Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMay 18, 2021 CC Agenda Packet CITY COUNCIL CLOSED & REGULAR SESSION 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA Tuesday, May 18, 2021 Closed Session: 5:00 PM | Regular Meeting: 6:00 PM Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packets are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at 550 E. 6th Street during normal business hours. AGENDA MEETING PARTICIPATION NOTICE This meeting will be conducted utilizing teleconference communications and will be recorded for live streaming as well as open to public attendance subject to social distancing and applicable health orders. All City of Beaumont public meetings will be available via live streaming and made available on the City's official YouTube webpage. Please use the following link during the meeting for live stream access. beaumontca.gov/livestream Public comments will be accepted using the following options. 1. Written comments will be accepted via email and will be read aloud during the corresponding item of the meeting. Public comments shall not exceed three (3) minutes unless otherwise authorized by City Council. Comments can be submitted anytime prior to the meeting as well as during the meeting up until the end of the corresponding item. Please submit your comments to: nicolew@beaumontca.gov 2. Phone-in comments will be accepted by joining a conference line prior to the corresponding item of the meeting. Public comments shall not exceed three (3) minutes unless otherwise authorized by City Council. Please use the following phone number to join the call (951) 922 - 4845. 3. In person comments subject to the adherence of the applicable health orders and social distancing requirements. In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, if you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office using the above email or call (951) 572 - 3196. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will ensure the best reasonable accommodation arrangements. 1 CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM A Closed Session of the City Council / Beaumont Financing Authority / Beaumont Utility Authority / Beaumont Successor Agency (formerly RDA)/Beaumont Parking Authority / Beaumont Public Improvement Authority may be held in accordance with state law which may include, but is not limited to, the following types of items: personnel matters, labor negotiations, security matters, providing instructions to real property negotiators and conference with legal counsel regarding pending litigation. Any public comment on Closed Session items will be taken prior to the Closed Session. Any required announcements or discussion of Closed Session items or actions following the Closed Session with be made in the City Council Chambers. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lara, Mayor Pro Tem White, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Fenn, Council Member Santos Public Comments Regarding Closed Session 1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) - Three Claims 2. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Existing Litigation-Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) City of Beaumont v. Urban Logic Consultants, Inc. et. al RIC 1707201 c/w RIC1712042 3. Conference with Labor Negotiators - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 City Designated Representatives City Manager Todd Parton and Administrative Services Director Kari Mendoza. Employee Organizations: Beaumont Police Officers Association and SEIU Adjourn to Regular Session REGULAR SESSION - 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Mayor Lara, Mayor Pro Tem White, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Fenn, Council Member Santos Report out from Closed Session Action on any Closed Session Items Action of any Requests for Excused Absence Pledge of Allegiance Approval / Adjustments to the Agenda Conflict of Interest Disclosure ANNOUNCEMENTS/ RECOGNITION / PROCLAMATIONS / CORRESPONDENCE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) Any one person may address the City Council on any matter not on this agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out a “Public Comment Form” provided at the back table and give it to the City Clerk. There is a three (3) minute time limit on 2 public comments. There will be no sharing or passing of time to another person. State Law prohibits the City Council from discussing or taking actions brought up by your comments. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are taken as one action item unless an item is pulled for further discussion here or at the end of action items. Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. 1. Ratification of Warrants Recommended Action: Ratify warrants dated: March 25, 2021 April 1, 2021 April 8, 2021 April 15, 2021 2. Approval of Minutes Recommended Action: Approve minutes dated May 4, 2021. 3. Accept Performance and Payment Bonds and Security Agreements for Tri Pointe Homes IE-SD, Inc., for Street Improvements along Cherry Avenue, from Mary Lane to Brookside Avenue, within the Sundance Specific Plan Recommended Action: Accept Performance and Payment Bonds and Security Agreements for Tri Pointe Homes IE-SD, Inc., for Street Improvements along Cherry Avenue, from Mary Lane to Brookside Avenue, within the Sundance Specific Plan. 4. FY2021 General Fund and Wastewater Fund Budget to Actual through April 2021 Recommended Action: Receive and file the attached reports. 5. Second Reading of a Proposed Ordinance to Update the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) for Funding the Preservation of the Natural Ecosystems in Accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Recommended Action: Waive the second full reading and approve by title only, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont to Update the Local Development Mitigation Fee for Funding the Preservation of Natural Ecosystems in Accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.” 6. Declaration of Surplus Property and Request for Disposal of Remaining Pool Inventory Items Recommended Action: Approve the disposal of identified City surplus property. 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. ACTION ITEMS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. 7. City Council Authorization to Proceed with Annexation of City Owned Property Assessor Parcel Number 417-220-028 into the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District Recommended Action: Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont Authorizing the Annexation of City Owned Property Identified as Assessor Parcel Number 417-220-028 into the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District Service Area.” 8. First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting for the Housing Element Update to include Standard Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Plans and Objective Design Guidelines Recommended Action: Approve the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting for an increase of $65,470 for the development of Standa rd ADU Plans and Objective Design Guidelines for a total revised contract amount of $275,465 to be entirely paid through grant funding. 9. Purchase Order for Tolar Manufacturing, Inc. Not to Exceed $55,825.28 Recommended Action: Approve a purchase order to Tolar Manufacturing in an amount not to exceed $55,825.28. 10. Highland Springs Interchange Project Update and Recommendation for Approval of the First Contract Amendment Authorizing the Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase (PA/ED) Recommended Action: Receive and file the Highland Springs Project update, and Authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement between RCTC, the City of Banning, and the City of Beaumont to include the project approval and environmental document phase. 11. Direction to City Staff for the Conceptual Street Vacation of Veile Avenue Between Luis Estrada Road and Sixth Street Recommended Action: Direction to City staff for the conceptual street vacation of Veile Avenue between Luis Estrada and Sixth Street. 12. FY2021 COPS/Equipment Replacement/Equipment Internal Service Fund Budget Adjustments Recommended Action: 4 Approve the proposed Citizen Option Public Safety budget adjustments in the amount of $158,300, and Approve the proposed Equipment Replacement and Equipment Internal Service budget adjustments in the amount of $254,450. 13. Approval of Amendments to the City of Beaumont Investment Policy Recommended Action: Review the proposed revisions to the investment policy, Approve the recommended modification to Section 8 – Indemnification, and any other modifications recommended by City Council, and Adopt the amended Investment Policy. 14. City Attorney Invoices for the Month of April 2021 Recommended Action: Approval of invoices in the amount of $98,791.50. LEGISLATIVE UPDATES AND DISCUSSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE Economic Development Committee Report Out and City Council Direction CITY TREASURER REPORT Finance and Audit Committee Report Out and City Council Direction CITY CLERK REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT 15. List of Pending Litigation Against the City CITY MANAGER REPORT FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL REPORTS - Santos - Fenn - Martinez - White - Lara 5 ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Beaumont City Council, Beaumont Financing Authority, the Beaumont Successor Agency (formerly RDA), the Beaumont Utility Authority, the Beaumont Parking Authority and the Beaumont Public Improvement Agency is scheduled for Tuesday, June 1, 2021, at 5:00 p.m., unless otherwise posted. Beaumont City Hall – Online www.BeaumontCa.gov 6 7 Item 1. 8 Item 1. 9 Item 1. 10 Item 1. 11 Item 1. 12 Item 1. 13 Item 1. 14 Item 1. 15 Item 1. 16 Item 1. 17 Item 1. 18 Item 1. 19 Item 1. 20 Item 1. 21 Item 1. 22 Item 1. 23 Item 1. 24 Item 1. 25 Item 1. 26 Item 1. 27 Item 1. 28 Item 1. 29 Item 1. 30 Item 1. 31 Item 1. 32 Item 1. 33 Item 1. 34 Item 1. 35 Item 1. 36 Item 1. 37 Item 1. 38 Item 1. 39 Item 1. 40 Item 1. 41 Item 1. 42 Item 1. 43 Item 1. 44 Item 1. 45 Item 1. 46 Item 1. 47 Item 1. 48 Item 1. 49 Item 1. 50 Item 1. 51 Item 1. 52 Item 1. 53 Item 1. 54 Item 1. 55 Item 1. 56 Item 1. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED & REGULAR SESSION 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, CA Tuesday, May 04, 2021 Closed Session: 5:00 PM | Regular Meeting: 6:00 PM Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packets are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office at 550 E. 6th Street during normal business hours MINUTES CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM A Closed Session of the City Council / Beaumont Financing Authority / Beaumont Utility Au thority / Beaumont Successor Agency (formerly RDA)/Beaumont Parking Authority / Beaumont Public Improvement Authority may be held in accordance with state law which may include, but is not limited to, the following types of items: personnel matters, labor negotiations, security matters, providing instructions to real property negotiators and conference with legal counsel regarding pending litigation. Any public comment on Closed Session items will be taken prior to the Closed Session. Any required announcements or discussion of Closed Session items or actions following the Closed Session with be made in the City Council Chambers. CALL TO ORDER at 5:02 p.m. Present: Mayor Lara, Mayor Pro Tem White (in attendance at 5:03 p.m.), Council Member Martinez, Council Member Fenn, Council Member Santos Public Comments Regarding Closed Session None 1. Conference with Labor Negotiators - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 City Designated Representatives City Manager Todd Parton and Administrative Services Director Kari Mendoza. Employee Organizations: Beaumont Police Officers Association and SEIU No reportable action. 2. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Potential Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(d)(4) - One Potential Case No reportable action. 3. Conference with Real property Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 for Property Known as Portions of APNs 418 -190-004, 418-190-005, and 418- 57 Item 2. 190-006. Agency Negotiator: City Manager Todd Parton or his Designee. Negotiating Parties: City of Beaumont and Orum Capital. Under Negotiation: Price and Terms No reportable action. 4. Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Potential Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(d)(4) - One Potential Case No discussion. Adjourn to Regular Session REGULAR SESSION - 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER at 6:20 p.m. Present: Mayor Lara, Mayor Pro Tem White, Council Member Martinez, Council Member Fenn, Council Member Santos Report out from Closed Session: see above Action on any Closed Session Items: None Action of any Requests for Excused Absence: Treasurer Ginnetti Pledge of Allegiance Approval / Adjustments to the Agenda: None Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None ANNOUNCEMENTS/ RECOGNITION / PROCLAMATIONS / CORRESPONDENCE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) R. Conde - Spoke as an employee and an SEIU bargaining unit member. C. Cabrera - Spoke as an employee and SEIU member regarding the employee/employer MOU and the request of a fairness agreement. L. Ceniceros - Spoke as an employee and SEIU member. Requested the continuation of a fairness agreement with the City.R. Gleason - Spoke as an employee and SEIU member, asked for a fairness agreement within the MOU with the City. S. Scissions - Spoke as an employee and SEIU member regarding fairness.S. Rodriguez - Spoke as an employee and SEIU member. Asked for a fairness agreement with the City. E. Alvarez - Spoke on behalf of SEIU member employees. 58 Item 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are taken as one action item unless an item is pulled for further discussion here or at the end of action items. Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. 1. Ratification of Warrants Recommended Action: Ratify warrants dated March 11, 2021. 2. Approval of Minutes Recommended Action: Approve Minutes dated April 20, 2021. 3. Approval of Double Map, Inc., Invoice and Subscription Renewal Recommended Action: Approve invoice CINV-004991 in the amount of $27,716.67 for a one-year renewal of Double Map, Inc., subscription services; and Issue a Purchase Order in the amount of $27,716.67 to Double Map, Inc. 4. Single Audit Report for FY2020 Recommended Action: Receive and file the FY2020 Single Audit Report. 5. 2020 Annual Maximum Benefit Monitoring Program Report Recommended Action: Receive and file the 2020 Annual Maximum Benefit Monitoring Program Report as submitted to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem White Second by Council Member Martinez To approve the Consent Calendar. ACTION ITEMS Approval of all Ordinances and Resolutions to be read by title only. 6. Retail Market Analysis Update Motion by Mayor Lara Second by Council Member Fenn To receive and file the report. Approved by a unanimous vote. 59 Item 2. 7. Review Draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2022 -2026 and Prior Year Project List Motion by Mayor Lara Second by Council Member Martinez To accept the review the Draft Capital Improvement Plan for FY2022 -2026 and the Prior Year Project List and direction to staff to bring back for adoption. Approved by a unanimous vote. 8. Fiscal Year 2022 City Wide Budget Consensus to accept the proposed FY2022 Budget and provided direction to staff to bring back as presented for adoption. 9. Discussion and Direction on Proposed Development Standards Related to Public Storage Facilities, Moving and Storage Establishments, Automobile Parking Facilities (Including Recreational Vehicles), Truck Stops and Terminals and Building and Storage Yards Consensus to give direction to staff to provide additional information on each use and suggested development standards. 10. Ratification of Emergency Repair Costs to Lower Oak Valley Lift Station Motion by Mayor Pro Tem White Second by Mayor Lara To ratify the cost of emergency repairs completed and paid to Xylem Water Solutions USA, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $40,000. Approved by a unanimous vote. 11. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2021 Local Responsibility Area Wildland Protection Reimbursement Agreement Motion by Council Member Martinez Second by Mayor Pro Tem White To waive the full reading and approve by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approving an Agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for Services from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, for Fire Protection Services within the Local Responsibility Areas within the City,” and Authorized the Mayor to sign the FY2022 agreement with CalFIRE for fire protection services within the Local Responsibility Areas within the City. Approved by a unanimous vote. 60 Item 2. 12. Police Department Vehicle Purchase Adjustment Motion by Council Member Fenn Second by Mayor Lara To authorize the additional cost of $7,884.07 for the adjusted total of $40,307.25 for the purchase of a Ford F350 from Ken Grody Ford. Approved by a unanimous vote. 13. Approve the Purchase of Two (2) F150 Super Crew Trucks and Three (3) F250 Trucks in the Amount of $140,100 from Fairview Ford Motion by Mayor Pro Tem White Second by Mayor Lara To approve the purchase of two F150 super crew trucks and three F250 regular crew trucks in an amount not to exceed $147,538.05 from Fairview Ford as a preference, but contact Sunrise Ford for inventory. Approved by a unanimous vote. 14. Award of Public Works Agreement for Stewart Park Pool and Pavilion Demolition Project to Weaver Grading Inc. in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $60,200 Motion by Council Member Fenn Second by Mayor Pro Tem White To award a Public Works Agreement for Stewart Park P ool and Pavilion Demolition Project to Weaver Grading Inc. in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $60,200, Authorize the City Manager to approve any change orders up to $6,020, and Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. With the additional cavoite that there shall be no illegal dumping of debris. And to award to the next highest bidder should the current contractor not agree to the added requirement. 15. Approval of Compensation Plan and Salary Table Motion by Council Member Martinez Second by Mayor Pro Tem White To approve of the Compensation Plan and Salary Table. Approved by a unanimous vote. LEGISLATIVE UPDATES AND DISCUSSION 61 Item 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE CITY TREASURER REPORT No report CITY CLERK REPORT No report CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report CITY MANAGER REPORT 16. Department Project Schedule Updates - April 2021 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - Discussion of any holiday/dark schedules for meetings. COUNCIL REPORTS Santos - Thanked staff for various responses to issues and permit processes. Fenn - No report. Martinez - Gave a report out from the RCA meeting. White - Gave a report out from the RCTC meeting and the ERICA meeting. Lara - Attended the unveiling of a student art display board in Wildflower Park, thanked staff. AD JOURNMENT at 10:22 p.m. 62 Item 2. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jeff Hart, Public Works Director DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Accept Performance and Payment Bonds and Security Agreements for Tri Pointe Homes IE-SD, Inc., for Street Improvements along Cherry Avenue, from Mary Lane to Brookside Avenue, within the Sundance Specific Plan Background and Analysis: The City requires all developers to provide security for public improvements consisting of, but not limited to, street improvements, sewer improvements, storm drain improvements, and survey monumentation. Tri Pointe Homes, IE-SD, Inc. is proposing to construct street improvements along Cherry Avenue, from Mary Lane to Brookside Avenue. The improvements are shown on City File No. 3270 and approved under Public Works Project PW2018-0320. A general location map is shown on Figure 1. Tri Pointe Homes, IE-SD, Inc. has provided a security agreement and security in the form of bonds for the street improvements. The agreement has been reviewed by City staff and found to be consistent with the Beaumont Municipal Code. The following table is a summary of the improvements and corresponding bonds: Table 1. Bond Summary Improvement Bond Type Bond Number Principal Street Performance & Payment 30120819 Tri Pointe Homes, IE-SD, Inc. Subsequently, City staff recommends that agreement and bonds be accepted. 63 Item 3. Figure 1 - Aerial Map of Proposed Cherry Ave Improvements Fiscal Impact: The cost of preparing the staff report is estimated to be $350. Recommended Action: Accept Performance and Payment Bonds and Security Agreements for Tri Pointe Homes IE-SD, Inc., for Street Improvements along Cherry Avenue, from Mary Lane to Brookside Avenue, within the Sundance Specific Plan. Attachments: A. Performance and Payment Bond No. 30120819 and security agreements for Street Improvements B. Improvement Plans (City File No. 3270) Location of proposed Improvements 64 Item 3. 65 Item 3. 66 Item 3. 67 Item 3. 68 Item 3. 69 Item 3. 70 Item 3. 71 Item 3. 72 Item 3. 73 Item 3. 74 Item 3. 75 Item 3. 76 Item 3. 77 Item 3. 78 Item 3. 79 Item 3. 80 Item 3. 81 Item 3. 82 Item 3. 83 Item 3. Street Improvement Plans CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA CHERRY AVENUE STREET WIDENING Located Within a Portion of Section 35, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, S.B.M. DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE ABBREVIATIONS SHEET INDEX CONTACT OWNER BASIS OF TOPOGRAPHY SOILS ENGINEER LEGEND GENERAL NOTES: REFERENCE PLANS INDEX OF SHEETS NPDES PERMIT#: (MARY LANE TO BROOKSIDE AVENUE)VICINITY MAP WORK TO BE DONE: PRIVATE ENGINEER'S NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR: 24-HOUR EMERGENCY WDID 833C365311 STREET NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES DEMOLITION NOTES BENCHMARK: ELEV.= 2678.277 (1982), NGVD 29 BY ENGINEER R E V I S I O N S DATE SEAL DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: DATE: JOB NUMBER:CITY OF BEAUMONT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Reviewed By: Recommended for Approval By: Approved By: FILE NO: S H E E T OF SHEETS 550E. 6th St Beaumont, CA 92223 TEL: (951) 769-8520 FAX: (951) 769-8526 Date: Date: Date: NOTE: NOTE: AS NOTED NOVEMBER 2020 169884 CG CG MMI MBAKERINTL.COM 75410 Gerald Ford Dr. Ste:100 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: (760) 346-7481 BEARING: N 52°49'02.84" E BASIS OF BEARINGS: MARK DESCRIPTION APPR. DATE CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN CI V I LS TATE OF CA L IF O RNIAREGISTERED P R O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERMAURICIO M . IACU E L L I No. C63249 Staff Engineer MAURICIO M. IACUELLI R.C.E. 63249 * EXP. 6/30/22 PW2018-0320COUNTY OVERSIGHT ENGINEERREGISTRATION NUMBERDATE SIGNEDRECMDREVISED: 02/04/2021BENJIE CHO2/5/2021 2/5/2021 CEG 1257 2/8/21 2/10/2021 2/10/2021 02/17/2021 3270 84 Item 3. DEMOLITION NOTESREMOVAL LEGEND EROSION CONTROL LEGEND CONSTRUCTION NOTES CHERRY AVENUE (43+75.55 TO 48+62.46) TYPICAL STREET SECTION CHERRY AVENUE (48+62.46 TO 62+00.00) TYPICAL STREET SECTION GRIND AND OVERLAY DETAIL BROOKSIDE AVENUE EXISTING STREET SECTION (LOOKING EAST) EROSION CONTROL NOTES BENCHMARK: ELEV.= 2678.277 (1982), NGVD 29 BY ENGINEER R E V I S I O N S DATE SEAL DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: DATE: JOB NUMBER:CITY OF BEAUMONT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Reviewed By: Recommended for Approval By: Approved By: FILE NO: S H E E T OF SHEETS 550E. 6th St Beaumont, CA 92223 TEL: (951) 769-8520 FAX: (951) 769-8526 Date: Date: Date: NOTE: NOTE: AS NOTED NOVEMBER 2020 169884 CG CG MMI MBAKERINTL.COM 75410 Gerald Ford Dr. Ste:100 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: (760) 346-7481 BEARING: N 52°49'02.84" E BASIS OF BEARINGS: MARK DESCRIPTION APPR. DATE CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN CI V I LS TATE OF CA L IF O RNIAREGISTERED P R O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERMAURICIO M . IACU E L L I No. C63249 Staff Engineer MAURICIO M. IACUELLI R.C.E. 63249 * EXP. 6/30/22 PW2018-0320COUNTY OVERSIGHT ENGINEERREVISED: 02/04/2021FH Vss FHss s ssss ssFHs s2/5/2021 2/10/2021 2/10/2021 02/17/2021 3270 85 Item 3. BENCHMARK: ELEV.= 2678.277 (1982), NGVD 29 BY ENGINEER R E V I S I O N S DATE SEAL DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: DATE: JOB NUMBER:CITY OF BEAUMONT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Reviewed By: Recommended for Approval By: Approved By: FILE NO: S H E E T OF SHEETS 550E. 6th St Beaumont, CA 92223 TEL: (951) 769-8520 FAX: (951) 769-8526 Date: Date: Date: NOTE: NOTE: AS NOTED NOVEMBER 2020 169884 CG CG MMI MBAKERINTL.COM 75410 Gerald Ford Dr. Ste:100 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: (760) 346-7481 BEARING: N 52°49'02.84" E BASIS OF BEARINGS: MARK DESCRIPTION APPR. DATE CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN CI V I LS TATE OF CA L IF O RNIAREGISTERED P R O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERMAURICIO M . IACU E L L I No. C63249 Staff Engineer MAURICIO M. IACUELLI R.C.E. 63249 * EXP. 6/30/22 PW2018-0320COUNTY OVERSIGHT ENGINEERREVISED: 11/09/202048+0047+0046+0045+0044+0043+00 54+0053+0052+0051+0050+0049+00 CONSTRUCTION NOTES LINE DATA TABLE FH Vss FHss ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊274527402735273027402735 27402740 274527302731.12738.82730.82732.12740.92730.52731.42744.42741.72741.12739.82739.42738.92738.52736.62733.12733.42744.82746.9BRUSHBRUSHVEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATIONREVISED: 02/04/202/5/2021 2/10/2021 2/10/2021 02/17/2021 3270 86 Item 3. BENCHMARK: ELEV.= 2678.277 (1982), NGVD 29 BY ENGINEER R E V I S I O N S DATE SEAL DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: DATE: JOB NUMBER:CITY OF BEAUMONT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Reviewed By: Recommended for Approval By: Approved By: FILE NO: S H E E T OF SHEETS 550E. 6th St Beaumont, CA 92223 TEL: (951) 769-8520 FAX: (951) 769-8526 Date: Date: Date: NOTE: NOTE: AS NOTED NOVEMBER 2020 169884 CG CG MMI MBAKERINTL.COM 75410 Gerald Ford Dr. Ste:100 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: (760) 346-7481 BEARING: N 52°49'02.84" E BASIS OF BEARINGS: MARK DESCRIPTION APPR. DATE CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN CI V I LS TATE OF CA L IF O RNIAREGISTERED P R O F E SSIONAL E N GI NEERMAURICIO M . IACU E L L I No. C63249 Staff Engineer MAURICIO M. IACUELLI R.C.E. 63249 * EXP. 6/30/22 PW2018-0320COUNTY OVERSIGHT ENGINEERREVISED: 11/09/202059+0058+0057+0056+0055+0054+00 63+0062+0061+0060+00 CONSTRUCTION NOTES LINE DATA TABLE s ssss ssFHs s2 7 6 027552 7 5 0 2 7 5 0275527552750 27502759.72757.72757.62758.92758.42753.52755.62756.92753.42755.82753.52753.82751.52747.72746.92748.62746.62749.52750.62752.72755.32756.32757.1VEGETATIONBRUSHVEGETATIONBRUSHBRUSHVEGETATIONVEGETATIONVEGETATIONREVISED: 02/04/202/5/2021 2/10/2021 2/10/2021 02/17/2021 3270 87 Item 3. FHFHFHFHFHFHFHFHBENCHMARK: ELEV.= 2678.277 (1982), NGVD 29 BY ENGINEER R E V I S I O N S DATE SEAL DESIGN BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: DATE: JOB NUMBER:CITY OF BEAUMONT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Reviewed By: Recommended for Approval By: Approved By: FILE NO: S H E E T OF SHEETS 550E. 6th St Beaumont, CA 92223 TEL: (951) 769-8520 FAX: (951) 769-8526 Date: Date: Date: NOTE: NOTE: AS NOTED NOVEMBER 2020 169884 CG CG RZ MBAKERINTL.COM 75410 Gerald Ford Dr. Ste:100 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: (760) 346-7481 BEARING: N 52°49'02.84" E BASIS OF BEARINGS: MARK DESCRIPTION APPR. DATE CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANStaff Engineer RYAN K. ZELLERS R.C.E. 69470 * EXP. 6/30/22 PW2018-0320REVISED: 11/09/2020COUNTY OVERSIGHT ENGINEERCONSTRUCTION NOTESSIGN LEGEND STOP LIMIT SPEED DO NOT PASSALL WAY 11/9/2020 REVISED: 02/04/202/10/2021 2/10/2021 02/17/2021 3270 88 Item 3. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Interim Finance Director DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: FY2021 General Fund and Wastewater Fund Budget to Actual through April 2021 Background and Analysis: Staff has updated the analysis of the General Fund and Wastewater Fund for FY2021 with results through April 2021. This represents 10 months of activity. The analysis of results through April and estimated fiscal year end results is included in the attachments. Fiscal Impact: City staff estimates it cost approximately $341 to prepare this report. Recommended Action: Receive and file the attached reports. Attachments: A. FY2021 General Fund Budget to Actual Report – through April 2021 B. FY2021 Wastewater Fund Budget to Actual Report – through April 2021 89 Item 4. Parent Budget FY 2021 Estimate Notes3,611,638$           4,288,100$           6,174,605$          6,350,000$ ‐$                       210,630$              267,137$             245,000$ 713,958$              2,856,553$           3,019,846$          3,325,000$ 3,766,531$           4,390,547$           6,375,048$          6,650,000$ 3,798,722$           4,450,534$           7,533,745$          7,650,000$ Exceeding budget for Transient Occupancy Tax, Utility Users Tax and Motor Vehicle In Lieu11,890,848$         16,196,363$         23,370,381$        24,220,000$ Taxes continue trending higher and are expected to exceed the budget 102,112$              223,686$              325,000$             385,000$ 102,112$              223,686$              325,000$             385,000$ 3,595,614$           1,494,643$           2,200,000$          1,800,000$ 244,208$              200,321$              210,000$             245,000$ 494,644$              419,289$              417,500$             488,000$ 72,643$                 ‐$                       ‐$                      4,407,108$           2,114,253$           2,827,500$          2,533,000$ 20,062$                 ‐$                       ‐$                      9,257$                   ‐$                       ‐$                      29,319$                 ‐$                       ‐$                      5,872,539$           101,363$              ‐$                      -$ 80,984$                 73,783$                 119,450$             88,896$ 5,062$                   4,846$                   5,500$                  5,839$ 9,166$                   49,237$                 7,900$                  59,322$ 20,904$                 41,121$                 54,500$                49,544$ 222,374$              239,797$              537,850$             475,000$ 159,195$              74,965$                 125,000$             90,319$ 101,893$              2,115$                   20,000$                2,644$ 97,024$                 80,070$                 148,200$             100,088$ 6,569,141$           667,297$              1,018,400$          871,650$ Budget Comparison ReportCity of Beaumont, CAGeneral Fund Budget to Actual through April 20212018‐2019YTD ActivityThrough Per2019‐2020YTD ActivityThrough Per2020‐2021YTD ActivityThrough Per2020‐2021V1 2020‐2021SubCategoryFund: 100 ‐ GENERAL FUNDRevenueCategory: 40 ‐ TAXES400 ‐ Real Property Taxes 3,795,417$                     403 ‐ Personal Property Taxes 254,416$                         406 ‐ Franchise Fees 7,829,679$                     409 ‐ Sales Taxes 3,871,886$                     420 ‐ Other Taxes 3,953,793$                     Total Category: 40 ‐ TAXES: 19,705,191$                   Category: 41 ‐ LICENSES430 ‐ Business Licenses 153,388$                         Total Category: 41 ‐ LICENSES: 153,388$                         Category: 42 ‐ PERMITS450 ‐ Building Permits 1,816,401$                     453 ‐ Inspections 171,895$                         456 ‐ Other Permits 448,561$                         515 ‐ Public Works (75,975)$                          Total Category: 42 ‐ PERMITS: 2,360,883$                     Category: 45 ‐ INTERGOVERNMENTAL465 ‐ State‐$                                  470 ‐ Local2,550$                             Total Category: 45 ‐ INTERGOVERNMENTAL: 2,550$                             Category: 47 ‐ CHARGES FOR SERVICE500 ‐ Sanitation 131,257$                         505 ‐ Animal Control 79,110$                           510 ‐ Community Development 5,144$                             545 ‐ Other119,468$                         515 ‐ Public Works 9,712$                             525 ‐ Abatements 40,412$                           530 ‐ Public Safety 181,635$                         535 ‐ Facilities97,763$                           540 ‐ Programs77,882$                           Total Category: 47 ‐ CHARGES FOR SERVICE: 742,383$                         90Item 4. 58,531$                 61,582$                 70,000$                72,000$ 22,717$                 38,365$                 45,000$                43,000$ 81,248$                 99,947$                 115,000$             115,000$ 8,889$                   ‐$                       25,000$                20,000$ 456,544$              19,058$                 334,000$             285,000$ 465,434$              19,058$                 359,000$             305,000$ 1,313$                   47,218$                 170,000$             104,000$ 16,335$                 168,918$              154,500$             203,515$ 17,648$                 216,136$              324,500$             307,515$ 20,629$                 ‐$                       15,000$                7,500$                   ‐$                       ‐$                      28,129$                 ‐$                       15,000$                129,892$              6,522,268$           8,757,651$          8,757,651$ All transfers are expected to be made.129,892$              6,522,268$           8,757,651$          8,751,651$ 23,720,880$     26,059,009$     37,112,432$    37,488,816$ 8,976,618$           9,061,640$           13,179,560$        12,610,000$ Actuals include 19 of 26 pay periods4,163,554$           4,307,729$           6,073,295$          5,743,639$ 597,443$              394,074$              463,509$             539,827$ 16,014$                 20,914$                 34,200$                28,649$ 13,753,629$         13,784,357$         19,750,564$        18,922,115$ 16,676$                 44,321$                 15,000$                46,000$ 1,318,412$           1,461,722$           1,548,533$          1,761,111$ 305,990$              340,211$              440,301$             409,892$ 274,733$              318,871$              369,669$             384,182$ 467,142$              540,264$              741,619$             675,330$ 269,598$              613,881$              996,595$             767,351$ 268,059$              195,999$              544,920$             405,000$ 5,249,832$           172,094$              422,000$             305,000$ 3,378,211$           4,290,948$           7,275,058$          6,750,000$ Expenses expected higher, last two quarters of Fire Services remain to be booked(534,000)$             ‐$                       ‐$                       962,553$              1,567,300$           1,613,000$          1,610,000$ 11,977,207$         9,545,611$           13,966,695$        13,113,867$ 222,816$              210,962$              367,000$             355,000$ ‐$                       ‐$                       ‐$                      84,694$                 378,687$              588,591$             585,000$ 8,019$                   ‐$                       ‐$                      Category: 50 ‐ FINES AND FORFEITURES555 ‐ Vehicle63,588$                           557 ‐ Other33,020$                           Total Category: 50 ‐ FINES AND FORFEITURES: 96,608$                           Category: 53 ‐ COST RECOVERY465 ‐ State24,870$                           565 ‐ Other Income 408,368$                         Total Category: 53 ‐ COST RECOVERY: 433,238$                         Category: 54 ‐ MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES560 ‐ Investment Earnings 106,259$                         565 ‐ Other Income 157,368$                         Total Category: 54 ‐ MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES: 263,627$                         Category: 58 ‐ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES595 ‐ Sale of Assets 27,431$                           599 ‐ Other‐$                                  Total Category: 58 ‐ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: 27,431$                           Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS900 ‐ Transfers 1,954,182$                     Total Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS: 1,954,182$                     Total Revenue:25,739,480$             ExpenseCategory: 60 ‐ PERSONNEL SERVICES600 ‐ SALARIES AND WAGES 9,667,660$                     610 ‐ BENEFITS 5,096,185$                     615 ‐ OTHER658,112$                         699 ‐ OTHER24,213$                           Total Category: 60 ‐ PERSONNEL SERVICES: 15,446,170$                   Category: 65 ‐ OPERATING COSTS615 ‐ OTHER31,821$                           650 ‐ UTILITIES 1,342,101$                     655 ‐ ADMINISTRATIVE 327,384$                         660 ‐ FLEET COSTS 348,774$                         665 ‐ PROGRAM COSTS 470,130$                         670 ‐ REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 269,686$                         675 ‐ SUPPLIES 265,945$                         680 ‐ SPECIAL SERVICES 601,705$                         690 ‐ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,200,979$                     697 ‐ ADMIN OVERHEAD (562,500)$                       699 ‐ OTHER 1,176,100$                     Total Category: 65 ‐ OPERATING COSTS: 8,472,124$                     Category: 70 ‐ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS700 ‐ EQUIPMENT 43,869$                           703 ‐ FURNITURE 7,936$                             705 ‐ VEHICLE247,864$                         710 ‐ STRUCTURE‐$                                  91Item 4. 315,529$              589,649$              955,591$             940,000$ 30,000$                 ‐$                       150,001$             -$ 30,000$                 ‐$                       150,001$             -$ 26,076,365$     24,217,962$     23,919,618$     34,822,851$     32,975,982$                                   (2,355,485)$          1,521,518$           2,139,391$           2,289,581$          4,512,835$                                     43,985$            270,955$          6,955,545$      6,955,545$ FY 2021 includes $6.9 million of One-Time allocationsNet Change in General Fund Balance(2,442,710)$ Analysis: The General Fund is trending to have an operating surplus of $4.5 million. This is driven by continued increases intax revenues and savings in both personnel and operating expenses. For this analysis, transfers-out have been separated from operating activities as the City Council made several One-Time allocations of General Funds totalling $6.9 millionduring FY 2021. This will result in a reduction in General Funds of approximately ($2.4 million) overall during FY 2021.Total Category: 70 ‐ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: 299,668$                         Total Expense:GENERAL FUND Operating Surplus/ (Deficit)Category: 77 ‐ CONTINGENCY770 ‐ CONTINGENCY ‐$                                  Total Category: 77 ‐ CONTINGENCY: ‐$                                  Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS900 ‐ Transfers45,194$                     92Item 4. Parent BudgetNotesFY 2021 Estimate9,000$                1,946$                 ‐$                     $ - 9,000$               1,946$                ‐$                     $ - ‐$                    2,823$                6,300$                 $ 6,400 ‐$                    2,823$               6,300$                $ 6,400 70,544$             15,156$             37,500$              $ 31,000 70,544$             15,156$             37,500$              $ 31,000 5,821,919$        7,074,311$        10,849,000$      $ 10,725,000 4 of 6 payments received5,821,919$       7,074,311$       10,849,000$      $ 10,725,000 635$                    ‐$                     ‐$                    831$                    ‐$                     ‐$                    1,466$                ‐$                     ‐$                     $ - (100,000)$           ‐$                     ‐$                    (100,000)$          ‐$                     ‐$                    5,802,929$       7,094,236$       10,892,800$      $ 10,762,400 470,877$           857,257$           1,340,577$         $ 1,260,671 162,240$           267,409$           501,401$            $ 387,549 7,087$                13,181$             17,572$              $ 18,830 162$                   2,049$                1,500$                 $ 2,886 640,367$           1,139,895$       1,861,049$        $ 1,669,936 Significant savings expected in personnel expense 1,044$                 ‐$                     ‐$                    652,134$           639,319$           827,821$            $ 779,657 114,878$           201,487$           291,216$            $ 248,749 11,424$             34,448$             31,980$              $ 42,528 655 ‐ ADMINISTRATIVE 102,223$           660 ‐ FLEET COSTS 22,002$             Total Category: 60 ‐ PERSONNEL SERVICES: 1,221,294$       Category: 65 ‐ OPERATING COSTS615 ‐ OTHER‐$                    650 ‐ UTILITIES 598,916$           Category: 58 ‐ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES595 ‐ Sale of Assets‐$                    Total Revenue: 6,796,945$       Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS900 ‐ Transfers‐$                    Total Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS:‐$                    699 ‐ OTHER 1,265$                15,071$             599 ‐ Other 780$                   Total Category: 58 ‐ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES: 780$                   610 ‐ BENEFITS 282,487$           615 ‐ OTHERExpenseCategory: 60 ‐ PERSONNEL SERVICES600 ‐ SALARIES AND WAGES 922,470$           6,748,770$        Total Category: 53 ‐ COST RECOVERY: 6,236$               Category: 54 ‐ MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES560 ‐ Investment Earnings 40,158$             Total Category: 56 ‐ PROPRIETARY REVENUES: 6,748,770$       Fund: 700 ‐ WASTEWATER FUNDRevenueCategory: 50 ‐ FINES AND FORFEITURES557 ‐ Other 1,000$                Total Category: 50 ‐ FINES AND FORFEITURES: 1,000$               Category: 53 ‐ COST RECOVERY565 ‐ Other Income 6,236$                Total Category: 54 ‐ MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES: 40,158$             Category: 56 ‐ PROPRIETARY REVENUES570 ‐ WasteWaterBudget Comparison ReportCity of Beaumont, CAGroup Summary2018‐2019YTD ActivityThrough Per2019‐2020YTD ActivityThrough Per2020‐2021YTD ActivityThrough Per2020‐2021V1 2020‐2021SubCategory93Item 4. 43,940$             30,803$             60,695$              $ 38,028 190,391$           342,763$           379,610$            $ 412,968 1,049,001$        671,598$           1,062,563$         $ 904,134 459,000$            ‐$                     ‐$                     $ - 65,535$             66,059$             478,637$            $ 206,555 Contract for Brine line maintenance not in full use for most of the year2,587,347$       1,986,477$       3,132,522$        $ 2,632,619 69,588$             141,172$           153,638$            $ 153,000 ‐$                     ‐$                    103,804$            $ 150,000 Emergency repairs for pump replacements and lift station repairs69,588$             141,172$           257,442$            $ 303,000 ‐$                    5,530,352$        5,641,787$         $ 5,697,852 One quarter of overhead allocation remaining‐$                    5,530,352$       5,641,787$        $ 5,697,852 3,297,302$       8,797,897$       10,892,800$      $ 10,303,407 2,505,627$       (1,703,661)$       ‐$                     $ 458,993 Analysis: The Wastewater fund is trending to have a budget surplus in excess of $400K for FY 2021.This is driven by savings in both personnel and operating costs and an assumption that most ofBrine line maintenance contract will not be utilized this year.92,205$             Total Fund: 700 ‐ WASTEWATER FUND: (438,638)$         Total Category: 70 ‐ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS:‐$                    Total Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS: 3,858,375$       Total Expense: 7,235,583$       Category: 90 ‐ TRANSFERS900 ‐ Transfers 3,858,375$        750 ‐ Contingency‐$                    670 ‐ REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 43,720$             675 ‐ SUPPLIES 159,170$           Total Category: 65 ‐ OPERATING COSTS: 2,155,914$       Category: 70 ‐ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS700 ‐ EQUIPMENT‐$                    690 ‐ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 650,178$           697 ‐ ADMIN OVERHEAD 487,500$           699 ‐ OTHER94Item 4. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Christina Taylor, Community Development Director DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Second Reading of a Proposed Ordinance to Update the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) for Funding the Preservation of the Natural Ecosystems in Accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Background and Analysis: The City of Beaumont is a Member Agency of the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), a joint powers authority comprised of the County of Riverside and the eighteen (18) cities located in western Riverside County. The RCA was formed to acquire, administer, operate, and maintain land and facilities to establish habitat reserves for the conservation and protection of species covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan). The Western Riverside County MSHCP, originally adopted in 2004, is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the permanent conservation of 500,000 acres and the protection of 146 species, including 33 that are currently listed as threatened or endangered. The MSHCP was developed in response to the need for future growth opportunities in western Riverside County, from housing developments to transportation and infrastructure, while addressing the requirements of the State and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESA). The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under California’s NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP streamlines environmental permitting processes by allowing the participating cities to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. Without the MSHCP, each development and transportation project would need to conduct an individual assessment and mitigation for impacts to endangered species, an approach that would be less efficient and effective, and more costly. The City of Beaumont’s receipt of local Measure A sales tax funds for local streets and roads is conditioned upon the City’s participation in the MSHCP. This condition of 95 Item 5. funding is memorialized in the voter-adopted ordinance that authorizes Measure A. In the previous fiscal-year the City of Beaumont received $1,000,098.56 in Measure A funding for local transportation projects. The MSHCP required a nexus study under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.) to establish a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) that would then be adopted by each jurisdiction participating in the MSHCP. The LDMF pays for acquisition of Additional Reserve Lands (ARL) to meet the target conservation acreage that local governments are responsible to acquire per the plan. The original nexus study was completed in 2003 coinciding with the adoption of the MSHCP Implementing Agreement and signing of the permits. Section 8.5.1 of the MSHCP allows the fee to be reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover mitigation of new development. Based on the 2003 nexus study, the City of Beaumont adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing the imposition of the LDMF. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, RCA prepared a new nexus study (“2020 Nexus Study”) to update the fees for the first time since original adoption. On December 7, 2020, the RCA Board of Directors adopted the 2020 Nexus Study. On December 31, 2020, RCA transmitted a model ordinance and model resolution to all participating cities. The RCA Board of Directors also approved the use of the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual to assist Member Agencies with LDMF collection questions. An updated nexus study was needed to ensure adequate funding to complete reserve acquisition to fulfill local governments’ responsibilities under the MSHCP. Over the last 16 years, many of the assumptions underlying the original nexus study were not borne out by reality. Forces contributing to the unmet expectation include the Great Recession, less acreage dedicated to RCA by private landowners, and less state and federal funding than expected. The 2020 Nexus Study calculated the expected costs to complete ARL acquisition, manage the conservation lands in perpetuity via an endowment, and administration of the MSHCP. The Nexus Study extended the reserve acquisition period by an additional fifteen years. Currently, the acquisition period ends in 2029. By extending the acquisition period, the LDMF increase is lower because it covers more development over a longer period. The RCA Board also adopted a phased increase of the new fee, with 50 percent of the fee increase taking effect on July 1, 2021, and the remainder of the increase taking effect on January 1, 2022. Public deliberation over the 2020 Nexus Study stretched more than a year and included multiple public meetings. The proposed ordinance provides the legal basis for a revised MSHCP LDMF schedule. The actual MSHCP LDMF schedule will be established through the resolution. 96 Item 5. In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, the proposed ordinance and 2020 Nexus Study: (i) identifies the purpose of the revised fees; (ii) identifies the use to which the revised fees is to be put, including identification of any facilities to be financed; (iii) determines how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; (iv) determines how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed; and (v) determines how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion or the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The ordinance will establish the fee schedule for the MSHCP LDMF as described in the two right-hand columns of the table provided below. Category Current Fee July 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021 January 1, 2022 - June 30, 2022 Residential, density less than 8.0 dwelling units per acre (fee per dwelling unit) $2,234 $2,935 $3,635 Residential, density between 8.0 and 14.0 dwelling units per acre (fee per dwelling unit) $1,430 $1,473 $1,515 Residential density greater than 14.0 dwelling units per acre (fee per dwelling unit) $1,161 $670 $670 Commercial (fee per acre) $7,606 $11,982 $16,358 Industrial (fee per acre) $7,606 $11,982 $16,358 Beginning July 1, 2022, there will be a CPI update annually until the next time a nexus study is completed. The MSHCP program allows cities to recoup staff time costs by adding an administrative processing fee to the permit. A survey was conducted and determined approximately 107 hours of staff time per year is spent administering the MSHCP program including permit review and issuance, monthly and yearly reporting. When averaged out across the number of permits issued over a year, the administrative 97 Item 5. processing fee equates to $26 per permit. The administrative fee was established by the City Council via the adoption of Resolution No. 2021-19 and will be subject to an annual CPI escalator at the discretion of the City Council. Fiscal Impact: Cost to prepare this staff report and attachments is estimated to be $500. Recommended Action: Waive the second full reading and approve by title only, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont to Update the Local Development Mitigation Fee for Funding the Preservation of Natural Ecosystems in Accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.” Attachments: A. Ordinance B. MSHCP Nexus Study 98 Item 5. Page 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT TO UPDATE THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of BEAUMONT (“City”) finds that the ecosystems of the City and western Riverside County, and the vegetation communities and sensitive species they support are fragile, irreplaceable resources that are vital to the general welfare of all residents; WHEREAS, these vegetation communities and natural areas contain habitat value which contributes to the City’s and the region’s environmental resources; WHEREAS, special protections for these vegetation communities and natural areas are being established to prevent future endangerment of the plant and animal species that are dependent upon them; WHEREAS, adoption and implementation of this Ordinance will help to enable the City to achieve the conservation goals set forth in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“MSHCP”), adopted by the City Council on _October 7, 2003, to implement the associated Implementing Agreement executed by the City Council on _October 19, 2004, and to preserve the ability of affected property owners to make reasonable use of their land consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Federal Endangered Species Act (“FESA”), the California Endangered Species Act (“CESA”), the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (“NCCP Act”), and other applicable laws; WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to update its Local Development Mitigation Fee to assist in the maintenance of biological diversity and the natural ecosystem processes that support this diversity; the protection of vegetation communities and natural areas within the City and western Riverside County which are known to support threatened, endangered, or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species; the maintenance of economic development within the City by providing a streamlined regulatory process from which development can proceed in an orderly process; and the protection of the existing character of the City and the region through the implementation of a system of reserves which will provide for permanent open space, community edges, and habitat conservation for species covered by the MSHCP; WHEREAS, the findings set forth herein are based on the MSHCP and the 2020 Nexus Study, and the estimated implementation costs of the MSHCP as set forth in the 2020 Nexus Study, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s office; 99 Item 5. Page 2 WHEREAS, The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (“RCA”) has prepared an updated nexus study entitled “WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN NEXUS FEE STUDY UPDATE” (2020 Nexus Study”) pursuant to California Government code sections 66000 et seq. for the purpose of updating the Local Development Mitigation Fee (“LDMF”). On December 7, 2020, the RCA Board of Directors reviewed the 2020 Nexus Study and directed RCA Permittees to adopt this updated MSHCP fee ordinance. WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City is authorized to enact measures that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens; WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66000 et seq., the City is empowered to impose fees and other exactions to provide necessary funding and public facilities required to mitigate the negative effect of new development projects; WHEREAS, the City Council took action on the MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and adopted the original LDMF, and made appropriate findings pursuant to CEQA; WHEREAS, the levying of LDMF has been reviewed by the City Council and staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines and it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15273 and 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66016, 66017, and 66018, the City has: (a) made available to the public, at least ten (10) days prior to its public hearing, data indicating the estimated cost required to provide the facilities and infrastructure for which these development fees are levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide those facilities and infrastructure; (b) mailed notice at least fourteen (14) days prior to this meeting to all interested parties that have requested notice of new or increased development fees; and (c) held a duly noticed, regularly scheduled public hearing at which oral and written testimony was received regarding the proposed fees. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. The preservation of vegetation communities and natural areas within the City and western Riverside County which support species covered by the MSHCP is necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of the City by reducing the adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of urbanization and development and providing for permanent conservation of habitat for species covered by the MSHCP. 100 Item 5. Page 3 B. It is necessary to update certain development impact fees to ensure that all new development within the City pays its fair share of the costs of acquiring and preserving vegetation communities and natural areas within the City and the region which are known to support plant and wildlife species covered by the MSHCP. C. A proper funding source to pay the costs associated with mitigating the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of development to the natural ecosystems within the City and the region, as identified in the MSHCP, is a development impact fee for residential, commercial, and industrial development. The amount of the fee is determined by the nature and extent of the impacts from the development to the identified natural ecosystems and or the relative cost of mitigating such impacts. D. The MSHCP and the 2020 Nexus Study, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s office, provides a basis for the imposition of development impact fees on new construction. E. The use of the development impact fees to mitigate the impacts to the City’s and the region’s natural ecosystems is reasonably related to the type and extent of impacts caused by development within the City. F. The costs of funding the proper mitigation of natural ecosystems and biological resources impacted by development within the City and the region are apportioned relative to the type and extent of impacts caused by the development. G. The facts and evidence provided to the City establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for preserving the natural ecosystems in the City and the region, as defined in the MSHCP, and the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to such natural ecosystems and biological resources created by the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the types of development for which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the MSHCP and the 2020 Nexus Study. H. The cost estimates for mitigating the impact of development on the City’s and the region’s natural ecosystem and biological resources, as set forth in the MSHCP, are reasonable and will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. I. The fee set forth herein does not reflect the entire cost of the lands which need to be acquired in order to implement the MSHCP and mitigate the impact caused by new development. Additional revenues will be required from other sources. The City Council finds that the benefit to each development project is greater than the amount of the fee to be paid by the project. J. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used to finance the acquisition and perpetual conservation of the natural ecosystems and certain improvements necessary to implement the goals and objectives of the MSHCP. 101 Item 5. Page 4 SECTION 2. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY. The RCA is hereby reaffirmed as the Administrator of this Ordinance. The RCA is hereby authorized to receive all fees generated from the Local Development Mitigation Fee within the City, and to invest, account for, and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of the MSHCP, MSHCP Implementing Ordinance, this Ordinance, and the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual. The detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Ordinance shall be contained in the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual adopted December 7, 2020 and as may be amended from time to time. The RCA Board of Directors may adopt a policy that will allow the City to authorize the RCA to calculate the fees due and collect those amounts directly from property owners. If such a policy is adopted, it will be included in the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual. SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meanings: “Accessory Dwelling Unit” means an accessory dwelling unit as defined by California Government Code section 65852.2(j)(1), or as defined in any successor statute. “Board of Supervisors” means the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, California. “City” means the City of BEAUMONT, County of Riverside, California. “City Council” means the City Council of the City of BEAUMONT, California. “Credit” means a credit allowed pursuant to Section 10 of this Ordinance, which may be applied against the development impact fee paid. “Development” means a human-created change to improved or unimproved real estate, including buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filing, grading, paving, excavating, and drilling. “Development Project” or “Project” means any project undertaken for the purpose of development pursuant to the issuance of a building permit by the City pursuant to all applicable ordinances, regulations, and rules of the City and state law. “Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” means a junior accessory dwelling unit as defined by California Government Code section 65852.22(h)(1), or as defined in any successor statute. “Local Development Mitigation Fee” or “Fee” means the development impact fee imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance. “Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan” or “MSHCP” means the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, adopted by the City Council. 102 Item 5. Page 5 “MSHCP Conservation Area” has the same meaning and intent as such term is defined and utilized in the MSHCP. “Ordinance” means this Ordinance No. 2021-____ of the City of BEAUMONT, California. “Project Area” means the area, measured in acres, within the Development Project including, without limitation, any areas to be developed as a condition of the Development Project. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Project Area is the area upon which the project will be assessed the Local Development Mitigation Fee. See the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual for additional guidance for calculating the Project Area. “Revenue” or “Revenues” means any funds received by the City pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of acquiring and preserving vegetation communities and natural areas within the City and the region which are known to support threatened, endangered, or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species. “Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority” or “RCA” means the governing body established pursuant to the MSHCP that is delegated the authority to oversee and implement the provisions of the MSHCP. Any capitalized term not otherwise defined herein shall carry the same meaning and definition as that term is used and defined in the MSHCP. SECTION 4. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION AND LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE FEE. A. Adoption of Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule. The City Council shall adopt an applicable Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule provided by the RCA through a separate resolution, which may be amended from time to time. B. Public Projects. The City is required to mitigate the impacts of Public Projects pursuant to the MSHCP and the MSHCP Implementing Agreement. The definition of Public Project and the method for mitigating Public Projects will be set forth in the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual. C. Periodic Fee Adjustment. The Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule set forth in the fee resolution referenced above may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted as set forth in the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual. D. Automatic Annual Fee Adjustment. In addition to the Periodic Fee Adjustment mentioned above, the RCA shall provide the City with an automatic annual fee adjustment for the Local Development Mitigation Fee established by this Ordinance as set forth in the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual. 103 Item 5. Page 6 SECTION 5. IMPOSITION OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE. A. The Local Development Mitigation Fee will be paid no later than at the issuance of a building permit. Notwithstanding any other provision of the City’s Municipal Code, no building permit shall be issued for any Development Project unless the Local Development Mitigation Fee applicable to such Development Project has been paid. The amount of the Fee shall be calculated in accordance with the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual. B. In lieu of the payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee as provided above, the Fee for a Development may be paid through a Community Facilities District, provided that such arrangement is approved by the RCA in writing. SECTION 6. PAYMENT OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE. A. The Local Development Mitigation Fee shall be paid in full in accordance with applicable law. B. The Local Development Mitigation Fee required to be paid under this Ordinance shall be the fee in effect at the time the fee is paid for which the Local Development Mitigation Fee is assessed; provided, however, that Housing Development Projects as defined by California Government Code section 65589.5(h)(2) may be entitled to pay the fee in effect at the time of the preliminary application was submitted. C. Notwithstanding anything in the City’s Municipal Code, or any other written documentation to the contrary, the Local Development Mitigation Fee shall be paid whether or not the Development Project is subject to conditions of approval by the City imposing the requirement to pay the fee. D. If all or part of the Development Project is sold prior to payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee, the Project shall continue to be subject to the requirement to pay the fee as provided herein. E. The fee title owner(s) of the Property is responsible for the payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee. SECTION 7. REFUNDS. Under certain circumstances, such as double payment, expiration of a building permit, or fee miscalculation due to clerical error, an applicant may be entitled to a refund. Refunds will be reimbursed by the end of the fiscal year on a first come, first served basis, depending upon the net revenue stream. Refunds will only be considered reimbursable if requested within 3 years of the original LDMF payment. In all cases, the applicant must promptly submit a refund request with proof of LDMF payment to the RCA if RCA collected the LDMF, or if collected by a local 104 Item 5. Page 7 jurisdiction, the refund request shall be submitted to that local jurisdiction, which will subsequently forward the request to RCA for verification, review, and possible action. 1. Expiration of Building Permits - If a building permit should expire, is revoked, or is voluntarily surrendered and is, therefore voided and no construction or improvement of land has commenced, then the applicant may be entitled to a refund of the LDMF collected which was paid as a condition of approval, less administration costs. Any refund must be requested within three (3) years of the original payment. The applicant shall pay the current LDMF in effect at the time in full if s/he reapplies for the permit. 2. Double Payments – on occasion due to a clerical error, a developer has paid all or a portion of the required LDMF for project twice. In such cases, a refund of the double payment may be required. 3. Balance Due – when LDMF is incorrectly calculated due to City clerical error, it is the City’s responsibility to remit the balance due to RCA. The error must be discovered within three (3) years of the original payment for the City to be held accountable. The amount due can be remitted through alternate methods agreed to by the RCA Executive Committee. If first approved through RCA staff in writing, the calculation is not subject to additional review. SECTION 8. ACCOUNTING AND DISBURSEMENT OF COLLECTED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEES. A. All fees paid pursuant to this Ordinance shall be deposited, invested, accounted for, and expended in accordance with Section 66006 of the Government Code and all other applicable provisions of law. B. Subject to the provisions of this section, all fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be remitted to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority at least quarterly. C. In the resolution mentioned in Section 4.A, the City has added a twenty-six dollar ($26) administrative cost recovery fee in an additional cost to the Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule to cover the costs of collecting the fees from project proponents. Any amounts collected by the City shall not reduce the amount collected and remitted to the RCA under this Ordinance. SECTION 9. EXEMPTIONS. The following types of construction shall be exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance: A. Reconstruction or improvements that were damaged or destroyed by fire or other natural causes, provided that the reconstruction or improvements do not result in additional usable square footage. B. Rehabilitation or remodeling to an existing Development Project, provided that the rehabilitation or remodeling does not result in additional usable square footage. 105 Item 5. Page 8 C. Accessory Dwelling Units, but only to the extent such fee is exempted under state law. D. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, but only to the extent such fee is exempted under state law. E. Existing structures where the use is changed from an existing permitted use to a different permitted use, provided that no additional improvements are constructed and does not result in additional usable square footage. F. Certain Agricultural Operations as allowed by the MSHCP, as amended. G. Vesting Tentative Tract Maps entered into pursuant to Government Code section 66452 et seq. (also, Government Code section 66498.1 et seq.) and Development Projects which are the subject of a development agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq., prior to the effective date of Resolution 2003-29, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited, provided that if the term of such a vesting map or development agreement is extended by amendment or by any other manner after the effective date of Resolution 2003-29, the MSHCP Fee shall be imposed. Except as exempted above, all projects are required to make a mitigation payment/ contribution and where no mitigation payment process is specified, the project will pay the updated per acre mitigation fee. SECTION 10. FEE CREDITS. Any Local Development Mitigation Fee credit that may be applicable to a Development Project shall be determined by the City and approved by the RCA. All Fee Credits shall comply with the resolutions, ordinances, Implementing Agreement, and policies of the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority including, without limitation, the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual. SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY. This Ordinance and the various parts, sections, and clauses thereof, are hereby declared to be severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance shall be affected thereby. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Ordinance, or its application to any person entity is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall affect only such part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Ordinance, or person or entity; and shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provision, parts, sentences, paragraphs, sections, or clauses of this Ordinance, or its application to other persons or entities. The City Council hereby declares that this Ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional or invalid part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Ordinance not been included herein; or had such person or entity been expressly exempted from the application of this Ordinance. SECTION 12. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds that in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 21080(b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15273 and 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 106 Item 5. Page 9 SECTION 13. ORDINANCE SUPERSEDED. This Ordinance supersedes the provisions of Resolution No. 2003-29 provided this Ordinance is not declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction. If, for whatever reason, this Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, Resolution No. 2003-29 and all other related ordinances and policies shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest thereto and shall within fifteen (15) days of its adoption cause it, or a summary of it, to be published in the Press Enterprise, a newspaper published and circulated in the City of BEAUMONT, and thereupon and thereafter this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force according to law. Pursuant to Section 13.2(A) of the MSHCP Implementing Agreement, the City Clerk shall send a copy of this Ordinance to RCA within 30 days of the date of adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, this _20th___ day of __April____ 2021 by the following: ____________________________________ Mike Lara, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Steven Mehlman, City Clerk 107 Item 5. Final Report Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Prepared for: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. October 2020 EPS #171034 108 Item 5. Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1 Original and Existing Fee Schedule ............................................................................ 2 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedules ............................................................................. 3 Key Drivers of Fee Change ....................................................................................... 6 Organization of Report ............................................................................................. 8 2. MSHCP POLICIES, GOALS, AND FINANCING STRATEGY ....................................................... 9 MSHCP Purpose, Basis, and Goals.............................................................................. 9 MSHCP Financing Strategy ..................................................................................... 11 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources ................................................... 13 Development Mitigation Fees and Calculation ............................................................ 16 3. HABITAT PROTECTION TO DATE AND FUTURE CONSERVATION SCENARIO ................................. 18 Habitat Protection Accomplishments Through 2019 .................................................... 18 Conservation Goals and Progress ............................................................................ 18 Land Dedications .................................................................................................. 20 Future Conservation Scenario ................................................................................. 21 4. FORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT, DEDICATION, FEE PAYMENT ................................................ 25 Historic Development and HCP Fees ......................................................................... 25 Growth Projections ................................................................................................ 26 5. MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS .............................................................................. 31 Land Costs ........................................................................................................... 31 Other Costs—Administration, Management, and Monitoring ......................................... 35 Endowment Funding .............................................................................................. 38 Total Implementation Costs .................................................................................... 40 6. RCA NON-FEE REVENUES ....................................................................................... 43 MSHCP Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues ..................................................................... 43 New Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues ......................................................................... 44 7. MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION ................................................................................. 46 109 Item 5. 8. MITIGATION FEE ACT (NEXUS) FINDINGS ..................................................................... 52 Purpose of Fee ..................................................................................................... 52 Use of Fee Revenues ............................................................................................. 53 Relationship ......................................................................................................... 53 Need ................................................................................................................... 54 Proportionality ...................................................................................................... 54 9. FEE IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................ 56 Adoption of Revised LDMF ...................................................................................... 56 Securing Supplemental Funding .............................................................................. 56 Annual Review ...................................................................................................... 56 Surplus Funds ...................................................................................................... 57 Annual and Periodic Updates................................................................................... 57 Appendix I: Detailed Time Series of Implementation Costs, Excluding Endowment Funding Appendix II: Detailed Time Series of Endowment Funding List of Tables Table 1 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule ............................................................ 3 Table 2 Updated MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees .................. 4 Table 3 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule by Extension Scenario ................................... 6 Table 4 MSHCP Goals by Area Plan ........................................................................ 11 Table 5 2004 Estimates: MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources ............... 14 Table 6 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule .......................................................... 17 Table 7 Conservation Through End of 2019 ............................................................. 18 Table 8 Required Acquisition Acres to Achieve ARL Goals .......................................... 24 Table 9 Projected Growth in Western Riverside County, through 2050 ......................... 29 Table 10 Projected Developed Acres in Western Riverside County, by Extension Scenario ................................................................................... 30 Table 11 Per-Acre Land Value Estimates—2003 Dollars (2003 Nexus Study) .................. 32 Table 12 Local Conservation Costs Through 2018 ...................................................... 32 Table 13 Planning Level Per Acre Land Value Estimates by Category ............................. 33 110 Item 5. Table 14 Illustrative Distribution of Land Acquisitions by Land Use and Size................... 34 Table 15 Aggregate Land Value of Remaining Areas (2017 dollars) ............................... 34 Table 16 Administrative and Professional Services Costs ............................................. 36 Table 17 Management and Monitoring Anticipated Costs in 2004 and 2019 Dollars ........ 38 Table 18 Annual Implementation Cost Estimate (2019$) ............................................. 39 Table 19 Endowment Funding (2019$), by Extension Scenario .................................... 40 Table 20 Total Implementation Costs (2019$*), by Extension Scenario ......................... 41 Table 21 Average Annual Implementation Costs (2019$), by Extension Scenario ............ 42 Table 22 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources ................................................... 44 Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection (2019$s) .............................................. 45 Table 24 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees ............................ 47 Table 25 Recommended Fee Level—No Extension ...................................................... 48 Table 26 Recommended Fee Level—5-Year Extension ................................................. 49 Table 27 Recommended Fee Level—10-Year Extension ............................................... 50 Table 28 Recommended Fee Level—15-Year Extension ............................................... 51 List of Figures Figure 1 State of Conservation in 2003: Conserved Land, Additional Reserve Land to be Acquired, and Total MSHCP Conservation Area Needed .................. 10 Figure 2 MSHCP Estimated Annual Costs in Millions, 2004 Dollars ................................ 15 Figure 3 MSHCP Estimated Annual Revenues in Millions, 2004 Dollars .......................... 16 Figure 4 MSHCP Conservation Goals, 2019 and 2029 Goals Highlighted ........................ 19 Figure 5 Progress Towards ARL Through End of 2019 ................................................ 20 Figure 6 Residential Unit Development, Western Riverside County, 2005-2019 .............. 25 Figure 7 New Housing Units per Year, SCAG and MSHCP Projections and Historic Production (2005-2019) ................................................................. 27 Figure 8 Newly Developed Commercial Acres per Year ............................................... 27 Figure 9 Comparison of Costs by Category ............................................................... 40 Figure 10 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources ................................................... 44 111 Item 5. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx 1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS This Updated Nexus Study (2020 Nexus Study) provides the technical justification for changes to the Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule that applies to Local Permittee participants in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan). These changes are necessary to ensure adequate funding of the obligations of the Local Permittees under the MSHCP and the associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement. The resulting increased fee revenues will support the continued implementation of the MSHCP and the streamlining of endangered species incidental take permitting for new Western Riverside County development provided under the MSHCP. This Nexus Study is consistent with the requirements of California Government Code 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act) that requires specific findings (as well as administration and implementation procedures) for “any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency.” Background The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan), originally adopted in 2004, is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP was developed in response to the need for future growth opportunities in Western Riverside County while addressing the requirements of the State and federal Endangered Species Acts. The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting processes by allowing the participating jurisdictions to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. At the same time, Plan implementation provides a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region’s quality of life. The MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and Incidental Take Permit collectively determine a set of conservation actions that must be taken to meet the terms of the Incidental Take Permit and benefit from the regulatory streamlining and other benefits of the MSHCP. This includes the identification of the responsible parties, including the responsibilities of the Local Permittees.1 One of the key requirements of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and Incidental Take Permit (consistent with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act) is the provision of adequate funding by Local Permittees to the Implementing Entity (the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2) to conduct their portion of the conservation actions identified in the MSHCP. 1 Local Permittees include the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, County Regional Park and Open-Space District, County Department of Waste Resources, and Riverside County Transportation Commission. 2 The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency is a Joint Powers Authority established in 2004 to implement the MSHCP. 112 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Section 8.0 of the MSHCP outlines the MSHCP funding/financing approach. It also identified best estimates of Plan implementation costs at the time of Plan adoption, including the local funding commitment that represents a portion of the overall land acquisition, management and monitoring, and Plan administration costs. The Local Funding Program included a mix of funding sources to provide “an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP.” The proposed funding sources included Local Development Mitigation Fees (and land dedications), regional infrastructure project public contributions (including contributions to mitigate for transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects), and landfill tipping fees. Participating cities and the County were each required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee under California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”) and supported by the separate “Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,” July 1, 2003 (Original or 2003 Nexus Study). The MSHCP funding chapter notes the need for frequent evaluations of the performance of the funding mechanisms and assessments of the funding plan and the need to make any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms. The MSHCP also notes that the mitigation fee will need to be “reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover mitigation of new development.” In addition to the common practice of updating mitigation fees periodically to account for changing circumstances, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) has determined that significant changes have occurred and/or circumstances have arisen that justify an update to the mitigation fees. These changes include, but are not limited to, the following: • The need to acquire more land than originally forecast due to the lower than expected land dedication. • The lower-than-expected levels of non-fee funding from local and regional funding sources. • The lower than expected levels of residential development. • The need to diversify land acquisitions away from a focus on the larger, more remote parcels to also acquiring parcels closer to urbanized areas, consistent with the reserve assembly requirements of the MSHCP. Original and Existing Fee Schedule All local jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP and obtaining coverage for public and private take in their jurisdictions were required to adopt and implement the 2004 Mitigation Fee Schedule through ordinance and resolution and then to pass through the fee funding (except for any additional administrative charges added by the jurisdictions) to the RCA to fund MSHCP implementation. The ordinances allowed for periodic inflationary increases based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area. In 2018 the Bureau of Labor Statistics implemented a geographic revision, establishing Riverside as its own Core Based Statistical Area. As a result, Riverside was removed from the Consumer Price Index encompassing Los Angeles and Anaheim. Going forward, inflationary increases will be based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the newly established Riverside-San 113 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Bernardino-Ontario area. As outlined in the 2003 Nexus Study (Original Nexus Study), all new development in Western Riverside County is required to pay the mitigation fee. Table 1 shows the original 2004 Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule and the current 2021 Fee Schedule that reflects periodic inflationary fee adjustments using the indexing process that collectively increased the fees by 35 percent between 2004 and 2020 (this was below the overall inflation index increase over this period). Table 1 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule Fee Category 2004 Fee per unit or per acre 2021 Fee per unit or per acre 3 Residential: Up to 8.0 dwelling units per acre (DUAC) $1,651 $2,234 Residential: 8.0-14.0 DUAC $1,057 $1,430 Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $859 $1,161 Commercial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606 Industrial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedules This 2020 Nexus Study has estimated the increased fee level that would be required to provide sufficient revenues, based on the best available forecasts of future growth, to support the full implementation of the MSHCP, including the completion of all land acquisition and the establishment of the necessary endowment, by 2029 (Year 25 of Plan implementation).4 Because, as shown below, this would require a major increase in the fee levels, three other scenarios are also considered where different time extensions provide more time for land acquisition.5 These extensions allow for the costs of Plan implementation (including land acquisitions) to be spread across more development and, as a result, moderate the level of mitigation fee increase required. In addition, the longer extension scenarios require a pace of land acquisition that is more consistent with what has proven to be achievable. All of these fee 3 Note it is RCA procedure to refer to fees during, for example, Fiscal Year 2020/2021, as the 2021 fee. The 2021 fee became effective July 1, 2020, and applies for the fiscal year of 2020-21 (i.e., until June 30, 2021 when the 2022 Fee begins). 4 The MSHCP provided a 25-year period of the required land acquisition with the larger 75-year permit term. This is labelled the “No Extension” or “Baseline Scenario” in this Update Study. 5 The baseline scenario as well as the extension scenarios assume that all land acquisition as well as the full endowment will be completed/ established by the end of the specified implementation/ land acquisition period. Interest from the non-depleting endowment will fund all ongoing costs thereafter. 114 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx increases would be consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and the MSHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement. The mitigation fee levels shown for each extension scenario are the fee levels required to cover the appropriate portion of the Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs based on the best information available at this time. The revised mitigation fee levels reflect changes in estimated costs, expected levels of land dedication, and non-fee funding. Consistent with the MSHCP and Original Nexus Study, it is assumed that all new development in Western Riverside County will pay the mitigation fee because, as noted in the MSHCP, “new development affects the environment through construction activity and cumulatively through population bases that result from such development.”6 Importantly, the revised mitigation fee levels also reflect the decision to determine the mitigation fee that applies to different land uses on a consistent per gross acre basis. This approach is considered to provide a clear, consistent, and proportionate method for determining mitigation fees on new development.7 The 2020 Nexus Study does convert the overarching per gross acre fee into per unit residential fees for different density ranges; this conversion was conducted to provide implementation/administrative consistency for member jurisdictions. Table 2 Updated MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees 6 Consistent with the Original Nexus Study and the technical analysis in this study update (and as described in more detail in the Fee Implementation Handbook), certain types of public improvements/ infrastructure projects will make mitigation payments calculated as a percent of total improvement cost. All projects are required to make a mitigation payment/contribution (except where exempted as specified in the Ordinance); where no mitigation payment process is specified, the project will pay the updated per acre mitigation fee. 7 This is the approach taken by the majority of regional Habitat Conservation Plans in California, including the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee. Fee Per Acre No Extension 5-Year Extension 10-Year Extension 15-Year Extension Net Cost $912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805 Acres of Development Residential 14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403 Nonresidential 6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637 Total 20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040 Mitigation Fee per Acre $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358 Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 115 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx As shown in Table 2, the required mitigation fee per gross acre of development varies substantially based on level of extension as follows: • No Extension. Under the current structure, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 25 of MSHCP implementation (2029), a mitigation fee of $45,041 per acre of development would be required. • 5-Year Extension. With a 5-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 30 of MSHCP implementation (2034), a mitigation fee of $28,625 per acre of development would be required. • 10-Year Extension. With a 10-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 35 of MSHCP implementation (2039), a mitigation fee of $20,868 per acre of development would be required. • 15-Year Extension. With a 15-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 40 of MSHCP implementation (2044), a mitigation fee of $16,358 per acre of development would be required. For residential development, the per gross acre fee is translated into per residential unit fees by density category to provide for a fee framework that is consistent with the current fee structure. The per residential unit fees are calculated by dividing the per gross acre fee by an assumed typical/ average density for each of the three density ranges (low, medium, and high).8 The full mitigation fee schedule (for each extension scenario) is shown in Table 3, including the per unit residential fees by density category and per gross acre fees for non-residential development. The typical/ average residential densities used to calculate the per-unit residential fees are the same as the density assumptions in the Original Nexus Study.9 8 For example, the $3,635 per unit Residential – Low fee under the 15-year extension is derived by dividing the overall per gross acre mitigation fee of $16,358 (shown in Figure 2) by the assumed typical/average density of Residential Low of 4.5 units/acre. 9 The Fee Implementation Handbook provides more specifics on how to determine a project’s residential density and therefore the appropriate per unit residential fee that applies. 116 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 3 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule by Extension Scenario Key Drivers of Fee Change The change in Local Development Mitigation Fee is the result of a number of different contributing factors (“moving parts”), fully documented and detailed in Chapters 2 through 7. This Nexus Study is based on the most current information available including, for some inputs, recent years of experience from MSHCP implementation. The factors that have had the most significant effect on the Local Development Mitigation Fee calculations are summarized below. 1. Lower-than-expected land dedications substantially increase the Local Permittee habitat acquisition cost component of MSHCP implementation. The MSHCP assumed that 41,000 of the 97,000 acres (42 percent) to be conserved by Local Permittee action/funding would be provided at no cost through land dedication associated with development inside the Criteria Cells. Through the first sixteen years of Plan implementation, less than 1,000 acres of the Local Permittee habitat conservation obligations have been generated through these dedications. An additional 10,000 acres of land dedication requirements have been required as part of proposed developments that have yet to occur. Beyond the dedication associated with previously proposed projects, additional land dedication is not expected.10 As a result, the 2020 Nexus Study assumes the noted 10,000 acres of land dedication is formalized over the next eight years (an average annual land dedication of 1,250 acres per year) prior to the end of the current land acquisition period. No additional land dedication is assumed, even if the acquisition period is extended. As a result, at the end of the current habitat acquisition period (Year 25 of Plan 10 In September 2016, the RCA revised its fee credit and waiver policy, limiting the likelihood of projects paying fees and dedicating land. Fee Per Unit No Extension 5-Year Extension 10-Year Extension 15-Year Extension Residential - Low (Up to 8.0 DUAC)2 3 $2,234 $10,009 $6,361 $4,637 $3,635 Residential - Medium (8.0-14.0 DUAC)2 3 $1,430 $4,170 $2,650 $1,932 $1,515 Residential - High (14.0+ DUAC) 2 3 $1,161 $1,846 $1,173 $855 $670 Commercial / Industrial (per acre)$7,606 $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358 Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3. DUAC stands for Dwelling Units per Acre. Current Fee 20211 1. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule for FY 2020-21 (Effective July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021), annually adjusted using the Consumer Price Index. 2. Per acre mitigation fees translated into per unit fees based on the following residential densities: for low density, 4.5 units per acre; for medium density, 10.8 units per acre; for high density, 24.4 units per acre, consistent with the assumptions used in Appendix E of the original Nexus Study. 117 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx implementation), total land dedication is expected to represent about 11,000 acres and about 11 percent of the Local Permittee land conservation requirement. The RCA therefore needs to directly acquire an additional 30,000 acres of land relative to the expectations of the Original Nexus Study. 2. Lower than expected regional infrastructure public contributions have reduced the non-fee funding available, increasing the costs to be funded through the mitigation fee. The MSHCP assumed a substantial level of funding from regional infrastructure project public contributions, including transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects, as well as from landfill tipping fees. While the Measure A sales tax has provided substantial funding as expected, other revenue sources, on aggregate, have provided (and are expected to continue to provide) substantially less funding than forecast in the 2003 Nexus Study. As a result, mitigation fees will need to cover about 91 percent of Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs relative to the original assumption of about 56 percent. 3. The change towards a consistent “per gross developed acre” fee basis provides a more consistent approach for all land use development types. The 2003 Nexus Study used an “Equivalent Benefit Unit” approach to distributing mitigation costs between different land use categories. This Nexus Study adjusts the fee calculation to the more commonly used per gross acre basis. Under this approach, the new Local Development Mitigation Fees are all based on one “across the board” per gross acre fee determination. Non-residential development then pays this per acre fee, while per unit residential fees by density category are derived from this common per gross acre fee.11 This change evens out some of the prior differences in mitigation fee levels. 4. The estimates of average per acre land values have not changed substantially, so they have had a limited effect on the change in mitigation fees. The original MSHCP implementation cost estimate was based on an average land value of about $13,100 per acre. This was based on research on land transactions of parcels with different land use designations and sizes in 2001/2002. The land valuation analysis conducted for this Nexus Study estimated a planning-level land value of about $14,300 per acre based on land transactions primarily in the 2014 to 2017 period (inflated to 2019-dollar terms). As a result, land value estimates have not changed substantially in nominal dollar terms since the Original Nexus Study. This estimated per acre land value is above the cost of most RCA transactions to date, though the average land values of future RCA land acquisition are expected to increase due to the increasing need to purchase more expensive land in “linkage” areas. 11 Similar to the Original Nexus Study, all new development in Western Riverside County is required to pay the mitigation fee (or otherwise provide the necessary mitigation). The conversion from per gross acre to per unit fees for residential development is conducted to provide administrative continuity for member agencies. 118 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx O rganization of Report This Nexus Study includes several chapters. Chapter 1, this chapter, describes the purpose and need for this Nexus Study, the recommended changes in the Local Development Mitigation Fee, and the key drivers of these changes. Chapters 2 through 7 provide the technical analysis that supports the updated fees and nexus findings. Chapter 2 summarizes the purpose of and basis for the MSHCP, the conservation requirements of the MSHCP, and the financing strategy and approach developed to implement the MSHCP in 2004. Chapter 3 describes the conservation achievements to date, identifies the remaining conservation requirements, and identifies expected land dedication. Chapter 4 provides the development forecast used in the calculation of the updated mitigation fees. Chapter 5 provides the estimates of MSHCP implementation costs, including land acquisition, management and monitoring, program administration, and endowment. Chapter 6 describes the historical levels of non-fee revenues available to help fund Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs. Chapter 7 brings together the technical analysis in Chapters 2 through 6 to estimate the updated 2020 Local Development Mitigation Fees. Chapter 8 provides the nexus findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act as require to establish the updated fees. Finally, Chapter 9 highlights some of the administration and implementation requirements under the Mitigation Fee Act, recognizing that the Fee Implementation Handbook provides more specific guidance to the RCA and its partner agencies on the implementation of the mitigation fee program. 119 Item 5. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx 2. MSHCP POLICIES, GOALS, AND FINANCING STRATEGY MSHCP Purpose, Basis, and Goals In response to the need to maintain future growth opportunities in Western Riverside County while addressing the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, the County and the Riverside County Transportation Commission initiated the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) in 1999. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is one part of the RCIP that includes: • Updated County General Plan. Addresses the required general plan elements such as land use, circulation, housing and open space, and conservation and includes programs to implement the MSHCP, enhance transit alternatives, and encourage development of mixed- use centers. • Community and Environment Transportation Acceptability Process. Identifies future transportation corridors in Western Riverside and provides needed environmental documentation to allow preservation of future right-of-ways. • MSHCP. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan) is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP conserves vulnerable plant and animal species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County and supports economic development. The MSHCP was adopted in 2003 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Subsequently, all of the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, County Regional Parks and Open-Space District, County Department of Waste Resources, Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Department of Transportation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Fish and Game, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the RCA signed an Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP. The Implementing Agreement includes terms to ensure MSHCP-implementation, defines remedies and recourses should any of the parties of the Agreement fail to perform obligations, and provides assurances that, as long as the MSHCP is being implemented, the Wildlife Agencies will not require additional mitigation from the Permittees.12 The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting processes by allowing the participating jurisdictions to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. At the same time, Plan implementation provides a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region’s quality of life. 12 The Wildlife Agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Permittees include all of the other parties to the Implementing Agreement. 120 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx The MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and Incidental Take Permit collectively determine a set of conservation actions, and the associated responsible parties, that must be taken to meet the terms of the Incidental Take Permit and benefit from the regulatory streamlining and other benefits of the MSHCP. This includes the identification of the responsibilities of the Local Permittees.13 MSHCP Conservation Requirements The goal of the MSHCP is to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystems processes while allowing future economic growth. The MSHCP calls for an MSHCP Conservation Area of 500,000 acres and focuses on the conservation of 146 species. Figure 1 State of Conservation in 2003: Conserved Land, Additional Reserve Land to be Acquired, and Total MSHCP Conservation Area Needed e County Regional As shown in Figure 1, when the MSHCP was adopted, existing public and quasi-public conservation lands covered 347,000 acres, leaving a need for 153,000 acres of land, called Additional Reserve Land (ARL), to meet the goals of the MSHCP (see Figure 1). The MSHCP specifies that responsibility for the conservation of the 153,000-acre Additional Reserve Lands is shared by the local development process (97,000 acres) and state and federal purchases (56,000). 13 Local Permittees include the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, County Regional Park and Open Space District, County Department of Waste Resources, and Riverside County Transportation Commission. 282,000 56,000 338,000 65,000 97,000 162,000347,000 153,000 500,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 2004 Existing Public/Quasi Public Land Acquire: Additional Reserve Land Total Acres Federal/State Local 121 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 4 MSHCP Goals by Area Plan The MSHCP includes methods to determine whether the goals of the Plan are being met. One of the methods is measuring the extent to which conservation acquisitions are moving toward acquisition goals by each Area Plan.14 Area Plans are established in the County’s General Plan and are used in the MSHCP as a common geographic unit in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP established low, high, and midpoint acquisition goals for each Area Plan based on biological needs. The midpoint acquisition goals for each Area Plan range from 165 to nearly 49,935 acres, as shown in Table 4. The midpoint goals sum to 158,605 which represents 5,605 acres more than are needed to fulfill the MSHCP goals. As a result, acquisitions in some Area Plans can fall below the mid-point targets while the total ARL can still achieve the 153,000-acre goal. MSHCP Financing Strategy One of the key requirements of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and Incidental Take Permit (consistent with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act) is the provision of adequate funding by Local Permittees to the Implementing Entity (the Regional Conservation Authority) to conduct the conservation actions identified in the MSHCP as the responsibility of the Local Permittees. 14 Other geographic units include Rough Steps, city jurisdictions, and Area Plan subunits. For the purposes of this analysis, Area Plans have been selected as the primary unit of analysis because they are the middle-sized unit (smaller than Rough Steps and larger than Area Plan subunits) and have not changed over time (unlike jurisdictions, several of which have incorporated since the adoption of the MSHCP. Cities of Riverside and Norco 1,756 90 240 165 Eastvale 665 145 290 220 Elsinore 28,946 11,700 18,515 15,110 Harvest Valley / Winchester 820 430 605 515 Highgrove 1,452 345 675 510 Jurupa 5,476 890 1,870 1,380 Lake Mathews / Woodcrest 11,673 3,215 5,470 4,340 Lakeview / Nuevo 14,682 6,650 10,235 8,445 Mead Valley 7,703 1,885 3,635 2,760 Reche Canyon / Badlands 26,000 10,520 15,610 13,065 REMAP 78,423 41,400 58,470 49,935 San Jacinto Valley 32,828 11,540 19,465 15,500 Southwest Area 66,076 22,500 36,360 29,430 Sun City / Menifee Valley 2,059 1,120 1,585 1,355 Temescal Canyon 10,007 3,485 5,800 4,645 The Pass 22,652 8,540 13,925 11,230 Total 311,218 124,455 192,750 158,605 Area Plan Total Area of Criteria Cells Low End of Goal High End of Goal Midpoint 122 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Section 8.0 of the MSHCP addresses “MSHCP Funding/Financing of Reserve Assembly and Management.” This section provides best estimates of Plan implementation costs at the time of Plan adoption, including the local funding commitment – the portion of Plan implementation costs that represents the Local Permittees’ portion of the overall land acquisition, management, monitoring, adaptive management, and Plan administration costs. Section 8.5 describes the Local Funding Program. The Local Funding Program included a mix of funding sources to provide “an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP.” The proposed funding sources included Local Development Mitigation Fees, density bonus fees, regional infrastructure project public contributions (including transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects), and landfill tipping fees. Key components of the overall MSHCP implementation and funding strategy are highlighted below: • The Regional Conservation Authority would implement the MSHCP with funding from different sources. • The permanent protection of 97,000 acres in Additional Reserve Lands by Year 25 of the Plan (2029) would be achieved through direct purchase of habitat lands by the RCA using local funding and through the HANS dedication process.15 • Local funding sources would fund the ongoing management and maintenance costs of the local portion of the Additional Reserve Lands acquired through local funding (97,000 acres by end of acquisition period). • Local funding sources would fund monitoring activities on the pre-Plan local conservation and all the new Additional Reserve Lands (500,000 acers by end of acquisition period). • The permanent protection of 56,000 acres in Additional Reserve Lands by Year 25 would be achieved using state/federal funding sources or contributions. • State and federal funding sources would fund the management and maintenance costs of the State/federal portion of the required Additional Reserve Lands. • Local Development Mitigation Fees (on private development) would fund the Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs that were not funded by other local/regional funding sources or public contributions for public development project mitigation. • The overall permit period was set at 75 years. Once habitat acquisition was completed by Year 25, remaining funds along with newly created revenue sources were to be used to fund 15 Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP describes the HANS process. The Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process applied to any property owner applying for a discretionary permit for land within a Criteria Area/Criteria Cell. Under the process, the County determined whether portions of the property are needed for conservation and then may send their evaluation to the RCA for Joint Project Review (JPR). During JPR, the project applicant negotiated the terms of the development and conservation of the project. The applicant also paid fees on the new development. This approach was refined when a new fee credit policy, adopted in 2016, provided for fee credits where appropriate lands are dedicated. 123 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx monitoring and management as well as to fund the establishment of an endowment to cover ongoing post-permit costs (beyond Year 75). Importantly, the MSHCP funding chapter notes that frequent evaluations of the performance of the funding mechanisms and assessments of the funding plan will occur and that any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms will be developed. MSHC P Implementation Costs and Funding Sources The original estimated costs and proposed funding sources were documented in the MSHCP and are summarized in Table 5. These were developed based on research and analysis conducted as part of MSHCP development. As shown, Plan implementation costs over the first 25 years of implementation were estimated at about $950 million in 2004-dollar terms. Key assumptions driving the implementation cost estimates included: • Dedications. Direct acquisition using local funding sources would be required to acquire 56,000 acres, with 41,000 acres (or 42 percent) of the required local habitat protection coming through HANS dedication. • Land Cost. Average land value of $13,100 per acre for Additional Reserve Lands purchased by the RCA. • Management and Monitoring: Management and monitoring costs included three key components as follows: Reserve Management, Adaptive Management, and Biological Monitoring.16 • Program Administration. RCA program administration costs would average about $1.2 million each year in 2004 dollars during the 25-year period where land acquisition was required. • Cost Distribution. Overall, land acquisition costs were estimated at 77 percent of total implementation costs, with management and monitoring at 20 percent, and program administration at 3 percent (see Figure 2). 16 See Chapter 5 of the MSHCP for a description of these activities. 124 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 5 2004 Estimates: MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources Total for % of 2004 - 2028 Average Total Cost/ Item (Years 1 - 25)Annual Funding Need Local Permittee Land Requirements Preservation Requirement 97,000 acres 3,880 acres na HANS Dedication 41,000 acres 1,640 acres na Local Permittee Acquisition 56,000 acres 2,240 acres na Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs Land (1)$733,600,000 $29,344,000 76.91% Management & Monitoring $190,200,000 $7,608,000 19.94% RCA Staff $30,000,000 $1,200,000 3.15% Other Costs na na na Endowment not included not included na Total Costs $953,800,000 $38,152,000 100.0% Local Revenues Private Development Mitigation Fees $539,600,000 $21,584,000 50.1% Density Bonus Fees $66,000,000 $2,640,000 6.1% Regional Transportation Infra. (2)$250,000,000 $10,000,000 23.2% Local Roads (Measure A) $121,000,000 $4,840,000 (3)11.2% Tipping Fees (4)$100,000,000 $4,000,000 9.3% Miscellaneous Revenues (5)$0 $0 0.0% Total Revenues $1,076,600,000 $43,064,000 100% (1) Average land value per acre assumed to be $13,100 per acre. (2) Public contributions at specificed % of new road construction. (3) $121 million to be provided over 10 years, so $12.1 million annually over that period. (4) Includes $90 million from El Sobrante Landfill and $10 million from other County landfills. (5) Other potential revenues, including public contributions from other public projects, tipping fees from Eagle Mountain Landfill, and potential new voter-approved regional funding were noted but not estimated. Source: Chapter 8 of MSHCP; Economic & Planning Systems. 125 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Figure 2 MSHCP Estimated Annual Costs in Millions, 2004 Dollars As also shown in Table 5, MSHCP funding from local/regional sources was estimated to be about $1.0 billion in 2004 dollars through Year 25, sufficient to cover the implementation costs over this period. Key assumptions driving the funding estimates included: • Measure A. Measure A (local sales tax transportation funding measure) would provide $121 million over 10 years in 2004-dollar terms. • Regional Transportation Funding. Public contributions from regional transportation infrastructure projects would provide an average of $10 million each year or $250 million through Year 25. • Tipping Fees. Landfill tipping fees would provide about $100 million in revenue over 25 years, about $4 million each year, primarily from the El Sobrante landfill. • Mitigation Fees. Private development fees, including private development mitigation fees and density bonus fees, would generate over $600 million over the first 25 years, about $24 million annually. • Development Forecast and Participation. The forecast of private development fees was based on a preliminary fee schedule and the forecast of 336,000 new residential units (13,440 units each year) and 371 acres each year of commercial and industrial development. All new development was assumed to pay the private development mitigation fee with a portion paying the density bonus fee. • Other Funding Options. Potential additional funding might come through contributions from other local/regional public entities, other landfills, or new voter-approved funding initiatives. • Funding Distribution. Overall, about 55 percent of the estimated funding was expected to be generated by private development fees, with 45 percent from other funding sources. Land, $29.3, 77% Mangmnt. & Monitoring $7.6 , 20% RCA Staff, $1.2 , 3% $38.1 million total 126 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Figure 3 MSHCP Estimated Annual Revenues in Millions, 2004 Dollars Development Mitigation Fees and Calculation The MSHCP notes that “new development affects the environment directly through construction activity and cumulatively through population bases that result from Development.” As a result, the cities and County are required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee that was expected to represent one of the primary sources of funding for the implementation of the MSHCP. The MSHCP indicates that the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be adopted under California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”) that “allows cities and counties to charge new development for the costs of mitigating the impacts of new development.” The MSHCP identified preliminary estimates of Local Development Mitigation Fees and indicated that these mitigation fees were expected to generate the majority of funding for Local Permittee obligations. The MSHCP noted that, under the Mitigation Fee Act, “a nexus study is required to demonstrate that the proposed fee is proportionate to the impacts of new development.” The Mitigation Fee Act also includes a number of reviewing and reporting requirements. The MSHCP also notes that the fee will need to be “reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover mitigation of new development.” A nexus study entitled “Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan” was completed on July 1, 2003 (2003/Original Nexus Study). This nexus study conducted a detailed analysis of the costs of implementing the Plan, identified the Local Permittee funding obligations, determined the portion to be funded through the Local Development Mitigation Fee, and made the necessary nexus findings under the Mitigation Fee Act. The MSHCP and 2003 Nexus Study both indicated that all new development in the Western Riverside County Plan Area affects covered species and habitat and so the Local Development Mitigation Fees would apply to all new development in participating jurisdictions in Western Riverside County. Private Dev. Mit. Fees, $21.6, 50% Density Bonus Fees, $2.6 , 6% Regional Transp. Infra., $10.0 , 23% Local Roads (Meas. A) , $4.8 , 11% Tipping Fees, $4.0 , 10% $43.3 million total 127 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Mitigation Fee Schedule and Adjustments All local jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP and obtaining coverage for public and private take in their jurisdictions were required to adopt and implement this mitigation fee schedule through ordinance and resolution and then to pass through the fee funding (minus any additional administrative charges) to the RCA to fund MSHCP implementation. Indexed-increases based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area were provided for in the ordinances to allow modest adjustments in mitigation fees to respond to inflationary cost increases. Due to the geographic revision implemented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, going forward indexed-adjustments will be based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area. Table 6 shows the original 2004 Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule and current 2021 Fee schedule that reflects periodic inflationary fee adjustments using the indexing process. Table 6 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule Fee Category 2004 Fee per unit or per acre 2021 Fee per unit or per acre Residential: Up to 8.0 dwelling units per acre (DUAC) $1,651 $2,234 Residential: 8.0-14.0 DUAC $1,057 $1,430 Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $859 $1,161 Commercial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606 Industrial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606 128 Item 5. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx 3. HABITAT PROTECTION TO DATE AND FUTURE CONSERVATION SCENARIO The RCA has achieved substantial levels of habitat protection to date using the funding sources established and the associated variable flows of incoming revenues. The level of habitat protection achieved, because of lower levels of funding and land dedication than expected, has however fallen behind the pace of protection forecast in the Original Nexus Study. This chapter summarizes the achieved protection to (1) establish both the scale of future acquisitions required to meet the overall Additional Reserve Land (ARL) goals, (2) consider the annual pace of habitat protection through acquisitions and dedications in absolute terms and relative to the original MSHCP forecasts, and (3) inform the development of the Conservation Scenario that forms the baseline (project description) for estimating future MSHCP implementation costs and associated funding requirements and updated mitigation fees. Habitat Protection Accomplishments Through 2019 Between the start of the MSHCP program and the end of 2019, the most recent full calendar year, about 40 percent of the 153,000-acre ARL target has been achieved, totaling almost 62,000 acres in acquisitions, easements, or dedications (see Table 7).17 As shown of the 97,000 acres in Local Permittee ARL obligation about 40,200 acres had been protected by the end of 2019. Of the 56,000 acres in State/Federal ARL obligation, about 21,600 acres have been protected to date. Table 7 Conservation Through End of 2019 Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Annual Reports; RCA information on 2019 purchases; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Conservation Goals and Progress The MSHCP anticipated that acquisition would take place for 25 years, through the end of 2029, with 97,000 acres conserved through local means and 56,000 acres conserved with State/federal funding. To achieve this goal, an average of 6,120 acres of conservation is required each year, 17 Note that while the MSHCP was adopted in 2004, certain conservation which took place between 2000 and 2003 was counted toward the MSHCP reserve. Total Party Need Conserved Conserved Conserved Remaining Need 2000-2003 2004 - 2019 2000 - 2019 2020-2043 Local 97,000 4,531 35,681 40,212 56,788 State + Fed 56,000 12,408 9,200 21,608 34,392 Total 153,000 16,939 44,881 61,820 91,180 129 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx including an average of 3,880 annually from local funding sources/dedications and 2,240 annually from State and federal conservation. Figure 4 illustrates how steady progress would result in achievement of the ARL goals by 2029. Figure 5 shows actual progress toward the goals, through 2019. More than 21,000 acres have been conserved through State/federal means, and over 40,000 acres have been conserved through local actions. These totals sum to about 40 percent of the total ARL goal of 153,000 acres. As shown in Figure 5, with 16 years of the 25-year acquisition period completed, the ARL acquisitions have fallen behind the pace forecast in the Original Nexus Study. Protection through the end of 2019 represents 63 percent of the original forecast (65 percent for Local obligations and 60 percent for State/federal obligations). For the Local Permittee obligations, as discussed further below, the lower level of land dedication relative to the original forecasts account for much of the habitat protection gap that has emerged over the last 16 years. Figure 4 MSHCP Conservation Goals, 2019 and 2029 Goals Highlighted 62,080 97,000 35,840 56,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028MSHCP Goals, 2019 and 2028 Highlighted Local State/Fed 130 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Figure 5 Progress Towards ARL Through End of 2019 Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Land Dedications The MSHCP envisioned a conservation program where land and easements would be purchased by the RCA and land would be dedicated to the RCA through the development process.18 In addition, the potential for no-cost and low-cost donations for tax benefit purposes was also created. The MSHCP did not assume donations or conservation easement acquisitions as part of its financial analysis (this is appropriate given the limited number of such transactions). The MSHCP did, however, anticipate that 41,000 acres would be conserved through dedications, 56,000 acres through purchases on behalf of local permittees, and 56,000 acres through purchases conducted by or funded by federal and State agencies/sources for a total of 153,000 acres. For the local portion of the goal (97,000 acres), this translates into about 42 percent of the goal conserved via dedications associated with the development review process—called Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS)—and the other 58 percent purchased by the RCA from willing sellers. The level of dedication is a key assumption for the MSHCP implementation cost estimate as each acre dedicated through HANS is one fewer acre which must be conserved through land acquisitions at market values. The HANS process was established to apply to developments proposed within the Criteria Cells of the MSHCP Study Area. The Criteria Cells represent areas with high conservation values relative to the areas outside of the Criteria Cells. The HANS process was designed to indicate what conservation (dedication) may be needed from new development from a biological needs 18 This process is known as the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS). Fed+State Local Total Acqu. through 2019 21,608 40,212 61,820 Remaining Need 34,392 56,788 91,180 % of 2019 Expected Goal Achieved 60%65%63% % of Total Goal Achieved 39%41%40% 60%65%63% 39%41%40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 Acres153,000 97,000 56,000 131 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx perspective. Subsequent to that technical analysis, applicants could then proceed to the Joint Project Review (JPR) process during which the parties negotiate an implementation plan for the project, consistent with the HANS findings. The applicants would also pay mitigation fees on the actual development. To date, a modest amount of land (less than 1,000 acres) has been conserved via the HANS/JPR method compared to the 26,000 acres that was forecast to have occurred by this point in the MSHCP implementation. While very little land has been dedicated to the RCA through HANS/JPR, several projects went through the HANS/JPR process and have agreements in place for dedication/conservation of lands, but the start date (if any) for these projects is unknown (i.e., may be far in the future). These projects cover about 35,000 acres in the Criteria Cells and, under the JPR agreements, have set aside about 30 percent of that total or about 10,000 acres for conservation/dedication. The adoption of Resolution No. 2016-003 in September 2016 revised the RCA’s fee credit and waiver policy. This resolution indicated that MSHCP fee credit should be provided in exchange for land that contributes to reserve assembly. As a result, after the adoption of this resolution, new development is not be expected to pay mitigation fees and dedicate land in the manner originally envisioned in the MSHCP limiting the likelihood of the types of dedications envisioned in the Original Nexus Study. Future Conservation Scenario This updated financial analysis, nexus study, and mitigation fees estimate require a base description of the additional habitat protection required. In subsequent chapters, cost estimates are developed in reference to, and in application to, this conservation scenario to develop the overall implementation costs and the associated funding required, both in aggregate and through time during the land acquisition period of the program. Four questions are of particular importance: 1. Remaining Habitat Protection. The amount of habitat protection required to meet the MSHCP requirements. 2. Dedications. The amount of land dedication assumed to occur through the HANS/JPR process over the habitat protection period and the associated amount of habitat that must be acquired. 3. Time Frame. The period over which habitat protection goals must be met. 4. Land Characteristics. The characteristics of the land to be protected to meet MSHCP requirements (e.g., goals by Area Plan, habitat cores and linkages etc., land use designations and parcel sizes). The answers to question 1 are provided in the data above (see Table 7). The answer to question 4 is provided in the subsequent chapter on land costs, with illustrative answers coming from RCA data and GIS analysis. The answer to question 2 is addressed below and is based on information on accomplishments to date (described above), discussions with RCA staff, the current Fee Waiver and Credit Policy, and an assessment of realistic opportunities and expectations. Finally, question 3 raises the issue of whether an extension to the MSHCP land acquisition implementation period should be provided. As described below, three different 132 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx extension scenarios (5-, 10-, and 15-year extension scenarios) are evaluated, as well as the baseline, “No Extension Scenario,” to indicate the outcomes under different scenarios. Habitat Protection, Land Dedication, and Conservation Scenarios As shown in Table 8, there is a total of about 91,200 acres of land protection still required to complete the land protection obligations under the MSHCP and to bring the Additional Reserve Lands to 153,000 acres. Of this, the State/federal requirements is for about 34,400 acres, while the Local Permittee requirement is for about 56,800 acres. The experience of the last 16 years indicates that the MSHCP was overly optimistic in terms of land dedications, assuming that 41,000 acres would be dedicated to the RCA. As noted above, about 10,000 acres of potential future land dedication is associated with a range of previously proposed projects. Based on historical information on actual, dedications agreements on proposed projects, current RCA policy, and consultations with RCA staff, minimal additional dedication is expected or assumed. This analysis, therefore, assumes that the prior agreement concerning dedications, summing to about 10,000 acres, will be secured over the next eight years and prior to the end of the current habitat protection period. Even if the implementation period were extended, no extra land dedication is forecast to occur. As a result, and as shown in Table 8, a total of about 46,800 acres of Additional Reserve Land acquisition is required by Local Permittees for MSHCP implementation once the forecast of dedications is incorporated. As shown in Table 8, the required average annual pace of habitat protection varies considerably under the different acquisition period extension scenarios, as described below: 19 • Baseline/No Extension Scenario. As currently structured, RCA is required to complete land acquisition by the end of Year 25 of Plan implementation in 2029. This provides nine (9) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 5,200 acres each year. • 5-Year Extension. With a 5-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 30 of Plan implementation in 2034. This provides fourteen (14) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 3,300 acres each year. • 10-Year Extension. With a 10-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 35 of Plan implementation in 2039. This provides nineteen (19) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 2,500 acres each year. 19 As a point of reference, the historical pace of Local Permittee-driven habitat protection has been somewhat above 2,000 acres each year with availability of funding being an important determinant of the pace of acquisition. The pace of State/federal-driven acquisition has averaged about 1,000 acres each year. 133 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx • 15-Year Extension. With a 15-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 40 of Plan implementation in 2044. This provides twenty-four (24) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 2,000 acres each year. 134 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 8 Required Acquisition Acres to Achieve ARL Goals Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Entity/Item Through 2019 2020-End of Acquisition Period Years Remaining Annual Conservation Acres Required Total Acres State/Federal 21,608 34,392 9 3,821 56,000 Local HANS Dedication (1)715 10,000 9 1,111 10,715 Net Local Acquisition 39,497 46,788 9 5,199 86,285 Total Local Conservation 40,212 56,788 9 6,310 97,000 State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 61,820 91,180 9 10,131 153,000 State/Federal 14 2,457 56,000 Local HANS Dedication 14 714 10,715 Net Local Acquisition 14 3,342 86,285 Total Local Conservation 14 4,056 97,000 State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 14 6,513 153,000 State/Federal 19 1,810 56,000 Local HANS Dedication 19 526 10,715 Net Local Acquisition 19 2,463 86,285 Total Local Conservation 19 2,989 97,000 State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 19 4,799 153,000 State/Federal 24 1,433 56,000 Local HANS Dedication 24 417 10,715 Net Local Acquisition 24 1,950 86,285 Total Local Conservation 24 2,366 97,000 State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 24 3,799 153,000 State/Federal 29 1,186 56,000 Local HANS Dedication 29 345 10,715 Net Local Acquisition 29 1,613 86,285 Total Local Conservation 29 1,958 97,000 State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 29 3,144 153,000 NO EXTENSION 10 YEAR EXTENSION 15 YEAR EXTENSION 20 YEAR EXTENSION 5 YEAR EXTENSION Shading indicates acreage to be acquired with fee revenue. See above See above See above See above 1. About 10,000 acres of potential future land dedication is associated with a range of previously proposed projects. Based on historical information on actual, dedications agreements on proposed projects, current RCA policy, and consultations with RCA staff, minimal additional dedication is expected or assumed beyond these agreements. This analysis, therefore, assumes that the prior agreements concerning dedications will occur with future dedications summing to about 10,000 acres. The precise timing of these dedications is uncertain, but are assumed to occur over the next eight years. Average annual numbers in this table are shown distributed across the full remaining acquisition period of each extension scenario. 135 Item 5. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx 4. FORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT, DEDICATION, FEE PAYMENT Future development within Western Riverside County will both reduce land available for conservation while also serving as a primary funding mechanism for habitat acquisitions. This chapter identifies forecasts of future growth in Western Riverside County and develops an associated forecast of land development that is a key component of the fee calculation. Historic Development and HCP Fees The MSHCP anticipated that 13,000 to 14,000 residential units and about 370 commercial and industrial acres would be developed on average annually. Specifically, between 2005 and 2019, 206,000 residential units were expected in the Plan Area. A review of new units in the Plan Area indicates about 130,000 units were developed over the period (see Figure 6), about 37 percent below the forecast.20 While the substantial volatility in the real estate market over the period (including the housing boom, deep recession, and modest recovery) may explain some of this difference, the slower pace of development means that fee revenues have been similarly constrained relative to the original revenue projections. Figure 6 Residential Unit Development, Western Riverside County, 2005-2019 Source: California Department of Finance; MSHCP Projections 20 Actual units developed have been derived from the California Department of Finance (DOF), Demographics Unit information through January 1, 2019. Note that the DOF reports data by city and for the entire Riverside County unincorporated area. Western Riverside’s portion of the total unincorporated area has been derived based on the area’s historic share of unincorporated County, taking into account the incorporations of new cities that occurred in Western Riverside County since MSHCP Plan adoption (Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar). 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 Number of Residential UnitsProjected Actual 76,000 136 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Growth Projections SCAG Forecasts in Context The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)21 representing six counties, 191 cities and more than 18 million residents. MPOs, such as SCAG are charged under California Senate Bill 375 with developing Sustainable Community Strategies (SCSs) as part of regional transportation plans. SCAG’s SCS includes population, household, and job projections through 2040 by city and unincorporated area. SCAG consults with local governments within the region, including the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) which represents Western Riverside County, to develop the projections. SCAG adopted the 2012-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) in 2016. The 2016 RTP/SCS forms the basis of the SCAG projections; EPS extrapolated an annual growth rate from the SCAG projections and, assuming consistent development trends through 2050, applied the rate in order to estimate development projections through 2050. SCAG forecasts for the future, on an annualized basis, were compared with the MSHCP’s original forecast along with historical information (when available) as described further below: • Residential Development Forecast. Figure 7 shows, for Western Riverside County, the annual residential unit count for SCAG projections through 2050, MSHCP projections through 2029, and residential units produced in Western Riverside County between 2005 and 2019. As shown, the SCAG projections suggest about 8,750 units each. This is similar to the average annual historic pace of growth between 2005 and 2019 of about 9,260 units, but well below the original MSHCP projections of about 13,400 units each year. Based on the similarity between the historical average and the SCAG forecast, the SCAG forecast is considered a reasonable basis for determining the future pace of residential development and associated residential land development (based on assumed densities of development). • Commercial Development Forecast. The SCAG jobs forecast of about 15,000 jobs each year was converted into an annual gross amount of commercial/industrial development using the employment density and FAR assumptions used in the most recent Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) update documents. As shown in Figure 8, this results in a forecast of about 690 acres of commercial/industrial land development each year (representing an overall average of about 21 jobs per acre of development), considerably above the original MSHCP projections of about 370 acres each year. The higher SCAG number, however, appears reasonable given recent and ongoing trends in Western Riverside County where substantial amounts of new logistics/distribution development have occurred covering substantial land areas and, as such, is considered reasonable as the basis of the future forecast of commercial/industrial land development. 21 Federal law requires that an urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000 be guided by a regional entity known as an MPO. California’s Senate Bill 375 expands the role of the State’s 18 MPOs to include regional plans that help the State reach its greenhouse gas reduction targets by encouraging compact development and new development near public transit. 137 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Figure 7 New Housing Units per Year, SCAG and MSHCP Projections and Historic Production (2005-2019) SCAG (2012-2040) and MSHCP Projections (2004-2029) and Historic Production (2005-2019) Figure 8 Newly Developed Commercial Acres per Year SCAG (2012-2040) and MSHCP Projections Note: SCAG job projections converted into acres by EPS 8,747 13,440 9,262 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 SCAG MSHCP Historic 693 371 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 SCAG MSHCP 138 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Forecasts for Fee Calculation For this fee program update, the SCAG projections are considered a reasonable basis for forecasting future land development. Because all new development is expected to pay the mitigation fee, all of the forecasted household and job growth is converted into a land development forecast that is, in turn, used to calculate the mitigation fees. Table 9 shows SCAG’s overall projections for households and employment in Western Riverside County between 2012 and 2050, and Table 10 shows the implied average annual land development rates, and, in turn, the overall level of residential and commercial/industrial land development that would be expected to occur through the end of the land acquisition period for each of the extension scenarios.22 As shown, all scenarios assume an overall average annual land development of 2,252 acres each year, including 693 acres in commercial/industrial land development and 1,558 acres in annual residential land development.23 • Baseline/No Extension Scenario. Under the no extension scenario, a total of 20,265 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of nine (9) years and would pay the mitigation fees. • 5-Year Extension. Under the 5-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 31,523 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of 14 years and would pay the mitigation fees. • 10-Year Extension. Under the 10-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 42,782 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of 19 years and would pay the mitigation fees. • 15-Year Extension. Under the 15-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 54,040 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of 24 years and would pay the mitigation fees. 22 Under the MSHCP, all new development is required to pay the mitigation fee and contribute to funding the implementation of the MSHCP except where specifically exempted in the Ordinance. 23 The 1,558 acres of residential land development was derived based on the forecasted 8,747 residential units each year and assumptions concerning distribution by density category and an average density level. More specifically, consistent with the recent TUMF analysis assumptions, 70 percent of new residential units are assumed to be in the low density category (less than 8 units per acre) with an average of 4.5 units/acre, 20 percent are assumed to be the medium density category (8 to 16 units per acre) with an average of 10.8 units/acre, and 10 percent are assumed to be the high density category (over 16 units per acre) with an average of 24.4 units/acre. The unit per acre factors are consistent with those indicated in the Original Nexus Study. The overall implied average residential density is 5.6 units/gross acre. 139 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 9 Projected Growth in Western Riverside County, through 2050 SCAG Households Employment 2012 530,970 463,833 2040 Projection 775,882 869,792 2050 Projection (1)863,350 1,014,777 New Households/Jobs Expected by 2050 332,380 550,944 Average Annual 8,747 14,499 Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area (1) SCAG projections forecast growth through 2040. EPS assumes the annual growth rate from 2012 to 2040 remains constant through 2050 and applies the rate to an additional 10 years in order to project growth through 2050. Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 140 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 10 Projected Developed Acres in Western Riverside County, by Extension Scenario Proportionate Share 2020-20281 78,722 Households 130,487 Jobs New Development to Acres2 Acres of New Development Through 2028 14,026 Acres 6,239 Acres 20,265 Acres Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres Proportionate Share 2020-20341 122,456 Households 202,979 Jobs New Development to Acres2 Acres of New Development Through 2034 21,818 Acres 9,705 Acres 31,523 Acres Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres Proportionate Share 2020-20381 166,190 Households 275,472 Jobs New Development to Acres2 Acres of New Development Through 2038 29,611 Acres 13,171 Acres 42,782 Acres Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres Proportionate Share 2020-20431 209,924 Households 347,965 Jobs New Development to Acres2 Acres of New Development Through 2043 37,403 Acres 16,637 Acres 54,040 Acres Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres Sources: California Department of Finance; US Census Bureau; Southern California Association of Governments; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area 5 Year Extension 10 Year Extension 15 Year Extension (1) SCAG forecasts from the 2016 Report have been used for all cities in Western Riverside County. The projections for the entire unincorporated area in Riverside have been split into just the Western part of the County through a review of WRCOG's recent proportion of unincorporated growth, compared to the whole County. (2) Conversion from household projections to residential acres of developed land is based on expected development mix and average residential density by land use type, with an average residential density of 5.6 DUAC. Similarly, conversion from job projections to nonresidential acres of developed land is based on distribution of jobs by workspace type and average employment density by land use type, with an average nonresidential density of 21 jobs per land acre. Residential density assumptions are based on data from the Census and California Department of Finance; Employment density assumptions are based on SCAG data. Total No Extension Residential Non ResidentialSCAG 141 Item 5. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx 5. MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS This chapter describes the analysis and assumptions that underpin the estimation of the total remaining MSHCP implementation costs in 2019 dollars. Key cost factors evaluated include land costs, management and monitoring costs, administration and professional services costs, and endowment costs. Together these cost components form the total MSHCP implementation costs. Because the duration allowed for land acquisition and endowment establishment affect several of these cost items, distinct total implementation cost estimates are provided for all scenarios (i.e., Baseline/ No Extension and the three extension scenarios). Land Costs Planning-level estimates of the per acre values associated with potential Additional Reserve Land (ARL) acquisitions are a critical input into the estimation of total land acquisition costs associated with Plan implementation. Land acquisition costs represented the majority of the original estimates of MSHCP implementation costs. This chapter provides planning-level estimates of per acre land conservation costs in 2019-dollar terms based on available information. In combination with assumptions concerning the characteristics of the Additional Reserve Lands to be acquired and potential levels of dedication, the per acre land value estimates drive the estimate of overall land acquisition costs. Actual per acre habitat conservation costs may vary from the average planning-level estimates presented in this chapter for a number of reasons, including differences in the specific characteristics of the actual parcels acquired as well as fluctuations in economic, real estate, and land market conditions over time. Individual transactions will require appraisals to establish their value at the time of acquisition based on parcel characteristics and pertinent market conditions at the time of appraisal. Over time, per acre and overall cost estimates typically change for a number of reasons as discussed further in Chapter 9. MSHCP/Original Nexus Study The initial adoption of the mitigation fees was based on a nexus study completed in July 2003 that included a land valuation analysis that was completed in December 2002. The land valuation analysis assumed the acquisition of vacant and unentitled lands in the Criteria Cells. The land value analysis provided planning-level estimates of per acre land values by grouped land use designation and by Area Plan. Planning-level land value estimates were based on sales comparables. The land value estimates indicated per acre land values that were primarily driven by differentiation in land use category. The land use designation categories represent groupings of the broad number of land use designations present in the Study Area. Table 11 summarizes the per-acre land value ranges and resulting averages. Based on this analysis, an overall weighted average of $13,100 per acre was applied in the MSHCP financial sections in the Original Nexus Study. 142 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 11 Per-Acre Land Value Estimates—2003 Dollars (2003 Nexus Study) Land Use Designation Value Range Resulting Average * Open Space $2,500 to $10,000 per acre $ 8,000 per acre Rural/Agricultural $5,000 to $25,000 per acre $11,000 per acre Community Development $20,000 to $80,000 per acre $45,000 per acre Overall (1) $2,500 to $80,000 per acre Varied (1) * Per acre values rounded to the nearest 1,000. (1) Reported overall average land value per acre depends on mix of land types. Number varies by documents, though $13,100 per acre was overall value applied in the MSHCP financing sections. Source: Original 2003 Nexus Study RCA Experience to Date Table 12 summarizes average RCA land acquisition costs to date. Including land purchased shortly before the MSHCP was adopted through the end of 2018, costs for Local Permittee land acquisitions summed to $352.5 million in nominal dollar terms, an average of $9,400 per acre. However, for the year 2018, about 2,100 acres were acquired at the higher average per acre cost of $13,200 per acre. Table 12 Local Conservation Costs Through 2018 Item Pre-MSHCP through 2018 2018 Total Acres Acquired (1) 37,547 2,066 Total Cost (millions) $352.5 $27.4 Cost per Acre (Nominal $s) $9,400 $13,200 (1) Includes all acres purchased; does not include acres conserved via easement. Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Annual Report 2018; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. To date, the overall historical level of per acre land acquisition expenditures is well below the original 2004 per acre land value estimates. The cost of RCA acquisitions during this timeframe were kept relatively low by concentrating more on lower cost parcels (larger parcels in remote areas with limited development potential). In 2018, as in the future, the average cost per acre is expected to be higher than this historical average due to the characteristics of land still needing to be acquired. New Land Value Analysis and Conclusions New 2019 per acre land value estimates were developed based on recent historical transactions as reported in the sales comparables sections of appraisals conducted for RCA acquisitions. This data set provided a substantial inventory of over 150 land sales between 2012 and 2017 that supported conclusions concerning per acre land values by key land value characteristic. 143 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Similar to the Original Nexus Study, land values were determined to be substantially affected by land use designation and by parcel size. Land values were developed for twelve different value categories based on combinations of three land use designations and four different size ranges. Based on the land valuation data and detailed GIS analysis by RCA staff, parcels were divided into three groups of development potential based on their land use designation:24 • Open Space. Low development potential land use designations included open space, rural mountainous, and rural residential. • Rural. Medium development potential land use designations include agriculture and rural communities land use designations. • Community Development. High development potential land use designations include all community development designations, including residential, non-residential, and other community development designations. In addition to these three land use designation groupings reflecting different levels of development potential, parcels were also divided by parcel size. The land value information indicated a per acre value distinction between the following parcels sizes: • Parcels less than 5 acres. • Parcels between 5 and 20 acres. • Parcels between 20 and 80 acers. • Parcels over 80 acres. Based on the analysis of the sales comparables, Table 13 shows the planning level per acre land value by land use designation grouping/size range in 2017 dollars. Table 13 Planning Level Per Acre Land Value Estimates by Category 24 RCA staff developed a consistent set of land use designation categories across different jurisdictions in the Study Area for the purposes of this study. These formed the basis of the development potential categories. Land Use Designation Less than 5 Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres Open Space $11,761 $5,091 $3,949 $1,866 Rural $33,363 $11,553 $8,337 $5,531 Community Development $177,414 $76,050 $72,369 $24,335 Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Per Acre Land Value ($ / Acre)1 1. Most land sale comparables used for pricing are from 2013 to 2017 and were converted to 2017 dollars using BLS CPI adjustments for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area. 144 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx The average land value per acre for future RCA acquisitions is dependent on the different land values per acre as well as the expected distribution of future acquisitions. The actual land to be acquired is uncertain and is dependent on the availability of land through willing sellers. However, based on the conservation needs by Area Plan, the suitable land available for protection, as well as the specific linkages that must be created between the core reserve areas, RCA staff provided sufficient information for EPS to develop a general expression of parcels by characteristic to support the land value analysis. An illustration of the expected distribution of acres by land use designation and size range is provided in Table 14. Table 14 Illustrative Distribution of Land Acquisitions by Land Use and Size Applying the per acre land values in Table 13 to the illustrative land conservation distribution in Table 14 provides an estimate of the aggregate land value, supporting the estimate of the average planning level land value per acre in 2017-dollar terms (see Table 15). Table 15 Aggregate Land Value of Remaining Areas (2017 dollars) Land Use Designation Less than 5 Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres Open Space 535 1,531 3,626 4,654 10,346 Rural 1,901 17,241 26,802 29,428 75,371 Community Development 638 1,707 3,613 4,384 10,342 Total Purchases by Acreage 3,074 20,479 34,041 38,466 96,059 1. Conservation scenario analysis was conducted in 2017 so overall acres acquired more than those required as of end of 2019. Sources: RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Total Conservation Scenario (Acres) (1) Land Use Designation Less than 5 Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres Open Space $6,292,633 $7,795,633 $14,319,467 $8,682,942 $37,090,674 Rural $63,411,345 $199,183,566 $223,437,526 $162,777,034 $648,809,470 Community Development $113,198,910 $129,817,405 $261,456,200 $106,682,740 $611,155,254 Total Cost of Purchases $182,902,887 $336,796,603 $499,213,192 $278,142,716 $1,297,055,399 % of Total 14%26%38%21%100% 1. This table is the average land value per acre multiplied by the Conservation Scenario. See Table E-1 and E-2. Sources: RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Total Land Comparables by Acres 145 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx As shown in Table 15, the aggregate land value of the approximately 96,000 acres remaining to be protected as part of the MSHCP as of 2017 is estimated at about $1.3 billion in 2017 dollars. This represents an average land value of about $13,500 per acre. To convert this land value into 2019 dollars terms (similar to the rest of the analysis), EPS indexed the value to about $14,300 per acre in 2019-dollar terms.25 Other Costs—Administration, Management, and Monitoring Program administration, reserve management, and reserve monitoring are required functions that require annual funding. The forecasts for each of these cost categories are described below. Administration and Professional Service Costs The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority is responsible for implementing the MSHCP. Since 2004, RCA staff members have directed the acquisition, management, and monitoring of the local portion of the Additional Reserve Land (ARL) required by the MSHCP, monitored State and federal Public/Quasi-Public lands and the State and federal portions of the ARL, and undertook all of the administrative tasks associated with maintaining the permit. Costs categorized in this fee study under MSHCP administration include all RCA staff costs and other costs like building rents and average expenditures on non-acquisition related professional services that are not anticipated to vary as the size of the ARL increases. The forecast for the acquisition period assumes that these costs will remain at approximately $4.2 million in constant 2019 dollars, increasing with inflation but not increasing as the size of the ARL grows (see Table 16). This includes salaries and benefits of about $2.3 million annually and about $1.5 million in professional services, supplies, and other costs. 25 Two years of inflation (2017 – 2019) based on by BLS CPI adjustment for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metro Area. 146 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 16 Administrative and Professional Services Costs Management and Monitoring Reserve Management The MSHCP describes reserve management activities focused on maintaining and improving habitat conditions and ecosystem functions including habitat and landscape-based activities and species-specific activities. For the purposes of this analysis, the average per acre cost estimate for Reserve Management as reported in the RCA actual spending for FY 2018-19 has been used to inform cost projections through the full acquisition period. Because RCA staff and relevant contractors have indicated that the current spending on staff capacity is not adequate to accomplish necessary management with existing land holdings, additional staffing and associated expenditures have been added to the current reserve management expenditures. Specifically, three new full time equivalent (FTE) positions are added to the current 2019 spending for reserve management. Overall, the 2019 per acre reserve management cost of $25.39 per acre was adjusted to $32.70 per acre (2019 dollars) to account for three new mid-level park ranger FTEs. While as of the end of 2019 about 40,200 acres were under management, ultimately, reserve management activities will cover the entire 97,000 acres to be acquired by the RCA. Biological Monitoring The purpose of biological monitoring is to provide Reserve Managers with information and data upon which reserve management decisions will be made. According to the MSHCP, the monitoring program must provide “sufficient, scientifically reliable data for Reserve Managers to assess the MSHCP’s effectiveness at meeting resource objectives and achieving or maintaining a Expenditures RCA FY16/17- 18/19 3-Year Average of Actuals CPI Adjusted to 2019$1 Total Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,219,261 $2,288,495 Professional Services and Supplies Environmental Legal $394,320 $406,621 Auditing, Accounting & Financial Services $101,717 $104,891 GIS Services $10,000 $10,312 Personnel Services $13,920 $14,354 Real Estate Services $653,774 $674,169 Other Services $247,979 $255,715 Subtotal $1,421,710 $1,466,062 Other Charges $388,145 $400,254 Total $4,029,116 $4,154,811 Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Bureau of Labor Statistics; (1) Three year average CPI-adjusted by one year, the average of the annual CPI adjustments for the three years. 147 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 37 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx healthy MSHCP Conservation Area in perpetuity.” Unlike the RCA’s reserve management activities which are limited to local ARL acres, the RCA will ultimately be responsible for monitoring all 500,000 acres of the reserve lands mandated under the MSHCP. The acreage currently being monitored totals roughly 408,000 acres. For the purposes of this analysis, the $1.1 million annual cost estimate based on FY 2018-19 actual spending was used to inform cost projections through the full acquisition period. Because current staff capacity is not adequate to accomplish necessary biological monitoring with existing land holdings, to address the additional land acquisitions, two new full time equivalent (FTE) positions are added to the current 2019 spending for reserve monitoring. The 2019 per acre reserve monitoring cost of $2.67 was adjusted to $3.01 (2019 dollars) to account for two new entry-level biologist FTEs. (see Table 17). This constant dollar per acre cost was assumed to apply throughout the period of implementation. Reserve Management and Biological Monitoring Costs Table 17 summarizes estimated per acre costs for reserve management and monitoring in 2019 dollars. Applying these per acre costs (in 2019 dollars) to current acreage under management and monitoring projects results in annual costs of $1.32 million and $1.23 million, respectively. The annual reserve management and biological monitoring costs increase as new acquisitions occur. 148 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 38 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 17 Management and Monitoring Anticipated Costs in 2004 and 2019 Dollars Endowment Funding The overall permit period was set at 75 years, ending in 2079. To cover ongoing management and monitoring costs beyond the duration when mitigation fees will be collected, the establishment of a non-depleting endowment is required. In other words, the endowment must be sufficient such that expected average interest revenues (after inflation and transaction costs) can cover the ongoing costs associated with administration, management and monitoring in perpetuity. This section summarizes the estimated cost of establishing this endowment under the different scenarios. A key assumption is that the endowment must be fully established by Reserve Management1 Acres under Management 40,212 Existing Reserve Management Expenses $1,021,000 Additional Staff Capacity Required3 $294,000 Total Reserve Management Expenses $1,315,000 $/Acre $32.70 $/Acre without additional staff capacity $25.39 Biological Monitoring2 Acres being Monitored 408,820 Existing Biological Monitoring Expenses $1,092,000 Additional Staff Capacity Required3 $140,000 Total Biological Monitoring Expenses $1,232,000 $/Acre $3.01 $/Acre without additional staff capacity $2.67 Item Actual FY 2019 Spending 3. Current staff capacity is not sufficient to accomplish necessary management and monitoring. An Expanded staff capacity scenario envisions adding 3 FTE mid- level park rangers to Reserve Management and 2 FTE entry-level biologists to Reserve Monitoring, with salaries and benfits of $98,000 and $70,000 ti l Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1. Reserve Management costs include Parks & Open Space contract fees, maintenance of motor vehicles, and HOA dues. 2. Biological Monitoring costs include SAWA contract fees, office and computer supplies, training, private mileage reimbursement, building rent, and rental vehicles/fuel. 149 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 39 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx the end of the land acquisition period as it is assumed that no more mitigation fees will be collected at that time.26 For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that habitat management and habitat monitoring costs continue in full, while administration costs are reduced by half following the end of the land acquisition period. All of these costs then continue in perpetuity. As a result and as shown in Table 18, the endowment is sized to cover the expected annual management and monitoring costs and 50 percent of the administration costs, totaling $6.8 million (2019 dollars) once all lands have been acquired. Table 18 Annual Implementation Cost Estimate (2019$) Consistent with many regional habitat conservations plans, the average annual net, real (allowing for inflation and institutional fees) interest rate is assumed to be three (3) percent.27 Under all extension scenarios, the total required endowment funding is $225.2 million. Because the longer extension periods provide more time for the accrual of interest revenues, the net endowment cost (that must be funded by mitigation fees) is different for each scenario. Table 19 shows the consistent total endowment funding required by scenario as well as the different levels of aggregate endowment interest and associated net endowment funding requirement. For a detailed time-series accounting of endowment funding by extension scenario, see Appendix II. 26 It is important to note that the RCA has collected a distinct set of endowment funds for situations where specific conservation activities are required over-and-above the core activities covered by this endowment calculation. 27 This assumes that the implementing entity can use investment vehicles that may be not be typical for Riverside County. Annual Cost Cost Categories by Last Year of Land Acquisition Period Adjustment Ongoing Habitat Management $3,172,063 100%$3,172,063 Ongoing Habitat Monitoring $1,506,776 100%$1,506,776 Administration1 $4,154,811 50%$2,077,406 Total $8,833,650 $6,756,244 1. Adminsitration includes salaries and benefits, accounting, auditing and reporting, contracts, etc.. Assumes less administration is needed following the land acquisition period; ongoing adminsitrative needs include oversight, auditing and reporting, and board staffing. Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Annual Post-Land Acquisition Cost 150 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 40 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 19 Endowment Funding (2019$), by Extension Scenario Total Implementation Costs Implementation costs include land costs, administrative and professional services expenses, management and monitoring costs, and the required net endowment funding. The remaining MSHCP implementation costs, as described in detail in the preceding sections, are all estimated in 2019 constant dollar terms. Under the Baseline/ No Extension scenario, as shown in Figure 9, the $702 million in estimated land acquisition costs make up 72 percent of the total implementation cost of $974 million. Administrative costs total about 4 percent of total costs, management and monitoring sum to 3 percent of total implementation costs, and the endowment constitutes 21 percent of total costs. Figure 9 Comparison of Costs by Category Total implementation costs vary by extension scenario. Land acquisition costs are the same for all scenarios. Administrative, management and monitoring costs increase the longer the acquisition period is extended, but the endowment funding required decreases the longer the No Extension 5-Year Extension 10-Year Extension 15-Year Extension Total Endowment Funding Required $225,208,133 $225,208,133 $225,208,133 $225,208,133 (Less) Endowment Interest ($25,695,187)($40,679,628)($54,846,349)($68,206,990) Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $184,528,506 $170,361,785 $157,001,144 Item Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Land Acqusition 72% M&M 3% RCA Staff 2% Prof Svcs+Misc 2% Endowment 21% 151 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 41 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx acquisition period is extended. As shown in Table 20, total implementation costs range from $890 million to $967 million depending on the extension period. Although total costs over time increase with longer extension periods the per-year implementation costs decrease with longer extension periods, as shown in Table 21. For a detailed time-series of all implementation costs excepting the endowment, see Appendix I. Table 20 Total Implementation Costs (2019$*), by Extension Scenario * All costs are provided in constant 2019 dollar terms. Costs will change over time due to inflation and other factors. These changes will be addressed through the fee indexing/ updating process that will include automatic inflation-indexed fee changes annually based on the regional Consumer Price Index and periodic comprehensive updates to the Nexus Study. Total for Total for Total for Total for 2020 - 2028 2020 - 2033 2020 - 2038 2020 - 2043 No Extension 5-Yr Extension 10-Yr Extension 15-Yr Extension Land 1 $701,931,902 $701,931,902 $701,931,902 $701,931,902 Management & Monitoring $33,582,193 $51,646,790 $69,711,387 $87,775,983 RCA Staff 2 $20,596,453 $32,038,927 $43,481,401 $54,923,875 Professional Services and Supplies 2 $13,194,561 $20,524,873 $27,855,185 $35,185,497 Loan Repayment 3 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Other Costs 2 4 $3,602,285 $5,603,554 $7,604,824 $9,606,093 Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $184,528,506 $170,361,785 $157,001,144 Total Costs $974,420,341 $998,274,552 $1,022,946,483 $1,048,424,494 Sources: Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs 1. Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms. 2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. 3. RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $5 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million starting in FY 2018. 4. Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. NOTE: In some cases numbers may not perfectly sum due to rounding. 152 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 42 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 21 Average Annual Implementation Costs (2019$), by Extension Scenario 2020 - 2028 2020 - 2033 2020 - 2038 2020 - 2043 No Extension 5-Yr Extension 10-Yr Extension 15-Yr Extension Land 1 $77,992,434 $50,137,993 $36,943,784 $29,247,163 Management & Monitoring $3,731,355 $3,689,056 $3,669,020 $3,657,333 RCA Staff 2 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 Professional Services and Supplies 2 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 Loan Repayment 3 $222,222 $142,857 $105,263 $83,333 Other Costs 2 4 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 Net Endowment Funding Required $22,168,105 $13,180,608 $8,966,410 $6,541,714 Total Costs $108,268,927 $71,305,325 $53,839,289 $43,684,354 3. RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $5 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million starting in FY 2018. 4. Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. Average AnnualLocal Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs Sources: Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1. Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms. 2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. NOTE: In some cases numbers may not perfectly sum due to rounding. 153 Item 5. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 43 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx 6. RCA NON-FEE REVENUES MSHCP Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues The MSHCP forecast an array of revenue sources, in addition to fee revenue, supporting the conservation program. These sources were anticipated to total about 44 percent of the revenue for the program, including: • Transportation funding – includes the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through 2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) charged on new development. Note that the MSHCP envisioned up to $121 million of Measure A money to the HCP. • Other infrastructure projects – funding from this source was not quantified in the MSHCP but reflected the expectation that local public construction projects such as schools, administrative facilities, libraries, jails, and other projects like flood control and utility projects would mitigate the construction through the payment of a per-acre fee.28 Since MSHCP adoption, the standard contribution has been three to five percent of total project costs. • Landfill contributions – Landfill tipping fees have been used in the County since the 1990 for conservation programs. Under county permitting of landfills, the County has committed to divert portions of tipping fees to MSHCP implementation. Table 22 and Figure 10 summarizes the revenue forecasts under the MSHCP. Including the fee revenues, these sources totaled $1.07 billion or an estimated average almost $43 million per year for 25-years (in 2004 dollars). Excluding fee revenues, a total of $18.84 million in annual revenues were forecast, including Measure A funding, $10 million each year from other transportation projects, and $4.0 million from land fill contributions. As described further below, at this point, the average annual funding from non-fee revenues sources are well below the MSCHP forecast. Measure A, a voter-approved ½ cent sales tax measure did provide substantial funding as envisioned (though is now fully used/ allocated) and, collectively, the other non-fee funding sources are well beyond what was originally envisioned. 28 See Chapter 8.5.1 Funding Sources in the MSHCP. 154 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 44 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 22 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources Figure 10 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources New Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues Non-fee revenues to the RCA are projected to be $6.85 million annually in 2019 dollars. This estimate was derived from a line by line review of the major revenue items for a 3-year period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19, projections by collection entities (e.g., TUMF revenue), and recent dynamics likely to affect the revenue source (e.g., greater diversion of trash to recycling MSHCP Anticipated Funding Source Estimate (millions) % of Total Avg/Yr (millions over 25 years) Fee Funded Sources: Cities and County Development Mitigation Fees $539.6 50%$21,584,000 Density Bonus Fees $66.0 6%$2,640,000 Non-Fee Funded Sources $605.6 $24,224,000.0 Public Funding Sources Local Roads (Measure A)$121.0 11%$4,840,000 Other Transportation $250.0 23%$10,000,000 Other infrastructure Projects unknown 0%$0 El Sobrante Landfill $90.0 8%$3,600,000 County Landfills $10.0 1%$400,000 Eagle Mountain Landfill unknown 0%$0 New Regional funding unknown 0%$0 Non-Fee Funded Sources $471.0 $18,840,000 Total, Local Funds $1,076.6 100%$43,064,000 Fee funded 56% Local Roads 11% Other Transportation 23% El Sobrante/Other County Landfills 10% Non-Fee Funded 44% 155 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 45 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx will likely reduce tipping fees). The estimates have been inflated from a three-year average to 2019 dollars, as detailed in Table 23. Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection (2019$s) Non-Fee Revenue Item RCA FY16/17- 18/19 3-Year Average of Actuals CPI Adjusted to 2019$ Transportation Mitigation1 TUMF Revenue-Developer Fees $950,000 $979,637 Subtotal $950,000 $979,637 Tipping Fee $3,865,728 $3,986,326 Public Project Mitigation PSE Mitigation Fee2 NA $500,000 Other Gov MSHCP Infrastructure $284,570 $293,448 Other Gov MSHCP Civic Projects $93,629 $96,550 Flood Control District $293,084 $302,227 Subtotal $671,283 $1,192,225 Other Revenue Interest and Other Sources $467,073 $481,644 Rents $80,531 $83,043 Joint Project Review Fees $124,762 $128,654 Subtotal $672,365 $693,341 Total Revenue NA $6,851,529 1. All Measure A funding was provided prior to 2020 and the associated obligations have been met. 2. Participating Special Entities fees. This does not include Developer Mitigation Fees. These fees vary widely year over year, $500,000 is used as an annual average per the recommendation of RCA staff. Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 156 Item 5. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 46 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx 7. MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee is based on a generally similar methodology to the Original Nexus Study that ensures the fee level is proportional to the development impact. This methodology looks at the remaining conservation requirements associated with Local Permittee obligations under the MSHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement, determines the remaining Local Permittee implementation cost, subtracts out reasonable estimates of non-fee revenues and other contributions, to determine the overall fee- funding obligation. This obligation is then divided among the new development forecast to determine the required mitigation fee. In others words, the original 2003 and updated 2020 Local Development Mitigation Fee estimates are the outcome of the following formula (the 2003 and 2020 Nexus Studies differ in their process of allocating funding required between land uses): 1. Implementation Costs minus 2. Non-Fee Funding equals 3. Outstanding Funding Required divided by 4. Development Forecast equals 5. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule Table 24 summarizes the estimated Net Implementation Costs, Expected Acres of Development, and the associated per gross acre mitigation fee. As shown, the average mitigation fee per gross acre decreases with each extension as similar levels of net implementation costs are spread across more development. Tables 25 through 28 provide the detailed calculations that determine the total net MSHCP implementation costs shown in Table 24. As noted in Chapter 1, for residential development, the per-gross-acre fee is translated into a per-unit fee schedule for administrative continuity. 157 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 47 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 24 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees Fee Per Acre No Extension 5-Year Extension 10-Year Extension 15-Year Extension Net Cost $912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805 Acres of Development Residential 14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403 Nonresidential 6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637 Total 20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040 Mitigation Fee per Acre $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358 Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 158 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 48 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 25 Recommended Fee Level—No Extension Total for 2020 - 2029 Item (Years 17 - 25)9 yrs Local Permittee Land Requirements Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 6,310 acres na (less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 1,111 acres na Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 5,199 acres na Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs Land (1)$701,931,902 $77,992,434 72.0% Management & Monitoring $33,582,193 $3,731,355 3.4% RCA Staff (2)$20,596,453 $2,288,495 2.1% Professional Services and Supplies (2)$13,194,561 $1,466,062 1.4% Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $222,222 0.2% Other Costs (2) (4)$3,602,285 $400,254 0.4% Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $22,168,105 20.5% Total Costs $974,420,341 $108,268,927 100.0% Offsetting Revenues (5) (exc. Private Development Mitigation) Public Project Mitigation (6)$10,730,025 $1,192,225 1.4% Transportation Mitigation (7)$8,816,731 $979,637 1.1% Tipping Fees $35,876,934 $3,986,326 4.6% Other Revenues (8)$6,240,068 $693,341 0.8% Total Selected Revenues $61,663,758 $6,851,529 8.0% Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation Net Cost $912,756,583 $101,417,398 93.7% Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection: Development 2020 - 2028 Annual Residential Units 79,000 8,778 Residential Acres 14,026 1,558 Non-Residential Acres 6,239 693 Total Acres 20,265 2,252 Mitigation Fee $45,041 per acre (1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (7) Includes TUMF fees. (8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees. Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. % of Total Cost/ Funding Need Average Annual (6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. (3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. 159 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 49 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 26 Recommended Fee Level—5-Year Extension Total for 2020 - 2034 Item (Years 17 - 30)14 yrs Local Permittee Land Requirements Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 4,056 acres na (less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 714 acres na Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 3,342 acres na Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs Land (1)$701,931,902 $50,137,993 70.3% Management & Monitoring $51,646,790 $3,689,056 5.2% RCA Staff (2)$32,038,927 $2,288,495 3.2% Professional Services and Supplies (2)$20,524,873 $1,466,062 2.1% Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $142,857 0.2% Other Costs (2) (4)$5,603,554 $400,254 0.6% Net Endowment Funding Required $184,528,506 $13,180,608 18.5% Total Costs $998,274,552 $71,305,325 100.0% Offsetting Revenues (5) (exc. Private Development Mitigation) Public Project Mitigation (6)$16,691,150 $1,192,225 2.1% Transportation Mitigation (7)$13,714,915 $979,637 1.7% Tipping Fees $55,808,564 $3,986,326 6.9% Other Revenues (8)$9,706,772 $693,341 1.2% Total Selected Revenues $95,921,402 $6,851,529 11.8% Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation Net Cost $902,353,150 $64,453,796 90.4% Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection: Development 2020 - 2033 Annual Residential Units (4.2 DU/Acres)122,456 8,747 Residential Acres 21,818 1,558 Non-Residential Acres 9,705 693 Total Acres 31,523 2,252 Mitigation Fee $28,625 per acre (1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (7) Includes TUMF fees. (8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees. Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. % of Total Cost/ Funding Need Average Annual (6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. (3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. 160 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 50 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 27 Recommended Fee Level—10-Year Extension Total for 2020 - 2039 Item (Years 17 - 35)19 yrs Local Permittee Land Requirements Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 2,989 acres na (less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 526 acres na Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 2,463 acres na Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs Land (1)$701,931,902 $36,943,784 68.6% Management & Monitoring $69,711,387 $3,669,020 6.8% RCA Staff (2)$43,481,401 $2,288,495 4.3% Professional Services and Supplies (2)$27,855,185 $1,466,062 2.7% Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $105,263 0.2% Other Costs (2) (4)$7,604,824 $400,254 0.7% Net Endowment Funding Required $170,361,785 $8,966,410 16.7% Total Costs $1,022,946,483 $53,839,289 100.0% Offsetting Revenues (5) (exc. Private Development Mitigation) Public Project Mitigation (6)$22,652,275 $1,192,225 2.7% Transportation Mitigation (7)$18,613,099 $979,637 2.2% Tipping Fees $75,740,195 $3,986,326 8.9% Other Revenues (8)$13,173,476 $693,341 1.5% Total Selected Revenues $130,179,045 $6,851,529 15.3% Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation Net Cost $892,767,438 $46,987,760 87.3% Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection: Development 2020 - 2038 Annual Residential Units (4.2 DU/Acres)166,000 8,737 Residential Acres 29,611 1,558 Non-Residential Acres 13,171 693 Total Acres 42,782 2,252 Mitigation Fee $20,868 per acre (1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (7) Includes TUMF fees. (8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees. Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. Average Annual (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. % of Total Cost/ Funding Need (3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. 161 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 51 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Table 28 Recommended Fee Level—15-Year Extension Total for 2020 - 2044 Item (Years 17 - 40)24 yrs Local Permittee Land Requirements Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 2,366 acres na (less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 417 acres na Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 1,950 acres na Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs Land (1)$701,931,902 $29,247,163 67.0% Management & Monitoring $87,775,983 $3,657,333 8.4% RCA Staff (2)$54,923,875 $2,288,495 5.2% Professional Services and Supplies (2)$35,185,497 $1,466,062 3.4% Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $83,333 0.2% Other Costs (2) (4)$9,606,093 $400,254 0.9% Net Endowment Funding Required $157,001,144 $6,541,714 15.0% Total Costs $1,048,424,494 $43,684,354 100.0% Offsetting Revenues (5) (exc. Private Development Mitigation) Public Project Mitigation (6)$28,613,400 $1,192,225 3.2% Transportation Mitigation (7)$23,511,283 $979,637 2.6% Tipping Fees $95,671,825 $3,986,326 10.7% Other Revenues (8)$16,640,181 $693,341 1.9% Total Selected Revenues $164,436,689 $6,851,529 18.4% Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation Net Cost $883,987,805 $36,832,825 84.3% Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection: Development 2020 - 2043 Annual Residential Units 210,000 8,750 Residential Acres 37,403 1,558 Non-Residential Acres 16,637 693 Total Acres 54,040 2,252 Mitigation Fee $16,358 per acre (1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (7) Includes TUMF fees. (8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees. Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. (3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. Average Annual % of Total Cost/ Funding Need 162 Item 5. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 52 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx 8. MITIGATION FEE ACT (NEXUS) FINDINGS Mitigation fees are utilized in California to finance public facilities necessary to mitigate impacts stemming from new development. In 1987, the California Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act to provide a framework for the application and administration of such fees. Current prevailing practice among the majority of approved and permitted regional multiple-species Habitat Conservation Plans is that any habitat mitigation fees are to be adopted by the relevant jurisdictions (cities and Counties) consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act.29 As discussed further in Chapter 9, the adoption of fees under the Mitigation Fee Act includes a number of auditing and reporting requirements. The Mitigation Fee Act, defined in California Government Code Sections 66000 to 66025, requires all public agencies to document five findings when establishing or increasing a fee as a condition for new development. These findings were made when the Western Riverside County MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees were first justified and established.30 This Chapter of the Western Riverside Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study was prepared to describe how the proposed increase in the Local Development Mitigation Fee satisfies the five statutory findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act and is based on the appropriate nexus between new development and the imposition of a mitigation fee. The five statutory findings required for the establishment of a mitigation fee are summarized in the sections below and supported by the technical analysis in the prior chapters of this Study. Purpose of Fee Identify the purpose of the fee. (66001(a)(1)) The purpose of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is to contribute to the funding required to implement the MSCHP and, as a result, help maintain the incidental take permits for new private and public development in Western Riverside County under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. Maintaining the incidental take permit is necessary to allow for future development, and without the development community paying for the cost of the MSHCP, individual applicants will need to apply independently for development approval under federal and State law if the project impacts a threaten or endangered species. The federal Endangered Species Act specifically requires that the applicant for incidental take permit “ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided.”31 In addition, the Local Development Mitigation Fee helps provide the regional benefit of streamlined economic development in Western Riverside County as well as 29 In addition to the current Western Riverside County habitat mitigation fee, see also the Coachella Valley habitat mitigation fee, the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Fee, and the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP mitigation fee. 30 See the Final Mitigation Nexus Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, published July 1, 2003. 31 See Section 1539(a)(2)Biii of the federal Endangered Species Act. 163 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 53 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx the provision of contiguous open spaces that will serve as a community amenity to residents, workers, and visitors. Use of Fee Revenues Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specific in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (66001(a)(2)). The MSHCP is the public document that outlines the actions required as a whole and the particular set of actions required by the Local Permittees (and the Regional Conservation Agency as their agent) to obtain incidental take permits—associated with State and federal Endangered Species Act requirements—for new public and private development in Western Riverside County. Failure to meet the requirements of the MSHCP will result in an inability to obtain or maintain incidental take permits through the MSHCP, which would require future development to secure individual take authorization if the project impacts a threaten or endangered species. Revenues from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be used, in conjunction with other local and regional funding sources, to fund the conservation actions identified as the responsibility of Local Permittees in the MSHCP. The revenue from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be used to help fund the appropriate habitat acquisition (land acquisition and associated transaction costs), maintenance and monitoring of habitat land (preserve management, monitoring, and adaptive management), and program management, administration, and oversight activities and costs.32 Chapter 3 of this report describes the Local Permittee conservation requirements, progress to date, and the remaining actions required under the MSHCP. Relationship Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (66001(a)(3)). The implementation of the MSHCP, and the mitigation fee as a fundamental part of it, will benefit all new development by mitigating their collective impacts on covered species and associated habitat. All new public and private development in the Plan area will affect habitat and species either directly, indirectly, or as a cumulative effect. New infrastructure development, for example, in addition to its direct effects, will support new development on other parcels and other locations in the Plan Area. Similarly, new private development will require new infrastructure and also result in additional demand for new developments through linkages—for 32 Consistent with the interpretation applied to the majority of permitted and approved regional, multiple-species Habitat Conservation Plans in California and guidance from RCA Counsel, the Local Development Mitigation Fee is assumed to fund its proportionate share (as determined by the technical analysis and constrained by the statutory requirements) of applicable MSHCP implementation costs including, but also limited to, habitat acquisition costs (and associated transaction costs), the costs of managing and monitoring the habitat preserves in perpetuity, and the administrative and other costs of managing the overall program. 164 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 54 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx example, the need for new housing to accommodate new workers at commercial developments or the need for new retail developments to serve new residents at residential developments. In other words, all new development in Western Riverside County will benefit from the incidental take permits obtained through the MSHCP and via the use of the mitigation fee revenues. In addition, the incidental take permits are necessary to permit any future development within the Plan Area, and in order to obtain or maintain such incidental take permits, the MSHCP must be fully funded. Because funding the MSHCP is required in order to allow for future development under the MSHCP, there is a direct relationship between the proposed use of the mitigation fee and development within the Plan Area. Need Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (66001(a)(4)). Without new development, no MSHCP would be necessary and no further habitat conservation would be required under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. To allow for any future development under the Plan, the MSHCP must be fully funded. New development in the Plan Area, as noted above, will directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect species and habitat in Western Riverside County. Because of this, development of the MSHCP was undertaken to provide a regional, streamlined approach to benefit future development of all types in Western Riverside County, including the development and improvements envisioned under the numerous General Plans and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The requirements of the MSHCP (habitat acquisition, management and monitoring, program administration) are a direct result of the regional approach to mitigation that is engendered by all new development in the Plan Area under the pertinent environmental regulations. Meeting the requirements of the MSHCP is necessary to obtain the necessary federal authorization to develop within the Plan Area. Proportionality Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (66001(b)). The MSHCP includes detailed conservation requirements based on the scientific evaluations that form the basis of the MSHCP. Based on these evaluations, conservation responsibilities were allocated between the Local Permittees and other agencies, such as the State and federal governments. The Local Development Mitigation Fee appropriately provides funding towards the fulfillment of the Local Permittee conservation requirements. Furthermore, the Local Permittee obligations are not fully funded through the Local Development Mitigation Fee revenues. Other local and regional funding sources, such as the Measure A sales tax and tipping fees, provide additional mitigation and/or offsetting revenues that reduce the overall cost allocation to the Local Development Mitigation Fee Program. In addition, consistent with the relationship between new development in Western Riverside County and the need for the public facilities (conservation program) described above, proportional attribution between new development is ensured 165 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 55 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx through the determination of a consistent per gross acre Local Development Mitigation Fee.33 As a result, the Local Development Mitigation Fee level calculations are carefully determined to fund only the proportionate (or less than) conservation costs attributable to the new development on which the fee is imposed and to allocate the fee levels proportionally across all new development. It is this process of careful calculation based on the requirements of the MSHCP that is the subject of a substantial portion of this Nexus Study (see Chapters 2 through 7). 33 Determining habitat mitigation fees on a gross acre basis is the clearest way of ensuring proportionate cost allocations among new developments and is a common practice among adopted Habitat Conservation Plans. For purposes of implementation/administrative consistency, for residential uses, the per-gross-acre fee is translated into per unit fees for different density categories. 166 Item 5. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 56 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx 9. FEE IMPLEMENTATION The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee must be implemented consistent with the MSHCP (and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement) as well as the California Mitigation Fee Act. A detailed set of guidance is included in the Fee Implementation Handbook to support clarity and specificity in the implementation of the updated fee program by Local Permittees. The sections below summarize some of the key implementation and administration actions to be consistent with the requirements. Adoption of Revised LDMF • Consistent with the MSHCP and associated documents, each Local Permittee (i.e., all participating jurisdictions) must adopt an updated LDMF ordinance and a fee resolution establishing the revised fee level as prescribed by the Mitigation Fee Act. • Consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, the revised ordinance and associated fee resolution will become effective after a public hearing and 60 days. • RCA Legal Counsel will prepare a Fee Update Ordinance and Resolution to facilitate the consistent adoption of the updated LDMF by Local Permittees. Securing Supplemental Funding The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee is set at the level that would cover the Local Permittee cost obligations once expected non-fee revenues are subtracted out. To the extent any discounts/exemptions are provided to new Western Riverside County development below the updated fee level, additional funding will be required to backfill the fee revenue losses. To the extent, these revenues do not make up for any fee discounts provided, other sources of funding will need to be sought by the RCA and the Local Permittees to fulfill their Plan obligations. At the same time, if new substantial funding sources become available to the RCA for Local Permittee obligations, the funding required through fees may decrease, in turn reducing the required fee levels through a new update. Annual Review The Mitigation Fee Act (at Gov. C. §§ 66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. In this case, the RCA can play this role on behalf of the Local Permittees. This information includes the following: • A description of the type of fee in the account. • The amount of the fee (the mitigation fee schedule). • The beginning and ending balance of the fund. • The amount of fees collected and interest earned. • Identification of the improvements constructed. • The total cost of the improvements constructed. • The fees expended to construct the improvement. • The percentage of total costs funded by the fee. 167 Item 5. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 57 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx If sufficient fees have been collected to fund specific improvement cost, the agency must specify the approximate date for the cost of that improvement. Because of the dynamic nature of growth and MSHCP implementation costs and consistent with current practice, the RCA should continue to monitor progress towards MSHCP goals. The overall adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding in meeting these goals should be reviewed annually. Surplus Funds The Mitigation Fee Act also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or uncommitted in an account for 5 years or more after deposit of the fee, the RCA, acting for the Local Permittees, shall make findings once each year (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, (3) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the funding identified in (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund (§66001(d)). If adequate funding has been collected for specific investments, an approximate date must be specified as to when the cost of the investment will be incurred. If the findings show no need for the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative costs of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds must refund them (Gov. C §66001(e)(f)). Annual and Periodic Updates Consistent with the current practice, the Fee Ordinance should allow an automatic annual adjustment to the fees based on the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Consumer Price Index (CPI) or a similar inflation factor. In addition, a more comprehensive update should be conducted required periodically. The Nexus Study and the technical information it contains should be reviewed periodically by the RCA (every five years is recommended) to identify any necessary refinements to the Local Development Mitigation Fees to ensure adequate funding to implement the MSHCP. Under certain circumstances, the RCA may wish to conduct a Nexus Study update sooner than after five years. For example, to the extent there are significant and unexpected changes in implementation costs, in the level of non-fee funding, and/ or the level of fee-paying private development over time, a more immediate fee update may be appropriate. 168 Item 5. APPENDIX I: Detailed Time Series of Implementation Costs 169 Item 5. All Implementation Costs Over Time – No Extension Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 ACRES Land Acuisition Costs Land Acquisition (Annual) Local 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 (less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 Total Local 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 6,310 State/Fed 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 Total 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 10,131 Land Acquisition (Cumulative) Local 1 45,272 50,332 55,391 60,451 65,511 70,571 75,630 80,690 87,000 State/Fed 25,429 29,251 33,072 36,893 40,715 44,536 48,357 52,179 56,000 Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 Total 71,951 82,082 92,213 102,344 112,476 122,607 132,738 142,869 153,000 Management and Monitoring Costs Monitoring Management State/ Federal PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 ARL RCA State 25,429 29,251 33,072 36,893 40,715 44,536 48,357 52,179 56,000 Total 307,429 311,251 315,072 318,893 322,715 326,536 330,357 334,179 338,000 Local PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 ARL RCA RCA 46,522 52,832 59,141 65,451 71,761 78,071 84,380 90,690 97,000 Total 111,522 117,832 124,141 130,451 136,761 143,071 149,380 155,690 162,000 Total Acres under RCA Management 46,522 52,832 59,141 65,451 71,761 78,071 84,380 90,690 97,000 Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 418,951 429,082 439,213 449,344 459,476 469,607 479,738 489,869 500,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars) Land Acquisition Costs Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $90,154,055 Land Transaction Costs 5%of acquisition costs $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $4,507,703 Total, Land Acquisition Costs $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $94,661,758 Local, ARL, Cumulative $75,908,768 $151,817,536 $227,726,304 $303,635,072 $379,543,840 $455,452,608 $531,361,376 $607,270,144 $701,931,902 Management and Monitoring Costs Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,521,340 $1,727,681 $1,934,021 $2,140,361 $2,346,702 $2,553,042 $2,759,382 $2,965,723 $3,172,063 Management Cumulative $1,521,340 $3,249,021 $5,183,042 $7,323,403 $9,670,105 $12,223,147 $14,982,530 $17,948,252 $21,120,315 Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,262,531 $1,293,061 $1,323,592 $1,354,122 $1,384,653 $1,415,184 $1,445,714 $1,476,245 $1,506,776 Monitoring Cumulative $1,262,531 $2,555,592 $3,879,184 $5,233,306 $6,617,959 $8,033,143 $9,478,857 $10,955,102 $12,461,878 Endowment Costs Net Endowment Funding, Annual $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $22,168,105 $44,336,210 $66,504,316 $88,672,421 $110,840,526 $133,008,631 $155,176,736 $177,344,842 $199,512,947 Administrative Costs 2 RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 Total Annual $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 TOTAL ALL COSTS TOTAL Annual $106,015,555 $106,252,426 $105,489,297 $105,726,168 $105,963,039 $106,199,910 $106,436,781 $106,673,652 $125,663,513 TOTAL Cumulative $106,015,555 $212,267,981 $317,757,279 $423,483,447 $529,446,486 $635,646,396 $742,083,177 $848,756,829 $974,420,341 1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number. 3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed. End of: Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility Habitat Lands/ 2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. 170 Item 5. All Implementation Costs Over Time – 5 Year Extension Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 ACRES Land Acuisition Costs Land Acquisition (Annual) Local 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 (less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Local 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 State/Fed 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 Total 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513 Land Acquisition (Cumulative) Local 1 43,018 45,825 48,631 51,437 54,243 57,050 59,856 62,662 66,719 70,775 74,831 78,887 82,944 87,000 State/Fed 24,065 26,521 28,978 31,434 33,891 36,347 38,804 41,261 43,717 46,174 48,630 51,087 53,543 56,000 Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total 68,333 74,846 81,359 87,871 94,384 100,897 107,410 113,923 120,436 126,949 133,461 139,974 146,487 153,000 Management and Monitoring Costs Monitoring Management State/ Federal PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 ARL RCA State 24,065 26,521 28,978 31,434 33,891 36,347 38,804 41,261 43,717 46,174 48,630 51,087 53,543 56,000 Total 306,065 308,521 310,978 313,434 315,891 318,347 320,804 323,261 325,717 328,174 330,630 333,087 335,543 338,000 Local PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 ARL RCA RCA 44,268 48,325 52,381 56,437 60,493 64,550 68,606 72,662 76,719 80,775 84,831 88,887 92,944 97,000 Total 109,268 113,325 117,381 121,437 125,493 129,550 133,606 137,662 141,719 145,775 149,831 153,887 157,944 162,000 Total Acres under RCA Management 44,268 48,325 52,381 56,437 60,493 64,550 68,606 72,662 76,719 80,775 84,831 88,887 92,944 97,000 Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 415,333 421,846 428,359 434,871 441,384 447,897 454,410 460,923 467,436 473,949 480,461 486,974 493,487 500,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars) Land Acquisition Costs Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 Land Transaction Costs 5%of acquisition costs $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 Total, Land Acquisition Costs $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 Local, ARL, Cumulative $42,100,997 $84,201,995 $126,302,992 $168,403,990 $210,504,987 $252,605,985 $294,706,982 $336,807,979 $397,661,967 $458,515,954 $519,369,941 $580,223,928 $641,077,915 $701,931,902 Management and Monitoring Costs Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,447,647 $1,580,295 $1,712,942 $1,845,589 $1,978,237 $2,110,884 $2,243,532 $2,376,179 $2,508,826 $2,641,474 $2,774,121 $2,906,768 $3,039,416 $3,172,063 Management Cumulative $1,447,647 $3,027,942 $4,740,884 $6,586,474 $8,564,710 $10,675,595 $12,919,126 $15,295,305 $17,804,131 $20,445,605 $23,219,726 $26,126,494 $29,165,910 $32,337,973 Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,251,627 $1,271,254 $1,290,880 $1,310,507 $1,330,134 $1,349,761 $1,369,388 $1,389,015 $1,408,641 $1,428,268 $1,447,895 $1,467,522 $1,487,149 $1,506,776 Monitoring Cumulative $1,251,627 $2,522,880 $3,813,761 $5,124,268 $6,454,402 $7,804,163 $9,173,551 $10,562,566 $11,971,207 $13,399,476 $14,847,371 $16,314,893 $17,802,041 $19,308,817 Endowment Costs Net Endowment Funding, Annual $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $13,180,608 $26,361,215 $39,541,823 $52,722,430 $65,903,038 $79,083,645 $92,264,253 $105,444,860 $118,625,468 $131,806,076 $144,986,683 $158,167,291 $171,347,898 $184,528,506 Administrative Costs 2 RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 TOTAL ALL COSTS TOTAL Annual $63,135,690 $63,287,964 $62,440,239 $62,592,513 $62,744,787 $62,897,061 $63,049,335 $63,201,610 $82,106,873 $82,259,148 $82,411,422 $82,563,696 $82,715,970 $82,868,244 TOTAL Cumulative $63,135,690 $126,423,655 $188,863,893 $251,456,406 $314,201,193 $377,098,254 $440,147,590 $503,349,199 $585,456,073 $667,715,220 $750,126,642 $832,690,338 $915,406,308 $998,274,552 1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number. 3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed. End of: Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility Habitat Lands/ 2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. 171 Item 5. All Implementation Costs Over Time – 10 Year Extension Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 ACRES Land Acuisition Costs Land Acquisition (Annual) Local 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 (less) Anheuser Busch purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Local 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 State/Fed 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 Total 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 Land Acquisition (Cumulative) Local 1 41,951 43,690 45,429 47,167 48,906 50,645 52,384 54,123 57,112 60,100 63,089 66,078 69,067 72,056 75,045 78,033 81,022 84,011 87,000 State/Fed 23,418 25,228 27,038 28,848 30,659 32,469 34,279 36,089 37,899 39,709 41,519 43,329 45,139 46,949 48,760 50,570 52,380 54,190 56,000 Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total 66,619 71,418 76,217 81,016 85,815 90,614 95,413 100,212 105,011 109,809 114,608 119,407 124,206 129,005 133,804 138,603 143,402 148,201 153,000 Management and Monitoring Costs Monitoring Management State/ Federal PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 ARL RCA State 23,418 25,228 27,038 28,848 30,659 32,469 34,279 36,089 37,899 39,709 41,519 43,329 45,139 46,949 48,760 50,570 52,380 54,190 56,000 Total 305,418 307,228 309,038 310,848 312,659 314,469 316,279 318,089 319,899 321,709 323,519 325,329 327,139 328,949 330,760 332,570 334,380 336,190 338,000 Local PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 ARL RCA RCA 43,201 46,190 49,179 52,167 55,156 58,145 61,134 64,123 67,112 70,100 73,089 76,078 79,067 82,056 85,045 88,033 91,022 94,011 97,000 Total 108,201 111,190 114,179 117,167 120,156 123,145 126,134 129,123 132,112 135,100 138,089 141,078 144,067 147,056 150,045 153,033 156,022 159,011 162,000 Total Acres under RCA Management 43,201 46,190 49,179 52,167 55,156 58,145 61,134 64,123 67,112 70,100 73,089 76,078 79,067 82,056 85,045 88,033 91,022 94,011 97,000 Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 413,619 418,418 423,217 428,016 432,815 437,614 442,413 447,212 452,011 456,809 461,608 466,407 471,206 476,005 480,804 485,603 490,402 495,201 500,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars) Land Acquisition Costs Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 Land Transaction Costs 5%of acquisition costs $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 Total, Land Acquisition Costs $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 Local, ARL, Cumulative $26,086,790 $52,173,581 $78,260,371 $104,347,161 $130,433,952 $156,520,742 $182,607,532 $208,694,323 $253,534,102 $298,373,882 $343,213,662 $388,053,442 $432,893,222 $477,733,002 $522,572,782 $567,412,562 $612,252,342 $657,092,122 $701,931,902 Management and Monitoring Costs Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,412,740 $1,510,480 $1,608,220 $1,705,961 $1,803,701 $1,901,441 $1,999,181 $2,096,921 $2,194,661 $2,292,402 $2,390,142 $2,487,882 $2,585,622 $2,683,362 $2,781,102 $2,878,843 $2,976,583 $3,074,323 $3,172,063 Management Cumulative $1,412,740 $2,923,220 $4,531,441 $6,237,402 $8,041,102 $9,942,543 $11,941,725 $14,038,646 $16,233,307 $18,525,709 $20,915,851 $23,403,733 $25,989,355 $28,672,717 $31,453,819 $34,332,662 $37,309,245 $40,383,568 $43,555,631 Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,246,462 $1,260,924 $1,275,386 $1,289,847 $1,304,309 $1,318,771 $1,333,233 $1,347,695 $1,362,157 $1,376,619 $1,391,081 $1,405,542 $1,420,004 $1,434,466 $1,448,928 $1,463,390 $1,477,852 $1,492,314 $1,506,776 Monitoring Cumulative $1,246,462 $2,507,386 $3,782,771 $5,072,619 $6,376,928 $7,695,699 $9,028,932 $10,376,627 $11,738,784 $13,115,403 $14,506,484 $15,912,026 $17,332,030 $18,766,497 $20,215,425 $21,678,815 $23,156,667 $24,648,980 $26,155,756 Endowment Costs Net Endowment Funding, Annual $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $8,966,410 $17,932,819 $26,899,229 $35,865,639 $44,832,049 $53,798,458 $62,764,868 $71,731,278 $80,697,687 $89,664,097 $98,630,507 $107,596,917 $116,563,326 $125,529,736 $134,496,146 $143,462,556 $152,428,965 $161,395,375 $170,361,785 Administrative Costs 2 RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 $64,322,166 $68,476,977 $72,631,788 $76,786,599 $80,941,410 TOTAL ALL COSTS TOTAL Annual $42,867,213 $42,979,415 $42,091,617 $42,203,819 $42,316,021 $42,428,223 $42,540,425 $42,652,627 $61,517,819 $61,630,021 $61,742,223 $61,854,425 $61,966,627 $62,078,829 $62,191,031 $62,303,233 $62,415,435 $62,527,637 $62,639,839 TOTAL Cumulative $42,867,213 $85,846,628 $127,938,245 $170,142,065 $212,458,086 $254,886,309 $297,426,735 $340,079,362 $401,597,181 $463,227,202 $524,969,425 $586,823,850 $648,790,477 $710,869,307 $773,060,338 $835,363,571 $897,779,006 $960,306,644 $1,022,946,483 1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number. 3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed. Habitat Lands/ End of: Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility 2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. 172 Item 5. All Implementation Costs Over Time – 15 Year Extension Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 ACRES Land Acuisition Costs Land Acquisition (Annual) Local 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 (less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Local 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 State/Fed 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 Total 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 Land Acquisition (Cumulative) Local 1 41,328 42,444 43,561 44,677 45,793 46,909 48,025 49,141 51,508 53,874 56,240 58,606 60,972 63,338 65,705 68,071 70,437 72,803 75,169 77,535 79,902 82,268 84,634 87,000 State/Fed 23,041 24,474 25,907 27,340 28,773 30,206 31,639 33,072 34,505 35,938 37,371 38,804 40,237 41,670 43,103 44,536 45,969 47,402 48,835 50,268 51,701 53,134 54,567 56,000 Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total 65,619 69,418 73,218 77,017 80,816 84,615 88,414 92,213 96,013 99,812 103,611 107,410 111,209 115,008 118,808 122,607 126,406 130,205 134,004 137,803 141,603 145,402 149,201 153,000 Management and Monitoring Costs Monitoring Management State/ Federal PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 ARL RCA State 23,041 24,474 25,907 27,340 28,773 30,206 31,639 33,072 34,505 35,938 37,371 38,804 40,237 41,670 43,103 44,536 45,969 47,402 48,835 50,268 51,701 53,134 54,567 56,000 Total 305,041 306,474 307,907 309,340 310,773 312,206 313,639 315,072 316,505 317,938 319,371 320,804 322,237 323,670 325,103 326,536 327,969 329,402 330,835 332,268 333,701 335,134 336,567 338,000 Local PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 ARL RCA RCA 42,578 44,944 47,311 49,677 52,043 54,409 56,775 59,141 61,508 63,874 66,240 68,606 70,972 73,338 75,705 78,071 80,437 82,803 85,169 87,535 89,902 92,268 94,634 97,000 Total 107,578 109,944 112,311 114,677 117,043 119,409 121,775 124,141 126,508 128,874 131,240 133,606 135,972 138,338 140,705 143,071 145,437 147,803 150,169 152,535 154,902 157,268 159,634 162,000 Total Acres under RCA Management 42,578 44,944 47,311 49,677 52,043 54,409 56,775 59,141 61,508 63,874 66,240 68,606 70,972 73,338 75,705 78,071 80,437 82,803 85,169 87,535 89,902 92,268 94,634 97,000 Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 412,619 416,418 420,218 424,017 427,816 431,615 435,414 439,213 443,013 446,812 450,611 454,410 458,209 462,008 465,808 469,607 473,406 477,205 481,004 484,803 488,603 492,402 496,201 500,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars) Land Acquisition Costs Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 Land Transaction Costs 5%of acquisition costs $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 Total, Land Acquisition Costs $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 Local, ARL, Cumulative $16,745,170 $33,490,339 $50,235,509 $66,980,678 $83,725,848 $100,471,017 $117,216,187 $133,961,356 $169,459,515 $204,957,674 $240,455,833 $275,953,992 $311,452,152 $346,950,311 $382,448,470 $417,946,629 $453,444,788 $488,942,947 $524,441,106 $559,939,265 $595,437,424 $630,935,583 $666,433,743 $701,931,902 Management and Monitoring Costs Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,392,378 $1,469,755 $1,547,133 $1,624,511 $1,701,888 $1,779,266 $1,856,643 $1,934,021 $2,011,399 $2,088,776 $2,166,154 $2,243,532 $2,320,909 $2,398,287 $2,475,664 $2,553,042 $2,630,420 $2,707,797 $2,785,175 $2,862,553 $2,939,930 $3,017,308 $3,094,685 $3,172,063 Management Cumulative $1,392,378 $2,862,133 $4,409,266 $6,033,776 $7,735,664 $9,514,930 $11,371,574 $13,305,595 $15,316,993 $17,405,770 $19,571,923 $21,815,455 $24,136,364 $26,534,651 $29,010,315 $31,563,357 $34,193,777 $36,901,574 $39,686,749 $42,549,302 $45,489,232 $48,506,540 $51,601,225 $54,773,288 Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,243,449 $1,254,898 $1,266,347 $1,277,796 $1,289,245 $1,300,694 $1,312,143 $1,323,592 $1,335,041 $1,346,490 $1,357,939 $1,369,388 $1,380,837 $1,392,286 $1,403,735 $1,415,184 $1,426,633 $1,438,082 $1,449,531 $1,460,980 $1,472,429 $1,483,878 $1,495,327 $1,506,776 Monitoring Cumulative $1,243,449 $2,498,347 $3,764,694 $5,042,490 $6,331,735 $7,632,429 $8,944,572 $10,268,163 $11,603,204 $12,949,694 $14,307,633 $15,677,021 $17,057,857 $18,450,143 $19,853,878 $21,269,062 $22,695,694 $24,133,776 $25,583,307 $27,044,286 $28,516,715 $30,000,593 $31,495,919 $33,002,695 Endowment Costs Net Endowment Funding, Annual $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $6,541,714 $13,083,429 $19,625,143 $26,166,857 $32,708,572 $39,250,286 $45,792,000 $52,333,715 $58,875,429 $65,417,143 $71,958,858 $78,500,572 $85,042,286 $91,584,001 $98,125,715 $104,667,429 $111,209,144 $117,750,858 $124,292,572 $130,834,286 $137,376,001 $143,917,715 $150,459,429 $157,001,144 Administrative Costs 2 RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 $64,322,166 $68,476,977 $72,631,788 $76,786,599 $80,941,410 $85,096,221 $89,251,032 $93,405,843 $97,560,654 $101,715,465 TOTAL ALL COSTS TOTAL Annual $31,077,521 $31,166,348 $30,255,175 $30,344,001 $30,432,828 $30,521,655 $30,610,481 $30,699,308 $49,541,124 $49,629,951 $49,718,777 $49,807,604 $49,896,430 $49,985,257 $50,074,084 $50,162,910 $50,251,737 $50,340,563 $50,429,390 $50,518,217 $50,607,043 $50,695,870 $50,784,697 $50,873,523 TOTAL Cumulative $31,077,521 $62,243,870 $92,499,044 $122,843,046 $153,275,874 $183,797,528 $214,408,009 $245,107,317 $294,648,441 $344,278,392 $393,997,169 $443,804,773 $493,701,203 $543,686,460 $593,760,544 $643,923,454 $694,175,191 $744,515,754 $794,945,144 $845,463,361 $896,070,404 $946,766,274 $997,550,971 $1,048,424,494 1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number. 3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed. Habitat Lands/ End of: Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility 2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. 173 Item 5. APPENDIX II: Detailed Time Series of Endowment Funding 174 Item 5. Annual Cost Estimate for Management and Monitoring, Constant 2019$ Annual Cost Cost Categories by Last Year of Land Acquisition Period Adjustment Ongoing Habitat Management $3,172,063 100%$3,172,063 Ongoing Habitat Monitoring $1,506,776 100%$1,506,776 Administration1 $4,154,811 50%$2,077,406 Total $8,833,650 $6,756,244 1. Adminsitration includes salaries and benefits, accounting, auditing and reporting, contracts, etc.. Assumes less administration is needed following the land acquisition period; ongoing adminsitrative needs include oversight, auditing and reporting, and board staffing. Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Annual Post-Land Acquisition Cost 175 Item 5. Endowment Funding – No Extension Scenario Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Post-Permit New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 Average Per Acre $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 Endowment Fee Annual Endowment Funding $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 Endowment Balance $22,168,105 $44,336,210 $67,169,359 $90,687,502 $114,911,189 $139,861,586 $165,560,496 $192,030,373 $219,294,346 Annual Interest $0 $665,043 $1,350,038 $2,055,582 $2,782,293 $3,530,804 $4,301,772 $5,095,868 $5,913,787 Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $665,043 $2,015,081 $4,070,663 $6,852,955 $10,383,760 $14,685,531 $19,781,399 $25,695,187 Total Endowment $22,168,105 $45,001,254 $68,519,396 $92,743,083 $117,693,481 $143,392,391 $169,862,268 $197,126,241 $225,208,133 Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244 Assumptions 20,265 impact acres developed 9 year plan 3%interest rate (real, net) $6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate $9,845 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation (1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually. 176 Item 5. Endowment Funding – 5 Year Extension Scenario Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Post-Permit New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 Average Per Acre $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 Endowment Fee Annual Endowment Funding $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 Endowment Balance $13,180,608 $26,361,215 $39,937,241 $53,920,547 $68,323,353 $83,158,243 $98,438,180 $114,176,514 $130,386,999 $147,083,799 $164,281,502 $181,995,136 $200,240,180 $219,032,574 Annual Interest $0 $395,418 $802,699 $1,222,198 $1,654,282 $2,099,329 $2,557,727 $3,029,877 $3,516,192 $4,017,096 $4,533,027 $5,064,436 $5,611,787 $6,175,559 Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $395,418 $1,198,117 $2,420,315 $4,074,598 $6,173,927 $8,731,654 $11,761,531 $15,277,723 $19,294,819 $23,827,846 $28,892,281 $34,504,069 $40,679,628 Total Endowment $13,180,608 $26,756,633 $40,739,940 $55,142,746 $69,977,636 $85,257,572 $100,995,907 $117,206,392 $133,903,191 $151,100,894 $168,814,529 $187,059,572 $205,851,967 $225,208,133 Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244 Assumptions 31,523 impact acres developed 14 year plan 3%interest rate (real, net) $6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate $5,854 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation (1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually. 177 Item 5. Endowment Funding – 10 Year Extension Scenario Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Post-Permit New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 Average Per Acre $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 Endowment Fee Annual Endowment Funding $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 Endowment Balance $8,966,410 $17,932,819 $27,168,221 $36,680,686 $46,478,524 $56,570,297 $66,964,823 $77,671,185 $88,698,738 $100,057,118 $111,756,249 $123,806,354 $136,217,962 $149,001,918 $162,169,393 $175,731,892 $189,701,266 $204,089,722 $218,909,831 Annual Interest $0 $268,992 $546,054 $831,428 $1,125,363 $1,428,117 $1,739,952 $2,061,143 $2,391,970 $2,732,721 $3,083,695 $3,445,198 $3,817,547 $4,201,065 $4,596,089 $5,002,964 $5,422,046 $5,853,699 $6,298,303 Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $268,992 $815,047 $1,646,475 $2,771,838 $4,199,955 $5,939,907 $8,001,051 $10,393,020 $13,125,742 $16,209,437 $19,654,635 $23,472,182 $27,673,247 $32,269,336 $37,272,301 $42,694,347 $48,548,046 $54,846,349 Total Endowment $8,966,410 $18,201,812 $27,714,276 $37,512,114 $47,603,887 $57,998,413 $68,704,775 $79,732,328 $91,090,708 $102,789,839 $114,839,944 $127,251,552 $140,035,508 $153,202,983 $166,765,482 $180,734,856 $195,123,312 $209,943,421 $225,208,133 Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244 Assumptions 42,782 impact acres developed 19 year plan 3%interest rate (real, net) $6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate $3,982 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation (1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually. 178 Item 5. Endowment Funding – 15 Year Extension Scenario Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 Average Per Acre $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 Endowment Fee Annual Endowment Funding $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 Endowment Balance $6,541,714 $13,083,429 $19,821,394 $26,761,499 $33,909,807 $41,272,564 $48,856,204 $56,667,353 $64,712,836 $72,999,684 $81,535,138 $90,326,655 $99,381,917 $108,708,838 $118,315,566 Annual Interest $0 $196,251 $398,390 $606,594 $821,043 $1,041,925 $1,269,435 $1,503,769 $1,745,134 $1,993,739 $2,249,803 $2,513,548 $2,785,206 $3,065,014 $3,353,216 Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $196,251 $594,642 $1,201,235 $2,022,278 $3,064,204 $4,333,638 $5,837,407 $7,582,541 $9,576,280 $11,826,083 $14,339,631 $17,124,837 $20,189,851 $23,543,067 Total Endowment $6,541,714 $13,279,680 $20,219,785 $27,368,093 $34,730,850 $42,314,490 $50,125,639 $58,171,122 $66,457,970 $74,993,424 $83,784,941 $92,840,203 $102,167,123 $111,773,852 $121,668,781 Average Annual Post Permit Interest 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Post-Permit 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $128,210,496 $138,402,273 $148,899,805 $159,712,262 $170,849,092 $182,320,028 $194,135,092 $206,304,607 $218,839,209 $3,650,063 $3,955,817 $4,270,743 $4,595,116 $4,929,221 $5,273,349 $5,627,801 $5,992,887 $6,368,925 $27,193,130 $31,148,947 $35,419,689 $40,014,806 $44,944,027 $50,217,377 $55,845,178 $61,838,065 $68,206,990 $131,860,559 $142,358,090 $153,170,547 $164,307,378 $175,778,314 $187,593,377 $199,762,893 $212,297,494 $225,208,133 $6,756,244 (1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually. Assumptions 54,040 impact acres developed 24 year plan 3%interest rate (real, net) $6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate $2,905 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation 179 Item 5. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, Director of Community Services DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Declaration of Surplus Property and Request for Disposal of Remaining Pool Inventory Items Background and Analysis: The Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 3.03.010 states, in part, that the duties of City staff include “the disposition of personal property in any lawful manner provided that the disposition is for the common benefit of the City's citizens. A formal declaration that the property is surplus shall not be required.” On May 04, 2021, City Council approved a contract for the demolition of the pool and pavilion located at Stewart Park. As part of the preparation for that demolition the attached items are recommended for proper disposal and surplus. The recommended list of surplus items includes equipment from the Beaumont Municipal Pool that is no longer in use and is scheduled for demolition. City staff has removed all items from the pool and pavilion that can be repurposed, and the remaining items have no use for any City departments. Many of these items have exhausted their lifespan and usefulness. Disposal of surplus property will be made in the most economical and practical manner available, including the use of appropriate hazardous waste handlers. Fiscal Impact: The cost to prepare this report and dispose of surplus property is estimated to be $175. Recommended Action: Approve the disposal of identified City surplus property. Attachments: A. Pool surplus inventory 180 Item 6. 181 Item 6. 182 Item 6. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Christina Taylor, Community Development Director DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: City Council Authorization to Proceed with Annexation of City Owned Property Assessor Parcel Number 417-220-028 into the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District Background and Analysis: The Riverside Area Local Formation Commission (LAFCO) is currently processing an application to annex parcels associated with Parcel Map 28348 into the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD) boundaries. This includes one piece of City owned property located south of Fourth Street at the terminus of Risco Circle and is identified by APN 417-220-028. This parcel is vacant and is adjacent to other City owned property utilized for the wastewater treatment plant. At the time of processing Parcel Map 28348, the properties were not annexed into the BCVWD. The City did not initiate this annexation request, rather, the identified City property is part of a larger annexation request. As a result, LAFCO requires a resolution from the City Council authorizing annexation of the City owned property into the BCVWD service area. Inclusion of the City property will create a more sensible, contiguous boundary and ensure the property will have water service if ever needed. City staff is supportive of annexing this property into the BCVWD service area as they are the sole water provider for service to this parcel. Fiscal Impact: The cost to prepare this report is estimated to be $250. Recommended Action: Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont Authorizing the Annexation of City Owned Property Identified as Assessor Parcel Number 417-220-028 into the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District Service Area.” 183 Item 7. Attachments: A. Location Map B. Parcel Map 28348 C. Resolution 184 Item 7. 417-220-028 Maxar Zoning Union Pacific Rail Roadway Specific Plan Residential Rural Residential Single Family Residential Traditional Neighborhood Residential Multiple Family Downtown Residential Multifamily Sixth Street Mixed Use - Residential 5/7/2021, 11:59:45 AM 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:9,028 City of Beaumont Maxar | 185 Item 7. 186 Item 7. 187 Item 7. 188 Item 7. RESOLUTION 2021- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AUTHORIZING THE ANNEXATION OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 417-220-028 INTO THE BEAUMONT CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SERVICE AREA WHEREAS, the City of Beaumont desires to have water service available for property within the City boundary; and WHEREAS, the City owned property identified as Assessor Parcel Number 417-220-028 is within the City of Beaumont boundary; and WHEREAS, the City owned property identified as Assessor Parcel Number 417-220- 028 is not within the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District service area; and WHEREAS, all property within the City of Beaumont must be within the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District service boundary to receive water service; and WHEREAS, the City owned property identified as Assessor Parcel Number 417-220-028 is included in an annexation proposal to become part of the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District service area filed with the Local Area Formation Commission of Riverside County; and WHEREAS, there are no costs to the City associated with this authorization; and WHEREAS, the members of this City Council are the applicable elected representatives of the City; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Beaumont as follows: Section 1: The above recitals are true and correct. Section 2: The City Council hereby authorizes the above identified City owned property to be annexed into the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District service area for the limited purpose of Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District providing water service to the annexed property. It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitutes authorization and approval of the proposal filed with Local Area Formation Commission of Riverside County for the purposes of including a City owned parcel in the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District service area. This Resolution shall not constitute any other approval by the Council. 189 Item 7. Section 3: The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all documents deemed necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution. Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing for the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation or operation of any development on any parcel of land included in the annexation. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. MOVED, PASSED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ______________________________ Mike Lara, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 190 Item 7. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Christina Taylor, Community Development Director DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting for the Housing Element Update to include Standard Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Plans and Objective Design Guidelines Background and Analysis: On October 20, 2020, City Council approved a professional services agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting for the City’s Housing Element Update. This project is included in the City’s capital improvement program and is fully funded by SB 2 grant funding in the amount of $160,000 and LEAP grant funding in the amount of $150,000 . At the time of the contract award, City staff eliminated some of the optional items in the original proposal in an effort to ensure enough funding was retained to accommodate any changes that may occur as a result of legislative mandates, new legislation or policy changes. The current Housing Element Update includes all of the required components to address the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) as well as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance, required zoning code amendments , Hazard Mitigation Plan and Safety Element update, and applicable environmental documents. City staff requests this amendment to add two items that the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is encouraging cities to include in their housing and zoning codes:  Standard accessory dwelling unit (ADU) plans, and  Objective design criteria. Standard ADU plans were originally included in the cost proposal as an optional item. At the time of award, City staff did not include that item in the recommended scope of services so that a balance of grant funds was retained for possible changes in scope or unexpected expenses. However, as stated above, this is one of the items the State is encouraging cities to implement. The Standard ADU plans will provide complete 191 Item 8. drawing sets suitable for plan review by the City of Beaumont’s Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Department. The intent of the plans would be to provide residents with construction ready, free-standing ADU prototypes that could be adapted and augmented to conform to their specific site conditions. The designs would be developed to be suitable in size and character to the most common local site conditions, context, and configurations. The City will be provided with two revisable prototype designs for free-standing ADUs: one studio and one 1-bedroom unit. Each will have elevations in at least two different architectural styles. This also includes presentation plans and elevations and simple 3D views of the free-standing ADUs for review and public distribution. The permit-ready drawing sets will be on standard 24x36 title blocks suitable for being readily incorporated into a permit-submittal drawing set. The designs will be code- compliant and will identify typical materials and assemblies. The construction level documents shall be designed to comply with applicable laws, including the 2019 California Building Standards Code as amended by local ordinance, and will include structural engineering and T-24 energy reports. The drawings sets will not include site plans, geotechnical reports, and other site-specific information that would be required to be owner-provided before permits could be issued. The cost for this additional scope of work is $25,625. The objective design criteria will recommend objective design standards for single- family, multi-family, and residential mixed-use development. Recommended standards will supplement and not conflict with existing zoning code standards. Recommended standards may include objective standards for: • Façade articulation, • Compatibility with adjacent shorter buildings with a height difference of one story or more, • Building entries, • Building materials, and • Parking design/access. Design standards will not address or alter basic development standards (e.g., density, setbacks, overall building height, lot coverage, parking ratios, etc.). Recommended design standards will comply with requirements in applicable laws, including SB 35 and SB 330. The cost for this addition is $39,845. 192 Item 8. Housing Element Update Original Contract $209,995 Amendment 1 - May 18, 2021 Add ADU Standard Plans and Objective Design Standards $65,470 Revised Contract Amount $275,465.00 Fiscal Impact: Cost to prepare this staff report and changes to the contract are covered by SB2 grant funding in the amount of $160,000 and LEAP grant funding in the amount of $150,000 for a total of $310,000. Recommended Action: Approve the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting for an increase of $65,470 for the development of Standard ADU Plans and Objective Design Guidelines for a total revised contract amount of $275,465 to be entirely paid through grant funding. Attachments: A. Revised Scope of Work and Cost Proposal B. Amended Professional Service Agreement C. Original Proposal & Budget D. Original Professional Services Agreement 193 Item 8. 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 1 March 5, 2021 Christina Taylor Community Development Director City of Beaumont 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Regarding: Proposal for the Preparation of Objective Design Standards Dear Ms. Taylor: We are pleased to provide a scope and budget for preparation of objective design standards for the City of Beaumont. The scope of work is based on our understanding of the City’s needs and experience preparing objective design standards. Our proposal includes an estimated budget for each task, and we are willing to modify the scope of work and budget to accommodate the City’s needs. Scope of Work TASK 1: INTIATION AND ANALYSIS A. Project Initiation. LWC will prepare for and attend a project initiation meeting with City staff (via teleconference) to review the project scope of work and confirm project goals and objectives. At the initiation meeting, LWC and the City will also discuss applicable material, including the recently updated General Plan and amended Zoning Code, the City’s process and criteria for plot plans/architectural/design review, recent State legislation as it relates to the project, example developments in Beaumont that represent desired architectural and design outcomes, and example developments that fall short of community expectations. It is anticipated that LWC has the City documents necessary for this effort, but if any additional material would be beneficial, LWC will submit a formal document request to City staff following the project initiation meeting. LWC will prepare summary notes from the project initiation meeting and provide to City staff. After the project initiation meeting, LWC will incorporate the timing for this effort into the overall schedule for the Housing Element Update. B. Analysis. LWC will conduct an assessment relevant to single-family, multi-family, and residential mixed-use design to inform the project efforts. This task will include: • An evaluation the Zoning Code for consistency with recent State law, including but not limited to SB 35, SB 330, and AB 1485; • A review of the City’s relevant subjective and objective standards for single-family, multi- family, and residential mixed-use development for consistency with best practices; and 194 Item 8. 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 2 • An analysis of existing characteristics of the City’s built environment to identify exemplars and unique attributes. Deliverables: • Project initiation meeting agenda and summary notes • Document request (if necessary) • Updated schedule TASK 2: RECOMMENDED STANDARDS LWC will prepare recommended objective design standards for single-family, multi-family, and residential mixed-use development. Recommended standards will supplement and not conflict with existing Zoning Code standards. Recommended standards may include objective standards for: • Façade articulation • Compatibility with adjacent shorter buildings with a height difference of one story or more • Building entries • Building materials • Parking design/access Design standards will not address or alter basic development standards (e.g., density, setbacks, overall building height, lot coverage, parking ratios, etc.) or include standards for architectural style, window placement and design, privacy, roof design, building colors, or other standards not listed above. Recommended design standards will comply with requirements in applicable law, including SB 35 and SB 330. LWC will prepare a draft memo summarizing the recommended objective design standards for City review. LWC will finalize the memo after City comments are received. Deliverables: • Objective Design Standards Recommendation Memo (draft and final, Word) TASK 3: DRAFT STANDARDS LWC will prepare an Administrative Draft of the objective design standards as Zoning Code amendments (i.e., track changes in Word), including texts and graphics. Following City staff review of the Administrative Draft, LWC will prepare a Public Review Draft. After an opportunity for public review, LWC will prepare a Public Hearing Draft that incorporates any community feedback as directed by City staff. Deliverables: • Administrative Draft Objective Design Standards • Public Review Draft Objective Design Standards • Public Hearing Draft Objective Design Standards TASK 4: PUBLIC HEARINGS LWC will participate in two public hearings for adoption of the objective design standards. One hearing is anticipated to be a Planning Commission hearing, and the other is anticipated to be a City Council hearing. LWC assumes virtual participation and attendance with meeting materials prepared by LWC. It is assumed that City staff will set up the virtual platform link (e.g., Zoom, etc.), prepare and distribute notifications for the meetings, and participate to help address questions during the meetings. 195 Item 8. 983 OSOS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | LISAWISECONSULTING.COM | 3 Deliverables: • Meeting presentations (draft and final, PPT) TASK 5: FINAL STANDARDS LWC will prepare the final objective design standards based on Council action and provide to City staff. Deliverables: • Final Objective Design Standards OPTIONAL TASK: COMMUNITY MEETINGS LWC will lead two community meetings for this effort. The first public meeting will engage the community in a discussion about objective design standards and gather feedback on the Objective Design Standards Recommendation Memo. At the meeting, LWC will provide an overview of the project objectives, proposed objective design standards, and solicit the community’s input. The second public meeting will be to discuss the objective design standards Public Review Draft. LWC assumes virtual participation and attendance with meeting materials prepared by LWC. It is assumed that City staff will set up the virtual platform link (e.g., Zoom, etc.), prepare and distribute notifications for the meetings, and participate to help address questions during the meetings. Deliverables: • Meeting presentations (draft and final, PPT) • Meeting summary notes (draft and final, Word) Budget Task 1: Initiation and Analysis $6,825 Task 2: Recommended Standards $7,745 Task 3: Draft Standards $17,850 Task 4: Public Hearings $6,530 Task 5: Final Standards $895 TOTAL $39,845 Optional Task: Community Meetings (2) $11,610 Contingency (10%) $3,985 Assumptions • The City will be responsible for any CEQA analysis associated with this project. • Outreach efforts will be virtual and on-line due to COVID-19 restrictions. • Deliverables will be provided digitally (e.g., Word, PDF) unless otherwise stated and agreed upon by LWC and the City. • Comments will be submitted to LWC as a single set of consolidated, complete, non-conflicting, actionable items. 196 Item 8. FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BEAUMONT AND LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR is made and effective as of the 18th day of May, 2021, by and between the CITY OF BEAUMONT, a general law city, (“CITY”) whose address is 550 E. 6th Street, Beaumont, California 92223 and LISA WISE CONSULTING, INCORPORATED, a California corporation whose address is 983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (“CONTRACTOR”) in consideration of the mutual promises and purpose contained herein, the parties agree as follow: 1. RECITALS This First Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purpose that the parties agree are true and correct: A. On October 20th, 2020, the City and LISA WISE CONSULTING, INCORPORATED, entered into that certain agreement entitled “Agreement for Professional Services by Independent Contractor” for PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (“Agreement”). B. City has requested a further change in scope to the work under the Agreement regarding the addition of objective design standards and standard accessory dwelling unit plans, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. AMENDMENT Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add to the Services those services identified in the Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Section 4.01 of the Agreement is hereby amended to increase the maximum compensation under the Agreement as follows: Under the original Agreement, compensation was set at Two Hundred Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Five Dollars ($209,995). Per this First Amendment, compensation of Two Hundred Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Five Dollars ($209,995) is increased by the maximum amount of Sixty Five Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Dollars ($65,470) as provided in the Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit “A” resulting in total compensation under the Agreement not to exceed Two Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Five Dollars ($275,465). The recitals to this Amendment are deemed incorporated herein by this reference. All other terms of the Agreement not expressly amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. 197 Item 8. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby have made and executed this First Amendment to Professional Services Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first above-written. CITY: CITY OF BEAUMONT By: ________________________________ Mike Lara, Mayor ATTEST City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM John Pinkney, City Attorney CONTRACTOR: ________________________________ By: ______________________________ Print Name: _______________________ Title: _____________________________ 198 Item 8. EXHIBIT “A” PROPOSAL DATED March 19th, 2020 199 Item 8. LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Scope of Services HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | CITY OF BEAUMONT | 1 City of Beaumont Housing Element Update Scope of Services October 2, 2020 Task A: Project Schedule and Management Task A.1 Kick-Off Meeting Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) will prepare for and attend one kick-off meeting with City staff. The meeting objectives are to: • Establish project goals and objectives • Clarify RHNA, SCAG, and HCD processes and requirements • Refine the scope and clarify the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved • Identify major milestones and dates for intermediate deliverables • Establish communication expectations and coordinate procedures The meeting will be online via video or teleconference. Task A.2 Project Schedule LWC will work closely with the City to develop a preferred timeline with milestones to achieve adoption of the Housing Element by City Council on or before October 15, 2021, as required by HCD. The final schedule will include major processes and milestones in all stages of the project for both City-led and LWC-led efforts, including: • Kick off meeting with staff to refine the scope of services • Milestones for major work products • Outreach, subcommittee meetings, and workshops (City-led, LWC optional) • Delivery of analysis and findings during assessment and development of the RHNA and Housing Element Update • Response to HCD review and City staff review times • Delivery of draft and final Housing Element • Public hearings for both Planning Commission and City Council including meeting dates Task A.3 Project Management LWC will maintain a close working relationship with the City and Consultant Team, through open and frequent email, phone, and videoconference communication, including as needed conference calls. LWC will establish and maintain an online file sharing system, such as Dropbox. 200 Item 8. Scope of Services 2 | CITY OF BEAUMONT | HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Task A Deliverables • Preparation and participation in kickoff meeting, including meeting materials (e.g. agenda and summary notes with follow-up items • Refined project schedule documenting key milestones and deliverables for the project • Provision of an Internet-based file sharing system to enable collaboration between City staff and Consultant team • Regular e-mail progress updates to the Project Manager Task B: Existing Conditions and Needs Task B.1 Data Collection LWC will identify and gather key information, reports, maps, and databases, as well as submit a data request to the City for relevant material that has not been previously compiled. Task B.2 Program Evaluation LWC will review the City’s current Housing Element, General Plan and other supporting materials as needed to evaluate Beaumont’s housing progress and priorities. This review will focus on previous housing programs and policies implemented, and their effectiveness Task B.3 HCD Requirements In this task, LWC will provide an analysis of the current HCD approval process for the 6th cycle. Task B.4 Hazard Mitigation Review Led by Rincon, the project team will review the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for consistency with SB 379. Task B Deliverables: • Existing Housing Element Program Evaluation Memo to be incorporated in Administrative Draft Housing Element (PDF, Word) • Review of existing HCD policies for inclusion in Housing Element Update Memo to City staff describing HCD review and adoption requirements • Summary review of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Task C: Site Inventory Task C.1 Sites Inventory Assessment In accordance with Government Code 65583.2, LWC will review the City’s Vacant Land Inventory in context of the draft RHNA allocation and advise the City on the ability of the existing inventory to meet the draft RHNA. When the RHNA is finalized, LWC will finalize the inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment. The inventory will identify sites for housing within the planning period. LWC will work closely with staff to refine a parcel-level inventory of sites with 201 Item 8. LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Scope of Services HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | CITY OF BEAUMONT | 3 near-term residential development potential at appropriate densities. The inventory must be adequate to accommodate RHNA figures as provided by SCAG. The assessment will also include an analysis of the availability of infrastructure for sites included in the inventory. This task assumes the City has adequate parcel-level GIS data (including APN, existing use and development, zoning, lot size, and assessor’s data) available. As part of this task LWC will review recent multi-family project applications to determine realistic achievable densities to support the sites analysis. Task C Deliverables: • Review of Existing Vacant Land Inventory • Final Site Inventory, to be incorporated in Administrative Draft Housing Element (PDF, Word) Task D: Assessment of Housing Needs Task D.1 Housing Needs Assessment In accordance with Government Code 65583(a), LWC will utilize data available from the U.S. Census data, SCAG, and the City to analyze and update key population, housing, and employment characteristics and their implications to identify the City’s specific housing needs and evaluate its housing conditions. LWC will establish the nature and extent of housing needs for Beaumont including existing and projected housing needs and the housing needs of special groups. The needs assessment will also provide data to assist the City in meeting the State’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals. Key data characteristics include: • Demographics (e.g. age, race/ethnicity, employment projections) • Household type/size, age and income (by race and ethnicity) • Housing stock characteristics (e.g. type, vacancy, age/condition, and cost/ affordability, including where households are most significantly impacted by costs) • Assessment of overcrowding and cost burden • Special Needs (e.g. large households, persons with disabilities) T ask D.2 Housing Constraints Assessment In accordance with Government Code 65583(a), LWC will conduct a constraints analysis. This analysis will differentiate between governmental constraints (such as land use, zoning, height, setbacks, and impact fees), non-governmental constraints (such as mortgage lending availability), and environmental constraints to inform decision makers on the most effective and appropriate policies to reduce constraints and facilitate housing production. 202 Item 8. Scope of Services 4 | CITY OF BEAUMONT | HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Task D.3 Housing Resources Assessment In accordance with Government Code 65583(a), LWC will identify housing resources, including programmatic, financial, and physical development opportunities. The analysis will include a review of funding sources for housing development and improvement, regulatory incentives for affordable housing and opportunities for energy conservation. Task D Deliverables: • Housing Needs Assessment, to be incorporated in Administrative Draft Housing Element (PDF, Word) • Housing Constraints Analysis, to be incorporated in Administrative Draft Housing Element (PDF, Word) • Housing Resources Assessment, to be incorporated in Administrative Draft Housing Element (PDF, Word) Task E: Preparation of Draft Housing Element Task E.1 Implementation Plan In accordance with Government Code 65583(a), LWC will produce an implementation plan that outlines policies and programs that will satisfy the housing goals and objectives of the City during the eight-year planning period. This plan provides actionable steps the City is already taking or will undertake to accommodate its housing need. Task E.2 Administrative Draft Housing Element LWC will prepare an Administrative draft Housing Element in compliance with all applicable State and federal laws, including all supporting documents from Task C and Task D, tables, maps, charts, etc. LWC assumes City staff will submit a single set of non-conflicting comments for each draft. Task E.3 Public Review Draft Housing Element LWC will address comments on the Administrative Drafts and prepare a Public Review Draft (PRD). The PRD will be submitted to HCD for the 60-day review. Task E.4 Coordination with HCD LWC will assist the City in achieving State certification of the Housing Element after adoption by City Council. LWC will work closely with HCD and the City to ensure that the draft Housing Element meets State requirements and will recommend modifications to the Housing Element, if required, to obtain certification. LWC will communicate with HCD throughout the project and during the review and approval period, ensuring thorough review and appropriate response to comments and tracking of any revisions. 203 Item 8. LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Scope of Services HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | CITY OF BEAUMONT | 5 Task E Deliverables: • Implementation Plan, to be incorporated in Administrative Draft Housing Element (PDF, Word) • Administrative Draft Housing Element (1 reproducible copy, PDF, Word) • Public Review Draft Housing Element (1 reproducible copy, PDF, Word) • Coordination and communication with HCD, including review meetings Task F: General Plan Amendment (As required) Task F.1 General Plan Amendment If required, based on the analysis in Tasks D and E, LWC will identify sections of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element that need to be amended in order to comply with State law and be consistent with the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Task F.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan and Safety Element Update Led by Rincon, the project team will prepare documentation that will allow for the incorporation of the existing Local Hazard Mitigation Plan into the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element to be consistent with SB 379. The project team will also review and evaluate the current draft version of the Safety Element to determine its compliance with State law and prepare updates to the Safety Element to maintain consistency amongst the Housing Element Update, other General Plan Elements, and to address SB 99. Rincon will provide a memorandum identifying revisions to Safety Element text and/ or exhibits needed to bring it into compliance with current State law. A draft of the Safety Element update will be provided for City review. Based on City input, Rincon will prepare a final version of the proposed Safety Element update for consideration by the City Planning Commission and eventual consideration for adoption by the City Council. Optional Task F Deliverables: • General Plan Amendment Recommendations Memo • Safety Element Updates Outline Memo (PDF, Word) • Draft Safety Element (PDF, Word) • Final Safety Element (PDF, Word) Task G: Environmental Documents Task G.1 Administrative Draft IS-MND Rincon will prepare an internal review (Administrative) Draft IS-MND, which will address all of the items on the CEQA environmental checklist. To the maximum extent feasible, impacts will be quantified and compared to quantitative significance thresholds. Rincon will perform basic modeling/quantification for such issues as transportation, air quality, greenhouse gases (GHGs), noise, and utilities, and will develop programmatic mitigation that could be applied to future housing projects under the Housing Element. Such mitigation will generally involve establishing standards for future individual developments that may be facilitated by the Housing Element. 204 Item 8. Scope of Services 6 | CITY OF BEAUMONT | HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Task G.2 Public Review Draft IS-MND Rincon will respond to one round of consolidated comments from the City and prepare the Public Review Draft IS-MND. Rincon assumes that the City will draft and handle all noticing of letters for Assembly Bill (AB) 52 compliance, and any additional public outreach required as part of the public review process. Rincon will prepare the State Clearinghouse Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an IS-MND, and will file these forms with the Riverside County Clerk and State Clearinghouse, but assumes the City will be responsible for posting the IS-MND on the City’s website, mailing the NOI to responsible agencies and interested parties, all other outreach efforts to the general public, and publishing the NOI in a local newspaper. Task G.3 Final IS-MND The budget currently reflects response to one round of consolidated comments from the City on the draft responses to comments. Upon receipt of City comments on the draft responses, Rincon will incorporate changes and prepare the final responses to comments. To finalize this document, Rincon will also prepare the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP will be a table listing all mitigation measures and indicating what monitoring actions are required, the department(s) responsible for monitoring, and when monitoring is to occur. We assume that re-printing of the IS-ND/MND as a final document will not be necessary. Rincon will file the Notice of Determination (NOD) form with the Riverside County Clerk and State Clearinghouse, but assumes the City will post the final documents to their website and will be responsible for paying applicable filing fees. Task G Deliverables: • Administrative Draft IS-MND (PDF, Word) • Public Review Draft IS-MND (PDF, Word) • Final IS-MND (PDF, Word) • MMRP (PDF, Word) • NOC, NOI, and NOD Forms (PDF, Word) • All environmental documentation, such as IS, NOI, NOC, and NOD forms, as well as Response to Comments, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Monitoring Program, to be filed with the Riverside County Clerk Task H: Final Project Deliverables Task H.1 Prepare Final Documents LWC revise the Public Review Draft in response to feedback from HCD, City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council (as applicable) and will prepare a draft Final Housing Element to present to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption. LWC will make any revisions following adoption and submit the Final Housing Element to HCD for certification. 205 Item 8. LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Scope of Services HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | CITY OF BEAUMONT | 7 Documents will include the following: • Final Draft Housing Element for public hearings • Final Adopted Housing Element, which will have the date of adoption prominently displayed on the front cover and throughout the document to distinguish it as the official adopted document Task H.2 Meetings with Planning Commission and City Council LWC will provide support for City staff during meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council. LWC will facilitate: • One (1) public hearing with the Planning Commission • One (1) public hearing with the City Council Task H Deliverables • Final Draft Housing Element (15 bound copies, PDF, Word) • Final Adopted Housing Element (3 bound copies, PDF, Word) • Meeting agenda, summaries, presentations, or other materials for meetings with Planning Commission and City Council • Assistance on staff reports and public notices and exhibits for Planning Commission and City Council Task I: Prepare an ADU Ordinance LWC will draft a standalone Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance for the City of Beaumont consistent with the most current State laws regulating ADU permitting and production while striving to simultaneously spur ADU development and maintain the character of Beaumont’s neighborhoods. LWC will prepare draft language for administrative review and work with City staff to revise the draft ordinance for consideration by City Council. Relevant State laws include: • SB13: This bill eliminates owner-occupancy requirements and reduces impact fees for ADUs, while creating an amnesty program for unpermitted ADUs. • AB 68 and AB 881: These bills allow for one ADU on a single-family residence and up to two ADUs on multi-family properties. They also reduce design standards and approval times for ADUs. • AB 670: This bill removes ADU restrictions placed by Home Owners Associations. Task I Deliverables • Draft and final ADU ordinance for City Council consideration 206 Item 8. Scope of Services 8 | CITY OF BEAUMONT | HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Task J: Community Meetings LWC will lead three (3) public workshops during the development and review of the Housing Element. These events will be held as webinars with presentation material prepared by LWC. LWC assumes City Staff will prepare meeting notifications and support LWC during meeting question and answer segments. Prior to the meetings, LWC will work with the City to develop an outreach strategy to clarify timing and objectives of the outreach efforts. One of these workshops can be converted to a series of stakeholder interviews or focus groups at the City’s request. Task J. Deliverables • Meeting agendas, summaries, and presentations for three (3) community engagement meetings Task K: Zoning Code Amendments Task K.1 Zoning Code Review and Recommendations LWC will perform a consistency assessment and prepare a Findings and Recommendations Memo which summarize inconsistencies between the final adopted Housing Element and the Zoning Code. The memo will also identify recommended amendments to implement of the Housing Element, including an assessment of the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance. Potential amendments may include new or revised regulations and standards for zoning district(s) and land uses, parking, landscaping, permit procedures, and review and approval procedures. This effort will be augmented and strengthened by LWC’s deep understanding of Beaumont’s Zoning Code and its new General Plan land uses, driven from our ongoing experience as part of the Beaumont General Plan Update Consultant Team. Task K.1 Deliverables • Zoning Code Findings and Recommendations Memo Task K.2 Zoning Code Amendments LWC will update the City’s Zoning Code (Code), which will include strategic revisions necessary to comply with and implement the Housing Element, as identified in Task K.1. Upon final direction from City Staff, LWC will prepare Administrative Draft Code Amendments. LWC will address City comments on the Administrative Draft Code Amendments and prepare Final Code Amendments for Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Following City Council adoption, LWC will make any revisions as directed by the City Council. LWC’s budget assumes Code amendments will be adopted concurrently with the Housing Element, and no additional meeting attendance is required, and that the amendments will not trigger additional CEQA analysis outside of work in Task G. If timing of the amendments occurs following Housing Element adoption, LWC will participate in adoption hearings on a time and materials per meeting basis. If additional CEQA work is needed, LWC will work with Rincon to prepare a scope of work for the additional review. 207 Item 8. LISA WISE CONSULTING, INC. Scope of Services HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE | CITY OF BEAUMONT | 9 Task K.2 Deliverables • Administrative Draft Code Amendments (PDF, Word) • Final Draft Code Amendments (PDF, Word) 208 Item 8. Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. Budget: Beaumont 6th Cycle Housing Element Update [Oct 2, 2020] Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Task A Project Management and Coordination A.1 Kick-Off Meeting 12 2,000$ - -$ 12 2,000$ A.2 Project Schedule 14 2,220$ - -$ 14 2,220$ A.3 Project Management 86 15,230$ 14 2,230$ 100 17,460$ Task B Existing Conditions and Needs B.1 Data Collection 8 1,230$ - -$ 8 1,230$ B.2 Program Evaluation 24 3,760$ - -$ 24 3,760$ B.3 HCD Requirements 10 1,520$ - -$ 10 1,520$ B.4 Hazard Mitigation Review 4 650$ 10 1,610$ 14 2,260$ Task C Site Inventory C.1 Sites Inventory Assessment 72 11,620$ - -$ 72 11,620$ Task D Assessment of Housing Needs D.1 Housing Needs Assessment 32 4,920$ - -$ 32 4,920$ D.2 Housing Constraints Assessment 38 6,290$ - -$ 38 6,290$ D.3 Housing Resources Assessment 22 3,450$ - -$ 22 3,450$ Task E Preparation of Draft Housing Element E.1 Implementation Plan 27 4,445$ - -$ 27 4,445$ E.2 Administrative Draft Housing Element 70 11,210$ - -$ 70 11,210$ E.3 Public Review Draft Housing Element 27 4,445$ - -$ 27 4,445$ E.4 Coordination with HCD 18 3,290$ - -$ 18 3,290$ Task F General Plan Amendment (As Required) F.1 General Plan Amendment Recommendation 32 5,680$ -$ 32 5,680$ F.2 Hazard Mitigation Plan and Safety Element Update 8 1,350$ 50 6,894$ 58 8,244$ Task G Environmental Documents G.1 Administrative Draft IS-MND 8 1,420$ 146 21,232$ 154 22,652$ G.2 Public Review Draft IS-MND 8 1,420$ 40 6,162$ 48 7,582$ G.3 Final IS-MND 4 675$ 34 5,002$ 38 5,677$ Task H Final Project Deliverables H.1 Prepare Final Documents 38 6,050$ - -$ 38 6,050$ H.2 Meetings with Planning Commission and City Counc 32 5,680$ - -$ 32 5,680$ Task I Prepare an ADU Ordinance 62 10,050$ - -$ 62 10,050$ Task J Community Meetings 86 15,430$ 86 15,430$ Task K Zoning Code Amendments - -$ - -$ Review and Recommendation 62 10,950$ - -$ 62 10,950$ Draft and Final Amendments 188 31,880$ - -$ 188 31,880$ *Not to exceed with out authorization 992 166,865$ 294 43,130$ 1,286 209,995$ LWC, Inc. City of Beaumont 6th Cycle Housing Element Update LWC TOTAL In-Person Meetings (instead of virtual) time and expenses: additional $2000 per meeting Additional Virtual Meetings: $5,140 per meeting Rincon RINCON TOTAL TOTAL FEE + OPTIONAL TASKS PROJECT TOTAL 209 Item 8. 210 Item 8. 211 Item 8. 212 Item 8. 213 Item 8. 214 Item 8. 215 Item 8. 216 Item 8. 217 Item 8. 218 Item 8. 219 Item 8. 220 Item 8. 221 Item 8. 222 Item 8. 223 Item 8. 224 Item 8. 225 Item 8. 226 Item 8. 227 Item 8. 228 Item 8. 229 Item 8. 230 Item 8. 231 Item 8. 232 Item 8. 233 Item 8. 234 Item 8. 235 Item 8. 236 Item 8. 237 Item 8. 238 Item 8. 239 Item 8. 240 Item 8. 241 Item 8. 242 Item 8. 243 Item 8. 244 Item 8. 245 Item 8. 246 Item 8. 247 Item 8. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, Community Services Director DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Purchase Order for Tolar Manufacturing, Inc. Not to Exceed $55,825.28 Background and Analysis: In 2019, Beaumont Transit secured funding through the Low Carbon Transportation Operations Program (LCTOP) for the improvement of the Walmart bus stop as well as two other stops in the downtown area of Beaumont. The Walmart bus stop project will involve two separate professional services for the shelter products and the demolition and reinstallation of concrete and facilities. Tolar Manufacturing, Inc. (Tolar), has been identified as a public transportation manufacturer that can provide shelters and amenities with custom attributes specific to Beaumont’s configuration needs. The shelter products are exclusive to Tolar and is considered single source. An example of the product has been provided as Attachment B. A separate award of contract for demolition and reinstallation of concrete and facilities will be brought for consideration once responses to the City’s request for proposals have been received and evaluated by City staff. Fiscal Impact: The purchase of the facilities and amenities for the Walmart bus stop located on Second Street is funded by LCTOP and State Transit Assistance Capital Project grant funds. This project is included in the 5-year Capital Improvement Project List for Fiscal Year 2021 as Transit Project T-03. The cost to prepare this staff report is estimated to be $500. Recommended Action: 248 Item 9. Approve a purchase order to Tolar Manufacturing in an amount not to exceed $55,825.28. Attachments: A. Tolar Manufacturing Quote #20839PM B. Example shelter product 249 Item 9. Quote No: Date: Quote Expires: 30 Days Sales Contact: Phone: Email: Project: Item:Qty:Unit Price:Ext. Price: 12 12,850.00$ 25,700.00$ 21 5,590.00$ 5,590.00$ 31 6,780.00$ 6,780.00$ 44 690.00$ 2,760.00$ 52 640.00$ 1,280.00$ 64 210.00$ 840.00$ 71 5,280.00$ 5,280.00$ 84 640.00$ 2,560.00$ 50,790.00$ 12 Weeks From receipt of signed written order, and all required approvals. Terms:Terms subject to change. Final terms to be determined based on credit history & bonding. Net 30 Days From Invoice Patrick Merrick 20839PM 951-547-8209 pmerrick@tolarmfg.com Sub-Total: Description: 24' Sierra Series Dome Roof Transit Shelter with Media Display Kiosk (41041- 00/41042-00) ) featuring; Niagara Series Extrusion, bronze twinwall polycarbonate roof panels, perforated aluminum at the rear and full end wall, aluminum support posts, flat back-to-back media display kiosk with two side hinged display doors containing 3/16" clear tempered glass, super durable baked powder coat finish color RAL 7031 Blue Grey, adjustable leveling shoes, stainless steel anchors and all installation hardware hardware-lighting and seating quoted below - one shelter reversed with media display kiosk on the opposite side Tolar USC RAD 170 providing UL listed dusk to dawn LED illumination under the shelter roof (dimming from midnight-4AM) and 8 hours of illumination in the media display kiosk after dusk, minimum 5 days autonomy-mounting kit RAL 7031 Blue Grey - for shelter without extension to map case Tolar USC RAD 340 providing UL listed dusk to dawn LED illumination under the shelter roof (dimming from midnight-4AM) and 8 hours of illumination in the media display kiosk after dusk, 8 hours illumination in the free standing two door kiosk, minimum 5 days autonomy-mounting kit RAL 7031 Blue Grey - for shelter with extension to map case 8' Perforated metal bench, no back, three enhanced seat delineators, durable baked powder coat finish color RAL 7031 Blue Grey, stainless steel anchors 6' Tube Lean Bars (32505-121), delineator rings, durable baked powder coat finish color RAL 7031 Blue Grey, stainless steel anchors 04/29/21 Lead Time: Four door information kiosk with branding banner, two side-by-side configuration back to back, aluminum construction, four side hinged doors with 3/16" clear tempered glass, durable baked powder coat finish color RAL 7031 Blue Grey, stainless steel anchors-lighting quoted above and tied to shelter solar illumination on Line 3 32 Gallon perforated metal trash receptacle with hinged lid, hard rubber liner (33208-121), durable baked powder coat finish color RAL 7031 Blue Grey, stainless steel anchors 258 Mariah Circle Corona, CA 92879 (951) 808-0081 www.tolarmfg.com info@tolarmfg.com Customer: Celina Cabrera Management Analyst City of Beaumont 550 East 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Beaumont Transit Hub- Walmart-Revised Sierra Shelters Inverted U bike rack (14814-121), durable baked powder coat finish color RAL 7031 Blue Grey, stainless steel anchors Page 1 of 3 Initials: _____________ 250 Item 9. Quote No: Date: Quote Expires: 30 Days Sales Contact: Phone: Email: Project: Item:Qty:Unit Price:Ext. Price: 12 Weeks From receipt of signed written order, and all required approvals. Terms:Terms subject to change. Final terms to be determined based on credit history & bonding. Net 30 Days From Invoice Patrick Merrick 20839PM 951-547-8209 pmerrick@tolarmfg.com Description: 04/29/21 Lead Time: 258 Mariah Circle Corona, CA 92879 (951) 808-0081 www.tolarmfg.com info@tolarmfg.com Customer: Celina Cabrera Management Analyst City of Beaumont 550 East 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Beaumont Transit Hub- Walmart-Revised Sierra Shelters -$ 750.00$ CA State Sales Tax 7.75% 4,015.28$ 55,825.28$ Pricing Notes: Standard Terms and Conditions Print Name: Date: PO No. 5. Client provides unloading at destination, including forklift and labor as necessary. TOLAR Delivery: Total: 2. Vendor Status: Tolar Manufacturing Company, Inc. is a vendor supplier of manufactured products; is not a subcontractor or contractor; and is not subject to retainage or liquidated damages for any reason. 5. Cancellation: If an order is cancelled by buyer after receipt of order authorization, and cancellation fee of 10% of order value may be assessed to the buyer, in addition to an the cost of materials purchased for the order, which may be invoiced to the buyer at time of cancellation. 6. Processing fee of 3% of total charge amount is additional and charged on all credit card payments. 1. Drawings and Specifications: All drawings and specifications submitted to our clients or potential clients are proprietary in nature and remain our property. They may be viewed, printed and distributed, without alteration, as reference for sales or for the process of specifying products for use. Detailed shop and erection drawings are provided to allow for field installation or repair. Sealed and stamped engineering calculations and drawings from an engineer licensed in the state of installation, if required, can be made available for an additional charge. Customers that provide their own drawing packages will retain ownership and be covered under a separate agreement. These Terms and Conditions are attached to and incorporated by reference into the Proposal for products or services (“Proposal”) provided by Tolar Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“we”, “our” or “us”). 1. Local/State sales and/or use taxes are not included and are the responsibility of the purchaser, unless specified above. 2. If requested, structural engineering calculations from a licensed engineer in the state of installation are additional cost of $1,200.00 per design/model. 3. Products are shipped knock down & unassembled in bulk packaging for unloading and installation by others. Hardware boxed by unit. Installation instructions are provided. 4. Freight cost is an ESTIMATE ONLY. Freight is invoiced at actual cost, without mark up, at time of shipment, unless specified above. Quote / Order Authorized By: Signature: 3. Payment Terms: Payment terms for services rendered or products manufactured by us shall be determined by us based on our determination of the credit worthiness of buyer and may require a deposit at time of order. Products are invoiced as shipped. 6. Delivery, Title and Receipt: Unless otherwise provided in the proposal, all shelters are prefabricated and shipped knock-down and in bulk format (not packaged individually) for ease of handling and fast on-site installation. Neither buyer nor consignee shall have the right to direct or re-consign the goods to any other destination without our consent. All sales of products are F.O.B. our plant. Risk of loss of the products shall transfer to buyer upon delivery of the products to the common carrier. 7. Delivery Charges: Unless otherwise provided in the Proposal, buyer shall bear all the costs of transportation, including without limitation loading, unloading, storage, and freight charge. All delivery quotes allow for an approximate 2-hour unload window for a full truck. If this window is exceeded, additional charges may apply. All price quotes given for delivery are based on estimates obtained at the time the quote was requested. Actual freight charges may vary. 8. Delivery Dates: Any delivery date(s) or period of delivery provided for in the Proposal is approximate and does not guarantee a particular date(s) or period of delivery. Estimated lead times are provided in the quote. Under no circumstances will we be liable for delay in delivery occasioned in whole or in part, by fire, flood, explosion, casualty, riot, strike, embargo, transportation delay, breakdown, accident, act of God or the public enemy, government authority, by our inability to secure materials, fuel, supply power or shipping space or any other circumstances beyond our reasonable control. 4. Late Payment Penalty: Buyer agrees to pay a charge equal to the lesser of (i) the highest rate allowable by law or (ii) 1.5% per month (18% per annum) on the unpaid balance with respect to any late payments. In addition, buyer will pay all our costs and expenses, including actual attorney’s fees, incurred in connection with enforcing the Proposal and/or collecting any past due payments. In the event buyer fails to make any payment when due, we have the right of setoff, the right to terminate the Proposal and/or to suspend further deliveries to buyer and the right to recover damages in addition to any other remedies available to us as a matter of law. Buyer has no right to setoff. FIRM Freight: ESTIMATED Freight: Page 2 of 3 Initials: _____________ 251 Item 9. Quote No: Date: Quote Expires: 30 Days Sales Contact: Phone: Email: Project: Item:Qty:Unit Price:Ext. Price: 12 Weeks From receipt of signed written order, and all required approvals. Terms:Terms subject to change. Final terms to be determined based on credit history & bonding. Net 30 Days From Invoice Patrick Merrick 20839PM 951-547-8209 pmerrick@tolarmfg.com Description: 04/29/21 Lead Time: 258 Mariah Circle Corona, CA 92879 (951) 808-0081 www.tolarmfg.com info@tolarmfg.com Customer: Celina Cabrera Management Analyst City of Beaumont 550 East 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Beaumont Transit Hub- Walmart-Revised Sierra Shelters 15. Amendment: No amendments to these Terms and Conditions can be made unless submitted in writing to us and signed and accepted by our President or his designee. 10. International Freight: We require the services of freight forwarder for all international shipments. Buyer may select the freight forwarder, subject to our approval. All fees, taxes and additional charges, in addition to the actual freight costs, are the responsibility of buyer. 11. Returns: Due to the custom nature of our products, we cannot accept returns and we cannot permit cancellations once work has commenced. 12. Manufacturer’s Warranty: Our manufacturer’s warranty is set forth in a separate document. 13. Limitation of Liability: WE ARE NOT LIABLE TO BUYER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES OF ANY KIND ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSAL, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, LOSS OR USE, LOSS OF REVENUE OR COST OF CAPITAL. EXCEPT FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH DUE TO OUR MISCONDUCT, BUYER AGREES THAT THE TOTAL DAMAGES THAT CAN BE AWARDED IN ANY CLAIM BY BUYER RELATING TO OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSAL (WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, SHALL NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL PAID BY BUYER TO US UNDER THE PROPOSAL. BUYER AGREES THAT THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY PROVISIONS SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT EVEN IF IT IS FOUND THAT BUYER’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. 14. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Venue: The Proposal shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without reference to the choice of law principles thereof. Each party irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of California and the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 9. Delayed Shipment: If buyer delays shipment, we may invoice for products when ready for shipment and, at our option, we may charge reasonable daily storage fees. Page 3 of 3 Initials: _____________ 252 Item 9. FRONT VIEW SCALE 3/8"=1'-0" TOP VIEW SCALE 3/8"=1'-0" SIDE VIEW SCALE 3/8"=1'-0" SIDE VIEW SCALE 3/8"=1'-0" SECTION A-A FLOOR PLAN SCALE 3/8"=1'-0" AA 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 A A B B C C D D DESCRIPTION CUSTOMER/VENDOR MATL. SCALE SIZE DATE DRAWN BY: DWG NO. TOLAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC 258 Mariah Circle, Corona CA. 92879 REV 24'ADLDPM - SOLAR BEAUMONT, CA D VARIES 41041-00 - AS NOTED 4/28/2021 RFarr T:\Inventor\Shelters\Ad Low Dome\41041-00.idw THE DESIGN AND DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF TOLAR MFG. AND ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED, REPRODUCED OR USED FOR FABRICATION WITHOUT EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT FROM TOLAR MFG. ALL DOCUMENTS TO BE RETURNED TO TOLAR MFG.. AT COMPLETION OF WORK. CONTRACTOR TO SITE VERIFY ALL DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES TO TOLAR MFG.. BEFORE COMMENCING WITH THAT RELATED PORTION OF THE WORK. DURABILITY WITH DISTINCTION TOLARŠ PAGE: 1 OF 1 GENERAL NOTES: 1.ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, SHALL BE ASTM A-36, MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH 36,000 PSI. 2.ALL STRUCTURAL ALUMINUM MEMBERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, SHALL BE OF ALLOY 6063-T5 OR GREATER. 3.ALL HOLES TO BE DRILLED OR PUNCHED. 4.STEEL WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY STANDARD D1. 1-10. ELECTRODES SHALL CONFORM TO AWS 5.1, CLASS E70S-5. 5.ALUMINUM WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY STANDARD D1. 2-08. ELECTRODES SHALL CONFORM TO AWS/SFA 5.10 CLASS ER4043. 6.ALL WELDING TO BE DONE AT TOLAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. FACILITY. 7.ALL CORPORATE PROCEDURES, INCLUDING FABRICATION, MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TOLAR MANUFACTURING CO. INC'S QUALITY CONTROL MANUAL 8.CONCRETE PAD SIZES SHOWN ARE STANDARD MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY. THE PAD MAY NEED TO BE REINFORCED OR ENLARGED DEPENDING ON LOCAL CODES AND LOADING CONDITIONS 1'-3 1/2"11'-9 7/16"11'-6 7/16"1'-3 1/2" 3'-4 9/16"6'-0" MINIMUM CONCRETE SLAB (SEE NOTE 8.) 3'-7 1/8" 25'-10 7/8" MINIMUM CONCRETE SLAB (SEE NOTE 8.) 3'-9 1/2" V.O. 5'-6 5/8" V.O. 24'-5 3/16" 4'-8" 7'- 5/16" 8'-2 3/16" REAR SCREEN ASSEMBLIES, 85 X 73 (2) 97 X 73 (1) ALL STEEL CONSTRUCTION PERFORATED SHEET 1/4 HOLES ON 3/8 STAGGERED ROOF PANELS, 1/8 THICK ALUMINUM RMS 340 SOLAR SYSTEM END SCREEN, ALL STEEL CONSTRUCTION PERFORATED SHEET 1/4 HOLES ON 3/8 STAGGERED CLOSED OFF ENDS, 1/8 THICK ALUMINUM SHEET ELECTRICAL STUB IN, LEFT/ REAR COLUMN P2 1/4" ELECTRICAL STUB-IN 253 Item 9. FRONT VIEW 41036-00 (LEFT) & 41037-00 (RIGHT) SCALE 7/16"=1'-0" 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 A A B B C C D D DESCRIPTION CUSTOMER/VENDOR MATL. SCALE SIZE DATE DRAWN BY: DWG NO. TOLAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC 258 Mariah Circle, Corona CA. 92879 REV 24' AD LOW DOME NIAGARA SHELTER BEAUMONT, CA D VARIES 41036-00 - AS NOTED 4/27/2021 RFarr T:\Inventor\Eastern\Shelters\Ad Dome\41036-00.idw THE DESIGN AND DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF TOLAR MFG. AND ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED, REPRODUCED OR USED FOR FABRICATION WITHOUT EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT FROM TOLAR MFG. ALL DOCUMENTS TO BE RETURNED TO TOLAR MFG.. AT COMPLETION OF WORK. CONTRACTOR TO SITE VERIFY ALL DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES TO TOLAR MFG.. BEFORE COMMENCING WITH THAT RELATED PORTION OF THE WORK. DURABILITY WITH DISTINCTION TOLARŠ PAGE: 2 OF 2 254 Item 9. FRONT VIEW SCALE 3/4"=1'-0" SIDE VIW SCALE 3/4"=1'-0" TOP VIEW SCALE 3/4"=1'-0" SECTION A-A SCALE 3/4"=1'-0" A A 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 A A B B C C D D DESCRIPTION CUSTOMER/VENDOR MATL. SCALE SIZE DATE DRAWN BY: DWG NO. TOLAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC 258 Mariah Circle, Corona CA. 92879 REV FLAT FREE-STANDING KIOSK, 4 DOOR BEAUMONT, CA D VARIES 41047-00 - AS NOTED 4/28/2021 RFarr T:\Inventor\Ad Boxes\Hidden Hinge Ad Box Assemblies\41047-00.idw THE DESIGN AND DRAWINGS REMAIN THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF TOLAR MFG. AND ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. THEY MAY NOT BE ALTERED, REPRODUCED OR USED FOR FABRICATION WITHOUT EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT FROM TOLAR MFG. ALL DOCUMENTS TO BE RETURNED TO TOLAR MFG.. AT COMPLETION OF WORK. CONTRACTOR TO SITE VERIFY ALL DETAILS AND DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES TO TOLAR MFG.. BEFORE COMMENCING WITH THAT RELATED PORTION OF THE WORK. DURABILITY WITH DISTINCTION TOLARŠ PAGE: 1 OF 1 GENERAL NOTES: 1.ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, SHALL BE ASTM A-36, MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH 36,000 PSI. 2.ALL STRUCTURAL ALUMINUM MEMBERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, SHALL BE OF ALLOY 6063-T5 OR GREATER. 3.ALL HOLES TO BE DRILLED OR PUNCHED. 4.STEEL WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY STANDARD D1. 1-10. ELECTRODES SHALL CONFORM TO AWS 5.1, CLASS E70S-5. 5.ALUMINUM WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY STANDARD D1. 2-08. ELECTRODES SHALL CONFORM TO AWS/SFA 5.10 CLASS ER4043. 6.ALL WELDING TO BE DONE AT TOLAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. FACILITY. 7.ALL CORPORATE PROCEDURES, INCLUDING FABRICATION, MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TOLAR MANUFACTURING CO. INC'S QUALITY CONTROL MANUAL 8.CONCRETE PAD SIZES SHOWN ARE STANDARD MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY. THE PAD MAY NEED TO BE REINFORCED OR ENLARGED DEPENDING ON LOCAL CODES AND LOADING CONDITIONS R2'-6 7/16" DOORS SWING OUTWARDS 2'-2" V.O. 2'-11" V.O. 5'-5" 5'-11" 5'-3 1/2" 4'-11" INFORMATION PLAQUE 6'- 1/2" CAM LOCK 4 PLACES GRAPHIC SIZE, 25 X 34-1/2 3/16 MAKROLON SL IN EACH FACE 7 3/8" 1'-4"5'-8"1'-4" P1'-0"2'-0" MINIMUM CONCRETE SLAB (SEE NOTE 8.) 8'-4" MINIMUM CONCRETE SLAB (SEE NOTE 8.) 2'- 1/4" 255 Item 9. Staff Report TO: Mayor, and City Council Members FROM: Jeff Hart, Public Works Director DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Highland Springs Interchange Project Update and Recommendation for Approval of the First Contract Amendment Authorizing the Project Approval and Environmental Document Phase (PA/ED) Background and Analysis: On September 17, 2019, City Council approved a cooperative agreement between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), the City of Banning, and the City of Beaumont for the preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR) for the Highland Springs Interchange (Project). The Project is located adjacent to and within the jurisdictional boundaries of both the City of Banning and the City of Beaumont. City staff has been actively working with design and traffic consultants for the Project as well as staff from the City of Banning, RCTC, and Caltrans to develop the potential four alternatives for the Project moving forward, five if you include the required “No-Build” option. The 5 alternatives studied in the PSR are as follows: 1. No Build, 2. Hook Ramps: a. Option A – New westbound on-ramp from Joshua Palmer Way east of Highland Springs Avenue, b. Option B – New westbound on-ramp from Joshua Palmer Way at intersection with Apex Street, 3. Diverging Diamond Interchange with crossover before Union Pacific Railroad Structure, and 4. Diverging Diamond Interchange with crossover after Union Pacific Railroad Structure. The first draft of the PSR was submitted to Caltrans in April 2021 and is currently under review. It is anticipated that the PSR will obtain approval in August 2021. 256 Item 10. The Western Riverside Council of Governments is utilizing $2 million towards this Project contributed by the City of Beaumont pursuant to its settlement agreement with them to resolve the TUMF dispute. Current projections are that approximately $500,000 will have been expended to complete the PSR. Banning, Beaumont, and RCTC are now recommending that the original cooperative agreement be amended to include the project approval and environmental document (PA/ED) phase. It is anticipated that the remainder of Beaumont’s original $2 million contribution is sufficient to complete both the PSR and PA/ED phases of the Project. Fiscal Impact: The cost of preparing the staff report is estimated to be $750. Recommended Action: Receive and file the Highland Springs Project update, and Authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement between RCTC, the City of Banning, and the City of Beaumont to include the project approval and environmental document phase. Attachments: A. Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement between RCTC, the City of Banning, and the City of Beaumont 257 Item 10. Agreement No. 20-31-008-01 2307022 1 17336.00030\33796372.2 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, CITY OF BANNING AND CITY OF BEAUMONT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE I-10/HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVENUE INTERCHANGE PROJECT STUDY REPORT AND TO INCLUDE APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA/ED) PHASE 1. Parties and Date. This Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement is made and entered into this ____ day of ______________, 2021, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), City of Banning (Banning) and City of Beaumont (Beaumont). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC and the Cities of Banning and Beaumont (collectively, Cities) have entered into an agreement entitled “Cooperative Agreement Between Riverside County Transportation Commission, City of Banning, and City of Beaumont for the Preparation of the Highland Springs Interchange Project Study Report” dated September 10, 2019 (Master Agreement). 2.2 The Master Agreement established RCTC as the lead agency for the preparation of the Project Study Report (PSR) for the Highland Springs Interchange (Project) to be funded with $2,000,000 in funds allocated by Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). 2.3 WRCOG allocated the above referenced funding amount pursuant to Agreement No. 20-72-018-00 between WRCOG and RCTC. 2.4 It is anticipated that RCTC will complete the PSR for the Project in June 2021, at a total cost of approximately $500,000. WRCOG has approved reallocation of the funds remaining from the PSR phase (approximately $1,500,000) to the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase of the Project. 2.5 WRCOG and RCTC have entered into a Funding Agreement allocating approximately $1,5000,000 for the PA/ED phase of the Project. 2.6 The Cities of Banning and Beaumont have requested that RCTC be the lead agency for the preparation and management of the PA/ED phase of the Project. 2.7 RCTC has agreed to act as the lead agency for the PA/ED phase of the Project. 258 Item 10. Agreement No. 20-31-008-01 2307022 2 17336.00030\33796372.2 2.8 The Parties now desire, pursuant to this Amendment No. 1, to memorialize the funding reallocation approved by WRCOG for the PA/ED phase, and to include the PA/ED phase under the Master Agreement. 3. Terms. 3.1 Capitalized terms used in the Master Agreement and not otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 1 shall have the meanings as set forth in the Master Agreement. 3.2 Recital 2.2 of the Master Agreement shall be amended to include the following: WRCOG and RCTC will reallocate the funds remaining from the PSR phase (approximately $1,500,000) to the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase of the Project. 3.3 Section 3.1 of the Master Agreement shall be amended to include a new Section 3.1(C) to read as follows: C. Administration of PA/ED Phase for Highland Spring Interchange Project. RCTC shall administer, as lead agency, the PA/ED phase for the Project (PA/ED work) solely using funds allocated by WRCOG. The Parties agree that RCTC shall not have any obligation to fund the administration of the PA/ED work using its own funds. In the case that additional funds are needed to complete the PA/ED work, the source of funding for such work needed beyond the funding described in Section 2.2 or any other phases of the Project, or construction of any portion or all of the Project, shall be by separate agreement(s). RCTC shall continue management activities for Project consultants, and shall award consultant contracts as required for the PA/ED work. RCTC shall complete the PA/ED work within the Term of this Agreement, as provided in Section 3.2, unless extended by mutual agreement of the Parties. The Cities may elect to provide independent quality assurance (IQA) for the PA/ED work. 3.4 The term of the Master Agreement, as set forth in Section 3.2, shall be extended, for purposes of completion of the PA/ED work, through December 31, 2024, or until written agreement by the Parties that the PA/ED work has been completed, unless earlier terminated as provided in the Master Agreement. 259 Item 10. Agreement No. 20-31-008-01 2307022 3 17336.00030\33796372.2 3.5 Section 3.4, Cooperation, and 3.5, Reporting, of the Master Agreement shall be amended to provide that the obligations set forth in these provisions apply to the PA/ED work to the same extent as the same apply to the PSR. 3.6 This Amendment No. 1 is in all respects governed by California law and venue for any dispute shall be in Riverside County. 3.7 The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this Amendment No. 1 as though fully set forth herein. 3.8 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all provisi ons of the Master Agreement, including without limitation the indemnity provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the Parties under this Amendment No. 1. 3.9 This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.10 A manually signed copy of this Amendment No. 1 which is transmitted by facsimile, email or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original executed copy of this Amendment No. 1 for all purposes. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed using an electronic signature. [Signatures on following page] 260 Item 10. Agreement No. 20-31-008-01 2307022 4 17336.00030\33796372.2 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT NO. 1 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE I-10/HIGHLAND SPRINGS AVENUE INTERCHANGE PROJECT STUDY REPORT AND TO INCLUDE APPROVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PA/ED) PHASE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the date first set forth above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: _________________________ Anne Mayer, Executive Director CITY OF BANNING By: __________________________ Title: ________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: __________________________ Title: ________________________ ATTEST: By: __________________________ Title: ________________________ 261 Item 10. Agreement No. 20-31-008-01 2307022 5 17336.00030\33796372.2 CITY OF BEAUMONT By: _________________________ Title: ________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _________________________ Title: ________________________ ATTEST: By: _________________________ Title: ________________________ 262 Item 10. I-10 HIGHLAND SPRINGS INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Beaumont City Council May 18, 2021 David Lewis, RCTC Capital Projects Manager 1263 Item 10. Background 2 •September 2019 –RCTC, City of Beaumont, and City of Banning entered into Cooperative Agreement to prepare Highland Springs Interchange PSR •Western Riverside Council of Governments provided $2 million in TUMF Zone funding •March 2020 –PSR-PDS started 264 Item 10. Anticipated Schedule 3 PSR •March 2020 – August 2021 PA/ED •2 years PS&E •2 years Construction •2 years 265 Item 10. Project Location 4266 Item 10. PSR-PDS Alternatives Studied 5 1.No Build 2.Hook Ramps: •Option A –New westbound on-ramp from Joshua Palmer Way east of Highland Springs Avenue •Option B –New westbound on-ramp from Joshua Palmer Way at intersection with Apex Street 3.Diverging Diamond Interchange with crossover before Union Pacific Railroad Structure 4.Diverging Diamond Interchange with crossover after Union Pacific Railroad Structure Alts 2, 3, and 4 also include acceleration and deceleration lanes on eastbound and westbound I-10 267 Item 10. PSR-PDS Highlights 6 •First draft submitted to Caltrans for review and comment, April 6, 2021 •Alternatives 3 and 4 provide higher traffic Level of Service than other alternatives •Anticipated Environmental Document –CEQA –Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) –NEPA –Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) 268 Item 10. Alternatives 2A & 2B I-10 Eastbound Proposed Improvements 7269 Item 10. Alternative 2A I-10 Westbound Proposed Improvements 8270 Item 10. 9 Alternative 2B I-10 Westbound Proposed Improvements 271 Item 10. Alternative 3 10272 Item 10. Alternative 4 11273 Item 10. Path Forward 12 •Caltrans approval of PSR-PDS in August 2021 •$1.5 million remaining balance can be used for PA/ED •PA/ED Amendment to Cooperative Agreement with RCTC, City of Beaumont and City of Banning •Procure consultant team to perform PA/ED •Begin PA/ED in December 2021 274 Item 10. QUESTIONS 13275 Item 10. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jeff Hart, Public Works Director DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Direction to City Staff for the Conceptual Street Vacation of Veile Avenue Between Luis Estrada Road and Sixth Street Background and Analysis: In response to traffic, safety, and public concerns regarding Veile Avenue, City staff engaged Minagar and Associates, the City’s contracted traffic engineer, to conduct an analysis of existing traffic conditions (see Attachment A). The analysis was intend ed to study various options to alleviate concerns regarding illegal left turns from northbound Veile Avenue to westbound Sixth Street and safety impacts from truck traffic making southbound turns onto Veile from eastbound Sixth Street. Sixth Street is the main street that connects Interstate 10 West (I-10) and State Route 60 West (SR-60) in the City of Beaumont, while Veile Avenue has only one lane which is separated by yellow striping. The traffic movements on Sixth Street are free and Veile Avenue northbound is controlled by a stop sign to enter onto Sixth Street. Sixth Street has two through lanes including a de-facto right turn lane for the westbound on ramp to I-10 at the intersection of Sixth Street and Veile Avenue. 276 Item 11. Minagar and Associates conducted a field data collection study on September 9, 2020, and again on March 11, 2021, to determine peak hour traffic volumes. A.M. peak hour is defined as the highest one-hour volume between 7:00 – 9:00 A.M., and P.M. peak hour is defined as the highest one-hour volume between 4:00 – 6:00 P.M. The analysis also included the highest traffic volume between 11:00 A.M. – 1:00 P.M. to ensure there was no deviation to the expected peak. Based upon the analysis, it was determined that the closure of Veile Avenue b etween Luis Estrada Road and Sixth Street would not yield any degradation in level of service to either intersection. Additionally, the intersections of Sixth Street and California Avenue, Fifth Street and California Avenue, Luis Estrada Road and California Avenue, and Fourth Street and California Avenue were also analyzed and would not be expected to see any degradation in level of service due to the closure of Veile Avenue. City staff has also confirmed that this segment of Veile Avenue is not on the Nati onal Highway System and is therefore within the City’s jurisdiction to determine whether the closure is warranted (Attachment B). Therefore, City staff is requesting City Council direction to close vehicular access of Veile Avenue between Luis Estrada Road and Sixth Street in accordance with the following figure. Fiscal Impact: The cost of preparing the staff report is estimated to be $1,000. 277 Item 11. Recommended Action: Direction to City staff for the conceptual street vacation of Veile Avenue between Luis Estrada and Sixth Street. Attachments: A. Feasibility study for potential closure B. Research of roadway classification 278 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Protected Left-Turn Signal Phase Warrant Assessment for the Northbound/Southbound Approaches at E. Second Street (2nd St. Marketplace) and Commerce Way/Commerce Court – City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 6/28/19 TO#54 Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Road to W 6th Street in the City of Beaumont, CA Study Location MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering – ITS – Transportation Planning – CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: (949)707-1199 Web: www.minagarinc.com March 18, 2021 PREPARED BY: City of Beaumont Department of Public Works 550 E. 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 PREPARED FOR: 279 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2 3/18/2021 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Jeff Hart, PE Public Works Director/City Engineer, City of Beaumont From: Fred Minagar, MS, PE, RCE, FITE City Traffic Engineer, Principal, Minagar & Associates, Inc. Date: March 18, 2021 Re: Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St Executive Summary: The City of Beaumont requested from Minagar & Associates, Inc. to conduct a study of the existing traffic conditions on Veile Ave, Luis Estrada Rd, and 6th St to validate the potential closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St and installation of a new 8” raised Type-A median curb on 6th St Eastbound/Westbound at Veile Ave. Minagar & Associates’ staff collected the existing traffic volumes and field data for the intersections of Veile Ave at W. 6th St and Luis Estrada Rd at Veile Ave. The collected data was analyzed utilizing the latest microcomputer modeling software to assess before and after the proposed geometry improvements. It is therefore, concluded that by implementing and constructing the aforementioned improvements the vehicular safety of the subject intersections shall be enhanced. Additionally by physically restricting all the left turn movements from the intersection of Veile Ave and 6th St, the number of potential traffic accidents shall be eliminated. The Level of Service (LOS) of the subject intersections shall remain at the excellent LOS “A” with all the proposed physical improvements. Background: Figure 1 – Existing Geometric Condition of 6th St and Veile Ave 280 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 3/18/2021 Figure 2 – Existing Geometric Condition of Luis Estrada Rd and Veile Ave The City of Beaumont requested that Minagar & Associates, Inc. study the prevailing traffic conditions at the unsignalized intersections of 6th St and Veile Ave, and Luis Estrada Rd and Veile Ave in order to validate the potential closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St and installation of a new 8” raised Type-A median curb on 6th St Eastbound/Westbound at Veile Ave. Analysis: 6th St is the main street that connects Interstate 10 West and State Route 60 West in the City of Beaumont while, Veile Ave has only one lane which is separated by yellow striping as shown in Figure 1. Where the traffic movements on 6th St are free and Veile Ave Southbound is controlled by a STOP sign to enter into the freeway. 6th St has two through lanes including a de-facto right turn lane for the Westbound and Eastbound at the intersection of 6th St and Veile Ave. While, Veile Ave has one lane for only Right Turn, which is shown in the Figures 3 and 4 with multiple traffic control devices. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the existing conditions of the Westbound and Eastbound 6th St. At the intersection of Veile Ave and Luis Estrada Rd, the traffic movements on Veile Ave are free and Luis Estrada Rd Eastbound and Westbound are controlled by a STOP sign. Luis Estrada Rd has one shared lane at Veile Ave. Southbound Veile Ave has one shared through lane and one left turn lane and Northbound Veile Ave has one shared through/left lane including a de-facto right turn lane. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the existing conditions of Luis Estrada Rd, and Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the existing conditions of Veile Ave. Minagar & Associates, Inc. conducted the field data collection at the 6th St and Veile Ave intersection for a typical weekday (Wednesday) on September 9, 2020, and at Luis Estrada Rd and Veile Ave intersection for a typical weekday (Thursday) on March 11, 2021. The data collection was comprised of traffic volumes covering the AM peak (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM), Midday 281 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 3/18/2021 peak (11:00 AM - 1:00 PM) and PM peak (4:00 PM - 6:00 PM) hours. The raw traffic counts were organized into three sets of peak hours that included intersection turning movement volumes, lane geometries and traffic control parameters, were used to prepared traffic volume reports for the existing and proposed conditions utilizing the latest microcomputer software Synchro - 10. Three peak-hour Level of Service (LOS) analyses were performed to evaluate the traffic service levels under the existing and proposed conditions with the road closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St and a new 8” raised Type-A median curb at Veile Ave Northbound and 6th St Eastbound/Westbound respectively. The Synchro computer analysis was based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, which defines LOS using 6 levels, with LOS “A” having the best-operating conditions and LOS “F” having the worst operating conditions. Level of Service is dependent on the amount of time delay and type of roadway the LOS criteria are being applied to, with thresholds set for each LOS grade. Table 1 below summarizes the thresholds for each level. Table 1: Level of Service Threshold Summary Level of Service Delay Value (seconds) for Unsignalized Intersection Delay Value (seconds) for Signalized Intersection A 0.0 to 10.0 0.0 to 10.0 B >10.0 to 15.0 >10.0 to 20.0 C >15.0 to 25.0 >20.0 to 35.0 D >25.0 to 35.0 >35.0 to 55.0 E >35.0 to 50.0 >55.0 to 80.0 F >50.0 >80.0 Figure 3 - Existing Traffic Control Devices and Striping at Northbound Veile Ave Figure 4 - Existing Traffic Control Devices and Striping at Southbound Veile Ave 282 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5 3/18/2021 Figure 5 - Existing Traffic Control Devices and Striping at Eastbound Veile Ave Figure 6 - Existing Traffic Control Devices and Striping at Westbound Veile Ave Figure 7 - Existing Traffic Control Devices and Striping at Eastbound Luis Estrada Road 283 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6 3/18/2021 Figures 11, 12 and 13 show the existing conditions of AM, MD and PM peak hours respectively. Below figures show exactly the same geometric condition of the intersection of 6th St and Veile Ave and the intersection of Veile Ave and Luis Estrada Rd. The Levels of Service and average delays for AM, MD and PM peak hours are shown in Appendix A. Figure 8 - Existing Traffic Control Devices and Striping at Westbound Luis Estrada Road Figure 9 - Existing Traffic Control Devices and Striping at Southbound Veile Ave Figure 10 - Existing Traffic Control Devices and Striping at Northbound Veile Ave 284 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 7 3/18/2021 Tables 2 and 3 show the results of LOS and delay values for the existing conditions for 6th St and Veile Ave and Luis Estrada Rd and Veile Ave. Figure 11 – Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 6th St and Veile Ave Veile Ave and Luis Estrada Rd Figure 12 – Existing MD Peak Hour Volumes 6th St and Veile Ave Veile Ave and Luis Estrada Rd Figure 13 – Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 6th Street and Veile Ave Veile Ave and Luis Estrada Rd 285 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 8 3/18/2021 Table 2: LOS Intersection Summary for the Existing Conditions for 6th St and Veile Ave Baseline Year 2020 Existing Condition Study Intersection Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay Value (Second) Location Control 6th St & Veile Ave Stop AM A 1.3 MD A 1.2 PM A 1.3 Table 3: LOS Intersection Summary for the Existing Conditions for Luis Estrada Rd and Veile Ave Baseline Year 2021 Existing Condition Study Intersection Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay Value (Second) Location Control Luis Estrada Rd & Veile Ave Stop AM A 0.6 MD A 1.9 PM A 1.2 Subsequent to Minagar & Associates, Inc. analyses, it wa s revealed that the existing striping on Northbound and Southbound approaches of Veile Ave are faded and they need to be re-striped with thermoplastic paints. Specifically the Northbound approach of Veile Ave—at the southeast corner of the intersection needs to be re-painted for a stop bar and STOP legend. Furthermore, City plans close Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St. In addition, City also plans to remove the existing rolled curb and install 8” raised Type-A curb on East-West bound to restrict left turns from 6th St to Veile Ave towards Northbound and Southbound. With the proposed closure and new raised Type-A curb, all the through traffic movements shall be restricted completely from the North- to Southbound direction on Veile Ave. Figures 14, 15, and 16 show the AM, MD and PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed Veile Ave roadway closure respectively. Below figures show exactly the same geometric condition of the intersection of 6th St and Veile Ave and the intersection of Veile Ave and Luis Estrada Rd. The Levels of Service and average delays for AM, MD and PM peak hours are shown in Appendix A. Figure 14 – AM Peak Hour Volumes with the Proposed Veile Ave Roadway Segment Closure Between 6th St and Luis Estrada Rd Figure 15 – MD Peak Hour Volumes with the Proposed Veile Ave Roadway Segment Closure Between 6th St and Luis Estrada Rd 286 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9 3/18/2021 Tables 4 and 5 show the results of LOS and delay values for the proposed conditions for 6th St and Veile Ave and Luis Estrada Rd and Veile Ave. Table 4: LOS Intersection Summary for the Proposed Conditions for 6th St & Veile Ave Baseline Year 2020 With the Proposed Veile Ave Roadway Segment Closure Condition Study Intersection Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay Value (Second) Location Control 6th St & Veile Ave Stop AM A 1.0 MD A 0.6 PM A 0.6 Table 5: LOS Intersection Summary for the Proposed Conditions for Luis Estrada Rd & Veile Ave Baseline Year 2021 With the Proposed Veile Ave Roadway Segment Closure Condition Study Intersection Peak Hour Intersection LOS Delay Value (Second) Location Control Luis Estrada Rd & Veile Ave Stop AM A 1.0 MD A 2.8 PM A 0.7 Figure 16 – PM Peak Hour Volumes with the Proposed Veile Ave Roadway Segment Closure Between 6th St and Luis Estrada Rd 287 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 3/18/2021 Figure 12 - Proposed Roadway Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St and Type-A Raised Curb at 6th St and Veile Ave Based upon the analyses, it is therefore, concluded that by constructing the proposed improvements, the vehicular safety of the subject intersections shall be enhanced. Additionally by physically restricting all the left turn movements from the intersection of Veile Ave and 6th St, the number of potential traffic accidents shall be eliminated. The Level of Service of the subject intersection shall remain at the excellent Level of Service “A” with all the proposed physical improvements. Respectfully submitted, MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. (A California Corporation) Fred Minagar, MS, PE, RCE, FITE City Traffic Engineer/Principal/Senior Project Manager 288 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 11 3/18/2021 APPENDIX A Synchro 10.0 Microcomputer Results 289 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St 6th Street & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Existing 2020: AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 337 183 0 641 14 0 0 41 0 0 112 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 337 183 0 641 14 0 0 41 0 0 112 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 366 199 0 697 15 0 0 45 0 0 122 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 712 565 936 1178 282 932 1270 356 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 712 565 936 1178 282 932 1270 356 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 94 100 100 81 cM capacity (veh/h) 884 1003 178 190 714 207 167 640 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 244 321 465 247 45 122 Volume Left 000000 Volume Right 0 199 0 15 45 122 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 714 640 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.19 0.27 0.15 0.06 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft)0000517 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 11.9 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.4 11.9 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 290 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St Luis Estrada Road & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Existing 2021: AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)1210103381361333 Future Volume (Veh/h)1210103381361333 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)1210103411471453 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 215 222 146 215 216 48 148 55 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 215 222 146 215 216 48 148 55 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 737 673 901 735 677 1021 1434 1550 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 4 1 58 7 148 Volume Left 10370 Volume Right 1 0 14 0 3 cSH 735 677 1434 1550 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft)00000 Control Delay (s) 9.9 10.3 0.4 7.3 0.0 Lane LOS ABAA Approach Delay (s) 9.9 10.3 0.4 0.3 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 291 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St 6th Street & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Existing 2020: MD Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc.City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 374 89 0 536 0 0 0 69 0 0 55 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 374 89 0 536 0 0 0 69 0 0 55 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 407 97 0 583 0 0 0 75 0 0 60 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 583 504 807 1038 252 862 1087 292 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 583 504 807 1038 252 862 1087 292 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 987 1057 250 229 748 224 215 705 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 271 233 389 194 75 60 Volume Left 000000 Volume Right 0 97 0 0 75 60 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 748 705 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.14 0.23 0.11 0.10 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft)000087 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 10.6 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.4 10.6 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 292 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St Luis Estrada Road & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Existing 2021: MD Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc.City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 4 0 13 3 2 2 49 19 4 66 6 Future Volume (Veh/h) 10 4 0 13 3 2 2 49 19 4 66 6 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 4 0 14 3 2 2 53 21 4 72 7 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 154 162 76 150 154 64 79 74 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 154 162 76 150 154 64 79 74 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 98 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 806 728 986 812 734 1001 1519 1526 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 15 19 76 4 79 Volume Left 11 14 2 4 0 Volume Right 0 2 21 0 7 cSH 783 815 1519 1526 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft)12000 Control Delay (s) 9.7 9.5 0.2 7.4 0.0 Lane LOS AAAA Approach Delay (s) 9.7 9.5 0.2 0.4 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 293 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St 6th Street & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Existing 2020: PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc.City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 644 67 0 670 56 0 0 91 0 0 84 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 644 67 0 670 56 0 0 91 0 0 84 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 700 73 0 728 61 0 0 99 0 0 91 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 789 773 1192 1526 386 1208 1532 394 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 789 773 1192 1526 386 1208 1532 394 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 84 100 100 85 cM capacity (veh/h) 827 838 121 117 612 116 116 605 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 467 306 485 304 99 91 Volume Left 000000 Volume Right 0 73 0 61 99 91 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 612 605 Volume to Capacity 0.27 0.18 0.29 0.18 0.16 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft)00001413 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 Lane LOS B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 294 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St Luis Estrada Road & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Existing 2021: PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc.City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)00145101031624870 Future Volume (Veh/h)00145101031624870 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)00145101121726950 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 271 276 95 268 268 120 95 129 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 271 276 95 268 268 120 95 129 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 99 99 100 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 667 620 962 674 627 931 1499 1457 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 1 10 129 26 95 Volume Left 0 4 0 26 0 Volume Right 1 1 17 0 0 cSH 962 667 1499 1457 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft)01010 Control Delay (s) 8.7 10.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay (s) 8.7 10.5 0.0 1.6 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 295 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St 6th Street & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Proposed 2020: AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc.City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 520 641 14 0 112 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 520 641 14 0 112 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 565 697 15 0 122 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 712 987 356 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 712 987 356 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 81 cM capacity (veh/h) 884 244 640 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 282 282 465 247 122 Volume Left 00000 Volume Right 0 0 0 15 122 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 640 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.17 0.27 0.15 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft)000017 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.9 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 296 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St Luis Estrada Road & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Proposed 2021: AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc.City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)3101353 Future Volume (Veh/h)3101353 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)3101358 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 64 0 38 35 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 64 0 38 35 0 tC, single (s) 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 825 1085 963 856 1623 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 4 1 61 Volume Left 0 0 3 Volume Right 1 0 58 cSH 878 856 1623 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.1 9.2 0.4 Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.1 9.2 0.4 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 297 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St 6th Street & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Proposed 2020: MD Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc.City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 463 536 0 0 55 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 463 536 0 0 55 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 503 583 0 0 60 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 583 834 292 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 583 834 292 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 987 306 705 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 252 252 389 194 60 Volume Left 00000 Volume Right 000060 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 705 Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.15 0.23 0.11 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft)00007 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.6 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 298 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St Luis Estrada Road & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Proposed 2021: MD Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc.City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 14 0 15 3 2 76 Future Volume (Veh/h) 14 0 15 3 2 76 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 0 16 3 2 83 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 87 0 53 46 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 87 0 53 46 0 tC, single (s) 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 100 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 802 1085 931 845 1623 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 15 19 85 Volume Left 0 16 2 Volume Right 0 0 83 cSH 802 916 1623 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.02 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 2 0 Control Delay (s) 9.6 9.0 0.2 Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.6 9.0 0.2 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 299 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St 6th Street & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Proposed 2020: PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc.City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 755 670 56 0 84 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 755 670 56 0 84 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 821 728 61 0 91 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 789 1169 394 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 789 1169 394 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 85 cM capacity (veh/h) 827 186 605 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 410 410 485 304 91 Volume Left 00000 Volume Right 0 0 0 61 91 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 605 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.18 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft)000013 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 12.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 300 Item 11. Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St Luis Estrada Rd & Veile Avenue 03/17/2021 Proposed 2021: PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report Minagar & Associates, Inc.City of Beaumont, CA Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)01550119 Future Volume (Veh/h)01550119 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)01550129 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 129 0 66 64 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 129 0 66 64 0 tC, single (s) 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 762 1085 927 826 1623 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 Volume Total 1 10 129 Volume Left 0 5 0 Volume Right 1 0 129 cSH 1085 874 1623 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 8.3 9.2 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 8.3 9.2 0.0 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 301 Item 11. Technical Memorandum Feasibility Study for Potential Closure on Veile Ave from Luis Estrada Rd to W 6th St - City of Beaumont, CA MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 12 3/18/2021 APPENDIX B Traffic Volumes and Vehicle Classifications 302 Item 11. DATE:LOCATION:PROJECT #:SC2651Wed, Sep 9, 20NORTH & SOUTH:LOCATION #:1 EAST & WEST:CONTROL:STOP N/S NOTES:AM▲PMNMD◄ WE ►OTHERSOTHER▼NORTHBOUNDSOUTHBOUNDEASTBOUNDWESTBOUND NLNTNRSLSTSRELETERWLWTWRTOTALNBSBEBWBTTLLANES:XX1XX1X2011000007:00 AM0 0 14 0 13 23 0 73 51 26 123 2 325 000007:15 AM0 0 12 0 10 15 0 63 42 27 132 6 307 000007:30 AM0 0 10 0 13 18 0 85 40 25 169 2 362 000007:45 AM0 0 5 0 5 15 0 116 50 15 124 4 334 000008:00 AM0 0 8 0 9 16 0 62 34 23 124 7 283 000008:15 AM0 0 19 0 4 14 0 69 18 24 84 4 236 000008:30 AM0 0 12 0 1 10 0 62 33 21 98 3 240 000008:45 AM0 0 9 0 3 16 0 60 18 17 89 5 217 00000VOLUMES0 0 89 0 58 127 0 590 286 178 943 33 2,304 00000APPROACH %0%0%100%0%31%69%0%67%33%15%82%3%APP/DEPART89 /33 185 /522 876 /679 1,154 /1,070 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 41 0 41 71 0 337 183 93 548 14 1,328 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%37%63%0%65%35%14%84%2%PEAK HR FACTOR0.732 0.778 0.783 0.835 0.917 APP/DEPART41 /14 112 /317 520 /378 655 /619 0 4:00 PM0 0 26 0 5 9 0 161 30 25 158 10 424 000004:15 PM0 0 22 0 6 11 0 153 26 25 119 12 374 000004:30 PM0 0 32 0 3 14 0 156 21 35 130 11 402 000004:45 PM0 0 16 0 7 10 0 165 27 23 89 10 347 000005:00 PM0 0 41 0 9 11 0 136 24 41 172 21 455 000005:15 PM0 0 15 0 4 19 0 165 17 32 133 11 396 000005:30 PM0 0 10 0 7 12 0 178 18 21 85 7 338 000005:45 PM0 0 25 0 6 16 0 165 8 21 165 17 423 00000VOLUMES0 0 187 0 47 102 0 1,279 171 223 1,051 99 3,159 00000APPROACH %0%0%100%0%32%68%0%88%12%16%77%7%APP/DEPART187 /99 149 /441 1,450 /1,466 1,373 /1,153 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 91 0 26 58 0 644 67 115 555 56 1,612 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%31%69%0%91%9%16%76%8%PEAK HR FACTOR0.555 0.913 0.907 0.776 0.886 APP/DEPART91 /56 84 /208 711 /735 726 /613 0 VeileNORTH SIDE6thWEST SIDEEAST SIDE6thSOUTH SIDEVeileU-TURNSVeile Veile 6th 6thINTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTSPREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.comBeaumontVeile6thAM7:00 AMPM5:00 PMAdd U-Turns to Left Turns303Item 11. 334 229 105 0 TOTAL 132 149 102 47 0 PM 99 185 127 58 0 AM 33 1,154 1,373 2,527 2,223 1,153 1,070 33 99 132 943 1,051 1,994 TOTALPMAM178 223 401 0 0 0 AMPMTOTAL1,869 1,279 590 457 171 286 679 1,466 2,145 2,326 1,450 876 522 AM 0 0 89 89 441 PM 0 0 187 187 963 TOTAL 0 0 276 276 196 129 67 0 TOTAL 70 84 58 26 0 PM 56 112 71 41 0 AM 14 655 726 1,381 1,232 613 619 14 56 70 548 555 1,103 TOTALPMAMAM 7:00 AM 8:45 AM 93 115 208 0 0 0 #N/A AMPMTOTAL981 644 337 PM 5:00 PM 3:45 PM 250 67 183 378 735 1,113 1,231 711 520 317 AM 0 0 41 41 208 PM 0 0 91 91 525 Total 0 0 132 132 Veile AimTD LLC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS Veile 6th6thBeaumont SC2651 ALL HOURS Veile Veile 6th6thPEAK HOUR 304 Item 11. DATE:LOCATION:BeaumontPROJECT #:SC26519/9/20NORTH & SOUTH:VeileLOCATION #:1 WEDNESDAYEAST & WEST:6thCONTROL:STOP N/SNOTES:AM▲PCEClass 1 2 3 4 5 6PMNAdjustedFactor 1 1.5 2 3 2 2MD◄ WE ►OTHERSOTHER▼NORTHBOUNDSOUTHBOUNDEASTBOUNDWESTBOUND NLNTNRSLSTSRELETERWLWTWRTOTALNBSBEBWBTTLLANES:XX1XX1X201107:00 AM0 0 17 0 14 25 0 85 70 30 135 2 375 0 7:15 AM0 0 15 0 10 16 0 69 49 31 145 6 340 0 7:30 AM0 0 15 0 13 19 0 90 52 29 177 2 395 0 7:45 AM0 0 5 0 5 16 0 123 64 18 133 4 367 0 8:00 AM0 0 15 0 10 16 0 68 50 29 134 8 327 0 8:15 AM0 0 22 0 5 14 0 77 26 28 91 6 267 0 8:30 AM0 0 16 0 1 10 0 66 51 22 113 3 282 0 8:45 AM0 0 10 0 3 18 0 67 30 19 96 5 247 0 VOLUMES0 0 114 0 60 132 0 642 390 204 1,021 36 2,597 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%31%69%0%62%38%16%81%3%APP/DEPART114 /36 192 /653 1,032 /756 1,260 /1,153 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 51 0 42 75 0 366 235 106 589 14 1,476 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%36%64%0%61%39%15%83%2%PEAK HR FACTOR0.773 0.763 0.802 0.854 0.935 APP/DEPART51 /14 116 /382 600 /417 709 /663 0 4:00 PM0 0 28 0 6 9 0 164 35 26 171 10 447 0 4:15 PM0 0 25 0 6 11 0 162 29 25 130 13 401 0 4:30 PM0 0 35 0 3 14 0 162 27 44 136 12 432 0 4:45 PM0 0 18 0 10 11 0 176 34 26 93 10 376 0 5:00 PM0 0 45 0 10 11 0 141 35 45 182 22 489 0 5:15 PM0 0 19 0 5 19 0 172 27 35 137 11 424 0 5:30 PM0 0 12 0 7 14 0 185 27 21 91 7 364 0 5:45 PM0 0 27 0 6 17 0 174 9 26 172 17 446 0 VOLUMES0 0 208 0 51 106 0 1,334 222 246 1,111 101 3,377 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%33%67%0%86%14%17%76%7%APP/DEPART208 /101 157 /519 1,556 /1,542 1,458 /1,216 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 102 0 27 61 0 672 98 127 581 57 1,723 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%31%69%0%87%13%17%76%7%PEAK HR FACTOR0.567 0.931 0.907 0.770 0.881 APP/DEPART102 /57 88 /251 769 /774 764 /642 0 VeileNORTH SIDE6thWEST SIDEEAST SIDE6thSOUTH SIDEVeileAM7:00 AMPM5:00 PMINTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTSPREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.comU-TURNSVeile Veile 6th 6th305Item 11. DATE:LOCATION:BeaumontPROJECT #:SC26519/9/20NORTH & SOUTH:VeileLOCATION #:1 WEDNESDAYEAST & WEST:6thCONTROL:STOP N/SCLASS 1:NOTES:AM▲PASSENGERPMNVEHICLESMD◄ WE ►OTHERSOTHER▼NORTHBOUNDSOUTHBOUNDEASTBOUNDWESTBOUND NLNTNRSLSTSRELETERWLWTWRTOTALNBSBEBWBTTLLANES:XX1XX1X201107:00 AM0 0 12 0 12 20 0 61 36 22 109 2 274 000007:15 AM0 0 10 0 10 14 0 55 37 24 116 6 272 000007:30 AM0 0 7 0 13 17 0 79 33 21 155 2 327 000007:45 AM0 0 5 0 5 14 0 109 38 11 115 4 301 000008:00 AM0 0 4 0 8 16 0 55 24 17 113 6 243 000008:15 AM0 0 17 0 3 14 0 60 13 20 78 3 208 000008:30 AM0 0 10 0 1 10 0 57 23 19 87 3 210 000008:45 AM0 0 7 0 3 13 0 53 12 14 80 5 187 00000VOLUMES0 0 72 0 55 118 0 529 216 148 853 31 2,022 00000APPROACH %0%0%100%0%32%68%0%71%29%14%83%3%APP/DEPART72 /31 173 /419 745 /601 1,032 /971 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 34 0 40 65 0 304 144 78 495 14 1,174 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%38%62%0%68%32%13%84%2%PEAK HR FACTOR0.708 0.820 0.762 0.824 0.898 APP/DEPART34 /14 105 /262 448 /338 587 /560 0 4:00 PM0 0 24 0 4 9 0 156 23 24 146 10 396 000004:15 PM0 0 20 0 6 11 0 138 24 25 108 11 343 000004:30 PM0 0 29 0 3 14 0 148 17 30 125 10 376 000004:45 PM0 0 13 0 5 9 0 152 23 21 85 10 318 000005:00 PM0 0 39 0 8 11 0 130 17 36 163 20 424 000005:15 PM0 0 12 0 3 19 0 156 12 29 127 11 369 000005:30 PM0 0 9 0 7 11 0 171 12 21 81 7 319 000005:45 PM0 0 23 0 6 15 0 157 7 17 157 17 399 00000VOLUMES0 0 169 0 42 99 0 1,208 135 203 992 96 2,944 00000APPROACH %0%0%100%0%30%70%0%90%10%16%77%7%APP/DEPART169 /96 141 /380 1,343 /1,377 1,291 /1,091 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 83 0 24 56 0 614 48 103 528 55 1,511 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%30%70%0%93%7%15%77%8%PEAK HR FACTOR0.532 0.909 0.904 0.783 0.891 APP/DEPART83 /55 80 /175 662 /697 686 /584 0 VeileNORTH SIDE6thWEST SIDEEAST SIDE6thSOUTH SIDEVeileU-TURNSVeile Veile 6th 6thAM7:00 AMPM5:00 PMINTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTSPREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com306Item 11. DATE:LOCATION:BeaumontPROJECT #:SC26519/9/20NORTH & SOUTH:VeileLOCATION #:1 WEDNESDAYEAST & WEST:6thCONTROL:STOP N/SCLASS 2:NOTES:AM▲2-AXLEPMNWORKMD◄ WE ►VEHICLES/OTHERSTRUCKSOTHER▼NORTHBOUNDSOUTHBOUNDEASTBOUNDWESTBOUND NLNTNRSLSTSRELETERWLWTWRTOTALNBSBEBWBTTLLANES:XX1XX1X201107:00 AM0 0 1 0 1 3 0 7 6 3 9 0 30 000007:15 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 1 13 0 23 000007:30 AM0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 1 3 12 0 23 000007:45 AM0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 6 3 5 0 19 000008:00 AM0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 3 4 7 1 22 000008:15 AM0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 3 1 0 11 000008:30 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 4 0 11 000008:45 AM0 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 0 2 7 0 19 00000VOLUMES0 0 5 0 3 8 0 42 20 21 58 1 158 00000APPROACH %0%0%100%0%27%73%0%68%32%26%73%1%APP/DEPART5 /1 11 /44 62 /47 80 /66 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 2 0 1 5 0 23 15 10 39 0 95 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%17%83%0%61%39%20%80%0%PEAK HR FACTOR0.500 0.375 0.731 0.817 0.792 APP/DEPART2 /0 6 /26 38 /25 49 /44 0 4:00 PM0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 6 1 6 0 20 000004:15 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 6 0 19 000004:30 PM0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 2 1 13 000004:45 PM0 0 2 0 1 0 0 9 1 1 3 0 17 000005:00 PM0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 2 3 4 1 16 000005:15 PM0 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 0 2 4 0 14 000005:30 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 7 000005:45 PM0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 2 5 0 14 00000VOLUMES0 0 7 0 4 1 0 52 13 10 31 2 120 00000APPROACH %0%0%100%0%80%20%0%80%20%23%72%5%APP/DEPART7 /2 5 /27 65 /59 43 /32 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 5 0 2 0 0 33 8 3 17 1 69 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%100%0%0%80%20%14%81%5%PEAK HR FACTOR0.625 0.500 0.788 0.750 0.863 APP/DEPART5 /1 2 /13 41 /38 21 /17 0 VeileNORTH SIDE6thWEST SIDEEAST SIDE6thSOUTH SIDEVeileU-TURNSVeile Veile 6th 6thAM7:00 AMPM4:00 PMINTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTSPREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com307Item 11. DATE:LOCATION:BeaumontPROJECT #:SC26519/9/20NORTH & SOUTH:VeileLOCATION #:1 WEDNESDAYEAST & WEST:6thCONTROL:STOP N/SCLASS 3:NOTES:AM▲3-AXLEPMNTRUCKSMD◄ WE ►OTHERSOTHER▼NORTHBOUNDSOUTHBOUNDEASTBOUNDWESTBOUND NLNTNRSLSTSRELETERWLWTWRTOTALNBSBEBWBTTLLANES:XX1XX1X201107:00 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 6 000007:15 AM0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 000007:30 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 000007:45 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 000008:00 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 000008:15 AM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 0 8 000008:30 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 000008:45 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 00000VOLUMES0 0 2 0 0 1 0 5 6 3 13 0 30 00000APPROACH %0%0%100%0%0%100%0%45%55%19%81%0%APP/DEPART2 /0 1 /9 11 /7 16 /14 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 9 0 17 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%0%0%0%50%50%10%90%0%PEAK HR FACTOR0.250 0.000 0.500 0.625 0.531 APP/DEPART1 /0 0 /4 6 /4 10 /9 0 4:00 PM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 000004:15 PM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 7 000004:30 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 000004:45 PM0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 000005:00 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 000005:15 PM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 000005:30 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 000005:45 PM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 4 00000VOLUMES0 0 5 0 0 1 0 7 2 2 11 1 29 00000APPROACH %0%0%100%0%0%100%0%78%22%14%79%7%APP/DEPART5 /1 1 /4 9 /12 14 /12 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 2 2 5 1 17 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%0%100%0%67%33%25%63%13%PEAK HR FACTOR0.500 0.250 0.500 0.500 0.607 APP/DEPART2 /1 1 /4 6 /6 8 /6 0 VeileNORTH SIDE6thWEST SIDEEAST SIDE6thSOUTH SIDEVeileU-TURNSVeile Veile 6th 6thAM7:30 AMPM4:15 PMINTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTSPREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com308Item 11. DATE:LOCATION:BeaumontPROJECT #:SC26519/9/20NORTH & SOUTH:VeileLOCATION #:1 WEDNESDAYEAST & WEST:6thCONTROL:STOP N/SCLASS 4:NOTES:AM▲4 OR MOREPMNAXLEMD◄ WE ►TRUCKSOTHERSOTHER▼NORTHBOUNDSOUTHBOUNDEASTBOUNDWESTBOUND NLNTNRSLSTSRELETERWLWTWRTOTALNBSBEBWBTTLLANES:XX1XX1X201107:00 AM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 7 1 2 0 14 000007:15 AM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 0 9 000007:30 AM0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 9 000007:45 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 2 0 9 000008:00 AM0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 7 2 2 0 15 000008:15 AM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 8 000008:30 AM0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 6 0 17 000008:45 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 9 00000VOLUMES0 0 10 0 0 0 0 12 44 6 17 1 90 00000APPROACH %0%0%100%0%0%0%0%21%79%25%71%4%APP/DEPART10 /1 0 /50 56 /22 24 /17 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 23 3 11 1 49 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%0%0%0%18%82%20%73%7%PEAK HR FACTOR0.500 0.000 0.778 0.625 0.721 APP/DEPART6 /1 0 /26 28 /11 15 /11 0 4:00 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 5 000004:15 PM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 5 000004:30 PM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 2 0 10 000004:45 PM0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 1 0 8 000005:00 PM0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 3 0 11 000005:15 PM0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 8 000005:30 PM0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 2 0 10 000005:45 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 6 00000VOLUMES0 0 6 0 1 1 0 10 21 8 16 0 63 00000APPROACH %0%0%100%0%50%50%0%32%68%33%67%0%APP/DEPART6 /0 2 /30 31 /16 24 /17 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 4 0 1 0 0 5 15 6 6 0 37 APPROACH %0%0%100%0%100%0%0%25%75%50%50%0%PEAK HR FACTOR0.500 0.250 0.833 0.500 0.841 APP/DEPART4 /0 1 /22 20 /9 12 /6 0 VeileNORTH SIDE6thWEST SIDEEAST SIDE6thSOUTH SIDEVeileU-TURNSVeile Veile 6th 6thAM7:45 AMPM4:30 PMINTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTSPREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com309Item 11. DATE:LOCATION:BeaumontPROJECT #:SC26519/9/20NORTH & SOUTH:VeileLOCATION #:1 WEDNESDAYEAST & WEST:6thCONTROL:STOP N/SCLASS 5:NOTES:AM▲RVPMNMD◄ WE ►OTHERSOTHER▼NORTHBOUNDSOUTHBOUNDEASTBOUNDWESTBOUND NLNTNRSLSTSRELETERWLWTWRTOTALNBSBEBWBTTLLANES:XX1XX1X201107:00 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000007:15 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000007:30 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000007:45 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000008:00 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000008:15 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 000008:30 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000008:45 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000VOLUMES0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 00000APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%100%0%0%0%0%APP/DEPART0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 0 /0 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%100%0%0%0%0%PEAK HR FACTOR0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 APP/DEPART0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 0 /0 0 4:00 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000004:15 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000004:30 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000004:45 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000005:00 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000005:15 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000005:30 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 000005:45 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000VOLUMES0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 00000APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%100%0%0%0%0%APP/DEPART0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 0 /0 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%100%0%0%0%0%PEAK HR FACTOR0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 APP/DEPART0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 0 /0 0 VeileNORTH SIDE6thWEST SIDEEAST SIDE6thSOUTH SIDEVeileU-TURNSVeile Veile 6th 6thAM7:30 AMPM4:45 PMINTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTSPREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com310Item 11. DATE:LOCATION:BeaumontPROJECT #:SC26519/9/20NORTH & SOUTH:VeileLOCATION #:1 WEDNESDAYEAST & WEST:6thCONTROL:STOP N/SCLASS 6:NOTES:AM▲PMNBUSESMD◄ WE ►OTHERSOTHER▼NORTHBOUNDSOUTHBOUNDEASTBOUNDWESTBOUND NLNTNRSLSTSRELETERWLWTWRTOTALNBSBEBWBTTLLANES:XX1XX1X201107:00 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 000007:15 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000007:30 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000007:45 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 000008:00 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 000008:15 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000008:30 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000008:45 AM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000VOLUMES0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 00000APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%100%0%0%100%0%APP/DEPART0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 2 /2 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%100%0%PEAK HR FACTOR0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.500 APP/DEPART0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 2 /2 0 4:00 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000004:15 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000004:30 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000004:45 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 000005:00 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000005:15 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 000005:30 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000005:45 PM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000VOLUMES0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 00000APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%100%0%0%100%0%APP/DEPART0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 1 /1 0 BEGIN PEAK HRVOLUMES0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 APPROACH %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%100%0%0%100%0%PEAK HR FACTOR0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.500 APP/DEPART0 /0 0 /0 1 /1 1 /1 0 VeileNORTH SIDE6thWEST SIDEEAST SIDE6thSOUTH SIDEVeileU-TURNSVeile Veile 6th 6thAM7:00 AMPM4:30 PMINTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTSPREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com311Item 11. File Name : Veile Ave & Luis Estrada Rd Site Code : 01 Start Date : 3/11/2021 Page No : 4 Client/Agency/Location: City of Beaumont Luis Estrada Rd Eastbound Luis Estrada Rd Westbound Veile Ave Northbound Veile Ave Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 0000 00 1 00 1 086 3 08:15 AM 0 1 00 10000 01 10 1 0 12 129 0 0 30 43 08:30 AM 0000 00000 01630103 37 0 0 40 50 08:45 AM 11 30000 01 14 30 18 0 39 0039 60 Total Volume 1 2 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 3 38 13 0 54 6 133 3 0 142 201 % App. Total 25 50 25 0 0 100 0 0 5.6 70.4 24.1 0 4.2 93.7 2.1 0 PHF .250 .500 .250 .000 .333 .000 .250 .000 .000 .250 .750 .679 .542 .000 .750 .500 .853 .250 .000 .888 .838 Psgr Vehs % Psgr Vehs 100 100 100 0 100 0 100 0 0 100 100 89.5 53.8 0 81.5 100 86.5 100 0 87.3 86.1 Hvy Vehs 0000 00000 0046010018 0 0 18 28 % Hvy Vehs 0000 00000 00 10.5 46.2 0 18.5 0 13.5 0 0 12.7 13.9 Veile Ave Luis Estrada Rd Luis Estrada Rd Veile Ave Right 3 0 3 Thru 115 18 133 Left 6 0 6 Peds 0 0 0 InOut Total 35 124 159 4 18 22 39 181 142 Right0 0 0 Thru1 0 1 Left0 0 0 Peds0 0 0 OutTotalIn15 1 16 6 0 6 21 22 1 Left 3 0 3 Thru 34 4 38 Right 7 6 13 Peds 0 0 0 Out TotalIn 116 44 160 18 10 28 134 188 54 Left1 0 1 Thru2 0 2 Right1 0 1 Peds0 0 0 TotalOutIn7 4 11 0 0 0 7 11 4 Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM Psgr Vehs Hvy Vehs Peak Hour Data North MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Ph: (949)707-1199 - Web:minagarinc.com 312 Item 11. File Name : Veile Ave & Luis Estrada Rd Site Code : 01 Start Date : 3/11/2021 Page No : 4 Client/Agency/Location: City of Beaumont Luis Estrada Rd Eastbound Luis Estrada Rd Westbound Veile Ave Northbound Veile Ave Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:45 AM 11:45 AM 2 2 00 42000 2093012242240 12:00 PM 3200 5 101 115 60 22 0 18 0018 47 12:15 PM 5 5200 7 012 3 0 15 118 1 0 20 47 12:30 PM 0000 05110 7113 7 Total Volume 10 4 0 0 14 13 3 2 0 18 2 49 19 0 70 4 66 6 0 76 178 % App. Total 71.4 28.6 0 0 72.2 16.7 11.1 0 2.9 70 27.1 0 5.3 86.8 7.9 0 PHF .500 .500 .000 .000 .700 .650 .375 .500 .000 .643 .500 .817 .679 .000 .795 .500 .917 .375 .000 .864 .947 Psgr Vehs % Psgr Vehs 100 50.0 0 0 85.7 84.6 100 100 0 88.9 100 95.9 21.1 0 75.7 100 68.2 83.3 0 71.1 75.8 Hvy Vehs 0200 22000 20215017021 1 0 22 43 % Hvy Vehs 50.0 15.4 0 0 0 11.1 04.178.9 0 24.3 0 31.8 16.7 0 28.9 24.2 Veile Ave Luis Estrada Rd Luis Estrada Rd Veile Ave Right 5 1 6 Thru 45 21 66 Left 4 0 4 Peds 0 0 0 InOut Total 59 54 113 2 22 24 61 137 76 Right2 0 2 Thru3 0 3 Left11 2 13 Peds0 0 0 OutTotalIn10 16 26 17 2 19 27 45 18 Left 2 0 2 Thru 47 2 49 Right 4 15 19 Peds 0 0 0 Out TotalIn 56 53 109 23 17 40 79 149 70 Left10 0 10 Thru2 2 4 Right0 0 0 Peds0 0 0 TotalOutIn10 12 22 1 2 3 11 25 14 Peak Hour Begins at 11:45 AM Psgr Vehs Hvy Vehs Peak Hour Data North MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Ph: (949)707-1199 - Web:minagarinc.com 313 Item 11. File Name : Veile Ave & Luis Estrada Rd Site Code : 01 Start Date : 3/11/2021 Page No : 4 Client/Agency/Location: City of Beaumont Luis Estrada Rd Eastbound Luis Estrada Rd Westbound Veile Ave Northbound Veile Ave Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 0000 00001 12 05:15 PM 000111 4 00 5 032 6 0 38 727 0 13579 05:30 PM 0000 0111 841224 0 0 26 70 05:45 PM 001 2 35 10363 30 0033 72 Total Volume 0 0 1 1 2 4 5 1 1 11 0 103 16 0 119 24 87 0 1 112 244 % App. Total 0 0 50 50 36.4 45.5 9.1 9.1 0 86.6 13.4 0 21.4 77.7 0 0.9 PHF .000 .000 .250 .250 .500 .500 .313 .250 .250 .550 .000 .736 .500 .000 .726 .500 .725 .000 .250 .800 .772 Psgr Vehs % Psgr Vehs 0 0 100 100 100 50.0 80.0 100 100 72.7 0 96.1 56.3 0 90.8 87.5 83.9 0 100 84.8 87.3 Hvy Vehs 0000 02100 3047011314 0 0 17 31 % Hvy Vehs 0000 050.0 20.0 0 0 27.3 03.943.8 09.212.5 16.1 0 0 15.2 12.7 Veile Ave Luis Estrada Rd Luis Estrada Rd Veile Ave Right 0 0 0 Thru 73 14 87 Left 21 3 24 Peds 1 0 1 InOut Total 100 95 195 4 17 21 104 216 112 Right1 0 1 Thru4 1 5 Left2 2 4 Peds1 0 1 OutTotalIn30 8 38 10 3 13 40 51 11 Left 0 0 0 Thru 99 4 103 Right 9 7 16 Peds 0 0 0 Out TotalIn 76 108 184 16 11 27 92 211 119 Left0 0 0 Thru0 0 0 Right1 0 1 Peds1 0 1 TotalOutIn4 2 6 1 0 1 5 7 2 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Psgr Vehs Hvy Vehs Peak Hour Data North MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Ph: (949)707-1199 - Web:minagarinc.com 314 Item 11. File Name : Veile Ave & Luis Estrada Rd Site Code : 01 Start Date : 3/11/2021 Page No : 4 Client/Agency/Location: City of Beaumont Luis Estrada Rd Eastbound Luis Estrada Rd Westbound Veile Ave Northbound Veile Ave Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 0000 0330810 9225 3 07:15 AM 0000 01 1 00 20 12 10 13 128 2 0 31 46 07:30 AM 0000 03000 3082 07:45 AM 1 000 1 011 02012 0 0 12 430 00 34 49 Total Volume 1 0 0 0 1 7 2 1 0 10 0 40 4 0 44 7 108 6 0 121 176 % App. Total 100 0 0 0 70 20 10 0 0 90.9 9.1 0 5.8 89.3 5 0 PHF .250 .000 .000 .000 .250 .583 .500 .250 .000 .833 .000 .833 .500 .000 .846 .438 .900 .500 .000 .890 .898 Veile Ave Luis Estrada Rd Luis Estrada Rd Veile Ave Right 6 Thru 108 Left 7 Peds 0 InOut Total 42 121 163 Right1 Thru2 Left7 Peds0 OutTotalIn11 10 21 Left 0 Thru 40 Right 4 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 115 44 159 Left1 Thru0 Right0 Peds0 TotalOutIn8 1 9 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM Psgr Vehs Peak Hour Data North MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Ph: (949)707-1199 - Web:minagarinc.com 315 Item 11. File Name : Veile Ave & Luis Estrada Rd Site Code : 01 Start Date : 3/11/2021 Page No : 4 Client/Agency/Location: City of Beaumont Luis Estrada Rd Eastbound Luis Estrada Rd Westbound Veile Ave Northbound Veile Ave Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:45 AM 11:45 AM 2 1 00 32000 2081 23 12:00 PM 3100 4101 02115 10 17 012 0 0 12 35 12:15 PM 554200 6 012 1 0 13 1 14 10 16 40 12:30 PM 0000 04110 6112 1 0 14 110 1 0 12 32 Total Volume 10 2 0 0 12 11 3 2 0 16 2 47 4 0 53 4 45 5 0 54 135 % App. Total 83.3 16.7 0 0 68.8 18.8 12.5 0 3.8 88.7 7.5 0 7.4 83.3 9.3 0 PHF .500 .500 .000 .000 .600 .688 .375 .500 .000 .667 .500 .783 1.0 0 .000 .779 .500 .804 .417 .000 .844 .844 Veile Ave Luis Estrada Rd Luis Estrada Rd Veile Ave Right 5 Thru 45 Left 4 Peds 0 InOut Total 59 54 113 Right2 Thru3 Left11 Peds0 OutTotalIn10 16 26 Left 2 Thru 47 Right 4 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 56 53 109 Left10 Thru2 Right0 Peds0 TotalOutIn10 12 22 Peak Hour Begins at 11:45 AM Psgr Vehs Peak Hour Data North MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Ph: (949)707-1199 - Web:minagarinc.com 316 Item 11. File Name : Veile Ave & Luis Estrada Rd Site Code : 01 Start Date : 3/11/2021 Page No : 4 Client/Agency/Location: City of Beaumont Luis Estrada Rd Eastbound Luis Estrada Rd Westbound Veile Ave Northbound Veile Ave Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 0000 00001 12 05:15 PM 000111300 4 030 2 0 32 620 0 1 27 64 05:30 PM 0000 0011 02031 5 0 36 223 0 0 25 63 05:45 PM 001 35 10361 29 00 30 68 Total Volume 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 1 1 8 0 99 9 0 108 21 73 0 1 95 213 % App. Total 0 0 50 50 25 50 12.5 12.5 0 91.7 8.3 0 22.1 76.8 0 1.1 PHF .000 .000 .250 .250 .500 .500 .333 .250 .250 .500 .000 .707 .450 .000 .750 .438 .629 .000 .250 .792 .783 Veile Ave Luis Estrada Rd Luis Estrada Rd Veile Ave Right 0 Thru 73 Left 21 Peds 1 InOut Total 100 95 195 Right1 Thru4 Left2 Peds1 OutTotalIn30 8 38 Left 0 Thru 99 Right 9 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 76 108 184 Left0 Thru0 Right1 Peds1 TotalOutIn4 2 6 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Psgr Vehs Peak Hour Data North MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Ph: (949)707-1199 - Web:minagarinc.com 317 Item 11. File Name : Veile Ave & Luis Estrada Rd Site Code : 01 Start Date : 3/11/2021 Page No : 4 Client/Agency/Location: City of Beaumont Luis Estrada Rd Eastbound Luis Estrada Rd Westbound Veile Ave Northbound Veile Ave Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 0000 00000 00 24 60200 2 8 08:15 AM 0000 00000 00100 10200 2 3 08:30 AM 0000 00000 00010 10600 6 7 08:45 AM 0000 00000 00110 20 8 00 8 10 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 10 0 18 0 0 18 28 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 60 0 0 100 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .375 .000 .417 .000 .563 .000 .000 .563 .700 Veile Ave Luis Estrada Rd Luis Estrada Rd Veile Ave Right 0 Thru 18 Left 0 Peds 0 InOut Total 4 18 22 Right0 Thru0 Left0 Peds0 OutTotalIn6 0 6 Left 0 Thru 4 Right 6 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 18 10 28 Left0 Thru0 Right0 Peds0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM Hvy Vehs Peak Hour Data North MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Ph: (949)707-1199 - Web:minagarinc.com 318 Item 11. File Name : Veile Ave & Luis Estrada Rd Site Code : 01 Start Date : 3/11/2021 Page No : 4 Client/Agency/Location: City of Beaumont Luis Estrada Rd Eastbound Luis Estrada Rd Westbound Veile Ave Northbound Veile Ave Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 11:00 AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:00 AM 11:00 AM 0 1 00 1 0000 00 18 90600 6 16 11:15 AM 0000 0110150 61 11:30 AM 0000 00000 00000 00400 4 4 11:45 AM 0100 10000 00120 30 710 8 12 Total Volume 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 15 0 18 1 20 1 0 22 43 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 16.7 83.3 0 4.5 90.9 4.5 0 PHF .000 .500 .000 .000 .500 .250 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .750 .469 .000 .500 .250 .714 .250 .000 .688 .672 Veile Ave Luis Estrada Rd Luis Estrada Rd Veile Ave Right 1 Thru 20 Left 1 Peds 0 InOut Total 3 22 25 Right0 Thru0 Left1 Peds0 OutTotalIn18 1 19 Left 0 Thru 3 Right 15 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 21 18 39 Left0 Thru2 Right0 Peds0 TotalOutIn1 2 3 Peak Hour Begins at 11:00 AM Hvy Vehs Peak Hour Data North MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Ph: (949)707-1199 - Web:minagarinc.com 319 Item 11. File Name : Veile Ave & Luis Estrada Rd Site Code : 01 Start Date : 3/11/2021 Page No : 4 Client/Agency/Location: City of Beaumont Luis Estrada Rd Eastbound Luis Estrada Rd Westbound Veile Ave Northbound Veile Ave Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0000 0110100 11800 9 11 04:45 PM 0000 00000 00010 1001 05:00 PM 0000 00000 00000 00500 5 5 05:15 PM 0000 00 1 00 10 240 6 1700 8 15 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 3 5 0 8 2 20 1 0 23 33 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 37.5 62.5 0 8.7 87 4.3 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .000 .500 .000 .375 .313 .000 .333 .500 .625 .250 .000 .639 .550 Veile Ave Luis Estrada Rd Luis Estrada Rd Veile Ave Right 1 Thru 20 Left 2 Peds 0 InOut Total 3 23 26 Right0 Thru1 Left1 Peds0 OutTotalIn7 2 9 Left 0 Thru 3 Right 5 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 21 8 29 Left0 Thru0 Right0 Peds0 TotalOutIn2 0 2 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Hvy Vehs Peak Hour Data North MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. ITS - Traffic/Civil/Electrical Engineering - Transportation Planning - CEM 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Ph: (949)707-1199 - Web:minagarinc.com 320 Item 11. MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffic Engineering – Transportation Planning – Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – Civil/Electrical Engineering & CEM Consultants 23282 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 120, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: (949) 707-1199, Web: www.minagarinc.com 1 April 23, 2021 Mr. Jeff Hart, PE Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Beaumont 550 East Street Beaumont, CA 92223 Subject: TO#54 – Research of Roadway Classification for Veile Avenue, Beaumont, CA Dear Mr. Hart, We have concluded our investigation of the roadway classification of Veile Avenue on the State and Federal roadway system. Our research has revealed the following salient points: • Veile Avenue is not on the National Highway System. • Veile Avenue is shown on the State of California Highway System Map. It is designated as a Major Collector (pl. refer to the attached GIS exhibit). It connects Oak Valley Parkway to Westward Avenue to the north and south of the City respectively. • Since the subject avenue is not on the “numbered” highway system of the Federal nor State, therefore, it is under the City’s jurisdiction. • Further investigation also reveals that due to the extreme low traffic volume and utilization from hand, odd alignment, numerous traffic control devices, physical geometry interruptions and lack of a direct circulation path, it does not serve as a functional “major arterial” in the City. • It is therefore concluded that the temporary closure of the Veile Ave segment between West 6th Street to the north and Luis Estrada to the south will not have any adverse impact on traffic nor its functional classification. Should you have any questions, I can be contacted conveniently via e-mail at minagarf@minagrinc.com. Thank you. Sincerely, MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. (A California Corporation) Fred Minagar, MS, RCE, PE, FITE President/Contract City Traffic Engineer 321 Item 11. Functional Classification of Veile Avenue on the State of California Highway System, Beaumont, CA Veile Ave Veile Ave 322 Item 11. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Interim Finance Director DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: FY2021 COPS/Equipment Replacement/Equipment Internal Service Fund Budget Adjustments Background and Analysis: This report requests adjustments to the Citizen Option Public Safety (COPS), Equipment Replacement, and Equipment Replacement Internal Service Fund budget and seeks approval to purchase identified equipment out of the Equipment Replacement and Equipment Replacement Internal Service Fund. Citizen Option Public Safety (COPS) Budget Adjustment - $158,300 The Citizen Option Public Safety budget for FY2020 had $200,000 as a budgeted line item for the purchase and installation of tablets for police vehicle replacement and $8,300 for Coplogic software. Due to timing with the Coplogic software and the purchase of the tablets and installation, the expenditures were not able to take place in FY2020 and were captured in FY2021. City staff is recommending to re-appropriate the FY2020 budget authority of the Coplogic software, tablets and installation of tablets which cost $158,300, less than the FY2020 budgeted amount of $208,300. This adjustment seeks $150,000 for police vehicle tablets and installation and $8,300 for Coplogic software. Attachment A includes the recommended adjustments to COPS Fund spending for FY2021. Equipment Replacement and Equipment Replacement Internal Service Fund Budget Adjustment - $254,450 During the FY22 budget process City staff indicated that the backhoe for the Streets Maintenance Department had lost 50% of hydraulic power resulting in a significant lack of functionality. Due to the age of the equipment (21 years old ) it is recommended that the backhoe is replaced for the Street Maintenance Department. This new backhoe is needed for repairing sinkholes, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and asphalt. It is also used 323 Item 12. to clean up after traffic collisions, downed trees, trash removal and dumpster loading, and alley grading. In addition, it is used for after storm road cleanups and any other project (construction or maintenance) that warrant use of the backhoe. City staff also identified additional new equipment that is currently needed to reduce time constraints, increase City staff efficiency and lower costs of equipment rental. VAC-TRON CV series – storm vacuum trailer, the State Water Board requires a percentage of catch basins to be cleared annually and reports filed with the State. This equipment will be used to remain compliant with the State Water Board and avoid potential fines. Stump Grinder – Historically, the City has not fully removed stumps when a tree falls or is removed. There are 72 stumps around the City that need to be grinded down. Some of the stumps are in parks and each of those stumps pose a tripping hazard and need to be addressed. Chipper – during high wind events City crews are dealing with removing and hauling off large limbs and trees that are falling in parks and rights of ways. The chipper will allow the City to dispose of limbs in a way that is time efficient and reduces dump fee costs associated with post event clean up efforts. City staff has identified funds in the Equipment Replacement Fund which has a balance of $213,555 and is recommending depleting this fund for these identified equipment needs and the remaining $40,895 to come from the Equipment Replacement Internal Service Fund established by City Council in December 2020. Attachment B includes the requested equipment and recommended adjustments to the Equipment Replacement Fund and Equipment Internal Service Fund spending for FY2021. Fiscal Impact: The impact of COPS Fund adjustments is to increase expenditure authority by $158,300. This will reduce the fund balance in the COPS fund by this same amount. The impact of these adjustments for the equipment replacement will increase expenditure authority in the Equipment Replacement Fund by $213,555 , thereby reducing the balance in the fund by the same amount. City staff also recommends increasing the expenditure authority of the Equipment Internal Service fund by $40,895. This will reduce the fund balance in the Equipment Internal Service fund by the same amount. 324 Item 12. Recommended Action: Approve the proposed Citizen Option Public Safety budget adjustments in the amount of $158,300, and Approve the proposed Equipment Replacement and Equipment Internal Service budget adjustments in the amount of $254,450. Attachments: A. COPS Fund Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments B. Equipment Replacement and Equipment Internal Service Recommended Budget Adjustments 325 Item 12. Attachment A Account Type Department Type of Expense Acct Number Action Requested of the City Council Current Budget Proposed Budget Increase/ (Decrease)Explanation Expense Police Tablets and Hardware for Vehicles 220-0000-7072-0000 -$ 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$ This reflects tablets and installation needed for Police Interceptor vehicle replacements previously budgeted in FY 2020. Expense Police Software 220-0000-7071-0000 -$ 8,300.00$ 8,300.00$ The reflects the Coplogic software that was previously budgeted in FY 2020. 158,300.00$ FY 2020-21 Citizen Option Public Safety - Proposed Mid-Year Budget Adjustments 326 Item 12. Attachment B Account Type Department Type of Expense Acct Number Action Requeste d of the City Council Current Budget Proposed Budget Increase/ (Decrease)Explanation Expense Streets Maintenance Backhoe 505-0000-8040-0000 -$ 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$ This reflects the replacement of backhoe to be used in the Streets Maintenance Department. Expense Streets Maintenance VAC-TRON 505-0000-8040-0000 -$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ This reflects the purchase of a VAC-TRON CV series - storm vaccum trailer to be used in the Streets Maintenance Department. Expense Parks and Grounds Chipper 505-0000-8040-0000 -$ 13,555.00$ 13,555.00$ This reflects the purchase of a chipper which is to be used in the Parks and Grounds Department. Partial funding here and partial funding from ISF fund. 213,555.00$ Expense Parks and Grounds Stump Grinder 600-0000-8040-0000 -$ 35,600.00$ 35,600.00$ This reflects the purchase of a stump grinder to be used in the Parks and Grounds Department. Expense Parks and Grounds Chipper 600-0000-8040-0000 -$ 5,295.00$ 5,295.00$ This reflects the purchase of a chipper which is to be used in the Parks and Grounds Department. Partial funding here and partial funding from equipment replacement fund. 40,895.00$ Equipment Replacement Fund Equipment Internal Service Fund 327 Item 12. Staff Report TO: City Council FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Interim Finance Director DATE May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Approval of Amendments to the City of Beaumont Investment Policy Background and Analysis: On September 15, 2020, the City Council adopted an investment policy and at that time the topic of engaging an investment advisor was discussed to provide benefits to the City’s investment portfolio and assist in achieving the goals of the investment policy. On February 16, 2021, City Council approved a contract for investment advisor and portfolio management services with Public Trust Advisors, LLC (Public Trust). As a part of the contractual services, Public Trust analyzed the City’s current investment policy and recommend policy amendments. After City staff’s review, the amended policy was presented to the Finance and Audit Committee at the ir meeting of May 10, 2021. Highlights of Recommended Amendments  Updated language to incorporate most recent changes and legislative updates to the California government code,  Establishes the Finance and Audit Committee to provide general oversight and direction regarding policy-driven issues and considerations in connection with the City’s investment portfolio,  Added performance standards and evaluation section to clarify the criteria by which the portfolio’s long-term performance will be evaluated,  Add asset-backed commercial paper as an authorized investment,  Add medium-term corporate notes as an authorized investment,  Add specified supranational securities as an authorized investment, and  Add mortgage pass-through and asset-backed securities as an authorized investment. 328 Item 13. City staff would note that the key principals of stabili ty of principle, liquidity and investment return remain unchanged. All of the added investments will meet these standards but allow for greater flexibility and for improved levels of diversification. Finance Committee Recommended Changes  Add Finance Committee and City Council under Section 8 – Indemnification. Public Trust has advised that with the proposed amendments the policy will meet the standards necessary to be certified through the California Municipal Treasurers Association. The benefit of the policy certification demonstrates that due diligence was performed, shows transparency of the governing body to the public, assists to satisfy auditors when reviewing the policy, and provides trust, confidence and verification that the policy has been reviewed and certified by a professional organization within California. City staff intends to submit the policy for certification if approved by City Council. Fiscal Impact: The estimated cost to prepare this report is $477. Recommended Action: Review the proposed revisions to the investment policy, Approve the recommended modification to Section 8 – Indemnification, and any other modifications recommended by City Council, and Adopt the amended Investment Policy. Attachments: A. Proposed Amended Beaumont Investment Policy with Finance Committee Recommended Changes – clean draft B. Proposed Amended Beaumont Investment Policy with Finance Committee Recommended Changes – redlined draft 329 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 1 1. Introduction In accordance with the charter of the City of Beaumont and under authority granted by the City Council, the City Manager is designated the responsibility for investing he unexpended cash in the City Treasury and the overall conduct of the City’s investment program. The intent of this Investment Policy is to formalize the framework for the investment activities that shall be exercised to ensure the effective and judicious fiscal and investment management of the City’s funds. The City’s portfolio shall be designed and managed in such a manner as to comply with state and local laws, provide for daily cash flow requirement, ensure consistency with the prioritized objectives of safety, liquidity, and return, and in a manner consistent with prudent investment management and worthy of the public trust. 2. Governing Authority The City’s investment program shall be managed in conformance with federal, state, and other legal requirements, including California Government Code Sections 16429.1-16429.4, 53600-53609, and 53630- 53686. This Investment Policy was endorsed and adopted by the City Council and is effective {Insert Effective Date}. This Investment Policy shall replace all previous versions. 3. Scope The City’s investment policies apply to all personnel, departments, divisions and offices of the City government as well as all associated accounting funds under the direct authority of the City of Beaumont. These accounting funds include, but are not limited to, the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Debt Service Funds, Capital Projects Funds, Private Purpose Trust Funds and Agency Trust Funds. These investment policies are also applicable to the City’s blended component units, including the Successor Agency to the Beaumont Redevelopment Agency, Beaumont Utility Authority, and the Beaumont Public Improvement Authority. The City commingles its investable assets to maximize interest earnings and to increase efficiencies with respect to investment pricing, safekeeping, and administration. Investment income will be allocated to the various funds based on their respective percentage participation in the total fund and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Proceeds arising from the issuance of debt shall be invested in accordance with the provisions of their governing bond documents and in a manner consistent with the City’s general investment philosophy as outlined in this Investment Policy. 4. Responsibility The City Manager is responsible for the City’s implementation and compliance with these policies, unless the City Council authorizes exceptions. Under the direction of the City Manager, the Finance Director will review, develop and implement a system of processes and procedures to ensure compliance with these policies throughout the entire organization. The City Manager will work with the Finance Director to ensure these policies are updated on a timely basis. 5. Pooling of Funds The City of Beaumont consolidates cash balances from all eligible funds to maximize investment earnings. Funds held by the Trustee are not eligible to be pooled. The City schedules its collection of receipts, deposits of 330 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 2 funds and disbursements of monies to ensure maximum availability of cash for temporary investment purposes. Investment income is allocated to the various Funds based on their respective participation and in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). 6. Objectives The prioritized objectives of the City’s investment program are to preserve principal (safety), ensure sufficient liquidity (liquidity), and generate a market rate of return (return). 1. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost investment objective of the City’s investment program. Investment shall be undertaken in a manner designed to ensure the preservation of capital in overall portfolio growth. The City shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating credit risk and interest rate risk. 2. Liquidity: The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. Because not all liquidity needs can be anticipated, the investment portfolio shall focus on securities with active secondary and resale markets. 3. Return: The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints of safety and liquidity. Set forth in Section 17 of this Investment Policy are certain strategies and principles utilized by the City to manage investment risks. 7. Standard of Care The standard of prudence to be used by City investment officials shall be the “Prudent Investor Standard” and shall be applied in the context of managing the overall portfolio. As set forth in the California Government Code 53600.3, the Prudent Investor Standard states: “…all governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law.” Consistent with the objectives set forth in section vi of this Investment Policy, in addition to safeguarding invested principal and ensuring sufficient liquidity for the City, a prudent investor should also seek optimize portfolio return subject to these constraints. 8. Indemnification The City Manager, Finance Director, Finance Committee, City Council and other authorized persons responsible for managing or overseeing City funds, acting in accordance within written procedures and the intent and scope of this Investment Policy and exercising due diligence, shall be relieved of personal liability for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided that deviations from expectations are reported in a timely manner and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. 331 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 3 9. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Officers and employees involved in the investment process will refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and management of the investment program, or that could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Consistent with the requirements of the California fair Political Practices Commission, employees and investment officials will disclose any material interest in financial institutions with which they conduct business. They shall further disclose any personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Employees and officers will refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business s is conducted on behalf of the City of Beaumont. 10. Delegation of Authority The authority to manage the City’s investment program is provided by the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. Authority to manage the City’s investment program is granted to the City Manager and his or her designee. Responsibility for the operation of the investment program is hereby delegated to the Finance Director, who shall act in accordance with this investment policy. The Finance Director shall establish procedures for the operation consistent with this investment policy and may authorize other finance department staff to initiate investment transactions. All participants in the investment process shall seek to act responsibly as custodians of the public trust. No officer or designee may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and supporting procedures. The City may contract with one or more external investment managers to assist in the management of the City’s investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City’s objectives. Such external managers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Investment Policy. Such managers must be registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and specialize in the management of public funds fixed income portfolios. 11. Finance Committee A Finance Committee is established to provide general oversight and direction concerning policy related issues concerning management of the City's investment portfolio. The committee shall meet at quarterly unless circumstances require more frequent meetings. 12. Authorized Financial Institutions, Depositories, Broker Dealers, and Competitive Transactions In circumstances where the investment portfolio is managed internally, the requirements set forth in Sections A and B, below, shall apply; A. The City shall maintain a list of financial institutions and depositories authorized to provide investment services. In addition, the City shall maintain a list of approved security broker/dealers selected by conducting a process of due diligence. These may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). The Finance Director will determine which financial institutions are authorized to provide investment services to the City. Institutions eligible to transact investment business with the City include: 1. Primary government dealers as designated by the Federal Reserve System 2. Regional broker/dealers qualified under SEC Rule 15C3-1 3. Nationally or state-chartered banks 332 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 4 4. The Federal Reserve Bank 5. Direct issuers of securities eligible for purchase B. Investment staff shall review broker/dealers who would like to transact with the City to determine if they are adequately capitalized and make markets in the securities appropriate to the City's needs. The Investment Officer shall send a copy of the current investment policy to all broker/dealers approved to transact with the City. Financial institutions which desire to become qualified broker/dealers for investment tra nsactions (and which are not transacting solely through an investment advisor) must provide the City with a statement certifying that the institution has reviewed the California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. and the City’s Investment Policy. The selection of broker/dealers shall be at the sole discretion of the City. C. Selection of broker/dealers used by an external investment adviser retained by the City will be at the sole discretion of the investment adviser, provided such broker/dealers meet the requirements set forth in section A, above. D. Public deposits will be made only in qualified public depositories as established by State statutes. Deposits will be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), or, to the extent the amount exceeds the insured maximum, will be collateralized in accordance with state statutes. A written contract of deposit of public funds must be obtained from the financial institution, indicating the institution’s policy and process of FDIC insurance and collateralization. E. It is the policy of the City to require competitive bidding from at least three broker/dealers for investment transactions that are not classified as “new issue” securities whenever possible and practical. Such competitive bidding can be executed through a competitive bidding or through the use of a nationally recognized trading platform. In such circumstances where competitive price comparisons are not available, best efforts will be made to document quotations for comparable or alternative securities. 13. Security Safekeeping and Delivery Procedures Third-Party safekeeping: To protect against fraud, embezzlement, or losses caused by collapse of an individual securities dealer and to enhance access to securities and interest payments, all securities owned by the City shall be held in safekeeping by a third party bank trust department acting as agent for the City under the terms of a duly executed custody agreement. In connection with the City’s annual independent audit, securities held in custody are audited to verify investment holdings. No outside broker/dealer or advisor may have access to the City funds, accounts or investments, and any transfer of funds to or through an outside broker/dealer must be approved by the City Council. Delivery-Versus-Payment: All trades of marketable securities shall be cleared and settled on a standard delivery-versus-payment (“DVP”) basis to ensure that securities are deposited in the City’s safekeeping account prior to the release of funds. 14. Internal Controls A system of internal controls has been established to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation by third parties, or unanticipated changes in financial markets. Internal controls deemed most important include control of collusion, separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping, custodial safekeeping, avoid of physical delivery of securities, clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members, written confirmation of transactions for investments and wire transfers and development of a wire transfer agreement with the lead bank and third-party custodian. Furthermore, an 333 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 5 independent analysis by an external auditor shall be conducted annually to review internal control, account activity, and compliance with policies, procedures, and applicable laws. 15. Authorized Investments The investment of City funds shall be made in accordance with Sections 53600 et seq. of the California Government Code and in accordance with this Investment Policy. Permitted investments for the City shall include the following security types and related credit quality, maturity, and diversification constraints. 1. Municipal Bonds: Bonds issued by the City, the State of California, any other of the 49 states in addition to California, and any local agency within the state of California. This authorization includes the ability to invest in obligations payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or any local agency in the state of California or by a department, board, agency, or authority of a state or any local agency in the state of California. Credit Quality: Securities in this category shall have a minimum credit rating of A (or its equivalent) by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization at the time of purchase. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in this category. 2. U.S. Treasury Obligations: United States Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and certificates of indebtedness or those for which the faith and credit of the Unites States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. Credit Quality: No minimum credit rating required for securities in this category. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: There are no dollar or percentage limits on securities in this category. 3. Federal Agency and Government Sponsored Enterprise Obligations: Federal agency or United States government-sponsored-enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises. Credit Quality: No minimum credit rating required for securities in this category. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: There are no dollar or percentage limits individual issuers in this category. 4. Commercial Paper: Commercial paper of "prime" quality and issued by a corporation organized and operating in the United States with total assets of at least $500 million. Credit Quality: Securities in this category must be rated “A-1” (or the equivalent) or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization. In addition, debt other than commercial paper (if any) issued by corporations in this category must be rated at least “A” (or the equivalent) or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Maximum Maturity: 270 days at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the City’s portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of commercial paper. For purposes of this issuer limitation, holdings of commercial paper and medium term notes of a single issuer shall be limited to 10% of total portfolio assets. No more than 25% of the 334 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 6 total portfolio may be invested cumulatively in commercial paper or asset-backed commercial paper as defined in Section 6, below. No more than 10% of the outstanding commercial paper of any single issuer may be purchased. 5. Asset-Backed Commercial Paper: Asset-Backed Commercial paper of “prime” quality and issued by an entity organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company. Credit Quality: Securities in this category must be rated “A-1” (or the equivalent) or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization. In addition, the issuing entity must have programwide credit enhancements including, but not limited to, overcollateralization, letters of credit, or a surety bond. Maximum Maturity: 270 days at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the City’s portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of commercial paper. For purposes of this issuer limitation, holdings of commercial paper and medium term notes of a single issuer shall be limited to 10% of total portfolio asse ts. No more than 25% of the total portfolio may be invested cumulatively in asset-backed commercial paper or commercial paper as defined in Section 5, above. No more than 10% of the outstanding commercial paper of any single issuer may be purchased. 6. Federally Insured Time Deposits: Non-negotiable certificates of deposit in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions. Credit Quality: Securities in this category shall be limited to the maximum amount covered by federal deposit insurance. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. No more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable certificates of deposit as set forth in subsections 6, 7, and 8 hereto. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. 7. Collateralized Time Deposits: Non-negotiable certificates of deposit in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions in excess of federal deposit insurance limits which are fully collateralized in accordance with state law. Credit Quality: Securities in this category exceeding federal deposit insurance limits shall be collateralized in accordance with state law and be issued by institutions which have long-term debt obligations rated “A” (or the equivalent) or better and short-term debt obligations, if any, rated “A1” (or the equivalent) or better by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating agencies. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. No more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable certificates of deposit as set forth in subsections 7, 8, and 9 hereto. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. 8. Certificate of Deposit Placement Services: Non-negotiable certificates of deposit at a commercial bank, 335 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 7 savings bank, savings and loan association, or credit union that that uses a private sector entity to assist in the placement of deposits (e.g., CDARS). Credit Quality: The full amount of each deposit and the interest that may accrue on each such deposit shall at all times be insured by federal deposit insurance. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. No more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable certificates of deposit as set forth in subsections 7, 8, and 9 hereto. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. 9. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit: Negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state- chartered bank, a savings association or a federal association (as defined by Section 5102 of the Financial Code), a state or federal credit union, or a federally licensed or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Credit Quality: Securities in this category exceeding federal deposit insurance limits shall be issued by institutions which have long-term debt obligations rated “A” (or the equivalent) or better and short- term debt obligations, if any, rated “A-1” (or the equivalent) or better by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating agencies. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. 10. Repurchase Agreements: Repurchase agreements with specific terms and conditions may be transacted with banks and brokers. Such investments must be subject to a “Master Repurchase Agreement” substantially in the form developed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”). Credit Quality: Repurchase agreements shall be collateralized with U.S. Treasury and Federal Agency securities (as authorized herein) maintained at a value of at least 102% of the market value of the repurchase agreement. Securities used as collateral for repurchase agreements shall be delivered to the City’s custodian bank. Maximum Maturity: 1 year at the time of entry. Diversification: There are no dollar or percentage limits on securities in this category. 11. Medium-Term Corporate Notes: Medium-term corporate notes shall mean all corporate and depository institution debt securities issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States. Credit Quality: Securities in this category shall be rated in the “A” category or better by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations at the time of purchase. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 10% of the total portfolio may be invested in the commercial paper and medium-term notes of a single issuer. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in this category. 336 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 8 12. Money Market Mutual Funds: Money market mutual funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1 et seq.) meeting the credit quality requirements set forth below or retaining an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years' experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). Credit Quality: Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations. Maximum Maturity: No maturity restrictions apply. Diversification: No more than 20% of the portfolio may be invested in this category. 13. Mortgage Pass-Through and Asset-Backed Securities: Mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgage obligations, mortgage-backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable pass-through certificate, or consumer receivable-backed bonds meeting the requirements set forth below. Credit Quality: Securities eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by an NRSRO and have a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: With the exception of obligations issued by Federal Agencies and Government Sponsored Enterprises as specified in subsection 3 hereto, no more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 10% of the total portfolio may be invested in this category. 14. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund: The State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”) managed by the State of California Treasurer’s Office. Credit Quality: No credit rating requirements exist for LAIF. In addition, should LAIF invest in securities or instruments prohibited or not specifically authorized by the City’s Investment policy, the City is not prohibited from investing in LAIF provided sufficient information is available to allow the City to understand the risks associated with investing in LAIF. Maximum Maturity: No maturity restrictions apply. Diversification: The City may invest up to the maximum amount permitted by California state law. 15. Joint Powers Authority Pools: Shares of beneficial interest issued by a joint powers authority organized pursuant to Section 6509.7 that invests in securities authorized by California Government Code Section 53601 subdivisions (a) to (r), inclusive, and that has retained an investment adviser that is registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission having not less than five years of experience investing in the securities and obligations authorized by California Government Code Section 53601 and having at least five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) under management. Credit Quality: There are no credit rating requirements for Joint Powers Authority Pools. Maximum Maturity: No maturity restrictions apply. Diversification: The City may invest up to the maximum amount permitted by California law. 16. Supranational Securities: United States dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and 337 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 9 Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank eligible for purchase and sale within the United States. Credit Quality: Securities in this category shall be rated in the “AA” category or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organizations at the time of purchase. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 10% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in this category. Bond Proceeds: Proceeds arising from the issuance of debt shall be invested in accordance with the provisions of their governing bond documents and in a manner consistent with the City’s general investment philosophy as outlined in this Investment Policy. Bond proceeds are not eligible as a part of the City’s pooled funds. Securities authorized by the bond indenture or similar investment documents that are not authorized by the City’s Investment Policy will be considered approved investments for bond proceeds when the bond indenture or similar authorizing document is approved by the City Council. Bond reserve funds, escrow funds and any funds approved by the City Council may be invested in securities with maturity limits of five years or an appropriate longer period. The bond indenture shall provide any specific restrictions or limitations on either the nature or the duration of the investments and should be the governing document. Note on Credit Quality Requirements: Should the credit rating of a security owned by the City be downgraded to a level below that required by this Investment Policy, the City will review the credit situation and determine if such securities should be sold or retained in the portfolio based upon its remaining term to maturity, the credit outlook for the issuer, and other relevant facts and circumstances. If the decision is made to retain a downgraded security, it will be closely monitored by the City and reported on quarterly to the Finance Committee. Note on Maximum Maturity Limitation: The five-year maturity limitation of this Investment Policy shall be measured as of the transaction settlement date. In accordance with section 53601 of the California Government Code, this five year maturity limitation may be extended if deemed prudent by the Investment Officer and provided that the City Council has approved such investment either specifically or as part of an investment program approved by the legislative body no less than three months prior to the investment. Note on Diversification Requirements: The diversification requirements set forth above relating to the maximum allowable percentage for a particular issuer or investment type shall apply at the time of purchase. Due to fluctuations in the aggregate invested balance, these maximum percentages may be exceeded from time to time and shall not require liquidation to realign the portfolio. However, consideration should be given to this matter when future purchases are made. Note on Other Requirements: Should any investment fall out of compliance with any other guidelines of this policy after its purchase, the City will review the situation and determine if such securities should be sold or retained in the portfolio based upon its remaining term to maturity, the credit outlook for the issuer, and other relevant facts and circumstances. If the decision is made to retain such a security, it will be closely monitored by the City and reported on quarterly to the Finance Committee. 16. Prohibited Investments and Practices Provided below are certain prohibited investments and investment practices intended to help safeguard invested balances. 1. In accordance with California Government Code section 53601.6, investments in inverse floaters, range 338 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 10 notes, mortgage-derived interest-only strips are prohibited. In addition the purchased of any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity is also prohibited except for the purchase securities issued or backed by the United States government in the event of, and for the duration of, a period of negative market interest rates 2. Investments not specifically described herein are prohibited. 3. The purchase or sale of securities on margin is prohibited. 4. The purchase of securities denominated in foreign currencies is prohibited. 5. The purchase or sale of securities done solely to speculate on the direction of future interest rates is prohibited. Any investment currently held that does not meet the guidelines of this policy shall be exempted from the requirements of this policy. At maturity or liquidation, any such monies shall be reinvested only as provided for in this policy. 17. Managing Portfolio and Investment Risks Safety of principal is the foremost investment objective of the City. Each investment transaction shall seek to ensure that capital losses are avoided, whether from securities default, broker/dealer default, or erosion of market value. The overall program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. In a diversified portfolio, it must be recognized that occasional measured losses are inevitable and must be considered within the context of the overall portfolio’s investment return, provided that adequate diversification has been implemented. The City shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating credit risk and market risk as set forth below. Mitigating Credit Risk: Credit risk is the risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all of its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. The City shall seek to mitigate credit risk by adopting the following strategies: 1. Adhering to the diversification requirements set forth in Section XIII of this policy which limit the amount of the total portfolio that may be invested in any single issuer. 2. Utilizing an active management strategy that allows for the sale of securities prior to their scheduled maturity dates for purposes of improving the portfolio’s credit quality, liquidity, yield, or return profile in response to changing market conditions or City circumstances. 3. Reviewing downgraded securities. Should the credit rating of a security owned by the City be downgraded to a level below that required by this Investment Policy, the City will review the credit situation and determine if such securities should be sold or retained in the portfolio based upon its remaining term to maturity, the credit outlook for the issuer, and other relevant facts and circumstances. 4. Monitoring any downgraded securities. If the decision is made to retain a downgraded security, it will be closely monitored by the City and reported on quarterly to the Investment Committee. Mitigating Interest Rate Risk: Market risk is the risk that the value of a security or portfolio will fluctuate due to changes in the general level of interest rates. The City understands that while longer-term portfolios have the potential to generate higher investment returns over time, they also exhibit a greater volatility of return. In addition, the City further recognizes certain types of securities, including variable rate securities, securities with principal paydowns prior to maturity, and securities with embedded call options, will affect the market risk 339 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 11 characteristics of the portfolio differently. Accordingly, the City will mitigate market risk by adopting the following strategies: 1. The City shall maintain sufficient balances in short-term investments to provide liquidity for expected and contingent expenditures thereby limiting the need to sell securities prior to maturity. Liquidity funds shall be maintained in short-term investments such as LAIF, deposit accounts collateralized in accordance with state law, and money market funds and instruments with minimal market risk. 2. Longer-term securities shall be scheduled to mature in advance of known expenditure requirements whenever possible. 3. The City shall avoid the purchase of securities for the sole purpose of short-term speculation. 4. The maximum stated final maturity of any security in the portfolio shall be five years, except as otherwise stated in this Investment Policy. 5. The maximum percentage of callable securities (excluding securities with “make whole” call provisions) held in the portfolio shall be 20%. 6. The weighted average duration of the actively managed portion of the portfolio, i.e. non liquidity funds, shall be maintained in a range of +/- 25% the duration of a market benchmark as selected by the City based upon the City’s risk tolerances and investment objectives. 18. Performance Standards & Evaluation Consistent with the City’s circumstances and risk tolerances, the investment performance objective for the managed portfolio shall be to earn a total rate of return over market cycles that is approximately equal to the return on the City’s chosen benchmark index. 19. Reporting and Disclosure In accordance with Government Code Section 53646(8)(1), the City Treasurer shall submit to the Finance Committee a quarterly report that will then be taken to the City Council. The report shall include a complete description of the portfolio, the type of investments, the issuers, maturity dates, par values and the current market values of each component of the portfolio, including funds managed for the City of Beaumont by third party contract managers. The report will also include the source of the portfolio valuation. As specified in Government Code 53646(e), if all funds are placed in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), FDIC insured accounts and/or county investment pool, the foregoing report elements may be replaced by copies of the latest statements from such institutions. The report must also include a certification that (1) all investment actions executed since the last report have been in full compliance with the investment policy, and, (2) the City of Beaumont will meet its expenditures obligations within the cash flow needs. 20. Policy Review and Adoption The City of Beaumont's investment policy shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council on, at minimum, an annual basis. This investment policy shall be reviewed at least annually to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and return as well as its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. In accordance with Senate Bill 564 and Senate Bill 866, effective January 1, 1996, the City staff brings forward each year the City’s Investment Policy for review by the City Council. Any amendments to the policy shall be forwarded to City Council for approval. 340 Item 13. Page | 12 341 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... City of Beaumont, California Investment Policies 1. Introduction The In accordance with the charter of the City of Beaumont and under authority granted by the City Council, the City Manager is designated the responsibility for investing he unexpended cash in the City Treasury and the overall conduct of the City’s investment program. The intent of this Investment Policy is to formalize the framework for the investment activities that shall invest public be exercised to ensure the effective and judicious fiscal and investment management of the City’s funds. The City’s portfolio shall be designed and managed in such a manner as to comply with state and local laws; ensure prudent money management;, provide for daily cash flow requirement, ensure consistency with the prioritized objectives of safety, liquidity, and return, and in a manner consistent with prudent investment management and worthy of the public trust. 2. Governing Authority The City’s investment program shall be managed in conformance with federal, state, and other legal requirements; and meet the objectives of the Policy; in priority order of Safety, Liquidity and Return on investment., including California Government Code Sections 16429.1-16429.4, 53600-53609, and 53630-53686. This Investment Policy was endorsed and adopted by the City Council and is effective {Insert Effective Date}. This Investment Policy shall replace all previous versions. 2.3. Scope The City’s investment policies apply to all personnel, departments, divisions and offices of the City government as well as all associated accounting funds under the direct authority of the City of Beaumont. These accounting funds include, but are not limited to, the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Debt Service Funds, Capital Projects Funds, Private Purpose Trust Funds and Agency Trust Funds. These investment policies are also applicable to the City’s blended component units, including the Successor Agency to the Beaumont Redevelopment Agency, Beaumont Utility Authority, and the Beaumont Public Improvement Authority. The City commingles its investable assets to maximize interest earnings and to increase efficiencies with respect to investment pricing, safekeeping, and administration. Investment income will be allocated to the various funds based on their respective percentage participation in the total fund and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Proceeds arising from the issuance of debt shall be invested in accordance with the provisions of their governing bond documents and in a manner consistent with the City’s general investment philosophy as outlined in this Investment Policy. 4. Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Style Definition ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 342 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 2 Formatted ... Formatted ... 3.Responsibility The City Manager is ultimately responsible for the City’s implementation and compliance with these policies, unless the City Council authorizes exceptions. Under the direction of the City Manager, the Finance Director will review, develop and implement a system of processes and procedures to ensure compliance with these policies throughout the entire organization. The City Manager will work with the Finance Director to ensure these policies are updated on a timely basis. 4.5. Pooling of Funds The City of Beaumont consolidates cash balances from all eligible funds to maximize investment earnings. Funds held by the Trustee are not eligible to be pooled. The City schedules its collection of receipts, deposits of funds and disbursements of monies to ensure maximum availability of cash for temporary investment purposes. Investment income is allocated to the various Funds based on their respective participation and in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). 5.Investment6. Objectives The primaryprioritized objectives (in order of priority) of the CityCity’s investment activitiesprogram are the safety ofto preserve principal and preservation of capital,(safety), ensure sufficient liquidity, and yield. (liquidity), and generate a market rate of return (return). 1. 1. Safety of Principal and Preservation of Capital.: Safety of principal and preservation of capital are is the foremost objectivesinvestment objective of the City’s investment program. Investments areInvestment shall be undertaken in a manner that seeksdesigned to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio growth. The objective is to mitigateCity shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating credit risk and interest- rate risk. A. Credit Risk.Liquidity: The City of Beaumont will minimize credit risk, the risk of loss due to the failure of the security issuer or backer by: (1) Limiting investments to the safest type of securities. All investments must be made only in investment grade securities A rating or higher. (2) Pre-qualifying the financial institutions, broker/dealers, intermediaries, and advisers with whom the City of Beaumont will do Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 343 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 3 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right business. The City of Beaumont will use the approved purchasing process for any Investment Advisor services. Within this process will be an agreed upon condition that the Investment Advisor’s services obtained shall be required to prequalify all financial institutions to comply with the City of Beaumont’s Investment Policy. (3) Diversifying the investment portfolio so that potential losses on overall portfolio will be strictly limited. The investments shall be diversified by: • Limiting investments to avoid overconcentration in securities from a specific issuer or business sector (excluding U.S. Treasury securities), • Investing in securities of varying maturities and • Continuously investing a portion of the portfolio in readily available funds such as local government investment pools (LGIPs), money market funds or overnight repurchase agreements to ensure that appropriate liquidity is maintained in order to meet ongoing obligations. B. Interest Rate Risk. The City of Beaumont will minimize the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in general interest rates by: (1) Structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell securities on the open market prior to maturity, (2) Investing operating funds primarily in shorter-term securities or with State and local government investment pools to ensure liquidity needs are met and stability of principal is assured. 2. 2. Liquidity. The investment portfolio remainsshall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. This is accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrently with the City’s cash needs to meet anticipated demands (static liquidity). A portion of the portfolio also may be placed in money market mutual funds or Local Government Investment Pools (LGIP’s) which offer either same-day or next- day liquidity. Furthermore, since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the portfolio consists largely of Because not all liquidity needs can be anticipated, the investment portfolio shall focus on securities with active secondary or resale markets (dynamic liquidity). The City will ensure that liquid resources are available to meet at least six months of operating expenses.and resale markets. 3. 3. Yield on Investments. Return: The investment portfolio isshall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout the budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and liquidity needs of the City. Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified, Space After: 9 pt, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Justified, Space After: 9 pt, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt 344 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 4 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right Return on investment is of secondary importance compared to the safety and preservation of capital and liquidity objectives described above. The core investments are limited to relatively low risk securities in anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk being assumed. Securities shall not be sold prior to the maturity with the following exceptions: of safety and liquidity. A. Loss of Principal. A security with declining credit may be sold early to minimize loss of principal. While investments in securities that pose some risk of principal loss, the portfolio of investments must be structured to strictly limit the overall loss of principal while seeking to increase the rate of investment return. Set forth in Section 17 of this Investment Policy are certain strategies and principles utilized by the City to manage investment risks. 7. StandardB. Security Swap. A security swap would improve the quality, yield, or target duration in the portfolio. C. Liquidity. Liquidity needs of the portfolio require that the security be sold. Any non-liquid investments will be structured to ensure they become liquid in time to meet operating expenditures. This will require managing of maturity dates for investments to ensure liquid funds are available when needed. 6.Standards of Care A. Prudence. The standard of prudence to be used by City investment officials isshall be the “prudent” person standard (Civil Code Section 2261, et. seq.)Prudent Investor Standard” and isshall be applied in the context of managementmanaging the overall portfolio. As set forth in the California Government Code 53600.3, the Prudent Investor Standard states: “…all governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall investment portfolio. Investment officersstrategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law.” Consistent with the objectives set forth in section vi of this Investment Policy, in addition to safeguarding invested principal and ensuring sufficient liquidity for the City, a prudent investor should also seek optimize portfolio return subject to these constraints. Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt 345 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 5 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right 8. Indemnification The City Manager, Finance Director, Finance Committee, City Council and other authorized persons responsible for managing or overseeing City funds, acting in accordance withwithin written procedures and this overall investment policythe intent and scope of this Investment Policy and exercising due diligence, shall be relieved of personal responsibilityliability for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided that deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and the liquidity and sale of securities are carried in accordance with the terms of this policy.manner and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments. Investments are made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. B. Public Trust, Ethics and Conflicts of Interest. Investment officials recognize that the investment portfolio is subject to public review and evaluation. The overall program is designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. 9. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Officers and employees involved in the investment process will refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and management of the investment program, or that could impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. EmployeesConsistent with the requirements of the California fair Political Practices Commission, employees and investment officials will disclose any material interest in financial institutions with which they conduct business. They shall further disclose any personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Employees and officers will refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business s is conducted on behalf of the City of Beaumont. 10. C. Delegation of Authority. The authority to manage the City’s investment program is provided by the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. Authority to manage the City’s investment program is granted to the City Manager and his or her designee, hereinafter referred to the “Investment Officer,” . Responsibility for the operation of the investment program is hereby delegated to the investment officerFinance Director, who shall act in accordance with this investment policy. The Finance Director shall establish procedures for the operation consistent with this investment policy and may authorize other finance department staff to initiate investment transactions. All participants in the investment process shall seek to act responsibly as custodians of the public trust. No officer or designee may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and supporting procedures. Formatted: Justified, Space After: 9 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified, Space After: 9 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Italic Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt 346 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 6 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right The City 7.may contract with one or more external investment managers to assist in the management of the City’s investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City’s objectives. Such external managers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this Investment Policy. Such managers must be registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and specialize in the management of public funds fixed income portfolios. 11. Finance Committee A Finance Committee is established to provide general oversight and direction concerning policy related issues concerning management of the City's investment portfolio. The committee shall meet at quarterly unless circumstances require more frequent meetings. 12. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions , Depositories, Broker Dealers, and Competitive Transactions In circumstances where the investment portfolio is managed internally, the requirements set forth in Sections A and B, below, shall apply; A. The City will secure the servicesshall maintain a list of one or more approved financial institutions and depositories authorized to provide investment services to the to. In addition, the City shall maintain a list of Beaumontapproved security broker/dealers selected by conducting a process of due diligence. These may include “"primary”" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net capital rule). A determination should be made The Finance Director will determine which financial institutions are authorized to ensure that all approved broker/dealer firms, and individuals coveringprovide investment services to the City. Institutions eligible to transact investment business with the City include: 1. of Beaumont, are reputable and trustworthy. In addition, the government dealers as designated by the Federal Reserve System 2. Regional broker/dealers qualified under SEC Rule 15C3-1 3. Nationally or state-chartered banks 4. The Federal Reserve Bank 5. Direct issuers of securities eligible for purchase B. dealer firms should have the abilityInvestment staff shall review broker/dealers who would like to meet all of their financial obligations in dealingtransact with the City to determine if they are adequately capitalized and make markets in the securities appropriate to the City's needs. The Investment Officer shall send a copy of the current investment policy to all broker/dealers approved to transact with the City. Financial institutions which desire to become qualified broker/dealers for investment transactions (and which are not transacting solely through an investment advisor) must provide the City with a statement certifying that the institution has reviewed the California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. and the City’s Investment Policy. The selection of broker/dealers shall be at the sole discretion of the City. C. of Beaumont. The firms, and individuals covering the City of Beaumont, should be knowledgeable and experienced in Selection of broker/dealers Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified 347 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 7 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right used by an external investment adviser retained by the City will be at the sole discretion of the investment adviser, provided such broker/dealers meet the requirements set forth in section A, above. D. Public Agency investing and the investment products involved. Nodeposits will be made only in qualified public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depositorydepositories as established by the established state laws. AllState statutes. Deposits will be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), or, to the extent the amount exceeds the insured maximum, will be collateralized in accordance with state statutes. A written contract of deposit of public funds must be obtained from the financial institutions institution, indicating the institution’s policy and broker/dealers who desire to provide investment management services for the City will be selected through a process of FDIC insurance and collateralization. E. It is the policy of the City to require competitive bidding process. At a minimum, any selected investment advisor/ manager will be required to provide evidence of all required licensure and/or certifications.from at least three broker/dealers for investment transactions that are not classified as “new issue” securities whenever possible and practical. Such competitive bidding can be executed through a competitive bidding or through the use of a nationally recognized trading platform. In such circumstances where competitive price comparisons are not available, best efforts will be made to document quotations for comparable or alternative securities. 8.Beaumont’s Investment Policy The City on an annual basis submits a copy of the current investment policy to all financial institutions approved to do business with the City. Confirmation of receipt of this policy is considered evidence that the dealer has read and understands the City’s investment policy and will recommend and execute only transactions suitable for and in compliance with the City’s Investment Policy. In selecting financial institutions for deposit or investment of City funds, the creditworthiness of the institutions will be considered. The City will continue to monitor financial institution’s credit characteristics and financial history throughout the period in which City funds are deposited or invested. 9.Authorized Investments for the City The City is authorized by California Government Code Section 53600, et.seq. to invest in specific types of securities. Section 43601 of the Government Code sets limits on the type investments that may be in the City portfolio. Refer to attachment A for allowable investment by State of CA. The City Council may establish further limits on the types of securities in which the City may invest its idle cash. Any investment security (except investment of bond proceeds as explained in the next section) not listed below is not a valid investment for the City of Beaumont. Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline 348 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 8 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right 1. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Investments. LAIF is a special fund of the State of California Treasury that local agencies may use to deposit funds for investment. Investments by the State Treasurer for City funds in LAIF are authorized by the City Council. State law prohibits LAIF from impounding any depositor’s funds and prohibits the fund from ever declaring bankruptcy 2. United States Debt Obligations. These investments would include U.S. Government direct obligations such as Treasury bills, bonds, notes and other certificates of indebtedness where the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for payment of principal and interest. 3. United States Agency Debt Obligations. These investments include obligations, participations or other instruments of, or issued by, a Federal Agency or a United States Government-Credit Bank (FFCB) or other obligations or other instruments issued by, or fully guaranteed as to principal and by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA). While these U.S. Government debt issues are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, they do in fact have defacto backing from the Federal Government, and it would be most unlikely that the government would let any of these agencies default on its obligations. 4. Repurchase Agreements. These agreements would be limited to U.S. Government or its authorized Agencies’ securities described in Number 2 and Number 3 above, provided that they are held less than a year. 5. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (CD). A Certificate of Deposit (CD) is a time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate. Certificates of Deposit must be issued through financial institutions insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a federal agency of the United States Government that insures bank deposits up to $250,000 per account 6. Pass Book Savings Account Demand Deposits. Savings accounts are hereby approved by the Beaumont City Council provided they are maintained only with banks and savings and loan institutions which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a federal agency of the United States Government that insures bank deposits up to $250,000 per account. 7. Overnight Repurchase Agreements. The City is authorized by the City Council to set up a “sweep account” and to enter into an Formatted: Justified, Space After: 9 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Bold, Underline 349 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 9 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right overnight repurchase agreement with an authorized bank to sweep cash from its checking accounts and other appropriate accounts to earn overnight interest on funds in these funds. 8. State Obligations-CA and Others. The City is authorized by the City Council to purchase State Obligations that fall within the allowable limits of the State Government Code and within the objectives of the City of Beaumont’s Investment Policy. 9. CA Local Agency Obligations. The City is authorized by the City Council to purchase CA Local Agency Obligations that fall within the allowable limits of the State Government Code and within the objectives of the City of Beaumont’s Investment Policy. 10. Joint Powers Authority Pool. The City is authorized by the City Council to invest in Joint Powers Authority Pools as long as they meet the criteria within the State Government Code and within the objectives of the City of Beaumont’s investment Policy and would require that statement 10 of this policy is followed prior to entrance into such investment pool. 11. Money Market Mutual Funds. The City is authorized by the City Council to invest in Money Market Mutual Funds whose portfolios consist entirely of U.S. government securities and would require that statement 10 of this policy is followed prior to entrance into such mutual fund. 12. Commercial Paper-Pooled Funds. Commercial paper is a money-market security issued by large corporations to obtain funds to meet short- term debt obligations and is backed only by an issuing bank or company promise to pay the face amount on the maturity date specified on the note. It is usually sold at a discount of face value. State Government Code requires that only the highest letter and number rating by a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization are allowed. 13. CDARS Program. A CDARS program is a CD laddering portfolio that allows investing with a relationship institution for different maturity levels of CDs. Despite using multiple banks, the program will submit one statement which makes administration simple. 10.Investment Pools/Mutual Funds A thorough investigation of the pool/fund is required prior to investing, and on a continual basis. There shall be a questionnaire developed which will answer the following general questions: 1. A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policy and objectives. Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Bold, Underline 350 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 10 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right 2. A description of interest calculations and how it is distributed, and how gains and losses are treated. A description of how the securities are safeguarded (including the settlement process), and how often the 13. Security Safekeeping and Delivery Procedures 3. Third-Party safekeeping: To protect against fraud, embezzlement, or losses caused by collapse of an individual securities dealer and to enhance access to securities are priced and program audited. 4. A description of who may invest in the program, how often, what size deposit and withdrawal are allowed. 5. A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. 6. Are reserves, retained earnings, etc. utilized by the pool/fund? 7. A fee schedule, and when and how is it assessed. 8. Is the pool/fund eligible for bond proceeds and/or will it accept such proceeds? 11.Investment of Bond Proceeds The City directs the investment of proceeds in bonds or similar debt instruments issued as instructed in the bond indenture or similar investment documents. Bond proceeds are not eligible as a part of the City’s pooled funds. Securities authorized by the bond indenture or similar investment documents that are not authorized by the City’s Investment Policy will be considered approved when the bond indenture or similar investment document is approved by the City Council. Bond reserve funds, escrow funds and any funds approved by the City Council may be invested in securities with maturity limits of five years or an appropriate longer period. When possible, the bond indenture shall provide any specific restrictions or limitations on either the nature or the duration of the investments, and should be the governing document. 12.Safekeeping and Custody 1. Custody. To protect against potential losses by the collapse of individual securities dealersinterest payments, all securities owned by the City shall be held in safekeeping by a third- party bank trust department acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the City. duly executed custody agreement. In connection with the City’s annual independent audit, securities held in custody are audited to verify investment holdings. No outside broker/dealer or advisor may have access to the City funds, accounts or investments, and any transfer of funds to or through an outside broker/dealer must be approved by the City Council. 2. Delivery-Versus-Payment: All trades of marketable securities shall be cleared and settled on a standard delivery-versus-payment (“DVP”) basis to ensure that securities are deposited in the City’s safekeeping account prior to the release of funds. Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified, Space After: 6 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt 351 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 11 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right 14. Internal Control. Controls A system of internal controls has been established to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation by third parties, or unanticipated changes in financial markets. Internal controls deemed most important include control of collusion, separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping, custodial safekeeping, avoid of physical delivery of securities, clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members, written confirmation of transactions for investments and wire transfers and development of a wire transfer agreement with the lead bank and third-party custodian. Furthermore, an independent analysis by an external auditor shall be conducted annually to review internal control, account activity, and compliance with policies, procedures, and applicable laws. 15. Authorized Investments The investment of City funds shall be made in accordance with Sections 53600 et seq. of the California Government Code and in accordance with this Investment Policy. Permitted investments for the City shall include the following security types and related credit quality, maturity, and diversification constraints. 1. Municipal Bonds: Bonds issued by the City, the State of California, any other of the 49 states in addition to California, and any local agency within the state of California. This authorization includes the ability to invest in obligations payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or any local agency in the state of California or by a department, board, agency, or authority of a state or any local agency in the state of California. Credit Quality: Securities in this category shall have a minimum credit rating of A (or its equivalent) by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization at the time of purchase. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in this category. 2. U.S. Treasury Obligations: United States Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and certificates of indebtedness or those for which the faith and credit of the Unites States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest. Credit Quality: No minimum credit rating required for securities in this category. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: There are no dollar or percentage limits on securities in this category. 3. Federal Agency and Government Sponsored Enterprise Obligations: Federal agency or United States government-sponsored-enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States government-sponsored enterprises. Credit Quality: No minimum credit rating required for securities in this category. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: There are no dollar or percentage limits individual issuers in this category. 4. Commercial Paper: Commercial paper of "prime" quality and issued by a corporation organized and operating in the United States with total assets of at least $500 million. Credit Quality: Securities in this category must be rated “A-1” (or the equivalent) or higher by at least Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, 11 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Highlight Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline 352 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 12 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right one nationally recognized statistical rating organization. In addition, debt other than commercial paper (if any) issued by corporations in this category must be rated at least “A” (or the equivalent) or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Maximum Maturity: 270 days at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the City’s portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of commercial paper. For purposes of this issuer limitation, holdings of commercial paper and medium- term notes of a single issuer shall be limited to 10% of total portfolio assets. No more than 25% of the total portfolio may be invested cumulatively in commercial paper or asset-backed commercial paper as defined in Section 6, below. No more than 10% of the outstanding commercial paper of any single issuer may be purchased. 5. Asset-Backed Commercial Paper: Asset-Backed Commercial paper of “prime” quality and issued by an entity organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company. Credit Quality: Securities in this category must be rated “A-1” (or the equivalent) or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization. In addition, the issuing entity must have programwide credit enhancements including, but not limited to, overcollateralization, letters of credit, or a surety bond. Maximum Maturity: 270 days at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the City’s portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of commercial paper. For purposes of this issuer limitation, holdings of commercial paper and medium term notes of a single issuer shall be limited to 10% of total portfolio assets. No more than 25% of the total portfolio may be invested cumulatively in asset-backed commercial paper or commercial paper as defined in Section 5, above. No more than 10% of the outstanding commercial paper of any single issuer may be purchased. 6. Federally Insured Time Deposits: Non-negotiable certificates of deposit in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions. Credit Quality: Securities in this category shall be limited to the maximum amount covered by federal deposit insurance. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. No more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable certificates of deposit as set forth in subsections 6, 7, and 8 hereto. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. 7. Collateralized Time Deposits: Non-negotiable certificates of deposit in state or federally chartered banks, savings and loans, or credit unions in excess of federal deposit insurance limits which are fully collateralized in accordance with state law. Credit Quality: Securities in this category exceeding federal deposit insurance limits shall be collateralized in accordance with state law and be issued by institutions which have long-term debt obligations rated “A” (or the equivalent) or better and short-term debt obligations, if any, rated “A1” (or the equivalent) or better by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating agencies. 353 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 13 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. No more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable certificates of deposit as set forth in subsections 7, 8, and 9 hereto. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. 8. Certificate of Deposit Placement Services: Non-negotiable certificates of deposit at a commercial bank, savings bank, savings and loan association, or credit union that that uses a private sector entity to assist in the placement of deposits (e.g., CDARS). Credit Quality: The full amount of each deposit and the interest that may accrue on each such deposit shall at all times be insured by federal deposit insurance. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. No more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable certificates of deposit as set forth in subsections 7, 8, and 9 hereto. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. 9. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit: Negotiable certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state- chartered bank, a savings association or a federal association (as defined by Section 5102 of the Financial Code), a state or federal credit union, or a federally licensed or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Credit Quality: Securities in this category exceeding federal deposit insurance limits shall be issued by institutions which have long-term debt obligations rated “A” (or the equivalent) or better and short- term debt obligations, if any, rated “A-1” (or the equivalent) or better by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating agencies. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any combination of non-negotiable or negotiable certificates of deposit. 10. Repurchase Agreements: Repurchase agreements with specific terms and conditions may be transacted with banks and brokers. Such investments must be subject to a “Master Repurchase Agreement” substantially in the form developed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”). Credit Quality: Repurchase agreements shall be collateralized with U.S. Treasury and Federal Agency securities (as authorized herein) maintained at a value of at least 102% of the market value of the repurchase agreement. Securities used as collateral for repurchase agreements shall be delivered to the City’s custodian bank. Maximum Maturity: 1 year at the time of entry. Diversification: There are no dollar or percentage limits on securities in this category. 11. Medium-Term Corporate Notes: Medium-term corporate notes shall mean all corporate and depository institution debt securities issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the 354 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 14 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right United States. Credit Quality: Securities in this category shall be rated in the “A” category or better by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations at the time of purchase. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 10% of the total portfolio may be invested in the commercial paper and medium-term notes of a single issuer. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in this category. 12. Money Market Mutual Funds: Money market mutual funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1 et seq.) meeting the credit quality requirements set forth below or retaining an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years' experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000). Credit Quality: Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations. Maximum Maturity: No maturity restrictions apply. Diversification: No more than 20% of the portfolio may be invested in this category. 13. Mortgage Pass-Through and Asset-Backed Securities: Mortgage pass-through securities, collateralized mortgage obligations, mortgage-backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable pass-through certificate, or consumer receivable-backed bonds meeting the requirements set forth below. Credit Quality: Securities eligible for investment under this subdivision shall be rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by an NRSRO and have a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: With the exception of obligations issued by Federal Agencies and Government Sponsored Enterprises as specified in subsection 3 hereto, no more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 10% of the total portfolio may be invested in this category. 14. State of California Local Agency Investment Fund: The State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (“LAIF”) managed by the State of California Treasurer’s Office. Credit Quality: No credit rating requirements exist for LAIF. In addition, should LAIF invest in securities or instruments prohibited or not specifically authorized by the City’s Investment policy, the City is not prohibited from investing in LAIF provided sufficient information is available to allow the City to understand the risks associated with investing in LAIF. Maximum Maturity: No maturity restrictions apply. Diversification: The City may invest up to the maximum amount permitted by California state law. 15. Joint Powers Authority Pools: Shares of beneficial interest issued by a joint powers authority organized 355 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 15 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right pursuant to Section 6509.7 that invests in securities authorized by California Government Code Section 53601 subdivisions (a) to (r), inclusive, and that has retained an investment adviser that is registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission having not less than five years of experience investing in the securities and obligations authorized by California Government Code Section 53601 and having at least five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) under management. Credit Quality: There are no credit rating requirements for Joint Powers Authority Pools. Maximum Maturity: No maturity restrictions apply. Diversification: The City may invest up to the maximum amount permitted by California law. 16. Supranational Securities: United States dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter-American Development Bank eligible for purchase and sale within the United States. Credit Quality: Securities in this category shall be rated in the “AA” category or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organizations at the time of purchase. Maximum Maturity: Five years at the time of purchase as measured by the settlement date. Diversification: No more than 10% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in this category. Bond Proceeds: Proceeds arising from the issuance of debt shall be invested in accordance with the provisions of their governing bond documents and in a manner consistent with the City’s general investment philosophy as outlined in this Investment Policy. Bond proceeds are not eligible as a part of the City’s pooled funds. 3. Delivery vs. Payment. All trades where applicable executed by delivery vs. payment (DVP) to ensure that securities are deposited in an eligible financial institution prior to the release of funds. Securities are held by a third-party custodian as evidenced by safekeeping receipts. 13.Securities authorized by the bond indenture or similar investment documents that are not authorized by the City’s Investment Policy will be considered approved investments for bond proceeds when the bond indenture or similar authorizing document is approved by the City Council. Bond reserve funds, escrow funds and any funds approved by the City Council may be invested in securities with maturity limits of five years or an appropriate longer period. The bond indenture shall provide any specific restrictions or limitations on either the nature or the duration of the investments and should be the governing document. Note on Credit Quality Requirements: Should the credit rating of a security owned by the City be downgraded to a level below that required by this Investment Policy, the City will review the credit situation and determine if such securities should be sold or retained in the portfolio based upon its remaining term to maturity, the credit outlook for the issuer, and other relevant facts and circumstances. If the decision is made to retain a downgraded security, it will be closely monitored by the City and reported on quarterly to the Finance Committee. Note on Maximum Maturity Limitation: The five-year maturity limitation of this Investment Policy shall be measured as of the transaction settlement date. In accordance with section 53601 of the California Government Code, this five year maturity limitation may be extended if deemed prudent by the Investment Officer and provided that the City Council has approved such investment either specifically or as part of an investment Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt 356 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 16 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right program approved by the legislative body no less than three months prior to the investment. Note on Diversification Requirements: The diversification requirements set forth above relating to the maximum allowable percentage for a particular issuer or investment type shall apply at the time of purchase. Due to fluctuations in the aggregate invested balance, these maximum percentages may be exceeded from time to time and shall not require liquidation to realign the portfolio. However, consideration should be given to this matter when future purchases are made. Note on Other Requirements: Should any investment fall out of compliance with any other guidelines of this policy after its purchase, the City will review the situation and determine if such securities should be sold or retained in the portfolio based upon its remaining term to maturity, the credit outlook for the issuer, and other relevant facts and circumstances. If the decision is made to retain such a security, it will be closely monitored by the City and reported on quarterly to the Finance Committee. 16. Prohibited Investments and Practices Provided below are certain prohibited investments and investment practices intended to help safeguard invested balances. 1. In accordance with California Government Code section 53601.6, investments in inverse floaters, range notes, mortgage-derived interest-only strips are prohibited. In addition the purchased of any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity is also prohibited except for the purchase securities issued or backed by the United States government in the event of, and for the duration of, a period of negative market interest rates 2. Investments not specifically described herein are prohibited. 3. The purchase or sale of securities on margin is prohibited. 4. The purchase of securities denominated in foreign currencies is prohibited. 5. The purchase or sale of securities done solely to speculate on the direction of future interest rates is prohibited. Any investment currently held that does not meet the guidelines of this policy shall be exempted from the requirements of this policy. At maturity or liquidation, any such monies shall be reinvested only as provided for in this policy. 17. Managing Portfolio and Investment Risks Safety of principal is the foremost investment objective of the City. Each investment transaction shall seek to ensure that capital losses are avoided, whether from securities default, broker/dealer default, or erosion of market value. The overall program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. In a diversified portfolio, it must be recognized that occasional measured losses are inevitable and must be considered within the context of the overall portfolio’s investment return, provided that adequate diversification has been implemented. The City shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating credit risk and market risk as set forth below. Mitigating Credit Risk: Credit risk is the risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all of its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. The City shall seek to mitigate credit risk by adopting the following strategies: 1. Adhering to the diversification requirements set forth in Section XIII of this policy which limit the amount 357 Item 13. City of Beaumont Statement of Investment Policy Page | 17 Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right of the total portfolio that may be invested in any single issuer. 2. Utilizing an active management strategy that allows for the sale of securities prior to their scheduled maturity dates for purposes of improving the portfolio’s credit quality, liquidity, yield, or return profile in response to changing market conditions or City circumstances. 3. Reviewing downgraded securities. Should the credit rating of a security owned by the City be downgraded to a level below that required by this Investment Policy, the City will review the credit situation and determine if such securities should be sold or retained in the portfolio based upon its remaining term to maturity, the credit outlook for the issuer, and other relevant facts and circumstances. 4. Monitoring any downgraded securities. If the decision is made to retain a downgraded security, it will be closely monitored by the City and reported on quarterly to the Investment Committee. Mitigating Interest Rate Risk: Market risk is the risk that the value of a security or portfolio will fluctuate due to changes in the general level of interest rates. The City understands that while longer-term portfolios have the potential to generate higher investment returns over time, they also exhibit a greater volatility of return. In addition, the City further recognizes certain types of securities, including variable rate securities, securities with principal paydowns prior to maturity, and securities with embedded call options, will affect the market risk characteristics of the portfolio differently. Accordingly, the City will mitigate market risk by adopting the following strategies: 1. The City shall maintain sufficient balances in short-term investments to provide liquidity for expected and contingent expenditures thereby limiting the need to sell securities prior to maturity. Liquidity funds shall be maintained in short-term investments such as LAIF, deposit accounts collateralized in accordance with state law, and money market funds and instruments with minimal market risk. 2. Longer-term securities shall be scheduled to mature in advance of known expenditure requirements whenever possible. 3. The City shall avoid the purchase of securities for the sole purpose of short-term speculation. 4. The maximum stated final maturity of any security in the portfolio shall be five years, except as otherwise stated in this Investment Policy. 5. The maximum percentage of callable securities (excluding securities with “make whole” call provisions) held in the portfolio shall be 20%. 6. The weighted average duration of the actively managed portion of the portfolio, i.e. non liquidity funds, shall be maintained in a range of +/- 25% the duration of a market benchmark as selected by the City based upon the City’s risk tolerances and investment objectives. 18. Performance Standards & Evaluation Consistent with the City’s circumstances and risk tolerances, the investment performance objective for the managed portfolio shall be to earn a total rate of return over market cycles that is approximately equal to the return on the City’s chosen benchmark index. 358 Item 13. Page | 18 18 Formatted: Tab stops: 6.14", Left + Not at 5.89" Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right 19. Reporting and Disclosure In accordance with Government Code Section 53646(8)(1), the City Treasurer shall submit to the Finance Committee a quarterly report that will then be taken to the City Council. The report shall include a complete description of the portfolio, the type of investments, the issuers, maturity dates, par values and the current market values of each component of the portfolio, including funds managed for the City of Beaumont by third party contract managers. The report will also include the source of the portfolio valuation. As specified in Government Code 53646(e), if all funds are placed in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), FDIC insured accounts and/or county investment pool, the foregoing report elements may be replaced by copies of the latest statements from such institutions. The report must also include a certification that (1) all investment actions executed since the last report have been in full compliance with the investment policy, and, (2) the City of Beaumont will meet its expenditures obligations within the cash flow needs. 14.Investment 20. Policy Review and Adoption and Review The City’s independent certified public accountants annually review and make recommendations regarding the City’s investment policies to the City Manager and City Council.City of Beaumont's investment policy shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council on, at minimum, an annual basis. This investment policy shall be reviewed at least annually to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and return as well as its relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. In accordance with Senate Bill 564 and Senate Bill 866, effective January 1, 1996, the City staff brings forward each year the City’s Investment Policy for review by the City Council.Mee Any amendments to the policy shall be forwarded to City Council for approval. 15.Glossary Active investment management. An investment management strategy that involves the active trading of securities in an attempt to earn above-average returns on a portfolio. Active investment management requires frequent monitoring of financial markets with the investor taking positions on key market variables in an attempt to “beat” the market. Arbitrage. The simultaneous purchase and sale of similar assets in order to profit from a price difference between the two assets, such as stocks, bonds, commodities, and currencies. In public finance, the term is commonly used to refer to the investment of bond proceeds in taxable instruments to increase investment income. Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.19", Space After: 6 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: -0.19", Space After: 6 ptFormatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Underline Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.19", Space After: 6 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left: -0.19", Space After: 65 pt, Tab stops: -1", Left Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt 359 Item 13. Page | 19 19 Formatted: Tab stops: 6.14", Left + Not at 5.89" Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right Arbitrage rebate. The federal government has imposed restrictions that prohibit an issuer from retaining arbitrage profits when investing bond proceeds at a yield that exceeds the yield on the bonds. The profit is rebated to the federal government. Bankers’ acceptance (BA). A draft or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust company. The accepting institution guarantees payment of the bill, as well as the issuer. Benchmark. A benchmark is a composite of securities with specific characteristics such as credit, asset, and maturity. Investors can use a benchmark as a measure to compare the performance of their own portfolio. Benchmarking. Benchmarking, also known as indexing, is a passive investment management approach in which an investor generally creates a portfolio that strives to achieve a return and risk profile similar to a benchmark or an index. Certificate of deposit (CD). A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a Certificate. Large-denomination CD’s are typically negotiable. Collateral. Underlying securities that are pledged to secure deposits of public funds. Also used in conjunction with repurchase agreements to protect the entity from default by the counterparty. Coupon. (a.) The annual rate of interest that a bond’s issuer promises to pay the bondholder on the bond’s face value. (b) A certificate attached to a bond evidencing interest due on a payment date. Custody. The service of an organization, usually a financial institution, of holding (and reporting) a customer’s securities for safekeeping. The financial institution is known as the custodian. Delivery-versus-payment (DVP). A settlement procedure where payment for securities purchase is made simultaneously with the transfer of the purchased securities. The same procedure applies for a securities sale; the securities are transferred as payment is made. This procedure ensures that funds are released upon receipt of securities, thus protecting the government’s assets. Derivative instrument. A security that derives its value from an underlying asset, group of assets, reference rate, or index value. Some derivative instruments can be highly volatile and result in a loss of principal in changing interest rate environments. Diversification. Dividing investment funds among a variety of securities offering different risk characteristics and independent returns to reduce risk in a portfolio. Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The criteria normally used by independent auditors to assess whether financial statements are “fairly presented.” Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The standard- 360 Item 13. Page | 20 20 Formatted: Tab stops: 6.14", Left + Not at 5.89" Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right setting body responsible for setting GAAP for state and local governments since 1984. Leverage. Using borrowed funds for investment purposes or an attempt to increase the rate of return on a investment by buying securities on margin. This practice can be risky if interest rates rise or if investment yields are lower than expected. Liquidity. A liquid asset is one that can be converted easily and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. In the money market, a security is said to be liquid if the spread between bid and asked price is narrow and reasonable size can be done at those quotes. Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP): The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are placed in the custody of the State Treasurer for investment and reinvestment. Marking-to-market. The practice of valuing a security or portfolio according to its market value, rather than its cost or book value. Market value. The price at which a security is trading and could presumably be purchased or sold. Maturity. The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable. Passive investment management. An investment strategy where securities are bought with the intention of holding them to maturity or to mimic a benchmark or an index with the goal of achieving an average market rate of return. Portfolio. Collection of securities held by an investor. Primary dealer. A primary dealer is a bank or securities broker- dealer that trades in the U.S. government securities with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY). It is through the FRBNY Open Market Desk that the Federal Reserve System (“Fed”) implements monetary policy. A firm may become a primary dealer by meeting certain requirements, such as minimum capital adequacy standards. Some governments only conduct investment transactions with primary dealers because of these capital standards. Prudent person rule. An investment standard. In some states the law requires that a fiduciary, such as a trustee, may invest money only in a list of securities selected by the custody state-the so-called legal list. In other states the trustee may invest in a security If it is one which would be bought by a prudent person of discretion and intelligence who is seeking a reasonable income and preservation of capital. Rate of return. The amount of income received from an investment, expressed as a percentage. A market rate of return is the yield that an investor can expect to receive in the current interest-rate environment utilizing a buy-and-hold to maturity investment strategy. Regional dealer. Regional dealers are also referred to as “secondary” or “non-primary” dealers. These are all the firms 361 Item 13. Page | 21 21 Formatted: Tab stops: 6.14", Left + Not at 5.89" Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right that are not designated as “primary”. These firms do not trade directly with the FRBNY. Many firms, ranging in size, capitalization, as well as product focus, fall in this category. Repurchase agreement (repo). A transaction in which a holder of securities sells those securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase those securities for a fixed price at an agreed-upon date. A master repurchase agreement is a written contract governing all future transactions between the parties and seeks to establish each party’s rights in the transactions. Reverse repurchase agreement. The opposite of a repurchase agreement. The investor owns the securities or collateral and a bank or dealer temporarily exchanges cash for the collateral for a specified period of time at an agreed-upon interest rate. Safekeeping. A procedure where securities are held by a third party acting as custodian for a fee. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Securities and Exchange Commission is a U.S. government agency having primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry. SEC Rule 15©3-1. See Uniform Net Capital Rule. Securities lending. Similar to a reverse repurchase transaction. Financial institutions offer to lend securities owned by institutional clients to brokers in exchange for collateral (typically cash), which is reinvested at a higher rate. The resulting proceeds are split between the client and the lending agent (financial institution). STRIPS. Securities created by separating the principal and interest portions of bonds, such as 30-year Treasuries, or pools of mortgage-backed securities. Treasury Bills. A non-interest bearing discounted security issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the national debt. Most bills are issued to mature in three months, six months, or one year. Treasury Bonds. Long-term coupon-bearing discount security issued as direct obligations of the U.S. Government and having initial maturities from two to 10 years. Total return. Interest income plus capital gains (or minus losses) on an investment. Uniform net capital rule. Securities and Exchange Commission requirement that member firms as well as nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin loans and commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among members of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash. Yield. The percentage return on an investment; also called return. There are several yield calculations that can be made, such as yield to maturity, the promised return assuming all interest and principal payments are made and reinvested at the 362 Item 13. Page | 22 22 Formatted: Tab stops: 6.14", Left + Not at 5.89" Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right same rate taking into account price appreciation (if priced below par) or depreciation (if priced above par), or yield to call, the yield an investor will receive if the security is called prior to maturity. EXHIBIT A – ALLOWABLE INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS PER STATE GOVERNMENT CODE (AS OF JANUARY 1, 2020) APPLICABLE TO ALL LOCAL AGENCIES Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: -0.19", First line: 0", Tab stops: -1", Left 363 Item 13. Page | 23 23 Formatted: Tab stops: 6.14", Left + Not at 5.89" Formatted: Font: Calibri Formatted: Right Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Font color: Auto 364 Item 13. 365 Item 14. 366 Item 14. 367 Item 14. 368 Item 14. 369 Item 14. 370 Item 14. 371 Item 14. 372 Item 14. 373 Item 14. 374 Item 14. 375 Item 14. 376 Item 14. 377 Item 14. 378 Item 14. 379 Item 14. Pending Litigation Against the City (does not include litigation initiated by the City) 1. Christian Lee v. City of Beaumont, Case No. RIC 2003005 (Pre-Trial) 2. Charles Peters dba Pioneer Mobile Village v. City of Beaumont et. al., Case No. RIC 1707116 (Appeal) 3. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. City of Beaumont, Case no. CVRI2000635 (Pleading) To: City Council From: John O. Pinkney, City Attorney Date: April 13, 2021 Re: List of Pending Litigation Against City of Beaumont 380 Item 15.