Norco City Council
December 18, 2024

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 30 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network
As indicated previously, the TUMF roadway network was refined to distinguish between facilities of “Regional Significance” and facilities of “Zonal Significance.” Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at general plan build-out7, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts8, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2045. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the “backbone” highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The backbone network is illustrated in Figure 4.2.

Facilities of Zonal Significance (the “secondary” network) represent the balance of the RSHA for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are considered significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG APD or zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3.
7 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at general plan buildout, in some cases it was determined that there was not sufficient demand for all additional lanes on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF Program (2045). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF Program.
8 Area Planning Districts (APD) are the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area. Area Planning Districts are interchangeably referred to as TUMF Zones.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 33 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs
To calculate a “fair share” fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development.

Estimates of the cost to improve the network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were originally developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)9, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates10 (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998.

The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF Program. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development.

Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were originally varied to account for variations in construction cost (in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs which originally included consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses – code 1), suburban (developed residential uses – code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses – code 3) land uses, respectively. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were originally varied to account for variations in cost associated with new complex, new standard (or fully reconstructed), or major (or partially reconstructed) or minor (individual ramp improvements) interchange improvements.

As part of the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were revised to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed 9 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)
10 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 34 as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to reflect the effects of significant changes in materials, labor and land acquisition costs including the influences of supply chain disruptions during and following the COVID-19 pandemic, and the elevated rates of inflation prevailing in the past few years. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions developed as part of the 2024 Nexus Update. A new category was also added to the cost assumptions to facilitate the use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) to enhance traffic flows in arterial corridors that require mitigation but cannot accommodate construction of addition lane capacity.

Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003, states that “each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts.” This expectation is reiterated in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020) Section 6 which indicates that “about 44% of the revenue for the program” is expected to be derived from non-fee sources, including ” the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through 2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).” Consistent with the MSHCP Nexus Report, an amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will be specifically included as part of TUMF Program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the most recent MSHCP Nexus Report are included in Appendix F.

Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate as part of the current Nexus Update. Table 4.1 also includes a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions and the 2016 Nexus Study unit cost assumptions that demonstrates the significant increases in unit costs observed during recent years. In most cases the unit cost assumptions have more than doubled from those used for the 2016 Nexus Study. Cost estimates are provided in current year values as indicated.

To estimate the cost of improving the regional network to provide for traffic growth from new development, the network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed improvements.

The initial list of improvements was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. A consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to mitigate for future traffic growth associated with new development. This initial list of proposed improvements has since been revised and updated as part of each subsequent Nexus Update to reflect the completion of projects, changing levels of development and associated changes in travel demand and transportation system impacts to be mitigated as part of the TUMF program.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 35 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Component
Type
Original Cost
Assumptions as
published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumptions
per 2016 Nexus
Study
July 10, 2017
Cost Assumptions
per 2024 Nexus
Update
Description
Terrain 1 $550,000 $692,000 $1,132,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain
Terrain 2 $850,000 $878,000 $1,740,000 Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain
Terrain 3 $1,150,000 $1,064,000 $2,350,000 Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous terrain
Landuse 1 $900,000 $2,509,000 $7,830,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas
Landuse 2 $420,000 $2,263,000 $5,440,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - suburban areas
Landuse 3 $240,000 $287,000 $490,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - rural areas
Interchange 1 n/a $50,032,000 $84,190,000
Complex new
interchange/interchange
modification cost
Interchange 2 $20,000,000 $25,558,000 $43,490,000 New interchange/interchange modification total cost
Interchange 3 $10,000,000 $12,343,000 $22,550,000 Major interchange improvement total cost
Bridge 1 $2,000 $3,180 $4,800 Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot
RRXing 1 $4,500,000 $6,376,000 $18,200,000 New Rail Grade Crossing per lane RRXing 2 $2,250,000 $2,733,000 $6,900,000 Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lane ITS 1 $686,400 Infrastructure for ITS of roadway
segments per route mile
Planning 10% 10% 10%
Planning, preliminary engineering
and environmental assessment costs
based on construction cost only
Engineering 25% 25% 25%
Project study report, design,
permitting and construction
oversight costs based on
construction cost only
Contingency 10% 10% 10% Contingency costs based on total segment cost
Administration 4% 4% TUMF program administration based
on total TUMF eligible network cost
MSHCP 5% 5%
TUMF component of MSHCP based
on total TUMF eligible construction
cost
As indicated in Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4, the anticipated rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County has been reduced by 4% for population, 3% for single-family residential and 31% for employment. This reduced rate of forecasted socioeconomic growth has a commensurate impact on the forecasted daily traffic in the region as demonstrated by the 2016 Nexus Study VMT compared to the 2024 Nexus Update VMT in Table 4.2. As shown in the table, the forecast peak period VMT on the TUMF arterial network in the year 2045 as the basis for the 2024 Nexus Update is more than 5% less than the comparable peak period VMT for 2040 used for the 2016 Nexus Study.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 36 Table 4.2 – Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County Measure of Performance
2024 Nexus Update 2016 Nexus Study
Peak Period Peak Period
2018 Existing 2045 No-Build 2012 Existing 2040 No-Build VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 19,532,437 29,277,587 VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 11,019,155 14,487,570 VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 8,513,282 14,790,016 TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 5,585,202 9,089,495 Source: RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in December 2021; RivTAM 2012 network and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016
As a result of the reduced forecast traffic growth in the region, it is anticipated that the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the arterial highway and transit systems in the region is also reduced necessitating a reduction in the projects identified on the TUMF Network to mitigate the impacts of new development. As part of the 2024 Nexus Update, the list of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and validated during the subsequent Nexus updates was reviewed for accuracy and, where necessary, amended to remove or modify projects that have changed in need to mitigate impacts based on changes in the patterns of growth and travel demand within the region. Projects completed since the adoption of the 2016 Nexus Update were also removed from the network to reflect the fact that mitigation at these locations is no longer required. The specific network changes were screened by the WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines including travel demand and traffic performance.

Based on the findings of the network screening, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect necessary network corrections and modifications to project assumptions. A matrix summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update was developed and is included in Appendix G.

Eligible arterial highway and street improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include:

1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes

2. Construction of new Network roadway segments

3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures

4. Construction of new Network bridge structures

5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways

6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways

7. Grade separation of existing Network at-grade railroad crossings

8. Installation of ITS along Network roadway segments
All eligible improvement types, except for ITS, provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. ITS provides the ability to improve traffic flows along corridors

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 37 where capacity expansion is not possible. Following the comprehensive update of the TUMF Program, the estimated total cost to improve the RSHA for Western Riverside County is $4.84 billion with this cost including all arterial highway and street planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs, but not including transit, MSHCP or program administration costs that will be subsequently described. It should be noted that the full cost to improve the TUMF Network cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for the previous obligation of other funds to complete necessary improvements and unfunded existing needs. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 describe the adjustments to the total TUMF Network improvement need to account for existing needs and obligated funds.

In addition to the arterial highway and street improvement costs indicated above, the TUMF Nexus Update included specific consideration for the TUMF Program obligation to the MSHCP program to mitigate the impact of TUMF network improvements on species and habitat within Western Riverside County. The TUMF obligation to MSHCP was calculated at a rate of 5% of the total construction (capital) cost of new lane segments, bridges and railroad grade separations on the TUMF Network. The total obligation to the MSHCP as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $64.6 million, although the total obligation specific to the TUMF program is reduced to account for MSHCP obligations associated with improvements addressing existing needs and therefore excluded from TUMF.

The TUMF 2024 Nexus Update similarly includes specific consideration of the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. The average cost for WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program was calculated at a rate of 4% of the total eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridges and railroad grade separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. Administration costs incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe benefit and overhead costs for WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and support participating jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services to support the implementation of the TUMF program. The total cost for WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $161.2 million.

The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Section 4.7, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF Program, and the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment following adjustments for obligated funding and unfunded existing needs as described in subsequent sections.

4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System
In addition to the roadway network, public transportation plays a key role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter-community trips is generally provided in the form of public bus transit services and in particular express bus or other high frequency services between strategically located community transit centers. In Western Riverside County, these bus transit services are typically provided by

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 38 RTA. Transit needs to serve future regional travel in Western Riverside County via bus transit include vehicle acquisitions, transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, maintenance facilities and other associated capital improvements to develop express bus or other high frequency inter-community transit bus services within the region.

Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF Program as they typically serve longer inter-regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter-regional highway system.

The network of regionally significant bus transit services represents those express bus and other high frequency transit bus services that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional highway system and interregional commuter rail services. As a result, this portion of the bus transit system also represents the extents of the network of bus services that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements.

The TUMF Bus Transit Network is the system of bus services that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The Bus Transit Network for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transit network and performance guidelines as follows:

1. Bus transit routes (or corridors comprised of multiple overlapping routes) proposed to have a frequency of greater than three buses per direction during peak hours at ultimate build out.

2. Routes or corridors that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities, both within and adjoining western Riverside County.

3. Routes or corridors with forecast weekday bus ridership in excess of 1,000 person trips per day by 2040.

4. Routes or corridors that are proposed to provide timed interconnections with at least four other routes or corridors at ultimate build out.

5. Routes or corridors that utilize the majority of travel along the TUMF RSHA.

6. Routes or corridors that provide direct access to areas of forecast population and employment growth, major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers).

Express bus routes and other high-frequency bus transit routes and corridors in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified by RTA. Updated cost estimates for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers and transfer facilities, express bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus and other high frequency bus transit service within the region were also provided by RTA.

The updated transit unit cost data provided by RTA are shown in Table 4.3.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 39 Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures Component Type*
Original Cost
Assumptions as
published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumptions
per 2016 Nexus
Study
July 10, 2017
Cost
Assumptions per
2024 Nexus
Update
Description
Transit Center 1 $6,000,000 $7,465,000
Relocation/expansion of
existing Regional Transit
Center with up to 14 bus
bays and park and ride
Transit Center 2 $6,000,000 $9,000,000 $11,195,000
New Regional Transit Center
with up to 14 bus bays and
park and ride
Transfer Facility $1,000,000 $1,245,000 Multiple route transfer hub O & M Facility $50,000,000 $62,186,000 Regional Operations and Maintenance Facility
Green Technology $100,000 ZEB technology
enhancements
Bus Stop $10,000 $40,000 $50,000 Bus Stop Amenities Upgrade on TUMF Network
BRT Service Capital $540,000 $60,000 $75,000 BRT/Limited Stop Service Capital (per stop**)
Vehicle Fleet 1*** $160,000 Small Sized Bus/Van
Contract Operated
Vehicle Fleet 2 $155,000 $300,000 Medium Sized Bus Contract Operated
Vehicle Fleet 3 $325,125 $585,000 $1,271,000 Large Sized Bus Directly Operated
COA Study $950,000 $1,150,000
Comprehensive
Operational Analysis Study
component of Nexus Study
Update
* Transit Cost Component Types were restructured as part of the 2016 Nexus Update in accordance with the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis (January 2015) ** BRT Service Capital Cost Assumption was based on a per mile unit prior to the 2016 Nexus Update. 2016 Nexus Update uses a per stop unit cost for BRT Service Capital *** Vehicle Fleet component was restructured as part of the 2024 Nexus Update with the inclusion of Small Sized Bus/Van Contract Operated as Vehicle Fleet 1 and subsequent renumbering of Vehicle Fleet 2 and 3, respectively The estimated total cost for future RTA bus transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $217.9 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Section 4.7. The full cost to improve RTA bus transit services cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for existing needs. Section 4.6 describes the adjustments to the total transit cost to account for existing needs.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 40 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding
For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the funded cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF Program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds.

To determine the availability of obligated funds, WRCOG staff, in conjunction with RCTC staff, completed a review of the current Federal Transportation improvement Program (FTIP) to identify TUMF eligible projects that were also programmed to receive funding from alternate sources. A table summarizing the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $382.9 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated total TUMF network project cost was subsequently reduced by this amount.

4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs
A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table

3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter-community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter-community transit services will partially satisfy this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated, at least in part, by existing demand, rather than solely the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need.

To account for existing need in the TUMF Network, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted. This was done by identifying the portion of any segment of the TUMF Network with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of greater than 0.9 (the threshold for LOS E) in the RivCoM 2018 Existing scenario and extracting the share of the overall facility cost to improve that portion. This cost adjustment provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those TUMF segments with an existing high level of congestion. The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology:

1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivCoM 2018 Existing scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network and delineating

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 41 those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an average directional v/c exceeding 0.9011.
a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for network segments, which was calculated by:
i. Determining the length for the portion of each segment (model link), and calculating the ratio of link length to the overall segment length
ii. Generating the average directional v/c for each link, for both directions in AM and PM periods, and multiplying by link/segment length ratio
iii. Determining the maximum peak-period peak-direction v/c for each link, representing the highest directional v/c in either AM or PM
iv. Calculating weighted average v/c for each TUMF segment, based on the sum of all weighted max v/c values of each link within a segment
b. A similar method was used to determine existing need for spot improvements including interchanges, railroad crossings and bridges.

However, no weighting was used in the calculation of existing need for spot improvements. For these facilities, the peak-period peak-direction v/c values (highest directional v/c in either AM or PM) were utilized in the existing need calculation. This was based on the individual link within a network segment where a bridge or railroad crossing is located, or onand off-ramps in the case of interchanges.

2. Initial costs of addressing the existing need were calculated by estimating the share of a particular roadway segments “new lane” cost, or individual spot improvement cost (including all associated ROW and soft costs).

3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average directional exisitng year v/c for the TUMF facilities (delineated under step one) with the horizon year v/c for the corresponding segments and spot improvements calculated based on the RivCoM 2045 No-Build scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network using the same methodology as the existing year v/c.
11 The RivCoM 2021 Existing Network used for the TUMF Nexus Study analyses reflects the RivCoM 2018 base year network augmented to include highways facilities on the TUMF Network as they existed in December 2021. A second version of the base network was also developed adding only those facilities that had been identified on the 2016 TUMF Nexus study 2040 Build scenario that did not currently exist in December 2021 and therefore were not represented by a link(s) in the RivCoM base network. The Supplemental 2021 Existing Network was utilized as the basis for determining existing and future v/c for only those projects that did not currently exist on the 2021 TUMF Network.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 42 4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2045 No-Build scenario v/c exceeding LOS E.

5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in v/c over the base year, TUMF will ‘discount’ the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the incremental v/c growth through 2045 No-Build compared to the 2018 Baseline v/c (up to a maximum of 100%).

The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $582.6 million. Appendix H includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment and spot improvement experiencing unacceptable LOS.

For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $63.0 million representing 28.9% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix H includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost.

4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost
A total of $382.9 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available revenue sources, the funded portion of these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement need is $646.9 million. These improvements are needed to mitigate existing transportation deficiencies and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through TUMF.

Based on the estimated costs described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the total value to complete the identified TUMF network and transit improvements, and administer the program is $5.28 billion. Having accounted for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $4.24 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $3.87 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $154.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $53.9 million is eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $161.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program.

Figure 4.4 illustrates the various improvements to the RSHA included as part of the TUMF network cost calculation. Table 4.4 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations for each of the individual segments. This table also identifies the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment having accounted for obligated funding and unfunded

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 43 existing need. A detailed breakdown of the individual cost components and values for the various TUMF Network segments is included in Appendix H. Table 4.5 outlines the detailed transit component cost estimates. It should be noted that the detailed cost tables (and fee levels) are subject to regular review and updating by WRCOG and therefore WRCOG should be contacted directly to obtain the most recently adopted version of these tables (and to confirm the corresponding fee level).

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 45 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Ethanac Goetz Murrieta $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac Murrieta I-215 $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews $2,674,000 $2,674,000 Central Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossing $105,560,000 $105,560,000 Central Menifee Menifee SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson $1,307,000 $1,307,000 Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge $4,384,000 $4,384,000 Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Aldergate Newport $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Holland Garbani $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Garbani Scott $4,353,000 $4,353,000 Central Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City Limit $0 $0 Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Murrieta I-215 $1,130,000 $1,130,000 Central Menifee Newport I-215 Menifee $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Menifee Lindenberger $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Lindenberger SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0 Central Menifee Scott I-215 Briggs $8,635,000 $8,635,000 Central Menifee Scott I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta $4,388,000 $4,388,000 Central Menifee Scott Murrieta I-215 $16,949,000 $12,949,000 Central Menifee SR-74 Matthews Briggs $8,254,000 $8,254,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro I-215 Perris $13,420,000 $13,420,000 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Perris Nason $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Nason Moreno Beach $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs $18,019,000 $18,019,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 Alessandro $7,291,000 $7,291,000 Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 interchange $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Reche Vista Ironwood $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Perris Ironwood Sunnymead $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $11,192,000 Central Moreno Valley Perris Sunnymead Cactus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Cactus Harley Knox $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Reche Vista Country Heacock $7,486,000 $3,799,000 Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz $4,582,000 $4,582,000 Central Perris Case Goetz I-215 $20,876,000 $20,876,000 Central Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge $1,740,000 $1,235,000 Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz $6,056,000 $6,056,000 Central Perris Ethanac San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 Central Perris Ethanac I-215 Sherman $5,316,000 $5,316,000 Central Perris Goetz Case Ethanac $1,507,000 $999,000
Central Perris Goetz San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $3,398,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 Perris $15,655,000 $15,655,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 interchange $0 $0 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) Perris Evans $22,985,000 $22,985,000 Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Perris Perris Harley Knox Ramona $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus $7,063,000 $7,063,000 Central Perris Perris Citrus Nuevo $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Nuevo 11th $6,927,000 $6,927,000
Central Perris Perris I-215 overcrossing bridge $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona I-215 Perris $5,039,000 $5,039,000 Central Perris Ramona I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $7,725,000 Central Perris Ramona Perris Evans $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona Evans Mid-County (2,800 ft E of Rider) $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (4th) Ellis I-215 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR-74 Keystone $4,666,000 $4,666,000 Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge Road $30,601,000 $30,601,000 Central Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR-74 (Pinacate) $16,684,000 $16,684,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County Evans Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) $12,156,000 $12,156,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) Pico Avenue $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Pico Avenue Bridge Road $47,769,000 $47,769,000 Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) San Jacinto River bridge $36,192,000 $36,192,000 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino County Reche Vista $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Country $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0 Central Unincorporated SR-74 Ethanac Ellis $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 Temescal Canyon $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 interchange $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill California I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River SR-91 Dominguez Ranch $0 $0 Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades $0 $0 Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman San Bernardino County 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek $648,000 $648,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge $0 $0 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Harrison $866,000 $866,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner $488,000 $488,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Sumner Scholar $7,625,000 $7,625,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Scholar A Street $119,000 $119,000 Northwest Eastvale Schleisman A Street Hamner $209,000 $209,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 46 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren SR-60 Bellegrave $23,928,000 $10,461,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana River $60,900,000 $0 Northwest Riverside Alessandro Arlington Trautwein $2,410,000 $2,410,000 Northwest Riverside Arlington La Sierra Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Arlington Magnolia Alessandro $46,465,000 $46,465,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Santa Ana River SR-91 $5,230,000 $4,392,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren SR-91 Mockingbird Canyon $39,493,000 $21,292,000 Northwest Riverside Van Buren Wood Trautwein $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Trautwein Orange Terrace $7,574,000 $7,574,000 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Trautwein Vista Grande $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Vista Grande I-215 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco El Sobrante Harley John $10,580,000 $9,817,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harley John Harvil $166,492,000 $166,492,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harvil I-215 $1,238,000 $1,238,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Canyon La Sierra $49,596,000 $35,953,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Wash bridge $4,872,000 $1,907,000 Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco La Sierra El Sobrante $96,453,000 $96,453,000 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Mockingbird Canyon Wood $67,429,000 $67,429,000 Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Orange Terrace I-215 $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs Wilson (8th) Sun Lakes $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $32,516,000 Pass Banning Highland Springs Oak Valley (14th) Wilson (8th) $0 $0 Pass Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley (14th) $0 $0 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 Morongo Trail (Apache Trail) $50,110,000 $50,110,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South UP/Hargrave railroad crossing $52,780,000 $52,780,000 Pass Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero Oak Valley (San Timoteo Canyon) SR-60 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 interchange $63,061,000 $29,561,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero UP railroad crossing $40,020,000 $40,020,000 Pass Beaumont Potrero Noble Creek bridge $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 4th $0 $0
Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 California $0 $0
Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $7,408,000 Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $59,773,000 Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley Roberts St Roberts Rd $3,053,000 $3,053,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Bellflower Noble $6,411,000 $6,411,000 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Bellflower $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Roberts St $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley San Timoteo Wash bridge $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Lamb Canyon) California Gilman Springs $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Warren Sanderson $7,726,000 $7,726,000 San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Sanderson State $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Winchester Warren $35,208,000 $35,208,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Warren Sanderson $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) interchange $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sanderson State $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona State Main $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Main Cedar $31,518,000 $26,928,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Cedar SR-74 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni SR-79 (Winchester) Warren $13,508,000 $13,508,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni San Diego Aqueduct bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Bridge Sanderson $0 $0 San Jacinto Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Bridge Warren $9,221,000 $9,221,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) $15,417,000 $15,417,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni $13,901,000 $13,901,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) San Diego Aqueduct bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) Domenigoni Winchester $6,542,000 $6,542,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (San Jacinto Bypass) Mid-County (Ramona) SR-74 (Florida) $56,690,000 $56,690,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) Gilman Springs Ramona $6,899,000 $2,555,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) San Jacinto River bridge $19,488,000 $7,651,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Domenigoni Keller $65,022,000 $65,022,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 47 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport $0 $0 Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 Canyon Hills $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 interchange $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 I-15 interchange $63,061,000 $24,162,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Toulon I-215 $2,076,000 $2,076,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith I-215 Whitewood $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Murrieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek $7,321,000 $7,321,000 Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Winchester Creek Margarita $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Jefferson Diaz $3,929,000 $3,929,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Murrieta Creek bridge $5,846,000 $5,846,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Margarita Ynez $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Ynez Jefferson $5,010,000 $5,010,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) I-15 interchange $122,076,000 $122,076,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson $2,697,000 $2,697,000 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) I-15 interchange $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz) Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga) Rancho California SR-79 (Front) $23,629,000 $23,629,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga) I-15 interchange $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga) Murrieta Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Eastern Bypass $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR-79 $5,539,000 $5,539,000 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated SR-74 I-15 Ethanac $27,699,000 $26,347,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Keller Thompson $34,213,000 $34,213,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Thompson La Alba $27,699,000 $27,699,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) La Alba Hunter $7,854,000 $3,042,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs $595,000 $442,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 Monte Vista $1,362,000 $1,362,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset $24,818,000 $24,818,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $24,613,000 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar I-15 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith I-15 Copper Craft $5,030,000 $0 Subtotal $2,331,921,000 $1,961,707,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 48 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott $0 $0
Central Menifee Briggs SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson $2,991,000 $2,991,000 Central Menifee Briggs Simpson Old Newport $5,430,000 $5,430,000 Central Menifee Briggs Salt Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Menifee Garbani I-215 interchange $63,061,000 $42,483,000 Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane $11,378,000 $11,378,000 Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita $0 $0
Central Menifee Holland Murrieta Bradley $15,708,000 $15,708,000 Central Menifee Holland Bradley Haun $11,439,000 $11,439,000 Central Menifee Holland Haun Antelope $9,456,000 $9,456,000 Central Menifee Holland I-215 overcrossing bridge $9,744,000 $9,744,000 Central Menifee Holland Antelope Menifee $3,844,000 $3,844,000 Central Menifee McCall I-215 Aspel $5,354,000 $5,354,000 Central Menifee McCall I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee $2,288,000 $2,288,000 Central Menifee Murrieta Ethanac McCall $0 $0
Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport $7,967,000 $7,967,000 Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy Canyon $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 Heacock $5,617,000 $5,617,000 Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR-60 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 interchange $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 Eucalyptus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus I-215 Towngate $8,843,000 $8,843,000 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR-60 Alessandro $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus San Michele $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood SR-60 Day $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR-60 $18,797,000 $18,797,000 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR-60 overcrossing bridge $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Nason SR-60 Alessandro $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR-60 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Ironwood $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro $39,789,000 $39,789,000 Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 Eucalyptus $3,966,000 $3,966,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Perris Ellis Goetz Evans $9,526,000 $9,526,000
Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo $6,492,000 $6,492,000 Central Perris Evans Nuevo Ellis $17,705,000 $17,705,000 Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge $11,136,000 $11,136,000 Central Perris Evans I-215 bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac $7,845,000 $7,845,000 Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 Indian $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Perris $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Perris Redlands $0 $0
Central Perris Nuevo I-215 Murrieta $16,971,000 $16,971,000 Central Perris Nuevo I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $19,736,000 Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap $4,367,000 $4,367,000 Central Perris Nuevo Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge $0 $0 Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 Ethanac $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $21,835,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 Mt Vernon $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $11,912,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000 Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR-74 $11,550,000 $11,550,000 Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP Corridor Center Pigeon Pass $2,582,000 $2,582,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee $8,737,000 $2,505,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Mount Vernon $8,106,000 $8,106,000 Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust $0 $0

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 49 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Corona 6th SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Corona Auto Center Railroad SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco Bedford Canyon I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Hidden Valley Norco Hills McKinley $0 $0 Northwest Corona Lincoln Parkridge Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Corona Magnolia 6th Sherborn $7,054,000 $6,419,000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Temescal Creek bridge $4,176,000 $3,580,000 Northwest Corona Magnolia Sherborn Rimpau $0 $0
Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Grand Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foothill $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Hidden Valley Parkridge $5,314,000 $4,389,000 Northwest Corona Main Parkridge SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main SR-91 S. Grand $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Hidden Valley Promenade $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley Promenade SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Arlington Channel bridge $0 $0 Northwest Corona McKinley BNSF railroad crossing $105,560,000 $0 Northwest Corona Ontario I-15 El Cerrito $13,451,000 $13,451,000 Northwest Corona Ontario Lincoln Buena Vista $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Vista Main $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Main Kellogg $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Fullerton Rimpau $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Rimpau I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Buena Vista $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad BNSF railroad crossing $40,020,000 $40,020,000 Northwest Corona Railroad Buena Vista Main (at Grand) $0 $0 Northwest Corona River Corydon Main $0 $0
Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR-91 Green River $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Archibald Remington River $3,382,000 $3,382,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Mission Bellegrave $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Bellegrave Amberhill $199,000 $199,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Amberhill Limonite $2,787,000 $2,787,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Limonite Schleisman $991,000 $991,000 Northwest Eastvale Hamner Schleisman Santa Ana River $5,533,000 $3,675,000 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Schleisman Walters $419,000 $419,000 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Walters River $21,503,000 $21,503,000 Northwest Eastvale Hellman Cucamonga Creek bridge $3,828,000 $3,828,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 Eastvale Gateway $289,000 $289,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 interchange $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Eastvale Gateway Hamner $255,000 $255,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Hamner Sumner $1,094,000 $1,094,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Sumner Harrison $497,000 $497,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Harrison Archibald $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.) $2,208,000 $2,208,000 Northwest Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge $13,920,000 $0 Northwest Eastvale River Hellman Archibald $5,948,000 $5,948,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Armstrong San Bernardino County Valley $6,192,000 $6,192,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Bellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Van Buren $464,000 $464,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Cantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville Bellegrave $793,000 $793,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda Philadelphia SR-60 $1,515,000 $989,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda SR-60 Limonite $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite I-15 Wineville $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Wineville Etiwanda $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Etiwanda Van Buren $2,981,000 $2,981,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Van Buren Clay $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Clay Riverview $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Rubidoux Santa Ana River $5,181,000 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Santa Ana River bridge $13,920,000 $6,204,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission Milliken SR-60 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission SR-60 Santa Ana River $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Riverview Limonite Mission $0 $0 Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux Pine Mission $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $9,051,000 Northwest Jurupa Valley Valley Armstrong Mission $0 $0
Northwest Norco 1st Parkridge Mountain $0 $0
Northwest Norco 1st Mountain Hamner $0 $0
Northwest Norco 2nd River I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 6th Hamner California $0 $0
Northwest Norco 6th I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $3,489,000 Northwest Norco Arlington Crestview Fairhaven $4,342,000 $4,342,000 Northwest Norco California Arlington 6th $15,237,000 $12,525,000 Northwest Norco Corydon River 5th $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River bridge $33,408,000 $11,455,000 Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River Hidden Valley $49,591,000 $49,591,000 Northwest Norco Hidden Valley I-15 Norco Hills $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hidden Valley Hamner I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Norco Norco Corydon Hamner $0 $0
Northwest Norco North California Crestview $0 $0
Northwest Norco River Archibald Corydon $1,743,000 $1,109,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 50 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Northwest Riverside 14th Market Martin Luther King $0 $0 Northwest Riverside 1st Market Main $0 $0
Northwest Riverside 3rd SR-91 I-215 $1,941,000 $1,941,000 Northwest Riverside 3rd BNSF railroad crossing $105,560,000 $30,560,000 Northwest Riverside Adams Arlington SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 Lincoln $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 interchange $32,698,000 $3,262,000 Northwest Riverside Arlington Fairhaven La Sierra $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Buena Vista Santa Ana River Redwood $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther King Central $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Country Club $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Country Club Via Vista $4,996,000 $1,593,000 Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Central Chicago I-215/SR-60 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Alessandro SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Chicago Alessandro Spruce $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Columbia I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $9,050,000 Northwest Riverside Iowa Center 3rd $30,272,000 $30,272,000 Northwest Riverside Iowa 3rd University $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Iowa University Martin Luther King $0 $0 Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwein Wood $1,880,000 $1,880,000 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Arlington SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside La Sierra SR-91 Indiana $192,000 $192,000 Northwest Riverside La Sierra Indiana Victoria $778,000 $778,000 Northwest Riverside Lemon (NB One way) Mission Inn University $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van Buren Jefferson $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Jefferson Washington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Washington Victoria $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Madison SR-91 Victoria $853,000 $853,000 Northwest Riverside Madison BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000 Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF Railroad Tyler $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF railroad crossing $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Magnolia Tyler Harrison $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia Harrison 14th $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino County $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana River $9,491,000 $9,491,000 Northwest Riverside Martin Luther King 14th I-215/SR-60 $24,031,000 $24,031,000 Northwest Riverside Mission Inn Redwood Lemon $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Redwood (SB One way) Mission Inn University $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Trautwein Alessandro Van Buren $0 $0 Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 interchange $63,061,000 $21,814,000 Northwest Riverside Tyler Magnolia Hole $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler Hole Wells $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler Wells Arlington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside University Redwood SR-91 $859,000 $859,000 Northwest Riverside University SR-91 I-215/SR-60 $2,067,000 $2,067,000 Northwest Riverside Victoria Lincoln Arlington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Victoria Madison Washington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Washington Victoria Hermosa $27,018,000 $27,018,000 Northwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren $3,053,000 $3,053,000 Northwest Riverside Wood Van Buren Bergamont $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamont Krameria $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Cantu-Galleano Ranch Hamner Wineville $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos (Weirick) Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated El Cerrito I-15 Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated El Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Cajalco $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Washington Scottsdale $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Scottsdale Cajalco $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra Victoria El Sobrante $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra El Sobrante Cajalco $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren El Sobrante $20,871,000 $20,871,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon El Cerrito Tuscany $3,168,000 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Tuscany Dos Lagos $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos Leroy $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Leroy Dawson Canyon $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dawson Canyon I-15 $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 Park Canyon $14,329,000 $14,329,000 Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail $0 $0 Northwest Unincorporated Washington Hermosa Harley John $12,787,000 $12,787,000 Northwest Unincorporated Wood Krameria Cajalco $12,537,000 $12,537,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 51 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Pass Banning 8th Wilson I-10 $0 $0
Pass Banning Lincoln Sunset SR-243 $0 $0
Pass Banning Ramsey I-10 8th $0 $0
Pass Banning Ramsey 8th Highland Springs $0 $0
Pass Banning SR-243 I-10 Wesley $0 $0
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Home Sunset $30,502,000 $30,502,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Montgomery Creek bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Springs Highland Home $0 $0 Pass Banning Sunset Ramsey Lincoln $0 $0
Pass Banning Sunset I-10 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Pass Banning Wilson Highland Home 8th $0 $0
Pass Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home $0 $0 Pass Beaumont 1st Viele Pennsylvania $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 1st Pennsylvania Highland Springs $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 6th I-10 Highland Springs $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (STC) $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Highland Springs Pennsylvania $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Pennsylvania Oak View $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Oak View I-10 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $62,401,000 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) UP Railroad Tukwet Canyon $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) Tukwet Canyon I-10 $0 $0 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania 6th 1st $6,588,000 $6,588,000 Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania I-10 interchange $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Bryant County Line Avenue L $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Calimesa County Line I-10 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Calimesa I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 Pass Calimesa County Line 7th Bryant $0 $0
Pass Calimesa County Line I-10 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Palmer Champions $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton Avenue L Condit $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts $12,972,000 $12,972,000 Pass Calimesa Singleton I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $0 Pass Calimesa Tukwet Canyon Roberts Rd Palmer $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC) San Bernardino County $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon San Bernardino County UP Railroad $0 $0 Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon UP Railroad railroad crossing $52,780,000 $52,780,000 San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigoni Stetson $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson RR Crossing Acacia $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR Crossing $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplanade $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Warren Cawston $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Columbia Ramona $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/SR-79 (Florida) Cawston Columbia $0 $0 San Jacinto Hemet State Domenigoni Chambers $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Florida Esplanade $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson Florida $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cawston State $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Warren Cawston $4,357,000 $4,357,000 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Esplanade Domenigoni $19,926,000 $19,926,000 San Jacinto Hemet Warren Salt Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Mountain State $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Warren $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (North Ramona) State San Jacinto $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) North Ramona Blvd 7th $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) 7th SR-74 $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch $3,317,000 $3,317,000 San Jacinto San Jacinto State San Jacinto River bridge $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto State Quandt Ranch Ramona $0 $0 San Jacinto San Jacinto Warren Ramona Esplanade $13,469,000 $13,469,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Sanderson State $11,097,000 $11,097,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Massacre Canyon Wash bridge $1,392,000 $1,392,000 San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni $0 $0

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 52 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Southwest Lake Elsinore Corydon Mission Grand $3,336,000 $3,336,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Diamond Mission I-15 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin (integral to Railroad
Canyon Interchange)
I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Lincoln Toft $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Toft SR-74 (Riverside) $3,512,000 $3,512,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 Lincoln $39,817,000 $32,726,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $15,771,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake Temescal Wash bridge $2,506,000 $1,150,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy Canyon $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake $7,850,000 $7,850,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols Temescal Wash bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Collier/Riverside) I-15 Lakeshore $24,303,000 $24,303,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Grand) Riverside SR-74 (Ortega) $9,733,000 $3,691,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Riverside) Lakeshore Grand $20,175,000 $20,175,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon I-15 Lake $7,411,000 $7,411,000 Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash bridge $3,480,000 $3,480,000 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jefferson I-15 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta California Oaks I-15 Jackson $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jackson Clinton Keith $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jackson Whitewood Ynez $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Palomar Nutmeg $1,562,000 $1,562,000 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Nutmeg Murrieta Hot Springs $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Murrieta Hot Springs Cherry $30,634,000 $30,634,000 Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 Whitewood $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 interchange $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Los Alamos Jefferson I-215 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson I-215 $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs I-215 Margarita $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Margarita SR-79 (Winchester) $4,057,000 $3,899,000 Southwest Murrieta Nutmeg Jefferson Clinton Keith $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Clinton Keith Los Alamos $2,708,000 $2,708,000 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Los Alamos Murrieta Hot Springs $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson $4,629,000 $4,629,000 Southwest Murrieta Ynez Jackson SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos $816,000 $816,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Calle Chapos La Serena $696,000 $696,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage La Serena Rancho California $904,000 $904,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Rancho California Pauba $846,000 $846,000 Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Pauba SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $725,000 $725,000 Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000 Southwest Temecula Margarita Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $7,644,000 $7,644,000 Southwest Temecula Old Town Front Rancho California I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Margarita $18,254,000 $18,181,000 Southwest Temecula Rancho California I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $0 Southwest Temecula Rancho California Margarita Butterfield Stage $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) I-15 Pechanga Pkwy $0 $0 Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage $3,065,000 $3,065,000 Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-79 (Winchester) $6,509,000 $6,509,000 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Tucalota Creek bridge $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage (Pourroy) Auld Murrieta Hot Springs $23,076,000 $23,076,000 Southwest Unincorporated Grand Ortega Corydon $68,025,000 $68,025,000 Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Winchester) Pourroy $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechanga San Diego County $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Pourroy SR-79 (Winchester) Auld $2,236,000 $2,236,000 Southwest Unincorporated Rancho California Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks $87,369,000 $87,369,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Horsethief Canyon Wash bridge $3,340,000 $3,340,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Truck Trail I-15 $15,739,000 $15,739,000 Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Wash bridge $1,462,000 $1,462,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Mission I-15 $9,704,000 $9,704,000 Southwest Wildomar Grand Corydon Wildomar Trail $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Mission Bundy Canyon Palomar $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Washington $3,227,000 $3,227,000 Southwest Wildomar Palomar Mission Clinton Keith $13,493,000 $13,493,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 Baxter $1,281,000 $1,281,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $27,858,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Baxter Palomar $11,316,000 $11,316,000 Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Palomar Grand $0 $0
Subtotal $2,508,329,000 $1,913,028,000
Totals Network $4,840,250,000 $3,874,735,000
Transit $217,870,000 $154,831,000
Administration $161,183,000 $161,183,000
MSHCP $64,606,000 $53,859,000
TOTAL $5,283,909,000 $4,244,608,000

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 53 Table 4.5 – TUMF Transit Cost Estimates

AREA PLAN
DIST
LEAD
AGENCY PROJECT NAME LOCATION UNITS (number/ length in miles) UNIT COST TOTAL MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central RTA Menifee Mobility Hub Menifee 1 $7,465,000 $7,465,000 $5,305,000 Northwest RTA Riverside Mobility Hub at Vine Street Riverside 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 Central RTA Moreno Valley Mobility Hub(s) Moreno Valley 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 Northwest RTA Jurupa Valley Mobility Hub(s) Jurupa Valley 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 Pass RTA Pass Area Mobility Hub(s) Banning 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 Southwest RTA Lake Elsinore / Canyon Lake Mobility
Hub(s) Lake Elsinore 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 San Jacinto RTA Hemet Mobility Hub Hemet 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 San Jacinto RTA San Jacinto Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000 San Jacinto RTA MSJC Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $1,245,000 $1,245,000 $885,000 Regional RTA ZEB Technology Enhancements Various locations region wide 10 $100,000 $1,000,000 $711,000 Northwest RTA Regional Operations and Maintenance
Facility Riverside 1 $62,186,000 $62,186,000 $44,192,000 Regional RTA Annual Transit Enhancements Program Various locations region wide 290 $50,000 $14,500,000 $10,304,000 Northwest RTA HQTC Improvements UCR, Riverside to Perris 42 $75,000 $3,150,000 $2,239,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Small Buses/Vans Various locations region wide 30 $160,000 $4,800,000 $3,411,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Medium Buses Various locations region wide 20 $300,000 $6,000,000 $4,264,000 Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Large Buses Various locations region wide 29 $1,271,000 $36,859,000 $26,194,000 Regional RTA COA Study Various locations region wide 2 $1,150,000 $2,300,000 $1,634,000 TOTAL $217,870,000 $154,831,000

4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation
To assess the effectiveness of the proposed TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development in Western Riverside County, the proposed network improvements were added to the 2021 existing network in RivCoM and the model was run with 2045 socioeconomic data to determine the relative impacts on horizon year traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements, the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for the 2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build scenarios were again calculated for the 2045 TUMF Build scenario. The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in Table 3.1 for the no-build conditions. The 2045 TUMF Build comparison results are provided in Table 4.6. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix H.

As shown in Table 4.6, the 2045 peak period VMT on all arterial facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will decrease with the addition of the TUMF Network improvements while the share of VMT on the TUMF arterial network experiencing LOS E or worse during the peak periods will be reduced to 32% (which is still above the level experienced in 2018). It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system increases because of freeway trips being diverted to the arterial system to benefit from the proposed TUMF improvements.

Despite a greater share of the total peak period VMT in 2045, the arterial system can more efficiently accommodate the increased demand with the proposed TUMF improvements. Although peak period VMT on the TUMF improved arterial system increases by approximately 6% in 2045 compared to the No Build condition, VHT on the arterial system remains almost constant. Additionally, a benefit is observed on the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 54 freeway system with VMT and VHT being reduced following TUMF Network improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all area motorists would be reduced during the peak period by over 7% from the levels that would be experienced under the 2045 No-Build scenario. These results highlight the effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development commensurate with the level of impact being created.

Table 4.6 – Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build Scenarios to 2045 TUMF Build Scenario) Measure of Performance*
Peak Periods (Total)
2018 Existing 2045 No-Build 2045 Build
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 30,160,328 VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 15,418,548
VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 14,741,781
TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 9,096,417 VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 541,350 915,439 895,725
VHT - FREEWAYS 263,792 399,128 388,847
VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 277,558 516,311 506,878
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 174,455 320,869 321,062
VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 108,900 338,056 313,288
VHD - FREEWAYS 66,156 170,649 161,528
VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 42,745 167,407 151,760
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 33,249 124,863 114,451
VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 5,605,070 13,369,483 12,788,016 VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,725,471 9,316,891 9,115,937
VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 879,599 4,052,592 3,672,079 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 765,782 3,184,133 2,929,288 % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 12% 37% 32%
* Source: RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in December 2021and RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network plus future TUMF network projects.

NOTES:

Volume is adjusted by PCE factor
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios).

LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 55 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS
The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for transportation system improvements on the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of this new development, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept.

5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements
Previous sections of this report documented the projected population, household and employment growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system improvements that will serve these future inter-community travel demands. The following points coalesce this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system.
 Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing.

Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Current projections estimate the population is projected to grow from a level of approximately 1.91 million in 2018 to a future level of about 2.53 million in 2045, while employment is projected to grow from a level of about 570,000 in 2018 to approximately 846,000 in 2045 (as shown in Table 2.3).  Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways.

Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays.
 The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County.

Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since longer-distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County.
 Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development.

To maintain transportation service closer to current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 56 roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, grade separation of at-grade rail crossings, or the installation of new ITS to improve traffic flows. The completion of improvements to the arterial roadway system would enhance regional mobility and reduce the total peak period vehicles hours of travel (VHT) by over 2%, reduce peak period vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by over 7%, and reduce the share of traffic experiencing congestion in the peak periods by over 4% (as shown in Table 4.6). The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined during future project programming activities as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available.
 Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program.

The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter-community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion.
 Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel.

Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, public transportation infrastructure and service will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new Western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation.

For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed.

5.2 Application of Fee to System Components
As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and the public transportation system. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components.

The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle trips that are relatively local (between

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 57 adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future combined AM and PM peak period travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the Year 2045 No-Build scenario trip tables from RivCoM.

The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the TAZs in the model and the five WRCOG TUMF zones (i.e. Northwest, Southwest, Central, Hemet/San Jacinto and Pass). The TAZs were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region).

Table 5.1 shows the estimated peak period vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of peak period vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix I includes the detailed RivCoM outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2.

Table 5.1 - 2045 No-Build Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone

To
From Central Hemet/San Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside WRCOG TOTAL Central 417,608 23,474 89,780 6,301 55,101 57,558 649,822 Hemet/San Jacinto 29,401 209,005 8,647 8,432 16,081 18,078 289,645 Northwest 58,578 2,684 743,234 2,687 11,032 196,041 1,014,257 Pass 8,068 7,585 6,114 110,385 908 32,334 165,395
Southwest 55,812 16,232 32,852 1,976 667,255 62,713 836,839 Outside WRCOG 33,907 7,574 192,712 24,490 33,867 292,550 TOTAL 603,375 266,554 1,073,340 154,271 784,244 366,724 3,248,507 Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No-Build scenario
Table 5.2 – 2045 No-Build Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone

To
From Central Hemet/San Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside WRCOG TOTAL Central 64.3% 3.6% 13.8% 1.0% 8.5% 8.9% 100%
Hemet/San Jacinto 10.2% 72.2% 3.0% 2.9% 5.6% 6.2% 100%
Northwest 5.8% 0.3% 73.3% 0.3% 1.1% 19.3% 100%
Pass 4.9% 4.6% 3.7% 66.7% 0.5% 19.5% 100%
Southwest 6.7% 1.9% 3.9% 0.2% 79.7% 7.5% 100%
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No-Build scenario

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 58 Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the backbone and secondary highway networks as derived from the peak period trip values provided in Table 5.1. Peak period vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their interregional travel would occur on the freeway system. Peak period trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Peak period trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lane-miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra-zonal trips. The backbone network includes approximately 41.1% of the lane-miles on the future TUMF system, and the secondary network includes approximately 58.9% of the lane-miles.

The backbone network is therefore assigned all the inter-zonal peak period trips plus

41.1% of the intra-zonal peak period trips. The secondary network is assigned 58.9% of the intra-zonal peak period trips and none of the inter-zonal peak period trips. The overall result is that 51.1% of the regional travel is assigned to the backbone network and 48.9% is assigned to the secondary network.

Table 5.3 - Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation Calculation Value Description Input Values Backbone
Value
Backbone
Share
Secondary
Value
Secondary
Share
Total Western Riverside County
Peak Period Vehicle Trips 3,248,507
Less Internal/External Peak Period
Vehicle Trips -659,273
Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Internal to Western Riverside
County
2,589,234
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
TUMF Zones 441,747
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones 2,147,487
TUMF Future Network Lane-Miles 3,029.9 1,243.9 41.1% 1,786.0 58.9% Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
TUMF Zones 441,747 441,747 100.0% 0 0.0%
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones (as share of intrazonal trips) 2,147,487 882,332 41.1% 1,265,155 58.9% Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Assigned 2,589,234 1,324,079 51.1% 1,265,155 48.9%
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No-Build scenario; TUMF Nexus Study Exhibit H-1

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 59 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, the growth in daily VMT between the 2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build Scenarios from RivCoM were aggregated by trip purpose. RivCoM produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes: home-based-work (HBW), homebased-other (HBO), home-based-school (HBS), non-home-based (NHB), and homebased-university (HBU).

NCHRP Report #187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978) details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel demand modeling. Chapter 2 of this report, which details trip generation estimation, states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non-Work) trips are generated at the households, whereas the NHB (Non-Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere." In accordance with NCHRP Report #187, growth in daily VMT was aggregated into homebased growth in daily VMT (combining the four home-based purposes: HBW, HBO, HBSC and HBU) and non-home-based growth in daily VMT. The home-based growth in daily VMT represents 77.7% of the total future growth in daily VMT and the non-home-based growth in daily VMT represent 22.3% of the total future growth in daily VMT, as shown in Table 5.4. Appendix J includes the RivCoM outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 - Daily VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2018 - 2045) VEHICLE TRIP PURPOSE 2018 EXISTING

DAILY VMT
2045 NO-BUILD

DAILY VMT

DAILY VMT
GROWTH

DAILY VMT
GROWTH
SHARE
Home-Based-Work 81,121,525 98,818,811 17,697,286 31.8%
Home-Based-Other 114,840,696 138,710,519 23,869,822 42.9% Home-Based-School (K-12) 8,592,941 9,230,272 637,331 1.1% Non-Home-Based 61,534,566 73,907,099 12,372,533 22.3%
Home-Based-University 5,377,197 6,400,662 1,023,465 1.8% TOTAL 271,466,925 327,067,363 55,600,437 100.00%
Home-Based Trips
(Residential Uses) 43,227,904 77.7%
Non-Home-Based Trips
(Non-Residential Uses) 12,372,533 22.3%
Based on RivCoM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023 and RivCoM Year 2045 No Build Scenario, November 2023

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 60 6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION
The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $5.28 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $382.9 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $646.9 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $4.24 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region and will be captured through the TUMF Program.

By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their “fair share” of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system.

Of the $4.24 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 77.7% ($3.30 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 22.3% ($946.5 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development.

6.1 Residential Fees
The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $3.30 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2045, the fee will be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between 2018 and 2045. The projected residential growth from year 2018 to 2045 is 257,826 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.3.

Different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between lower density “single-family” dwelling units and higher density “multi-family” dwelling units, the TUMF was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, single family dwelling units are those housing units with a density of less than 8 units per acre while multi-family units are those with a density of 8 or more units per acre. According to the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS forecasts included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 65.0% of the growth in residential dwelling units in the region between 2018 and 2045.

Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 0.99 vehicle trips per dwelling unit per hour in the PM peak hour, whereas apartments, condominiums and townhouses (considered to be representative of higher density multi-family dwelling units) generate a median of 0.50 vehicle trips per unit per hour in the PM peak hour. The growth in dwelling units for single-family and multi-family, respectively, were multiplied by the corresponding trip generation rates to determine

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 61 the weighted proportion of the change in trips attributable to each use type as the basis for determining the per unit fee required to levy the necessary $3.20 billion to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and multi-family dwelling units. Appendix K includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County.

Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share
Residential Sector
2018
Dwelling
Units
2045
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Unit
Change
Trip
Generation
Rate
Trip Change
Percentage
of Trip
Change
Fee/DU
Single-Family 397,407 564,898 167,491 0.99 165,816 78.6% $15,476 Multi-Family 157,166 247,501 90,335 0.50 45,168 21.4% $7,816 Total 554,573 812,399 257,826 210,984 100.0%
Household data based on SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS;
Trip Generation based on ITE Trip Generation (2021).

Consistent with the socio-economic forecasts developed by SCAG and the trip generation basis to assess the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development, the residential fee calculation for TUMF reflects a uniform fee per dwelling unit for two categories as described previously: single-family residential and multi-family residential. On September 28, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsome signed Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602) approving several changes to the Mitigation Fee Act, including the additional of §66016.5 to the California Government Code (CGC). CGC §66016.5(a)(5)(A) states “A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development.…” unless certain findings are made. These findings include:
“(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development project.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
(iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.”
To address these provisions of AB 602, WRCOG analyzed the trip generation characteristics of single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units of various sizes to determine whether the TUMF should be imposed based on the square footage of the respective housing type. The findings of the analyses for single-family and multi-family, respectively, were summarized in technical memoranda that are included in Appendix K. Based on the findings of the analyses, WRCOG has determined that the fee for single-family residential units should be adjusted in four tiers to correlate to the trip generation characteristics associated with various ranges of single-family housing sizes to demonstrate compliance with AB 602. The tiers reflecting the adjustments to the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 62 standard single-family residential fee per dwelling unit (as calculated in Table 6.1) for differing ranges of single-family dwelling unit sizes are summarized in Table 6.2.

Adjustments to the standard uniform fair-share single-family residential fee to account for variations in trip generation rates based on the size of the units will be made at the time of determining the fee obligation consistent with the process outlined further in the WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook.

Table 6.2 – Single-Family Residential Fee Adjustments by Unit Size Adjustment Tier Housing Unit Size Range (in square feet) Base Fee Adjustment Tier 1 Less than or equal to 1,800 80%
Tier 2 1,801 to 2,300 90%
Tier 3 2,301 to 2,700 100%
Tier 4 More than 2,700 125%
For multi-family residential units, WRCOG determined that the fee can be imposed on all multi-family units uniformly consistent with the conclusions of the analysis of multifamily trip generation rates by unit size, which demonstrated little variation in trip generation rates across the range of multi-family residential unit sizes. Therefore, the multi-family residential fee, as calculated in Table 6.2, can be applied uniformly to all multi-family residential units under the TUMF program.

6.2 Non-Residential Fees
The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $946.5 million. Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS socioeconomic data included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B. From the 2045 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee derived from four sources including: Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas (PBQD), Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Subarea Model Guidelines Manual, June 2001; SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001; and the County of Riverside, General Plan, as amended December 15, 2015. Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non-residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix L.

To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of nonresidential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation – 11th Edition (2021), and were weighted based on a calculated value of trips per employee as derived from the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 63 employee conversion factors and ITE typical trip generation rates per square foot of development, before being assigned to the non-residential categories as follows:

Industrial – 0.6 PM peak hour trips per employee, Retail – 1.8 PM peak hour trips per employee, Service – 1.2 PM peak hour trips per employee, and Government/Public –

2.1 PM peak hour trips per employee12. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new tripmaking, and the $946.5 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories based on the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate nonresidential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 - Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share
Non-Residential Sector Employment
Change
Trip
Generation
Rate per
Employee
Trip Change
Percentage
of Trip
Change
Change in
Square Feet of
Gross Floor
Area
Fee/SF
Industrial 76,581 0.6 45,949 15.1% 61,489,565 $2.33
Retail 13,115 1.8 23,607 7.8% 6,557,500 $11.21
Service 174,255 1.2 209,106 68.8% 66,735,957 $9.76
Government/Public 12,071 2.1 25,349 8.3% 3,420,665 $23.07 Total 276,022 304,011 100.0% 138,203,688
Employment Change data based on SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS; Trip Generation based on ITE (2021); Change in Square Feet conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990), OCTA (2001), SCAG (2001) and County of Riverside (2015). 12 The median trip generation rate for ‘Retail’ and ‘Service’ was reduced to reflect the influence of pass-by trips using the weekday PM peak median pass-by trip rate for select uses as derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) (September 2021).

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 64 7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the ongoing TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include:
 Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing because of future new development.
 Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways.  The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County.  Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development.
 Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program.
 Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel.

The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional “fair share” of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources.

Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development
Change Fee Per Unit Total Revenue ($ million)
Single Family Residential DU 167,491 $15,476 $2,592.0
Multi Family Residential DU 90,335 $7,816 $706.1
Industrial SF GFA 61,489,565 $2.33 $143.1
Retail SF GFA 6,557,500 $11.21 $73.5
Service SF GFA 66,735,957 $9.76 $651.1
Government/Public SF GFA 3,420,665 $23.07 $78.9
MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $4,244.6

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 65 8.0 APPENDICES
The following Appendices incorporate the extent of materials used to support the development of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study and, where appropriate, specifically the 2024 Update. The respective Appendices also incorporate an explanation of the methodology and assumptions used to develop the various elements of the Nexus Study.

These Appendices represent a compilation of materials derived from a variety of technical resources. Each of the following Appendices relate to the development of a specific element of the Nexus Study. These Appendices are as follows:

Appendix A - List of WRCOG Committees
Appendix B - Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth 2018 – 2045
Appendix C - Western Riverside County Traffic Growth 2018 – 2045 Appendix D - Western Riverside County Transit System Ridership 2018 – 2045 Appendix E - Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials Performance Measures
Appendix F - TUMF Network Cost Assumptions
Appendix G - TUMF 2024 Program Update Disposition of Network Change Requests Appendix H - TUMF Network Cost Estimate and Evaluation
Appendix I - Western Riverside County Regional Trip Distribution Appendix J - Western Riverside County Regional Trip Purpose Appendix K - Residential Fee Calculation
Appendix L - Non-Residential Fee Calculation

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 A-1
Appendix A - List of WRCOG Committees
WRCOG Executive Committee
Sheri Flynn City of Banning
Mike Lara City of Beaumont
Wendy Hewitt City of Calimesa
Mark Terry City of Canyon Lake
Jacque Casillas (2nd Vice-Chair) City of Corona
Christian Dinco City of Eastvale
Jackie Peterson City of Hemet
Chris Barajas (Past Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Brian Tisdale City of Lake Elsinore
Bob Karwin City of Menifee
Elena Baca-Santa Cruz City of Moreno Valley
Lisa DeForest City of Murrieta
Kevin Bash City of Norco
Rita Rogers (Chair) City of Perris
Chuck Conder City of Riverside
Crystal Ruiz City of San Jacinto
James Stewart City of Temecula
Joseph Morabito City of Wildomar
Kevin Jeffries County of Riverside Dist. 1
Karen Spiegel County of Riverside Dist. 2
Chuck Washington County of Riverside Dist. 3
Yxstian Gutierrez County of Riverside Dist. 5
Phil Paule Eastern Municipal Water District
Dr. Edwin Gomez Riverside County Superintendent of
Schools (ex-officio)
Brenda Dennstedt (Vice-Chair) Western Water

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 A-2
WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee
Doug Schulze City of Banning
Elizabeth Gibbs City of Beaumont
Will Kolbow City of Calimesa
Aaron Brown City of Canyon Lake
Brett Channing City of Corona
Mark Orme City of Eastvale
Mark Prestwich City of Hemet
Rod Butler (Past Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Jason Simpson City of Lake Elsinore
Armando Villa City of Menifee
Mike Lee City of Moreno Valley
Kim Summers City of Murrieta
Lori Sassoon City of Norco
Clara Miramontes (Chair) City of Perris
Mike Futrell City of Riverside
Rob Johnson City of San Jacinto
Aaron Adams City of Temecula
Dan York City of Wildomar
Jeff Van Wagenen County of Riverside
Joe Mouawad Eastern Municipal Water District
Grace Martin March Joint Power Authority
Matt Snellings Riverside County Office of Education
Craig Miller Western Water

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 A-3
WRCOG Planning Directors’ Committee
no new appointment made (as of 07/24/24) City of Banning Carole Kendrick City of Beaumont
Kelly Lucia City of Calimesa
Jim Morrisey City of Canyon Lake
Joanne Coletta City of Corona
David Murray City of Eastvale
Monique Alaniz-Flejter City of Hemet
Joe Perez (Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Damaris Abraham City of Lake Elsinore
Cheryl Kitzerow City of Menifee
Sean Kelleher (2nd Vice-Chair) City of Moreno Valley
David Chantarangsu City of Murrieta
Alma Robles City of Norco
Kenneth Phung (Vice-Chair) City of Perris
Judy Eguez City of Riverside
Travis Randel City of San Jacinto
Matt Peters City of Temecula
Matthew Bassi City of Wildomar
John Hildebrand County of Riverside
Jeffrey Smith March Joint Powers Authority
Jennifer Nguyen Riverside Transit Agency
Ryan Shaw Western Water

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 A-4
WRCOG Public Works Committee
Art Vela City of Banning
Robert Vestal City of Beaumont
Michael Thornton City of Calimesa
Stuart McKibben City of Canyon Lake
Savat Khamphou (Vice-Chair) City of Corona
Jimmy Chung City of Eastvale
Noah Rau City of Hemet
Paul Toor (Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Remon Habib City of Lake Elsinore
Nick Fidler City of Menifee
Melissa Walker City of Moreno Valley
Bob Moehling City of Murrieta
Sam Nelson City of Norco
John Pourkazemi City of Perris
Gil Hernandez City of Riverside
Stuart McKibbin (Vice-Chair) City of San Jacinto
Patrick Thomas City of Temecula
Jason Farag City of Wildomar
Patricia Romo County of Riverside
Lauren Sotelo March Joint Powers Authority
Jillian Guizado Riverside County Transportation Commission Mauricio Alvarez Riverside Transit Agency

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 A-5
WRCOG Finance Directors’ Committee
Lincoln Bogard City of Banning
Jennifer Ustation City of Beaumont
Celeste Reid City of Calimesa
Terry Shea City of Canyon Lake
Kim Sitton City of Corona
Amanda Wells City of Eastvale
vacant City of Hemet
June Overholt City of Jurupa Valley
Shannon Buckley City of Lake Elsinore
Travis Hickey City of Menifee
Launa Jimenez City of Moreno Valley
Javier Carcamo (Past Chair) City of Murrieta
Lisette Free City of Norco
Ernie Reyna (Chair) City of Perris
Kristie Thomas City of Riverside
Erika Gomez (2nd Vice-Chair) City of San Jacinto
Jennifer Hennessy City of Temecula
Adam Jantz City of Wildomar
Vacant County of Riverside
John Adams Eastern Municipal Water District
Grace Martin March Joint Power Authority
Dr. Ruth Perez Riverside County Office of Education
Kevin Mascaro Western Water

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9. 2024 B-1
Appendix B - Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth 2008 – 2035 Although a variety of alternate demographic information is available for the purpose of quantifying population and household growth in Western Riverside County, it was determined that the data developed by SCAG to support the 2020 RTP/SCS represented the most comprehensive source of socioeconomic data (SED) for the sixcounty SCAG region that includes Riverside County. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED information is disaggregated to the level of traffic analysis zones (TAZ) that comprise inputs to RivCoM. These SED data by TAZ were extracted from RivCoM (specifically the TAZ_Data.CSV file located in the PopSyn output folder) and aggregated to correspond with the TUMF zones to support this update of the TUMF Nexus. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED data retrieved from RivCoM and used as the basis for the Nexus Update is summarized in this Appendix.

The SCAG employment data for 2018 and 2045 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including: Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the SCAG Employment Categories were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. This Appendix includes tables detailing the SCAG RTP/SCS SED Employment Categories and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each nonresidential sector type.

EXHIBIT B-1
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Base Year SED Type/Zone Central Northwest Pass San Jacinto Southwest Total Total Population 408,260 777,900 98,688 187,677 432,915 1,905,440 Single-Family 83,142 152,897 24,937 38,888 97,543 397,407 Multi-Family 26,889 63,591 8,661 26,055 31,970 157,166
Total Households 110,031 216,488 33,598 64,943 129,513 554,573 Farming, Natural Resources and Mining 799 3,431 559 1,625 2,080 8,494 Construction 6,245 31,914 1,807 2,067 13,290 55,323
Manufacturing 4,172 25,866 1,101 925 8,902 40,966
Wholesale Trade 8,428 9,269 268 546 6,490 25,001
Retail Trade 13,346 32,061 5,472 4,564 18,371 73,814
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 7,349 22,686 1,132 2,132 6,251 39,550 Information 425 2,073 496 177 863 4,034
Financial Activities 1,887 8,632 586 1,003 5,414 17,522 Professional and Business Service 7,834 32,973 3,434 1,630 13,532 59,403 Education and Health Service 20,423 76,884 6,092 13,659 29,192 146,250 Leisure and Hospitality 8,391 21,990 7,207 3,726 18,270 59,584 Other Service 2,834 10,603 1,244 1,891 5,338 21,910
Government 2,579 11,727 871 761 2,631 18,569
TUMF Industrial 26,993 93,166 4,867 7,295 37,013 169,334 TUMF Retail 13,346 32,061 5,472 4,564 18,371 73,814
TUMF Service 41,794 153,155 19,059 22,086 72,609 308,703 TUMF Government/Public Sector 2,579 11,727 871 761 2,631 18,569 Total Employment 84,712 290,109 30,269 34,706 130,624 570,420 Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Population
Households
Employment

EXHIBIT B-2
Western Riverside County Population, Households & Employment (2045) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Horizon Year SED Type/Zone Central Northwest Pass San Jacinto Southwest Total Total Population 594,678 925,228 158,040 289,439 566,491 2,533,876 Single-Family 133,507 181,827 43,988 70,713 134,863 564,898 Multi-Family 53,555 79,359 14,362 43,654 56,571 247,501 Total Households 187,062 261,186 58,350 114,367 191,434 812,399 Farming, Natural Resources and Mining 712 2,212 527 1,218 2,001 6,670 Construction 18,304 48,533 3,186 5,861 20,236 96,120
Manufacturing 6,836 24,624 1,393 1,149 10,335 44,337
Wholesale Trade 6,150 9,048 324 559 6,529 22,610
Retail Trade 16,310 33,656 7,136 6,338 23,489 86,929
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 18,227 38,043 2,705 4,771 12,432 76,178 Information 642 2,166 476 191 1,116 4,591
Financial Activities 2,906 9,889 1,229 1,536 6,665 22,225 Professional and Business Service 14,214 41,712 6,016 4,518 21,058 87,518 Education and Health Service 52,764 111,454 13,803 25,739 51,118 254,878 Leisure and Hospitality 13,197 27,739 10,540 8,424 24,641 84,541 Other Service 5,148 13,062 1,532 2,838 6,625 29,205
Government 6,229 18,222 1,176 1,471 3,542 30,640
TUMF Industrial 50,229 122,460 8,135 13,558 51,533 245,915 TUMF Retail 16,310 33,656 7,136 6,338 23,489 86,929
TUMF Service 88,871 206,022 33,596 43,246 111,223 482,958 TUMF Government/Public Sector 6,229 18,222 1,176 1,471 3,542 30,640 Total Employment 161,639 380,360 50,043 64,613 189,787 846,442 Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Population
Households
Employment

EXHIBIT B-3
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018 to 2045 Change) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED Type/Zone Central Northwest Pass San Jacinto Southwest Total Total Population 186,418 147,328 59,352 101,762 133,576 628,436 Single-Family 50,365 28,930 19,051 31,825 37,320 167,491 Multi-Family 26,666 15,768 5,701 17,599 24,601 90,335
Total Households 77,031 44,698 24,752 49,424 61,921 257,826 Farming, Natural Resources and Mining -87 -1,219 -32 -407 -79 -1,824 Construction 12,059 16,619 1,379 3,794 6,946 40,797
Manufacturing 2,664 -1,242 292 224 1,433 3,371
Wholesale Trade -2,278 -221 56 13 39 -2,391
Retail Trade 2,964 1,595 1,664 1,774 5,118 13,115
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 10,878 15,357 1,573 2,639 6,181 36,628 Information 217 93 -20 14 253 557
Financial Activities 1,019 1,257 643 533 1,251 4,703
Professional and Business Service 6,380 8,739 2,582 2,888 7,526 28,115 Education and Health Service 32,341 34,570 7,711 12,080 21,926 108,628 Leisure and Hospitality 4,806 5,749 3,333 4,698 6,371 24,957 Other Service 2,314 2,459 288 947 1,287 7,295
Government 3,650 6,495 305 710 911 12,071
TUMF Industrial 23,236 29,294 3,268 6,263 14,520 76,581 TUMF Retail 2,964 1,595 1,664 1,774 5,118 13,115
TUMF Service 47,077 52,867 14,537 21,160 38,614 174,255 TUMF Government/Public Sector 3,650 6,495 305 710 911 12,071 Total Employment 76,927 90,251 19,774 29,907 59,163 276,022 Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Population
Households
Employment

Exhibit B-4a - TUMF 2024 Nexus Update
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018-2045) SED Type/Zone 2018 2045 Change Percent
Total Population 1,905,440 2,533,876 628,436 33%
Total Households 554,573 812,399 257,826 46%
Single-Family 397,407 564,898 167,491 42%
Multi-Family 157,166 247,501 90,335 57%
Total Employment 570,420 846,442 276,022 48%
TUMF Industrial 169,334 245,915 76,581 45%
TUMF Retail 73,814 86,929 13,115 18%
TUMF Service 308,703 482,958 174,255 56%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 18,569 30,640 12,071 65%
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Exhibit B-4b - TUMF 2016 Nexus Update
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2012-2040) SED Type/Zone 2012 2040 Change Percent
Total Population 1,773,935 2,429,633 655,698 37%
Total Households 525,149 775,231 250,082 48%
Single-Family 366,588 539,631 173,043 47%
Multi-Family 158,561 235,600 77,039 49%
Total Employment 460,787 861,455 400,668 87%
TUMF Industrial 120,736 201,328 80,592 67%
TUMF Retail 65,888 101,729 35,841 54%
TUMF Service 253,372 528,092 274,720 108%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 20,791 30,306 9,515 46%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS

Exhibit B-4c - TUMF 2016 Nexus Update to 2024 Nexus Update Comparison Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (Existing to Future Change) SED Type/Zone 2016 Update
(2012-2040)
2024 Update
(2018-2045) Difference Percent
Total Population 655,698 628,436 -27,262 -4%
Total Households 250,082 257,826 7,744 3%
Single-Family 173,043 167,491 -5,552 -3%
Multi-Family 77,039 90,335 13,296 17%
Total Employment 400,668 276,022 -124,646 -31%
TUMF Industrial 80,592 76,581 -4,011 -5%
TUMF Retail 35,841 13,115 -22,726 -63%
TUMF Service 274,720 174,255 -100,465 -37%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 9,515 12,071 2,556 27%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 B-7
EXHIBIT B-4d
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment Change (2012 to 2040 and 2018 to 2045) TUMF 2016 Nexus Update Comparison to TUMF 2024 Nexus Update Sources:

Year 2012 to Year 2040 Growth (2016 Nexus Update): SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; WSP, April 2016 Year 2018 to Year 2045 Growth (2024 Nexus Update): SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 B-8
EXHIBIT B-4e
Difference in Population, Households and Employment Growth in Western Riverside County TUMF 2016 Nexus Update Comparison to TUMF 2024 Nexus Update Source:

Year 2012 to Year 2040 Growth (2016 Nexus Update): SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; WSP, April 2016 Year 2018 to Year 2045 Growth (2024 Nexus Update): SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

EXHIBIT B-5a
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence Summary SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title Industrial
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
111 Crop Production
112 Animal Production and Aquaculture
113 Forestry and Logging
114 Fishing, Hunting and Trapping
115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry
21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
211 Oil and Gas Extraction
212 Mining (except Oil and Gas)
213 Support Activities for Mining
Construction
23 Construction
236 Construction of Buildings
237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
238 Specialty Trade Contractors
Manufacturing
31-33 Manufacturing
311 Food Manufacturing
312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing
313 Textile Mills
314 Textile Product Mills
315 Apparel Manufacturing
316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
321 Wood Product Manufacturing
322 Paper Manufacturing
323 Printing and Related Support Activities
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325 Chemical Manufacturing
326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
333 Machinery Manufacturing
334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing 337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
42 Wholesale Trade
423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods
424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods
425 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
22 Utilities
221 Utilities
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing
481 Air Transportation
482 Rail Transportation
483 Water Transportation
484 Truck Transportation
485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
486 Pipeline Transportation
487 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation
488 Support Activities for Transportation
491 Postal Service
492 Couriers and Messengers
493 Warehousing and Storage
Retail
Retail Trade
44-45 Retail Trade
441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
444 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 445 Food and Beverage Retailers
449 Furniture, Home Furnishings, Electronics, and Appliance Retailers 455 General Merchandise Retailers
456 Health and Personal Care Retailers
457 Gasoline Stations and Fuel Dealers
458 Clothing, Clothing Accessories, Shoe, and Jewelry Retailers 459 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, Book, and Miscellaneous Retailers TUMF Category

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence Summary SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category Service
Information
51 Information
512 Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries
513 Publishing Industries
516 Broadcasting and Content Providers
517 Telecommunications
518 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services 519 Web Search Portals, Libraries, Archives, and Other Information Services Financial Activities
52 Finance and Insurance
521 Monetary Authorities-Central Bank
522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities
523 Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities 524 Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
525 Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
531 Real Estate
532 Rental and Leasing Services
533 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works) Professional and Business Services
54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
55 Management of Companies and Enterprises
551 Management of Companies and Enterprises
56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 561 Administrative and Support Services
562 Waste Management and Remediation Services
Education and Health Services
61 Educational Services
611 Educational Services
62 Health Care and Social Assistance
621 Ambulatory Health Care Services
622 Hospitals
623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities
624 Social Assistance
Leisure and Hospitality
71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
711 Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries 712 Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions 713 Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries
72 Accommodation and Food Services
721 Accommodation
722 Food Services and Drinking Places
Other Service
81 Other Services (except Public Administration)
811 Repair and Maintenance
812 Personal and Laundry Services
813 Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations 814 Private Households
Government/Public Sector
Government
92 Public Administration
921 Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support 922 Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
923 Administration of Human Resource Programs
924 Administration of Environmental Quality Programs
925 Administration of Housing Programs, Urban Planning, and Community Development 926 Administration of Economic Programs
927 Space Research and Technology
928 National Security and International Affairs
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
California Employment Development Department (EDD)
US Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 2022

EXHIBIT B-5b
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title Industrial
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
111 Crop Production
111110 Soybean Farming
111120 Oilseed (except Soybean) Farming
111130 Dry Pea and Bean Farming
111140 Wheat Farming
111150 Corn Farming
111160 Rice Farming
111191 Oilseed and Grain Combination Farming
111199 All Other Grain Farming
111211 Potato Farming
111219 Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming 111310 Orange Groves
111320 Citrus (except Orange) Groves
111331 Apple Orchards
111332 Grape Vineyards
111333 Strawberry Farming
111334 Berry (except Strawberry) Farming
111335 Tree Nut Farming
111336 Fruit and Tree Nut Combination Farming
111339 Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming
111411 Mushroom Production
111419 Other Food Crops Grown Under Cover
111421 Nursery and Tree Production
111422 Floriculture Production
111910 Tobacco Farming
111920 Cotton Farming
111930 Sugarcane Farming
111940 Hay Farming
111991 Sugar Beet Farming
111992 Peanut Farming
111998 All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming
112 Animal Production and Aquaculture
112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming
112112 Cattle Feedlots
112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production
112130 Dual-Purpose Cattle Ranching and Farming
112210 Hog and Pig Farming
112310 Chicken Egg Production
112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production
112330 Turkey Production
112340 Poultry Hatcheries
112390 Other Poultry Production
112410 Sheep Farming
112420 Goat Farming
112511 Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries
112512 Shellfish Farming
112519 Other Aquaculture
112910 Apiculture
112920 Horses and Other Equine Production
112930 Fur-Bearing Animal and Rabbit Production
112990 All Other Animal Production
113 Forestry and Logging
113110 Timber Tract Operations
113210 Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products 113310 Logging
114 Fishing, Hunting and Trapping
114111 Finfish Fishing
114112 Shellfish Fishing
114119 Other Marine Fishing
114210 Hunting and Trapping
115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry
115111 Cotton Ginning
115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating
115113 Crop Harvesting, Primarily by Machine
115114 Postharvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning) 115115 Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders
115116 Farm Management Services
115210 Support Activities for Animal Production
115310 Support Activities for Forestry
21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
211 Oil and Gas Extraction
211120 Crude Petroleum Extraction
211130 Natural Gas Extraction
212 Mining (except Oil and Gas)
212114 Surface Coal Mining
212115 Underground Coal Mining
212210 Iron Ore Mining
212220 Gold Ore and Silver Ore Mining
212230 Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining
212290 Other Metal Ore Mining
212311 Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying
212312 Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying 212313 Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying
212319 Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying 212321 Construction Sand and Gravel Mining
212322 Industrial Sand Mining
212323 Kaolin, Clay, and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining 212390 Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying
213 Support Activities for Mining
213111 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells
213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations
213113 Support Activities for Coal Mining
213114 Support Activities for Metal Mining
213115 Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels) Mining TUMF Category

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Construction
23 Construction
236 Construction of Buildings
236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction (except For-Sale Builders) 236116 New Multifamily Housing Construction (except For-Sale Builders) 236117 New Housing For-Sale Builders
236118 Residential Remodelers
236210 Industrial Building Construction
236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction 237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 237210 Land Subdivision
237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction
237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
238 Specialty Trade Contractors
238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors 238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors 238130 Framing Contractors
238140 Masonry Contractors
238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors
238160 Roofing Contractors
238170 Siding Contractors
238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors 238210 Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors 238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors 238290 Other Building Equipment Contractors
238310 Drywall and Insulation Contractors
238320 Painting and Wall Covering Contractors
238330 Flooring Contractors
238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors
238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors
238390 Other Building Finishing Contractors
238910 Site Preparation Contractors
238990 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors
Manufacturing
31-33 Manufacturing
311 Food Manufacturing
311111 Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing
311119 Other Animal Food Manufacturing
311211 Flour Milling
311212 Rice Milling
311213 Malt Manufacturing
311221 Wet Corn Milling and Starch Manufacturing
311224 Soybean and Other Oilseed Processing
311225 Fats and Oils Refining and Blending
311230 Breakfast Cereal Manufacturing
311313 Beet Sugar Manufacturing
311314 Cane Sugar Manufacturing
311340 Nonchocolate Confectionery Manufacturing
311351 Chocolate and Confectionery Manufacturing from Cacao Beans 311352 Confectionery Manufacturing from Purchased Chocolate 311411 Frozen Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable Manufacturing 311412 Frozen Specialty Food Manufacturing
311421 Fruit and Vegetable Canning
311422 Specialty Canning
311423 Dried and Dehydrated Food Manufacturing
311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing
311512 Creamery Butter Manufacturing
311513 Cheese Manufacturing
311514 Dry, Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy Product Manufacturing 311520 Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing
311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering
311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses
311613 Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing
311615 Poultry Processing
311710 Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging
311811 Retail Bakeries
311812 Commercial Bakeries
311813 Frozen Cakes, Pies, and Other Pastries Manufacturing 311821 Cookie and Cracker Manufacturing
311824 Dry Pasta, Dough, and Flour Mixes Manufacturing from Purchased Flour 311830 Tortilla Manufacturing
311911 Roasted Nuts and Peanut Butter Manufacturing
311919 Other Snack Food Manufacturing
311920 Coffee and Tea Manufacturing
311930 Flavoring Syrup and Concentrate Manufacturing
311941 Mayonnaise, Dressing, and Other Prepared Sauce Manufacturing 311942 Spice and Extract Manufacturing
311991 Perishable Prepared Food Manufacturing
311999 All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing
312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing
312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing
312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing
312113 Ice Manufacturing
312120 Breweries
312130 Wineries
312140 Distilleries
312230 Tobacco Manufacturing
313 Textile Mills
313110 Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills
313210 Broadwoven Fabric Mills
313220 Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery 313230 Nonwoven Fabric Mills
313240 Knit Fabric Mills
313310 Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills
313320 Fabric Coating Mills
314 Textile Product Mills
314110 Carpet and Rug Mills
314120 Curtain and Linen Mills
314910 Textile Bag and Canvas Mills
314994 Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills 314999 All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills
315 Apparel Manufacturing
315120 Apparel Knitting Mills
315210 Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors
315250 Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing (except Contractors) 315990 Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing 316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
316110 Leather and Hide Tanning and Finishing
316210 Footwear Manufacturing
316990 Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
321 Wood Product Manufacturing
321113 Sawmills
321114 Wood Preservation
321211 Hardwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing
321212 Softwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing
321215 Engineered Wood Member Manufacturing
321219 Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing
321911 Wood Window and Door Manufacturing
321912 Cut Stock, Resawing Lumber, and Planing
321918 Other Millwork (including Flooring)
321920 Wood Container and Pallet Manufacturing
321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing
321992 Prefabricated Wood Building Manufacturing
321999 All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product Manufacturing 322 Paper Manufacturing
322110 Pulp Mills
322120 Paper Mills
322130 Paperboard Mills
322211 Corrugated and Solid Fiber Box Manufacturing
322212 Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing
322219 Other Paperboard Container Manufacturing
322220 Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Paper Manufacturing 322230 Stationery Product Manufacturing
322291 Sanitary Paper Product Manufacturing
322299 All Other Converted Paper Product Manufacturing
323 Printing and Related Support Activities
323111 Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books)
323113 Commercial Screen Printing
323117 Books Printing
323120 Support Activities for Printing
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
324110 Petroleum Refineries
324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
324122 Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing 324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing 324199 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 325 Chemical Manufacturing
325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing
325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing
325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
325194 Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325220 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing 325311 Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
325312 Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314 Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
325315 Compost Manufacturing
325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520 Adhesive Manufacturing
325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325920 Explosives Manufacturing
325991 Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, Chemical, and Copy Toner Manufacturing 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
326111 Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing 326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing 326121 Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing 326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
326130 Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing 326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 326160 Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
326191 Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
326211 Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
326212 Tire Retreading
326220 Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing 326291 Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing 327120 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing 327211 Flat Glass Manufacturing
327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing 327213 Glass Container Manufacturing
327215 Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass 327310 Cement Manufacturing
327320 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331 Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
327410 Lime Manufacturing
327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing
327910 Abrasive Product Manufacturing
327991 Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing 327993 Mineral Wool Manufacturing
327999 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing
331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing 331210 Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel 331221 Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
331222 Steel Wire Drawing
331313 Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production 331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
331315 Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
331318 Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
331410 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining 331420 Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying 331491 Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding 331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) 331511 Iron Foundries
331512 Steel Investment Foundries
331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment)
331523 Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
331529 Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting) 332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
332111 Iron and Steel Forging
332112 Nonferrous Forging
332114 Custom Roll Forming
332117 Powder Metallurgy Part Manufacturing
332119 Metal Crown, Closure, and Other Metal Stamping (except Automotive) 332215 Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil, Cutlery, and Flatware (except Precious) Manufacturing 332216 Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing
332311 Prefabricated Metal Building and Component Manufacturing 332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing
332313 Plate Work Manufacturing
332321 Metal Window and Door Manufacturing
332322 Sheet Metal Work Manufacturing
332323 Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing 332410 Power Boiler and Heat Exchanger Manufacturing
332420 Metal Tank (Heavy Gauge) Manufacturing
332431 Metal Can Manufacturing
332439 Other Metal Container Manufacturing
332510 Hardware Manufacturing
332613 Spring Manufacturing
332618 Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing
332710 Machine Shops
332721 Precision Turned Product Manufacturing
332722 Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing 332811 Metal Heat Treating
332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers 332813 Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring 332911 Industrial Valve Manufacturing
332912 Fluid Power Valve and Hose Fitting Manufacturing 332913 Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim Manufacturing
332919 Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing 332991 Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturing
332992 Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing
332993 Ammunition (except Small Arms) Manufacturing
332994 Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing 332996 Fabricated Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 333 Machinery Manufacturing
333111 Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333112 Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment Manufacturing 333120 Construction Machinery Manufacturing
333131 Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333132 Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 333241 Food Product Machinery Manufacturing
333242 Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing
333243 Sawmill, Woodworking, and Paper Machinery Manufacturing 333248 All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
333310 Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing 333413 Industrial and Commercial Fan and Blower and Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing 333414 Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing 333415 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing 333511 Industrial Mold Manufacturing
333514 Special Die and Tool, Die Set, Jig, and Fixture Manufacturing 333515 Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Manufacturing 333517 Machine Tool Manufacturing
333519 Rolling Mill and Other Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing 333611 Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units Manufacturing 333612 Speed Changer, Industrial High-Speed Drive, and Gear Manufacturing 333613 Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing 333618 Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing
333912 Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing
333914 Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing 333921 Elevator and Moving Stairway Manufacturing
333922 Conveyor and Conveying Equipment Manufacturing
333923 Overhead Traveling Crane, Hoist, and Monorail System Manufacturing 333924 Industrial Truck, Tractor, Trailer, and Stacker Machinery Manufacturing 333991 Power-Driven Handtool Manufacturing
333992 Welding and Soldering Equipment Manufacturing
333993 Packaging Machinery Manufacturing
333994 Industrial Process Furnace and Oven Manufacturing 333995 Fluid Power Cylinder and Actuator Manufacturing
333996 Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing
333998 All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing 334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing
334112 Computer Storage Device Manufacturing
334118 Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing 334290 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
334310 Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing
334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing
334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing
334416 Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing 334417 Electronic Connector Manufacturing
334418 Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing 334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
334510 Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing 334511 Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing 334512 Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use 334513 Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial Process Variables 334514 Totalizing Fluid Meter and Counting Device Manufacturing 334515 Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals 334516 Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing
334517 Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing
334519 Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing 334610 Manufacturing and Reproducing Magnetic and Optical Media

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing 335131 Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing 335132 Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing 335139 Electric Lamp Bulb and Other Lighting Equipment Manufacturing 335210 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing
335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing
335311 Power, Distribution, and Specialty Transformer Manufacturing 335312 Motor and Generator Manufacturing
335313 Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing 335314 Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing
335910 Battery Manufacturing
335921 Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing
335929 Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing 335931 Current-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing
335932 Noncurrent-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing
335991 Carbon and Graphite Product Manufacturing
335999 All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
336110 Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing 336120 Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing
336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing
336212 Truck Trailer Manufacturing
336213 Motor Home Manufacturing
336214 Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing
336310 Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 336320 Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing 336330 Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components (except Spring) Manufacturing 336340 Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing
336350 Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing 336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 336370 Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping
336390 Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
336411 Aircraft Manufacturing
336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing 336414 Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
336415 Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and Propulsion Unit Parts Manufacturing 336419 Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing 336510 Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing
336611 Ship Building and Repairing
336612 Boat Building
336991 Motorcycle, Bicycle, and Parts Manufacturing
336992 Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing 336999 All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing
337110 Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing 337121 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing
337122 Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing 337126 Household Furniture (except Wood and Upholstered) Manufacturing 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing
337211 Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing
337212 Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing 337214 Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing
337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing 337910 Mattress Manufacturing
337920 Blind and Shade Manufacturing
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
339115 Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
339116 Dental Laboratories
339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
339920 Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
339930 Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
339940 Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
339950 Sign Manufacturing
339991 Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing 339992 Musical Instrument Manufacturing
339993 Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
339994 Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
339995 Burial Casket Manufacturing
339999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
42 Wholesale Trade
423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods
423110 Automobile and Other Motor Vehicle Merchant Wholesalers 423120 Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers 423130 Tire and Tube Merchant Wholesalers
423140 Motor Vehicle Parts (Used) Merchant Wholesalers
423210 Furniture Merchant Wholesalers
423220 Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers
423310 Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers 423320 Brick, Stone, and Related Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers 423330 Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material Merchant Wholesalers 423390 Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers 423410 Photographic Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423420 Office Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423430 Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers 423440 Other Commercial Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423450 Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423460 Ophthalmic Goods Merchant Wholesalers
423490 Other Professional Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423510 Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers 423520 Coal and Other Mineral and Ore Merchant Wholesalers 423610 Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers 423690 Other Electronic Parts and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423710 Hardware Merchant Wholesalers
423720 Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers 423730 Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423810 Construction and Mining (except Oil Well) Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423820 Farm and Garden Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423830 Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423840 Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423850 Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423860 Transportation Equipment and Supplies (except Motor Vehicle) Merchant Wholesalers 423910 Sporting and Recreational Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423920 Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423930 Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers
423940 Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers 423990 Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods
424110 Printing and Writing Paper Merchant Wholesalers
424120 Stationery and Office Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 424130 Industrial and Personal Service Paper Merchant Wholesalers 424210 Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers 424310 Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers 424340 Footwear Merchant Wholesalers
424350 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Merchant Wholesalers 424410 General Line Grocery Merchant Wholesalers
424420 Packaged Frozen Food Merchant Wholesalers
424430 Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned) Merchant Wholesalers 424440 Poultry and Poultry Product Merchant Wholesalers 424450 Confectionery Merchant Wholesalers
424460 Fish and Seafood Merchant Wholesalers
424470 Meat and Meat Product Merchant Wholesalers
424480 Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers
424490 Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholesalers 424510 Grain and Field Bean Merchant Wholesalers
424520 Livestock Merchant Wholesalers
424590 Other Farm Product Raw Material Merchant Wholesalers 424610 Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers 424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
424720 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals) 424810 Beer and Ale Merchant Wholesalers
424820 Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Merchant Wholesalers 424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424920 Book, Periodical, and Newspaper Merchant Wholesalers 424930 Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florists' Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 424940 Tobacco Product and Electronic Cigarette Merchant Wholesalers 424950 Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 424990 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers 425 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
425120 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
22 Utilities
221 Utilities
221111 Hydroelectric Power Generation
221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation
221113 Nuclear Electric Power Generation
221114 Solar Electric Power Generation
221115 Wind Electric Power Generation
221116 Geothermal Electric Power Generation
221117 Biomass Electric Power Generation
221118 Other Electric Power Generation
221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control
221122 Electric Power Distribution
221210 Natural Gas Distribution
221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems
221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities
221330 Steam and Air-Conditioning Supply
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing
481 Air Transportation
481111 Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation
481112 Scheduled Freight Air Transportation
481211 Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation 481212 Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation 481219 Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation
482 Rail Transportation
482111 Line-Haul Railroads
482112 Short Line Railroads
483 Water Transportation
483111 Deep Sea Freight Transportation
483112 Deep Sea Passenger Transportation
483113 Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation
483114 Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation 483211 Inland Water Freight Transportation
483212 Inland Water Passenger Transportation
484 Truck Transportation
484110 General Freight Trucking, Local
484121 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Truckload 484122 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Less Than Truckload 484210 Used Household and Office Goods Moving
484220 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local 484230 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Long-Distance 485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
485111 Mixed Mode Transit Systems
485112 Commuter Rail Systems
485113 Bus and Other Motor Vehicle Transit Systems
485119 Other Urban Transit Systems
485210 Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
485310 Taxi and Ridesharing Services
485320 Limousine Service
485410 School and Employee Bus Transportation
485510 Charter Bus Industry
485991 Special Needs Transportation
485999 All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation 486 Pipeline Transportation
486110 Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil
486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas
486910 Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products 486990 All Other Pipeline Transportation
487 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation
487110 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land
487210 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water
487990 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Other
488 Support Activities for Transportation
488111 Air Traffic Control
488119 Other Airport Operations
488190 Other Support Activities for Air Transportation
488210 Support Activities for Rail Transportation
488310 Port and Harbor Operations
488320 Marine Cargo Handling
488330 Navigational Services to Shipping
488390 Other Support Activities for Water Transportation 488410 Motor Vehicle Towing
488490 Other Support Activities for Road Transportation 488510 Freight Transportation Arrangement
488991 Packing and Crating
488999 All Other Support Activities for Transportation
491 Postal Service
491110 Postal Service
492 Couriers and Messengers
492110 Couriers and Express Delivery Services
492210 Local Messengers and Local Delivery
493 Warehousing and Storage
493110 General Warehousing and Storage
493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
493130 Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
493190 Other Warehousing and Storage

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Retail
Retail Trade
44-45 Retail Trade
441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
441110 New Car Dealers
441120 Used Car Dealers
441210 Recreational Vehicle Dealers
441222 Boat Dealers
441227 Motorcycle, ATV, and All Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 441330 Automotive Parts and Accessories Retailers
441340 Tire Dealers
444 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 444110 Home Centers
444120 Paint and Wallpaper Retailers
444140 Hardware Retailers
444180 Other Building Material Dealers
444230 Outdoor Power Equipment Retailers
444240 Nursery, Garden Center, and Farm Supply Retailers 445 Food and Beverage Retailers
445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery Retailers (except Convenience Retailers) 445131 Convenience Retailers
445132 Vending Machine Operators
445230 Fruit and Vegetable Retailers
445240 Meat Retailers
445250 Fish and Seafood Retailers
445291 Baked Goods Retailers
445292 Confectionery and Nut Retailers
445298 All Other Specialty Food Retailers
445320 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Retailers
449 Furniture, Home Furnishings, Electronics, and Appliance Retailers 449110 Furniture Retailers
449121 Floor Covering Retailers
449122 Window Treatment Retailers
449129 All Other Home Furnishings Retailers
449210 Electronics and Appliance Retailers
455 General Merchandise Retailers
455110 Department Stores
455211 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
455219 All Other General Merchandise Retailers
456 Health and Personal Care Retailers
456110 Pharmacies and Drug Retailers
456120 Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies, and Perfume Retailers 456130 Optical Goods Retailers
456191 Food (Health) Supplement Retailers
456199 All Other Health and Personal Care Retailers
457 Gasoline Stations and Fuel Dealers
457110 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores
457120 Other Gasoline Stations
457210 Fuel Dealers
458 Clothing, Clothing Accessories, Shoe, and Jewelry Retailers 458110 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Retailers
458210 Shoe Retailers
458310 Jewelry Retailers
458320 Luggage and Leather Goods Retailers
459 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, Book, and Miscellaneous Retailers 459110 Sporting Goods Retailers
459120 Hobby, Toy, and Game Retailers
459130 Sewing, Needlework, and Piece Goods Retailers
459140 Musical Instrument and Supplies Retailers
459210 Book Retailers and News Dealers
459310 Florists
459410 Office Supplies and Stationery Retailers
459420 Gift, Novelty, and Souvenir Retailers
459510 Used Merchandise Retailers
459910 Pet and Pet Supplies Retailers
459920 Art Dealers
459930 Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers
459991 Tobacco, Electronic Cigarette, and Other Smoking Supplies Retailers 459999 All Other Miscellaneous Retailers

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Service
Information
51 Information
512 Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries
512110 Motion Picture and Video Production
512120 Motion Picture and Video Distribution
512131 Motion Picture Theaters (except Drive-Ins)
512132 Drive-In Motion Picture Theaters
512191 Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services 512199 Other Motion Picture and Video Industries
512230 Music Publishers
512240 Sound Recording Studios
512250 Record Production and Distribution
512290 Other Sound Recording Industries
513 Publishing Industries
513110 Newspaper Publishers
513120 Periodical Publishers
513130 Book Publishers
513140 Directory and Mailing List Publishers
513191 Greeting Card Publishers
513199 All Other Publishers
513210 Software Publishers
516 Broadcasting and Content Providers
516110 Radio Broadcasting Stations
516120 Television Broadcasting Stations
516210 Media Streaming Distribution Services, Social Networks, and Other Media Networks and Content Providers 517 Telecommunications
517111 Wired Telecommunications Carriers
517112 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) 517121 Telecommunications Resellers
517122 Agents for Wireless Telecommunications Services
517410 Satellite Telecommunications
517810 All Other Telecommunications
518 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services 518210 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services 519 Web Search Portals, Libraries, Archives, and Other Information Services 519210 Libraries and Archives
519290 Web Search Portals and All Other Information Services Financial Activities
52 Finance and Insurance
521 Monetary Authorities-Central Bank
521110 Monetary Authorities-Central Bank
522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities
522110 Commercial Banking
522130 Credit Unions
522180 Savings Institutions and Other Depository Credit Intermediation 522210 Credit Card Issuing
522220 Sales Financing
522291 Consumer Lending
522292 Real Estate Credit
522299 International, Secondary Market, and All Other Nondepository Credit Intermediation 522310 Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan Brokers
522320 Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearinghouse Activities 522390 Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation 523 Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities 523150 Investment Banking and Securities Intermediation 523160 Commodity Contracts Intermediation
523210 Securities and Commodity Exchanges
523910 Miscellaneous Intermediation
523940 Portfolio Management and Investment Advice
523991 Trust, Fiduciary, and Custody Activities
523999 Miscellaneous Financial Investment Activities
524 Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
524113 Direct Life Insurance Carriers
524114 Direct Health and Medical Insurance Carriers
524126 Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Carriers
524127 Direct Title Insurance Carriers
524128 Other Direct Insurance (except Life, Health, and Medical) Carriers 524130 Reinsurance Carriers
524210 Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
524291 Claims Adjusting
524292 Pharmacy Benefit Management and Other Third Party Administration of Insurance and Pension Funds 524298 All Other Insurance Related Activities
525 Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles
525110 Pension Funds
525120 Health and Welfare Funds
525190 Other Insurance Funds
525910 Open-End Investment Funds
525920 Trusts, Estates, and Agency Accounts
525990 Other Financial Vehicles
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
531 Real Estate
531110 Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings
531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses) 531130 Lessors of Miniwarehouses and Self-Storage Units 531190 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property
531210 Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers
531311 Residential Property Managers
531312 Nonresidential Property Managers
531320 Offices of Real Estate Appraisers
531390 Other Activities Related to Real Estate
532 Rental and Leasing Services
532111 Passenger Car Rental
532112 Passenger Car Leasing
532120 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing 532210 Consumer Electronics and Appliances Rental
532281 Formal Wear and Costume Rental
532282 Video Tape and Disc Rental
532283 Home Health Equipment Rental
532284 Recreational Goods Rental
532289 All Other Consumer Goods Rental
532310 General Rental Centers
532411 Commercial Air, Rail, and Water Transportation Equipment Rental and Leasing 532412 Construction, Mining, and Forestry Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing 532420 Office Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing 532490 Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing 533 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works) 533110 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works)

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Professional and Business Services
54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
541110 Offices of Lawyers
541120 Offices of Notaries
541191 Title Abstract and Settlement Offices
541199 All Other Legal Services
541211 Offices of Certified Public Accountants
541213 Tax Preparation Services
541214 Payroll Services
541219 Other Accounting Services
541310 Architectural Services
541320 Landscape Architectural Services
541330 Engineering Services
541340 Drafting Services
541350 Building Inspection Services
541360 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services
541370 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services 541380 Testing Laboratories and Services
541410 Interior Design Services
541420 Industrial Design Services
541430 Graphic Design Services
541490 Other Specialized Design Services
541511 Custom Computer Programming Services
541512 Computer Systems Design Services
541513 Computer Facilities Management Services
541519 Other Computer Related Services
541611 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services 541612 Human Resources Consulting Services
541613 Marketing Consulting Services
541614 Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services 541618 Other Management Consulting Services
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services 541713 Research and Development in Nanotechnology
541714 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology) 541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology) 541720 Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities 541810 Advertising Agencies
541820 Public Relations Agencies
541830 Media Buying Agencies
541840 Media Representatives
541850 Indoor and Outdoor Display Advertising
541860 Direct Mail Advertising
541870 Advertising Material Distribution Services
541890 Other Services Related to Advertising
541910 Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling
541921 Photography Studios, Portrait
541922 Commercial Photography
541930 Translation and Interpretation Services
541940 Veterinary Services
541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises
551 Management of Companies and Enterprises
551111 Offices of Bank Holding Companies
551112 Offices of Other Holding Companies
551114 Corporate, Subsidiary, and Regional Managing Offices 56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 561 Administrative and Support Services
561110 Office Administrative Services
561210 Facilities Support Services
561311 Employment Placement Agencies
561312 Executive Search Services
561320 Temporary Help Services
561330 Professional Employer Organizations
561410 Document Preparation Services
561421 Telephone Answering Services
561422 Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers
561431 Private Mail Centers
561439 Other Business Service Centers (including Copy Shops) 561440 Collection Agencies
561450 Credit Bureaus
561491 Repossession Services
561492 Court Reporting and Stenotype Services
561499 All Other Business Support Services
561510 Travel Agencies
561520 Tour Operators
561591 Convention and Visitors Bureaus
561599 All Other Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services 561611 Investigation and Personal Background Check Services 561612 Security Guards and Patrol Services
561613 Armored Car Services
561621 Security Systems Services (except Locksmiths)
561622 Locksmiths
561710 Exterminating and Pest Control Services
561720 Janitorial Services
561730 Landscaping Services
561740 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services
561790 Other Services to Buildings and Dwellings
561910 Packaging and Labeling Services
561920 Convention and Trade Show Organizers
561990 All Other Support Services
562 Waste Management and Remediation Services
562111 Solid Waste Collection
562112 Hazardous Waste Collection
562119 Other Waste Collection
562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562212 Solid Waste Landfill
562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators
562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562910 Remediation Services
562920 Materials Recovery Facilities
562991 Septic Tank and Related Services
562998 All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Education and Health Services
61 Educational Services
611 Educational Services
611110 Elementary and Secondary Schools
611210 Junior Colleges
611310 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools 611410 Business and Secretarial Schools
611420 Computer Training
611430 Professional and Management Development Training 611511 Cosmetology and Barber Schools
611512 Flight Training
611513 Apprenticeship Training
611519 Other Technical and Trade Schools
611610 Fine Arts Schools
611620 Sports and Recreation Instruction
611630 Language Schools
611691 Exam Preparation and Tutoring
611692 Automobile Driving Schools
611699 All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction
611710 Educational Support Services
62 Health Care and Social Assistance
621 Ambulatory Health Care Services
621111 Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) 621112 Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists 621210 Offices of Dentists
621310 Offices of Chiropractors
621320 Offices of Optometrists
621330 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians) 621340 Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists, and Audiologists 621391 Offices of Podiatrists
621399 Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners 621410 Family Planning Centers
621420 Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers 621491 HMO Medical Centers
621492 Kidney Dialysis Centers
621493 Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers 621498 All Other Outpatient Care Centers
621511 Medical Laboratories
621512 Diagnostic Imaging Centers
621610 Home Health Care Services
621910 Ambulance Services
621991 Blood and Organ Banks
621999 All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory Health Care Services 622 Hospitals
622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
622210 Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals
622310 Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals 623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities
623110 Nursing Care Facilities (Skilled Nursing Facilities) 623210 Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability Facilities 623220 Residential Mental Health and Substance Abuse Facilities 623311 Continuing Care Retirement Communities
623312 Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly
623990 Other Residential Care Facilities
624 Social Assistance
624110 Child and Youth Services
624120 Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities 624190 Other Individual and Family Services
624210 Community Food Services
624221 Temporary Shelters
624229 Other Community Housing Services
624230 Emergency and Other Relief Services
624310 Vocational Rehabilitation Services
624410 Child Care Services
Leisure and Hospitality
71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
711 Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries 711110 Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters
711120 Dance Companies
711130 Musical Groups and Artists
711190 Other Performing Arts Companies
711211 Sports Teams and Clubs
711212 Racetracks
711219 Other Spectator Sports
711310 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities 711320 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events without Facilities 711410 Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other Public Figures 711510 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers
712 Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions 712110 Museums
712120 Historical Sites
712130 Zoos and Botanical Gardens
712190 Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions
713 Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries
713110 Amusement and Theme Parks
713120 Amusement Arcades
713210 Casinos (except Casino Hotels)
713290 Other Gambling Industries
713910 Golf Courses and Country Clubs
713920 Skiing Facilities
713930 Marinas
713940 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
713950 Bowling Centers
713990 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
72 Accommodation and Food Services
721 Accommodation
721110 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels
721120 Casino Hotels
721191 Bed-and-Breakfast Inns
721199 All Other Traveler Accommodation
721211 RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Campgrounds
721214 Recreational and Vacation Camps (except Campgrounds) 721310 Rooming and Boarding Houses, Dormitories, and Workers' Camps 722 Food Services and Drinking Places
722310 Food Service Contractors
722320 Caterers
722330 Mobile Food Services
722410 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
722511 Full-Service Restaurants
722513 Limited-Service Restaurants
722514 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets
722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars
Other Service
81 Other Services (except Public Administration)
811 Repair and Maintenance
811111 General Automotive Repair
811114 Specialized Automotive Repair
811121 Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance 811122 Automotive Glass Replacement Shops
811191 Automotive Oil Change and Lubrication Shops
811192 Car Washes
811198 All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance
811210 Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance 811310 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance 811411 Home and Garden Equipment Repair and Maintenance 811412 Appliance Repair and Maintenance
811420 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair
811430 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair
811490 Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 812 Personal and Laundry Services
812111 Barber Shops
812112 Beauty Salons
812113 Nail Salons
812191 Diet and Weight Reducing Centers
812199 Other Personal Care Services
812210 Funeral Homes and Funeral Services
812220 Cemeteries and Crematories
812310 Coin-Operated Laundries and Drycleaners
812320 Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated) 812331 Linen Supply
812332 Industrial Launderers
812910 Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services
812921 Photofinishing Laboratories (except One-Hour)
812922 One-Hour Photofinishing
812930 Parking Lots and Garages
812990 All Other Personal Services
813 Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations 813110 Religious Organizations
813211 Grantmaking Foundations
813212 Voluntary Health Organizations
813219 Other Grantmaking and Giving Services
813311 Human Rights Organizations
813312 Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations 813319 Other Social Advocacy Organizations
813410 Civic and Social Organizations
813910 Business Associations
813920 Professional Organizations
813930 Labor Unions and Similar Labor Organizations
813940 Political Organizations
813990 Other Similar Organizations (except Business, Professional, Labor, and Political Organizations) 814 Private Households
814110 Private Households

TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title TUMF Category
Government/Public Sector
Government
92 Public Administration
921 Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support 921110 Executive Offices
921120 Legislative Bodies
921130 Public Finance Activities
921140 Executive and Legislative Offices, Combined
921150 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments 921190 Other General Government Support
922 Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
922110 Courts
922120 Police Protection
922130 Legal Counsel and Prosecution
922140 Correctional Institutions
922150 Parole Offices and Probation Offices
922160 Fire Protection
922190 Other Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities 923 Administration of Human Resource Programs
923110 Administration of Education Programs
923120 Administration of Public Health Programs
923130 Administration of Human Resource Programs (except Education, Public Health, and Veterans' Affairs Programs) 923140 Administration of Veterans' Affairs
924 Administration of Environmental Quality Programs
924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs 924120 Administration of Conservation Programs
925 Administration of Housing Programs, Urban Planning, and Community Development 925110 Administration of Housing Programs
925120 Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural Development 926 Administration of Economic Programs
926110 Administration of General Economic Programs
926120 Regulation and Administration of Transportation Programs 926130 Regulation and Administration of Communications, Electric, Gas, and Other Utilities 926140 Regulation of Agricultural Marketing and Commodities 926150 Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors 927 Space Research and Technology
927110 Space Research and Technology
928 National Security and International Affairs
928110 National Security
928120 International Affairs
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
California Employment Development Department (EDD)
US Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 2022

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 C-1
Appendix C - Western Riverside County Traffic Growth 2018 – 2045 Existing (2018) and future (2045) traffic data were derived from RivCoM. The model area of coverage, level of roadway network and TAZ detail, and application on other regional transportation study efforts represented RivCoM as the appropriate tool for evaluating traffic growth as part of the Nexus Study.

The forecasts of existing and future congestion levels were derived from the Year 2018 Existing and Year 2045 No-Build scenarios, respectively. The 2018 Existing and 2045 NoBuild scenarios were developed using RivCoM to model 2018 and 2045 SED, respectively, as derived from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS adopted SED forecasts, on the transportation network as it existed in 2021. The 2018 existing transportation network represents the most recent baseline network developed for RivCoM, and only reflects the inclusion of those projects that were funded, committed and under construction at that time, and therefore imminently to be part of the baseline transportation system in 2018. For the purposes of the TUMF network analysis, additional improvements on the TUMF arterial highway network that were either completed or under construction in the period between 2018 and December 2021 were added to the network to create a 2021 existing network. The 2021 existing network was subsequently modeled in RivCoM using both 2018 and 2045 SED to provide the 2018 Baseline and 2045 No-Build scenarios as the basis for comparison and analysis. The 2045 No-Build scenario did not include transportation improvements that are planned as part of the recently adopted SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS on the basis they are uncommitted (meaning that their implementation is dependent on securing future funding and approval). Inclusion of the uncommitted improvements masks the congestion effects of increasing travel. Inclusion of these improvements and the resultant masking is not appropriate for this analysis aimed at identifying the effects of increasing travel if improvements were not built.

The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from RivCoM for the purpose of calculating the following measures for Western Riverside County only. Traffic growth impacts for each of the two scenarios were calculated using the TransCAD platform.  Total daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT),
 Total daily VMT on facilities experiencing LOS E or worse.  Total daily vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and
 Total combined daily vehicle hours of delay (VHD)
The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values.  VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume
 VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume  VHD = VHT – (Free-flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume)  VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90)13 13 LOS Thresholds for LOS E are based on the 2010 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 14-5, Chapter 14, Page 14-5).

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 C-2
RivCoM breaks down its roadway network into functional categories called assignment groups. The measures were calculated selectively for all facilities, freeways only, arterials only, and TUMF arterials only by including and excluding different assignment groups and facilities. For the calculation of measures on “all facilities”, only the centroid connectors were excluded. Arterial values excluded all mixed-flow to carpool lane connector ramps, freeways, carpool lanes, centroid connectors, and freeway-tofreeway connector ramps, respectively. Freeways were defined as including mixedflow to carpool lane connector ramps, freeways, carpool lanes, and freeway-tofreeway connector ramps, respectively.

The 2021 Existing Network by Facility Type is included in this Appendix as Exhibit C-1. The 2021 existing network was used as the basis for the 2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build scenarios by modeling 2018 and 2045 SED, respectively, on the 2021 existing network using RivCoM to determine the comparative effects of population, household an employment growth in the region. The results of the analysis of existing and future congestion levels are presented for peak periods in Exhibit C-2 and for daily in Exhibit C3 in this Appendix and extracted for the combined peak periods in Table 3.1 of the study report.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 C-4
EXHIBIT C-2
Western Riverside County
Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 - 2045) – Peak Periods Measures of Performance
AM Peak PM Peak
2018 2045 % Change % Annual 2018 2045 % Change % Annual VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 10,324,900 13,225,039 28% 0.9% 12,959,824 16,672,215 29% 0.9% VMT - FREEWAYS 5,877,972 6,720,682 14% 0.5% 7,636,550 8,769,602 15% 0.5% VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 4,446,928 6,504,357 46% 1.4% 5,323,274 7,902,613 48% 1.5% TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 2,793,846 3,826,810 37% 1.2% 3,423,139 4,770,390 39% 1.2% VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 251,133 435,243 73% 2.1% 290,218 480,196 65% 1.9% VHT - FREEWAYS 120,257 186,102 55% 1.6% 143,535 213,027 48% 1.5% VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 130,875 249,142 90% 2.4% 146,683 267,169 82% 2.2% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 81,578 154,106 89% 2.4% 92,877 166,763 80% 2.2% VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 57,989 177,814 207% 4.2% 50,911 160,242 215% 4.3% VHD - FREEWAYS 34,221 86,616 153% 3.5% 31,935 84,033 163% 3.6% VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 23,768 91,198 284% 5.1% 18,977 76,209 302% 5.3% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 18,024 66,789 271% 5.0% 15,225 58,074 281% 5.1% VMT LOS E & F - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 2,960,551 6,364,419 115% 2.9% 2,644,519 7,005,063 165% 3.7% VMT LOS E & F - FREEWAYS 2,435,804 4,276,258 76% 2.1% 2,289,667 5,040,633 120% 3.0% VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 524,747 2,088,161 298% 5.2% 354,852 1,964,430 454% 6.5% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E & F 448,168 1,585,571 254% 4.8% 317,614 1,598,561 403% 6.2% % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E & F 16% 41% 9% 34%
* Based on RivCoM 2018 network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network completed.

NOTES:

Volume is adjusted by PCE factor
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time)
LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios).

LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 C-5
EXHIBIT C-3
Western Riverside County
Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 - 2045) – Daily Measures of Performance
Peak Periods (Total) Daily
2018 2045 % Change % Annual 2018 2045 % Change % Annual VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 28% 0.9% 41,378,907 53,832,389 30% 1.0% VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 15% 0.5% 24,642,357 29,200,582 18% 0.6% VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 47% 1.4% 16,736,551 24,631,807 47% 1.4% TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 38% 1.2% 10,794,415 15,170,125 41% 1.3% VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 541,350 915,439 69% 2.0% 893,813 1,433,458 60% 1.8% VHT - FREEWAYS 263,792 399,128 51% 1.5% 440,073 637,990 45% 1.4% VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 277,558 516,311 86% 2.3% 453,740 795,469 75% 2.1% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 174,455 320,869 84% 2.3% 285,520 496,757 74% 2.1% VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 108,900 338,056 210% 4.3% 131,965 410,511 211% 4.3% VHD - FREEWAYS 66,156 170,649 158% 3.6% 79,532 208,287 162% 3.6% VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 42,745 167,407 292% 5.2% 52,434 202,223 286% 5.1% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 33,249 124,863 276% 5.0% 41,025 152,200 271% 5.0% VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 5,605,070 13,369,483 139% 3.3% 6,153,146 16,090,205 161% 3.6% VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,725,471 9,316,891 97% 2.5% 5,141,215 11,306,348 120% 3.0% VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 879,599 4,052,592 361% 5.8% 1,011,931 4,783,858 373% 5.9% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 765,782 3,184,133 316% 5.4% 878,465 3,819,635 335% 5.6% % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 12% 37% 8% 25%

* Based on RivCoM 2018 network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network completed.

NOTES:

Volume is adjusted by PCE factor
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios).

LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 D-1
Appendix D - Western Riverside County Bus Transit System Ridership 2023 – 2045 Actual average weekday daily ridership for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) transit bus services was tabulated for 2023. Forecast average weekday daily ridership for RTA bus transit services was retrieved from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model for horizon year 2045.

The bus transit ridership for 2023 and 2045 was tabulated to represent existing and future regional bus transit trips consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section

3.1 and Appendix C. Table D-1 summarizes the weekday bus transit ridership in Western Riverside County.

TABLE D-1 - Regional Bus Transit Weekday System Ridership Year Western Riverside
Weekday Projected System Ridership
2023* 16,575
2045** 57,282
Notes: * - 2023 actual average weekday daily ridership provided by RTA staff December 1, 2023
** - 2045 forecast average weekday daily ridership obtained from SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model as provided by Fehr and
Peers, November 28, 2023

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 E-1
Appendix E - Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials Performance Measures
An integral element of the Nexus Study is the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the “TUMF Network”). This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system, and represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials does NOT include the freeways of Western Riverside County which primarily serve inter-regional trips.

The designation of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in the original TUMF Nexus Study adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in October 2002 was initiated with the identification of highways and roadways that met certain specified guidelines as defined by the WRCOG Public Works Committee. The guidelines are defined in Section 4.1 of the Nexus Report, and include:

1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at future buildout (not including freeways).

2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County.

3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day in the future horizon year.

4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in the future horizon year.

5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services.

6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers).

The original candidate facilities were identified by overlaying various transportation system and land use plots depicting parameters consistent with those defined by the specified guidelines. These plots included existing and proposed numbers of lanes, network volumes and volume to capacity ratio (LOS) derived from SCAG CTP Model networks developed by Transcore to support the ongoing Western Riverside County CETAP study, and existing land use information provided by SCAG. These plots were included in the Appendices that accompanied the original 2002 TUMF Nexus Study.

Fixed route transit service information was provided by the Riverside County Regional Transportation Authority (RTA).

These various data inputs were overlaid and reviewed leading the definition of a segmented skeletal network of highways and roadways for further consideration. The skeletal network was further enhanced to reflect regional connectivity and access to activity center considerations. An initial draft Regional System of Highways and Arterials was developed and subsequently distributed to the County of Riverside and each City in Western Riverside County for review in the context of their respective City General

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 E-2
Plan Circulation Elements, primarily to confirm existing and future number of lanes and appropriateness of the facilities identified. The initial draft network was subsequently revised to consolidate appropriate General Plan Circulation Elements, including the identification of proposed new facilities as alternatives to existing facilities. It should be pointed out that the Regional System of Highways and Arterials does not represent a simple compilation of regional General Plan Circulation Elements, but rather incorporates the elements of regional General Plan Circulation Elements that are necessary for mitigating the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development within the horizon year of the TUMF program.

The consolidated list of proposed network improvements (along with associated initial cost estimates) was subsequently distributed to each of the WRCOG jurisdictions, individual landowners, and other stakeholders including representatives of the development community through the Building Industry Association (BIA) for review. The review of the consolidated list of improvements (and associated costs) prompted a series of five peer review workshop meetings to specifically review each segment of roadway identified and the associated improvements to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development. One peer review workshop meeting was held for each of the five zones in the WRCOG region with meetings held at the Riverside County Assessor’s Office between June 27, 2002 and July 18, 2002. The peer review workshop meetings involved representatives from WRCOG, the respective zone jurisdictions and the BIA.

The peer review workshops culminated in the development (by consensus of the groups) of a revised list of proposed network improvements (and associated costs) more accurately reflecting the improvements necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development.

Following the peer review, the initial Regional System of Highways and Arterials was reviewed and endorsed by the TUMF Technical Advisory Committee, the TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee and utilized as the basis for developing the original TUMF Nexus Study in October 2002.

For the 2024 update of the TUMF Nexus Study, the Regional System of Highways and Arterials was reassessed. Consistent with the changing rate of new development forecast for Western Riverside County as part of the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS, including reductions in the overall level of non-residential employment, the review of the TUMF Network as part of the 2024 Nexus Update ensured facilities generally still met the previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly proportional to the impacts needing to be mitigated. This review process involved the comparison of model outputs for the 2018 Baseline and 2045 No-Build Scenarios on the 2021 Existing arterial network to identify those facilities no longer expected to be impacted substantially by the cumulative effects of traffic growth from new development. This review resulted in various changes in the scope and magnitude of specific improvements previously identified on the TUMF Network. The updated model output plots utilized as the basis for the latest network review are included in this appendix as Exhibit E-1 through E-8.

The Regional System of Highways and Arterials is included as Figure 4.1 in the Nexus Study report.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-1
Appendix F - TUMF Network Cost Assumptions
The TUMF program was established as a uniform impact fee program that is applied to mitigate the cumulative transportation impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system. In establishing the technical basis for TUMF, like any impact fee program, there are two fundamental requirements that must be addressed: establishing a rational nexus for the program; and determining that any fee is roughly proportional to the impact of a proposed development. These requirements are rooted in two wellknown legal cases: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825; and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374.

To establish project costs that meet the rough proportionality test for an expansive network of facilities, WRCOG utilizes a conceptual planning level project and cost estimation approach based on typical unit costs for a variety of project types and conditions. These unit costs are intended to reflect a range of values that are typical for the types of projects that are necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. These unit costs are developed for each typical project type based on actual observed values for the various materials, labor and right-of-way that would typically be required to complete a project. Although the actual materials, labor, right-of-way and associate costs to complete each specific project can be expected to vary based on the particular conditions of each site and project requirements at the time the project is actually implemented, the approach of using typical unit costs as the basis for the TUMF program represents a manageable and appropriate level of detail to establish conceptual project cost estimates that meet the requirement for rough proportionality.

The application of typical unit costs and the associated identification of a maximum TUMF share for each eligible project also provides a framework that protects the program from projects with actual costs that vary significantly from the typical cost estimates used as the program basis. The TUMF program administrative polices limit reimbursement of costs associated with eligible TUMF projects to the lesser of maximum TUMF share identified in the Nexus Study or the actual eligible project costs. In this manner, projects that are completed by participating jurisdictions or developers for less than the maximum TUMF share are reimbursed (or credited) for the actual amount expended, while projects that exceed the maximum TUMF share are only reimbursed (or credited) by the program up to the maximum TUMF share value ensuring that the program is mitigating impacts at a level that is roughly proportional to that typically expected, and is not subject to extreme project costs to address unusual or exceptional local conditions or requirements.

For the purposes of TUMF, unit cost values were developed for various eligible improvement types that all provide additional capacity needed to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development to facilities on the TUMF Network. Eligible improvement types include:

1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes;

2. Construction of new Network roadway segments;

3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures;

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-2

4. Construction of new Network bridge structures;

5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways;

6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways;

7. Grade separation of existing Network at-grade railroad crossings;

8. Expansion of existing Network-to-Network intersections;

9. Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) of Network roadway segments.

Because roadway improvement standards vary considerably between respective jurisdictions, a typical roadway standard for the TUMF Network was recommended by the Public Works Committee (PWC) during the development of the original TUMF Nexus Study adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in October 2002 as the basis for developing the TUMF Network cost estimate. The typical roadway standard assumes the following design characteristics that are consistent with the minimum requirements of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual:
 Asphalt concrete pavement and appropriate base material to accomplish up to 12 feet per travel lane plus up to four feet for ancillary treatments (e.g. shoulders, or Class II Bike Lane);
 Concrete curb and gutter and associated drainage (e.g. paved roadway shoulders and/or open swale);
 Storm drains located within curb to curb, and associated transverse portions perpendicular to the roadway and adjoining portions longitudinal to the roadway;
 14 foot paved and painted median (or dual center left turn lane);  Traffic signals at intersections with state highways and other major arterials that are also on the TUMF Network;
 Pavement striping and roadway signing, as required;
 6 foot wide concrete sidewalks and associated curb cuts for ADA access at street crossings.

A cross-section of the Typical Roadway Standard is illustrated in Figure F-1.

Figure F-1. Typical Roadway Standard Cross-Section
It is recognized that the typical roadway standard is not appropriate in all potential TUMF Network locations. Where appropriate, typical design standards could be substituted with design elements such as open swale drainage and paved roadway shoulders with no curbing that would typically cost less than the implementation of the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-3
Typical Roadway Standard. Roadway improvements in excess of the Typical Roadway Standard include, but are not limited to:
 Portland concrete cement pavement or other aesthetic pavement types (except at intersections);
 Major rehabilitation or overlay of existing pavement in adjacent roadway lanes;  Raised barrier medians;
 Parking lanes;
 Roadway tapers outside the extents of the approved project  Sanitary sewage infrastructure;
 Water systems
 Dry utilities
 Undergrounding infrastructure
 Relocation of non-prior rights utilities
 Storm Drain Systems in excess of draining the roadway  Landscaping;
 Streetlighting;
 Class I Bike Lanes (e.g. separate bicycle paths)
 Environmental Permitting
 Detection/Retention Basins outside of Street Right-of-Way  Agency Staff time in excess of 15% of Engineering
 Agency Staff Time in excess of 15% of Construction
These improvements in excess of Typical Roadway Standards are not eligible for TUMF funding and will be the responsibility of the local funding agency.

Unit cost estimates for the implementation of TUMF Network improvements were developed based on the unit cost to accomplish the Typical Roadway Standard. Initial unit cost estimates were developed as part of the original TUMF Nexus in 2002. These original values were adjusted as part of the 2005 Nexus Update to reflect changes in cost based on relevant indices. The unit cost estimates were fully revised as part of the 2009 Nexus Update to capture the full effects of the economic recession on the costs of labor, materials and property acquisition. For the previous 2016 Nexus Update, the unit costs were fully revised. The 2016 Nexus Update reflected the effects of the ongoing recovery from the economic recession that has saw the costs of materials, labor and land acquisition in California rebound from relative historical lows previously observed at the time of the 2009 Nexus Update.

For the 2024 Nexus Update, the unit costs were again fully revised to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within and adjacent to Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to account for the unprecedented materials cost increases, labor shortages and high rate of inflation generally attributable to a combination of the disruption to global supply chains caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and additional tariffs on a range of products imported into the United States.

In December 2023, the unit cost values were validated utilizing Caltrans Contract Cost Data and the resultant unit costs are noted in Exhibit F-2 and summarized in Table 4.1.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-4
For simplicity, the roadway unit cost was assumed to provide for the full depth construction (including grading) of 16 feet of new pavement per lane (to accommodate a minimum 12 foot lane and ancillary treatments). The unit cost was assumed to include the following construction elements:
 Sawcut of existing pavement
 Removal of existing pavement
 Roadway excavation and embankment
 10” thick class 2 aggregate base
 4.0” thick asphaltic concrete surface
 Concrete curb, gutter and drainage improvements
Roadway unit costs were determined for each unique cost item. The source used to determine the roadway unit costs as part of the 2024 Nexus Update are listed below.  Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021-2022
 Projects within Riverside County and Adjacent Counties  Typical experience for local cities, Western Riverside County  Michael Baker international (MBI), Structural Group
 MBI, ITS Group
 Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022-2023
All data described above was initially obtained in October 2022 and refreshed and validated in December 2023.

Right-of-way acquisition costs were determined based on the cost to acquire 18 feet of right-of-way per lane of new roadway improvement. For urban and suburban land use areas, the amount of right-of-way to be acquired as part of the TUMF program was reduced by 75% to account for property already owned by a participating jurisdiction through prior acquisition or dedication. Right-of-way unit costs were assumed to include the following elements:
 Land acquisition
 Documentation and legal fees
 Relocation and demolition costs and condemnation compensation requirements
 Utility relocation
 Direct environmental mitigation
Right-of-way unit costs were determined based on a review of actual property sales within the WRCOG region during the prior 18 month period. The task of determining the valuation per square foot of right-of-way for different land uses was completed by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

A typical existing condition of each component type was used as a guideline for quantity assessments.
Terrain 1: Level terrain with 0% profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile. Terrain 2: Rolling Terrain with 1.5 % profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-5
Terrain 3: Mountainous Terrain with 3% profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile.
Land Use 1, 2 and 3; ROW cost factor per lane mile, for Urban, Suburban and Rural areas respectively.
Interchange 1: Complex New Interchange/Interchange Modification. Existing complex interchange at I-15 & SR-91 was used as a guideline for quantity assessments.
Interchange 2: New Interchange/Interchange Modification is assumed to be a New Cloverleaf Interchange consisting of 4 (3 lane) direct ramps and 4 (2 lane) loop ramps.
Interchange 3: Major Interchange Improvement is assumed to correspond to adding 1 lane to each ramp on a cloverleaf Interchange. Bridge: New Bridge cost. Construction cost is per linear foot per lane. RRXing 1: New Rail Grade Crossing. Construction cost is per lane per crossing. RRXing 2: Widening Existing Grade Crossing. Construction cost is per lane per crossing.
ITS 1: Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on TUMF Network roadway segments per route mile
The cost estimating methodology here is intended to provide a Present Value Cost Estimate for the WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on year 2023 unit prices. A more detailed description of cost categories is detailed below.

I. Roadway Items
Roadway Excavation:

A unit cost of $38.55 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data) is applied to account for the excavation quantities. Assuming proposed profiles to be at 0% grade, the excavation values are estimated based on the component type as follows:
 Terrain 2 and 3: excavation for one lane (16 feet wide and 4 feet deep) is assumed.

Imported Borrow:

The unit cost used for imported borrow is $20.47 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). Locations where imported borrow is required are determined from aerial photos.
 Terrain 2 and 3: Excavation for one lane (16 feet wide and 4 feet deep) is assumed.
 Interchanges 1, 2, and 3: Vertical clearance of 24.5 feet is used to calculate the maximum amount of imported borrow at areas adjacent to an undercrossing.  RRXing 1 and 2: Vertical clearance of 31.5 feet and Bridge approach of 1,000 feet is used to determine the quantity of Imported borrow for this component type.

Clearing and Grubbing:

The unit cost for clearing and grubbing is $12,100.00 per acre (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data).

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-6
 Terrain 1, 2 and 3: The area of clearing and grubbing is assumed to extend 16 feet for the addition of each new lane.
 Interchange 1 and 2: The area of clearing and grubbing is assumed to extend 40 feet beyond the proposed outside edge of shoulder. The clearing and grubbing width varies depending on the number of added lanes.
 Interchange 3 and Intersection: The area of clearing and grubbing is assumed to extend 16 feet for the addition of each lane.

Development of Water Supply:

A lump sum value is used to account for developing water supply. The lump sum cost is estimated as 10% of the combined cost for roadway excavation and imported borrow (Source: RCTC).

PCC Pavement:

The unit cost for PCC pavement is $354.83 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data).
 Terrain 1, 2 and 3: It is assumed that PCC is used at mainline shoulders. The PCC shoulder pavement is assumed to be 4 inch thick and 4 feet wide.

Asphalt Concrete Type A:

It is assumed that Asphalt Concrete is used at mainline and where ramp and bridge widening is required. A unit cost of $240.62 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data) is used to account for asphalt concrete quantities. The asphalt concrete overlay is assumed to be 4 inch thick.

Aggregate Base:

The unit cost for aggregate base is $73.54 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). Aggregate base quantities are estimated by means of calculating the areas of additional lanes. The aggregate base layer is considered to be 10 inch thick. It is assumed that aggregate base is used over the entire widening width below the PCC pavement and asphalt concrete layers.

Curb and Gutter:

The unit cost used for curb and gutter is $65.74 per linear foot (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). It is assumed that type A2-6 curb and gutter is used on the entire length of travel way where required.

Project Drainage:

A lump sum value is used to account for project drainage cost of roadway construction. The project drainage cost is estimated as 15% (Source: RCTC project 2007) of combined cost for earthwork and pavement structural section.

Traffic Signals:

The costs for traffic signals are calculated per ramp termini intersection. The unit cost used for traffic signals is $531,086 (Source: Caltrans Contract Cost Data and typical experience, Western Riverside County) per intersection. Traffic signals costs are considered only at the Intersection (Network-to-Network) upgrade.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-7
Striping:

The unit cost used for Striping is $2.58 per linear foot (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). It is assumed that two lines of thermo-plastic striping are required for every lane addition.

Marking:

The unit cost used for marking is $7.31 per square foot (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data).
 Terrains 1, 2 and 3: It is assumed that there are 8 arrow markers, 2 Stop sign markers and 4 Bike sign markers.
 Interchanges 1, 2, and 3: It is assumed that there are 2 Type I arrows on each on ramp, and 2 Type IV (L) arrows on each off ramp.
 Intersection (network to network) upgrade: It is assumed that there are 2 right turn arrows and two right lane drop arrows for each lane modification for the interchange upgrade
Pavement Marker:

Type G one-way clear retroreflective pavement markers (Spacing @ 48 feet) were assumed for Terrain 1, 2 and 3 component types only. The unit cost used for pavement marker is $5.06 each (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data).

Signage:

The signage unit cost accounts for the costs of one-post signs and two-post signs.

The unit cost used for one-post signs and two-post signs are $367.69 and $1,211.58 each, respectively (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). The post sign quantities assumed for each component type is summarized below.

Sign Type Terrain 1, 2 & 3 Interchange Intersection 1 2 3 One Post Signs 33 14 36 20 3
Two Post Signs - 4 4 4 0
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS):

The unit cost used for ITS is $686,338.50 per route mile (Source: Local Projects and MBI ITS Group). It is assumed that there is no existing ITS infrastructure (with the exception of isolated ITS devices) within the TUMF Network roadway segments and essential ITS infrastructure is furnished and installed. This essential ITS infrastructure includes ethernet switch, fiber jumper, fiber distribution unit, splice enclosure, pull box, new cabinet with foundation, 144 strand single-mode fiber optic (SMFO) cable and 3” conduits.

Minor Items, Roadway Mobilization, and Roadway Additions:

A lump sum value is used to account for minor items, roadway mobilization and roadway additions as described below. These lump sum values are recommended based on provisions in Project Development Procedure Manual (PDPM) and the

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-8
date from individual sources presented in the introduction of this report (Source:

RCTC)
Items Unit Cost
Minor Items 10% of earthwork, pavement structure, drainage, specialty items and traffic items.

Roadway
Mobilization
10% of earthwork, pavement structure, drainage,
specialty items, traffic items and minor items.

Roadway Additions 10% of earthwork, pavement structure, drainage, specialty items, traffic items and minor items.

II. Structure Items
New Bridge:

New interchanges account for construction of a new bridge. The unit cost for a new travel way bridge construction and RRXings1 and 2 (New and Widening of Rail Grade Crossings) is $400.00 per square foot (Source: MBI Structural group). The width of a new bridge is assumed to be 82 feet (4 lanes x 12ft + 10ft shoulder x 2 + 14ft median).

Bridge Widening:

Bridge widenings account for the widening of existing bridges. The unit cost is $500.00 per square foot (Source: MBI Structural group). The width of a bridge widening is assumed to be: 2 lanes x 12ft + 10ft shoulder. The width of an arterial crossing over rail road is assumed to be 16 feet (1 lane x 12ft + 4ft shoulder).

Structural Mobilization:

The cost for structural mobilization is estimated as 10% of total structure item cost (Source: Typical experience).

III. Right of Way Items
The right of way unit cost varies with land use designation. The unit cost for ROW was developed by Epic Land Solutions, Inc. based on a review of actual property sales within the WRCOG region during the prior 18 month period. The area of right of way acquisition for the travel way is calculated per additional lane mile, assuming the width of the right-of-way required to be 18 feet per lane (to accommodate a 12 foot roadway lane, shoulders and ancillary amenities, like storm water drainage).

The right of way acquisition for RRXings1 and 2 is calculated based on ROW acquisition for bridge approaches.

Property costs per square foot are derived by reviewing a large sample of recently sold land and improved properties within the greater Riverside area. The properties reviewed are identified specifically from completed semi large to very large infrastructure projects and upcoming projects with preferred alternatives and/or approved environmental reports. For the purposes of the 2022 Nexus Study update, an overall sample of approximately 2,700 properties was used.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-9
The properties were designated as: urban areas (generally considered downtown, or very close to downtown in the larger cities - predominantly Corona and Riverside, with a few parcels in Temecula and Moreno Valley); suburban (primarily considered the greater areas of Hemet, Perris, San Jacinto, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, outer portions of Riverside / Corona, Temecula, Murrieta, Calimesa, Eastvale, Norco, and other cities of relative size and location as those previously mentioned); and rural (considered the exurban areas between Corona / Lake Elsinore and Perris along the SR-74/79, Lake Matthews, between Wildomar and Murrieta, Temecula and Perris and other similar areas) to correspond with the land use classifications used for cost estimating purposes in the TUMF program. The properties were also determined to be partial or full property takes to determine the relative percentage of each in order to appropriately weight the average cost per square foot of each type of property. Specialty cost percentages as a share of total acquisition costs (i.e. relocation and demolition) were also derived from actual costs based on a sample of the Inland Empire projects that Epic Land Solutions, Inc. was directly involved in and therefore able to obtain reliable data.

The result is an estimated average cost per square foot for ROW acquisition by land use classification which is then multiplied by the number of square feet per lane mile to obtain the required ROW to accomplish the TUMF typical cross section. The ROW requirement is then reduced by a factor of 75% for urban and suburban areas based on the collective recommendation of the PWC during the development of the initial program cost estimation methodology to reflect the assumption that a majority of the proposed TUMF facilities in these areas already exist and/or have a substantial portion of the necessary right-of-way already owned by or dedicated to the responsible jurisdiction. As a result, the TUMF program only includes the estimated cost for 25% of the right-of-way that could potentially be required to accomplish the TUMF cross sections for the conceptual improvement projects identified as part of the program in urban and suburban areas.

Maintenance of Traffic:

A lump sum value is used to account for maintenance of traffic cost of roadway construction. The project maintenance of traffic cost is estimated as 5% (Source:

RCTC) of the total project cost.

The consolidated unit cost values include typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the eligible improvement element. These elements include new roadways, bridge improvements, interchange improvements and railroad grade separation construction costs, and right of way acquisition.

The consolidated unit costs as developed for the 2024 Nexus Update are summarized in Exhibit F-1. Exhibit F-2 provides a summary of the unit costs for the various roadway and structures construction elements defined. Exhibit F-3 provides a summary of the unit costs for the various right of way categories. Exhibit F-4 provides worksheets showing the detailed unit cost calculation for each TUMF unit cost category related to roadway and structures construction, and right of way acquisition.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-10
The unit cost assumptions were subsequently applied to the TUMF Network improvements identified to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development. The resultant cost value was tabulated for each unique segment of the network, by improvement type. A separate cost estimate was generated for regional transit improvements based on information provided by RTA and added to the TUMF Network Cost Estimate table.

Supplemental categories have been added to the cost assumptions to better delineate the costs associated with planning and engineering a project, accommodating contingencies, mitigating the cumulate multi-species habitat impacts of TUMF arterial highway improvements in accordance with the adopted Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and administering the TUMF program.

Soft Costs
The TUMF program provides for planning, engineering and contingency costs (collectively referred to as soft costs) for eligible projects to be reimbursed through the program. As indicated in Table 4.1, planning costs are considered to include those costs associated with planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment of the proposed project, with the eligible amount being 10% of the estimated TUMF eligible construction cost only. Engineering costs are considered to include project study report, design, permitting and construction oversight costs based on 25% of the estimated eligible construction cost only. Contingency is provided based on 10% of the total estimated eligible facility cost.

Soft costs include all reasonable required planning, environmental clearance and mitigation, right-of-way documentation, engineering design, plan, specification and estimate preparation and construction management and oversight costs necessary to accomplish the project. The estimated soft cost factors for planning, engineering and contingency were initially established in 2002 by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, which was responsible for the development of the initial TUMF Nexus Study. The percentage multipliers were established by consensus of the PWC based on the collective experience of members in delivering similar public highway projects. A review of various data sources indicates the cost factors are generally consistent with industry guidance for conceptual cost estimation purposes. The City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering California Multi-Agency CIP Benchmarking Study (December 2016) indicates that combined design and construction management costs for roadway projects represent, on average, 50% of the total cost of construction14. Similarly, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Practical Guide for Estimating (December 2011) also cites the following average multipliers for a range of planning and engineering activities based on national research as a basis for conceptual cost estimation:
14 City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering California MultiAgency CIP Benchmarking Study (December 2016), Table 3-6 Average Project Delivery Costs by Project Type (% of TCC) (Full Range of TCC).

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-11

 Preliminary Engineering Costs (including survey/data collection, design, environmental, utilities and contract administration) – 10% to 25% of total construction cost15
 Construction Engineering – 10% to 26% of total construction costs16 Furthermore, the contingency rate utilized in the TUMF program is significantly less than the industry norm for conceptual cost estimation purposes. Specifically, Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual (July 2021) advocates for contingency rates of 30% to 50% of total costs to be used at the project feasibility (conceptual planning) phase of project development17, with contingency rates reduced to 10% for preliminary engineers cost estimates completed during project design18.

MSHCP
Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003, states that “each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts.” This provision is reiterated in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020) section “6. RCA Non-Fee Revenues” which states “The MSHCP forecast an array of revenue sources, in addition to fee revenue, supporting the conservation program. These sources were anticipated to total about 44 percent of the revenue for the program, including:
• Transportation funding – includes the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through 2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) charged on new development.” Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection in this section indicates that an average of $950,000 in MSHCP revenue was derived annually from TUMF during the three years from FY16/17- 18/19 reflecting a TUMF contribution at 5% of construction costs consistent with the MSHCP as adopted in 2003. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP, the TUMF program will continue to incorporate a cost element to account for the required MSHCP contribution to mitigate the multi-species habitat impacts of constructing TUMF projects.
15 AASHTO Technical Committee on Cost Estimating (TCCE) AASHTO Practical Guide for Estimating (December 2011), Table 2.4. Preliminary Engineering Costs’ Average Percentage Ranges (% of Construction).
16 AASHTO Technical Committee on Cost Estimating (TCCE) AASHTO Practical Guide for Estimating (December 2011), Section 2.2.3.2.3 Construction Engineering, “highway improvement projects in an urban environment”.
17 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Design Project Development Procedures Manual (July 2021), Chapter 20 – Project Development Cost Estimates, Section 2 – Project Planning Cost Estimates, Article 2 Project Feasibility Cost Estimate, Contingencies. 18 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Design Project Development Procedures Manual (July 2021), Chapter 20 – Project Development Cost Estimates, Section 3 – Project Design Cost Estimates, Article 4 Preliminary Engineer’s Cost Estimate, Contingencies.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-12
An amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will continue to be specifically included as part of TUMF program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the 2020 MSHCP Nexus Report are included in this Appendix as Exhibits F-5 and F-6, respectively.

Similarly, an amount of 4% of the total TUMF eligible network cost is included as part of the TUMF program with revenues to be utilized by WRCOG to cover the direct costs to administer the program. The costs incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe benefit and overhead costs for WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and support participating jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services to support the implementation of the TUMF program.

Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate, including a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions and the current revised unit cost assumptions developed as part of the 2009 Update of the TUMF Nexus Study. Cost estimates are provided in year of original values as indicated.

EXHIBIT F-1
2024 TUMF Nexus Update - Arterial Highway Cost Assumptions:

Component
Type
Cost Assumptions
as published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumption per
2009 Nexus Update
October 5, 2009
Cost Assumptions per
2016 Update
Cost Assumptions per
2024 Update Description
Terrain 1 $550,000.00 $628,000.00 $692,000.00 $1,132,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain Terrain 2 $850,000.00 $761,000.00 $878,000.00 $1,740,000 Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain Terrain 3 $1,150,000.00 $895,000.00 $1,064,000.00 $2,350,000 Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous terrain Landuse 1 $900,000.00 $1,682,000.00 $2,509,000.00 $7,830,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas Landuse 2 $420,000.00 $803,000.00 $2,263,000.00 $5,440,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - suburban areas Landuse 3 $240,000.00 $237,000.00 $287,000.00 $490,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - rural areas Interchange 1 n/a $43,780,000.00 $50,032,000.00 $84,190,000 Complex new interchange/interchange modification cost Interchange 2 $20,000,000.00 $22,280,000.00 $25,558,000.00 $43,490,000 New interchange/interchange modification total cost Interchange 3 $10,000,000.00 $10,890,000.00 $12,343,000.00 $22,550,000 Major interchange improvement total cost Bridge 1 $2,000.00 $2,880.00 $3,180.00 $4,800 Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot RRXing 1 $4,500,000.00 $4,550,000.00 $6,376,000.00 $18,200,000 New Rail Grade Crossing per lane mile RRXing 2 $2,250,000.00 $2,120,000.00 $2,733,000.00 $6,900,000 Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lane mile ITS n/a n/a n/a $686,400 Infrastructure for ITS of Network roadway segments per route mile Planning 10% 10% 10% 10% Planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment costs based on construction cost only Engineering 25% 25% 25% 25% Project study report, design, permitting  and construction oversight costs based on construction cost only Contingency 10% 10% 10% 10% Contingency costs, including TUMF program administration based on total segment cost Administration 3% 4% 4% TUMF program administration based on total TUMF eligible network cost

MSHCP 5% 5% 5% TUMF component of MSHCP based on total TUMF eligible construction cost I. Roadway Items Unit Notes
Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 190101 Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 198010 Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 170105 Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost Same as RCTC Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
PCC cubic yard $354.83 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 401050 Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 390132 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 260203 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 - ITEM 731504 Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 Same as RCTC Section 4: Specialty Items
Retaining Walls square foot $90.00 Source: MBI structural group Ramp Realignment each
Water Quality and Erosion Control lump sum 3% of sections 1 to 3 Same as RCTC Environmental Mitigation lump sum 3% of sections 1 to 3 Same as RCTC Section 5: Traffic Items
Lighting each $7,500 Source: RCTC
Traffic Signals each $531,086 Typical for public agency projects in Western Riverside County and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 846007 Marking - Thermo plastic cross walks & pavement marking square foot $7.31 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 840516 Pavement Marker Retroreflective each $5.06 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 - ITEM 810230 Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 820840 Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 - ITEM 820850 Infrastructure for ITS of Network roadway segments route mile $686,383.00 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and MBI ITS Team - Assumptions: 3 Traffic Signals per route mile Section 6: Minor Items lump sum 10% of sections 1 to 5 Same as RCTC Section 7: Roadway Mobilization lump sum 10% of sections 1 to 6 Same as RCTC Section 8:Roadway Additions lump sum 10% of sections 1 to 6 Same as RCTC II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Major New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 Interchange/Interchange, Cloverleaf Interchange - Cost provided by MBI Structural Group New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 Interchange/Interchange, Diamond Interchange - Cost provided by MBI Structural Group Major Interchange Improvement - 2 Lane Bridge Widening square foot $500.00 Interchange/Interchange, Cloverleaf Interchange - Cost provided by MBI Structural Group Bridge square foot $400.00 Cost provided by MBI Structural Group Structure Mobilization lump sum 10% of structure cost Typical for public agency projects in Western Riverside County III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $330 Provided by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

Suburban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $229 Provided by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

Rural
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $5 Provided by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.

Utility Relocation lump sum 10% of ROW Includes mobilization for one occurrence per lane mile Total Items I + II + III Same as RCTC
Maintenance of Traffic lump sum 5% of total items Same as RCTC WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
EXHIBIT F-2
Unit Cost
2024 Nexus Update Master Unit Cost Summary

URBAN Avg. $ per SF % of Total Area Weighted Cost
Commercial
Part Take $22 1.4% $0.30
Full Take $597 7.9% $47.40

9.3%
Industrial
Part Take $29 0.5% $0.15
Full Take $267 6.0% $16.02

6.5%
Single Family Residential
Part Take $10 16.8% $1.68
Full Take $348 66.2% $230.24

83.0%
Multi Family Residential
Part Take $27 0.3% $0.07
Full Take $307 0.8% $2.52

1.1%
Average Unit Price per Square Foot: $298.38
Residential & Non-Res. Relocation (7.5%): $22.38
Demolition (3%) $8.95
Urban Unit Cost per Square Foot: $329.71
SUBURBAN Avg. $ per SF % of Total Area Weighted Share
Commercial
Part Take $17 5.1% $0.87
Full Take $425 14.6% $62.01

19.7%
Industrial
Part Take $20 0.0288 $0.58
Full Take $227 0.08645 $19.62

11.5%
Single Family Residential
Part Take $4 0.24 $0.96
Full Take $292 0.3866 $112.89

62.7%
Multi Family Residential
Part Take $14 0.0284 $0.40
Full Take $313 0.0321 $10.05

6.1%
Average Unit Price per Square Foot: $207.37
Residential & Non-Res. Relocation (7.5%): $15.55
Demolition (3%) $6.22
Suburban Unit Cost per Square Foot: $229.14
RURAL $ per SF
Range of Value of Rural Vacant land sold within last year: $0.07 - $31.48 Average price per square foot of rural land: $4.66
Miscellaneous improvements (10%): $0.46
Rural Unit Cost per Square Foot: $5.12
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
2024 Nexus Update Master Property Cost Summary
EXHIBIT F-3

I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 0.00 $0
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 0.00 $0
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 1.94 $23,467
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $0 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Sidewalk
PCC cubic yard $354.83 258.13 $91,593
Travel way
Asphalt Concrete Type A cubic yard $240.62 1,032.53 $248,448 Aggregate Base cubic yard $73.54 2,596.98 $190,982
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 5,280.00 $347,107
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $135,240 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 10,560.00 $27,245 Marking square foot $7.31 211.50 $1,546
Pavement Marker (Type G One-way Clear Retroreflective) each $5.06 110.00 $557 Signage - 1 Post (Mainline) each $367.69 33.00 $12,134
Total Items I $1,078,318
Maintenance of Traffic 5% of total items 1.00 $53,916
Project Cost / Lane mile $1,132,234
EXHIBIT F-4
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 1 - Level Terrain
Unit Cost

I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 7,739.26 $298,348
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 7,739.26 $158,423
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 1.94 $23,467
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $45,677 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Sidewalk
PCC cubic yard $354.83 258.13 $91,593
Travel way
Asphalt Concrete Type A cubic yard $240.62 1,032.53 $248,448 Aggregate Base cubic yard $73.54 2,596.98 $190,982
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 5,280.00 $347,107
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $210,607 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 10,560.00 $27,245 Marking square foot $7.31 211.50 $1,546
Pavement Marker (Type G One-way Clear Retroreflective) each $5.06 110.00 $557 Signage - 1 Post (Mainline) each $367.69 33.00 $12,134
Total Items I $1,656,133
Maintenance of Traffic 5% of total items 1.00 $82,807
Project Cost / Lane mile $1,738,940
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 2 - Rolling Terrain
Unit Cost

I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 15,478.52 $596,697
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 15,478.52 $316,845
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 1.94 $23,467
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $91,354 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Sidewalk
PCC cubic yard $354.83 258.13 $91,593
Travel way
Asphalt Concrete Type A cubic yard $240.62 1,032.53 $248,448 Aggregate Base cubic yard $73.54 2,596.98 $190,982
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 5,280.00 $347,107
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $285,974 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 10,560.00 $27,245 Marking square foot $7.31 211.50 $1,546
Pavement Marker (Type G One-way Clear Retroreflective) each $5.06 110.00 $557 Signage - 1 Post (Mainline) each $367.69 33.00 $12,134
Total Items I $2,233,949
Maintenance of Traffic 5% of total items 1.00 $111,697
Project Cost / Lane mile $2,345,646
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 3 - Mountainous Terrain
Unit Cost

Unit Unit Cost Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way square foot $329.71 95,040.00 $31,335,419
Project Cost / Lane mile 25% $7,833,855
Unit Unit Cost Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Suburban
Travel Way square foot $229.14 95,040.00 $21,777,847
Project Cost / Lane mile 25% $5,444,462
I. Roadway Items Unit Unit Cost Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Rural
Travel Way square foot $5.12 95,040.00 $486,605
Project Cost / Lane mile $486,605
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
Landuse 3 - ROW Rural areas
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Landuse 1 - ROW Urban areas
Landuse 2 - ROW Suburban Areas
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update

I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 700,000.00 $14,329,000
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 51.93 $628,349
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $1,432,900 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 13,500.00 $3,248,370 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 34,000.00 $2,500,360 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 31,000.00 $2,037,940 Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $3,626,538 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 84,250.00 $217,365 Marking square foot $7.31 368.00 $2,690
Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 14.00 $5,148
Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 4.00 $4,846
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Complex New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 140,400.00 $56,160,000 Total Items I + II + III $84,193,506
Total Project Cost / lane mile $84,193,506
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 1 - Complex New Interchange/Interchange Modification Unit Cost

I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 400,000.00 $8,188,000
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 25.12 $304,000
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $818,800 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 7,040.00 $1,693,965 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 17,706.67 $1,302,148 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 16,000.00 $1,051,840 Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $2,003,813 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 43,200.00 $111,456 Marking square foot $7.31 368.00 $2,690
Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 36.00 $13,237
Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 4.00 $4,846
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 70,000.00 $28,000,000 Total Items I + II + III $43,494,795
Total Project Cost / lane mile $43,494,795
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 2 - New Interchange/Interchange Modification Unit Cost

I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 180,000.00 $3,684,600
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 3.97 $48,000
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $368,460 Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 3,128.89 $752,873 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 7,869.63 $578,733 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 16,000.00 $1,051,840 Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $972,676 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 32,000.00 $82,560 Marking square foot $7.31 184.00 $1,345
Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 20.00 $7,354
Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 4.00 $4,846
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Major Interchange Improvement - 2 Lane Bridge Widening square foot $500.00 30,000.00 $15,000,000 Total Items I + II + III $22,553,287
Total Project Cost / lane mile $22,553,287
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 3 - Major Interchange Improvement
Unit Cost

II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Bridge square foot $400.00 12.00 $4,800
Total Items I + II + III $4,800
Total Project Cost / lane mile $4,800
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Bridge 1 - New Bridge Cost
Unit Cost

I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 17,931.03 $367,048
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 782.22 $188,218 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 1,967.41 $144,683 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 1,180.00 $77,573
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $116,628 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 1,180.00 $3,044 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Bridge square foot $400.00 2,880.00 $1,152,000
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $329.71 49,000.00 $16,155,790 Total Items I + II + III $18,204,986
Total Project Cost / lane mile $18,204,986
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
RRXing 1 - New Rail Grade Crossing
Unit Cost

I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 17.78 $364
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 782.22 $188,218 Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $73.54 1,967.41 $144,683 Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 1,180.00 $77,573
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $61,626 Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction) linear foot $2.58 1,180.00 $3,044 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Bridge square foot $400.00 2,880.00 $1,152,000
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $329.71 16,000.00 $5,275,360 Total Items I + II + III $6,902,869
Total Project Cost / lane mile $6,902,869
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
RRXing 2 - Widen Existing Rail Grade Crossing
Unit Cost

I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / route mile Cost / route mile Infrastructure for ITS of Network roadway segments route mile $686,383.00 1.00 $686,383 Total Items I + II + III $686,383
Total Project Cost / route mile $686,383
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on TUMF Network Roadway Segments Unit Cost

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-13
EXHIBIT F-5
Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003 Section 8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of Reserve Assembly and Management

8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I — SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-14

8.5 LOCAL FUNDING PROGRAM
The following local funding plan describes the local commitment for funding Reserve Assembly, Management, and Monitoring.

The local funding program includes funding from a variety of sources, including but not limited to, regional funding resulting from the importation of waste into landfills in Riverside County, mitigation for regional public infrastructure projects, mitigation for private infrastructure projects, mitigation for private Development, funds generated by local or regional incentive programs that encourage compact growth and the creation oftransit-oriented communities, and dedications of lands in conjunction with local approval of private development projects.

The local funding program will fund the local portion of:
! Land acquisition
! Management
! Monitoring
! Adaptive Management
! Plan administration

8.5.1 Funding Sources
Local funding sources include funding from both public and private developers and regional entities in an effort to spread the financial burden of the MSHCP over a broad base. The mix of funding sources provides an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP. In addition to equitably distributing mitigation for local projects, utilizing a mixture of funding sources will help ensure the long-term viability of the local funding program because a temporary decline in funding from one source may be offset by increases from another. The proposed local funding sources are described below and include:
! Local Development Mitigation Fees
! Density Bonus Fees
! Regional Infrastructure Project Contribution
! Landfill Tipping Fees

8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I — SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-15
! Other Potential New Revenue Sources
' Local Development Mitigation Fees
New Development affects the environment directly through construction activity and cumulatively through population bases that result from Development. Government Code Section 66000 et seq. allows cities and counties to charge new Development for the costs of mitigating the impacts of new Development. The Cities and County will implement a Development Mitigation Fee pursuant to the MSHCP; this fee will be one of the primary sources of funding the implementation of the MSHCP.

The fee ordinance adopted by the Cities and the County will provide for an annual CPI adjustment based upon the Consumer Price Index for “All Urban Consumers” in the Los Angeles-AnaheimRiverside Area, measured as of the month of December in the calendar year which ends in the previous Fiscal Year. There will also be a provision for the fee to be reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover mitigation of new Development. A fee of approximately $1,500 per residential unit (or an equivalent fee per acre) and $4,800 per acre of commercial or industrial Development was used in the revenue projection shown in Appendix B-05 of this document. The projected revenues from the Development Mitigation Fee are anticipated to be approximately $540 million over the next 25 years. A nexus study is required to demonstrate that the proposed fee is proportionate to the impacts of the new Development.
' Density Bonus Fees
The New Riverside County General Plan creates a number of incentive plans that have the potential both to further the goals of the County’s General Plan and to facilitate the implementation of the MSHCP. Section 8.4.2 above discusses the use of the Rural Incentive Program to aid in the Conservation of lands through non-acquisition means. An additional component of the Incentive Program enables developers to acquire the right to develop at an additional 25% increase in density by providing enhancements to their projects and by paying a “Density Bonus Fee.” The fee is anticipated to be $3,000 – $5,000 per additional unit. This program offers a significant incentive to developers when compared with the typical cost of creating a new buildable lot.

The Density Bonus program is new to Riverside County, and it is, therefore, difficult to project annual revenues. The Local Funding Program assumes that between 10% and 20% of the residential units built in the unincorporated County area will participate in the incentive program and that only 50% of the revenues of the program will be committed to the MSHCP, with the remaining portion staying in the local community in which the additional units are located to provide additional

8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I — SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-16
amenities that will help offset the greater density. Of the 330,000 units projected to be built over the next 25 years, 10% (or 33,000 units) are assumed to be built utilizing the Density Bonus Fee resulting in $132,000,000 in revenues of which 50% (or $66,000,000) will be allocated to the MSHCP.
' Regional Infrastructure Project Contribution
Regional infrastructure projects directly affect the environment not only through the effect they have on species and their Habitats, but also by facilitating continued new Development. It is appropriate, therefore, for regional infrastructure projects to contribute to Plan implementation . Four general categories of infrastructure projects have been identified:
! Transportation Infrastructure
! Regional Utility Projects
! Local Public Capital Construction Projects
! Regional Flood Control Projects
Transportation Infrastructure
The RCIP has identified the need for approximately $12 billion in new transportation infrastructure to support the Development proposed for the next 25 years. Each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation . Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% – 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts. The local funding program anticipates that more than one-half of the $12 billion cost of contribution to acquisition of Additional Reserve Lands will be funded locally and will result in approximately $371 million in contribution over the next 25 years as discussed below.
< Riverside County’s ½ cent sales tax for Transportation In 1988, Riverside County voters approved a measure to increase local sales tax by ½ cent to fund new transportation projects (Measure A). The sales tax measure is due to be reauthorized in 2002.

Under the reauthorization, $121 million will be allocated as local contribution under the MSHCP. (For further information on the sales tax measure, see Section 13.5 of the MSHCP Implementing Agreement and Appendix B-07 of this document).

8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I — SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-17
Regional Utility Projects
As Riverside County’s population doubles over the next 25 years, new regional utility infrastructure will be required. Since the utilities are not Permittees under the MSHCP, they may choose to mitigate under the Plan or seek their own regulatory permits. In either case, their mitigation will be focused on the objectives of the MSHCP and will contribute to the local implementation funding.

No estimate of the number of projects or the scope or costs is available at this time; consequently, no estimate of mitigation funding has been made. The Permittees expect that regional utility projects will contribute to the implementation of the MSHCP and provide an additional contingency should other revenue sources not generate the projected levels of funding or should implementation costs be higher than projected.

Local Public Capital Construction Projects
Local public capital construction projects may include construction of new schools, universities, City or County administrative facilities, jails, courts, juvenile facilities, parks, libraries, or other facilities that serve the public. These projects will be mitigated under the MSHCP and will utilize a per acre mitigation fee based on the fee then in place for private, commercial and industrial Development.

No attempt has been made to estimate the number or magnitude of these projects. The Permittees expect that local pubic construction projects will contribute to the implementation of the MSHCP and provide an additional contingency should other revenue sources not generate the projected levels of funding or should implementation costs be higher than projected.

Regional Flood Control Projects
Flood control projects will receive coverage under the MSHCP for both new capital construction and for the maintenance of existing and new facilities. Preliminary estimates from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District indicate that they will likely budget approximately $15 M in projects annually. Based on using 3% of capital costs, the District would be expected to contribute approximately $450,000 to $750,000 annually to MSHCP implementation. Since many flood control projects serve existing developed communities and therefore have less impacts than projects adding capacity to serve new Development and may provide some conservation value especially in terms of Constrained Linkages, the District’s contributions may average something below the 5% level on average.

8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I — SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-18
' Landfill Tipping Fees
Riverside County has utilized revenues from public and private landfills in Riverside County to generate funding for conservation and open space projects for over a decade. In 1990, the County utilized $1 per ton tipping fee assessed all waste deposited in County landfills to fund the acquisition of the Santa Rosa Plateau and approximately $260,000 annually to fund the operation of the County Park and Open Space Districts. More recently, the County has negotiated agreements with two private landfills in the County to commit $1 per ton on all waste imported from outside Riverside County to Conservation within Riverside County.

El Sobrante Landfill
This privately owned landfill was permitted to expand its capacity to 10,000 tons per day in 2001.

In approving the landfill expansion, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors authorized fifty cents per ton of the County’s portion of the revenue from the landfill expansion to be applied to Conservation in addition to the $1 per ton that was committed under the landfill agreement. The projection of the annual tonnage and revenue for Conservation included in Appendix B-09 of this document reflects the $1.5 per ton commitment to Conservation. Over the life of the landfill, 60 million tons of imported waste are allowed. Sixty million tons at $1.5 per ton will generate $90 million for Conservation. The Cash Flow Analysis in Appendix B-10 of this document reflects the annual revenues from the El Sobrante Landfill.

County Landfills
The County Board of Supervisors, beginning in 1990, authorized $1 per ton for all in-county waste deposited in County landfills to go toward habitat and open space Conservation. After adjusting for the debt service on the Santa Rosa Plateau acquisition and an annual commitment to the Park and Open Space District, there is a projected annual balance of $400,000 that can be applied to additional Conservation under the MSHCP. Appendix B-09 of this document includes a projection of tonnage from in-County waste at County landfills. The Cash Flow Analysis in Appendix B-10 of this document reflects the annual revenues from the County landfills. Over the next 25 years, County landfills will contribute approximately $10 million to the implementation of the MSHCP.

8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I — SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-19
Eagle Mountain
In 1997, the County approved the use of the old Kaiser mine at Eagle Mountain in eastern Riverside County as a regional landfill to serve primarily Los Angeles County. Subsequently, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District has acquired the rights to the Eagle Mountain Landfill and intends to begin operation of the landfill within the next decade. At this time, litigation is still pending that could prohibit the development of the landfill. The Development Agreement with the County would require the payment of $1 per ton for Conservation if the landfill is developed. Conservation needs in the Coachella Valley would have first priority over the revenues from the Eagle Mountain Landfill; however, some portion of the revenues would be available to support Conservation needs in Western Riverside County. The Permittees expect that the Eagle Mountain Landfill will provide funding to support implementation of the MSHCP over the life of the MSHCP. However, no revenue from the Eagle Mountain Landfill has been projected in the funding program at this time.

These potential revenues provide a contingency should other revenue sources not generate the projected levels of funding or should implementation costs be higher than projected. ' Potential New Revenue Sources
The County and Cities may levy assessments to pay for services that directly benefit the property on which the fee is levied. Under current law, a local election may be required to initially levy the assessment or to confirm the assessment if a protest is filed. No such assessments are currently projected for the MSHCP. As the MSHCP Conservation Area is developed, however, its value as open space and for recreation opportunities may lend itself to a local funding program for ongoing management and enhancement. In more urban areas, which Western Riverside County will be in 25 years, local voters routinely approve such funding programs.

Other revenue opportunities may be realized over the next 25 years. The County, Cities, and RCA will explore new revenue sources to support the acquisition of the MSHCP Conservation Area and its long-term management and enhancement. A goal of any new fee would be to spread a portion of the costs for the MSHCP across as broad a regional base as possible.

8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I — SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-20
TABLE 8-5

LOCAL PUBLIC/REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
Source Anticipated $ Range Requirements to Implement Responsible Party Private Funding Sources:

Cities and County
Development Mitigation Fees
$539.6M Approval of County Ordinance
Approval of City(ies) Ordinance
County
Cities
Density Bonus Fees $66M Approval of General Plan County Public Funding Sources
Local Roads $121M Approval of Measure A, local agreement on allocation
RCTC/County
Other Transportation $250M % of new road construction RCTC/County Other infrastructure Projects $unknown Project-by-project negotiation County and Cities El Sobrante Landfill $90M In place County
County Landfills $10M In place County
Eagle Mountain Landfill $unknown In place pending start-up County New Regional funding $unknown Voter approval County and Cities TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS $1,076.6M

8.6 ADEQUACY OF FUNDING
The Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies will annually evaluate the performance of the funding mechanisms and, notwithstanding other provisions of the MSHCP, will develop any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms to address additional funding needs. Additionally, this annual evaluation will include an assessment of the funding plan and anticipate funding needs over the ensuing 18 months for the purpose of identifying any potential deficiencies in cash flow. If deficiencies are identified through this evaluation, then the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencieswill develop strategies to address any additional funding needs consistent with the terms and conditions of the MSHCP.

WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 F-14
EXHIBIT F-6
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020

Final Report
Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Nexus Fee Study Update
Prepared for:

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

October 2020
EPS #171034

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS ..............................................................................1 Background............................................................................................................ 1 Original and Existing Fee Schedule ............................................................................ 2 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedules ............................................................................. 3 Key Drivers of Fee Change ....................................................................................... 6 Organization of Report............................................................................................. 8

2. MSHCP POLICIES, GOALS, AND FINANCING STRATEGY.......................................................9 MSHCP Purpose, Basis, and Goals.............................................................................. 9 MSHCP Financing Strategy ..................................................................................... 11 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources ................................................... 13 Development Mitigation Fees and Calculation ............................................................ 16

3. HABITAT PROTECTION TO DATE AND FUTURE CONSERVATION SCENARIO................................. 18 Habitat Protection Accomplishments Through 2019 .................................................... 18 Conservation Goals and Progress ............................................................................ 18 Land Dedications .................................................................................................. 20 Future Conservation Scenario ................................................................................. 21

4. FORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT, DEDICATION, FEE PAYMENT ................................................ 25 Historic Development and HCP Fees......................................................................... 25 Growth Projections................................................................................................ 26

5. MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS.............................................................................. 31 Land Costs........................................................................................................... 31 Other Costs—Administration, Management, and Monitoring......................................... 35 Endowment Funding.............................................................................................. 38 Total Implementation Costs.................................................................................... 40

6. RCA NON-FEE REVENUES ....................................................................................... 43 MSHCP Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues ..................................................................... 43 New Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues ......................................................................... 44

7. MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION ................................................................................. 46

8. MITIGATION FEE ACT (NEXUS) FINDINGS..................................................................... 52 Purpose of Fee ..................................................................................................... 52 Use of Fee Revenues ............................................................................................. 53 Relationship ......................................................................................................... 53 Need................................................................................................................... 54 Proportionality...................................................................................................... 54

9. FEE IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................ 56 Adoption of Revised LDMF ...................................................................................... 56 Securing Supplemental Funding .............................................................................. 56 Annual Review...................................................................................................... 56 Surplus Funds ...................................................................................................... 57 Annual and Periodic Updates................................................................................... 57 Appendix I: Detailed Time Series of Implementation Costs, Excluding Endowment Funding Appendix II: Detailed Time Series of Endowment Funding
List of Tables
Table 1 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule ............................................................ 3 Table 2 Updated MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees.................. 4 Table 3 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule by Extension Scenario................................... 6 Table 4 MSHCP Goals by Area Plan ........................................................................ 11 Table 5 2004 Estimates: MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources............... 14 Table 6 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule .......................................................... 17 Table 7 Conservation Through End of 2019 ............................................................. 18 Table 8 Required Acquisition Acres to Achieve ARL Goals .......................................... 24 Table 9 Projected Growth in Western Riverside County, through 2050......................... 29 Table 10 Projected Developed Acres in Western Riverside County, by Extension Scenario................................................................................... 30 Table 11 Per-Acre Land Value Estimates—2003 Dollars (2003 Nexus Study) .................. 32 Table 12 Local Conservation Costs Through 2018 ...................................................... 32 Table 13 Planning Level Per Acre Land Value Estimates by Category............................. 33

Table 14 Illustrative Distribution of Land Acquisitions by Land Use and Size................... 34 Table 15 Aggregate Land Value of Remaining Areas (2017 dollars)............................... 34 Table 16 Administrative and Professional Services Costs ............................................. 36 Table 17 Management and Monitoring Anticipated Costs in 2004 and 2019 Dollars ........ 38 Table 18 Annual Implementation Cost Estimate (2019$)............................................. 39 Table 19 Endowment Funding (2019$), by Extension Scenario .................................... 40 Table 20 Total Implementation Costs (2019$*), by Extension Scenario......................... 41 Table 21 Average Annual Implementation Costs (2019$), by Extension Scenario............ 42 Table 22 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources ................................................... 44 Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection (2019$s) .............................................. 45 Table 24 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees ............................ 47 Table 25 Recommended Fee Level—No Extension ...................................................... 48 Table 26 Recommended Fee Level—5-Year Extension................................................. 49 Table 27 Recommended Fee Level—10-Year Extension ............................................... 50 Table 28 Recommended Fee Level—15-Year Extension ............................................... 51 List of Figures
Figure 1 State of Conservation in 2003: Conserved Land, Additional Reserve Land to be Acquired, and Total MSHCP Conservation Area Needed .................. 10 Figure 2 MSHCP Estimated Annual Costs in Millions, 2004 Dollars ................................ 15 Figure 3 MSHCP Estimated Annual Revenues in Millions, 2004 Dollars .......................... 16 Figure 4 MSHCP Conservation Goals, 2019 and 2029 Goals Highlighted........................ 19 Figure 5 Progress Towards ARL Through End of 2019 ................................................ 20 Figure 6 Residential Unit Development, Western Riverside County, 2005-2019.............. 25 Figure 7 New Housing Units per Year, SCAG and MSHCP Projections and Historic Production (2005-2019)................................................................. 27 Figure 8 Newly Developed Commercial Acres per Year ............................................... 27 Figure 9 Comparison of Costs by Category ............................................................... 40 Figure 10 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources ................................................... 44

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx

1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS
This Updated Nexus Study (2020 Nexus Study) provides the technical justification for changes to the Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule that applies to Local Permittee participants in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan). These changes are necessary to ensure adequate funding of the obligations of the Local Permittees under the MSHCP and the associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement. The resulting increased fee revenues will support the continued implementation of the MSHCP and the streamlining of endangered species incidental take permitting for new Western Riverside County development provided under the MSHCP. This Nexus Study is consistent with the requirements of California Government Code 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act) that requires specific findings (as well as administration and implementation procedures) for “any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency.”
Background
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan), originally adopted in 2004, is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP was developed in response to the need for future growth opportunities in Western Riverside County while addressing the requirements of the State and federal Endangered Species Acts. The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting processes by allowing the participating jurisdictions to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. At the same time, Plan implementation provides a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region’s quality of life.

The MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and Incidental Take Permit collectively determine a set of conservation actions that must be taken to meet the terms of the Incidental Take Permit and benefit from the regulatory streamlining and other benefits of the MSHCP. This includes the identification of the responsible parties, including the responsibilities of the Local Permittees.1 One of the key requirements of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and Incidental Take Permit (consistent with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act) is the provision of adequate funding by Local Permittees to the Implementing Entity (the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority2) to conduct their portion of the conservation actions identified in the MSHCP.
1 Local Permittees include the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, County Regional Park and Open-Space District, County Department of Waste Resources, and Riverside County Transportation Commission. 2 The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency is a Joint Powers Authority established in 2004 to implement the MSHCP.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Section 8.0 of the MSHCP outlines the MSHCP funding/financing approach. It also identified best estimates of Plan implementation costs at the time of Plan adoption, including the local funding commitment that represents a portion of the overall land acquisition, management and monitoring, and Plan administration costs. The Local Funding Program included a mix of funding sources to provide “an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP.” The proposed funding sources included Local Development Mitigation Fees (and land dedications), regional infrastructure project public contributions (including contributions to mitigate for transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects), and landfill tipping fees.

Participating cities and the County were each required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee under California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”) and supported by the separate “Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,” July 1, 2003 (Original or 2003 Nexus Study). The MSHCP funding chapter notes the need for frequent evaluations of the performance of the funding mechanisms and assessments of the funding plan and the need to make any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms. The MSHCP also notes that the mitigation fee will need to be “reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover mitigation of new development.”
In addition to the common practice of updating mitigation fees periodically to account for changing circumstances, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) has determined that significant changes have occurred and/or circumstances have arisen that justify an update to the mitigation fees. These changes include, but are not limited to, the following:
• The need to acquire more land than originally forecast due to the lower than expected land dedication.
• The lower-than-expected levels of non-fee funding from local and regional funding sources. • The lower than expected levels of residential development. • The need to diversify land acquisitions away from a focus on the larger, more remote parcels to also acquiring parcels closer to urbanized areas, consistent with the reserve assembly requirements of the MSHCP.

Original and Existing Fee Schedule
All local jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP and obtaining coverage for public and private take in their jurisdictions were required to adopt and implement the 2004 Mitigation Fee Schedule through ordinance and resolution and then to pass through the fee funding (except for any additional administrative charges added by the jurisdictions) to the RCA to fund MSHCP implementation. The ordinances allowed for periodic inflationary increases based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area. In 2018 the Bureau of Labor Statistics implemented a geographic revision, establishing Riverside as its own Core Based Statistical Area. As a result, Riverside was removed from the Consumer Price Index encompassing Los Angeles and Anaheim. Going forward, inflationary increases will be based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the newly established Riverside-San

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx Bernardino-Ontario area. As outlined in the 2003 Nexus Study (Original Nexus Study), all new development in Western Riverside County is required to pay the mitigation fee.

Table 1 shows the original 2004 Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule and the current 2021 Fee Schedule that reflects periodic inflationary fee adjustments using the indexing process that collectively increased the fees by 35 percent between 2004 and 2020 (this was below the overall inflation index increase over this period).

Table 1 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule
Fee Category
2004 Fee per unit or
per acre
2021 Fee per
unit or per acre3
Residential: Up to 8.0 dwelling units per acre
(DUAC) $1,651 $2,234
Residential: 8.0-14.0 DUAC $1,057 $1,430
Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $859 $1,161
Commercial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Industrial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Updated Mitigation Fee Schedules
This 2020 Nexus Study has estimated the increased fee level that would be required to provide sufficient revenues, based on the best available forecasts of future growth, to support the full implementation of the MSHCP, including the completion of all land acquisition and the establishment of the necessary endowment, by 2029 (Year 25 of Plan implementation).4 Because, as shown below, this would require a major increase in the fee levels, three other scenarios are also considered where different time extensions provide more time for land acquisition.5 These extensions allow for the costs of Plan implementation (including land acquisitions) to be spread across more development and, as a result, moderate the level of mitigation fee increase required. In addition, the longer extension scenarios require a pace of land acquisition that is more consistent with what has proven to be achievable. All of these fee 3 Note it is RCA procedure to refer to fees during, for example, Fiscal Year 2020/2021, as the 2021 fee. The 2021 fee became effective July 1, 2020, and applies for the fiscal year of 2020-21 (i.e., until June 30, 2021 when the 2022 Fee begins).
4 The MSHCP provided a 25-year period of the required land acquisition with the larger 75-year permit term. This is labelled the “No Extension” or “Baseline Scenario” in this Update Study. 5 The baseline scenario as well as the extension scenarios assume that all land acquisition as well as the full endowment will be completed/ established by the end of the specified implementation/ land acquisition period. Interest from the non-depleting endowment will fund all ongoing costs thereafter.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx increases would be consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and the MSHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement.

The mitigation fee levels shown for each extension scenario are the fee levels required to cover the appropriate portion of the Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs based on the best information available at this time. The revised mitigation fee levels reflect changes in estimated costs, expected levels of land dedication, and non-fee funding. Consistent with the MSHCP and Original Nexus Study, it is assumed that all new development in Western Riverside County will pay the mitigation fee because, as noted in the MSHCP, “new development affects the environment through construction activity and cumulatively through population bases that result from such development.”6 Importantly, the revised mitigation fee levels also reflect the decision to determine the mitigation fee that applies to different land uses on a consistent per gross acre basis. This approach is considered to provide a clear, consistent, and proportionate method for determining mitigation fees on new development.7 The 2020 Nexus Study does convert the overarching per gross acre fee into per unit residential fees for different density ranges; this conversion was conducted to provide implementation/administrative consistency for member jurisdictions.

Table 2 Updated MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees 6 Consistent with the Original Nexus Study and the technical analysis in this study update (and as described in more detail in the Fee Implementation Handbook), certain types of public improvements/ infrastructure projects will make mitigation payments calculated as a percent of total improvement cost. All projects are required to make a mitigation payment/contribution (except where exempted as specified in the Ordinance); where no mitigation payment process is specified, the project will pay the updated per acre mitigation fee.
7 This is the approach taken by the majority of regional Habitat Conservation Plans in California, including the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee.

Fee Per Acre No Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Net Cost $912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805 Acres of Development
Residential 14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403
Nonresidential 6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637
Total 20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040
Mitigation Fee per Acre $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358 Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.