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 No - Build 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 C-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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 -to - freeway connector ramps, respectively. Freeways were defined as including mixed - flow to carpool lane connector ramps, freeways, carpool lanes, and freeway -to - freeway 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 C- 3 in this Appendix and extracted for the combined peak periods in Table 3.1 of the study report.
WRCOG C-2 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
Source: RivOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network completed by WRCOG and GHD, 20 3 EXHIBIT C-1
Western Riverside County
2021 Existing Network
Facility Type
LEGEND
TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Existing Facility Type
TUMF Arterials
NonTUMF Arterials
Freeways
0 3 6 9
Miles
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 LOSE & 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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
C-4 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024
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%
1,01 1,931
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 trc 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 Generc WRCOG
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update
C-5 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024
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 D-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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 E-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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 E-2 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network completed by WRCOG and GHD, 2023
E WESTWARD AVE
EXHIBIT E-1
Western Riverside County
2021 Existing Network
Number of Lanes
W�E
LEGEND
TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Existing Number of Lanes (Directional)
1 lane
- 2 lanes
- 3+ lanes
0 3.3 6.7 10
Miles
GR'
RA\LROAD
RRO
E FrjOTHILL pKy
005 qO�
ASP
Ps rFMeSC
LIVE
YON RD WCO
rEo
a
i r viAu BY BLVD
14TH SOT k �ALLV, r
KWY
— 10L SOIst ST
W
E 1S rST 6,84, WL
'ado
m q�E
WAY 79
EXHIBIT E-2
Western Riverside County
2018 Existing Conditions Scenario
Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT)
W� E
LEGEND
TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
<10,000
10,000-20,000
20,000-30,000
30,000-50,000
50,000+
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2018 base year SED Miles
SCH LEISMAN
,O
2ND$T I_
1ST ST 2�
L� �r VUMADR
RAILROAD ST I Z�
pp F�
GREEN RNER RD J0
F5 �`
U'� 0
'E -
ARLINGTON AVE
LIVE
YON RD WCO
S.
W BTH ST
Z
O �
Z A
E FOOTHILL PKY
CENTER ST
qbF TRD ST
UNIVERSITY AVE-
MARRN LU HEI G BLVD
IRON WOOD+A
EUCALYP IN •" ■' I
E ALESSANDRO BLVD
~ MA &M ST
E ELLIS AVE
FEo
5? s
rHFIRRY VAI I FY BLVD
v T�
CALIF
STATE
W 14TH SOTK Vq
- 14Utill4SON ST
E _
Q�V W
WL E ISAST FSl O
q{E
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2018 base year SED WAY 79
DE AVER QFFSP
EXHIBIT E-3
Western Riverside County
2018 Existing Conditions Scenario
Level of Service (LOS)
LEGEND
TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Peak Period LOS
LOS A or B
LOS C or D
LOS E or F
Miles
EXHIBIT E-4
Western Riverside County
2045 Future No -Build Scenario
Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT)
LEGEND
TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
<10,000
- 10,000-20,000
- 20,000-30,000
30,000-50,000
- 50,000+
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2045 horizon year SED Miles
qO
GREEN RN ER RD
O
DRUID I
UNIVERSITY AVE%
MAR,N LU HER.G BLVD
AIII NGTONAV�
END LT I
1ST ST 4
L�� VUM DR 5
RAILROAD ST P Z
? O F
0 P5 D Q6THST E6TH gT
O ,
I � O ?
Z
x V1 F
E FOOTHILL PH),
USE
YON RD WCo
S.
99 FEo
ti
B
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2021 existing TUMF network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2045 horizon year SED 2 CHERRY VALLEY BLVD
o„,
f
E IS AST
WAY 79
w y�ij.SON ST
E RAMSEV ST
Sr,�OWL EWESTWARD VVE
OH
A I
EXHIBIT E-5
Western Riverside County
2045 Future No -Build Scenario
Level of Service (LOS)
W�E
LEGEND
TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Peak Period LOS
LOS A or B
LOS C or D
LOS E or F
0 3 6 9
Miles
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2045 recommended TUMF build network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2045 horizon year SED EXHIBIT E-6
Western Riverside County
2045 Future TUMF Build Scenario
Number of Lanes
W>E
LEGEND
TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Existing Number of Lanes (Directional)
1 lane
- 2 lanes
- 3+ lanes
0 3.3 6.7 10
Miles
EXHIBIT E-7
Western Riverside County
2045 Future TUMF Build Scenario
Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT)
LEGEND
TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
<10,000
- 10,000-20,000
- 20,000-30,000
30,000-50,000
- 50,000+
Source: RivCOM 2018 base network with updated 2045 recommended TUMF build network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS 2045 horizon year SED Miles
RAILROAD ST
OREEN RNER RD E
LEGEND
TUMF ZONE
Northwest
Central
Pass
Southwest
Hemet/San Jacinto
Peak Period LOS
LOS A or B
LOS C or D
LOS E or F
Miles
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 well- known 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 F-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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
6' 4'
r
i
12' 12' I4' 12'
!Sidewalk Bicycle Roadway Lanes Painted. Median
La
12'
6'
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 F-2 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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 F-3 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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 F-4 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
➢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%o 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 F-5 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
➢ 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 F-6 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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
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 F-7 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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
100 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 RRXingsl 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 + l4ft 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 + l0ft 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 100 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 RRXingsl 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 F-8 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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 F-9 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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 100 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 C/P 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 201 1) 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 Multi - Agency CIP Benchmarking Study (December 2016), Table 3-6 Average Project Delivery Costs by Project Type (% of TCC) (Full Range of TCC).
WRCOG F-10 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
• 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 development», 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 201 1), 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 201 1), Section 2.2.3.2.3 Construction Engineering, "highway improvement projects in an urban environment".
1' 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 F-11 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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.
WRCOG F-12 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
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
RRXinq 1
$4,500,000.00
$4,550,000.00
$6,376,000.00
$18,200,000
New Rail Grade Crossing per lane mile
RRXinq 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 Contin.enc
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
EXHIBIT F-2
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
2024 Nexus Update Master Unit Cost Summary
I. Roadway Items
Unit
Unit Cost
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
EXHIBIT F-3
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
2024 Nexus Update Master Property Cost Summary
URBAN Avg. $ per SF % of Total Area Weighted Cost
Commercial
Part Take $22 1.4%
Full Take $597 7.9%
9.3%
Industrial
Part Take $29 0.5%
Full Take $267 6.0%
6.5%
Single Family Residential
Part Take $10 16.8%
Full Take $348 66.2%
83.0%
Multi Family Residential
Part Take $27 0.3%
Full Take $307 0.8%
Average Unit Price per Square Foot:
Residential & Non -Res. Relocation (7.5%):
Demolition (3%)
Urban Unit Cost per Square Foot:
$0.30
$47.40
$0.15
$16.02
$1.68
$230.24
$0.07
$2.52
$298.38
$22.38
$8.95
$329.71
SUBURBAN Avg. $ per SF % of Total Area Weighted Share
Commercial
Part Take $17 5.1%
Full Take $425 14.6%
19.7%
Industrial
Part Take $20 0.0288
Full Take $227 0.08645
11.5%
Single Family Residential
Part Take $4 0.24
Full Take $292 0.3866
62.7%
Multi Family Residential
Part Take $14 0.0284
Full Take $313 0.0321
6.1%
Average Unit Price per Square Foot:
Residential & Non -Res. Relocation (7.5%):
Demolition (3%)
Suburban Unit Cost per Square Foot:
$0.87
$62.01
$0.58
$19.62
$0.96
$112.89
$0.40
$10.05
$207.37
$15.55
$6.22
$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
EXHIBIT F-4
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 1 - Level Terrain
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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: Drainace
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 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 2 - Rolling Terrain
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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: Drainace
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 3 - Mountainous Terrain
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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: Drainace
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 $1 1 1,697
Project Cost / Lane mile
$2,345,646
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Landuse 1 - ROW Urban areas
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity / lane mile
Cost / lane mile
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
square foot
$329.71
95,040.00
$31,335,419
Travel Way
Project Cost / Lane mile 25% $7,833,855
Landuse 2 - ROW Suburban Areas
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity / lane mile
Cost / lane mile
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Suburban
square foot
$229.14
95,040.00
$21,777,847
Travel Way
Project Cost / Lane mile 25% $5,444,462
Landuse 3 - ROW Rural areas
I. Roadway Items
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity / lane mile
Cost / lane mile
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Rural
square foot
$5.12
95,040.00
$486,605
Travel Way
Project Cost / Lane mile $486,605
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 1 - Complex New Interchange/Interchange Modification I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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 + I I I
$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 2 - New Interchange/Interchange Modification I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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 3 - Major Interchange Improvement
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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
Bridge 1 - New Bridge Cost
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity / lane mile
Cost / lane mile
Bridge
square foot
$400.00
12.00 $4,800
Total Items
I + II + I I I
$4,800
Total Project Cost / lane mile
$4,800
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
RRXing 1 - New Rail Grade Crossing
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity / lane mile
Cost / lane mile
Section 1: Earthwork
cubic yard
cubic yard
cubic yard
linear foot
lump sum
linear foot
$20.47
$240.62
$73.54
$65.74
15% of Sections 1 and 2
$2.58
17,931.03
782.22
1,967.41
1,180.00
1.00 1,180.00
$367,048
$188,218
$144,683
$77,573
$1 16,628
$3,044
Imported Borrow
Travel way
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane)
Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane)
Curb and Gutter
Section 3: Drainace
Project Drainage
Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Bridge
square foot
$400.00
2,880.00
$1,152,000
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
square foot
$329.71
49,000.00
$16,155,790
Travel Way - Additional lane
Total Items
I + II + I I I
$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 2 - Widen Existing Rail Grade Crossing
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
Quantity / lane mile
Cost / lane mile
Section 1: Earthwork
cubic yard
cubic yard
cubic yard
linear foot
lump sum
linear foot
$20.47
$240.62
$73.54
$65.74
15% of Sections 1 and 2
$2.58
17.78 782.22
1,967.41
1,180.00
1.00 1,180.00
$364
$188,218
$144,683
$77,573
$61,626
$3,044
Imported Borrow
Travel way
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane)
Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane)
Curb and Gutter
Section 3: Drainace
Project Drainage
Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Bridge
square foot
$400.00
2,880.00
$1,152,000
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
square foot
$329.71
16,000.00
$5,275,360
Travel Way - Additional lane
Total Items
I + II + I I I
$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
Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on TUMF Network Roadway Segments I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Unit
Unit Cost
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 + I I I
$686,383
Total Project Cost / route mile
$686,383
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 WRCOG F-13 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
8.o MSHCP FundinglFinancing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
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 of transit -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
VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-14
8.o MSHCP FundinglFinancing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
• 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 -Anaheim - Riverside 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 VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-15
8.o MSHCP FundinglFinancing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
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 1/2 cent sales tax for Transportation In 1988, Riverside County voters approved a measure to increase local sales tax by 1/2 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).
VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-16
8.o MSHCP Funding/Financing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management
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 utilityproj ects 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 proj ects 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.
VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP
8-17
8.o MSHCP Funding/Financing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management
Landfill Tipping Fees
COL/
RCIt
714
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.
VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-18
8.o MSHCP Funding/Financing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management
Eagle Mountain
RCItP,5
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.
VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-19
8.o MSHCP Funding!Financing Of
Reserve Assembly and Management RI l_s'
c PR
Source Anticipated
TABLE 8-5
LOCAL PUBLIC/REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
$ Range
Requirements to Implement Responsible Party
Private Funding Sources:
Cities and County
Development Mitigation Fees
Density Bonus Fees
$539.6M Approval of County Ordinance
Approval of City(ies) Ordinance
County
Cities
$66M Approval of General Plan County
Public Funding Sources
Local Roads
Other Transportation
Other infrastructure Projects
El Sobrante Landfill
County Landfills
Eagle Mountain Landfill
New Regional funding
$121 M Approval of Measure A, local agreement on RCTC/County allocation
$250M % of new road construction RCTC/County
$unknown Project -by -project negotiation County and Cities $90M In place County
$10M In place County
$unknown In place pending start-up County
$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 Agencies will develop strategies to address any additional funding needs consistent with the terms and conditions of the MSHCP.
VOLUME I ♦ SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-20
EXHIBIT F-6
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020
WRCOG F-14 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
Final Report
The E.•onwiric.F 0.1 Load
•
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1330 Broadway
Suite 450
Oakland, CA 94622
510 84I 9190 tel
Oakland
Sacramento
Denver
Los Angeles
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
www. epsys.com
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
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.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
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 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
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
(DUAL)
$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.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
c1usersVt.ama.wvvo+toWragnlaosorc1wineowsprvetcxne\content.oenod\VAAP6nooWexussmeKFinaLzzonzozo.corx
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
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.? 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 Fee Per Acre
5 -Year 10 -Year 15 -Year
No Extension Extension Extension Extension
Net Cost
Acres of Development
Residential
Nonresidential
Total
Mitigation Fee per Acre
$912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805
14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403
6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637
20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040
$45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
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.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
c1usersVt.ama.wvvo+toWragnlaosorc1wineowsprvetcxne\content.oenod\VAAP6MDOWevussmeY_FinaLzzonzozo.corx
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
As shown in Table 2, the required mitigation fee per gross acre of development varies substantially based on level of extension as follows:
• No Extension. Under the current structure, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 25 of MSHCP implementation (2029), a mitigation fee of $45,041 per acre of development would be required.
• 5 -Year Extension. With a 5 -year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 30 of MSHCP implementation (2034), a mitigation fee of $28,625 per acre of development would be required.
• 10 -Year Extension. With a 10 -year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 35 of MSHCP implementation (2039), a mitigation fee of $20,868 per acre of development would be required.
• 15 -Year Extension. With a 15 -year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the end of Year 40 of MSHCP implementation (2044), a mitigation fee of $16,358 per acre of development would be required.
For residential development, the per gross acre fee is translated into per residential unit fees by density category to provide for a fee framework that is consistent with the current fee structure.
The per residential unit fees are calculated by dividing the per gross acre fee by an assumed typical/ average density for each of the three density ranges (low, medium, and high).8 The full mitigation fee schedule (for each extension scenario) is shown in Table 3, including the per unit residential fees by density category and per gross acre fees for non-residential development.
The typical/ average residential densities used to calculate the per -unit residential fees are the same as the density assumptions in the Original Nexus Study.9 8 For example, the $3,635 per unit Residential — Low fee under the 15 -year extension is derived by dividing the overall per gross acre mitigation fee of $16,358 (shown in Figure 2) by the assumed typical/average density of Residential Low of 4.5 units/acre. 9 The Fee Implementation Handbook provides more specifics on how to determine a project's residential density and therefore the appropriate per unit residential fee that applies.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 3 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule by Extension Scenario Fee Per Unit
Residential - Low (Up to 8.0 DUAC)2 3
Residential - Medium (8.0-14.0 DUAC)2 3
Residential - High (14.0+ DUAC) 23
Commercial / Industrial (per acre)
Current Fee No 5 -Year 10 -Year 15 -Year
20211 Extension Extension Extension Extension
$2,234 $10,009 $6,361 $4,637 $3,635
$1,430 $4,170 $2,650 $1,932 $1,515
$1,161 $1,846 $1,173 $855 $670
$7,606 $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358
1. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule for FY 2020-21 (Effective July 1, 2020 — June 30, 2021), annually adjusted using the Consumer Price Index.
2. Per acre mitigation fees translated into per unit fees based on the following residential densities: for low density, 4.5 units per acre; for medium density, 10.8 units per acre; for high density, 24.4 units per acre, consistent with the assumptions used in Appendix E of the original Nexus Study.
3. DUAC stands for Dwelling Units per Acre.
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Key Drivers of Fee Change
The change in Local Development Mitigation Fee is the result of a number of different contributing factors ("moving parts"), fully documented and detailed in Chapters 2 through 7.
This Nexus Study is based on the most current information available including, for some inputs, recent years of experience from MSHCP implementation. The factors that have had the most significant effect on the Local Development Mitigation Fee calculations are summarized below.
1. Lower -than -expected land dedications substantially increase the Local Permittee habitat acquisition cost component of MSHCP implementation. The MSHCP assumed that 41,000 of the 97,000 acres (42 percent) to be conserved by Local Permittee action/funding would be provided at no cost through land dedication associated with development inside the Criteria Cells. Through the first sixteen years of Plan implementation, less than 1,000 acres of the Local Permittee habitat conservation obligations have been generated through these dedications. An additional 10,000 acres of land dedication requirements have been required as part of proposed developments that have yet to occur. Beyond the dedication associated with previously proposed projects, additional land dedication is not expected.10 As a result, the 2020 Nexus Study assumes the noted 10,000 acres of land dedication is formalized over the next eight years (an average annual land dedication of 1,250 acres per year) prior to the end of the current land acquisition period. No additional land dedication is assumed, even if the acquisition period is extended.
As a result, at the end of the current habitat acquisition period (Year 25 of Plan 10 In September 2016, the RCA revised its fee credit and waiver policy, limiting the likelihood of projects paying fees and dedicating land.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
c:fuse,sup.=ma.wvvo=t=wcannlaosorc,wmeaw,vrv.tcxn.\Conenr.o.naa:wanvsnoowexu=smer_F;n=i zaaxzozo.aorx
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
implementation), total land dedication is expected to represent about 11,000 acres and about 11 percent of the Local Permittee land conservation requirement. The RCA therefore needs to directly acquire an additional 30,000 acres of land relative to the expectations of the Original Nexus Study.
2. Lower than expected regional infrastructure public contributions have reduced the non -fee funding available, increasing the costs to be funded through the mitigation fee. The MSHCP assumed a substantial level of funding from regional infrastructure project public contributions, including transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects, as well as from landfill tipping fees. While the Measure A sales tax has provided substantial funding as expected, other revenue sources, on aggregate, have provided (and are expected to continue to provide) substantially less funding than forecast in the 2003 Nexus Study. As a result, mitigation fees will need to cover about 91 percent of Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs relative to the original assumption of about 56 percent.
3. The change towards a consistent "per gross developed acre" fee basis provides a more consistent approach for all land use development types. The 2003 Nexus Study used an "Equivalent Benefit Unit" approach to distributing mitigation costs between different land use categories. This Nexus Study adjusts the fee calculation to the more commonly used per gross acre basis. Under this approach, the new Local Development Mitigation Fees are all based on one "across the board" per gross acre fee determination. Non-residential development then pays this per acre fee, while per unit residential fees by density category are derived from this common per gross acre fee.11 This change evens out some of the prior differences in mitigation fee levels.
4. The estimates of average per acre land values have not changed substantially, so they have had a limited effect on the change in mitigation fees. The original MSHCP implementation cost estimate was based on an average land value of about $13,100 per acre. This was based on research on land transactions of parcels with different land use designations and sizes in 2001/2002. The land valuation analysis conducted for this Nexus Study estimated a planning -level land value of about $14,300 per acre based on land transactions primarily in the 2014 to 2017 period (inflated to 2019 -dollar terms). As a result, land value estimates have not changed substantially in nominal dollar terms since the Original Nexus Study. This estimated per acre land value is above the cost of most RCA transactions to date, though the average land values of future RCA land acquisition are expected to increase due to the increasing need to purchase more expensive land in "linkage" areas.
11 Similar to the Original Nexus Study, all new development in Western Riverside County is required to pay the mitigation fee (or otherwise provide the necessary mitigation). The conversion from per gross acre to per unit fees for residential development is conducted to provide administrative continuity for member agencies.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Organization of Report
This Nexus Study includes several chapters. Chapter 1, this chapter, describes the purpose and need for this Nexus Study, the recommended changes in the Local Development Mitigation Fee, and the key drivers of these changes. Chapters 2 through 7 provide the technical analysis that supports the updated fees and nexus findings. Chapter 2 summarizes the purpose of and basis for the MSHCP, the conservation requirements of the MSHCP, and the financing strategy and approach developed to implement the MSHCP in 2004. Chapter 3 describes the conservation achievements to date, identifies the remaining conservation requirements, and identifies expected land dedication. Chapter 4 provides the development forecast used in the calculation of the updated mitigation fees. Chapter 5 provides the estimates of MSHCP implementation costs, including land acquisition, management and monitoring, program administration, and endowment. Chapter 6 describes the historical levels of non -fee revenues available to help fund Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs. Chapter 7 brings together the technical analysis in Chapters 2 through 6 to estimate the updated 2020 Local Development Mitigation Fees.
Chapter 8 provides the nexus findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act as require to establish the updated fees. Finally, Chapter 9 highlights some of the administration and implementation requirements under the Mitigation Fee Act, recognizing that the Fee Implementation Handbook provides more specific guidance to the RCA and its partner agencies on the implementation of the mitigation fee program.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
2. MSHCP POLICIES, GOALS, AND FINANCING STRATEGY
MSHCP Purpose, Basis, and Goals
In response to the need to maintain future growth opportunities in Western Riverside County while addressing the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, the County and the Riverside County Transportation Commission initiated the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) in 1999. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is one part of the RCIP that includes:
• Updated County General Plan. Addresses the required general plan elements such as land use, circulation, housing and open space, and conservation and includes programs to implement the MSHCP, enhance transit alternatives, and encourage development of mixed - use centers.
• Community and Environment Transportation Acceptability Process. Identifies future transportation corridors in Western Riverside and provides needed environmental documentation to allow preservation of future right-of-ways. • MSHCP. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan) is a comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP conserves vulnerable plant and animal species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County and supports economic development.
The MSHCP was adopted in 2003 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Subsequently, all of the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, County Regional Parks and Open -Space District, County Department of Waste Resources, Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Department of Transportation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Fish and Game, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the RCA signed an Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP. The Implementing Agreement includes terms to ensure MSHCP-implementation, defines remedies and recourses should any of the parties of the Agreement fail to perform obligations, and provides assurances that, as long as the MSHCP is being implemented, the Wildlife Agencies will not require additional mitigation from the Permittees.12 The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan under the NCCP Act of 2001.
The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting processes by allowing the participating jurisdictions to authorize "take" of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. At the same time, Plan implementation provides a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region's quality of life. 12 The Wildlife Agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Permittees include all of the other parties to the Implementing Agreement.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
The MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and Incidental Take Permit collectively determine a set of conservation actions, and the associated responsible parties, that must be taken to meet the terms of the Incidental Take Permit and benefit from the regulatory streamlining and other benefits of the MSHCP. This includes the identification of the responsibilities of the Local Permittees.13
MSHCP Conservation Requirements
The goal of the MSHCP is to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystems processes while allowing future economic growth. The MSHCP calls for an MSHCP Conservation Area of 500,000 acres and focuses on the conservation of 146 species.
Figure 1 State of Conservation in 2003: Conserved Land, Additional Reserve Land to be Acquired, and Total MSHCP Conservation Area Needed
600,000
500,000
400,000
Acres 300,000
200,000
100,000
0 500,000
347,000
65,000
282,000
153,000
97,000
162,000
338,000
■
2004 Existing Acquire: Additional Total
Public/Quasi Public Reserve Land
Land
Federal/State Local
As shown in Figure 1, when the MSHCP was adopted, existing public and quasi -public conservation lands covered 347,000 acres, leaving a need for 153,000 acres of land, called Additional Reserve Land (ARL), to meet the goals of the MSHCP (see Figure 1). The MSHCP specifies that responsibility for the conservation of the 153,000 -acre Additional Reserve Lands is shared by the local development process (97,000 acres) and state and federal purchases (56,000).
13 Local Permittees include the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, County Regional Park and Open Space District, County Department of Waste Resources, and Riverside County Transportation Commission.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 4 MSHCP Goals by Area Plan
Area Plan
Total Area of Low End of Goal
Criteria Cells
High End of
Goal
Midpoint
Cities of Riverside and Norco
Eastvale
Elsinore
Harvest Valley / Winchester
Highgrove
Jurupa
Lake Mathews / Woodcrest
Lakeview / Nuevo
Mead Valley
Reche Canyon / Badlands
REMAP
San Jacinto Valley
Southwest Area
Sun City / Menifee Valley
Temescal Canyon
The Pass
Total
1,756
665
28,946
820
1,452
5,476
11,673
14,682
7,703
26,000
78,423
32,828
66,076
2,059
10,007
22,652
90 145
11,700
430
345
890
3,215
6,650
1,885
10,520
41,400
11,540
22,500
1,120
3,485
8,540
240
290
18,515
605
675
1,870
5,470
10,235
3,635
15,610
58,470
19,465
36,360
1,585
5,800
13,925
165
220
15,110
515
510
1,380
4,340
8,445
2,760
13,065
49,935
15,500
29,430
1,355
4,645
11,230
311,218 124,455 192,750 158,605
The MSHCP includes methods to determine whether the goals of the Plan are being met. One of the methods is measuring the extent to which conservation acquisitions are moving toward acquisition goals by each Area Plan.14 Area Plans are established in the County's General Plan and are used in the MSHCP as a common geographic unit in Western Riverside County. The MSHCP established low, high, and midpoint acquisition goals for each Area Plan based on biological needs. The midpoint acquisition goals for each Area Plan range from 165 to nearly 49,935 acres, as shown in Table 4. The midpoint goals sum to 158,605 which represents 5,605 acres more than are needed to fulfill the MSHCP goals. As a result, acquisitions in some Area Plans can fall below the mid -point targets while the total ARL can still achieve the 153,000 -acre goal.
MSHCP Financing Strategy
One of the key requirements of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and Incidental Take Permit (consistent with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act) is the provision of adequate funding by Local Permittees to the Implementing Entity (the Regional Conservation Authority) to conduct the conservation actions identified in the MSHCP as the responsibility of the Local Permittees.
14 Other geographic units include Rough Steps, city jurisdictions, and Area Plan subunits. For the purposes of this analysis, Area Plans have been selected as the primary unit of analysis because they are the middle-sized unit (smaller than Rough Steps and larger than Area Plan subunits) and have not changed over time (unlike jurisdictions, several of which have incorporated since the adoption of the MSHCP.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 425 0924 . w000aa��;�4O5Orcw,��"�eKxe� e . a�.�� oo�� �ry�yFina133���tl
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Section 8.0 of the MSHCP addresses "MSHCP Funding/Financing of Reserve Assembly and Management." This section provides best estimates of Plan implementation costs at the time of Plan adoption, including the local funding commitment - the portion of Plan implementation costs that represents the Local Permittees' portion of the overall land acquisition, management, monitoring, adaptive management, and Plan administration costs. Section 8.5 describes the Local Funding Program. The Local Funding Program included a mix of funding sources to provide "an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP." The proposed funding sources included Local Development Mitigation Fees, density bonus fees, regional infrastructure project public contributions (including transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects), and landfill tipping fees. Key components of the overall MSHCP implementation and funding strategy are highlighted below:
• The Regional Conservation Authority would implement the MSHCP with funding from different sources.
• The permanent protection of 97,000 acres in Additional Reserve Lands by Year 25 of the Plan (2029) would be achieved through direct purchase of habitat lands by the RCA using local funding and through the HANS dedication process.15
• Local funding sources would fund the ongoing management and maintenance costs of the local portion of the Additional Reserve Lands acquired through local funding (97,000 acres by end of acquisition period).
• Local funding sources would fund monitoring activities on the pre -Plan local conservation and all the new Additional Reserve Lands (500,000 acers by end of acquisition period). • The permanent protection of 56,000 acres in Additional Reserve Lands by Year 25 would be achieved using state/federal funding sources or contributions. • State and federal funding sources would fund the management and maintenance costs of the State/federal portion of the required Additional Reserve Lands. • Local Development Mitigation Fees (on private development) would fund the Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs that were not funded by other local/regional funding sources or public contributions for public development project mitigation. • The overall permit period was set at 75 years. Once habitat acquisition was completed by Year 25, remaining funds along with newly created revenue sources were to be used to fund 15 Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP describes the HANS process. The Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process applied to any property owner applying for a discretionary permit for land within a Criteria Area/Criteria Cell. Under the process, the County determined whether portions of the property are needed for conservation and then may send their evaluation to the RCA for Joint Project Review (JPR). During JPR, the project applicant negotiated the terms of the development and conservation of the project. The applicant also paid fees on the new development.
This approach was refined when a new fee credit policy, adopted in 2016, provided for fee credits where appropriate lands are dedicated.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
monitoring and management as well as to fund the establishment of an endowment to cover ongoing post -permit costs (beyond Year 75).
Importantly, the MSHCP funding chapter notes that frequent evaluations of the performance of the funding mechanisms and assessments of the funding plan will occur and that any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms will be developed.
MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources
The original estimated costs and proposed funding sources were documented in the MSHCP and are summarized in Table 5. These were developed based on research and analysis conducted as part of MSHCP development.
As shown, Plan implementation costs over the first 25 years of implementation were estimated at about $950 million in 2004 -dollar terms. Key assumptions driving the implementation cost estimates included:
• Dedications. Direct acquisition using local funding sources would be required to acquire 56,000 acres, with 41,000 acres (or 42 percent) of the required local habitat protection coming through HANS dedication.
• Land Cost. Average land value of $13,100 per acre for Additional Reserve Lands purchased by the RCA.
• Management and Monitoring: Management and monitoring costs included three key components as follows: Reserve Management, Adaptive Management, and Biological Monitoring.16
• Program Administration. RCA program administration costs would average about $1.2 million each year in 2004 dollars during the 25 -year period where land acquisition was required.
• Cost Distribution. Overall, land acquisition costs were estimated at 77 percent of total implementation costs, with management and monitoring at 20 percent, and program administration at 3 percent (see Figure 2).
16 See Chapter 5 of the MSHCP for a description of these activities.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 -?924
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 5 2004 Estimates: MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources Total for
2004 - 2028
(Years 1 - 25)
Average
Annual
of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement
HANS Dedication
Local Permittee Acquisition
97,000 acres
41,000 acres
56,000 acres
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)
Management & Monitoring
RCA Staff
Other Costs
Endowment
Total Costs
$733,600,000
$190,200,000
$30,000,000
na
not included
$953,800,000
3,880 acres
1,640 acres
2,240 acres
$29,344,000
$7,608,000
$1,200,000
na
not included
$38,152,000
na
na
na
76.91%
19.94%
3.15%
na
na
100.0%
Local Revenues
Private Development Mitigation Fees
Density Bonus Fees
Regional Transportation Infra. (2)
Local Roads (Measure A)
Tipping Fees (4)
Miscellaneous Revenues (5)
Total Revenues
$539,600,000
$66,000,000
$250,000,000
$121,000,000
$100,000,000
$1,076,600,000
$21,584,000
$2,640,000
$10,000,000
$4,840,000 (3)
$4,000,000
$43,064,000
50.1%
6.1%
23.2%
11.2%
9.3%
0.0%
100%
(1) Average land value per acre assumed to be $13,100 per acre. (2) Public contributions at specificed % of new road construction. (3) $121 million to be provided over 10 years, so $12.1 million annually over that period. (4) Includes $90 million from El Sobrante Landfill and $10 million from other County landfills. (5) Other potential revenues, including public contributions from other public projects, tipping fees from Eagle Mountain Landfill, and potential new voter -approved regional funding were noted but not estimated.
Source: Chapter 8 of MSHCP; Economic & Planning Systems.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
of 924 rs,ktraynarw000ata,Loca„M,to=on,w; s„HetCxhe,Content.outaok,.�P6Moo,Iexu==tuaY F;na, 230dzo2o.d
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Figure 2 MSHCP Estimated Annual Costs in Millions, 2004 Dollars Mangmnt.
Monitoring
$7.6 , 20%
RCA Staff,
$1.2 , 3%
$38.1 million total
As also shown in Table 5, MSHCP funding from local/regional sources was estimated to be about $1.0 billion in 2004 dollars through Year 25, sufficient to cover the implementation costs over this period. Key assumptions driving the funding estimates included:
• Measure A. Measure A (local sales tax transportation funding measure) would provide $121 million over 10 years in 2004 -dollar terms.
• Regional Transportation Funding. Public contributions from regional transportation infrastructure projects would provide an average of $10 million each year or $250 million through Year 25.
• Tipping Fees. Landfill tipping fees would provide about $100 million in revenue over 25 years, about $4 million each year, primarily from the El Sobrante landfill. • Mitigation Fees. Private development fees, including private development mitigation fees and density bonus fees, would generate over $600 million over the first 25 years, about $24 million annually.
• Development Forecast and Participation. The forecast of private development fees was based on a preliminary fee schedule and the forecast of 336,000 new residential units (13,440 units each year) and 371 acres each year of commercial and industrial development.
All new development was assumed to pay the private development mitigation fee with a portion paying the density bonus fee.
• Other Funding Options. Potential additional funding might come through contributions from other local/regional public entities, other landfills, or new voter -approved funding initiatives.
• Funding Distribution. Overall, about 55 percent of the estimated funding was expected to be generated by private development fees, with 45 percent from other funding sources.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Figure 3 MSHCP Estimated Annual Revenues in Millions, 2004 Dollars Tipping
Fees, $4.0 ,
Local Roads 10%
(Meas. A)
$4.8 , 11%
Regional
Transp.
Infra.,
$10.0 , 23%
Density
Bonus Fees,
$2.6 , 6%
Private
Dev. Mit.
Fees,
$21.6, 50%
$43.3 million total
Development Mitigation Fees and Calculation
The MSHCP notes that "new development affects the environment directly through construction activity and cumulatively through population bases that result from Development." As a result, the cities and County are required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee that was expected to represent one of the primary sources of funding for the implementation of the MSHCP. The MSHCP indicates that the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be adopted under California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the "Mitigation Fee Act") that "allows cities and counties to charge new development for the costs of mitigating the impacts of new development."
The MSHCP identified preliminary estimates of Local Development Mitigation Fees and indicated that these mitigation fees were expected to generate the majority of funding for Local Permittee obligations. The MSHCP noted that, under the Mitigation Fee Act, "a nexus study is required to demonstrate that the proposed fee is proportionate to the impacts of new development." The Mitigation Fee Act also includes a number of reviewing and reporting requirements. The MSHCP also notes that the fee will need to be "reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover mitigation of new development."
A nexus study entitled "Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan" was completed on July 1, 2003 (2003/Original Nexus Study). This nexus study conducted a detailed analysis of the costs of implementing the Plan, identified the Local Permittee funding obligations, determined the portion to be funded through the Local Development Mitigation Fee, and made the necessary nexus findings under the Mitigation Fee Act. The MSHCP and 2003 Nexus Study both indicated that all new development in the Western Riverside County Plan Area affects covered species and habitat and so the Local Development Mitigation Fees would apply to all new development in participating jurisdictions in Western Riverside County.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 430 0924
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Mitigation Fee Schedule and Adjustments
All local jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP and obtaining coverage for public and private take in their jurisdictions were required to adopt and implement this mitigation fee schedule through ordinance and resolution and then to pass through the fee funding (minus any additional administrative charges) to the RCA to fund MSHCP implementation. Indexed -increases based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside area were provided for in the ordinances to allow modest adjustments in mitigation fees to respond to inflationary cost increases. Due to the geographic revision implemented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, going forward indexed -adjustments will be based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario area.
Table 6 shows the original 2004 Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule and current 2021 Fee schedule that reflects periodic inflationary fee adjustments using the indexing process.
Table 6 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule
III - F-- •-runit •r
Fee Category • - r . cr-
2121 F-- •-runit •r •-r
cr-
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
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page431 O924 C\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\MIcrosott\WMows\INetCache\Content.0uttook\VAAMMIXVIexusStudy_Final_230d2020.tlorx
3. HABITAT PROTECTION TO DATE AND FUTURE CONSERVATION
SCENARIO
The RCA has achieved substantial levels of habitat protection to date using the funding sources established and the associated variable flows of incoming revenues. The level of habitat protection achieved, because of lower levels of funding and land dedication than expected, has however fallen behind the pace of protection forecast in the Original Nexus Study. This chapter summarizes the achieved protection to (1) establish both the scale of future acquisitions required to meet the overall Additional Reserve Land (ARL) goals, (2) consider the annual pace of habitat protection through acquisitions and dedications in absolute terms and relative to the original MSHCP forecasts, and (3) inform the development of the Conservation Scenario that forms the baseline (project description) for estimating future MSHCP implementation costs and associated funding requirements and updated mitigation fees.
Habitat Protection Accomplishments Through 2019
Between the start of the MSHCP program and the end of 2019, the most recent full calendar year, about 40 percent of the 153,000 -acre ARL target has been achieved, totaling almost 62,000 acres in acquisitions, easements, or dedications (see Table 7).17 As shown of the 97,000 acres in Local Permittee ARL obligation about 40,200 acres had been protected by the end of 2019. Of the 56,000 acres in State/Federal ARL obligation, about 21,600 acres have been protected to date.
Table 7 Conservation Through End of 2019
Party
Total
Need Conserved Conserved Conserved Remaining Need
2000-2003 2004 - 2019 2000 - 2019 2020-2043
Local
State + Fed
Total 153,000 16,939
97,000 4,531
56,000 12,408
35,681
9,200
40,212
21,608
44,881 61,820
56,788
34,392
91,180
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Annual Reports; RCA information on 2019 purchases; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Conservation Goals and Progress
The MSHCP anticipated that acquisition would take place for 25 years, through the end of 2029, with 97,000 acres conserved through local means and 56,000 acres conserved with State/federal funding. To achieve this goal, an average of 6,120 acres of conservation is required each year, 17 Note that while the MSHCP was adopted in 2004, certain conservation which took place between 2000 and 2003 was counted toward the MSHCP reserve.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
including an average of 3,880 annually from local funding sources/dedications and 2,240 annually from State and federal conservation.
Figure 4 illustrates how steady progress would result in achievement of the ARL goals by 2029.
Figure 5 shows actual progress toward the goals, through 2019. More than 21,000 acres have been conserved through State/federal means, and over 40,000 acres have been conserved through local actions. These totals sum to about 40 percent of the total ARL goal of 153,000 acres. As shown in Figure 5, with 16 years of the 25 -year acquisition period completed, the ARL acquisitions have fallen behind the pace forecast in the Original Nexus Study. Protection through the end of 2019 represents 63 percent of the original forecast (65 percent for Local obligations and 60 percent for State/federal obligations). For the Local Permittee obligations, as discussed further below, the lower level of land dedication relative to the original forecasts account for much of the habitat protection gap that has emerged over the last 16 years.
Figure 4 MSHCP Conservation Goals, 2019 and 2029 Goals Highlighted MSHCP Goals, 2019 and 2028 Highlighted
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0 ■ I
35,840
II
62,080
Vl lD N 00 Dl O M lD N CO Ql O N M Vl .D N 00
O 000 PO N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Local State/Fed
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 433 0924
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Figure 5 Progress Towards ARL Through End of 2019
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
60%
65%
39%
56,000
I-
Fed+State
41%
1 Local
97,000
153,000
63 %
Total
• Acqu. through 2019
21,608
40,212
61,820
• Remaining Need
34,392
56,788
91,180
% of 2019 Expected Goal Achieved
60%
65%
63%
% of Total Goal Achieved
39%
41%
40%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Land Dedications
The MSHCP envisioned a conservation program where land and easements would be purchased by the RCA and land would be dedicated to the RCA through the development process.18 In addition, the potential for no -cost and low-cost donations for tax benefit purposes was also created. The MSHCP did not assume donations or conservation easement acquisitions as part of its financial analysis (this is appropriate given the limited number of such transactions). The MSHCP did, however, anticipate that 41,000 acres would be conserved through dedications, 56,000 acres through purchases on behalf of local permittees, and 56,000 acres through purchases conducted by or funded by federal and State agencies/sources for a total of 153,000 acres.
For the local portion of the goal (97,000 acres), this translates into about 42 percent of the goal conserved via dedications associated with the development review process —called Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS)—and the other 58 percent purchased by the RCA from willing sellers. The level of dedication is a key assumption for the MSHCP implementation cost estimate as each acre dedicated through HANS is one fewer acre which must be conserved through land acquisitions at market values.
The HANS process was established to apply to developments proposed within the Criteria Cells of the MSHCP Study Area. The Criteria Cells represent areas with high conservation values relative to the areas outside of the Criteria Cells. The HANS process was designed to indicate what conservation (dedication) may be needed from new development from a biological needs 18 This process is known as the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page434 0924 :1UsersIktraynorlAppData1LocallMlaosoft1Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\WP6MDOWexusStudy_Final_23Od2020.tlorx
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
perspective. Subsequent to that technical analysis, applicants could then proceed to the Joint Project Review (JPR) process during which the parties negotiate an implementation plan for the project, consistent with the HANS findings. The applicants would also pay mitigation fees on the actual development. To date, a modest amount of land (less than 1,000 acres) has been conserved via the HANS/JPR method compared to the 26,000 acres that was forecast to have occurred by this point in the MSHCP implementation.
While very little land has been dedicated to the RCA through HANS/JPR, several projects went through the HANS/JPR process and have agreements in place for dedication/conservation of lands, but the start date (if any) for these projects is unknown (i.e., may be far in the future).
These projects cover about 35,000 acres in the Criteria Cells and, under the JPR agreements, have set aside about 30 percent of that total or about 10,000 acres for conservation/dedication.
The adoption of Resolution No. 2016-003 in September 2016 revised the RCA's fee credit and waiver policy. This resolution indicated that MSHCP fee credit should be provided in exchange for land that contributes to reserve assembly. As a result, after the adoption of this resolution, new development is not be expected to pay mitigation fees and dedicate land in the manner originally envisioned in the MSHCP limiting the likelihood of the types of dedications envisioned in the Original Nexus Study.
Future Conservation Scenario
This updated financial analysis, nexus study, and mitigation fees estimate require a base description of the additional habitat protection required. In subsequent chapters, cost estimates are developed in reference to, and in application to, this conservation scenario to develop the overall implementation costs and the associated funding required, both in aggregate and through time during the land acquisition period of the program. Four questions are of particular importance:
1. Remaining Habitat Protection. The amount of habitat protection required to meet the MSHCP requirements.
2. Dedications. The amount of land dedication assumed to occur through the HANS/JPR process over the habitat protection period and the associated amount of habitat that must be acquired.
3. Time Frame. The period over which habitat protection goals must be met.
4. Land Characteristics. The characteristics of the land to be protected to meet MSHCP requirements (e.g., goals by Area Plan, habitat cores and linkages etc., land use designations and parcel sizes).
The answers to question 1 are provided in the data above (see Table 7). The answer to question 4 is provided in the subsequent chapter on land costs, with illustrative answers coming from RCA data and GIS analysis. The answer to question 2 is addressed below and is based on information on accomplishments to date (described above), discussions with RCA staff, the current Fee Waiver and Credit Policy, and an assessment of realistic opportunities and expectations. Finally, question 3 raises the issue of whether an extension to the MSHCP land acquisition implementation period should be provided. As described below, three different Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
extension scenarios (5-, 10-, and 15 -year extension scenarios) are evaluated, as well as the baseline, "No Extension Scenario," to indicate the outcomes under different scenarios.
Habitat Protection, Land Dedication, and Conservation Scenarios As shown in Table 8, there is a total of about 91,200 acres of land protection still required to complete the land protection obligations under the MSHCP and to bring the Additional Reserve Lands to 153,000 acres. Of this, the State/federal requirements is for about 34,400 acres, while the Local Permittee requirement is for about 56,800 acres.
The experience of the last 16 years indicates that the MSHCP was overly optimistic in terms of land dedications, assuming that 41,000 acres would be dedicated to the RCA. As noted above, about 10,000 acres of potential future land dedication is associated with a range of previously proposed projects. Based on historical information on actual, dedications agreements on proposed projects, current RCA policy, and consultations with RCA staff, minimal additional dedication is expected or assumed. This analysis, therefore, assumes that the prior agreement concerning dedications, summing to about 10,000 acres, will be secured over the next eight years and prior to the end of the current habitat protection period. Even if the implementation period were extended, no extra land dedication is forecast to occur.
As a result, and as shown in Table 8, a total of about 46,800 acres of Additional Reserve Land acquisition is required by Local Permittees for MSHCP implementation once the forecast of dedications is incorporated. As shown in Table 8, the required average annual pace of habitat protection varies considerably under the different acquisition period extension scenarios, as described below: 19
• Baseline/No Extension Scenario. As currently structured, RCA is required to complete land acquisition by the end of Year 25 of Plan implementation in 2029. This provides nine (9) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 5,200 acres each year. • 5 -Year Extension. With a 5 -year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 30 of Plan implementation in 2034.
This provides fourteen (14) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 3,300 acres each year.
• 10 -Year Extension. With a 10 -year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 35 of Plan implementation in 2039.
This provides nineteen (19) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 2,500 acres each year.
19 As a point of reference, the historical pace of Local Permittee-driven habitat protection has been somewhat above 2,000 acres each year with availability of funding being an important determinant of the pace of acquisition. The pace of State/federal-driven acquisition has averaged about 1,000 acres each year.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
• 15 -Year Extension. With a 15 -year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 40 of Plan implementation in 2044.
This provides twenty-four (24) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 2,000 acres each year.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 8 Required Acquisition Acres to Achieve ARL Goals Entity/Item
2020 -End of Annual
Acquisition Years Conservation
Through 2019 Period Remaining Acres Required Total Acres
NO EXTENSION
State/Federal
Local
HANS Dedication (1)
Net Local Acquisition
Total Local Conservation
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal
21,608
34,392
715 10,000
39,497 46,788
40,212 56,788
61,820 91,180
9 3,821
56,000
9 1,111 10,715
9 5,199 86,285
9 6,310 97,000
9 10,131 153,000
5 YEAR EXTENSION
State/Federal
Local
HANS Dedication
Net Local Acquisition
Total Local Conservation
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal
See above
14 2,457 56,000
14 714 10,715
14 3,342 86,285
14 4,056 97,000
14 6,513 153,000
10 YEAR EXTENSION
State/Federal 19 1,810 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication
Net Local Acquisition
Total Local Conservation
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal
See above
19 526 10,715
19 2,463 86,285
19 2,989 97,000
19 4,799 153,000
15 YEAR EXTENSION
State/Federal 24 1,433 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication
Net Local Acquisition
Total Local Conservation
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal
See above
20 YEAR EXTENSION
24 417 10,715
24 1,950 86,285
24 2,366 97,000
24 3,799 153,000
State/Federal 29 1,186 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication
Net Local Acquisition
Total Local Conservation
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal
See above
29 345 10,715
29 1,613 86,285
29 1,958 97,000
29 3,144 153,000
1. About 10,000 acres of potential future land dedication is associated with a range of previously proposed projects. Based on historical information on actual, dedications agreements on proposed projects, current RCA policy, and consultations with RCA staff, minimal additional dedication is expected or assumed beyond these agreements. This analysis, therefore, assumes that the prior agreements concerning dedications will occur with future dedications summing to about 10,000 acres. The precise timing of these dedications is uncertain, but are assumed to occur over the next eight years. Average annual numbers in this table are shown distributed across the full remaining acquisition period of each extension scenario.
Shading indicates acreage to be acquired with fee revenue.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
4. FORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT, DEDICATION, FEE PAYMENT
Future development within Western Riverside County will both reduce land available for conservation while also serving as a primary funding mechanism for habitat acquisitions. This chapter identifies forecasts of future growth in Western Riverside County and develops an associated forecast of land development that is a key component of the fee calculation.
Historic Development and HCP Fees
The MSHCP anticipated that 13,000 to 14,000 residential units and about 370 commercial and industrial acres would be developed on average annually. Specifically, between 2005 and 2019, 206,000 residential units were expected in the Plan Area. A review of new units in the Plan Area indicates about 130,000 units were developed over the period (see Figure 6), about 37 percent below the forecast.20 While the substantial volatility in the real estate market over the period (including the housing boom, deep recession, and modest recovery) may explain some of this difference, the slower pace of development means that fee revenues have been similarly constrained relative to the original revenue projections.
Figure 6 Residential Unit Development, Western Riverside County, 2005-2019 250,000
200,000
Ta
c
150,000
v
w
v
o 100,000
v
E
z
50,000
0 76,000
Source: California Department of Finance; MSHCP Projections Projected
Actual
20 Actual units developed have been derived from the California Department of Finance (DOF), Demographics Unit information through January 1, 2019. Note that the DOF reports data by city and for the entire Riverside County unincorporated area. Western Riverside's portion of the total unincorporated area has been derived based on the area's historic share of unincorporated County, taking into account the incorporations of new cities that occurred in Western Riverside County since MSHCP Plan adoption (Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar).
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Growth Projections
SCAG Forecasts in Context
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)21 representing six counties, 191 cities and more than 18 million residents.
MPOs, such as SCAG are charged under California Senate Bill 375 with developing Sustainable Community Strategies (SCSs) as part of regional transportation plans. SCAG's SCS includes population, household, and job projections through 2040 by city and unincorporated area. SCAG consults with local governments within the region, including the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) which represents Western Riverside County, to develop the projections.
SCAG adopted the 2012-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) in 2016. The 2016 RTP/SCS forms the basis of the SCAG projections; EPS extrapolated an annual growth rate from the SCAG projections and, assuming consistent development trends through 2050, applied the rate in order to estimate development projections through 2050.
SCAG forecasts for the future, on an annualized basis, were compared with the MSHCP's original forecast along with historical information (when available) as described further below:
• Residential Development Forecast. Figure 7 shows, for Western Riverside County, the annual residential unit count for SCAG projections through 2050, MSHCP projections through 2029, and residential units produced in Western Riverside County between 2005 and 2019.
As shown, the SCAG projections suggest about 8,750 units each. This is similar to the average annual historic pace of growth between 2005 and 2019 of about 9,260 units, but well below the original MSHCP projections of about 13,400 units each year. Based on the similarity between the historical average and the SCAG forecast, the SCAG forecast is considered a reasonable basis for determining the future pace of residential development and associated residential land development (based on assumed densities of development). • Commercial Development Forecast. The SCAG jobs forecast of about 15,000 jobs each year was converted into an annual gross amount of commercial/industrial development using the employment density and FAR assumptions used in the most recent Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) update documents. As shown in Figure 8, this results in a forecast of about 690 acres of commercial/industrial land development each year (representing an overall average of about 21 jobs per acre of development), considerably above the original MSHCP projections of about 370 acres each year. The higher SCAG number, however, appears reasonable given recent and ongoing trends in Western Riverside County where substantial amounts of new logistics/distribution development have occurred covering substantial land areas and, as such, is considered reasonable as the basis of the future forecast of commercial/industrial land development. 21 Federal law requires that an urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000 be guided by a regional entity known as an MPO. California's Senate Bill 375 expands the role of the State's 18 MPOs to include regional plans that help the State reach its greenhouse gas reduction targets by encouraging compact development and new development near public transit.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Figure 7 New Housing Units per Year, SCAG and MSHCP Projections and Historic Production (2005-2019)
SCAG (2012-2040) and MSHCP Projections (2004-2029) and Historic Production (2005-2019) 16,000
14,000 13,440
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
8,747
SCAG
MSHCP Historic
Figure 8 Newly Developed Commercial Acres per Year
SCAG (2012-2040) and MSHCP Projections
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 693
371
SCAG MSHCP
Note: SCAG job projections converted into acres by EPS
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
2 rs,ktraynarw000ata,Loca„M,ao=on,w; s„HetCxhe,Content.outaok,.AAMMoo,Iexu==tuaY F;na, 230dzo2o.d
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Forecasts for Fee Calculation
For this fee program update, the SCAG projections are considered a reasonable basis for forecasting future land development. Because all new development is expected to pay the mitigation fee, all of the forecasted household and job growth is converted into a land development forecast that is, in turn, used to calculate the mitigation fees. Table 9 shows SCAG's overall projections for households and employment in Western Riverside County between 2012 and 2050, and Table 10 shows the implied average annual land development rates, and, in turn, the overall level of residential and commercial/industrial land development that would be expected to occur through the end of the land acquisition period for each of the extension scenarios.22 As shown, all scenarios assume an overall average annual land development of 2,252 acres each year, including 693 acres in commercial/industrial land development and 1,558 acres in annual residential land development.23
• Baseline/No Extension Scenario. Under the no extension scenario, a total of 20.265 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of nine (9) years and would pay the mitigation fees. • 5 -Year Extension. Under the 5 -year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 31,523 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of 14 years and would pay the mitigation fees.
• 10 -Year Extension. Under the 10 -year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 42,782 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of 19 years and would pay the mitigation fees. • 15 -Year Extension. Under the 15 -year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 54,040 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation period of 24 years and would pay the mitigation fees. 22 Under the MSHCP, all new development is required to pay the mitigation fee and contribute to funding the implementation of the MSHCP except where specifically exempted in the Ordinance. 23 The 1,558 acres of residential land development was derived based on the forecasted 8,747 residential units each year and assumptions concerning distribution by density category and an average density level. More specifically, consistent with the recent TUMF analysis assumptions, 70 percent of new residential units are assumed to be in the low density category (less than 8 units per acre) with an average of 4.5 units/acre, 20 percent are assumed to be the medium density category (8 to 16 units per acre) with an average of 10.8 units/acre, and 10 percent are assumed to be the high density category (over 16 units per acre) with an average of 24.4 units/acre. The unit per acre factors are consistent with those indicated in the Original Nexus Study. The overall implied average residential density is 5.6 units/gross acre.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 9 Projected Growth in Western Riverside County, through 2050 SCAG Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area
Households Employment
2012
2040 Projection
2050 Projection (1)
New Households/Jobs Expected by 2050
Average Annual
530,970
775,882
863,350
332,380
8,747
463,833
869,792
1,014,777
550,944
14,499
(1) SCAG projections forecast growth through 2040. EPS assumes the annual growth rate from 2012 to 2040 remains constant through 2050 and applies the rate to an additional 10 years in order to project growth through 2050.
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page443 2 rs,ktraynarw000ata,Loca„M,ao=on,w; s„HetCxhe,Content.outaok,.AAMMoo,Iexu==tuaY F;na, 230dzo2o.d
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 10 Projected Developed Acres in Western Riverside County, by Extension Scenario
Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area
Re '• - itial Non Residential
No Extension
Proportionate Share 2020-20281
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2028
Acres per Year
78,722 Households 130,487 Jobs
14,026 Acres
1,558 Acres
6,239 Acres
693 Acres
20,265 Acres
2,252 Acres
5 Year Extension
Proportionate Share 2020-20341 122,456 Households 202,979 Jobs New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2034
Acres per Year
21,818 Acres
1,558 Acres
9,705 Acres
693 Acres
31,523 Acres
2,252 Acres
10 Year Extension
Proportionate Share 2020-20381 166,190 Households 275,472 Jobs New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2038
Acres per Year
29,611 Acres
1,558 Acres
13,171 Acres
693 Acres
42,782 Acres
2,252 Acres
15 Year Extension
Proportionate Share 2020-20431
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2043
Acres per Year
209,924 Households 347,965 Jobs
37,403 Acres
1,558 Acres
16,637 Acres
693 Acres
54,040 Acres
2,252 Acres
(1) SCAG forecasts from the 2016 Report have been used for all cities in Western Riverside County. The projections for the entire unincorporated area in Riverside have been split into just the Western part of the County through a review of WRCOG's recent proportion of unincorporated growth, compared to the whole County. (2) Conversion from household projections to residential acres of developed land is based on expected development mix and average residential density by land use type, with an average residential density of 5.6 DUAC. Similarly, conversion from job projections to nonresidential acres of developed land is based on distribution of jobs by workspace type and average employment density by land use type, with an average nonresidential density of 21 jobs per land acre. Residential density assumptions are based on data from the Census and California Department of Finance; Employment density assumptions are based on SCAG data.
Sources: California Department of Finance; US Census Bureau; Southern California Association of Governments; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
5. MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
This chapter describes the analysis and assumptions that underpin the estimation of the total remaining MSHCP implementation costs in 2019 dollars. Key cost factors evaluated include land costs, management and monitoring costs, administration and professional services costs, and endowment costs. Together these cost components form the total MSHCP implementation costs.
Because the duration allowed for land acquisition and endowment establishment affect several of these cost items, distinct total implementation cost estimates are provided for all scenarios (i.e., Baseline/ No Extension and the three extension scenarios).
Land Costs
Planning -level estimates of the per acre values associated with potential Additional Reserve Land (ARL) acquisitions are a critical input into the estimation of total land acquisition costs associated with Plan implementation. Land acquisition costs represented the majority of the original estimates of MSHCP implementation costs. This chapter provides planning -level estimates of per acre land conservation costs in 2019 -dollar terms based on available information. In combination with assumptions concerning the characteristics of the Additional Reserve Lands to be acquired and potential levels of dedication, the per acre land value estimates drive the estimate of overall land acquisition costs.
Actual per acre habitat conservation costs may vary from the average planning -level estimates presented in this chapter for a number of reasons, including differences in the specific characteristics of the actual parcels acquired as well as fluctuations in economic, real estate, and land market conditions over time. Individual transactions will require appraisals to establish their value at the time of acquisition based on parcel characteristics and pertinent market conditions at the time of appraisal. Over time, per acre and overall cost estimates typically change for a number of reasons as discussed further in Chapter 9.
MSHCP/Original Nexus Study
The initial adoption of the mitigation fees was based on a nexus study completed in July 2003 that included a land valuation analysis that was completed in December 2002. The land valuation analysis assumed the acquisition of vacant and unentitled lands in the Criteria Cells.
The land value analysis provided planning -level estimates of per acre land values by grouped land use designation and by Area Plan. Planning -level land value estimates were based on sales comparables. The land value estimates indicated per acre land values that were primarily driven by differentiation in land use category. The land use designation categories represent groupings of the broad number of land use designations present in the Study Area. Table 11 summarizes the per -acre land value ranges and resulting averages. Based on this analysis, an overall weighted average of $13,100 per acre was applied in the MSHCP financial sections in the Original Nexus Study.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 445 0924
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 11 Per -Acre Land Value Estimates -2003 Dollars (2003 Nexus Study) Land Use Designation
Value Range
Resulting Average *
Open Space
$2,500 to $10,000 per acre
$ 8,000 per acre
Rural/Agricultural
$5,000 to $25,000 per acre
$11,000 per acre
Community Development
$20,000 to $80,000 per acre
$45,000 per acre
Overall (1)
$2,500 to $80,000 per acre
Varied (1)
* Per acre values rounded to the nearest 1,000.
(1) Reported overall average land value per acre depends on mix of land types. Number varies by documents, though $13,100 per acre was overall value applied in the MSHCP financing sections.
Source: Original 2003 Nexus Study
RCA Experience to Date
Table 12 summarizes average RCA land acquisition costs to date. Including land purchased shortly before the MSHCP was adopted through the end of 2018, costs for Local Permittee land acquisitions summed to $352.5 million in nominal dollar terms, an average of $9,400 per acre.
However, for the year 2018, about 2,100 acres were acquired at the higher average per acre cost of $13,200 per acre.
Table 12 Local Conservation Costs Through 2018
Item
Pre-MSHCP 2018
through 2018
I Total Acres Acquired (1)
Total Cost (millions)
Cost per Acre (Nominal $s)
37,547
$352.5
$9,400
2,066
$27.4
$13,200
(1) Includes all acres purchased; does not include acres conserved via easement.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Annual Report 2018; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
To date, the overall historical level of per acre land acquisition expenditures is well below the original 2004 per acre land value estimates. The cost of RCA acquisitions during this timeframe were kept relatively low by concentrating more on lower cost parcels (larger parcels in remote areas with limited development potential). In 2018, as in the future, the average cost per acre is expected to be higher than this historical average due to the characteristics of land still needing to be acquired.
New Land Value Analysis and Conclusions
New 2019 per acre land value estimates were developed based on recent historical transactions as reported in the sales comparables sections of appraisals conducted for RCA acquisitions. This data set provided a substantial inventory of over 150 land sales between 2012 and 2017 that supported conclusions concerning per acre land values by key land value characteristic.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Similar to the Original Nexus Study, land values were determined to be substantially affected by land use designation and by parcel size. Land values were developed for twelve different value categories based on combinations of three land use designations and four different size ranges.
Based on the land valuation data and detailed GIS analysis by RCA staff, parcels were divided into three groups of development potential based on their land use designation:24 • Open Space. Low development potential land use designations included open space, rural mountainous, and rural residential.
• Rural. Medium development potential land use designations include agriculture and rural communities land use designations.
• Community Development. High development potential land use designations include all community development designations, including residential, non-residential, and other community development designations.
In addition to these three land use designation groupings reflecting different levels of development potential, parcels were also divided by parcel size. The land value information indicated a per acre value distinction between the following parcels sizes:
• Parcels less than 5 acres.
• Parcels between 5 and 20 acres.
• Parcels between 20 and 80 acers.
• Parcels over 80 acres.
Based on the analysis of the sales comparables, Table 13 shows the planning level per acre land value by land use designation grouping/size range in 2017 dollars.
Table 13 Planning Level Per Acre Land Value Estimates by Category Land Use Designation
Open Space
Rural
Community Development
er cre an • Value ($ / Acre)'
ess than 5= 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres
Acres
$11,761
$33,363
$177,414
$5,091
$11,553
$76,050
$3,949
$8,337
$72,369
80 + Acres
$1,866
$5,531
$24,335
1. Most land sale comparables used for pricing are from 2013 to 2017 and were converted to 2017 dollars using BLS CPI adjustments for the Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange County area.
Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
24 RCA staff developed a consistent set of land use designation categories across different jurisdictions in the Study Area for the purposes of this study. These formed the basis of the development potential categories.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
The average land value per acre for future RCA acquisitions is dependent on the different land values per acre as well as the expected distribution of future acquisitions. The actual land to be acquired is uncertain and is dependent on the availability of land through willing sellers.
However, based on the conservation needs by Area Plan, the suitable land available for protection, as well as the specific linkages that must be created between the core reserve areas, RCA staff provided sufficient information for EPS to develop a general expression of parcels by characteristic to support the land value analysis. An illustration of the expected distribution of acres by land use designation and size range is provided in Table 14.
Table 14 Illustrative Distribution of Land Acquisitions by Land Use and Size onservation Scenario (Acres) (1)
Land Use Designation
Less than 5 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres
Acres
80 + Acres
Open Space
Rural
Community Development
535
1,901
638
1,531
17,241
1, 707
3,626
26,802
3,613
4,654
29,428
4,384
10,346
75,371
10.342
Total Purchases by Acreage 3,074 20,479 34,041 38,466 96,059
1. Conservation scenario analysis was conducted in 2017 so overall acres acquired more than those required as of end of 2019.
Sources: RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Applying the per acre land values in Table 13 to the illustrative land conservation distribution in Table 14 provides an estimate of the aggregate land value, supporting the estimate of the average planning level land value per acre in 2017 -dollar terms (see Table 15).
Table 15 Aggregate Land Value of Remaining Areas (2017 dollars) Land Use Designation
Open Space
Rural
Community Development
$6,292,633
$63,411,345
113,198,910
ess than 5
Acres
omparable
T- 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres
$7,795,633
$199,183,566
$129,817,405
$14,319,467
$223,437,526
$261,456,200
$8,682,942
$162,777,034
$106,682,740
$37,090,674
$648,809,470
$611,155,254
Total Cost of Purchases $182,902,887 $336,796,603 $499,213,192 $278,142,716 % of Total
14% 26% 38% 21%
$1,297,055,399
100%
1. This table is the average land value per acre multiplied by the Conservation Scenario. See Table E-1 and E-2.
Sources: RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 448 of 924 ClUsers1ktraynorlAppData1LocallMlaosott\WMows\INetCache\Content.Outtook\VAAMMIXVIexusStudy_Final_23Od2020.tlorx
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
As shown in Table 15, the aggregate land value of the approximately 96,000 acres remaining to be protected as part of the MSHCP as of 2017 is estimated at about $1.3 billion in 2017 dollars.
This represents an average land value of about $13,500 per acre. To convert this land value into 2019 dollars terms (similar to the rest of the analysis), EPS indexed the value to about $14,300 per acre in 2019 -dollar terms.25
Other Costs —Administration, Management, and
Monitoring
Program administration, reserve management, and reserve monitoring are required functions that require annual funding. The forecasts for each of these cost categories are described below.
Administration and Professional Service Costs
The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority is responsible for implementing the MSHCP. Since 2004, RCA staff members have directed the acquisition, management, and monitoring of the local portion of the Additional Reserve Land (ARL) required by the MSHCP, monitored State and federal Public/Quasi-Public lands and the State and federal portions of the ARL, and undertook all of the administrative tasks associated with maintaining the permit.
Costs categorized in this fee study under MSHCP administration include all RCA staff costs and other costs like building rents and average expenditures on non -acquisition related professional services that are not anticipated to vary as the size of the ARL increases. The forecast for the acquisition period assumes that these costs will remain at approximately $4.2 million in constant 2019 dollars, increasing with inflation but not increasing as the size of the ARL grows (see Table 16). This includes salaries and benefits of about $2.3 million annually and about $1.5 million in professional services, supplies, and other costs.
25 Two years of inflation (2017 - 2019) based on by BLS CPI adjustment for Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario Metro Area.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 16 Administrative and Professional Services Costs Expenditures
RCA FY16/17- 18/19
3 -Year Average of
Actuals
CPI Adjusted to
2019$1
Total Salaries and Employee Benefits
Professional Services and Supplies
Environmental
Legal
Auditing, Accounting & Financial Services
GIS Services
Personnel Services
Real Estate Services
Other Services
Subtotal
Other Charges
Total
$2,219,261
$394,320
$101,717
$10,000
$13,920
$653,774
$247,979
$1,421,710
$388,145
$4,029,116
$2,288,495
$406,621
$104,891
$10,312
$14,354
$674,169
S255,715
$1,466,062
$400,254
$4,154,811
(1) Three year average CPI -adjusted by one year, the average of the annual CPI adjustments for the three years.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Management and Monitoring
Reserve Management
The MSHCP describes reserve management activities focused on maintaining and improving habitat conditions and ecosystem functions including habitat and landscape -based activities and species -specific activities. For the purposes of this analysis, the average per acre cost estimate for Reserve Management as reported in the RCA actual spending for FY 2018-19 has been used to inform cost projections through the full acquisition period. Because RCA staff and relevant contractors have indicated that the current spending on staff capacity is not adequate to accomplish necessary management with existing land holdings, additional staffing and associated expenditures have been added to the current reserve management expenditures. Specifically, three new full time equivalent (FTE) positions are added to the current 2019 spending for reserve management. Overall, the 2019 per acre reserve management cost of $25.39 per acre was adjusted to $32.70 per acre (2019 dollars) to account for three new mid -level park ranger FTEs. While as of the end of 2019 about 40,200 acres were under management, ultimately, reserve management activities will cover the entire 97,000 acres to be acquired by the RCA.
Biological Monitoring
The purpose of biological monitoring is to provide Reserve Managers with information and data upon which reserve management decisions will be made. According to the MSHCP, the monitoring program must provide "sufficient, scientifically reliable data for Reserve Managers to assess the MSHCP's effectiveness at meeting resource objectives and achieving or maintaining a Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 450 O924.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
healthy MSHCP Conservation Area in perpetuity." Unlike the RCA's reserve management activities which are limited to local ARL acres, the RCA will ultimately be responsible for monitoring all 500,000 acres of the reserve lands mandated under the MSHCP. The acreage currently being monitored totals roughly 408,000 acres. For the purposes of this analysis, the $1.1 million annual cost estimate based on FY 2018-19 actual spending was used to inform cost projections through the full acquisition period. Because current staff capacity is not adequate to accomplish necessary biological monitoring with existing land holdings, to address the additional land acquisitions, two new full time equivalent (FTE) positions are added to the current 2019 spending for reserve monitoring. The 2019 per acre reserve monitoring cost of $2.67 was adjusted to $3.01 (2019 dollars) to account for two new entry-level biologist FTEs. (see Table 17). This constant dollar per acre cost was assumed to apply throughout the period of implementation.
Reserve Management and Biological Monitoring Costs
Table 17 summarizes estimated per acre costs for reserve management and monitoring in 2019 dollars. Applying these per acre costs (in 2019 dollars) to current acreage under management and monitoring projects results in annual costs of $1.32 million and $1.23 million, respectively.
The annual reserve management and biological monitoring costs increase as new acquisitions occur.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 17 Management and Monitoring Anticipated Costs in 2004 and 2019 Dollars
Reserve Management'
Acres under Management
Existing Reserve Management Expenses
Additional Staff Capacity Recuired3
Total Reserve Management Expenses
$/Acre
$/Acre without additional staff capacity
Biological Monitoring2
Acres being Monitored
Existing Biological Monitoring Expenses
Additional Staff Capacity Required3
Total Biological Monitoring Expenses
$/Acre
$/Acre without additional staff capacity
40,212
$1,021,000
$294,000
$1,315,000
$32.70
$25.39
408,820
$1,092,000
S140,000
$1,232,000
$3.01
$2.67
1. Reserve Management costs include Parks & Open Space contract fees, maintenance of motor vehicles, and HOA dues.
2. Biological Monitoring costs include SAWA contract fees, office and computer supplies, training, private mileage reimbursement, building rent, and rental vehicles/fuel.
3. Current staff capacity is not sufficient to accomplish necessary management and monitoring. An Expanded staff capacity scenario envisions adding 3 FTE mid- level park rangers to Reserve Management and 2 FTE entry-level biologists to Reserve Monitoring, with salaries and benfits of $98,000 and $70,000 Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Endowment Funding
The overall permit period was set at 75 years, ending in 2079. To cover ongoing management and monitoring costs beyond the duration when mitigation fees will be collected, the establishment of a non -depleting endowment is required. In other words, the endowment must be sufficient such that expected average interest revenues (after inflation and transaction costs) can cover the ongoing costs associated with administration, management and monitoring in perpetuity. This section summarizes the estimated cost of establishing this endowment under the different scenarios. A key assumption is that the endowment must be fully established by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 452 0924
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
the end of the land acquisition period as it is assumed that no more mitigation fees will be collected at that time.26
For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that habitat management and habitat monitoring costs continue in full, while administration costs are reduced by half following the end of the land acquisition period. All of these costs then continue in perpetuity. As a result and as shown in Table 18, the endowment is sized to cover the expected annual management and monitoring costs and 50 percent of the administration costs, totaling $6.8 million (2019 dollars) once all lands have been acquired.
Table 18 Annual Implementation Cost Estimate (2019$)
Cost Categories
Ongoing Habitat Management
Ongoing Habitat Monitoring
Administration'
Total
Annual Cost
by Last Year of Annual Post -Land
Land Acquisition Adjustment Acquisition Cost
Period
$3,172,063
$1,506,776
$4,154,811
$8,833,650
100%
100%
50%
$3,172,063
$1,506,776
$2,077,406
$6,756,244
1. Adminsitration includes salaries and benefits, accounting, auditing and reporting, contracts, etc.. Assumes less administration is needed following the land acquisition period; ongoing adminsitrative needs include oversight, auditing and reporting, and board staffing.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Consistent with many regional habitat conservations plans, the average annual net, real (allowing for inflation and institutional fees) interest rate is assumed to be three (3) percent.27 Under all extension scenarios, the total required endowment funding is $225.2 million. Because the longer extension periods provide more time for the accrual of interest revenues, the net endowment cost (that must be funded by mitigation fees) is different for each scenario. Table 19 shows the consistent total endowment funding required by scenario as well as the different levels of aggregate endowment interest and associated net endowment funding requirement. For a detailed time -series accounting of endowment funding by extension scenario, see Appendix II.
26 It is important to note that the RCA has collected a distinct set of endowment funds for situations where specific conservation activities are required over -and -above the core activities covered by this endowment calculation.
27 This assumes that the implementing entity can use investment vehicles that may be not be typical for Riverside County.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 453 0924.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 19 Endowment Funding (2019$), by Extension Scenario 5 -Year 10 -Year 15 -Year
No Extension Extension Extensio Extension
Total Endowment Funding Required
(Less) Endowment Interest
Net Endowment Funding Required
$225,208,133
($25,695,187)
$199,512,947
$225,208,133
(S40,679,628)
$184,528,506
$225,208,133
($54,846,349)
$170,361,785
$225,208,133
($68,206,990)
$157,001,144
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Total Implementation Costs
Implementation costs include land costs, administrative and professional services expenses, management and monitoring costs, and the required net endowment funding. The remaining MSHCP implementation costs, as described in detail in the preceding sections, are all estimated in 2019 constant dollar terms. Under the Baseline/ No Extension scenario, as shown in Figure 9, the $702 million in estimated land acquisition costs make up 72 percent of the total implementation cost of $974 million. Administrative costs total about 4 percent of total costs, management and monitoring sum to 3 percent of total implementation costs, and the endowment constitutes 21 percent of total costs.
Figure 9 Comparison of Costs by Category
Endowment
Prof Svcs+Misc 21%
2%
RCA Staff
2%
/11111
M&M J 111
3%
Land Acqusition
72%
Total implementation costs vary by extension scenario. Land acquisition costs are the same for all scenarios. Administrative, management and monitoring costs increase the longer the acquisition period is extended, but the endowment funding required decreases the longer the Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
.1Usen1kt.oma.wvvo+,oWragnlaosorc1wineowsprve,cache\content.ounaa:wanvsnoowexu=smer_F;n=i zaaxzozo.aorx
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
acquisition period is extended. As shown in Table 20, total implementation costs range from $890 million to $967 million depending on the extension period. Although total costs over time increase with longer extension periods the per -year implementation costs decrease with longer extension periods, as shown in Table 21. For a detailed time -series of all implementation costs excepting the endowment, see Appendix I.
Table 20 Total Implementation Costs (2019$*), by Extension Scenario Local Permittee MSHCP
Implementation Costs
Total for
2020 - 2028
No Extension
Total for
2020 - 2033
5-Yr Extension
Total for
2020 - 2038
10-Yr Extension
Total for
2020 - 2043
15-Yr Extension
Land'
Management & Monitoring
RCA Staff 2
Professional Services and Supplies 2
Loan Repayment 3
Other Costs 24
Net Endowment Funding Required
Total Costs
$701,931,902 $701,931,902 $701,931,902 $701,931,902
$33,582,193 $51,646,790 $69,711,387 $87,775,983
$20,596,453 $32,038,927 $43,481,401 $54,923,875
$13,194,561 $20,524,873 $27,855,185 $35,185,497
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
$3,602,285 $5,603,554 $7,604,824 $9,606,093
S199,512,947 $184,528,506 $170,361,785 $157,001,144
$974,420,341 $998,274,552 $1,022,946,483 $1,048,424,494
1. Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms.
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
3. RCA has "Other Long Term Obligations" totaling $5 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million starting in FY 2018.
4. Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
NOTE: In some cases numbers may not perfectly sum due to rounding.
Sources: Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. * All costs are provided in constant 2019 dollar terms. Costs will change over time due to inflation and other factors. These changes will be addressed through the fee indexing/ updating process that will include automatic inflation -indexed fee changes annually based on the regional Consumer Price Index and periodic comprehensive updates to the Nexus Study.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Cruse,suer=marwvvo=t=wcannlaosorc1wmeaw,vrvetcxne\content.ounaa:wanvsnoowexu=smer_F;n=i zaaxzozo.aorx
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 21 Average Annual Implementation Costs (2019$), by Extension Scenario Local Permittee MSHCP
Implementation Costs
Average Annual
2020 - 2028 2020 - 2033 2020 - 2038 2020 - 2043
No Extension 5-Yr Extension 10-Yr Extension 15-Yr Extension Land'
Management & Monitoring
RCA Staff 2
Professional Services and Supplies 2
Loan Repayment 3
Other Costs 24
Net Endowment Funding Required
Total Costs
$77,992,434 $50,137,993 $36,943,784 $29,247,163
$3,731,355 $3,689,056 $3,669,020 $3,657,333
$2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
$1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
$222,222 $142,857 $105,263 $83,333
$400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
$22,168,105 $13,180,608 $8,966,410 $6,541,714
$108,268,927 $71,305,325 $53,839,289 $43,684,354
1. Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms.
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
3. RCA has "Other Long Term Obligations" totaling $5 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million starting in FY 2018.
4. Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
NOTE: In some cases numbers may not perfectly sum due to rounding.
Sources: Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
4 rs,ktraynarw000ata,Loca„M,ao=on,w; s„HetCxhe,Content.outaok,.�P6Moo,Iexu==tuaY F;na, 230dzo2o.d
6. RCA NON -FEE REVENUES
MSHCP Forecast of Non -Fee Revenues
The MSHCP forecast an array of revenue sources, in addition to fee revenue, supporting the conservation program. These sources were anticipated to total about 44 percent of the revenue for the program, including:
• Transportation funding - includes the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through 2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) charged on new development. Note that the MSHCP envisioned up to $121 million of Measure A money to the HCP.
• Other infrastructure projects - funding from this source was not quantified in the MSHCP but reflected the expectation that local public construction projects such as schools, administrative facilities, libraries, jails, and other projects like flood control and utility projects would mitigate the construction through the payment of a per -acre fee.28 Since MSHCP adoption, the standard contribution has been three to five percent of total project costs.
• Landfill contributions - Landfill tipping fees have been used in the County since the 1990 for conservation programs. Under county permitting of landfills, the County has committed to divert portions of tipping fees to MSHCP implementation.
Table 22 and Figure 10 summarizes the revenue forecasts under the MSHCP. Including the fee revenues, these sources totaled $1.07 billion or an estimated average almost $43 million per year for 25 -years (in 2004 dollars). Excluding fee revenues, a total of $18.84 million in annual revenues were forecast, including Measure A funding, $10 million each year from other transportation projects, and $4.0 million from land fill contributions.
As described further below, at this point, the average annual funding from non -fee revenues sources are well below the MSCHP forecast. Measure A, a voter -approved 1/2 cent sales tax measure did provide substantial funding as envisioned (though is now fully used/ allocated) and, collectively, the other non -fee funding sources are well beyond what was originally envisioned. 28 See Chapter 8.5.1 Funding Sources in the MSHCP.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 22 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources
MSHCP Anticipated Funding Source
Estimate % of Avg/Yr (millions over 25
(millions) Total years)
Fee Funded Sources:
Cities and County Development Mitigation Fees
Density Bonus Fees
Non -Fee Funded Sources
Public Funding Sources
Local Roads (Measure A)
Other Transportation
Other infrastructure Projects
EI Sobrante Landfill
County Landfills
Eagle Mountain Landfill
New Regional funding
Non -Fee Funded Sources
Total, Local Funds
$539.6 50%
$66.0 6%
$605.6
$21,584,000
$2,640,000
$24,224,000.0
$121.0 11% $4,840,000
$250.0 23% $10,000,000
unknown 0% $0
$90.0 8% $3,600,000
$10.0 1% $400,000
unknown 0% $0
unknown 0% $0
$471.0 $18,840,000
$1,076.6 100% $43,064,000
Figure 10 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources
Alt
Fee funded
56%
Rio
Non -Fee Funded
44%
Other
Transportation
23%
Local Roads
11%
New Forecast of Non -Fee Revenues
EI Sobrante/Other
County Landfills
10%
Non -fee revenues to the RCA are projected to be $6.85 million annually in 2019 dollars. This estimate was derived from a line by line review of the major revenue items for a 3 -year period from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19, projections by collection entities (e.g., TUMF revenue), and recent dynamics likely to affect the revenue source (e.g., greater diversion of trash to recycling Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
will likely reduce tipping fees). The estimates have been inflated from a three-year average to 2019 dollars, as detailed in Table 23.
Table 23 Annual Non -Fee Revenue Projection (2019$s)
Non -Fee Revenue Item
RCA FY16/17- 18/19
3 -Year Average of CPI Adjusted to
Actuals 2019$
Transportation Mitigation
TUMF Revenue -Developer Fees
Subtotal
Tipping Fee
Public Project Mitigation
PSE Mitigation Feet
Other Gov MSHCP Infrastructure
Other Gov MSHCP Civic Projects
Flood Control District
Subtotal
Other Revenue
Interest and Other Sources
Rents
Joint Project Review Fees
Subtotal
Total Revenue
$950,000
$950,000
$3,865,728
NA
$284,570
$93,629
S293,084
$671,283
$467,073
$80,531
S124,762
$672,365
$979,637
$979,637
$3,986,326
$500,000
$293,448
$96,550
S302,227
$1,192,225
$481,644
$83,043
S 128,654
$693,341
NA $6,851,529
1. All Measure A funding was provided prior to 2020 and the associated obligations have been met.
2. Participating Special Entities fees. This does not include Developer Mitigation Fees.
These fees vary widely year over year, $500,000 is used as an annual average per the recommendation of RCA staff.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
of 924 rs,kt. w000ata,Loca„M,ao=on,w; s„HetCxhe,Content.outaok,.AAMMoo,Iexu==tuaY F;na, 230dzo2o.d
7. MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee is based on a generally similar methodology to the Original Nexus Study that ensures the fee level is proportional to the development impact. This methodology looks at the remaining conservation requirements associated with Local Permittee obligations under the MSHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement, determines the remaining Local Permittee implementation cost, subtracts out reasonable estimates of non -fee revenues and other contributions, to determine the overall fee - funding obligation. This obligation is then divided among the new development forecast to determine the required mitigation fee. In others words, the original 2003 and updated 2020 Local Development Mitigation Fee estimates are the outcome of the following formula (the 2003 and 2020 Nexus Studies differ in their process of allocating funding required between land uses):
1. Implementation Costs
minus
2. Non -Fee Funding
equals
3. Outstanding Funding Required
divided by
4. Development Forecast
equals
5. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule
Table 24 summarizes the estimated Net Implementation Costs, Expected Acres of Development, and the associated per gross acre mitigation fee. As shown, the average mitigation fee per gross acre decreases with each extension as similar levels of net implementation costs are spread across more development. Tables 25 through 28 provide the detailed calculations that determine the total net MSHCP implementation costs shown in Table 24. As noted in Chapter 1, for residential development, the per -gross -acre fee is translated into a per -unit fee schedule for administrative continuity.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Vse,s,t arno,O000ata1Lo cro,ol0Wi ws„Ale« ontent.out,o LIAP6IND0We.ustue, F;na, 2io«zo20.doo.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 24 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees Fee Per Acre
5 -Year 10 -Year 15 -Year
No Extension Extension Extension Extension
Net Cost
Acres of Development
Residential
Nonresidential
Total
Mitigation Fee per Acre
$912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805
14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403
6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637
20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040
$45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page461 4 rs,ktraynarw000ata,Loca„M,ao=on,w; s„HetCxhe,Content.outaok,.AAMMoo,Iexu==tuaY F;na, 230dzo2o.d
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 25 Recommended Fee Level —No Extension
o a or
2020 - 2029
(Years 17 - 25)
9 yrs
% of
Average Total Cost/
Annual Funding Need
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement
(less) HANS Dedication
Local Permittee Acquisition
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)
Management & Monitoring
RCA Staff (2)
Professional Services and Supplies (2)
Loan Repayment (3)
Other Costs (2) (4)
Net Endowment Funding Required
Total Costs
56,788 acres
10,000 acres
46,788 acres
6,310 acres na
1 111 acres na
5,199 acres na
$701,931,902 $77,992,434
$33,582,193 $3,731,355
$20,596,453 $2,288,495
$13,194,561 $1,466,062
$2,000,000 $222,222
$3,602,285 $400,254
$199,512,947 $22,168,105
$974,420,341 $108,268,927
72.0%
3.4%
2.1%
1.4%
0.2%
0.4%
20.5%
100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)
Transportation Mitigation (7)
Tipping Fees
Other Revenues (8)
Total Selected Revenues
$10,730,025 $1,192,225
$8,816,731 $979,637
$35,876,934 $3,986,326
$6,240,068 S693,341
$61,663,758 $6,851,529
1.4%
1.1%
4.6%
0.8%
8.0%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $912,756,583
$101,417,398 93.7%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Proiection:
Development
Residential Units
Residential Acres
Non -Residential Acres
Total Acres
2020 - 2028
79,000
14,026
6,239
Annual
8,778
1,558
693
20,265 2,252
Mitigation Fee $45,041 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(3) RCA has "Other Long Term Obligations" totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. (7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
c:fuse,suer=marwvvo=t=wcannlaosorc,wmeaw,vrvetcxne\co„te„r.ounaa:wanvsnoo\xexussmer-F;n=i .Od20zo.aocx
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 26 Recommended Fee Level -5 -Year Extension
o a or
2020 - 2034
(Years 17 - 30)
14 yrs
% of
Average Total Cost/
Annual Funding Need
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement
(less) HANS Dedication
Local Permittee Acquisition
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)
Management & Monitoring
RCA Staff (2)
Professional Services and Supplies (2)
Loan Repayment (3)
Other Costs (2) (4)
Net Endowment Funding Required
Total Costs
56,788 acres
10,000 acres
46,788 acres
$701,931,902
$51,646,790
$32,038,927
$20,524,873
$2,000,000
$5,603,554
$184,528,506
$998,274,552
4,056 acres na
714 acres na
3,342 acres na
$50,137,993
$3,689,056
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$142,857
$400,254
$13,180,608
$71,305,325
70.3%
5.2%
3.2%
2.1%
0.2%
0.6%
18.5%
100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)
Transportation Mitigation (7)
Tipping Fees
Other Revenues (8)
Total Selected Revenues
$16,691,150
$13,714,915
$55,808,564
$9,706,772
$95,921,402
$1,192,225
$979,637
$3,986,326
$693,341
$6,851,529
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $902,353,150
$64,453,796 90.4%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection:
Development
Residential Units (4.2 DU/Acres)
Residential Acres
Non -Residential Acres
Total Acres
2020 - 2033
122,456
21,818
9,705
Annual
8,747
1,558
693
31,523 2,252
Mitigation Fee $28,625 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(3) RCA has "Other Long Term Obligations" totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. (7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
c:fuse,suer=marwvvo=t=wcannlaosorc,wmeaw,vrvetcxne\co„to„r.ounaa:wanvsnoowexu=smer_F;n=i zaaxzozo.aorx
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 27 Recommended Fee Level -10 -Year Extension
Item
Total for
2020 - 2039
(Years 17 - 35)
19 yrs
% of
Average Total Cost/
Annual Funding Need
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement
(less) HANS Dedication
Local Permittee Acquisition
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)
Management & Monitoring
RCA Staff (2)
Professional Services and Supplies (2)
Loan Repayment (3)
Other Costs (2) (4)
Net Endowment Funding Required
Total Costs
56,788 acres
10,000 acres
46,788 acres
$701,931,902
$69,711,387
$43,481,401
$27,855,185
$2,000,000
$7,604,824
$170,361,785
$1,022,946,483
2,989 acres na
526 acres na
2,463 acres na
$36,943,784 68.6%
$3,669,020 6.8%
$2,288,495 4.3%
$1,466,062 2.7%
$105,263 0.2%
$400,254 0.7%
$8,966,410 16.7%
$53,839,289 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)
Transportation Mitigation (7)
Tipping Fees
Other Revenues (8)
Total Selected Revenues
$22,652,275
$18,613,099
$75,740,195
$13,173,476
$130,179,045
$1,192,225 2.7%
$979,637 2.2%
$3,986,326 8.9%
$693,341 1.5%
$6,851,529 15.3%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $892,767,438
$46,987,760 87.3%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection:
Development
Residential Units (4.2 DU/Acres)
Residential Acres
Non -Residential Acres
Total Acres
2020 - 2038
166,000
29,611
13,171
Annual
8,737
1,558
693
42,782 2,252
Mitigation Fee $20,868 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(3) RCA has "Other Long Term Obligations" totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. (7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
513
rs,ktraynarw000ata,Loca„M,to=on,w; s„NetCxhe,Content. aok,.�P6Moo,Iexu==tuaYF;na,230dzo2o.d
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
Table 28 Recommended Fee Level -15 -Year Extension
Total for
2020 - 2044
(Years 17 - 40)
24 yrs
% of
Average Total Cost/
Annual Funding Nee
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement
(less) HANS Dedication
Local Permittee Acquisition
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)
Management & Monitoring
RCA Staff (2)
Professional Services and Supplies (2)
Loan Repayment (3)
Other Costs (2) (4)
Net Endowment Funding Required
Total Costs
56,788 acres
10,000 acres
46,788 acres
$701,931,902
$87,775,983
$54,923,875
$35,185,497
$2,000,000
$9,606,093
$157,001,144
$1,048,424,494
2,366 acres na
417 acres na
1,950 acres na
$29,247,163 67.0%
$3,657,333 8.4%
$2,288,495 5.2%
$1,466,062 3.4%
$83,333 0.2%
$400,254 0.9%
$6,541,714 15.0%
$43,684,354 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)
Transportation Mitigation (7)
Tipping Fees
Other Revenues (8)
Total Selected Revenues
$28,613,400
$23,511,283
$95,671,825
$16,640,181
$164,436,689
$1,192,225 3.2%
$979,637 2.6%
$3,986,326 10.7%
$693,341 1.9%
$6,851,529 18.4%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $883,987,805
$36,832,825 84.3%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development) Growth Projection:
Development
Residential Units
Residential Acres
Non -Residential Acres
Total Acres
2020 - 2043
210,000
37,403
16,637
Annual
8,750
1,558
693
54,040 2,252
Mitigation Fee $16,358 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost. (2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(3) RCA has "Other Long Term Obligations" totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years. (4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses. (5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars. (6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues. (7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5a
8. MITIGATION FEE ACT (NEXUS) FINDINGS
Mitigation fees are utilized in California to finance public facilities necessary to mitigate impacts stemming from new development. In 1987, the California Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act to provide a framework for the application and administration of such fees. Current prevailing practice among the majority of approved and permitted regional multiple -species Habitat Conservation Plans is that any habitat mitigation fees are to be adopted by the relevant jurisdictions (cities and Counties) consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act.29 As discussed further in Chapter 9, the adoption of fees under the Mitigation Fee Act includes a number of auditing and reporting requirements.
The Mitigation Fee Act, defined in California Government Code Sections 66000 to 66025, requires all public agencies to document five findings when establishing or increasing a fee as a condition for new development. These findings were made when the Western Riverside County MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees were first justified and established.3° This Chapter of the Western Riverside Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study was prepared to describe how the proposed increase in the Local Development Mitigation Fee satisfies the five statutory findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act and is based on the appropriate nexus between new development and the imposition of a mitigation fee. The five statutory findings required for the establishment of a mitigation fee are summarized in the sections below and supported by the technical analysis in the prior chapters of this Study.
Purpose of Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee. (66001(a)(1))
The purpose of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is to contribute to the funding required to implement the MSCHP and, as a result, help maintain the incidental take permits for new private and public development in Western Riverside County under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. Maintaining the incidental take permit is necessary to allow for future development, and without the development community paying for the cost of the MSHCP, individual applicants will need to apply independently for development approval under federal and State law if the project impacts a threaten or endangered species. The federal Endangered Species Act specifically requires that the applicant for incidental take permit "ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided."31 In addition, the Local Development Mitigation Fee helps provide the regional benefit of streamlined economic development in Western Riverside County as well as 29 In addition to the current Western Riverside County habitat mitigation fee, see also the Coachella Valley habitat mitigation fee, the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Fee, and the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP mitigation fee. 3o See the Final Mitigation Nexus Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, published July 1, 2003.
31 See Section 1539(a)(2)Biii of the federal Endangered Species Act.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
the provision of contiguous open spaces that will serve as a community amenity to residents, workers, and visitors.
Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specific in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (66001(a)(2)).
The MSHCP is the public document that outlines the actions required as a whole and the particular set of actions required by the Local Permittees (and the Regional Conservation Agency as their agent) to obtain incidental take permits —associated with State and federal Endangered Species Act requirements —for new public and private development in Western Riverside County.
Failure to meet the requirements of the MSHCP will result in an inability to obtain or maintain incidental take permits through the MSHCP, which would require future development to secure individual take authorization if the project impacts a threaten or endangered species.
Revenues from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be used, in conjunction with other local and regional funding sources, to fund the conservation actions identified as the responsibility of Local Permittees in the MSHCP. The revenue from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be used to help fund the appropriate habitat acquisition (land acquisition and associated transaction costs), maintenance and monitoring of habitat land (preserve management, monitoring, and adaptive management), and program management, administration, and oversight activities and costs.32 Chapter 3 of this report describes the Local Permittee conservation requirements, progress to date, and the remaining actions required under the MSHCP.
Relationship
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (66001(a)(3)).
The implementation of the MSHCP, and the mitigation fee as a fundamental part of it, will benefit all new development by mitigating their collective impacts on covered species and associated habitat. All new public and private development in the Plan area will affect habitat and species either directly, indirectly, or as a cumulative effect. New infrastructure development, for example, in addition to its direct effects, will support new development on other parcels and other locations in the Plan Area. Similarly, new private development will require new infrastructure and also result in additional demand for new developments through linkages —for 32 Consistent with the interpretation applied to the majority of permitted and approved regional, multiple -species Habitat Conservation Plans in California and guidance from RCA Counsel, the Local Development Mitigation Fee is assumed to fund its proportionate share (as determined by the technical analysis and constrained by the statutory requirements) of applicable MSHCP implementation costs including, but also limited to, habitat acquisition costs (and associated transaction costs), the costs of managing and monitoring the habitat preserves in perpetuity, and the administrative and other costs of managing the overall program.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 467 Of 924
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
example, the need for new housing to accommodate new workers at commercial developments or the need for new retail developments to serve new residents at residential developments.
In other words, all new development in Western Riverside County will benefit from the incidental take permits obtained through the MSHCP and via the use of the mitigation fee revenues.
In addition, the incidental take permits are necessary to permit any future development within the Plan Area, and in order to obtain or maintain such incidental take permits, the MSHCP must be fully funded. Because funding the MSHCP is required in order to allow for future development under the MSHCP, there is a direct relationship between the proposed use of the mitigation fee and development within the Plan Area.
Need
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (66001(a)(4)).
Without new development, no MSHCP would be necessary and no further habitat conservation would be required under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. To allow for any future development under the Plan, the MSHCP must be fully funded. New development in the Plan Area, as noted above, will directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect species and habitat in Western Riverside County. Because of this, development of the MSHCP was undertaken to provide a regional, streamlined approach to benefit future development of all types in Western Riverside County, including the development and improvements envisioned under the numerous General Plans and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The requirements of the MSHCP (habitat acquisition, management and monitoring, program administration) are a direct result of the regional approach to mitigation that is engendered by all new development in the Plan Area under the pertinent environmental regulations. Meeting the requirements of the MSHCP is necessary to obtain the necessary federal authorization to develop within the Plan Area.
Proportionality
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (66001(b)).
The MSHCP includes detailed conservation requirements based on the scientific evaluations that form the basis of the MSHCP. Based on these evaluations, conservation responsibilities were allocated between the Local Permittees and other agencies, such as the State and federal governments. The Local Development Mitigation Fee appropriately provides funding towards the fulfillment of the Local Permittee conservation requirements. Furthermore, the Local Permittee obligations are not fully funded through the Local Development Mitigation Fee revenues. Other local and regional funding sources, such as the Measure A sales tax and tipping fees, provide additional mitigation and/or offsetting revenues that reduce the overall cost allocation to the Local Development Mitigation Fee Program. In addition, consistent with the relationship between new development in Western Riverside County and the need for the public facilities (conservation program) described above, proportional attribution between new development is ensured Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
through the determination of a consistent per gross acre Local Development Mitigation Fee.33 As a result, the Local Development Mitigation Fee level calculations are carefully determined to fund only the proportionate (or less than) conservation costs attributable to the new development on which the fee is imposed and to allocate the fee levels proportionally across all new development. It is this process of careful calculation based on the requirements of the MSHCP that is the subject of a substantial portion of this Nexus Study (see Chapters 2 through 7). 33 Determining habitat mitigation fees on a gross acre basis is the clearest way of ensuring proportionate cost allocations among new developments and is a common practice among adopted Habitat Conservation Plans. For purposes of implementation/administrative consistency, for residential uses, the per -gross -acre fee is translated into per unit fees for different density categories.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 469 Of 924
9. FEE IMPLEMENTATION
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee must be implemented consistent with the MSHCP (and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement) as well as the California Mitigation Fee Act. A detailed set of guidance is included in the Fee Implementation Handbook to support clarity and specificity in the implementation of the updated fee program by Local Permittees. The sections below summarize some of the key implementation and administration actions to be consistent with the requirements.
Adoption of Revised LDMF
• Consistent with the MSHCP and associated documents, each Local Permittee (i.e., all participating jurisdictions) must adopt an updated LDMF ordinance and a fee resolution establishing the revised fee level as prescribed by the Mitigation Fee Act. • Consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, the revised ordinance and associated fee resolution will become effective after a public hearing and 60 days. • RCA Legal Counsel will prepare a Fee Update Ordinance and Resolution to facilitate the consistent adoption of the updated LDMF by Local Permittees.
Securing Supplemental Funding
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee is set at the level that would cover the Local Permittee cost obligations once expected non -fee revenues are subtracted out. To the extent any discounts/exemptions are provided to new Western Riverside County development below the updated fee level, additional funding will be required to backfill the fee revenue losses. To the extent, these revenues do not make up for any fee discounts provided, other sources of funding will need to be sought by the RCA and the Local Permittees to fulfill their Plan obligations. At the same time, if new substantial funding sources become available to the RCA for Local Permittee obligations, the funding required through fees may decrease, in turn reducing the required fee levels through a new update.
Annual Review
The Mitigation Fee Act (at Gov. C. §§ 66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. In this case, the RCA can play this role on behalf of the Local Permittees. This information includes the following:
• A description of the type of fee in the account.
• The amount of the fee (the mitigation fee schedule).
• The beginning and ending balance of the fund.
• The amount of fees collected and interest earned.
• Identification of the improvements constructed.
• The total cost of the improvements constructed.
• The fees expended to construct the improvement.
• The percentage of total costs funded by the fee.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update Final Report October 2020
If sufficient fees have been collected to fund specific improvement cost, the agency must specify the approximate date for the cost of that improvement. Because of the dynamic nature of growth and MSHCP implementation costs and consistent with current practice, the RCA should continue to monitor progress towards MSHCP goals. The overall adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding in meeting these goals should be reviewed annually.
Surplus Funds
The Mitigation Fee Act also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or uncommitted in an account for 5 years or more after deposit of the fee, the RCA, acting for the Local Permittees, shall make findings once each year (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, (3) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the funding identified in (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund (§66001(d)).
If adequate funding has been collected for specific investments, an approximate date must be specified as to when the cost of the investment will be incurred. If the findings show no need for the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative costs of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds must refund them (Gov. C §66001(e)(f)).
Annual and Periodic Updates
Consistent with the current practice, the Fee Ordinance should allow an automatic annual adjustment to the fees based on the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Consumer Price Index (CPI) or a similar inflation factor. In addition, a more comprehensive update should be conducted required periodically. The Nexus Study and the technical information it contains should be reviewed periodically by the RCA (every five years is recommended) to identify any necessary refinements to the Local Development Mitigation Fees to ensure adequate funding to implement the MSHCP. Under certain circumstances, the RCA may wish to conduct a Nexus Study update sooner than after five years. For example, to the extent there are significant and unexpected changes in implementation costs, in the level of non -fee funding, and/ or the level of fee -paying private development over time, a more immediate fee update may be appropriate.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Page 471 0 5924 'Use,''arno, ",c.o,''w; ws„'« o"'entou'''YAAP6Moo'Ne.'st'e. F;na, 2io«z'odoc.
APPENDIX I:
Detailed Time Series of Implementation Costs
0
All Implementation Costs Over Time - No Extension
Habitat Lands/
Cost Items
Factors
End of:
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications
Total Local
State/Fed
Total
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1
State/Fed
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications
Total
6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310
-1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 6,310
3,821 3.821 3,821 3.821 3,821 3,821 3.821 3,821 3 821
8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 10,131
45,272 50,332 55,391 60,451 65,511 70,571 75,630 80,690 87,000 25,429 29,251 33,072 36,893 40,715 44,536 48,357 52,179 56,000 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 71,951 82,082 92,213 102,344 112,476 122,607 132,738 142,869 153,000 Management and Monitoring Costs
Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP
ARL
Total
Local
PQP
ARL
Total
Total Acres under RCA Management
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring
RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 RCA State 25,429 29,251 33,072 36,893 40,715 44,536 48,357 52,179 56,000 307,429 311,251 315,072 318,893 322,715 326,536 330,357 334,179 338,000 RCA Non -RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 RCA RCA 46,522 52,832 59,141 65,451 71,761 78,071 84,380 90,690 97,000 111,522 117,832 124,141 130,451 136,761 143,071 149,380 155,690 162,000 46,522 52,832 59,141 65,451 71,761 78,071 84,380 90,690 97,000 418,951 429,082 439,213 449,344 459,476 469,607 479,738 489,869 500,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual
Land Transaction Costs
Total, Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Cumulative
$14,288 $/Acre $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $90,154,055 5% of acquisition costs $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $4,507,703 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $94,661,758 $75,908,768 $151,817,536 $227,726,304 $303,635,072 $379,543,840 $455,452,608 $531,361,376 $607,270,144 $701,931,902 Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual
Management Cumulative
Monitoring, Annual
Monitoring Cumulative
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual
Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative
$32.70 $/Acre
$3.01 $/Acre
$1,521,340
$1,521,340
$1,262,531
$1,262,531
$1,727,681
$3,249,021
$1,293,061
$2,555,592
$1,934,021
$5,183,042
$1,323,592
$3,879,184
$2,140,361
$7,323,403
$1,354,122
$5,233,306
$2,346,702
$9,670,105
$1,384,653
$6,617,959
$2,553,042
$12,223,147
$1,415,184
$8,033,143
$2,759,382
$14,982,530
$1,445,714
$9,478,857
$2,965,723
$17,948,252
$1,476,245
$10,955,102
$3,172,063
$21,120,315
$1,506,776
$12,461,878
$22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $44,336,210 $66,504,316 $88,672,421 $110,840,526 $133,008,631 $155,176,736 $177,344,842 $199,512,947 Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs
Professional Services
Loan Repayment 3
Other
Total Annual
Cumulative Costs
$2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $106,015,555 $106,252,426 $105,489,297 $105,726,168 $105,963,039 $106,199,910 $106,436,781 $106,673,652 $125,663,513 TOTAL Cumulative $106,015,555 $212,267,981 $317,757,279 $423,483,447 $529,446,486 $635,646,396 $742,083,177 $848,756,829 $974,420,341
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
All Implementation Costs Over Time - 5 Year Extension
Habitat Lands/
Cost Items
Factors
End of:
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
24 2027
4,056
0 4,056
4,056
4,056
4,056
4,056
0 4,056
4,056
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications
Total Local
State/Fed
Total
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1
State/Fed
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications
Total
4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056
-1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250
2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806
2.457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2.457 2,457 2,457
5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263
43,018 45,825 48,631 51,437 54,243 57,050 59,856
24,065 26,521 28,978 31,434 33,891 36,347 38,804
1,250 2,500 3.750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750
68,333 74,846 81,359 87,871 94,384 100,897 107,410
4,056
-1,250
2,806
2,457
5,263
62,662
41,261
10,000
113,923
2,457
6,513
66,719
43,717
10,000
120,436
0 4,056
2,457
6,513
70,775
46,174
10,000
126,949
0 4,056
2.457
6,513
74,831
48,630
10,000
133,461
0 4,056
2,457
6,513
78,887
51,087
10,000
139,974
2,457
6,513
82,944
53,543
10,000
146,487
0 4,056
2.457
6,513
87,000
56,000
10,000
153,000
Management and Monitoring Costs
Reserve Summary
State/ Federal
PQP
ARL
Total
Local
PQP
ARL
Total
Financial Responsibility
Monitoring Management
RCA
RCA
RCA
RCA
Total Acres under RCA Management
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring
State/ Fed
State
Non -RCA Local
RCA
282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000
24,065 26,521 28,978 31,434 33,891 36,347
306,065 308,521 310,978 313,434 315,891 318,347
65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
44,268 48,325 52,381 56,437 60,493 64,550
109,268 113,325 117,381 121,437 125,493 129,550
44,268 48,325 52,381 56,437 60,493 64,550
415,333 421,846 428,359 434,871 441,384 447,897
282,000
38,804
320,804
65,000
68,606
133,606
68,606
454,410
282,000
41,261
323,261
65,000
72,662
137,662
72,662
460,923
282,000
43,717
325,717
65,000
76,719
141,719
76,719
467,436
282,000
46,174
328,174
65,000
80,775
145,775
80,775
473,949
282,000
48,630
330,630
65,000
84,831
149,831
84,831
480,461
282,000
51,087
333,087
65,000
88,887
153,887
88,887
486,974
282,000
53,543
335,543
65,000
92,944
157,944
92,944
493,487
282,000
56,000
338,000
65,000
97,000
162,000
97,000
500,000
COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual
Land Transaction Costs
Total, Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Cumulative
$14,288 $/Acre
5% of acquisition costs
$40,096,188
$2,004,809
$42,100,997
$42,100,997
$40,096,188
$2,004,809
$42,100,997
$84,201,995
$40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188
$2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809
$42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997
$126,302,992 $168,403,990 $210,504,987
$40,096,188
$2,004,809
$42,100,997
$252,605,985
$40,096,188
$2,004,809
$42,100,997
$294,706,982
$40,096,188
$2,004,809
$42,100,997
$336,807,979
$57,956,178
$2,897,809
$60,853,987
$397,661,967
$57,956,178
$2,897,809
$60,853,987
$458,515,954
$57,956,178
$2,897,809
$60,853,987
$519,369,941
$57,956,178
$2,897,809
$60,853,987
$580,223,928
$57,956,178
$2,897,809
$60,853,987
$641,077,915
$57,956,178
$2,897,809
$60,853,987
$701,931,902
Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre
Management Cumulative
Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre
Monitoring Cumulative
$1,447,647
$1,447,647
$1,251,627
$1,251,627
$1,580,295
$3,027,942
$1,271,254
$2,522,880
$1,712,942
$4,740,884
$1,290,880
$3,813,761
$1,845,589
$6,586,474
$1,310,507
$5,124,268
$1,978,237
$8,564,710
$1,330,134
$6,454,402
$2,110,884
$10,675,595
$1,349,761
$7,804,163
$2,243,532
$12,919,126
$1,369,388
$9,173,551
$2,376,179
$15,295,305
$1,389,015
$10,562,566
$2,508,826
$17,804,131
$1,408,641
$11,971,207
$2,641,474
$20,445,605
$1,428,268
$13,399,476
$2,774,121
$23,219,726
$1,447,895
$14,847,371
$2,906,768
$26,126,494
$1,467,522
$16,314,893
$3,039,416
$29,165,910
$1,487,149
$17,802,041
$3,172,063
$32,337,973
$1,506,776
$19,308,817
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual
Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative
$13,180,608
$13,180,608
$13,180,608
$26,361,215
$13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $39,541,823 $52,722,430 $65,903,038 $79,083,645 $92,264,253 $105,444,860 $118,625,468 $131,806,076 $144,986,683 $158,167,291 $171,347,898 $184,528,506 Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs
Professional Services
Loan Repayment 3
Other
Total Annual Costs
Cumulative Costs
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$1,000,000
$400,254
$5,154,811
$5,154,811
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$1,000,000
$400,254
$5,154,811
$10,309,622
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$14,464,433
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$18,619,244
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$22,774,055
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$26,928,866
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$31,083,677
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$35,238,488
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$39,393,299
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$43,548,111
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$47,702,922
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$51,857,733
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$56,012,544
$2,288,495
$1,466,062
$0
$400,254
$4,154,811
$60,167,355
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual
TOTAL Cumulative
$63,135,690 $63,287,964 $62,440,239 $62,592,513 $62,744,787 $62,897,061 $63,049,335 $63,201,610 $82,106,873 $82,259,148 $82,411,422 $82,563,696 $82,715,970 $82,868,244 $63,135,690 $126,423,655 $188,863,893 $251,456,406 $314,201,193 $377,098,254 $440,147,590 $503,349,199 $585,456,073 $667,715,220 $750,126,642 $832,690,338 $915,406,308 $998,274,552
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
All Implementation Costs Over Time - 10 Year Extension
Habitat Lands/
Cost Items
Factors
17 18
2020 2021
End of:
21 2024
22 2025
23 2026
24 2027
25 2028
26 2029
27 2030
28 2031
29 2032
30 2033
31 2034
32 2035
33 2036
34 2037
35 2038
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local
(less) Anheuser Busch purchase
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications
Total Local
State/Fed
Total
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local I
State/Fed
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications
Total
Management and Monitoring Costs
Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP
ARL
Total
Local
PQP
ARL
Total
2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1.250 -1.250 -1.250 -1.250 -1.250 -1.250 -1.250 -1.250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 1810 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 2,989
0 0
2,989
1 810
4,799
41,951 43,690 45,429 47,167 48,906 50,645 52,384 54,123 57,112 60,100 63,089 66,078 69,067 72,056 75,045 78,033 81,022 84,011 87,000 23,418 25,228 27,038 28,848 30,659 32,469 34,279 36,089 37,899 39,709 41,519 43,329 45,139 46,949 48,760 50,570 52,380 54,190 56,000 1 250 2 500 3 750 5 000 6 250 7 500 8 750 10.000 10.000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 66,619 71,418 76,217 81,016 85,815 90,614 95,413 100,212 105,011 109,809 114,608 119,407 124,206 129,005 133,804 138,603 143,402 148,201 153,000 RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 RCA State 23,418 25,228 27,038 28,848 30,659 32,469 34,279 36,089 37,899 39,709 41,519 43,329 45,139 46,949 48,760 50,570 52,380 54,190 56,000 305,418 307,228 309,038 310,848 312,659 314,469 316,279 318,089 319,899 321,709 323,519 325,329 327,139 328,949 330,760 332,570 334,380 336,190 338,000 RCA Non -RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 RCA RCA 43,201 46,190 49,179 52,167 55,156 58,145 61,134 64,123 67,112 70,100 73,089 76,078 79,067 82,056 85,045 88,033 91,022 94,011 97,000 108,201 111,190 114,179 117,167 120,156 123,145 126,134 129,123 132,112 135,100 138,089 141,078 144,067 147,056 150,045 153,033 156,022 159,011 162,000 Total Acres under RCA Management
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring
43,201 46,190 49,179 52,167 55,156 58,145 61,134 64,123 67,112 70,100 73,089 76,078 79,067 82,056 85,045 88,033 91,022 94,011 97,000 413,619 418,418 423,217 428,016 432,815 437,614 442,413 447,212 452,011 456,809 461,608 466,407 471,206 476,005 480,804 485,603 490,402 495,201 500,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 Land Transaction Costs 5% of acquisition $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 costs
Total, Land Acquisition Costs $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 Local, ARL, Cumulative $26,086,790 $52,173,581 $78,260,371 $104,347,161 $130,433,952 $156,520,742 $182,607,532 $208,694,323 $253,534,102 $298,373,882 $343,213,662 $388,053,442 $432,893,222 $477,733,002 $522,572,782 $567,412,562 $612,252,342 $657,092,122 $701,931,902 Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,412,740 $1,510,480 $1,608,220 $1,705,961 $1,803,701 $1,901,441 $1,999,181 $2,096,921 $2,194,661 $2,292,402 $2,390,142 $2,487,882 $2,585,622 $2,683,362 $2,781,102 $2,878,843 $2,976,583 $3,074,323 $3,172,063 Management Cumulative $1,412,740 $2,923,220 $4,531,441 $6,237,402 $8,041,102 $9,942,543 $11,941,725 $14,038,646 $16,233,307 $18,525,709 $20,915,851 $23,403,733 $25,989,355 $28,672,717 $31,453,819 $34,332,662 $37,309,245 $40,383,568 $43,555,631 Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre
Monitoring Cumulative
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual
Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative
$1,246,462 $1,260,924 $1,275,386 $1,289,847 $1,304,309 $1,318,771 $1,333,233 $1,347,695 $1,362,157 $1,376,619 $1,391,081 $1,405,542 $1,420,004 $1,434,466 $1,448,928 $1,463,390 $1,477,852 $1,492,314 $1,506,776 $1,246,462 $2,507,386 $3,782,771 $5,072,619 $6,376,928 $7,695,699 $9,028,932 $10,376,627 $11,738,784 $13,115,403 $14,506,484 $15,912,026 $17,332,030 $18,766,497 $20,215,425 $21,678,815 $23,156,667 $24,648,980 $26,155,756 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $17,932,819 $26,899,229 $35,865,639 $44,832,049 $53,798,458 $62,764,868 $71,731,278 $80,697,687 $89,664,097 $98,630,507 $107,596,917 $116,563,326 $125,529,736 $134,496,146 $143,462,556 $152,428,965 $161,395,375 $170,361,785 Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs
Professional Services
Loan Repayment 3
Other
Total Annual Costs
Cumulative Costs
$2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 $64,322,166 $68,476,977 $72,631,788 $76,786,599 $80,941,410
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual
TOTAL Cumulative $42,867,213 $85,846,628 $127,938,245 $170,142,065 $212,458,086 $254,886,309 $297,426,735 $340,079,362 $401,597,181 $463,227,202 $524,969,425 $586,823,850 $648,790,477 $710,869,307 $773,060,338 $835,363,571 $897,779,006 $960,306,644 $1,022,946,483 $42,867,213 $42,979,415 $42,091,617 $42,203,819 $42,316,021 $42,428,223 $42,540,425 $42,652,627 $61,517,819 $61,630,021 $61,742,223 $61,854,425 $61,966,627 $62,078,829 $62,191,031 $62,303,233 $62,415,435 $62,527,637 $62,639,839
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
All Implementation Costs Over Time - 15 Year Extension
Habitat Lands/ Factors
Cost Items
End of:
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 30 31 32
2033 2034 2035
33 34
2036 2037
35 36
37 38
39 40
2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications
Total Local
1 State/Fed
Total
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local
State/Fed
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications
Total
2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366
-1250 -1250
1,116 1,116
1 433 1 433
2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 -1250 -1250
1,116 1,116
1 433 1 433
2,366 2,366
-1250 -1250
1,116 1,116
1 433 1 433
2,366 2,366
-1250 -1250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,366 2,366
2,366 2,366
2,366 2,366
2,366 2,366
1,116 1,116 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366
1 433 1 433 1 433 1 433 1 433 1 433 1 433 1 433 1 433
2,366
1 433
2,366 2,366
0 0
2,366 2,366
1 433 1 433
3,799 3,799
2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366
0 0 0 0 0 0
2,366 2,366
2,366 2,366
2,366 2,366
1 433 1 433 1 433 1 433 1 433 1 433
3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799
41,328 42,444 43,561 44,677 45,793 46,909 48,025 49,141 51,508 53,874 56,240 58,606 60,972 63,338 65,705 68,071 70,437 72,803 75,169 77,535 79,902 82,268 84,634 87,000 23,041 24,474 25,907 27,340 28,773 30,206 31,639 33,072 34,505 35,938 37,371 38,804 40,237 41,670 43,103 44,536 45,969 47,402 48,835 50,268 51,701 53,134 54,567 56,000 1 250 2 500 3 750 5 000 6 250 7 500 8 750 10 000 10O00 10 000 10 O00 10 O00 10 O00 10000 10O00 10O00 10 O00 10 000 10 000 10 O00 10 O00 10 O00 10 O00 10 O00 65,619 69,418 73,218 77,017 80,816 84,615 88,414 92,213 96,013 99,812 103,611 107,410 111,209 115,008 118,808 122,607 126,406 130,205 134,004 137,803 141,603 145,402 149,201 153,000 Management and Monitoring Costs
Reserve
Summary Financial Responsibility
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP
ARL
Total
Local
PQP
ARL
Total
1 RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 RCA State 23,041 24,474 25,907 27,340 28,773 30,206 31,639 33,072 34,505 35,938 37,371 38,804 40,237 41,670 43,103 44,536 45,969 47,402 48,835 50,268 51,701 53,134 54,567 56,000 305,041 306,474 307,907 309,340 310,773 312,206 313,639 315,072 316,505 317,938 319,371 320,804 322,237 323,670 325,103 326,536 327,969 329,402 330,835 332,268 333,701 335,134 336,567 338,000 RCA Non -RCA 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 Local
RCA RCA 42,578 44,944 47,311 49,677 52,043 54,409 56,775 59,141 61,508 63,874 66,240 68,606 70,972 73,338 75,705 78,071 80,437 82,803 107,578 109,944 112,311 114,677 117,043 119,409 121,775 124,141 126,508 128,874 131,240 133,606 135,972 138,338 140,705 143,071 145,437 147,803 Total Acres under RCA Management
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring
42,578 44,944 47,311 49,677 52,043 54,409 56,775 59,141 61,508 63,874 66,240 68,606 70,972 73,338 75,705 78,071 80,437 82,803
65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
85,169
150,169
87,535
152,535
85,169 87,535
89,902
154,902
92,268
157,268
94,634
159,634
97,000
162,000
89,902 92,268 94,634 97,000
412,619 416,418 420,218 424,017 427,816 431,615 435,414 439,213 443,013 446,812 450,611 454,410 458,209 462,008 465,808 469,607 473,406 477,205 481,004 484,803 488,603 492,402 496,201 500,000 COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs 7
Local, ARL, $14,288 $/Acre $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 Annual
Land Transaction 5% of acquisition
Costs costs
Total, Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL,
Cumulative
Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, $32.70 $/Acre
Annual
Management
Cumulative
Monitoring,
Annual
Monitoring
Cumulative
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment
Funding, Annual
Net Endowment
Funding,
Cumulative
Administrative Costs'
RCA Staff Costs
Professional Services
Loan Repayment'
Other
Total Annual Costs
Cumulative Costs
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual
TOTAL Cumulative
$3.01 $/Acre
$797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $16,745,170 $33,490,339 $50,235,509 $66,980,678 $83,725,848 $100,471,017 $117,216,187 $133,961,356 $169,459,515 $204,957,674 $240,455,833 $275,953,992 $311,452,152 $346,950,311 $382,448,470 $417,946,629 $453,444,788 $488,942,947 $524,441,106 $559,939,265 $595,437,424 $630,935,583 $666,433,743 $701,931,902 Jillh. I -
$1,392,37- 8 $1,469,755 $1,547,1- 33 $1,624,511 $1,701,8▪ 88 $1,779,266 $1,856,643 $1,934,021 $2,011,399 $2,088,776 $2,166,154 $2,243,532 $2,320,909 $2,398,287 $2,475,664 $2,553,042 $2,630,420 $2,707,797 $2,785,175 $2,862,553 $2,939,930 $3,017,308 $3,094,685 $3,172,063 $1,392,378 $2,862,133 $4,409,266 $6,033,776 $7,735,664 $9,514,930 $11,371,574 $13,305,595 $15,316,993 $17,405,770 $19,571,923 $21,815,455 $24,136,364 $26,534,651 $29,010,315 $31,563,357 $34,193,777 $36,901,574 $39,686,749 $42,549,302 $45,489,232 $48,506,540 $51,601,225 $54,773,288 $1,243,449 $1,254,898 $1,266,347 $1,277,796 $1,289,245 $1,300,694 $1,312,143 $1,323,592 $1,335,041 $1,346,490 $1,357,939 $1,369,388 $1,380,837 $1,392,286 $1,403,735 $1,415,184 $1,426,633 $1,438,082 $1,449,531 $1,460,980 $1,472,429 $1,483,878 $1,495,327 $1,506,776 $1,243,449 $2,498,347 $3,764,694 $5,042,490 $6,331,735 $7,632,429 $8,944,572 $10,268,163 $11,603,204 $12,949,694 $14,307,633 $15,677,021 $17,057,857 $18,450,143 $19,853,878 $21,269,062 $22,695,694 $24,133,776 $25,583,307 $27,044,286 $28,516,715 $30,000,593 $31,495,919 $33,002,695 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $13,083,429 $19,625,143 $26,166,857 $32,708,572 $39,250,286 $45,792,000 $52,333,715 $58,875,429 $65,417,143 $71,958,858 $78,500,572 $85,042,286 $91,584,001 $98,125,715 $104,667,429 $111,209,144 $117,750,858 $124,292,572 $130,834,286 $137,376,001 $143,917,715 $150,459,429 $157,001,144 A s I
$2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 $64,322,166 $68,476,977 $72,631,788 $76,786,599 $80,941,410 $85,096,221 $89,251,032 $93,405,843 $97,560,654 $101,715,465 $31,077,521 $31,166,348 $30,255,175 $30,344,001 $30,432,828 ▪ $30,521,655 $30,610,481 $30,699,308 $49,541,124 $49,629,951 $49,718,777 $49,807,604 $49,896,430 $49,985,257 $50,074,084 $50,162,910 $50,251,737 $50,340,563 $50,429,390 $50,518,217 $50,607,043 $50,695,870 $50,784,697 $50,873,523 $31,077,521 $62,243,870 $92,499,044 $122,843,046 $153,275,874 $183,797,528 $214,408,009 $245,107,317 $294,648,441 $344,278,392 $393,997,169 $443,804,773 $493,701,203 $543,686,460 $593,760,544 $643,923,454 $694,175,191 $744,515,754 $794,945,144 $845,463,361 $896,070,404 $946,766,274 $997,550,971 $1,048,424,494
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
APPENDIX II:
Detailed Time Series of Endowment Funding
0
Annual Cost Estimate for Management and Monitoring, Constant 2019$ Cost Categories
Ongoing Habitat Management
Ongoing Habitat Monitoring
Administration'
Total
Annual Cost
by Last Year of Annual Post -Land
Land Acquisition Adjustment Acquisition Cost
Period
$3,172,063
$1,506,776
$4,154,811
$8,833,650
100%
100°/0
50%
$3,172,063
$1,506,776
$2,077,406
$6,756,244
1. Adminsitration includes salaries and benefits, accounting, auditing and reporting, contracts, etc.. Assumes less administration is needed following the land acquisition period; ongoing adminsitrative needs include oversight, auditing and reporting, and board staffing.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Endowment Funding - No Extension Scenario
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)
Average Per Acre
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding
Endowment Balance
Annual Interest
Cumulative Interest Earnings
Total Endowment
Average Annual Post Permit Interest
2,252
$9,845
2,252 2,252
$9,845 $9,845
$22,168,105 $22,168,105
$22,168,105 $44,336,210
$0 $665,043
$0 $665,043
$22,168,105 $45,001,254
$22,168,105
$67,169,359
$1,350,038
$2,015,081
$68,519,396
2,252 2,252
$9,845 $9,845
$22,168,105 $22,168,105
$90,687,502 $114,911,189
$2,055,582 $2,782,293
$4,070,663 $6,852,955
$92,743,083 $117,693,481
2,252
$9,845
2,252
$9,845
2,252 2,252
$9,845 $9,845
$22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105
$139,861,586 $165,560,496 $192,030,373 $219,294,346
$3,530,804 $4,301,772 $5,095,868 $5,913,787
$10,383,760 $14,685,531 $19,781,399 $25,695,187
$143,392,391 $169,862,268 $197,126,241 $225,208,133
$6,756,244
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post -permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Assum
Dtions
20,265 impact acres developed
9 year plan
3% interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post -permit cost estimate
$9,845 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
Endowment Funding - 5 Year Extension Scenario
New Impact Acres (avg. annual) 2,252
Average Per Acre $5,854
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $13,180,608
Endowment Balance $13,180,608
Annual Interest $0
Cumulative Interest Earnings $0
Total Endowment $13,180,608
Average Annual Post Permit Interest
2,252
$5,854
$13,180,608
$26,361,215
$395,418
$395,418
$26,756,633
2,252
$5,854
2,252
$5,854
2,252
$5,854
2,252
$5,854
$13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608
$39,937,241 $53,920,547 $68,323,353 $83,158,243
$802,699 $1,222,198 $1,654,282 $2,099,329
$1,198,117 $2,420,315 $4,074,598 $6,173,927
$40,739,940 $55,142,746 $69,977,636 $85,257,572
2,252
$5,854
$13,180,608
$98,438,180
$2,557,727
$8,731,654
$100,995,907
2,252
$5,854
$13,180,608
$114,176,514
$3,029,877
$11,761,531
$117,206,392
2,252
$5,854
$13,180,608
$130,386,999
$3,516,192
$15,277,723
$133,903,191
2,252
$5,854
$13,180,608
$147,083,799
$4,017,096
$19,294,819
$151,100,894
2,252
$5,854
$13,180,608
$164,281,502
$4,533,027
$23,827,846
$168,814,529
2,252
$5,854
$13,180,608
$181,995,136
$5,064,436
$28,892,281
$187,059,572
2,252
$5,854
$13,180,608
$200,240,180
$5,611,787
$34,504,069
$205,851,967
2,252
$5,854
$13,180,608
$219,032,574
$6,175,559
$40,679,628
$225,208,133
$6,756,244
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post -permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Assumptions
31,523 impact acres developed
14 year plan
3% interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post -permit cost estimate
$5,854 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
Endowment Funding - 10 Year Extension Scenario
Item 1 2 3
5 6
7 8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
18 19 Post -Permit
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)
Average Per Acre
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 Endowment Balance $8,966,410 $17,932,819 $27,168,221 $36,680,686 $46,478,524 $56,570,297 $66,964,823 $77,671,185 $88,698,738 $100,057,118 $111,756,249 $123,806,354 $136,217,962 $149,001,918 $162,169,393 $175,731,892 $189,701,266 $204,089,722 $218,909,831 Annual Interest $0 $268,992 $546,054 $831,428 $1,125,363 $1,428,117 $1,739,952 $2,061,143 $2,391,970 $2,732,721 $3,083,695 $3,445,198 $3,817,547 $4,201,065 $4,596,089 $5,002,964 $5,422,046 $5,853,699 $6,298,303 Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $268,992 $815,047 $1,646,475 $2,771,838 $4,199,955 $5,939,907 $8,001,051 $10,393,020 $13,125,742 $16,209,437 $19,654,635 $23,472,182 $27,673,247 $32,269,336 $37,272,301 $42,694,347 $48,548,046 $54,846,349 Total Endowment $8,966,410 $18,201,812 $27,714,276 $37,512,114 $47,603,887 $57,998,413 $68,704,775 $79,732,328 $91,090,708 $102,789,839 $114,839,944 $127,251,552 $140,035,508 $153,202,983 $166,765,482 $180,734,856 $195,123,312 $209,943,421 $225,208,133 Average Annual Post Permit Interest
2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $6,756,244
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post -permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Assumptions
42,782 impact acres developed
19 year plan
3% interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post -permit cost estimate
$3,982 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
Endowment Funding - 15 Year Extension Scenario
IIV
11 12 13
14 15
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)
2,252 2,252
Average Per Acre $2,905
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding
Endowment Balance
Annual Interest
Cumulative Interest Earnings
Total Endowment
Average Annual Post Permit Interest
2,252 2,252
$2,905 $2,905
2,252 2,252
$2,905 $2,905
2,252 2,252
$2,905 $2,905
2,252 2,252
$2,905 $2,905
2,252
$2,905 $2,905
2,252
2,252
$2,905 $2,905
2,252
2,252
$2,905 $2,905
$6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $13,083,429 $19,821,394 $26,761,499 $33,909,807 $41,272,564 $48,856,204 $56,667,353 $64,712,836 $72,999,684 $81,535,138 $90,326,655 $99,381,917 $108,708,838 $118,315,566 $0 $196,251 $398,390 $606,594 $821,043 $1,041,925 $1,269,435 $1,503,769 $1,745,134 $1,993,739 $2,249,803 $2,513,548 $2,785,206 $3,065,014 $3,353,216 $0 $196,251 $594,642 $1,201,235 $2,022,278 $3,064,204 $4,333,638 $5,837,407 $7,582,541 $9,576,280 $11,826,083 $14,339,631 $17,124,837 $20,189,851 $23,543,067 $6,541,714 $13,279,680 $20,219,785 $27,368,093 $34,730,850 $42,314,490 $50,125,639 $58,171,122 $66,457,970 $74,993,424 $83,784,941 $92,840,203 $102,167,123 $111,773,852 $121,668,781 2,252 2,252
2,252
2,252 2,252
2,252 2,252
$2,905
$2,905 $2,905
$2,905 $2,905
$2,905 $2,905
24 Post -Permit
2,252 2,252
$2,905 $2,905
$6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $128,210,496 $138,402,273 $148,899,805 $159,712,262 $170,849,092 $182,320,028 $194,135,092 $206,304,607 $218,839,209 $3,650,063 $3,955,817 $4,270,743 $4,595,116 $4,929,221 $5,273,349 $5,627,801 $5,992,887 $6,368,925 $27,193,130 $31,148,947 $35,419,689 $40,014,806 $44,944,027 $50,217,377 $55,845,178 $61,838,065 $68,206,990 $131,860,559 $142,358,090 $153,170,547 $164,307,378 $175,778,314 $187,593,377 $199,762,893 $212,297,494 $225,208,133 $6,756,244
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post -permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Assumptions
54,040 impact acres developed
24 year plan
3% interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post -permit cost estimate
$2,905 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
Appendix G - TUMF 2016 Program Update Disposition of Network Change Requests As part of the 2024 update of the TUMF Nexus Study, the list of proposed improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development in the TUMF Network Cost Estimate table included in the previously adopted Nexus Study was reviewed for accuracy. In particular, the Network Cost table was reviewed to ensure the included projects were consistent with the mitigation needs identified by the RivCoM future year no -build traffic conditions.
To assist in the review of the Network Cost Estimate table, participating local jurisdictions, private developers and the Riverside County Transportation Commission were asked to submit requests for changes to the TUMF Network. The various requests for network changes were subsequently reviewed for consistency with the program guidelines for inclusion on the TUMF Network and to determine if future traffic impacts would be sufficient to require mitigation primarily utilizing the RivCoM future no -build scenario outputs to quantify impacts as well as screening the various qualitative measures that have guided the TUMF Network development since program inception.
Based on the findings of the review of the entire TUMF network, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect only necessary network corrections, modifications to project assumptions and to incorporate a limited number of additional improvements.
The preliminary results of the network review and the associated screening of specific requested projects was presented to the WRCOG Public Works Directors Committee (PWC) in August 2023. Updated screening results were presented to the PWC in February 2024 and the findings endorsed confirming the TUMF Network as the basis for the Draft 2024 Nexus Study that was subsequently presented to the PWC for review and comment in April 2024. A matrix summarizing the disposition of the specific project requests received as part of the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update is included as Exhibit G-1 in this Appendix.
With the release of the Draft 2024 Nexus Update Study Report for a formal review period commencing on May 14, 2024, and ending on June 10, 2024, additional comments were provided to WRCOG staff by thirteen participating jurisdictions or other stakeholders. These comments were reviewed by WRCOG staff and responses were provided to each of the parties that submitted comments. The responses included several changes to the TUMF network to remedy typographical errors contained in the draft report, including misreporting in the number of existing lanes, project percent complete and interchange project type for approximately 10 TUMF network segments.
The recommended network revisions were presented to the PWC on August 8, 2024, and are reflected in the TUMF network cost table included in Exhibit H-1.
WRCOG G-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
EXHIBIT G-1
2024 TUMF Nexus Study Update - Network Addition Requests Northwest Zone
City/
County
Street
Name
From
Recommendation
Eastvale
Hellman
River Road
Walter
Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Eastvale
Hellman
Schleisman
Walter
Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Eastvale
Hellman
Cucamonga Creek
bridge
Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Eastvale
River Rd
Archibald
Hellman
Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Eastvale
Limonite ITS
citywide
Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase Eastvale
Hamner ITS
citywide
Add to networks for deficient links with no capacity increase Eastvale
Schliesman ITS
citywide
Add to networks for deficient links with no capacity increase Eastvale
Archibald ITS
city wide
Add to networks for deficient links with no capacity increase Eastvale
Limonite
Cucamonga Creek
bridge
Bridge length increased to 500'
Riverside
3rd
Chicago
Iowa
Do not add - no V/C deficiency and interchange overcrossing reconstructed to 4 lanes in 2006-2007 Riverside
La Sierra ITS
SR -91
Victoria
Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase Riverside
Madison ITS
SR -91
Victoria
Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase Riverside
University ITS
Market St
Canyon Crest
Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase Riverside
Tyler ITS
California Ave
Indiana Ave
Do not add - no V/C deficiency
Riverside
Alessandro Blvd ITS
Fairview Ave
Meridian
Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase County
Markham St
Mockingbird Canyon
Wood Rd
Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Central Zone
City/
County
Street
Name
From
To
Recommendation
Menifee
Garbani
Haun
Antelope
Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
Menifee
Garbani
I-215
interchange
Add to network to mitigate future v/c deficiency
Menifee
Garbani
I-215
Menifee
Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
Menifee
Garbani
Menifee
Briggs
Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
Menifee
Holland
City Limits (West)
Murrieta
Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
Menifee
Holland
Murrieta
Bradley
Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Menifee
Holland
Bradley
Haun
Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Menifee
Holland
Antelope
Muenifee
Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency Menifee
Scott
Haun
Menifee
P +n TUMF Network
Menifee
Scott
Menifee
Briggs
n TUMF Network
Menifee
Scott
Sunset
Murrieta
n TUMF Network
Menifee
Briggs
Simpson
Angler
,n TUMF Network
Menifee
Briggs
Salt Creek
bridge
TUMF Network
Perry
Ethanac
Bridge
San Jacinto River
-CF Network
Unincorporated
Grand Ave
Briggs Rd
SR -79
Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
San Jacinto Zone
Coity/
County
Street
Name
From
Recommendation
Hemet
Stetson
Warren
0.85 Miles w/o Warren
Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency San Jacinto
7th 5t
Western Terminus
Warren Rd
Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
San Jacinto
7st St
Channel adjacent to Warren
bridge
Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
Pass Zone
City/
County
Street
Name
From
To
Recommendation
Banning
Highland Springs
Cherry Valley
Oak Valley
o v/c deficiency
Banning
Cottonwood
I-10
interchange
Do not add - no connectivity to regional network
Banning
Wilson
Highland Springs
Highland Home
no v/c deficiency
Banning
Sun Lakes
Smith Creek
bridge
l etwork - Bridge added
Southwest Zone
-
Recommendation
Lake Elsinore
Camino del Norte
Summerhill
Main
Do not add - no connectivity to regional network
Lake Elsinore
Summerhill
Railroad Canyon
Greenwald
Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Lake Elsinore
Nichols
I-15
Lake
Already on TUMF Network
Wildomar
Inland Valley Dr
I-15
bridge
Do not add - no connectivity to regional network
Wildomar
Palomar
Starbuck
Washington
Pi -------
Wildomar
Bundy Canyon
I-15
City Limits (Sunset)
Murrieta
Orange Springs Parkway
Clinton Keith
Scott
Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Murrieta
Calle del Oso Oro
Vineyard Pkwy
Washington
Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Murrieta
Calle del Oso Oro
1500 w/o Vineyard Pkwy
bridge
Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Murrieta
Adams
Murrieta Hot Springs/Hawthorne
Cherry
Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency Temecula
Vnez Road
Rancho California
Santiago
Do not add - no connectivity to regional network
Temecula
Ynez Road/DePortola Road
Santiago
Margarita
Do not add - no connectivity to regional network
Temecula
ITS
Major Arterials (Winchester, Rancho California,
Butterfield Stage, Temecula Pkwv, Margarita, Jefferson
City limits
Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase
Appendix H - TUMF Network Cost Estimate and Evaluation
For the purpose of calculating the "fair share" fee to be applied to new development under the TUMF program, a planning level cost estimate was developed to reflect the cost to complete improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials to adequately accommodate future traffic growth. The planning level cost estimate was established by applying the unit cost values (presented in Table 4.1) to the proposed changes identified for the future Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The resultant cost value was tabulated for each unique segment of the network, by improvement type, based on the proposed list of improvements recommended following the review of the TUMF Network (as described in Section 4.3, Appendix E and Appendix G). A separate cost estimate was generated for regional transit improvements based on information provided by RTA and added to the summary table. The TUMF Network cost estimate table is summarized in Table 4.4 of the Nexus Report. The detailed TUMF Network cost estimate table is included in this Appendix as Exhibit H-1. The detailed TUMF transit cost estimate table is included as Table 4.5 of the Nexus Report.
Where existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements to the TUMF Network, the 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.
WRCOG staff, in consultation with RCTC staff, reviewed the current Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) to identify transportation projects on the TUMF network that had previously secured alternate sources of funding. Exhibit H-2 identifies those projects included on the TUMF Network having previously obligated funding.
To account for existing needs in the original TUMF Nexus Study, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted by extracting the share of the cost to improve the portion of those facilities identified in the 2018 Baseline network scenario with a volume to capacity ratio of greater than 0.90, which is the threshold for LOS E. The adjustment to account for existing need as part of the TUMF Nexus Study provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those facilities with existing need.
The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology:
1. 1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivCoM 2018 Baseline scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network and delineating those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an average directional v/c exceeding 0.90.
a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for network segments, which was calculated by:
WRCOG H-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024