0.73 Other Counties Orange County 1,290,523 843,337 58.4% 1,443,968 600,631 416% 447,186 1,016,793 1.42 1.12 Los Angeles County 3,736,504 3,029,802 77.1% 3,928,040 898,238 22.9% 706,702 3,288,948 1.19 1.05 Ventura County 321,759 15.9,462 61.5% 257,587 99,125 3R5% 163,297 271,593 0.95 0.80 Imperial County 60,283 40,681 77.79(1 52,325 11,644 22.3% 19,602 49,722 1.05 0.87 San Bernardino County 719,501 342,210 54.2% 631,347 289,137 45.8% 377,291 626,262 1.01 0.88 Source: OntheMap LEND, 2015; Department of Finance December 2019 168 Page 145 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9 � � wP LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Table 13 — Major Job Categories and Monthly Earnings Categories by Subarea, 2016 Riverside Education Level of 18+ Inflow Industry Segment Palo Verde Valley Coachella Valley Western Riverside Outflow Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Inflow Outflow Goods Producing 18% 78% 7% 17% 14% 14% 18% 18% Trade, Transportation, Utilities 31% 25% 11% 27% 26% 28% 32% 25% All Other Services 51% 57% 81% 56% 60% 58% 50% 57% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Earnings <$1,250 22% 18% 10% 27% 24% 24% 22% 18% $1,251to $3,333 40% 35% 19% 40% 43% 39% 39% 34% $3,333+ 38% 47% 72% 33% 32% 37% 39% 48% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source:OntheMap LEND, 2D15 December 2019 169 Page 146 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Subarea Commute Patterns Table 12 also shows the commute patterns within the County amongst the three subareas. The Coachella Valley is relatively self-contained, with 70.4% of the jobs held by subarea employed residents, relative to 57% of the jobs in Western Riverside County, and 50% in Palo Verde Valley. As noted above, Western Riverside County's proportionate capture of employed residents is similar to that of Orange County and San Bernardino County. Table 14 through Table 16 provide additional information on the commute patterns of the three subareas. As shown in Table 14, about 57% of the jobs (265,000 jobs) in Western Riverside County are held by Western Riverside County residents with the largest numbers of these workers residing in the Cities of Riverside, Corona, Menifee, Temecula, and Moreno Valley. The remaining 200,300 jobs were held by workers predominantly residing in a combination of cities in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and San Bernardino Counties. Of the 265,000 employed residents working in Western Riverside County, the largest number of jobs were in the Cities of Riverside, Corona, Temecula, and Moreno Valley. Western Riverside County employed residents out -commuted to a broad range of cities in nearby Counties. Overall, there were substantial net out -commutes (out -commuters minus in -commuters) from Western Riverside County to the Cities of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Ontario, Anaheim, Irvine, Santa Ana, Rancho Cucamonga, and San Diego. Within Western Riverside County, the Cities of Riverside, Corona, and Temecula were the only cities that provided substantially more jobs than employed residents. The Coachella Valley (Table 15) is somewhat more self-contained with about 70% of the jobs held by Coachella Valley residents and about 63% of Coachella Valley employed residents working in the Coachella Valley. Jobs are geographically distributed also, though Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage provide a greater number of jobs relative to employed residents. Out -commuters from the Coachella Valley primarily commute to jobs in Western Riverside County Cities and the Cities of Los Angeles and San Diego. As seen in Table 16, jobs in the Palo Verde Valley are held by about 50% employed residents and 50% in -commuters. In -commuters tend to come from within Riverside County. Out -commuters work in Ehrenberg, Arizona, which borders the City of Blythe. December 2019 170 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 14 - Western Riverside County Commute Pattern Data, 2015 Where Workers Live Who are Employed in Western Riverside Jurisdiction # Living and Working within Western Riverside Where Workers are Employed Who Live in Western Riverside Jurisdiction # % Living and Working within Western Riverside Jurupa Valley 11,655 2.5% JurupaValley 11,198 1.8% Eastvale 4,559 1.0% Eastvale 2,550 0.4% Norco 3,269 0.7% Norco 6,532 1.0% Riverside 50,302 10.8% Riverside 72,275 11.4% Corona 19,261 4.1% Corona 29,896 4.796 Moreno Valley 29,195 6.3% Moreno Valley 20,134 3.2% Calimesa 803 0.2% Calimesa 492 0.1% Banning 4,055 0.9% Banning 2,811 0.4% Beaumont 5,160 1.1% Beaumont 3,075 0.5% Perris 10,628 2.3% Perris 10,614 1.7% San Jacinto 7,578 1.6% San Jacinto 4,965 0.8% Hemet 12,927 2.8% Hemet 13,080 2.1% Canyon Lake 1,922 0.4% Canyon Lake 933 0.1% Menifee 12,794 2.7% Menifee 7,101 1.1% Lake Elsinore 8,635 L9% Lake Elsinore 7,860 1.2% Wi Idomar 5,734 L2% Wi Idomar 2,754 0.4% Murrieta 17,158 3.7% Murri eta 15,819 2.5% Temecula 17,593 3.8% Temecula 30,479 4.8% All Other Locations 42,013 9.0% All Other Locations 22,673 3.6% Subtotal 265,241 57.0% Subtotal 265,241 41.8% Where Commuters into Western Riverside Live Where Western Riverside Residents Work Los Angeles 11,736 2.5% Los Angeles 25,137 4.0% Fontana 8,483 1.8% San Bernardino 20,104 3.2% San Bernardino 8,329 1.8% San Diego 18,634 2.9% San Diego 6,380 1.4% Ontario 17,669 2.8% Ontario 5,484 L2% Irvine 14,272 2.3% Anaheim 5,261 L1% Anaheim 13,971 2.2% Rancho Cucamonga 5,095 L 1% Santa Ana 11,169 1.896 Rialto 4,687 1.0% Rancho Cucamonga 10,424 1.6% East Hemet 3,672 0.8% Fontana 8,532 1.3% All Other Locations 141,110 30.3% All Other Locations 229,086 36.1% Subtotal 2011237 43.0% Subtotal 368,998 58.2% Number of Jobs 465,478 100.096 Employed Residents 634,239 100.096 Source: OntheMap LEND, 2D15 December 2019 171 Page 148 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 15 - Coachella Valley Commute Patterns, 2015 Where Workers Live Who are Employed in Coachella Valley Jurisdiction # Living and Worldng within Coachella Valley Where Workers are Employed Coachella Living and Working within Coachella Who Valley # Valley 1,719 Live in % 1.3% Desert Hot Springs 4,995 4.1% Desert Hot Springs Cathedral City 11,691 9.6% Cathedral City 4,984 3.7% Palm Desert 9,577 7.9% Palm Desert 15,756 11.5% Rancho Mirage 2,533 2.1% Rancho Mirage 9,063 6.6% Palm Springs 8,145 6.7136 Palm Springs 16,031 11.7% Indian Wells 671 0.6% Indian Wells 2,616 1.9% Indio 18,166 15.0% Indio 10,150 7.4% La Qu i nta 8,295 6.8% La Qu i nta 7,999 5.9% Coachella 10,141 8.3% Coachella 5,377 3.9% AI! Other Locations 11,293 9.3% All Other Locations 11,812 8.7% Subtotal 85,507 70.4% Subtotal 85,507 62.7% Where Commuters into Coachella Valley Live Where Coachella Valley Residents Work Bermuda Dunes 2,010 L796 Los Angeles 3,738 2.7% Los Angeles 1,954 1.6% San Diego 3,183 2.3% San Diego 1,590 L3% Thousand Palms 3,072 2.3% Thousand Palms 1,503 1.2% Riverside 2,828 2.1% Mecca 1,450 L2% Thermal 1,940 1.4% Yucca Valley 1,286 1.1% Bermuda Dunes 1,639 1.2% Garnet 1,131 0.9% Temecula 1,147 0.8% Riverside 776 0.6% San Bernardino 1,016 0.7% North Shore 744 0.6% Irvine 946 0.7% All Other Locations 23,543 19.4% All Other Locations 31,427 23.0% Subtotal 35,987 29.6% Subtotal 50,936 37.3% Number of Jobs 121,494 1010% Employed Residents 136,443 100.0% Source: OntheMap LEND, 2Q15 December 2019 172 Page 149 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Table 16 - Palo Verde Valley Commute Patterns, 2015 Where Workers Live Who are Employed in Palo Verde Valley Jurisdiction Where Workers are Employed Who Live in Palo Verde Valley #t % Living and Working within Palo Verde Valley Living and Working within Palo Verde Valley Blythe 2,830 41.2% Blythe 2,873 39.4% All Other Locations 588 8.6% All Other Locations 545 7.5% Subtotal 3,418 49.7% Subtotal 3,418 46.9% Where Commuters into Palo Verde Valley Live Where Palo Verde Valley Residents Work Indio 306 4.5% Ehrenberg 268 3.7% La Quinta 143 2.1% Los Angeles 244 3.3% Mesa Verde 143 2.1% Riverside 236 3.2% Riverside 138 2.0% San Diego 194 2.7% Moreno Valley 113 1.6% El Centro 118 1.6% Ripley 105 1.5% San Bernardino 74 1.0% San Francisco 89 1.3% Palm Desert 67 0.93f. San Diego 86 1.3% Brawl ey 59 0.8% Los Angeles 81 1.2% Palm Springs 57 0.8% All Other Locations 2,250 32.7% All Other Locations 2,559 35.1% Subtotal 3,454 50.3% Subtotal 3,876 53.1% Number of lobs 6,872 100.0% Employed Residents 7,294 100.0% Source:OntheMap LEHD, 2015 Forecastq As the region's metropolitan planning organization (MPO), SCAG is responsible for producing socioeconomic estimates and projections that are used for federal and state mandated long-range planning efforts. The latest SCAG forecasts are for the years 2012-2040 period and forecast population, households, and jobs. This forecast reflects SCAG's "preferred Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) scenario".5 SCAG's preferred scenario accounts for future regional growth that coordinates with transportation system improvements of the approved 2016 RTP/SCS, as well as anticipated new transportation projects planned by the region's transportation commissions, local agencies, and transit providers. This approach looks at the region as a whole and considers population and employment growth from a regional perspective, meanwhile accounting for subregional investments and circumstances. 5http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/draft/d2016RTPSCS 04 CreatingAPlanForOurFuture.pdf December 2019 173 Page 150 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Figure 14 is a SCAG map that shows the forecasted employment change for the entire SCAG region. As shown, major concentrations of growth are expected to occur in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County (including Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley). Table 17 and Table 18 summarize SCAG's population, household, and employment (jobs) forecast for 2012-2040. As shown, Riverside County is expected to grow by about 42% (approximately 938,600 residents), to a population of 3.18 million over this period; an annual average growth of 33,500 residents each year. This represents a substantial amount of growth, similar in absolute terms to the last 28 years (1990 — 2018), but more modest in terms of proportional growth. Of the three subareas, Coachella Valley cities are expected to grow the most relative to their current population size. Table 18 shows that jobs in Riverside County are expected to increase substantially by 2040. A total of 557,700 net new jobs are forecast to be added between years 2012 and 2040, an annual average increase of 20,000 jobs and an overall increase of 90 percent. Of this total, about 343,000 net new jobs are expected in Western Riverside County, 122,800 jobs in the Coachella Valley, and 89,000 jobs in unincorporated portions of the county. Generally consistent with the population growth forecast, a total of about 360,000 new households are forecast, an annual average increase of 12,900 jobs and an increase of 52%. Significantly, these forecasts show a substantially higher pace of job growth relative to population and household growth. These SCAG forecasts indicate a net attraction of new businesses and economic activity over -and -above those directly driven by increases in resident expenditures. In 2012 the jobs - to -housing ratio was about 0.9. This is relative to a current regional jobs -to -housing ratio of over 1.25. Between years 2012 and 2040, the SCAG forecasts for Riverside County indicate a growth in jobs and households representing a 1.55 jobs to housing ratio during this period. When combined with the current 2012 jobs and household, these forecasts result in a significant increase in the overall County jobs to housing ratio to 1.1 by 2040 (Table 18). Table 19 shows the SCAG job forecasts for Riverside County by jurisdiction. As shown, the majority of growth is spread across the cities and unincorporated areas in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. In terms of absolute growth, the Cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley are both expected to attract over 50,000 net new jobs. The Cities of Indio, Coachella, Corona, Hemet, Murrieta, and Temecula are all also expected to attract over 20,000 new jobs between years 2012 and 2040. In terms of proportionate growth, the cites of Desert Hot Springs, Coachella, Beaumont, Calimesa, Lake Elsinore, and Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, and Wildomar are all expected to see job growth of over 150% through year 2040. December 2019 174 Page 151 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9. A w� LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Figure 14 — SCAG Region Employment Change, 2012-2040 ours ofie • Employment GAWP' 200.2040 Llobs par Sothwo Hite Loss dun a Equal to 200 501- I000 20I.500 war - 2.000 FWD• xAC:oK, OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Lai Aegolirs CeVr1 Goatee than 2,000 North 4 f • ' • k a uv � Cad v, "(ttkp, r 0 r1.. Nolr: rianspOruppn Malian lone fr42)1M4 data a any data at a word" amain than ale mesd[e0ni IrMf a A'liaded R Mt Oet PGF tar gQR7Yi VRPATECHNOtoWF17NC Source: SCAG December 2019 175 Page 152 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION g LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Table 17 - Population Projections by Subarea, 2012-2040 Area Palo Verde Valley Population 2012 2040 % Change % Ch. 20,000 24,600 1% 4,600 23% Coachella Valley 357,600 595,100 19% 237,500 62% Western Riverside 1,508,000 2,060,800 65% 552,800 37% Other 359,500 503,200 16% 143,700 40% Total 2,245,100 3,183,700 100% 938,600 42% Source: 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG Projections Table 18 -Job Projection by Subarea, 2012-2040 Area Palo Verde Valley Employment 2040 Household 2012 % Change % Ch. 2012 2040 Change % Ch. 3,700 6,600 1% 2,900 78% 4,500 6,200 1,700 38% Coachella Valley 130,900 253,700 22% 122,800 92% 132,100 227,100 95,000 72% Western Riverside 410,800 753,800 64% 343,000 83% 445,100 656,000 210,900 47% Other 71,200 160,200 14% 89,000 125% 112,700 165,000 52,300 46% Total 616,600 1,174,300 100% 557,700 90% 694,400 1,054,300 359,900 52% Source: 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG Projections December 2019 176 Page 153 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 19 - SCAG Region Employment Growth by City, 2015-2040 City Palo Verde Valley Employment 2012 2040 Change % Change Blythe 3,700 6,600 2,900 78% Coachella Valley Desert Hot Springs 3,700 12,900 9,200 249% Cathedral City 10,800 21,200 10,400 96% Palm Springs 26,300 45,800 19,500 74% Palm Desert 36,900 53,600 16,700 45% Rancho Mirage 12,300 20,500 8,200 67% Indian Wells 4,000 7,000 3,000 75% Indio 16,000 36,800 20,800 130% La Ciuinta 12,400 21,500 9,100 73% Coachella 8,500 34,400 25,900 305% Subtotal 130,900 253,700 122,800 914% Westem Riverside Banning 7,300 14,200 6,900 95% Beaumont 5,900 18,000 12,100 205% Calimesa 1,300 5,900 4,600 354% Canyon Lake 1,200 2,700 1,500 125% Corona 66,400 88,400 22,000 33% Eastvale 4,300 9,800 5,500 128% Hemet 21,000 45,500 24,500 117% Lake Elsinore 11,800 31,700 19,900 169% Menifee 10,300 23,500 13,200 128% December 2019 177 Page 154 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 19 - SCAG Region Employment Growth by City, 2015-2040 (continued) City Westem Riverside Employment 2012 2040 Change % Change Moreno Valley 31,400 83,200 51,800 165% Murrieta 23,200 45,100 21,900 94% Norco 13,200 25,700 12,500 95% Perris 15,100 32,200 17,100 113% Riverside 120,000 200,500 80,500 67% San Jacinto 5,900 17,800 11,900 202% Temecula 43,000 63,500 20,500 48% Wildomar 5,000 13,500 8,500 170% Jurupa Valley 24,500 32,600 8,100 33% Subtotal 410,800 753,800 343,000 83% Other March J P A 700 3,600 2,900 414% Unincorporated 70,500 156,600 86,100 122% Subtotal 71,200 160,200 89,000 125% Total 616,600 1,174, 300 557,700 90% Source: 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG Projections December 2019 178 Page 155 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Transit -Oriented and Transit -Potential Areas The Transit -Oriented Development/High-Quality Transit Areas section indicates the boundaries of plan areas within Riverside County where policies support transit -oriented development, transit potential, and/or activity nodes. Transit -oriented development include transit services, as well as policies that support the intensification of development around them; transit potential cities include cities with supportive policies and where future transit service is expected/possible; and, activity nodes indicate cities with policies that support compact development and pedestrian and bike mobility. The High - Quality Transit Areas identified by SCAG are displayed in Chapter V. These policies when coupled with the appropriate market conditions (and, in some cases, catalytic public investments) can support the development of new mixed -use districts that can both act to reduce automobile travel and congestion, but also to attract households and businesses interested in this type of environment. For the identified cities and areas (transit -oriented and transit potential), Table 20 provides Census estimates of the number of households and median household income for each of the identified plan areas/nodes. Table 21 provides a summary of workspace inventory (office, retail, and industrial) and the number of multi -family units from CoStar6 data for the same areas. The following narrative provides a brief description of each plan area (by City) along with the corresponding demographic and real estate data. These areas have the greatest potential to bring the transit/walkable area economic development benefits described earlier in this section. Corona Corona currently has two Metrolink stations, the North Main Station and the West Corona Station, both of which are owned and operated by RCTC. The North Main Station is located just north of the Downtown area and the West Corona Station is located in another activity node with office and industrial surrounding land uses. The North Main Station Area and Downtown Area are located roughly one-half mile apart, divided by SR-91. The Downtown Specific Plan area is currently developed with a mix of uses including 460,000 square feet of office space, 630,000 square feet of retail space, 80,000 square feet of industrial space and 1,500 households (see line item entitled Corona Mixed Use Downtown). The North Main Street Specific Plan (see line item entitled Corona Mixed Use 1) is currently developed with 95% industrial uses. The City envisions more intensified future development in the station area and has allowed for increased density of up to 60 units per acre and 2.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). While Corona's Downtown and adjacent North Main Street Station Specific Plan Areas encourage mixed -use development and alternative travel modes, it will likely take time to coordinate and implement these plans. The North Main Street Area in particular will need to undergo a major transformation from industrial uses into diversified and intensified transit -oriented development. 6 CoStar is a commercial real estate firm which develops and maintains a comprehensive database on commercial properties. A full company profile can be found at Co.Star.com. December 2019 179 Page 156 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 20 — Plan Area and Demographics Number of Median Household City / Plan Area Transit Policy Class Households (2017) Income Corona Corona Mixed Use Downtown [1] Transit Oriented 1,518 $38,945 Corona Mixed Use [1] Transit Oriented 2 $42,500 Hemet Hemet Mixed Use Area Around Future Metrolink Transit Potential N/A N/A Hemet Mixed Use Transit Potential 88 $26,329 Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley Rubidoux Village Center Overlay Transit Potential 61 $38,078 Jurupa Valley Pedley Village Overlay Transit Potential 36 $55,981 Jurupa Valley Glen Avon [1] Transit Potential 968 $50,086 Perris Perris Downtown Specific Plan Transit Potential 1,622 $36,858 Riverside Riverside Mixed Use Urban Transit Oriented 380 $19,263 Riverside Downtown Specific Plan Transit Oriented 1,863 $32,058 Riverside Western Mixed Use Areas [2] Transit Oriented 16,003 $51,187 Temecula Temecula Jefferson Ave Specific Plan Transit Potential 11 $171,824 Temecula Old Town Specific Plan Transit Potential 292 $36,384 Palm Desert Palm Desert University Area Transit Potential 194 $84,410 Palm Desert Downtown Transit Potential 2,254 $35,545 Sub -Total / Wght. Average Plan Areas 25,292 $46,233 Riverside County Total 741,071 $60,180 [1] A0.5-mile radius was drawn about the center of the plan areas [2] A custom polygon was drawn about the outer corners of the mixed -use areas along Magnolia Ave. Source: ESRI December 2019 180 Page 157 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORr6TON STUDY Table 21- Plan Area Real Estate Conditions City / Plan Area Transit Policy Class Office Corona Real Estate Inventory(Sq.Ft.) Retail Number of Share Multifamily Industrial Industrial Total Non- Units Residential Corona Mixed Use Downtown [1] Transit Oriented 457,794 630,421 81,404 1,169,619 7% 547 Corona Mixed Use [1] Transit Oriented N/A 5,229 102,878 108,107 95% N/A Hemet Hemet Mixed Use Area Around Future Metrolink Transit Potential N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A Hemet Mixed Use Transit Potential 123,860 442,624 226,619 793,103 29% 46 Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley Rubidoux Village Center Overlay Transit Potential 81,467 253,826 19,674 354,967 6% 43 Jurupa Valley Pedley Village Overlay Transit Potential 28,009 143,389 2,000 173,398 1% N/A Jurupa Valley Glen Avon [1] Transit Potential 10,157 96,570 N/A 106,727 N/A 529 Perris Perris Downtown Specific Plan Transit Potential 154,627 480,032 301,022 935,681 32% 926 Riverside Riverside Mixed Use Urban Transit Oriented 32,104 933,140 76,256 1,041,500 7% 786 Riverside Downtown Specific Plan Transit Oriented 3,199,649 893,329 407,927 4,500,905 9% 781 Riverside Western Mixed Use Areas [2] Transit Oriented 2,645,518 6,624,303 511,111 9,780,932 5% 9,423 Temecula Temecula Jefferson Ave Specific Plan Transit Potential 890,775 980,414 1,155,710 3,026,899 38% 0 Temecula Old Town Specific Plan Transit Potential 236,016 451,508 88,476 776,000 11% 534 Palm Desert Palm Desert University Area Transit Potential 310,607 146,940 19,623 477,170 4% 260 Palm Desert Downtown Transit Potential 1,254,824 3,732,820 N/A 4,987,644 N/A 1,231 Sub -Total / Wght. Average Plan Areas N/A 9,425,407 15,814,545 2,992,700 28,232,652 11% 15,106 Plan Area as Share of Riverside County 27% 16% 1% 8% 11% Riverside County Total N/A 35,208,756 100,778,065 202,748,154 338,734,975 60% 133,978 [1] A 0.5-mile radius was drawn about the center of the plan areas [2] Acustom polygon was drawn about the outer corners of the mixed -use areas along Magnolia Ave. Source: CoStar December 2019 181 Page 158 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Hemet The City of Hemet has developed transit -supportive policies in anticipation of the future Downtown Hemet Metrolink station (see line item Mixed Use) and another potential station in West Hemet (see line item Mixed Use Area Around Future Metrolink). The future station is planned to be located in the existing Downtown area, which is currently developed with roughly 50% retail uses, 30% industrial uses, and a small amount of office and multifamily uses. The Downtown area includes a portion of existing development along with large parcels of undeveloped or underutilized land to the north. There are currently just 88 households in the specific plan area, but the City envisions transit -oriented mixed -use development and intensified building to support the future Metrolink. The potential station, West Hemet, does not currently have any quantifiable real estate uses. The City aims to establish multimodal transit services to connect the two stations and expand the City's alternative -transportation infrastructure. Jurupa Valley The City of Jurupa Valley has identified three existing village centers for intensified development and transit -centric infrastructure improvements. A Metrolink station is located in the Pedley Village Area, which is the City's historic downtown. This specific plan area is currently developed with 82% retail uses, minimal office and industrial uses, and 36 single-family households. The other two identified areas, Rubidoux and Glen Avon, do not have Metrolink stations but have been targeted by the City in their recent General Plan through the use of Village Center Overlays, which encourage infill development and the establishment of town centers. Rubidoux is centered around a main thoroughfare, Mission Boulevard, and has a retail -heavy mix of uses and a small number of existing residents, most of whom live in multifamily buildings. Glen Avon, on the other hand, has roughly 1,000 households and 530 multifamily units, making it the most residential of the three areas. The City envisions that these three activity nodes be redesigned to give greater or equal priority to alternative transportation nodes as to automobile traffic. Perris The City of Perris has prepared a Downtown Specific Plan for the existing Metrolink station. The Downtown area currently houses roughly 1,600 households, most of whom live in multifamily buildings. The existing downtown is currently developed at low densities but includes roughly 480,000 square feet of retail space, or roughly 50% of the total, with another 30% industrial space, and the remaining 20% office space. Additionally, the City has a Trail Master Plan that focuses on enhancing the City's pedestrian and bicycle networks. Riverside There are three existing Metrolink stations in the City of Riverside, with locations at La Sierra, downtown, and Hunter's Park. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) will house its new state-of- the-art research and testing facility, and Southern California headquarters on a 19-acre site near the campus of University of California, Riverside, and in proximity to the Hunter Park station. The City has developed a downtown specific plan that aims to enhance the existing mixed -use downtown area December 2019 182 Page 159 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study through intensified development and increased activity. The Downtown area is currently developed with 3.2 million square feet of office space, or 70% of the area's non-commercial space, with another 900,000 square feet of retail space and 400,000 square feet of industrial space. Additionally, Downtown has 1,860 households, many of whom live in the area's 780 multifamily units. The City's existing Transit - Oriented Development (TOD) policies, along with the established mixed -use nature of the Downtown, make Downtown Riverside a promising area for near -term TOD. Temecula The City of Temecula has identified two activity nodes for increased development intensity. The Temecula Old Town Specific Plan is the location of the City's downtown and is currently developed with mostly retail uses (roughly 450,000 square feet), office uses (roughly 230,000 square feet), and nearly 300 households. The Old Town area has a natural creek that divides the predominately commercial area from the predominately residential area. The second activity node identified herein is the Jefferson Avenue area, which is centered around the Jefferson Avenue corridor adjacent to the Old Town Area. The Jefferson Ave area includes just 11 households and is currently developed with 40% percent industrial uses, 30% percent office uses, and the remaining 30% percent retail uses. This area runs parallel to the 1-15 freeway with most of the existing development included in shopping centers and business parks. Palm Desert The City of Palm Desert, located in the Coachella Valley, has identified two areas for focused TOD development, Downtown and University. Downtown is currently developed with 1.3 million square feet of office space and another 3.7 million square feet of retail space. Additionally, the Downtown area is home to 2,250 households and roughly 1,230 multifamily units, further indicating the existing mixed -use nature of the City's Downtown area. The City aims to enhance connectivity within the area and amongst the rest of the City by enhancing mobility through high -quality transit. The second identified activity node, the University Area, includes the University of California, Riverside extension campus and the California State University, San Bernardino Palm Desert Campus. While the area is currently developed with mostly office uses and roughly 260 multifamily units, the City aims to leverage the potential of the Universities to develop the area with uses that support the growth of the universities while creating a well-connected mixed -use district. Additionally, the City has identified the University area as a prime location for future BRT or light rail service, which would help Palm Desert connect with the rest of the region. Furthermore, the CV Link project (a revolutionary new concept in active and alternative transportation), headed by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, will provide infrastructure for active and alternative transportation modes from Palm Springs to Coachella, with plans to extend from Desert Hot Springs to the Salton Sea at some point in the future. CV Link broke ground in 2017 with its first segment in Cathedral City, a 2 %2 mile segment from Ramon Road to Vista Chino. December 2019 183 Page 160 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Opportunities and Constraints The preceding data and analysis provide sufficient background information to indicate the key opportunities and constraints related to County goals for economic development. Opportunities Opportunities for Growth Riverside County and the Inland Empire, more generally, have an historic and ongoing advantage in providing opportunities for new growth and development. The Southern California region will continue to grow and as land and development opportunities become limited in the region's coastal area, there will be an ongoing interest in looking to the Inland Empire for residential and economic development opportunities. Growing Residential Population and Jobs -Pull The Great Recession hit the Inland Empire hard, but the County's population has continued to grow and, between natural growth and in -migration from other Southern California counties, population growth is expected to continue. This growth and the associated increased labor force will continue to provide an "out -commute" economic boost through household expenditures. In addition, the increasing population and workforce, combined with the increasing educational levels in the County, will combine to create an incrementally higher "jobs -pull" in other industry sectors in Riverside County. Over time, in combination with a range of other factors, this could act to support job growth in a range of industries as some businesses choose to locate closer to their workforces. This would result in substantial "in -commute" benefits. Goods Movement, Logistics, and More The combination of the regional and County transportation and goods movement infrastructure and the increasing shift toward e-commerce have made Western Riverside County a key center for distribution/logistics developments. These intermediaries in the trade and flow of goods have been an important source of jobs in the County, with further expansions and developments expected. There has also been increased development of Industrial Flex buildings that can combine office, R&D, manufacturing, and storage. These buildings provide space for a range of different industry sectors, often providing less expensive space than in other counties. However, increased truck trips have impacted the highway systems and RCTC is currently studying these impacts to assess the costs related to warehouse development. Business and Leisure Travel The expanding population and jobs base in Riverside County will continue to grow the amount of business travel from elsewhere in the State and beyond. The Coachella Valley, in particular, attracts a large number of leisure visitors spurring investments and spending on hotels, casinos, entertainment, retail, and associated activities. This influx of visitors to Riverside County is expected to continue to grow, bringing dollars and economic activity into the County. December 2019 184 Page 161 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Commuter Rail Supportive Investments With the recent investments in Metrolink, intra-County and inter -County commuters have new commute options. These investments will bring increased transit ridership for commuters and, in selected cases, support the emergence of attractive mixed -use districts for living and working. Additionally, there are many areas in the County where city policies will support compact forms of development and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. These investments and policies, when coupled with supportive market conditions, could both reduce automobile use while also spurring economic development. Challenges Historical Trends, Commute Patterns, and Office Development Industry sectors and businesses often cluster together in particular locations, with new businesses attracted to areas with existing clusters. New businesses often look to locate in business districts/office parks and the investment is less likely to occur where there is not a proven track record. This can be seen in Riverside County, and Western Riverside County in particular, where many employed residents commute out to often high -paying jobs in other counties. In the real estate sector, this is also apparent in the office market, where demand for office space has been relatively weak. While government and education functions occupy non -industrial space, new office development for private uses in the County has been modest. In recent years, there are signs of change and a shift in the jobs -housing balance, though this will be an evolving process. Education Levels Education levels in Riverside County have historically been lower than the average for Southern California. In recent years, however, this disparity has started to close. Going forward, continued efforts to provide a strong education to school and college -aged children will be important in developing a new generation of workers who have strong employment opportunities and who can provide a workforce to businesses interested in locating in Riverside County. Furthermore, keeping these college educated students in Riverside County will be critical as historically many do not remain in Riverside County after graduation. Scale and Land Use Patterns The size of Riverside County makes economic development efforts more complex due to the different advantages and preferences among jurisdictions and subregions. As noted in the UC Riverside Forecast, Riverside County's clusters of jobs are more dispersed with less singular concentration around one major employment center. As a result, there is less opportunity to provide transit or other transportation solutions with one single investment. Instead, with Riverside County's multiple jobs and housing centers, Riverside County will need a range of transportations investments and types to improve commutes, reduce congestion, and shift more travel to non -vehicular modes. Similarly, the historical pattern of lower density residential and industrial development also means that the development of mixed -use and walkable districts may take more time to evolve and/or need to be developed anew. December 2019 185 Page 162 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Use Conflicts In a diverse economy that mixes residential development with a range of non-residential development types, there are likely to be conflicts between land uses and their associated transportation needs. In particular, supporting the goods movement/logistics industry, an important engine of economic growth, while maintaining a strong quality of life for existing and future residents and other types of businesses will be critical. Funding Many of the ongoing opportunities for economic development in Riverside County relate to the core characteristics, established businesses and population, and other comparative advantages associated with Riverside County (such as location within the Metropolitan Region). Many of the additional opportunities are, however, tied to investments in transportation infrastructure, place -making, human capital (education), and other amenities that boost regional quality of life and are attractive to firms and to workers. Like many California jurisdictions, Riverside County and its jurisdictions have faced shrinking levels of State and federal dollars available for these important investments for many years. At the same time, while the County and its local jurisdictions played a critical role in passing Measure A to support transportation investments, among others, the needs are substantial, and current funding levels are insufficient to fund planned improvements. Riverside County's historical and future growth and economic prosperity are tied to a multitude of factors. One important factor - that has played a major role in the evolution of the County's economy and quality of life and that will continue to be important in the decades ahead - is investments is transportation infrastructure and the associated effects on mobility, land uses, and development. Riverside County currently has a lower jobs -housing balance than other counties in Southern California, meaning that it is relatively "housing rich" and "jobs poor" compared to neighboring Counties. The resulting high level of out -commuting, especially in the western part of the County, has implications for the transportation needs, congestion, and quality of life of County residents. Riverside County also faces unique challenges in designing its optimal transportation investment program due to its geographic scale, its numerous and varied cities/communities, its more dispersed pattern of jobs, and its varied transportation demands. Transportation investments must serve both inter -County and intra-County mobility and connectivity. Differing transportation needs and challenges also exist within its three subareas — Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley — and different demands drivers — goods movement industry, tourism/leisure industry, daily commuting, and local trips. RCTC's Long Range Transportation Study will respond to the mobility demands of existing and forecasted households and jobs, and, through its investment decisions, will play a role in shaping future economic development in the County. The RCTC's goals include supporting economic development in the County through transportation investments, where possible, to support economic prosperity and December 2019 186 Page 163 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study quality of life. This includes helping to reduce congestion and improve quality of life by improving mobility, providing a range of mobility options, and, where possible, catalyzing economic development and job opportunities through its transportation investments. The overall economic development strategy for transportation investments is to improve inter and intra-County mobility for goods and people movement, reduce congestion and commute times, and encourage economic development by providing jobs -supporting transportation infrastructure. The economic development benefit of different transportation investments can be viewed through five different, but related, lenses/strategies: ✓ Improve mobility for residents and workers. Transportation investments, as quantified in Cost Benefit Analysis, can provide substantial economic benefits through travel time savings and safety improvements. A key loss of economic productivity and quality of life relates to travel time related to traffic congestion, whether during commute or other hours. Where households and businesses have choices, congestion detracts from a location's relative standing. Where they do not, it results in lost time, lower work productivity and diminished quality of life. ✓ Support local economic development and a long-term "jobs -pull strategy" by improving commuter mobility infrastructure by expanding capacity and providing alternative modes of transportation. Improved mobility connections between Riverside County and other counties (and within the County) will strengthen the economic connections and improve opportunities to attract new workers (as residents) as well as new jobs. New out -commuting residents will act both to drive local economic development through their local expenditures (on retail goods and services) as well as to increase the attractiveness of Riverside County for new employers as a location with an accessible workforce. Over the long run, an increasing labor force with a broad skill base can create labor pool "tipping point" that will help drive the attraction of new businesses and associated job opportunities. ✓ Combine transit investments and bicycle/pedestrian improvements with place -making and economic development opportunities where local jurisdictions are supportive. As discussed in the "Transit- Oriented Development/ High Quality Transit Areas" section, there are a number of areas in the County that are now being served by or may be served by new transit investments and/or pedestrian/bicycle connections. Not only do these investments bring new commute and local mobility options, reduced congestion, and increased transit ridership by commuters, but they can also act to support the emergence of attractive mixed -use districts for living and working. These investments would be most likely to catalyze economic development where the policy of local jurisdictions is supportive of such investments and the potential compact forms of workforce and residential development that can accompany them and where market conditions support these use types. ✓ Maximize regional economic impacts of transportation investments. Major transportation investments generate a substantial number of jobs (for a broad range of workers with different skill levels), salaries and wages, and economic output. These direct economic impacts, in turn, generate "multiplier" effects associated with the purchase of supplies and services that support the transportation projects as well as from the personal expenditures of the workers. The net regional December 2019 187 Page 164 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study economic impact is larger when local funding is matched with regional, State, and/or federal funding. ✓ Enhance and manage goods movement industry -supportive transportation investments. The County's location and transportation infrastructure, in combination with the broader shift towards e-commerce, has made Western Riverside County, in particular, a major attractor of logistics/ distribution space and associated jobs. As the Southern California region continues to grow, the expansion of this industry sector will continue providing job opportunities and economic activity and requiring investments in associated transportation infrastructure. As the County provides the supporting transportation infrastructure, it will be important to understand the needs and impacts of the truck traffic and seek to minimize its potential impacts on the quality of life of residents and workers. Conclusions SCAG's adopted 2016 RTP/SCS (and associated growth forecast) envisions strong job, household, and population growth in Riverside County through 2040. The forecast envisions a shift in the historical pattern, where job growth exceeds household and population growth, gradually changing the historical jobs -housing imbalance and likely reducing the proportionate level of out -commuting. Under this future, the economic benefits associated with the increasing numbers of households and employed residents will continue, while job growth will bring a range of new economic activities, tax revenues, and investments in real estate and infrastructure. Supporting the achievement of this future will be important for the economic health and welfare of County and regional residents. It would also lead to a virtuous cycle where new employment opportunities provide more options not to commute long distances, where local employment opportunities allow for a shift between transportation modes, and where growth and development generate revenues that can be re -invested in essential infrastructure. Transportation is just one piece of the economic development puzzle, but a critical one, especially for a county as expansive and dispersed as Riverside County. The willingness and ability to fund transportation improvements and system preservation and maintenance will prove critical to managing this growth, supporting additional growth, and maintaining/sustaining the quality of life of County residents. In addition to highway and arterial improvements, judicious investments in transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure will also offer alternative travel options, supporting compact mixed -use development districts in some places, linking households without vehicles to jobs in other locations, and generally helping to reduce congestion, improve air quality and public health. December 2019 188 Page 165 (11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION coMMISSION LRTS z G Chapter IV Riverside County Today — Existing (2016) Conditions I LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter IV. Riverside County Today — Existing (2016) Conditions Existing Land Use and Population Characteristics This section builds mainly on data used to develop SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS, since there are no other comparably detailed and disaggregated data for the base year (2016) and the horizon year (2045). Moreover, the transportation modeling is based on SCAG's modeling databases, including its land use and economic databases. Data presented includes: ✓ Households and Population data ✓ Employment and Major Industries data ✓ Household and Worker Income data Past growth trends, visitor, seasonal and part-time population, employment and disadvantaged communities are also discussed in this section. Table 22 shows past trends of population and employment for Riverside County and other counties in the region and the region as a whole. Table 23 shows detailed population and employment data for Riverside County and its three principal geographic subareas for 2016. The data presented in Table 22 and 23 were compiled from SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socioeconomic databases used in the transportation modeling being performed for the LRTS and are therefore consistent with the travel forecasts presented in later sections of this Study. Examining Table 22 and 23, several notable aspects of Riverside County's 2016 demography are evident: ✓ 50% of households in Riverside County are one and two -person households; 35% of households have four or more persons. ✓ 20% of Riverside County's resident are school age; this proportion holds for all three subareas. ✓ Not surprisingly, the Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys have a higher proportion of persons and heads of household over 65 compared to Western Riverside County. ✓ Nearly one-third (31%) of households in the county have no worker present. This figure includes retired households as well as households of unemployed persons and full-time college students. The data reflects the great recession and slow recovery during the first half of the current decade. ✓ More than one-third of households are one -worker households. ✓ Median income is higher in Western Riverside County compared to the eastern subareas. ✓ Countywide, nearly two-thirds of households had incomes of $75,000 or less. ✓ Over two-thirds of Riverside County's dwelling units are single-family. ✓ Nearly 70% of jobs in Riverside County paid $35,000 per year or less. ✓ Only 13% of jobs in Riverside County paid $75,000 per year or more. ✓ Education is the dominant industry in Riverside County, representing a quarter of all County jobs. ✓ Retail, arts and entertainment, and professional industry sectors all represent over 10% of jobs. December 2019 190 Page 167 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Only 2 percent of jobs in Riverside County are in the Information industry such as computer programming, system design, telecommunications, and others. Very few workers' pay for parking at work; those that do all work in Western Riverside County. At 1.1%, employment growth in Riverside County (noted in red in Table 22) is more significant than any other county in the SCAG region. Table 22 - SCAG Regional Population and Employment by County, 2000 - 2015 2000 Number % 2010 Number % 2015 Number % Difference (2010-2015) Number % c .� a o a Imperial 143,151 0.9% 175,594 1.0% 182,390 1.0% 6,796 0.0°% Los Angeles 9,543,983 57.6% 9,827,070 54.4% 10,158,776 54.1% 331,706 -0.3% Orange 2,853,893 17.2% 3,017,089 16.7% 3,157,074 16.8% 139,985 0.1% Riverside 1,557,271 9.4% 2,191,800 12.1% 2,316,438 12.3% 124,638 0.2% San Bernardino 1,719,190 10.4% 2,038,771 11.3% 2,111,258 11.2% 72,487 0.0°% Ventura 756,902 4.6% 825,378 4.6% 853,188 4.5% 27,810 0.0% SCAG Region 16,574,390 100.0% 18,075,702 100.0% 18,799,123 100.0% 703,421 HIOC* 62.09 58.34 58.19 -0.1 -, o5 1 Imperial 54,080 0.7% 56,480 0.8% 76,000 0.9% 19,520 0.2% Los Angeles 4,444,600 59.7% 4,140,040 57.1% 4,463,010 55.7% 322,970 -1.3% Orange 1,516,770 20.4% 1,492,940 20.6% 1,633,000 20.4% 140,060 -0.2% Riverside 513,740 6.9% 591,850 8.2% 742,000 9.3% 150,150 1.1% San Bernardino 587,340 7.9% 682,830 9.0% 729,000 9.1% 46,170 0.1% Ventura 323,200 4.3% 322,560 4.4% 363,000 4.5% 40,440 0.1% SCAG Region 7,439,730 100.0% 7,256,700 100.0% 8,006,030 100.0% 749,330 HIOC* 67.41 64.91 63.43 -1.48 10D** 0.054 0.066 0.052 -0.013 o coOrange R rc ., O. Imperial 2.6 3.1 2.4 -0.7 Los Angeles 2.1 2.4 2.3 -0.1 1.9 2 1.9 -0.1 Riverside 3 3.7 3.1 -0.6 San Bernardino 2.9 3.1 2.9 -0.2 Ventura 2.3 2.6 2.4 -0.2 SCAG Region 2.2 2.5 2.3 -0.1 Note: *HIOC (Hoover Index of Concentration) measures the distribution of population and employment. If HIOC equals 0, then population and employment are perfectly de -concentrated. If HIOC equals 100, then the county's share in comparison with the entire SCAG region's population or employment would be concentrated to a single county of the SCAG region. However, if the HIOC drops to 0, then each county's share would be equal. **IOD (Index of Divergence) measures the intra- regional segregation of population. Source: CA DOF, CAEDD, SCAG December 2019 191 Page 168 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Table 23 - Riverside County Population and Employment, 2016 Total Population [Percent of County We sic m 1,871,660 Riverside ®Totals 79% Coachella 463,849 Valley % 20% Palo Verde Totals 26,993 Valley 513 1% Overall Totals 2,362,502 County g° Residential Population 1,845,239 461,026 19,967 2,326,232 PemonsAge 5-17 [School Age] 378,539 20% 90,786 20% 5,287 20% 474,612 20% Persons Age 18-24 (College Age) 183,625 10% 43,001 9% 2,709 10% 2N,335 10% PemonsAge 16-64(World ngAge) 1,188,577 64% 284,267 61% 18,072 67% 1,490,916 635£. Persons 65and over (RettrementAge) 243,877 13% 73,166 16% 4,206 16% 321,249 14% Zero -Worker Households 169,129 30% 60,805 35% 2,877 41% 232,811 31% One -Worker Households 206,N6 36% 66,545 3995 2,335 33% 275,176 37% Two -Worker Households 138,945 24% 35,667 21% 1,509 21% 176,121 24% Three+ Worker Households 54,668 10% 9,311 5% 353 5% 64,332 9% K-12Students 396,313 21% 80,701 17% 3,815 14% 480,829 20% College Students 111,707 6% 14,520 3% 4,747 67% 130,974 6% Median Household Income $56,521 $54,839 $53,045 $56,036 Low Income (435k) HHs 184,188 32% 63,091 37% 2,472 35% 249,751 33% Median: $20, 641 $19,746 $21,300 $20,436 Med. Income ($35-75k) HHs 174,184 31% 52,812 31% 2,262 32% 229,258 31% Median: $52,154 $51,566 $55,172 $52,073 High Income ($75-150k) HHs 160,064 28% 41,564 24% 1,766 25% 203,394 27% Median: $97,212 $98,090 $98,224 $97,448 Very High Inc. (a$150k) HHs 50,602 9% 14,861 9% 574 8% 66,037 9% Median: $193,385 $220,896 $211,037 $20o,438 Single Family Dwelling Units 392,646 69% 108,965 63% 3,946 56% 505,557 68% Multi -Family Dwelling Units 176,392 32% 63,363 38% 3,128 45% 242,883 32% Total Jobs 548,335 178,241 6,041 732,617 Low -wage Jobs ([$35k) 375,366 68% 123,770 69% 3,831 635£. 502,967 69% Med.-wage Jobs (<$35-7514 101,205 18% 33,160 19% 1,102 18% 135,467 18% High -wage Jobs (475k) 71,764 13% 21,311 12% 1,108 18% 94,183 135£. Agricultural & Mining Jobs 7,011 1% 6,534 4% 550 9% 14,145 2% Construction Jobs 49,151 9% 12,953 7% 322 5% 62,426 9% Manufacturing Jobs 38,574 7% 4,621 3% 61 1% 43,256 6% Wholesale Jobs 19,571 4% 3,401 2% 107 2% 23,079 3% Retail Jobs 73,437 13% 21,785 12% 733 12% 95,955 13% Transport, Warehouse, Utilities 30,180 6% 5,867 33% 204 3% 36,251 5% InformationJobs 7,553 1% 5,174 3% 49 1% 12,776 2% FIRE Jobs 17,814 3% 7,201 4% 322 5% 25,337 3% Professional Jobs 58,341 11% 23,464 13% 241 4% 82,046 11% Education Jobs 142,216 26% 36,493 20% 987 16% 179,696 25% Arts & Entertainment Jobs 56,441 10% 37,758 21% 609 10% 94,808 13% OtherService Jobs 25,423 5% 8,335 5% 298 5% 34,056 5% PubliaAdministrationJobs 22,623 4% 4,605 3% 1,558 26% 28,786 4% WorkersPaying for Parking 14,567 35£. 0 0 14,567 2% Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Travel Market and Mobility Trends TravAl Marleot The transportation system is mainly comprised of two components: Travel Demand (trips) and Transportation Supply (infrastructure). There are over 7.6 million -person trips made every day by residents and employees within Riverside County and this number is expected to grow by approximately 35% by 2040. This is illustrated in Table 24 for the entire county as well as each of its three subregions. December 2019 192 Page 169 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study The generalized origin and destination of these trips in the base year and expected by 2040 are depicted in Figure 15 and 16. These figures illustrate percentages of auto trips that originate or end in Riverside County and Western Riverside County, showing trips that stay within Riverside County and Western Riverside County (intra-county trips), and those trips that travel into or outside of Riverside County and Western Riverside County (inter -county trips). As shown in Figure 15, the highest percentage of Riverside County's existing inter -county daily auto trips occur between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties (14%), with trips to and from Orange, Los Angeles, and Imperial Counties ranging from less than 1% to 3% trips in 2016, with similar travel patterns in 2040. Figure 16 shows that the highest percentage of Western Riverside County's inter -county daily auto trips occur between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties (18%), with trips to and from Los Angeles, San Diego and the rest of Riverside County ranging from less than 1% to 5% trips in 2016, with similar travel patterns in 2040. Trips to and from Western Riverside County are at 68% in 2016 and 70% in 2040. Figure 17 illustrates existing and future Heavy Duty Trucks (HDTs) travel patterns that originate or end in Riverside County. The majority of daily truck trips (49%) are intra-county for existing conditions. Future inter -county daily truck trips are expected to be similar to the existing. A majority of existing Riverside County inter -county truck trips occur between Riverside and Los Angeles (20%). Truck trips to and from Riverside County to San Bernardino and Orange Counties comprise most of the remaining daily truck trips, 20% and 10%, respectively. Figure 18 examines existing and future HDT travel patterns for Western Riverside County. The majority of daily truck trips (43%) are intra-county for existing conditions. Future inter -county daily truck trips are expected to be similar to the existing. A majority of Riverside County inter -county truck trips occur between Riverside and San Bernardino (21%). Truck trips to and from Riverside County to Los Angeles and Orange Counties comprise most of the remaining daily truck trips, 20% and 11%, respectively. Table 24 — Daily Person Trips REGION SCENARIO PERSON TRIPS JIFF% WRT.2016 Western Riverside County 2016 5,985,000 N/A Baseline 2040 8,060,000 35% Plan 2040 7,976,003 33% Coachella Valley 2016 1,605, 500 N/A Baseline 2040 2,296,000 4395 Plan 2040 2,306,000 44% Palo Verde Valley 2016 63,504 N/A Baseline 2040 163,500 157% Plan 2040 153,000 141% Riverside County 2016 7,654,000 N/A Baseline 2040 10,519,500 37% Plan 2040 10,435,000 36% December 2019 193 Page 170 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION SiVDY Figure 15 — Existing and Future Daily Auto Trips in and to/from Riverside County i Los Angeles County Daily AUTO Trips Year 2016 (x1000) Year 2040 (x1000) Inter/Infra Zonal Trip Flows /13 2% 191 (3%) San Diego County 4,174 (75°/0) 5,680 (74%) \\,.. 16 c 1 °/o 37 (<1 %) Imperial County (C1%) (C1%) Arizona 11FRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1/RPli IFCHNOIPL1r[ 1NC December 2019 194 Page 171 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION E or. LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 16 - Existing and Future Daily Auto Trips in and to/from Western Riverside County Los Angeles County 228 (5` ) 242 (4`)/oj Daily AUTO Trips Year 2016 (x1000) Year 2040 (x1000) r Interllrnra Zonal Trip Flows Western 43,089 (68%)Riverside County (68%) 4,133 (70%) San Bernardino County 812 (18%) 1019 (17%) 110 (2%) 196 (3)/o] San Diego County Riverside County 66 (1%) 72 (1%) Imperial County ISFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North IVRPA TTCHNOIPLff.S INC December 2019 195 Page 172 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION n LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 17 — Existing and Future Truck Daily Trips in and to/from Riverside County mir Los Angeles County T‘MIUMir San Bernardino County Orange County Daily TRUCKS Trips Year 2016 (x1000) Year 2040 (x1000) Inter/Infra Zonal Trip Flows 29 (20%) 44 (19%) 28 (20%) 42 (19%) Riverside County 0.9 2.1 Arizona 3 ( 1 % ) San Diego County 1 1% ) 2 (1%) Imperial County Wir RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North VRPII TFCNNPlPLffN INC December 2019 196 Page 173 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION SiVDY Figure 18 - Existing and Future Truck Daily Trips in and to/from Western Riverside County • L Los Angeles County 25 '(20%) 39 (21 %) Daily TRUCKS Trips Year 2016 (x 1000) Year 2040 (x1000) rinterllntra Zonal Trip Flows � 1 Western 453 (43%)Riverside County (43%) 84 (45%) 1 (1%) 3 (2%) San Diego County San Bernardino County Riverside County 4 (3%) 7 (4%) Irnperial County Arizona 115FRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AN VRPli TFCNNOI6G1f[!FC December 2019 197 Page 174 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study To further understand the travel patterns, the AM (6-9) and PM (3-7) peak period total (autos and trucks) vehicle trips are analyzed by focusing on the inter -county trips. Results from this analysis are presented in Table 25 and Table 26. The number of outbound vehicles, leaving Riverside County to Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties, are expected to grow by 13% from 2016 to 2040 but inbound vehicles are expected to grow by 30% during AM peak period. The PM peak period exhibits similar patterns with the reverse order of 31% increase for outbound traffic and 14% increase for inbound traffic. Given the current "exporting" of commute trips is expected to result in more balanced inbound/outbound traffic patterns. Table 25 - AM Peak Period (6-9 AM) Inter -County Auto and Truck Trips COUNTY Los Angeles 2016 ❑UTBOUND 2040 Change% 2016 INBOUND 2040 Change% 39,300 45,200 15% 21,100 26,500 26% Orange 45,700 45,900 0% 17,900 22,800 27% San Bernardino 90,900 107,700 18% 79,100 104,900 33% Tatal 175,900 198,800 13% 118,100 154,200 31% Table 26 - AM Peak Period (6-9 AM) Inter -County Auto and Truck Trips COUNTY Los Angeles 2016 OUTBOUND 2040 Change% 20116 INBOUND 2040 Change% 33,000 43,300 31% 50,600 54,900 8% Orange 27,900 36,900 32% 58,600 61,900 6% San Bernardino 130,300 168,400 29% 142,300 170,100 20% Tatal 191,200 248,600 30% 251,500 286,900 14% December 2019 198 Page 175 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study In addition, weekend, holiday, and seasonal weekday (winter, fall, summer, spring) travel and traffic patterns represent variations to average weekday travel conditions on the major roadway facilities of Riverside County. While variations differ slightly by morning and afternoon time periods, as shown in Figure 19, the purposes of travel are expected to be very different. For example, the majority of weekday travel is commuter or work oriented, while weekend and holiday travel consider different purposes. For each major facility in Riverside County (SR-60, SR-91, 1-10, 1-15, and 1-215), traffic counts were reviewed and used to determine changes in seasonal, weekend, and weekday travel patterns. This data was collected from the California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans) Performance Measurement System (PeMS) for two hours in morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and the afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). Future conditions are expected to remain similar to those reported for existing conditions. Figure 19 — Existing, Holiday, Weekend, and Seasonal Traffic Patterns in Riverside County Holiday Weekend Winter Weekday Fall Weekday Summer Weekday Spring Weekday Riverside County Average 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Number of Vehicles per Hour Freeways, Highways, and Major Arterials Roadways ■ PM ■ AM The Riverside County roadway system is comprised of an extensive network of regional and local facilities. These are comprised of limited -access interstates/state routes, managed lanes and local arterials which provide access for inter- and intra-regional trips. The highways and arterial roadways support the movement of people and goods throughout the County. In addition to serving autos and heavy-duty vehicles, the complete highway network also serves other modes of travel including transit and active transportation, i.e., walk and bike. Freeways Riverside County is served by three interstate highways and several state highways. The following paragraphs describe major freeway facilities including Interstate 10 (1-10), Interstate 15 (1-15), Interstate 215 (1-215), State Route 60 (SR-60) and State Route 91 (SR-91). December 2019 199 Page 176 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Interstate 10 1-10 traverses 156 miles of Riverside County, from near Calimesa Boulevard in the west to the Arizona state border in the east. Major interchanges with 1-10 in Riverside County are: Freeway SR-60, which provides east -west access from Los Angeles County to Riverside County, as well as other major state routes including SR-79, SR-243 in the Beaumont -Banning area, SR-111, SR-86, and SR-62 in Coachella valley and SR-78 in Blythe. The 1-10 Corridor generally has three to five through lanes in each direction of travel with intermittent auxiliary lanes. The 2016 Caltrans Annual Traffic Volumes Report indicates that the annual average daily traffic (AADT) for the 1-10 corridor ranges from 140,000 near Beaumont and Banning to less than 30,000 vehicles per day east of Indio. Recreational travel activities along 1-10 includes golf and hotel resorts, casinos, outlet malls/shopping centers, and music festivals. Interstate 15 1-15 traverses 52 miles in the County of Riverside as the primary north -south route connecting Riverside County to San Bernardino and San Diego counties. The corridor passes through the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Wildomar, Lake Elsinore, Corona, Jurupa Valley, Norco, and Eastvale. The 1-15 corridor varies between a six to ten -lane freeway facility through its length in the county. The corridor has two major freeway interchanges in Riverside County with 1-215 in the City of Murrieta and SR-91 in the City of Corona. The corridor is a primary link for the Inland Empire and the High Desert to major economic centers and geographic regions of the Greater Los Angeles area and San Diego. It is one of the most significant freight corridors in the United States, facilitating the movement of goods between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Ontario and Southern California Airports, States to the east, and the border crossings with Mexico. It also serves as a conduit for recreation travel to San Diego, Las Vegas, and other destinations along 1-15 such as Lake Elsinore and wine country in the Temecula Valley. In 2016, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ranged from 145,000 vehicles near the Riverside/San Diego County Line to 220,000 near the Riverside/San Bernardino County Line. The growing population and relatively affordable housing market in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, along with increasing employment opportunities in the Greater Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego County areas, and increasing goods movement and recreational traffic have increased demand on the corridor in the last decade and are expected to continue into the future. In anticipation of this growth in demand, a project is underway to add express lanes along I-15 from SR- 60 in the north and the Cajalco Road interchange to the south. The 1-15 Express Lanes Project will be open to traffic by 2020 and will consist of dual express lanes in each direction and direct connections to the RCTC SR-91 express lanes. Interstate 215 1-215 passes through 36 miles of Riverside County. The southern terminus of 1-215 is at the junction of December 2019 200 Page 177 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study 1-15 in the City of Murrieta in southern Riverside County. It then runs north through Perris before joining SR-60 in Moreno Valley. 1-215 splits from SR-60 at SR-91 in Riverside, where it continues north into San Bernardino County. This route is an alternative to 1-15 for drivers traveling through the region, for example from Las Vegas or San Bernardino to the San Diego metropolitan area. The route also provides for intraregional mobility between the Cities of Temecula, Sun City, Perris, Moreno Valley, and Riverside. 1-215 also provides access to the University of California, Riverside, March Air Reserve Base, Riverside National Cemetery, and major employment centers in the County. 1-215 is currently a six -lane freeway (three lanes in each direction) from 1-15 in Murrieta to its merger with SR-60 in eastern Riverside. Through the area where 1-215 and SR-60 share the same roadway, the freeway has been expanded to include four general purpose lanes and one High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. From the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 interchange near downtown Riverside north to 1-10, 1-215 has four lanes in each direction. The 2016 AADT on the 1-215 corridor ranges from 85,000 cars just north of 1-15 in Murrieta to 185,000 cars just north of where 1-215 and SR-60 merge together in east Riverside. State Route 60 SR-60 is a principal east -west artery, and major truck route, traversing 30 miles of Western Riverside County. The 12 miles in Western Riverside County has four mixed -flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. The section in Moreno Valley has two mixed flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction, and the eastern 10 miles of SR-60 in unincorporated Riverside County and Beaumont have two lanes of mixed -flow traffic in each direction. The AADT in 2016 was highest at the San Bernardino/Riverside County line near Milliken Avenue at 190,000 vehicles per day and the lowest AADT of 55,000 was the terminus of SR-60 at Jackrabbit Trail. Between the Cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley, SR-60 and I- 215 share a common facility. RCTC is currently implementing truck climbing and descending lanes, along with shoulder widening and flattening roadway curves, on a 4.5-mile segment through the Badlands between Gilman Springs Road and 1.4 miles west of Jack Rabbit Trail. This safety project is scheduled to be complete in 2021. State Route 91 SR-91 in Riverside County stretches 22 miles from the Orange/Riverside County line to the I-215/SR-60 interchange in Riverside. The corridor passes through the Cities of Corona and Riverside. The corridor is an eight to ten -lane freeway with one HOV lane in each direction. The corridor has three major system interchanges at SR-71 (Chino Valley Freeway), I-15 (Corona Freeway), and 1-215/SR-60. As a primary corridor that connects the Inland Empire to the commercial centers in Orange and Los Angeles counties, SR-91 has become one of the most congested freeways in Southern California. In 2016, nearly 265,000 vehicles per day used the corridor near the Riverside -Orange County Line. The western part of the corridor, east of Madison Street, carried around 185,000 vehicles per day. December 2019 201 Page 178 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Furthermore, SR-91 is an increasingly important freight corridor, facilitating the movement of goods between the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, regional airports, and warehousing and distribution facilities in the Inland Empire. The growing population and relatively affordable housing market in Riverside County, coupled with increasing employment opportunities in Orange and Los Angeles counties, continues to increase demand on the corridor. In response to this growth in demand, express lanes were added to SR-91 between the Orange County line in the west and 1-15 in the east, completed in 2017. The RCTC 91 Express Lanes serves as an extension of the Orange County Transportation Authority 91 Express Lanes and will have a direct connection to the 1-15 Express Lanes that are set to open in 2020. Other State Routes in the County include: ✓ SR-79 extends north -south from 1-10 at Beaumont to SR-74 in Hemet. ✓ SR-74 extends east -west from the Orange County border near Lake Elsinore to Palm Desert. ✓ SR-111 extends east -west from 1-10 east of Cabazon to Imperial County on the eastern shore of the Salton Sea. ✓ SR-86 extends north -south from 1-10 in Indio to Imperial County on the western shore of the Salton Sea. Managed Lanes Highway facilities include general purpose lanes as well as managed lanes which include both high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and high -occupancy toll (HOT) or express lanes. Managed Lanes are referred to as transportation strategies, generally within major freeway corridors, which are intended to better manage congestion and improve safety and reliability by actively managing the traffic demand on the facility. Currently, HOV lanes exist on: ✓ 1-215 along the stretch of highway shared with SR-60; ✓ 1-215 in Riverside between the 1-215/SR-60/SR-91 interchange to San Bernardino County line; ✓ SR-60 in Western Riverside County between the San Bernardino County line and 1-215; ✓ SR-60 in Moreno Valley; and ✓ SR-91 from the Orange County line to the I-215/SR- 60/SR-91 interchange. F55THI.K ONLY N4 CAS H 91 Express Toll Lanes 2 MILES v HOV lanes, express lanes and other existing highway are shown in Figure 20 (Existing Highways). December 2019 202 Page 179 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9. Arm. wt! LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Figure 20 — Existing Highways r� :t 151 Qk1 ALL a.ax1 I 4. • stl n PERRI 41. -- L AIL l.Na 1 �hlF6 I k Lesterml twpm Tsai - Weialia Ji4hwy7 wucL x .� Z++2+%, ��s�r�;aierr� P}10 L 7l�SiN4 ATv r..• r bila•=1-11.1 it r.+ r OFAlYtENDt COUNTY 111ONSPORTETIO 1 North PUPA !WI .,.I December 2019 203 Page 1 80 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Express Lanes In 2007, RCTC established a Toll Program to supplement Measure A funding and to employ a new strategy to reduce congestion along the SR-91 corridor. In March 2017, RCTC opened the RCTC 91 Express Lanes, extending the OCTA 91 Express Lanes into Riverside County and ending near the 1-15 Interchange. The 1-15 Express Lanes Project, currently under construction and scheduled to open in 2020, adds 2 express lanes in each direction from south of SR-60 to the Cajalco Road interchange. Existing and proposed express lane direct connectors at the SR-91 and 1-15 interchange will add to the operational efficiency of this system. The 91 and 15 Express Lane systems are expected to improve traffic operations and generate sufficient revenue to cover Operations and Maintenance, debt obligations, and potential surplus for future infrastructure development along the 1-15 and SR-91 toll corridors. As a result of these successes and new initiatives to further address the County's and region's mobility needs, RCTC determined that a "Next Generation" of possible toll corridors would need to be evaluated to expand the SR-91 and 1-15 backbone into a regional network of express lanes. RCTC has prepared the Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study that evaluated the potential for new or expanded express lanes and identified the most feasible for implementation. In addition, Caltrans is preparing a Managed Lanes Feasibility Study that will also provide further analysis of manage lanes strategies and proposed project recommendations. The outcomes of this effort will be reviewed by the Commission. Arterial Roadways Overall, arterials account for approximately 80% of the total lane miles of all highway facilities in the County. Arterial highways include facilities that are under local jurisdiction control as well as conventional (non -freeway) state highways. Major continuous traffic carrying arterials in the County, which connect multiple communities, include but are not limited to the following: Western Riverside County: ✓ Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway extends east -west from 1-15, crossing over the 1-215 and SR-79, until it connects to SR-74. ✓ Mission Boulevard/Van Buren Boulevard is an inter -county arterial that runs east -west from Valley Boulevard in Los Angeles County, through San Bernardino County and extends all the way to 1-215 in Riverside County. ✓ Central Avenue/Alessandro Boulevard runs east -west from Van Buren Boulevard across the 1-215 to Gilman Springs Rd. ✓ Perris Boulevard is a north -south arterial which runs through SR-74 and 1-215 all the way to the north County boundary. Coachella Valley: ✓ Varner Road runs parallel to the 1-10 for roughly ten miles from Palm Drive to Golf Center Parkway. ✓ Garnet Avenue and 20th Avenue, both running parallel to and on each side of 1-10, from the I-10/SR- 62 to 1-10/North Indiana Canyon Drive Interchanges. ✓ North Palm Canyon Drive, South Gene Autry Trail, East Vista Chino, Grapefruit Boulevard or SR-111, running through much of Coachella Valley. December 2019 204 Page 181 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Operational Efficiency As concern grows about the overall performance of the transportation system, the need to operate the transportation system as efficiently, reliably, and safely as possible has become the top priority among the transportation system stakeholders. Operation efficiency strategies are designed to optimize the transportation system throughput by managing and reducing congestion and delays. Key strategies in operation efficiency include: ✓ Corridor System Management Plans (CSMP) ✓ Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) A CSMP is a multi -jurisdictional and multimodal plan to improve operation and management along a corridor experiencing regularly recurring delay and congestion. A CSMP results in a listing and phasing plan of recommended operational improvements including Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Transportation System Management (TSM), Incidence Management, Managed Lanes, and roadway improvements such as auxiliary lanes and interchange improvements. As shown in Figure 21, there are currently four CSMPs identified by Caltrans in Riverside County: ✓ 1-10: San Bernardino County line to SR-60 ✓ 1-215: 1-15 in San Bernardino County to 1-15 in Riverside County ✓ SR-91: Orange County Line to I-215/SR-60 ✓ 1-15: San Diego County line to San Bernardino County line CSMPs were required for all projects receiving Proposition 1B (2006) Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funding. Senate Bill (SB) 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) requires comprehensive multimodal plans. In 2018 the California Transportation Commission (CTC) developed and released Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Guidelines. Looking into the future, RCTC, SBCTA, SCAG, and Caltrans have initiated the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (IE CMCP) that aims to develop east -west and north -south corridor plans in Western Riverside County consistent with CTC's corridor development guidelines and Caltrans' corridor handbook. The IE CMCP will be utilized for the SCCP Cycle 2 application process in Spring 2020 as well as other future state and federal funding opportunities. Caltrans will work with Coachella Valley agencies in preparing CMCPs for eastern Riverside County. The Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) will be part of these CMCPs. The ICM initiative was first introduced by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) in 2006. The vision of ICM is that multimodal transportation networks (including freeways, arterials and transit) will realize significant improvements in the efficient movement of people and goods when all elements within a corridor are proactively managed and are able to communicate. Key ICM strategies are: ✓ Arterial signal coordination ✓ Dynamic traffic re-routing due to incidents or events ✓ Ramp Metering ✓ System Coordination between Caltrans and local jurisdictions ✓ Traveler information exchange December 2019 205 Page 182 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9. A w� Figure 21— Corridor System Management Plan Projects 111.R1WIRSIDE CO 1NTY TOIAASPOREC1011 COM11150041 LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY December 2019 206 Page 183 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program The ITS Architecture provides a framework for implementing advanced technologies in a way that maximizes information sharing among agencies and the traveling public to improve safety and optimize traffic flow. It provides common standards that allow multiple agencies to develop systems that can work together. The ITS Architecture also fulfills a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/FTA requirement and allows the Region to use federal ITS funding. The Inland Empire ITS Strategic Plan was approved by the RCTC in 1997 and was subsequently updated in 2003. The Strategic Plan contains a list of goals and policies to be followed by responsible agencies within Riverside County to achieve a viable ITS infrastructure that improves mobility and enhances safety within the region. Nine core ITS components have been identified by RCTC that are needed to deploy a comprehensive set of ITS services throughout the county's metropolitan areas. These components are: ✓ Traffic Signal Control ✓ Freeway Management ✓ Transit Management ✓ Incident Management ✓ Electronic Fare Payment ✓ Electronic Toll Collection ✓ Railroad Grade Crossings ✓ Emergency Management Services ✓ Regional Multimodal Traveler Information SCAG recently updated the Regional ITS Architecture. Regional ITS projects (Highway and Transit) containing ITS elements are required to be consistent with the Southern California Regional ITS Architecture to be eligible for federal transportation funds. Transit System Introduction As a member of the five -county Southern California Regional Rail Authority, RCTC oversees operations of Metrolink service in Riverside County. Additionally, RCTC owns and operates all of the nine Metrolink stations that serve Riverside County. All stations are ADA-compliant and are staffed with 24-hour security guards. Currently, RCTC is studying the potential of providing additional Amtrak intercity rail service between Los Angeles and Coachella Valley. Public Transportation in Riverside County is also provided by the following seven (7) transit operators: ✓ City of Banning Transit ✓ City of Beaumont Transit ✓ City of Riverside Special Transportation Services (Paratransit only) ✓ Corona Cruiser December 2019 207 Page 184 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency ✓ Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) ✓ SunLine Transit Agency Transit in Riverside County is overseen by RCTC, who is responsible by statute for developing and approving a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for the County. It is updated annually and serves three purposes: 1. To identify transit services and capital improvements required to meet the transit needs of Riverside County over a three-year period and the proposed sources of funding to carry out the plan. 2. Serves as a management tool for operators to guide their activities over the next year. 3. Provides justification for operating and capital assistance for grant applications to be submitted to state and federal funding agencies. Annual Short Range Transit Plans Under the guidance of the SRTP, each transit operator is responsible for preparing a plan for their respective agency. RCTC is responsible for approving all plans and ensuring that they are consistent with SCAG's RTP/SCS. Further, RCTC must determine or approve the location, staging, scheduling, and capacity of all capital development projects, and must select and approve appropriate mass transit hardware and technology. Following approval and adoption of the agency plans by RCTC, the operators are responsible for their implementation. Two transit agencies have been delegated to coordinate the agency SRTPs: Riverside Transit Agency in Western Riverside County, and SunLine Transit Agency in the Coachella Valley. Public Transit — Human Services Transportation Coordinated Plan for Riverside County In 2016, RCTC completed a full update of the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan which provides a road map for addressing mobility needs of more vulnerable groups, including older adults, persons with disabilities, persons of limited income, persons of limited English proficiency and military veterans. The plan identified network gaps and areas of unmet need, and created a blueprint to address them through five strategies: ✓ Grow Mobility Options ✓ Connect and Coordinate Services ✓ Promote Safety and Comfort ✓ Improve Health Access ✓ Promote and Improve Communication Additionally, the plan is used as a tool to pursue funding for discretionary projects from the FTA Section 5310 program and from other state and federal funding sources as they become available. Further, the plan can be used by the county's transit providers to identify strategies that improve mobility of target groups (RCTC 2017). December 2019 208 Page 185 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study First and Last Mile Mobility The regional First and Last Mile Mobility Plan, prepared by RTA, documents ways to increase transit ridership through developing strategies that address first and last mile barriers to transit use. The plan lays out a foundation for developing a safer and more accessible transit network in Riverside County by: ✓ Summarizing the RTA's existing ridership characteristics; ✓ Highlighting the future needs of RTA's customers; ✓ Developing a set of Station Typologies (type and intensity of land use development) to characterize all 2,500 RTA stations (bus stops); ✓ Identifying various strategies to improve First and Last Mile access; ✓ Identifying pilot projects for each Station Typology (Urban Core, Core, Suburban, Rural, Commercial, and Industrial and Business Parks); and ✓ Providing an Implementation Plan. A key goal of the plan is to support the reduction of bicycle and pedestrian related collisions near transit stations and bus stops through safety improvements in catchment areas (where the catchment area is equal to a 3-mile, or 15-minute bicycling distance). The plan identified six (6) pilot projects representing each of the six (6) Station Typologies to be implemented in the near term, as depicted in Table 27. The six stations were analyzed based on bus stop location, bicycle and pedestrian related collisions, land use mix and population and employment densities. Based on this analysis, a unique set of strategies were developed for each station (detailed information about the strategies is documented in the First and Last Mile Mobility Plan). Successful pilots will eventually be duplicated at similar stations over time, as funding becomes available. Table 27 — First and Last Mile Mobility Plan Pilot Station Locations Station Typology Station Location Catchment Area Coverage Urban Core East University Avenue and Lemon Street City of Riverside City of Riverside, Jurupa Valley Core Perris Transit Center City of Perris City of Perris, Riverside County, RCTC Suburban Winchester Road and Nicolas Road City of Temecula, City of Murrieta, Riverside County City of Temecula, City of Murrieta, Riverside County Rural Winchester Road and Simpson Road Riverside County Riverside County - Winchester Commercial Limonite Avenue and Pats Ranch Road Jurupa Valley Eastvale, Jurupa Valley Industrial & Business Park Perris Boulevard and Rivard Road Moreno Valley, Perris Moreno Valley, Perris December 2019 209 Page 186 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study High Quality Transit Areas In the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, a series of High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) were identified. HQTAs are areas within one-half mile of a fixed guideway transit stop or a bus transit corridor where buses pick up passengers at a frequency of every 15 minutes or less during peak commuting hours. The HQTAs, which account for approximately 3% of the total land area in SCAG, are planned and projected to accommodate 46% of the region's future household growth and 55% of future employment growth. As of 2012, Riverside County's HQTAs accommodate only 0.05% of households and provide 4% of employment (SCAG 2016). It is anticipated with the 2020 SCAG/RTP update that there will be an increase in housing and employment accommodation percentages; however, funding will be needed to support investment in HQTAs. ITS Applications on Transit ITS applications on public transit are being deployed in the county, in forms such as WiFi on buses, real- time bus arrival information and text alerts, and on -board cameras. One example, the SunLine Transit Agency in the Coachella Valley, received over $4.7 million in funding from the FTA for the procurement of 51 bus shelters equipped with ITS technology in 2009'. Today, all SunLine Transit Agency buses are equipped with automatic passenger counters, automatic voice annunciators, automated vehicle locaters, global positioning systems, and WiFi. Passengers can utilize the interactive SunBus Tracker to receive up-to-date bus information. The SunLine Transit Agency SRTP updated for fiscal year (FY) 2020 identifies the following features to be implemented in a pilot program to improve operator and passenger safety: ✓ Forward collision warning ✓ Headway monitoring and warning ✓ Pedestrian detection ✓ Lane departure warning ✓ Speed limit indicator Recent Transit Initiatives The Riverside County Public Transportation Annual Countywide Performance Report for fiscal year 2015/16 identified five (5) new and recent transit initiatives in the county, which include: ✓ The Perris Valley Line, the first expansion of the Metrolink network since 1994, commenced service in June 2016. ✓ The City of Blythe secured a Federal "Rides to Wellness" grant that will improve access to medical centers in the Coachella Valley. ✓ The SunLine Transit Agency was awarded $12.5 million from the California Climate Investments initiative to purchase five zero -emission hydrogen fuel cell buses and to upgrade a hydrogen -fueling station in the Coachella Valley. ' Pro Publica Inc., 2015 December 2019 210 Page 187 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ RCTC completed the 2016 Coordinated Public Transit— Human Services Transportation Plan Update to identify network gaps and areas of unmet need. ✓ RTA completed the Downtown Riverside Stop Improvement Project with the aim of addressing long-term growth in transit service and promoting downtown mobility (RCTC, 2017). Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink Station improvements were made in 2018, which included adding approximately 513 new parking spaces, six (6) bus bays, and a signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue. RTA recently launched the CommuterLink Express Route 200, an express route connecting the Cities of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Anaheim at a cost of $3.00, with Disneyland being a destination for employee and leisure travelers. Buses are equipped with bike racks and free Wi-Fi and USB charging ports. Further, RTA is collaborating with the University of California, Riverside (UCR) to develop the UCR Mobility Hub, with the goal of improving service to the campus (RCTC 2017). Fixed -Route Transit As noted above, there are seven (7) transit operators. The service areas and service offerings of each are summarized in Table 28. The general service areas of each provider are shown in Figure 22. Table 28—Transit Providers and Service Offerings in Riverside County Transit Provider Services Offered Areas Served City of Banning Transit Circulator, Intercity Banning, Cabazon City of Beaumont Transit Local, Express Intercity, Special Event Shuttles Beaumont, Cherry Valley, CaIimesa, and Cabazon City of Corona, Corona Cruiser Circulator Corona City of Riverside Special Intercity, Demand Riverside* Transportation Services Responsive/Paratransit Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) Circulator, Intercity, Demand Responsive/Paratransit (Desert Road Trip) Blythe, Mesa Verde, Ripley, Ehrenberg AZ, CA State Prisons Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Local, Express Intercity, Anaheim, Banning, Beaumont, Canyon Lake, Corona, Country Village, Eastva le, Escondido, French Valley, Glen Avon, Hemet, Highgrove, Homeland, Romoland, Home Gardens, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Loma Linda, Mead Valley, Menifee/Sun City, Mira Loma, Moreno Valley, Montclair, Murri eta, Norco, Oceanside, Ontario, Orange, Orange Crest, Pedley, Perris, Riverside, Ru bi doux, San Jacinto, Temecula, Temesca I Valley, Wildomar, Winchester, Woodcrest Sun Line Intercity bus Desert Hot Springs, Desert Edge, Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, Bermuda Dunes, Indio, La Quinta, Coachella, North Shore, Thermal Mecca *Users can also go to designated transfer points to travel into Corona, Loma Linda, Mira Loma, San Bernardino and Woodcrest December 2019 211 Page 1 88 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9. A w� LRTS LONG RANGETRANSPOINATON STUDY Figure 22 — Riverside County Fixed -Route Service Providers and Service Areas 70 * Riverside Transit Agency . Carona Cruiser • City of Banning Transit System * City of Beaumont Transit System ® Sunline Transit Agency 0 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Riverside Special Services cwew rs Cant w s.n.agta OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North VRPA TECNNOlOGff( MC December 2019 212 Page 189 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study County -wide System Performance In Riverside County, the only system performance measure with a regulatory requirement is the farebox recovery ratio that is established in California law under the Mills-Alquist Deddeh Act of 1971(SB 325). All transit agencies in California must establish minimum contributions to operating costs from their riders' fares, called farebox, to ensure basic efficiencies and protect continued funding from public transit programs receiving Local Transportation Funds. The standards vary for rural and urban providers. Riverside County transit providers have established "blended" rural and urban minimum standards, which have been approved by Caltrans to reflect the county context. There are four important components to agency farebox recovery ratios: ✓ They reflect the interaction of factors that include ridership, agency policy and operating costs; ✓ They are heavily influenced by ridership as more riders will generate increased fare revenue while declining ridership will bring down the fare contribution to operating costs; ✓ They reflect critical agency policy as transit fares are a key policy area determined by the transit agency; ✓ They are influenced by attention to operating costs as systems operating efficiently will have lower expenses with fares representing comparatively higher proportions of total costs, higher farebox ratios. While the transit providers are currently meeting the farebox recovery standards, the majority of transit agencies in the county are experiencing a decline in ridership. If this trend continues it will become increasingly challenging for the providers to meet their farebox requirements. Operators are focused on introducing a mix of strategies to attract new ridership, including the Riverside Transit Agency's focus on downtown service, and a new marketing campaign and website at SunLine targeting young riders. Riverside Transit Agency has been focusing on improving downtown service, while also expanding interregional services. Utilization SCAG measures the relationship between transit trips taken and population growth by trips per capita. In the 2015/16 fiscal year, Riverside County saw a 5% decline in trips per capita from 7.2 to 6.8. While rail ridership grew by 2%, fixed route ridership (which makes up 85% of all ridership) declined by 5%. Demand responsive services, (including Dial -A -Ride), which account for 5%of all trips did not experience a change in ridership during this same period, but the Specialized Transportation Call program ridership dropped by 23% because of the termination of Federal funding for Commuter Link services (RCTC 2017). Accessibility and Coverage Population coverage in Riverside County is measured as the percentage of residents living within % of a mile of public fixed -route transit service, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirement of complementary paratransit to eligible persons with disabilities. The measure excludes dial -a -ride services. December 2019 213 Page 190 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Transit providers in Riverside County reported the following levels of coverage within their service areas: ✓ Riverside Transit Agency — 74% (no change from the previous year) ✓ SunLine Transit Agency — 82% (an 8% increase since FY 2013/14) ✓ Corona Transit — 73% ✓ Pass Transit — 92% coverage (a nearly 10% increase from the previous year) ✓ Palo Verde Valley Transit — 90% Connectivity Connectivity is a key measurement in Riverside County given its large geographic area where trips often require transfers between systems. Overall, there were minimal changes to connections across the county in FY 2015-16. Transit Operator Facts and Services Information on key characteristics and service offerings of each of Riverside County's public transit operators is found in RCTC's Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Existing and Future Conditions Memorandum. Further Transit Considerations Transit in Riverside County has undergone significant changes in recent years. In particular, there are two key issues influencing the county transit system: Funding for public transportation is increasingly complex. After many years of increasing revenues, state and local funding (from the California Transportation Development Act, Local Transportation Fund, and State Transit Assistance Fund), have flattened compared to previous years. Flat funding and continued population growth may limit the ability of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to develop new services or expand frequency or coverage of existing services. ✓ There is early evidence of declining public transit ridership in Riverside County. Transit ridership countywide declined by 10% to 14% in FY 2017. This is a result of low gasoline prices, an improving economy, ride hailing services (Uber and Lyft), and an increase in personal automobile purchases and access to drivers' licenses which can be attributed to the passing of Assembly Bill 60$ that allows undocumented immigrants to obtain a driver's license (Egel, 2018). Declining ridership presents a challenge for operators in meeting their TDA legally mandated farebox recovery standards. These trends may likely impact operations and policy for RCTC and its transit agencies moving forward (RCTC, 2017). a Assembly Bill 60 was passed in 2013 and it is speculated that as a result over 1 million undocumented immigrants have received driver's licenses in the State of California. December 2019 214 Page 191 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Active Transportation Introduction Active and low -speed transportation, defined here as alternative travel modes that operate at lower speeds than conventional automobiles and focus on non -pollutant means of propulsion (including walking, cycling, scooters, and neighborhood electric vehicles) are an important component of the Riverside County transportation system. The following sections provide an overview of the existing and future conditions of active and low -speed transportation facilities in Riverside County. Conditions in Western Riverside County, and Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys are provided through reviews of the Western Riverside Council of Governments' Western Riverside County Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Where individual cities have adopted active transportation plans, they are summarized. The coverage areas of WRCOG's ATP, CVAG's ATP, and city -specific ATPs are summarized in Figure 23. Finally, Safe Routes to School programs are discussed at the federal and state levels. Before discussing the existing and future conditions, it is helpful to understand the four bikeway facility types that apply throughout Riverside County. There are four (4) types of bikeway facilities recognized by the State of California — Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV facilities. Each bikeway classification is described below and depicted in Figure 24 through Figure 27. ✓ Class I facilities are multi -use paths, often referred to as bicycle paths that are physically separated from motor vehicle routes. Caltrans requires that paths are a minimum of eight (8) feet wide and are paved. They are intended to accommodate multiple user groups, including cyclists, pedestrians, and, in some cases, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). Class II facilities are referred to as bicycle lanes and provide exclusive space for cyclists on roadways. They are one-way facilities and carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Class III facilities are known as bicycle routes and are designated by signage and painted "sharrows" in vehicle lanes. They are shared with motor vehicle traffic, typically on roadways with speed limits of 35 mph or less. ✓ Class IV facilities are separated bikeways or "bicycle boulevards", which are physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. The separation may include, but is not limited to, planters and landscaping, flexible posts, and on -street parking. Currently, active transportation infrastructure in Riverside County is mostly found in larger cities. Vehicle travel is the dominant choice for transportation, with non -motorized transportation accounting for less than 3% of trips (according to American Community Survey 2012 — 2016 estimates). However, extensive improvements to the active transportation network are planned, which will reduce VMT and GHG, in addition to improved public health. Additional details pertaining to Active Transportation Plans and overall planning for pedestrians, bicyclist and small, low speed vehicles can be found in WRCOG's ATP, CVAG'S ATP, and city -specific ATPs. December 2019 215 Page 192 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9. A w� eiWestern Rruersitte CatrNty Active Transportation Plan 0 Coachelfa Valley Active Transportation Plan • Cities with Active Transportation Pians Cities Currently Writing Active Transportation Plans 0 Cities Without Active Transportation Plans O ]urupa Valley BikeiPed Master Plan OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Figure 23 — Riverside County Active Transportation Plans North LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORr6TON STUDY I/RPQ rrr1I..01e1,I1s I December 2019 216 Page 193 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Source: Caltrans Figure 24 — Class I Bikeway Figure 25 - Class II Bikeway LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Source: Caltrans December 2019 217 Page 194 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Figure 26 - Class III Bikeway Source: Caltrans Figure 27 - Class IV Bikeway Source: Caltrans Ef4tg LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY December 2019 218 Page 195 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Freight and Goods Movement Introduction Freight transportation and goods movement in Southern California and Riverside County are significant contributors to the state and national economies, and maintaining an efficient system has implications to both economic vitality, and quality of life. Continual growth in Southern California's population is driving an increase in national freight demand, with port cargo expected to triple by 2035 (SCAG, 2013). Although inland, Riverside County plays and will continue to play a key role in moving these goods. Of goods that enter through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, 77% pass through Riverside County, with 65% moving by rail, and 35% by truck, resulting in having a train at most rail crossings at least twice an hour (RCTC, 2012). As freight demand increases in the region, freight rail and truck traffic are likely to increase in Riverside County, especially given that national freight demand drives freight traffic in Riverside County to levels higher than almost anywhere else in the United States. In 2014, 66 trains with an average length of 4,000 feet passed through Riverside County daily, resulting in 600 vehicle hours of delay per day (where one vehicle hour of delay is defined as a single car delayed for one hour). By 2035, this is expected to increase to 137 trains with an average length of 5,200 feet. Vehicle hours of delay per day are expected to increase to 3,700 by 2035. These delays result from at - grade crossings where vehicles must wait for train crossings (RCTC, 2012). Additionally, truck traffic has been increasing faster than passenger car traffic over the past 20 years, and it is expected that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for truck traffic will increase by over 8% by 2035. One of the top 100 most congested truck bottlenecks in the country, as named by the American Transportation Research Institute in 2018, is located in Riverside County in the City of Corona (1-15 at SR-91) (ATRI 2018). Figure 29 displays the major truck routes location in Riverside County. Rail/Freight There are three (3) major freight corridors that run through Riverside County, which are a part of the nationally significant Alameda Corridor -East (ACE) Trade Corridor. Freight operators on these corridors include the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UP). The freight rail corridors for Riverside County are shown in Figure 28. The first of major freight rail corridors is the Southern Transcon Line operated by BNSF, which runs from the Ports of Los Angeles and San Diego, traverses Riverside County via the City of Corona and the City of Riverside and continues across the nation to Chicago, Illinois. It is a critical artery in the national freight movement system. The two other major freight rail corridors, the UP Los Angeles Subdivision and the UP El Paso Line are operated by the UP. The UP LA Sub route connects with the UP El Paso Line via the BNSF Southern Transcon Line between west Riverside and Colton. The UP LA Sub route, while owned and operated by UP, is also shared with Metrolink per operating agreements. Metrolink operates commuter passenger rail service on the Riverside Line on this corridor with approximately 12 trains per weekday. There is no weekend passenger rail service on this corridor and there are seven stations. The UP El Paso line heads south through Imperial County, towards Yuma, Arizona, and the eastern side of the Salton Sea. December 2019 219 Page 196 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION g LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Figure 28 — Riverside County Freight Rail Corridors r 1 r' �yQNIf *PR J�}N 4OUIN • I Q UP LA Sub UP El Paso Line — — - BNSP Transom Freight Rail Network { Cities OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North December 2019 220 Page 197 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Figure 29 — Riverside County Major Truck Routes INRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY December 2019 221 Page 198 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Trucking Of the more than 1.1 million daily truck trips in Southern California in 2012, approximately 8.2% (95,124) occur in Riverside County (SCAG 2013). While the majority of these 95,124 trips are moving goods internally (within the county), approximately 5,200 are external, port, intermodal, or secondary trips. There are seven (7) primary goods movement routes through Riverside County, including three (3) interstate highways (1-10, 1-15, and 1-40) and four (4) state routes (SR-60, SR-86, SR-91, SR-215) which cover a total of 313 miles, or approximately 21% of Southern California's total primary freight network (SCAG 2016). Figure 30 displays trucking corridors and major bottlenecks located in Riverside County. Of the eight primary goods movement routes in Riverside County, one has been identified as a high priority truck bottleneck location in the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (SR-91 at 1-15). The SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS identified approximately $5 billion to relieve goods movement bottlenecks from now to 2040. Additionally, on routes that experience high trucking volumes, pavement degrades at a higher rate, resulting in the need for more frequent maintenance and increased costs. Both bottleneck relief strategies and highway maintenance will remain important considerations moving forward to improve operations and goods movement corridors. Major Intermodal Centers There are three major intermodal centers within Riverside County: ✓ Tri-Rail Distribution Services (Rail and Truck, City of Riverside): connections to 1-215, SR-60, Transcon. ✓ Ancon Transportation (Rail and Truck, City of Riverside): connection to 1-215, SR-60, UP, Transcon, El Paso Line. ✓ National Distribution Centers (Rail and Truck, City of Corona): connections to SR-91, Transcon. Additionally, there are 20 intermodal centers within 15 miles of Riverside County, of which 16 are to the north in San Bernardo County, two (2) are northwest in Los Angeles County, and two (2) are to the west in Orange County. These have connections to major trucking routes and freight rail corridors that enter Riverside County, including SR-60, SR-91, 1-10, 1-15, 1-215, the UP El Paso Line, the UP LA Sub Line, and the BNSF Transcon. Any volume increases occurring at these centers over time are likely to result in increased freight rail and trucking traffic in Riverside County. Figure 31 displays Riverside County goods movement network showing intermodal facilities. Grade Separation Projects In recent years, approximately $500 million in funding has been invested to address conflicts between rail and highway traffic in Riverside County, primarily through providing grade separations at rail crossings. In 2006 and again in 2008, RCTC developed funding strategies to support the construction of many of these grade -separations. In March 2012, RCTC adopted the Grade Separation Priority Update Study for the ACE Trade Corridor (Riverside County). This study identified priority grade separation projects based on methodologies for safety evaluation, rail crossing delays, vehicle emissions, noise impacts, distance to nearest grade separation, local agency priority, project readiness, and isolated locations (RCTC 2012). December 2019 222 Page 199 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION f LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 30 — Riverside County Trucking Corridors and Major Bottlenecks 1 Cities Freight Trucking Route • Truck Bottleneck PERIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North December 2019 223 Page 1100 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION g LRTS LONG RANGETRANSPOIMATON STUDY Figure 31— Riverside County Goods Movement Network Showing Intermodal Facilities - Major Truck Route - Highways UP LA Sub UP El Paso Line — — - BNSF Transcon Freight Rail Network • Intermodal Freight Facilities VS..:: i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North VRFI{ IFCNN'V/OW(L MC December 2019 224 Page 1101 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study In the 2012 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East, RCTC identified 18 high priority crossings of the 46 remaining at -grade crossings located on the UP and BNSF main lines in Riverside County (16 in Western Riverside County and 2 in Coachella Valley). These projects were recommended to SCAG for inclusion on its constrained projects list based on the criteria (safety evaluation, rail crossing delays, vehicle emissions, noise impacts, distance to nearest grade separation, local agency priority, project readiness, and isolated locations). Riverside County Priority Grade Separation Projects can be found in Chapter V. Funding commitments are currently being secured; however full funding for the majority of the 18 projects will require a significant amount of future funds. Other grade separation projects recently completed include: ✓ Magnolia Avenue (County) ✓ Sunset Avenue (Banning) ✓ Clay Street (Jurupa Valley) ✓ Avenue 56/Airport Boulevard (County) The recently completed March Inland Cargo Airport 1-215 Van Buren Ground Access Improvement project was also a key infrastructure improvement serving a large job center located in the county at the March Joint Powers Authority re -use area, estimated to create 38,000 jobs in the industrial, logistics, and medical sectors. Major Commodities and Volumes Moved Nearly half of the goods entering California enter through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Of these, 77% pass through Riverside County, with 65% moving by rail and 35% by truck. Using these figures, approximate values of major commodities moving through Riverside County by rail and truck have been calculated from US North American Free Trade Agreement Freight Volumes for California. The results for the major commodities moved by rail and truck in Riverside County are shown below in Figure 32 and Figure 33. December 2019 225 Page 1 102 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 32 — Major Commodities Moved by Rail in Riverside County Plastics and Articles 3% rganic Chemicals 2% Paper and I norganic Chemicals... Paperboard Animal or Vegetable 1% Fats and Oils 4% Salt; Sulfur; Plaster and Cement 4% Mineral Fuels; Oils and Waxes 10% Wood and Articles 12% Vehicles Other than Railway 38% Food Residues and Waste 23% Figure 33 — Major Commodities Moved by Truck in Riverside County Computer -related Machinery and Parts 4% Meat and Edible Offal 5% Plastic and Articles 5% Woods and Articles 7% Electrical Machinery; Equipment and Parts 7% Paper and Paperboard 4% Vehicles Other than Railway 16% Furniture; Lamps and Prefabricated Buildings 4% Edible Vegetables and Roots 25% Edible Fruits and Nuts 23% December 2019 226 Page 1103 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Aviation Palm Springs International Airport Location and Access Palm Springs International Airport is Riverside County's only commercial airport, located 2 miles east of downtown Palm Springs (Figure 34). It serves as the major commercial and general aviation air transportation center for Coachella Valley. The airport is highly seasonal, with most flights operating during the winter, and is driven by the tourism industry. Tourism in Greater Palm Springs has been steadily increasing, with an estimated 12.9 million day and overnight visits in 2015, up 6.1% from 2013, and this trend is expected to continue (Greater Palm Springs, 2015). Ground transportation to the airport includes vehicle access from the CA-111, and to I-10 approximately five (5) miles south. Transit access is available via Sunline Transit Agency and Amtrak. Additional ground transportation options include: ✓ Personal vehicle (1,933 parking spaces available) ✓ Car rentals ✓ Services for Disabled or Seniors ✓ Limousine, Luxury Sedans, Vans, & Coaches ✓ Shuttle Companies ✓ Taxi Companies ✓ Bus Companies ✓ Bus -to -train (Amtrak) ✓ Transportation Network Companies (like Uber and Lyft) provide service to the airport on an operator permit program' Additionally, there are 209 employee parking spaces available. Pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and crosswalks are available for pedestrians moving between parking lots and terminals, but it is not convenient to arrive at the airport by foot or bicycle. Airport Characteristics and Usage The airport has a main passenger terminal and complex with two passenger concourses and two (2) fixed -based operators, providing a wide range of aviation services on two runways. In 2016, the airport averaged 153 operations per day, of which 33% were transient general aviation, 28% were air taxi, 27% were commercial, 9% were local general aviation, and 3% were military. In all, these trips generated an approximate 2.1 million visitors in 2017, a 5% increase over the previous year (City of Palm Springs 2018). While mode split data is not available for the airport, journey to work data from 2016 for Palm Springs indicates that the majority of trips in Southern California (76%) are made by car, suggesting that approximately 1.5 million of the annual visitors at Palm Springs International Airport arrive and depart by car. 9 In December 2017, the Palm Springs city council voted to allow TNC to provide services at the airport terminal if drivers undergo the same background check process and drug and alcohol testing that taxis are subject to. December 2019 227 Page 1104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Figure 34 — Palm Springs International Airport Location OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION E Oft is 40 LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY IVRPrl IFd-NAnr0A1E1 r.r December 2019 220 Page 1105 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Recent Improvements and Planned Upgrades The Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan, approved in 2015, outlined several key improvements aimed at increasing airport capacity and safety, and improving user experience. Improvements germane to the ambient transportation network include increasing parking availability for employees, rental cars, and the public (City of Palm Springs 2015). The City of Palm Spring's current focus for the airport is to improve employee and passenger transportation and tourist transportation to resort destinations nearby. Given the expected continual increase in passenger volumes at the airport, there is the potential for increased congestion on highways and crowding on public transportation near the airport. March Air Reserve Base The March Air Reserve Base (March ARB) is operated as a public -use airport under a Joint Use Agreement with the U.S. Air Force. As shown in Figure 35, March ARB is located between the Cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley, in Western Riverside County, and is approximately 65 miles east of Los Angeles. Regional access is provided by 1-215, which runs in a north -south alignment directly west of the airport, and SR-60, which runs in an east -west alignment north of the airport. Ground access to airport facilities is provided by Cactus Avenue. Recent and planned improvements to Heacock Street and Harley Knox Boulevard will facilitate ground access to the airport, particularly for trucks. The Moreno Valley/March Field Station on the Perris Valley Line extension of the Metrolink 91 Line is located near the entrance to the airport. Airport Characteristics and Usage The March ARB has two paved runways, with capacity for up to 21,001 operations (take -offs and landings) per year, but as of 2010 was realizing less than 4,000 per year. Along with increasing demand for air cargo in Southern California, there are several factors that may increase traffic at March ARB. Firstly, there is land and capability to construct space for high-tech manufacturing and distribution centers with intermodal capabilities. Secondly, the March ARB recently partnered with DHL in a 16- year operating agreement to run a domestic cargo distribution system, which is currently running 8 flights per day, but with plans to increase to 12 per day, including several international flights, over the course of the agreement. Thirdly, in terms of passenger traffic, the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS forecasted that March ARB could reach as many as 200,000 annual passengers by 2040. The airport is also still used extensively for military operations (March Joint Powers Authority, 2018). The land surrounding the airport has been planned and developed to ensure land use compatibility with the operation and potential expansion of the airport. December 2019 229 Page 1106 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Figure 35 — March Air Reserve Base Location RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY December 2019 230 Page 1107 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study The airfield has a fire station, fuel facilities, and more than one million square feet of ramp area that can accommodate aircrafts of up to 900,000 pounds. There is a new executive terminal which was completed in 2015. Airspace around the site is uncongested as the arrival and departure routes are not shared by other airports in the region (March Joint Powers Authority, 2018). Recent Improvements and Planned Upgrades In recent years, more than $28 million in federal funding has been granted to March ARB, and it has been designated as a "reliever airport" in the Federal Aviation Administration's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. Funds will be used for rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and construction of new infrastructure for civilian aviation (March Air Reserve Base, 2010). It is anticipated that the March ARB will continue to be eligible for federal and state funding and will continue to expand and accommodate additional air cargo (March Joint Powers Authority, 2018). The Los Angeles International Airport has been experiencing increased delays in air cargo handling due to congestion, and March ARB has the potential to absorb excess volume. Increased air cargo volume is likely to impact both on site employment and increase freight traffic to and from the site. While recent improvements to 1-215 have been made, it is likely that there will be a need for continued investment in ground transportation systems to accommodate increasing volumes at March ARB (March Air Reserve Base, 2010). Mobility Innovations Technological advancements in mobility are expanding at an exponential rate, transforming mobility trends and travel patterns. Since smartphones have entered the market their effects on people's daily activities have become profound. Mobility Innovations are both enabling and challenging. An example of an enabling technology is the infusion of information in bike sharing programs, which has existed for years. A new bike share model (dockless bike share) is emerging in cities across the country which allows users to rent a bike through a smart -phone application, and park it when their ride ends. This model of shared mobility is also seen with the introduction of electric scooters. Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft, which have created a new market, are profoundly changing the existing Taxi market but can serve as viable solutions for first/last mile trips. Technologies and emerging mobility trends must be considered as Riverside County develops its LRTS. The 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS placed a great emphasis on mobility technology/innovation strategies in supporting its goals and objectives. Whether it be deciding on the type of technology included in infrastructure projects or selecting the types of analysis and planning used to plan for system improvements, or guidance on local mobility and land use planning decisions, mobility innovations are key components in multimodal mobility planning. December 2019 231 Page 1 108 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Smart Cities "Smart Cities" are cities that leverage information and communications technology to more intelligently and efficiently use resources to deliver its services. Smart Cities take the approach of applying technology to manage an ecosystem of civic resources including transportation systems, telecommunications, utilities, health and human services, public safety, and other community services. They provide a system philosophy that integrates mobility innovations within its management framework to improve efficiency. Example Smart Cities in Southern California include the City of Riverside. SmartRiverside is a nonprofit coalition of partners whose vision is to establish the City of Riverside as an internationally recognized center for innovation. Its goals are to: ✓ Attract and retain High Technology companies in the City of Riverside. ✓ Increase the technology literacy of the City of Riverside through Digital Inclusion. ✓ Identify new programs to foster technology innovation and use in the City of Riverside. Mobile Phones Examples of mobile applications in use in Riverside County include MetroLink and Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). Both apps provide information on schedules and related information on riding transit. The MetroLink app also allows riders to purchase tickets through the app without the need to purchase a paper ticket and allows for Metro subway transfers. Recent percentages of tickets purchased through the Metrolink app range from 40-46% and climbing. Bike Share/Scooters Bike sharing programs increase cycle usage including first/last mile connection to transit and replacing short auto trips (1-3 miles) resulting in decreasing greenhouse gases and improving public health. Bike Share Programs involve the deployment of stations situated throughout a service area with participants paying a fee to check bicycles in and out of the stations. It is used in dense urban environments, for commuting, or in locations with strong potential for bicycling such as areas with parks, recreational destinations, or other land use supportive of bicycling. However, like all asset programs bike shares need to be properly managed: enforcement against theft and vandalism, repair, operations and maintenance are all aspects of a successful Bike Share Program. The City of Riverside launched an electric bike share program in November 2018 and the City of Moreno Valley completed a bike sharing demonstration project in 2017. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) is a federally designated class of roadway passenger vehicle usually designed to have a top speed of 25 miles per hour that can be operated on any public roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or lower. Most NEVs look like golf carts but they must meet enhanced safety regulations and operators must be licensed and insured. While most local trips in Riverside December 2019 232 Page 1 109 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study County are within the operating range of NEVs, full sized automobiles typically fill this role. To date, NEVs have become popular primarily in retirement communities and areas with large populations of senior citizens. Because NEVs are restricted from operating on wider, higher speed arterials, many areas would need to plan for construction of NEV-friendly road infrastructure. Key barriers to adoption of NEVs are the price and quality of commercially available NEVs. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has made NEVs a cornerstone of their mobility strategy, including their CV Link NEV/Active Transportation Corridor. RCTC Supportive Actions to Support Mobility Innovations RCTC should continue to be supportive of mobility innovations and support goals and policies that will ensure a safe and efficient transportation system for Riverside County. Consider the following actions: ✓ Support communication technologies in gathering data and managing traffic on arterial corridors to make useful information out of 'Big Data' — anonymized real-time geospatial locational data on motor vehicles. ✓ Plan supportive ACV infrastructure and assess the costs and benefits of ACV -related projects as markets develop. ✓ Engage ACV stakeholders in order to stay informed about industry best practices and options for application in Riverside County. ✓ Use data collection opportunities to maintain a broad understanding of the transportation system and its issues and opportunities. ✓ Assess possible changes in agency roles and/or new skill requirements that will aid in incorporating mobility innovations. December 2019 233 Page 1110 Chapter V Riverside County in The Future — Multimodal Transportation System RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter V. Riverside County in The Future — Multimodal Transportation System Highways and Major Roadways Highways The LRTS calls for a number of new highways, major roadways, and lane additions to existing facilities. Key projects include the following: ✓ Mid County Parkway, a proposed six -lane freeway between 1-215 and SR-79. ✓ SR-79, a proposed new 4-lane freeway between Gilman Springs Road and Domenigoni Parkway. ✓ The Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) Corridor between I- 15 and 1-215 which could be built as a freeway or an arterial roadway. ✓ 1-10 truck lane between the San Bernardino County Line and SR-60. ✓ SR-60 truck lane currently under construction between Gilman Springs Road and 1-10. ✓ I-15/French Valley Interchange project which includes the addition of various general-purpose lanes between Jefferson Street and Ynez Road. ✓ SR-71 widening to include two general-purpose lanes between the San Bernardino County Line and SR-91. Additional details regarding key projects are shown in Table 29. Managed Lanes The planned future lane -mile capacity additions to the current highway system are focused on managed lanes. Managed lanes account for half of the planned future growth in highway lane -miles in the County, including the 1-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on 1-15 and 1-215. RCTC has also identified potential new express lanes for further review from its Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study. The planned highway projects and potential express lanes are shown in Figure 36 and a description of potential express lanes projects can be seen in Table 30. December 2019 235 Page 1112 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION g A w� LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Table 29 — SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS 2040 Plan: Highest Cost Riverside County Roadway Projects ROUTE NAME FROM TO DESCRIPTION COMPLETION YEAR PROJECT COSTS ($1,0005) CETAP East-West Corridor 1-15 1-215 CETAP: Provide new East-West Transportation Corridor Between I- 15 In the west, 1-215 In the east, south of Lake Memphis in the north, and SR-74 in the south. 2045 $2,367,661 Nid County Parkway I-215in Perris 5R-79In San Jacinto In Western Riverside County New Mid County Parkway: Construct 6 through lanes (31anes in each direction); Approximately 16 miles between I-215 in Perris east to5R-79 in San Jacinto, including construction/reconstruction of 13 interchanges, addition of auxiliary lane Redlands -Evans& EB auxiliary lane Evans -Antelope. I- 215 Improvement: add 1 mixed -flow lane in each director Nuevo Road -Van Buren Blvd., & 1 auxiliary lane in each direction Mid County Parkway Cajalco/Ramona Expressway and from Mid County Parkway -Nuevo. 2030 $1,691,500 SR-79 2.01(MS/0 ❑omenigoni Parkway Gilman Springs Road On SR-79 in Southwestern Riverside County between 2.0 kilometers south of Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road; realign and widen SR-79from 2to4through lanes. 2035 $1,523,000 SR-91 SR-241 Pierce On SR-91/1-15: SR-91- add 1 mixed -flow lane each direction (SR- 241- SR-71). 2035 $260,000 15 SR-74(PM 22.3) To Junction 1-15/ 1-215 (PM8.7) Construct 2 HOV lanes (1 lane each direction) from SR-74(PM 22.3) to Junction 1-15/1-215 (PM 8.7). 2039 $375,664 1- 10/SR- 60 J CT/ SPLIT I-10/SR-60 JCT/ 'SPLIT Construct new interchange 2030 $282,443 December 2019 236 Page 1113 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION g LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Table 30 — Potential Express Lanes Projects ROUTE NAME FROM TO DESCRIPTION COMPLETION PROJECT COSTS YEAR ($1,000S) I-15 Existing: 1-15in Riverside County: construct 4 Toll Express Lanes (TEL) (2TEL each direction) from SR-60 (PM51.4) to Hidden Valley Parkway (PM42.9) and construct 2TEL (1TEL each direction) from Hidden Valley Parkway (PM42.9) to Cajalco Road (PM36.8). Advance signage will be installed at the south end between PM 51.4 (SR-60) TO PM 1.3 in San Bernardino County. Revised: 1-15 in Riverside County: construct 4TEL(2TEL each direction) from SR-60 to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road, from Hidden Valley Parkway to the end of SR-91TEL, and from El Cerritos Road to Cajalco Road advance signage will be installed at the south end between PM 34.7 to PM 36.6 (Cajal co Road) at the north end between PM 34.7 to PM 36.6(Cajalco Road) & at the north end between PM 51.4(SR-60) to PM1.3inSBCO. 2020 $472,000 1-15 Cajalco Road (PM36.8) 5R-74 (PM 22.3) Construct 4TEL (2TEL in each direction) from Cajalco Road (PM 36.8) to 5R-74 (PM 22.3). 2028 $544,000 SR-91 SR-241 Pierce On SR-91/1-15: SR-91- add 1 mixed -flow lane each direction (SR- 241- SR-71). 2035 $260,000 SR-60 1-15 -215/SR-91 IC Construct 2 Express Lanes (1lane EA DIR) From 1-15to 1-215/5R-91 Interchan:e 2033 $187,000 5R-91 1-15 1-215/5R-60 IC Construct Express Lanes (11ane EA DIR) From 1-15to I-215/SR-60 Interchange 2030 $262,000 SR-60/1-215 SR-60/1-215 I-215/Van Buren; 5R-60/Gilman Springs Construct4lExpress lanes (21ane EA DiR) SR-91/SR-60/i-215 Interchange to SR-60/1-2151C. Construction 2 Express LNs (1LN EA DIR) From SR-60/i215ICto Gilman Springs Road (SR-60). Construct 2 Express Lns (1 LN EA DI R) From 5R-60/12151C to Van Buren Blvd (I- 215). 2028 $429,000 December 2019 237 Page 1114 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION o LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 36 — 2040 Plan Future Highway and Potential Express Lanes Projects - — O---Th PA VALLEY+ r ' CALIM�, e ✓r- !S�:-� ....A.7,me -�I� 'R��-7v�' �}I.yr r DESERT OT SPRINGS es Li mg RIVERSIDE �.��- N O Req.,.jjr. M OR ENA VALLEY � Y I i re"..."',.-,r+ --J �.t� �7 BEAUMONT� 1s C6RONA s � 1 L • If g, ,,, ,J 1�'� iy CATHEDRAL f��i •\•5AN FACINTO �• PALM 5PRIN I CITYr L �� L ® 1 u' 1-� PERMIll E-Lj RANCHO MIRAG• PALM DESERT l 1 rI " J Pi I- J HEM ET 41. 1..� I L M'-"\_T-1 _l'InDIo: I CANYOH LAKE MCh IFCC 7 Ss. le... PO _ IAN WELLS _ COACHELLA a.�Tw E aslxoR� -. •� 44 WILOMAR b Ti P Y~` ti MURMUR L �+ I� LA 4�INTA Q --� Cam' as _ t S , 1-1 '•4 G{Y 65 / `-fS 'TEMCC 4 } 77 ^1/4-• Legend -----1 Fes- �f Exnress_Lanes .^,, Potential Express Lanes s Is am....* NMI Ta. 1.13,,,,ep,a,. ,111HOV Lanes cs...a r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION )L OF North IVRP4 IIfrwaouff IW December 2019 238 Page 1115 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study RCTC's Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study (2019) examined potential new and/or expanded express lane facilities within Riverside County. In Phase One of the Study, 16 potential express lane corridors were identified and analyzed for financial feasibility. This resulted in the identification of four corridors (Top Tier Corridors) that were further analyzed during Phase Two of the study. The Top Tier Corridors identified in the Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study included the following: ✓ SR-91 from 1-15 to SR-91/I-215/SR-60 Interchange (14 miles) ✓ SR-60 from 1-15 to SR-91/1-215/SR-60 Interchange to 1-215 (10 miles) ✓ I-215/SR-60 from SR-91/I-215/SR-60 Interchange to Gilman Springs Road (15 miles) ✓ I-215/SR-60 from SR-91/I-215/SR-60 Interchange to Gilman Springs Road (19 miles) The results of the detailed analysis showed that all four of the Top Tier Toll Corridors have some level of financial feasibility, which is defined as the ability to cover all operating costs. Therefore, these corridors could all be candidates for future express lanes facilities depending on the availability of non - toll revenue funding to support capital costs. Caltrans District 8 Managed Lanes Feasibility Study will also further review these corridors as potential managed lanes Arterial Roadways Based on SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS, a summary of the 2016, Baseline and Plan 2040 roadway lane miles are provided for the three sub -regions in Figure 37. Total roadway facility lanes miles in Riverside County will increase about 2% from 2016 to Baseline 2040. Under the Plan 2040, the total lane miles are expected to grow by approximately 20%. The Baseline 2040 scenario includes mostly projects included in SCAG's Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for Riverside County, which are projects programmed in the first six years of the RTP. These projects mostly have committed funds within the next five years. The Plan scenario includes additional financially constrained and unconstrained (strategic plan) for Riverside County over the next 20+ years as shown in Figure 38 to Figure 41. Baseline 2040 includes approximately two hundred roadway/highway projects. Plan 2040 has approximately 600 additional projects. The SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS highest cost roadway projects in Riverside County are shown above in Table 29. 1:^1 &AST plr�cslA sRCCHO MONT' December 2019 239 Page 1116 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 37 — Roadway Facility Lane Miles 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 A • 2016 Baseline 2040 Plan 2040 2016 Baseline 2040 Plan 2040 2016 Baseline 2040 Plan 2040 WRCOG CVAG Palo Verde ■ Freeway/Toll ■ HOV ■ Arterials ■ Collectors December 2019 240 Page 1117 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 38 — Baseline 2040 Projects (Western Riverside County) OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North rEcaMNorocrFalNc. December 2019 241 Page 1118 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 39 — Baseline 2040 Projects (Eastern Riverside County) CATHEDRAL CITY DIAN WELLS- -71 1 'INDIO1`COACH ELLA 4; LA�TAJ � r _r Ili OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION L� J North Y RPA TECHMOWGIES. INC. December 2019 242 Page 1119 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 40 — Plan 2040 Projects (Western Riverside County) '•, .40- �i ��� `'4 • ��'� ' r +tv n i. = 1 115FRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WILDOMAR North b YRPQ TECNN'OlOGIES.IMC. December 2019 243 Page 1120 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LOND RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 41— Plan 2040 Projects (Eastern Riverside County) Be,.,.io . LDDEES' rSERT HOT SPRING + „ r _1 •THEDRAL CITY PALM I 1 RANCH MIRAGE ,PALM DESERT DIAN WELLS INDIO. S»..v�end, vF ti II COALHELLA= LA qU I NTA � ��. Li-` OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION r '3 VRPd TECHNOIOeremC. December 2019 244 Page 1121 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Transportation System Preservation As population and employment growth increased over the years in Riverside County, the transportation infrastructure has come under significant stress. At the same time, decades of underinvestment in maintaining and preserving the multimodal system under increased travel demand, has resulted in aging and stressed roadways, highways, bridges, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The overall transportation infrastructure system continues to rapidly deteriorate and deferring maintenance will put more pressure on the system, compounding the problem. As the maintenance and preservation of the existing systems are delayed, the cost of repairs will increase exponentially. Furthermore, poor roadway quality results in additional vehicle maintenance cost. It is estimated that poor quality roadways cost users about $700 per household per year and with over 700,000 households in Riverside County, the increased household cost is $490 million per year. According to SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS, Riverside County has 480 lane miles of distressed state highways, 40% of which are categorized as in major structural distress. RCTC, in collaboration with Caltrans, should place a high priority on investing in the maintenance and preservation of the multimodal transportation system by adopting "Fix -it -First" as a key strategy in the LRTS. Operational Efficiency Full utilization of transportation infrastructure requires operational efficiency. As described in Chapter IV, operational efficiency strategies are designed to optimize the transportation system throughput by managing vehicle demand and delays to improve reliability and safety. Strategies to optimize operational efficiency and productivity of the transportation system include: ✓ Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) ✓ Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) ✓ Express Lanes A CSMP is a multi -jurisdictional and multimodal plan to improve traffic operation and management along a travel corridor experiencing regularly recurring delay and congestion. A CSMP results in a list of recommended specific operational improvements along with a phasing plan. These strategies may include intelligent transportation systems (ITS), transportation system management (TSM), incident management, and roadway improvements such as construction of auxiliary lanes and various interchange improvements. There are currently four CSMPs prepared by Caltrans in Riverside County: ✓ 1-10 San Bernardino County line to SR-60 ✓ 1-215: 1-15 in San Bernardino County to 1-15 in Riverside County ✓ SR-91: Orange County Line to I-215/SR-60 ✓ 1-15: San Diego County line to San Bernardino County line In addition, SCAG, RCTC and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), working in partnership with Caltrans District 8 have initiated Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plans (IE CMCPs), one focused on east -west flows of people and goods and the other on north -south flows. The geographic areas to be covered may be refined as part of the study, but they generally would cover the areas shown in Figure 42 and Figure 43. The IE CMCPs will further address operational efficiency and system productivity projects. December 2019 245 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9. A w� LRTS LONG RANGETRANSPOIMATON STUDY Figure 42 - Inland Empire East-West Multimodal Corridor Inland Empire East-West Multi -Modal Corridor OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION aim t�RP.4 TFCHNOIOGInINC December 2019 246 Page 1123 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ,A5 if! LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Figure 43 - Inland Empire North -South Multimodal Corridor Inland Empire North -South r Multi -Modal Corridor OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION • +e North Y RP— TECNNOlOG1ES 1MC. 247 December 2019 Page 1124 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study The Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) initiative was first introduced by the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) in 2006. The vision of ICM is that multimodal transportation networks (including freeways, arterials and transit) will realize significant improvements in the efficient movement of people and goods when all elements within a corridor are proactively managed and are able to communicate. Key ICM strategies are: ✓ Arterial signal coordination ✓ Dynamic traffic re-routing due to incidents or events ✓ Ramp Metering ✓ System Coordination between Caltrans and local jurisdictions ✓ Traveler information exchange Most ICM strategies have focused on improving passenger travel with less emphasis in freight corridors. Since freight movement is a key challenge, the ICM strategies need to strongly consider and emphasize the freight movement conditions, opportunities and strategies. As connected and automated vehicles move into the mainstream, infrastructure improvements to enable communication to vehicles from an ICM will be needed. RCTC supports the goals and policies to ensure a safe and efficient transportation system for Riverside County. The following actions are recommended: ✓ Identify the potential ICM corridors ✓ SR-60 as a Freight ICM corridor ✓ Work with SCAG on updating the Inland Empire ITS Architecture Plan Transportation Safety The concept of Transportation System Safety focuses on improving the safety for all users by protecting persons and properties from unintentional damage or destruction caused by a collision or natural disaster. To adequately address transportation safety in the Riverside County, data from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and vehicle miles of travel (VMT) data obtained from Caltrans' Performance Measurement System (PeMS) were analyzed for Riverside County. As illustrated in Figure 44, the number of all various types of incidents have increased from 2010 through 2017. This also closely corresponds to the VMT increase during the same period as shown in Figure 45. As the VMT are expected to grow in the future, the number of incidents is expected to grow as well. In an effort to reduce and mitigate the effects of accidents/incidents on traffic flow and efficiency, it is recommended that the four "E"s of transportation safety — engineering, enforcement, education and emergency response — become an integral part of the transportation safety program for Riverside County. The safety program should also support the Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) vision, a national strategy on highway safety that provides a framework for traffic safety planning efforts. In 2015, the California Department of Transportation released an update to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) which includes the following goals: ✓ A 3% per year reduction for the number and rate of fatalities; and ✓ A 1.5 % per year reduction for the number and rate of severe injuries. December 2019 248 Page 1125 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 44 - Incidents 20,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 mar accident breakdown hazard other ■ 2010 ■ 2013 ■ 2017 Source: California Highway Patrol Figure 45 —Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled VMT(xMillians) 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,003 6,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: Caltrans Performance Measure System (PeMS) December 2019 249 Page 1 126 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Closing Gaps and Multimodal Corridor Improvements SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS Plan 2040 includes approximately 700 highway and arterial projects in Riverside County of which approximately 200 are Federal Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIP) projects (projects in the first six years of the RTP/SCS) as shown in Figure 46. To identify the deficiencies in the system, the level -of -service (LOS) as defined by the ratio of traffic volumes to roadway capacity (V/C) analyses were performed for the PM peak period for the Baseline 2040 (only FTIP projects) and Plan 2040 (projects beyond the six -year FTIP period). The results are exhibited in Figure 47 and Figure 48. The AM peak period LOS analysis exhibited similar patterns of congestions as the PM peak period. The Plan 2040 projects greatly improve the traffic flow and LOS in the County. There are still four corridors where LOS falls in the E or F categories (V/C > 1.0) as shown in Figure 49: ✓ SR-91 from Serfas Club Drive to Pierce Street ✓ 1-15 from SR-74 to SR-91 ✓ SR-60 from Valley Way to SR-60/I-215 Interchange ✓ SR-79 from Ramona Parkway to 1-10 These corridors along with others will be further studied and analyzed as part of the multimodal IE CMCPs. CETAP Considerations The Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) was created during development of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) and it continues to be part of the County's planning process through inclusion in the County's General Plan Circulation Element. Four major transportation corridors were identified as part of CETAP that continue to be include in the County's planning process: ✓ Moreno Valley to San Bernardino ✓ East-West Corridor ✓ Winchester to Temecula ✓ SR-79 Realignment Study Area These four corridors are in various stages of the planning process. The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino CETAP corridor and the SR-79 Realignment Study Area remain on the County's Circulation Element. The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino corridor is being further studied by the County of Riverside. The environmental document for the SR-79 Realignment project was completed December 2016 and includes the southern portion that is part of the SR-79 CETAP corridor. These two corridors pose many challenges from an environmental, feasibility, and funding standpoint. Further analysis will be required to focus on phasing the project and identifying the most critical segments that meet independent utility and logical termini criteria. December 2019 250 Page 1127 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9. A w� LRTS LONG RANGETRANSPORfATION STUDY Figure 46 — Plan 2040 Projects CALI M ESA OR ENA V I r N Ill RU PA VALLEY 'EASTVAL OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BANNING yMB-EAUMONT � r SAN JACINTO, HEM rAla r ESERT H 6T SPR IN GS 1 • TH EORAL CITY PALM 56ION LYRANCHO MI••�1 PAiM tlE5ER _ [. N�DIA.N(W El'I N 01 \ �A CEUI NTA -�• M �SA E }yCALISA MORENAVALLEY �•r MCNIF17 CANyQk LANC 1•� r C 4.5IRQRC ILBOMAR MURRI TEM CC A • SAN IACI NT OACHELLA North LA 4Li I NTA LIRPA PTCHNOrowtr 1xc December 2019 251 Page 1128 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGETRONSPOINATON STUDY Figure 47 — Baseline 2040 PM Peak Period Level of Service • ■ v • OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION /1■ : iri02' sNumailtimen■>'rl��� IT 1i7777 Plik.. r■■x■11110r "111:ram■ iiiuc • II ■■■ii■'".� ■■■■[Ili\� ■■■■■�N 'NOMM. LOS e_Maw 1/RPA TECIMOIOCrFs INC. December 2019 252 Page 1129 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION oRh A AP LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 48 — Plan 2040 PM Peak Period Level of Service O fig. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ■ CJ,WER North e m m LOS — D or DEAN' E � F 6 3.3 6.7 56 hlHos VRPd TECHNOIOGIE INC December 2019 253 Page 1130 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 49 — Corridors with Level of Service E or F in 2040 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION )LL North 141PA rrC► NOWG1e5 rc. December 2019 254 Page 1131 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study The eastern portion of the East-West CETAP Corridor (from 1-215 in Perris to SR-79 in San Jacinto) has been designated as the Mid County Parkway and is currently moving forward toward implementation as a six -lane facility. The first phase of MCP, the I-215/Placentia Avenue interchange, is expected to be under construction in 2020. The western portion of the East-West CETAP Corridor (from 1-15 in Corona to 1-215 in Perris) remains under study to determine an exact routing and configuration. The Winchester to Temecula CETAP corridor consists of project improvements along 1-15 and southern section of 1-215 in the cities of Murrieta and Temecula. Automated/Connected Automated Vehicles Automated/Connected Vehicles (ACVs) are a series of technologies, currently in different stages of development, which allow communication among the infrastructure and vehicles to provide for more efficient operations. Some of the potential benefits of ACVs are: ✓ Collision Reduction: Collision -free driving and improved vehicle safety could change the concept of vehicles known today. ✓ Reduced Need for New Infrastructure: Self -driving can reduce the need for building new infrastructure and reduce maintenance costs. ✓ Travel Time Dependability: Convergence can substantially reduce uncertainty in travel times via real-time, predictive assessment of travel times on all routes. ✓ Productivity Improvements: Convergence will allow travelers to make use of travel time productivity. ✓ Improved Energy Efficiency: Reduce energy consumption in at least three ways: more efficient driving; lighter, more fuel -efficient vehciles; and efficient infrastructure. ✓ New Models for Vehcile Ownership: Self -driving vehicles could lead to a major redefinition of vehcile ownership and expand opportunities for vehicle sharing. Fully automated (sometimes called autonomous) or "self driving" vehicles are defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as "those in which operation of the vehicle occurs without direct driver input to control the steering, acceleration, and braking and are designed so that the driver is not expected to constantly monitor the roadway while operating in self -driving mode. Current driverless car technologies involve complex systems of cameras used to navigate the road without the need for human operation. These technologies allow for people to occupy themselves with activities other than driving during trips — akin to activities on public transportation — but do not represent a large potential for efficiency on the system level. However, connected vehicle technology offers the potential to eliminate the need for the camera systems through a mix of Vehicle to Infrastructure (V21) and Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) technologies, allow system management to occur at a large scale to maximize system efficiency rather than individual vehicle efficiency. December 2019 255 Page 1132 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study System Performance States and MPOs must monitor and evaluate the performance of their transportation systems to ensure the goals and objectives of their long range transportation plans are being met as part of state requirements and federal statutes such as Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 32/Senate Bill (SB) 375 and SB 743. MAP-21 placed increased emphasis on Performance -Based Planning and Programming (PBPP), i.e.: "performance management" within the Federal -aid highway program and transit programs and requires use of performance -based approaches in statewide, metropolitan, and non -metropolitan transportation planning. MAP-21 established a new standard for transportation system performance and planning at the federal level for states, regions, and local transit operators. The FAST Act, signed into law in 2015, largely left the Performance Management requirements of MAP-21 in place. MAP-21 requires a transition to performance -driven, outcome -based approaches in the following areas: ✓ Safety ✓ Infrastructure Condition ✓ Congestion ✓ System Reliability ✓ Freight Movement ✓ Environmental Sustainability ✓ Reduce Project Delivery Delays Through a series of federal rulemakings over the past several years, U.S. DOT established guidelines for how state DOTS, MPOs, and local agencies report progress on these performance measures to the federal government. In California, Caltrans took the lead in developing a statewide framework for performance reporting. MAP-21 has established a 4-year performance target setting and reporting cycle beginning in October 2018. SCAG has adopted the performance measures targets proposed by Caltrans for MAP-21 reporting for the 2020 RTP/SCS. Highway and arterial network are essential to infrastructure, providing the backbone to the multimodal transportation system for the movements of people and goods. The key issues facing the highway and arterial network are described in further detail below. Transportation System Preservation Decades of under -investment in maintaining and preserving the multimodal transportation system coupled with increased travel demand resulted in aging and stressed roadways, highways, bridges, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As the maintenance and preservation of the existing systems are delayed, the cost of repairs increases exponentially. According to SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS, Riverside December 2019 256 Page 1133 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study County has 480 lane miles of distressed state highways, 40 percent of which are categorized as in major structural distress. Operational Efficiency Full utilization of transportation infrastructure requires operational efficiency. New technologies provide tools to increase efficiency of the system in operating and managing congestion and the demand placed on the transportation system. Incorporation of transportation technologies into transportation planning activities is essential in improving mobility and safety. Transportation Safety The number of collision incidents increased over the last decade in Riverside County, corresponding to the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) during the same period. As VMT is expected to grow in the future, a focus on improving safety conditions will be needed to slow the growth in incidents. A Transportation System Safety Program focused on improving traffic for all users throughout the County can address the range of safety issues facing the County. Closing Gaps and Multimodal Corridor Improvements SCAG's Plan 2040 includes approximately 700 highway and arterial projects in Riverside County of which approximately 200 are Federal Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIP) projects which are funded with federal grants. With all planned improvements, there will be some corridors where traffic congestion levels will exceed mobility performance thresholds and will need to be addressed through comprehensive mobility improvements. Mobility Innovations Technological advancements in mobility are transforming mobility trends and travel patterns by being both enabling and disruptive to the transportation system. More and more, these innovations are coming from private sector initiatives with indicates the important role for the private sector in planning for mobility innovations into transportation planning activities. System Performance Measuring the performance of the multimodal transportation system is critical to reaching the desired goals and objectives of the LRTS. Federal legislation passed in 2012, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), introduced a new requirement to incorporate a performance -based approach into the transportation planning process to support regional transportation planning. Developing and adopting performance measures and targets needs to be incorporated into the planning process of the LRTS. December 2019 257 Page 1134 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Strategies To address the highway and arterials challenges and issues outlined above, a set of strategies are identified as follows: Transportation System Preservation Facing the level of maintenance and operation's needs, RCTC should place a high priority on investing in the maintenance and preservation of the multimodal transportation system by adopting "Fix -it -First" which prioritizes investments in the current infrastructure. Operational Efficiency The key strategies in operational efficiency of existing corridors are 1) Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP), 2) Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) and 3) Express Lanes. Partnering with Caltrans and local agencies will be critical in developing projects and programs to improve the operations of the state highway and roadway systems. RCTC will participate in Caltrans' Management Lanes Feasibility Study, which will provide a connectivity assessment of District 8 managed lanes in Western Riverside and San Bernardino counties and assess and prioritize future additions to the existing managed lanes system. Transportation Safety In 2015, the California Department of Transportation released an update to the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) which includes the following goals: ✓ A 3% per year reduction for the number and rate of fatalities; and ✓ A 1.5% per year reduction for the number and rate of severe injuries. These goals should be considered as a safety performance measure by RCTC. Closing Gaps and Multimodal Corridor Improvements Identify the corridors where traffic levels of service fall in the "E" or "F" categories under LRTS and develop multimodal Comprehensive Corridor Plans (CCPs) with actionable strategies and programs to improve mobility and safety. Mobility Innovations The key strategies in support of mobility innovations to ensure a safe and efficient transportation system for Riverside County are as follows: ✓ Incorporate technology for data gathering and managing traffic. ✓ Supportive of connected and automated vehicle (CAV)-related infrastructure projects. ✓ Engage CAV stakeholders to stay engaged with the industry best practices. ✓ Assess possible changes in agency roles and new skill requirements. December 2019 258 Page 1135 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study System Performance Support SCAG, Caltrans, and local agencies on enhancing countywide traffic data collection and analysis to conform with the MAP-21 standards and approaches requirements for Performance -Based Planning and Programming (PBPP). Develop data collection techniques to broadly understand the transportation system through issues and opportunities. Rail, Transit and Paratransit System and Service Providers' Connectivity, Maintenance, and Operations Riverside County has seen significant investment in transit in recent years, from the new Metrolink Perris Valley Line expansion to investments in reducing vehicle emissions from transit fleets. For example, through funding from the California Climate Investments Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, Sunline Transit Agency, in partnership with Antelope Valley, Kern County, and the California State Transportation Agency recently received funding for the procurement of fifteen new zero emissions buses (Caltrans 2018). However, the County faces significant challenges. An improving economy, decreased unemployment, relatively low gas prices, and increased auto sales have led to a steady decline in transit ridership. This is contributing to declining farebox recovery ratios, which presents challenges for maintaining funding for transit. Furthermore, performance challenges, including longer and less predictable run times, are mounting from increasing congestion, major road construction, and a rapidly growing population. There is limited funding for operating and capital that may ultimately cause a reduction in service levels. Despite these challenges, improving transit system connectivity, maintenance, and operations will play a critical role in supporting key goals in the region, such as providing congestion relief, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and increasing access to employment and key services. There are five (5) key issues facing Riverside County's transit system: ✓ Declining ridership (with the exception of Metrolink) ✓ Service coverage in low -density areas ✓ Challenges with level of service (e.g. performance and frequency) ✓ Transit revenue and competition for funding ✓ Uncertainty around emerging technologies Each of these issues and their associated challenges and opportunities are described in this section. December 2019 259 Page 1136 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Issues Declining Ridership In FY 2015/16, Riverside County saw a five percent decline in trips per capita (from 7.3 to 6.8) (RCTC 2017). While rail ridership grew by two percent, fixed route ridership, which accounts for 85% of all ridership, declined by 5% (Table 31). While demand responsive services did not experience a change in ridership over this same period, the specialized transportation program (a program aimed at transporting seniors and disabled residents' with rides to the mall, doctor's appointments, group events, senior centers or to visit friends) ridership declined by 23%, due to a loss in federal funding for Commuter Link Services (and a subsequent increase in fares). Increasing transit ridership provides a key opportunity for reducing the number of trips made by single - occupancy vehicles, thus reducing congestion on roadways. However, as car ownership in the County is widespread, inexpensive and convenient, and much of the population lives in suburban areas distanced from employment centers, increasing ridership is a challenge. Service Coverage in Low -density Areas Single family homes are and will continue to be the norm in Riverside County due to the availability and low cost of land and housing construction. Together with the low -density and dispersed character of development in much of the County, this represents a challenge for conventional forms of mass transit. Despite the fact that 82% of residents currently live within three-quarters of a mile of fixed -route service, ridership continues to fall, suggesting a need for improved service coverage. Increasing service coverage has the potential to support access to lifeline services and employment for rural populations. However, this type of expansion is costly, requiring vehicles to travel long distance to serve relatively few, and will be challenging to implement. December 2019 260 Page 1137 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION at LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 31—Transit Ridership Changes Public Transportation Trips Provided Countywide Countywide Countywide FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Countywide FY 2015/16 Service by Mode Trips Trips % of Total Trips % Change FY 14/15to FY 15/16 Rail [1] 888,844 898,216 1,048,003 1,071,669 6.8% 2.0% Public Bus, Fixed Route[2] 13,603,825 14,102,821 14,159,311 13,460,620 85.3% -5.0% PublicDemand Response 795,503 823,649 840,811 840,167 5.3% 0.0% Specialized Transportation/Universal Call Program 559,104 577,736 543,296 416,338 2.6% -23.0% ALL TRIPS: Including Rail, Public Transit, Measure A, JARC and New Freedom Programs [31 15,847,276 16,402,422 16,591,421 15,788,794 100.0% -5.0% Total Population [4] 2,227,577 2,255,059 2,279,967 2,308,441 Trips per Capita for FY2015/16 Total Population j4) 7.1 7.3 7.3 6.8 Notes: [1] Annualized rail boa rdings are from average weekday daily boa rdings at Riverside County Metrolink stations with historical FY 14/15totals corrected: Riverside, 91 and I EOC Li nes. Reported May 9, 2017. [2]'Public Bus, Fixed Route' trip counts do not include Specialized Transportation funded fixed route trips. [3] Public transit trips extracted from Tra nsTrac k 'Table 2 - SRTP Service Summary' on 4/4/17. Specialized Transit operators reported from MeasureAaudits. Rail trips reported directly. [4] RCTC Mid -Year Revenue Projections 2016Agenda: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unitas of January 1, 2016 December 2019 261 Page 1138 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Level of Service Riverside County has been experiencing challenges with providing a high level of service to riders in recent years. A steady increase in congestion has been occurring for several compounding reasons: ✓ Individual commuting times have increased due to affordable housing markets found further away from employment centers and increased need for intra - and intercounty travel. ✓ Auto and fuel costs are relatively low. ✓ Increases in freight traffic. ✓ High influx of seasonal residents, particularly in the Coachella Valley. These factors together have presented significant challenges for public transit providers. Runtimes have increased and have become less predictable, meaning transit is less desirable and practical for riders. As the County is geographically large and population density is low in many areas, service frequency remains low in many areas. Opportunities exist to improve connectivity in the network, improve the consistency of runtimes, and improve the quality of trips. Strategies that improve the convenience, reliability, and quality of service will help to make transit a more desirable mode of travel. Transit Revenue and Competition for Funding Despite continued allocation of local, State, and federal funding sources during the last decade, regional and local agencies continue to experience a revenue shortfall for system expansion. This shortfall is expected to continue for two very basic reasons: ✓ The revenues to support the transportation network's maintenance and improvements are not increasing fast enough to keep up with inflation. ✓ The demands for more maintenance and improvements have expanded beyond the normal inflation rate. Due to a new reliance on sales taxes, increased auto fuel efficiency, and fuel taxes that have not historically been indexed for inflation, the previously strong connection to revenue sources and use has deteriorated. However, the passage of SB 1 in March 2017 will provide $5.2 billion in annual transportation funding. Transit agencies receive some of this funding, and both cities and counties are required to submit a list of proposed projects before and after expenditure of their budget. While SB 1 provides a much -needed source of revenue funding, a funding gap still exists and continuing to secure other sources of funding for transit agencies is critical to the health of Riverside County's transit system. Uncertainty Around Emerging Technologies The separation between public and private transport is becoming less clear — mobility is changing, and future mobility is about more than just technology. It's about people, connectivity, and the need to continuously adapt to, create, and imagine our future. The rise of 'smart' infrastructure and the changing behavior of citizens is likely to have significant impacts on all aspects of the transportation system moving forward. December 2019 262 Page 1139 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study With respect to the transit system, uncertainty stems from the following: ✓ The profit motive of private companies (such as TNCs like Uber/Lyft) to provide public transportation may be an issue where focus is only on the most profitable routes. Loss of riders to TNCs could potentially undermine the economic sustainability and mission of public transportation systems, which have traditionally served the public good. ✓ The changing world of work —The rise of the 'gig' economy and zero -hour contracts (where employers hire staff with no guarantee of work and employees only accept work when they want to) is already changing work patterns and this is expected to change further with the rise of automation. ✓ New transport technologies - Delivery drones are already a reality, platooning freight and driverless buses are all well within the realms of reality, and cars with some level of automation are already operating on our roads. Increased connectivity will most likely accompany these developments. ✓ Mobility as consumption —'Mobility as a service' (Maas) is here. The public is set to become consumers of transport rather than owners or users, blending modes in real time from a multimodal palette to meet our on -demand travel needs. ✓ Behavioral adaptation —Technology does not drive the future; how people respond to it does. How people will react to new technologies is the major known unknown. ✓ Governance and financing - The emergence, and in many places the dominance, of private sector players in future mobility is highlighting the need for careful consideration of roles and responsibilities for transit agencies, multi -level government partners, and the private sector. Changing Demographics and Demand for Paratransit The percentage of persons 65 and over in Riverside County is expected to more than double by 2040, from 13% to 30% of the total population. Currently, County transit providers provide demand - responsive paratransit to residents living within three quarters of a mile of a fixed -route service. While 82% of the population falls within this area, the remainder of the population is not currently served by transit or paratransit services. As the population ages, there will likely be an increasing number of seniors living outside of this area, resulting in an increased demand for paratransit services. Further, paratransit services in Riverside County typically require a reservation no less than 24 hours in advance. This can present challenges for seniors and those with disabilities who have last-minute or changing transportation needs. Expanding paratransit services can be a significant challenge, particularly because of high costs and scheduling challenges. However, expansion of services has positive social benefits and increases equitability in the transit system. Strategies Continue to enhance programs that support rideshare and transfers to transit through incentive programs and the provision of Park and Ride facilities. RCTC currently incentivizes ridesharing and connections to transit through several programs: ✓ Rideshare Incentives, which provides a $2/day incentive for those new to ridesharing; ✓ Rideshare Plus, which provides discounts at various merchants to enrolled members; December 2019 263 Page 1140 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ Rideshare 2 Rails, where those completing their trip by rail are eligible for preferred parking at any Metrolink station; ✓ Vanpool Subsidy Program, which provides up to $400 a month on an ongoing basis for vanpool start-ups; and ✓ Guaranteed Ride Home, which provides a free ride home in a taxi or rental car in case of a personal emergency, such as an unexpected illness or unscheduled overtime. Continuing to expand these programs and introduce new incentive programs may help to reduce single occupancy vehicle travel. RCTC is currently undertaking a Park and Ride study, which may lead to a more comprehensive strategy for Park and Ride in Riverside County. This study should be reviewed, and the relevant strategies will be included in future updates of the LRTS. Improve passenger convenience by investing in real-time data tools and mobile integration Increased access to transit information through real-time information sharing can help increase predictability and convenience for transit riders. Easy access to accurate, real-time transit information has been shown to result in greater satisfaction with transit, increased perceptions of safety, and increased ridership frequency (Gooze, Watkins, and Borning, 2012). Exploring and integrating with existing tools, and the creation of new tools should be considered. Continue to support express connections to key destinations and transit centers to improve intercity travel efficiency Currently, public transit is not time -competitive with driving in many cases. For example, while travel by car from Desert Hot Springs to Palm Springs is approximately 45 minutes in duration, the same trip utilizing SunLine's fixed -route service can take upwards of three (3) hours. Identifying common origin and destination travel patterns and exploring ways to reduce travel times between key destinations and transit centers may help to increase attractiveness of travel by bus. Support increased service coverage in rural disadvantaged areas By increasing coverage, and targeting the most vulnerable areas, there is an opportunity to both increase ridership while supporting economic development among the most vulnerable populations. Implemented thoughtfully, providing public transportation alternatives in rural areas provides the opportunity for positive environmental impacts, improved economic opportunities for rural populations, and overall will provide a more equitable service offering that does not favor urban populations over rural. Support Riverside County Transit Agencies innovative marketing campaigns aimed at increasing youth ridership Riverside Transit Agency has recently launched a new marketing campaign focused on downtown service aimed at increasing ridership. SunLine Transit Agency has launched a new website aimed at increasing ridership in young people. Further, in April 2018 Metrolink conducted a survey aimed at millennials to better understand the mobility needs of younger demographics. Ultimately, their goal is to increase ridership among the "next generation of commuters." Supporting transit agencies in Riverside County with innovative marketing campaigns that potential riders can relate to, may help to December 2019 264 Page 1141 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study increase the diversity of riders and ultimately increase ridership. Establish First and Last Mile partnerships with alternative transit providers Transit agencies are increasingly partnering with Transit Network Companies (TNCs) to increase service offerings. Opportunities exist to partner with TNCs to provide discounted transportation for economically disadvantaged riders, or those within certain geographies, helping to address first -last mile challenges. Improve First- and Last -Mile Experience through public realm improvements Improving the pedestrian experience through public realm improvements can help to reduce first -last mile challenges. Improved wayfinding and signage around stops and stations, improved sidewalks and crossings can help to increase the willingness and ability of residents to access transit. Improving bike paths, lanes, routes and storage facilities as well as improving drop-off or parking locations at larger stations and exploring bike or car share opportunities may also help to address the first -last mile challenge. Consider emerging technologies in decision and policy making processes The pace of technological change in the transportation industry is rapid, and it remains uncertain as to exactly how these changes will impact traditional public transportation systems. Currently, advancements in transportation technology are being driven by the private sector, and by consumer choices. It is important that RCTC and transit providers in the county closely observe and investigate ongoing changes and consider the potential impacts of emerging technology on transit and paratransit services in ongoing decision -making and in creation of new policies. Explore options for last-minute paratransit bookings Paratransit services in Riverside County currently require a minimum 24 hours' notice for reservations. This can be extremely limiting for those who rely on the services and does not accommodate those with unexpected transportation needs. Exploring last minute booking options, for example through mobile apps, may allow for a more efficient use of resources and better service for those who need it most. Further, opportunities to partner with TNCs to provide paratransit services should be explored. Continue efforts to improve transportation options and access to information for tourists and seasonal residents The influx of seasonal residents, particularly in the Coachella Valley results in increased congestion on roads, which has negative impacts on the environment, on transit level of service, and on productivity for locals who suffer from increased congestion. Targeting transit services and marketing to tourists, the tourism industry, other businesses and hotels, and seasonal residents may help to support increased ridership, while reducing congestion on roadways. Facilitate communication among Riverside County's transit agencies to share learning and simplify service and fare structures While each transit service provider in Riverside County faces a unique context, and set of challenges, December 2019 265 Page 1 142 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study RCTC can play a key role in helping to facilitate communication and information sharing between the agencies, to allow for knowledge sharing. RCTC can also help to facilitate discussions around simplifying service and fare structures through coordination between agencies that may ultimately lead to improved service and increased cost efficiencies. The development of high -quality transit areas to absorb population growth while mitigating potentially negative impacts Supporting the development of the high -quality transit areas (HQTAs) identified by SCAG and local agencies will be helpful to ensure that new households in the County have access to employment centers through transit, particularly given that there will continue to be less jobs than workers in the County through 2040. While pursuing the development of HQTAs, an important consideration will be exploring ways to mitigate gentrification and potential negative impacts for existing vulnerable populations (as land values are driven up with improved transit, existing communities may be priced out of the market). Cities desiring to develop HQTAs should coordinate with RCTC and transit operators to review potential HQTA locations at or near Metrolink stations and transit hubs. Transit -Oriented Development/High-Quality Transit Areas A review of general plans and other mobility documents for all the jurisdictions in Riverside County was completed as part of the LRTS planning process. The objective of the review was to determine which cities were actively engaged in encouraging transit ridership through the development of high -density, mixed -use, walkable, compact development. The review classifies cities into four broad categories: ✓ Cities with established TOD policies around transit facilities (high density and Floor Area Ratio (FAR), with development focused around transit facility). ✓ Cities with potential transit supportive policies in certain nodal locations (high density and FARs that may support a transit connection). ✓ Cities with policies that encourage compact, walkable activity nodes. ✓ Cities without any specific policy encouraging compact development. Figure 50 and Figure 51 indicate the key locations of existing and planned activity centers in these cities that are transit -oriented, transit -supportive, or walkable activity nodes. High Quality Transit Areas Proposed 2040 HQTAs were defined for Northwest Riverside County, Southwest Riverside County, and the Coachella Valley in the 2016 RTP/SCS through consultation with Riverside County transit providers (Figure 52, Figure 53, and Figure 54)10. The figures indicate corridors that are planned and projected to accommodate the majority of future household and employment growth in 2040. 1° The figures shown on the following pages are 2040 High Quality Transit Areas. In 2017, the Southern California Association of Governments indicated that five pilot projects would be selected for implementation in October 2017. Currently, there is no information available about the selected projects or further information available about Riverside County's HQTAs. December 2019 266 Page 1 143 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION Sill DV Figure 50 —Transit-Oriented and Transit Supportive Land Use Policies (Western Riverside County) 16 ti.J'es OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North • } I !terrier WSJ Cities with Transit -Oriented and Tra nsit-S n ppo rt ive landu se Pol i[ ies-1Vestem Rives i de Legend Metrukne rat ws * harm Statne * Future Station MeiranL Rue - — -- Future Me:m6nk Espannon • atnniy Centers Cancifu,Tanen _ Pain: premed Role — hart Suapornre Hoer Acn.:r secs ✓RPA TEEHNINOG rEs.1 NC. December 2019 267 Page 1144 RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 51 - Transit -Oriented and Transit -Supportive Land Use Policies (Coachella Valley) Rahn Springs 12 78 Mlles RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION dian Walls is Qurda North Cities with Transit•Orlenred and Transit -Supportive Landuse Policies • Coachella Yaltey Legend !ninny Canton Glegeruitlen Trait'-Orn.Red Nod! _ Trans, 5.Pporbye Nada AMA+, vx es * Ind° Transit Stafor VIRPA TECH O10.6IFS. r.vr December 2019 268 Page 1145 RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STl1DY Figure 52 — Riverside County Northwest High Quality Transit Areas, 2040 t I E s San Bemardino County RmbW Ave su o' s_-- nR'`' , 1 Corona ) art t' • \. '',..• '� AmapsSI '�.6,0 SR pa u..s4ton A a , Orange \ County \ t Legend • s Riverside Carty Ba•�d•rP • • • • RgN SCOW Rat Trwelat ay &+. — SCAarmou Eval. JuA•mwon .•- CO,Nrstar RAT Ewess &n ,* MetroWk stations HOTA12010! Locr Rid R•Pd Bus tEmsmw & Punee} H�alq 7RnapiNLnlr euc Rapd Rama Lout&u• OFRWERSIdE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION e--r�; ti f � f boron* - --- 1 Valley ' •4 size e0 ' `-- I I Vio i nlfaa f YAW &V9 VRPA7E0MOIOGIEL MC. Source: SCAG 11 The CommuterLink Route 200 which provides express service from Downtown Riverside to Anaheim runs along SR-91 through the HQTA shown in Figure 52 269 December 2019 Page 1146 RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 53 — Riverside County Southwest High Quality Transit Areas, 2040 \�r 7 30 00 rrv=es 11 a RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ,n s } r ✓ '1 2 Perri* (1Ij Meofiee / Murrieta Erlaav Aa Temecula • i▪ . i I f•3 c.aua var pe * M {Distng a RM.} Legend CovMy BovrWry away Mqn Spud Rai EN SLAG ROTA Ergaala.Arnsd mae Ca.001, Rd HOTA {26S01 Loco& Rail Noway + Praimel Mena[ Bus Ra017'Rama - TrrnRAway Bus - Ewen Bus - Rap., Bus Lac.Y Bus (*PA IT CHNOIOGM L INC. Source: SCAG December 2019 270 Page 1147 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 54 — Riverside County Coachella Valley High Quality Transit Areas, 2040 Va =in Desert I iiT Ave �--- Legend Y Bardarr ■ ■■ ■ NISIB SPINSI Red fienuway Bus SCAG ROTA EWA' Amaicbal COWMAN Rai Erpruss Bus IOTA[2040] Lacy Rai Rapd Sus rl PdtwgY MaNF Ow Rapid Transit Local Sus * Metofnk Stations 1o4n;ig &FuneeF FSRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North , w N �� I ' a - --- f r ri ' liP L I 1 I .__ Indian ; Coachella Mlle kt+y l- 1 /Fml+Ytrttoz..1,,,, �__� ps n 1�iPli{ rrEaeAroeowearAlc Source: SCAG December 2019 271 Page 1148 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Western Riverside Cities with Metrolink Stations With existing Metrolink routes through Moreno Valley/March Field, Corona, Riverside, Perris and Jurupa Valley, cities have responded in updating their land use policies to support higher intensity uses in proximity to the existing Metrolink stations. As discussed previously, these stations are owned and operated by RCTC therefore jurisdictions should coordinate land use planning with the commission. City of Riverside The City of Riverside, with three Metrolink stations, has addressed TOD around the stations by allowing mixed -used development in proximity to the stations with residential densities up to 60 units per acre (higher in the downtown area), and employment Floor Area Ratio up to 5.0 in the downtown area. The City's Downtown Specific Plan seeks to bring downtown to its full potential as an area that is active during the days and evenings every day of the week. At the La Sierra station, the City's Mixed -Use Urban designation provides opportunities for primarily high -density residential development with commercial, office, institutional and business uses emphasizing retail, entertainment, and student -oriented activities. The City hopes such development will facilitate the grouping of innovative housing options with employment uses, entertainment activities and public gathering spaces and other community amenities. Well -functioning transit - oriented developments (TODs) would need to be constructed to this higher intensity of development. The Circulation and Community Mobility Element of the General Plan includes policies that support increasing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure indirectly by promoting denser, mixed -use uses and are tailored to specific streets/districts found within Riverside. City of Corona Of the two Metrolink stations in the City of Corona, the North Main Station, situated on the north side of the Corona freeway close to downtown, has planned TOD policies. The City has developed specific area plans for downtown as well as for the area around the station (North Main Street Specific Plan) that look to intensify land uses, as well as encourage mixed -used development close to the station. The specific plans allow for up to 60 units per acre, and up to 2.0 FAR with some locations not having any specified height limits. However, the areas covered with high intensities is limited within the North Main Street Specific Plan district. Parking requirements for the planned land uses in the area are conservative. In the Downtown area, the City limits the FAR to 2.0 and the residential densities to 20 units per acre. The downtown area, however, does focus on enhancing alternative modes of travel, and emphasizes improving pedestrian and bicycle networks and facilities to connect with both local and regional transit facilities. December 2019 272 Page 1149 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study City of Perris The City's Downtown Specific Plan hopes to take advantage of the Metrolink Station and transit connection mixed use through expanding retail opportunities and allowing for more mixed -use and housing opportunities while preserving the downtown area character. The Plan's form -based code limits heights to five (5) stories, primarily in the downtown promenade. The City has a trail master plan that addresses creating bicycle and pedestrian networks. Cities with Planned Expansion Metrolink Stations City of Hemet The future transit station in Downtown Hemet and the potential station in West Hemet have led the City to identify areas around these sites as mixed -use locations. The City hopes to encourage transit - oriented development in these areas. Key considerations for these locations would include high -quality pedestrian -oriented design, incorporation of community open spaces, innovative housing options, and ease of access from major highways, freeways and alternative transportation modes. The residential development density, and employment development intensity, recommended by the City's zoning regulations, vary based on the different neighborhood locations. As a reference, high -density residential can be up to 45 units per acre and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for commercial uses up to 0.5 in neighborhoods that surround the Metrolink Station, Downtown, and other key activity centers. The City supports the creation of connections between land uses that make alternatives to the automobile safe and attractive. The City's General Plan encourages planning for both pedestrian and bicycle use as part of future community plans. The community plan development guidance in the General Plan also suggests multimodal transportation systems be established to serve West Hemet and to integrate a phased system of master planned, "green streets", transit opportunities, bike paths and pedestrian linkages to connect land uses and activity nodes. Other Jurisdictions Some of the other cities and communities in the Western Riverside County area, such as Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley and Murrieta include land use policies that encourage moderate intensification of older downtowns and activity nodes that would include investing in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. These locations have the potential to become more transit friendly if they achieve a level of intensity and connectivity as desired in their planning documents. The City of Temecula has more intense development limits in its land use policies, wherein it calls for up to 70 units per acre in its mixed -use downtown core, and up to 35 units per acres in other City activity center areas. The City hopes to combine the higher intensities with better pedestrian facilities to create vibrant, walkable destinations in the City. December 2019 273 Page 1150 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Coachella Valle The cities in the Coachella Valley primarily focus on the revitalization of their downtown areas. The land use policies include developing compact, walkable mixed -use developments that would ensure greater activity in their downtowns. The cities in the Valley through CVAG have been working on a regional non -motorized route connecting the cities. CV Link plans to combine pedestrians, bicyclists, and low -speed electric vehicles (including golf carts) on a dual pathway through the Valley. City of Palm Springs The City identifies two districts - Downtown and Uptown, which constitute the City's Central Business District (CBD). The City hopes to create pedestrian -friendly retail centers by requiring developers to include gathering place and amenities in the CBD. Projects in the areas can be developed with a maximum FAR of 3.5. If projects in these areas provide substantial public spaces or plazas, a FAR of up to 4.0 may be developed upon approval of a Planned Development District or Specific Plan. The Downtown Central Core may also accommodate up to 70 dwelling units per acre for residential or hotel uses if a Planned Development District or Specific Plan is prepared and approved. Overall the City allows for up to 30 units per acre residential and a 1.0 FAR in the downtown area. The City hopes to strengthen and create additional pedestrian links from surrounding residential areas to commercial areas and downtown and ensure that pedestrian facilities are provided as a component of new development. City of Coachella The City of Coachella identifies a number of neighborhood centers, employment centers and a Downtown center as areas of mixed -use higher intensity development. The centers are to be the primary places of commerce, neighborhood -serving retail, arts and culture and civic activities. Centers are characterized by the urban and walkable character and their mix of uses. The downtown center allows for up to 65 unit per acres, and a FAR of up to 2.0. The City envisions having a balanced, multimodal transportation system and neighborhoods that are ready for transit. It plans to design and develop streets to accommodate multiple modes and prioritize community design that fosters accessibility to transit. The City envisions that their streets could accommodate future Bus Rapid Transit, have safe bicycling facilities and be pleasant to walk along. Other Communities and Jurisdictions The other cities in Coachella Valley have land use policies that mainly focus on improving walkability in their centers without substantially increasing intensities. Most of these jurisdictions look to have some moderate intensity multi -family housing within these centers to provide support for neighborhood businesses. For example, the City of Indio is developing a multimodal study which will include opportunities for future rail expansion. The 2016 East Coachella Valley Plan prepared by the County of Riverside addresses the unincorporated communities east and south of the City of Coachella. The plan identifies eight such communities that mostly lie between the City of Coachella and the Salton Sea. The Plan recognizes the limited land December 2019 274 Page 1151 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study available for development, as the communities within the valley hope to preserve the agricultural, and open space lands. The land use component of the Plan identifies communities that require a focused area plan, as well as identifying key village center and community center land use designations focusing on creating diverse mixed -use nodes within each community. These areas are identified as Town Centers and Mixed -use Area (MUAs). These locations are either hoping to intensify existing centers or become new centers within the community. These locations would be the key nodes for regional transit facilities and potentially be part of any Valley -wide transit system. Palo Verde Valley The City of Blythe in the Palo Verde Valley area doesn't have any significant land use policies looking to intensify uses. The General Plan does call for more pedestrian and bicycle friendly infrastructure for new development, particularly mixing land uses, with a tighter, more compact City grid and designing streets and neighborhoods, particularly for the Downtown area and surrounding residential neighborhoods. The County's Palo Verde Valley Area Plan adopted in 2015, covering unincorporated communities of Ripley, Mesa Verde, Chuckwalla Valley, and the communities just outside the City of Blythe. The Plan's land use policies do not address developing transit supportive uses or creating walkable communities. However, in the circulation element of the Plan, the stated policy outlines the need to develop a bikeways and trails network that can potentially connect recreational areas, communities, and activity centers. The land use intensities are contextually low, with some allowances for higher intensity mixed use community centers, which in the future could be potential regional transit nodes. Issues Local Land -use Regulations RCTC encourages transit-oriented/transit-supportive development. Some cities with transit stations have incorporated higher density, mixed -use regulations around station areas, which enhance transit ridership. However, many residents and cities have a negative perception of higher density development, perceiving reduced quality of life due to congestion and impacts on services. This makes it challenging for cities to approve higher intensity development within their respective communities. Parking Requirements Along with land use regulations, cities also have control over parking requirements for new development. In the future cities in Riverside County may need to evaluate off -site parking policies that consider transit and other modes of travel as densities increase, particularly in relation to TOD, HQTAs and other dense development locations. This poses a challenge in encouraging higher density development, which could result in limited parking. However, if the overall need to have a car decreases due to transit and ridesharing options, limited parking may not be an issue. December 2019 275 Page 1152 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study First Mile/Last Mile Access and Auto -oriented traffic engineering standards Access to transit stations is a particular issue due to the auto -oriented engineering and development standards adopted by cities in the County. With performance measures of roadways essentially tied to auto LOS, and ADTs, investing in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure lags behind. This reduces the efficiency of TOD as people may not feel safe and comfortable to take alternative modes of travel to train/transit stations, and other local activity centers. Financing TOD projects With the loss of redevelopment funds, cities are limited in abilities to finance redevelopment of sites around station areas. This poses a challenge in locations where station areas are surrounded by old commercial or industrial uses; fragmented land parcels that need assimilation or infrastructure capacity limitations. Affordable Housing & Environmental Justice Although the existing jobs -housing ratio for Riverside County is the lowest in the SCAG region, housing pressures will continue as the State tackles the affordable housing crisis. SCAG is currently updating the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which will assign additional housing units in the SCAG region requiring local agencies to adjust general plans to accommodate these housing units. Past RHNA cycles have placed a significant amount of housing units in Riverside County due to land availability and affordability. SCAG is reviewing TOD and HQTAs as they work on the assignment of housing units across the region. However, as the region grows, the transportation investments and station area development can create issues of displacement and adverse environmental impacts on low income and disadvantaged communities. Strategies TOD Policy Framework Since land -use regulations are in the realm of local jurisdictions, it is a challenge to negotiate with each city to create opportunities for TOD and transit -supportive development. With Riverside County being expansive, and having three distinct clusters, having a clear policy framework on defining how RCTC will help jurisdictions to incorporate desired TOD and transit -supportive land development policies would help streamline RCTC's approach with local jurisdictions and led to RCTC's 2005 Joint TOD Policy Framework. Working with the jurisdictions, SCAG and transit service providers, RCTC can help define place -types for different TOD and transit supportive areas, in terms of development intensity, parking requirements, mobility and access design standards at or adjacent to Metrolink stations. In addition, the policy framework can help outline funding priority and conditions for projects that complement or support the building of TOD and transit -supportive projects. December 2019 276 Page 1153 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Develop a TOD Standards Toolkit In addition to developing a TOD policy, RCTC could update its TOD Policy to assist jurisdictions in getting access to relevant information on building TODs and transit -supportive communities. There are existing regional agencies and transit service providers (such as SCAG and LA Metro) that have TOD toolkits that can be utilized by local jurisdictions to facilitate transit -supportive development Conclusions Cities that have existing Metrolink stations or have planned stations have made efforts in their land use policy to address TOD as they have transit facilities and/or population and employment densities to support TOD. Cities such as Temecula, Desert Hot Springs, and Palm Desert do have land use policies that look to significantly intensify development in key locations that could support future High Capacity Transit. A number of Coachella Valley cities do suggest the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or light rail in the future and have oriented their land use policies to support such transportation investments. Next Generation Rail Study The objective of the Next Generation Rail Study is to review previously identified high -capacity transit corridors, identify potential new corridors, prioritize potential future rail corridors for proceeding into project development, and develop additional information and data needed to initiate planning for the high priority corridors. Figure 55 illustrates the Study's Task 1 corridor evaluation process used to identify and evaluate potential future regional transit corridors, and to present recommendations for future extensions of the regional rail system. Figure 56 displays existing corridors and services. Three corridors were identified in the Study: ✓ Perris to Temecula ✓ Perris to San Jacinto ✓ Corona to Lake Elsinore Figure 55 — Next Generation Rail Study Task 1 Study Process I Document existing seances Review previous studies Identify corridors to evaluate Evaluate technology options Identify evaluation criteria • Evaluate corridor alternatives Conduct stakeholder outreach Make recommen- dations December 2019 277 Page 1154 RNERSIOE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGETRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 56— Existing Regional Rail/Transit Services °Mar To Los Angeles To Los Angeles Rrw ; To Orange 15 San L' *scite sa • f:lf ♦• • To Oceanside San Divardino 1ild 0 Si.. AI* 10 ..aevyar— 60 w.• 4. Vyl ♦ IZerris • To Oceansde 7 Eworld id* Paiomarll Mnontom a a Son tdgonio 9 Moenla in RON04.ill 5rr *, +;♦ •♦ Mt San Jacinto 9 palm sprmo io Cathaca.l ca i * Y Pall E7e5Pr1 lend. Santa Rosa and CaachNla 10 San Jowl° Mou Mona NasrDnat � 5_1 1 ! ATIarya Desen Ncr Sp nps San Bernardme NalP nalforest J Existing Services Metrolink Inland Empire - Orange County Line - Metrolink Riverside Line - Metralink 911Perris Valley Line RTA Commuter Link Express Route 200 1111111 RTA Commuter Link Route 202 RTA Commuter Link Route 204 Arza Ci PR WI MI VI Stq+e .10,a Tree Nalidn3i Nayfie:d 10 CNnxo S mmn Bombay Bead, Moir , a RTA Commuter Link Route 205/206 RTA Commuter Link Route 208 RTA Commuter Link Route 2101SunLine Route 220 RTA Commuter Link Express Route 212 RTA Commuter Link Route 217 Beaumont Commuter Link 120 * Metrolink Stations {Existing & Future} OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION4„ COMMISSION North 1/RPAr oa:wan noc. Source: Next Generation Rail Study 278 December 2019 Page 1155 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Another new rail service being planned is the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans), is studying options for providing additional Amtrak intercity rail service between Los Angeles and the desert cities in the Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley — San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service would extend from Indio in the east to Los Angeles Union Station in the west, a distance of approximately 141 miles An Alternatives Analysis has been completed, and work is under way to prepare a Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document this is consistent with federal and state requirements. After completing the Draft EIS/EIR, a Service Development Plan will be prepared to conceptualize how the service would operate and what infrastructure improvements would be needed to accommodate the new intercity passenger rail service. Key findings from the Task 1 corridor evaluation are summarized in Table 32 in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of each corridor. The Study recommended that all three corridors be included as potential future rail corridors in RCTC's LRTS. The next step in the corridor evaluation process should involve developing refined estimates of costs, ridership, and cost-effectiveness in order to better understand the corridors' viability, financial feasibility, and potential to compete for federal funds for corridor development. The refined capital cost estimates need to be based on conceptual design studies and include year of expenditure (YOE) cost estimates. The ridership forecasts need to be developed specifically for each corridor and based on the specific technology and service parameters being planned for the corridor. The operations and maintenance costs need to be based on service assumptions that are consistent with the ridership forecasts. The refined estimates of cost and ridership can be used to develop a corridor funding and implementation strategy which will be needed when RCTC seeks funding opportunities from the state or federal government. ..........11�fi� •l ��O December 2019 279 Page 1 156 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 32 — Corridor Advantages and Disadvantages Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Advantages ✓ Extension to an existing transit system ✓ Employment centers along the corridor ✓ High travel demand along the corridor ✓ Larger population within a 5-mile catchment area ✓ Highest forecasted ridership ✓ Greater GHG and emissions reductions ✓ Included in an adopted plan ✓ Political support ✓ Greater potential reductions in vehicular accidents ✓ Extension to an existing transit system ✓ Availability of rail ROW ✓ Lowest capital cost per mile ✓ Included in an adopted plan ✓ Political support ✓ Potential high growth corridor ✓ Highest travel demand along the corridor ✓ Connectivity to multiple Metrolink lines (91/PVL and IEOC) Disadvantages ✓ Highest overall capital cost and cost per mile ✓ Less connectivity to Metrolink lines (91/PVL only) ✓ ROW needs to be acquired ✓ Low forecasted population and employment density along the corridor ✓ Lack of employment centers along the corridor ✓ Less connectivity to Metrolink lines (91/PVL only) Low forecasted population and employment density along the corridor ✓ Lack of employment centers along the corridor ✓ Lowest projected ridership ✓ ROW needs to be acquired ✓ Highest capital cost ✓ Highest annual O&M cost ✓ Not included in adopted plan December 2019 280 Page 1 157 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Active Transportation A review of general plans and other mobility documents for all the jurisdictions in Riverside County was completed as part of the LRTS development process. The objective of the review was to determine how cities in the County perceive the importance of investing in active transportation facilities, and if cities have tried to plan for improving non -motorized connectivity within their jurisdictions, providing access to key destinations within cities and the County. Western Riverside County Cities in Western Riverside County that have updated their general plans after 2008, acknowledge the need to develop their streets based on complete street principles. Seven cities in Western Riverside County have developed bicycle and pedestrian master plans that identify desired bicycle routes, pedestrian trails, and facilities. The plans also outline design guidelines for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, with most prioritizing projects for investment. The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) released a regional Active Transportation Plan (ATP) in June 2018 that provides a resource for member jurisdictions and stakeholders to help identify important active transportation facilities they would like to see in their community and provides guidance on how each individual project can be achieved. The ATP identifies seven prioritized actions for implementation as soon as possible, to help build momentum and encourage the implementation of facilities identified in the ATP. These seven prioritized actions include: 1. Plan for a kick-off Open Streets Event: Have WRCOG sponsor an Open Streets event that simultaneously markets the Active Transportation Plan and its regional projects. 2. Begin identifying training courses: To assist in Champion Building, identify the subject matter for training courses that are most valuable for jurisdictions. 3. Develop formal Safe Routes to School Programs: Providing a comprehensive approach to make school routes safer for children to walk and bike to school. 4. Advertise Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program funding: Encourage that active transportation projects are built as part of the infrastructure using TUMF funding. 5. Influence the built environment to support multimodal transportation. 6. Develop bicycle parking guidelines as a model for the region that addresses parking for commercial, residential, and office uses. 7. Develop region -wide wayfinding signage themes and standards. The RCTC LRTS can reference the ATP to identify projects that would be of regional significance for investments, particularly those that connect high capacity transit facilities to key regional destinations. Coachella and Palo Verde Valley The cities and communities in the Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys under CVAG completed a regional Active Transportation Plan (ATP) approved in 2017. This ATP updates the Non -Motorized Transportation Plan for bikeways that was first completed in 2001 and updated in 2010. It revises the regional bikeway plan, as well as local bicycle plans for each jurisdiction. It incorporates individual city bicycle plans and provides additional policy and design guidelines to cities to improve their chances of December 2019 281 Page 1158 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study receiving funds for the pedestrian improvements around the five major SunLine Transit transfer points in this Plan. This ATP was produced in conjunction with an update of the Transportation Project Prioritization Study, the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate, and the Coachella Valley TUMF Nexus Study. The intent of the coordinated efforts was to help projects identified in the ATP be included in the other studies, resulting in appropriate regionally significant projects to be eligible for the same funding sources. The Plan was produced in a fashion consistent with Coachella Valley Link (CV Link) Conceptual Master Plan; the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Plan; several Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District project plans; the 2008 Complete Streets Act; AB 32; SB 375; and SB 99. The ATP identifies and prioritizes several improvement projects with a focus on creating improved connections to transit facilities and activity centers, as well as, complete networks that will help increase the share of non - automobile trips within the Valleys. The Plan provides the LRTS with a compilation of alternative transportation projects that cover both local and regional networks. Screening Criteria for Pedestrian Priority Locations To help prioritize the local and regional alternative transportation projects, a spatial analysis of overlaying several area -based criteria can help identify key locations where projects may have the highest impact in encouraging alternative travel modes. The criteria include several land use, transit, and other key entities that would require or support walking within communities. Figure 57 and Figure 58 provide mapping with different area -based criteria overlapping each other to highlight locations where people would want to walk or bike to. The streets within the higher activity areas can be given higher priority for pedestrian and bicycling investments. The maps include the follow criteria: ✓ 2040 High Quality Transit Area as defined by SCAG. ✓ TOD nodes, Transit -supportive nodes, activity nodes (as indicated in the Transit -Oriented Development/High-Quality Transit Areas section) and other commercial/mixed use nodes within each jurisdiction. ✓ Half -mile buffer from regional bus stations. ✓ Quarter -mile buffer from Metrolink stations. ✓ Quarter -mile buffer from CV Link trail. ✓ Quarter -mile buffer from schools and parks. These screening criteria for pedestrian priorities have been set by applicable ATP's in the region. Issues Incomplete Networks The WRCOG and CVAG Active Transportation Plans outline a desired regional trail network (WRCOG's Active Transportation Network and NEV Network). These networks at the moment are fragmented in terms of gaps in facilities as well as inconsistencies in types of facilities. Local bicycle networks too are fragmented or uneven in facility type, which discourage residents from bicycling. Some cities such as Temecula and Palm Springs have relatively extensive existing networks, however most cities do not have any significant facilities that connect different centers and destinations. December 2019 282 Page 1159 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION E Oft is 40 LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 57 — Bicycle Network and Areas of Pedestrian Activity (Western Riverside County) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION N h N PMM v tI� / I G�1 r ..1 L , r-7 L J L Pala Seri 1 I L_—� L L Bicycling Network and Areas of Pedestrian Activity legend 9 YyGe Network Propose COOT [lass lV cuts II CUSS III EliMg OM I [lass IV Class li Gass r Nue, ter of Pectstrian 51412aZIve.aer ' I I 3. Lift TECNNOaOGES December 2019 283 Page 1160 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION g Aro w� LRTS LONG RANGETRaNSPOINATION STUDY Figure 58 — Bicycle Network and Areas of Pedestrian Activity (Coachella Valley) iLRar.[h.n I I -. r .J J Irdiar• 6Vrll:: I 1 L7' I f L 7 I I r J " la quinta I L I IL I __ La I_— F } I L J 12 16 Miles r--� tCaache [la I L� _ � J Bicycling Network and Areas of Pedestrian Activity Igeerxi iityyde Netwon Proposed Eng.] Crass' 0.1551 CW55N Oa551V QassR Oa5514 Class III 0.55111 na,en Y�rr� �a�oee� mwlw'�tML Ne xypnn� unoe, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North Y RPN TECNIYOlOG,ES. INC. December 2019 284 Page 1161 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study In addition to fragmented networks, there is a need for additional studies to identify local pedestrian networks or classifying types of facilities. Several cities have undertaken Safe Routes to School studies and projects. Safety & Security The most significant challenge to bicycling and walking is the real and perceived issues of safety and security. Due to the existing lack of facilities, narrow or non-existent sidewalks, bad lighting, and often poor visibility from surrounding land -uses, many existing facilities are not perceived to be safe. Secondly, bicycling facilities or sidewalks that aren't buffered from higher posted speed -limit lanes increase the stress level for users. Such poorly designed facilities accentuate the perceived risks of bicycling and walking along main thoroughfares or trails. Conflicts and Prioritization Between Modes Access to destinations within communities and countywide often have key routes that are desired by all modes of travel. Modes often have to compete for the limited right-of-way on these key routes. Often in these scenarios, pedestrian and bicycle amenities are not able to compete due to auto -centric design standards and performance measures (LOS, ADT etc.). This has led to excessive auto trips for short distances. Some cities counter the lack of space in rights -of -way by having alternate parallel streets designated as bicycle routes. However, in many cases these routes being too far or not having destinations on them, are under-utilized or are only used for recreational purposes. Equity Often low-income residents choose to bicycle or walk to transit or destinations, and the lack of adequate pedestrian and bicycling facilities, and complete networks put them in unsafe and inconvenient conditions. This further increases stress in these under -served communities. Maintenance and Funding More specific performance metrics and standards for pedestrians and bicyclists, should be incorporated in the decision -making process to ensure funding and maintenance of these facilities. Often the funding priority for pedestrian and bike facilities are considered after auto and transit requirements are met as local and regional regulations are often tied to performance metrics benchmarks for these modes. Strategies Identify local and countywide networks and prioritize network completion With both ATPs identifying regional and local networks, RCTC can work with WRCOG and CVAG on developing a strategy of ranking each network in terms of countywide importance, level of completion, and other accessibility and equity metrics to prioritize projects, ensuring networks are completed within a desired timeframe, provided funding is available. RCTC can work with jurisdictions to help incentivize projects that not only complete networks but also improve access to transit or facilitate better mobility within desired TOD and transit -supportive districts. December 2019 285 Page 1162 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Prioritize Safety & Security Traditionally, bicycle facilities have been classified based on physical characteristics of the facility (Class I, II, III, etc.), which often do not take into consideration the immediate context that influences the use of these facilities. Recent studies and efforts have begun to classify bicycle facilities based on the level of comfort or stress of facilities for its users. The metric rates facilities, irrespective of the facility type, on how many types of bicyclists would feel comfortable while riding it. A Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS), a Bicycle Compatibility Index (BCI), or a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) type of index could be reviewed by RCTC to ensure regional and local bicycle facilities improve the level of safety along countywide networks. RCTC currently takes into consideration bicycle collision data in the evaluation of SB 821 bicycle and pedestrian projects to ensure key unsafe segments or intersections are prioritized. Pedestrian safety also is a key issue, particularly in order to increase transit ridership. RCTC can develop a strategy based on design and location -based criteria to ensure greater pedestrian safety. As done with the safe routes to school program, RCTC can work with jurisdictions to identify safe routes to transit, or other community facilities. Similar to the recommendation to prioritize improvements at locations of bicycle collisions, pedestrian improvements can be prioritized at high collision locations across the county. In addition, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements can be prioritized along key corridors, particularly improving access to transit, and within TOD and transit -supportive districts. Develop a Mode Prioritization Framework The challenge of limited right-of-way on key countywide significant corridors comes to a head when different modes are equally desired on corridors segments. Often, existing metrics -based improvement standards skew towards auto -based investments ignoring the changing needs of commuters, either due to changing land -use, or mobility technologies (Ride -hailing, bike -sharing, e-scooters etc.). Secondly, most corridors identified as being significant countywide are traditionally selected on auto -based metrics such as ADT volumes. These auto -based performance metrics potentially leave out other corridors that may be significant for other modes (transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, goods). With performance metrics for alternate modes not being a factor in identifying corridors of countywide importance, it is difficult to have an equitable framework to prioritize investments for multiple modes, particularly where different modes compete for spaces in the same right-of-way. RCTC could develop a mode prioritization framework, by incorporating other performance metrics for different modes, and identifying a hierarchy of mode priority along countywide corridor segments, based on local context. For example, along an HQTA corridor, transit may have the highest priority along the main corridor, with pedestrians second, bicycle third, etc. This will help RCTC in prioritizing financing of projects across modes in a more equitable way. December 2019 286 Page 1163 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Goods Movement Introduction Throughout Southern California, goods movement faces challenges arising from increased local consumer demand for products and continual regional growth as a major exchange point for global trade. Infrastructure for freight traffic is becoming strained. Current efforts to reduce air pollution from goods movement sources are insufficient to meet national air quality standards and warehouse space is at risk of falling short of demand. Riverside County plays and will continue to play a key role in moving goods in the region and to global markets. Transportation strategies to improve goods movement efficiency can provide economic and environmental benefits, including reduced costs for shippers and distributers, and reduced GHG emissions. Efficient use of funds at the County level must be made to invest in logistics growth areas and major distribution corridors, while providing for the mitigation of goods movement -related impacts on communities. Key issues in Riverside County's goods movement system can be summarized in seven categories: ✓ Environmental and health concerns ✓ Pavement wear on trucking routes ✓ Major freight generators and distribution centers ✓ Capacity constraints ✓ Grade separation projects ✓ Environmental justice ✓ Emerging technologies Each of these issues, and associated challenges and opportunities are described in this section. Issues Environmental and Health Concerns Goods movement emissions contribute to air pollution problems (e.g.: nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM)2.5) and pose public health challenges. In Southern California, diesel particulate has been identified as the dominant toxic air pollutant based on cancer risk, and freight traffic is a major emitter. With the projected future growth in goods movement, emission reduction strategies will be crucial in decreasing diesel exposures and protecting the health and well-being of communities in Riverside County. Currently, much of the region does not meet federal ozone and fine particulate air quality standards as mandated by the federal Clean Air Act. The South Coast Air Basin had a deadline to reduce ozone concentrations to 80 parts per billion (ppb) by 2023 under the revoked 1997 eight -hour ozone standards, and further down to 75 ppb by 2031 under the current 2008 eight -hour ozone standards. This means that total 2012 NOx emissions in the South Coast Air Basin must be reduced by 70% by 2023 and 80% by 2032 in order to attain federal ozone standards. Additional attainment deadlines are in effect for PM2.5. December 2019 287 Page 1 164 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is also a priority, as determined by the landmark California legislation AB 32 and SB 375, and the more recent Executive Order B-30-15 signed by Governor Brown in April 2015. Several State measures have been implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with some implications for freight. These include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels under California's Cap -and -Trade Program. Additional state programs are under development as part of the State's Sustainable Freight Strategy. In addition to toxic pollutants, noise and vibration from freight trucking and rail traffic can be disruptive to communities. Continual exposure to noise and low-level vibration has been shown to impact public health and quality of life. RCTC has funded quiet zones along the Perris Valley Line, and the City of Riverside has funded quiet zones along certain areas as well. Strategies aimed at mitigating noise from freight can help to reduce negative impacts on communities from goods movement. Pavement Wear on Trucking Routes Commercial trucks disproportionately impact both road pavement and congestion, particularly on steep grades and in conjunction with accidents and incidents. Riverside County's six primary goods movement routes (1-10, 1-15, SR-60, SR-86, SR-91, and 1-215) cover a total of 313 miles, or approximately 21% of Southern California's total primary freight network (SCAG 2016). These corridors play a key role in both the County and regional goods movement system and maintaining them effectively has implications for the economy at all scales. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS found that 17% of highways in Southern California are distressed, and 35% of local roads will be in failed condition by 2022. This results in decreased fuel efficiency (and therefore increased emissions) and increased vehicle maintenance costs. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS noted annual vehicle maintenance costs of $638 in the Inland Empire. Further, each $1 spent on preventative maintenance in the 4-7-year range delays $8 of spending on major damage in the longer term (10 years or more). Strategies to mitigate pavement wear from goods movement have the potential to provide positive environmental, economic, and social benefits. Major Freight Generators and Warehouse Distribution Centers Intermodal freight facilities, major freight generators, and warehouse distribution centers are significant contributors to goods movement traffic in Riverside County. Existing intermodal centers (Tri- Rail Distribution Services and Ancon Transportation in the City of Riverside, and National Distribution Centers in the City of Corona) place pressure on already congested highways, including 1-215, SR-60, and SR-91. Further, SR-91 at 1-15 was previously identified as a high priority truck bottleneck location. It is key that decisions around existing and new generators of freight traffic consider potential implications on congestion, and pollution, as well as impacts on community members. In addition to the considerations described above, the outcomes of the ongoing Regional Logistics Fee Study will need to be considered. The current status of the study is described below, including possible outcomes and target completion date. December 2019 288 Page 1165 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study RCTC Regional Logistics Fee Study In January 2017, the Commission initiated a Regional Logistics Fee Study. The study is the result of the settlement agreement between the Commission, the County of Riverside, City of Moreno Valley (Moreno Valley), and Highland Fairview in response to litigation involving the World Logistics Center (WLC). The Commission and the County had filed suit challenging the environmental impact report in order to ensure adequate mitigation to address added impacts created by the WLC project. Additional lawsuits were filed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and a number of environmental organizations. A key provision of the settlement requires the Commission, the County, Moreno Valley, and Highland Fairview to conduct a regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics -related regional fee. A result of the study could be a new program that the County and cities could adopt. Such a program would, for example, set a fee on new distribution center warehouses, based on facility size, to help pay for highway improvements. This fee would differ from existing TUMF Programs in that it would only focus on highway projects, as compared to the regional TUMF Programs, which collect funds for regional arterials and local streets. The next steps of the study involve evaluating the feasibility of administering and implementing a regional logistics fee. Pending the outcome, RCTC will determine how to address highway impacts from truck traffic generated from new logistics developments. Capacity Constraints Continual growth in Southern California's population is driving an increase in regional freight demand, with port cargo expected to triple by 2035 (SCAG, 2013). Of goods that enter the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, 77% pass through Riverside County, with 65% moving by rail, and 35% by truck. As a result, a train goes through most rail crossings at least twice an hour (RCTC, 2012). So, as freight demand increases in the region, freight rail and truck traffic will increase in Riverside County. In 2014, 66 trains with an average length of 4,000 feet passed through Riverside County daily, resulting in 600 vehicle hours of delay per day (where one vehicle hour of delay is defined as a single car delayed for one hour). By 2035, this is expected to increase to 137 trains with an average length on 5,200 feet. Vehicle hours of delay per day are expected to increase from 600 to 3,700 hours by 2035. These delays result from at -grade crossings where vehicles must wait for train crossings (RCTC, 2012). Additionally, truck traffic has been increasing faster than passenger car traffic over the past 20 years, and it is expected that VMT for truck traffic will increase by over 8% by 2035. Capacity constraints on both rail and truck routes are already a reality. Due to the significance of goods movement to the regional and County economy, as well as the importance of moving essential goods to communities in Riverside County, maintaining and protecting goods movement corridors is key. Competition with passenger traffic from an ever-growing population places additional pressure on the system. While improving transit options in the County is a key priority, strategies must also recognize the importance of maintaining and protecting key freight rail and truck corridors. December 2019 289 Page 1 166 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Grade Separation Projects While significant funding has been invested to address conflicts between rail and highway traffic in Riverside County, continuing to eliminate at -grade rail crossings will play an important role in improving safety, and reducing delays, noise impacts, and vehicle emissions. In 2012, 46 remaining at -grade crossings were identified and categorized by priority level, with one (1) being the highest priority and five (5) being the lowest priority (RCTC 2012). Of the 46 crossings, 18 were identified as high priority (rated 1 or 2), characterized based on high train and vehicular traffic volumes, extensive vehicle delay and emissions, and one or more traffic incidents in recent years (Table 33). Additionally, a 2017 companion study found that: ✓ Four crossings are technically unfeasible, and four others require further study. ✓ 11 separations are desired within the next ten years and 14 more in the following 10 years. ✓ Funding is highly competitive and uncertain, however some grant funding may be available through the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program, Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, the Western Riverside County TUMF, as well as several other potential sources documented in the study. The limited and uncertain nature of funding will make eliminating the remaining at -grade crossings a challenge. Environmental Justice The negative health impacts associated with a significant increase in the development of large warehouse logistic centers, with close to 40 percent of the nation's consumer goods travelling through the Inland Empire and being stored in warehouses before they are trucked out to other locations, and the effects of freight traffic are disproportionately felt by those living nearest to major freight generators and goods movement corridors. The consensus in current research is that those living within 1,000 feet of a major freight facility or high capacity roadway are most likely to experience negative health impacts. SCAG has identified 'disadvantaged communities', which are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Figure 59 shows disadvantaged communities within Riverside County. From an environmental justice perspective, it is critical that goods movement strategies help mitigate existing impacts and avoid future adverse impacts from the goods movement system. December 2019 290 Page 1 167 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 33 — 18 High Priority Grade Separation Projects in Riverside County Rail Line Crass Street Jurisdiction BNSF & UP {SB SUB} Spruce Street Riverside BNSF {SB SUB} McKinley Street Corona BNSF & UP {SB SUB} Chicago Avenue Riverside UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave Street Banning BNSF & UP {SB SUB} 3rd Street Riverside BNSF {SB SUB} Joy Street Corona BNSF {SB SUB} Madison Street Riverside BNSF {SB SUB} Adams Street Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler Street Riverside UP {LA SUB} Bellgrave Avenue Jurupa Valley UP {LA SUB} Jurupa Road Jurupa Valley UP (YUMA MAIN) 22nd Street Banning UP (YUMA MAIN) Viele Avenue Beaumont UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Avenue Banning UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 62 Riverside County UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 Riverside County BNSF {SB SUB} Pierce Street Riverside UP (YUMA MAIN) California Avenue Beaumont December 2019 291 Page 1 168 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION affi* 4� LRTS LONG RANGE1RONSPORf6TON STUDY Figure 59 — Riverside County Disadvantaged Communities Disadvantaged Communities C W 1 Cities Highways RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - North IVRP4 TECHNOlOGIFS:NC. 1 Source: SCAG December 2019 292 Page 1169 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Emerging Technologies The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS outlined several innovations in goods movement that should be considered. Changes in consumer habits may have unpredictable impacts on the goods movement sector. Already, the rise of e-commerce has changed the balance between retail and warehousing. New transport technologies are also likely to impact the goods movement system. Autonomous trucks may greatly increase the efficiency of the goods movement system; Uber is piloting autonomous trucking fleets, working toward their vision of a goods movement system where no truck ever travels empty, but instead the goods movement system is perfectly choreographed, resulting in significant savings in both costs and emissions (Davies 2018). The private sector is driving tremendous innovation that undoubtedly have major implications for Riverside County's goods movement system, however at present, the exact impacts are unknown. �trategie. Continue Funding for Grade Separations and Quiet Zones As both freight rail and vehicle traffic congestion increase overtime, grade separation projects and quiet zones are increasingly important in addressing environmental and social health concerns. Continuing to fund these improvements is a key strategy in mitigating negative impacts from goods movement. Collaborate with local governments in disadvantaged communities to understand ways of reducing the impacts of goods movements The disadvantaged communities identified by SCAG and shown in Figure 59, are experiencing a disproportionate share of the negative impacts from the goods movement system. Fully understanding the experiences of these communities will be paramount in avoiding further growth in inequity. By working directly with communities, it may be possible to mitigate existing negative experiences while avoiding future environmental justice concerns. Undertake proactive maintenance of key goods movement corridors to avoid costly and lengthy repairs in the future With a particular focus on the six primary goods movement corridors in the County, undertaking ongoing maintenance will help avoid negative impacts on the transportation system as a whole. Repairing small issues (a small pothole, for example) as they arise helps decrease damage to vehicles, reducing repair costs to both personal and commercial vehicles, helps improve travel efficiency thereby reducing travel emissions, and reduces the need for major repairs, which can lead to significant vehicle hour delays due to construction. Working with Caltrans, the cities, and the County, funds should be allocated strategically to this end. Review the outcomes of the RCTC Regional Logistics Fee Study The outcomes of the RCTC Regional Logistics Fee Study could have a significant impact on warehouse fee revenues. Further, results of this study will support RCTC in working with local governments in the December 2019 293 Page 1170 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study County to reduce negative impacts on the highway system from major warehouse, logistics and distribution centers and determine how best to mitigate such impacts. Advocate for the protection of key freight rail corridors Work with other levels of government, as well as freight rail providers (Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UP)) to ensure the maintenance and protection of the three major freight rail corridors in the county: BNSF's Transcon Line, UP's Los Angeles Subdivision, and the El Paso Line, while balancing the growing demand for passenger rail services. Continue to support priority grade separations and advocate for federal support While there has been great progress in reducing at grade crossings in Riverside County, ongoing effort is required to undertake all high priority projects to ensure safety and improve air quality. Continued coordination with railroads and advocacy for federal and State funding will be necessary to complete grade separations priority projects. Build relationships with private companies who are driving technological innovation in goods movement Building connections with those on the front end of technological innovation to gain a better understanding of the direction and timelines of technological shifts in goods movement can inform decision making in the coming years. For example, if the goods movement system were to become fully automated in the next 10 years, and freight vehicle traffic were to be reduced by half, RCTC's investment strategies would change drastically. Because the pace of change is so rapid, ongoing communication is necessary to ensure decisions are in line with the latest trends. Undertake further analysis of e-commerce trends to understand potential impacts As e-commerce continues to grow, and new technologies such as drone delivery systems are developing, undertaking a further analysis of trends should be undertaken. Explore opportunities for collaboration with the Southern California Zero -Emissions Truck Collaborative Currently, several alternative fuels for goods movement are being explored by the Southern California Zero -Emissions Truck Collaborative for their potential to reduce certain pollutants (especially nitrogen oxides and particulate matter associated with diesel fuel use) from tailpipe emissions. These include zero tailpipe emission trucks such as hybrid electric, battery electric and fuel cell trucks. The Collaborative is currently demonstrating a one -mile wayside power system in the City of Carson, similar to the near -term demonstration project described in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. Natural gas is also considered a near -zero tailpipe emissions fuel and can result in substantial reductions of GHGs. Engage in continual learning about goods movement vehicle automation Various autonomous vehicle technologies are being explored with the intention of reducing headways and increase truck flow rates. They also have the potential to improve safety through lower crash rates. December 2019 294 Page 1 171 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Currently three distinctive stages in the development of this technology have been identified: ✓ Stage 1: Adaptive Cruise Control ✓ Stage 2: Multi -Truck Communication ✓ Stage 3: Truck Automation with Corridor -Wide Optimization This technology would be likely to decrease truck vehicle miles travelled, mostly as a result of improved corridor utilization and operational efficiency gains. At this point, however, it is uncertain whether the technology induces the growth in truck VMT, or the increase in truck volumes is a result of accommodating the growth in a more efficient manner. Remaining engaged with technological advancements in vehicle automation will be key to understanding potential impacts and benefits from the technology in Riverside County. Coupled with increased warehouse automation rates, improvements in drayage operations can be expected to improve operational efficiency and could reduce the number of trucks needed to transport goods through the County's transportation system. Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management Transportation System Management Within the Southern California region, Caltrans, RCTC, and local agencies are responsible for funding Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements. These include extensive advanced ramp metering, enhanced incident management, bottleneck removal to improve flow (e.g., auxiliary lanes), expansion and integration of the traffic signal synchronization network, data collection to monitor system performance, and other Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements. SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS identifies a comprehensive set of strategies that work in concert to optimize the performance of the transportation system. This set of strategies does not focus solely on expanding the system, but also considers the system is operational; how land use planning is coordinated with transportation planning; how incidents such as collisions or special events are dealt with; how information is provided to the traveling public, so people can make informed decisions about how, where and when to travel; and how the system is maintained. All these strategies are based on a foundation of comprehensive system monitoring to understand how the transportation system is performing and where improvements are needed. This approach is based in part on work that Caltrans has done for many years to optimize the performance of the State Highway System. Since the passage of Proposition 1B in November 2006, and with the creation of the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account, Caltrans and local partners have worked together to improve the efficiency of our highways and arterials through the development of Corridor System Management Plans (CSMP). throughout the SCAG region. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), passed in April 2017, also included the development of Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plans specifically for projects funded with SB 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program funding. The California Transportation Commission is the administrator of the SB 1 funding programs and has initiated guidance for program applicants regarding the content December 2019 295 Page 1 172 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study requirements for corridor plans, including a TSM component, to ensure compliance with state statutory requirements for Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP). Additional System Management Initiatives in the Southern California region include: ✓ Arterial Signal Synchronization projects that have been completed on various arterials through the region to optimize traffic flow. One example in Riverside County is the CVAG Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Project (Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 2017). ✓ The Dynamic Corridor Congestion Management (DCCM) initiative in Los Angeles County, in which Caltrans is developing a corridor management initiative on Interstate 110 to coordinate highway ramp metering with arterial signals. Various efforts have been completed to inform the traveling public of expected travel times to various destinations and in some cases provide travel time comparisons with transit. ✓ The Caltrans Advanced Traffic Management (ATM) study for Interstate 105 and the Regional Integration of ITS Projects (RIITS) and Information Exchange Network (IEN) data exchange efforts at Los Angeles Metro. ✓ SCAG Regional ITS Architecture Update — a roadmap for transportation systems integration in the SCAG region over the next 20 years covering modes. Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies reduce the number of vehicles that travel on roadways by promoting alternatives to driving alone and during peak periods. These alternatives include rail and bus transit, ridesharing options like carpools and vanpools, telecommuting and active transportation options like bicycling and walking. TDM programs improve mobility, accessibility, and air quality by efficient use of transportation resources. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS provides overall regional guidance regarding TDM programs in Southern California, including Riverside County. It includes three main areas of focus: ✓ Reducing the number of single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and overall VMT through ridesharing, which includes carpooling, vanpooling and supportive policies for shared ride services such as Uber a n d Lyft. ✓ Redistributing or eliminating vehicle trips from peak demand periods through incentives for telecommuting and alternative work schedules. ✓ Reducing the number of SOV trips by facilitating the use of other modes of travel such as transit, rail, bicycling and walking. In addition, the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS recommends the following strategies expand and encourage the implementation of TDM strategies to their fullest extent: ✓ Rideshare incentives and rideshare matching. ✓ Parking management and parking cash -out policies. ✓ Preferential parking or parking subsidies for carpoolers. ✓ Intelligent parking programs. ✓ Promotion and expansion of Guaranteed Ride Home programs. ✓ Incentives for telecommuting and flexible work schedules. December 2019 296 Page 1 173 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ Integrated mobility hubs and first/last mile strategies. ✓ Incentives for employees who bike and walk to work. ✓ Investments in active transportation infrastructure. ✓ Investments in Safe Routes to School programs and infrastructure. There are effective ways of achieving trip reduction in Riverside County other than through the adoption of local agency TDM Ordinances, which was the focus of TDM efforts in the past. RCTC has facilitated the implementation of TDM projects through the Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Programs, and the implementation of several TDM projects (in cooperation with Caltrans and local agencies in Riverside County and in adjoining counties) to achieve TDM objectives. Such TDM strategies include the development of Park-N-Ride lots, commuter rail stations, guaranteed ride home, and public transit feeder services. Issues Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies both have the goal of making the transportation system more efficient. TSM strategies accomplish this goal by allowing vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians to travel faster and with higher levels of safety. TDM strategies accomplish this goal by reducing the demand for travel by single - occupant auto mode, which is generally the least efficient mode of travel from the point of view of system capacity. In terms of the LRTS, the key issues with TSM and TDM strategies are to ensure that these strategies are available to RCTC and member agencies and to ensure that funding is available for implementation of these cost-efficient strategies. Strategies RCTC, with the support of member agencies can maximize opportunities to implement TSM and TDM projects and strategies in the following ways: ✓ Work with Caltrans and SCAG in promoting planning tools, methodologies, and priorities so that RCTC and member agencies can program TSM and TDM strategies wherever they provide cost- efficient and effective solutions to improve the transportation system. ✓ Ensuring that RCTC and member agencies have access to the latest information regarding TSM and TDM strategies and programs. ✓ Maximizing opportunities to access funding at the federal, state, and regional levels for TSM and TDM projects. Sustainability Issues Definition and Overview Sustainable planning can be defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising future generations' ability to meet their own needs. Therefore, a sustainable transportation system for Riverside County would enable current residents to meet their needs for mobility and access to goods and services without compromising the ability of future residents to enjoy growth, prosperity, mobility and access and a high quality of life. December 2019 297 Page 1174 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Strategies In broad terms, sustainability goals are defined by state policy and implemented by MPO's, such as SCAG. The LRTS allows Riverside County the opportunity to review information, plans, and programs at the county level, without respect to statewide issues and issues related to other counties. Recommendations and priorities for Riverside County can then be provided to SCAG for development of the overall Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the entire SCAG region. As the region's metropolitan planning organization, SCAG has long promoted the concept of integrating transportation planning and land use planning. Since 2002, with the Southern California Compass and Shared Growth Vision for the region and the subsequent Compass Blueprint program (now the Sustainability Planning Grant Program), SCAG has promoted integrated planning tools for local governments that want their residents to have more mobility options, make their communities more livable, increase prosperity among all people and strive for sustainability. Subsequent policies adopted at the regional level in 2004, 2008 and 2012 have supported and advanced the integration of transportation and land use planning. With the passage of SB 375 in 2008, the State of California formalized the idea of integrating planning statewide when the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and required every MPO in the State to develop a SCS that charted a course toward reduced emissions and a more sustainable future. A central tenet of the SCS requirement is for MPOs to integrate land use and transportation planning. One example is High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) where people live in compact communities and have ready access to a multitude of safe and convenient transportation alternatives to driving alone —including walking and biking, taking the bus, light rail, commuter rail, the subway and/or shared mobility options. Along high -quality bus corridors, for instance, a bus arrives at least every 15 minutes. Residential and commercial development is integrated with plans for transit, active transportation and other alternatives to driving alone. Sustainable and land use strategies recommended in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS include the following: ✓ Identify regional strategic areas for infill and investment. ✓ Structure the plan on a three -tiered system of centers development.' ✓ Develop "Complete Communities." ✓ Develop nodes on a corridor. ✓ Plan for additional housing and jobs near transit. ✓ Plan for changing demand in types of housing. ✓ Continue to protect stable, existing single-family areas. ✓ Ensure adequate access to open space and preservation of habitat. ✓ Incorporate local input and feedback on future growth. Sustainable transportation strategies recommended in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS include the following: 12Chapter 5, page 75 of the 2016 RTP/SCS articulates a policy to identify strategic centers based on a three -tiered system of existing, planned and potential centers relative to transportation infrastructure. December 2019 298 Page 1 175 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ Preserve the existing transportation system, also known as fix -it -first. ✓ Expand the regional transit system. ✓ Expand passenger rail. ✓ Improve highway and arterial capacity. ✓ Manage demands on the transportation system. ✓ Optimize the performance of the transportation system. ✓ Promote walking, biking and other forms of active transportation. ✓ Strengthen the regional goods movement network. ✓ Leverage technology. ✓ Improve airport access. ✓ Improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gases. ✓ Preserve natural lands. Disadvantaged Communities/Environmental Justice Issues13 For the 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG conducted analysis to determine if the Regional Transportation Plan resulted in any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to various environmental justice groups. SCAG will conduct a similar analysis for the 2020 RTP/SCS and RCTC will continue to work with SCAG and local agencies on addressing environmental justice issues through the development and implementation of the 2020 RTP/SCS. The performance areas included in SCAG's analysis include: ✓ Benefits and Burdens Analysis ■ RTP revenue sources in terms of tax burdens • Share of transportation system usage ■ RTP/SCS investments ✓ Distribution of travel time savings and travel distance reductions ✓ Jobs -housing imbalance or jobs -housing mismatch ✓ Accessibility to employment and services ✓ Accessibility to parks and natural lands ✓ Gentrification and displacement ✓ Air quality impacts along freeways ✓ Environmental impacts of plan and baseline scenarios ✓ Aviation noise impacts ✓ Roadway noise impacts ✓ Active transportation hazards ✓ Public Health Impacts ✓ Rail -related impacts ✓ Climate adaptation 13 Source: Summary of SCAG's Draft Proposed Technical Approach for the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), July 2015. A 1994 Presidential Order (Executive Order 12898) directed every federal agency to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of all programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low- income populations. This presidential order reinforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and requires that every federally funded project nationwide considers the human environment when undertaking the planning and decision -making process. December 2019 299 Page 1176 Chapter VI Major Projects and Evaluation Assumptions and Methods RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ComMISSION Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter VI. Major Projects and Evaluation Assumptions and Methods Identification of Projects A major component of the LRTS is the identification and evaluation of highway, major roadway and transit projects. A total of 130 State highway and major roadway projects and 57 major local and regional transit projects were identified for inclusion in the LRTS due to their size and/or level of regional significance and are also included in Riverside County's submittal to SCAG for the 2020 RTP/SCS update. Potential express lane facilities were analyzed separately in RCTC's Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study (2019). The express lane facilities analyzed in the Next Generation Toll Feasibility Study have been documented in the LRTS, but they are not currently included in the LRTS major projects list or in the list of projects submitted to SCAG for the 2020 RTP/SCS update. Potential major transit corridors were also documented in the LRTS from a separate process, the Next Generation Rail Study (2019). The process for developing the State highway and major roadway project list was as follows: ✓ A list of candidate projects was developed from the current (2016) SCAG RTP/SCS, including projects submitted for the 2020 RTP/SCS update, the RCTC Strategic Assessment, the Measure A transportation sales tax program, and the 2019-2029 Western Riverside County Measure A 10-Year Delivery Plan described in Chapter II of this LRTS. ✓ The list was sent out for review by RCTC, Caltrans, Riverside County and the cities within Riverside County. Comments were incorporated into the final project list (reference Appendix A). The list of local and regional transit projects was developed as follows: ✓ A list of candidate projects was developed from the current SCAG RTP/SCS, the RCTC Strategic Assessment, and short-range transit plans prepared by transit operators. ✓ The list was sent out for review by key transit operators in Riverside County. A meeting with the transit operators was also held to gather feedback. Comments from the review and the meeting with transit operators was incorporated into the final project list (reference Appendix B). Figure 60 to Figure 62 show the locations and types of projects included in the list. December 2019 301 Page 1 178 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION orh A Ra LRTS LONG RANGETRANSPOINATON STUDY Figure 60 — Project Locations — Western Riverside County Jur,. valley „ILIA ILE JIE c6"' @@r;: t+ KT 9 Project Categories I■ State Highway El LOCaI Highways p Interchange .x! Transit tiap Wel femeK pooVa qr vw.++pn ny nupa Ga. V Nun,' anw Y...i.Ow Cowry TOG. POOCH. OW and ^a! aI10w.n w an blows ' •1 1o, +7 to 21-ip. 30.12, 11, and ]a RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION A RI vet 39 e • s. Rr4 Vrllapa i _ 9MS1��C H w a 40 ' Western Riverside County C a.rbn Lake Y'La near 42 Pen 36 Y 41; ' Mer:Ft e 36; 9 r rr.-< e..r 113 iCabaron MS San Jacmin +y Saddle JynrU ri Mt San Jacinto Slate Pats[ O MOVnam Cer+tn IJ Cann i1e Son 6ematdmo Naswnal Fore -xi T Arxnaa MWrtan Mra 141P4 Tf'CH.YD[OWE5.141 December 2019 302 Page 1179 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION g � w� LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPOrrATION STUDY Figure 61— Project Locations — Coachella Valley 'DrsNT 1t0' SP. r97 P,7:r» ray. q_ Sky VI ley Santa RdSa and San JaCirrto Irldu Ma1M1a National Coarh4tra Va0ey Preserve - Thousarrd k e Own! a Coachella Valley ECEIE .-a®11111®M 0 CacwE c.ry ,fOStRra Tree National Park CTirriAfO Su.rna Eagb lAWntpin Nay} it'd Project Categories SIale Highway El Local Highways n Interchange x; Ransit Nolo: Aloe Trawl imarlen w Mile/Wm En thit null Ala a Mr* n r.e.nw Cowy T.rw wenlace Nut an rot them are a31000.71. 37. 10. It-1a. 21-20-35-n, 37. eV 3E PrRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION North I/RPATECHNOIOGIE rlrc December 2019 303 Page 1180 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9. A w� LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPOINATON STUDY Figure 62 — Project Locations — Palo Verde Valley Eagle Mounlair• Palo Verde Desert Center Project Categories MI State Highway 10 Local Highways CI Interchange I x Transit NPIP Mom ironed pgprh. en rKK shu n on ew 0,000 mr n tang in venom ..n MINN CN 034,N.. TN.W OrgKrr PO an net mlew. art as ryews: 1-7, 10, 12-1E. 21-28, 30-22, ar. rd 79 OFRIVER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION . Noah - vfeve mamma= MC December 2019 304 Page 1181 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Projects included in the LRTS were analyzed using a project evaluation process. The purpose was to provide information on the characteristics and benefits of each project. No attempt was made to provide a prioritization of projects since RCTC and local agencies have other processes in place for prioritization. The resulting project lists include a total of $12.3 Billion in capital costs for state highway and major roadway projects and $3.98 Billion in capital costs for major transit projects. The details are included in Appendix A and B. Figure 63 to Figure 66 summarize the planned delivery dates by five-year periods to 2045, as well as the aggregate cost of the major highway and transit capital investments included in the LRTS. For comparison purposes, it should be noted that the Riverside County Strategic Assessment, completed in 2016, identified $23.4 Billion in capital project costs for all projects, including many of the major LRTS projects and additional smaller projects. Any comparisons between cost estimates for the LRTS major projects and the Strategic Assessment should note that project lists and project cost estimates have changed somewhat between 2016 and 2019. Figure 63 — Number of State Highway and Major Roadway Projects by Completion Year December 2019 305 Page 1 182 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 64 — State Highway and Major Roadway Projects Cost by Completion Year $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $ 2, 000, 000 $1, 000, 000 $0 2019 - 2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 2041-2045 Note: Project costs are in thousands Figure 65 — Number of Major Transit Projects by Completion Year 25 lid 15 10 5 0 2019 - 2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 2041-2045 December 2019 306 Page 1183 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Figure 66 — Major Transit Projects Cost by Completion Year 2019 - 2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 2036-2040 2041-2045 Note: Project costs are in thousands RTP/SCS Projects SCAG is the regional agency responsible for planning and programming projects at a regional level in the Southern California area including Riverside County and the Counties of Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and Imperial. Every four years, SCAG prepares RTP/SCS, which incorporates transportation projects considering federal, state, and/or regional funding. SCAG is currently in the process of preparing its 2020 RTP/SCS. Identification of Riverside County transportation projects for inclusion in the 2020 RTP/SCS was ongoing during the time of preparation of the LRTS. Appendix C provides a list of Riverside County transportation projects that were submitted to SCAG for inclusion in its 2020 RTP/SCS. This includes approximately 700 projects with an estimated capital cost of $20.57 Billion. Review of the 2020 RTP/SCS project list resulted in identification of $8.27 Billion in transportation improvements that were not included in the major projects described above. This $8.27 Billion in transportation improvement projects was included in the financial analysis described in the following chapter. Evaluation Assumptions and Methods This section documents the methodology for evaluating the major State highway, regional roadway, and transit projects in the LRTS. Projects were evaluated to document their value in terms of providing a safer and more efficient transportation system. It was not the intent of this study to rank projects since other processes are in place for that purpose. Projects were categorized into the following types: December 2019 307 Page 1 184 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ Freeway Corridors ✓ Interchanges ✓ Streets and Highways ✓ Transit/Rail Criteria used to conduct the project evaluation are listed in Table 34 and Table 35. The evaluation process was conducted as follows: ✓ Average Daily Traffic forecasts and roadway levels of service were based on the SCAG regional transportation model. ✓ The benefit cost analysis that provided one element of the project evaluation process based on methodology recommended by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It included consideration of the cost of each project along with benefits related to safety, traffic congestion relief, reduced operations and maintenance costs. ✓ The values for other project characteristics of each project, local knowledge of the study area, and judgement. The evaluation provides a list of the major transportation improvements planned for Riverside County, as well as an understanding of the characteristics of individual improvement projects and the potential benefits of each project. The evaluation was not intended to score or rank projects, but rather to provide technical information so that prioritization of projects can occur in future efforts based on local agency prioritization factors, or criteria established in competitive funding programs. State Highway and Major Roadway Project Evaluation Evaluation criteria included factors such as congestion relief, safety, cost-effectiveness, provision of access, and intermodal connectivity. One component of the roadway project evaluation was a benefit/cost analysis conducted based on Federal Highway Administration recommendations. Projects with a relatively high benefit/cost ratio can be considered to be especially cost efficient. Projects with a lower benefit/cost ratio are considered to be valid for reasons other than cost -efficiency. The remainder of the highway and major roadway project evaluation was focused on characteristics of individual projects based on various performance measures. The details and results of the benefit/cost analysis and the project evaluation are included in Appendix A. Major Transit Project Evaluation The list of major transit projects was developed based on the current SCAG RTP/SCS and short-range transit plans prepared by transit operators. The transit project evaluation was focused on the characteristics of individual projects based on various performance measures. Details and results are included in Appendix B. December 2019 308 Page 1185 RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS Loue RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 34 — Project Level Performance Measures — State Highway and Major Roadway Projects State Freeway 1 Corridor Projects Project Improves Safety Safety is improved Project resolves specifically -identified safety issue Project indu des upgrades to improved or more current design standards 2 Serves G oads Movement Does the project serve a key goods movement corridor? 3 Provi des Conge sti on Re ief U Haan Rural LOS F to LOS A LOS F to LOS A or B LOS F to LOS B LOS F to LOS C LOS E to LOS A LOS E to LOS A or B LOS F to LOS C LOS F to LOS ❑ LOS E to LOS B LOS E to LOS C LOS F to LOS ❑ LOS F to LOS E LOS E to LOS C LOS E to LOS D LOS F to LOS E LOS D to LOS Cor Better LOS E to LOS D N/A N/A N/A LOS Dto LOS Cor Better NIA 4 Facilitates Carpool and Transit Mobil ity Does the project serve HOT/HO V lane facilities and/or transit centers? 5 Critical Linkage/NewCorridor is the project located in a high volume freeway corridor and/or lacking a continuous parallel arterial to provide congestion relief? 6 Cost -Effectiveness of Safety/Operational/Maintenance Benefits What is the projects benefit to cost ratio? Benefit to cost ratio: High Benefit to cost ratio: Medium Benefit to cost ratio: Low 7 Supports and Provides Access to C om mu nities Does the project provide access to and/or support multiple communities? December 2019 309 Page 1 186 RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 34 — Project Level Performance Measures — State Highway and Major Roadway Projects (continued) Regional Streets 1 and Roads - Capacity Increasing Projects Supports Key Regional Policies Does the project support okey regional policy? 2 Congesti on Relief Urban Rural LOS F to LOS A LOS F to LOS A or B LOS F to LOS B LOS F to LOS C LOS E to LOS A LOS E to LOS A or B LOS F to LOS C LOS F to LOS D LOS E to LOS B LOS E to LOS C LOS F to LOS ❑ LOS F to LOS E LOS E to LOS C LOS E to LOS D LOS F to LOS E LOS D to LOS Cor Better LOS E to LOS D N/A N/A N/A LOS Dto LOS Cor Better N/A 3 Improves Congested Corridors or Provides Alternative Relief toCorgested Corridors Improves congested corridors or provides alternative relief to congested corridors? 4 Cost -Effectiveness of Safety/Operational/Maintenanse Benefiis What is the projects benefit to cost ratio? Benefit to cost ratio: High Benefit to cost ratio: Medium Benefit to cost ratio: Low 5 Proje ct Improves Safety Safety is improved Project resolved specifically -identified safety issue Project indu des upgrades to improved or more current design standards 6 Provides Access to Othe r Modes of Transportation Provides access to major transit centers or HOT/HOV lanes? December 2019 310 Page 1 187 RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS Loue RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 34 — Project Level Performance Measures — State Highway and Major Roadway Projects (continued) Interchange 1 Projects Project Improves Safety Safety is improved Project resolves specifically -id entified safety issue Project indu des upgradesto improved or more current design standards 2 Provides Mobility and Congestion Relief Provides reli of f or existing congested facilities? 3 Serves Congested or Developing Corridors Serves Congested or Developing Corridors 4 Serves orProvides Access Regional and/or Corri dor Transit Routes Provides access to major transit centers or HOT/HOV lanes? 5 Cost -Effectiveness of Safety/Operational/Maintenance Benefits What is the projects benefit to cost ratio? Benefit to cost ratio: High Benefit to cost ratio: Medium Benefit to cost ratio: Low 6 Serves G oads Movement Does the project serve a key goods movement corridor? 7 New Interchange is the project a new interchange and provides congestion relief to other congested interchanges? 8 Support and Provides Access to C om mu nities Does the interchange provide access to and/or support 3 or more communities? December 2019 311 Page 1 188 RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Table 35 — Project Level Performance Measures — Major Transit Projects Transit Projects 1 Is consistent with current regi anal, subregi anal, and local plans and policies, and Short and/or Lang Range Transit Plans Imp lem eats existing regional, subregional, an d local plans and policies and Short or tong Range Transit Plans 2 Provides improved access to activity centers or schools Improves access to activity centers or schools through an expanded transit system 3 Project will maintain established productivity standards The project can be supported and operated overtime 4 Project provides for or promotes intermadal connectivity The project enhances th eregional transportation system 5 Links High -Frequency Transit Services Does th eroute connect to other high frequency (timed transfer service or at feast 15miunute service) transit routes? 8 G HG Emi ssi ons What is the change in regional CO2 emissions from implementing the project? 7 Project serves a transit dependent popul ati on and jor community or Indi an Rese rvati on Project provides access to essential services for the transit dependent population El Project enhances interagency transit service coordination Enhances regional transportation system connectivity and ability to consolidate regional trips 9 Project reduces reliance an private automobiles Enhances air quality and reduces peak automobile travel Lo Project Ind udes Carpool/Vanpool and Regional or Corridor transit services Addresses continued system continuity 11 Project reduces vehicle congestion Reduces commuter or special event trips 12 SupportsSCSgrowth principles Project furthers implementation of theSCS 13 Estimated Project Timing More imminent projects are higher priority than those that are not ready to be implemented December 2019 312 Page 1 189 Chapter VII Funding of Roadway and Transit Capital Investments Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter VII. Funding of Roadway and Transit Capital Investments Introduction As RCTC funding is limited, the LRTS aims to identify the most financially viable strategy for delivery of projects identified in the LRTS State Highway and Major Roadway projects list (Appendix A) and the Major Transit projects list (Appendix B). The LRTS uses detailed estimates of the amount and timing of funding sources and compares them to the amount and timing of funding uses to develop a Sources and Uses model. This model is used to determine projections for annual and cumulative shortfalls or surpluses. Where funding shortfalls are identified, RCTC can then explore opportunities for additional funding or the use of financing to deliver the projects identified in the LRTS. This process was completed separately for the State Highway and Major Roadway (Roadway) projects and Major Transit (Transit) projects identified in the LRTS. General Assumptions Related to Funding Sources Since RCTC relies on a wide array of funding sources (see Financial Sources Analysis chapter) that vary in terms of annual amount and allowable uses, the Sources and Uses model is based on some key revenue assumptions that allow for estimating funding availability over the period of analysis from 2019 through 2045. The Sources and Uses model generally assumes annual nominal estimates are inflated by 3% annually in line with historical inflation rates for Southern California. The following are exceptions to the general inflation assumption: ✓ Measure A sales tax revenue is inflated by 2% for the first three years of the analysis and then at 3% through 2039. ✓ Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues are inflated at 3% for the first three years of the analysis and then at 2% thereafter. ✓ State Transit Assistance (STA) funding is inflated at 2% annually. ✓ Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues are only inflated at 1% due to unpredictability of development activity. For calculating cumulative surplus and shortfall amounts, it is assumed that the annual surplus/shortfall carries over to the following years. Roadway Project List Analysis The Sources and Uses model for the Roadway project list assumes that full annual estimates for Measure A sales tax, Transportation Uninform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterials (TUMF RA) , Senate Bill 1 Local Partnership Program (SB 1 LPP), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding are applied to Roadway capital project uses. SB 1 formula funding for Roadway projects is included but not SB 1 competitive as the funding programs are competitive. The Measure A funding estimate assumes no sales tax revenues beyond 2039 as well as no further debt December 2019 314 Page 1191 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study issuance against Measure A tax revenues. The full annual estimate of Measure A funding is assumed to be used only for Roadway project needs. No revenue from Express Lanes operations was assumed for this financial analysis as those revenues are used to pay debt service and surplus revenues are limited in use within the corridor of the Express Lanes. After developing estimates for available funding, Roadway project expenditures were developed. Roadway project cost estimates provided in 2019 dollars are inflated at 3% annually in order to calculate Year of Expenditure (YOE) amounts. Also, because larger projects may take longer than one year to deliver, the Sources and Uses model spreads project costs according to the following: ✓ Projects over $100 million were spread over two (2) years ✓ Projects over $200 million were spread over three (3) years ✓ Projects over $2 billion were spread over five (5) years The full cost of a project is assumed to be expended in the year of Project completion (per the LRTS project lists), for projects under $100 million. Because the Roadway project list in this study only accounts for large projects, this analysis includes $7.7 billion in small project costs spread evenly over the analysis period. Figure 67 shows forecasted annual revenues by funding source for Roadway capital project. Figure 68 compares annual Roadway capital project funding sources to annual Roadway capital project uses. Figure 69 shows the cumulative shortfall or surplus (assuming surplus amounts are carried forward) for the entire analysis period. Figure 70 shows the total Roadway capital project funding, total Roadway capital project uses and the estimated total shortfall for the entire analysis period. Figure 67 — Annual Roadway Capital Project Funding by Source (Thousands) $600,000 $ 500,000 $400,000 $ 300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $o i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 1314 15 1617 1819 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 ■ Measure A ■ SB1 Formula • STIP ■ STBGP ■ TUMF ■ CMAQ December 2019 315 Page 1192 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LpNG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 68 — Annual Roadway Capital Project Funding Sources vs. Roadway Capital Project Uses (Thousands) S2, 500,000 $2,000,000 S1,500,000 $1,000,000 i i 11111111111111111111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213 14 1516 17 1819 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 ■ Total Roadway Capital Project Uses ■ Total Roadway Capital Project Funding Figure 69 —Total Cumulative Roadway Capital Project Funding Surplus/Shortfall (Thousands) S2,000,000 $- $(2,000, 000) $(4,000,000) S(6,000,000) $(8,000,000) S(10,000,000) $(12,000,000) 'llllll IIIIIIIII CS o r- N m u'7 tD r- GC m Q r- N m 117 to r- CG GS o r N m Irl rI N N N N NNN N N N m m m m m m m m m m o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 0 o 0 o a o 0 o cc o 0 o 0 a o N N N N N NNN N N NNN N N NNN N N N N N N N N N December 2019 316 Page 1193 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Figure 70 —Total Roadway Capital Project Funding vs. Total Roadway Capital Projects Uses (Thousands) $10,598,586 $20,566,387 $(9,967,802) Total Roadway Capital Project Total Roadway Capital Project Total Roadway Capital Project Funding Uses Funding Surplus/(Shartful!) Roadway Sources and Uses Summary and Potential Funding Strategies For the analysis period 2019 through 2045, there is total funding of $10.6 billion compared to total of uses $20.57 billion resulting in a cumulative funding shortfall of $9.97 billion. This shortfall is primarily driven by three (3) large projects from the Roadway Project list: the CETAP East-West Corridor, the Mid - County Parkway, and the SR-79 widening. The East-West Corridor is the largest project on the Roadway project list at $2.367 billion ($2019). The size and complexity of this project make it a possible candidate for a Public -Private Partnership (P3) delivery model that would combine the design, construction, maintenance and financing into one contract. Also, the positive Benefit Cost Analysis (performed as part of this LRTS) makes the East-West Corridor competitive for Federal Grants such as the BUILD and INFRA programs. The Mid -County project and new SR-79 four -lane freeway are on the Measure A future project list, but have planned completion dates in 2030 (less than 10 years before the current Measure A expires), so RCTC will likely need new, or expanded, Sales Tax Measure debt capacity to fund the $3.2 billion ($2019) in project costs for these two projects. Transit Project List Analysis The primary source of Transit capital project funding is the State Transit Assistance (STA). STA annual estimates are based on RCTC forecasts and are applied to Transit project list uses and not used for Roadway project uses. In this analysis Measure A capital funding is applied to Roadway capital project December 2019 317 Page 1 194 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study uses, so there is no Measure A funding assumed for Transit project capital uses. Because the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) funding is primarily used for operating assistance, the Sources and Uses model assumes no funding for Transit capital projects. Figure 71 shows forecasted annual revenues by funding source available for Transit project funding. SB 1 provides State of Good Repair funding at $3.9 million per year over the next 10 years, which funds transit rehabilitation projects, but has not been applied to the funding of the Transit capital projects in this study. Additional funding for Transit capital projects may result from State or Federal competitive grant programs that seek multimodal projects that increase transit usage. However, these funding programs are extremely competitive as other regions in the state have denser transit networks with higher frequencies serving larger populations. As with Roadway funding, new local funding for Transit capital projects could be derived from a new or expanded sales tax measure. After developing estimates for available funding, estimates for Transit project capital expenditures were developed. Transit project cost estimates provided in 2019 dollars are inflated at 3% annually in order to calculate Year of Expenditure (YOE) amounts. Also, because larger projects may take longer than one year to deliver, the Sources and Uses model spreads project costs according to the following: ✓ Projects over $100 million were spread over two (2) years ✓ Projects over $200 million were spread over three (3) years ✓ Projects over $2 billion were spread over five (5) years The full cost of a project is assumed to be expended in the year of Project completion (per the LRTS project lists), for projects under $100 million. Figure 72 compares annual Transit capital funding sources to annual Transit capital project uses. Figure 73 shows the cumulative shortfall or surplus (assuming surplus amounts are carried forward) for the entire analysis period. Figure 74 shows the total Transit capital project funding, total Transit capital project uses and the estimated total shortfall for the entire analysis period. Transit Sources and Uses Summary and Potential Funding Strategies For the analysis period 2019 through 2045, there is total funding of $847.04 million compared to total uses of $3.98 billion, resulting in a total cumulative funding shortfall of $3.14 billion. Large expenditures relating to major capital project completions in 2040 are the primary drivers of the shortfall. While P3 delivery could be implemented to finance larger transit projects, RCTC will likely need new, or expanded, Sales Tax Measure debt capacity to fund the $3.14 billion shortfall. Recent changes related to government regulations have resulted in potential budget implications for transit operators. These include requirements for zero -emission bus (ZEB) fleets and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that requires curb -to -curb service for senior and disabled passengers within three quarters of a mile of a fixed route. December 2019 318 Page 1195 RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 71— Annual Transit Capital Project Funding by Source (Thousands) $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 C) O s-I r•J fr1 Lri o4 Q7 C7 s-I r•J fr1 1 , r� r•J i'J r•J r•J i'J i'J r•J i'J r•J i'J fY7 fr1 fY7 fY7 fr1 fY7 fr1 fY7 fY7 fr1 � O C3 C7 C3 C3 C7 C7 C3 C7 C3 C7 C7 C3 C7 C7 C3 C7 C3 C7 C7 C3 C7 C7 C3 0 C] O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ■ STA Figure 72 — Annual Transit Capital Project Funding Sources vs. Transit Capital Project Uses (Thousands) S 1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1, 000,000 $800,000 $600,000 5400,000 $200,000 $o . ■. ■ el ■ ■ ■I ■ ■I ■. ■ ■■ ■ ■.1. ■. ■ 1 ■ ■ 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 ■ Total Transit Capital Project Funding ■ Total Transit Capital Project Uses December 2019 319 Page 1 196 RNERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LpNG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Figure 73 —Total Cumulative Transit Capital Project Funding Surplus/Shortfall (Thousands) S500,000 $- $(500,000) $(1,000,000) $(1,500,000) $(2,000,0001 $(2,500,000) $(3,000,000) S(3,500,000) i 2019 20212023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 Figure 74 —Total Transit Capital Project Funding vs. Total Transit Capital Project Uses (Thousands) $847,042 $3,983,599 $(3,135,557,40) Total Transit Capital Project Total Transit Capital Project Total Transit Capital Project Funding Uses Funding Surplus/Shortfall December 2019 320 Page 1 197 Chapter VIII Financial Sources Analysis _.a... -. , �r r 321 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter VIII. Financial Sources Analysis Existing Major Revenue Sources Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21' Century (Map-21) Act restructured core highway formula programs that played a major role in previous financial forecasts. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act continued those changes. Activities under some existing formula programs, such as the National Highway System Program, the Interstate Maintenance Program, the Highway Bridge Program and the Transportation Enhancement Program were incorporated into the following new core formula program structure: ✓ National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) ✓ Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) ✓ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) ✓ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ✓ Railway -Highway Crossings (set -aside from HSIP) ✓ Metropolitan Planning The FAST Act replaced the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) under MAP-21 with a set -aside of funds under the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program to pay for transportation alternatives (TA). These set -aside funds include all projects and activities that were previously eligible under TAP, encompassing a variety of smaller -scale transportation projects such as: pedestrian and bicycle facilities; recreational trails; Safe Routes to Schools projects; community improvements, such as historic preservation and vegetation management and; environmental mitigation related to stormwater and habitat connectivity. The following funding programs are the principal sources anticipated to be available for funding transportation projects. Federal Programs Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program provides a flexible funding source to state and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet federal Clean Air Act requirements. Funding is available for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (non -attainment areas), as well as former non -attainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas). Funds are distributed to states based on a formula that considers an area's population by county and the severity of its air quality. Riverside County CMAQ funds are allocated by RCTC. CMAQ eligible projects or programs are those that help regions attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and/or particulate matter. December 2019 322 Page 1 199 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Typical projects are ✓ Public transit improvements ✓ High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes ✓ Employer -based transportation management plans and incentives ✓ Traffic flow improvement programs (signal coordination) ✓ Fringe parking facilities serving multiple occupancy vehicles ✓ Shared ride services ✓ Bicycle and pedestrian facilities ✓ Flexible work -hour programs ✓ "PMlo' projects, under certain conditions Highway Safety Improvement Program The FAST Act continues the Highway Safety Improvement Program to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non -State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data -driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. A highway safety improvement project is any strategy, activity or project that is consistent with the data -driven State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. HSIP funds are eligible for work on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, or on tribal lands, that corrects or improves the safety for its users. The 24 project categories are broad and listed under 23 U.S.C. §148(a)(4)(B). Cities will be required to have an approved Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) in order to be eligible to apply for HSIP funding. Workforce development, training and education activities are also HSIP eligible. In California, the HSIP is a competitive program that is administered by Caltrans. Railway -Highway Crossings (Section 130) Program The Railway -Highway Crossings program provides funds for safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public railway -highway grade crossings. This program is funded by contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund's Highway Account and are derived from a set -aside of the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Eligible projects include any at -grade crossing between a road and a railroad track that the California Public Utilities Commission recommends, and where a 10% match funding source is identified. The selection process begins with an investigation of any project that Caltrans, a local agency or a railroad identifies. The investigation usually consists of a field review, discussion between all parties, a jointly developed and recommended improvement and a preliminary funding schedule. The final selection is determined when the local agency provides the 10% matching funds to a project or the CPUC list of recommended highway/rail grade crossing projects. Grade Separation (Section 190) Program This competitive grant program provides $15 million each year to local agencies for the construction of grade separation projects. The program is jointly administered by the California Public Utilities December 2019 323 Page 1200 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Commission (CPUC) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Local agencies submit project applications to the CPUC, which is responsible for developing a priority list of projects. Local agencies whose projects are included on the priority list submit requests for an allocation of funds to Caltrans. Caltrans enters into funding agreements with local agencies for reimbursement of the cost to construct the grade separation. National Highway Freight Program The FAST Act established National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) to improve the efficient movement of freight on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN). These funds are competitive and are administered by US Department of Transportation. Program goals include: ✓ Investing in infrastructure and operational improvements that strengthen economic competitiveness, reduce congestion, reduce the cost of freight transportation, improve reliability and increase productivity; ✓ Improving the safety, security, efficiency and resiliency of freight transportation in rural and urban areas; ✓ Improving the state of good repair of the NHFN; ✓ Using innovation and advanced technology to improve NHFN safety, efficiency, and reliability ✓ Improving the efficiency and productivity of the NHFN; ✓ Improving State flexibility to support multi -State corridor planning and address highway freight connectivity; and ✓ Reducing the environmental impacts of freight movement on the NHFN. National Highway Performance Program The NHPP provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that federal investments are directed toward performance targets established in a State's NHS asset management plan. Caltrans selects the projects in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). NHPP projects must be on an eligible facility and support progress toward achievement of national performance goals for improving NHS infrastructure condition, safety, mobility or freight movement, and be consistent with metropolitan and statewide planning requirements. Eligible activities include: ✓ NHS segment construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, or operational improvements. ✓ NHS bridge and tunnel construction, replacement (including replacement with fill material), rehabilitation, preservation, and protection (including scour countermeasures, seismic retrofits, impact protection measures, security countermeasures and protection against extreme events). ✓ NHS bridge, tunnel and other highway infrastructure assets' inspection and evaluation. ✓ Training bridge and tunnel inspectors. ✓ Constructing, rehabilitating, or replacing existing ferry boats and facilities, including approaches that connect NHS road segments. December 2019 324 Page 1201 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ Constructing, reconstructing, resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating and preserving, and operational improvements for, a federal -aid highway not on the NHS. ✓ Transit projects eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49, if the project is in the same corridor and in proximity to a fully access -controlled NHS route, if the improvement is more cost- effective (as determined by a benefit -cost analysis) than an NHS improvement and will reduce delays or produce travel time savings on the NHS route and improve regional traffic flow. ✓ Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways. ✓ NHS highway safety improvements. ✓ Capital and operating costs for traffic and traveler information, monitoring, management, and control facilities and programs. ✓ Data collection, maintenance and integration, software costs and equipment costs to develop a State Asset Management Plan for the NHS. ✓ Infrastructure -based ITS capital improvements. ✓ Environmental restoration and pollution abatement. ✓ Controlling noxious weeds and establishing native species. ✓ NHPP project environmental mitigation costs. ✓ New, publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals serving the NHS. Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects The Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP) program provides funding for constructing, reconstructing, and rehabilitating nationally significant projects on Federal or tribal lands. Project design costs are not eligible. Any entity eligible to receive funding under the Tribal Transportation Program, Federal Lands Transportation Program, or Federal Lands Access Program [23 U.S.C. 202-204] is eligible under the NSFLTP program. In addition, a State, county, or local government may apply if sponsored by an eligible Federal land management agency or Indian tribe. The Secretary may provide financial assistance only for a single continuous project that: ✓ Is on a Federal lands transportation facility, Federal lands access transportation facility or tribal transportation facility, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101, but the facility is not required to be listed in the national tribal transportation facility inventory [23 U.S.C. 202(b)] or the national Federal lands transportation facility inventory [23 U.S.C. 203(c)]; ✓ Has completed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, as demonstrated by a completed record of decision, finding of no significant impact or categorical exclusion determination; and ✓ Has an estimated cost of at least $25 million (with priority consideration for projects with an estimated cost of at least $50 million). [FAST Act § 1123(c)] Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Administered by FHWA, the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) provides financial assistance — competitive grants or credit assistance — to nationally and regionally significant freight and highway projects that align with the program goals to: ✓ Improve safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people; December 2019 325 Page 1202 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ Generate national or regional economic benefits and an increase in U.S. global economic competitiveness; ✓ Reduce highway congestion and bottlenecks; ✓ Improve connectivity between modes of freight transportation; ✓ Enhance the resiliency of critical highway infrastructure and help protect the environment; ✓ Improve roadways vital to national energy security; ✓ Address the impact of population growth on the movement of people and freight, and; ✓ Mitigate impacts of freight movements on communities. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program The FAST Act converts the long-standing Surface Transportation Program into the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program. STBG provides flexible funding that states and local governments may use for projects on any federal -aid highway, including the National Highway System; bridge projects on any public road; transit capital projects and; public bus terminals and facilities. Funds are distributed among the states based on federal -aid highway lane miles, (including on the NHS), total vehicle -miles traveled on those federal -aid highways, and estimated contributions to the Highway Trust Fund's Highway Account. A portion of the STBG is set aside for Transportation Alternatives, State Planning and Research, and funding for bridges not on federal -aid highways. The State sub -allocates Federal STBG funds to regions based on population, and RCTC is responsible for allocating these funds. MAP-21 permits a portion of funds reserved for rural areas to be spent on rural minor collectors. Eligible projects include but are not limited to: ✓ Highway projects. ✓ Bridges (including construction, reconstruction, seismic retrofit and painting) on all public roads ✓ Transit capital improvements. ✓ Carpool, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. ✓ Safety improvements and hazard elimination. ✓ Research and traffic management systems. ✓ Planning ✓ Transportation enhancement activities and control measures. ✓ Safety improvements and bridge replacement projects on local roads and rural minor collectors. Federal Transit Administration Section 5303, 5304, and 5305 (Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Planning) Provides procedural and funding requirements for multimodal transportation planning in states and metropolitan areas. Planning must to be cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive leading to long- range plans and short-range programs that reflect transportation investment priorities. Funds are available to State's and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for planning activities that do the following: ✓ Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. ✓ Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users. December 2019 326 Page 1203 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users. ✓ Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight. ✓ Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns. ✓ Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight. ✓ Promote efficient system management and operation. ✓ Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Program Grants) The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program provides Federal resources to urbanized areas and to Governors for transit capital and operating assistance and for transportation related planning. As determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of the Census, an urbanized area is defined as an area with a population of 50,000 or more. SCAG, in conjunction with RCTC, provide the transit operators with available funding amounts. Activities eligible to receive funding include: ✓ Planning, engineering, design and evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation - related studies. ✓ Capital investments in bus and bus -related activities such as replacement of buses, overhaul of buses, rebuilding of buses, crime prevention and security equipment and construction of maintenance and passenger facilities. ✓ Capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software. Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 (Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities [New Freedom]) This is a formula grant program that is intended to enhance mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by providing funds for programs to serve the special needs of transit -dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services and ADA complementary paratransit services (Dial -A - Ride). Section 5310 funds are awarded through a statewide competition. A Local Review Committee in each county quantitatively evaluates all applications submitted for its area, ranks them, and submits the scores to Caltrans for the statewide competition. Capital assistance is provided for up to 88.53% of the net project cost. Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 (Rural Area Formula Grants) This program provides formula -based funding for capital and/or operating assistance to rural areas with a population fewer than 50,000 where many residents rely on public transit to reach their destinations. Capital assistance is provided for up to 88.53% of the net project cost. Operational assistance has a 50% federal participation ceiling. SCAG, in consultation with RCTC, provide the rural transit operators December 2019 327 Page 1204 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study with available funding amounts. Federal Transit Administration Section 5312 (Mobility on Demand and Public Transportation Innovation) This program supports research activities that improve the safety, reliability, efficiency, and sustainability of public transportation by investing in the development, testing, and deployment of innovative technologies, materials, and processes; carry out related endeavors; and to support the demonstration and deployment of low -emission and no -emission vehicles to promote clean energy and improve air quality. Federal Transit Administration Section 5337/5339 (Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants) This is FTA's primary grant program for funding major transit capital investments, including: rapid rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, commuter rail and ferries. Section 5309 provides grants for new and expanded rail, bus rapid transit and ferry systems that reflect local priorities to improve transportation options in key corridors. This program defines a new category of eligible projects, known as core capacity projects, which expand capacity by at least 10% in existing fixed -guideway transit corridors that are already at or above capacity today, or are expected to be at or above capacity within five years. The program also includes provisions for streamlining the New Starts process to increase efficiency in meeting critical milestones Federal Transit Administration Section 5337 (State of Good Repair) The State of Good Repair program is dedicated to repairing and upgrading the nation's rail transit systems along with high -intensity motor bus systems that use high -occupancy vehicle lanes, including bus rapid transit. These funds reflect a commitment to ensuring that public transit operates safely, efficiently, reliably, and sustainably so that communities can offer balanced transportation choices that help to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and encourage economic development. Federal Transit Administration Section 5339 (Bus and Bus Facilities) The Bus and Bus Facilities Infrastructure Investment Program (49 U.S.C. 5339) provides federal resources to states and direct recipients to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related equipment. This programs also allows for the construction of bus -related facilities including technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities. Program funding is provided through formula allocations and competitive grants. A sub -program, the Low- or No -Emission Vehicle Program, provides competitive grants for bus and bus facility projects that support low and zero -emission vehicles. Federal Transit Administration Transit -Oriented Development Planning Pilot Provides funding to advance planning efforts that support transit -oriented development (TOD) associated with new fixed -guideway and core capacity improvement projects. TOD focuses growth December 2019 328 Page 1205 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study around transit stations to promote ridership, affordable housing near transit, revitalized downtown centers and neighborhoods, and encourage local economic development. U.S. Department of Transportation - Better Utilizing Investment to Leverage Development (BUILD) Transportation Grants Program Formerly known as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program, BUILD transportation grants seek to fund investments in surface transportation infrastructure that will have a significant impact on local or regional facilities. BUILD funding is available for roads, bridges, transit, rail, ports, or intermodal transportation projects, and are extremely competitive. Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds annually for recreational trails and trails -related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the Federal Highway Administration. It is administered at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Non - motorized projects are administered by the Department's Office of Grants and Local Services and motorized projects are administered by the Department's Off -Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. Eligible applicants include; cities and counties, districts, state agencies, federal agencies, and non-profit organizations with management responsibilities of public lands. State Programs Senate Bill 1 Senate Bill (SB) 1 (The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017), provides the largest increase in state transportation funding in the last 25 years. SB 1 provides additional funding through 2028 for transportation programs detailed in this chapter (including ATP, SHOPP, STIP, and Local Streets/Roads funds). It also revives programs that were part of the now expired Prop 1B. The California Transportation Commission is responsible for administering SB 1 funding programs, which include: ✓ Local Partnership Program (LPP) — LPP funds are for counties that employ local transportation funding taxes or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees. As part of SB 1, there are two parts to the program: 50% of the funding is provided by a formula to counties that have dedicated transportation sales taxes (Self-help Counties), and 50% of the funding is provided by a competitive program for eligible entities. Eligible projects include: • State highway and local road system improvements for major rehabilitation, mobility and congestion relief through new capacity, and safety and operational improvements. • Transit facility improvements. ■ Transit equipment purchases. • Bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure improvements for safety or mobility. ■ Transportation infrastructure environmental mitigation on a locality's or region's air quality or water quality, commonly known as "urban runoff," including capturing or treating it. • Project -level environmental impact mitigation (sound walls, landscaping, wetlands or habitat restoration or creation, replacement plantings, and drainage facilities). December 2019 329 Page 1206 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ■ Freeway soundwalls, under specified conditions. • Road maintenance and rehabilitation ✓ Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) — The TCEP program is competitive and funds infrastructure improvements on federally designated Trade Corridors of National and Regional Significance, on the Primary Freight Network, and along other corridors that have high freight volumes. Freight projects contribute to the freight system's economic activity or vitality; relieve congestion; improve the system's safety, security, or resilience; improve or preserve system infrastructure; implement technology or innovation to reduce or avoid negative impacts; or reduce or avoid the system's adverse community and/or environmental impacts. SB 1 also created the following new funding program: ✓ Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) — The SCCP is competitive and funds projects designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled and highly congested corridors through performance improvements that balance transportation improvements, community impacts, and that provide environmental benefits. Improvements may be on the state highway system, local streets and roads, public transit facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities or required mitigation or restoration or some combination thereof. All projects nominated for the SCCP must be in a comprehensive multimodal corridor plan and will only fund the construction component of a project. Active Transportation Program The Active Transportation Program (ATP) consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program, Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) and State Safe Routes to School, into a single program with a focus on making California a national leader in active transportation. The CTC administers the ATP program. SB 1 also contributes approximately $100 million per year to the ATP program. The ATP encourages active transportation modes by: ✓ Increasing biking and walking trips; ✓ Increasing non -motorized users' safety and mobility; ✓ Advancing regional agencies active transportation efforts to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, pursuant to SB 375 (of 2008) and SB 341 (of 2009); ✓ Enhancing public health; ✓ Ensuring that disadvantaged communities fully share in the program's benefits, and ✓ Providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. RCTC member agencies are eligible to compete at the statewide level for ATP funds and at the MPO level through the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Cap and Trade California's Cap -and -Trade Program (derived from AB-32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, December 2019 330 Page 1207 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study 2006) is an emissions trading program designed to reduce greenhouse gases from multiple sources. The State's proceeds from Cap -and -Trade auctions are deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and are used to achieve GHG emission reductions. The following transportation programs are funded through GGRF allocations: ✓ Active Transportation Program: (Described above) ✓ Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP): The LCTOP provides transit agencies with operating and capital assistance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. LCTOP projects support new or expanded bus or rail services, expanded intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance and other costs to operate those services or facilities. For agencies whose service area includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50% of funds received are used on projects to benefit disadvantaged communities. ✓ The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP): Created by Senate Bill (SB) 862 and modified by SB 9 to provide grants from the GGRF to fund transformative capital improvements that will modernize California's intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems, and bus and ferry transit systems to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, vehicle miles traveled, and congestion. SB 1 continues to provide a historic funding increase for transportation with funds directed to the TIRCP from the Public Transportation Account for new programming to achieve the following objectives: • Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; ■ Expand and improve transit service to increase ridership; ■ Integrate the rail service of the state's various rail operations, including integration with the high-speed rail system; and ■ Improve transit safety Local Transportation Funds The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides two major sources of funding for public transportation: The Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance fund (STA). Local Transportation Funds (LTF) are derived from %-cent of the statewide sales tax. LTF revenue is returned to local governments, primarily for public transportation; however, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and streets and roads may also qualify. The LTF is distributed to each city and unincorporated area based on population. State Transportation Improvement Program The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is split into two programs: The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). The STIP is developed by and approved by the CTC by April of every even year. Pursuant to SB 45, 75% of overall STIP funding goes to regional authorities to pay for approved RTIP projects, and the remaining 25% to pay for ITIP projects, as determined by Caltrans. Once the SCAG region has selected RTIP projects, the CTC must allocate funds based on estimated construction costs. The funds are programmed in the Federal Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIP). Eligible projects include: ✓ Local streets and roads December 2019 331 Page 1208 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ Public transit ✓ Intercity transit ✓ Pedestrian and bikeway facilities ✓ State highway improvements ✓ Grade separations ✓ Intermodal facilities ✓ Safety projects ✓ Transportation System Management projects ✓ Soundwalls ITIP funds represent 25% of available State Highway Account funding. Caltrans programs the funds on a statewide priority basis, primarily for the State highway system (outside urbanized areas). Regional agencies may also nominate projects that generate economic development. Regional agencies and Caltrans should work to coordinate the process of nominating projects that generate economic development. Eligible projects include: ✓ Interregional roads (outside of metropolitan areas) ✓ Federal Highways ✓ State Highways ✓ Intercity rail ✓ "Flex" projects which promote economic development Senate Bill 821 (SB 821) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Each year 2% of the LTF revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects. RCTC allocates SB 821 funds through a biennial Call for Projects. All of the cities and the County of Riverside are notified of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals. Eligible projects include sidewalks, access ramps, bicycle facilities, and bicycle plan development. An evaluation committee typically reviews and ranks the projects based on evaluation criteria approved by RCTC. State Highway Operation and Protection Program The State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) maintains the highway system's operational integrity and safety through a variety of projects, including pavement rehabilitation seismic retrofit, land and building projects, landscaping, some operational improvements and bridge replacements. Unlike the STIP, SHOPP projects may not increase roadway capacity. SHOPP revenues are not formula -based, meaning the Riverside County region could receive a large share of revenues in one cycle, and much less in future cycles. SHOPP projects are selected by Caltrans; however, local agencies are encouraged to work with Caltrans in identifying projects for this program. State Transit Assistance Fund The State Transit Assistance fund is derived from a portion of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax. The STA supports public transportation services and is apportioned through the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA), such as RCTC, to their member agencies on a population basis, although some December 2019 332 Page 1209 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study funds are apportioned directly to transit agencies based on their farebox revenues. STA funds may be used for mass transit (capital or operating expenses) or transportation planning but not streets and roads. Strategic Growth Council Sustainable Communities Planning Grants The principal goal of this grant program is to fund the development and implementation of plans that lead to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in a manner consistent with the State Planning Priorities, AB 32: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and the current Environmental Goals and Policy Report (EGPR), if available. This grant program is meant to foster the development of sustainable communities throughout California. It is designed to help local governments meet the challenges of adopting land use plans and integrating strategies to transform communities and create long-term prosperity. Sustainable communities shall promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment, and promote healthy, safe communities. Local Programs Toll Revenue Congestion -pricing (also known as peak -hour pricing) involves charging tolls or fees to transportation system users during peak hours. Implementation of Express Lanes is a strategy of congestion pricing. Routinely, service demands exhibit a peaking characteristic related to the time of day or seasonal time of the year. The 91 Express Lanes currently applies a time of day pricing policy, which charges higher tolls in the peak period allowing for a more reliable trip in the Express lanes during the most congested part of the day. RCTC's venture into tolling expanded the agency's funding and financing options for the design and construction of the currently operational 91 Express Lanes and the future 15 Express Lanes, currently in construction. Toll revenue is a new funding source in addition to Measure A and traditional state and federal funding sources. For the construction of the 91 Express Lanes, RCTC pledged future toll revenue through the following financing options — a federal loan, toll revenue bonds, and sales tax bonds. For three years (August 2010 until July 2013) RCTC attempted and eventually succeeded in receiving a large, federal loan of $421 million through the federal Transportation Investment Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). RCTC was also successful in selling $177 million of toll revenue bonds to investors. The completed 91 Project financing was accomplished in July of 2013 and resulted in RCTC borrowing over $1 billion composed of the TIFIA loan, toll revenue bonds, and Measure A sales tax bonds. Toll revenue is being used to repay the loan and the toll revenue bonds. For the construction of the 15 Express Lanes, RCTC secured a TIFIA loan of $152 million and Measure A sales tax bonds of $114 million. December 2019 333 Page 1210 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study For both facilities, future toll operations and maintenance are planned to be 100% funded by future tolls. As a result of the financing success from the 91 Express Lanes and 15 Express Lanes, RCTC will continue to use toll revenue in the following ways: 1) Future toll revenue to borrow against to help fund capital and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs of express lane facilities (e.g. project financings for the 91 and 15 Express Lanes); 2) Surplus Toll Revenue to use for Commission -approved transportation projects in the corridor from which the surplus toll revenue was generated (statutorily mandated). City/County Revenue Funds Several transportation funding sources have their origins in city or County revenues. These include general fund revenues used for street purposes, gas tax shares, proceeds from bond sales for street purposes, street assessment levies and traffic safety fund revenues. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) are an important part of the Measure A extension. The TUMF programs for the Western Riverside County subregion and the Coachella Valley subregion ensure that future development contributes its fair share toward infrastructure costs to mitigate new growth's cumulative, indirect and regional transportation impacts consistent with the State's Mitigation Fee Act. The fees help fund improvements to maintain the target levels of service in the face of higher traffic volumes that new developments bring. Measure A Riverside County Local Sales Tax — Measure A Funds Measure A was extended for an additional 30-years in 2002 following expiration of the original Measure, which began in 1989 and expired in 2009. Measure A is administered by RCTC for the purpose of collecting a % cent local transaction and use tax for transportation. Measure A was enacted to fill the funding shortfall to: implement necessary highway, commuter rail, and transit projects; secure new transportation corridors through environmental clearance and right of way purchases; provide adequate maintenance and improvements on the local street and road system; promote economic growth throughout the county; and provide specialized programs to meet the needs of commuters and the specialized needs of the growing senior and disabled population. Approximately $4.662 billion will be collected over the 30-year period between 2009 and 2039 for a variety of transportation mode improvements and programs in Riverside County. December 2019 334 Page 1211 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Other Potential Revenue and Funding Opportunities Despite the passage of SB 1, other funding sources have not kept pace with inflation. Fuel efficiency has led to decreased gasoline taxes, and the Great Recession negatively impacted all funding levels leaving a major revenue shortfall for system expansion, preservation, and operating and maintenance. This shortfall is expected to continue for two very basic reasons: (1) the revenues to support the transportation network's maintenance and improvements are not increasing fast enough to keep pace with inflation and (2) the demands for more maintenance and improvements have expanded beyond the normal inflation rate. In 2013, the Congressional Budget Office reported that: "the current trajectory of the Highway Trust Fund is unsustainable. Starting the fiscal year 2015, the trust fund will have insufficient amounts to meet all of its obligations, resulting in steadily accumulating shortfalls." Originally, transportation funding was established with a strong connection between revenue and expenses. Unfortunately, because of increased auto fuel efficiency, fuel taxes that have not historically been indexed for inflation and a new reliance on sales taxes, the previously strong connection to revenue sources and use has deteriorated. The following section discusses a variety of financing mechanisms that would be implemented at local, regional, or state levels, which may potentially provide relief for the transportation revenue shortfall. Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Applicants may apply to undertake environmental enhancement and mitigation projects that are directly or indirectly related to modifying existing transportation facilities, or for new transportation facilities' design, construction or expansion. The Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEM) is administered by Caltrans and projects must be over and above required mitigation for the related transportation project. All participating project costs incurred are funded in arrears on a reimbursement basis of the state's proportionate share of actual costs. No matching funds or cost shares from the applicant or other funding sources are required to apply for an EEM grant; however, projects with the greatest funding match will be rated highest. Grants are generally limited to $350,000. Any local, state, or federal agency or non-profit entity may apply for and receive grants. Benefit Assessment District Fees An assessment district is an area of land specifically benefiting from a public improvement. A property tax assessment is levied against each parcel that benefits from the improvement, in proportion to the benefit. Bonds are then sold to finance improvements; which landowners repay over time. Traditionally this approach has been used to finance urban public improvement projects (i.e. sewer, water, curbs, gutters, etc.) on a community or neighborhood level. Using this approach on a "regional" basis has proven problematic because of the multiple legislative bodies (i.e. City Councils, Boards of Supervisors, etc.) necessary to achieve political consensus. In addition, there could be great difficulty in establishing a regionwide zone of benefit. December 2019 335 Page 1212 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study "Local" Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax SB 215 allows counties to hold general elections for a local sales tax on motor vehicle fuel (gasoline, diesel) to finance the regional transportation network. The uses, execution, advantages and disadvantages are like that of a sales tax. One advantage is that it is user -oriented. Because fuel consumption is related to road use, heavier users bear a higher burden of the cost. Instituting a local gas tax is a relatively equitable local financing option. Motor fuel taxes are easily administered and are tied to fuel prices that tend to rise with inflation. Some of the issues relating to this type of program include: ✓ The ballot initiative requires approval from a majority of the city governments with a majority of the county's population. ✓ Both a majority of city governments representing a majority of the population and the county supervisors must agree on a distribution formula before the measure can be placed on the ballot. ✓ A two-thirds majority vote is required for approval. ✓ Statutes do not limit the tax increase that may be considered. Motor Vehicle Taxes and Fees (Statewide, Regionally or Locally) An array of fees and taxes on motor vehicles could be increased and implemented statewide, regionally or locally to generate transportation funds. Examples include vehicle registration surcharges (similar to the Air District's AB 2766 fees currently collected); increased surcharges on driver's license fees; mileage taxes; parts and repair excise taxes; heavy -vehicle taxes; fees for "vanity plates," tire taxes, and personal property taxes on motor vehicles. One of this approach's drawbacks, however, is the need for enabling legislation (statewide, regionally or locally). Public and Private Parking Fees This mechanism increases public and private parking charges and institutes parking fees where parking is now free. Major metro areas in California have become more aggressive in pricing downtown parking -- both at meters and in lots. In some cities, extending parking lot hours and substantially greater enforcement have increased parking fee revenues. Often these funds are treated as a general fund source rather than tied to specific transportation expenditures. If public parking fees were to be initiated, several issues would need to be addressed. For example, the fees would probably have to be implemented on a countywide or subregional basis to address equity and consistency issues among the local jurisdictions. In addition to representing a potential revenue source, parking pricing has also been shown to be one of the most significant factors in reducing drive - alone trips and is used as a common transportation demand management strategy. Regional Transportation Facilities Impact Fee A regional transportation facilities impact -fee would distribute the costs of regional transportation facilities among all new development within the region, using the size of a proposed development or estimates of a project's trip generating capacity as criterion. This type of development impact fee December 2019 336 Page 1213 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study would be required to meet AB 1600 nexus findings in order to be implemented. The reauthorization of Measure A required that all local agencies participate in their subregion's TUMF Program or risk losing their local street maintenance and rehabilitation funding authorized by the Measure. Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee This financing mechanism is a vehicle -use fee based on the number of miles driven, which has the potential to generate substantial revenues, implement increased -mobility policy goals and is strongly related to transportation demand and congestion. Vehicle Miles Traveled fees would appear to be a stable and growing source of revenue given Californians' propensity to use their automobiles. VMT fees also would maintain an ability to capture revenues from a growing fleet of alternative fuel vehicles within the state. Caltrans conducted a Road Charge Pilot Program, with a final report released in 2017, which successfully tested the feasibility of critical elements of this new potential revenue system for transportation funding. However, many political and feasibility questions remain unanswered and will require additional investigation into the mechanics and policy issues of implementing a road charge fee in California. Emissions Fee An emissions fee could work in a manner similar to the Vehicle Miles Traveled fee program, except that user charges would be based on emission levels rather than miles traveled. The measure would be recorded at the time the vehicle is smog checked, and the driver would pay a fee based on a sliding scale. Revenue formulas would have to be adjusted due to California's vehicle fleet becoming "cleaner" as older polluting vehicles are retired and replaced with vehicles that have improved emission technology. FTA Section 5312 (1) The Transit Cooperative Research Program (49 U.S.C. 5313; TCRP) is an applied, contract research program that develops near -term, practical solutions to problems facing transit agencies. The transit industry -driven program, promotes the public transportation industry's operating effectiveness and efficiency by conducting practical, near -term research designed to solve operational problems, adopt useful technologies from related industries and introduce innovation that provides better customer service. The industry -driven program serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative short-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) On July 20, 2017 the U.S. Department of Transportation announced an award of $152 million to RCTC to help finance the construction of the new 1-15 Express Lanes. The funds come from US DOT's Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act; a rigorous program available to creditworthy, financially -sound agencies such as RCTC. This major award will help offset the local taxpayers' share of the project cost and allowed RCTC and its contractor to get to work in 2018 on the 1-15 Express Lanes, December 2019 337 Page 1214 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study which will reduce congestion, improve quality of life, and deliver commuters valuable time savings. The lanes are expected to open in mid-2020. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program provides credit assistance for qualified projects of regional and national significance. Many large-scale, surface transportation projects - highway, transit, railroad, intermodal freight, and port access - are eligible. Eligible applicants include state and local governments, transit agencies, railroad companies, special authorities, special districts, and private entities. The TIFIA credit program is designed to fill market gaps and leverage substantial private co -investment by providing supplemental and subordinate capital. Each dollar of Federal funds can provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit assistance and support up to $30 in transportation infrastructure investment. MAP-21 reforms included a 10 percent set -aside for rural projects; an increase in the share of eligible project costs that TIFIA may support; and a rolling application process. Public -Private Partnerships A public -private partnership (PPP or P3) represent a broad category of financing mechanisms that are being used to harness public sector participation. PPPs have been used with mixed success in several states nationwide. Before PPP can become a viable option, it must be approved by the state legislature. Other Emerging Potential Funding Sources As mobility innovations in the previous section emerge in Riverside County, RCTC should explore implementation of new forms of revenue collection to ensure that new forms of mobility are deployed in an optimal manner. For example, several jurisdictions, including Chicago and Portland, Oregon have assessed a per booking fee on Transportation Network Companies (e.g., Uber and Lyft). Fees on TNCs are appropriate to provide facilities for TNC's, such as dedicated curb space, and can also be used to support public transportation. Ideally TNC fees should incentivize higher occupancy — a TNC carrying one passenger should be assessed a higher fee than one carrying multiple passengers. Similarly, TNC trips to areas with peak period congestion, such as central business districts or major transit hubs should be assessed a higher fee to offset the congestion impacts of TNCs in these environments. Another potential emerging source of funding would be an assessment on automated and connected vehicles to finance some or all the roadway infrastructure that ACVs require and benefit from. Summary Table Appendix D summarizes many of the key funding programs described in this section and notes their applicability to different transportation modes and types of transportation projects and programs. December 2019 338 Page 1215 Chapter IX Riverside County Congestion Management Program RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LONG RANGE TRANSPDRTAnON srupr Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter IX. Riverside County Congestion Management Program Introduction There are two congestion management requirements that counties comply with: federal Congestion Management System (CMS) process and State Congestion Management Program (CMP). This chapter explains the difference and RCTC's approach in developing its Riverside County CMP. The State of California established the CMP in 1990 under Proposition 111. The federal CMS process is required by Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR, which the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is primarily responsible for ensuring implementation by the county transportation commissions within the SCAG region. There are distinct differences among the State and Federal congestion management requirements. State CMP As mentioned above, Proposition 111 set up a process for each metropolitan county in California to designate a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) that would be responsible for development and implementation of the CMP within county boundaries. The intent of the State's 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. A number of counties within California have developed a CMP with varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. CMP legislation (AB 471, AB 1791, AB 1963, and AB 2419) established the process for designating the Congestion Management Agency (CMA). RCTC was designated the CMA in 1990 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and a majority of cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area. The CMA has the authority to monitor compliance with the adopted program. An amendment to the Government Code requires the CMA to update and adopt the CMP every two years (biennially) consistent with development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Overtime, the State amended the language to allow for voluntary implementation of the CMP. Subsequently, AB 32 and SB 375 were passed by the legislature that emphasized the reduction of greenhouse gases by reducing vehicle miles traveled and the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that each Metropolitan Planning Organization agency must prepare in conjunction with its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Locally, RCTC continued implementing its half - cent sales tax, Measure A, that provided for a list of projects and programs to relieve congestion. In addition, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) December 2019 340 Page 1217 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study funded transportation improvements on arterials, highway interchanges, grade separations and transit. Due to the evolving CMP legislation, SB 375 SCS requirement, and state (SB 1/Active Transportation Program) and local funding revenue streams that address transportation needs, the State CMP requirements are outdated and duplicative. Federal CMP The Riverside County CMP was significantly modified in 1997 to focus on federal Congestion Management Process requirements, as well as incorporate certain elements of the State CMP requirements. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 23 CFR §450.320 requires that each transportation management agency (TMA) address congestion management through a process involving an analysis of multimodal metropolitan -wide strategies that are cooperatively developed to foster safety and integrated management of new and existing transportation facilities eligible for federal funding. SCAG is the TMA for the Southern California Region, including Riverside County. The requirements specifically state that "in TMAs designated as nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide, the congestion management process shall provide an appropriate analysis of reasonable (including multimodal) travel demand reduction and operational management strategies for the corridor in which a project that will result in a significant increase in capacity for single occupancy vehicles (SOV) is proposed to be advanced with Federal funds." Additionally, the guidelines state that "federal funds may not be programmed for any project that will result in a significant increase in the carrying capacity for SOVs (i.e., a new general purpose highway on a new location or adding general purpose lanes, with the exception of safety improvements or the elimination of bottlenecks), unless the project is addressed through a congestion management process meeting the requirements of this section." The SCAG (RTP/SCS) serves as the long-range transportation plan for the Southern California region. The RTP/SCS, and the Riverside County CMP, meet the requirements of 23 CFR §450.320 by collectively incorporating the following federal congestion management process: (1) performance monitoring and measurement of the regional transportation system; (2) multimodal alternatives and non-SOV analysis; (3) land use impact analysis; (4) the provision of congestion management tools; and (5) integration with the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) process. The Commission will continue to develop and update the CMP to coincide with the development of the RTP/SCS and FTIP in cooperation with local governments and subregional planning agencies (WRCOG and CVAG). SCAG is responsible for determining consistency of each CMP within the SCAG region with federal CMS requirements, the RTP/SCS, and air quality management plans. The Riverside County CMP combines certain requirements of the State's CMP with a greater emphasis on the Federal CMS, resulting in monitoring of the state highway and major roadway/regional arterial transportation system. December 2019 341 Page 1218 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study CMP System Designated System of Highways and Principal Arterials: ✓ All State Highway facilities in Riverside County. Consideration may be given to the following conditions when designating Principal Arterials: ✓ Routes identified on Caltrans' "Functional Classification System" as "Principal Arterials" ✓ Designated expressways. ✓ Facilities linking cities/communities (interregional facilities), and major activity centers (shopping malls, major industrial/business parks, stadiums, etc.). The 2019 CMP System considers the criteria identified above, including arterial facilities added to the Federal Functional Classification System and regional TUMF facilities. Transportation Modeling Transportation computer models applied in Riverside County include the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM), and the SCAG Regional Transportation Model. The RivTAM model was a multi -agency effort to develop a more detailed roadway network than the SCAG Regional Model. A new Riverside County Model (RivCOM) is expected in January 2020. The SCAG Regional Transportation Model is continually revised/updated (calibrated/validated) and has been available for use by local agencies in reviewing regionally significant development projects, or transportation projects. In addition, SCAG developed a regionwide demographic database system to collect accurate data for development of the RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS considers land use development patterns, transportation systems, population and housing needs to develop policies and strategies that will accommodate future growth and demand. Locally, WRCOG, CVAG, and the County of Riverside have taken lead roles in the development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) to monitor growth in the County so that socioeconomic and land use databases can be easily developed and maintained. SCAG has developed model consistency guidelines to assist public agencies and traffic engineering professionals with the development of local models that are consistent with the SCAG Regional Transportation Model. The objective of these guidelines is to improve communications between affected agencies to simplify the exchange of data and improve databases and modeling results at both the local and regional level. Performance Standards This section describes the multimodal system performance standards for Riverside County in accordance with CMP legislation and federal CMS requirements. Standards are presented in this section for the System of Streets and Roads and for the Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit System. December 2019 342 Page 1 219 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study System of Streets and Highways Established Minimum Level of Service Most local agencies in Riverside County and Caltrans have adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards of "C" or "D" to maintain a desired LOS for the local circulation system. To address CMP requirements, RCTC approved a minimum traffic LOS standard of "E." Methodology to Determine Level of Service RCTC determined that the traffic LOS method that incorporated a "delay" analysis was the most applicable for CMP purposes. Consideration of delay through HCM-based software programs provided a closer approximation of LOS than under the Circular 212 or similar methodologies. For purposes of this Program, LOS analysis for intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways (under current or existing conditions), should be developed or established using the following HCM-based methods in the order presented: ✓ Segment (freeway and principal arterial) floating car runs or stopped delay LOS analysis at intersections. ✓ Segment and intersection LOS analysis using HCM. ✓ Segment analysis using the Modified HCM LOS Tables (or revised Florida LOS Tables). HCM-based methodologies applied to calculate LOS for CMP purposes will be the responsibility of local agencies as new development or land use plan revisions/updates (reflective of specific development proposals) are considered. The initial LOS analysis conducted as part of the CMP Update process is a "screening" level analysis. With development of this LRTS, the LOS is now/will be established using the SCAG and RivCOM traffic models, which are HCM-based. Figure 75 provides a display of State highway, expressway and arterial facilities with current deficiencies using HCM-based LOS results from the SCAG PM peak period traffic model. Figure 76 provides the resultant LOS with planned and programmed improvement projects through to the Year 2040. Comparing the figures, a majority of LOS deficiencies will be mitigated or addressed considering the wide range of multimodal improvement projects that will be implemented in the region by 2040. The few remaining deficiencies along the CMP System would be addressed as funding becomes available and through on -going implementation of the multimodal transportation system projects outlined in this LRTS and continued Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects and programs, such as high -volume ridesharing activity within the County. In addition, Senate Bill (SB) 743 is intended to result in lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the County over time. It is expected that lower VMT will result in decreased congestion along major corridors. However, in a county as large as Riverside County, new corridors could potentially reduce VMT by providing a shorter, less circuitous route for automobiles and transit. December 2019 343 Page 1220 RIVERSIDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION g � 4, 6P LRTS LONG RANGETRONSPOINATON STUDY Figure 75 — 2016 PM Period Level of Service OFRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION December 2019 344 Page 1221 RIVERSIDE COUNT' TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGETRONSPOINATON STUDY Figure 76 — Plan 2040 PM Period Level of Service �J 0 ■ LOS ..� 0 or Nailer — p � F O 3.3 6.3 +a Wet RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION en.a ca North di =-imia iw �dTi■■►7 -•s=s■16, •mm■■:. II mm•witri mown WM IS::■ Imp mu.= di m i/RPA TECHNOIOGIE1MC. December 2019 345 Page 1222 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Public Transit/Alternative Mass Transit Standards Section 65089.(b)(2) of the Government Code specifically requires development of standards established for the frequency and routing of public transit, and for the coordination of transit service provided by separate operators. RCTC is responsible for planning and coordinating all public mass transit services within the jurisdiction of the Commission and between the jurisdiction of other county commissions or transit operators. On an annual basis, transit operators prepare a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), which is a three-year document detailing the operating and capital costs that are planned for transit services. Each operator adopts such a plan and then provides quarterly data to RCTC regarding performance. Once the SRTPs are approved by RCTC, transit operators are charged with the responsibility for providing the service levels and purchasing the capital equipment identified in year -one of the SRTP. Once approved by RCTC, the SRTPs must be amended if an operator wants to deviate from the original plan. The Commission encourages all operators to coordinate public transportation services including routes, fare structure and transfer agreements as the overall goal is the improvement of public transportation services to the general public. As an alternative mode to the single -occupant vehicle, mass transit services (bus rapid transit and commuter rail services) should be considered during the assessment of local development proposals that impact the Congestion Management System Further, future rail passenger services should be considered as appropriate mitigation measures to offset potential deficiencies. If feasible, future transit and passenger rail facility systems should be described as potential services that could reduce vehicle trips and relieve congestion at or above the minimum LOS standard. RCTC Conformance and Monitoring Process RCTC, Caltrans, WRCOG, CVAG and local agencies regularly monitor the street and highway and transit systems consistent with CMS requirements. Performance and monitoring can be accomplished through a number of current processes and reports that are prepared to reflect how the systems are performing over time including the SCAG RTP/SCS, Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plans, Caltrans' Corridor System Management Plans (CSMPs), Caltrans Performance Monitoring System (PeMS), the WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program Nexus Study updates/reports, the CVAG TUMF Program Nexus Study updates/reports, the WRCOG Active Transportation Plan (ATP), the CVAG Non- Motorized/Active Transportation Plan, and subregional and local traffic monitoring programs, including those associated with Local General and Specific Plans and development impact studies. Transit monitoring will be accomplished through preparation of SRTPs prepared by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), Sunline Transit, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Corona Cruiser, PassTransit (City of Banning/Beaumont) and the City of Beaumont Transit System. Overall transit performance is summarized by RCTC in its countywide SRTP. December 2019 346 Page 1223 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Performance monitoring conducted and documented in these reports includes but is not limited to the following: ✓ Freeway miles traveled per person during weekdays. ✓ Freeway miles traveled per hour during weekdays. ✓ Regional travel by transit. ✓ Total transit, rail, and bus ridership. ✓ Annual transit boardings. ✓ Transit use in well served areas. ✓ Regional commute mode shares. ✓ Drive alone mode share. ✓ Alternative Transportation Mode share (carpool/vanpool, public transit, walk, bike, telework, other). ✓ Auto and transit passenger travel times and travel volumes in key corridors. ✓ Annual hours of traffic delay per traveler. ✓ Annual peak period delay during weekdays. ✓ Regional bottlenecks determined by annual freeway delay (vehicle hours) per lane mile. ✓ Delay by freeway during commute periods. ✓ Transit operating cost per passenger. ✓ Transit operating cost per revenue hour. ✓ Transit passengers per transit revenue hour. ✓ Transit passengers per revenue mile. ✓ Transit revenue hours per employee. ✓ Transit farebox recovery rate. The LRTS incorporates recommendations from various planning efforts. All projects, services, and programs are evaluated and prioritized for future funding through various funding programs, such as Measure A, TUMF Programs, and SRTPs. The LRTS also includes performance measures that are reflective of a multimodal approach and inform the development and management of the most effective long-term transportation system, as well as demand management strategies for minimizing and/or managing anticipated congestion. Future LRTS reviews or updates could coincide with RTP/SCS cycles. RCTC Deficiency Plan Process It is the local agency's responsibility to ensure implementation of development project mitigation measures identified by the project proponent. Deficient segments are those that have fallen to LOS F identified through monitoring efforts conducted by local agencies, WRCOG, CVAG, Caltrans, or RCTC. RCTC will review with the affected local agencies appropriate mitigation measures that would alleviate the deficiency. This would result in identifying and programming projects and/or TDM efforts considering multimodal performance and funding availability. To date, the CMP minimum LOS threshold has been met for much of the CMP system, therefore deficiency plans have not been required. In cases where the CMP minimum LOS threshold has been December 2019 347 Page 1 224 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study exceeded, there have either been overriding considerations (e.g. construction, traffic diversions, etc.) or improvements already programmed to improve the facility through TUMF, Measure A or other high priority projects. Management Strategies The CMP must include alternatives to single occupant auto use, such as transit, and van and carpooling; and must promote strategies to manage overall travel demand, such as a jobs/housing balance, flextime, telecommuting and parking strategies. In 1991, all local agencies adopted TDM ordinances to comply with State CMP statutes. In 1996, the State changed the CMP from a mandatory program to a voluntary program; therefore, RCTC has not required agencies to update their respective TDM ordinances. However, local agencies may have continued updating their TDM ordinances to comply or respond to transportation needs and to implement the RTP/SCS. RCTC facilitates the implementation of TDM projects through the Measure "A" Commuter Assistance Programs, and the implementation of a number of TDM projects (in cooperation with Caltrans and local agencies in Riverside County and in adjoining counties) to achieve TDM objectives. Such TDM strategies include the development of Park- N-Ride lots, commuter rail stations, and public transit feeder services. This LRTS also outlines many other TDM and TSM strategies to reduce auto trips. In addition to TDM, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies also provide for smoother traffic flow, especially along congested streets and highways in the County. Types of TSM strategies already implemented in Riverside County include bus bays, signal coordination systems, signal preemption for transit vehicles, improved signal timing projects, ramp metering, and focused intersection improvements. Taken together, the individual programs, projects, and TDM ordinances that continue to be implemented by local agencies constitute a broad base effort to reduce reliance on the single occupant vehicle and address CMP objectives. RCTC CIP Program The State CMP required the development of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP). For RCTC CMP purposes, the CIP consists of short-term projects included in the FTIP, which consist of STIP, Measure A, TUMF programs, and other federally funded projects programmed on the CMP system. RCTC submits state, local and federally funded projects to SCAG for inclusion in the FTIP. Locally funded non - regionally significant projects are not required to be included in the FTIP. The following list of goals and objectives from SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS reflect a vision that guides the transportation planning process, including development of the RTP/SCS, FTIP, and subregional CMPs: 1. Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness. 2. Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. 3. Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. December 2019 348 Page 1225 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study 4. Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. 5. Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. 6. Protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling and walking). 7. Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible. 8. Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. 9. Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies. RCTC Conformance and Monitoring Federal CMP requirements recommend a review or update be done at the same interval as RTP updates, which in the SCAG region is conducted every four years. As previously mentioned, monitoring of the CMP system in Riverside County is accomplished through various efforts including project environmental documents, traffic studies, corridor plans, transportation model updates, TUMF Nexus Study updates, Caltrans PeMS, and local agency monitoring. The LRTS may also follow a four-year update process, to review the performance of the CMP system, which could include ✓ Consistency with levels of service standards. ✓ Evaluation of performance of the transportation system. ✓ Implementation of a deficiency plan when highway and roadway level of service standards fall to LOS F on portions of the highway or major roadway system. SCAG Consistency Review Under the MPO planning regulations, SCAG is required to certify that it meets federal CMS requirements, which includes a review and consistency determination of all CMPs within the SCAG region. The CMP Chapter of the LRTS will serve as the 2019 CMP and will be reviewed by SCAG for consistency with the RTP/SCS and with CMPs of adjoining counties (San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties). RCTC also provides SCAG updated monitoring information, such as traffic counts from local agencies, for SCAG's modeling purposes. CMP Development, Implementation, and Update Process As described above, RCTC's CMP will follow Federal CMP requirements and will be reviewed and updated to reflect any legislative changes, funding initiatives, and CMP system performance. This may be done by future updates of the LRTS or this CMP Chapter. It is recommended that staff continue to follow Federal CMP requirements as State CMP requirements are no longer applicable and overlap with other requirements such as SB 375 (RTP/SCS), SB 743 (VMT performance measure) and other legislation impacting transportation planning and project development. December 2019 349 Page 1226 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Chapter X. Study Update Process The RCTC LRTS is both a Study for improving transportation in Riverside County and a starting point for developing the Riverside County elements of the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Once the 2020 SCAG RTP/SCS is adopted, its policies and project list will become input for an updated LRTS. The LRTS should ideally be updated every four years, to ensure that it will provide current and accurate input into the SCAG RTP/SCS and to reflect changes in the countywide and regional network, policy direction, and applicable regulations. Updates should incorporate new projects and programs that inform the regional transportation plan and enhance transportation in Riverside County. The LRTS should be viewed as a living document that sets the direction for Riverside County's transportation system. To accomplish the Goals of this Study to create a more sustainable, equitable, and effective transportation system will require coordinated implementation of its component projects, programs and investment strategies. Moving the LRTS forward involves securing transportation funding, coordination with land use agencies, and investigating new means for funding and implementing projects, including new partnerships with other agencies and the private sector. In developing this LRTS several themes emerged, including an ongoing shortage of transportation funding. On a more positive note there are several incentives for synergistic projects that have benefits across modes and jurisdictions. RCTC should strive to advance the many goals encapsulated in this Study at both a community level and a regional level. Rather than focusing on discrete projects in one mode or in one city or subregion, the LRTS encourages Riverside County and its cities to take a truly multimodal approach to moving people and goods across the county and region while improving the quality of life for communities and neighborhoods throughout the County. Advancement of Projects Projects included in this Study are eligible to receive local, regional, and federal funding. In all cases, additional steps are required before construction or implementation can occur. Typically, these additional steps include securing full funding, acquiring right -way and getting final project permits, final design, conducting environmental review, and Title VI or other equity analysis where required. The LRTS is a policy document that provides a list of needs for projects; the LRTS also identifies funding sources. However, it is not an explicit project approval document that directs a specific course of action on a project. As such, the LRTS does not entail project "approvals" and is therefore, according to state statutes and case law, not subject to CEQA. As required by state law and other regulatory requirements, all projects included in the LRTS will undergo independent project development according to all applicable environmental and regulatory approval processes. December 2019 351 Page 1228 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study Ongoing planning and project development efforts can help to better position the County in future iterations of the RTP/SCS and LRTS and ensure that appropriate projects are adequately defined to be ready for future Study development processes. Key efforts needed include: ✓ Developing new ways of integrating projects with programs and policies to maximize benefits. ✓ Seeking new partners and new ways of working together with new stakeholders, e.g., new technology -based private transportation sector stakeholders. Key steps for advancing partnerships and moving Study initiatives forward include: ■ Making RCTC a focal point for coordination rail (freight and passenger) improvements. • Partnering with Riverside County's transit agencies to advance LRTS project recommendations and address other transit needs in the county; convene partners to improve countywide integration of transit service, and connectivity to other modes; and update the Transit Vision Strategy. • Working with local jurisdictions and transit agencies to identify ways that new technologies can improve transportation services to hard -to -serve and traditionally underserved populations such as low -density areas, elderly, and people with disabilities. The following steps are intended to support local jurisdictions and regional governments in implementing land use plans that can be efficiently and effectively served by all modes, and which in turn can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of transportation investments. ✓ Partner with transportation partners and cities to implement CEQA/LOS reforms, including provision of technical assistance to cities to come into full compliance with SB 743 by July 2020. ✓ Collaborate with local jurisdictions (planning, public works, economic development) to better coordinate land use and transportation planning. ✓ Provide technical, and policy support to local jurisdictions to support infrastructure in designated HQTAs and other pedestrian and transit oriented districts. ✓ Support local agencies and SCAG in developing new modeling and evaluation tools that better assess the interactions between land use and transportation improvements. ✓ Monitor the effectiveness of this Study using the LRTS performance measures and the assumptions regarding land use as the Study develops; some performance measures may require further refinement over time as tools are developed. Funding Leveraging local and regional funding to attract contributions from state and federal funding sources will be crucial in delivering on Riverside County's vision and goals for the future transportation network. Specific steps include: ✓ Leverage existing local and regional funds to attract additional funding from outside sources. ✓ Work with transit operators to identify and support stable revenue sources to address transit capital and operating needs. ✓ Work with local and regional agencies to secure new funds to make up the shortfalls in other transportation improvements identified in the Study such as road maintenance. December 2019 352 Page 1229 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study ✓ Continue to advocate for federal transportation policies and programs that support the values expressed in the LRTS, including increased funding for all modes and their operation and maintenance, as well as funds to assist transit -supportive development. Ongoing Monitoring and Performance -based Planning RCTC will continue to monitor the county's transportation performance in coming years and in preparation for the next LRTS. Ongoing performance monitoring helps RCTC measure the impact of investments on transportation performance over time, ensures progress is being made towards LRTS goals, and reveals emerging trends and future needs. Actions going forward should include: ✓ Conduct ongoing performance monitoring to determine the degree to which investments are moving the County towards the adopted vision and goals. ✓ Continue to work with SCAG and local planning departments to refine land use assumptions for travel demand modeling and continue to refine the SCS land use. ✓ Continue to investigate new data sources and methodologies to understand travel behavior and identify methods for incorporating into both future model and LRTS updates. ✓ Incorporate IE CMCP recommendations in future LRTS updates. December 2019 353 Page 1 230 Long Range Transportation Study: State Highway and Major Roadway Projects Contents ■ State Highway and Major Roadway Projects ■ State Highway and Major Roadway Project Evaluation ■ Benefit/Cost Calculation RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Ef4tg LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY State Highway and Major Roadway Projects December 2019 355 Appendix A RNERSPDE COUNT! TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LRTS LONG RANGE -TRANSPORTATION STUDY Project # System Funding Status Lead Agency RTP_PROJ1 RTP_PROJ2 Rte. # Rte. Name From To Project Description Rte. & Project Description Completion Year Project Cost In Thousands Major Category 1 SH Fin. Constr. RCTC/RIVERSIDE COUNTY 3C01MA01 0 EAST WEST CORRIDOR 1-15 1-215 New 6L Freeway CETAP: PROVIDE NEW EAST -WEST TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR BETWEEN 1-15 IN THE WEST, 1-215 IN THE EAST, SOUTH OF LAKE MATHEWS IN THE NORTH, AND SR 741N THE SOUTH. 2045 2,367,661 Cap. Enhance 2 LH Fin. Constr. RCTC RIV031218 RIV031218 0 MID COUNTY PKWY 1-215 IN PERRIS SR79 IN SAN JACINTO New 6L Freeway IN WESTERN RIV CO - NEW MID CO PKWY: CONS 6THRU LN (3 LNS IN EA DIR) APPROX 16 MI. BTWN 1-2151N PERRIS EAST TO SR791N SAN JACINTO, INC. CONS/ RECONS OF 13 ICS, ADD OF AUX LN REDLAN DS- EVANS & EB AUXILIARY LN EVANS-ANTELOPE. 1-215 IMP: ADD 1 MF LN IN EA DIR NUEVO RD-VAN BUREN BLVD, & 1AUX LN IN EA DIR MID CO PKWY-CAJALCO/RAMONA EXP & FROM MID CO PKWY- NUEVO. 2030 1,691,500 Cap. Enhance 3 SH Fin. Constr. RCTC 3M04MA05 10 1-10 I-10/SR-60INTERCHANGE Upgraded Interchange CONSTRUCT NEW INTERCHANGE 2030 282,443 Cap. Enhance 4 SH Fin. Constr. RCTC 3TK04MA12 10 1-10 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE JCT 1-10/SR60 New Truck Lane ON 1-10 NEAR BEAUMONT: ADD/CONSTRUCT NEW EASTBOUND TRUCK CLIMBING LANE FROM SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE TO I- 10/ SR60 JCT (EA: 35300) 2028 35,709 Cap. Enhance 5 SH Fin. Constr. BANNING RIV180104 10 I-10 HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE (INTERCHANGE) Upgraded Interchange I-10/HIGHLAND SPRINGS IC IMPROVEMENTS - WIDEN FROM 5 TO 7 THRU LANES FROM 275 FT N/0 THE W/B OFF/ON RAMPS TO 250 FT S/0 THE E/B OFF/ON RAMPS, WIDEN EXISTING 2 LN W/B OFF RAMP TO 4 LNS & 2 LN E/B OFF RAMPS TO 4 LNS, ENTRY RAMPS TO INCLUDE HOV PREFERENCIAL LANE AND EXTENDED ACCELERATION/DECELERATION LANE. 2029 85,000 6 SH Fin. Constr. BEAUMONT 3A04WT003 10 1-10 HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE (INTERCHANGE) Upgraded Interchange RECONSTRUCT/WIDEN HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVE ICFROM 4T06 LANES AND RECONSTRUCT/WIDEN RAMPS 2035 65,458 Cap. Enhance 7 SH Fin. Constr. BEAUMONT 3M04WT004 10 110 PENNSYLVANIA AVE (INTERCHANGE) Upgraded Interchange RECONSTRUCT PENNSYLVANIA AVE IC AND RECONSTRUCT/WIDEN RAMPS 2030 29,435 Others 8 SH Fin. Constr. BEAUMONT 3M04WT001 10 1-10 SR 79/ BEAUMONT AVE Upgraded Interchange RECONSTRUCT/WIDEN SR 79/BEAUMONTAVE IC FROM 4T0 6 LANES 2027 28,130 Cap. Enhance (INTERCHANGE) AND RECONSTRUCT/WIDEN RAMPS 9 SH Fin. Constr. BEAUMONT RIV060115 RIV060115 10 1-10 OAK VALLEY PKWY (INTERCHANGE) Upgraded Interchange AT I-10/OAK VALLEY PKWY IC: RECONSTRUCT/WIDEN IC FROM 2TO 6 THROUGH LANES FROM APPROX 500 FT. W/O DESERT LAWN DR TO GOLF CLUB DR, WIDEN RAMPS - EB ENTRY 1 TO 2 LANES, EB & WB EXIT 1TO4 LANES, WB ENTRY 1TO 3 LANES,, ADD NEW EB/WB ENTRY LOOP RAMPS (2 LANES) , ENTRY RAMPS INCLUDE HOV PREFERENTIAL LANE, AND RAMPS INCLUDE EXTENDED ACCELERATION/ DECE