Beaumont City Council
January 18, 2022

Principal 401,512 401,512 398,560 2,952 Total Expenditures 33,018,793 36,615,671 35,427,768 1,187,903

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES (7,929,012) (8,240,890) (3,785,403) 4,455,487 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Proceeds from sale of property 15,000 15,000 24,392 9,392 Transfers in 7,914,012 10,515,471 10,277,295 (238,176) Transfers (out) - (6,955,545) (7,187,224) (231,679) Total other financing sources 7,929,012 3,574,926 3,114,463 (460,463) Net change in fund balance -$ (4,665,964)$ (670,940) 3,995,024$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 24,065,174
End of year 23,394,234$
Budgeted Amounts

312
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
Community Facilities Districts (CFD) Special Revenue Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

94 Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Intergovernmental -$ -$ -$ -$ Assessments levied 6,006,463 6,006,463 5,970,996 (35,467) Use of money and property 58,351 58,351 21,955 (36,396) Other revenue - - 576 576 Total revenues 6,064,814 6,064,814 5,993,527 (71,287) EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Community development 342,055 342,055 212,607 129,448 Total Expenditures 342,055 342,055 212,607 129,448

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 5,722,759 5,722,759 5,780,920 58,161 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers (out) (6,122,026) (12,692,012) (12,633,612) 58,400 Total other financing sources (uses)(6,122,026) (12,692,012) (12,633,612) 58,400 Net change in fund balance (399,267)$ (6,969,253)$ (6,852,692) 116,561$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 9,392,470
End of year 2,539,778$
Budgeted Amounts

313
Item 8.

This page intentionally left blank.
314
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
Development Impact Fees (DIF) Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

95 Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

License and permits 2,707,643$ 2,707,643$ 3,441,595$ 733,952$ Use of money and property 191,947 191,947 125,332 (66,615) Total revenues 2,899,590 2,899,590 3,566,927 667,337

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 2,899,590 2,899,590 3,566,927 667,337 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in - - 307,133 307,133 Transfers (out) (6,295,000) (6,295,000) (528,908) 5,766,092 Total other financing sources (uses)(6,295,000) (6,295,000) (221,775) 6,073,225 Net change in fund balance (3,395,410)$ (3,395,410)$ 3,345,152 6,740,562$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year -
End of year 3,345,152$
Budgeted Amounts

315
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Schedule of Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios Last Ten Years
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

96 Miscellaneous Plan
Employer's
Proportionate
Share of the
Collective Net Pension's Plans
Employer's Employer's Pension Liability Fiduciary Net
Proportion of Proportion as a Percentage Position as a
the Collective Share of the of the Employer's Percentage of Net Pension Collective Net Employer's Covered the Total Liability Pension Liability Covered Payroll Payroll Pension Liability 6/30/2014 0.65770% 4,092,766$ 5,932,314$ 68.99% 78.28% 6/30/2015 0.16067% 4,407,926 5,411,229 81.46% 78.45% 6/30/2016 0.16750% 5,818,570 4,722,459 123.21% 73.82% 6/30/2017 0.17352% 6,840,289 4,864,133 140.63% 72.89% 6/30/2018 0.17792% 6,705,339 5,052,100 132.72% 74.82% 6/30/2019 0.18574% 7,438,139 5,203,663 142.94% 78.16% 6/30/2020 0.19475% 8,214,777 5,145,199 159.66% 77.75% Measurement
Date
* Measurement date 6/30/2014 (fiscal year 2015) was the first year of implementation. 316
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Schedule of Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios (Continued)
Last Ten Years
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

97 Safety Plan
Employer's
Proportionate
Share of the
Collective Net Pension's Plans
Employer's Employer's Pension Liability Fiduciary Net
Proportion of Proportion as a Percentage Position as a
the Collective Share of the of the Employer's Percentage of Net Pension Collective Net Employer's Covered the Total Liability Pension Liability Covered Payroll Payroll Pension Liability 6/30/2014 0.11126% 6,923,153$ 4,232,207$ 163.58% 76.98% 6/30/2015 0.17862% 7,359,819 4,134,515 178.01% 77.95% 6/30/2016 0.17381% 9,002,206 3,613,896 249.10% 74.79% 6/30/2017 0.17034% 10,177,973 3,722,313 273.43% 73.93% 6/30/2018 0.17176% 10,078,078 3,862,606 260.91% 75.38% 6/30/2019 0.17251% 10,769,243 3,978,484 270.69% 75.68% 6/30/2020 0.17600% 11,725,412 3,676,631 318.92% 75.61% Measurement
Date
* Measurement date 6/30/2014 (fiscal year 2015) was the first year of implementation. 317
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Schedule of Pension Plan Contributions
Last Ten Years
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

98 Miscellaneous Plan
Contribution in
Relation to the Contributions as
Contractually Contractually Contribution a Percentage of Determined Determined Deficiency Employer's Covered
Contributions Contributions
1 (Excess) Covered Payroll Payroll
2013-14 996,243$ (996,243)$ -$ 5,932,314$ 16.79% 2014-15 962,897 (962,897) - 5,411,229 17.79% 2015-16 732,914 (732,914) - 4,722,459 15.52% 2016-17 816,082 (816,082) - 4,864,133 16.78% 2017-18 956,792 (956,792) - 5,052,100 18.94% 2018-19 1,156,583 (1,156,583) - 5,203,663 22.23% 2019-20 1,390,388 (1,390,388) - 5,145,199 27.02% 2020-21 1,595,185 (1,595,185) - 8,181,668 19.50% * Measurement date 6/30/2014 (fiscal year 2015) was the first year of implementation.

Notes to Schedule:

Change in Benefit Terms: None
1Employers are assumed to make contributions equal to the actuarially determined contributions.

However, some employers may choose to make additional contributions towards their unfunded liability.

Employer contributions for such plans exceed the actuarially determined contributions.

Fiscal Year
Change in Assumptions: For 2020, the Plan adopted a new amortization policy effective with the 2019 actuarial valuation. The new amortization policy shortens the period over which actuarial gains and losses are amortized from 30 years to 20 years with the payments computed as a level dollar amount.

In addition, the new policy does not utilize a five-year ramp-up and ramp-down on UAL bases attributable to assumption changes and non-investment gains/losses. The new policy also does not utilize a five- year ramp-down on investment gains/losses. These changes apply only to new UAL bases established on or after June 30, 2019. There were no changes in assumptions in 2019. In 2018, demographic assumptions and inflation rate were changed in accordance to the CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions December 2017. There were no changes in the discount rate in 2019.

In 2017, the accounting discount rate was reduced from 7.65 percent to 7.15 percent. In 2016, there were no changes in the discount rate. In 2015, amounts reported reflect an adjustment of the discount rate from 7.5 percent (net of administrative expense) to 7.65 percent (without a reduction for pension plan administrative expense). In 2014, amounts reported were based on the 7.5 percent discount rate. 318
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Schedule of Pension Plan Contributions (Continued)
Last Ten Years
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

99 Safety Plan
Contribution in
Relation to the Contributions as
Contractually Contractually Contribution a Percentage of Determined Determined Deficiency Employer's Covered
Contributions Contributions
1 (Excess) Covered Payroll Payroll
2013-14 1,421,157$ (1,421,157)$ -$ 4,232,207$ 33.58% 2014-15 1,356,940 (1,356,940) - 4,134,515 32.82% 2015-16 1,181,118 (1,181,118) - 3,613,896 32.68% 2016-17 1,281,860 (1,281,860) - 3,722,313 34.44% 2017-18 1,402,549 (1,402,549) - 3,862,606 36.31% 2018-19 1,645,661 (1,645,661) - 3,978,484 41.36% 2019-20 1,838,564 (1,838,564) - 3,676,631 50.01% 2020-21 1,751,746 (1,751,746) - 4,334,892 40.41% * Measurement date 6/30/2014 (fiscal year 2015) was the first year of implementation.

Notes to Schedule:

Change in Benefit Terms: None
1Employers are assumed to make contributions equal to the actuarially determined contributions.

However, some employers may choose to make additional contributions towards their unfunded liability. Employer contributions for such plans exceed the actuarially determined contributions.

Fiscal Year
Change in Assumptions: For 2020, the Plan adopted a new amortization policy effective with the 2019 actuarial valuation. The new amortization policy shortens the period over which actuarial gains and losses are amortized from 30 years to 20 years with the payments computed as a level dollar amount. In addition, the new policy does not utilize a five-year ramp-up and ramp-down on UAL bases attributable to assumption changes and non-investment gains/losses. The new policy also does not utilize a five-year ramp-down on investment gains/losses. These changes apply only to new UAL bases established on or after June 30, 2019. There were no changes in assumptions in 2019. In 2018, demographic assumptions and inflation rate were changed in accordance to the CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions December 2017. There were no changes in the discount rate in 2019. In 2017, the accounting discount rate was reduced from 7.65 percent to 7.15 percent. In 2016, there were no changes in the discount rate. In 2015, amounts reported reflect an adjustment of the discount rate from 7.5 percent (net of administrative expense) to 7.65 percent (without a reduction for pension plan administrative expense). In 2014, amounts reported were based on the 7.5 percent discount rate.

319
Item 8.

This page intentionally left blank.
320
Item 8.

Supplementary Information

321
Item 8.

Major Governmental Funds
Budgetary Comparison Schedule

322
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Major Governmental Fund Budgetary Comparison Schedule
Community Facilities District (CFD) - Capital Projects Fund For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

100
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Assessments levied 443,907$ 443,907$ 680,109$ 236,202$ Use of money and property 266,094 266,094 51,730 (214,364) Total revenues 710,001 710,001 731,839 21,838 EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public works 3,000 3,000 172,938 (169,938)
Total Expenditures 3,000 3,000 172,938 (169,938)

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 707,001 707,001 558,901 (148,100) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers (out) (1,500,000) (3,850,000) (221,008) 3,628,992 Total other financing sources (1,500,000) (3,850,000) (221,008) 3,628,992 Net change in fund balance (792,999)$ (3,142,999)$ 337,893 3,480,892$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 13,336,436
End of year 13,674,329$
Budgeted Amounts
323
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Major Governmental Fund Budgetary Comparison Schedule
General Capital Projects - Capital Projects Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

101
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Intergovernmental -$ -$ 953,669$ 953,669$ Use of money and property - - 7,929 7,929 Other revenues - - 6,041,922 6,041,922 Total revenues - - 7,003,520 7,003,520 EXPENDITURES:

Capital outlay 9,325,000 19,725,000 4,260,351 15,464,649 Total Expenditures 9,325,000 19,725,000 4,260,351 15,464,649

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES (9,325,000) (19,725,000) 2,743,169 22,468,169 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in 9,325,000 22,125,000 7,578,005 (14,546,995) Total other financing sources 9,325,000 22,125,000 7,578,005 (14,546,995) Net change in fund balance -$ 2,400,000$ 10,321,174 7,921,174$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 310,298
End of year 10,631,472$
Budgeted Amounts

324
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Major Governmental Fund Budgetary Comparison Schedule
Beaumont Financing Authority – Debt Service Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

102
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Use of money and property 6,976,579$ 6,976,579$ 4,292,477$ (2,684,102)$ Total revenues 6,976,579 6,976,579 4,292,477 (2,684,102) EXPENDITURES:

Debt service:

Principal 3,090,000 3,090,000 3,540,000 (450,000) Payment to refunded bond escrow agent - 2,213,934 3,563,485 (1,349,551) Interest and fiscal charges 3,730,099 3,730,099 4,820,703 (1,090,604) Total Expenditures 6,820,099 9,034,033 11,924,188 (2,890,155)

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 156,480 (2,057,454) (7,631,711) (5,574,257) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Refunding bonds issued - 35,875,000 35,875,000 - Payment to refunded bond escrow agent - (34,829,600) (34,829,600) - Total other financing sources - 1,045,400 1,045,400 - Net change in fund balance 156,480$ (1,012,054)$ (6,586,311) (5,574,257)$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 92,767,025
End of year 86,180,714$
Budgeted Amounts

325
Item 8.

Non-Major Governmental Funds
Combining Schedules
326
Item 8.

This page intentionally left blank.
327
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Combining Balance Sheet
Non-Major Governmental Funds
June 30, 2021

103
Special Revenue Funds
Road Maintenance
State Gas and Rehabilitation Measure A AB 2766
Tax Fund Act Fund Fund Fund
ASSETS
Cash and investments 159,101$ 1,344,648$ 2,188,730$ 604,839$ Receivables:

Accounts - - - - Due from other governments - 93,022 380,071 17,091 Total assets 159,101$ 1,437,670$ 2,568,801$ 621,930$

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities -$ -$ -$ -$ Unearned revenue - - - - Total liabilities - - - - Fund Balances (deficit):

Restricted 159,101 1,437,670 2,568,801 621,930 Unassigned - - - - Total fund balances 159,101 1,437,670 2,568,801 621,930 Total liabilities and fund balances 159,101$ 1,437,670$ 2,568,801$ 621,930$ 328
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Combining Balance Sheet (Continued)
Non-Major Governmental Funds
June 30, 2021

104
Special Revenue Funds
Other Federal COPS State
PEG Fees Grants Grant Asset Seizure
Fund Fund Fund Fund
ASSETS
Cash and investments 17,578$ 1,621,204$ 344,213$ 338,798$ Receivables:

Accounts 6,097 - - - Due from other governments - - - - Total assets 23,675$ 1,621,204$ 344,213$ 338,798$

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities -$ 25,834$ 30,872$ -$ Unearned revenue - 1,680,367 - 43,784 Total liabilities - 1,706,201 30,872 43,784 Fund Balances (deficit):

Restricted 23,675 - 313,341 295,014 Unassigned - (84,997) - - Total fund balances 23,675 (84,997) 313,341 295,014 Total liabilities and fund balances 23,675$ 1,621,204$ 344,213$ 338,798$ (Continued)
329
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Combining Balance Sheet (Continued)
Non-Major Governmental Funds
June 30, 2021

105
Federal Other Total Other
Asset Seizure Special Revenue Governmental
Fund Fund Funds
ASSETS
Cash and investments 6,030$ 251,662$ 6,876,803$ Receivables:

Accounts - - 6,097 Due from other governments - - 490,184 Total assets 6,030$ 251,662$ 7,373,084$

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES
Liabilities:

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities -$ 11,418$ 68,124$ Unearned revenue - 56,437 1,780,588 Total liabilities - 67,855 1,848,712 Fund Balances (deficit):

Restricted 6,030 183,807 5,609,369 Unassigned - - (84,997) Total fund balances 6,030 183,807 5,524,372 Total liabilities and fund balances 6,030$ 251,662$ 7,373,084$ Special Revenue Funds

330
Item 8.

This page intentionally left blank.
331
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Non-Major Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

106
Special Revenue Funds
Road Maintenance
State Gas and Rehabilitation Measure A AB 2766
Tax Fund Act Fund Fund Fund
REVENUES:

Taxes -$ -$ 1,317,492$ -$ Intergovernmental 1,131,598 941,053 - 205,861 License and permits - - - - Use of money and property 3,719 2,148 4,262 1,864 Other revenues - - - - Total revenues 1,135,317 943,201 1,321,754 207,725 EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public safety - - - 60,636 Community development - - - - Community services - - - - Total expenditures - - - 60,636

REVENUES OVER
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 1,135,317 943,201 1,321,754 147,089 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in - 254,313 212,731 - Transfers (out) (976,216) (311,664) (314,063) - Total other financing sources (uses)(976,216) (57,351) (101,332) - Net changes in fund balances 159,101 885,850 1,220,422 147,089 FUND BALANCES (DEFICIT):

Beginning of year - 551,820 1,348,379 474,841 End of year 159,101$ 1,437,670$ 2,568,801$ 621,930$ 332
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued)
Non-Major Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

107
Special Revenue Funds
Other Federal COPS State
PEG Fees Grants Grant Asset Seizure
Fund Fund Fund Fund
REVENUES:

Taxes -$ -$ -$ -$ Intergovernmental - 2,667,071 155,139 5,092 License and permits 26,629 - - - Use of money and property 67 - 1,171 882 Other revenues - - - - Total revenues 26,696 2,667,071 156,310 5,974 EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public safety - - 203,706 691 Community development - 133,338 - - Community services 24,503 - - 1,208 Total expenditures 24,503 133,338 203,706 1,899

REVENUES OVER
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 2,193 2,533,733 (47,396) 4,075 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in - - - - Transfers (out) - (2,618,730) (7,076) - Total other financing sources (uses)- (2,618,730) (7,076) - Net changes in fund balances 2,193 (84,997) (54,472) 4,075 FUND BALANCES (DEFICIT):

Beginning of year 21,482 - 367,813 290,939 End of year 23,675$ (84,997)$ 313,341$ 295,014$ (Continued)
333
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances (Continued)
Non-Major Governmental Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

108
Federal Other Total Other
Asset Seizure Special Revenue Governmental
Fund Fund Funds
REVENUES:

Taxes -$ -$ 1,317,492$ Intergovernmental - - 5,105,814 License and permits - 6,793 33,422 Use of money and property 2 879 14,994 Other revenues - 57,857 57,857 Total revenues 2 65,529 6,529,579 EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public safety - - 265,033 Community development - 44,378 177,716 Community services - - 25,711 Total expenditures - 44,378 468,460

REVENUES OVER
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 2 21,151 6,061,119 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in - - 467,044 Transfers (out) - (517) (4,228,266) Total other financing sources (uses)- (517) (3,761,222) Net changes in fund balances 2 20,634 2,299,897 FUND BALANCES (DEFICIT):

Beginning of year 6,028 163,173 3,224,475 End of year 6,030$ 183,807 5,524,372$ Special Revenue Funds

334
Item 8.

This page intentionally left blank
335
Item 8.

Non-Major Governmental
Budgetary Comparison Schedules
336
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
State Gas Tax Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

109
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Intergovernmental 971,341$ 971,341$ 1,131,598$ 160,257$ Use of money and property 4,875 4,875 3,719 (1,156) Total revenues 976,216 976,216 1,135,317 159,101

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 976,216 976,216 1,135,317 159,101 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers (out) (976,216) (976,216) (976,216) - Total other financing sources (976,216) (976,216) (976,216) - Net change in fund balance -$ -$ 159,101 159,101$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year -
End of year 159,101$
Budgeted Amounts

337
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Act Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

110
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Intergovernmental 731,313$ 731,313$ 941,053$ 209,740$ Use of money and property 34,931 34,931 2,148 (32,783) Total revenues 766,244 766,244 943,201 176,957

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 766,244 766,244 943,201 176,957 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in - - 254,313 254,313 Transfers (out) (730,000) (730,000) (311,664) 418,336 Total other financing sources (730,000) (730,000) (57,351) 672,649 Net change in fund balance 36,244$ 36,244$ 885,850 849,606$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 551,820
End of year 1,437,670$
Budgeted Amounts

338
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
Measure A Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

111
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Taxes 723,205$ 723,205$ 1,317,492$ 594,287$ Use of money and property 11,869 11,869 4,262 (7,607) Total revenues 735,074 735,074 1,321,754 586,680

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 735,074 735,074 1,321,754 586,680 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers in - - 212,731 212,731 Transfers (out) (800,000) (800,000) (314,063) 485,937 Total other financing sources (800,000) (800,000) (101,332) 698,668 Net change in fund balance (64,926)$ (64,926)$ 1,220,422 1,285,348$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 1,348,379
End of year 2,568,801$
Budgeted Amounts

339
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
AB 2766 Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

112
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Intergovernmental 62,500$ 62,500$ 205,861$ 143,361$ Use of money and property 3,020 3,020 1,864 (1,156) Total revenues 65,520 65,520 207,725 142,205 EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public safety - 80,667 60,636 20,031 Total Expenditures - 80,667 60,636 20,031

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 65,520 (15,147) 147,089 162,236 Net change in fund balance 65,520$ (15,147)$ 147,089 162,236$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 474,841
End of year 621,930$
Budgeted Amounts

340
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
PEG Fees Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

113
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

License and permits 25,800$ 25,800$ 26,629$ 829$ Use of money and property 2,007 2,007 67 (1,940) Total revenues 27,807 27,807 26,696 (1,111) EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Community services - 24,800 24,503 297 Total Expenditures - 24,800 24,503 297

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 27,807 3,007 2,193 (814) Net change in fund balance 27,807$ 3,007$ 2,193 (814)$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 21,482
End of year 23,675$
Budgeted Amounts

341
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
Other Federal Grants Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

114
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Intergovernmental 440,000$ 4,728,728$ 2,667,071$ (2,061,657)$ Total revenues 440,000 4,728,728 2,667,071 (2,061,657) EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Community development 440,000 440,000 133,338 306,662 Total Expenditures 440,000 440,000 133,338 306,662

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES - 4,288,728 2,533,733 (1,754,995) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers (out) - (2,755,572) (2,618,730) 136,842 Total other financing sources - (2,755,572) (2,618,730) 136,842 Net change in fund balance -$ 1,533,156$ (84,997) (1,618,153)$ FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT):

Beginning of year -
End of year (84,997)$
Budgeted Amounts

342
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
COPS Grant Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

115
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Intergovernmental 100,000$ 100,000$ 155,139$ 55,139$ Use of money and property 2,609 2,609 1,171 (1,438) Total revenues 102,609 102,609 156,310 53,701 EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public safety 25,167 183,467 203,706 (20,239) Total Expenditures 25,167 183,467 203,706 (20,239)

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 77,442 (80,858) (47,396) 33,462 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES):

Transfers (out) (65,770) (65,770) (7,076) 58,694 Total other financing sources (65,770) (65,770) (7,076) 58,694 Net change in fund balance 11,672$ (146,628)$ (54,472) 92,156$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 367,813
End of year 313,341$
Budgeted Amounts

343
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
State Asset Seizure Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

116
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Intergovernmental 1,347$ 1,347$ 5,092$ 3,745$ Use of money and property 4,822 4,822 882 (3,940) Total revenues 6,169 6,169 5,974 (195) EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Public safety - - 691 (691) Community services - - 1,208 (1,208) Total Expenditures - - 1,899 (1,899)

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES 6,169 6,169 4,075 (2,094) Net change in fund balance 6,169$ 6,169$ 4,075 (2,094)$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 290,939
End of year 295,014$
Budgeted Amounts

344
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Budgetary Comparison Schedule
Other Special Revenue Fund
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

117
Actual Variance with
Original Final Amounts Final Budget
REVENUES:

Intergovernmental 12,000$ 12,000$ -$ (12,000)$ License and permits 3,918 3,918 6,793 2,875 Use of money and property - - 879 879 Other revenues 18,628 18,628 57,857 39,229 Total revenues 34,546 34,546 65,529 30,983 EXPENDITURES:

Current:

Community development 51,630 51,630 44,378 7,252 Total Expenditures 51,630 51,630 44,378 7,252

REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
EXPENDITURES (17,084) (17,084) 21,151 38,235 Transfers (out) - - (517) (517) Total other financing sources - - (517) (517) Net change in fund balance (17,084)$ (17,084)$ 20,634 37,718$ FUND BALANCE:

Beginning of year 163,173
End of year 183,807$
Budgeted Amounts

345
Item 8.

Fiduciary Funds
346
Item 8.

This page intentionally left blank.
347
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position
Custodial Funds
June 30, 2021

118
Community
Facilities Evidence
District Collection Fund Total
ASSETS
Cash and investments 18,458,674$ 45,480$ 18,504,154$ Cash and investments with fiscal agent 25,115,350 - 25,115,350 Due from other governments 348,319 - 348,319 Total assets 43,922,343 45,480 43,967,823

LIABILITIES
Interest payable 4,184,331 - 4,184,331 Unearned revenue - 11,736 11,736 Deposits payable - 31,882 31,882 Due to other governments 110,797,432 - 110,797,432 Due to bondholders 144,230,825 - 144,230,825 Total liabilities 259,212,588 43,618 259,256,206 Net Position (deficit)
Restricted for:

Individuals, organizations and other governments (215,290,245) 1,862 (215,288,383) Total net position (215,290,245)$ 1,862$ (215,288,383)$

348
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position Custodial Funds
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

119
Community
Facilities Evidence
District Collection Fund Total
ADDITIONS:

Investment Income 14,980$ 12$ 14,992$ Assessments 19,233,442 - 19,233,442 Proceeds from bonds 18,957,711 - 18,957,711 Total additions 38,206,133 12 38,206,145 DEDUCTIONS:

Payments to trustee 8,898,870 - 8,898,870 Interest expense 10,763,754 - 10,763,754 Bond issuance cost 379,243 - 379,243 Payment for infrastructure 12,568,362 - 12,568,362 Total deductions 32,610,229 - 32,610,229 Change in net position 5,595,904 12 5,595,916 NET POSITION:

Beginning of year, as restated (220,886,149) 1,850 (220,884,299) End of year (215,290,245)$ 1,862$ (215,288,383)$

349
Item 8.

This page intentionally left blank.
350
Item 8.

Statistical Section
351
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Net Position by Component
Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)

120
2012 2013 2014 2015
Governmental activities
Net investment in capital assets -$ -$ -$ -$ Restricted 36,104,840 31,785,547 27,651,232 32,785,514 Unrestricted 15,424,223 (32,707,527) (34,861,337) (89,979,209) Total governmental activities net position 51,529,063$ (921,980)$ (7,210,105)$ (57,193,695)$ Business-type activities
Net investment in capital assets 47,174,662$ 48,712,794$ 47,357,696$ 52,039,617$ Restricted 1,134,950 - - - Unrestricted 1,766,094 733,877 3,461,080 (2,786,155) Total business-type activities net position 50,075,706$ 49,446,671$ 50,818,776$ 49,253,462$ Primary government
Net investment in capital assets 47,174,662$ 48,712,794$ 47,357,696$ 52,039,617$ Restricted 37,239,790 31,785,547 27,651,232 32,785,514 Unrestricted 17,190,317 (31,973,650) (31,400,257) (92,765,364) Total primary government net position 101,604,769$ 48,524,691$ 43,608,671$ (7,940,233)$ Fiscal Year
Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department Audited Financial Statements

352
Item 8.

121
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
-$ 41,036,317$ 161,035,919$ 180,996,750$ 191,989,902$ 199,529,502$ 48,232,914 253,984,801 133,927,879 125,918,630 118,674,754 121,676,799 (22,231,046) (13,630,302) (7,563,390) 457,794 7,180,682 12,223,595 26,001,868$ 281,390,816$ 287,400,408$ 307,373,174$ 317,845,338$ 333,429,896$ 50,742,754$ 127,028,681$ 124,163,481$ 134,524,431$ 137,744,251$ 134,777,249$ - - - - - 595,399 897,094 2,246,526 9,681,229 (475,808) 4,609,395 3,069,283 51,639,848$ 129,275,207$ 133,844,710$ 134,048,623$ 142,353,646$ 138,441,931$ 50,742,754$ 168,064,998$ 285,199,400$ 315,521,181$ 329,734,153$ 334,306,751$ 48,232,914 253,984,801 133,927,879 125,918,630 118,674,754 122,272,198 (21,333,952) (11,383,776) 2,117,839 (18,014) 11,790,077 15,292,878 77,641,716$ 410,666,023$ 421,245,118$ 441,421,797$ 460,198,984$ 471,871,827$

353
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Changes in Net Position
Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting)

122
2012 2013 2014 2015
Expenses
Governmental activities:

General government 6,208,903$ 5,618,665$ 4,968,528$ 7,309,913$ Public safety 14,856,462 15,198,102 15,219,502 13,414,301 Public works 5,804,635 4,763,622 7,812,711 1,552,407 Community development 43,634,529 65,303,162 6,947,833 1,914,356 Community services 3,248,845 3,355,226 156,923 4,880,614 Refuse - - - 4,144,778 Pass-through payments 383,539 - - - Interest on long-term debt - - 161,272 2,660,836 Total governmental activities expenses 74,136,913 94,238,777 35,266,769 35,877,205 Business-type activities:

Sewer 5,906,651 5,714,311 6,074,330 7,986,837 Transit 1,656,469 1,941,586 2,258,381 2,211,872 Total business-type activities expenses 7,563,120 7,655,897 8,332,711 10,198,709 Total primary government expenses 81,700,033$ 101,894,674$ 43,599,480$ 46,075,914$ Program Revenues
Governmental activities:

Charges for services 7,403,279$ 5,955,862$ 7,339,117$ 9,855,807$ Operating grants 4,832,762 3,456,547 4,708,037 6,337,968 Capital grants 53,140,151 20,937,453 6,051,679 4,364,103 65,376,192 30,349,862 18,098,833 20,557,878$ Business-type activities:

Charges for services 4,485,579 4,895,175 8,041,655 8,021,109 Operating grants 1,260,000 1,238,220 1,636,434 1,847,564 Capital Grants 314,083 800,088 304,610 10,445 6,059,662 6,933,483 9,982,699 9,879,118$ Total primary government revenues 71,435,854$ 37,283,345$ 28,081,532$ 30,436,996$ Net (expense)/revenue
Governmental activities (8,760,721)$ (63,888,915)$ (17,167,936)$ (15,319,327)$ Business-type activities (1,503,458) (722,414) 1,649,988 (319,591) (10,264,179)$ (64,611,329)$ (15,517,948)$ (15,638,918)$ Total governmental activities program revenues
Total business-type activities program revenues
Total primary government net (expense)/revenue
Fiscal Year
Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department Audited Financial Statements

354
Item 8.

123
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
3,397,331$ 7,593,312$ 5,356,762$ 6,010,855$ 6,387,414$ 10,322,019$ 11,236,896 13,526,022 18,969,972 15,641,308 17,326,496 17,896,367 1,976,427 5,030,993 5,563,653 8,536,946 4,051,200 8,738,889 1,367,789 4,441,655 2,431,640 2,396,300 2,203,993 2,109,290 3,050,603 2,528,668 3,478,806 3,840,603 4,805,108 4,567,596 4,138,062 4,239,048 4,899,889 5,504,512 - - - - - - - - - 10,369,211 7,181,818 4,415,612 4,980,043 4,742,632 25,167,108 47,728,909 47,882,540 46,346,136 39,754,254 48,376,793 6,043,880 11,192,584 10,430,002 14,993,895 15,084,760 16,480,072 2,478,621 2,990,218 3,119,254 3,353,923 3,260,924 3,103,538 8,522,501 14,182,802 13,549,256 18,347,818 18,345,684 19,583,610 33,689,609$ 61,911,711$ 61,431,796$ 64,693,954$ 58,099,938$ 67,960,403$ 9,561,023$ 15,939,510$ 15,749,036$ 13,488,153$ 6,004,874$ 6,223,772$ 9,449,166 286,368 77,514 884,195 1,626,798 4,116,354 5,304,634 12,450,382 20,409,806 17,527,025 8,773,350 16,582,075 24,314,823$ 28,676,260 36,236,356 31,899,373 16,405,022 26,922,201 7,362,793 7,644,407 8,282,833 8,993,637 10,697,882 10,955,015 2,063,600 2,262,277 2,347,256 2,557,412 3,228,349 2,251,555 1,479,942 473,715 6,171,672 1,575,041 7,334,406 1,852,603 10,906,335$ 10,380,399 16,801,761 13,126,090 21,260,637 15,059,173 35,221,158$ 39,056,659$ 53,038,117$ 45,025,463$ 37,665,659$ 41,981,374$ (852,285)$ (19,052,649)$ (11,646,184)$ (14,446,763)$ (23,349,232)$ (21,454,592)$ 2,383,834 (3,802,403) 3,252,505 (5,221,728) 2,914,953 (4,524,437) 1,531,549$ (22,855,052)$ (8,393,679)$ (19,668,491)$ (20,434,279)$ (25,979,029)$

355
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Changes in Net Position
Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years
(accrual basis of accounting) (Continued)

124
General Revenues and Other Changes in
Net Position
2012 2013 2014 2015
Government activities:

Taxes
Property taxes 2,601,805$ 3,314,109$ 2,846,677$ 3,894,320$ Sales taxes 3,732,539 3,846,904 4,149,782 4,209,246 Vehicle in lieu tax 2,582,829 2,637,026 2,709,016 3,244,340 Utility Users Tax - - - 1,373,661 Franchise tax 787,791 837,617 882,609 944,869 Transient occupancy tax - - - 224,705 Other taxes 1,591,486 1,665,975 1,778,239 209,124 Business Licenses - - - - Transfers - - - - Total taxes and transfers 11,296,450 12,301,631 12,366,323 14,100,265 Construction bond proceeds - - - - Developer Contributions - - - - Investment Earnings 772,655 419,671 827,047 129,837 Miscellaneous 769,561 555,543 562,353 156,283 Gain (Loss) on sale of capital assets - - - - Total governmental activities 12,838,666 13,276,845 13,755,723 14,386,385 Business-type activities:

Investment Earnings 20,659 80,587 55,973 4,267 Developer Contributions - - - - Miscellaneous - 12,792 7,753 - Mitigation Fees - - - - Transfers - - - - Gain (Loss) on sale of capital assets - - - - Total business-type activities 20,659 93,379 63,726 4,267 Total primary government 12,859,325$ 13,370,224$ 13,819,449$ 14,390,652$ Extraordinary Items (Governmental Activities)
Write off of advance receivable -$ -$ -$ (21,500,000)$ Settlement - restitution - - - - Refunding CFD 93-01 - - - - Successor Agency debt reversal - - - - Gain on advance from city write off 800,953 - - - Gain on transfer of assets and liabilities to RDA Successor Agency 20,951,628 - - - WRCOG judgement settlement - - - - Total primary government 21,752,581$ -$ -$ (21,500,000)$ Change in Net Position
Governmental activities 25,830,526$ (50,612,070)$ (3,412,213)$ (22,432,942)$ Business-type activities (1,482,799) (629,035) 1,713,714 (315,324) Total primary government 24,347,727$ (51,241,105)$ (1,698,499)$ (22,748,266)$ Fiscal Year
Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department Audited Financial Statements 356
Item 8.

Continued
125
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
3,762,290$ 4,852,263$ 5,199,098$ 5,656,662$ 11,107,476$ 12,701,479$ 4,966,331 4,851,947 5,631,332 6,596,935 7,593,729 8,869,746 3,506,871 3,768,042 4,125,662 4,517,090 38,307 37,754 1,804,096 1,545,893 1,524,158 1,584,224 1,650,094 1,887,031 929,261 805,244 3,285,697 3,908,531 8,074,504 3,183,803 283,999 325,874 363,868 335,304 278,504 298,879 77,163 880,255 1,194,389 958,614 - - 196,185 231,688 247,193 294,968 342,702 415,229 - - 322 (3,120,964) - 239,958 15,526,196 17,261,206 21,571,719 20,731,364 29,085,316 27,633,879 - - - - - 233,922 - - 11,343,940 9,055,054 - 4,001,607 13,232 10,490,307 7,851,992 5,390,216 4,230,375 4,618,626 359,206 55,710 355,360 716,944 472,274 526,724 - 42,237 5,341 52,377 33,431 24,392 15,898,634 27,849,460 41,128,352 35,945,955 33,821,396 37,039,150 2,552 4,475 13,606 1,564,220 565,390 57,721 - - 778,223 731,125 - - - 30 525,491 3,393 5,242 13,719 - - - - 4,819,408 1,123,349 - - (322) 3,120,964 - (239,958) - - - 5,939 30 - 2,552 4,505 1,316,998 5,425,641 5,390,070 954,831 15,901,186$ 27,853,965$ 42,445,350$ 41,371,596$ 39,211,466$ 37,993,981$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - 3,000,000 - - - - - - (11,947,642) - - - 4,235,674 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 58,098,626 - - - - - 62,334,300$ 3,000,000$ (11,947,642)$ -$ -$ -$ 77,380,649$ 11,796,811$ 17,534,526$ 21,499,192$ 10,472,164$ 15,584,558$ 2,386,386 (3,797,898) 4,569,503 203,913 8,305,023 (3,569,606) 79,767,035$ 7,998,913$ 22,104,029$ 21,703,105$ 18,777,187$ 12,014,952$ 357
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT Governmental Activities Tax and Assessments Revenues by Sources Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) 126 Fiscal Property Sales & Use Transient Franchise Motor Vehicle Utility Users *Other Business CFDYear Taxes Tax/Measure A Occupancy Tax Fees In Lieu Tax Taxes Taxes Licenses Assessments Total2012 2,601,805$ 3,732,539$ 205,074$ 787,791$ 2,582,829$ -$ 1,591,486$ 153,192$ 19,518,510$ 31,173,226$ 2013 3,314,109 3,846,904 235,656 837,617 2,637,026 - 1,665,975 206,634 21,110,633 33,854,554 2014 2,846,677 4,149,782 196,114 882,609 2,709,016 - 1,778,239 204,470 22,295,061 35,061,968 2015 4,016,833 4,209,246 224,705 944,869 3,244,340 1,373,661 1,152,746 209,124 23,520,973 38,896,498 2016 4,391,074 4,966,331 283,999 929,261 3,506,871 1,804,096 999,244 196,185 24,235,209 41,312,270 2017 4,852,262 4,851,947 325,874 805,244 3,768,042 1,545,893 880,256 231,688 25,245,610 42,506,817 2018 5,199,098 5,631,332 363,868 876,551 4,125,662 1,524,158 976,299 247,193 23,871,332 42,815,493 2019 5,656,662 6,596,935 335,304 912,924 4,517,090 1,584,224 958,614 294,968 23,953,820 44,810,540 2020 6,109,624 7,593,728 278,504 8,074,504 4,997,852 1,650,094 1,089,543 342,702 24,999,645 55,136,196 2021 6,991,565 8,869,746 298,879 3,183,803 5,709,914 1,887,031 1,169,351 415,229 25,884,547 54,410,067 Includes General Fund, Special Revenue, Capital Projects Funds, Internal Service Funds (2021), Enterprise Funds and Fiduciary Funds. * Other Taxes include Vehicle License Collection, Gas Tax and Traffic Congestion Relief Apportionment tied to SB1 (FY2018) Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department Audited Financial Statements (FY2012- 2014); CFD Assessments from Tyler Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department Tyler Accounting Software (FY2015 and older)358Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)

127
2012 2013 2014 2015
General fund
Reserved -$ -$ -$ -$ Unreserved - - - - Non Spendable: - - - - Notes and Loans Receivable 321,066 289,442 - 249,493 Advances to RDA Successor Agency 21,500,000 21,500,000 21,500,000 - Prepaid items - - - - Restricted
Committed for:

Capital Projects - - - - Self Insurance - - - - Pension Trust Funding - - - - Assigned for:

Re-appropriation - - - - Unassigned (4,162,063) (6,866,481) (6,354,884) (7,438,424) Total general fund 17,659,003$ 14,922,961$ 15,145,116$ (7,188,931)$ All other governmental funds
Reserved -$ -$ -$ -$ Unreserved - - - - Non Spendable:

Prepaid items - - - - Restricted for:

CFD Projects - - - 22,748,722 Capital Projects 32,206,883 28,104,669 26,605,667 8,763,649 Streets Projects - - - 708,507 Public Safety 370,221 876,469 406,697 422,142 PEG Fees - - - 142,494 State Gas Tax 110,745 135,592 - - AB 2766 - - - -

RMRA - - - - Measure A - - - - Other Special Projects 3,287,173 2,583,460 529,090 - Government Access TV 129,818 85,357 109,778 - COPS Grants - - - - State Asset Forfeiture - - - - Federal Asset Forfeiture - - - - Debt service - - - - Committed for:

Capital Projects - - - - Unassigned - - - - Total all other governmental funds 36,104,840$ 31,785,547$ 27,651,232$ 32,785,514$ Fiscal Year
Sources: City of Beaumont Finance Department Audited Financial Statements 359
Item 8.

Continued
128
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - 226,186 213,399 215,904 220,634 224,671 225,715 - - - - - - - - - 83,141 - 26,262 - 6,839,275 6,839,275 - 4,550,000 - - - - - - 2,850,717 - - - - - 2,500,000 - - - - - 214,799 (4,296,822) 5,034,141 10,315,492 14,980,384 19,290,503 17,576,741 (4,070,636)$ 12,086,815$ 17,370,671$ 15,284,159$ 24,065,174$ 23,394,234$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - - - - - - - - - - - 304,015 32,867,745 8,424,392 8,462,228 9,145,832 9,036,520 5,884,930 13,967,685 25,157,602 15,683,985 12,877,575 13,336,436 13,674,329 684,297 - - - - - 550,410 688,820 788,141 1,110,144 664,780 162,777 219,517 250,014 1,542,017 21,482 23,675 - 357,051 263,369 103,421 - 159,101 - 306,698 370,379 1,102,061 474,841 621,930 - - - - 551,820 1,437,670 - - - - 1,348,379 2,568,801 981 90,333 305,975 163,173 183,807 - - - - - - - - - - - 313,341 - - - - - 295,014 - - - - - 6,030 - 223,515,398 101,180,155 98,006,000 92,767,025 85,876,699 - - - 1,417,617 666,248 10,631,472 - - - - - (84,997) 48,232,914$ 258,670,459$ 127,088,604$ 125,610,642$ 119,030,704$ 121,895,817$ 360
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years
(modified accrual basis of accounting)

129
2012 2013 2014 2015
Revenues
Taxes 9,196,129$ 9,891,679$ 9,681,600$ 19,240,888$ Franchise Fees - - - - Intergovernmental revenues 6,374,343 6,073,043 7,376,149 297,016 Licenses, Fees and Permits 564,144 772,780 1,291,053 1,201,320 Fines and Forfeitures 165,431 151,541 155,671 350,287 Assessment Levied
Use of money and property 2,137,180 434,265 110,873 129,834 Charges for services 6,511,684 4,653,501 5,900,241 12,400,655 Other Revenues 1,011,784 535,200 1,287,290 979,582 Interfund Charges 6,300,906 6,582,910 6,175,682 - Total Revenues 32,261,601 29,094,919 31,978,559 34,599,582 Expenditures
General Government 5,292,280 5,101,037 5,067,238 4,969,209 Public Safety 14,856,462 15,334,992 15,482,011 13,585,249 Public Works 5,804,635 4,763,622 7,812,711 1,552,407 Community Development 49,935,435 28,532,830 2,719,182 1,914,356 Community Services 3,248,845 3,355,226 156,923 4,880,614 Refuse - - - 4,144,778 Capital Outlay - - 10,404,333 - Debt Service:

Principal - - 300,000 - Refunding Escrow Agent - - - - Interest and fiscal charges 1,342,800 - - - Pass -through Payments 383,539 - - - Total Expenditures 80,863,996 57,087,707 41,942,398 31,046,613 Excess of revenues
over (under) expenditures (48,602,395) (27,992,788) (9,963,839) 3,552,969 Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Capital leases - - - - Sales of Property - - - - Refunding Bonds Issued - - - - Premium on refunding bonds issued - - - - Payment to refunded bond escrow agent - - - - Proceeds from sale of capital assets - - - - Developer Contributions 53,140,151 20,937,453 6,051,679 - Transfers in 3,684,287 1,665,000 3,556,910 - Transfers out (3,704,722) (1,665,000) (3,556,910) - Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 53,119,716 20,937,453 6,051,679 - Net Change in Fund Balances Before Extraordinary Item 4,517,321 (7,055,335) (3,912,160) 3,552,969 Extraordinary Item 22,206,228 - - (21,500,000) Special Item - - - - Net Change in Fund Balances 26,723,549$ (7,055,335)$ (3,912,160)$ (17,947,031)$ Debt Service as a percentage of
non-capital expenditures 2.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0%
Fiscal Year
Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department Audited Financial Statements 361
Item 8.

130
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
29,927,330$ 11,027,239$ 12,163,969$ 13,570,476$ 14,996,887$ 17,410,049$ - - 3,285,697 3,908,531 8,074,504 3,183,803 29,788 5,787,280 11,263,234 11,581,831 10,051,669 11,813,339 1,360,288 10,781,152 13,283,260 8,044,621 3,708,535 6,525,592 413,052 265,831 262,278 249,914 617,981 344,816 9,309,555 9,240,825 6,786,653 6,491,075 7,288,277 148,419 10,613,015 8,023,202 5,569,684 4,337,680 4,693,106 7,913,344 8,355,018 7,754,417 6,944,423 1,469,367 1,484,669 545,313 377,102 872,752 4,627,173 1,021,777 7,016,584 - - - - - - 40,337,534 56,516,192 66,149,634 61,283,306 50,769,475 59,760,235 4,735,084 5,464,863 4,434,173 5,940,387 6,439,508 8,460,291 12,318,788 12,524,089 12,956,345 14,721,189 16,731,402 17,578,516 1,976,427 2,902,986 3,161,648 3,929,138 2,855,850 2,959,287 1,367,789 4,295,350 2,000,866 2,096,589 1,952,789 1,951,963 3,050,603 2,396,166 3,070,774 3,708,469 3,998,071 4,119,407 4,138,062 4,239,048 4,899,889 5,504,512 - - - 188,738 13,194,674 12,622,062 7,964,820 5,074,099 - 6,167,352 118,212,977 3,600,000 3,405,300 3,938,561 - - - - 1,149,489 3,563,485 - 10,369,211 7,181,818 4,415,612 4,490,634 4,820,703 - - - - - - 27,586,753 48,547,803 169,113,164 56,537,958 48,987,863 52,466,312 12,750,781 7,968,389 (102,963,530) 4,745,348 1,781,612 7,293,923 - 96,158 132,444 167,456 78,046 - - 42,237 5,341 19,494 - - - - - - 5,375,000 35,875,000 - - - - 1,014,920 - - - - - (6,389,920) (34,829,600) - - - - 33,431 24,392 - - - - - - 11,280 22,007,107 14,209,907 9,682,117 10,561,452 18,489,635 (11,280) (22,007,107) (14,209,585) (12,803,081) (10,561,452) (24,659,177) - 138,395 138,107 (2,934,014) 111,477 (5,099,750) 12,750,781 8,106,784 (102,825,423) 1,811,334 1,893,089 2,194,173 - - - - - - 3,000,000 (11,947,642) - - - 12,750,781$ 11,106,784$ (114,773,065)$ 1,811,334$ 1,893,089$ 2,194,173$

0.0% 52.0% 410.8% 22.3% 28.3% 35.1%
362
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT General Fund Tax Revenue by Source Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years (modified accrual basis of accounting) 131 Fiscal Property Sales & Use Transient Franchise Utility Users Motor Vehicle Vehicle License BusinessYear Taxes Tax Occupancy Tax Fees Tax In Lieu Tax Collection Licenses Total2012 2,719,280$ 3,667,520$ 205,074$ 787,791$ -$ 2,582,829$ 1,268,937$ 153,192$ 11,384,623$ 2013 3,459,720 3,846,904 235,656 837,617 - 2,637,026 1,284,708 206,634 12,508,265 2014 3,032,987 4,149,782 196,114 882,609 - 2,709,016 1,395,815 204,470 12,570,793 2015 4,016,833 4,209,246 224,705 944,869 1,373,661 3,244,340 - 209,124 14,222,779 2016 4,391,074 4,966,331 283,999 929,261 1,804,096 3,506,871 77,163 196,185 16,154,980 2017 4,852,262 4,851,947 325,874 805,244 1,545,893 3,768,042 20,212 231,688 16,401,163 2018 5,199,098 5,029,443 363,868 876,551 1,524,158 4,125,662 - 242,634 17,361,415 2019 5,656,662 5,558,667 335,304 912,924 1,584,224 4,517,090 23,154 287,908 18,875,933 2020 6,109,624 6,593,630 278,504 8,074,504 1,650,094 4,997,852 38,307 337,993 28,080,507 2021 6,991,565 7,552,253 298,879 3,183,803 1,887,031 5,709,914 37,754 408,435 26,069,635 Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department Audited Financial Statements (FY2012- 2014) Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department Tyler Accounting Software (FY2015 and older)363Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Top 25 Sales Tax Producers
As of June 30, 2021

132
Business Name Business Category
84 Lumbar Co Building Materials
Amazon Robotics Heavy Industrial
Arco AM PM Service Stations
Bank of America Leasing & Capital Business Services
Beaumont Ace Home Center Building Materials
Beaumont Gas Mart Service Stations
Beaumont RV Trailers/RVs
Beaumont Service Station Service Stations
Best Buy Electronics/Appliance Stores
Big Tex Trailers Trailers/RVs
Food 4 Less Grocery Stores
Home Depot Building Materials
Icon Health & Fitness Light Industrial/Printers
In N Out Burger Quick-Service Restaurants
Kohls Department Stores
Mayas Chevron Service Stations
Oak Valley Chevron Service Stations
Raising Cane's Quick-Service Restaurants
Rancho Ready Mix Products Contractors
Rite Aid Drug Stores
Ross Family Apparel
Stater Bros Grocery Stores
Trailor Factory Outlet Trailers/RVs
Walmart Supercenter Discount Dept Stores
Wolverine Worldwide Fulfillment Centers
Percent of Fiscal Year Total Paid By Top 25 Accounts=70.32% For Fiscal year 2020-2021
Sources: State Board of Equalization, California Department of Taxes and Fees Administration, State Controller's Office, The HDL Companies 364
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Top 25 Sales Tax Producers
As of June 30, 2021

133
Business Name Business Category
84 Lumber Co Building Materials
Arco AM PM Service Stations
Baker's Burgers Quick-Service Restaurants
Beaumont Ace Home Center Building Materials
Beaumont Financing Authority Government/Social Org.

Beaumont Gas Mart Service Stations
Beaumont Service Station Service Stations
Beaumont Yamaha Kawasaki Polaris Boats/Motorcycles
Bed Bath & Beyond Home Furnishings
Best Buy Electronics/Appliance Stores
Big Tex Trailers Trailers/RVs
Dangelo Company Light Industrial/Printers
Food 4 Less Grocery Stores
Grove 76 Service Stations
Highland Shell Service Stations
Home Depot Building Materials
Kohls Department Stores
McDonalds Quick-Service Restaurants
Oak Valley Chevron Service Stations
Petco Specialty Store
Ross Family Apparel
Stater Bros Grocery Stores
Verizon Wireless Electronics/Appliance Stores
Walgreens Drug Stores
Walmart Supercenter Discount Dept Stores
Percent of Fiscal Year Total Paid By Top 25 Accounts=76.97% For Fiscal Year 2011-12
Sources: State Board of Equalization, California Department of Taxes and Fees Administration, State Controller's Office, The HDL Companies 365
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT Taxable Sales by Category Last Ten Calendar Years (in thousands of dollars) As of June 30, 2021 134 Calender Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Food Stores 17,244$ 18,063$ 18,384$ 18,558$ 19,259$ 21,016$ 21,879$ 23,369$ 24,224$ 27,104$ Eating and Drinking Places 32,165 34,758 37,418 44,272 48,099 52,522 54,926 58,205 64,026 68,387 Building Materials 37,736 40,162 44,447 48,119 51,999 55,011 59,720 66,532 68,381 86,638 Auto Dealers and Supplies 13,314 13,348 17,714 21,792 28,347 31,853 37,333 39,427 38,759 44,641 Services Stations 66,964 70,477 68,696 65,560 55,945 50,076 54,400 66,433 74,214 61,673 Other Retail Stores 128,350 131,645 140,750 144,719 152,350 154,131 151,487 155,943 154,635 151,769 All Other Outlets 54,145 59,848 65,346 70,781 85,903 101,750 102,867 107,538 139,383 303,271 Total 349,918$ 368,301$ 392,755$ 413,801$ 441,902$ 466,359$ 482,612$ 517,447$ 563,622$ 743,483$ Sources: State Board of Equalization, California Department of Taxes and Fees Administration, State Controller's Office, The HDL Companies Note: Due to confidentiality issues, the names of the ten largest revenue payers are not available. The categories presented are intended to provide alternative information regarding the sources of the City's revenue.366Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years 135 FiscalEstimated Total AssessedYearActual Less: Total Direct Value as aEnded Residential Commercial Industrial Agricultural Institutional Miscellaneous Recreational Vacant SBE Nonunitary Cross Reference Unsecured Taxable Tax Exempt Unknown Assessed Tax Percentage ofJune 30 Property Property Property Property Property Property Property Property Property Property Property Value Real Property Property Value Rate Actual Value2012 1,976,695,345$ 262,200,512$ 143,214,597$ 217,412$ 774,446$ -$ 20,537,257$ 225,478,917$ 60,113$ 3,336,676$ 61,028,118$ 2,693,543,393$ (3,914,840)$ -$ 2,697,458,233$ 0.2204 100%2013 1,992,255,157 261,036,310 140,914,848 221,759 676,041 - 21,094,997 214,352,341 54,015 3,696,048 63,372,242 2,697,673,758 (3,993,201) - 2,701,666,959 0.2008 100%2014 2,121,323,112 257,949,389 142,714,557 781,680 648,056 - 16,942,256 219,214,037 54,015 3,364,361 68,677,971 2,831,669,434 (1,899,747) - 2,833,569,181 0.10876 100%2015 2,598,286,104 276,682,366 182,704,068 785,224 593,479 - 16,992,773 205,513,227 54,015 3,296,822 66,013,382 3,350,921,460 (1,937,692) - 3,352,859,152 0.10600 100%2016 2,940,232,521 291,491,374 176,247,926 231,754 1,321,210 - 17,224,749 190,999,251 54,015 3,613,513 66,523,710 3,687,940,023 (2,346,527) - 3,690,286,550 0.10440 100%2017 3,207,129,206 296,461,009 175,023,847 235,286 1,317,085 - 17,406,132 191,103,172 54,015 3,636,024 69,045,531 3,961,411,307 (2,411,293) - 3,963,822,600 0.10348 100%2018 3,472,221,513 304,990,342 222,291,436 239,990 602,342 - 17,658,455 216,147,224 54,015 4,005,605 72,696,977 4,310,907,899 (2,442,788) - 4,313,350,687 0.10275 100%2019 3,838,660,946 316,507,011 253,366,940 244,789 614,383 4,554 17,902,500 212,687,138 72,099 4,524,155 102,926,670 4,747,511,185 (2,498,684) - 4,750,009,869 0.10177 100%2020 4,270,998,304 352,992,505 282,751,732 1,551,755 626,675 7,212 16,944,899 218,705,217 72,099 4,052,652 116,425,944 5,265,128,994 - 4,168,358 5,269,297,352 0.10049 100%2021 4,631,135,525 404,022,040 573,656,274 1,583,016 1,389,803 9,855 17,280,592 191,196,689 72,099 4,624,200 191,707,077 6,016,677,170 - 4,968,448 6,021,645,618 0.10092 100%Real Property Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department367Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates
(Rate per $100 of Taxable Value)
Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years

136
Mt San Jacinto Total RDA Total
Fiscal Basic Debt Banning Beaumont Community San Jacinto Metropolitan San Gorgonio Pass Tax Incremental Direct Year Levy Service Unified Unified College Unified Water Water Rate Rate 1 Rate 2
2012 1.0000 0.10365 0.00000 0.07841 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.18500 1.36706 1.18500 0.22038 2013 1.0000 0.11572 0.00000 0.08486 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.18500 1.38558 0.00000 0.20078 2014 1.0000 0.11896 0.00000 0.09000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.18500 1.39396 0.00000 0.10876 2015 1.0000 0.11296 0.00000 0.08169 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.18500 1.37965 0.00000 0.10600 2016 1.0000 0.08143 0.00000 0.07106 0.01394 0.00000 0.00000 0.18500 1.35143 0.00000 0.10440 2017 1.0000 0.08357 0.00000 0.07193 0.01320 0.00000 0.00000 0.18500 1.35370 0.00000 0.10348 2018 1.0000 0.09052 0.14473 0.07677 0.01320 0.15078 0.00350 0.18250 1.66200 0.00000 0.10275 2019 1.0000 0.08692 0.14278 0.07432 0.01320 0.15291 0.00350 0.18250 1.65613 0.00000 0.10177 2020 1.0000 0.06990 0.14526 0.07438 0.01320 0.15292 0.00350 0.17750 1.63666 0.00000 0.10049 2021 1.0000 0.06716 0.14500 0.07431 0.01320 0.15291 0.00350 0.17500 1.63108 0.00000 0.10092 SchoolsSan Gorgonio Pass
Mem Hospital

Sources: HdL Coren & Cone, Riverside County Assessor 2012/12-2020/21 Tax Rate Table

Note: In 1978 California voters passed Proposition 13 which sets the property tax rate at a 1.00% fixed amount. This 1.00% is shared by all taxing agencies for which the subject property resides within. In addition to the 1.00% fixed amount, property owners are charged taxes as a percentage of assessed property values for the payment of any voter approved bonds.
368
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Principal Property Taxpayers
As of June 30, 2021

137
Percentage of Percentage of
Assessed Total Taxable Assessed Total Taxable
Taxpayer Valuation Rank Assessed Value Valuation Rank Assessed Value Amazon Com Services LLC 63,928,047$ 2 1.06%
Ambest Real Estate 32,968,175 5 0.55%
Baldi Bros Construction 26,137,962 7 0.43%
Cathay Bank 25,983,805$ 5 0.96%
CJ Foods Manufacturing 43,992,800 4 0.73%
CT Beaumont Partners 32,383,533 3 1.20%
Dura Plastics Products Inc 19,552,894 8 0.73%
Frederick J Hanshaw 45,133,035 3 0.75% 32,000,000 4 1.19% High Desert Partners 35,372,284 1 1.31%
Home Depot USA Inc 25,524,784 8 0.42% 24,912,208 6 0.92% Loma Linda University 1 24,623,015 9 0.41% 33,408,245 2 1.24% Lowes HIW Inc 17,822,181 9 0.66%
Pardee Homes 16,269,177 10 0.60%
USEF Crossroads I/II 379,635,253 1 6.30%
Walmart Real Estate Business Trust 26,298,928 6 0.44% 22,991,446 7 0.85% Wolverine Worldwide Inc 23,348,023 10 0.39%
691,590,022$ 11.48% 260,695,773$ 9.66%
2011/122020/2021
Note: The amounts shown above includes assessed value data for both the City and the Redevelopment Agency.

1 Loma Linda University is a learning institution; therefore, a large portion of their property is exempt. 2 Pending Appeals on Parcels

Source: The HdL Companies, Riverside County Assessor Combined Tax Rolls and the SBE Non Unitary Tax Roll
369
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Property Tax Levies and Collections
Last Ten (10 Calendar Years)

138
Fiscal Year Total Tax Current Percent of Collections
Ended Levy for Tax Current Taxes in Subsequent Percentage June 30 Fiscal Year Collections Collected Years Amount of Levy 2012 2,296,279$ 2,606,551$ 113.5% 124,065$ 2,730,615$ 118.9% 2013 2,309,158 2,497,216 108.1% 102,869 2,600,085 112.6% 2014 2,425,467 2,884,144 118.9% 128,141 3,012,285 124.2% 2015 2,863,392 3,321,742 116.0% 139,009 3,460,752 120.9% 2016 3,148,647 3,578,931 113.7% 132,853 3,711,784 117.9% 2017 3,380,352 3,908,158 115.6% 129,042 4,037,200 119.4% 2018 3,676,718 4,114,723 111.9% 131,947 4,246,669 115.5% 2019 4,059,559 4,539,114 111.8% 143,229 4,682,344 115.3% 2020 4,507,968 4,972,808 110.3% 159,844 5,132,652 113.9% 2021 5,140,701 5,072,476 98.7% 100,766 5,173,242 100.6% Fiscal Year of the Levy Total Collections to Date
Collected within the
Source: Riverside County Auditor-Controller Property Tax Division 370
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years 139 AB 1484 Total Percentage Fiscal Capital Payable to WRCOG Due Diligence Revenue Bond Capital Primary of Personal Per Year Leases Successor Agency Judgement Review Bonds Premium Leases Government Income Capita1.2012 -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,725,000$ -$ -$ 8,725,000$ 949% 219$ 2013 - - 42,994,879 - 8,580,000 - - 51,574,879 5382% 1,262 2014 - - 42,994,879 2,575,912 8,430,000 - - 54,000,791 5362% 1,322 2015 - 4,235,674 62,198,626 2,575,912 - - - 69,010,212 6542% 1,530 2016 - 4,235,674 4,100,000 2,275,912 - - - 10,611,586 1024% 230 2017 79,323 - 4,100,000 1,975,912 - - - 6,155,235 560% 128 2018 186,483 - - 1,675,912 - - 346,313 2,208,708 189% 46 2019 297,242 - - 1,375,912 81,105,000 9,469,765 268,459 92,516,378 7288% 1,797 2020 251,240 - - 1,075,912 80,105,000 8,495,497 183,671 90,111,320 6618% 1,710 2021 152,680 - - 775,912 78,860,000 7,842,648 99,305 87,730,545 6316% 1,597$ Business-Type ActivitiesGovernmental Activities Note: Details regarding the City’s outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements. 1 See the Schedule of Demographic and Economic Statistics on page 133 for personal income and population. Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department371Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt
As of June 30, 2021

140
2020-2021 Assessed Valuation 6,134,559,837$
Total Debt Percent
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT: 6/30/21 Applicable (1) Debt 6/30/21 CFD 93-1 IA 1 434,579$ 100.000% 552,693$
CFD 93-1 IA 2 42,936 100.000% 54,606
CFD 93-1 IA 3 1,915,000 100.000% 2,025,000
CFD 93-1 IA 4 749,812 100.000% 952,956
CFD 93-1 IA 5 675,059 100.000% 858,532
CFD 93-1 IA 6A1 26,362,821 100.000% 27,649,098
CFD 93-1 IA 6B - 100.000% 25,254
CFD 93-1 IA 7A1 9,745,000 100.000% 9,975,000
CFD 93-1 IA 7B 3,760,000 100.000% 4,015,000
CFD 93-1 IA 7C 1,435,000 100.000% 1,575,000
CFD 93-1 IA 7D 3,560,000 100.000% 3,630,000
CFD 93-1 IA 8 6,150,000 100.000% 6,560,000
CFD 93-1 IA 8A 5,460,027 100.000% 5,725,492
CFD 93-1 IA 8B 5,145,000 100.000% 5,355,000
CFD 93-1 IA 8C 27,940,351 100.000% 28,065,664
CFD 93-1 IA 8D 8,315,339 100.000% 8,354,901
CFD 93-1 IA 8E 12,455,000 100.000% 12,510,000
CFD 93-1 IA 8F 12,780,000 100.000% 12,780,000
CFD 93-1 IA 9 355,000 100.000% 375,000
CFD 93-1 IA 10 1,255,000 100.000% 1,330,000
CFD 93-1 IA 11 780,000 100.000% 820,000
CFD 93-1 IA 12 780,000 100.000% 825,000
CFD 93-1 IA 14 5,820,000 100.000% 6,210,000
CFD 93-1 IA 14A 11,395,000 100.000% 12,065,000
CFD 93-1 IA 14B 3,456,137 100.000% 3,595,848
CFD 93-1 IA 16 5,985,000 100.000% 6,320,000
CFD 93-1 IA 17A 8,075,000 100.000% 8,785,000
CFD 93-1 IA 17B 11,540,000 100.000% 11,930,000
CFD 93-1 IA 17C 8,660,000 100.000% 8,700,000
CFD 93-1 IA 18 4,075,000 100.000% 4,300,000
CFD 93-1 IA 19A 16,010,000 100.000% 16,800,000
CFD 93-1 IA 19C 17,661,442 100.000% 19,201,396
CFD 93-1 IA 20 2,615,000 100.000% 2,955,000
CFD 2016-1 8,630,000 100.000% 8,790,000
CFD 2016-2 10,135,000 100.000% 10,285,000
CFD 2016-4 4,080,000 100.000% 4,185,000
CFD 2019-1 2,355,000 100.000% -
CFD 2018-1 IA-1 Beaumont USD 4,905,000 100.000% - TOTAL DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX AND ASSESSMENT DEBT 258,136,439$ Source: Webb Municipal Finance, LLC, City of Beaumont Finance Department, the County of Riverside, Beaumont Unified School District, Mount San Jacinto Community College, and the San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District
372
Item 8.

141
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND OBLIGATION DEBT:

Beaumont Unified School B & I (0.07777%) 90,172,486$ 100.000% 82,562,937$ MT San Jacinto Comm (0.01320%) 157,750,000 6.006% 164,385,000 San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District (0.06281%) 102,730,000 68.132% 106,565,000 City of Beaumont Capital Lease 152,680 100.000% 251,240 TOTAL GROSS DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GENERAL FUND OBLIGATION DEBT 353,764,177$ OVERLAPPING TAX INCREMENT DEBT: 257,970,000$ 3.862-100% 36,362,296$ TOTAL DIRECT DEBT 251,240
TOTAL OVERLAPPING OBLIGATION DEBT 648,011,673
COMBINED TOTAL DEBT 648,262,913$ (2)
Ratios to 2020-21 Assessed Valuation:

Total Overlapping Debt (excluding tax increment)…….………………… 4.21% Total Direct Debt ($38,984)…………….…………………………………0.00%
Combined Total Debt (excluding tax increment)………………………… 10.57% Ratios to Redevelopment Incremental Valuation ($1,299,120,312):

Total Overlapping Tax Increment Debt…………………………………….2.80% (2) Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and non-bonded capital lease obligations . Qualified Zone Academy Bonds are included based on principal due at maturity. (1) The percentage of overlapping debt applicable to the city is estimated using taxable assessed property value. Applicable percentages were estimated by determining the portion of the overlapping district's assessed value that is within the boundaries of the city divided by the district's total taxable assessed value.
373
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Computation of Legal Debt Margin
Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years

142
Fiscal Year 2012 2013 2014 2015
Debt Limit 101,154,684$ 101,312,511$ 106,258,844$ 125,732,218$ Total net debt applicable to limit - - - - Legal debt margin 101,154,684$ 101,312,511$ 106,258,844$ 125,732,218$ Total net debt applicable to the limit
as a percentage of debt limit 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Source: California Municipal Statistics, Riverside County Auditor-Controller Property Tax Division 374
Item 8.

143
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
138,385,746$ 148,643,348$ 161,750,651$ 178,125,370$ 197,598,651$ 225,811,711$ - 96,158 132,444 167,456 78,046 251,240 138,385,746$ 148,547,190$ 161,618,207$ 177,957,914$ 197,520,605$ 225,560,471$

0.00% 0.06% 0.08% 0.09% 0.04% 0.11%
Net Assessed Value 6,021,645,618$
Plus Exempt Property 112,914,219
Total Assessed Value 6,134,559,837
Debt Limit: 3.75 percent of Total
Assessed Value 230,045,994
Debt applicable to Limitation:

Net Combined applicable to Limitation 648,262,913
Total Debt applicable to Limitation 251,240
Legal Debt Margin 229,794,754$

375
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Pledge-Revenue Coverage
Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years

144
Operating Net Revenue
Fiscal Gross Expenses Available for Debt Service
Year Revenues Less Depreciation Debt Service Requirements Coverage 2012 4,297,011$ 5,814,761$ (1,517,750)$ 145,000$ -1047% 2013 4,495,141 5,621,489 (1,126,348) 150,000 -751% 2014 7,824,125 3,591,728 4,232,397 189,777 2230% 2015 7,783,112 5,038,318 2,744,794 160,000 1715% 2016 8,093,961 3,611,202 4,482,759 - N/A 2017 9,775,709 4,734,121 5,041,588 - N/A 2018 9,360,710 3,584,743 5,775,967 - N/A 2019 10,375,954 5,244,292 5,862,787 1,661,355 353% 2020 11,091,715 4,954,754 10,956,369 4,868,688 225% 2021 12,073,223 5,101,833 6,971,390 5,073,788 137% Wastewater Revenue Bonds

Note: Details regarding the city's outstanding debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements.

Operating expenses do not include interest or depreciation.

Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department
376
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Demographic and Economic Statistics
Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years

145
Per
Capita Unemployment
Calendar Personal Personal Rate Median % of Pop 25+ with % of Pop 25+ with Year Population
1*Income 2*Income * (percentage) * Age * High School Degree* Bachelors Degree 2012 39,776 919,064$ 23,106$ 11.00% 33 86% 26.2% 2013 40,876 958,297 23,444 9.50% 33 87% 26.4% 2014 40,853 1,007,108 24,652 4.90% 33 86% 25.2% 2015 45,118 1,054,947 23,381 4.00% 34 87% 25.4% 2016 46,179 1,035,820 22,430 3.60% 35 87% 24.5% 2017 48,237 1,099,759 22,799 3.00% 34 87% 24.5% 2018 48,401 1,170,336 24,179 3.30% 35 87% 25.1% 2019 51,475 1,269,357 24,659 3.30% 35 88% 25.3% 2020 52,686 1,361,682 25,845 8.60% 35 88% 26.1% 2021 54,937 1,388,915 26,362 7.90% 35 88% 26.2% Sources: 1 State of California, Department of Finance. 2 California Employment Development Department, * 2000-2009 Income, Age and Education Data: ESRI - Demographic Estimates are based on the last available Census. Projections are developed by incorporating all of the prior census data released to date.

Demographic Data is totaled from Census Block Groups that overlap the City's boundaries 2010 and later - Income, Age and Education Data - US Census Bureau, most recent American Community Survey. 377
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Principal Employers
Current Fiscal Year

146
2012 *
Percentage Percentage
of total City of total City
Employer Employees Rank Employment Employees Rank Employment Amazon 3,000 1 36.76% N/A 0.00%
Beaumont Unified School District 1,467 2 17.98% 639 1 17.23% Walmart 526 3 6.45% N/A 0.00%
Dura Plastic Products 400 4 4.90% 100 2 2.70%
Total 5,393 66.08% 739 19.92%
2021

Total number of jobs within City limits provided by Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division
*Principal employer information available for FY 2012, as required by GASB-S44:33.

Source: Primary Employers Source ESRI and Economics
378
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years

147
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Function
Administration
Administration 20 20 20 17 11 11 17 9 9 8
City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
City Council 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Finance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7
Human Resources 0000000222
Information Technology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
Public safety
Animal Control 5 5 5 4 3 2 3 2 2 2
Police Officers 51 43 43 42 37 38 43 43 43 43
Police Support 19 19 19 15.5 12 16 16.0 16.5 16.5 17
Community Development
Planning 7 7 7 1 3 2 7 7 7 7
Community Enhancement 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Building and Safety 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5
Community Services
Parks and Recreation 16 17 17 19 15 16 8.5 8 8 5
Grounds Maintenance/Streets 19 19 19 11.5 5.5 7.5 19 20 20 20 Pool* 13 15 15 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Public Works
Public Works 33322232.753.56.5
Street Maintenance 2 2 2 2 2 1.5 5 5 5 5
Wastewater 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 7 7.25 12 10.5
Transit 21222222252526262623
Total: 187 183 184 156.5 135 143 175 177 182.5 180.5
Fiscal Year
*FY2012, 2013, and 2014 Lifeguards were counted as 1 FTE instead of 0.5 FTE (part-time)

Source: City of Beaumont Finance Department
379
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT

Operating Indicators by Function
Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years

148
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Function
Police
Calls for service 32,637 32,628 31,667 29,852 30,753 26,357 26,526 27,277 32,056 27,506 Citations issued by Officers 3,645 3,562 4,611 2,320 1,308 2,667 1,702 1,398 1,711 1,036 Physical arrests 1,780 1,795 1,621 1,281 1,434 1,529 1,254 891 821 1,036 Fire
Total number of calls answered 2,946 2,871 3,020 3,177 3,186 3,225 3,618 3,886 4,282 3879 % of calls for medical aid 82.2% 83.4% 81.0% 83.7% 85.0% 82.2% 82.5% 81.7% 80.2% 84.0% Highways and streets
Street resurfacing (miles) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.65 1.05 9 20 28 Potholes repaired N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 49 100 395 638 494 Wastewater
Average daily sewage treatment 2.650 2.790 3.080 3.080 3.160 3.270 3.390 3.670 3.820 3.700 (million gallons)
Note: Fire services are contracted through the County of Riverside Fiscal Year

Source: City of Beaumont Public Works and Police Departments, and Riverside County Fire Services 380
Item 8.

CITY OF BEAUMONT Capital Assets Statistics by Function Last Ten (10) Fiscal Years 149 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021FunctionPublic safety *PoliceVehicles Added Value 50,000 85,000 60,000 140,000 - 188,738 247,760 89,268 187,282 487,242 Highways and streetsStorm Drain Added Value - - - - - - 1,184,800 1,596,757 - 4,001,608 Street Improvements - - - - - 399,000 - - 1,395,105 25,352,242 Culture and recreationParks Added Value - - - - - - 2,208,322 3,600,000 1,050,000 - SewerSewer Line Added Value 2,577,842 2,291,354 1,560,925 - 131,226,200 - - 3,676,047 3,950,198 - Lift Station Added Value - 72,974 - 302,719 - 172,238 969,346 - 3,352,629 - Treatment Plant Expansion- - - - 14,684 427,311 2,236,307 15,377,340 26,290,328 20,188,903 Brine Pipeline - - - 3,334 - 613,161 1,103,175 18,128,897 16,538,109 2,073,430 * Fire services are contracted through the County of Riverside Fire Dept.Fiscal Year Sources: City of Beaumont Public Works and Police Departments, Riverside County Fire Department 381Item 8.

To the Honorable City Council
City of Beaumont

We have audited the financial statements of the City of Beaumont as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and have issued our report thereon dated January 12, 2022. Professional standards require that we advise you of the following matters relating to our audit.

Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit

As communicated in our engagement letter dated May 6, 2021, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to form and express an opinion(s) about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your respective responsibilities.

Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the City solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control.

We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you.

We have provided our findings regarding significant control deficiencies over financial reporting and material noncompliance and other matters noted during our audit in a separate letter to you dated January 12, 2022.

Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit

We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated to you.
382
Item 8.

‐2‐

Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence

The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, and our firm, have complied with all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence.

Significant Risk Identified

We have identified the possibility of the following significant risks:

Management’s override of internal controls over financial reporting: Management override of internal controls is the intervention by management in handling financial information and making decisions contrary to internal control policy.

Revenue recognition: Management’s failure to recognize revenue in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

These significant risks are presumptive in most audits and merit attention by the auditors due to the direct impact over financial reporting and internal control processes. Although identified as significant risks, we noted no matters of management override of controls or deviations from generally accepted accounting principles which caused us to modify our audit procedures or any related matters which are required to be communicated to those charged with governance due to these identified risks.

Qualitative Aspects of the City’s Significant Accounting Practices

Significant Accounting Policies

Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the significant accounting policies adopted by the City is included in Note 1 to the financial statements. As described in Note 1 to the financial statements, during the year, the City changed its method of accounting for Fiduciary Activites by Adopting Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 84 Fiduciary Activities. No matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.

Significant Accounting Estimates

Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management’s current judgments.

The most sensitive accounting estimates affecting the financial statements are:

 Management’s estimate of the fair value of investments is based on information provided by financial institutions. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the fair value of investments and determined that it is reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.

 Management’s estimate of depreciation expense is based on the useful lives of acquired assets. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop depreciation expense in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
383
Item 8.

‐3‐

 Management’s estimate of the net pension liability and related deferred inflows and outflows are based on actuarial reports provided by independent actuaries. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimate in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the statements taken as a whole.

Financial Statement Disclosures

Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the City’s financial statements relate to:

 The disclosure of fair value of investments in the basic financial statements represents amounts susceptible to market fluctuations.

 The disclosure of accumulated depreciation in the basic financial statements is based on estimated useful lives which could differ from actual useful lives of each capitalized item.

 The disclosure of net pension liability and related deferred inflows and outflows in the basic financial statements is based on actuarial assumptions. Actual future liabilities may vary from disclosed estimates.

Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit

We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit.

Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements

For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effect of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole and each applicable opinion unit. Management has corrected all such mistatements.

In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit procedures.

The attached schedule A summarizes material misstatements that we identified as a result of our audit procedures that were brought to the attention of, and corrected by, management.

Disagreements with Management

For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City’s financial statements or the auditor’s report. No such disagreements arose during the course of the audit.

Representations Requested from Management

We have requested certain written representations from management, which are included in the attached letter dated January 12, 2022.

384
Item 8.

‐4‐

Management’s Consultations with Other Accountants

In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters. Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.

Other Significant Matters, Findings, or Issues

In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, operating and regulatory conditions affecting the City, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City’s auditors.

Other Information Included in Annual Reports

Pursuant to professional standards, our responsibility as auditors for other information, whether financial or nonfinancial, included in the City’s annual reports, does not extend beyond the information identified in the audit report, and we are not required to perform any procedures to corroborate such other information.

However, in accordance with such standards:

We applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.

We were engaged to report on the combining and individual non-major fund financial statements and the budgetary comparison schedules, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.

We were not engaged to report on introductory and statistical sections, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. We did not audit or perform other procedures on this other information and we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Honorable City Council and management of the City and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

Very truly yours,

San Bernardino, California
January 12, 2022
385
Item 8.

Honorable City Council
City of Beaumont

Schedule A
‐5‐

Account Description Debit Credit
250-0000-3010-020X RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE - IA 20 1,008.97 255-0000-1000-0000 CLAIM ON CASH 1,008.97
855-0000-3050-0000 INVESTED - CFD BONDS 35,875,000.00
999-0000-2400-0000 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS 1,008.97
250-0000-1000-0000 CLAIM ON CASH 1,008.97
255-0000-3010-020X RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE - IA 20 1,008.97 855-0000-1200-0000 INVESTMENT IN BONDS 35,875,000.00
999-0000-2400-0000 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS 1,008.97
Total 35,878,026.91 35,878,026.91
100-0000-3090-0000 FUND BALANCE 486.23
100-1050-7025-0000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 486.23
Total 486.23 486.23
Rams1 Workers comp expense 599,725.00
300-0000-2685-0000 WORKERS COMP CLAIMS 599,725.00
Total 599,725.00 599,725.00
250-0000-9950-0000 TRANSFERS IN 2,000.00
250-0000-9950-0000 TRANSFERS IN 2,000.00
700-0000-4750-0000 SEWER SERVICE FEES 79,800.00
250-0000-7051-0000 TRUSTEE FEES 2,000.00
250-0000-7051-0000 TRUSTEE FEES 2,000.00
700-0000-1425-0000 A/R - UTILITY COUNTY ROLL 79,800.00
100-0000-1000-0000 CLAIM ON CASH
Total 83,800.00 83,800.00
705-0000-3090-0000 FUND BALANCE 6,451,659.79
705-0000-2300-0000 DEFERRED REVENUE 6,451,659.79
Total 6,451,659.79 6,451,659.79
840-0000-8900-0000 DEBT SERVICE 8,950,828.15
840-0000-8970-0000 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES - BOND PROCEEDS 8,950,828.15 Total 8,950,828.15 8,950,828.15
To reclass credit debt service to revenue.

Adjusting Journal Entries
Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 1
PBC AJE#1- to correct beginning fund balances
Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 2
To correct beginning Fund balances
Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 3
To adjust the worker comp claim liability per actuarial valuation Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 4
PBC #2 Entries
Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 6
PBC JE0017277
Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 7

386
Item 8.

‐6‐

855-0000-8975-0000 OTHER FINANCING USES - BOND REFUNDING 16,688,069.00 R850-0000-8900-0000 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 3,563,485.00
R855-000-1500-0000 PREPAID COST 304,015.00
850-0000-8900-0000 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 3,563,485.00
855-0000-8950-0000 COST OF ISSUANCE 5,351.00
855-0000-8970-0000 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES - BOND PROCEEDS 16,986,733.00 Total 20,555,569.00 20,555,569.00
850-0000-8900-0000 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 1,433,734.00
850-0000-1200-0000 INVESTMENT IN CFD BONDS 1,433,734.00 Total 1,433,734.00 1,433,734.00
840-0000-2810-0000 DUE TO BONDHOLDERS 28,503,832.00
840-8031-1127-0000 TRUSTEE-2013A, IA 19C 28,503,832.00
Total 28,503,832.00 28,503,832.00
Total Adjusting Journal Entries 102,457,661.08 102,457,661.08 Total All Journal Entries 102,457,661.08 102,457,661.08 Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 8
To properly record the refunding of CFD Debt.

To adjust restricted cash with fiscal agents.

To correct investments in CFD's.

Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 11
Adjusting Journal Entries JE # 13

387
Item 8.

388
Item 8.

389
Item 8.

390
Item 8.

391
Item 8.

392
Item 8.

1 REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN

AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS

Independent Auditor’s Report

To the Honorable City Council
City of Beaumont

We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Beaumont (the City) as of and for the year ended June 30 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated January 12, 2022.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that have not been identified. However, as described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be significant deficiencies.

393
Item 8.

2 A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We identified deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting, described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings as items 2021-001, 2021-002,and 2021-003 that we consider to be significant deficiencies.

Compliance and Other Matters

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

City of Beaumont’s Response to Findings

The City of Beaumont’s response to the findings identified in our audit is described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings. The City of Beaumont’s response was not subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City's internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

San Bernardino, California
January 12, 2022

394
Item 8.

City of Beaumont

Schedule of Findings
Year Ended June 30, 2021

3 A. Current Year Findings

Finding 2021-001 – Overhead Cost Allocation

Condition:

The City allocates certain General Fund costs (administration, maintenance, etc.) to the Sewer Enterprise, Gas Tax, Transit Enterprise, and the Community Facilities District (CPD) Fund. The amounts are based on calculations included in schedules maintained by the Finance Department.

Currently, the City is not allocating and recovering any of its indirect costs to federal (or state) grants. While the City completed a cost allocation study in April 2016 and has implemented the cost allocation of administrative costs to the various funds within the City, the City has not had a formal Cost Allocation Plan performed for charging of its costs to federally funded projects.

This finding was previously reported in 2020 as finding 2020-005, in 2019 as finding 2019-002 and in 2018 as finding 2018-007 – Overhead Cost Allocation.

Criteria:

Cost allocation plan methodologies should be thoroughly documented for transparency purposes, and updates to the plans should be done periodically in accordance with best practices.

Cause:

The City does have a formal cost allocation plan to allocate internal costs, and the plan developed internally is not sufficient to claim indirect costs against federal (and state) grant programs.

Effect:

The City could potentially be utilizing allocation methods which result in either less administrative costs or excessive administrative costs being allocated than would be allowable if detailed cost allocation studies were performed on a periodic basis, and in accordance with federal grant requirements. Costs that could be reimbursable from other than local sources may be able to be claimed if adequately supported. For federal awards, the City may elect to use the 10 percent of Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) de Minimis indirect rate to recover indirect costs as part of your federal grant budgets. If the City elects to use the 10 percent de Minimis rate, the Uniform Guidance requires that the City use Modified Total Direct Costs as the cost base. MTDC means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each sub award (regardless of the period of performance of the sub awards under the award).

Recommendation:

We recommend the City perform a full cost allocation study of administrative costs to ensure the detailed methodology for the allocation of administrative costs is reasonable and appropriate, based on the current circumstances, and that the methodology is clearly defined and documented.

A plan should be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Guidance in the event the City wishes to allocate and claim the indirect costs against federal (and state) grant programs. Due to the complexity involved in developing a well-supported and reasonable indirect cost plan, the City should evaluate the cost of outsourcing this study as opposed to the use of internal staff time. 395
Item 8.

City of Beaumont

Schedule of Findings
Year Ended June 30, 2021

4 A. Current Year Findings (continued)

Finding 2021-001 - Overhead Cost Allocation (continued)

Management's Response:

While the City completed a cost allocation study in April 2016 and has implemented the cost allocation of administrative cost to the various funds within the city, further work is necessary to fully comply with this recommendation. The City issued an RFP for a Full Cost Allocation Plan on September 28, 2021 and approved a contract with a consultant to provide the City with a Cost Allocation Plan for use beginning FY2023.

Finding 2021-002 – Billings - Segregation of Duties

Criteria:

During our audit, we noted the customer service counter representative collects payments for wastewater, records them into the billing system, and reconciles/approve them before posting into the general ledger.

Condition and Context:

During the audit, lack of segregation of duties was noted in the cash receipt billings process. The Customer Service Counter representative collects payments for wastewater, records them into the billing system, and reconciles/approves them before posting into the general ledger.

Effect:

Lack of segregation of duties related to the cash receipt billing process could result in erroneous, fictitious and or fraudulent cash receipts.

Recommendation:

We recommend that the Finance Department segregate the responsibilities for the collection of cash receipts, the recording of cash receipts into the billing system and the reconciliation of cash receipts to the general ledger.

Management Response to Finding:

Beginning in May 2021, the process for billing was changed to add in a layer of approval. The new process has the customer service counter running billing and the supervisor approves the billing through Info Send for the bills to be completed and mailed. Whoever is running the billing no longer approves the final documents. Finance completes all postings to the general ledger.

396
Item 8.

City of Beaumont

Schedule of Findings
Year Ended June 30, 2021

5 A. Current Year Findings (continued)

Finding 2021-003 – Adherence to Investment Policy

Criteria:

Per the City’s investment policy, the City treasurer is required to report quarterly reports to City Council with specific details as documented per the City’s investment policy.

Condition and Context:

During the audit, we noted that the City Treasurer was not reporting quarterly reports to City Council for the entire fiscal year 2021.

Effect:

The purpose of the adoption of an established investment policy is to set forth the overall investment philosophy of the City as decided by its governing board. The policy should be guiding rule and it should be followed without exception.

Recommendation:

We recommend that the Finance Department take steps to inform its City Treasurer of these discrepancies and that the investment policy is to be followed as it is stated. A copy of the investment policy should be provided to the City Treasurer with written correspondence of these matters. An investment policy is a very effective means of protecting the assets of the City, and we suggest that a procedure be implemented to be certain that it is carried out.

Management Response to Finding:

The City approved a contract for investment advisor services on February 16, 2021, and the City Council approved an amended investment policy on May 18, 2021. On August 9, 2021, City staff presented to the Finance and Audit Committee the FY2020-2021 4th Quarter Pooled Cash Investment Report which was then received and filed by the City Council on August 17, 2021.

City staff has since included all Trustee accounts within the quarterly reports to encompass all investments held by the City.

397
Item 8.

City of Beaumont

Schedule of Findings
Year Ended June 30, 2021

6 B. Prior Year Findings

Findings 2020-004 Segregation of Duties for Business Licenses Process

Status:

Corrected

Findings 2020-005 Overhead Cost Allocation

Status:

Finding has not been implemented. See repeat finding at 2021-001.

398
Item 8.

ROGERS, ANDERSON, MALODY &

SCOTT, LLP

CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
J A N U A R Y 1 8 , 2 0 2 2
P R E S E N T E D B Y :

S C O T T M A N N O , C P A , C G M A , P A R T N E R

V E R O N I C A H E R N A N D E Z , C P A , A U D I T S U P E R V I S O R 399
Item 8.

2 The City’s Responsibility
•Present the City’s financial position and results of its operations fairly and in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
•Adopt sound accounting policies.
•Provide reasonable accounting estimates.
•Establish and maintain internal controls.
•Prevent and detect fraud.
400
Item 8.

Responsibilities of Auditor
•Obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatements.
•Examine,on a test basis,evidence supporting amounts and disclosures. •Assess accounting principles used,estimates made,and evaluate the overall financial statement presentation.
•Review the City’s internal control policies and procedures. •Express an opinion as to whether the Financial Statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). 3 401
Item 8.

Audit Process
•Perform interim audit (including an internal control review and detailed assessment) •Update our understanding of the entity.
•Review current internal control systems for various cycles. •Test controls for various cycles.
•Perform year-end audit field work
•Conducted sample audit of financial records (audit of numbers). •Inspected relevant documentation.
•Inquired about policies, procedures, transactions, and events. •Confirmed balances and transactions with third parties. •Performed analytical procedures.
•Financial Statement Preparation
•Compile financial statement data and supplemental notes disclosure information with City staff and develop an opinion.
4 402
Item 8.

Our Opinion
5 •Financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects. (unmodified “clean opinion).
•Significant accounting policies have been consistently applied. •Estimates appear reasonable.
•Disclosures are properly reflected in the financial statements. 403
Item 8.

Other Key Points
•No disagreements with management.
•No material errors or irregularities discovered.
•No significant accounting issued discovered.
6 404
Item 8.

Rogers, Anderson, Malody & Scott,
LLP
Questions?
Scott Manno, CPA, CGMA, Partner
Veronica Hernandez, CPA, Audit Supervisor
405
Item 8.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director
DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: FY2022 Mid-Year Budget Amendment 3/CIP/Wastewater/General Fund and Ratification of Emergency Wastewater Vehicle Purchase

Background and Analysis:

During the fiscal year, City staff prepares amendments to the budget as needed. This report requests adjustments to the Capital Improvement Plan budget, Wastewater Operating budget and General Fund budget.

Capital Improvement Plan Budget
On December 21,2021, City Council adopted a resolution to amend the Prior -Year Capital Improvement Plan 2016-2021. The amendment increased the Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion and Renovation Project (2017 -005) from $67,235,187 to $76,334,187. The budget adjustment will allow for a transfer-out of $3,099,000 of Pay- Go funds to the project, $4,813,376 of Wastewater Development Impact Fees and provide the spending authority within the Wastewater Capital Project Fund for $1,186,624 of bond interest. The budget adjustment form for the Capital Improvement Plan have been included as Attachment A.

Funding Source Project Cost Fund
Pay-GO Funds $ 3,099,000 Wastewater Capital Project
Wastewater DIF $ 4,813,376 Wastewater Capital Project
Bond Interest $ 1,186,624 Wastewater Capital Project

Wastewater Fund
Wastewater has two trucks that are not operable and need to be retired due to the inability to pass smog testing and the cost of needed repairs. These vehicles are 406
Item 9.

required for daily operations. A truck became available and was purchased on an emergency basis to prevent disruption to the wastewater operations. Due to supply shortages from the COVID-19 pandemic it is extremely difficult to procure vehicles. The additional truck will be purchased as one becomes available.

This budget amendment will provide a line-item adjustment that reallocates funds budgeted for the brine line maintenance fees for the purchase of two trucks. The City has some one-time savings in these fees since the volume of brine produced by the City has been lower than projected. The budget adjustment form for the Wastewater Fund has been included as Attachment B.

Line Item Increase/(Decrease) Fund
Brine Line Maintenance $ (86,944) Wastewater Operations Vehicles $ 86,944 Wastewater Operations

General Fund
Revenue
The City has received four months of sales tax revenue receipts and it is trending higher than budgeted. This increase will be monitored for any further adjustments.

Revenue Increase/(Decrease) Fund
Sales Tax $475,912 General Fund

Expense
The City has an obligation with the State of California, Department of Finance (State) to pay an outstanding amount due from the State’s Due Diligence Review. The original amount due was $2,875,912. The agreement called for annual payments of $300,000 through July 15, 2022, with a final payment of $175,912 due on July 15, 2023. Paying off this liability early will allow the City to use those funds towards programs and eliminate the liability from the City’s financial statements. The budget adjustment form for the General Fund have been included as Attachment C.

407
Item 9.

Expense Increase/(Decrease) Fund
Admin Contractual
Services
$ 475,912 General Fund

Fiscal Impact:

The fiscal impact of this report is increasing the spending authority of project 2017-005 by $9,099,000 and thereby reducing the Pay-Go fund balance by $3,099,000 and reducing Wastewater DIF Fund by $4,813,376 and increases the General Fund revenue and expenses by $475,912. The costs to prepare this staff report is estimated to be $890.

Recommended Action:

Approve the Capital Improvement Plan budget adjustments as outlined in Attachment A,
Approve the budget adjustments as outlined in Attachment B, Approve the budget adjustments as outlines in Attachment C, and Ratify the cost of emergency vehicle purchase paid to Fritts Ford i n the amount of $41,943.78.

Attachments:

A. Capital Improvement Plan Budget Adjustment Form
B. Wastewater Fund Budget Adjustment Form
C. General Fund Budget Adjustment Form
D. Invoice for vehicle purchase from Fritts Ford
408
Item 9.

PREPARED BY:Tara AstranAPPROVED BYRevenue   =   (Credit)         Expense   =   DebitRevenue   =   (Credit)         Expense   =   Debit Debit                (Credit)ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIONCURRENT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT NEW BUDGET AMTExplanations / Justification510‐0000‐9960‐0000Transfers Out of Pay‐GO Funds250,000.00                               3,099,000.00                            3,349,000.00                           To increase the WW Treatment Plant Expansion and Renovation Project# 2017‐0052017‐005MWWTP EXP PH 1 & ADV R/O ‐ MISC FUNDING‐                                              (3,099,000.00)                           (3,099,000.00)                          To increase the WW Treatment Plant Expansion and Renovation Project# 2017‐005705‐0000‐9960‐0000Transfers Out ‐ Wastewater DIF950,583.00                               4,813,376.00                            5,763,959.00                           To increase the WW Treatment Plant Expansion and Renovation Project# 2017‐0052017‐005TWWTP EXP PH 1 & ADV R/O ‐ WW DIF(7,000,000.00)                           (4,813,376.00)                           (11,813,376.00)                        To increase the WW Treatment Plant Expansion and Renovation Project# 2017‐0052017‐005VWWTP EXP PH 1 & ADV R/O ‐ DEBT FUNDING(57,134,134.98)                         (1,186,624.00)                           (58,320,758.98)                        To increase the WW Treatment Plant Expansion and Renovation Project# 2017‐0052017‐005AWWTP EXP PH 1 & ADV R/O ‐ CAPITAL COSTS54,488,419.76                          9,099,000.00                            63,587,419.76                         To increase the WW Treatment Plant Expansion and Renovation Project# 2017‐0052017‐005BWWTP EXP PH 1 & ADV R/O ‐ CONSULTING8,018,383.95                            ‐                                              8,018,383.95                           To increase the WW Treatment Plant Expansion and Renovation Project# 2017‐0052017‐005CWWTP EXP PH 1 & ADV R/O ‐ CONTINGENCY 4,728,383.67                            ‐                                              4,728,383.67                           To increase the WW Treatment Plant Expansion and Renovation Project# 2017‐005‐                                             TOTALS7,912,376.00$             Net Effect409Item 9.

DATE:1/18/2022DEPARTMENT NAME:WastewaterPREPARED BY:Tara AstranAPPROVED BYRevenue   =   (Credit)        Expense   =   DebitRevenue   =   (Credit)        Expense   =   Debit Debit                (Credit)ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIONCURRENT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT NEW BUDGET AMTExplanations / Justification700‐4050‐7089‐0000Brine Line Maintenance530,000.00                               (86,944.00)                               443,056.00                              Savings in Brine Line maint budget due to the RO system being turned off700‐4050‐8060‐0000Vehicles215,000.00                               86,944.00                                301,944.00                              Two trucks in desperate need of replacement for WW operations‐                                            TOTALS‐$                                Net EffectCity of BeaumontBudget Adjustment FormFY 2021/2022 https://beaumontca.sharepoint.com/sites/financegroup2/Shared  Documents/Council Reports/FY2022/Budget Amendment #3/Copy of Attachment A ‐ WW CIP GF budget adjustments 1.18.2022.xlsx: Budget Adj Form ‐ WW410Item 9.

DATE:1/18/2022DEPARTMENT NAME:General FundPREPARED BY:Tara AstranAPPROVED BYRevenue   =   (Credit)         Expense   =   DebitRevenue   =   (Credit)         Expense   =   Debit Debit                (Credit)ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIONCURRENT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT NEW BUDGET AMTExplanations / Justification100‐0000‐4050‐0000Sales & Use Tax(6,741,000.00)                           (475,912.00)                              (7,216,912.00)                          Expected increase to sales tax revenue100‐1200‐7068‐0000Contractual Services407,044.00                              475,912.00                              882,956.00                              Early loan payoff to the State's Due Diligence Review (DDR)‐                                            TOTALS‐$                               Net EffectCity of BeaumontBudget Adjustment FormFY 2021/2022411Item 9.

412
Item 9.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director
DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Pension Funding Policy and Investment Strategy for PARS 115 Trust

Background and Analysis:

On September 21, 2021, City Council was presented with an update on CalPERS which discussed the current unfunded liability, the recent trigger of CalPERS Funding Risk Mitigation Policy and where CalPERS was in their current Asset Liability Management Process. City Council directed City staff to research pension 115 trust options, model financial scenarios and create a pension funding policy.

On December 7, 2021, the City Council approved the establishment of a pension 115 trust with Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS). The next steps in the process were to model financial scenarios and provide City Council with options on a funding policy with a recommendation from the Finance and Audit Committee. Once the funding policy and investment strategy have been chosen, PARS will provide an investment policy tailored to the chosen investment strategy for Finance and Audit Committee review and recommend to City Council for approval.

Pension Funding Policy Examples

Provided as Attachment A is a funding policy matrix. The matrix provides what the City is currently required to do through CalPERS (Example 1) which then builds to add an extra layer of funding level. The matrix addresses time frame, funding components, allowable uses of funding components, service delivery outcomes and fiscal impact.

The City is currently 75.7% funded as of June 30, 2020 , valuation.

The cost to the City for each layer of funding level has been modeled for each example in the matrix. These costs are estimates as the actual results of scenarios are unknown at this point. Once the policy is put in place it will be prudent to evaluate results annually to determine if the costs outweigh the results.
413
Item 10.

The overall pension funding status will vary based on the actual inputs to the system.

City staff have modeled the scenarios that have been provided to determine the estimated pension funding status based off the scenarios provided.

Pension 115 Trust Investment Strategy

PARS provides five (5) different strategy options with each option being either an active or passive approach. An active approach allows for actively buying and selling assets in the anticipation of making profits and outperforming a benchmark. A passive approach is a long-term strategy in which investors buy and hold a diversified mix of assets in an -

2.00 4.00

6.00 8.00

10.00 12.00
Estimated Total Pension Cost
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4

75.00 80.00

85.00 90.00

95.00 100.00
105.00
Pension Funding Status
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
414
Item 10.

effort to match, not beat the market. City staff has modeled out three of the five options with potential scenarios based on the five-year return for each of the strategies at an active level.

Strategy Equity % Fixed Income Cash
Moderate Conservative 20-40% 50-80% 0-20%
Moderate 40-60% 40-60% 0-20%
Balanced 50-70% 30-50% 0-20%

City Staff Recommendations

City staff recommends starting with Example 2 for the funding policy with an active moderate investment strategy. Example 2 has shown to have a target funding level of 85% with a minimum funding level of 80% and maximum level of 100%. Steps will be taken during the budget process to determine if Example 3 could be implemented without impacting service delivery. Costs of this funding policy could be reduced , should the PARS 115 trust outperform the model. Providing an active approach will potentially allow the investments earnings to outperform the benchmark therefore reducing the amount needed to be input to the trust.

On January 10, 2022, the Finance and Audit Committee discussed the pension funding policy and investment strategy and are recommending to City Council Example 2 as presented in the matrix with an active moderate investment strategy. -
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
6,000,000.00
7,000,000.00
8,000,000.00
9,000,000.00
Pension 115 Strategy
Moderate Conservative Level Moderate Investment Level
Balanced
415
Item 10.

Fiscal Impact:

The fiscal impact of Example 2 pension funding policy is $2.5 million of earmarked reserves transferred to the PARS 115 Trust fund, and an increase of approximately $360,000 of normal pension costs programmed into FY2023 budget. City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $780.

Recommended Action:

Approve Example 2 of the pension funding policy with an active moderate investment strategy for the PARS 115 Trust.

Attachments:

A. Pension Funding Policy Matrix
B. Highmark Portfolio Performance Reports as of September 30, 2021 416
Item 10.

Pension Funding Policy ElementsExample 1: CalPERS (Baseline)Example 2: Lower Funding TargetExample 3: Medium Funding TargetExample 4: Higher Funding Target% Funded Goal (Range)100%, no lower element of range 80%‐100%; Target of 85%80% ‐ 100%; Target of 95%90% ‐ 100%+; Target of 100%+Time Frame30 yearsWithin 10 yearsWithin 10 years Within 10 yearsNormal Cost (NC) calculated at 7.0% Discount Rate(+) Contribute $2.5m identified to 115 Trust(+) Identify funding for the pension obligation through budget(+) Recalculate the NC with 6% DRChanges in acturial assumptions amortized over 20 years(+) Using a more conservative discount rate (DR) 6.5% for calculation of normal cost(+) Amend Reserve Policy, 50% excess BSR an be allocated for pension costs (all funds contribute a commnesurate amount)(+) Amend existing BSR policy, 100% excess BSR allocated for pension costs (all funds contribute a commensurate amount)UAL amortized over 30 years for gains/losses; calculated at 7% Discount Rate (20 years beginning 6/30/2021)Pension Funding Policy ExamplesFunding Components417Item 10.

Allowable Uses of Funding ComponentsNC covers pay‐go portion ; UAL portion pays off unfunded liability in 30 years if CalPERS investment returns met(+) Reach one‐year of funding for CalPERS ADC in 115 Trust Fund (invest moderately); subsequent proactive funding to CalPERS as ADP(+) Fresh start in concept for the Safety group, beginning in a target year(‐) Contractual Fresh Start for the Safety group beginning in a target year in‐leiu of fresh start in conceptService Delivery OutcomesContinue services throughout the City inlcuding the ability to keep up with cost of doing business as well as limited strategic investments.Continue current service levels, limitations on additional service delivery including an ability to keep up with the cost of doing business. Prioritization would continue to be necessary annually through the budget process.(+) City Manager to identify plan to address additional contributions to pension as part of annual budget process/     (+) Impacts on service delivery and/or structural additional revenue(+) Significant adverse impacts on service delivery levels; additional revenueFiscal ImpactApprox $4.05m total pension cost for FY24Approx $4.41m total pension cost for FY24Approx $5.23m total pension cost for FY24Approx $6.42m total pension cost for FY24(+) Indicates that this is in addition to the step to the left while (‐) indicates that this is instead of the step to the left. 418Item 10.

PARS DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIOS

MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE

ANNUAL RETURNS
ASSET ALLOCATION — MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE PORTFOLIO
Comprehensive Investment Solution
HighMark® Capital Management, Inc.’s (HighMark)
diversified investment portfolios are designed to
balance return expectations with risk tolerance.

Key features include: sophisticated asset allocation
and optimization techniques, four layers of
diversification (asset class, style, manager, and
security), access to rigorously screened, top tier
money managers, flexible investment options, and
experienced investment management.

Rigorous Manager Due Diligence
Our manager review committee utilizes a rigorous
screening process that searches for investment
managers and styles that have not only produced
above-average returns within acceptable risk
parameters, but have the resources and commitment
to continue to deliver these results. We have set high
standards for our investment managers and funds.

This is a highly specialized, time consuming
approach dedicated to one goal: competitive and
consistent performance.

Flexible Investment Options
In order to meet the unique needs of our clients,
we offer access to flexible implementation strategies:

HighMark Plus utilizes actively managed mutual
funds while Index Plus utilizes index-based
securities, including exchange-traded funds. Both
investment options leverage HighMark’s active asset
allocation approach.

Risk Management
The portfolio is constructed to control risk through
four layers of diversification – asset classes (cash,
fixed income, equity), investment styles (large cap,
small cap, international, value, growth), managers
and securities. Disciplined mutual fund selection and
monitoring process helps to drive return potential
while reducing portfolio risk.

WHY THE PARS DIVERSIFIED
MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE PORTFOLIO?
Q3 2021
* Returns less than one year are not annualized. **Breakdown for Blended Benchmark: From 10/1/2012 - Present: 15.5% S&P500, 3% Russell Mid Cap, 4.5% Russell 2000, 2% MSCI EM (net), 4% MSCI EAFE (net), 49.25% Bloomberg US Agg, 14% ICE BofA 1- 3 Yr US Corp/Gov’t, 1.75% ICE BofA US High Yield Master II, 1% Wilshire REIT, and 5% FTSE 1 Mth US T-Bill. From 4/1/2007 - 9/30/2012: the blended benchmark was 25% S&P 500; 1.5% Russell 2000, 3.5% MSCI EAFE (net), 25% ICE BofA 1-3 Year Corp./Govt, 40% Bloomberg US Agg, 5% FTSE 1 Mth US T-Bill. Prior to April 2007, the blended benchmark was 30% S&P 500, 25% ICE BofA 1-3Yr Corp/Gov, 40% Bloomberg US Agg, and 5% FTSE 1 Mth US T-Bill.

To provide current income, with
capital appreciation as a
secondary objective. The major
portion of the assets is
committed to income-producing
securities. Market fluctuations
should be expected.

Strategic Range Policy Tactical
Equity 20 - 40% 30% 32%
Fixed Income 50 - 80% 65% 67%
Cash 0 - 20% 5% 1%
ANNUALIZED TOTAL RETURNS (Gross of Investment Management Fees, but Net of Embedded Fund Fees)
HighMark Plus Composite (Active)
Current Quarter* -0.58%
Blended Benchmark*,** -0.21%
Year To Date* 3.36%
Blended Benchmark*,** 3.25%
1 Year 9.83%
Blended Benchmark** 8.83%
3 Year 7.80%
Blended Benchmark** 7.57%
5 Year 6.61%
Blended Benchmark** 6.34%
10 Year 6.64%
Blended Benchmark** 6.20%
Index Plus Composite (Passive)
Current Quarter* -0.32%
Blended Benchmark*,** -0.21%
Year To Date* 3.16%
Blended Benchmark*,** 3.25%
1 Year 8.50%
Blended Benchmark** 8.83%
3 Year 7.52%
Blended Benchmark** 7.57%
5 Year 6.11%
Blended Benchmark** 6.34%
10 Year 6.15%
Blended Benchmark** 6.20%

PORTFOLIO FACTS
HighMark Plus (Active)
Composite Inception Date 08/2004
No of Holdings in Portfolio 20
Index Plus (Passive)
Composite Inception Date 05/2005
No of Holdings in Portfolio 13
Efficient Frontier
Risk (Standard Deviation)Reward (Rate of Return)Conservative Moderately Conservative
Moderate
Capital Appreciation
Balanced
HighMark Plus Composite (Active)
2008 -15.37%
2009 18.71%
2010 10.46%
2011 1.75%
2012 10.88%
2013 7.30%
2014 4.41%
2015 0.32%
2016 4.94%
2017 9.56%
2018 -2.60%
2019 13.73%
2020 10.76%
Index Plus Composite (Passive)
2008 -12.40%
2009 11.92%
2010 9.72%
2011 3.24%
2012 8.24%
2013 6.78%
2014 5.40%
2015 -0.18%
2016 5.42%
2017 8.08%
2018 -2.33%
2019 13.53%
2020 9.74%
(Gross of Investment Management Fees, but Net of Embedded Fund Fees)
419
Item 10.

HIGHMARK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
350 California Street
Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
800-582-4734

ABOUT THE ADVISER
HighMark®Capital Management, Inc. (HighMark) has
100 years (including predecessor organizations) of
institutional money management experience with $9.4
billion in assets under management and $9.6 billion in
assets under advisement*. HighMark has a long term
disciplined approach to money management and
currently manages assets for a wide array of clients.

ABOUT THE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT TEAM
Andrew Brown, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1994
HighMark Tenure: since 1997
Education: MBA, University of Southern California;
BA, University of Southern California
Salvatore “Tory” Milazzo III, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 2004
HighMark Tenure: since 2014
Education: BA, Colgate University
J. Keith Stribling, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1985
HighMark Tenure: since 1995
Education: BA, Stetson University
Christiane Tsuda
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1987
HighMark Tenure: since 2010
Education: BA, International Christian University, Tokyo Anne Wimmer, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1987
HighMark Tenure: since 2007
Education: BA, University of California, Santa Barbara
Randy Yurchak, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 2002
HighMark Tenure: since 2017
Education: MBA, Arizona State University;
BS, University of Washington
Asset Allocation Committee
Number of Members: 17
Average Years of Experience: 26
Average Tenure (Years): 14
Manager Review Group
Number of Members: 8
Average Years of Experience: 20
Average Tenure (Years): 9
*Assets under management (“AUM”) include assets for which HighMark provides continuous and regular supervisory and management services. Assets under advisement (“AUA”)
include assets for which HighMark provides certain investment advisory services (including, but not limited to, investment research and strategies) for client assets of its parent company, MUFG Union Bank, N.A.

The performance records shown represent a size-weighted composite of tax exempt accounts that meet the following criteria: Accounts are managed by HighMark with full investment authority according to the PARS Moderately Conservative active and passive objectives.

The adviser to the PARS portfolios is US Bank, and HighMark serves as sub-adviser to US Bank to manage these portfolios. US Bank may charge clients as much as 0.60% annual management fee based on a sliding scale. US Bank pays HighMark 60% of the annual management fee for assets sub-advised by HighMark under its sub-advisory agreement with US Bank. The 0.36% paid to HighMark, as well as other expenses that may be incurred in the management of the portfolio, will reduce the portfolio’s returns. Assuming an investment for five years, a 5% annual total return, and an annual sub-advisory fee rate of 0.36% deducted from the assets at market at the end of each year, a $10 million initial value would grow to $12.53 million after fees (Net-of-Fees) and $12.76 million before fees (Gross-of-Fees).

Gross returns are presented before management and custodial fees but after all trading expenses and reflect the reinvestment of dividends and other income. A client's return will be reduced by the advisory fees and other expenses it may incur as a client. Additional information regarding the firm’s policies and procedures for calculating and reporting performance results is available upon request. Performance results are calculated and presented in U.S. dollars and do not reflect the deduction of investment advisory fees, custody fees, or taxes but do reflect the deduction of trading expenses. Returns are calculated based on trade-date accounting.

Blended benchmarks represent HighMark’s strategic allocations between equity, fixed income, and cash and are rebalanced monthly. Benchmark returns do not reflect the deduction of advisory fees or other expenses of investing but assumes the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The unmanaged S&P 500 Index is representative of the performance of large companies in the U.S. stock market. The MSCI EAFE Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index designed to measure developed market equity performance, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure equity market performance in the global emerging markets. The Russell Midcap Index measures the performance of the mid-cap segment of the U.S. equity universe. The Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small-cap segment of the U.S. equity universe. The ICE BofA US High Yield Master II Index tracks the performance of below investment grade U.S. dollar-denominated corporate bonds publicly issued in the U.S. domestic market. Wilshire REIT index measures U.S. publicly traded Real Estate Investment Trusts. The unmanaged Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is generally representative of the U.S. taxable bond market as a whole. The ICE BofA 1-3 Year U.S. Corporate & Government Index tracks the bond performance of the ICE BofA U.S. Corporate & Government Index, with a remaining term to final maturity less than 3 years. The unmanaged FTSE 1-Month U.S.

Treasury Bill Index tracks the yield of the 1-month U.S. Treasury Bill.

HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (HighMark), an SEC-registered investment adviser, is a wholly owned subsidiary of MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (MUB). HighMark manages institutional separate account portfolios for a wide variety of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, public agencies, and public and private retirement plans. MUB, a subsidiary of MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation, provides certain services to HighMark and is compensated for these services. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Individual account management and construction will vary depending on each client’s investment needs and objectives. Investments employing HighMark strategies are NOT insured by the FDIC or by any other Federal Government Agency, are NOT Bank deposits, are NOT guaranteed by the Bank or any Bank affiliate, and MAY lose value, including possible loss of principal. 350 California Street
Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
800.582.4734
www.highmarkcapital.com

HOLDINGS
STYLE
Small Cap 5.1%
Interm-Term Bond

53.1%
High Yield 2.7%
Short-Term Bond

11.7%
Large Cap Core

8.9%
Large Cap Growth

3.5%
Mid Cap 2.6%
Intl Stocks 6.4%
Cash 1.0%
Large Cap Value

4.0%Real Estate 1.0%
Holdings are subject to change at the
discretion of the investment manager.

HighMark Plus (Active)Index Plus (Passive)
Columbia Contrarian Core I3 iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Vanguard Growth & Income Adm iShares S&P 500 Value ETF
Dodge & Cox Stock Fund iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
iShares S&P 500 Value ETF iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF
Harbor Capital Appreciation - Retirement
Vanguard Real Estate ETF
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock - I iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF Vanguard Real Estate ETF iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF
Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Value-R6 Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF Victory RS Small Cap Growth - R6 Vanguard Short-Term Invest-Grade Adm DFA Large Cap International Portfolio iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Dodge & Cox International Stock Vanguard High-Yield Corp Adm MFS International Growth - R6 First American Government Obligations Z Hartford Schroders Emerging Markets Eq
Vanguard Short-Term Invest-Grade Adm
PIMCO High Yield Instl
PIMCO Total Return Fund - Inst
PGIM Total Return Bond - R6
DoubleLine Core Fixed Income - I
First American Government Obligations Z
420
Item 10.

PARS DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIOS

MODERATE

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE

ANNUAL RETURNS
ASSET ALLOCATION — MODERATE PORTFOLIO
Comprehensive Investment Solution
HighMark® Capital Management, Inc.’s (HighMark)
diversified investment portfolios are designed to
balance return expectations with risk tolerance.

Key features include: sophisticated asset allocation
and optimization techniques, four layers of
diversification (asset class, style, manager, and
security), access to rigorously screened, top tier
money managers, flexible investment options, and
experienced investment management.

Rigorous Manager Due Diligence
Our manager review committee utilizes a rigorous
screening process that searches for investment
managers and styles that have not only produced
above-average returns within acceptable risk
parameters, but have the resources and commitment
to continue to deliver these results. We have set high
standards for our investment managers and funds.

This is a highly specialized, time consuming
approach dedicated to one goal: competitive and
consistent performance.

Flexible Investment Options
In order to meet the unique needs of our clients,
we offer access to flexible implementation strategies:

HighMark Plus utilizes actively managed mutual
funds while Index Plus utilizes index-based
securities, including exchange-traded funds. Both
investment options leverage HighMark’s active asset
allocation approach.

Risk Management
The portfolio is constructed to control risk through
four layers of diversification – asset classes (cash,
fixed income, equity), investment styles (large cap,
small cap, international, value, growth), managers
and securities. Disciplined mutual fund selection and
monitoring process helps to drive return potential
while reducing portfolio risk.

WHY THE PARS DIVERSIFIED
MODERATE PORTFOLIO?
Q3 2021
* Returns less than one year are not annualized. **Breakdown for Blended Benchmark: From 10/1/2012 – Present: 26.5% S&P500, 5% Russell Mid Cap, 7.5% Russell 2000, 3.25% MSCI EM (net), 6% MSCI EAFE (net), 33.50% Bloomberg US Agg, 10% ICE BofA 1-3 Yr US Corp/Gov’t, 1.50% ICE BofA US High Yield Master II, 1.75% Wilshire REIT, and 5% FTSE 1 Mth US T-Bill. From 4/1/2007 – 9/30/2012: the blended benchmark was 43% S&P 500; 2% Russell 2000, 5% MSCI EAFE (net), 15% ICE BofA 1-3 Year Corp./Govt, 30% Bloomberg US Agg, 5% FTSE 1 Mth US T-Bill. Prior to April 2007: the blended benchmark was 50% S&P 500, 15% ICE BofA 1-3Yr Corp/Gov, 30% Bloomberg US Agg, and 5% FTSE 1 Mth US T-Bill.

To provide current income and
moderate capital appreciation.

It is expected that dividend and
interest income will comprise a
significant portion of total return,
although growth through capital
appreciation is equally important.

Strategic Range Policy Tactical
Equity 40 - 60% 50% 53%
Fixed Income 40 - 60% 45% 46%
Cash 0 - 20% 5% 1%
ANNUALIZED TOTAL RETURNS (Gross of Investment Management Fees, but Net of Embedded Fund Fees)
HighMark Plus Composite (Active)
Current Quarter* -1.05%
Blended Benchmark*,** -0.41%
Year To Date* 6.00%
Blended Benchmark*,** 6.22%
1 Year 15.94%
Blended Benchmark** 15.32%
3 Year 9.54%
Blended Benchmark** 9.40%
5 Year 8.93%
Blended Benchmark** 8.73%
10 Year 8.72%
Blended Benchmark** 8.63%
Index Plus Composite (Passive)
Current Quarter* -0.54%
Blended Benchmark*,** -0.41%
Year To Date* 6.19%
Blended Benchmark*,** 6.22%
1 Year 14.77%
Blended Benchmark** 15.32%
3 Year 9.10%
Blended Benchmark** 9.40%
5 Year 8.34%
Blended Benchmark** 8.73%
10 Year 8.35%
Blended Benchmark** 8.63%

PORTFOLIO FACTS
HighMark Plus (Active)
Composite Inception Date 10/2004
No of Holdings in Portfolio 20
Index Plus (Passive)
Composite Inception Date 05/2006
No of Holdings in Portfolio 13
Efficient Frontier
Risk (Standard Deviation)Reward (Rate of Return)Conservative Moderately Conservative
Moderate
Capital Appreciation
Balanced
HighMark Plus Composite (Active)
2008 -22.88%
2009 21.47%
2010 12.42%
2011 0.55%
2012 12.25%
2013 13.06%
2014 4.84%
2015 0.14%
2016 6.45%
2017 13.19%
2018 -4.03%
2019 17.71%
2020 12.92%
Index Plus Composite (Passive)
2008 -18.14%
2009 16.05%
2010 11.77%
2011 2.29%
2012 10.91%
2013 12.79%
2014 5.72%
2015 -0.52%
2016 7.23%
2017 11.59%
2018 -4.03%
2019 17.52%
2020 11.23%
(Gross of Investment Management Fees, but Net of Embedded Fund Fees)
421
Item 10.

HIGHMARK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
350 California Street
Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
800-582-4734

ABOUT THE ADVISER
HighMark®Capital Management, Inc. (HighMark) has
100 years (including predecessor organizations) of
institutional money management experience with $9.4
billion in assets under management and $9.6 billion in
assets under advisement*. HighMark has a long term
disciplined approach to money management and
currently manages assets for a wide array of clients.

ABOUT THE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT TEAM
Andrew Brown, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1994
HighMark Tenure: since 1997
Education: MBA, University of Southern California;
BA, University of Southern California
Salvatore “Tory” Milazzo III, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 2004
HighMark Tenure: since 2014
Education: BA, Colgate University
J. Keith Stribling, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1985
HighMark Tenure: since 1995
Education: BA, Stetson University
Christiane Tsuda
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1987
HighMark Tenure: since 2010
Education: BA, International Christian University, Tokyo Anne Wimmer, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1987
HighMark Tenure: since 2007
Education: BA, University of California, Santa Barbara
Randy Yurchak, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 2002
HighMark Tenure: since 2017
Education: MBA, Arizona State University;
BS, University of Washington
Asset Allocation Committee
Number of Members: 17
Average Years of Experience: 26
Average Tenure (Years): 14
Manager Review Group
Number of Members: 8
Average Years of Experience: 20
Average Tenure (Years): 9
*Assets under management (“AUM”) include assets for which HighMark provides continuous and regular supervisory and management services. Assets under advisement (“AUA”)
include assets for which HighMark provides certain investment advisory services (including, but not limited to, investment research and strategies) for client assets of its parent company, MUFG Union Bank, N.A.

The performance records shown represent size-weighted composites of tax exempt accounts that meet the following criteria: Accounts are managed by HighMark with full investment authority according to the PARS Moderate active and passive objectives.

The adviser to the PARS portfolios is US Bank, and HighMark serves as sub-adviser to US Bank to manage these portfolios. US Bank may charge clients as much as 0.60% annual management fee based on a sliding scale. US Bank pays HighMark 60% of the annual management fee for assets sub-advised by HighMark under its sub-advisory agreement with US Bank. The 0.36% paid to HighMark, as well as other expenses that may be incurred in the management of the portfolio, will reduce the portfolio’s returns. Assuming an investment for five years, a 5% annual total return, and an annual sub- advisory fee rate of 0.36% deducted from the assets at market at the end of each year, a $10 million initial value would grow to $12.53 million after fees (Net-of-Fees) and $12.76 million before fees (Gross-of-Fees). Gross returns are presented before management and custodial fees but after all trading expenses and reflect the reinvestment of dividends and other income. A client's return will be reduced by the advisory fees and other expenses it may incur as a client. Additional information regarding the firm’s policies and procedures for calculating and reporting performance results is available upon request. Performance results are calculated and presented in U.S. dollars and do not reflect the deduction of investment advisory fees, custody fees, or taxes but do reflect the deduction of trading expenses. Returns are calculated based on trade-date accounting.

Blended benchmarks represent HighMark’s strategic allocations between equity, fixed income, and cash and are rebalanced monthly. Benchmark returns do not reflect the deduction of advisory fees or other expenses of investing but assumes the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The unmanaged S&P 500 Index is representative of the performance of large companies in the U.S. stock market. The MSCI EAFE Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index designed to measure developed market equity performance, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure equity market performance in the global emerging markets. The Russell Midcap Index measures the performance of the mid-cap segment of the U.S. equity universe. The Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small-cap segment of the U.S. equity universe. The ICE BofA US High Yield Master II Index tracks the performance of below investment grade U.S. dollar-denominated corporate bonds publicly issued in the U.S. domestic market. Wilshire REIT index measures U.S. publicly traded Real Estate Investment Trusts. The unmanaged Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is generally representative of the U.S. taxable bond market as a whole. The ICE BofA 1-3 Year U.S. Corporate & Government Index tracks the bond performance of the ICE BofA U.S. Corporate & Government Index, with a remaining term to final maturity less than 3 years. The unmanaged FTSE 1-Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index tracks the yield of the 1- month U.S. Treasury Bill.

HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (HighMark), an SEC-registered investment adviser, is a wholly owned subsidiary of MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (MUB). HighMark manages institutional separate account portfolios for a wide variety of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, public agencies, and public and private retirement plans. MUB, a subsidiary of MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation, provides certain services to HighMark and is compensated for these services. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Individual account management and construction will vary depending on each client’s investment needs and objectives. Investments employing HighMark strategies are NOT insured by the FDIC or by any other Federal Government Agency, are NOT Bank deposits, are NOT guaranteed by the Bank or any Bank affiliate, and MAY lose value, including possible loss of principal. 350 California Street
Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
800.582.4734
www.highmarkcapital.com

HOLDINGS
STYLE
Small Cap

8.4%
Interm-Term Bond

35.9%
High Yield

2.1%Short-Term Bond

8.5%
Large Cap Core

15.2%
Large Cap Growth

5.9%
Mid Cap

4.2%
Intl Stocks

10.2%
Cash

1.0%
Large Cap Value

6.8%
Real Estate

1.8%
Holdings are subject to change at the
discretion of the investment manager.

HighMark Plus (Active)Index Plus (Passive)
Columbia Contrarian Core I3 iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Vanguard Growth & Income Adm iShares S&P 500 Value ETF
Dodge & Cox Stock Fund iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
iShares S&P 500 Value ETF iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF
Harbor Capital Appreciation - Retirement
Vanguard Real Estate ETF
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock - I iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF Vanguard Real Estate ETF iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF
Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Value-R6 Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF Victory RS Small Cap Growth - R6 Vanguard Short-Term Invest-Grade Adm DFA Large Cap International Portfolio iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Dodge & Cox International Stock Vanguard High-Yield Corp Adm MFS International Growth - R6 First American Government Obligations Z Hartford Schroders Emerging Markets Eq
Vanguard Short-Term Invest-Grade Adm
PIMCO High Yield Instl
PIMCO Total Return Fund - Inst
PGIM Total Return Bond - R6
DoubleLine Core Fixed Income - I
First American Government Obligations Z
422
Item 10.

PARS DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIOS

BALANCED

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE

ANNUAL RETURNS
ASSET ALLOCATION — BALANCED PORTFOLIO
Comprehensive Investment Solution
HighMark® Capital Management, Inc.’s (HighMark)
diversified investment portfolios are designed to
balance return expectations with risk tolerance.

Key features include: sophisticated asset allocation
and optimization techniques, four layers of
diversification (asset class, style, manager, and
security), access to rigorously screened, top tier
money managers, flexible investment options, and
experienced investment management.

Rigorous Manager Due Diligence
Our manager review committee utilizes a rigorous
screening process that searches for investment
managers and styles that have not only produced
above-average returns within acceptable risk
parameters, but have the resources and commitment
to continue to deliver these results. We have set high
standards for our investment managers and funds.

This is a highly specialized, time consuming
approach dedicated to one goal: competitive and
consistent performance.

Flexible Investment Options
In order to meet the unique needs of our clients,
we offer access to flexible implementation strategies:

HighMark Plus utilizes actively managed mutual
funds while Index Plus utilizes index-based
securities, including exchange-traded funds. Both
investment options leverage HighMark’s active asset
allocation approach.

Risk Management
The portfolio is constructed to control risk through
four layers of diversification – asset classes (cash,
fixed income, equity), investment styles (large cap,
small cap, international, value, growth), managers
and securities. Disciplined mutual fund selection and
monitoring process helps to drive return potential
while reducing portfolio risk.

WHY THE PARS DIVERSIFIED
BALANCED PORTFOLIO?
Q3 2021
* Returns less than one year are not annualized. **Breakdown for Blended Benchmark: From 10/1/2012 – Present: 32% S&P500, 6% Russell Mid Cap, 9% Russell 2000, 4% MSCI EM (net), 7% MSCI EAFE (net), 27% Bloomberg US Agg, 6.75% ICE BofA 1-3 Yr US Corp/Gov’t, 1.25% ICE BofA US High Yield Master II, 2% Wilshire REIT, and 5% FTSE 1 Mth US T-Bill. From 4/1/2007 – 9/30/2012: the blended benchmark was 51% S&P 500; 3% Russell 2000, 6% MSCI EAFE (net), 5% ICE BofA 1-3 Year Corp./Govt, 30% Bloomberg US Agg, 5% FTSE 1 Mth US T-Bill. Prior to April 2007: the blended benchmark was 60% S&P 500, 5% ICE BofA 1-3Yr Corp/Gov, 30% Bloomberg US Agg, and 5% FTSE 1 Mth US T-Bill.

To provide growth of principal
and income. While dividend and
interest income are an important
component of the objective’s
total return, it is expected that
capital appreciation will
comprise a larger portion of the
total return.

Strategic Range Policy Tactical
Equity 50 – 70% 60% 63%
Fixed Income 30 – 50% 35% 36%
Cash 0 – 20% 5% 1%
ANNUALIZED TOTAL RETURNS (Gross of Investment Management Fees, but Net of Embedded Fund Fees)
HighMark Plus Composite (Active)
Current Quarter* -1.30%
Blended Benchmark*,** -0.52%
Year To Date* 7.34%
Blended Benchmark*,** 7.71%
1 Year 19.24%
Blended Benchmark** 18.65%
3 Year 10.30%
Blended Benchmark** 10.30%
5 Year 10.11%
Blended Benchmark** 9.94%
10 Year 9.83%
Blended Benchmark** 9.87%
Index Plus Composite (Passive)
Current Quarter* -0.66%
Blended Benchmark*,** -0.52%
Year To Date* 7.68%
Blended Benchmark*,** 7.71%
1 Year 17.93%
Blended Benchmark** 18.65%
3 Year 9.89%
Blended Benchmark** 10.30%
5 Year 9.45%
Blended Benchmark** 9.94%
10 Year 9.44%
Blended Benchmark** 9.87%

PORTFOLIO FACTS
HighMark Plus (Active)
Composite Inception Date 10/2006
No of Holdings in Portfolio 20
Index Plus (Passive)
Composite Inception Date 10/2007
No of Holdings in Portfolio 13
Efficient Frontier
Risk (Standard Deviation)Reward (Rate of Return)Conservative Moderately Conservative
Moderate
Capital Appreciation
Balanced
HighMark Plus Composite (Active)
2008 -25.72%
2009 21.36%
2010 14.11%
2011 -0.46%
2012 13.25%
2013 16.61%
2014 4.70%
2015 0.04%
2016 6.81%
2017 15.46%
2018 -4.88%
2019 19.85%
2020 14.06%
Index Plus Composite (Passive)
2008 -23.22%
2009 17.62%
2010 12.76%
2011 1.60%
2012 11.93%
2013 15.63%
2014 6.08%
2015 -0.81%
2016 8.25%
2017 13.39%
2018 -5.05%
2019 19.59%
2020 12.07%
(Gross of Investment Management Fees, but Net of Embedded Fund Fees)
423
Item 10.

HIGHMARK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
350 California Street
Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
800-582-4734

ABOUT THE ADVISER
HighMark®Capital Management, Inc. (HighMark) has
100 years (including predecessor organizations) of
institutional money management experience with $9.4
billion in assets under management and $9.6 billion in
assets under advisement*. HighMark has a long term
disciplined approach to money management and
currently manages assets for a wide array of clients.

ABOUT THE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT TEAM
Andrew Brown, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1994
HighMark Tenure: since 1997
Education: MBA, University of Southern California;
BA, University of Southern California
Salvatore “Tory” Milazzo III, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 2004
HighMark Tenure: since 2014
Education: BA, Colgate University
J. Keith Stribling, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1985
HighMark Tenure: since 1995
Education: BA, Stetson University
Christiane Tsuda
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1987
HighMark Tenure: since 2010
Education: BA, International Christian University, Tokyo Anne Wimmer, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 1987
HighMark Tenure: since 2007
Education: BA, University of California, Santa Barbara
Randy Yurchak, CFA®
Senior Portfolio Manager
Investment Experience: since 2002
HighMark Tenure: since 2017
Education: MBA, Arizona State University;
BS, University of Washington
Asset Allocation Committee
Number of Members: 17
Average Years of Experience: 26
Average Tenure (Years): 14
Manager Review Group
Number of Members: 8
Average Years of Experience: 20
Average Tenure (Years): 9
*Assets under management (“AUM”) include assets for which HighMark provides continuous and regular supervisory and management services. Assets under advisement (“AUA”)
include assets for which HighMark provides certain investment advisory services (including, but not limited to, investment research and strategies) for client assets of its parent company, MUFG Union Bank, N.A.

The performance records shown represent size-weighted composites of tax exempt accounts that meet the following criteria:

Accounts are managed by HighMark with full investment authority according to the PARS Balanced active and passive objectives.

The composite name has been changed from PARS Balanced/Moderately Aggressive to PARS Balanced on 5/1/2013. The adviser to the PARS portfolios is US Bank, and HighMark serves as sub-adviser to US Bank to manage these portfolios. US Bank may charge clients as much as 0.60% annual management fee based on a sliding scale. US Bank pays HighMark 60% of the annual management fee for assets sub-advised by HighMark under its sub-advisory agreement with US Bank. The

0.36% paid to HighMark, as well as other expenses that may be incurred in the management of the portfolio, will reduce the portfolio’s returns. Assuming an investment for five years, a 5% annual total return, and an annual sub-advisory fee rate of

0.36% deducted from the assets at market at the end of each year, a $10 million initial value would grow to $12.53 million after fees (Net-of-Fees) and $12.76 million before fees (Gross-of-Fees). Gross returns are presented before management and custodial fees but after all trading expenses and reflect the reinvestment of dividends and other income. A client's return will be reduced by the advisory fees and other expenses it may incur as a client. Additional information regarding the firm’s policies and procedures for calculating and reporting performance results is available upon request. Performance results are calculated and presented in U.S. dollars and do not reflect the deduction of investment advisory fees, custody fees, or taxes but do reflect the deduction of trading expenses. Returns are calculated based on trade-date accounting.

Blended benchmarks represent HighMark’s strategic allocations between equity, fixed income, and cash and are rebalanced monthly. Benchmark returns do not reflect the deduction of advisory fees or other expenses of investing but assumes the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings. An investor cannot invest directly in an index. The unmanaged S&P 500 Index is representative of the performance of large companies in the U.S. stock market. The MSCI EAFE Index is a free float- adjusted market capitalization index designed to measure developed market equity performance, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The MSCI Emerging Markets Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure equity market performance in the global emerging markets. The Russell Midcap Index measures the performance of the mid- cap segment of the U.S. equity universe. The Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small-cap segment of the U.S. equity universe. The ICE BofA US High Yield Master II Index tracks the performance of below investment grade U.S. dollar-denominated corporate bonds publicly issued in the U.S. domestic market. Wilshire REIT index measures U.S. publicly traded Real Estate Investment Trusts. The unmanaged Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is generally representative of the U.S. taxable bond market as a whole. The ICE BofA 1-3 Year U.S. Corporate & Government Index tracks the bond performance of the ICE BofA U.S. Corporate & Government Index, with a remaining term to final maturity less than 3 years.

The unmanaged FTSE 1-Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index tracks the yield of the 1-month U.S. Treasury Bill.

HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (HighMark), an SEC-registered investment adviser, is a wholly owned subsidiary of MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (MUB). HighMark manages institutional separate account portfolios for a wide variety of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, public agencies, and public and private retirement plans. MUB, a subsidiary of MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation, provides certain services to HighMark and is compensated for these services. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Individual account management and construction will vary depending on each client’s investment needs and objectives. Investments employing HighMark strategies are NOT insured by the FDIC or by any other Federal Government Agency, are NOT Bank deposits, are NOT guaranteed by the Bank or any Bank affiliate, and MAY lose value, including possible loss of principal. 350 California Street
Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
800.582.4734
www.highmarkcapital.com

HOLDINGS
STYLE
Small Cap

10.0%
Interm-Term Bond

28.5%
High Yield

1.8%
Short-Term Bond

5.8%
Large Cap Core

18.5%
Large Cap Growth

7.1%
Mid Cap

5.1%
Intl Stocks

12.1%
Cash

1.0%
Large Cap Value

8.1%
Real Estate

2.0%
Holdings are subject to change at the
discretion of the investment manager.

HighMark Plus (Active)Index Plus (Passive)
Columbia Contrarian Core I3 iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Vanguard Growth & Income Adm iShares S&P 500 Value ETF
Dodge & Cox Stock Fund iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
iShares S&P 500 Value ETF iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF
Harbor Capital Appreciation - Retirement
Vanguard Real Estate ETF
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock - I iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF Vanguard Real Estate ETF iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF
Undiscovered Managers Behavioral Value-R6 Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF Victory RS Small Cap Growth - R6 Vanguard Short-Term Invest-Grade Adm DFA Large Cap International Portfolio iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Dodge & Cox International Stock Vanguard High-Yield Corp Adm MFS International Growth - R6 First American Government Obligations Z Hartford Schroders Emerging Markets Eq
Vanguard Short-Term Invest-Grade Adm
PIMCO High Yield Instl
PIMCO Total Return Fund - Inst
PGIM Total Return Bond - R6
DoubleLine Core Fixed Income - I
First American Government Obligations Z
424
Item 10.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Jeff Hart, Public Works Director
DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Update for the First Street and Highway 79 Intersection, and the Sixth Street and Beaumont Avenue Intersection

Project: First Street/Highway 79 Traffic Signal

Summary:

The current phase of Capital Improvement Project R-11 - Citywide Traffic Signal Upgrade includes signal modifications at two locations: Beaumont Ave at First Street and Beaumont Ave at Sixth Street.

First Street and Beaumont Avenue:

Project Scope: Install protected left turn lanes for east/west traffic flow.

Design Status: Plans submitted to Caltrans for final approval. Bidding to occur upon Caltrans plan approval.

Construction Status: Light poles have been ordered as authorized by City Council (estimated delivery 10-12 weeks).

Budget: $150,000

Funding Source: Traffic Signal DIF

425
Item 11.

Location Map: Beaumont Avenue/First Street

Sixth Street and North Beaumont Avenue:

Project Scope: Install protected left turn lanes for east/west traffic flow.

Design Status: Plans tentatively approved. Preparation of bid documents are underway. Project Bidding scheduled for March 2022.

Construction Status: Light poles have been ordered as authorized by City Council (estimated delivery 10-12 weeks).

Budget: $150,000

Funding Source: Traffic Signal DIF

Location Map: Beaumont Avenue/Sixth Street
426
Item 11.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost associated with preparing this staff report is $350.00.

Recommended Action:

Receive and File the Traffic Signal Update for the First Street and Highway 79 Intersection, and the Sixth Street and Beaumont Avenue Intersection Project.

427
Item 11.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Jeff Hart, Public Works Director
DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Drainage Projects Update

Project: Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 (CIP2019 -019) Summary:

The Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 project (Project) remains in the research and feasibility phase. Downstream constraints limit the amount of stormwater that can be safely discharged. A detention basin is proposed to attenuate the ultimate design stormwater flow to a safe level with a required size of approximately four acres.

On December 16, 2021, City staff met with Riverside County Flood Control to discuss reallocating funds from the future Beaumont Master Drainage Line 2, Stage 2 project to this Project in order to acquire land and develop the basin site. The meeting also included a discussion of probable basin sites. City staff will prepare a future agenda item to discuss the probable sites and obtain City Council’s direction.

Budget: $5,000,000 Funding Source: Riverside County

Location Map:
428
Item 12.

Project: Cherry Channel Drainage Project (R-07)
Summary:

The Cherry Channel Drainage Project (Project) is in the request for proposal (RFP) development phase. City staff has received a quote for geotechnical services needed to support the development of the RFP and intends to engage consultant to have requested services completed within 4-6 weeks. Release of RFP is scheduled for March 2022.

Budget: $500,000 Funding Source: General Fund

Location Map:

429
Item 12.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost associated with preparing this staff report is $350.

Recommended Action:

Receive and file the Capital Improvement Drainage Projects Update.

430
Item 12.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Christina Taylor, Community Development Director
DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Community Development Department Update

Background and Analysis:

Housing Element Update (Project No. CD-02): The Draft Housing Element, Safety Element Update and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) appendix are nearing completion. The State of California requires review of the draft document prior to approval by the governing body. Unfortunately, the State has about a four month back up on review of these documents and the City is still awaiting final comments. City staff anticipates the documents to be reviewed before Planning Commission and City Council in April 2022.

Zoning Code Updates (Project No. CD-01): Consistency analysis and zoning code changes related to the General Plan Update were completed and took effect in January 2021. Housing Element Update related zoning code amendments will be presented in April 2022 in conjunction with the Housing Element Update. Zoning Code Amendments such as the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance and Objective Design Guidelines will follow approval of the Housing Element Update in May or June 2022.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA): The State mandated Annual Progress Report guidelines for reporting were released on January 4, 2021. The reporting requires submission for all residential permit information from 2020 as it pertains to permits issued, permit finals, location, income eligibility level, zone changes (if applicable) and loss of residential units. This information will be presented to City Council in March 2022 and will be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development the submission deadline of by the April 1, 2022.

431
Item 13.

City Council Directed Items:

Food Trucks: City staff presented an informational item to City Council in December 2021. Based on City Council direction, City staff has done research and is preparing code recommendations for City Council review in February 2022.

Special Events/Temporary Uses: In November 2021, City staff presented an informational item to City Council regarding temporary uses and special event processes. At City Council’s direction, Planning staff has been researching and working with other departments to prepare recommendations for City Council review in March 2022.

Sign Code: City staff is engaged in ongoing review of the sign code related to political signs as wells as general sign standards and sign program standards. Planning staff continues to work with the City Clerk’s office and the City Attorney to develop standards for each of these areas which will meet the intent of relevant laws while meeting the needs of the City, residents and businesses. A draft sign code reflecting the direction given by Council has been provided to staff from the City Attorney’s office and recommendations will be prepared for City Council by March 2022.

Design Guidelines/Standards: City Council has recently expressed interest in evaluating the need for design guidelines/standards. City staff has begun compiling the current guidelines in place in various areas throughout the City as well as researching what is in place in other jurisdictions. City staff intends to focus this discussion into three distinct categories: Downtown, Non-residential and Residential. A presentation will be prepared for City Council in March 2022, starting with discussion on downtown standards.

Notable Developer Initiated Projects:

Summit Station Specific Plan (ENV2021-0017, PLAN2021-0656, PM2021-0009, PP2021-0388-0391, SP2021-0005) This project was filed on August 20, 2021, and is bounded by Brookside Avenue on the south and Cherry Valley Boulevard on the north, east of I-10. This project is a specific plan change from residential to commercial, industrial and open space at the site formerly known as the SunnyCal Specific Plan.

The project includes an environmental impact report (EIR), specific plan and general plan amendment, a parcel map and plot plan application. A Scoping Meeting was held for the project on October 7, 2021, and preparation of the EIR and specific plan are underway. City staff meets bi-weekly with the applicants and project team and anticipates this project to be presented for public hearings by August 2022. 432
Item 13.

Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan (SP2019-0003, PLAN2019-0283, PLAN2019-0284, ENV2019-0008) This project was filed on April 8, 2019, and is located west of Jack Rabbit Trail, south of SR-60 in the City’s sphere of influence in unincorporated Riverside County. The project includes an annexation, specific plan, general plan amendment, EIR, parcel map and plot plan reviews for development of 622 acres. A Scoping Meeting was held for the project on September 17, 2020, and preparation of the EIR is underway along with the Specific Plan. City staff meets bi-weekly with the applicants and project team as this project has significant environmental and site constraints. City staff does not anticipate this project being presented for public hearings before the end of 2022.
433
Item 13.

Potrero Logistics Center: (PP2020-0273, ENV2020-0009) This project was filed in March 2020 and includes applications for a general plan amendment, annexation, pre- zoning/re-zoning, environmental review and plot plan. The project is located on 32 acres on the southwest corner of Potrero Boulevard and SR-60 and proposes to construct a 500k square foot warehouse/distribution center. A scoping meeting for the EIR was held on June 4, 2020. The EIR was subsequently prepared and a Notice of Availability of the DEIR was published December 15, 2021. The DEIR and associated documents are available for review and comment through January 28, 2022 , and is anticipated to be at the Planning Commission meeting in March 2022. 434
Item 13.

Beaumont Village: (PP2019-0222, CUP2017-0010) This project was originally filed in 2017 and has subsequently been revised several times. It is located at the northwest corner of Beaumont Avenue and Oak Valley Parkway and includes a plot plan and conditional use permits for a commercial shopping center with six (6) buildings comprised of three (3) quick service drive-throughs restaurants, a gas station, convenience store and retail uses on 7.16 acres. The project location has constraints from both habitat conservation areas and earthquake faulting and is currently being P
o
t
r
e
r
o
435
Item 13.

revised to address these concerns. There is no anticipated timeline for presenting this project for public hearing.

Other Items:

Planning staff consist of the Planning Manager and Community Development Director.

Throughout calendar year 2021, Planning staff received and processed the following applications:
5 Plot Plans (new development),
9 Minor Plot Plans,
21 Residential Administrative Plot Plans,
58 Administrative Plot Plans (New Business Applications), 6 Conditional Use Permits,
13 Variance Applications,
2 Parcel Maps,
4 Environmental Review Applications,
26 Pre-Application Reviews, and
B
e
a
u
m
o
n
t

\
\
\
\
Oak Valley Parkway
436
Item 13.

534 Plan Checks.

Planning staff has fifteen projects pending filing.

Code Enforcement:

Code Enforcement staff consists of two full-time officers and the Community Development Director. Code Enforcement had 2 full-time officers through April 2021.

Since April 2021 Code Enforcement has had 1 full-time officer. During 2021, Code Enforcement engaged in the following:
2 administrative appeals hearings,
284 inspections resulting in cases opened,
281 inspections resulting in cases closed, and
718 Acres (90 parcels) weed abated.

Fire Safety Specialist:

The City has one Fire Safety Specialist who handles plan check and inspection. The data for 2021 is below:
102 Fire plan reviews,
481 Building plan reviews,
31 Public Works plan reviews,
161 Planning case reviews,
875 Construction inspections,
59 Non-State mandated life safety inspections,
112 State mandated life safety inspections, and
12 Special event permit inspections.

Fiscal Impact:

City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $731.

Recommended Action:

Receive and file.

437
Item 13.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Doug Story, Assistant Director of Community Services DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept the Offer of Dedication for Park Purposes and Approve a Park Dedication Agreement between the City of Beaumont and SDC Fairway Canyon, LLC, for Mickelson Park (APN 413-801-012)

Background and Analysis:

Mickelson Park is a 6.68-acre community park located in Fairway Canyon on Mickelson Drive, west of Tukwet Canyon Parkway, Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 413-801-012.

Amenities at this park include a restroom, playground with a zip line, pavilion and multi- use sports fields.

Construction of this new park was completed in June 2020 and has been maintained by the developer for the past year, in accordance with an agreement between the City and the developer.

In June of 2021, City staff met with representatives and conducted a site walk with the intent of creating a final punch list of items that needed to be addressed. Since then, all items on the punch list have been resolved. Additionally, the Health and Safety Code requires a playground safety inspection, which was conducted by the developer and a certification of compliance is on file with the City.

The final step in the acceptance of this park is an executed park dedication agreement, including notarized grant deeds, and a resolution of the City Council authorizing the City Manager to accept the offer of dedication for park purposes. Government Code Section 27281 provides that instruments conveying an interest in real property to the City may not be recorded without a certificate of acceptance approved by the City Council.

Furthermore, it provides that the City Council may, by a resolution, authorize one or more officers to accept instruments conveying an interest in real property by executing a certificate of acceptance, such as the City Manager.

438
Item 14.

One issue that was brought to light during this acceptance process was the fa ct that Lot 149, APN 413-801-012 was not exempt in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) from Homeowner Association (HOA) monthly assessments and or the ability of the HOA to assess fines regarding maintenance or landscaping violations. When this discovery was brought to the attention of the City Attorney’s office the recommendation was to have the developer amend the CC&Rs to exempt Lot 149. The developer has indicated that amending the CC&Rs is extremely difficult and the likelihood of receiving enough votes to do so would be highly unlikely. To amend the CC&Rs would require more that 50% of the homeowners to submit votes and the HOA does not feel they would receive enough of the required participation from homeowners for the vote to take place. The current HOA board did provide a non-binding notarized letter indicating their intent to not assess any monthly dues pertaining to Lot 149 and they would exempt the park from maintenance and landscape rules.

Staff is recommending that the acceptance of the park moves forward. This acceptance will add the fourth community park within the Fairway Canyon development that the City will be responsible for maintenance and upkeep.

Attached is a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept the offers of dedication for park purposes (Attachment A).

Fiscal Impact:

Funding to maintain this park is included in the current budget. Under Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383, the City of Beaumont is exempt from paying recordation fees to record the certificates of acceptance. City staff estimates the cost to prepare this staff report to be $4,900.

Recommended Action:

Waive the full reading and adopt by title only, “A Resolution of the City of Beaumont Authorizing the City Manager to Accept the Offers of Dedication for Park Purposes,”
Authorize City staff to record the certificate of acceptance of an interest in real property by the City of Beaumont, and
Authorize a Park Dedication Agreement between the City of Beaumont and SDC Fairway Canyon, LLC, for Mickelson Park (APN 413-801-012) and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Beaumont. 439
Item 14.

Attachments:

A. Resolution
B. Park Dedication Agreement
C. Certificate of Acceptance
D. HOA Notarized Exempt Letter

440
Item 14.

1 RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE OFFER OF

DEDICATION FOR PARK PURPOSES
WHEREAS, SDC Fairway Canyon, LLC a Delaware corporation executed offers of dedication by the following instrument: Tract Map Number 31462-7 filed September 28, 2015 in Book 447 of Maps at Pages 17-23 for park purposes with regards to lot “149”; and WHEREAS, the improvements have been completed and are ready to accept; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 27281 provides that instruments conveying an interest in real property to the City may not be recorded without a Certificate of Acceptance approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 27281 also provides that the City Council may, by a resolution, authorize one or more officers to accept instruments conveying an interest in real property by executing a Certificate of Acceptance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to delegate to the City Manager the authority to accept the within described real property interests on behalf of the City.

WHEREAS, a certificate of acceptance for accepting the aforementioned Lots will be recorded with the Riverside County Clerk Recorder’s Office once this resolution is adopted by City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Beaumont does authorize accepting offers of dedication under the following instruments: Tract Map Number 31462-7 filed September 28, 2015 in Book 447 of Maps at Pages 17-23 for park purposes with regards to lot “149” (“Property”) and Grant Deed for such Property:

Provision 1. Recordation of the aforementioned certificate of acceptance shall be executed by the City Manager and recorded with the Riverside County Clerk Recorder’s Office.

441
Item 14.

2 MOVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of September 2021.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

By: __________ _________________, Mayor, City of Beaumont

ATTEST:

Steven Mehlman

CITY CLERK

By: _____________
442
Item 14.

9001-122634\DEED\1534925.1
9/1/21

PARK DEDICATION AGREEMENT
This Park Dedication Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of September __, 2021, by and between the City of Beaumont, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws and constitution of the State of California (the "City"), and SDC FAIRWAY CANYON, LLC, AND WOODSIDE 05S, LP, a California limited partnership (collectively “Developer”). The City and Developer are each sometimes referred to in this Agreement individually as a "Party," and collectively as the "Parties." The City and Developer are entering into this Agreement with reference to the following facts:

RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of certain real property located in the City which includes parcel as more particularly described in the Grant Deeds attached hereto as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein which has been improved as Mickelson Park (the “Property" or the “Park”).

B. The Property is in good operating condition and repair.

C. Tract Map 31462-7 requires Developer to offer for dedication the Property and City is willing to accept the dedication of the Property subject to the terms of this Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth below, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein and become a part of this Agreement.

2.1 Obligations of Developer. Developer has designed, obtained all permits for, contracted for the construction of, constructed and paid all costs associated with the acquisition and improvement of the Parks in accordance with applicable law including the prevailing wage laws in the Labor Code. All of the improvements to the Properties were completed in a good and workman like manner and condition.

2.2 There are no, and there shall be no, mechanic’s liens or monetary encumbrances recorded against the Property. Developer will convey title to the Property to the City by executing the Grant Deeds attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and deliver Policies of Title Insurance applicable to each Property for the estimated fair market value of the Property as determined by City showing no monetary encumbrances of any kind in such form and content as required by the City. Developer shall pay all property taxes, assessments, fees and monetary encumbrances through the Acceptance Date.

2.3 The following changes shall be made to the following Preliminary Report applicable to the Property:

443
Item 14.

9001-122634\DEED\1534925.1
9/1/21
MICKELSON PARK: PRELIMINARY REPORT DATED July 6, 2021, at 7:30 a.m. (Order No.: 989-30070481-BAM) – NO CHANGES REQUIRED

3. City Obligations. Upon receipt of the duly recorded Grant Deeds for the Property in form and substance satisfactory to City and the Policy of Title Insurance as required by Section 2.2, and compliance with all terms of this Agreement City shall record a Certificate of Acceptance for each of the Properties in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. The date of recordation of said Certificate of Acceptance shall be the “Acceptance Date”.

4. Maintenance and Warranties. The Developer shall maintain or cause to be maintained the Properties in good and safe condition until the Acceptance Date for the Property in question. Prior to the Acceptance Date, the Developer shall be responsible for performing any required maintenance. On or before the Acceptance Date the Developer shall assign to the City all of the Developer’s rights in any warranties, guarantees, maintenance obligations or other evidence of contingent obligations of third persons with respect to such Property. For each Property to be owned by the City, the Developer shall provide a warranty bond reasonably acceptable in form and substance to the Director to remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of acceptance of each Property. The City shall be responsible for maintenance of each Property from and after the Acceptance Date thereof, except that with respect to landscaping improvements, the Developer shall maintain or cause to be maintained such landscape improvements for a period of one year following the Acceptance Date thereof or shall provide a bond reasonably acceptable in form and substance to the Director for such period and for such purpose (for landscaping improvements only, and for the posting of a warranty bond to remain in effect for one year as to other improvements), to insure that defects, which appear within said period will be repaired, replaced, or corrected by the Developer, at its own cost and expense, to the satisfaction of the City. The Developer shall commence to repair, replace or correct any such defects within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by the City to the Developer, and shall complete such repairs, replacement or correction as soon as practicable. Any warranties, guarantees or other evidences of contingent obligations of third persons with respect to the Properties to be acquired by the City shall be delivered to the Director as part of the transfer of title.

5.1 Insurance Requirements. The Developer shall, at all times prior to the final Acceptance Date of all Properties, maintain and deliver to the City evidence of and keep in full force and effect, not less than the following coverage and limits of insurance, which shall be maintained with insurers and under forms of policies satisfactory to the Director: (i) Workers Compensation and Employer’s Liability - Workers’ Compensation - coverage as required by law; Employer’s Liability - limits of at least $1,000,000.00 per occurrence; (ii) Comprehensive General Liability - Combined Single Limit - $2,000,000.00; (iii) Automobile Liability - Combined Single Limit - $1,000,000.00; and (iv) Errors and Omissions Insurance - Combined Single Limit - $2,000,000.00.

All of the Developer’s insurance policies shall contain an endorsement providing that written notice shall be given to the City at least 30 calendar days prior to termination or cancellation of coverage of the policy.

The Comprehensive General Liability and Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability policies shall contain the following:
444
Item 14.

9001-122634\DEED\1534925.1
9/1/21
(a) An endorsement extending coverage to the City and its agents as an additional insured, as respects liabilities arising out of the performance of any work related to the Properties. Which insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the interest of the City, and any other insurance maintained by the City shall be excess and not contributing insurance with the insurance required hereunder. (b) Severability of interest clause.
(c) Provision or endorsement stating that such insurance, subject to all of its other terms and conditions, applies to contractual liability assumed by the Developer. (d) Written on an occurrences basis.

Promptly on execution of this Agreement by the Developer, the Developer shall deliver to the Director copies of all required certificates of insurance and endorsements thereto on forms which are acceptable to the Director and the City Attorney.

The Developer shall require and verify similar insurance on the part of its contractors and subcontractors.

The foregoing requirements as to the types, limits and City approval of insurance coverage to be maintained by the Developer are not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations assumed by the Developer under this Agreement.

5.2 Standards Applicable. The Developer may effect such coverage under blanket insurance policies, provided, however, that (i) such policies are written on a per occurrence basis, (ii) such policies comply in all other respects with the provisions of Section 5.1, and (iii) the protection afforded the City under any such policy shall be no less than that which would be available under a separate, policy relating only to this Agreement. All policies of insurance shall be with companies licensed or approved by the State of California Insurance Commissioner and rated (i) A or better with respect to primary levels of coverage, and (ii) B+12 or better with respect to excess levels of coverage, in the most recent edition of Best’s Insurance Guide and shall be issued and delivered in accordance with State law and regulations.

5.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to the Acceptance Date, the Developer shall furnish to the City, from time to time upon request of the City, a certificate of insurance regarding each insurance policy required to be maintained by the Developer hereunder.

6. Indemnification. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its elected officials, City Council members, employees, and agents from any and all actual or alleged claims, demands, causes of action, liability, loss, damage, or injury to property or persons, including wrongful death, whether imposed by a court of law or by administrative action of any federal, state, or local governmental agency, arising out of or incident to any acts, omissions, negligence, or willful misconduct of Developer, its employees, contractors, or agents in connection with the performance of this Agreement or arising out of or in any way related to or caused by the condition of the Property, the design and construction of the of improvements on the Property (“Claims”) including, but not limited to, claims under the California Labor Code concerning prevailing wages and with respect to claims for hazardous substances on or under the Property. This indemnification includes, without limitation, the payment of all penalties, fines, judgments, awards, decrees, attorneys’ fees, and related costs or expenses, and the reimbursement 445
Item 14.

9001-122634\DEED\1534925.1
9/1/21
of City its elected officials, City Council members, employees, and/or agents for all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them. This indemnification excludes only such portion of any Claim which is caused solely and exclusively by the negligence or willful misconduct of City and its employees, contractors or agents as determined by a court or administrative body of competent jurisdiction. Developer’s obligation to indemnify shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement, and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by City, its elected officials, City Council members, employees, or agents.

7. General Provisions.
(a) If any dispute arises out of or concerning this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any damages and/or equitable relief, its reasonable attorneys’ fees in that dispute.
(b) This Agreement shall be interpreted, enforced and governed by the laws of the State of California.
(c) This Agreement shall be construed as if prepared jointly by the Parties and any uncertainty or ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one Party. (d) If any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions will be given full force and effect. (e) This Agreement may be executed in counterparts which when taken together constitute the entire agreement among the Parties hereto. (f) The person(s) signing this Agreement on behalf of any specified Party represents that he or she has full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of such Party and that such Party is authorized to enter into this Agreement.
(g) This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the heirs, successors in interest, and assignees of the respective Parties. All heirs, successors and assignees shall be bound by the rights, duties and obligations of the Parties arising under this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written.

DEVELOPER:

SDC FAIRWAY CANYON, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company

By: ___________________________________
Dale Strickland, Authorized Signatory
446
Item 14.

9001-122634\DEED\1534925.1
9/1/21

WOODSIDE 05S, LP, a California limited
partnership

By: ___________________________________
WDS GP, Inc.

A California Corporation
Its General Partner
Chris Chambers, Vice President

CITY OF BEAUMONT

By:

Todd Parton, City Manager
ATTEST:

By: ______________________________
Its: ______________________________

447
Item 14.

9001-122634\DEED\1534925.1
9/1/21
EXHIBIT “A’

RECORDING REQUESTED BY

AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN

TO AND MAIL TAX STATEMENTS
TO:

City of Beaumont - Deputy City Clerk
550 E 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223

APN 413-801-012
Transfer Tax Not Applicable: R&T Code 11922
Exempt from Recording Fees: Gov. Code 27383

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

GRANT DEED
(Public Park, Lot 149 of Tract No. 31462-7)

FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, WOODSIDE 05S, LP, a California limited partnership ("Grantor"), hereby GRANTS to the City of Beaumont, a municipal corporation ("Grantee"), the following described real property in the City of Beaumont, County of Riverside, State of California, together with (i) all rights, privileges and appurtenances belonging or appertaining thereto and (ii) all right, title and interest of Grantor in and to any street or alley, opened or proposed, abutting such real property:

See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference TOGETHER WITH:

1. All tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances, including easements and water rights, if any, thereto belonging or appertaining, and any mineral rights, reversions, remainders, rents issues or profits thereof; and

2. All rights, title and interests of Grantor in and under all covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements and other matters of record.

DATED: WOODSIDE 05S, LP, a California limited partnership By:

Print Name:

Title:

By:

Print Name:

Title:

Grantor
448
Item 14.

9001-122634\DEED\1534925.1
9/1/21
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF
On , , before me,

(here insert name and title of the
officer)
personally appeared

,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature

(Seal)

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF
On , , before me,

(here insert name and title of the
officer)
personally appeared

,
449
Item 14.

9001-122634\DEED\1534925.1
9/1/21
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature

(Seal)
450
Item 14.

-9-

EXHIBIT “A”
TO

GRANT DEED

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 149 OF TRACT 31462-7, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN BOOK 447, PAGES 17 THROUGH 23, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

451
Item 14.

When Recorded Return
Original To:

City Clerk
City of Beaumont
550 East 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223

NO RECORDING FEE REQUIRED PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 6103 AND 27383

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF AN INTEREST IN REAL

PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF BEAUMONT
(GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27281)

This is to certify that the fee interest in real property conveyed by the following instruments: Tract Map Number 31462-7 filed September 28, 2015 in Book 447 of Maps at Pages 17-23 for park purposes with regards to lot “149” (“Property”) to the City of Beaumont, a general law city in the State of California, is hereby accepted by order of City Council of the City, pursuant to the authority conferred by City Council Resolution No. 2021-_____ adopted on September ___, 2021, and the City as grantee further consents to its recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer, the City Manager.

City of Beaumont, a general law city

___________________ By: ______________________________ Dated Todd Parton, City Manager

ATTEST:

____________________________
Steven Mehlman, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
John Pinkney, City Attorney
452
Item 14.

453
Item 14.

454
Item 14.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Sean Thuilliez, Chief of Police
DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Homeless Outreach Approach for Beaumont

Background and Analysis:

Homelessness exists in virtually every community across the nation including the City of Beaumont. According to a recent estimate, there are approximately 1,600 homeless individuals living in Riverside County on any given day. Many homeless suffer from various conditions, such as mental illness and substance abuse that limit their abilities to seek resources on their own. The homeless population is also more prone to be victimized by criminal activity and less likely to report their abuse to police.

The Beaumont Police Department’s (BPD) Homeless Outreach Program liaisons with other agencies of Riverside County as well as the Riverside County Continuum of Care Network (COC). The COC consists of private and countywide public sector homeless service providers and was created to promote community-wide planning and the strategic use of resources to address homelessness.

The Homeless Outreach Team is tasked with identifying homeless individuals throughout the community of Beaumont and to help coordinate the delivery of resources available to homeless individuals throughout the Pass Area, focusing on those most at risk and to include the homeless veteran population.

The program works alongside members of Riverside County’s Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), Department of Public Health and local public safety partners to effectively engage homeless individuals coming into contact with law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

For several years the BPD has been assisting the homeless population within the City of Beaumont. However, since July 15, 2017, members of the BPD comprised of Patrol, Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) and the Multiple Enforcement Team (MET), participated in the first of many Homeless Outreach Program 455
Item 15.

events funded by a grant. The purpose of the program is to identify homeless individuals, help them obtain needed resources, and reduce the victimization of criminal activity in homeless encampments.

First, the homeless issue from a global approach is addressed, recognizing the necessity to become better educated in dealing with this population while striving to achieve updated training. As such, this grant funding allowed officers to participate in Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) to better understand and address mental health issues associated with the homeless population. Furthermore, each member of the BPD attended de-escalation training in an effort to reduce and mitigate potential use-of-force matters.

Seconded, to further the effort in addressing homelessness in the community, the BPD develops goals and objectives to effectively and strategically coordinate police resources. This is accomplished by completing comprehensive crime analysis and prevention plans to better understand specific homeless issues that may affect businesses and property owners. As an organization, understanding the philosophy and recognizing the importance of “buy-in” from stakeholders in order to foster collaborative efforts with community partners is most effective to address these matters.

Each year the BPD participates in the countywide “Point-in-Time” count. These efforts are coordinated through the Riverside County Housing, Homelessness Prevention and Workforce Solutions Department, a subdivision of COC. The purpose of this program is to identify and count the homeless population in each city within the County of Riverside and offer resources based on their individual needs. In 2021, the total homeless count in the City of Beaumont was 16. Each homeless person contacted was offered resources which included housing, drug/alcohol rehabilitation, and vocational training.

None of these resources were accepted.

The department has taken the lead on crafting a comprehensive approach for the San Gorgonio Pass area in efforts to solving the problem of regional homelessness in a way that respects the inherent worth and dignity of every person. The BPD has entered in a partnership with the Riverside County Department of Public Health to partner a mental health clinician with a police officer, creating the Community Behavioral Assessment Team (CBAT).

CBAT’s purpose is to intercede with persons experiencing a mental health crisis and find long-term solutions to the on-going mental health issues encountered within the community. CBAT’s resources will include partnerships with the Banning Police 456
Item 15.

Department and Riverside County Sheriff’s Department within the City of Calimesa and Cabazon community.

CBAT’s mission is to develop a multi-agency partnership to increase collaboration of service providers to assist the homeless in becoming self -sufficient. Provide ongoing personal contact between the Homeless Outreach Team officers and homeless individuals to increase trust and make referrals to service providers. CBAT and the COPPS Team will work closely with county resources and local outreach organizations to coordinate housing, employment, and medical and mental health services.

In addition, the Beaumont Police Department Outreach Program perform s the following tasks:

 Identify homeless encampments within the City;
 Identify and establish working relationship with the homeless individuals;  Coordinate with non-profit agencies (example: Riverside County Health to Hope Healthy bus);
 Coordinate with the Veterans Administration in locating veterans amongst the homeless;
 Liaison with the Department’s Corrections Division on inmates being released from custody with a potential of being homeless to offer re -entry methods preventing homelessness;
 Provide free transportation to area resources centers when requested ;  Develop a program to pay for bus/train tickets for individuals to reunite with family members, must have family who will receive them (Project Reunite);  Coordinate with other allied agencies to discuss homeless liaison duties and methods;
 Continual follow-up with governmental agencies dealing with homeless individuals’ status to find permanent housing as well as individuals who have already been placed;
 Preparation/execution of the annual “Point in Time” (PIT) countywide count of homeless event;
 Attend countywide homeless related meetings including the COC (Continuum of Care);
 Attend homeless related events (example: US VETS led “Stand Down” events);  Give presentations to City groups to help educate the sensitive issues related to homelessness;
 Ensure panhandlers are aware of City and County ordinance violations in all affected areas;
 Visit homeless encampments to ensure inhabitants are not violating trespass laws; 457
Item 15.

 Provide a safe environment by identifying and removing the criminal element from homeless encampments;
 Provide escort to encampments for outreach services to be offered;  Monitor areas that have been cleared of homeless encampments ;  All participating personnel shall receive training to ensure an understanding of the program, resources available, and how to effectively deliver services to the homeless;
 Research viability to eliminate sales of single liquor/ beer cans; and  Ensure priority is given to all homeless that are identified to be:
o At risk,
o Families with children,
o Military Veterans,
o Sufferers of mental illness, and
o Victims of abuse.

Fiscal Impact:

The police officer assigned as the Homeless Outreach Officer/CBAT is budgeted annually at a cost of $164,696. City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $1,170.

Recommended Action:

Receive and file.

458
Item 15.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Kari Mendoza, Administrative Services Director
DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Request City Council to Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Beaumont and Managers/Professional/Technical as Individuals.

Background and Analysis:

The current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Beaumont and the Managers/Professional/Technical as Individuals expired December 31, 2021, the individual parties began to meet and confer on terms and condition for a new MOU.

On January 13, 2022, the City and Managers/Professional/Technical as individuals reached a tentative agreement with the major changes in the following areas:

1. Term: January 1, 2022 – June 30, 2026;

2. Salary Market Adjustments: scale adjustments based on compensation study conducted;

3. Cost of Living Adjustment: July 2023 and July 2025 based on two-year CPI;

4. Cost of Living Adjustment: If City general fund revenues exceed budged general fund revenues by 10% for any fiscal year, the City will offer a one-time 2.5% base salary lump sum;

5. Salary Step Increases: Merit steps reduced from 5% to 2.5%;

6. Salary Step Increases: One-time 2.5% base salary lump sum payment for those who have reached top step; and

7. Administrative/Personal Leave: 40 hours of leave annually with a maximum of 80 hours.

Fiscal Impact:

Total impact to the reminder of the FY2022 budget is approximately $166,300. City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $75.

459
Item 16.

Recommended Action:

Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Beaumont and Managers/Professional/Technical as Individuals and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Attachments:

A. Memorandum of Understanding
460
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 1 of 18

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

CITY OF BEAUMONT
AND

MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL

AS INDIVIDUALS

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2022 THROUGH June 30, 2026

461
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 2 of 18 Memorandum of Understanding
Between
City of Beaumont
and
Managers/Professional/Technical as Individuals

This Memorandum of Understanding (“Agreement”) is entered into between the City of Beaumont, a Municipal Corporation, (the “CITY”), and the Manager/Professional/Technical as Individuals (the “UNIT”), relative to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. This Agreement shall become effective January 1, 2022, and remain in full force and effect until June 30, 2026.

The CITY recognizes the following classifications:

Administrative Services Manager Information Services Manager Assistant Director of Community Services Principal Engineer Assistant Director of Finance Public Works Manager
Budget Specialist Senior Accountant
Building Grounds Maintenance Supervisor Planning Manager Chief Building Official Solid Waste Recycling Manager
Chief Plant Operator Special Projects / PIO
Community Services Manager Street Maintenance Supervisor Deputy City Clerk Transit Operations Supervisor
Economic Development Manager Wastewater Plant Supervisor Executive Assistant Wastewater Collections Supervisor
Environmental Compliance Manager Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor ARTICLE I: ADOPTION OF HANDBOOK
It is understood and agreed that there is an Employees’ Handbook (also referred to as the Personnel Manual) and the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution (Resolution No. 1978-16), which are incorporated by reference unless hereafter modified by mutual agreement. The provisions of this Agreement prevail when there is an inconsistency between this Agreement and the Personnel Manual.

All previous Memoranda of Understanding and agreements, whether written or verbal, are superseded by this Agreement.

ARTICLE II: MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
The UNIT members recognize and agree that the CITY and its representatives have the exclusive responsibility and authority for managing and directing all operations and activities of the CITY, including, but not limited to, the exclusive right to determine the composition of its constituent departments, commissions and boards, the processes and the material to be employed: to subcontract any work or operation; to expand or diminish services; the procedures and standards of selection for employment and promotion; determine classification, direct its employees; take disciplinary action (for just cause following any probation period); relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for 462
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 3 of 18 other legitimate reasons; maintain the efficiency of governmental operations; determine the methods, means and personnel by which governmental operations are to be conducted and to assign work to employees, make reasonable assignments outside normal job classifications when mandated by reduction of personnel, to establish and change work schedules and assignments, to determine the days and hours when the employees shall work; take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; and exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of performing its work.

ARTICLE III: NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE
The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to all persons covered by this Agreement without discrimination on account of race, religion (including religious dress and grooming practices ), color, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and/or related medical conditions), sexual orientation, national origin (including language use restrictions), ancestry, citizenship status, uniformed service member or veteran status, marital status, age, medical condition (genetic characteristics, cancer related), physical or mental disability (including HIV and AIDS), gender, gender identity, or gender expression, nor will there be any discrimination with respect to hiring, retention or any co nditions of employment because of membership or activities in the Managers/Professional/Technical as Individuals unit.

The Managers/Professional/Technical as Individuals unit will accept into membership all eligible persons of the bargaining unit without regard to any protected class under federal, state or local law.

The Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation Prevention Policy of the CITY is incorporated herein by this reference.

ARTICLE IV: UNIT SPECIFIC BENEFITS
A. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: The CITY hereby agrees to budget and to pay the dues, subscription, travel and subsistence expenses for professional and official travel, meetings, and occasions adequate to continue the professional development and to adequately pursue necessary official and other functions for the CITY, local service clubs and such other national, regional, state, and local government groups and committees thereof on which a Manager serves as a member, as may be approved by the City Manager. The CITY also agrees to bud get and to pay for the travel and subsistence expenses of the Manager for short courses, institutes and seminars that are necessary for his/her professional development, which are not POST reimbursed courses, as may be approved by the City Manager.

B. CELL PHONE: With City Manager approval, the CITY shall provide a cell phone for use by a Manager who is subject to 24-hour call back or a monthly cell phone allowance of $100.

C. SAFETY BOOTS AND SHOES: The CITY shall provide each eligible employee with an annual allowance of up to one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) per calendar year for reimbursement of 463
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 4 of 18 the purchase of safety boots and/or shoes. The type of acceptable footwear will be defined in the CITY’s Dress Code Policy. Employees in the following classification series, which require the wearing of durable, reinforced protective work boots or shoes for personal safety to help protect against the impact or punctures due to the nature of the job duties, are eligible:

Assistant Director of Community Services
Building/Grounds Maintenance Supervisor
Chief Building Official
Chief Plant Operator
Public Works Manager
Street Maintenance Supervisor
Transit Operations Supervisor
Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor
Wastewater Collections Supervisor
Wastewater Plant Supervisor

It will be the responsibility of the employee to submit receipts with his/her request for reimbursement to the Human Resources department in order to receive reimbursement. The CITY shall provide this reimbursement on a quarterly basis in January, April, July, and October for the preceding three (3) month period. In years of hire and separation, the amount will be prorated and overpayment to the employee will be refunded to the CITY by date of separation.

D. VEHICLE ALLOWANCE: With City Manager approval, the CITY shall provide a vehicle for use by a member to travel during the course of employment or a monthly vehicle allowance the sum of Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($350.00) per month. The employee shall be responsible for paying for liability, property damage and comprehensive insurance coverage on employee’s personal vehicle and shall further be responsible for all expenses attendant to the purchase, operation, maintenance, repair and regular replacement of employee’s personal vehicle.

ARTICLE V: SALARY AND BENEFITS
A. UNIFORM COMPENSATION PLAN: The CITY agrees to maintain a Uniform Compensation Plan and shall place employees within monthly salary ranges or the equivalent hourly rate if the employee is permanent part-time.

B. SALARY MARKET ADJUSTMENT: The CITY has completed and accepted a compensation study conducted by Ralph Andersen and Associates. Effective January 7th and after ratification of this MOU, the City agrees to increase salary ranges for all classifications in the bargaining unit to the median of the agencies compared in the study. The median shall be determined at top step of each range, and all steps below top step will be adjusted accordingly. Salary table attached for reference.
464
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 5 of 18 C. COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT (“COLA”): Beginning July 1, 2023, increase salaries by CPI (with a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 5%) using the Inland Empire/Riverside index for general costs, for the two years ending the previous December 31. (Example: increase on July 1, 2023, shall be based on the increase in CPI for the two-year period ending November 30, 2022.) Beginning July 1, 2025, increase salaries by CPI (with a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 5%) using the Inland Empire/Riverside index for general costs, for the two years ending the previous November 30.

If the City’s general fund revenues exceed the budgeted general fund revenues by 10% for any fiscal year, as determined by the City’s annual financial audit, the City will offer a one-time 2.5% of base salary, lump sum, with the first payroll distribution in the calendar month beginning after publication of the City’s audited financial statements.

The parties agree that if there is no successor MOU in place as of June 30, 2026 the City will have no obligation to continue to grant additional increases based on CPI or otherwise. The City will be obligated to provide only those increases (if any) agreed to by the parties in a successor MOU or imposed by the City after impasse procedures are exhausted.

D. SALARY STEP INCREASE: Each employee may (until reaching the maximum step for a salary range), on his/her anniversary date, be eligible for a 2.5% salary step increase within the approved salary range. The CITY retains the right to approve or deny any salary step increase, for reasonable cause, after formal evaluation of said employee, which shall occur every year on or about the employee's anniversary date
Once an employee reaches top step, each following year with a meets standards or higher evaluation will receive a 2.5% base salary lump sum payment.

E. RATE OF PAY HIGHER THAN STARTING: When an employee is hired to fill a specific position within the CITY, and his/her qualifications and/or experience justifies a rate of pay higher than the posted starting pay, the City Manager may at his/her sole discretion approve a starting pay anywhere within the salary range for that position. The City Manager may also at his/her discretion offer credit for previous experience in another agency for the purpose of vacation accrual calculations.

F. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) ELIGIBILITY: The CITY provides employees with retirement benefits through the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

Such benefits are subject to applicable law and regulations, including but not limited to the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) of 2013, and CalPERS. For the purpose of retirement benefits, employees are defined as either a “classic” or “new” member of CalPERS as follows:

1. CalPERS Definitions
465
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 6 of 18 (a) “Classic” Member: Any employee hired by the City prior to January 1, 2013; or any employee previously employed by a CalPERS participating public agency, or an agency participating in a reciprocal California public retirement system hired by that agency prior to January 1, 2013, and who becomes employed by the City with less than a six (6) month break in service; or any transit employee hired by the City prior to December 29, 2014; or any employee, regardless of hire date, who is eligible for reciprocity with another California public retirement system.
(b) “New” Member: Any employee meeting the definition of New Member set forth in Government Code section 7522.04(f)

2. RETIREMENT FORMULAS AND CALCULATIONS

Retirement formulas and calculations are based upon a combination of the employee’s age, years of service, and annual pensionable compensation.
(a) “Classic” Members: “3% at 60” and single highest year. (b) “New” Members: “2% at 62” and three-year average. Pensionable compensation cap on annual salary used to calculate final compensation.

3. RATES OF CONTRIBUTION

(a) “Classic” Members: The CITY shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the effective employer’s obligation. The employee shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the statutorily required employee obligation currently eight percent (8%) for miscellaneous (non-public safety) employees. There shall be no Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC).”
(b) “New” Members: The CITY and employee will participate in equal sharing of normal costs, with the employee paying fifty percent (50%) of normal costs, or the rate as it may be changed from time to time by CalPERS.

4. ELIGIBILITY FOR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES

Part-time employees shall be eligible for CalPERS membership if he/she meets any of the criteria set forth in Government Code section 20305, which include but are not limited to, membership on the first day of the pay period in which the employees complete one thousand (1,000) hours of service during any fiscal year (July 1 through June 30).

The CITY provides part-time and seasonal employees, who are not eligible to participate in CalPERS, with retirement benefits through an alternate 457 FICA program.

466
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 7 of 18

5. CALPERS SERVICE CREDIT FOR VESTED SICK LEAVE

In accordance with the provisions set forth in section V.K.3, the CITY agrees to a service credit of unused sick leave for CalPERS retirement when an employee retires from CITY employment.

G. OVERTIME: Overtime will be compensated for actual hours worked at the rate of time and one- half (1½) for overtime in accordance with federal regulations. FLSA exempt employees are not eligible for overtime. Overtime is based on hours actually worked and does not include paid or unpaid leave time such as vacation, holiday, and sick leave.

H. COMPENSATORY TIME: At the option of the employee, the employee may elect to bank overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half (1½) hours for each overtime hour. Overtime will be calculated as stated in Section E herein. FLSA exempt employees are not eligible for compensatory time.

Compensatory time off shall reduce the compensatory time banked on an hour-for-hour basis, since the time worked is banked at time and one-half (1½) times the hours worked. An employee may not be required, but may elect, to take less than eight (8) hours of compensatory time off on any given day. Compensatory time off shall be scheduled by mutual agreement between the employee and supervisor. Time off shall be granted within a reasonable time after requested unless it would disrupt the operation of the CITY. Each year on the last payroll of the year, the employee will receive cash out of all compensatory time left in their compensatory time bank from that year.

Compensatory time will be cashed out at the employee’s rate of pay at the time of payment.

Compensatory time may be accrued up to the maximum limits allowed per FLSA regulations, after which overtime will be paid for the hours worked.

I. ASSIGNMENT TO A HIGHER JOB CLASSIFICATION: When an employee is assigned to a higher job classification for more than ninety (90) consecutive days, he/she shall receive an additional five (5%) percent differential pay, retroactive to the first day of service in the higher classification.

Such assignments shall not exceed six (6) consecutive months in length without mutual agreement of the City Manager and the appropriate unit representative or individual.

J. CAFETERIA PLAN: Effective January 1, 2020, the CITY shall contribute one-thousand six hundred seventy-five dollars ($1,675.00) per month to each unit member for the cafeteria benefit plan detailed in this section.

1. Said contribution shall be used to provide for health insurance for the employee. Employee shall be covered by health insurance with a City approved health plan unless the employee provides proof to the City the employee is covered by another acceptable h ealth plan as determined by the City’s Human Resource Department.

2. The balance may be used for any of the following or any combination thereof:
467
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 8 of 18 a. Health Insurance for employee’s spouse and/or dependents; b. Dental Insurance for employee’s, spouse and/or dependents; and c. Eye care plan for employee, spouse and/or dependents.

3. There is no cash-back of the remaining contributions amount, if any, to the employee after payment of the selected premiums(s). The employee shall be responsible for the remaining payments(s) through payroll deduction, of any premiums selected which are in excess of the monthly contribution amount.

4. If an employee elects to not participate in the Health Insurance coverage and can show adequate proof of an approved health plan, the employee shall have the option to have an amount equal to the most current Kaiser employee only (single) monthly premium rate [as of January 1, 2022, the single rate is $727.26] paid to the employee. If taken as cash payment, the amount is not to be considered as pensionable compensation for the purposes of CalPERS. Such alternative health plan coverage must be verified initially and thereafter on an annual basis by signing a verification that complies with the Affordable Care Act, which will be provided to the City. Alternative health plan coverage must be maintained until the next available CITY open enrollment period. The balance may be used for any of the following or any combination thereof:
a. Health Insurance for employee’s spouse and/or dependents; b. Dental Insurance for employee’s, spouse and/or dependents; and c. Eye care plan for employee, spouse and/or dependents;

5. Cafeteria Plan Reopener: If the combined premiums for Healthcare, Dental, and Vision insurance increase more than 5% from their January 2022 rates, then the parties agree to meet and confer about increasing the Cafeteria Plan Contribution. The parties agree to hold additional reopeners in this regard if, subsequent to triggering the initial meet and confer, measuring the combined premium increases (cumulative to the triggering date) for the subsequent year(s) shows subsequent premium increases of more than 5%.

K. SICK LEAVE:

1. Sick leave shall accrue at the rate of 3.69 hours per bi-weekly pay period for full-time employees.

2. The CITY agrees to a one thousand (1,000) sick leave hours accumulation cap. Employees will no longer accrue sick hours once they have reached the cap.

3. The CITY agrees to a service credit of unused sick leave for PERS retirement when an employee retires from CITY employment. If an employee leaves the CITY with at least seven (7) years of service, the employee may elect to receive a lump sum payment of th e 468
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 9 of 18 value of the unused sick leave. If the employee leaves the CITY prior to completing seven (7) years of service, then the employee is eligible for sick leave cash out using the following guidelines. This payment will be determined by a graduating scale that increases by fifteen percent (15%) per year for each year completed, through the first six (6) years of service ninety percent (90%) and an additional ten percent (10%) after completion of the seventh (7th year of service (100%). All sick leave vesting levels shall begin after the completion of probation and the second (2nd) year of service thirty percent (30%). A year of service will be considered completed when the employee reaches the anniversary date of their initial employment. . Any accumulated sick leave that is cashed out shall not also be eligible to obtain additional CalPERS service credit.

See scale provided below.

Year
Completed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Percent
Vested
0% 30% 40% 60% 70% 90% 100%
Previously accrued and unused sick leave that was not paid out at the time of separation will be reinstated if an employee leaves employment and is then re-hired within one year.

4. Employees who are laid off as a result of a reduction in force shall receive, at the option of the employee, either a lump sum payment equal to one hundred percent (100%) of accrued sick leave or the one hundred percent (100%) service credit towards retirement if the employee chooses to retire immediately following layoff.

5. All employees may use accrued paid sick leave for the purposes set forth in Labor Code section 246.5(a).

6. Accrued paid sick leave shall carry over to the following year, but no additional paid sick pay will accrue until the employee’s accrued paid sick leave falls below the one thousand (1,000) hour cap.

7. The City will provide all employees with a written notice of the amount of paid sick leave available. The notice will be provided on the designated pay date with the employee’s payment of wages. Sick pay will be paid at employee’s hourly rate of pay when the sick leave is taken.

Sick pay will be paid by the payday for the next regular payroll period after the sick leave is taken.

8. Employees can use accrued paid sick leave upon a written or oral request. If the need to use paid sick leave is foreseeable, the employee must give reasonable advance notice. If the need to use paid sick leave is unforeseeable, notice must be given as soon as practicable.

469
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 10 of 18

9. On July 1st of every year, part-time, seasonal temporary employees will be credited 3 days (24 hours) or 3 times their normal shift of sick leave. It shall not be carried over but is available for cash out upon termination pursuant to section IV.I.10.

10. Accumulated sick leave hours can be paid at the time of separation from service at the employee’s hourly rate at the time of separation or the CITY agrees to a service credit of unused sick leave for CalPERS retirement when an employee retires from CITY employment.

11. An employee may make an irrevocable election each December to receive payment of up to eighty (80) hours of the sick leave to be accrued in the following calendar year. The employee is eligible to make the request provided that the employee is fully vested (7 years) and has a minimum of 160 sick hours in the sick hours bank at the time the irrevocable election is made in December. Such payments will be made by separate check with the payroll distribution for the first full pay period in July unless the employee requests equal quarterly payments. Cash payment shall only be made for sick leave accrued that has not yet been used by the employee by the payment date. The City will provide the form for the employee to make the irrevocable election. The form shall be submitted to the City’s Human Resources Department no later than December 15 of each year or employee will waive his/her right to elect to cash out sick leave for the following year. The only exception to this deadline is if the employee experiences an unforeseeable event after the deadline. In those circumstances, the employee can seek to make an initial election, or increase the number of hours elected (subject to all the other requirements and limitations as set forth herein) by submitting the City’s election form to the City’s Human Resources Department. The City Manager shall make a determination if the exception applies and the City Manager determination shall be final and not subject to any grievance procedure or appeal process.

L. LIFE INSURANCE: The CITY agrees to provide group term life insurance up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each employee.

M. SHORT-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE: The CITY agrees to maintain the short-term disability coverage at the levels in effect on January 1, 2018 for full-time employees.

N. BILINGUAL PAY: Employees who have been certified using a City designated language proficiency test as being fluent in sign language or other secondary language shall receive a dollar fifty ($1.50) per hour. Once certified, an employee shall not be required to be recertified as a condition of continued receipt of premium pay.

O. WELLNESS REIMBURSEMENT: An employee who voluntarily joins a health or fitness club, purchases pre-approved exercise equipment, or visits a chiropractor shall be eligible for reimbursement of the fee up to but not exceeding fifty dollars ($50) for each full month the employee has been employed. It will be the responsibility of the employee to submit requests for reimbursement to the Human Resources department in order to receive reimbursement. The CITY shall pay this reimbursement bi-annually under the CITY reimbursement policy. Each participating 470
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 11 of 18 employee is solely liable and responsible for any and all personal injuries, and shall fully indemnify the CITY. The CITY assumes no liability for injury or compensation for employee participation in this program, nor is this a mandated program or a job requirement.

P. DIRECT DEPOSIT: As a general rule, all employees shall be paid by direct deposit of their payroll check into an account of their choice at a financial institution. An employee may elect to receive payment via live check due to personal circumstances.

Q. DEPENDENT CARE FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT: The CITY agrees to provide a Dependent Care Flexible Spending Account. A Dependent Care Flexible Spending account will let an employee’s set aside a portion of their paycheck tax free (up to IRS Limits) to pay for dependent care in conformance with IRS Tax Law requirements.

ARTICLE VI: HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS
A. HOLIDAY ACCRUAL: Holidays for employees in the UNIT are as follows:

New Year’s Day
Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Presidents’ Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Columbus Day
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day
Day after Thanksgiving
Christmas Eve
Christmas Day
Day after Christmas
New Year’s Eve

1. Employees assigned to the Police Department who are required to work Holidays will be allowed to bank their Holiday time.

B. VACATION ACCRUAL: Vacation time shall be accrued on the following basis and shall be credited for subsequent use each pay period.

Hire date - Three (3) years two (2) weeks
per year

3.077 hours per
pay period
Three (3) years 1 day - Seven (7) years three (3) weeks per year

4.615 hours per
pay period
Seven (7) years 1 day - Nineteen (19) years four (4) weeks per year

6.153 hours per
pay period
471
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 12 of 18

Total vacation accrual for any employee shall not exceed the equivalent of two (2) years' accrual at the current accrual rate for that employee. Employees will no longer accrue vacation hours once they have reached the cap.

An employee may make an irrevocable election each December to receive payment of up to eighty (80) hours of vacation leave to be accrued in the following calendar year. Such payments will be made by separate check with the payroll distribution for the first full pay period in July unless the employee requests equal quarterly payments. Cash payment shall only be made for vacation leave accrued that has not yet been used by the employee by the payment date. The City will provide the form for the employee to make the irrevocable election. The form shall be submitted to the City’s Human Resources Department no later than December 15 of each year or employee will waive his/her right to elect to cash out vacation leave for the following year. The only exception to this deadline is if the employee experiences an unforeseeable event after the deadline. In those circumstances, the employee can seek to make an initial election, or increase the number of hours elected (subject to all the other requirements and limitations as set forth herein) by submitting the City’s election form to the City’s Human Resources Department. The City Manager shall make a determination if the exception applies and the City Manager determination shall be final and not subject to any grievance procedure or appeal process.

C. ADMINISTRATIVE/PERSONAL LEAVE: SALARY EMPLOYEES shall be allocated a maximum of forty (40) hours of administrative/personal leave on July 1st of each CITY fiscal year. The maximum amount of administrative/personal leave that EMPLOYEE may accrue at any given time may not exceed eighty (80) hours total. EMPLOYEE may request payment of up to forty (40) hours banked administrative leave pay, to be paid by separate check, per calendar year. Requests for payment of banked administrative leave pay should be submitted in accordance with the procedure stated in the Managers Group MOU.

D. PROMOTION PROBATIONARY PURPOSES: During the probationary in paid status following a promotion or transfer, a regular employee who held permanent status at the time of the promotion or transfer shall, upon the employee's request, be returned to a position in the previously held classification in the former employing department. If the return involves a change in classification, the salary step shall be the same step that the employee held or would have received immediately prior to the promotion or transfer. Computation of the probationary period in a paid status does not include overtime, stand-by, on-call or military leave of absence.

E. BIDDING FOR OPEN POSITIONS: In the event any position becomes open, it will be the responsibility of the Human Resources Department to notify permanent full-time and permanent part-time CITY employees of the opening prior to outside recruitment. Such responsibility shall include posting of a notice in a conspicuous place within each regular work location for a period Nineteen (19) years 1 day five (5) weeks
per year

7.692 hours per
pay period
472
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 13 of 18 of ten (10) working days prior to outside recruitment. This notice will include the rate of pay ranges, hours to be worked, and any special requirements and conditions. An eligible and qualified employee interested in an open position shall submit an application and supporting documentation within ten (10) working days of the announcement’s posting to be considered for the position prior to outside recruitment. If an eligible and qualified represented employee is selected to fill an open position, the employee will maintain his/her seniority, but will be required to accept the salary step range applicable to the job. Placement of an individual on a step higher than starting pay will be at the discretion of the department administrator of the job applied for and the City Manager.

Seniority within the CITY will prevail over similar qualifications. If an individual believes that he/she was unfairly evaluated for the position bid for, he/she may utilize the formal grievance procedure.

Employees shall meet all requirements, qualifications and training, and pass any and all examinations that may be required for such position before being appointed.

ARTICLE VII: SAVINGS CLAUSE
Should any provision of this Agreement or any application thereof, be made unlawful by virtue of any Federal, State or local law and/or regulation, including judicial decisions, such provision shall be effective and implemented only to the extent permitted by such laws, regulations and decisions. In all other respects the provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect for the term thereof.

ARTICLE VIII: COMPLETE AGREEMENT CLAUSE
This written Agreement is the complete Agreement negotiated between the parties. Nothing excluded from this Agreement is agreed to unless it is put in writing, signed by all parties and attached to the Agreement as an amendment hereto.

ARTICLE IX: SKELLY PROCEDURE
Before imposing a long-term suspension, demotion or termination, the employee shall be entitled to the following so-called Skelly rights:

A. SERVICE OF WRITTEN NOTICE: The affected employee shall be served with a written Notice of Intent to Discipline. The Notice of Intent shall describe the violation(s), the proposed discipline to be imposed, the reasons for the proposed discipline, a statement advising the employee of his/her right to request a Skelly hearing within two work days after service of the Notice of Intent, and copies of any charges and materials upon which the proposed discipline is based, which copies shall be attached to the Notice of Intent.

B. SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISCIPLINE: The Notice of Intent shall be served whenever possible personally, or by first class mail to the last known address of the employee. 473
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 14 of 18 Attached to the Notice of Intent shall be a Proof of Service, the original of which shall be kept in the employee’s personnel file.

C. REQUEST FOR HEARING: The proposed disciplinary action shall not be imposed until the end of the second full business day following the day the Notice of Intent was personally served, or at the end of the fifth full business day following the day the Notice of Intent was mailed. During that period, the employee’s salary shall be continued to be paid, and he/she may be terminated at the end of the second (or fifth, as the case may be) business day if no Skelly hearing has been requested by the affected employee. In the event a hearing is requested, the employee shall continue to be paid until a final decision is made.

D. THE SKELLY HEARING: If the employee requests a hearing, it shall be conducted by a neutral third party, such as the Department Head, the Human Resources Manager, the Assistant City Manager, the Chief of Police or his/her designee, or the City Manager or his/her designee. The hearing shall be conducted as soon as possible after it is requested, usually no later than two business days following the request. The hearing is to be conducted informally for the purpose of giving the employee an opportunity to provide an explanation or mitigation, or to correct mistakes of fact. Neither the neutral third party nor the employee shall be represented by counsel or by union representatives (unless a labor agreement provides otherwise). Normally, such hearings are concluded within a short period of time; however, the affected employee should be given such additional time as may be reasonably necessary to produce new information or to substantiate his/her explanation or mitigation. The hearing may be continued to a later time in the same day or the next day or such other day as may reasonably be necessary for such purpose. The neutral third party shall issue his/her decision within two business days after the conclusion of the hearing, either approving, disapproving or modifying the intended discipline. The resulting decision shall be implemented immediately.

E. BINDING ARBITRATION: Permanent employees who receive a long-term suspension or are demoted or terminated may, after the Skelly hearing, appeal the discipline by submitting it to binding arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted as follows: If the parties cannot mutually choose an arbitrator, the parties will select the names of five (5) arbitrators from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The parties will flip a coin. The winner shall choose the first name and so on until one name is left who shall be the arbitrator. The arbitrator must decide each and every dispute in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and all other applicable laws. Limited discovery may be conducted in the arbitration proceeding upon a showing of good cause and the approval of the arbitrator. Unless the employee and the City stipulate to the contrary, prior to the appointment of the arbitrator, all disputes shall first be submitted to non-binding mediation, conducted by a neutral mediator. The parties shall split the cost of all fees charged for such mediation and arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator’s decision is final and binding.

474
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 15 of 18 F. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS: Under emergency circumstances, where the health and safety of co-workers or the public is threatened, an employee may be immediately disciplined without prior notice and hearing. In such a case, the affected employee’s supervisor shall promptly document the circumstances which justified the immediate disciplinary action.

After the emergency has passed, the supervisor shall initiate the Skelly procedures, above.

ARTICLE X: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE—NON-SKELLY
A. PURPOSE: When an employee has a complaint or problem concerning his/her job, or the interpretation or application of this Agreement, and the complaint or problem cannot be resolved by informal discussion with his/her immediate supervisor, they may be brought to the attention of management through the grievance procedure.

B. MATTERS EXCLUDED FROM THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE: Certain matters and issues are not a proper subject of the grievance process. Improper matters or issues are those that fall into two categories:

1. Matters that have their own appeal process, such as the Skelly disciplinary action; or

2. Matters and issues that are solely within the discretion of management, such as staff reorganizations and reductions in the workforce (budgetary layoffs).

C. TIME LIMIT FOR PURSUING GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE: To ensure timely resolution of grievances, they shall be pursued within 10 business days after the employee became aware of the grievance, or reasonably should have been aware of it. All other grievances shall be deemed untimely and may be rejected unless the City Manager, in his/her sole discretion, determines that there is good cause for the late filing of a grievance.

Grievance Procedure: There are four steps to the grievance procedure.

Step 1: Informal Discussion with Immediate Supervisor: Employee shall first take his/her grievance up informally with his/her immediate supervisor. If the grievance is not resolved by informal discussion, the employee may formally submit, in writing, the grievance to his/her immediate supervisor. The employee shall briefly describe the grievance and, when possible, a suggested solution. The immediate supervisor shall forward the grievance within two (2) working days to the Department Head.

Step 2: Department Head: The Department Head shall meet with the employee within three (3) working days after receiving the written grievance and shall deliver his/her answer in writing to the employee within two (2) working days thereafter. The employee shall have the right to present the grievance to the Department Head with or without a representative.

475
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 16 of 18 Step 3: Human Resources Director or Assistant City Manager: If the grievance is not resolved in Step 2, the employee may submit it in writing to the Human Resources Director (or Assistant City Manager) within three (3) working days after the Department Head’s answer is received by the employee. The Human Resources Director (or Assistant City Manager) shall meet with the employee within three (3) working days after having received the written grievance and shall deliver his/her response to them in writing within three working days after such meeting.

Step 4: City Manager: If the grievance is not resolved in Step 3, the employee may submit it in writing to the City Manager within three (3) working days after the decision of the Human Resources Manager/Assistant City Manager is received. The City Manager shall meet with the employee within five (5) working days after having received the grievance and shall deliver his or her response in writing within five (5) working days after such meeting, or subsequent meeting(s), if any. The decision of the City Manager shall be binding and conclusive on all parties.

ARTICLE XI: NEGOTIATING
For purposes of renegotiating the Agreement, either party may submit a written request to the other party to renegotiate this Agreement no earlier than January 1 and no later than March 31 prior to the scheduled date of expiration of the Agreement.

The parties shall meet and confer in good faith in an endeavor to reach agreement prior to the adoption of the CITY's final budget for the ensuing fiscal year. As set forth in the Employer -Employee Relations Resolution, good faith shall consist of, among other things, the meeting of the parties at reasonable times and places, the exchange of information, the exchange of proposals and counter proposals; however, it shall not require the granting of a concession, nor the incorporation of permissive items into the final agreement. In the event an agreement is reached, the parties shall reduce the matter to writing in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding, which shall not be binding, and shall submit the matter for consideration before the City Council during a public meeting.

[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.]

476
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 17 of 18

SIGNATURE PAGE TO
Memorandum of Understanding
Between
City of Beaumont
and
Managers/Professional/Technical as Individuals
Effective January 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026

FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT

_______________________________________ _____________________ City Manager Date

FOR THE MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUAL

_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
477
Item 16.

Dated: January 13, 2022, MOU – MANAGERS/PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL AS INDIVIDUALS Page 18 of 18 _______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date
_______________________________________ _____________________ Date

478
Item 16.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Dustin Christensen, Principal Engineer Public Works DATE January 18, 2021
SUBJECT: Approve the Draft Request for Proposal for Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design Services and Construction Documents for Stewart Park Improvement Project

Background and Analysis:

On November 2, 2021, City Council directed City staff to return to City Council with a more detailed design plan for Stewart Park including items such as elevations, drainage plans, grading plan, a budget, and bid documents. City Council directed City staff to secure professional services to prepare these plans. City staff has drafted a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design Services and Construction Documents for the Stewart Park Improvement Project.

RFP for Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design Services and Construction Documents

The attached RFP has been drafted for City Council discussion and direction (Attachment A). Various scope items are included in the RFP in order to provide a complete architectural and engineering design for the park. These scope items include the following:

 Hydrological assessment of the park area and drainage basin,  Completion of Environmental documentation required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
 Preliminary Title Reports and Boundary Surveys on project parcels,  Coordination with Southern California Edison (SCE) for electrical services for proposed park amenities,
 Architectural renderings of proposed park improvements, and  Detailed Engineers Construction Cost Estimates.

479
Item 17.

The attached RFP includes the preparation of detailed construction bid documents including construction drawings and specifications. The proposed construction drawings will include the following:
 Grading plans and elevations,
 Drainage plans,
 Erosion control plans,
 Architectural design plans,
 Landscape planting and irrigation plans, and
 Lighting and electrical plans.

After advertisement of the RFP and receipt of proposals the selected firm and price will be presented to the City Council for award and timeline of work. The preliminary timeline for advertisement and award as provided below:

Event Date
RFP Issued January 19, 2022
Questions submitted on Public Purchase deadline February 02, 2022 @ 11:00 a.m.

Answers to Questions on Public Purchase will be posted February 11, 2022 Proposals Due February 23, 2022 @ 11:00 a.m.

Interviews (if required) March 1 – 4, 2022
Award Date March 15, 2022

City staff will work closely with the chosen consultant to successfully complete the project design. Upon completion of the design, the City will advertise the bid documents for construction.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost to prepare this staff report is approximately $500.

Recommended Action:

Approve the draft Request for Proposals for Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design Services and Construction Documents for Stewart Park Improvement Project and direct City staff to publish the document on PublicPurchase.com.
480
Item 17.

Attachments:

A. Request for Proposals for Professional Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design Services and Construction Documents for Stewart Park Improvement Project
481
Item 17.

Questions Due By:
11:00 a.m.

February 02, 2022

Proposals Due By:
11:00 a.m.

February 23, 2022

Contacts:

Kristine Day
Assistant City Manager
[email protected]

Doug Story
Assistant Director Parks & Rec
[email protected]
Dustin Christensen
Principal Engineer Public Works
[email protected]

RFP Available:
www.publicpurchase.com or
https://www.beaumontca.gov/949/Bids-and-RFPs
Request for Proposals
Professional Landscape Architecture
and Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for
Stewart Park Improvement Project
Website:
www.beaumontca.gov

Address:
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223

Phone:
951.769.8530

482
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Beaumont (City) is requesting written responses to this REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) for selection of a qualified firm (Consultant) to provide Professional Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design services and Construction Documents solely for the interest of the City.

This RFP is for professional landscape architecture and engineering design of various new park amenities and improvements to existing park amenities at Stewart Park, including the following:
• A new splash pad
• Concrete walking trails throughout the length of the park • Picnic pavilions throughout the park
• New playground equipment with shade structures
• A new bandshell
• A gaga ball courts
• Upgraded skate park
• New parking facilities
• Connection of the park across Ninth and Tenth Streets • Landscaping and lighting improvements throughout the park • Incorporate Existing Drainage into the Park Layout
The existing park is located between Eighth and Eleventh Streets and Orange and Maple Avenues.

The pool facility and park pavilion have been demolished. The northern most section of park between 10th and 11th streets is a flood control basin originally constructed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). The City owns the property and maintains the basin according to the agreement established when it was constructed (agreement provided for reference). A hydrological assessment of the existing drainage will be incorporated into all aspects of the park layout and design.

All services provided by the Consultant shall be performed by individuals who meet the qualifications, education, and certification/licensing requirements for the position. The successful Consultant shall also have the resources to provide cost effective and timely services, including providing customer service to the City.
483
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

2 Qualified firms that submit a proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the requirement defined within this RFP. Upon successful negotiations with the City, the selected firm will provide professional landscape architecture and engineering design services for the Stewart Park Improvement Project as described in the scope of this RFP.

BACKGROUND
The City of Beaumont was incorporated in November 1912. The city is in the western portion of Riverside County and is bounded on the west by Calimesa and unincorporated areas, on the north by the unincorporated County areas (Cherry Valley), on the south by unincorporated County areas and the City of San Jacinto, and on the east by the City of Banning. The land area within the City’s boundaries is approximately 26 square miles.

At the center of the historic area of the City of Beaumont is Stewart Park, home to the annual Cherry Festival and Freedom Festival. Stewart Park expands three city blocks and is located between Eighth and Eleventh Streets between Orange and Maple Avenues. The Cherry Festival is a four-day event that draws thousands of park patrons each year in June, and includes a carnival, food booths, games, live entertainment, and a beer garden. The Freedom Festival is a one-day event with live music, food vendors, kids’ activities, and a fireworks display.

The top two portions of the park between Ninth Street and Eleventh Street act as detention basins during rain events. The City recently approved a continuous park concept by vacating Tenth Street which historically divided Stewart Park. The street areas of Ninth and Tenth Streets are planned to be included in a continuous park space. The conceptual plan for Stewart park can be found on the City’s website and is attached to this RFP for reference.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Scope of Services for the Stewart Park Improvement Project is attached as Exhibit A.

ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Consultant shall be responsible for completing the specified services in accordance with the City’s Professional Services Agreement by Independent Contractor, a sample of which is attached (Exhibit B).

TERM
The term of the agreement shall be determined upon need of services and consistent with the 484
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

3 City’s policies. The initial period of the contract is for the duration of the project or three years, with two one-year extensions as approved by City Council, subject to agreement terms and the Beaumont Municipal Code.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
The proposal shall clearly address all the information requested herein. To achieve a uniform review process and obtain the maximum degree of comparability, it is required that proposals be organized and contain all information as specified below:

A. Cover Letter: Maximum of two (2) pages serving as an Executive Summary, which shall include an understanding of the Scope of Services. The RFP shall be transmitted with a cover letter that must be signed by an official authorized to bind the Consultant contractually. The letter accompanying the RFP shall also provide the name, title, address, and telephone number of individuals with the authority to negotiate and contractually bind the Consultant. The cover letter constitutes certification by the Consultant, under penalty of perjury, that the Consultant complies with nondiscrimination requirements of the State and Federal Government. An unsigned proposal or one signed by an individual unauthorized to bind the Consultant may be rejected.

B. Introduction/Information: Introduction of the service proposal, including a statement of understanding for the types of services proposed. Provide a discussion on how the objectives of the Scope of Services will be accomplished. Provide the name of the firm submitting the proposal, its mailing address, telephone number, and the name of the individual to contact if further information is required. Any participating firms and proposed sub-Consultants shall be identified and included in the proposal (all sub- Consultants must be approved by City prior to signing the agreement with City).

C. Approach: Provide the firm’s approach to delivering the scope of services. Include a description of the firm’s approach to communicating effectively with City staff and officials, other jurisdictional stakeholders, and the public, to facilitate successful delivery of assigned tasks.

D. Firm Profile: Provide a description of the firm, including number of professional personnel, years in business, office location(s), organizational structure (e.g., corporation, partnership, sole practitioner, etc.), areas of expertise, and relevant experience. Include any other information which should be considered, such as any special services or customer service philosophy which define your firm’s practice. 485
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

4 E. Location: Location of principal office that will be responsible for the implementation of this contract.

F. Organization, Key Personnel, and Resumes: Provide an organization chart and a summary description of the key personnel who will be involved in this project, their roles and responsibilities, and their experience in similar past projects. The proposal must name a project manager. In addition to this summary, full resumes should be provided.

G. Project Experiences: Provide a list of at least three projects related to the scope of the work within the last five years.

H. References: Three to five references to include: name, address, contact person and phone number of the company, length of time services were provided, and a description of the services provided.

I. Scope of Services: Provide a description of the tasks, sub-tasks, and deliverables that will be provided. The Scope of Services should include a detailed description of all work described in Exhibit A, as well as any additional work items identified by the Consultant as necessary to the completion of the project design. The Scope of Services should be presented in a logical format that can be easily attached to the Professional Services Agreement (Exhibit B).

J. Project Schedule: Create a detailed timeline for the tasks outlined in the Scope of Services.

K. Cost Proposal: The cost proposal (including hourly rate) shall be submitted in a separate sealed envelope. This should include a fee schedule, a not-to-exceed fee estimate broken down and itemized based on the Scope of Services, and hourly billable costs for the itemized Scope of Services. All hourly fee schedules should be based on the consultant’s current fee schedule rates. Rates shall be fixed for the duration of the project. The costs proposal shall clearly identify the estimated man-hours by classification and expenses required for each task, separated by team members, including all sub-consultants and contractors required to complete the Scope of Services.

L. Additional Information: Any other information which should be considered, such as any special services or customer service philosophy which define your firm’s practice.

M. Insurances: The selected Consultant will be required to provide insurance certificates as listed in draft copy of “Professional Services Agreement” (Exhibit B). Consultant should refer specifically to the draft agreement, Section 6 and 7, for specific language, amounts, 486
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

5 and information.

SUBMITTAL
Five (5) bound copies, one (1) unbound copy and one (1) color digital PDF copy of the proposal must be submitted no later than 11:00 a.m., February 23, 2022. The cost proposal shall be submitted in a separate sealed envelope. Postmarks and faxes are not acceptable. Proposal must be titled “Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design Services and Construction Documents for Stewart Park Improvement Project.” Request for Clarifications (RFCs) or questions regarding this RFP shall be directed in writing to:

Dustin Christensen
Principal Engineer Public Works
[email protected]

No RFC or questions will be accepted after 11:00 a.m. on February 02, 2022. All RFC responses will be posted on PublicPurchase.com by February 11, 2022.

No postmarked proposals will be accepted. Once submitted, proposals, including the composition of the consulting staff, cannot be altered without prior written consent of the City.

All costs associated with the preparation of any proposal shall be the sole responsibility of the proposer. Each proposal shall be limited to a maximum of 20 pages single spaced (not including resumes or addenda), using a minimum 12-point font size.

SCHEDULE
The City’s tentative schedule for the proposal and selection are as follows:

Event Date
RFP Issued January 19, 2022
Questions submitted on Public Purchase deadline February 02, 2022 @ 11:00 a.m.

Answers to Questions on Public Purchase will be posted February 11, 2022 Proposals Due February 23, 2022 @ 11:00 a.m.
487
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

6 Interviews (if required) March 1 – 4, 2022
Award Date March 15, 2022

CONFIDENTIALITY
Prior to the proposal submittal deadline, all proposals will be designated confidential to the extent permitted by the California Public Records Act. After the proposal submittal deadline, all responses will be regarded as public record and will be subject to review by the public. Any language purported to render confidential all or portions of the proposals will be regarded as non-effective and will be disregarded.

AMENDMENTS TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The City reserves the right to amend the RFP by addendum prior to the final proposal submittal date. Addenda will be posted on PublicPurchase.com.

NON-COMMITMENT TO CITY
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive informalities and minor irregularities in any proposal reviewed. The City may reject any proposal that does not conform to the instructions provided in this RFP. Additionally, the City reserves the right to negotiate all final terms and conditions of any proposal received before entering final contract.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Consultant shall disclose any personal or professional financial, business, or other relationships with the City that may have an impact on the outcome of this contract or any resulting project. The Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION/SELECTION
The City intends to engage the most qualified Consultant available that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the City’s needs. City staff will use the following criteria to evaluate the proposals:

488
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

7 Criteria & Scoring Points
Project Approach and Understanding of the Scope of Services 25 Project Team Organization and Qualifications 20
Related Experience and Past Projects 25
References 20
Proposed Fee 10
Total 100
The City may request a qualification interview with the highest ranked Consultant(s) prior to determining the final ranking. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals.

REFERENCE INFORMATION
Links to applicable design standards can be found on the City’s website. The following reference information has been provided specifically for this project and can be found on the public portal website together with this RFP:
• Stewart Park Conceptual Plan
• Splash Pad Preliminary Site Plan
• Previous Geotechnical Report
• 10th Street Vacation document
• Basin Topo
• Wastewater and Storm Drain utilities (City GIS)
• Flood Control Documents:
o Stewart Park Retention Basin Plans (RCFC&WCD)
o Stewart Basin Operation & Maintenance Agreement
o Master Drainage Plan for Beaumont Area
o Master Drainage Plan Exhibit
o Master Drainage Plan Boundary Map #1
o Master Drainage Plan Boundary Map #2

EXHIBITS
A. Scope of Services
B. Professional Services Agreement
489
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

8 -----END OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL----

EXHIBITS TO FOLLOW

490
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

9 EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services

GENERAL
The intent of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to secure the services of a qualified Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design consultant to conduct design engineering services for the Stewart Park Improvement Project. Services shall generally include the following tasks:

1. Project Management

2. Data Gathering and Analysis

3. Investigations
o Surveying and utility potholing
o Geotechnical Investigation
o Hydrological Assessment

4. Environmental Services
o CEQA Compliance

5. Preliminary Design
o Architectural Renderings
o 30% level engineering design drawings and cost estimate

6. Property, Easement & Right-of-way Support
o Preliminary Title Report & Boundary Survey
o Parcel Merging

7. Jurisdictional Coordination
o RCFC&WCD
o Local Utilities in vacated streets (9th and 10th)

8. SCE Electrical Plan of Service

9. Final Design and Contract Documents
o Preparation of Contract Documents: 60%, 90%, 100%, Final (Plans and Specs) o Preparation of Construction Cost Estimates and Construction Schedules

The following Scope of Services is provided as a guideline and is intended to identify the City’s expectations and requirements associated with the Final Design effort. Consultants may suggest modifications to the proposed Scope of Services and are encouraged to expand the scope to include additional and/or optional tasks if deemed necessary to execute and facilitate the final design of the Project. At a minimum, the following specific tasks are to be included in the proposed Scope of Services.
491
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

10 DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES

Task 1 – Project Management
• Prepare and lead the Project kick-off meeting with the City to discuss and review the following:
o Project background, goals, constraints, and approach
o Project reporting/communication protocols/coordination o Project schedule
o Critical/High Priority Scope

• Provide electronic project design schedule (baseline and monthly progress updates) in searchable pdf format. At a minimum, schedule shall include all submittals, meetings, and milestones. Schedule should incorporate a minimum 3-week period for each City submittal review.
• Schedule and lead weekly coordination and progress meetings with the City. Consultant shall prepare agenda, meeting minutes, and PowerPoint presentations (as necessary) for all meetings for the duration of the project.
• Coordination meetings with other agencies and developers as necessary. • Conduct and demonstrate effective quality assurance and quality control procedures. o Review of all notes and design calculations, along with design drawings and specifications, by an appropriate reviewer independent of the Project design team prior to each design submittal.
o Constructability and operational review of the design submittals.

• Consultant shall notify the City of any out-of-scope work items and obtain City approval prior to proceeding, no exceptions. Consultant will not be compensated for at risk work.

• Deliverables: Consultant shall submit all meeting agendas and presentations to the City a minimum of one (1) week prior to meetings, and all meeting minutes shall be submitted within three (3) working days following each meeting. City comments shall be incorporated, and final minutes published for distribution and record.

492
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

11 Task 2 – Data Gathering and Analysis
• Gather, review, and understand information on the City’s previous planning and design efforts for the Project, including the detailed review of all associated reference documents.
• Conduct field visits, inquiries, and investigations to acquire and review all relevant records of existing and proposed utilities including review of record drawings, property boundaries and right-of-way, environmental and geologic information, as well as to document physical conditions, features, and constraints within the Project area. • Acquire mapping, record drawings, and relevant information (aerial, utility, topographic, geologic, environmental, etc.) from City, County, USGS, and other agency sources. • Compile base mapping and identify jurisdictional limits (e.g. city/county agencies, community districts, etc.) and requirements.
• Review the conditions of the existing park space and the best options and ways to integrate the proposed new facilities.
• Review Edison service needs and electrical capacity requirements. Coordinate with Edison to verify circuit capacity and number of new services required for all new park facilities. • Complete an independent review of all provided reference documents to either confirm the design recommendations or suggest alternatives. Alternative recommendations shall be identified and discussed early in the design. At a minimum, consultant review shall include the following:
o Potential environmental concerns
o Potential Jurisdictional requirements and permits
o Potential utility conflicts and concerns
o Hydrology Concerns
o Preliminary Design Recommendations and Architectural Renderings • Meet with City staff and discuss standards, expectations, project approach, and results of data gathering and analysis.
• Deliverables: Consultant shall summarize the results of this task into a Technical Memorandum (TM) and submit three (3) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy (searchable pdf), for City review. City comments shall be incorporated into the final technical memorandum.

493
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

12 Task 3 - Investigations
Task 3.1 Surveying and Utility Potholing

• Consultant shall perform a topographical survey of the project area including the full width of the adjacent rights-of-way with 1-foot contours. The survey shall identify all existing easements, assessor parcel numbers, and existing utilities on or adjacent to the proposed project area. The surveying consultant or sub consultant shall be a Registered Professional Land Surveyor in the State of California.
• Define the quantity and location of utility potholing efforts required for final design, including potholing the existing utilities in 9th and 10th Street and other utilities in the immediate vicinity of the park as needed. Upon the City’s review and acceptance of Consultant’s proposed utility potholing plan, all utility potholing efforts shall be coordinated with field surveying and final base mapping efforts. • Deliverables: Results of all surveying activities shall be incorporated into the final contract documents. Results of all potholing activities shall be summarized in a report or technical memorandum submitted to the City. Submit three (3) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy (searchable pdf) for City review. City comments shall be incorporated into the final report or technical memorandum.

Task 3.2 Geotechnical Investigation

• Perform a geotechnical investigation of the proposed project area to include regional seismicity, seismic parameters, fault line evaluation, liquefaction, site preparation and earthwork, trench stability, suitability of onsite materials for backfill, trench excavation, shoring, dewatering, pipeline bedding and backfill recommendations, structural sections for concrete and asphalt, and all other necessary information required for a complete design.
• Consultant shall secure the services from a qualified sub consultant. As an option, the Consultant may utilize in-house resources for geotechnical services provided they can demonstrate sufficient experience/qualifications.
• Deliverables: Consultant shall summarize results and recommendations into a report.

Three (3) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy of the draft geotechnical report shall be submitted for review. City comments shall be incorporated. Three (3) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the final geotechnical report shall be submitted. Results of the geotechnical investigation shall be incorporated into the final contract documents.

494
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

13 Task 3.3 – Hydrological Assessment
• The northern most section of park between 10th and 11th streets is a flood control basin originally constructed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). Plans are attached for reference. The City owns the property and maintains the basin according to the agreement established when it was constructed (agreement provided for reference). During significant rain events this basin fills with water and overflows to the south through the 18-inch drainpipe to the park between 9th and 10th Street. Water flows from there to the corner of 9th Street and Maple Avenue, and then down Maple Avenue and into the flood control basin south of 8th Street. • The consultant shall perform a hydrological assessment of the exiting park and tributary area in order to quantify the potential impact of floodwater within the project boundary.

This shall include a risk assessment of the current flood capacity of the park, as well as an assessment of how proposed additions to the park from this project will not alter or increase surface flows. Varying storm events should be modeled, including the 100 year storm event. All proposed park improvements shall be mitigated to prevent inundation and flooding.
• If the hydrological assessment or any proposed improvements to the park result in recommendations to alter the existing grades of the storm water basin between 10th street and 11th street, these changes shall be coordinated, reviewed, and approved by RCFC&WCD.
• Deliverable: Consultant shall summarize the results of this task into a Hydrology Report and submit three (3) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy (searchable pdf) for City review. The consultant shall present the results of the report in a focused meeting with City staff. City comments on the Draft Report shall be incorporated into a Final Hydrology Report. Recommendations and mitigations from the report shall be incorporated into the final drawings and contract documents.

Task 4 – Environmental Services
• Consultant shall perform all work necessary to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Work shall include determination of the necessary level of environmental documentation, surveying, studies, and mitigation based on the project area and scope. The consultant shall prepare the required negative declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for public review and comment. The consultant will assist the City in responding to any public comments received.
495
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

14 • The Consultant will prepare the final documentation, including all required mitigation measures. The consultant will assist the City in preparation and documentation of the final Notice of Determination (NOD).
• Deliverables: Three (3) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy of the draft environmental documents for City review. City comments shall be incorporated prior to public notification period. Three (3) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the final approved environmental documents. All mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the final contract documents.

Task 5 – Preliminary Design
• The Consultant shall provide preliminary designs for all proposed project elements based on the results from tasks 2 and 3, including the following:
o Demolition of vacated streets and sidewalks
o New splash pad design
o Concrete walking trail design and locations
o Picnic pavilion design and locations
o New playground equipment design with shade structures o New bandshell design and location
o Gaga ball court design and location
o Upgraded skate park design
o New parking facilities design
o Connection of the park across Ninth and Tenth Streets o Landscape planting and irrigation design
o Lighting improvement plan design throughout the park
o Incorporate Existing Drainage into the Park Layout

• During preliminary design, prepare comprehensive architectural concept renderings for the park and proposed new facilities. The renderings will consist of bird’s eye views and street views of the proposed park layout including representative landscaping.

Renderings should also be provided for some of the individual park elements such as the new splash pad, new band shell, and new playgrounds and picnic pavilions.

• Complete a lighting analysis for the proposed lighting improvement plan to ensure lighting is sized correctly and appropriately illuminates surroundings.

• Complete a preliminary plant evaluation and planting plan in accordance the approved City planting standards.

496
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

15 • Upon completion of the architectural renderings and preliminary (30%) design drawings, the consultant shall conduct a preliminary design review meeting to present the preliminary design recommendations and architectural renderings to city staff. All comments from city staff shall be incorporated into the final design. • Deliverables: All preliminary architectural engineering renderings shall be provided to the City. Plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimates shall be submitted at 30% design level for City review. The consultant shall submit three (3) hard copy sets of drawings (two half size on 11 x 17 and one full size on 24 x 36), specifications, and construction cost estimates; and one (1) electronic copy of all documents (searchable pdf files). All hard copy sets shall be wet signed and stamped by a licensed engineer in the State of California.

Task 6 – Property, Easement and Right-of-way Support
• Consultant shall pull preliminary title reports on all project parcels. Consultant shall make certain that all permanent facilities and construction activities are to be located within City property, City easements, temporary construction easements, or within city street right-of-way.
• The public street ROW on 9th Street and 10th Street between Orange Avenue and Maple Avenue has been vacated. The consultant shall work with the City to verify that all necessary documentation and recording of these Street ROW vacations has been complete, and assist the City as needed with any remaining items. • Various utilities remain in place and active within the vacated streets, including 8-inch and 10-inch water lines, gas, cable, and other dry utilities. The consultant shall coordinate with existing utilities to provide permanent easements for continued access and maintenance of existing utilities. The consultant will be responsible for the preparation of legal descriptions, plats, and the dedication of all required easements. • The park strip is currently divided into three separate City parcels and two separate vacated streets. The consultant shall prepare necessary documentation for merging all parcels into one continuous City parcel, and assist the City in recording these changes. A final boundary survey shall be conducted, and documentation and recording of the boundary survey shall be provided to the City.
• Deliverables: Consultant shall prepare legal descriptions and plats for all required easements. Legal descriptions and plats shall be prepared in accordance with City guidelines. All additional documentation necessary for vacation of public ROW and merging of city parcels shall be provided.

497
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

16 Task 7 – Jurisdictional Coordination
• The Consultant shall coordinate with Southern California Edison for service needs and electrical capacity requirements. Coordinate with Edison to verify circuit capacity and number of new services required for all new park facilities. • The northern most section of park between 10th and 11th streets is a flood control basin originally constructed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). The City owns the property and maintains the basin according to the agreement established when it was constructed (agreement provided for reference).

Coordination with RFCF&WCD will be required for any changes within the basin. The consultant will shall include in their scope the submittal of plans to RCFC&WCD for review and approval, as well as addressing any review comments. The application and approval of any required RCFC&WCD permits shall be included.
• Various utilities remain in place and active within the vacated streets, including 8-inch and 10-inch water lines, gas, cable, and other dry utilities. The consultant shall coordinate with existing utilities to provide permanent easements for continued access and maintenance of existing utilities. The consultant will shall include in their scope the submittal of plans to the Water District and other utilities for review, as well as addressing any review comments.
• Deliverables: Consultant shall prepare all permit plans for submittal, incorporate comments from all jurisdictional Agencies, and revise the Contract Documents as necessary.

Task 8 – SCE Electrical Plan of Service
• New electrical services at multiple locations will be required for the splash pad pumps, pavilion lights, lighting improvements, new band shell, and other proposed improvements. Consultant shall coordinate all activities with Southern California Edison (SCE) to obtain an electrical plan of service for all new park facilities. The consultant shall include in their scope of work the application for all required SCE permits, preparation and submittal of plans to SCE, and addressing all SCE comments. The Contract Documents shall include the final approved electrical plan of service. The SCE permit application shall be submitted in the early stages of preliminary design to allow sufficient time for SCE to prepare the plan of service.

Task 9 – Final Design and Contract Documents
• The principal design components of this project include the following:
498
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

17 o Demolition of vacated streets and sidewalks
o New splash pad design
o Concrete walking trail design and locations throughout park o Picnic pavilion design and locations
o New playground equipment design with shade structures o New bandshell design and location
o Gaga ball court design and location
o Upgraded skate park design
o New parking facilities design
o Connection of the park across Ninth and Tenth Streets o Landscape planting and irrigation design
o Lighting improvement plan design throughout the park
o Incorporate Existing Drainage into the Park Layout

• Consultant shall prepare Contract Bid Documents in a single bid package consisting of detailed design plans and specifications. The plans shall include (at a minimum):
o General plans
o Grading plans
o Drainage & Storm Drain Plans
o Erosion control plans
o Demolition plans
o Architectural Plans
o Landscape planting and irrigation plans
o Mechanical plans
o Structural plans
o Lighting and Electrical plans

• The consultant shall prepare complete specifications, including General Provisions (provided by the City), Special Conditions, Supplemental Special Conditions, Technical Specifications, and detailed Bidding Sheets including estimated costs.

• Contract Documents, including detailed design plans and specifications, shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Beaumont Standards, Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD) Road Improvement Standards & Specification, Riverside County Flood Control Standards, and the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, current edition.

• Plans shall be prepared consistent with NAD83 and NAVD88 survey standards.

• Specifications shall include a detailed anticipated sequence of work. Sequence of work shall include sequencing for all demolitions and abandonments of City facilities. Sequence of work shall include all construction phasing requirements as necessary for the proper construction of all proposed park facilities.
499
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

18 • Coordinate with all local utilities and agencies including SCE, Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, Riverside County Flood Control, gas, telephone, cable TV, etc. for utility locations. All existing and proposed utilities shall be identified on the plans. Locate, identify and show City facilities and appurtenances on the drawings, including storm drains, sewer lines, force mains, vaults, manholes, and other appurtenances. Final contract documents shall include a final electrical utility plan of service approved for construction.

• Provide all final detailed design calculations including hydrology calculations, structural calculations, calculations for equipment sizing and selection, etc.

• Prepare a detailed and itemized opinion of probable construction cost. Each design level submittal shall include an appropriate engineer’s cost estimate.

• Prior the 60% design submittal, the project team shall conduct a field review with plans in hand to review the proposed site improvements to determine the conditions of the surrounding environment, discuss pertinent project information, and develop a final opinion of possible impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. The Consultant’s Project Manager and other appropriate members of the project team, accompanied by City Staff shall participate in this effort. This field walk/review shall be repeated again prior to the 90% design submittal to confirm if any changes occurred during the design process and to ensure any changes are reflected on the final drawings.

• Conduct a focus meeting with City staff at the 60% design level to review all architectural design details. The consultant should anticipate a minimum of eight to ten detailed renderings (photorealistic quality) to be provided to supplement the 60% architectural design review. The renderings will consist of bird’s eye views and street views of the park and the various proposed facilities, including representative landscaping. Comments from the 60% architectural design review will be incorporated into the final design.

• Deliverables – Plans, Specifications, and engineer’s estimates shall be submitted for City review at the 60%, 90% and 100% progress levels. At each design level the consultant shall submit three (3) hard copy sets of drawings (two half size on 11 x 17 and one full size on 24 x 36), specifications, and construction cost estimates; and one (1) electronic copy of all documents (searchable pdf files). All hard copy sets shall be wet signed and stamped by a licensed engineer in the State of California. The final bid document submittal shall include one (1) full size set of Mylars, two (2) hard copies of the final bid specifications, and electronic (PDF) copies of the final drawings and specifications for bidding.

500
Item 17.

City of Beaumont
Request for Proposal
Landscape Architecture and
Engineering Design Services and
Construction Documents for Stewart
Park Improvement Project

19 EXHIBIT B
Professional Services Agreement
501
Item 17.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager
DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Rangel Park Update

Background and Analysis:

At its meeting of January 4, 2022, City Council directed City staff to provide a project status report on the Rangel Park improvement project at this scheduled meeting (January 18, 2022). City staff immediately began preparing a detailed comprehensive report as directed. Work on this report was still underway as of the date of this memorandum and City staff will present a detailed report at this meeting. Included in the report will be a project history, project status, and review of outstanding issues for discussion and direction.

Fiscal Impact:

City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $1,755.

Recommended Action:

Receive and provide direction to City staff.

502
Item 18.

Rangel Park
Project Overview
January 18, 2022
503
Item 18.

RANGEL PARK
Park Concept Plan
commissioned 2018
Approved March
2019
New restroom
/concession facility
Electrical evaluation
complete

WHAT WE HAVE
ACCOMPLISHED:
504
Item 18.

Rangel Park Today
505
Item 18.

Concept Plan 03-2019
Budget Funding
$500K –DIF
$500K –CFD
$367K -CDBG
506
Item 18.

Original Project Estimate
2018:

Playground Structure
Safety Surfacing $ 100,000
Restrooms $ 150,000
Covered Picnic/Pavilion/
Basketball/BBQ Area $ 100,000
New Fencing/Landscaping/
Lighting $ 50,000
Splash Park $ 150,000
Ballfield Improvements $ 150,000
Total Park Improvements $ 700,000
507
Item 18.

Original Project Estimate (Rev).
2020:

Playground Structure
Safety Surfacing $ 100,000
Covered Picnic/Pavilion/
Basketball/BBQ Area $ 317,213
New Fencing/Landscaping/
Lighting $ 50,000
Splash Park $ 500,000
Ballfield Improvements $ 400,000
Total Park Improvements $1,367,213
508
Item 18.

Proposed Concept Plan
Potrero Interchange
Phase 1
509
Item 18.

Probable Construction Cost
As of November 2021:

Demolition $ 337,950
Field Improvements $ 716,132
Play Area / Plaza Improvements $1,720,625
Electrical Upgrades SEC $ 300,000
Musco Field Lighting $ 500,000
Total Park Improvements $3,574,707
510
Item 18.

Questions and Direction
511
Item 18.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Lloyd White, Mayor
DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Discussion and Direction to City Staff Regarding Updates to the City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program

Background and Analysis:

In late 2017 the Beaumont City Council adopted an updated development impact fee (DIF) program. The impact fees imposed prior to 2017 had been based on nexus studies that were extremely dated, resulting in significant increases to some of the fees.

An important part of the discussion in 2017 was that the DIFs needed to keep pace with inflationary trends and that the entire program needed to be evaluated periodically to ensure that they were consistent with the City’s evolving needs and costs.

Beaumont’s DIFs have been adjusted annually based on prior year inflation as specified in the adopting ordinances. This ensures that the dollar value of each fee stays current.

In some instances, fees have been increased while in other instances fees have been decreased, based upon the applicable consumer price index.

Since the current DIF program is entering its fifth year, the City Council needs to consider conducting new nexus studies and adopting a revised DIF program pursuant to those studies. In considering these new nexus studies, the City Council should consider the types of capital improvements and services that it would like analyzed.

One major area of concern throughout the community is the existing level of traffic and the need for the City to initiate proactive measures to mitigate traffic impacts borne by new development. Future traffic impacts will result directly from the types and intensities of the development that actually occurs, and it will be important for the new/updated nexus studies to consider current trends, market conditions, and City plans/policies.

512
Item 19.

Beaumont is expected to see continued growth in its single -family and retail sectors.

However, the City should also expect to see continued interest in certain industrial sectors, primarily in the logistics and distribution center industries.

By their very nature, logistics and distribution centers rely on surface transportation and may have unique impacts on local and state roadway systems. This was demonstrated via a Logistics Center Mitigation Fee Nexus Study prepared by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2019. This study was prepared as a result of the litigation initiated by Riverside County pertaining to the World Logistics Center (WLC) development in the City of Moreno Valley. A copy of this nexus study is included as Attachment A to this memorandum.

It is important to note that pursuant to the WLC settlement agreement, approval of at least 75% of the cities within a supervisory district would have to have occurred in order for a regional fee of $0.50/square foot to be implemented. Riverside County could have adopted this fee unilaterally. Neither approvals happened and the fee was never adopted.

There are other economic trends and issues that should be considered as well. Fo r example, Beaumont is also evolving as more of a regional center for retail, commercial, and parks/recreation services due directly to growth within the neighboring cities. This results in a greater consumption of existing infrastructure capacities as well as assumptions for their upgrade and expansion.

Fiscal Impact:

City staff estimates it cost approximately $1,316 to prepare this report.

Recommended Action:

Direct City staff to begin preparing requests for proposals (RFPs) for the impact fee nexus studies;
Direct City staff to include updates to the DIF nexus studies and the DIF program in the FY2022-2023 budget; and
Add an item on the next City Council agenda to discuss updates to the City’s DIF program.

Attachments:
513
Item 19.

A. Logistics Center Mitigation Fee Nexus Study – Riverside County Transportation Commission, May 8, 2019
514
Item 19.

Agenda Item 12

RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: May 8, 2019
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Approval of the Logistics Mitigation Fee Nexus Study

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

This item is for the Commission to approve the Logistics Mitigation Fee Nexus Study.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Study

In 2015, the Commission and the County of Riverside (County) filed a lawsuit against the city of Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview, the developer of the World Logistics Center (WLC) project.

The lawsuit challenged the environmental impact report to ensure adequate mitigation to impacts created by the WLC project. The WLC is proposed to be located in the eastern portion of the city, southerly of State Route 60, between Redlands Boulevard and Gilman Springs Road as shown in Figure 1 below. The project would encompass over 2,610 acres with 40 million square feet for a large-scale logistics operation and is estimated to attract over 14,000 truck trips and 68,721 trips daily.

In July 2016, a settlement agreement was reached between the Commission, the County, the city of Moreno Valley, and Highland Fairview. A key provision of the settlement required that the four parties each contribute $250,000, for a total of $1 million, for the Commission to conduct a regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics-related regional fee, including the fee structure and implementing mechanism.

A result of the study could be a new fee program that would, for example, set a fee on new distribution center warehouses, based on facility size, to help pay for highway improvements.

This fee would differ from existing Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Programs in that it would only focus on highway projects, as compared to the regional TUMF Programs, which collect funds for regional arterials and local streets.

Per the settlement agreement, if the County or at least 75 percent of the Commission’s member cities adopt a regional warehouse fee within two years after a final court judgment is issued, Highland Fairview will pay 65 cents per square foot for each operating warehouse within the WLC. If no regional fee is adopted, the fee would be 50 cents per square foot. Proceeds would be used for projects identified as part of the regional truck study. 211
515
Item 19.

Agenda Item 12
The purpose of this item and staff’s recommendation is to approve the study. Implementing a fee program would require additional action by the Commission and local jurisdictions.

Figure 1: Location of Project

Summary of Completed Tasks

At its January 2017 meeting, the Commission approved the award for a regional truck study and development and implementation of a regional logistics mitigation fee to WSP USA, formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. The study was kicked off in spring 2017 and a study advisory team was created to review and discuss the data and deliverables provided by the consultant team. The study advisory team consisted of staff representatives from the Commission, County, city of Moreno Valley, Highland Fairview, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Caltrans, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association.

Source: City of Moreno Valley
212
516
Item 19.

Agenda Item 12
Existing and Future Conditions Analysis and Funding and Cost Analysis At its June 2018 Commission meeting, staff and the project consultant provided an update on the study. At that time, the Existing and Future Conditions Analysis and Funding and Cost Analysis were completed and concluded the following:
•Existing and future warehousing related land use inventory was needed to forecast trips for each type of warehousing activity (i.e. high-cube such as fulfillment centers/parcel hubs, industrial parks, etc);
•Sufficient data sources are available to justify the completion of a Nexus Study; •The SCAG 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its forecasted modeling was found to be the most comprehensive data source to evaluate existing and future conditions; •Other datasets such as SCAQMD’s Warehouse Study and ITE’s Trip Generation Model were evaluated but had limitations such as lack of forecasting data and concentrations on certain warehousing activities such as high-cube;
•Diagnostic tests using Caltrans’ truck count data were conducted to check that the SCAG model provided reasonable forecasts and were found to be pretty accurate; •Origin-destination patterns were also collected using cellphone GPS data to analyze patterns within the County and between other regions;
•Origin-destination data reveals that about half of the heavy-duty truck trips in Riverside County either begin or end in the County, about two-thirds of the medium heavy-duty truck trips begin or end in the County, and highways in the County have the largest share of truck traffic for both heavy-duty and medium-duty trips in the SCAG region; •The SCAG 2016 RTP model was used to determine traffic flows in the AM and PM peak hours, which is critical to identifying the attributable deficiencies by logistic activities; •Logistics warehousing is estimated to grow in Riverside County by about 37.3 million square feet by 2040; and
•Future deficiencies in the highway network caused by logistics growth were identified in western county (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 identifies deficiencies based on new warehousing development as forecasted in the 2016 SCAG RTP.
213 517
Item 19.

Agenda Item 12
Figure 2: Identified Deficiencies Based on New Warehousing Development

Cost Estimation Methodology

Proposed projects to mitigate the logistics growth could range from the addition of an auxiliary lane at on-and-off ramps, or, the widening of a mainline. Conceptual costs were developed based on the quantification of construction elements in conceptual designed using Google imaging data. Existing capacity deficiencies, pass-through trips in Riverside County, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned or have been completed (i.e. SR-91 Capital Improvement Program or French Valley Parkway Projects) were excluded from the calculation of the potential fee.

Total cost of infrastructure improvements is estimated at $383.3 million (Table 1), of which the attributable share to logistics growth is about $47.8 million, or 12 percent (Table 2).

Source: 2040 forecast from 2016 SCAG RTP
SR-60
214
518
Item 19.

Agenda Item 12
Table 1: Total Conceptual Cost Estimate

215
519
Item 19.

Agenda Item 12
Table 2: Total Logistics Cost Share

216
520
Item 19.

Agenda Item 12
A potential fee could be up to $1.28 per square foot (SF) of gross floor area based on the projected growth of about 37.3 million square feet of new warehousing anticipated by 2040 per the 2016 SCAG RTP.

Nexus Study

The California Mitigation Fee Act requires that an impact fee program fulfill the following:

 Establish a rational nexus/reasonable relationship between the infrastructure need and development impact
 Fees must be roughly proportional with the impacts of development and the cost of the infrastructure; and
 A development does not have to exclusively benefit from the infrastructure but can substantially benefit from the overall improvement in regional mobility.

The Nexus Study fulfills these requirements and builds upon the data compiled from the Existing and Future Conditions Analysis and Cost Analysis to establish the relationship between growth related to logistics facilities and truck traffic and the improvements needed to mitigate such growth. The study process includes the confirmation of expected growth in population and employment in the region, and specifically growth in warehousing and logistics uses in the county, applies the regional travel demand model to generate traffic data outputs to identify future capacity deficiencies in the highway network (Table 1 above), and then determines the proportion of those deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics related development (Table 2 above). The resultant information is then cross-referenced with project cost information to determine the overall cost of mitigating logistics impacts as the basis for estimating a fee. That cost is then divided by the anticipated rate of growth in new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County to determine the fair share fee amount, as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Potential Logistics Impact Fee

Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee for Riverside County Logistics Cost Share of Freeway Mitigation $47,841,000
Growth in Warehouse Gross Floor Area
in Square Feet 37,332,179
Fee per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area up to $1.28
217
521
Item 19.

Agenda Item 12
Public Outreach

In addition to working with the study advisory team, staff also provided updates on the study to the Commission’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of Public Works Directors and City Engineers, and other regional bodies such as the WRCOG City Managers TAC and, the SCAG Transportation Committee.

Stakeholder workshops were held on September 28, 2018 and December 7, 2018, to target public and private stakeholders, such as local and regional agencies and the development community.

The workshops were advertised via the website, social media, the study advisory team, and partnering-agency distribution lists. In addition, a webpage for the study, located at www.rctc.org/feestudy was also made accessible for stakeholders to submit comments and review study materials. There was a total of about 42 attendees at both workshops. The majority of the comments and questions received were general in nature regarding who the fee would apply to and what types of projects the fee revenues would be allocated towards. Some comments were more technical regarding the methodology and calculation of the fee and were addressed with specific parties during study advisory meetings.

Potential Locational Effects of a Logistics Fee

The study also analyzed the potential locational impacts a logistics mitigation fee might have on economic development in the county. Research indicates that a logistics mitigation fee would likely have limited impacts on demand for warehouse development in Riverside County. For example, it is estimated that total development costs in Western Riverside County is about $121.10 per square feet for industrial buildings and a proposed logistics fee of up to $1.28 would increase the total by about 1 percent. In comparison, the total development costs in Los Angeles County is about 55 percent higher than the Inland Empire. Additionally, impact fees are generally higher in San Bernardino County compared to Riverside County, although fees vary widely. A potential logistics fee of $1.28/SF in Riverside County would make the average for Western Riverside County about $0.50 higher than the San Bernardino County average as shown in Figure 2 below.

218
522
Item 19.

Agenda Item 12
Figure 2: Current Average Development Impact Fee Costs Per Square Foot and Proportions in Inland Empire Jurisdictions

Next Steps

Staff is recommending the Commission approve the Logistics Mitigation Fee Nexus Study. The approval of the Nexus Study does not constitute the pursuit of a fee program, but rather fulfills the Commission’s obligation to complete the analysis per the settlement agreement. Should the Commission decide to pursue a fee program, staff would return at a later time for the approval of an implementation plan including a proposal on the establishment of a fee administrator. The Commission’s current governing authority does not allow for fees to be collected directly by the Commission; therefore, should a program be implemented the Commission would either have to create a Joint Powers Authority or another regional governing body would have to be responsible for administering the fee program. If implemented, the formal adoption and public hearing process for the Nexus Study and fee program would take place.

Fiscal Impact

There is no financial impact for this item.

Attachments:
1) Nexus Study, April 2019
2) Existing and Future Conditions, October 2017
3) Supplemental: Existing and Future Conditions, March 2018 4) Funding and Cost Analysis, June 2018
5) Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee, April 2019 Source: WRCOG, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 219
523
Item 19.

BLANK
524
Item 19.

Prepared for :

Prepared by:

In partnership with
Revised: April 2019

RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND

REGIONAL LOGISTICS

MITIGATION FEE
Final Technical Memorandum:

Task 3 – Nexus Study
ATTACHMENT 1
220
525
Item 19.

BLANK
221
526
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction, Background and Purpose ................................................................................. 1

1.1. Nexus Study Process ....................................................................................................... 2

2. Forecasting Logistics Growth And Traffic Impacts ............................................................... 4

2.1. Forecasting Logistics Growth ......................................................................................... 4

2.2. Forecasting Traffic Impacts ............................................................................................. 9

2.2.1. SCAG Model Adjustment and Re-Validation ........................................................ 10

2.2.2. Forecasting Traffic Volumes and Identifying Traffic Impacts .............................. 12

2.3. Attributing Capacity Deficiencies to New Logistics Development .............................. 18

2.3.1. Percent Attributable to Future Development ........................................................ 18

2.3.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Trucks in Riverside County ...................... 18

2.3.3. Percent of Freeway Capacity Deficiencies Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County ....................................................................................... 19

3. Determining Freeway Mitigation Concepts and Costs........................................................ 22

3.1. Assessing Project Limits ............................................................................................... 22

3.2. Review of Currently Funded/Programmed Improvements.......................................... 23

3.3. Development of Project Concepts ................................................................................ 25

3.4. Project Cost Estimating ................................................................................................. 26

3.4.1. Project Costs Attributable to New Logistics Development .................................. 29

4. Funding Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................... 30

4.1. Riverside County Strategic Assessment ....................................................................... 30

4.2. Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act ............................................................... 31

4.3. Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) ........................................ 32

4.4. Summary of Available Funding from All Sources ........................................................ 32

5. Logistics Mitigation Fee and Nexus Determination ............................................................ 34

5.1. Logistics Mitigation Fee Calculation............................................................................. 34

5.2. Nexus Determination .................................................................................................... 35

5.2.1. Purpose of the Fee ................................................................................................. 35

5.2.2. Use of Fee Revenues .............................................................................................. 35 222
527
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

ii

5.2.3. Use/Type-of-Development Relationship ............................................................... 36

5.2.4. Need/Type-of-Development Relationship ............................................................. 36

5.2.5. Proportionality Relationship .................................................................................. 37

5.3. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 37

6. Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 38 Appendix A – Capacity Improvement Concept Plans ................................................................ A-1 Appendix B – Conceptual Project Cost Estimate Tables ........................................................... B-1

223
528
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

iii

List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Flowchart of Key Steps in the Nexus Study Process .................................................. 3 Figure 2-1: EDD Warehouse and Other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA) ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-2: Transportation Employment - Caltrans Transportation Economics Branch Forecast vs. Extrapolated EDD Trend (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA) ...................................... 6 Figure 2-3: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Total Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-5: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Adjusted Total Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 12 Figure 2-6: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour .... 14 Figure 2-7: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour ...... 14 Figure 2-8: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour .... 15 Figure 2-9: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour ...... 15 Figure 2-10: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement) .............................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 2-11: Components of 2040 Traffic Demand as a Percentage of Capacity ..................... 21

List of Tables
Table 2-1: Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 .................................................... 7 Table 2-2: Warehouse Growth in Riverside County, 2016-2040 ................................................... 7 Table 2-3: Warehouse Growth by TAZs in Riverside County (in thousand square feet gross floor area and percentage) ............................................................................................................. 8 Table 2.4: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement) .............................................................................................................................. 16 Table 2-5: Deficient Segment Locations and Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County ............................................................................................... 20 Table 3-1: Practical Limits of Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects ................... 23 Table 3-2: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects to be Included in the Fee Program ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Table 3-3: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimates ...... 28 Table 3-4: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Logistics Cost Share ................. 29 Table 4-1: Freeway Funding Program Amount (in millions) and Risk, 2016 to 2039 ............... 31 Table 4-2: Projected RCTC Funding from FAST (in millions), 2017 to 2040 ............................. 32 Table 4-3: Projected RCTC Funding from SB1 (in millions), 2017 to 2040 ............................... 32 Table 4-4: RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funding 2017-2040 - All Sources (in millions) ..... 33 Table 5-1: Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee Calculation ..................................................... 34 224
529
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

1 1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Despite the recent slow-down in the rate of development in the region due to the lasting effects of the economic recession, Western Riverside County remains one of the fastest growing regions in the country. The proximity to Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego, the availability of comparatively affordable land, and the generally high quality of life in area communities each contribute to making Riverside County an attractive place to live and work.

However, the continuing rapid rate of growth in the region exceeds the capacity of existing financial resources to meet demand for transportation infrastructure. Traditional transportation funding sources, Measure A and the respective Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs, as well motor fuel tax revenues generated by the recent enactment of Senate Bill 1 (SB1), substantially contribute to building and maintaining transportation infrastructure, although these funding sources are considered insufficient to address all the area’s transportation funding needs into the future. This is particularly the case for the freeway system in Western Riverside County where existing needs, anticipated future growth and the fluctuating increase in land and material costs exceed the capability of current local, state and federal programs to meet future funding needs.

The projected growth in Western Riverside County can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial additional investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for the freeway system which provides the foundation for the area’s transportation system and is recognized as an essential element for sustaining the regional economy. Further increases in congestion and degradation in mobility on the freeway system will have a considerable impact on the economy and overall quality of life in Western Riverside County.

The impact of trucks and other traffic associated with warehousing and logistics uses has increasingly emerged as an issue of concern in Riverside County as more of these developments are located within the county. The issue of adequate mitigation of the impacts of these uses on regional freeways recently culminated with a multi-party lawsuit involving mitigation of the Highland Fairview development in Moreno Valley. As part of a settlement agreement between the respective parties to the lawsuit, it was agreed that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) would undertake a regional truck study to verify the cumulative level of impact of warehousing and logistics uses on the freeway system in Riverside County as the basis for establishing a regional logistics mitigation fee. This Nexus Study represents a critical milestone in the RCTC Truck Study and Development and Implementation of Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee work effort.

The RCTC Truck Study and Development and Implementation of Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee is intended to verify the anticipated rate of growth in warehousing and logistics-related development in Riverside County, and to quantify the associated level of traffic impacts on the Riverside County highway system because of the expected growth in warehousing and logistics 225
530
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

2 activities. In quantifying impacts, the study is also intended to determine the amount that each new warehousing or logistics development should pay in lieu of completing actual freeway improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts specifically associated with truck trips generated by new warehousing and logistics developments. The findings of this study are intended to provide the framework for implementing a program to collect impact fees that will contribute to mitigating the truck traffic impacts associated with new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County. Such a program can help to ensure that all new logistics-related development approved in Riverside County will bear a proportional fair share of the cost of building transportation infrastructure to address future transportation needs.

This technical memorandum represents the third in a series of documents that will verify the rate of new warehousing and logistics related developments in Riverside County, the associated truck trip generation rates and cumulative regional traffic impacts, the cost to mitigate these impacts, and the fair share basis for collecting a potential fee. This document summarizes the technical evaluation efforts and presents the analysis findings developed as part of the prior study tasks to calculate a fair share fee amount and document the rational nexus for a regional logistics mitigation fee.

1.1. NEXUS STUDY PROCESS
The various steps of the fee calculation process that contribute to accomplishing this task are summarized in the following sections of this document. The study process starts by confirming the expected growth in population and employment in the region, and specifically growth in warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County, applies the regional travel demand model to generate traffic data outputs to identify future capacity deficiencies in the highway network, and then determines the proportion of those deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics related development. The resultant information is then cross-referenced with project cost information to determine the overall cost of mitigating logistics impacts as the basis for estimating a fee. This cost is then divided by the anticipated rate of growth in new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County to determine the fair share fee amount.

The subsequent chapters of this Nexus Study document describe the various assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of a fee that represents the maximum “fair share” amount that can be charged to new warehouse and logistics uses to mitigate the indirect cumulative regional impacts of the development on the freeway network. The overall process for establishing the fee nexus is illustrated in the flow chart in Figure 1.1 outlining the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step that was followed to determine the fee and establish the program nexus is described in the subsequent sections, with reference to the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to the various steps. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of the SCAG regional travel demand model, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and key outputs. 226
531
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

3 Figure 1-1: Flowchart of Key Steps in the Nexus Study Process

227
532
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

4 2. FORECASTING LOGISTICS GROWTH AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS
This initial phase of the study process is to inventory existing logistics facilities in Riverside County, confirm the forecast growth in logistics facilities through 2040, and determine the magnitude and location of logistics related truck traffic impacts. This effort encompasses the first nine steps illustrated in the study process flow chart.

2.1. FORECASTING LOGISTICS GROWTH
The settlement agreement that prompted the study effort specifically cites warehouse and logistics uses as the subject of the analysis and potential fee. As a precursor to inventorying and forecasting logistics facilities and their impacts, specific types of logistics facilities were defined to be the subject of the analysis and resultant fee based on the functions they serve, the types of businesses that utilize them, and their design and trip generation characteristics.

A range of data sources were reviewed including the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, the SCAG Industrial Warehousing Study, the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, and the recently-released SCAQMD/NAIOP/ITE study of vehicle trip generation for high-cube warehouses, as well as available industry databases to identify an appropriate definition of the subject uses. The various datasets use different systems to classify industries; the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). The U.S. Census Bureau uses the NAICS structure. Similarly, SCAG uses the NAICS structure as the basis for developing regional employment forecasts as part of its long-range planning responsibilities.

The NAICS applies a 6-digit hierarchical coding system to classify all economic activity into 20 industry sectors. Five sectors are mainly goods-producing sectors and 15 are entirely services- producing sectors. Transportation and Warehousing (Industry Code 48 & 49) is defined in NAICS as “Industries providing transportation of passengers and cargo, warehousing and storage for goods, scenic and sightseeing transportation, and support activities related to modes of transportation. Establishments in these industries use transportation equipment or transportation related facilities as a productive asset. Modes of transportation include air, rail, water, road, and pipeline. (Example: Freight Trucking Companies, Warehousing and Storage, Couriers and Delivery Services.)”1. The Warehousing subcategory (NAICS subcategory code 493) is included within this category and was determined to be the most applicable subcategory for the purposes of this study.

The current SCAG Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) was adopted on April 7, 2016 and constitutes the officially-adopted land use forecast for the region. The horizon year for the SCS is 2040. The primary SCS forecast for non-residential development incorporates units of jobs (as opposed to acres, square feet, etc.) for a full range of land uses, including Warehousing employment. As the adopted growth forecast for the SCAG region, the SCAG SCS provides the starting point for forecasting logistics growth in Riverside County.

The SCAG SCS base year (2012) jobs in the Warehousing subcategory was compared to other sources as a reasonableness check. The California Employment Development Department 1 North American Industry Classification System United States, Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget, 2017 228
533
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

5 (EDD) Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) employment data by detailed NAICS industries code were utilized for this purpose. The SCAG SCS base year (2012) employment in Warehousing in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties is 15,821 jobs, which is less than two-thirds of the 24,900 Warehousing jobs indicated for the same period in the EDD employment data for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA. For this reason, the SCAG SCS data were adjusted to support the travel demand forecasting completed as part of this study.

EDD collects data on employment by detailed NAICS industries, but only at the MSA geographic level. Moreover, EDD does not include long-term forecasts, only past observed data. Therefore, the EDD historical data for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA had to be extrapolated into the future and disaggregated by county. The adjustments were accomplished by first observing the historical trend for Warehousing jobs in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA and extrapolating for the years 2016 to 2040. As illustrated in Figure 2-1, 2003 marks a notable inflection point where the rate of growth in warehousing increases relative to the growth of transportation/warehousing employment overall. Therefore, the post-2003 trend was used to extrapolate from 2016 to 2040 for both for the Warehousing sub-category and the rest of Transportation sub-categories as the basis for adjusting the employment data in the model.

Figure 2-1: EDD Warehouse and Other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends (Riverside- San Bernardino-Ontario MSA)

Caltrans’ Transportation Economics Branch provides annual county-level projections of employment by 2-digit NAICS industry categories through 2050. A comparison of the Caltrans data for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties combined reveals the total jobs for 0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040Warehouse Non-Warehouse 229
534
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

6 Transportation and Warehousing correlates very closely with the EDD historical trend extrapolation described previously, as illustrated in Figure 2-2. Considering the close correlation of totals between datasets, the proportion of total jobs in Transportation and Warehousing in Riverside County compared to San Bernardino County based on the Caltrans dataset was used to disaggregate the EDD extrapolated Warehouse jobs by MSA into county subtotals.

Figure 2-2: Transportation Employment - Caltrans Transportation Economics Branch Forecast vs.

Extrapolated EDD Trend (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA)

The preceding steps produced a control total for the growth in warehouse jobs in Riverside County accomplishing Step 1 in the study process as illustrated in Figure 1-1. However, accomplishing this first step provided no indication about where in the county these jobs would be located. Locational data is needed so that the anticipated growth in warehouse and logistics development will be properly represented in the travel demand forecast in terms of where resultant traffic impacts will affect the freeway system. The best available data for distributing warehousing growth across Riverside County can be derived from the SCAG Industrial Warehousing Study, some products of which are available for Heavy Duty Truck modeling purposes. For the purposes of the Industrial Warehousing Study, SCAG developed forecasts of the rate of warehouse growth in terms of the gross floor area of buildings as well as jobs. Table 2-1 summarizes the forecasts developed as part of the SCAG study effort and incorporated into the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model that supported the 2016 RTP/SCS.

0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040Caltrans Economic Forecast Extrapolated EDD Trend 230
535
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

7 Table 2-1: Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040

Year
High Cube Warehousing Low Cube Warehousing
Warehouse Area (square feet) Employment Warehouse Area (square feet) Employment 2012* 41,281,541 1,793 8,833,418 1,804
2016 48,837,363 2,810 14,472,627 2,533
2020 56,393,177 3,819 20,111,826 3,256
2030 64,664,947 6,120 26,810,782 5,070
2040 69,410,192 7,427 31,231,977 6,185
* The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space. The area shown in 2016 and years after includes planned occupied floor space.

Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Heavy Duty Truck Model
Although the SCAG warehouse employment forecast appeared to be low when compared to other data sources, as described previously, the warehouse area forecast appears to be more consistent with the amount of existing and planned warehouse development in Riverside County. Furthermore, as a check of the reasonableness of the EDD extrapolation of Warehouse sector employment in Riverside County, the jobs were multiplied by the square foot per employee ratio for warehousing uses as published by the National Association for Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that Will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space in March 2010. As indicated in Table 2-2, when the extrapolated EDD warehouse employment trend forecast is multiplied by the 2,241 square feet per employee ratio cited by NAIOP, the resultant interpolated growth in warehouse building area is similar, although slightly lower, than the rate forecast by SCAG in the Industrial Warehousing Study and utilized in the Heavy Duty Truck Model. For this reason, the rate of growth in the gross floor area of warehouses in Riverside County was accepted by the Study Review Team as the basis for calculating the fee accomplishing Step 4 in the study process, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. This finding also affirmed using the data to guide the disaggregation of EDD extrapolated warehouse jobs in Riverside County for travel demand modeling purposes.

Table 2-2: Warehouse Growth in Riverside County, 2016-2040

Growth (2016 to 2040)
Employees Square Feet of Gross Floor Area
SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Forecast 8,269 37,332,179
Extrapolated EDD Forecast* 14,582 32,678,262
* Forecast based on EDD extrapolated employment trend and 2,241 square feet per employee ratio from NAIOP Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that Will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space, March 2010 Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Forecast & Heavy Duty Truck Model; EDD 231
536
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

8 Table 2-3 arrays the forecast growth in the gross floor area of warehousing in Riverside County based on the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS forecast presented in the Industrial Warehouse Study and utilized in the Heavy Duty Truck Model. The extrapolated growth in warehouse jobs in Riverside County was multiplied by the percentage of warehouse job growth for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) as derived from the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model to produce the adjusted forecast of the growth in warehouse employment by TAZ to support the travel demand forecasting conducted as part of this study, accomplishing Step 3 in the study process, as illustrated in Figure 1-1.

Table 2-3: Warehouse Growth by TAZs in Riverside County (in thousand square feet gross floor area and percentage)

TAZ_
ID
High-cube
2016
Low-cube
2016
High-cube
2040
Low-cube
2040
Total Change
2016-2040
Percent
change
2016 - 2040
Percent of
total growth
countywide
43344 5,417 2,323 20,136 8,628 21,024 271.63% 56.31%
43336 641 1,497 3,198 7,461 8,521 398.55% 22.82%
43338 101 231 355 822 845 254.52% 2.26%
43148 4,437 410 4,437 1,029 619 12.77% 1.66%
43571 - - 594 - 594 0.00% 1.59%
43130 2,050 465 2,050 988 522 20.80% 1.40%
43364 - 182 331 293 442 242.86% 1.18%
43573 - - 421 - 421 0.00% 1.13%
43302 655 - 1,072 - 417 63.66% 1.12%
43305 302 - 604 - 302 100.00% 0.81%
43264 - - 300 - 300 0.00% 0.80%
43187 - 119 - 340 221 185.71% 0.59%
43575 156 37 311 75 193 100.00% 0.52%
43260 2,031 820 2,031 1,002 180 6.38% 0.48%
43452 172 - 343 - 172 99.42% 0.46%
43345 - - - 163 163 0.00% 0.44%
43448 - 60 - 209 150 248.33% 0.40%
43286 - - - 149 149 0.00% 0.40%
43332 101 44 202 88 145 100.00% 0.39%
43249 3,197 1,716 3,197 1,860 144 2.93% 0.39%
43395 131 - 262 - 131 100.00% 0.35%
43415 2,992 244 2,992 369 124 3.86% 0.33%
43134 474 454 474 574 120 12.93% 0.32%
43454 119 - 237 - 119 99.16% 0.32%
43168 491 - 491 116 116 23.63% 0.31%
232
537
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

9 43409 - - - 108 108 0.00% 0.29%
43366 - - - 89 89 0.00% 0.24%
43236 - 83 - 165 83 98.80% 0.22%
43399 - 81 - 162 81 100.00% 0.22%
43265 - - - 80 80 0.00% 0.21%
43488 - 78 - 155 78 98.72% 0.21%
43563 308 162 308 232 70 14.89% 0.19%
43246 328 487 328 547 61 7.36% 0.16%
43276 - 59 - 117 59 98.31% 0.16%
43429 - 57 - 115 57 101.75% 0.15%
43162 - - - 56 56 0.00% 0.15%
43181 821 61 821 112 51 5.78% 0.14%
43420 286 48 286 96 48 14.37% 0.13%
43261 - 120 - 163 43 35.83% 0.12%
43136 289 193 289 233 40 8.30% 0.11%
43310 - 40 - 80 40 100.00% 0.11%
43125 5,048 692 5,048 727 36 0.61% 0.10%
43474 - 32 - 65 32 103.13% 0.09%
43397 - 31 - 62 31 100.00% 0.08%
43188 380 145 380 175 30 5.71% 0.08%
43214 - 285 - 311 27 9.12% 0.07%
TOTAL 30,927 11,256 51,498 28,016 37,334 88.50% 100.00% Source: SCAG Industrial Warehouse Study/Heavy Duty Truck Model

2.2. FORECASTING TRAFFIC IMPACTS
A key step in the process of determining the basis for any impact fee program is identifying the extent of the impact that will result from new development activity. For the purposes of this study, the SCAG regional travel demand model was the primary tool used for identifying existing and future travel demands and capacity deficiencies, and determining attribution of deficiencies to new logistics trucking 2. While the SCAG regional model provides the primary tool for quantifying the traffic impacts of new warehousing and logistics development, additional information regarding the trip generation characteristics of warehousing and logistics land uses is used to validate and refine the SCAG model results for the purposes of the study evaluation. The process for quantifying the trips associated with new logistics centers is summarized in the following section.

2 The following model analysis was performed by WSP based upon modeling information originally developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is not responsible for how the model is applied or for any changes to the model scripts, model parameters, or model input data. The resulting modeling data does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG. SCAG shall not be held responsible for the modeling results and the content of the documentation.
233
538
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

10 2.2.1. SCAG Model Adjustment and Re-Validation
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) 2010 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines states the following about adjusting and re-validating a regional travel model prior to using it for sub-regional studies:
“Agencies that use MPO models for purposes other than regional planning should ensure that the model provides the appropriate scale and sensitivity for applications at a sub‐regional level such as corridor, sub‐area, or local planning studies. Below the regional level, model refinements are likely necessary to ensure the model meets the validation targets established in these guidelines and is appropriately sensitive to smaller scale changes associated with sub‐regional studies.”
In accordance with the CTC guidelines and best industry practice, the SCAG model was reviewed, adjusted and revalidated to improve the accuracy of the results with respect to freeways in Riverside County. This process involved a series of diagnostic tests being performed on the SCAG model to test its validity for use in a freeway impact fee nexus study.

The tests showed that the model reasonably represented truck traffic on Riverside County freeways. For example, Figure 2-3 compares the volume of trucks at various freeway locations in the model versus the volumes provided in the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data. The results reflect a reasonable correlation between the model and actual values, and no systemic tendency towards over- or under-estimating the truck volumes and percentage of total traffic.

Figure 2-3: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways

0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000SCAG Model Volumes Traffic Counts I-15
SR 60
I-215
SR-91
I-10
Overestimated
Underestimated
234
539
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

11 However, the tests also revealed that there was an issue warranting adjustment. Figure 2-4 shows link flows from a SCAG model run for 2016 compared to PeMS data for the same year.

This data was evaluated two ways, namely:
• The shaded areas in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 show the allowable deviation based on Caltrans guidelines. The allowable deviation reflects the fact that the actual traffic volumes on roads fluctuate from day to day, so the “normal” traffic volume that a model should replicate is a range rather than a fixed value. A model is considered generally valid if 75% of the points fall within the allowable deviation. In this case 77% of the sites are within the allowable range in the AM peak hour and 86% in the PM peak hour, so the model passes this test of validity.
• The second test was to see whether there was a general tendency for the model to over- estimate or under-estimate total traffic volumes on freeways in Riverside County.

Figure 2-4 shows that the model did not satisfy this test; consistently over-estimating traffic on Riverside County freeways by an average of 26% in the AM peak hour and 20% in the PM peak hour.

Figure 2-4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Total Traffic Volumes

The model overestimation was corrected by factoring down model volumes in a post-model adjustment3. Only car volumes were factored down, not truck volumes, because truck volumes did not show the same trend of overestimation, as illustrated previously in Figure 2-3. Figure 2-5 shows the results after applying factors of 0.74 and 0.80 in the AM peak hour and PM peak 3 Additional details regarding the model testing, adjustments and re-validation are presented in Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions (WSP, October 2017) and Technical Memorandum: Task 2 – Funding and Cost Analysis (WSP, June 2018).
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I-15
SR-60
I-215
SR-91
I-10
AM Peak Hour
Overestimated
Underestimated
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I-15
SR-60
I-215
SR-91
I-10
PM Peak Hour
Overestimated
Underestimated
235
540
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

12 hour, respectively. After adjustments, the R-squared4 value increased from 0.11 to 0.79 in the AM peak hour and from 0.51 to 0.84 in the PM peak hour, satisfying the recommended guidelines for model validity.

Figure 2-5: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Adjusted Total Traffic Volumes

2.2.2. Forecasting Traffic Volumes and Identifying Traffic Impacts The SCAG Model’s 2016 scenario year network was used for all model runs with the extrapolated 2016 and 2040 socio-economic forecasts described previously in Section 2.1 providing the basis for the demand inputs in Riverside County. These model files were from the version of the SCAG model used to develop the 2016 RTP/SCS. The SCAG model outputs were factored in accordance with the post-model adjustment described in Section 2.2.1 to yield adjusted forecast total traffic volumes on the various freeways in Riverside County for analysis years 2016 and 2040. This process to forecast 2016 and 2040 traffic volumes effectively encompasses steps 10, 12 and 14 as illustrated previously in Figure 1-1.

Based on the post-model adjusted total traffic volumes, the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio was computed for each freeway link in Riverside County for the AM and PM peak hours using the capacities and passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors 5 embedded in the SCAG model (steps 13 and 15 in Figure 1-1). Per the RCTC Congestion Management Program, the adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) threshold for freeways in Riverside County is LOS “E” meaning that freeway facilities with a V/C ratio of 1.0 or higher are considered deficient.

4 R-squared is a measure of how well the forecast accounts for variations in the traffic counts. R-squared values can range from 0.00, indicating no relationship between the model values and the counts, to 1.00, indicating that the model accounts for all variation in the count data set. 5 PCE factors are used to account for the difference in size, speed, and maneuverability between different classes of vehicles, including the effect of slopes on the operating characteristics of trucks. 0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I-15
SR-60
I-215
SR-91
I-10
Overestimated
Underestimated
AM Peak Hour Adjusted
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I-15
SR-60
I-215
SR-91
I-10
Overestimated
Underestimated
PM Peak Hour Adjusted
236
541
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

13 Figures 2-6 and 2-8 show the existing V/C ratios on Riverside County freeways for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively, with green and yellow indicating acceptable V/C ratios ( 1.0). Under existing conditions, three current deficiencies were identified on the freeway network in Riverside County: SR-91 in Corona during the both the AM and PM peak hours, I-15 in the Jurupa Valley during the PM peak hour, and I-215 between Riverside and Moreno Valley during the PM peak hour. These congested sections may result in queuing in upstream sections whose V/C ratios would not in themselves be problematic, but may be perceived by drivers as problem sections beyond the actual deficient segment.

Figures 2-7 and 2-9 show 2040 traffic demand assigned to the existing network 6 with no added capacity improvements for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively (i.e. a 2040 “No Improvement” Scenario). Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies helps to show where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to new development. Furthermore, comparing the existing and future V/C ratio on the freeway segments that are currently deficient shows the proportion of the future deficiency that is attributable to new development. The 2040 No Improvmenet results clearly indicate the existing deficiencies worsen and two additional deficiencies in the AM peak hour and five additional deficiencies in the PM peak hour would manifest.

It should be noted that although the following exhibits illustrate the model results for the Western Riverside County, modeling and V/C ratios were done for all freeways in Riverside County. However, the results did not indicate any deficient segments of freeway outside of Western Riverside County, although some modest deterioration of V/C can be observed along I-10 in the Coachella Valley during the 2040 PM peak hour, as illustrated in Figure 2-9.

It should also be noted that the model results reflect V/C ratio as the basis for identifying freeway capacity deficiencies. Beyond the embedded capacity of each freeway segment in the SCAG model network, the analysis did not consider operational deficiencies in the freeway network that may contribute to traffic breakdown and congestion (e.g. lane drops, weaving and merging areas, horizontal and vertical alignment, and other design characteristics). These types of operational deficiencies can be considered existing design deficiencies and therefore usually cannot be attributed to the impacts of future new development, although future new development can exacerbate the magnitude of congestion associated with these operational deficiencies. For this reason, V/C is used to identify freeway segments with a capacity deficiency that can be attributable to the additional traffic from new development, while also factoring the extent that existing traffic demand contribute to the deficiency. Operational deficiencies are considered during the development of concepts to mitigate the capacity deficiencies to the extent that addressing the operational deficiencies represents necessary improvement elements to accomplish successful mitigation of the capacity deficiency.

6 The SCAG existing model network represents the current state of the transportation system in 2016 and does not reflect those projects completed since 2016. In Riverside County, the SR-91 Express Lanes Extension project that included various freeway improvements along SR-91 from the Orange County line to I-15 was completed after 2016. Projects completed after 2016 (as well as projects currently under construction) get reconciled during subsequent study steps, as described in Chapter 4 of this technical memorandum. 237
542
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

14 Figure 2-6: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour

Figure 2-7: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour

SR -91 in Corona
New
Deficiencies
Worsening
Deficiencies
238
543
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

15 Figure 2-8: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour

Figure 2-9: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour

I-215 between
Riverside &
Moreno Valley
SR-91 in Corona
I-15 in
Jurupa Valley
New
Deficiencies
Worsening
Deficiencies
239
544
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

16 Based on the findings of the V/C analysis, freeway segments identified as being deficient in the 2040 No Improvement Scenario were tabulated. These locations represent the freeway segments where future traffic demands exceed the existing capacity, and therefore require mitigation. These locations are listed in Table 2-4 and illustrated in Figure 2-10. Section 3 of this report describes the process that was used to determine the share of the deficiency in each of these segments that is specifically attributable to the impacts of new warehousing and logistics developments occurring in Riverside County.

Table 2.4: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement)

ID Route Dir Beginning End
1 a,b
I-15
NB
SR-79 S Rancho California Rd
Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd
2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split
3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd
4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave
5 Norco Dr/6th St Limonite Ave
6 a,b
SB
Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave
Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th
7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail
8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd
9 a,b SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St
Market St Main St
10 a,b
I-215
NB
Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr
Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King
10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91
11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa
12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd
13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd
14 a,b,c
SR-91
EB
Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off-Ramp
Green River Rd Off-Ramp SR-71
SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp
15 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Grand Blvd Rd Off-Ramp
16 On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15
17 McKinley St Off Ramp Pierce St
18 Pierce St Magnolia St
19 a,b WB Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Lane Add at SR-71
Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line
240
545
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

17 Figure 2-10: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement)

241
546
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

18 2.3. ATTRIBUTING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES TO NEW LOGISTICS DEVELOPMENT In addition to generating the traffic volume forecasts used as the basis to determine V/C and identify the capacity deficiencies described previously, the SCAG model runs produce several outputs that can be used in the attribution of share to logistics uses. The following section summarizes the process for determining attribution to new logistics development using various outputs from the SCAG model runs.

2.3.1. Percent Attributable to Future Development
Impact fees must be limited to only account for a new development’s “fair share” of the cost of needed improvements to mitigate associated impacts. In particular, impacts fees cannot be assessed to directly cover the cost to mitigate existing deficiencies. Therefore, the first step in attributing impacts is to complete a comparison of existing and future freeway deficiencies to determine how much of each future deficiency can be attributed to traffic from future development.

There are three possible situations for each freeway link:
• Freeway volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, even when the traffic from new development is added in. In such cases there is no deficiency. No fee can be collected because no improvement is needed.
• Existing traffic volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, but the addition of traffic from new growth creates a deficiency where none previously existed. In such cases 100% of the deficiency can be attributed to new development. • There is an existing deficiency that will worsen with the addition of traffic from new growth. In these cases, the percent of the deficiency attributable to new growth is the portion of the excess traffic (excess being the traffic above the capacity of the road) that arises from new growth rather than from existing traffic.

The existing and future traffic for each of the deficient segments idenfied in Table 2-4 was compared to detemine which of the three possible situations applied. The percent attributable to new development was determined based on this comparison, and the results were tabulated as the share of impact attributable to all new development.

2.3.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Trucks in Riverside County In order to compute the percent of each deficiency that is attributable specifically to warehousing and logistics truck trips, it was necessary to separate the truck trips generated by warehousing and logistics uses from the total traffic forecast during the model assignment process. This process is represented by steps 5 through 9 and 19 through 23 as illustrated in the flowchart in Figure 1-1.

This process was accomplished by first modifying the Truck Employment table in the SED input files to the SCAG model to reflect only the growth in warehousing and logistics employment in Riverside County. A select-zone query was then generated during the model 242
547
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

19 assignment step allowing logistics only truck trips generated by warehouse and logistics uses in Riverside County to be recorded for each link in the model. This specifically isolates the truck trips associated with warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County from the trips associated with all other land use in the county, as well as the truck trips that are generated outside the county but still traverse freeways within Riverside County (i.e. pass-through trips).

A comparison of the Riverside County logistics related truck trips in 2040 to the total traffic forecast in 2040 provides the share of Riverside County logistics related truck trips in 2040 for each deficient segment on Riverside County freeways.

2.3.3. Percent of Freeway Capacity Deficiencies Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County
As described in Section 2.2.2, the freeway segments in Riverside County with new or increased deficiencies in either peak hour in 2040 relative to the existing condition in 2016 were identified as deficient segments. For each deficient segment, the share of logistics related truck trips, as described in Section 2.3.2, was multiplied by the share of deficiencies attributable to all future growth, as described in Section 2.3.1, to determine the percent of each deficiency specifically attributable to new logistics related truck trips. Consistent with the identification of deficiencies based on AM and PM peak hour observations, all these steps were done for both AM and PM peak hour traffic, then the peak hour with the higher percent attributable was selected to represent the link.

Continuous sequences of model segments, as listed in Table 2-4, were grouped for the purposes of assigning the percent of freeway capacity deficiencies attributable to new logistics development in Riverside County. Where multiple deficient segments were grouped, a weighted percent attributable was calculated based on the respective segment percent attributable and the length of each segment.

Table 2-5 arrays the critical V/C ratios, deficiencies, and percent attributable for each deficient segment of freeway in Riverside County. Figure 2-11 visually represents the components of traffic (existing, non-logistics growth, and logistics growth) relative to the capacity for each deficient segment location.

243
548
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

20 Table 2-5: Deficient Segment Locations and Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County

2016 AM
V/C
2016 PM
V/C
2040 AM
V/C
2040 PM
V/C AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
(F) = Max (E)
SR-79 S Rancho California Rd 4 0.98 0.35 0.66 0.52 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 1.2% 0.7%No Deficiency 0.7%0.7% Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 4 1.10 0.45 0.74 0.60 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 1.4% 0.7%No Deficiency 0.7%0.7% 2 I-15 NB Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split 4 0.75 0.46 0.79 0.58 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 2.3% 0.9%No Deficiency 0.9%0.9%0.9% 3 I-15 NB Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 3 0.76 0.52 0.80 0.65 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 1.1% 0.3%No Deficiency 0.3%0.3%0.3% 4 I-15 NB El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave 3 0.19 0.86 0.90 1.03 0.88 100%No Deficiency 1.1% 100.0% 1.1%No Deficiency 1.1%1.1% 5 I-15 NB Norco Dr/6th Street Limonite Ave 3 2.03 0.82 1.10 0.87 1.14 No Deficiency 29%4.1% 2.5%No Deficiency 0.7%0.7%0.7% Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave 3 1.30 0.77 0.96 0.77 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 4.3%No Deficiency 4.3%4.3% Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th Street 3 2.00 0.87 1.01 0.90 1.04 No Deficiency 88%4.7% 5.9%No Deficiency 5.2%5.2% 7 I-15 SB El Cerrito Rd Dos Lagos Dr 3 2.14 0.65 0.92 0.61 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 2.2%No Deficiency 2.2%2.2%2.2% 8 I-15 SB Temescal Canyon Rd Indian Truck Trail 3 2.21 0.61 0.83 0.56 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 1.4%No Deficiency 1.4%1.4%1.4% Rubidoux Blvd Market St 3 0.79 0.84 0.95 0.81 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 30.9%No Deficiency 30.9%30.9% Market St Main St 3 0.10 0.87 1.00 0.82 1.06 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 39.0%No Deficiency 39.0%39.0% Box Springs Rd Central Ave 4 0.41 0.94 1.08 1.09 1.07 100%0%14.3% 100.0% 14.3% 0.0%14.3% Watkins Dr Martin Luther King Jr 4 0.78 0.94 1.05 1.12 1.16 100%66% 24.8% 57.9% 24.8% 38.4%38.4% 10c I-215 NB University Ave Off-Ramp Upstream of Univ Ave On-ramp 3 0.36 0.90 1.04 0.98 1.04 No Deficiency 13% 26.9% 100.0%No Deficiency 13.3%13.3%13.3% 11 I-215 NB Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa Ave 3 0.53 0.79 1.00 0.79 1.03 No Deficiency 97% 91.5% 12.2%No Deficiency 11.8%11.8%11.8% 12 I-215 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 4 1.58 0.96 1.13 1.07 1.25 100%50% 57.1% 55.2% 57.1% 27.7%57.1%57.1% 13 I-215 SB Van Buren Blvd Harley Knox Blvd 3 1.22 0.67 0.95 0.64 1.06 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 4.4%No Deficiency 4.4%4.4%4.4% Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off-Ramp 5 0.76 0.89 1.18 0.76 1.23 No Deficiency 23% 100.0% 6.1%No Deficiency 1.4%1.4% Green River Rd Off-Ramp SR-71 5 1.33 0.79 1.01 0.72 1.02 No Deficiency 69% 100.0% 14.1%No Deficiency 9.8%9.8% SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp 4 1.35 0.92 1.17 0.85 1.27 No Deficiency 36% 100.0% 4.1%No Deficiency 1.5%1.5% 15 SR-91 NB Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Grand Blvd Off-Ramp 4 2.33 0.85 1.00 0.80 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 8.9%No Deficiency 8.9%8.9%8.9% 16 SR-91 NB On-Ramp from SB I-15 On-Ramp from NB I-15 3 0.32 0.81 1.03 0.76 1.07 No Deficiency 55% 100.0% 13.6%No Deficiency 7.5%7.5%7.5% 17 SR-91 NB McKinley St Off-Ramp Pierce St 3 1.60 0.81 0.98 0.76 1.02 No De ficiency 100% 100.0% 10.1%No Deficiency 10.1%10.1%10.1% 18 SR-91 NB Magnolia Ave La Sierra Ave 3 0.30 0.76 0.93 0.69 1.00 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 8.3%No Deficiency 8.3%8.3%8.3% Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Lane Add at SR-71 4 2.26 0.97 1.08 1.05 1.01 100%0%2.8% 100.0% 2.8% 0.0%2.8% Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line 5 1.75 0.92 1.00 1.02 0.91 100%No Deficiency 1.8% 100.0% 1.8%No Deficiency 1.8%

30.0%

4.7%

2.3%

0.7%

4.8%

31.8%
SR-91 SB
SR-91
10 I-15 NB
NB
SR-60 EB
I-15 SB
I-215 NB
19 1
6 14
9 Critical Segment Percent Deficiency
Attributable to New
Logistics Trucks
Critical V/C ratio Percent Deficiency Attributable to
New Development
Percent Deficiency Attributable
to New Logistics Trucks by Peak
Hour
New Logistics Trucks as
Percent of 2016 to 2040
Growth2016 GP
Lanes on
Critical
SegmentEnd
(D)(E) = (C) * (D)(A)(B)
Weighted
Average Highest
% Deficiency
Attributable to
New Logistics
Trucks
Start
Route
Name DirProject
ID
(C) = 100%, for (A) 1.0
(C) = [(B)-(A)]/[(B)-1], for (A) > 1.0
Segment
Length
(mi)
244
549
Item 19.

BLANK
245
550
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

21 Figure 2-11: Components of 2040 Traffic Demand as a Percentage of Capacity

60%70%80%90%100%110%120%130%
1a
1b
2 3
4 5
6a
6b
7 8
9a
9b
10a
10b
10c
11 12
13 14a
14b
14c
15 16
17 18
19a
19b
Existing Traffic Non-Logistics Growth New Logistics Trucks Capacity
246
551
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

22 3. DETERMINING FREEWAY MITIGATION CONCEPTS AND COSTS Having identified deficient freeway segments in Section 2.2, and determined the share of the deficiency in each segment that is attributable to new warehouse and logistics uses in Riverside County in Section 2.3, the next step in the study process involved the preparation of design concepts for the mitigation of freeway traffic impacts, and the estimation of the costs associated to implement the necessary mitigation. This section describes the process for developing mitigation concepts and determining associated costs. The resultant mitigation costs will be compared to the percent attributable to each deficient segment, as defined in Table 2-5, to determine the fair share of the cost to mitigate each deficient segment to is attributable to the impacts of new warehouse and logistics development in Riverside County.

3.1. ASSESSING PROJECT LIMITS
Future capacity deficiencies on the freeway network in Riverside County were summarized in Table 2-4 as a list of directional freeway segments where the future demand exceeded capacity and resulted in a bottleneck in the system. Limiting capacity expansion to the specific identified segment would be expected to mitigate the bottleneck in that segment, however it is likely that the bottleneck would be moved to the next adjacent segment without alleviating the capacity deficiency. Therefore, the list of deficient segments was reviewed in relation to the traffic data and the physical characteristics of the existing freeway facility to determine the extent of the improvement projects that would be necessary (i.e. to define the practical limits and logical termini for the associated improvement project) to effectively mitigate the segment deficiency.

At each freeway segment identified as having a capacity deficiency, the traffic data was reviewed to determine the location (typically an off-ramp) where the demand along the corridor was reduced enough to no longer exceed the capacity of the freeway mainline. Other considerations were physical characteristics of the freeway that might also contribute to capacity reduction, such as uphill grades where additional capacity to accommodate slower moving trucks would benefit the operation of the freeway, and system interchanges where demand changed substantially and there were opportunities for lane drops at freeway-to- freeway connectors. The practical limits of each of the 19 projects required to mitigate the deficient segments are listed in Table 3-1. The definition of this project list correlates to accomplishing step 18 in Figure 1-1.

247
552
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

23 Table 3-1: Practical Limits of Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects

ID Route
Name Dir Beginning End
1 I-15
NB
SR-79 S Rancho California Rd
Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd
2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split
3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd
4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave
5 Norco Dr/6th St Limonite Ave
6 SB
Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave
Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th
7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail
8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd
9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St
Market St Main St
10 I-215
NB
Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr
Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King
10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91
11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa
12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd
13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd
14 SR-91
EB
Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off-Ramp
Green River Rd Off-Ramp SR-71
SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp
15 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Grand Blvd Rd Off-Ramp
16 On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15
17 McKinley St Off Ramp Pierce St
18 Pierce St Magnolia St
19 WB Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Lane Add at SR-71
Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line

3.2. REVIEW OF CURRENTLY FUNDED/PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS Once the practical limits of the improvements were defined, each project was compared to known, programmed projects that were recently completed (and are not included in the SCAG 2016 Model existing network), are currently under construction, or are currently in 248
553
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

24 development and are funded for construction. There are three projects that are within the study area that were identified as meeting these criteria:
• The I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange Project, Phases 1 and 2 • The I-15 Express Lane Project
• The SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project
The French Valley Parkway Project includes the implementation of the I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange as well as improvements to the Winchester Road Interchange and a collector-distributor road system along I-15 between Winchester Road and the I-15/I-215 system interchange. This project adds as many as three lanes in each direction north of Winchester Road. Based on the Preferred Alternative Layout Plans included in the IS/EA (January 2010), the FVP Phasing Exhibit (December 2, 2015) and the Ultimate Project Exhibit (July 12, 2017), it was determined that the French Valley Parkway Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segment 2.

The I-15 Express Lane Project will implement one or two tolled managed lanes in each direction northbound and southbound between Cajalco Road and SR-60. This project also adds general purpose lanes and auxiliary lanes at specific locations. Based on a review of the I-15 Express Lane Project Tolling Concept Plans (June 21, 2017), the I-15 Express Lane Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segments 4, 5, and 6.

The SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project extends from west of the Orange County Line to east of I-15 both eastbound and westbound. In addition to the tolled express lanes, additional general purpose lanes were also constructed as part of this project. Based on a field review of the project as it has been constructed, the SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segments 14, 15, 17, and 19.

Table 3-2 lists the remaining deficient segments and associated mitigation projects that would be included as the basis for the logistics fee program.

249
554
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

25 Table 3-2: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects to be Included in the Fee Program

ID Route
Name Dir Beginning End
1 I-15
NB
SR-79 S Rancho California Rd
Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd
3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd
7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail
8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd
9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St
Market St Main St
10 I-215
NB
Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr
Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King
10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91
11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa
12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd
13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd
16 SR-91 EB On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15
18 Pierce St Magnolia St

3.3. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT CONCEPTS
Using scalable, georeferenced aerial photography, project concept plans were developed consistent with Caltrans design standards for urban area freeways to show the primary quantifiable cost items for each project, including:
• Right-of-Way Impact
• Retaining Walls
• Freeway Mainline Widening
• Structure Construction
• Ramp Realignment
• Roadway Excavation
• Street Improvements
• Signalization
For the initial assessment and development of project concept plans, a combination of Google Earth and limited field reviews were used to determine existing conditions for the corridors.

The conditions recorded include number of lanes, width of pavement, HOV lanes, inside (left) shoulder width, outside (right) shoulder width, assumed right-of-way boundary, freeway 250
555
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

26 structures, ramp locations, major drainage facilities, retaining walls, sounds walls, signage, and signals. All widths and lengths provided were obtained by doing desktop research on Google Earth and limited field reviews, and were based on sound engineering judgement. Although arterial highway improvement projects were not specifically examined as part of the study effort, any arterial highway improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed freeway capacity improvements (e.g. ramp realignment, bridge reconstruction, intersection signalization) were identified and included in the concept drawings. The concept plans show colored lines and areas that can be measured and used to estimate quantities for the various categories of construction or property acquisition. These project concept drawings were reviewed by the Study Advisory Team to confirm that they reasonably represent the minimum improvements necessary to mitigate the identified deficiency.

The resultant improvement concept plans are included in Appendix A of this technical memorandum. The completion of the design concept drawings represents the accomplishment of step 24 in the study process flow chart Figure 1-1. It should be noted that the conceptual designs were based on a visual analysis and that no detailed engineering or surveying has been done to verify the assumptions.

3.4. PROJECT COST ESTIMATING
To accomplish step 25 and 26 in the study process, the unit costs for the various construction components were taken from the Caltrans cost database and other recent project cost estimates for projects of similar scale and scope within the Inland Empire. Right-of-way cost per residential unit and per square foot are based on recent property valuations in Riverside County. Specific elements in the unit costs include:

Roadway Item Costs
- Roadway costs include PCC pavement, tie-back walls, pavement markings and markers and replacement of signs. Unit costs were extrapolated from a similar freeway construction project.
- The quantity of each component was then multiplied by the unit cost to produce a cost item for the roadway component.

Drainage Item Costs
- Per our initial assessment, widening affects the existing drainage. Further analysis is needed as impacts to drainage can increase the costs.
- The costs associated with the potential impacts to drainage are 15% of the roadway items cost.

Specialty Item Costs
- Specialty item costs include retaining walls due to proposed widening, removal of existing retaining walls, sounds wall replacement, tie back walls and ramp adjustments. 251
556
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

27 - The quantity of each component was then multiplied by the unit cost to produce a cost item for the specialty item costs.

Minor Items Costs
- Minor items can include anything from ADA items to other minor items that are not considered high costs items. Typical Caltrans value is 5-10%.

Mobilization Costs
- Mobilization includes costs incurred due to mobilization of personnel and equipment as well as pre-construction expenses. Typical value of 10% can be adjusted when actual costs are available.

Roadway Additions
- Roadway addition items can include price index fluctuations, value analysis, maintaining traffic, removal of rock and debris, etc. These supplemental items cover work for items that cannot be quantified as contract bid item. All roadway supplemental items would be within the FHWA approved items list. At this stage it is appropriate to assume there will be supplemental items. Typical Caltrans value is 5- 10%.

Contingency
- Contingency of 25% is within Caltrans recommended values: Pre-PSR 30%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10% and final PS&E is 5%. Caltrans contingencies allow for unforeseen increases. Due to the level of detail and engineering available, the contingency percentage is appropriate. As more information becomes available, costs would be refined and contingency would be decreased. This is typical per Caltrans.

Support Costs
- Support costs are 35% of the capital outlay costs. Support costs include design costs, construction management, Caltrans reimbursed costs and Metro internal costs. These costs are functional overhead costs not administrative overhead. The support costs can be refined as more information becomes available.

The unit costs were multiplied by the quantities determined from the conceptual design plans to yield a conceptual cost estimate for each proposed project.

The proposed improvement project conceptual cost estimates were compared to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2016 Nexus Study Report, with a focus on identifying arterial-freeway interchange and bridge projects that are also included in TUMF. The TUMF program assesses all development types, including warehouse and logistics uses, impact fees to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on the arterial highway system, including arterial-freeway 252
557
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

28 interchanges and bridges. As such, new warehouse and logistics uses are already contributing toward the cost of these improvement projects to the extent they are included in the TUMF program. Where the conceptual improvement projects were determined to include project elements that were also identified in the TUMF program, the conceptual cost estimate for the project was reduced by an amount equal to the lesser of the estimated conceptual cost of the relevant project element (i.e. the conceptual cost of the arterial interchange and/or bridge improvements) or the maximum eligible amount prescribed in the 2016 TUMF Nexus Study.

This reduction in the conceptual improvement costs as part of this study eliminates overlap with the TUMF program in terms of the cost for implementing arterial interchange and bridge improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed freeway capacity expansion necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development, including warehousing and logistics uses, on the freeway network.

The resultant conceptual project cost estimates are summarized in Table 3-3Error! Reference source not found.. A more detailed breakout of the conceptual project cost estimates to mitigate the deficient segments is included in Appendix B of this technical memorandum.

Table 3-3: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimates

ID Route
Name Dir Beginning End Cost Estimate
1 I-15
NB
SR-79 S Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000
7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000
8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000
9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 Market St Main St 10 I-215
NB
Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26,513,000 Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000
11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa $42,212,000 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000
16 SR-91 EB On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 $7,611,000 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000
Total Project Cost Estimate $385,335,000

253
558
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

29 3.4.1. Project Costs Attributable to New Logistics Development The conceptual cost estimate of $385,335,000 presented in Table 3-3 represents the unfunded amount of the total cost to implement the minimum improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development on Riverside County Freeways. However, as described in Section

2.3, this cost cannot be entirely attributed to the impact of new logistics developments and must be adjusted as the basis for calculating a fair share fee to reflect only the share of the cost for each segment that can be attributed to the impact of new logistics developments. This key step in the study process, represented by step 28 in the study process flowchart in Figure 1-1, is accomplished by multiplying the unfunded project costs summarized in Table 3-3 by the share of each segments impact attributable to new logistics development summarized in Table 2-5. Table 3-4 presents the outcome of this step with a total of $47,841,000 or 12.4% of the conceptual cost estimate being determined to be the maximum share of the cost attributable to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County.

Table 3-4: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Logistics Cost Share

ID Route
Name Dir Beginning End
Conceptual
Cost
Estimate
Logistics
Attributable
Share
Logistics
Cost Share
1 I-15
NB
SR-79 S Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 0.7% $258,000 Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000 0.3% $19,000
7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000 2.2% $820,000 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000 1.4% $142,000
9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 31.8% $12,802,000 Market St Main St 10 I-215
NB
Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26,513,000 30.0% $7,963,000 Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000 13.3% $7,317,000 11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa $42,212,000 11.8% $4,978,000 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 57.1% $7,658,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000 4.4% $4,235,000
16 SR-91 EB On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 $7,611,000 7.5% $571,000 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000 8.3% $1,078,000
Total Project Cost Estimate $385,335,000 12.4% $47,841,000

254
559
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

30 4. FUNDING GAP ANALYSIS
As described in Section 3, the fair share of costs to mitigate future freeway deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics uses varies by segment, but is a relatively small proportion of the total cost to complete the necessary improvements. Furthermore, although the project concepts and associated cost estimates have identified a minimum level of improvement necessary to reasonably mitigate the identified impact, it is likely the scale and scope of any proposed improvement project would be greater to account for the accomplishment of other transportation goals and/or freeway operational needs, including rehabilitation and roadway maintenance, resolution of existing needs, or anticipation of addition future demands beyond the horizon year of the fee program. Since the resolution of these items cannot be fairly attributed to the mitigation of new development impacts, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient alternative funding sources are expected to be available to complete the necessary improvements and establish an implementable program. This section summarizes projections of alternative transportation funding sources that might be available to complete freeway capacity expansion projects identified as part of this study.

4.1. RIVERSIDE COUNTY STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
In 2015, the RCTC directed its staff to conduct an assessment to assist the Commission in examining the County’s need for transportation investments. In early 2016, the RCTC approved the Riverside County Strategic Assessment 7. The Strategic Assessment includes a detailed review of federal, state and local revenues through 2040.8 9 It looked at 37 different funding sources covering all modes and categorized them into three levels (A, B and C), depending on their level of certainty. Category A represents existing revenues that can be reasonably expected to be available in the future, Category B includes existing and programmed revenues that Riverside County might realistically secure on a discretionary or competitive basis and those in Category C are considered strategy revenues.

According to the Strategic Assessment, the total costs of freeway and interchange projects between 2016 and 2039 were expected to be $8.724 billion and the anticipated revenues were $5.326 billion, representing funding for 61% of the freeway needs, thus leaving an unfunded gap of $3.326 billion through 2039. Table 4-1 summarizes the breakdown of funding contained in the Strategic Assessment by program and risk.

7 HDR, January 2016, Riverside County Strategic Assessment: Executive Summary, RCTC. 8 Since the document was prepared in 2015, it did not include several recent funding sources, which are discussed later in this memo. 9 HDR, November 4, 2015, RCTC Strategic Assessment Technical Memorandum: Task 4 Funding Gap Analysis. 255
560
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

31 Table 4-1: Freeway Funding Program Amount (in millions) and Risk, 2016 to 2039

Funding Program Category A Category B Category C
Federal
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $219.7
Regional Surface Transportation Program
(RSTP) $315.2
State
Regional Improvement Program (RIP) $441.9
Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) $58.8
Mileage Based User-Fees (MBUF) $2,233.5
Local
Measure A* $915.7
SR 91 Net Toll Revenues* $618.5
I-15 Express Lane Toll Revenues* $319.7
Mid County Parkway (MCP) toll revenues $153.5
Total (2016-2039) $2,880 $59 $2,387
*Debt service and operations and maintenance costs have been deducted from these amounts.

Because the assessment was prepared in 2015 it did not include certain funding sources approved after that. New funding sources and their potential implications are described in the following sections.

4.2. FIXING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT
On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST) Act10 into law. Overall, the FAST Act largely maintains program structures and funding shares between highways and transit.

The FAST Act provided two new grant programs – the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) and the Advanced Technology and Congestion programs – that could reasonably be expected to provide funding for freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County. Table 4-2 shows the new FAST funding amounts by program and risk category that could reasonably be expected to be available to RCTC each year based on a proportional allocation of total program funding:

10 Pub. L. No. 114-94
256
561
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

32 Table 4-1: Projected RCTC Funding from FAST (in millions), 2017 to 2040

Funding Program Category A Category B Category C
NSFHP (INFRA) $159.8
Advanced Technology
and Congestion
Management
Deployment Program
$10.7
Total $170.5

4.3. ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 (SENATE BILL 1) In 2017 the California legislature passed and the governor signed into law a major transportation funding bill.11 The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (referred to as SB1) provided additional funding to several existing programs, including the STIP, and established several new funding programs that are relevant to this study.

Most of the SB1 funds that could go to freeways and interchanges are via competitive grant programs. Table 4-3 shows the projected allocation Riverside County could reasonably be expected to obtain based on a proportional share of the total funding proposed.

Table 4-3: Projected RCTC Funding from SB1 (in millions), 2017 to 2040

Funding Program Category A Category B Category C
LPP (county allocation) $162.9
TCEP $623.9
SCCP $360
LPP (competitive grant) $162.9
$162.9 $1,146.8

4.4. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE FUNDING FROM ALL SOURCES
To quantify the total funds that might be available to freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County through 2040, sources identified in the Strategic Assessment were combined those from FAST and SB1 programs. Table 4-4 combines funding sources to establish a total of anticipated freeway project funding through 2040 from all sources by risk category. 11 http://catc.ca.gov/
257
562
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

33 Table 4-4: RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funding 2017-2040 - All Sources (in millions)

Funding Source Category A Category B Category C
Total Strategic Assessment Sources $2,948.6 $61 $2,465.8 Total New Sources $162.9 $1,317.3
Grand Total of All Sources $3111.5 $1,378.3 $2,465.8

As can be seen in Table 4-4, the infusion of SB1 funds, which are mostly allocated through competitive grants and therefore are considered risk category B, creates better balance across the risk categories than that found in the Strategic Assessment, which was heavily reliance on high-risk, category C funds. It should be noted that although the SB1 program has been legislated, there is an on-going repeal effort that jeopardizes the future availability of SB1 funding programs.

The total estimated conceptual cost to complete the reasonable mitigation of deficient segments identified as part of this study is $385,335,000. Although only 12.4% of this cost can be attributed to new warehousing and logistics developments, the estimates of alternative funding sources described in this section clearly indicate that the remaining costs to complete these improvement projects could reasonably be expected to be obtained from existing and proposed funding sources after the logistics impact fee contributes a fair share for mitigation of logistics related impacts. Furthermore, the projected availability of future funding for freeway and interchange improvement projects is over six times the amount of the conceptual cost estimates to mitigate the impacts of new development on the freeway system indicating that sufficient funding might reasonably be expected to account for the expansion of scale and scope of associated freeway projects to address other project needs not directly attributable to the impacts of new development.

258
563
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

34 5. LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE AND NEXUS DETERMINATION
The foundation established by accomplishing the various steps in the prior tasks provides the basis for computing the amount and value of the in-lieu fee to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new warehousing and logistics developments on the freeway network in Riverside County, as well as establishing the relationship between future growth of logistics related facilities within Riverside County, truck traffic growth, and the need for additional freeway improvements to mitigate the impacts of this growth. The maximum defensible fair- share fee that could be charged to new logistics uses for mitigating their impacts is presented in this section, along with a summary of the study findings that support the nexus determination.

5.1. LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION
Utilizing the findings of the prior study tasks as presented in the previous sections of this report, the process for computing the fee requires dividing the project costs attributable to new logistics development as determined in Step 28 and summarized in Table 3-4 by the forecast amount of new warehousing and logistics facilities in square feet as determined in Step 4 and presented in Table 2-2 to produce a fee per square foot.

Table 5-1: Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee Calculation

Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee for Riverside County Logistics Cost Share of Freeway Mitigation $47,841,000
Growth in Warehouse Gross Floor Area in Square Feet 37,332,179 Fee per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area $1.28

As derived from Table 2-2 and summarized in Table 5-1, the growth in warehousing gross floor area is forecast to grow by 37,332,179 square feet of gross floor area from 2016 to 2040, according to the SCAG Industrial Warehousing Study and as utilized in the Heavy Duty Truck Model. The travel demand modeling and deficiency analysis completed for this study indicates the growth in warehousing will result in the need to contribute $47,841,000 toward the cost of freeway capacity improvements throughout Riverside County to cover the logistics share of mitigating future freeway deficiencies, as presented in Table 3-4. This equates to a value of $1.28 per square foot of gross floor area of new warehousing and logistics developments to fully satisfy the fair share contribution. As such, this amount represents the maximum fee permissible to be collected under California law and in accordance with legal precedents to address the cumulative regional impacts of new warehousing and logistics developments on the freeways network in Riverside County.
259
564
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

35 5.2. NEXUS DETERMINATION
The Mitigation Fee Act, as set forth in the California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66008, establishes the framework for mitigation fees in the State of California. In establishing the basis for a fee to be implemented, the Act requires agencies to make five findings with respect to a proposed fee. These findings are described in the following sections.

5.2.1. Purpose of the Fee
Identify the Purpose of the Fee
The purpose of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee is to establish a uniform, fair-share mitigation fee to be paid by new warehouse and logistics developments to mitigate the cumulative, indirect, regional impacts of the truck traffic generated by these future developments on overall traffic conditions on the freeway network in Riverside County. The fees, to be paid in-lieu of completing specific improvements associated with a particular development, will be utilized to help fund capacity improvements on freeways in Riverside County that are needed to maintain the target level of service in the face of the higher traffic volumes brought on by new growth in the county.

Specific to Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee for Riverside County, the completion of this study and the determination of a fair-share fee satisfies specific provisions of the July 29, 2016 Settlement Agreement between the County of Riverside, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the City of Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview. This agreement established that each party would contribute toward the cost of “an RCTC-conducted regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics-related regional fee.”

5.2.2. Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that the public facilities that are to be financed using the impact fee be identified. In the case of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee, the deficiency analysis described in Section 2 identified those locations on the Riverside County freeway network that would be impacted by additional traffic growth associated with new development activity in Riverside County. This information was subsequently utilized in Section 3 to define specific improvement projects and the associated costs to mitigate the deficiencies, as summarized in Table 3-3. Furthermore, the share of the cost of each individual improvement project to specifically address the mitigation of impacts associated with the growth of warehousing and logistics uses was determined and summarized in Table 3-4 as the basis for calculating the logistics fee.

260
565
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

36 5.2.3. Use/Type-of-Development Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees’ use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed
To determine the “use” relationship, the development being assessed an impact fee must be reasonably shown to derive some use or benefit from the facility being built using the fee. In the case of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee, the projects to be funded by the fee were identified by completing deficiency analysis to determine where the additional traffic generated by new development in Riverside County would impact the freeway network.

Improvement project concepts were developed to mitigate these impacts, with at least part of the cost of these improvements being determined to be attributable to new logistics related development. The fact that the projects that will be funded in part by the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee are to provide additional freeway capacity, and recognizing that freeways are the highest functional class of the roadway network and critically important on the regional roadway hierarchy, means that all residents and businesses in the county benefit in important ways from the maintenance of a reasonable level of service on these facilities. More specifically, most truck trips coming to or going from new warehouse and logistics uses can be expected to use area freeways for at least part of their trips, as demonstrated by the results of the deficiency analysis described in Section 2, and those that do not use freeways will nevertheless benefit because good traffic conditions on the area freeways will keep drivers from diverting to other roads and causing congestion in other parts of the county. Even residents or workers in the new developments who do not drive at all will benefit from access to goods and services made possible in part by the serviceability of the regional freeway network.

5.2.4. Need/Type-of-Development Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed
To determine the “need” relationship the facilities to be financed by the fee must be shown to be needed at least in part because of the new development. The primary intended purpose of the regional transportation study as required by the July 29, 2016 Settlement Agreement was to determine the extent to which additional truck trips associated with new warehouses and logistics uses would impact the freeways in Riverside County as the basis for determining the fair share amount of in-lieu fee payments to adequately mitigate the impacts. This was determined by analyzing the forecast traffic demand with the expected degree of new development and comparing that with the demand without new development. Projects were analyzed individually and the degree to which the need for the project was attributable to new warehouses and logistics developments varied widely from project to project. The findings of this analysis is summarized in Table 3-4, which indicates that new warehousing and logistics development activities are responsible for a share of the overall mitigation needed to address future freeway capacity deficiencies.
261
566
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

37 5.2.5. Proportionality Relationship
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed The “proportionality” relationship requires that there be rough proportionality between the fee charged to each development and the cost of the facility being financed. In the case of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee, the share of truck traffic generated specifically by warehouses and logistics uses was estimated using the validated SCAG travel demand model as the basis to determine the rough proportion of the improvement cost to mitigate future deficiencies caused by these trucks on the Riverside County freeway network. Furthermore, the share of project costs was adjusted to account for those improvements already being completed by current funded capacity expansion projects, as well as the share of the cost of arterial interchange improvements necessary to accommodate freeway capacity expansion that are already being funded by the existing WRCOG TUMF program. The overall project cost share was also adjusted to account for existing capacity deficiencies that cannot be fully be attributed to new growth in Riverside County. Table 2-5 summarizes the attribution of various project cost factors resulting in the determination of the fair-share of improvement costs that are roughly proportional to the specific impacts of new warehouse and logistics uses. Additionally, the detailed cost breakdowns in Appendix B include the adjustments for project cost elements already covered as part of the WRCOG TUMF program.

5.3. CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Study indicate that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional freeway traffic impacts of new land development projects in Riverside County, including truck traffic impacts associated with new warehouse and logistics developments, and the need to mitigate these freeway traffic impacts, including using funds levied through a Regional Logistics Fee. The study evaluation results have established the proportional fair share of the freeway improvement cost attributable to truck trips generated by new warehouse and logistics development having adjusted for existing deficiencies, the impacts of other development type and the effects of pass through trips, and having accounted for improvements already being completed as part of an ongoing freeway project or funded by another impact fee. As presented in Table 5-1, the fair share fee to mitigate the cumulative indirect regional freeway traffic impacts of truck trips associated with new warehouse and logistics growth in Riverside County is $1.28 per square foot of gross floor area.

262
567
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

38 6. APPENDICES
Appendix A – Capacity Improvement Concept Plans

Appendix B – Conceptual Project Cost Estimate Tables

263
568
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

A-1

APPENDIX A – CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS
264
569
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Final Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study

B-1

APPENDIX B – CONCEPTUAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TABLES

265
570
Item 19.

Prepared for :

Prepared by:

In partnership with
October 2017

RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND

REGIONAL LOGISTICS

MITIGATION FEE
Technical Memorandum 1:

Existing and Future Conditions
Warehouse-Related Land Use Data & Truck Travel Patterns ATTACHMENT 2
266
571
Item 19.

BLANK
267
572
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

2. EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY ...................................................................................... 3

2.1. COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS (CBP) ......................................................................... 3

2.2. INFOGROUP GEOCODED DATABASE (SIC CODE) .................................................... 9

2.3. SCAG WAREHOUSE STUDY ........................................................................................ 14

3. TRUCK COUNTS ................................................................................................................... 24

4. TRUCK O-D AND ROUTING................................................................................................ 28

5. WAREHOUSE TRIP GENERATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 36

5.1. CITY OF FONTANA TRUCK TRIP GENERATION STUDY .......................................... 36

5.2. HIGH-CUBE WAREHOUSE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS ..................... 37

5.3. INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS (ITE) TRIP GENERATION MANUAL .................................................................................................................................. 40

5.4. SCAG HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK TRIP GENERATION (2016 RTP) ................................... 42

5.5. SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES ................................................. 44

6. DIAGNOSTIC TESTS OF SCAG MODEL ............................................................................. 47

7. DATA ADEQUACY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 51

268
573
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Table of Tables
Table 1. Description of Selected NAICS Categories ........................................................................ 4 Table 2: Distribution of Establishments by Industry Category, 2015 ............................................ 6 Table 3. Growth in Establishments with 50+ Employees, 2008-2015 ............................................. 8 Table 4. Description of Selected SIC Categories ............................................................................. 9 Table 5. High-Cube Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 ..................................... 17 Table 6. Low-Cube Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 ...................................... 17 Table 7. Amount of Warehouse Space by TAZs in Riverside County (KSF) ................................. 18 Table 8. SCAG 2013 Truck Classification Count Locations within Riverside County ................... 24 Table 9. CALTRANS Truck Counts Database ................................................................................. 27 Table 10. Heavy-Duty Truck O-D Distribution in SCAG Region ................................................... 29 Table 11. Medium-Duty Truck O-D Distribution in SCAG Region ................................................ 29 Table 12. Distribution of Trips by Zone for Medium-Duty Trucks (% by Destination) ............... 31 Table 13. Distribution of Trips by Zone for Heavy-Duty Trucks (% by Destination) ................... 32 Table 14. Share of Each Region from the Truck Traffic by Link .................................................. 33 Table 15. Trip Generation Rates by Warehouse Type (Fontana Study) ....................................... 37 Table 16. Trip Generation Rates by Warehouse Type (NAIOP Study) .......................................... 39 Table 17. ITE Daily Trip Generation Rates for Industrial Land Use (Site Generators) ................ 41 Table 18. Internal Truck Trip Generation Coefficient for Various Land Use Categories ............ 43 Table 19. Employee per KSF Ratio in SCAG HDT model ............................................................... 43 Table 20. Summary of Uses Related to Warehouse Activities and Trip Generation Methodologies .............................................................................................................................. 45 Table 21. Summary Trip Generation Rates Related to Warehouse Activities ............................. 46 Table 22: Check of County-Level Truck Origin-Destination Distribution.................................... 47 Table 23: Comparison of Model’s Truck Volumes to Counts of Actual Truck Traffic ................. 50

269
574
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Table of Figures
Figure 1. Manufacturing Establishments and Employment in Riverside County, 2005-2015 ....... 5 Figure 2. Transportation & Warehousing Establishments and Employment in Riverside ........... 5 Figure 3. Wholesaling Establishments and Employment in Riverside County, 2005-2015 ........... 5 Figure 4. Change in number of establishments with 100+ employees in Riverside County, 2008- 2015. ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 5. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Manufacturing ............................. 11 Figure 6. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Transportation & Warehousing ... 12 Figure 7. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Wholesale Trade ........................... 13 Figure 8. Warehouse Area Trend from 2012-2040 in Riverside County ...................................... 16 Figure 9. Warehouse Employment Trend from 2012 to 2040 in Riverside County .................... 16 Figure 10. High Cube Warehouse Area in Riverside County in 2016 by SCAG Tier I TAZ ........... 20 Figure 11. Low Cube Warehouse Area in Riverside County in 2016 by SCAG Tier I TAZ ............ 21 Figure 12. SCAG Expected High Cube Warehouse Area Growth in Riverside County 2016 to 2040 by SCAG Tier I TAZ ........................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 13. SCAG Expected Low Cube Warehouse Area Growth in Riverside County 2016 to 2040 by SCAG Tier I TAZ ........................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 14. Zones Used in the O-D Analysis ................................................................................... 34 Figure 15. Selected Links for O-D Analysis ................................................................................... 35 Figure 16. Taxonomy of Uses with Major Warehouse Activities ................................................. 44 Figure 17: Comparison of Model to Actual Traffic in the AM Peak Hour .................................... 49 Figure 18: Comparison of Model to Actual Traffic in the PM Peak Hour .................................... 49 Figure 19: Freeway Sections Used to Check Truck Forecasts ...................................................... 50

270
575
Item 19.

BLANK
271
576
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions