_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda July 18, 2023 Page 1
AGENDA
REGULAR JOINT MEETING
* * *
CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
and
OAKHURST GEOLOGICAL HAZARD ABATEMENT
DISTRICT (GHAD)
* * *
TUESDAY, July 18, 2023
7:00 P.M.
*** NOTICE ***
Members of the public will be able to participate either in-person at Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library
6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, CA 94517
or
remotely via Zoom.
Mayor: Jeff Wan
Vice Mayor: Jim Diaz
Council Members
Peter Cloven
Holly Tillman
Kim Trupiano
• A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each public item is available for public review in City Hall located at 6000 Heritage Trail and on the City’s website at www.claytonca.gov
• Agendas are posted at: 1) City Hall, 6000 Heritage Trail; 2) Library, 6125 Clayton Road; 3) Ohm’s Bulletin Board, 1028 Diablo Street, Clayton; and 4) City Website at www.claytonca.gov • Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the Agenda Packet and regarding any public item on this Agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office located at 6000 Heritage Trail during normal business hours and is available for review on the City’s website at www.claytonca.gov • If you have a physical impairment that requires special accommodation to participate, please call the City Clerk’s office at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 673-7300. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda July 18, 2023 Page 2
Instructions for Virtual City Council Meeting – July 18, 2023 Tonight’s meeting will be available to the public both in-person and remotely via Zoom.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may continue to provide live remote oral comment via the Zoom video conferencing platform. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time.
To follow or participate in the meeting:
1. Videoconference: to follow the meeting on-line, click here to register:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_suxMeIgbQNWPGzIqaBNXFw After clicking on the URL, please take a few seconds to submit your first and last name, and e-mail address then click “Register”, which will approve your registration, and a new URL to join the meeting will appear.
2. Phone-in: Register for the meeting using the URL in the paragraph above. Once registered, you will receive an e-mail with instructions to join the meeting telephonically, and then dial toll-free 877-853-5257 and use the Webinar ID and Password found in the e-mail.
3. E-mail Public Comments: If preferred, please e-mail public comments to the City Clerk, Ms. Calderon at [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council meeting. All e-mailed public comments will be forwarded to the entire City Council.
Each person attending the meeting via video conferencing or telephone and who wishes to speak on an agendized or non-agendized matter shall have a set amount of time to speak as determined by the Mayor.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda July 18, 2023 Page 3
* CITY COUNCIL *
July 18, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – Mayor Wan.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Wan.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS
Members of the public may address the City Council on items within the Council’s jurisdiction (which are not on the agenda) at this time. To assure an orderly meeting and an equal opportunity for everyone, each speaker is limited to 3 minutes, enforced at the Mayor’s discretion. In accordance with State Law, no action may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may at its discretion request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter.
Public comment and input on Public Hearing, Action Items and other Agenda Items will be allowed when each item is considered by the City Council.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically routine in nature and are considered for approval by one single motion of the City Council. Members of the Council, Audience, or Staff wishing an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purpose of public comment, question, discussion or alternative action may request so through the Mayor.
(a) Approve the minutes of the City Council’s regular meeting of June 20, 2023. (City Clerk) (View here)
(b) Approve the Financial Demands and Obligations of the City. (Finance Director) (View here)
(c) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clayton Adopting the City of Clayton’s Salary Schedule Effective July 1, 2023 in Conformance with CalPERS Requirements to Provide a Publicly Available Salary Schedule. (Executive Assistant to City Manager/HR Manager) (View here) (d) Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Clayton Community Park Play Structure Replacement Project (Capital Improvement Project No. 10454) Performed by Specified Equipment Company (SPEC) as Complete, Approving the Notice of Completion, Directing the City Clerk to Record Same with the County Recorder, and Authorizing the Payment of All Retained Funds to SPEC 35 Days After Recording the Notice of Completion. (Community Development Director) (View here)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda July 18, 2023 Page 4
(e) Multi-Year Agreement with Konica Minolta Business Solutions (Konica Minolta) for a Konica Minolta Bizhub C650i Copier Lease with Maintenance Agreement. (City Clerk) (View here)
5. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
(a) Save Mount Diablo Presentation. (Councilmember Trupiano)
6. REPORTS
(a) City Manager/Staff
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Public Hearing on Proposed Real Property Assessments for the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District (BAD); Ordering Improvements and Levying Annual Assessments in Fiscal Year 2023/24. (City Engineer) (View here) (b) Resolution Adopting the 2022 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study and Update of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fees, and Finding the Action to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Community Development Director) (View here)
8. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Adopt a resolution approving a Franchise Agreement with Allied Waste Systems, Inc. (Republic Services) for garbage, recyclable materials and organic waste collection services and revising the maximum limit for rates for such services starting on January 1, 2024. (City Manager) (View here)
(b) Approve Funding Agreement between Contra Costa Transportation Authority and City of Clayton for Cost Sharing Commitments to Design and Construct the Countywide Smart Signals Project. (City Engineer) (View here) (c) Provide Direction To Staff On Pursuing Opportunities For Cell Tower Leases. (City Manager) (View here)
(d) Approve On-call Citywide Service Contract with Waraner Brothers Tree Service. (Maintenance Supervisor) (View here)
(View Here)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda July 18, 2023 Page 5
(e) Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign All Documents Related to Obtaining and Implementing Granicus Agenda Management Software and Any Necessary Budget Amendments. (City Manager) (View here)
9. COUNCIL ITEMS – limited to Council requests and directives for future meetings.
10. COUNCIL REPORTS
(a) City Council - Reports from Council liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council will be August 15, 2023. # # # #
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda July 18, 2023 Page 6
* OAKHURST GEOLOGICAL HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT *
July 18, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – Chair Trupiano.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public may address the District Board members on items within the Board’s jurisdiction, (which are not on the agenda) at this time. To facilitate the recording, assure an orderly meeting and provide an equal opportunity for everyone, each speaker is limited to 3 minutes, enforced at the Chair’s discretion. In accordance with State Law, no action may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Board may respond to statements made or questions asked, or may at its discretion request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter.
Public comment and input on Public Hearing, Action Items and other Agenda Items will be allowed when each item is considered by the Board.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically routine in nature and are considered for approval by the Board with one single motion. Members of the Board, Audience, or Staff wishing an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purpose of public comment, question or input may request so through the Chair.
(a) Approve the Board of Directors’ minutes for its regular meeting June 6, 2023. (Secretary) (View here)
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Resolution Ordering Improvements and Confirming Real Property Assessments in the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District for FY 2023/24. (General Manager) (View here)
5. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Provide Board Direction and Input on Pursuing a Future Assessment Increase on GHAD Property Owners to Increase District Revenue to Fund All Necessary Work Within the GHAD. (General Manager) (View here)
6. BOARD ITEMS – limited to requests and directives for future meetings.
7. ADJOURNMENT – the next meeting of the GHAD Board of Directors will be scheduled as needed.
# # #
Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes June 20, 2023 Page 1
MINUTES
OF THE
REGULAR MEETING
CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, June 20, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER THE CITY COUNCIL – The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Wan held via a hybrid meeting format live in-person and Zoom videoconference and broadcast from Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library, 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, California. Councilmembers present: Mayor Wan, Vice Mayor Diaz, and Councilmembers Cloven, Tillman, and Trupiano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager Bret Prebula, and City Clerk Janet Calderon.
2. PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY
(a) Candidates to be separately interviewed for two appointments with terms to expire on June 30, 2025.
The City Council separately interviewed three (3) candidates who had applied for appointment to the City Planning Commission:
Ed Miller
Bretten Casagrande
Joseph Banchero
(b) City Council discussion and determination of two citizen appointments to openings on the Clayton Planning Commission through June 30, 2025.
(Mayor Wan)
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments.
Dan Richardson provided a brief background on the current Planning Commission and the collaboration they have developed. He expressed support of Ed Miller to be reappointed to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Wan closed public comment.
It was moved by Mayor Wan, seconded by Vice Mayor Diaz, to approve Resolution No. 34-2023 appointing Mr. Joseph Banchero and Mr. Bretten Casagrande to the office on the Clayton Planning Commission, with a term of office to expire June 30, 2025. (Passed; 3-2; No; Tillman and Cloven). - Short Recess -
* * * * *
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes June 20, 2023 Page 2
3. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Wan and ‘Mayor for the Day” Kate McSherry and Alex McSherry held via a hybrid meeting format live in-person and Zoom videoconference and broadcast from Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library, 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, California. Councilmembers present: Mayor Wan, Vice Mayor Diaz, and Councilmembers Cloven, Tillman and Trupiano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager Bret Prebula, City Attorney Mala Subramanian, Chief of Police Rich McEachin, Community Development Director Dana Ayers, and City Clerk Janet Calderon.
4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by “Mayor for the Day” Kate McSherry and Alex McSherry.
Mayor Wan requested the Certificates be presented prior to public comment on nonagenda items.
7. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
(a) Recognition: “Mayor for the Day”, Kate McSherry and Alex McSherry.
Mayor Wan presented certificates of recognition to “Mayor for the Day” Kate McSherry and Alex McSherry.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS
Ed Hartley attended the Coffee with the City Manager and was very impressed. He also expressed his concerns regarding fees and elimination of Master Agreements.
J Smyth expressed concern of a potential technical violation of the Brown Act that occurred at the previous City Council meeting.
Keith Haydon expressed concern of the formula used to determine the Master Fee Schedule and cost analysis of the fees.
Ed Miller expressed concern regarding taxes versus fees, and encouraged the City Council to review the market-based rates for city-owned facilities; street closures are not considered a city-owned facility.
Jan Hessler expressed support of her taxes be used to support city staff for permit processing.
Terri Denslow noted anonymous letters were received regarding the pride parade being a failed event, she also expressed concern regarding the Master Fee Schedule and requested more transparency.
Rebecca Nolen was hoping for more support from the City Council regarding the Pride Parade.
Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes June 20, 2023 Page 3
Scott Denslow expressed his concerns regarding the Master Fee Schedule and non-reappointment of Ed Miller to the Planning Commission. He also would have liked to see full City Council support of the Pride Parade.
Rosy Straka expressed concern regarding the proposed Master Fee Schedule and noted the Pride Parade was a successful event.
Christine Muller thanked Councilmember Cloven and Tillman for their support of the Pride Parade an encouraged full support of the City Council next year. She also expressed concern regarding the Master Fee Schedule.
Mayor Wan closed public comment.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Councilmember Cloven, seconded by Councilmember Trupiano, to approve the Consent Calendar items 6(a) – 6(g) as submitted. (Passed 5-0). (a) Approved the minutes of the City Council’s regular meeting of June 6, 2023. (City Clerk)
(b) Approved the Financial Demands and Obligations of the City. (Finance Director) (c) Adopted Ordinance No. 500 Amending Section 10.20 of the Clayton Municipal Code, Entitled “Speed Limits”. (City Engineer)
(d) Approved Resolution No. 35-2023 Ordering the Levy and Collection of Special Taxes and Setting Forth the Special Tax Amount for Community Facilities District (CFD) 2007-1 (Citywide Landscape Maintenance Tax) on the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Special Tax Roll. (City Manager)
(e) Approved Resolution No. 36-2023 Ordering the Levy and Collection of Special Taxes and Setting Forth the Special Tax Amount for Community Facilities District (CFD) 2006-1 (Downtown “The Grove” Operation and Maintenance) on the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Special Tax Roll (City Manager)
(f) Cancellation of August 1, 2023 City Council meeting. (City Manager) (g) Approved by Minute Order: 1) Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Precision Civil Engineering for Preparation of Pre-Reviewed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Plans and an ADU Guidebook, to Extend the Term of the Agreement to December 31, 2023 and Increase the Amount Paid for Services to $65,000; and 2) Appropriation of an Additional $10,500 in Reimbursable Funds from the Senate Bill 2 Planning Grants Program to the Project. (Community Development Director)
8. REPORTS
(a) City Manager Bret Prebula indicated “No Report.”
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes June 20, 2023 Page 4
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 37-2023 Updating the City’s Annual Sewer Service Charges. (William Tarbox, Director of Public Works, City of Concord) William Tarbox, Director of Public Works, City of Concord presented the report.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments, no comments were offered.
It was moved by Councilmember Trupiano, seconded by Mayor Wan, to approve Resolution No. 37-2023 Approving and Imposing Annual Sewer Service Charges on Real Properties Within the City of Clayton Commencing Fiscal Year 2023-24 through Fiscal Year 2026-27. (Passed; 5-0).
10. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Adopted Resolution No. 38-2023 of the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget and Appropriations Limit. (City Manager)
City Manager Bret Prebula presented the report.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments.
Keith Haydon wanted to ensure the budget reflects numbers as if the city has no vacancies and covers full benefits.
Ed Hartley inquired on impacts of future budgets including possible service reduction in Landscape Maintenance, and potential increased revenues.
Terri Denslow requested the City Council not include the $36,000 supplemental to this years’ budget and would like to see more transparency.
James Killoran suggested the City Council to consider a Budget Workshop to define City services and how they are funded.
Scott Denslow expressed concerns regarding revenue projections.
Mayor Wan closed public comment.
It was moved by Mayor Wan, seconded by Councilmember Trupiano, to adopt Resolution No. 38-2023 Adopting the Annual Budget for the City of Clayton for the 2023/24 Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, Adopting the FY 2023/24 Appropriations Limit (Passed; 4-1; Tillman, abstained).
Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes June 20, 2023 Page 5
(b) Adopted Resolution No. 39-2023 to Approve the City of Clayton FY 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan and related FY 2023/24 CIP appropriations. (City Engineer) City Engineer Larry Theis presented the report.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments, no comments were offered.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Diaz, seconded by Councilmember Tillman, to adopt Resolution No. 39-2023 Adopting the 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2022/23 through 2026/27 and Approval of the Appropriations to Fund the FY 2023/24 Portion of the Plan. (Passed; 5-0).
(c) Adopted Resolution No. 40-2023 Approving an Addendum to the Terms and Conditions of Employment for Clayton’s Miscellaneous Employees and the Employment Agreement with Police Chief Richard McEachin. (City Manager)
City Manager Bret Prebula presented the report.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments; no comments were offered.
It was moved by Councilmember Cloven, seconded by Vice Mayor Diaz, to adopt Resolution No. 40-2023 Approving Addendum No. 2 to the Terms and Conditions of Employment for the City of Clayton’s Undesignated Miscellaneous Employees Effective July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2025 and Approval of the Employment Agreement with Police Chief Richard McEachin. (Passed; 5-0).
11. COUNCIL ITEMS
Councilmember Cloven requested a future agenda item to include a discussion regarding the structural deficit and consider a strategic plan to address the deficit.
Councilmember Trupiano requested a special meeting prior to August 15 to continue the discussion regarding the Master Fee Schedule.
Councilmember Tillman requested a future agenda item to have a conversation with Contra Costa Fire Protection regarding a vegetation management plan.
12. COUNCIL REPORTS
(a) City Council - Reports from Council liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards.
Councilmember Trupiano indicated “No Report.”
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes June 20, 2023 Page 6
Vice Mayor Diaz attended the County Connection Administration/Finance Committee meeting, attended the Concerts in The Grove, attended the Clayton Classic Car Show event, attended the County Connection Board meeting, attended the East Bay Regional Communications System meeting.
Councilmember Tillman attended the Anti-Biased Anti-Racist meeting with Mount Diablo Unified School District, met with the City Manager, received a Pride Proclamation from Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, received the Clayton Pride Community Ally of the Year award, announced the upcoming Juneteenth Celebration at Todos Santos Park in Concord on June 25.
Councilmember Cloven spoke with constituents regarding the Master Fee Schedule, attended a meeting of TRANSPAC, and attended the Concert in The Grove.
Mayor Wan with the Mayor for the Day toured Fire Station 11 and Clayton Police Department, attended an Eagle Scout Court of Honor, and provided proclamations for three scouts, and announced the need for volunteers for the upcoming 4th of July Parade.
Councilmember Tillman announced the upcoming Concerts in The Grove this Saturday.
13. ADJOURNMENT - on call by Mayor Wan, the City Council adjourned its meeting at 10:34 p.m.
# # # # #
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
______________________________________
Jeff Wan, Mayor
Agenda Item: 4(b)
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: Jennifer Giantvalley, Accounting Technician
Prapti Aryal, Finance Director
DATE: July 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Financial Demands and Obligations of the City
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council, by minute action, approve the financial demands and obligations of the City for the purchase of services and goods in the ordinary course of operations.
Attachments:
1. Obligation report for 7/5/23 (3 pages)
2. Obligation report for 7/18/23 (1 page)
3. Payroll Reconciliation Summary report PPE 6/25/23 (2 pages)
4. Payroll Reconciliation Summary report PPE 7/9/23 (2 pages) Attached Report Purpose Amount
Obligations paid prior to meeting Accounts Payable $ 682,651.30 Obligations Accounts Payable $ 513,069.84
Payroll Reconciliation Summary Payroll, Taxes $ 86,452.24 Payroll Reconciliation Summary Payroll, Taxes $ 98,293.92 Total Required $ 1,380,467.30
City of Clayton
Obligations for 7/5/23
Vendor name Invoice date Invoice number Invoice description Amount Advanced Elevator Solutions, Inc 06/30/2023 53553 Elevator service June 2023 $132.00 All City Management Services, Inc. 06/13/2023 86263 School crossing guard svcs 5/28/23-6/10/23 $1,052.64 All-Guard Systems, Inc. 07/01/2023 A412108 CH Annual alarm monitoring FY 2024 $690.72 All-Guard Systems, Inc. 07/01/2023 A412105 Library Annual alarm monitoring FY 2024 $1,047.60 Apex Technology Management 07/01/2023 TS1357191 IT Service July 2023 $2,645.50 Apex Technology Management 06/22/2023 APXQ30783 Monitors $622.24 Apex Technology Management 06/22/2023 APXQ30769 Laptops, equipment $4,422.81 AT&T 06/07/2023 4927699706 Hoyer Hall Internet 6/7/23-7/6/23 $190.97 AT&T (CalNet3) 06/22/2023 20125841 Phones 5/22/23-6/21/23 $1,213.26 Jeffrey M Brown 06/15/2023 072623 Classic car show/DJ 7/26/23 $300.00 Jeffrey M Brown 06/15/2023 071223 Classic car show/DJ 7/12/23 $300.00 Jeffrey M Brown 06/15/2023 62823 Classic car show/DJ 6/28/23 $300.00 CALPELRA 07/01/2023 1114-17,2023 CALPELRA conference and membership $1,135.00 CalPERS Health 06/14/2023 17202144 Medical July 2023 $37,915.84 Caltronics Business Systems 06/19/2023 3804611 Copier usage 5/19/23-6/18/23 $138.73 Caltronics Business Systems 06/16/2023 3803004 Copier usage 5/18/23-6/17/23 $182.39 Capital One Trade Credit (For OSH) 06/25/2023 1649740170 Supplies $327.53 Cintas (First Aid) 06/30/2023 8406327060 Restock first aid cabinet $7.63 Cintas Corporation 06/30/2023 8406310634 PW uniforms June 2023 $344.40 City of Concord 07/01/2023 96425 Dispatch svcs July 2023 $26,267.95 Contra Costa County - Office of the Sheriff 06/08/2023 CLPD-2305 Toxicology May 2023 $900.00 Contra Costa County Auditor-Controller (LAFCO) 06/01/2023 2324-0003 LAFCO net cost FY 2024 $1,000.76 Contra Costa County Mayors' Conference 04/10/2023 MC23 Annual assessment for Mayors Conference 2023 $567.00 Contra Costa County Police Chiefs' Assoc. 07/06/2023 072623 Chiefs' Workshop 7/26/23 $115.00 Contra Costa County Public Works Dept 06/13/2023 705979 Traffic signal maintenance April 2023 $3,232.41 Contra Costa Powersports 06/23/2023 10556 2023 Zero DSR-P $26,211.27 Contra Costa Water District 06/07/2023 060723 Water 4/5/23-6/7/23 $19,747.44 CR Fireline, Inc 06/05/2023 123786 Library fire sprinkler inspection $475.00 CR Fireline, Inc 06/05/2023 123785 CH fire sprinkler inspection $475.00 CR Fireline, Inc 06/05/2023 123784 EH fire sprinkler inspection $475.00 Creative Supports, Inc 05/24/2023 31003 Desk chair $660.98 Creative Supports, Inc 05/24/2023 31002 Desk chair $660.98 Creative Supports, Inc 05/24/2023 31001 Desk chair $660.98 Creative Supports, Inc 05/24/2023 31000 Desk chair $660.98 De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. 07/01/2023 80166519 Copier lease July 2023 $1,004.49 Diablo Digital Printing-Robert Young 06/20/2023 2306026 Concerts in The Grove Banner $120.18 Diablo Lawnscape 06/28/2023 3043 Work @ The Grove Park $3,000.00 Diablo View Construction, Inc 06/28/2023 1570 Remove interior window and install barn door @ City Hall $5,500.00 Jim Diaz 06/26/2023 62623 Concerts supplies $91.53
City of Clayton
Obligations for 7/5/23
Dillon Electric Inc 06/26/2023 4880 Street light repairs 6/20/23 $394.00 Dillon Electric Inc 06/26/2023 4876 Service call for Library $310.00 Freedom Alarm, Inc 06/21/2023 2827 Security cameras $7,818.56 Hamilton Tree Service, Inc 04/27/2023 52620 Emergency tree work @ Oakhurst/Camino Estrada $4,450.00 Hammons Supply Company 06/29/2023 123347 Janitorial supplies June 2023 $73.42 Hammons Supply Company 06/29/2023 123346 Janitorial supplies June 2023 $694.46 Hammons Supply Company 06/29/2023 123345 Janitorial supplies June 2023 $483.16 Hammons Supply Company 06/29/2023 123344 Janitorial supplies June 2023 $454.66 HdL Software, LLC 07/01/2023 SIN029232 Business license software FY 2024 $4,438.59 Health Care Dental Trust 06/14/2023 334138 Dental July 2023 $1,803.72 Hinderliter de Llamas & Associates 06/20/2023 SIN028911 Sales Tax Q4 FY23 $1,057.36 Torrey Jarvis 06/22/2023 6/5-6/9,6/12-16 Mileage reimbursement for training $237.29 LarryLogic Productions 06/22/2023 2127 City council meeting production 6/20/23 $680.00 LarryLogic Productions 06/13/2023 2125 Planning Commission meeting production 6/13/23 $160.00 LSA Associates Inc 06/08/2023 188507 Consultant svcs May 2023 $1,601.25 Martell Water Systems, Inc. 06/16/2023 31130 Pressure tank, install $1,923.25 Moore Iacofano Golstman, Inc 06/22/2023 81536 Housing Element svcs May 2023 $1,991.25 MPA 07/01/2023 INV003243 Insurance FY 2024 $374,435.00
MSR Mechanical, LLC 06/13/2023 SVC008457 CH HVAC service call 5/30/23 $875.00 Municipal Resource Group LLC 06/21/2023 03-23-486 Organizational Assessment 22283-CLT through May 2023 $1,518.75 NBS Govt. Finance Group 07/01/2023 202306-2141 CFD Admin Q1 FY 24 $5,305.58 PG&E 06/26/2023 7293447797-6 062623 Energy 5/16/23-6/14/23 $31,356.04 PG&E 06/22/2023 2572177359-3 062223 Energy (Gas) 5/21/23-6/21/23 $86.75 Pond M Solutions 06/01/2023 7427 Fountain maintenance June 2023 $650.00 Precision Civil Engineering (PCE) 06/12/2023 28237 21-359 Pre-approved ADU Plans $797.50 Precision Civil Engineering (PCE) 06/12/2023 28236 21-359.1 ADU Ordinance $38.50 R3 Consulting Group, Inc 05/02/2023 122649 Republic negotiation svcs April 2023 $3,070.00 R3 Consulting Group, Inc 04/03/2023 122604 Republic negotiation svcs April 2023 $6,270.00 R3 Consulting Group, Inc 03/02/2023 122512 Republic negotiation svcs February 2023 $10,465.00 R3 Consulting Group, Inc 02/02/2023 122494 Republic negotiation svcs January 2023 $10,841.25 Rex Lock & Safe, Inc. 07/05/2023 135989 Keys $412.66
Rex Lock & Safe, Inc. 06/22/2023 136736 Rekey Sgt office, prox keys for building $627.47 Rex Lock & Safe, Inc. 06/22/2023 136735 Electronic building entry system $14,924.44 RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc 06/30/2023 177487 Handicapped decals $15.36 RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc 06/26/2023 176863 Prop 68 signs $493.88 RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc 06/02/2023 175326 Street signs $161.33 RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc 06/02/2023 175309 Signs $233.22 RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc 06/02/2023 175308 Street signs $532.29 RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc 04/24/2023 170435 No parking signs $43.79 RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc 01/13/2023 37820 Safety vests, rain gear $597.15 City of Clayton
Obligations for 7/5/23
RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc 01/09/2023 37668 Sandbags $1,141.40 Coleen Royal 06/21/2023 2129 Concerts - Banner 12X3' $225.00 Rural Pig Management, Inc 07/02/2023 CC070223 Pig control July 2023 $3,000.00 Rural Pig Management, Inc 06/04/2023 CC060423 Pig control June 2023 $3,000.00 Rural Pig Management, Inc 04/03/2023 CC040323 Pig control April 2023 $3,000.00 Katherine Sah 06/16/2023 080523 Refund for CCP reservation (cancelled) $564.00 SCA of CA, LLC 06/30/2023 106305CS Street sweeping June 2023 $4,500.00 Site One Landscape Supply, LLC 06/16/2023 131424231-001 Landscape supplies $229.93 Site One Landscape Supply, LLC 06/12/2023 131214754-001 Irrigation supplies $45.28 Site One Landscape Supply, LLC 06/06/2023 130949706-001 Landscape supplies $155.74 SPACA, Inc 05/31/2023 6767 Security for Concerts $688.00 Stericycle Inc 07/01/2023 3006519193 Medical waste disposal $75.28 Stericycle, Inc 06/18/2023 8004136732 Regular service $365.47 Swenson's Mobile Fleet Repair 06/15/2023 I006716 PW Vehicle repair 2005 Chevy van $552.61 T Mobile 06/01/2023 981497076 5/23 PD cell phones May 2023 $530.80 Texas Life Insurance Company 06/14/2023 SM0F1B20230613001 Supplemental insurance $42.25 US Bank (CalCard) 05/22/2023 Stmt end 5/22/23 CalCard Stmt end 5/22/23 $8,482.96 US Bank (CM 9690) 06/23/2023 6863528 Redevelopment bond fiscal agent fee $2,398.00 Vision Service Plan (CA) 06/18/2023 818175381 Vision July 2023 $159.96 Western Exterminator 06/30/2023 275421C Pest control June 2023 $520.50 Workers.com 06/30/2023 136397 Seasonal workers week end 6/23/23 $4,949.92 Workers.com 06/23/2023 136352 Seasonal workers week end 6/18/23 $4,206.62 Workers.com 06/16/2023 136308 Seasonal workers week end 6/11/23 $4,596.13 Workers.com 04/14/2023 135922 Seasonal workers week end 4/9/23 $2,103.31 Total $682,651.30
City of Clayton
Obligations for 7/18/23
Vendor name Invoice date Invoice number Invoice description Amount Ace Sierra Tow 06/10/2023 60545 PD vehicle tire change $55.00 Best Best & Kreiger LLP 06/30/2023 969424-969427 Legal svcs June 2023 $10,906.90 Clayton Valley/Concord Sunrise Rotary Club 07/12/2023 070423 Deposit refund $500.00 Comcast Business 07/05/2023 070523 Internet 7/10/23-8/9/23 $6.31 Geoconsultants, Inc. 06/30/2023 19496 Well monitoring June 2023 $1,546.50 Kelly Scholes 07/12/2023 062623 Deposit refund $500.00
Kent Reynolds 07/01/2023 070123 Deposit refund $500.00
Precision Civil Engineering (PCE) 07/10/2023 28377 21-359 Pre-approved ADU Plans $8,291.25 Prestige Printing & Graphics 06/30/2023 86283 Business cards $96.13 Staples Business Credit 06/25/2023 1649573984 Office supplies $94.64 Sterling Infosystems, Inc 06/30/2023 9471840 New employee record search June 2023 $199.28 T Mobile 06/23/2023 981497076 6/23 PD cell phones June 2023 $530.80 Theis Engineering & Associates 06/30/2023 CLA2306A-H Engineering Svcs June 2023 $28,753.94 American Fidelity Assurance Company 04/30/2023 2226189B FSA PPE 4/30/23 $30.00 American Fidelity Assurance Company 05/14/2023 2226190A FSA PPE 5/14/23 $30.00 American Fidelity Assurance Company 05/28/2023 2226191A FSA PPE 5/28/23 $30.00 American Fidelity Assurance Company 06/11/2023 2226192B FSA PPE 6/11/23 $60.00 American Fidelity Assurance Company 06/25/2023 2226193B FSA PPE 6/25/23 $30.00 American Fidelity Assurance Company 06/30/2023 D597818 Supplemental Insurance June 2023 $566.84 Authorize.net 06/30/2023 June2023 Online bankcard gateway fee June 2023 $36.95 CalPERS Retirement 06/25/2023 062523 Retirement PPE 6/25/23 $18,380.62 CalPERS Retirement 07/09/2023 070923 Retirement PPE 7/9/23 $21,845.37 CalPERS Retirement 06/30/2023 100000017209468 1959 Survivor Benefit FY 23 Rate plan 9225 $105.60 CalPERS Retirement 06/30/2023 100000017210028 1959 Survivor Benefit FY 23 Rate plan 25543 $199.20 CalPERS Retirement 07/01/2023 100000017215444 UAL FY 2024 $174,133.00 CalPERS Retirement 07/01/2023 100000017215453 UAL FY 2024 $242,430.00 Mission Square Retirement 06/25/2023 062523 457 Plan contributions PPE 6/25/23 $409.62 Mission Square Retirement 07/09/2023 070923 457 Plan contributions PPE 7/9/23 $501.92 Nationwide 06/25/2023 062523 457 Plan contribution PPE 6/25/23 $750.00 Nationwide 07/09/2023 070923 457 Plan contribution PPE 7/9/23 $750.00 Neopost (add postage) 06/27/2023 062723 Postage added 6/27/23 $300.00 Paylocity Corporation 06/20/2023 INV1447324 Payroll fees June 2023 $499.97 Total $513,069.84
ACH Payments
Check Payments
Payroll Totals
Payroll Checks Check Type Count Net Check Dir Dep Amount Net Amount Regular 25 0.00 68,074.47 68,074.47
Totals 25 0.00 68,074.47 68,074.47 ĺ 68,074.47
Payroll Checks Check Type Agency Type Count Net Check Dir Dep Amount Net Amount Agency EFSDU 1 0.00 358.15 358.15
Agency Regular 1 0.00 603.50 603.50
Totals 2 0.00 961.65 961.65 ĺ 961.65
Total Net Payroll Liability 0.00 69,036.12 69,036.12 ĺ 69,036.12 Tax Liability
CA and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount CA SDI - Employee EXEMPT Semi-Weekly 94,213.60 94,213.60 California SITW Semi-Weekly 93,053.98 93,053.98 4,191.72 Totals 4,191.72 0.00 ĺ 4,191.72
CASUI and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount CA Edu & Training 0.001000 Quarterly 94,213.60
California SUI 0.020000 Quarterly 94,213.60
Totals 0.00 0.00 ĺ 0.00
FITW and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount Federal Income Tax Semi-Weekly 93,053.98 93,053.98 10,492.23 Medicare Semi-Weekly 94,213.60 94,213.60 1,366.07
Medicare - Employer Semi-Weekly 94,213.60 94,213.60 1,366.10 Totals 11,858.30 1,366.10 ĺ 13,224.40
Total Tax Liability 16,050.02 1,366.10 ĺ 17,416.12
Transfers
Type Date Source Account Amount
Dir Dep 6/29/2023 68,074.47
Tax 6/29/2023 17,416.12
Trust Agency 6/29/2023 961.65
Totals Transfers 86,452.24 ĺ 86,452.24
Total Payroll Liability 86,452.24 ĺ 86,452.24
Paylocity Corporation
(888) 873-8205
Run on 6/26/2023 at 6:22 PM
User: JGiantvalley
Payroll Summary
City of Clayton
Check Date: 06/30/2023
Pay Period: 06/12/2023 to 06/25/2023
Process: 2023063001
Tax Deposits
Required Tax Deposits Tax Due On Amount
( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) California SITW 7/6/2023 4,191.72 ( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) Federal Income Tax 7/6/2023 13,224.40 Total Tax Deposits 17,416.12
Paylocity Corporation
(888) 873-8205
Run on 6/26/2023 at 6:22 PM
User: JGiantvalley
Payroll Summary
City of Clayton
Check Date: 06/30/2023
Pay Period: 06/12/2023 to 06/25/2023
Process: 2023063001
Payroll Totals
Payroll Checks Check Type Count Net Check Dir Dep Amount Net Amount Regular 36 0.00 75,349.39 75,349.39
Totals 36 0.00 75,349.39 75,349.39 ĺ 75,349.39
Payroll Checks Check Type Agency Type Count Net Check Dir Dep Amount Net Amount Agency EFSDU 1 0.00 413.56 413.56
Agency Regular 1 0.00 603.50 603.50
Totals 2 0.00 1,017.06 1,017.06 ĺ 1,017.06
Total Net Payroll Liability 0.00 76,366.45 76,366.45 ĺ 76,366.45 Tax Liability
CA and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount CA SDI - Employee EXEMPT Semi-Weekly 107,030.24 107,030.24 California SITW Semi-Weekly 105,778.32 105,778.32 5,426.28 Totals 5,426.28 0.00 ĺ 5,426.28
CASUI and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount CA Edu & Training 0.001000 Quarterly 107,030.24 4,733.08 4.73 California SUI 0.020000 Quarterly 107,030.24 4,733.08 94.66 Totals 0.00 99.39 ĺ 99.39
FITW and Related Taxes Tax Id Rate Frequency Wage Cap Wages EE Amount ER Amount Federal Income Tax Semi-Weekly 105,778.32 105,778.32 12,932.05 Medicare Semi-Weekly 107,030.24 107,030.24 1,552.01
Medicare - Employer Semi-Weekly 107,030.24 107,030.24 1,551.94 OASDI Semi-Weekly 2,950.00 2,950.00 182.90
OASDI - Employer Semi-Weekly 2,950.00 2,950.00 182.90
Totals 14,666.96 1,734.84 ĺ 16,401.80
Total Tax Liability 20,093.24 1,834.23 ĺ 21,927.47
Transfers
Type Date Source Account Amount
Dir Dep 7/13/2023 75,349.39
Tax 7/13/2023 21,927.47
Trust Agency 7/13/2023 1,017.06
Total Payroll Liability 98,293.92 ĺ 98,293.92
Paylocity Corporation
(888) 873-8205
Run on 7/11/2023 at 4:13 PM
User: JGiantvalley
Payroll Summary
City of Clayton
Check Date: 07/14/2023
Pay Period: 06/26/2023 to 07/09/2023
Process: 2023071401
Totals Transfers 98,293.92 ĺ 98,293.92
Tax Deposits
Required Tax Deposits Tax Due On Amount
( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) California SITW 7/19/2023 5,426.28 ( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) Federal Income Tax 7/19/2023 16,401.80 ( Deposit made by Service Bureau ) California SUI 10/31/2023 99.39 Total Tax Deposits 21,927.47
Paylocity Corporation
(888) 873-8205
Run on 7/11/2023 at 4:13 PM
User: JGiantvalley
Payroll Summary
City of Clayton
Check Date: 07/14/2023
Pay Period: 06/26/2023 to 07/09/2023
Process: 2023071401
[Type here] Agenda Item: 4(c)
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: Amy Walcker, Exec. Assistant to City Manager/HR Manager DATE: July 18, 2023
SUBJECT: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clayton Adopting the City of Clayton’s Salary Schedule Effective July 1, 2023 in Conformance with CalPERS Requirements to Provide a Publicly Available Salary Schedule.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Resolution (Attachment 1) adopting the City of Clayton’s Salary Schedule (Attachment 2) Effective July 1, 2023 in Conformance with CalPERS Requirements to Provide a Publicly Available Salary Schedule.
BACKGROUND
To confirm that CalPERS will appropriately consider the City of Clayton’s employee compensation earnable when calculating retirement benefits, the City of Clayton’s Salary Schedule is required to be formally adopted by the City Council in a public meeting. Further documents including pay rate and any special compensation must be made publicly available.
DISCUSSION
Staff is requesting that City Council formally adopt the entire City Employee Salary Schedule for FY2023/24. While City Council has approved all of the underlying agreements and contracts supporting those salary schedule amounts, state law requires that the City Council at least annually approve the full salary schedule and that the City make it available publicly. The Salary Schedule is already posted on the City’s website and available upon request if needed.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no new fiscal impacts associated with adoption of the Salary Schedule as the budget already funds those costs.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Resolution Approving Salary Schedule
Attachment 2: FY2023/24 City Employee Salary Schedule
1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2023
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON ADOPTING THE CITY OF CLAYTON’S SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2023 IN CONFORMANCE WITH CALPERS REQUIREMENTS TO
PROVIDE A PUBLICLY AVAILABLE SALARY SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) regulations require member agencies formally adopt a publicly available pay schedule under Government Code Section 20636(b)(1) and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 570.5; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Clayton has the authority to implement these requirements;
WHEREAS, the information contained in the salary schedule effective as of July 1, 2023 for FY2023/24 reflects approved employee contracts, memoranda of understanding with the City’s labor group and various City resolutions governing compensation; WHEREAS, the cost of the salaries reflected in the salary schedule effective July 1, 2023 is accounted for in the FY2023/24 Budget; and
WHEREAS, CalPERS regulations require all of this information be included in one document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Clayton hereby adopts the salary schedule effective July 1, 2023 for FY2023/24 as shown in Exhibit A.
ADOPTED ON July 18, 2023 by the City Council of the City of Clayton by the following vote count:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Resolution XX-2023 FY24 Salary Schedule 2 of 2
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
_________________________________
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
Agenda Item: 4(d)
1 STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Dana Ayers, AICP, Community Development Director
DATE: July 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Clayton Community Park Play Structure Replacement Project (Capital Improvement Project No. 10454) Performed by Specified Equipment Company (SPEC) as Complete, Approving the Notice of Completion, Directing the City Clerk to Record Same with the County Recorder, and Authorizing the Payment of All Retained Funds to SPEC 35 Days After Recording the Notice of Completion ___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting the Clayton Community Park Play Structure Replacement Project (Capital Improvement Project [CIP] No. 10454) performed by SPEC as complete, approving the attached Notice of Completion, directing the City Clerk to record same with the County Recorder and authorizing the payment of all retained funds to SPEC 35 days after recording the Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND
On September 15, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 45-2020 authorizing the City Manager to file an application and to execute the grant agreement and other documents necessary to secure Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant Program funds in the amount of $185,074. The Per Capita grant funding program is one of the programs that originates from Proposition 68, placed on the ballot via Senate Bill 5 (DeLeon, Chapter 852, statutes of 2017), and approved by California voters on June 5, 2018. Under the Per Capita Program (Public Resources Code Section 80061), grant funds are made available to local governments on a per capita basis. Grant recipients are encouraged to use funds to rehabilitate existing recreational infrastructure and address deficiencies in neighborhoods lacking access to the outdoors. Projects must be completed by June 2024. 2 On December 15, 2020, the City Council provided direction to staff to apply the Per Capita Program funds to replacement of the School-Age (6-12 years) Play Structure at Clayton Community Park. The School-Age Play Structure at Clayton Community Park was nearing 20 years old, had reached the end of its usable lifespan, was damaged and showing wear, and was in need of replacement. The Toddler (2-5 years) Play Structure was in somewhat better condition but was approaching the end of its useful life, as well.
On March 1, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-2022 identifying the replacement of both the School-Age and Toddler Play Structures for pursuit of funding through the Per Capita Program. The Council also established a CIP for the replacement, in the amount of $378,074, which included a $63,000 contingency for unexpected cost adjustments or additional requirements such as signage. The additional funds above the grant amount included the City’s required 20 percent match, and sources of the additional funds included a $20,000 donation from the Concord Sunrise Rotary Club and an anticipated $173,000 in developer impact fees from new development occurring in the City.
On August 2, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 61-2022 approving a contract with SPEC for CIP No. 10454 consisting of replacement of both the School-Age and Toddler play structures at Clayton Community Park.
DISCUSSION
SPEC commenced construction of the Clayton Community Park Playground Replacement Project (CIP No. 10454) in late March 2023. Construction continued through April and was completed and fully inspected and cleared by use by a County Building Inspector and a Certified Playground Inspector by the end of May. City Maintenance Supervisor also inspected the work and found the work to be acceptable. Staff is recommending that the City Council accept the Clayton Community Park Playground Replacement Project as complete and order the filing of the Notice of Completion.
FISCAL IMPACTS
The approved budget established for CIP No. 10454 was $378,074, inclusive of contingencies, and the contract with SPEC was initially approved for $324,074. After adding bonding and contracted inspection costs, the contracted amount was increased to $340,023 under City Manager authority. An additional increase of $9,331 was later authorized by the City Manager. This second increase covered labor and equipment costs to replace the original subbase to the rubber mat. The subbase did not meet current standards for installation of the playground surface, and it required excavation that was only discovered after demolition of the old surface and that was unforeseen in the initial estimated costs.
The increase in contract costs authorized by the City Manager did not exceed 10 percent of the initial estimate, consistent with the authority established in City Council Resolution No. 05-2022. The total costs of $349,354 for SPEC, plus approximately $7,200 in plan check and permit fees paid to the Contra Costa County Building Department, are within the overall $378,074 budgeted allocation to CIP No. 10454.
To date, the City has made payments totaling $338,070 to SPEC while retaining $11,284 pending completion and acceptance of the project, in accordance with the terms of the 3 contract. With the City Council acceptance of the work and the recording of the Notice of Completion, the City will release all retained funds to SPEC 35 days after recordation of the Notice of Completion as long as no claims are made against SPEC by a material supplier or subcontractor.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Notice of Completion
Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 1 of 2 July 18, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. -2023
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CLAYTON COMMUNITY PARK PLAY STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (CIP No. 10454) PERFORMED BY SPECIALIZED
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT COMPANY AS COMPLETE, APPROVING THE NOTICE OF
COMPLETION, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD SAME WITH THE COUNTY
RECORDER AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF ALL RETAINED FUNDS TO SPECIALIZED PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT COMPANY 35 DAYS AFTER RECORDING OF
THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2022, the City Council of Clayton, California adopted Resolution No. 61-2022 approving a contract with Specialized Playground Equipment Company for CIP No. 10454 consisting of replacement of both the School-Age and Toddler play structures at Clayton Community Park; and
WHEREAS, Specialized Playground Equipment Company represents that it has completed construction of the work in conformance with the project specifications and that the project is now ready for acceptance by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council must accept the work as complete and order the filing of a Notice of Completion prior to release of the retained funds; and WHEREAS, a Contra Costa County Building Inspector has inspected the completed work and determined that the completed work is in compliance with applicable building codes; and
WHEREAS, a playground Special Inspector has inspected the completed work and has prepared and submitted a report to the City stating that the completed work is in compliance with California requirements for equipment placement, spacing, safety and fall protection and passes the special inspection; and
WHEREAS, the City Maintenance Supervisor has inspected the completed work and determined that the completed work is in compliance with the project specifications; and WHEREAS, the City Maintenance Supervisor and Community Development Director recommend that the City Council adopt this Resolution accepting the Clayton Community Park Play Structure Replacement Project (CIP No. 10454) performed by Specialized Playground Equipment Company, approving the Notice of Completion, directing the City Clerk to record same with the County Recorder and authorizing the payment of all retained funds to Specialized Playground Equipment Company 35 days after recording the Notice of Completion;
Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 2 of 2 July 18, 2023
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Clayton, California does hereby accept as complete, as of the date of adoption of this Resolution, the Clayton Community Park Play Structure Replacement Project (CIP No. 10454) performed by Specialized Playground Equipment Company, and approves the Notice of Completion and directing the City Clerk to record same with the County Recorder, and authorizes the payment of all retained funds to Specialized Playground Equipment Company 35 days after recording the Notice of Completion.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of Clayton, California at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 18th day of July 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
[VERIFICATION ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:
City Clerk/City Engineer
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
NO FEE DOCUMENT
(Government Code section 27383)
NOTICE OF COMPLETION for
City of Clayton, Clayton Community Park Play Structure Replacement Project CIP No. 10454
(Contractor: Specified Play Equipment Company)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned is the Owner of a work of improvement described as Clayton Community Park Play Structures Replacement, Clayton Capital Improvement Project No. 10454, and of the real property on which the work of improvement is situated, which real property is located in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, and specifically described as follows: Clayton Community Park, north of the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Regency Drive, Clayton, California 94517.
That the undersigned, as Owner of the above-described property, on August 2, 2022, entered into a contract with Specialized Play Equipment Company for the construction of the above-described work of improvement, with a copy of the contract filed for record in the City Clerk’s office in the City of Clayton, Contra Costa County, California.
That on May 28, 2023, the work of improvement was actually completed by Specialized Playground Equipment Company, and the work was completed and accepted by the City of Clayton, on July 18, 2023.
That the nature of the interest of the undersigned is as a fee simple ownership of a public park (Clayton Community Park) in the above-described real property.
That the name and address of the undersigned Owner of the above-described property is:
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, California 94517
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the above Notice of Completion was duly accepted by the City Council of the City of Clayton at a meeting thereof held on July 18, 2023. ______________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
VERIFICATION
I, Bret Prebula, state that I am the Authorized Agent of the Owner identified in the foregoing Notice of Completion. I have read said Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 18th day of July 2023, at Clayton, California.
CITY OF CLAYTON,
A municipal corporation
By: ____________________________________
Bret Prebula, City Manager
Agenda Item: 4(e)
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: Janet Calderon, City Clerk/ HR Manager
DATE: July 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Multi-Year Agreement with Konica Minolta Business Solutions (Konica Minolta) for a Konica Minolta Bizhub C650i Copier Lease with Maintenance Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a 36-month lease agreement with Konica Minolta Business Solutions for a new fixed lease with maintenance agreement for a Konica Minolta Bizhub C650i copier.
BACKGROUND
In July 2020, the Council approved a 3 year (36 month) lease agreement for a Konica Minolta C658 document copier with Caltronics Business Systems. The 3-year lease expires July 2023. The copier is located on the third floor of City Hall and is used for all agenda copying, notices, letters; basically all copying done for the administration of the City. This copier also serves as a printer for the Administrative staff.
The existing Konica Minolta machine has performed well and met the City’s expectations and needs. Today’s monthly cost of the lease equipment is $923.65 plus tax and the maintenance contract is $178.02 for a total monthly cost of $1,101.67 ($13,220.04 per year). The Docuware software program has an addtional annual cost of $12,308.00.
Staff requires machines to have the following capabilities: color copying, stapling, 2/3 hole punching, tri-folding, and the ability to print on thick paper for posters. By inclusion of these features on the current copier, previous City expenses for outsourcing these jobs were eliminated.
Agenda Item: 4(e)
NEW LEASE PROPOSAL
With the current copier lease expiring staff contacted Caltronics to look at options without Docuware software. Considering staff turnover in the last few years, staff has not been utilizing the Docuware program and would like to consider other options in the future.
Copier Recommended – Konica Minolta C650i
Staff recommends Council approve the multi-year lease with maintenance agreement with Konica Minolta Business Solutions for a replacement Konica Minolta C650i, a copier similar in speed to the City’s current machine.
This copier saves staff time due to high speed production; coupled with a 36 month lease, it will allow the City to maintain a highly functioning copier for the duration of the lease. This also allows the City the opportunity to replace the copier in three years with an even more efficient and better priced unit as the price for technological advances has become more competitive. Advances in copier products on the market are ever changing and a short lease term allows the City to continue to access the best deals on the market.
Since staff has previously worked with Konica Minolta Business Solutions and is satisfied with their service and because they provided the best price of the machine, staff is recommending the City Council approve the contract. Konica Minolta also locked in the lease price and maintenance agreement price for the term of the lease.
FISCAL IMPACT
The current lease the City has with Konica Minolta is a 36 month lease ending July 2023. Konica Minolta has provided a fixed lease and maintenance rate therefore the prices are set for the duration of the contract. Pricing includes all delivery, setup installation, training, upgrade of the current lease and return of the Bizhub 659 relieving the City of Clayton all obligations to lease #500-50146314.
There are sufficient funds allocated in Fiscal Year 2023-24 adopted budget for this contract.
Caltronics
Monthly Lease: $438.78
Maintenance Contract: $178.02
TOTAL: $616.80
Annual Cost: $7,401.60
Agenda Item: 4(e)
There is a one-time $75.00 documentation fee that will appear on our first month’s lease invoice that is assessed by the leasing company.
Conclusion
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a 36 month lease agreement with Konica Minolta Business Solutions for its C650i copier.
Attachments: A. Proposal from Konica Minolta (5 pages)
B. Copier Cost Comparison for City of Clayton (1 page)
C. Bizhub C650i informational brochure (4 pages)
Copier Proposal for:
Janet Calderon
Prepared by
Mark Demee, 925-226-1277
Email: [email protected]
Caltronics Business Systems
6800 Sierra Court, Suite Q, Dublin, CA 94568
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
Attn: Janet Calderon
July 11, 2023
Dear Janet,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with information on your new copier acquisition. The proposal is arranged as follows:
1. NEW! Konica Minolta Bizhub C650i (65 ppm) COLOR Multifunctional Device with Full Color Scanning.
Caltronics Business Systems received the Konica Minolta Pro-Tech Service Excellence Award for 2023.
We appreciate the time you’ve taken to explore our recommendations and look forward to earning your business and exceeding all expectations.
If you have any questions or would like additional information, please call us.
Sincerely,
Mark Demee,
Branch Manager
925-226-1277
[email protected]
NEW! Konica Bizhub C650i – COLOR and B & W Digital
Copier/Printer/Scanner
65 pages per minute print & copy speed
240 pages per minute scan in Black and White and COLOR
300 Sheet DUAL Scanner Document Feeder
Copy Desk (Storage Only)
Bypass Tray holds up to 150 sheets
Total Paper Capacity 3,650 sheets
100 Sheet Booklet Folding/Stapling Finisher
Mobile Print/Copy/Scan for IPhone and IPad
10 “ Color Pivoting Screen
250 GB Hard Drive / 8 GB Memory
Built-in Hard Drive Security Encryption
Embedded Print Controller for printing and scanning
PCL and Post Script Print Drivers
One Touch Scanning to PC, Server, Email, Hard Drive in
In PDF, JPEG, TIFF, XPS, and COMPACT PDF
*The pictures above may not be the exact configuration of the proposed machine Special Konica Minolta Bizhub Pricing
Equipment Model: 36 Month Lease Payment
Bizhub C650i (65 ppm) $ 438.78
* All pricing shown includes delivery, setup, installation, training, and excludes applicable sales tax. Also include the termination of current contract relieving City Clayton of all obligations to lease #500-50146314.
Prestige Service Maintenance Agreement
COLOR Cost per Copy……………. $0.05
B & W Cost per Copy……………. $0.005
*Service Maintenance Agreement Includes:
Parts, Labor, Guaranteed 2-4 hrs. Response Time, Free Loaner Equipment, Drum, Toner, Developer.
(Everything except Paper and Staples)
* All pricing shown is good through July 31, 2023
Equipment Description
CURRENT SITUATION:
Konica Minolta Bizhub
C659 (65 ppm)
PROPOSED SOLUTION:
New! KONICA MINOLTA
Bizhub C650i (65 PPM)
36 Month Lease Payment $ 923.65 $ 438.78
Black and White Service Rate per copy/print $ 0.00500 $ 0.0050 Black and White Service cost per month
(Based on 4,914 per month) $ 24.57 $ 24.57
COLOR Service Rate per copy/print $ 0.05000 $ 0.0500
COLOR Service cost per month (Based on
3,069 per month) $ 153.45 $ 153.45
Total Monthly Cost $ 1,101.67 $ 616.80
$ 484.87
Copier Cost Comparison for City of Clayton
Total Monthly SAVINGS!
* Pricing shown above includes all delivery, setup, installation, and training. Pricing also includes the return and termination of current lease, relieving City of Clayton of all obligations to lease # 500-50146314. (Excludes sales tax) bizhub
i-SERIES IS
SMARTER
WORKING
RETHINK IT
Color A3 multifunctional
2 bizhub C650i Datasheet
OPTIONS
FINISHING FUNCTIONALITIES
CUSTOMER BENEFITS
Intuitive operability
Operate the bizhub like
a smartphone or tablet
with fully customized
user interface
Mobile connectivity
Print anytime from
anywhere with
Konica Minolta´s innovative
mobile technologies
Security
Secure network integration,
data encryption
and advanced user
authentication
Application ecosystem
Enhanced efficiency
thanks to Konica Minolta’s
extensive applications
portfolio
Productivity
Reliability, high-speed
scanning and printing,
combined with powerful
finishing functions
Sustainability
Numerous eco features
reduce energy consumption
and costs
Enhanced Features
Output tray
OT-513
4 MEDIA INPUT
1x Universal tray
PC-116
2x Universal tray
PC-216
Large capacity tray
PC-416
Large capacity tray
PC-417
Copy desk
DK-516
3 OTHERS
Working table
WT-506
10-Key pad
KP-102
Security kit
SC-509
1 TB SSD
EM-908
Keyboard holder
KH-102
1 ENHANCED FEATURES
PDF enhancements
LK-102v3
OCR text recognition
LK-105v4
Barcode fonts
LK-106
Unicode fonts
LK-107
OCR A and B fonts
LK-108
Document converter pack
LK-110v2
ThinPrint® client
LK-111
Antivirus
LK-116
IP fax (T.38 fax)
LK-117
MEDIA OUTPUT
Inner Finisher
FS-533
Punch kit
PK-519
Staple finisher
FS-536
Relay unit
RU-513
Staple/booklet finisher
FS-536SD
Relay unit
RU-513
Punch kit
PK-520
OR
MEDIA OUTPUT
Staple finisher
FS-539
Relay unit
RU-513
Booklet finisher
FS-539SD
Relay unit
RU-513
Punch kit for FS-539/SD
PK-524
OR
OR
5 Large capacity tray
LU-207
Banner tray
MK-730
Large capacity tray
LU-302
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
Staple finisher
FS-540
Relay unit
RU-513
Booklet finisher
FS-540SD
Relay unit
RU-513
Punch kit for FS-540/SD
PK-526
Post inserter for FS-540/SD
PI-507
Job separator for FS-540/SD
JS-602
Z-fold unit for FS-540/SD
ZU-609
OR
1 2
3 4
5 OR
2 CONNECTIVITY
Fax board
FK-514
Wireless LAN
UK-221
Fiery controller
IC-420
Interface kit for IC-420
VI-516
Biometric authentication
AU-102
Biometric authentication
AU-102
ID card reader
AU-205H
Mount kit
MK-735
OR
USB I/F kit
EK-608
USB I/F kit
EK-609
OR
x2
Corner
stapling
Two-point
stapling
Two-hole
punching
Three-hole
punching
Duplex Combined
mixplex/
mixmedia
Half-fold Sheet
insertion
Offset
sorting
Tri-fold Booklet Z-fold Banner
printing
47"
Corner
stapling
(offline)
LEGEND
Mandatory option
Option
This option can only
be installed with the
respective option
above it
OR
External keyboard
3 bizhub C650i Datasheet
SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
System speed 8.5" x11" Up to 65/65 ppm (mono/color)
System speed 11" x 17" Up to 32/32 ppm (mono/color)
Auto duplex speed 8.5" x 11" Up to 65/65 ppm (mono/color) 1st page out time 8.5" x 11" 2.8/3.8 sec. (mono/color)
Warm-up time Approx. 15/17 sec. (mono/color)¹
Imaging technology Laser
Toner technology Simitri®
HD polymerized toner
Panel size/resolution 10.1" / 1,024 x 600
System memory 8 GB (standard/max.)
System hard drive 256 GB SSD (standard) / 1 TB SSD (optional) Interface 10/100/1,000-Base-T Ethernet, USB 2.0,
Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n/ac (optional)
Network protocols TCP/IP (IPv4 / IPv6) / SMB / LPD / IPP / SNMP / HTTP(S) / Bonjour
Automatic document feeder Up to 300 originals / 5.5" x 8.5" – 11" x 17" / 35–210 g/m² / Dualscan ADF
ADF double feed detection Standard
Printable paper size 3.5" x 5.5" – 12" x 18" / customized paper sizes / banner paper max. 47.2" x 11.7"
Printable paper weight 52–300 g/m²
Paper input capacity 1,150 sheets / 6,650 sheets (standard/max.) Paper tray input (standard) 1 x 500 /3.5" x 5.5" – 11" x 17" / custom sizes / 52–256 g/m² 1 x 500 / 5.5" x 8.5" – 12" x 18" / custom sizes / 52–256 g/m² Paper tray input (optional) 1 x 500 / 5.5" x 8.5" – 11" x 17" / 52–256 g/m² 2 x 500 / 5.5" x 8.5" – 11" x 17"/ 52–256 g/m²
1 x 2,500 / 8.5" x 11" /52–256 g/m²
1 x 1,500 + 1 x 1,000 sheets / 5.5" x 8.5" or 8.5" x 11" / 52–256 g/m²
Large capacity tray (optional) 1 x 3,000 / 8.5" x 11" / 52–256 g/m² 1 x 2,500/ 8.5" x 11" – 12" x 18" / custom sizes /
52–256 g/m²
Manual bypass 150 sheets / 3.5" x 5.5" – 12" x 18" / custom sizes / banner / 60–300 g/m²
Finishing modes (optional) Offset, Group, Sort, Staple, Staple (offline), Punch, Half-fold, Letter-fold, Booklet, Post insertion, Z-fold Automatic duplexing 4.1" x 5.5" – 12" x 18" / 52–256 g/m² Output capacity Up to 250 sheets / up to 3,300 sheets (standard/max.) Stapling Max. 100 sheets or 98 sheets + 2 cover sheets
(up to 300 g/m²)
Stapling output capacity Max. 200 sets
Letter fold Max. 3 sheets
Letter fold capacity Max. 50 sets, unlimited (without tray) Booklet Max. 20 sheets or 19 sheets + 1 cover sheet
(up to 300 g/m²)
Booklet output capacity Max. 35 booklets, unlimited (without tray) Duty cycle (monthly) Max.² 250,000 pages
Toner lifetime Black up to 28,000 pages
CMY up to 28,000 pages
Imaging unit lifetime Black up to 240,000/1,000,000 pages (drum/developer) CMY up to 165,000/1,000,000 pages (drum/developer)
Power consumption 110–120 V / 60 Hz, Less than 1.6 kW
System dimension (W x D x H) 24.2" x 27.1" x 37.8" (without options) System weight Approx. 220 lb (without options)
DESCRIPTION
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
ENHANCED FEATURES
LK-102v3 PDF enhancements PDF/A(1b), PDF encryption, digital signature LK-105v4 OCR text recognition Searchable PDF and PPTX
LK-106 Barcode fonts Supports native barcode printing
LK-107 Unicode fonts Supports native Unicode printing
LK-108 OCR A and B fonts Supports native OCR A and B font printing LK-110v2 Document
file conversion
Generates various file formats including
DOCX, XLSX and PDF/A
LK-111 ThinPrint client Print data compression for reduced network impact LK-116 Antivirus Bitdefender®
antivirus provides real time scanning of all
incoming and outgoing data
LK-117 IP fax (T.38 fax) Fax over IP networks (T.38), requires fax kit
CONNECTIVITY
FK-514 Fax board Super G3 fax, digital fax functionality UK-221 Wireless LAN Wireless LAN and wireless LAN Access Point Mode EK-608 USB I/F kit USB keyboard connection
EK-609 USB I/F kit USB keyboard connection, Bluetooth
IC-420 Fiery controller Professional color print controller VI-516 Interface kit for IC-420 Fiery controller interface card AU-102 Biometric authentication Finger vein scanner
AU-205H ID card reader Supports various ID card technologies MK-735 Mount kit Installation kit for ID card reader
OTHERS
WT-506 Working table Authentication device placement
KP-102 10-Key pad For numeric entry instead of touchscreen SC-509 Security kit Copy guard function
EM-908 SSD 1 TB SSD to increase storage space
KH-102 Keyboard holder To place USB keyboard
External keyboard Keyboard for alpha numeric date entry
MEDIA INPUT
PC-116 1x Universal tray 500 sheets / 5.5" x 8.5" – 11" x 17" / 52–256 g/m² PC-216 2x Universal tray 2x 500 sheets / 5.5" x 8.5" – 11" x 17" / 52–256 g/m² PC-416 Large capacity tray 2,500 sheets / 8.5" x 11" / 52–256 g/m² PC-417 Large capacity tray 1,500 + 1,000 sheets / 5.5" x 8.5" or 8.5" x 11" / 52–256 g/m²
LU-302 Large capacity tray 3,000 sheets / 8.5" x 11" / 52–256 g/m² LU-207 Large capacity tray 2,500 sheets / 8.5" x 11" – 12" x 18" / 52–256 g/m² MK-730 Banner tray Multipage banner feeding
DK-516 Copier desk Provides storage space for print media and other materials
MEDIA OUTPUT
OT-513 Output tray Output tray used instead of finisher FS-539 Staple finisher 50-sheet stapling / 3,200 sheets max. output FS-539SD Booklet finisher 50-sheet stapling / 20-sheet booklet finisher / 2,200 sheets max. output
PK-524 Punch kit for FS-539/SD 2/3 hole punching / auto switching FS-540 Staple finisher 100-sheet stapling /3,200 sheets max. output FS-540SD Booklet finisher 100-sheet stapling / 20-sheets booklet finisher / 2,700 sheets max. output
PK-526 Punch kit for FS-540/SD 2/3 hole punching, auto switching RU-513 Relay unit For FS-539/SD or FS-540/SD installation JS-602 Job separator for FS-540/SD Separation of fax output, etc.
PI-507 Post inserter for FS-540/SD Cover insertion, post finishing ZU-609 Z-fold unit for FS-540/SD Z-fold for 11" x 17" prints ¹ Warm-up time may vary depending on the operating environment and usage. ² Maximum monthly copy/print volume supported under standard vendor-supplied service defines the upper end of expected customer volume for the device. Customers should consider multiple machines if average monthlyvolume approaches duty cycle on a continual basis. –All specifications refer to 8.5" x 11" paper of 80 g/m² weight. –The support and availability of the listed specifications and functionalities vary depending on operating systems, applications and network protocols as well as network and system configurations. –The stated life expectancy of each consumable is based on specific operating conditions such as page coverage for a particular page size (5% coverage of 8.5" x 11"). The actual life of each consumable will vary depending on use and other printing variables including page coverage, page size, media type, continuous or intermittent printing, ambient temperature and humidity. –Some of the product illustrations contain optional accessories. –Specifications and accessories are based on the information available at the time of printing and are subject to change without notice.
–Konica Minolta does not warrant that any specifications mentioned will be error-free.
For complete information on Konica Minolta products and solutions, please visit: CountOnKonicaMinolta.com
© 2020 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited. KONICA MINOLTA, the KONICA MINOLTA logo and bizhub are registered trademarks or trademarks of KONICA MINOLTA, INC. All other product and brand names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies or organizations. All features and functions described here may not be available on some products. Design & specifications are subject to change without notice.
KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC.
100 Williams Drive, Ramsey, New Jersey 07446
CountOnKonicaMinolta.com
Item #: C650iSS
2/2020-C
PRINTER SPECIFICATIONS
Print resolution 1,800 (equivalent) x 600 dpi, 1,200 x 1,200 dpi Page description language PCL 6 (XL3.0), PCL 5c, PostScript 3 (CPSI 3016), XPS Operating systems Windows 7 (32/64), Windows 8.1 (32/64), Windows 10 (32/64), Windows Server 2008 (32/64),
Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2012,
Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows Server 2016,
Windows Server 2019, Macintosh OS X 10.10 or later,
Unix, Linux, Citrix
Printer fonts 80 PCL Latin, 137 PostScript 3 Emulation Latin Mobile printing AirPrint (iOS), Mopria (Android),
Konica Minolta Print Service (Android),
Konica Minolta Mobile Print (iOS/Android)
Optional: Google Cloud Print, Wi-Fi Direct
PRINTER SPECIFICATIONS (OPTIONAL)
Print controller Embedded Fiery IC-420
Controller CPU AMD GX-424CC @ 2.4 GHz
Memory/HDD 4 GB / 500 GB
Page description language Adobe PostScript 3 (CPSI 3020), PCL 6, PCL 5c Operating systems Windows 7 (32/64), Windows 8.1 (32/64), Windows 10 (32/64), Windows Server 2008 (32/64),
Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2012,
Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows Server 2016,
Windows Server 2019, Macintosh OS X 10.10 or later,
Linux
SCANNER SPECIFICATIONS
Scan speed Up to 140/140 ipm in simplex (mono/color)
Up to 280/280 ipm in duplex (mono/color)
Scan resolution Up to 600 x 600 dpi
Scan modes Scan-to-eMail (Scan-to-Me), Scan-to-SMB (Scan-toHome), Scan-to-FTP, Scan-to-Box, Scan-to-USB, Scan-to-WebDAV, Scan-to-DPWS, Scan-to-URL,
TWAIN scan
File formats JPEG, TIFF, PDF, Compact PDF, Encrypted PDF, XPS, Compact XPS, PPTX
Optional: Searchable PDF, PDF/A 1a and 1b,
Searchable DOCX/PPTX/XLSX
Scan destinations 2,000 destinations + 100 groups, LDAP support
COPIER SPECIFICATIONS
Copy resolution 600 x 600 dpi
Gradation 256 gradations
Multicopy 1-9,999
Original format Max. 11" x 17"
Magnification 25–400% in 0.1% steps, Auto zoom
FAX SPECIFICATIONS
Fax standard Super G3 (optional)
Fax transmission Analog, i-Fax, Color i-Fax, IP-Fax
Fax resolution Up to 600 x 600 dpi
Fax compression MH, MR, MMR, JBIG
Fax modem Up to 33.6 Kbps
Fax destinations 2,000 single + 100 groups
USER BOX SPECIFICATIONS
Storable documents Up to 3,000 documents or 10,000 pages Type of user boxes Public, Personal (with password or authentication), Group (with authentication)
Type of system boxes Secure print, Encrypted PDF print, Fax receipt, Fax polling
SYSTEM FEATURES
Security ISO 15408 HCD-PP Common Criteria (in evaluation), IP filtering and port blocking, SSL3 and TLS1.0/1.1/1.2 network communication, IPsec support, IEEE 802.1x
support, User authentication, Authentication log,
Secure print, Kerberos, Hard drive data encryption (AES 256), Confidential fax, Print user data encryption
Optional: Antivirus scanning (Bitdefender®
),
Copy protection (Copy Guard, Password Copy)
Accounting Up to 1,000 user accounts, Active Directory support (user name + password + e-mail + smb folder),
User function access definition, Authentication by
mobile device (Android)
Optional: Biometric authentication (finger vein scanner), ID card authentication (ID card reader),
Authentication by mobile device (iOS)
Software Net Care Device Manager, Data Administrator, Box Operator, Web Connection, Print Status Notifier, Driver Packaging Utility, Log Management Utility
4 bizhub C650i Datasheet
Presentation to
the City of Clayton
Presenter:
Ted Clement, Executive Director
1971
Photo: Stephen Joseph
Land Acquisition
Land Acquisition
The Missing Mile
Krane Pond
Land Acquisition
Photo credit: Scott Hein
ADVOCACY
Concord Naval Weapons Station
Stewardship
Education
Mangini Ranch Educational Preserve
Mangini Ranch Educational Preserve
Knobcone Point to Riggs Canyon
Trail Connection
Knobcone Point to Riggs Canyon
Trail Connection
[Type here] Agenda Item: 7(a)
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: Larry Theis, City Engineer
DATE: July 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed Real Property Assessments for the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District (BAD); Ordering Improvements and Levying Annual Assessments in Fiscal Year 2023/24
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends the City Council open the Public Hearing, receive public comments, close the Public Hearing, and take action to adopt the attached Resolution which allows for the annual levying of assessments.
BACKGROUND
The City Council, at its June 6, 2023 meeting, approved the Engineer’s Report dated June 6, 2023 including the proposed assessment amounts which are unchanged from the Fiscal Year 2022/23 assessments. The assessments collected from property owners will primarily be used to fund the maintenance of various improvements benefiting real property owners within the Diablo Estates at Clayton development.
A notice regarding the public hearing, along with a copy of the Engineer’s Report was sent by mail to the property owners. The Engineer’s Report provides an overview of BAD’s proposed expenditures, and a listing of the items included within the target amount to be collected annually for reserves.
Tonight, during the City Council meeting, the required public hearing will be opened to provide an opportunity for assessed property owners to share their comments. After all public testimony has been heard, the City Council should officially close the public hearing. Following the closure of the public hearing, the City Council will consider any public comments received and proceed with the consideration and adoption of the Resolution that levies the annual assessments on the real properties within the District for Fiscal Year 2023/24.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the annual assessment rate is approved as recommended, the City will continue to manage the maintenance duties specified in the Engineer’s Report on behalf of the benefited real property owners and the proposed Fiscal Year 2023/24 assessment rates will be levied at the same rate as last year.
Subject: Diablo Estates at Clayton BAD – Confirmation of Assessments for Fiscal Year 2023/24 Date: July 18, 2023
The BAD fund balance will cover the District’s costs until receipt of the first tax payment from the County in December. Therefore, this action will not impact the City’s General Fund.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council approve this Resolution confirming the levy of assessments within the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District Fiscal Year 2023/24.
Attachments: Resolution confirming Assessments [2 pg.]
Notice to Property Owners [1 pg.]
BAD Fiscal Year 2023-24 Engineer’s Report Packet [18 pg.] Resolution XX-2023
RESOLUTION NO. ##- 2023
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE DIABLO ESTATES AT CLAYTON BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023/24
THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. 32-2023 on June 6, 2023, the Clayton City Council approved the Engineer's Report on the proposed assessment levy for maintaining various improvements within the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District during Fiscal Year 2023/24, and set a public hearing thereon for July 18, 2023, to be held at the regular meeting place of the Clayton City Council; and WHEREAS, notice of said hearing and the adoption of Resolution No. 32- 2023 was duly given as required; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2023, the City Council held the noticed public hearing on the proposed assessment for the Fiscal Year 2023/24 and heard and considered all oral statements and written communications made and filed thereon by interested persons;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Clayton, does hereby:
1. The City Council hereby orders the levy of an assessment in the amount of $3,904.64 on each lot within the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District and this Resolution shall constitute the levy and confirmation of such assessment for Fiscal Year 2023/24.
2. The City Clerk shall immediately file a certified copy of this resolution, together with any required diagrams and a list of lots so assessed, with both the Tax Collector and the Auditor of Contra Costa County, with the Assessment to thereafter be collected in the same manner as the property taxes are collected.
Resolution XX-2023
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of Clayton, California, at a regular public meeting thereof held on July 18, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
________________________________
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District
NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR LEVY OF ASSESSMENT
Reason for Assessment
At the request of the original project developer, Toll Bros., Inc., the City of Clayton City Council (“Council”) approved Resolution No. 04-2012 on February 7, 2012, forming the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District (“District”) to fund and to pay for the oversight and maintenance of certain facilities solely benefiting land owners in the District, such as the stormwater treatment facilities, storm drain collection system, common area landscape and irrigation, street lighting and weed abatement of natural slope areas, all as described in the original Engineer’s Report approved by the Council on March 20, 2012.
NOTICE
This notice informs you, as a real property owner within the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District that on June 6, 2023, the City of Clayton City Council adopted a Council Resolution approving the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023/24, declaring its intent to levy assessments for Fiscal Year 2023/24 and setting a public hearing on the issue of the proposed assessments:
PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. July 18, 2023
City Council Regular Meeting
Hoyer Hall (Library Bldg), 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, CA Assessment Information
1. The total proposed District assessment for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024 is $93,711.36.
2. Proposed maximum assessment rate per parcel: The Fiscal Year 2023-24 maximum assessment rate per parcel is proposed to be $4,239.80 which includes a 4% increase over the existing Fiscal Year 2022-23 maximum assessment rate of $4,076.73 per year. The maximum assessment rate increase is in accordance with the annual adjustment by the applicable Consumer Price Index (April 2022 – April 2023; San Francisco- OaklandHayward, CA – All Urban Consumers) (the “CPI”), as authorized by the property owner balloting in 2012. However, the City has elected to levy below the Fiscal Year 2023-24 maximum assessment rate in an amount equal to $3,904.64 in Fiscal Year 2023-24, which is the same amount that was levied in Fiscal Year 2022-23.
3. Duration of assessment: The assessment will be levied annually at the rate proposed above and collected via one’s property tax bill in Fiscal Year 2023/24. The maximum annual assessment rate may only be increased (other than the authorized allowable annual CPI increase described above) in the future by approval of a majority of the property owners.
4. Comments and protests may be submitted to the city prior to or at the public hearing.
5. Engineer’s Report: Attached is a copy of the approved Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2023/24.
Questions
If any questions arise regarding the proposed real property assessments for Fiscal Year 2023-24, please contact Clayton City Engineer Larry Theis. He may be contacted at (925) 890-9732 and at [email protected].
Diablo Estates at Clayton
Benefit Assessment District
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Final Engineer’s Report
July 18, 2023
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TABLE OF CONTENTS i
Table of Contents
Page No.
Certificate......................................................................................... ii Section I - Introduction.....................................................................1 Section II – Engineer’s Report .........................................................2 Part A – Plans and Specifications .........................................4 Part B – Estimate of Cost......................................................5 Part C – Assessment District Diagram ..................................7 Part D – Method of Apportionment of Assessments..............9 Part E - Assessment Roll ....................................................13 Appendix
Appendix A – Assessment Roll
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CERTIFICATE
ii
ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF CLAYTON
DIABLO ESTATES AT CLAYTON BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
The undersigned, acting on behalf of Francisco & Associates respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report as directed by the Clayton City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution, provisions of the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 of the California Government Code being Section 54716 et. Seq (the “1982 Act”), and complies with the annual provisions outlined in the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 being Section 22500 et al of the California Streets and Highways Code (the “1972 Act”). The undersigned certifies that he is a Professional Engineer, registered in the State of California.
Dated: 06/19/2023 By:
Eduardo Espinoza, P.E.
RCE # 83709
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
In 2012, at the request of Toll Brothers, the developer of the Diablo Estates at Clayton project (Subdivision 8719), property owners were noticed and balloted, and the property owners supported the formation of an assessment district and the City Council approved the formation with Resolution No. 04-2012.
The purpose of forming the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District (the “District”) is to levy and collect special assessments annually to fund the maintenance and operation of landscaping, street lighting, drainage and stormwater treatment improvements that are of benefit to the properties in the Diablo Estates at Clayton subdivision.
The District is approximately 19-acres and is generally southeast of Regency Drive, northeast of Rialto Drive, and along Seminary Ridge Place. A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District is provided in Part C of this Report.
The District was formed under the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (Section 54703 et seq. of the California Government Code), and was intended to comply with the annual provisions outlined in the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (Section 22500 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code). While the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 does not require further action annually to levy and collect assessments, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires the annual preparation of an Engineer’s Report and Council approval to levy and collect assessments.
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT 2 SECTION II
ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF CLAYTON
DIABLO ESTATES AT CLAYTON BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
Pursuant to the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California), and in compliance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California), I, Eduardo Espinoza, the duly appointed Engineer of Work, Assessment Engineer for the City of Clayton Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District (the “District”) submit the following Report, consisting of Section I (Introduction), and this, Section II, which consists of five (5) parts as follows:
PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
This part describes the improvements maintained by the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Clayton and are incorporated herein by reference.
PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST
This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements to be maintained for Fiscal Year 2023-24, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith.
The estimate is attached hereto and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Clayton.
PART C: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM
This part incorporates a Diagram of the District showing the exterior boundaries of the District, the boundaries of any zones within the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. This Diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Director of Public Works of the City of Clayton.
The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor’s maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Report.
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER’S REPORT 3 PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
This part describes the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon each parcel’s classification within the District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received.
PART E: ASSESSMENT ROLL
This part contains an assessment of the estimated cost of the improvements apportioned to each benefited parcel of land within the District. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Clayton and is incorporated in this Report. The list is keyed to the records of the Contra Costa County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 4 PART A
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The work and improvements proposed to be undertaken by the City and the District, and the costs thereof paid from the levy of annual assessments, provides special benefit to Assessor Parcels within the District. The work, services, and improvements maintained and funded by the District are generally described as follows:
Maintenance and servicing of public improvements, including but not limited to, storm drain systems, landscape and lighting and all necessary appurtenances, and labor, materials, supplies, utilities and equipment, and incidental costs as applicable, for property in the District that is owned or maintained by the City of Clayton.
As applied herein, the term “maintenance” means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing, of any improvement, including repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement; providing for the life, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste; the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti; the cleaning and replacement of storm drain pipes, drop inlets, catch basins and manholes.
“Servicing” means the cost of maintaining any facility used to provide any service, the furnishing of electric current, or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements; or water for the irrigation of any landscaping, or the maintenance of any other improvements.
Drawings showing the specific locations of the improvements are on file in the City’s Public Works Department and are made a part of this report by reference.
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ESTIMATE OF COSTS 5 PART B
ESTIMATE OF COSTS
All eligible improvements within the District are maintained and serviced on a regular basis. The proposed cost estimate for the District is shown herein. This includes an estimate of the costs of utilities, operations, services, administration, and maintenance associated with the improvements, including all labor, personnel, equipment, materials, and administrative expenses. The summary also shows estimates of reserves and the projected fund balances based upon the estimated expenditures and assessment revenue.
Projected Beginning Fund Balance (7/1/2023) $293,646.00 Projected Revenues
Assessment Revenues $93,711.36
Interest Earnings $2,300.00
Total Projected Revenues $96,011.36
Estimate of Expenditures
Administrative/Management Costs $15,000.00
PG&E Service $650.00
Water Service $7,000.00
Legal Notices $100.00
Property Tax and County Collection Fees $300.00
Engineering/Inspection Service $500.00
Weed Abatement Services $11,000.00
Other Professional Services $30,000.00
Total Estimate of Expenditures $64,550.00
Estimate of Reserves
Operating Reserves1 $32,275.00
Capital Reserves $292,832.36
Total Estimate of Reserves $325,107.36
Projected Surplus Ending Fund Balance (6/30/2024) $0.00 1 Operating Reserves are estimated to be 50% of the annual expenditures.
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Cost Estimate
Benefit Assessment District
Diablo Estates at Clayton
City of Clayton
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ESTIMATE OF COSTS 6 The purpose of the various reserves is to ensure the District will have funds available for cashflow purposes and to repair or reconstruct the improvements that are the responsibility of the District.
The Operating Reserve target is fifty percent (50%) of the projected expenditures.
Maintaining a fully funded Operating Reserve eliminates the need for the City to transfer funds from non-District accounts to pay for operational expenses during the first half of the fiscal year and provides the District with sufficient funds to address any unforeseen or unusual expenditures that may occur during the year.
The purpose of collecting and holding funds in a Capital Reserve is so that when and if improvements need to be replaced or expenditures that are greater than can be conveniently raised from a single year’s assessment, funds are available so that the District can respond and address the need promptly.
A summary of the improvements initially constructed that may require replacement at the end of their useful life, an estimate of the cost for each improvement, an estimate of the service life of each improvement, and the targeted annual collection amount for each improvement follows:
Item Quantity Unit
Unit
Cost
Total
Cost
Estimate
Estimate of
Service
Life (Years)
Target
Annual
Collection
Amount
Tree Replacement 33 EA $285 $9,405 40 $235
Entry Monument Replacement 1 EA $4,000 $4,000 25 $160
V-Ditch Repair/Replacement 2,038 LF $50 $101,900 25 $4,076 Vortsentry Replacement 1 EA $100,000 $100,000 100 $1,000 Stormwater Basin Replacement* 48 EA $2,000 $96,000 10 $9,600 CB/MH/SD Pipe Replacement 1 LS $79,000 $79,000 100 $790 General - - - - - $2,000
Total $390,305 $17,861
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM 7 PART C
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM
The boundaries of the District are shown herein. The lines and dimensions of each parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year in which this Report was prepared and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.
A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram is shown on the following page.
City of Clayton
Diablo Estates at Clayton
Benefit Assessment District
100 50 0 100 200 300
Feet
¯
Legend
Benefit Assessment
District Boundary
Parcel Lines
Parcels within District
Boundary
RIALTO
DR
REGENCY
DR
PETAR
CT
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT 9 PART D
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
General
The 1982 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements and property related services which include the construction, maintenance and servicing of drainage, flood control, street lighting, streets, roadways, and appurtenant facilities. Section 54711 of the 1982 Act further requires that the cost of these improvements be levied according to benefit conferred upon properties rather than assessed value. This Section states:
“The amount of the assessment imposed on any parcel of property shall be related to the benefit to the parcel which will be derived from the provision of the service.” In addition, the 1982 Act permits the designation of zones or areas of benefit within any individual assessment district. Thus, the 1982 Act requires the levy of a true "assessment" rather than a "special tax."
Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution (also known as Proposition 218, approved by the California voters in November 1996) limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property. “No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel.” Article XIIID provides that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights-of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways, and that portion of public property that is not developed and used for business purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional activities.
Discussion of Benefit
The District consists of all Assessor Parcels within the boundaries of the District. The method of apportioning costs and assessing properties is based upon the proportional special benefits to be conferred by the improvements and services to the properties within the boundaries of the District that are over and above the general benefits conferred to property or the public at large. The apportioning of special benefit is a two-step process: the first step is to identify the types of special benefits arising from the improvements and services, and the second step is to allocate the costs and assign assessments to property based on the estimates of the special benefit being conferred to each property.
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT 10 In summary, the assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit to property.
This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. Moreover, such benefit is not based on any one property owner's use of the District's storm drain system, streets and sidewalks, corridor landscaping, lighting, or a property owner's specific demographic status. With reference to the requirements for assessments the following benefit categories summarize the types of special benefit to residential, commercial, industrial, and other lots and parcels resulting from the installation, maintenance, and servicing of the improvements to be provided with the assessment proceeds. These categories of special benefit are derived in part from the statutes passed by the California Legislature and other studies which describe the types of special benefit received by property from the installation, maintenance, and servicing of improvements such as those proposed by the District. These types of special benefit are summarized as follows:
• Creation of individual lots for residential use that, in absence of the services and improvements to be funded by the assessments, would not be created. • Improved utility and usability of property.
• Improved safety and security lighting for property.
• Enhanced visual experience, and desirability of the area. • Protection of views, scenery and other resources, values and environmental benefits enjoyed by residents and guests and preservation of public assets maintained by the City.
• Moderation of temperatures, dust control, and other environmental benefits.
These benefits when conferred to property in the District, specifically increase the utility of the property within the District. For example, the assessments will provide funding to maintain lighting that improves safety and access to the property after dark and landscaping that provides visual and environmental benefits to the properties within the District. Such improved and well-maintained public facilities enhance the overall usability, quality, desirability, and safety of the properties. Moreover, funding for the maintenance and servicing of such public facilities is a condition of development of Diablo Estates at Clayton that is needed to mitigate the negative impacts of this development on the City. Without the District, this condition of development would not have been satisfied, which may have affected the approval of new homes on the property. This is another special benefit to the properties in the District.
General versus Special Benefit
The proceeds from the District would be used to fund improvements and increased levels of maintenance to the public facilities that serve and benefit the properties in the District. In the absence of the District, such improvements would not be properly maintained. Therefore, the District is specifically proposed to ensure that the necessary and beneficial public facilities for property in the District are properly maintained and repaired over time. The assessments will ensure that landscaping and street lighting within and adjacent to the District are functional, well maintained, clean and safe. These public resources directly benefit the property in the District and will confer distinct and special benefits to the properties within the District.
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT 11 In absence of the assessments, a condition of development would not have been met and home construction in the District may have been denied. The creation of residential lots and the approval for the construction of homes in Diablo Estates at Clayton is the overriding clear and distinct special benefit conferred exclusively on property in the District and not enjoyed by other properties outside the District. Moreover, benefits to the public at large, if any, will be offset by benefits residents within the District receive from the use of other similar public facilities not funded by the District. Therefore, the assessments solely provide special benefit to property in the District (100% special benefit) over and above the general benefits conferred to the public at large or properties outside the District.
Method of Assessment
This process of apportioning assessments for each property involves determining the relative benefit received by each property in relation to a single family home, or, in other words, on the basis of Single Family Equivalent dwelling units (SFE). This SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefit and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments. For the purposes of this Engineer's Report, all properties are designated an SFE value, which is each property's relative benefit in relation to a single family home on one parcel. In this case, the "benchmark" property is the single family detached dwelling which is one Single Family Equivalent unit or one SFE.
Assessment Apportionment
The proposed improvements and services provide direct and special benefit to properties in the District. Diablo Estates at Clayton is a residential single family development project consisting of a total of 24 single family homes, each on a separate parcel. As such, each residential property receives similar benefit from the proposed Improvements. Therefore, the Engineer at the time of formation determined that the appropriate method of apportionment of the benefits derived by all parcels is on a dwelling unit or single family residence basis. All improved properties or properties proposed for development are assigned an SFE factor equal to the number of dwelling units developed or planned for the property. In other words, developed parcels and vacant parcels with proposed development will be assessed 1 SFE.
It was recognized that the cost of maintaining the District improvements and providing services would increase slightly each year because of inflation. For this reason, the property owners approved a formula for increasing assessments for each future fiscal year to offset increases in costs due to inflation. Therefore, the maximum annual assessment rate may be increased annually in an amount tied to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the San Francisco Bay Area as of April of each succeeding year, with the maximum annual increase not to exceed 4%. In the event that the annual change in the CPI exceeds 4%, any percentage change in excess of 4% can be cumulatively reserved and can be added to the annual change in the CPI for years in which the CPI change is less than 4%.
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT 12 The change in the CPI from April 2022 to April 2023 was 4.19%. Since the change in CPI is above 4.00%, the amount greater than 4.00% (0.19%) will be added to the Unused CPI balance. The remaining Unused CPI balance was 1.00% last year. With the addition of the amount greater than 4.00% (0.19%), the current remaining Unused CPI balance is now
1.19%.
Therefore, the maximum assessment rate for Fiscal Year 2023-24 of $4,239.80 is increased by 4.00% over the maximum assessment rate for Fiscal Year 2022-23 which was $4,076.73, which equates to $163.07 per single-family equivalent benefit unit in Fiscal Year 2023-24.
However, the City has elected to levy an amount less than the maximum assessment rate in Fiscal Year 2023-24. The same rate that was levied in Fiscal Year 2022-23 of $3,904.64 will be levied in Fiscal Year 2023-24. Therefore, the applied rate will not increase over that which was levied in Fiscal Year 2022-23.
The assessments are listed on the Assessment Roll in Appendix A.
Appeals and Interpretations
Any property owner who feels that the assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment, may file a written appeal with City Engineer or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current or, if before July 1, the upcoming fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the City Engineer or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the City Engineer or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, the City Engineer or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any property owner who disagrees with the decision of the City Engineer or her or his designee may refer their appeal to the City Council of the City of Clayton and the decision of the City Council of the City of Clayton shall be final.
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL 13 PART E
ASSESSMENT ROLL
A list of names and addresses of the owners of all parcels, and the description of each parcel within the District is shown on the last equalized Secured Property Tax Roll of the Contra Costa County Assessor, which by reference is hereby made a part of this Report.
This list is keyed to the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll, which includes the proposed amount of assessments for Fiscal Year 2023-24 apportioned to each parcel. The Assessment Roll is on file in the Public Works Department of the City and is shown in this Report as Appendix “A”.
The total proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 2023-24 is $93,711.36.
CITY OF CLAYTON FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT APPENDIX A
APPENDIX “A”
ASSESSMENT ROLL
ASSESSMENT ROLL
FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
DIABLO ESTATES AT CLAYTON
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Assessment
Property Address Amount
119-630-003 $3,904.64 22 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-630-004 $3,904.64 18 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-630-005 $3,904.64 14 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-630-006 $3,904.64 10 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-630-008 $3,904.64 15 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-630-009 $3,904.64 19 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-630-010 $3,904.64 23 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-630-012 $3,904.64 27 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-630-013 $3,904.64 26 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-630-014 $3,904.64 9 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-640-001 $3,904.64 6 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-640-004 $3,904.64 7 PROMONTORY PL
119-640-010 $3,904.64 16 PROMONTORY PL
119-640-011 $3,904.64 12 PROMONTORY DR
119-640-012 $3,904.64 8 PROMONTORY PL
119-640-013 $3,904.64 4 PROMONTORY PL
119-640-016 $3,904.64 2 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-640-017 $3,904.64 3 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
119-640-018 $3,904.64 11 PROMONTORY PL
119-640-019 $3,904.64 17 PROMONTORY PL
119-640-020 $3,904.64 21 PROMONTORY PL
119-640-021 $3,904.64 24 PROMONTORY PL
119-640-022 $3,904.64 20 PROMONTORY PL
119-640-023 $3,904.64 5 SEMINARY RIDGE PL
Parcel Count: 24 $93,711.36
1 05/16/23
Agenda Item: 7(b)
1 STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Dana Ayers, AICP, Community Development Director
DATE: July 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting the 2022 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study and Update of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fees, and Finding the Action to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing to accept testimony, close the public hearing, and after closing the public hearing and deliberating, adopt the attached Resolution: 1) adopting the 2022 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study (“2022 Fee Study”) dated February 2023, that supports changes to the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP development fee and wetland mitigation fee in accordance with section 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP (see “Periodic Audit and Adjustment of Mitigation Fees”); 2) updating the HCP/NCCP development fee and wetland mitigation fee authorized in Clayton Municipal Code section 16.55.060, in accordance with the findings and conclusions of the 2022 Fee Study; and 3) finding the action to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as an administrative action under the HCP/NCCP.
BACKGROUND
The HCP/NCCP presents a regionally-coordinated approach to permitting, conservation and protection of sensitive species, their habitats, and other unique natural resources in eastern Contra Costa County. The main element of the adopted HCP/NCCP conservation strategy is the creation of a Preserve System that would preserve approximately 23,800 acres of species habitat land with the “initial urban development area” depicted in Figure 2-3 of the HCP/NCCP, or approximately 30,300 acres of species habitat land under the “maximum urban development area.”
2 By providing an opportunity for developers to conduct limited biological resources surveys, to pay fees or dedicate land according to a prescribed schedule and methodology, and to implement pre-defined avoidance measures, the HCP/NCCP creates a more streamlined alternative to project-by-project mitigation of the impacts of development on sensitive species and natural resources. Fees paid or land dedicated to the HCP/NCCP Conservancy (the oversight agency for the HCP/NCCP) are then used by the Conservancy to acquire and establish preservation areas or to construct restoration projects in East Contra Costa County. The Preserve System created by the HCP/NCCP is a more efficient “wholesale” means to mitigating biological resources impacts of development, in that it allows for establishment of large restoration and preservation areas with greater environmental value, as opposed to scattered and disconnected mitigation projects that could result from permitting on a project-by-project basis.
On December 19, 2006, the Clayton City Council adopted findings as a responsible agency related to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the HCP/NCCP and approved the HCP/NCCP. On February 20, 2007, the City Council approved an Implementing Agreement for the HCP/NCCP and a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement creating the HCP/NCCP Conservancy.
On November 6, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 412 amending Clayton Municipal Code (CMC) to add Chapter 16.55, Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation.
CMC section 16.55.060, HCP/NCCP Implementation and Administration Fees, authorizes the City to impose a Development Fee, a Wetland Mitigation Fee, and an HCP/NCCP Administration Fee on certain development projects to which the Ordinance is applicable, as specified in CMC section 16.55.020, Applicability. CMC section 16.55.060 authorizes the City Council to establish and to amend the fees from time to time, by resolution. On the same date that the Council adopted Ordinance No. 412, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 48-2007 adopting and establishing the Development Fee, Wetland Mitigation Fee and HCP/NCCP Administration Fee based on the comprehensive studies that had been prepared for the adopted HCP/NCCP.
DISCUSSION
The HCP/NCCP and Section 4.D of Resolution No. 48-2007 require automatic annual adjustments to the Development Fee and Wetland Mitigation Fee based on economic indices. The HCP/NCCP requires more comprehensive, periodic audits in years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of the HCP/NCCP’s implementation to assess whether actual costs to implement the HCP/NCCP over time require a different adjustment of the fees. The fee audit for year 10 occurred in 2017 but was subject to litigation that was not settled until January 2021. Subsequently, on February 22, 2021, the HCP/NCCP Conservancy Governing Board adopted the 2017 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study (see Attachment 2). The HCP/NCCP’s participating jurisdictions followed with respective adoptions of the fees in fall 2021. The Clayton City Council adopted the updated fees based on the year 10 audit on October 5, 2021, with adoption of Resolution No. 56-2021.
The Conservancy hired an outside, independent financial auditor to conduct a fee analysis for year 15 of the Plan. That analysis, the 2022 Fee Study, was prepared to comply with the 3 requirement of a fully funded mitigation strategy that would achieve the goals of the HCP/NCCP, and it provides a revised fee schedule based on updated cost data. In February 2023, the Conservancy adopted the 2022 Fee Study and the updated fee schedule based on the 2022 Fee Study. Each of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP’s participating agencies—the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County for unincorporated East County lands—must now take action to adopt the year 2022 Fee Study and the updated fees based on the findings and conclusions of the audit.
A comparison of the current fees to the proposed adjusted fees based on the 2022 Fee Study is summarized in the following Table 1. As reflected in the last column of the table, all fees would increase, but none by more than 3 percent. It is further noted that mitigation fees are automatically adjusted annually on March 15, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Home Price Index (HPI) using a formula in the HCP/NCCP. The fees calculated in the mitigation fee audit and nexus study dated February 2023 are for 2022. Those amounts have further been updated in the table to incorporate the annual fee adjustments that occurred to the fees in March 2023.
Table 1: Recommended Mitigation Fee Schedule Based on 2022 Fee Study Land Cover Fee Basis Current
2023 Feet
Updated 2023
Fee Based on
2022 Fee
Study
Change
from
Current
2023 Fee
Development Fee
Zone I per acre $19,611.52 $19,871.91 1.31%
Zone II per acre $39,223.04 $39,743.83 1.31%
Zone III per acre $9,805.76 $9,935.96 1.31%
Wetland Mitigation Fee
Riparian Woodland/Scrub per acre $110,667.08 $111,060.40 0.35% Perennial Wetland per acre $167,718.29 $170,908.06 1.87% Seasonal Wetland per acre $392,489.03 $401,479.18 2.24% Alkali Wetland per acre $396,778.59 $405,871.63 2.24%
Ponds per acre $215,976.51 $221,421.23 2.46%
Aquatic (Open Water) per acre $107,988.87 $110,711.14 2.46% Slough/Channel per acre $154,206.78 $156,815.09 1.66%
Streams (<=25 feet wide) per linear foot $569.07 $580.00 1.88% Streams (>25 feet wide) per linear foot $854.23 $869.47 1.75% 4 FISCAL IMPACTS
There would be no additional costs to the City as a result of this action. Adoption of the 2022 Fee Study and the proposed fee update will result in the City collecting additional Development Fees and Wetland Fees from developers to mitigate their projects’ development impacts. The City will then convey the funds to the HCP/NCCP Conservancy to implement the HCP/NCCP, and the Conservancy can only use the funds conveyed for public facilities related to the conservation of covered species, as set forth in the HCP/NCCP and the proposed Resolution. The City would continue to collect an Administration Fee to cover City staff costs to manage implementation and compliance of the HCP/NCCP for the City. As established in the City’s fee schedule currently in effect, the Administration Fee is staff time with $1,000 deposit.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, dated February 2023 Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 1 of 12 , 2023
RESOLUTION NO. -2023
A RESOLUTION ADTOPING THE 2022 EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN
(HCP/NCCP) MITIGATION FEE AUDIT AND NEXUS STUDY AND UPDATING THE
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP MITIGATION FEES, AND FINDING
THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, the City Council has from time to time adopted ordinances and resolutions establishing and revising fees required to be paid by sponsors of new development within the City; and
WHEREAS, Clayton General Plan Goal 3 of the Land Use Element calls for preservation of the natural features, ecology, and scenic vistas of the Clayton area; and WHEREAS, in October 2006, a Final East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) and Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the HCP/NCCP were released, copies of which are on file within the Clayton Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2006, the HCP Association (HCPA) Executive Governing Committee unanimously approved the final HCP/NCCP and the EIR/EIS as the lead agency and directed the HCPA staff to forward the documents to the plan participants for approval; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2006, the City Council adopted findings as a responsible agency related to the EIR for the HCP/NCCP and approved the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP; and
WHEREAS, the main element of the adopted HCP/NCCP conservation strategy is the creation of a Preserve System that would preserve approximately 23,800 acres of species habitat land with the initial urban development area, or approximately 30,300 acres of species habitat land under the maximum urban development area; and WHEREAS, the HCP/NCCP conservation measures address the landscape-level, community (or habitat)-level, and species-level impacts, and the HCP/NCCP includes measures to address the following objectives: design of covered activities to avoid or minimize impacts on covered species and covered vegetation communities; preservation of covered vegetation communities; preservation of covered species populations and habitats; restoration of covered species habitat and vegetation Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 2 of 12 , 2023
communities to compensate for direct and indirect impacts on specific species and vegetation communities; restoration of species habitat to contribute to the recovery of listed covered species and help prevent the listing of non-listed covered species, and management of preserves to maximize the functions of habitats for covered species; and
WHEREAS, by developing a plan that addresses natural resource issues comprehensively and proactively, the City would increase its control over local land use issues and benefit species and project proponents alike; and WHEREAS, the final HCP/NCCP included a comprehensive analysis of the cost to implement the HCP/NCCP including program administration, land acquisition, habitat restoration/creation, preserve management; and environmental compliance; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2007, the City Council approved an Implementing Agreement for the HCP/NCCP and a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement creating a Conservancy to act as the oversight agency for the HCP/NCCP; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2007, both the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game approved the HCP/NCCP and issued regional permits to the local plan participants; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed implementing ordinance and the authorization and establishment of related fees for the implementation of the HCP/NCCP; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 412 amending Clayton Municipal Code (CMC) to add chapter 16.55, Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation; and
WHEREAS, CMC section 16.55.060, HCP/NCCP Implementation and Administration Fees, authorizes the City to impose a Development Fee, a Wetland Mitigation Fee, and an HCP/NCCP Administration Fee on certain development projects to which the Ordinance is applicable, as specified in CMC section 16.55.020, Applicability, and authorizes the City Council to establish and to amend the fees from time to time, by resolution; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 48-2007 adopting and establishing the Development Fee, Wetland Mitigation Fee and HCP/NCCP Administration Fee based on the comprehensive studies that had been prepared for the adopted HCP/NCCP; and
WHEREAS, the HCP/NCCP and section 4.D of Resolution No. 48-2007 require automatic annual adjustments to the Development Fee and Wetland Mitigation Fee based on economic indices, and the HCP/NCCP requires periodic audits in years 3, 6, Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 3 of 12 , 2023
10, 15, 20 and 25 of the HCP/NCCP’s implementation to assess whether changes in the cost to implement the HCP/NCCP over time require adjustment of the fees; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2023, the HCP Conservancy Governing Board adopted the 2022 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study (“2022 Fee Study”); and
WHEREAS, each of the participating agencies in the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP must now take action to adopt the 2022 Fee Study and its updated fees, as adjusted to include automatic annual adjustments that occurred in March 2023, to facilitate consistency in implementation of the HCP/NCCP across the participating agencies; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code sections 66016.5 and 66017(a), notice of the July 18, 2023, City Council public hearing to consider adoption of the 2022 Fee Study and the updated Development Fee and Wetland Mitigation Fee imposed pursuant to the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, along with a web address to where the 2022 Fee Study was posted online, was mailed and emailed to local developers and interested parties on June 16, 2023; was posted at three public information boards in the City on June 19, 2023; and was published in the East County Times on June 26, 2023, and July 3, 2023; and the City made available at least 10 days prior to the July 18, 2023, public hearing the public data regarding the fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and given consideration to all written material and spoken testimony presented before and during the hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Clayton, California, does hereby make the following findings and determinations:
SECTION 1. Affirmations
The City Council does hereby find and affirm the above noted Recitals are true and correct facts and information relative to the proceedings at hand.
SECTION 2. Findings
The City Council makes each of the following findings:
A. The purpose of the habitat conservation mitigation fees is to help fund the HCP/NCCP conservation strategy, to mitigate the impacts of development on covered species, and to contribute to the recovery of those species in the plan area.
B. The habitat conservation mitigation fees help implement General Plan Goal 3 of the Land Use Element of the Clayton General Plan and help to preserve the ability of affected property owners to make reasonable use of their land consistent with the Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 4 of 12 , 2023
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, and other applicable laws.
C. Based on the 2022 Fee Study, and the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the HCP/NCCP implementation updated fees authorized by this Resolution and the type of development projects subject to the fees. The fees updated herein were adopted and are implemented by the City Council in reliance on the comprehensive studies that have been prepared for the HCP/NCCP. The updated Development Fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the acquisition of land, the enhancement and management of habitat and the other activities to mitigate for impacts to open space, habitat and covered species caused by affected Development Projects. The updated Wetland Mitigation Fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the restoration, creation and management Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub and other actions to mitigate for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian areas caused by Affected Development Projects. The HCP/NCCP implementation updated fees will not apply to all types of Development Projects; rather, it will only apply to those Development Projects that impact open space, habitat suitable for one or more covered species, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian areas. In this way, the HCP/NCCP implementation updated fees will be used only for purposes reasonably related to the types of development projects that will be subject to the updated fees.
D. Based on the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public activities and facilities including land acquisition, management, restoration, and habitat creation and enhancement to be funded by the HCP/NCCP implementation updated fees and the type of Development Projects on which the updated fees are imposed, in that the need for the activities and the facilities arise from the very development projects to which the fees will apply, that is, development projects of all types that disturb open space, habitat, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian areas.
E. Based on the 2022 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, and the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the updated amounts of the HCP/NCCP implementation fees authorized by CMC chapter 16.55 and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development projects on which the updated fees will be imposed. The costs of the public facilities needed to mitigate cumulative impacts from development projects subject to the updated fees were estimated by projecting the extent of future development impacts, calculating the open space or habitat acreage to be acquired, managed, enhanced, restored and created to offset these impacts and estimating the overall costs of acquiring and preserving this acreage for Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 5 of 12 , 2023
the 30-year term of the state and federal permits. The fees were then calculated based on these costs as follows:
1. The method of calculating the Development Fee amount for individual Affected Development Projects reflects the cost of the public facilities attributable to individual Affected Development Projects based on:
a. Area of the Affected Development Project, as the cost of acquiring sufficient open space or habitat land to mitigate for the impacts of a particular development project is directly proportional to the acreage of that project; and b. Location of the Affected Development Project, as the need for the public facilities varies in proportion to the intrinsic habitat or open space value of the land impacted by the project. Thus, fees are tiered so that the highest fee amounts are imposed in Development Fee Zone II, deemed to have the highest intrinsic value per acre. A fee equal to 50 percent of the highest fee amount is imposed in Development Fee Zone I, deemed to have substantial but lower intrinsic value per acre, and a fee equal to 25 percent of the highest fee amount is required in Development Fee Zone III, deemed to have the lowest intrinsic value per acre.
2. The method of calculating the Wetland Mitigation Fee amount for individual Affected Development Projects reflects the cost of the public facilities attributable to those individual Affected Development Projects based on:
a. Type of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be impacted by the Affected Development Project, as the type of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be restored or created must effectively replace the type being impacted by the particular project. The cost of restoring or creating Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub depends on: 1) the specific construction tasks necessary to restore or create these areas; and 2) the different mitigation ratios applicable to the restoration or creation of various types of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub, such ratios having been established in the HCP/NCCP to require relatively more restoration or creation of those types of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub that have a higher habitat value and function for covered species and/or are more difficult to restore or create, and therefore must be restored or created in larger amounts to offset the anticipated failure of a portion of the acreage restored or created; and b. Area of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub to be impacted by the Affected Development Project, as the cost of restoring or creating Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub is directly proportional to the acreage being restored or created, which in turn is directly proportional to the acreage being impacted by the project.
Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 6 of 12 , 2023
F. On December 19, 2006, prior to approving the HCP/NCCP implementing ordinance and fees on November 6, 2007, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIS/EIR for the HCP/NCCP and adopted findings as a responsible agency related to the EIR. This update of the adopted schedule of fees is an administrative action that is not within the definition of a “project” pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5,) and is, therefore, exempt from CEQA.
G. Future individual affected development projects subject to this resolution will require separate project-specific CEQA review.
H. The HCP/NCCP, staff reports and the testimony establish:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the updated fees and the type of development on which the updated fees are imposed; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the updated fees and the cost of purchasing habitat to protect species covered under the HCP/NCCP within the Clayton area; and
SECTION 3. Definitions
For purposes of this Resolution, the terms defined in chapter 16.55 of the Clayton Municipal Code are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION 4. Implementation Fees Imposed
A. Chapter 16.55 of the Clayton Municipal Code sets forth the requirements for certain development projects to pay the applicable HCP/NCCP implementation fees, the updated amounts of which are set forth herein.
B. Development Fee.
1. The Development Fee shall be based on each parcel of land, or portion thereof, permanently disturbed and is set as follows:
Location of Affected Development Project Development Fee Development Fee Zone I $19,871.91 per acre
Development Fee Zone II $39,743.83 per acre
Development Fee Zone III $9,935.96 per acre
2. The Development Fee Zones are set forth in Exhibit A.
C. Wetland Mitigation Fee. The Wetland Mitigation Fee is set forth in Exhibit B.
Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 7 of 12 , 2023
D. The Development Fee and Wetland Mitigation Fee shall on March 15 of each year be automatically adjusted as follows:
1. The Development Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit C and based on the formula in Exhibit D, as explained in chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. As shown in Exhibit C and Exhibit D, both of which are incorporated herein by reference, one portion of the Development Fee’s amounts in effect before March 15 of each year shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Office of Federal Housing Finance Agency Annual Home Price Index for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore, California Metropolitan Division for the prior calendar year. The remaining portion of the Development Fee’s amounts shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for prior calendar year.
2. The Wetland Mitigation Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit C. As shown in Exhibit C, the Wetland Mitigation Fee’s amounts in effect before March 15 of each year shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the prior calendar year.
SECTION 5. Effective Date of Fee
The fees provided in this Resolution shall be effective on September 16, 2023, or 60 days after the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 6. Severability
All portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any provision of this Resolution be judged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the fees shall be fully effective except as to the portion that has been judged to be invalid.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank).
Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 8 of 12 , 2023
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Clayton, California at a regular public meeting thereof held on day of 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
________________________________
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 9 of 12 , 2023
EXHIBIT A
Development Fee Zones --- Clayton Area
Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 10 of 12 , 2023
EXHIBIT B
Wetland Mitigation Fee and Acreage Determination Methods (Adapted from Table 9-5 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect
the fee amounts applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) Land Cover Type Fee per unit of Impact Method for Determining Fee Boundary Riparian
woodland/scrub
$111,060.40 / acre Limit of tree or shrub canopy (drip line) Perennial wetland $170,908.06 / acre Jurisdictional wetland boundary of state or federal government1
, whichever is
greater
Seasonal wetland $401,479.18 / acre Same as above
Alkali wetland $405,871.63 / acre Same as above
Ponds $221,421.23 / acre Jurisdictional waters boundary of state or federal government1
, whichever is greater
Aquatic (open water) $110,711.14 / acre Wetted area during normal rainfall year or jurisdictional waters boundary, whichever
is greater
Slough/channel $156,815.09 / acre Area of impact within banks Streams
Streams 25 feet
wide or less
$580.00 / linear foot Stream length measured along stream centerline. Stream width measured
between top of bank.
Streams greater
than 25 feet wide2
$869.47/ linear foot Stream length measured along stream centerline. Stream width measured
between top of bank.
1. Using methods for determining state and federal jurisdictional wetlands and waters at the time of HCP/NCCP approval.
2. Impact fee for wider streams is 1.5 times the base stream fee to account for higher construction costs on wider streams.
Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 11 of 12 , 2023
EXHIBIT C
Fee Adjustment Indices
(Adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect
the fee adjustment procedures applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) Fee Annual Adjustment Index1
Average
Annual Rate
(2006-2022)
Example
Development Fee
Portion for Land Acquisition2
(62.52 % initially3
)
Change in the annual Home Price Index
(HPI) for the Oakland-BerkeleyLivermore, CA Metropolitan Division (MSAD) for the prior calendar year (Office
of Federal Housing Finance Agency)
4 3.85%
Portion for Preserve System
Operation, Restoration, and
Maintenance (37.48% initially3
)
Change in the Consumer Price Index for
the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
Combined Statistical Area for all urban
consumers for the prior calendar year
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)5
2.87%
Wetland Mitigation Fee Change in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont
Combined Statistical Area for all urban
consumers for the prior calendar year
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)5
2.87%
Notes:
1 HCP/NCCP fees to be adjusted automatically by March 15 of every year based on the indices for the prior calendar year. See Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP for more details on methodology and sources. 2 Direct land acquisition costs only. Excludes costs associated with land transaction, site improvements, and due diligence (e.g., pre-acquisition surveys).
3 The portion of the Development Fee that will be adjusted according to the HPI and CPI will vary over time. For the first annual automatic adjustment following the effective date of this Resolution, 59.53 percent of the initial fees will be adjusted according to the HPI and 40.47 percent will be adjusted according to the CPI. The apportionment in subsequent years will depend on the relative values of the indices, in accordance with the formula provided in Exhibit E. 4 See https://www.fhfa.gov/DataTools/Downloads/Pages/House-Price-IndexDatasets.aspx#atvolData. Data for the prior calendar year are published in March. To calculate automatic adjustments, the change in the HPI for the prior calendar year will be used.
5 Consumer Price Index, All Items, with base data year of 1982-1984 (i.e., 1982-1984 = 100), for all urban consumers (CPI-U), not seasonally adjusted. See
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca_sanfrancisco_msa.htm
Resolution No. ___-2023 Page 12 of 12 , 2023
EXHIBIT D
Automatic Development Fee Increase Formula
(Adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect
the fee adjustment procedures applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) Feen = [ [Ln-1 * (HPIn-1/HPIn-2)] + [(Sn-1 * (CPIn-1/CPIn-2)] ] * Z Where:
n = year of HCP/NCCP Implementation [year 1 (n=l) is 2007, the calendar year in which the HCP/NCCP implementation ordinance was adopted; year 2 (n = 2) is 2008; etc. Year 0 (n=0) is 2006. Year 17 (n=17) is 2023.] Feen = Development Fee for year n (the Development Fee for year n applies from March 15 of year n through March 14 of the following year) Fee15 = $39,743.83 for Zone II; $19,871.91 for Zone I; and $9,935.96 for Zone III Ln = [Ln-1*(HPIn-1/HPIn-2)]*Z
Ln-1 = Land acquisition portion of development fee for the year prior to year n L17 = 59.53% of $39,743.83 = $23,659.15
HPIn-1 = Home Price Index (HPI) for the Oakland-Berkeley-Livermore, CA Metropolitan Division (MSAD) at the end of the calendar year prior to year n as published by the Office of Federal Housing Finance Agency
Sn = [Sn-1 *(CPIn-1/CPIn-2)]*Z
Sn-1 = Non-land acquisition portion of development fee for the year prior to year n S17 = 40.47% of $39,743.83 = $16,084.67
CPIn-1 = Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area for all urban consumers at the end of the calendar year prior to year n as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Z = Fee zone factor (based on which fee zone the project is in [see Figure 9-1 in the HCP]). The fee zone factors for the three zones are as follows:
Z = 1 for Zone II, the Natural Lands Zone
Z = 0.5 for Zone I, the agricultural lands zone
Z = 0.25 for Zone III, the infill zone
EAST CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY HCP / NCCP
MITIGATION FEE AUDIT
AND NEXUS STUDY
Prepared For:
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy
Prepared By:
Robert D. Spencer, Urban Economics
Sally E. Nielsen, Insight Data and Economic Analysis
February 2023
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iv
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fees ................................................................................................ 2 Audit Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................... 3
2. Impacts ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Urban Development Area (UDA) ........................................................................................ 9 Development Fee Zones ......................................................................................................10 Summary of Impacts to Date ..............................................................................................11 Remaining Permanent Impacts Under the HCP/NCCP ................................................11 Permit Term Extension ........................................................................................................14
3. Cost Model .......................................................................................................................................16 General Approach .................................................................................................................16 Land Acquisition Costs .........................................................................................................17 Habitat Restoration/Creation Costs ...................................................................................18 Updates to Other Cost Categories ......................................................................................20 Summary of Cost Model Results .........................................................................................22
4. Endowment Model .........................................................................................................................25 Endowment Creation ............................................................................................................25 Post-permit Term Costs .......................................................................................................26 Endowment Funding ............................................................................................................26 Endowment Model Results ..................................................................................................29
5. Wetland Mitigation Fee ..................................................................................................................30 Updated Fee Schedule ..........................................................................................................30 Mitigation Fee Act Findings ................................................................................................32
6. Development Fee ............................................................................................................................35 Updated Fee Schedule ..........................................................................................................35 Comparison with Original and Current Fee ......................................................................37 Mitigation Fee Act Findings ................................................................................................37
7. Rural Road and Temporary Impact Fees ....................................................................................40 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report ii
Rural Road Fee .......................................................................................................................40 Temporary Impact Fee .........................................................................................................42
8. Funding Plan ....................................................................................................................................45 Revenue Sources ....................................................................................................................45 Funding Plan Summary ........................................................................................................49 Appendix A: Development Impacts ............................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B: Land Acquisition Cost Analysis .............................................................................. B-1 Appendix C: Initial UDA Cost Model Update ............................................................................ C-1 Appendix D: Maximum UDA Cost Model Update ................................................................... D-1 Appendix E: Endowment Model Update .................................................................................... E-1 Appendix F: Revenue Data .............................................................................................................. F-1 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report iii
List of Tables (excluding appendix tables)
Table E.1: Mitigation Fees ......................................................................................................... iv Table E.2: Development Fee Comparison ............................................................................... v Table E.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison .................................................................... vi Table 1.1: Mitigation Fees .......................................................................................................... 3 Table 2.1: Permanent Impacts, 2008 Through 2021 ............................................................ 12 Table 2.2: Permanent Impacts (acres) .................................................................................... 13 Table 2.3: Wetland Impacts ..................................................................................................... 14 Table 3.1: Wetland Mitigation Unit Costs (2021 $) .............................................................. 19 Table 3.2: Cost Model Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) .......... 23 Table 3.3: Cost Model Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) .. 24 Table 4.1: Investment Earnings .............................................................................................. 28 Table 4.2: Post-Permit Funding .............................................................................................. 29 Table 5.1: Wetland Mitigation Fee Schedule ......................................................................... 31 Table 5.2: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison ................................................................... 31 Table 5.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue ......................................................................... 32 Table 6.1: Development Fee Fair Share Analysis (2021 $) ................................................. 36 Table 6.2: Development Fee Schedule (2021 $ for 2022 Fee Schedule) .......................... 37 Table 6.3: Development Fee Comparison (fee per acre) .................................................... 38 Table 7.1: Rural Road Fee Revenue ....................................................................................... 40 Table 8.1: Future Local Operating Funds (Park District) (2022-2037) ............................. 48 Table 8.2: Funding Plan (2021 dollars) .................................................................................. 50 Table 8.3: Funding Plan Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) ....... 51 Table 8.4: Funding Plan Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) 52
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to present the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of an audit of mitigation fees that partially fund the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP or Plan). The purpose of this audit is to fulfill the requirements of the periodic audit requirements of the Plan. The audit also provides the basis for findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) related to the mandatory five-year review and any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee (commonly referred to as a “nexus analysis”).
Revenue sources to fund estimated HCP/NCCP costs during the 30-year permit term include four types of mitigation fees:
w Development fee w Rural road fee
w Wetland mitigation fee w Temporary impact fee.
Covered activities that cause permanent impacts to habitat pay the development fee (except rural transportation projects, see below). If the impact is to one of several wetland land cover types, then the wetland mitigation fee applies in addition to the development fee.
The rural road fee is a multiple of the development fee and applies to 18 identified rural transportation projects in the Plan. Covered activities that temporarily disturb habitat pay the temporary impact fee.
Table E.1 summarizes how the four types of mitigation fees are applied to covered activities based on the type of impact.
Table E.1: Mitigation Fees
Type of
Impact
Mitigation
Fee Applicability
Permanent
Development
fee
All permanent impacts except those subject to
the rural road fee.
Rural road
fee
Permanent impacts from rural road projects
specifically identified in Table 9-6 of the Plan.
Wetland
mitigation
fee
Permanent impacts to wetland land cover
types and streams, paid in addition to
applicable development or rural road fee.
Temporary Temporary
impact fee
All temporary impacts and based on the
associated development, rural road, or
wetland mitigation fee adjusted for the length
(in time) of the temporary impact and recovery.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report v
Funding for post-permit term costs in perpetuity is required by the HCP/NCCP. The Plan allowed this cost obligation to be deferred until year 15 of implementation, or when half of the impacts allowed under the permits occur, whichever comes first. The prior audit completed in 2017 included estimates for an endowment to fund post-permit term costs. The endowment was established with the Regional Parks Foundation in 2020, year 13 of Plan implementation.
This audit like prior audits assumes that all development impacts allowed under the permits will occur by the end of the 30-year permit term in 2037.
This approach is necessary to align funding sources to meet mitigation and conservation goals under the Plan, and to ensure sufficient funding for an endowment by the end of the permit term.
A significant finding of this audit is that only a minority of total development impacts allowed under the permits are likely to occur by the end of the 30-year permit term in 2037. This finding suggests that an extension to the permit term should be considered to align the term more closely with the timing of development impacts.
The audit was completed based on data through fiscal year 2021 so the calculated mitigation fees are comparable to the 2022 fee schedule. The audit results for the development fee are shown in Table E.2. The development fee is also the basis for the rural road and temporary impact fees so the same trends would apply to those fees as well.
Table E.2: Development Fee Comparison
Zone
2022 Fee
Schedule
2022
Audit Change
Zone 1 $18,938 $19,170 1.2%
Zone 2 $37,876 $38,340 1.2%
Zone 3 $9,469 $9,585 1.2%
Sources: Table 6.3.
The adjustment to the 2022 fee schedule is minor (1.2 percent). This indicates that the annual inflation adjustment process (since the prior 2017 audit) has been effective tracking the fee with changes in Plan costs. The fee includes necessary funding for the endowment.
The audit results for the wetland mitigation fees are shown in Table E.3. The wetland mitigation fees are also the basis for the wetland mitigation component of the temporary fee so the same trends would apply to the wetland component of that fee as well.
As shown in the table, the increase in the fee because of the audit is between
0.4 percent and 2.5 percent compared to the current fee, depending on the land cover type.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report vi
Table E.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison
Land Cover Type Fee Basis
2022 Fee
Schedule
2022
Audit Change
Riparian per acre $105,516 $105,891 0.4%
Perennial Wetland per acre $159,912 $162,953 1.9%
Seasonal Wetland per acre $374,220 $382,792 2.3%
Alkali Wetland per acre $378,310 $386,980 2.3%
Pond per acre $205,924 $211,115 2.5%
Aquatic (open water) per acre $102,962 $105,558 2.5%
Slough / Channel per acre $147,029 $149,516 1.7%
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) per linear foot $543 $553 1.8%
Streams (>25 ft. wide) per linear foot $814 $829 1.8%
Sources: Table 5.2.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 1
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to present the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of an audit of mitigation fees that partially fund the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP or Plan). This introduction provides background on the Plan and the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA), the state enabling statute for mitigation fees. This chapter also describes the purpose and scope of this audit and explains the general approach taken to complete the audit.
Background
The HCP/NCCP was completed in 2006 after an extensive planning process initiated in 1999 that built on prior efforts begun in 1995.1 The HCP/NCCP enables the protection of natural resources in east Contra Costa County while streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on endangered species covered by the Plan. Adoption of the Plan allowed state and federal wildlife agencies to issue various permits for a 30-year term (the permits).
These permits allow the incidental take of endangered species by the projects and activities of the permittees under the Plan.2 Covered activities include all ground- or habitat-disturbing activities within the Plan’s urban development area (UDA), and other specifically named projects. These include, for example, urban development projects, public infrastructure projects, and ongoing infrastructure maintenance activities.
Implementation of the Plan preserves specified natural lands in eastern Contra Costa County in perpetuity (the Preserve System) to mitigate the impacts of covered activities on endangered species and contribute to their recovery.
The five local agencies responsible for implementing portions of the Plan that relate to the development entitlement process are the County of Contra Costa and the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg. The City of Antioch chose not to participate in the Plan. These five participating local agencies formed a joint powers authority (JPA) known as the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (the Conservancy) to perform the many implementation duties assigned to the “Implementing Entity” by the Plan. 1 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 1, pp. 1-1 to 1-2.
2 The permittees include Contra Costa County, the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg, the East Bay Regional Park District, the Contra Costa County Flood Control And Water Conservation District, and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 2
In late 2006 and through 2007 the local agencies formed the JPA, the Conservancy, permittees, and wildlife agencies executed the Implementing Agreement, and the wildlife agencies issued the permits. The local agencies and the Conservancy began collecting mitigation fees in 2008. The first full year of implementation was 2008. The Conservancy’s fiscal year (FY) is from January 1 to December 31.
Consistent with the financial planning presented in Chapter 9 of the HCP/NCCP, 2007 is year 0, 2008 is year 1, and the permit term would end in 2037, year 30. This audit is conducted in 2022 (year 15) as required by the Plan and is based on data through FY 2021 (year 14). The next audit required by the Plan is in 2027 (year 20).
HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fees
Revenue sources to fund estimated HCP/NCCP costs during the 30-year permit term include four types of mitigation fees:
w Development fee w Rural road fee
w Wetland mitigation fee w Temporary impact fee.
The type of mitigation fee paid by a covered activity depends on fee zone, land cover type affected, and type of impact (“impact” and “covered activity” are used interchangeably in this report). Most covered activities occur within the UDA. The UDA is defined as (1) the County of Contra Costa urban limit line, or (2) the boundaries of the four cities implementing the Plan, whichever is larger.3
Applicants can dedicate land for the Preserve System or generate alternative special taxes, fees, or charges in lieu of paying a portion of the full development fee, subject to approval by the Conservancy.
Covered activities that cause permanent impacts to habitat pay the development fee (except rural road projects, see below). If the impact is to wetland land cover types, then the wetland mitigation fee applies in addition to the development fee. This additional fee applies because of the greater mitigation requirements (restoration and creation) associated with wetland impacts.
The Plan includes a separate rural road fee based on a multiple of the development fee for specifically-identified rural transportation projects in the Plan. These projects generally have a greater per-acre impact than other types of development projects.
3 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 2, pp. 2-16 to 2-18, Figure 2-3. Excludes City of Antioch that is not covered under the Plan.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 3
Covered activities that temporarily disturb habitat pay the temporary impact fee. The fee is calculated based on the permanent fee that otherwise would apply (development, rural road, or wetland) adjusted for the length of time of the temporary impact and its recovery.
Table 1.1 summarizes how the four types of mitigation fees are applied to covered activities based on the type of impact.
Table 1.1: Mitigation Fees
Type of
Impact
Mitigation
Fee Applicability
Permanent
Development
fee
All permanent impacts except those subject to
the rural road fee.
Rural road
fee
Permanent impacts from rural road projects
specifically identified in Table 9-6 of the Plan.
Wetland
mitigation
fee
Permanent impacts to wetland land cover
types and streams, paid in addition to
applicable development or rural road fee.
Temporary Temporary
impact fee
All temporary impacts and based on the
associated development, rural road, or
wetland mitigation fee adjusted for the length
(in time) of the temporary impact and recovery.
Audit Objectives and Scope
The objectives of this audit are defined by the requirements of the HCP/NCCP. The audit also provides the basis for findings required by the MFA related to the mandatory five-year review and any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee.
Periodic Audit Requirements of the HCP/NCCP
The HCP/NCCP calls for periodic audits of the mitigation fees in the following years: 2010 (year 3), 2013 (year 6), 2017 (year 10), 2022 (year 15), 2027 (year 20), and 2032 (year 25). The purpose of the audit is “[t]o ensure that the fees generated by development and other covered activities are adequately covering their share of Plan costs.”4
Audits must compare current actual costs to the cost assumptions used in the current mitigation fee calculation. The audit must review actual land acquisition costs as well as costs to operate, manage, and maintain the Preserve System. The audit must recalculate fees based on this cost review. As with prior 4 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 4
audits, this audit uses the same approach as the HCP/NCCP to calculate the development fee based on a specified fair share of total Plan costs (see Chapter 6 for more explanation).
In between periodic audits the Plan calls for automatic annual adjustments to the Plan’s mitigation fees. Annual adjustments are based on two inflation indices weighted by the appropriate Plan cost component reflected by each index.5 A real estate cost index is used to update the land acquisition cost component reflecting more than half of total plan costs. The Consumer Price Index is used to update the share of fees funding the balance of Plan costs.
Mitigation Fee Act Requirements
The mitigation fees collected pursuant to the HCP/NCCP are authorized by California law under the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) found in Sections 66000 through 66025 of the California Government Code.
Section 66001
This audit provides a revised fee schedule based on updated cost data. If the audit results in an increase in fees, the audit must make the following four “reasonable relationship”, or “nexus” findings required by the MFA:
Sec. 66001(a) In any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall do all of the following:
(1) Identify the purpose of the fee.
(2) 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 specified 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.
(3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
(4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed.
5 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-30.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 5
The following finding is not required though this audit makes this finding as well:
Section 66001(b) In any action imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall 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.
Each of these findings are made in association with the analysis of each fee in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.
Section 66016.5
Section 66016.5(a) of the MFA includes certain requirements for nexus studies completed on and after January 1, 2022. These requirements and how this audit meets these requirements are presented below.
(1) Before the adoption of an associated development fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted.
This audit constitutes a nexus study for the purposes of this section of the MFA.
(2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
This section is not applicable because this audit does not result in a change in the existing level of service.
(3) A nexus study shall include information that supports the local agency’s actions, as required by subdivision (a) of Section 66001.
As mentioned above, section 66001(a) findings are included in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.
(4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
This audit evaluates the amount of fees collected under the current fee schedule and the underlying cost assumptions and finds revenue insufficient to fully fund new development's fair share of the Plan costs. See Chapters 5 and 6.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 6
(5)(A) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
Application of the Plan’s mitigation fees on housing development by square foot is not an appropriate nexus based on the findings presented below. (B) A nexus study is not required to comply with subparagraph (A) if the local agency makes a finding that includes all of the following:
(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development project.
As explained in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, the impact of development to species and natural habitats is measured in acres of disturbed land. Building square feet does not correlate with acres of disturbed land (or linear feet in the case of stream impacts) and therefore the amount of impacts.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
Mitigation fees are most appropriately imposed based on acres of disturbed land (or linear feet in the case of stream impacts) to have a reasonable relationship with the burden posed by (impacts from) development. (iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
Because mitigation fees are imposed based on the amount of disturbed acres (or linear feet in the case of stream impacts) smaller developments pay a smaller fee.
(C) This paragraph does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments.
Mitigation fees are imposed consistently across all types of development based on the amount of disturbed acres (or linear feet in the case of stream impacts). (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.
The permittees (excluding the Conservancy) have adopted the HCP/NCCP that is a "capital improvement plan" as defined in section 66002(a).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 7
Funding Mitigation and Conservation Goals
A Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) under California law provides unique regulatory benefits in addition to those provided by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under federal law. An NCCP must not only mitigate impacts to the maximum extent practicable as required by an HCP. An NCCP must also contribute to the recovery and continued viability of species whether or not those species are protected under the California Endangered Species Act.6 This “conservation” component of the Plan is in addition to Plan “mitigation” requirements It is accomplished by protecting habitat, natural communities, and species diversity on a landscape or ecosystem level through the creation and long-term management of large habitat reserves.
A key objective of the nexus analysis in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 is to only allocate the mitigation share of total Plan costs to the development fees and other mitigation-related revenue sources. The updated funding plan presented in Chapter 8 ensures that other local, state, and federal funding is kept consistent with the Plan’s estimates for funding to achieve the Plan’s conservation goals.
Objectives and Scope
The findings required by the MFA described above are similar in intent to the HCP/NCCP’s objectives for periodic audits. Both suggest the need to update the fee amount based on recent data and confirm the role of fee revenues in a feasible funding plan. To address both the periodic audit requirements of the Plan and the findings required by the MFA, the objectives and scope of this audit are:
1. Update cost assumptions underlying the mitigation fees
2. Recalculate fee amounts based on a reasonable relationship (nexus) between new development and the need for the fee, the amount of the fee, and the use of fee revenues
3. Update local, state, and federal revenue estimates consistent with the Plan’s anticipated funding from these sources to achieve the Plan’s conservation goals (contribute to the recovery of species and habitats)
4. Update the funding plan including an endowment for post-permit term costs that demonstrates the continued financial feasibility of the HCP/NCCP.
This audit uses the most recently available data on financial transactions and covered activities through December 31, 2021.
6 California Fish & Game Code, Sections 2050 through 2089.25 and 2890 through 2835.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 8
This audit is not a comprehensive audit of the Conservancy’s finances. The Conservancy separately has an annual financial audit conducted by an outside auditor. The data and methods used by this audit are sufficient to achieve the objectives described above.
The HCP/NCCP states that the Conservancy will “hire an outside, independent financial auditor to conduct” the audit.7 The expertise required to complete the audit is more closely related to maintaining compliance with mitigation fee legal statutes than with accounting standards. Consequently, the Conservancy has elected to engage a professional services firm with direct experience developing and implementing mitigation fee nexus studies in the context of regional habitat conservation plans rather than a certified public accountant.
Organization of the Audit
Covered activities (impacts) under the HCP/NCCP to date are summarized in Chapter 2 as well as remaining impacts through the 30-year permit term. The update to the cost model used to estimate implementation costs of the Plan is presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes post-permit term costs and funding of an endowment.
Updates to the four fees are presented in Chapters 5 through 7. The wetland mitigation fee is presented first in Chapter 5 because it is calculated independently of the other fees. The development fee is presented next in Chapter 6 based on urban development’s fair share of total Plan costs net of the wetland mitigation fees and costs. The rural road and temporary impact fees are presented in Chapter 7 because they use the same rates as the development and wetland mitigation fees, adjusted for rural road or temporary impacts.
The updated 30-year funding plan based on revised cost and revenue estimates is presented in Chapter 8.
The appendices provide additional supporting documentation for the audit. 7 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 9
2. IMPACTS
This section of the audit describes the impacts that have occurred to date during from 2008 through 2021 (years 1-14). This section also identifies the remaining impacts based on the total amount of impacts permitted under the HCP/NCCP.
This chapter will show that only a small amount of development relative to permit term limits allowed under the permits has occurred through 2021. This finding is used to support an audit recommendation for the Conservancy to seek an extension of the permit term (see Permit Term Extension in this chapter, below).
The Plan uses the amount of acreage from development projects and other activities as the primary unit of measurement for impacts. The Plan uses linear feet to measure stream impacts subject to the wetland mitigation fee.
Urban Development Area (UDA)
The boundaries of the UDA are subject to change over time based on local land use policy decisions by the five agencies implementing the HCP/NCCP.
Thus, boundary changes could lead to changes in the land use capacity for, and eventual amount of, urban development.
To accommodate the uncertainty regarding the amount of urban development that would be covered under the Plan, the Plan uses two scenarios to “book end” the potential urban development levels:
w The initial UDA is defined by the County of Contra Costa urban limit line and the boundaries of the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg existing at the time the Plan was adopted.8
w The maximum UDA is the maximum development capacity for urban development under the terms of the permits. Although boundaries are not defined, the development capacity considers areas outside the initial UDA proposed for future development in the general plans of Brentwood, Clayton, Pittsburg, and the County.
The urban development area covered under the Plan at the end of the permit term could fall anywhere in the range defined by the initial urban development area and the maximum urban development area. The ultimate boundaries depend on local land use decisions occurring during the permit term. The conservation requirements of the Plan are greater for the maximum UDA 8 Excluding some areas within the County urban limit line surrounding the Byron Airport. See HCP/NCCP, p. 2-17.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 10
compared to the initial UDA to accommodate the greater impacts under the maximum UDA scenario.
Development Fee Zones
The development fee is implemented based on three fee zones defined by the HCP/NCCP.9 A map of the zones is provided in Figure 9-1 of the Plan. The zones represent varying levels of impacts on covered species and natural habitats caused by development projects and activities. The development fee is lowest in the zone where development would have the least impacts and highest in the zone where development would have the greatest impacts. The zones generally correspond to the dominant land cover type and habitat and open space values. Below is a summary of the zones:
w Zone I: Cultivated and disturbed lands, primarily areas in agricultural use and some undeveloped areas within existing urban areas. w Zone II: Natural areas where lands are dominated by natural land cover types.
w Zone III: Small vacant lots (less than 10 acres) within the initial UDA.
The lowest development fee is in Zone III because the habitat and open space value is lowest on vacant land within existing developed areas. As the Plan states in Chapter 4, “[d]evelopment of these areas will result in loss of open space and some habitat values, but impacts will be less than those in Zone I and substantially less than those in Zone II.”10 An acre of permanent impacts in Zone III is given a weight of one for the purposes of allocating the fair share of total plan costs to the development fee.
The highest fee is in Zone II because this predominantly natural area has the highest habitat value. The dominant land cover type is annual grassland and covers 34 percent of the land included in the Plan’s inventory area. The greatest impacts in Zone II are in this land cover type. Chapter 4 of the Plan references the importance of annual grassland throughout its detailed analysis of impacts on covered species and critical habitats.11 An acre of permanent impacts in Zone II is given a weight of four for the purposes of allocating the fair share of total plan costs to the development fee (four times the weight of impacts in Zone III).
The amount of the Zone I fee is between the fees in the other two zones because cultivated and other disturbed uses have greater habitat value than 9 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-20 to 9-21.
10 Ibid.
11 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 4, pp. 4-14 to 4-22.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 11
vacant lots but less value than natural areas. Chapter 4 of the Plan includes several findings to support this approach.12 An acre of permanent impact in Zone I is given a weight of two for the purposes of allocating the fair share of total plan costs to the development fee (twice the weight of impacts in Zone III and half the weight of impacts in Zone II).
The fee zone map in the Plan (Chapter 9, Figure 9-1) is the sole determination of the fee zone applicable to a project or other covered activity.13 Individual parcels within a zone will have greater or lesser impact on covered species, natural communities, and open space. An individual parcel in zone A, for example, may have characteristics like land cover types in zone B. However, the parcel’s location adjacent to lands within zone A combined with the benefits of contiguous open space to meeting the Plan’s objectives, provides reasonable justification to include the parcel in zone A. The mapping of the zones was completed at a level of detail sufficient to provide a reasonable relationship between all land within a specific zone and the relative weight of impacts assigned to that zone.14
Summary of Impacts to Date
Permanent impacts to date by zone are shown in Table 2.1. Temporary impacts are tracked by the Conservancy but not shown in Table 2.1 because they have no effect on the development or wetland fee calculations.
Temporary impact fee revenue is included in the funding plan in Chapter 8.
See Table A.1 in Appendix A for a detailed list of covered activities to date.
Remaining Permanent Impacts Under the HCP/NCCP
The HCP/NCCP allows for a fixed amount of permanent impacts. Permanent impacts are used to calculate and update the development fee. The remaining permanent impacts allowed under the Plan until the permit term (years 15-30) are summarized in Table 2.2 by subtracting impacts to date (Table 2.1) from the total impacts allowed for the 30-year permit term. The table applies the weighting factors by zone discussed above. The result is the total acreage of permanent impacts with the UDA remaining under the Plan weighted by the relative impact in each zone. Remaining impacts for the maximum and initial UDAs is used to allocate costs to the development fee in Chapter 6. 12 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 4, pp. 4-6, 4-15, and HCP/NCCP, Appendix D, Species Profiles. 13 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-20.
14 See, for example, HCP/NCCP, Chapter 3, pp. 3-2 to 3-5.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 12
Table 2.1: Permanent Impacts, 2008 Through 2021
Location Land Conversion
Urban Development Area (UDA)
Zone 1 931.44 acres
Zone 2 211.33 acres
Zone 3 34.05 acres
Subtotal UDA 1,176.82 acres
Rural (outside UDA)1 76.94 acres
Total Land Conversion 1,253.76 acres
Wetlands2
Wetlands (except streams) 4.32 acres
Streams (linear feet) 1,089.31 linear feet
1 Covered activities occurring outside the urban development area (UDA) could occur in either zones 1 or 2. Includes rural road projects as shown in Table 9-6 of the HCP/NCCP, plus rural infrastructure projects and activities, and activities within the Preserve System (see Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.4 of the HCP/NCCP).
2 Wetland impacts are included in land conversion impacts. Wetland impacts pay wetland fees in addition to the applicable development fee or rural road fee.
Sources: Appendix A, Table A.1.
Table 2.2 shows 12,979 acres for the permit limit under the maximum UDA.
Table 4-3 in the Plan shows 13,029. There appears to be an addition error in the Table 4-3 that included an extra 50 acres. These 50 acres are excluded in Table 2.2. The Conservancy should consult with the permittees and the wildlife agencies to resolve this issue. The difference has no impact on any of the analyses for this audit, including the cost model update, the mitigation fee calculations, or other revenue estimates developed for the funding plan.
Remaining impacts to wetland land cover types (riparian, wetlands, ponds, and streams) are shown in Table 2.3. This audit contains the same adjustment made by prior audits to total acres of restoration/creation assumed in the Plan cost model to be consistent with Tables 5-16 and 5-17 in Chapter 5 of the Plan. Estimated compensatory restoration/creation acreage for seasonal wetlands under the maximum UDA scenario was adjusted to match the 2:1 mitigation ratio applied to the acres of impact shown in the tables. Also, consistent with Plan assumptions, a 30 percent reduction was made to the estimate of compensatory restoration/creation acreage (not contribution to recovery acreage) for the perennial, seasonal, and alkali wetlands to reflect overestimates due to mapping of these areas.15
15 For seasonal wetlands, the total restored acreage for the initial [maximum] UDA scenario equals 45.2 [53.6] acres based on: (42 [56] impact acres x 2:1 mitigation ratio x 30 percent adjustment for mapping overestimate) + 20 acres contribution to recovery. See Tables 5-16 and 5-17 and Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 13
Table 2.2: Permanent Impacts (acres)
Zone
11 Zone
2 Zone
3 Subtotal Share
Outside
UDA Total2 Share
Permit Limits (2008-2037)
Initial UDA 6,198 2,306 166 8,670 100.0% 1,126 9,796 100.0% Maximum UDA 7,507 4,180 166 11,853 100.0% 1,126 12,979 100.0% Actual Impacts to Date (through 2021)
Initial UDA 931 211 34 1,176 13.6% 77 1,253 12.8%
Maximum UDA 931 211 34 1,176 9.9% 77 1,253 9.7%
Remaining Impacts (2022-2037)
Initial UDA 5,267 2,095 132 7,494 86.4% 1,049 8,543 87.2% Maximum UDA 6,576 3,969 132 10,677 90.1% 1,049 11,726 90.3% Impact Weighting Factor3 2 4 1
Permit Limits - Equivalent Acres (2008-2037)
Not Available4
Initial UDA 12,396 9,224 166 21,786 100.0%
Maximum UDA 15,014 16,720 166 31,900 100.0%
Actual Impacts to Date - Equivalent Acres (through 2021) Initial UDA 1,862 844 34 2,740 12.6%
Maximum UDA 1,862 844 34 2,740 8.6%
Remaining Impacts - Equivalent Acres (2022-2037)
Initial UDA 10,534 8,380 132 19,046 87.4%
Maximum UDA 13,152 15,876 132 29,160 91.4%
Notes: "UDA" is the urban development area.
1 The permit limits used to calculate the initial fees shown in Chapter 9, Table 9-4, and Appendix H of the HCP/NCCP are revised to control to the totals in Chapter 4, Tables 4-2 and 4-3 (corrected, see note 2), of the Plan (14 acres less for the Initial UDA and 26 acres less for the Maximum UDA). These adjustments are made to zone 1 though they could be allocated to any zone within the UDA. 2 Table 4-3 in Chapter 4 of the HCP/NCCP appears to have a mathematical error for the maximum UDA permit limit, showing 13,029 acres instead of 12,979.
3 Weighting factor reflects relative impacts by zone (see Plan, Appendix H). Equivalent acres for impacts outside the UDA not calculated because impacts occur in both zones 1 and 2.
4 The HCP/NCCP did not identify the location of all covered activities occurring outside the UDA by zone, except for rural road projects (see HCP/NCCP, Table 9-6). Includes rural infrastructure projects and activities, and activities within the Preserve System (see NCP/NCCP, Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.4).
Sources: HCP/NCCP, Tables 4-2 and 4-2, Table 9-4 (revised), and Appendix H, Table 1 (second memorandum); Table 2.1 (this report).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 14
Table 2.3: Wetland Impacts
Estimated Impacts
(2008-2037)1
(acres or linear feet)
Actual
Wetland
Impacts
(2008-
2021)2
Remaining Impacts
(Years 2022-2037)
(acres or linear feet)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Impacts Based on Acres
Riparian 30.00 35.00 1.29 28.71 33.71
Perennial Wetland 22.20 22.50 0.07 22.13 22.43
Seasonal Wetland 12.60 16.80 1.61 10.99 15.19
Alkali Wetland 8.40 9.30 0.14 8.26 9.16
Pond 7.00 8.00 0.10 6.90 7.90
Aquatic (open water) ]12.00 12.00 0.47 11.53 11.53
Slough / Channel 72.00 72.00 0.65 71.35 71.35
Subtotal (acres) 164.20 175.60 4.32 159.88 171.28
Impacts Based on Linear Feet
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) 21,120 26,400 685 20,435 25,715 Streams (>25 ft. wide) 3,168 4,224 404 2,764 3,820
Subtotal (linear feet) 24,288 30,624 1,089 23,199 29,535 Notes: "UDA" is the urban development area.
Impacts includes wetland impacts outside the UDA because these impacts are counted against the estimates of permanent impacts in the Plan (see Tables 5-16 and 5-17). 1 Perennial, Seasonal, and Alkali wetland impacts reduced by 70 percent to account for overestimates in mapping analysis (see Tables 5-16 and 5-17, footnote 2.
2 Assume ephemeral streams are equal to or less than 25 feet wide, and intermittent and perennial streams are greater than 25 feet wide.
Source: HCP/NCCP, Tables 5-16 and 5-17; Appendix A, Table A.1.
Permit Term Extension
As shown in Table 2.2, in terms of equivalent acres, 12.6 percent of impacts in the initial UDA allowed under the HCP/NCCP have occurred through 2021 (year 14). The comparable figure for the maximum UDA is 8.6 percent. Thus, with just over half of the permit term remaining (years 15 through 30), approximately 90 percent of the impacts have yet to occur. However, the HCP/NCCP does not provide a means to reduce estimated impacts and associated mitigation fee funding within the existing permit term.
The HCP/NCCP is a comprehensive plan that achieves both mitigation and conservation goals (see Funding Mitigation and Conservation Goals in Chapter 1).
The HCP/NCCP does not provide the detail needed to separate mitigation East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 15
from conservation costs.16 So the HCP/NCCP does not provide a basis to adjust conservation costs based on lower mitigation estimates and fee revenues without a reconsideration of Plan goals.
Moreover, the nexus analysis used to determine the mitigation share of total Plan costs is dependent upon achieving the Plan’s overall goals.17 Reducing estimated development impacts and associated mitigation fee funding would require significant reconsideration of the nexus analysis and the mitigation cost share used to calculate fees.
Thus, this audit like prior audits assumes that all development impacts allowed under the permits will occur by the end of the 30-year permit term in 2037.
This approach is necessary to align funding sources to meet the mitigation and conservation goals under the Plan at the end of the permit term.
The most effective way to address the slower pace of impacts without fundamentally altering the HCP/NCCP cost model and funding plan would be to extend the permit term. A permit term extension would enable the cost model and funding plan to:
w Incorporate the effects of a more realistic planning horizon on costs and revenues
w Continue to demonstrate a feasible funding plan that achieves all Plan goals w Avoid the need to reconsider Plan goals, costs, and funding based on a more constrained development scenario.
Based on this discussion, we recommend that the Conservancy work with members of the JPA, other permittees, and the wildlife agencies to extend the permit term.
16 Only in the case of wetland restoration does the Plan have specific conservation goals in addition to mitigation requirements and that are costed out separately in the cost model (see HCP/NCCP, Chapter 5, Tables 5-16 and 5-17).
17 HCP/NCCP, Appendix H, Table 1 (second memorandum).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 16
3. COST MODEL
This chapter presents a summary of the updated cost models for the 30-year permit term. As shown in Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP separate cost models are used for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios to account for the difference in Preserve System size and other differences in Plan requirements. The two models are identical in structure. The difference in cost between the two models is primarily related to the effect of greater land acquisition and restoration requirements for the Preserve System under the maximum UDA scenario.
General Approach
The cost model was updated based on provisions in the Plan for periodic audits. The original model is documented in Appendix G of the Plan. For this audit, cost model revisions were made to the latest version of the model developed for the prior audit. The model for each scenario (initial and maximum UDA) includes multiple linked spreadsheets (see Appendix C and Appendix D of this report). Total costs for the permit term are the sum of actual costs to date (through FY 2021) and estimated remaining costs through the end of the permit term. All costs are expressed in 2021 dollars to support calculation of the mitigation fees.
Actual costs through December 31, 2021 were adjusted to 2021 dollars using changes in the Conservancy’s mitigation fee schedule, thus replicating the same index used to reflect inflation in Plan costs. The Conservancy’s fees are adjusted annually based on published price indices and periodically based on prior audits, as discussed in Chapter 1, Periodic Audit Requirements of the HCP/NCCP.
18 Remaining costs through the end of the permit term were updated based on recent cost experience and application of appropriate inflation indices to assumptions in the prior audit cost model, as explained in more detail in the following section of this chapter.
The models provide budgets for the following nine cost categories related to Plan implementation:
1. Program administration
2. Land acquisition
3. Planning and design
18 See also HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 30-31 and Table 9-7, and Appendix F, Table F.1.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 17
4. Habitat restoration/creation
5. Environmental compliance
6. Preserve management and maintenance
7. Monitoring, research, and adaptive management
8. Remedial measures
9. Contingency.
Post-permit costs are analyzed separately as part of the endowment model and are presented in the following chapter (Chapter 4).
Land Acquisition Costs
Land acquisition is the Plan’s largest cost category representing about 65 percent of total costs excluding endowment costs. Substantial effort was expended during the audit to update costs to reflect current market conditions and recent Conservancy land acquisition experience. This audit uses an acquisition model developed and maintained by Conservancy staff to estimate the acres that need to be acquired to achieve the various habitat acquisition requirements of the Plan for both the initial and maximum UDA scenarios.
The Conservancy, working with East Bay Regional Park District (Park District), has been very successful in acquiring Preserve System lands since the Plan’s implementation. Through 2021 (year 14) the Conservancy has acquired approximately 12,050 acres, or 40 and 50 percent of the Preserve System required under the maximum and initial UDA scenarios, respectively. These totals exclude:
w Acquired lands that cannot be credited to the Preserve System because of existing conservation easements mitigating habitat impacts that occurred prior to Plan adoption19
w Parts of acquired parcels that lie outside plan acquisition zones.
A database of over 100 land transactions in East Contra Costa County, all within the past ten years, was compiled from a variety of sources to estimate costs per acre for future Preserve System acquisitions. This database included Park District acquisitions (most of which were performed in partnership with the Conservancy), plus acquisitions by the Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo (local nonprofit land trust organization), and land transactions identified in the County Assessor’s database. Land costs for developable parcels within the urban limit line that are part of the Conservancy’s acquisition strategy were 19 Unless those pre-Plan impacts were also counted against the Plan’s permit limits.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 18
updated based on current housing values. Detailed data on the transactions used to update the cost model land cost factors are provided in Appendix B.
As shown in Table B.2 in Appendix B estimated land costs per acre have generally increased since 2017. Since then, prices for the largest parcels outside the urban limit line have increased about 40 percent, while the prices for midsized parcels (40 to 120 acres) remain unchanged. Prices for parcels under 40 acres have increased 20 to 25 percent. Inside the urban limit line, where a small fraction of the acquisition will occur and where prices more closely track changes in the housing market, estimated land costs have increased about 25 percent.
Consistent with changes made in prior audits, due diligence costs are estimated based on a flat three percent charge on land acquisition costs. Pre-acquisition surveys are a Conservancy staff cost. There is no contingency applied to land acquisition costs. Total remaining land acquisition costs to meet Preserve System requirements were evenly spread across the remaining 16-year period of the 30-year permit term.
Habitat Restoration/Creation Costs
Habitat restoration/creation is the second largest cost category of Plan implementation, representing about 10 percent of total costs excluding endowment costs. Unit costs (costs per acre) for restoration of specific habitats are the basis for the wetland mitigation fee. Review of restoration project costs since 2017 indicated that no extraordinary adjustments were required. All unit cost factors were update by applying the California Construction Cost Index.
Habitat restoration/creation mitigation unit costs for wetland land cover types estimated for this audit are shown in Table 3.1. The cost for open water is the same as the cost for ponds because the Plan calls for open water impacts to be mitigated by the creation of ponds. The table includes two costs for stream restoration, one based on stream widths of 25 feet or less, and one based on steam widths of greater than 25 feet.
Unit costs for habitat restoration/creation construction are augmented by three types of soft costs:
w Construction-related costs including restoration design, plans and specifications, bid assistance, construction oversight, post-construction maintenance, environmental compliance, pre-construction surveys, and construction monitoring
w Conservancy staff and related costs
w Contingency.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 19
Table 3.1: Wetland Mitigation Unit Costs (2021 $)
Cost Category
Cost
Factor
Riparian
Perennial
Wetland
Seasonal
Wetland
Alkali
Wetland Pond
Aquatic
(open
water)
Slough/
Channel Stream
(per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per acre) (per ln. ft.) Construction $51,800 $84,500 $100,800 $102,000 $112,100 $112,100 $76,800 $287 Construction-related costs
Plans, specs., allowance
for remedial measures1 33% $17,094 $27,885 $33,264 $33,660 $36,993 $36,993 $25,344 $95 Bid assistance1 1.5% $777 $1,268 $1,512 $1,530 $1,682 $1,682 $1,152 $4 Construction oversight1 10% $5,180 $8,450 $10,080 $10,200 $11,210 $11,210 $7,680 $29 Post-construction maint.1 10% $5,180 $8,450 $10,080 $10,200 $11,210 $11,210 $7,680 $29 Environmental compliance2,3 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 $22 Pre-construction surveys2,4 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $5 Construction monitoring2,4 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 $11 Staff and related costs2,5 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $4,400 $15 Subtotal $95,531 $146,053 $171,236 $173,090 $188,695 $188,695 $134,156 $495 Contingency1 20% $10,360 $16,900 $20,160 $20,400 $22,420 $22,420 $15,360 $57 Total Unit Cost $105,891 $162,953 $191,396 $193,490 $211,115 $211,115 $149,516 $553 Adjustment Factor for Streams >25 Feet Wide 1.50
Total Unit Cost (Streams >25 feet wide) $829
1 Percentage applied to construction costs.
2 Stream costs per linear foot estimated based on the average percent of construction costs for the respective cost category across all the other wetland land cover types. 3 Based on CEQA, CWA 401, CDFG 1602, and other permit costs for "small" project, divided by two (assume a two-acre project). NHPA permit unlikely to be applicable. 4 Cost Model estimate divided by two (estimate based on a two-acre project). 5 Midpoint of staffing costs per acre (all costs except construction and contractors) between initial and maximum UDA cost models for habitat restoration/creation cost category.
Sources: Appendices C and D (Habitat Restoration/Creation table).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 20
Consistent with prior audits, four of the construction-related cost line items (plans and specifications, bid assistance, construction oversight, and postconstruction maintenance) are estimated as a percent of construction costs based on experience with how contractors structure their bids. Soft cost percentages remain the same as in the 2017 audit.
The remaining three line items (environmental compliance, pre-construction surveys, and construction monitoring) are estimated as dollar amounts per acre. These assumptions were updated for inflation and current environmental compliance fee schedules.
Conservancy staff and related costs are updated based on current hourly costs per position and experience with allocation of staff time for habitat restoration/creation projects. This update assigns some Conservancy staffing in the environmental compliance cost category to wetland fee costs to capture actual Conservancy experience with permitting restoration/creation projects.
The contingency of 20 percent on habitat restoration/creation construction costs remains unchanged from the Plan and prior audits. The contingency applies to habitat construction costs only and not soft costs or staff costs. The contingency is higher than the five percent rate applied to other Plan implementation activities because of the high degree of cost variation and uncertainty associated with habitat restoration/creation projects.
Updates to Other Cost Categories
Cost model changes to the other seven cost categories besides land acquisition and habitat restoration/creation are summarized in the following subsections.
Program Administration
The original 2006 model estimated staff costs based on direct salary costs plus benefits, and separately estimated overhead costs (human resources, information technology, office space, etc.). With the 2013 audit, staff costs were budgeted based on a fully burdened hourly rate that includes benefits and all overhead costs and this audit maintains that approach. The staffing plan is updated to reflect experience with staff allocation by function and the ability to rely on fractions of a full-time employee. Other overhead costs such as travel, insurance, legal, and financial analysis and audits that are not included in staff hourly rates are updated based on actual costs and projected needs.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 21
Planning and Design
Costs include Conservancy staff and overhead and contractor services. Costs are based on current Conservancy budgeting and expectations of management planning needs over the remainder of the permit term.
Environmental Compliance
Estimates of Conservancy staff time are based on actual experience with permitting Preserve System activities. Legal services and other technical support services are included in this cost category because of the need for legal assistance and other specialized consulting services to complete regional wetland permitting activities anticipated over the next 10 years of the permit term. Contractor costs are increased based on the Employment Cost Index and permit fees are updated based on current fee schedules and calculators.
Preserve Management and Maintenance
The schedule of land under management continues to reflect the fact that the pace of acquisition exceeds actual mitigation and conservation targets when compared to impacts.20 Costs to date are low reflecting land-banking of many acquired lands pending the level of impacts necessary to manage them as part of the Preserve System.
Future preserve management costs are based on preliminary estimates prepared by Park District staff in coordination with the Conservancy using the implementation activities outlined in the Vasco Hills / Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan.
21 Detailed cost categories include: invasive plant and invasive wildlife control; grazing and wildfire management; maintenance of fences, gates, roads, and trails; trash and debris removal; equipment, supplies, and infrastructure maintenance and replacement; and annual reporting. Recreation management costs and costs for security and patrol of recreational trails are not included.
This update shifts the cost of law enforcement for habitat and species protection from the program administration cost category to the preserve management cost category. Costs are based on the current contract between the Contra Costa Water District and the Contra Costa County Sheriff to provide law enforcement services at the 20,000-acre Los Vaqueros watershed. 20 See “Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Initial/Maximum Urban Development Area” tables in Appendix C and Appendix D.
21 Vasco Hills / Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan (draft), prepared by ICF for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, November 2018.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 22
Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management
Contractors are the most significant component of monitoring costs. Costs are based on review of current contracting and assumptions about how that activity will intensify over time. Monitoring activity is expected to increase with the completion of more restoration projects and with implementation of preserve management plans and associated monitoring protocols.
Remedial Measures
The total cost for remedial measures is based on (1) a percent of total cost of habitat restoration/creation costs, (2) a cost per acre for remedial measures applied to a percent of total Preserve System acres acquired, and (3) a lump sum cost for other remedial measures. No changes were made in these cost assumptions for this audit.
Contingency
Contingency costs reflect changes in other cost categories. The estimated rate remains at five percent and is applied to total Plan costs net of total land acquisition and total habitat restoration/creation costs.
Summary of Cost Model Results
Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 summarize changes in total costs by cost category for the Plan for the initial and maximum UDA, respectively. The tables compare the results of this audit to costs estimated in the HCP/NCCP costs and the prior 2017 audit in 2021 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, total costs are in the range of seven to nine percent lower than costs in the 2017 audit and nearly equal to costs estimated in the Plan.
Though costs have remained in line with the Plan’s original estimates there have been significant changes among cost categories:
w Habitat restoration/creation costs are higher because the unit cost (costs per acre) assumptions in the Plan were significantly lower than the Conservancy’s actual experience.
w Ongoing costs for (1) preserve management and maintenance and (2) monitoring, research, and adaptive management are significantly lower because costs to date are lower than estimated in the Plan. As discussed in Preserve Management and Maintenance above and Permit Term Extension in Chapter 2, impacts have occurred at a much slower pace than anticipated by the Plan.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 23
Table 3.2: Cost Model Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) Cost Category
2006
Plan
2017
Fee Audit
2022
Fee Audit
2022 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2022 Audit vs.
2017 Audit
Program Administration $27,590,000 $37,380,000 $35,240,000 $7,650,000 28% ($2,140,000) (6%) Land Acquisition $291,330,000 $305,380,000 $304,960,000 $13,630,000 5% ($420,000) (0%) Planning and Design $9,350,000 $10,960,000 $8,260,000 ($1,090,000) (12%) ($2,700,000) (25%) Habitat Restoration/Creation $31,000,000 $60,960,000 $50,020,000 $19,020,000 61% ($10,940,000) (18%) Environmental Compliance $3,560,000 $5,110,000 $3,650,000 $90,000 3% ($1,460,000) (29%) Preserve Management & Maintenance $50,230,000 $40,690,000 $37,320,000 ($12,910,000) (26%) ($3,370,000) (8%) Monitoring, Research, & Adaptive
Management $28,550,000 $18,090,000 $9,760,000 ($18,790,000) (66%) ($8,330,000) (46%) Remedial Measures $2,400,000 $4,320,000 $3,280,000 $880,000 37% ($1,040,000) (24%) Contingency $7,630,000 $6,010,000 $4,480,000 ($3,150,000) (41%) ($1,530,000) (25%) Total Plan Implementation $451,640,000 $488,900,000 $456,970,000 $5,330,000 1% ($31,930,000) (7%) Notes: HCP/NCCP and 2017 Fee Audit costs are inflated to 2021 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.
Sources: HCP/NCCP, Table 9-1; 2017 Audit, Table 3.2; Appendix C (Summary table).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 24
Table 3.3: Cost Model Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) Cost Category
2006
Plan
2017
Fee Audit
2022
Fee Audit
2022 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2022 Audit vs.
2017 Audit
Program Administration $27,710,000 $37,450,000 $37,990,000 $10,280,000 37% $540,000 1% Land Acquisition $358,290,000 $377,110,000 $367,260,000 $8,970,000 3% ($9,850,000) (3%) Planning and Design $9,470,000 $10,960,000 $8,260,000 ($1,210,000) (13%) ($2,700,000) (25%) Habitat Restoration/Creation $34,800,000 $72,640,000 $60,240,000 $25,440,000 73% ($12,400,000) (17%) Environmental Compliance $3,560,000 $5,110,000 $3,650,000 $90,000 3% ($1,460,000) (29%) Preserve Management & Maintenance $55,400,000 $50,040,000 $42,370,000 ($13,030,000) (24%) ($7,670,000) (15%) Monitoring, Research, & Adaptive
Management $32,050,000 $20,890,000 $10,860,000 ($21,190,000) (66%) ($10,030,000) (48%) Remedial Measures $2,580,000 $5,120,000 $3,950,000 $1,370,000 53% ($1,170,000) (23%) Contingency $8,290,000 $6,860,000 $5,100,000 ($3,190,000) (38%) ($1,760,000) (26%) Total Plan Implementation $532,150,000 $586,180,000 $539,680,000 $7,530,000 1% ($46,500,000) (9%) Notes: HCP/NCCP and 2017 Fee Audit costs are inflated to 2021 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.
Sources: HCP/NCCP, Table 9-1; 2017 Audit, Table 3.3; Appendix D (Summary table).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 25
4. ENDOWMENT MODEL
The HCP/NCCP requires funding for post-permit term costs in perpetuity for the management and monitoring of the Preserve System.22 Post-permit term costs would be funded by a portion of mitigation fee and other revenues transferred to an endowment over time. The endowment would grow with reinvested earnings through year 30. No withdrawals would be made from the endowment to fund HCP/NCCP during the permit term. At the end of the permit term, the endowment generates ongoing earnings sufficient to fully fund post-permit management and monitoring costs in perpetuity and adjusted for inflation.
The approach taken to estimate post-permit term costs and endowment funding is like that used in other recent Northern California regional habitat plans, including the San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan, and the Placer County Conservation Program. The approach fully complies with applicable statutes regarding investment of public funds for long-term stewardship of conservation lands.23 Endowment Creation
The Conservancy conducted a process to select an endowment manager in 2019 and engaged the Regional Parks Foundation (Foundation) for this purpose. The Foundation is an independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to support the Park District through fundraising. The Conservancy and the Foundation entered into an endowment agreement in 2020 that specifies the responsibilities of both parties.24
The Foundation will manage and invest endowment funds and use its best efforts to achieve a reasonable long-term rate of return on investment consistent with the endowment model assumptions discussed below (see Investment Earnings in this chapter). Before the HCP/NCCP permits expire, a separate agreement will be negotiated between the Conservancy and the Foundation to establish the terms and conditions for distribution of funds from the endowment for preserve management and monitoring in perpetuity.
For endowment management services, the Conservancy will pay the 22 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-40 to 9-42 and Table 9-9. 23 See Mitigation Lands: Nonprofit Organizations (California Government Code, section 65965-65968) and the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (Probate Code, section 18501 et seq.). 24 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Endowment Agreement, October 2020.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 26
Foundation a management fee of 0.55 percent of assets on deposits up to $10 million and 0.50 percent of assets on deposits above $10 million.
Post-permit Term Costs
Annual post-permit funding needs from the endowment were developed based on guidance provided in Chapter 9 of the HCP/NCCP. Total postpermit term costs were estimated based on a percent of annual costs in the final five-year period of the plan (years 26-30) for the following cost categories:
w 40 percent (maximum UDA) to 44 percent (initial UDA) of program administration costs
w 100 percent of preserve management and monitoring costs w 50 percent of monitoring, research, and adaptive management costs Endowment Funding
Four revenue sources build the endowment fund balance through year 30:
1. An opening balance as of December 31, 2021
2. Revenues from mitigation fees and other mitigation payments from development projects
3. Lease revenues from private activities on preserve lands
4. Re-invested earnings from endowment investments.
These funding sources are discussed in the subsections that follow.
Opening Fund Balance
The Conservancy started an endowment in 2020 with funds accumulated by:
w The California Wildlife Foundation from prior development project mitigation payments
w The Park District from revenues generated by residences, communication facilities, wind turbines, and agricultural leases on preserve lands.
See Table F.2 in Appendix F for details.
Investment earnings on those endowment contributions has resulted in a fund balance of $3.9 million by December 31, 2021.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 27
Development Project Revenue
Development project revenue, particularly mitigation fees generated by the HCP/NCCP, will provide the primary contributions to the endowment through the end of the permit term. Other types of development project revenue applied to the endowment include specific one-time and ongoing payments from development projects typically paid in lieu of the development fee (see Table F.3 in Appendix F for details).
Development project revenue is critical for the endowment because many other revenue sources such as state and federal sources are restricted to land acquisition, restoration/creation, or research. Though development project revenue will fund a larger share of endowment costs, state and federal sources will fund a larger share of land acquisition costs. This approach results in each type of funding (mitigation versus conservation funding) only contributing their appropriate share of total Plan costs (see Funding Mitigation and Conservation Goals in Chapter 1 for more discussion).
The endowment model assumes that the Conservancy will make contributions from development fee revenue at a constant rate on an annual basis through the end of the permit term. Fee revenues will fluctuate above and below this annual average from year to year depending on development market activity.
Periodic audits (such as this one) adjust the endowment funding plan as needed to ensure an adequate fund balance by the end of the permit term.
Lease Revenues
The Park District had 13 active leases on preserve lands as of the end of FY 2021 and generated $572,000 for 2021. Eight of these leases are for communication facilities that the endowment assumes will continue in perpetuity. The remaining leases are for wind turbines, residences, and agricultural uses that are assumed to expire at various intervals during the permit term based on the terms of the specific lease agreement. See Table F.4 in Appendix F for details.
The Conservancy and the Park District entered into a lease revenue allocation agreement in 2020 that allocates revenue to the following HCP/NCCP costs:
w Land acquisition
w Preserve management
w Endowment.25
25 Lease Revenues Allocation Agreement between the East Bay Regional Park District and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, October 2020.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 28
The endowment model assumes that at the end of the permit term all lease revenue will directly offset post-permit term preserve management costs.
Investment Earnings
The endowment model assumes a long-term average annual return on investment (ROI) of 7.25 percent. For comparison, other funds with similar long range investment horizons such as university endowments, pension funds, and hospital endowments, have average annual earnings objectives of six to nine percent.
Based on an ROI goal of 7.25 percent, the endowment model assumes that inflation is 3.00 percent and endowment manager fees are 1.00 percent. As shown in Table 4.1, this results in an annual real return on endowment fund balances of 3.25 percent. The real rate of return is also known as the “capitalization rate”. Thus, the endowment can be expected to generate funding for post-permit term costs, adjusted for inflation and management fees, at a constant rate of 3.25 percent of the fund balance that is achieved by the end of the permit term in 2037.
Table 4.1: Investment Earnings
Allocation of Annual Investment Earnings
on Endowment Fund Balance
Percent of Endowment
Fund Balance
Average Annual Return on Investment Goal1 7.25%
Reinvested Earnings to Offset Inflation 3.00%
Available for Annual Distributions 4.25%
Endowment Manager Fees2 1.00%
Average Annual Real Rate of Return to
Fund Post-Permit Term Costs
3.25%
1 Total average annual investment earnings are net of investment management fees (including custodial and audit costs) and are separate from endowment manager fees (see note 2).
2 The endowment model assumes that the Conservancy will engage an outside endowment fund manager instead of staffing this function in-house. Endowment manager fees would fund administration, accounting, and reporting costs directly associated with the Conservancy’s account.
These assumptions are based on a current habitat endowment management program operated by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) under agreements with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These programs assume a long-range real rate of return of 3.25 percent to 3.50 percent. The endowment model for this audit uses the more conservative rate of 3.25 percent. This rate is the same rate being used for endowment modeling by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan, East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 29
and the Placer County Conservation Program mentioned at the start of this chapter.
Lower investment earnings, higher inflation, or higher endowment manager fees would require increased endowment funding and higher mitigation fees.
Higher investment earnings, lower inflation, or lower endowment manager fees would require less endowment funding and lower mitigation fees. Future periodic fee audits will evaluate these assumptions and adjust mitigation fees and other revenues allocated to the endowment as needed to maintain adequate funding.
Endowment Model Results
A summary of the endowment models for the initial UDA and maximum UDA scenarios is shown below in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Post-Permit Funding
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Endowment Contributions (through FY 2021) $3,548,946 $3,548,946 Investment Earnings (through FY 2021)1 $368,684 $368,684 Endowment Opening Balance (2022) $3,917,630 $3,917,630
Development Project Revenue (2022-2037)2 $52,968,429 $64,960,541 Lease Revenue (2022-2037)3 $1,747,957 $1,747,957
Investment Earnings (2022-2037)4 $18,948,234 $22,365,352 Endowment Fund Balance (2037) $77,582,249 $92,991,480
Annual Distribution Rate (post-permit)4 3.25% 3.25%
Investment Earnings (post-permit)4 $2,521,423 $3,022,223 Development Project Revenue (post-permit)2 $366,571 $366,571 Lease Revenue (post-permit)3 $270,605 $270,605
Annual Preserve Management Costs (post-permit) $3,158,600 $3,659,400 1 Earnings net of fees for endowment manager (Regional Parks Foundation) and investment management. 2 Development project revenue primarily from Plan development fees during Plan implementation, plus several development mitigation payments that will continue in perpetuity. 3 Lease revenue from 13 leases as of 2021 with eight assumed to continue in perpetuity. 4 Investment earnings based on real return on investment equal to 3.25% that is net of inflation and all administrative and investment management fees.
Source: Appendix E, Tables E.1 and E.2; Appendix F, Table F.2.
See Table E.1 and Table E.2 in Appendix E for detailed output of the endowment model for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios, respectively.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 30
5. WETLAND MITIGATION FEE
This chapter presents the updated wetland mitigation fee schedule and the reasonable relationship findings required by the MFA and explained in Chapter 1. Unless the applicant chooses to perform their own restoration or creation dedicated to the Preserve System, the wetland mitigation fee is applied to covered activities that generate permanent impacts on wetland land cover types whether inside or outside the UDA.26 Wetland mitigation fees are calculated based on only the surface area of the wetland land cover type impacted, or by linear feet for stream impacts. The wetland mitigation fee is therefore typically applied to a small portion of the total impacts of a covered activity.
Updated Fee Schedule
The wetland mitigation fee is based on the unit costs (cost per acre or cost per linear foot for streams) presented in the prior chapter multiplied by a mitigation ratio established by the HCP/NCCP. The mitigation ratio represents the restoration area needed to mitigate one acre (or one linear foot in the case of streams) of impact. Most mitigation ratios are one-to-one, that is one acre of impact requires one acre of wetland restoration/creation to mitigate impacts. Several land cover types require a higher or lower mitigation ratio to adjust for the relative ability of restoration projects to mitigate the types of impacts associated with a given land cover type. The updated wetland mitigation fees based on mitigation ratios by land cover type are shown in Table 5.1.
Consistent with the habitat restoration/creation cost estimates explained in Chapter 3, above, the wetland mitigation fee is only related to the one-time activity of restoration or creation of wetland land cover types. The three other fees presented in the following two chapters of this report address the other Plan costs to mitigate the impacts of covered activities on wetland land cover types. These other costs include, for example, acquisition of sites for wetland, pond, and stream restoration/creation, preservation of existing wetland, pond, and stream habitat and long-term management, maintenance, and monitoring of habitat restoration/creation sites.
26 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-23 to 9-24 and Table 9-5.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 31
Table 5.1: Wetland Mitigation Fee Schedule
Land Cover Type
Habitat Restoration /
Creation Cost
Mitigation
Ratio Wetland Mitigation Fee
Riparian $105,891 per acre 1:1 $105,891 per acre
Perennial Wetland 162,953 per acre 1:1 162,953 per acre Seasonal Wetland 191,396 per acre 2:1 382,792 per acre
Alkali Wetland 193,490 per acre 2:1 386,980 per acre
Ponds 211,115 per acre 1:1 211,115 per acre
Aquatic (open water) 211,115 per acre 0.5:1 105,558 per acre Slough / Channel 149,516 per acre 1:1 149,516 per acre
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) 553 per linear foot 1:1 553 per linear foot Streams (>25 ft. wide) 829 per linear foot 1:1 829 per linear foot Sources: HCP/NCCP, Tables 5-16 and 5-17; Table 3.1 (this report).
Table 5.2 compares the updated wetland mitigation fees to current fees.
Wetland mitigation fees increase slightly compared to current fees because of updates to the cost model discussed in Chapter 3. The automatic annual inflation adjustment since the prior audit has largely kept the fee in line with changing Plan costs.
Table 5.2: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison
Land Cover Type Fee Basis
2022 Fee
Schedule
2022
Audit Change
Riparian per acre $105,516 $105,891 0.4%
Perennial Wetland per acre $159,912 $162,953 1.9%
Seasonal Wetland per acre $374,220 $382,792 2.3%
Alkali Wetland per acre $378,310 $386,980 2.3%
Ponds per acre $205,924 $211,115 2.5%
Aquatic (open water) per acre $102,962 $105,558 2.5%
Slough / Channel per acre $147,029 $149,516 1.7%
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) per linear foot $543 $553 1.8%
Streams (>25 ft. wide) per linear foot $814 $829 1.8%
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy, Annual Mitigation Fee Adjustment Summary (PDF); Table
5.1. Estimated restoration costs and revenues associated with wetland land cover impacts are shown in Table 5.3. The table multiplies the wetland land cover acreage impacts from Table 2.3 by the update fee schedule in Table 5.1. The 30-year revenue estimates in the table are used in the development fee calculation presented in Chapter 6.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 32
Table 5.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue
Land Cover Type
Wetland
Mitigation
Fee
Fee Revenue
(2022-2037)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Riparian $105,891 per acre $3,040,000 $3,570,000
Perennial Wetland $162,953 per acre $3,610,000 $3,660,000 Seasonal Wetland $382,792 per acre $4,210,000 $5,810,000 Alkali Wetland $386,980 per acre $3,200,000 $3,550,000
Ponds $211,115 per acre $1,460,000 $1,670,000
Aquatic (open water) $105,558 per acre $1,220,000 $1,220,000 Slough / Channel $149,516 per acre $10,670,000 $10,670,000 Subtotal $27,410,000 $30,150,000
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) $553 per ln. ft. $11,300,000 $14,220,000 Streams (>25 ft. wide) $829 per ln. ft. $2,290,000 $3,170,000 Total $41,000,000 $47,540,000
Fee Revenue
(2008-2037)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Actual (2008-2021) $1,570,000 $1,570,000
Estimated (2022-2037) $41,000,000 $47,540,000
Total (2008-2037) $42,570,000 $49,110,000
Notes: "UDA" is the urban development area.
Sources: Tables 2.3, 5.1, and Appendix F, Table F.5.
Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The following findings are required by the MFA and were presented in Chapter 1.
Section 66001(a)(1)
The wetland mitigation fee is intended to pay the full cost of restoration or creation of wetland land cover types, including design, implementation, postconstruction monitoring, and remediation. The development fee described in the next chapter will fund acquisition of the site for the restoration or creation and the management and monitoring after the wetland is fully functioning.
Restoration of oak savanna is also required by the HCP/NCCP, but the cost of this restoration is included in the development fee because it is not associated with jurisdictional wetlands and waters.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 33
Section 66001(a)(2)
The wetland mitigation fee will fund the capital costs associated with wetland restoration/creation the mitigate related wetland impacts. Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP explains the conservation strategy for wetland restoration/creation, and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.
Section 66001(a)(3)
A reasonable relationship exists between the use of wetland mitigation fee revenue and covered activities that would pay the fee. Only covered activities that have wetland impacts (impacts on species and natural communities within wetland land cover types) pay the fee, and fee revenues fund implementation of the conservation strategy designed to mitigate those impacts. Specific elements of the strategy from Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP that relate to the restoration or creation of wetlands, ponds, and streams include:
w Conservation methods such as:
– Biological goals and objectives that include the restoration and creation of wetlands, ponds, and streams.
– Mitigation of impacts on state and federal jurisdictional wetlands and waters.
w Conservation measures such as:
– Conservation Measure 2.3. Restore Wetlands and Create Ponds – Conservation Measure 2.10. Restore Streams and Riparian Woodland/Scrub to Compensate for Habitat Loss and to Increase Biodiversity.
The cost model summarized in Chapter 9 and presented in detail in Appendix G of the HCP/NCCP explains the costs associated with the restoration or creation of wetlands, ponds, and streams. Updated costs are shown in Table 3.1 in Chapter 3 of this report and include:
w All costs associated with the habitat restoration/creation cost category (includes construction costs and staff-related costs)
w The share of environmental compliance costs associated with one-time costs for habitat restoration/creation
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 34
w Costs for pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring for restoration sites (costs included in the monitoring, research and adaptative management tab in the cost model).
Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the wetland mitigation fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the HCP/NCCP explains the relationship between the 17 animal and 11 plant species covered under the HCP/NCCP and wetland land cover types (see Table 3-9 in Chapter 3 of the Plan). Chapter 4 of the Plan explains the impacts of covered activities on these animal and plant species, and more broadly on natural communities. The importance of wetland land cover types is demonstrated by:
w The eight wetland land cover types provide habitats for all 17 animal species covered under the Plan.
w Individual wetland land cover types provide habitat for at least three and, in the case of seasonal wetlands, as many as 11 covered animal species. w Vernal pools are an essential habitat for four covered species and 11 covered plants.
Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the wetland mitigation fee on a specific covered activity and the proportionate share of HCP/NCCP costs based on the fee schedule shown in Table 5.1. The fee schedule reflects the type of land cover that is affected because both mitigation ratios and per acre mitigation costs vary by land cover. The total fee for a covered activity is proportional to the amount of the impact based on the number of acres of wetland or pond, or linear feet of stream affected.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 35
6. DEVELOPMENT FEE
This chapter presents the updated development fee schedule and the reasonable relationship findings required by the MFA and presented in Chapter 1. The development fee is applied to covered activities that generate permanent impacts. The only exception are permanent impacts caused by a specified list of rural infrastructure projects that pay the rural road fee based on a multiplier applied to the development fee (see Chapter 7).27 Applicants can dedicate land for the Preserve System or generate alternative special taxes, fees, or charges in lieu of paying the mitigation fees subject to approval by the Conservancy.
Updated Fee Schedule
The development fee is based on all covered activities funding a fair share of total HCP/NCCP implementation costs. The fair share is based on the total amount of lands dedicated to habitat preservation in Eastern Contra Costa County, both lands existing prior to the HCP/NCCP and lands added by the Preserve System through implementation of the Plan. The Plan apportioned this total land area for habitat preservation between urban development existing prior to the Plan and urban development anticipated to occur during the 30-year permit term of the Plan. The fair share of costs allocated to the development fee under the maximum UDA scenario is 52 percent as documented in Appendix H of the Plan. The Plan requires that the periodic audit use this fair share amount to update the development fee, and that the fee cannot make up for shortfalls in revenue from other local, state, and federal sources.28
As explained in Chapter 1, all covered activities pay the development fee unless the applicant provides their own mitigation. In cases where wetland land cover types are affected, the wetland mitigation fee is also paid. As explained in Chapter 3, the wetland mitigation fee will fund costs of habitat restoration/creation associated with impacts on wetlands, ponds, and streams.
Therefore, total Plan costs subject to the fair share calculation are calculated net of wetland mitigation fee revenue. This approach avoids double-charging covered activities for the same Plan costs.
Table 6.1 shows that share of total HCP/NCCP costs allocated to the development fee. Costs are shown net of estimated wetland mitigation fee revenue drawn from Table 5.3 in the prior chapter. Development fee revenue 27 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-17 to 9-22, Figure 9-1, Table 9-4. 28 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 36
to date is deducted from the fair share allocated to the development fee to calculate the net revenue still required from the development fee for the remainder of the permit term. Using this approach ensures that at the end of the permit term covered activities would have paid the fair share of plan costs as determined by the nexus analysis in the Plan.
Table 6.1: Development Fee Fair Share Analysis (2021 $)
Maximum Urban
Development Area
Initial Urban
Development Area
Formula Amount Formula Amount
Plan Implementation Costs a $539,680,000 q $456,970,000 Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue b ($49,110,000) p ($42,570,000) Endowment Contribution1 c $70,260,000 d $58,270,000
Net Cost Subject to Fair Share Allocation d (sum) $560,830,000 m (sum) $472,670,000 Development Fair Share Allocation2 e 52% l = k / m 43%
Development Fair Share Costs f = d * e $291,630,000 k = m - i $203,470,000 Development Fee Revenue To Date g ($17,450,000) g ($17,450,000) Remaining Development
Fair Share Costs (2022-2037) h = f - g $274,180,000 j = k + g $186,020,000 Other Plan Funding i = d - f $269,200,000 i $269,200,000 Notes: This table does not show rural road fee revenue, as shown in the HCP/NCCP, Appendix H, because impacts and associated fee revenues are in addition to impacts mitigated by the development fee. Impacts from rural (outside UDA) projects and activities other than those covered by the rural road fee are included in the development fee. 1 Endowment contributions during permit term excluding investment earnings. 2 "Development Fair Share Allocation" factor for maximum UDA based on HCP/NCCP, Appendix H, Table 1, consistent with procedures required for periodic audit (HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-31). Also, consistent with the HCP/NCCP, the initial UDA Development Fair Share Allocation factor is based on holding non-fee revenue sources constant with the maximum UDA scenario. This approach reasonably assumes that other federal, state, and local funding over the permit term will not be affected by the amount of urban development area impacts.
Sources: HCP/NCCP, Appendix H, Table 1 (second memorandum); Tables 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, 5.3, and 8.1 (this report).
A range of federal, state, and local sources fund the remaining costs for HCP/NCCP implementation, including rural road fees and temporary impact fees. Fair share costs allocated to the development fee under the initial UDA scenario are calculated by holding constant total funding from these other sources. It is reasonable to assume that the level of development under the Plan would not affect the level of funding from these other sources.
The updated development fee is shown in Table 6.2. The fee is based on the fair share costs calculated in Table 6.1 divided by the equivalent acres of impact remaining under each scenario from Table 2.2. The bottom of Table 6.2 shows the fee per acre by zone based on the weighting factors explained in Chapter 2.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 37
Table 6.2: Development Fee Schedule (2021 $ for 2022 Fee Schedule) Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
MidPoint
Fee per Equivalent Acre (based on remaining costs & impacts, 2022-2037) Remaining Development Fair Share Costs $186,020,000 $274,180,000 Remaining Development Impacts (equivalent acres) 19,046 29,160 Development Fee (per equivalent acre) $9,767 $9,403 $9,585 Fee Schedule (per acre of impact) Weight
Zone 1 2 $19,534 $18,806 $19,170
Zone 2 4 $39,068 $37,612 $38,340
Zone 3 1 $9,767 $9,403 $9,585
Source: Tables 2.2 and 6.1.
Table 6.2 also shows the average fee for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios. Use of the average development fee for the two scenarios was approved by the Conservancy Board when adopting the 2013 Audit recommendations (June 27, 2013).
Consistent with the prior audits, these equivalent acres do not discount for lands within the UDA that remain undeveloped during the permit term, as was done in the Plan to calculate the original development fee. Doing so would make the nexus analysis inconsistent with allowable permit term impacts.
Comparison with Original and Current Fee
In Table 6.3 the updated fee based on the average of the two scenarios is compared with the current adopted fee. As shown in the table, the recommended development fee is just over one percent higher than the current fee schedule. The automatic annual inflation adjustment since the prior audit has been able to keep the fee in line with changing Plan costs without any significant revision needed based on the current audit.
Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The following findings are required by the MFA and were presented in Chapter 1.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 38
Table 6.3: Development Fee Comparison (fee per acre)
Zone
2022 Fee
Schedule
2022
Audit1 Change
Zone 1 18,938 19,170 1.2%
Zone 2 37,876 38,340 1.2%
Zone 3 9,469 9,585 1.2%
1 Uses average development fee of initial and maximum
UDA scenarios as approved by Conservancy Board when
adopting the 2013 Audit recommendations (June 27,
2013).
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy, Annual Mitigation
Fee Adjustment Summary (PDF); Table 6.2.
Section 66001(a)(1)
The development fee is intended to pay the fair share cost of the HCP/NCCP associated with permanent impacts except impacts from a specified list of rural transportation projects (see Chapter 7) and excluding habitat restoration/ creation costs for wetland land cover types funded by the wetland mitigation fee.
Section 66001(a)(2)
The development fee will fund a fair share of all HCP/NCCP costs except costs funded by the wetland mitigation fees. Chapter 5 of the Plan explains the conservation strategy for the Plan and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.
Section 66001(a)(3)
A reasonable relationship exists between the use of development fee revenue and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP explains the conservation strategy and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.
The conservation strategy in Chapter 5 of the Plan identifies biological goals and objectives that are supported by specific conservation measures: five measures related to landscape-level conservation, nine measures related to natural community-level conservation (excluding two measures related to wetland, pond, and stream restoration/creation discussed in the prior chapter of this report), and nine measures related to species-level conservation.
The cost model summarized in Chapter 9 of the Plan and presented in detail in Appendix G of the Plan explains and estimates the costs associated with implementation. Updated costs are shown in Chapter 3 of this report and include nine cost categories necessary to implement the Plan: program East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 39
administration, land acquisition, planning and design, habitat restoration/creation, environmental compliance, preserve management and maintenance, monitoring, research, and adaptive management, remedial measures, and contingency fund. As explained in the Chapter 3 of this report costs related to wetland, pond, and stream habitat restoration/creation are not included in the development fee.
Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the development fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the HCP/NCCP explains the relationship between the 17 animal species, 11 plant species, and associated habitats covered under the Plan and terrestrial land cover types (see Table 3-9 in Chapter 3 of the Plan). Chapter 4 of the Plan explains the impacts of covered activities by land cover type on these animal and plant species, and more broadly on their habitats and natural communities.
Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the development fee on a specific covered activity and the proportionate share of HCP/NCCP costs based on the fee schedule shown in Table 6.2 for three reasons:
w The fee is based on a fair share of HCP/NCCP costs as determined by the share of development occurring under the Plan compared to total development (existing plus new) under the maximum UDA scenario. As stated in the Plan: “this analysis considers the pace of open space acquisition relative to the pace of development before and after adoption of the HCP/NCCP and assigns the land acquisition requirements of the HCP/NCCP according to the premise that future development should mitigate impacts in the inventory area proportionate to its share of the overall habitat impacts in the inventory area (i.e., impacts in the past and the future).”29
w As explained in detail in Chapter 2, Development Fee Zones, the fee is adjusted for three zones that reflect the relative amount of impact from urban development on natural habitats and covered species. The mapping of the zones was completed at a level of detail sufficient to provide a reasonable relationship between all land within a specific zone and the relative weight of impacts assigned to that zone.
w The total fee for a covered activity is proportional to the amount of the impact based on the number of acres affected.
29 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 5, p. 5-51.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 40
7. RURAL ROAD AND TEMPORARY IMPACT FEES
This chapter presents the updated fee schedule for the rural road fee and the temporary impact fee, and the reasonable relationship findings for each fee required by the MFA and explained in Chapter 1.
Rural Road Fee
The rural road fee is applied to 18 specified rural transportation projects.30 These projects pay a multiple of 1.00 to 2.25 of the development fee. These projects fragment habitat, create substantial barriers and hazards to wildlife movement, and generally have a greater per-acre impact than other types of development projects. The extent of these additional impacts depends on whether the proposed facility is new or expanded, on the length of the facility, on the type of habitat traversed by the road, and other factors. The fee multiple is lower if the project implements wildlife-friendly design measures.
Funding from the rural road fee is shown in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Rural Road Fee Revenue
Year Amount
HCP/NCCP Estimate 2006 $7,431,600
Inflation Index 0.6578
Current Estimate (2021 $) 2021 $11,300,000
Rural Road Fee Revenue To Date ($2,510,000)
Remaining Rural Road Fee Revenue $8,790,000
Notes: Revenue estimate assumes that all wildlife-friendly design measures are implemented.
Appendix H of the HCP/NCCP also includes a revenue estimate of $1,500,000 for unspecified "rural infrastructure fees" from the development fee applied to projects and activities outside the UDA such as flood protection projects, utility projects, and related maintenance activities. Revenue from these projects and activities are included in the development fee (see Chapter 6).
Sources: HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, Table 9-6 and Appendix H, Table 1 (second memorandum); Appendix F, Table F.1.
Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The following findings are required by the MFA and were presented in Chapter 1.
30 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-24 to 9-25, Table 9-6.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 41
Section 66001(a)(1)
The rural road fee is intended to pay the costs of the HCP/NCCP associated with mitigating permanent impacts from specified transportation projects outside the urban development area, excluding habitat restoration/creation costs for wetland land cover types funded by the wetland mitigation fee.
Section 66001(a)(2)
The rural road fee will fund HCP/NCCP costs to mitigate permanent impacts from specified transportation projects outside the urban development area, excluding habitat restoration/creation costs for wetland land cover types funded by the wetland mitigation fee. Chapter 5 of the Plan explains the conservation strategy for the Plan and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.
Section 66001(a)(3)
A reasonable relationship exists between the use of rural road fee revenue and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP explains the conservation strategy and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.
The conservation strategy in Chapter 5 of the Plan identifies biological goals and objectives that are supported by specific conservation measures: five measures related to landscape-level conservation, nine measures related to natural community-level conservation (excluding two measures related to wetland, pond, and stream restoration/creation discussed in the prior chapter of this report), and nine measures related to species-level conservation.
The cost model summarized in Chapter 9 and presented in detail in Appendix G of the Plan explains the costs associated with implementation.
Updated costs are shown in Chapter 3 of this report and include nine cost categories: program administration, land acquisition, planning and design, habitat restoration/creation, environmental compliance, preserve management and maintenance, monitoring, research, and adaptive management, remedial measures, and contingency fund. As explained in the prior chapter of this report costs related to habitat restoration/creation on wetland land cover types are not included in the development fee.
Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the rural road fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the HCP/NCCP explains the relationship between the 17 animal species, 11 plant species, and East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 42
associated habitats covered under the Plan and terrestrial land cover types (see Table 3-9 in Chapter 3 of the Plan). Chapter 4 of the Plan explains the impacts of covered activities by land cover type on these animal and plant species, and more broadly on their habitats and natural communities.
Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the rural road fee and the proportionate share of HCP/NCCP costs for the following reasons:
w The fee is based on the development fee discussed in Chapter 6 and applied to the permanent disturbance of land associated with a specific list of transportation projects.
w The fee is adjusted by a multiplier applicable to each specified transportation project to reflect each project’s level of additional effects on the fragmentation of habitat and creation of barriers and hazards to wildlife movement.
w The total fee for a covered activity is proportional to the amount of the impact based on the number of acres affected.
Temporary Impact Fee
The temporary impact fee is applied to all temporary impacts from covered activities both inside and outside the UDA. The temporary impact fee is based on the development fee described in the prior chapter and shown in the fee schedule in Table 6.2. Where applicable the fee is also based on the wetland mitigation fee described in Chapter 5 and shown in the fee schedule in Table 5.1.
As described in Chapter 2 of the HCP/NCCP there are many covered activities that are short duration or intermittent and result in temporary impacts on natural land cover types. As described in Chapter 4 of the Plan some covered activities are expected to have substantial temporary impacts on covered species due to their large footprint, linear nature, location in the inventory area, effect on local soils or hydrology, or a combination of these factors. Temporary impacts are defined as any impact on vegetation or habitat that does not result in permanent habitat removal.
Chapter 9 of the Plan provides a detailed explanation of the calculation of the temporary impact fee. Covered activities with temporary impacts pay a fee based on the development fee. In addition, covered activities with temporary impacts on wetland land cover types also pay a fee based on the wetland mitigation fee. The temporary impact fee is calculated based on the frequency of the temporary impact and habitat recovery over the 30-year permit term; East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 43
the amount of the fee is equal to the applicable development or wetland mitigation fee multiplied by the proportion of the Plan’s 30-year term affected by the temporary impact.
Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The following findings are required by the MFA and were presented in Chapter 1.
Section 66001(a)(1)
The temporary impact fee is intended to pay for costs of the HCP/NCCP associated with mitigating temporary impacts.
Section 66001(a)(2)
The temporary impact fee will fund HCP/NCCP costs to mitigate temporary impacts. Chapter 5 of the Plan explains the conservation strategy for the Plan and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.
Section 66001(a)(3)
A reasonable relationship exists between the use of temporary impact fee revenue and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 5 of the HCP/NCCP explains the conservation strategy and Chapter 9 explains the costs associated with implementing the strategy.
The conservation strategy in Chapter 5 of the Plan identifies biological goals and objectives that are supported by specific conservation measures: five measures related to landscape-level conservation, 11 measures related to natural community-level conservation, and nine measures related to specieslevel conservation.
The cost model summarized in Chapter 9 and presented in detail in Appendix G of the Plan explains the costs associated with implementation.
Updated costs are shown in Chapter 3 of this report and include nine cost categories: program administration, land acquisition, planning and design, habitat restoration/creation, environmental compliance, preserve management and maintenance, monitoring, research, and adaptive management, remedial measures, and contingency fund.
Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the temporary impact fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the HCP/NCCP East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 44
explains the relationship between the 17 animal and 11 plant species covered under the Plan and all land cover types (see Table 3-9 in Chapter 3 of the Plan).
Chapter 4 of the Plan explains the impacts of covered activities on these animal and plant species.
Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the temporary impact fee on a specific covered activity and the proportionate share of HCP/NCCP costs based on the fee schedules shown in Table 5.1 and Table 6.2 for three reasons:
w As explained in Chapter 5 regarding the wetland mitigation fee and Chapter 6 regarding the development fee, the fees are based only on Plan costs associated with permanent impacts. Temporary impacts are reasonably like permanent impacts when adjusted for the duration of the temporary impact, so it is reasonable to establish the temporary fee based on the wetland mitigation and development fees.
w As explained in detail in Chapter 2, Development Fee Zones, the fee is adjusted for three zones that reflect the relative amount of impact from urban development on natural habitats and covered species. The mapping of the zones was completed at a level of detail sufficient to provide a reasonable relationship between all land within a specific zone and the relative weight of impacts assigned to that zone.
w The total fee for a covered activity is proportional to the amount of the impact based on the number of acres affected.
w The total fee is proportional to the duration of the temporary impact.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 45
8. FUNDING PLAN
This chapter provides an updated funding plan for the HCP/NCCP based on the HCP/NCCP cost and mitigation fee revenue analysis presented in the prior chapters. This chapter provides the remaining two findings required by the MFA and explained in Chapter 1:
w Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of improvements to be funded by the fee.
w Designate the approximate dates when funding is expected to complete financing of improvements to be funded by the fee.
Revenue Sources
The funding plan tracks total revenues to date and estimates revenue for the remaining permit term. All amounts are shown in 2021 dollars. This section reviews the assumptions used to estimate each revenue source in the funding plan for the remaining 16 years of the permit term.
Mitigation Fees
w Development fee revenue for the remaining permit term is based on the “Remaining Fair Share Development Costs” shown in Table 6.2. All other mitigation payment revenue associated with specific agreements between land developers and the permittees is allocated to the endowment (see Chapter 4).
w Wetland mitigation fee revenue for the remaining permit term is based on the amounts shown in Table 5.3.
w Rural road fee revenue for the remaining permit term is based on the amount shown in Table 7.1.
w Temporary impact fee revenue for the remaining permit term equals the prior five-year annual average.
Consistent with prior audits, mitigation fee revenues assume that total impacts allowed under the permit occur by the end of the 30-year permit term. The permit term likely will need to be extended because impacts are occurring at a slower pace than anticipated by the HCP/NCCP. The funding plan will continue to use a 30-year planning horizon for occurrence of all allowable impacts until a permit term extension is approved by the permittees and the wildlife agencies. See Chapter 2, Permit Term Extension, for more discussion.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 46
Other Fees and Exactions
w Administrative charges are for costs associated with processing mitigation fees paid by participating special entities. Participating special entities generate impacts covered by the Plan but are not one of the permittees.31 Revenue for the remaining permit term equals the prior fiveyear annual average. w Payments for non-covered activities are reduced to zero over the permit term because this revenue cannot be used for impacts under the Plan and must be used for additional conservation measures.
w Other development exactions are primarily from participating special entities and are for conservation beyond the mitigation requirements of the Plan (“contribution to recovery”). Revenue for the remaining permit term equals the prior five-year annual average.
State and Federal Funds and Local Capital Funds
The HCP/NCCP anticipated that state and federal funds and local capital funds would be used for land acquisition to build the Preserve System.
Through 2021 state and federal funds have been used nearly exclusively for land acquisition along with a limited amount of funding for activities such as the planning and design of restoration projects. Local capital funds are comprised mostly of foundation grants and land acquisition funding from the Park District. A limited amount of funding from foundation grants and other local sources has been used for research. Park District funding comes from voter-approved tax measures and lease revenues (see Chapter 4, Lease Revenues, and Table F.4 in Appendix F). Over 90 percent of the funding from these sources combined through 2021 has been used for land acquisition.
The HCP/NCCP converted estimated funding from these sources into estimates of acres acquired.32 The Plan states that state and federal funding must be measured in terms of acreage rather than dollars.33 The audit applies this same acreage approach for measuring funding from local capital funds.
These funding sources have declined substantially in the past five years. The 10-year average for these sources combined is more than double the five-year average (see Table F.5 in Appendix F). Funding for the remainder of the 31 Entities not subject to the jurisdiction of the permittees under the Plan may request coverage under the Plan for covered activities. Such organizations may include, for example, school districts, water districts, other utilities or special districts, or private companies. These entities, known as participating special entities, can receive coverage under the HCP/NCCP during Plan implementation on a case-by-case basis and by paying the appropriate fees as determined by the Conservancy.
32 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-33 and 9-36.
33 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, p. 9-37.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 47
permit term is estimated to be more than the prior five-year average and less than the 10-year average (130 and 160 percent of the five-year average for state and federal funds and local capital funds, respectively). This level of funding is estimated such that:
w The Plan remains fully funded based on total plan resources (total revenues plus FY 2021 ending fund balance) versus total plan costs w Total funding from each source over the permit term for land acquisition, when converted to acreage based on average costs per acre, does not exceed the land acquisition estimates for each source included in the Plan.
To balance total plan revenues against total plan costs, the funding plan for this audit was able to hold funding from these sources to between 87 and 90 percent of the amount estimated in the Plan, based on acreage acquired and average cost per acre, depending on the funding source and scenario (initial or maximum UDA).
Local Operating Funds
The Plan anticipated that the Park District would be a significant funding partner not only in land acquisition but also in preserve management.34 Indeed, the Park District holds title to all but one of the acquisitions completed through 2021 to build the Preserve System.35 In addition to land purchase costs, the Park District has funded a share of due diligence and closing costs for land acquisitions and a share of costs for preserve management. Park District funding sources include an allocation of lease revenues on preserve lands (see Table F.4 and Table F.5 in Appendix F).
The Conservancy and the Park District are currently negotiating a cost sharing agreement for preserve management. Guiding principles for this agreement are the Park District fund land management at a level sufficient “to achieve its internal management standards”. Other sources (such as the Conservancy) would fund “those costs related to implementing the HCP/NCCP that would not otherwise be incurred by the Park District to manage its lands.”36 Applying these principles, local operating funds from the Park District are estimated based on the Park District funding 41 percent of total preserve management costs for the remainder of the permit term. This estimate is based on a preliminary estimate provided by Conservancy and subject to negotiation between EBRPD and the Conservancy.
34 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 9-33 to 9-34 and Appendix H (first memorandum). 35 The only acquisition that is not held by the Park District is the 165-acre Viera North Peak parcel. 36 Implementing Agreement for the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, January 22, 2007, p. 22.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 48
The Park District has also funded a share of due diligence and closing costs for land acquisitions. Based on funding and costs to date (through 2021), the District’s funding has equaled one percent of total land acquisition costs. The funding plan assumes that the District will continue to fund these costs at this same level through the remainder of the permit term.
Future local operating funds from the Park District are shown in Table 8.1.
Total funding is between $14 million and $17 million, depending on the scenario. Net funding after deducting lease revenues is $6 million to $8 million.
Table 8.1: Future Local Operating Funds (Park District) (2022-2037)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Preserve Management & Maintenance
2022-2026 Costs (yrs. 15-19) $7,430,000 $7,990,000
2027-2031 Costs (yrs. 20-24) $9,340,000 $10,820,000
2032-2037 Costs (yrs. 25-30) $13,900,000 $16,910,000
Total $30,670,000 $35,720,000
Park District Share1 41.0% 41.0%
Park District Preserve Management Funding $12,570,000 $14,650,000 Due Diligence & Closing (funded by Park District)2 $1,520,000 $2,120,000 Total Park District Funding $14,090,000 $16,770,000
Lease Revenue Subject To Allocation Agreement3 ($5,100,000) ($5,100,000) Grazing Lease Revenue4 ($2,960,000) ($3,470,000)
Net Additional Park District Funding (yrs. 15-30) $6,030,000 $8,200,000 1 EBRPD share based on preliminary estimate provided by Conservancy and subject to negotiation between EBRPD and the Conservancy.
2 Equal to one percent of total future land acquisition costs. The one percent factor is based on Park District share of funding for those costs to date ($1.5 million of District funding and $139 million of land acquisition costs through 2021).
3 The Conservancy and EBRPD have entered into a lease revenue allocation agreement that allocates revenue from leases (primarily from communication and wind power facilities) on preserve lands. The amount shown here represents the share of those revenues allocated to preserve management and maintenance costs excluding grazing leases.
4 Based on cost model estimates of grazing management costs. Costs are assumed equal grazing lease revenue.
Sources: Appendices C and D (Summary, Land Acquisition, and Preserve Management & Maintenance tables); Appendix F, Tables F.4 and F.5.
Other Funds
Other funds include interest earnings and miscellaneous revenue. Revenue from these sources for the remaining permit term equals the prior five-year annual average.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 49
Funding Plan Summary
Table 8.2 presents the updated funding plan under the initial and maximum UDA scenarios. Actual revenues for 2007 through 2021 are inflated to 2021 dollars and added to estimates of remaining revenues for each scenario to calculate total revenues for the 30-year permit term. The ending fund balance for 2021 is included to calculate total resources available to fund the Plan. Plan costs are drawn from Chapters 3 and 4.
Tables 8.3 and 8.4 compare the updated funding plan with the HCP/NCCP and the 2017 audit for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios, respectively, in 2021 dollars. Three revenue sources, development fees, state and federal funds, and local capital funds, continue to fund over 80 percent of the Plan.
The share of total revenue provided by each of these sources continue to remain constant across the three funding plans (+/- two percent).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 50
Table 8.2: Funding Plan (2021 dollars)
Initial UDA Maximum UDA
2007-2021 2022-2037 Total 2022-2037 Total
Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
PLAN FUNDING
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $17,450,000 $186,020,000 $203,470,000 $274,180,000 $291,630,000 Wetland Mitigation Fee $1,570,000 $41,000,000 $42,570,000 $47,540,000 $49,110,000 Rural Road Fee $2,510,000 $8,790,000 $11,300,000 $8,790,000 $11,300,000 Temporary Impact Fee2 $3,710,000 $3,520,000 $7,230,000 $3,520,000 $7,230,000 Subtotal $25,240,000 $239,330,000 $264,570,000 $334,030,000 $359,270,000 Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges2 $990,000 $1,460,000 $2,450,000 $1,460,000 $2,450,000 Non-Covered Activities3 $5,070,000 ($5,070,000) $0 ($5,070,000) $0 Other Mitigation Fees2 $4,740,000 $1,870,000 $6,610,000 $1,870,000 $6,610,000 Subtotal $10,800,000 ($1,740,000) $9,060,000 ($1,740,000) $9,060,000 Local, State & Federal Funds
State & Federal Funds4 $106,530,000 $50,150,000 $156,680,000 $50,150,000 $156,680,000 Local Capital Funds4 $39,110,000 $16,610,000 $55,720,000 $16,610,000 $55,720,000 Local Operating Funds $10,270,000 $14,090,000 $24,360,000 $16,770,000 $27,040,000 Subtotal $155,910,000 $80,850,000 $236,760,000 $83,530,000 $239,440,000 Other Funds
Interest Earnings2 $540,000 $650,000 $1,190,000 $650,000 $1,190,000 Miscellaneous2 $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 $30,000 $60,000
Subtotal $570,000 $680,000 $1,250,000 $680,000 $1,250,000 Total Revenue $192,520,000 $319,120,000 $511,640,000 $416,500,000 $609,020,000 Fund Balance5 $3,960,000 $0 $3,960,000 $0 $3,960,000
Total Resources $196,480,000 $319,120,000 $515,600,000 $416,500,000 $612,980,000
PLAN COSTS
Plan Implementation (Permit Term) $456,970,000 $539,680,000 Endowment Fund Contribution $58,270,000 $70,260,000
Total Costs $515,240,000 $609,940,000
Surplus / (Deficit) $360,000 $3,040,000
1 Total years 0-30 revenue estimated based on adjusting HCP/NCCP estimate of $8,930,000 by the inflation index for 2006. 2 Future year estimates based on annual average actual revenue for prior five years (2017-2021), except Other Mitigation Fees prior annual average excludes extraordinary CWF 2020 endowment contribution (see Table F.4), 3 Prior year revenue deducted from future years because funding must augment and not substitute for Plan obligations (see Chapter 9 of the Plan).
4 Future year estimate used to balance total resources with total costs while ensuring that total revenue does not exceed HCP/NCCP estimates of preserve acquisition funded by these sources, tracked based on acres acquired and average cost per acre. 5 As of December 31, 2021.
Sources: Tables 3.2, 3.3, 5.3, 6.1, 7.1, and 8.1, Appendix F, Table F.5, ECCC Habitat Conservancy (fund balance).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 51
Table 8.3: Funding Plan Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) 2006
Plan
2017
Fee Audit
2022
Fee Audit
2022 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2022 Audit vs.
2017 Audit
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $179,660,000 40% $212,450,000 38% $203,470,000 39% $23,810,000 13% ($8,980,000) (4%) Wetland Mitigation Fee $33,810,000 7% $51,310,000 9% $42,570,000 8% $8,760,000 26% ($8,740,000) (17%) Rural Road Fee $13,580,000 3% $13,570,000 2% $11,300,000 2% ($2,280,000) (17%) ($2,270,000) (17%) Temporary Impact Fee $0 0% $6,570,000 1% $7,230,000 1% $7,230,000 NA $660,000 10% Subtotal $227,050,000 50% $283,900,000 51% $264,570,000 51% $37,520,000 17% ($19,330,000) (7%) Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges $0 0% $1,670,000 0% $2,450,000 0% $2,450,000 NA $780,000 47% Non-Covered Activities $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 NA $0 NA
Other Mitigation Fees $0 0% $4,910,000 1% $6,610,000 1% $6,610,000 NA $1,700,000 35% Subtotal $0 0% $6,580,000 1% $9,060,000 2% $9,060,000 NA $2,480,000 38% Local, State & Federal Funds
State & Federal Funds $143,660,000 32% $176,870,000 32% $156,680,000 30% $13,020,000 9% ($20,190,000) (11%) Local Capital Funds $53,210,000 12% $64,810,000 12% $55,720,000 11% $2,510,000 5% ($9,090,000) (14%) Local Operating Funds $30,400,000 7% $25,180,000 5% $24,360,000 5% ($6,040,000) (20%) ($820,000) (3%) Subtotal $227,270,000 50% $266,860,000 48% $236,760,000 46% $9,490,000 4% ($30,100,000) (11%) Other Funds
Interest Earnings1 $0 0% $670,000 0% $1,190,000 0% $1,190,000 NA $520,000 78% Miscellaneous1 $0 0% $30,000 0% $60,000 0% $60,000 NA $30,000 100% Subtotal $0 0% $700,000 0% $1,250,000 0% $1,250,000 NA $550,000 79% Fund Balance $0 0% Not Included 0% $3,960,000 1% $3,960,000 NA $3,960,000 NA Total Funding $454,320,000 100% $558,040,000 100% $515,600,000 100% $61,280,000 13% ($42,440,000) (8%) Total Costs $451,640,000 $556,470,000 $515,240,000 $63,600,000 14% ($41,230,000) (7%) Surplus / (Deficit) $2,680,000 $1,570,000 $360,000 ($2,320,000) ($1,210,000) Note: HCP/NCCP and 2017 Audit revenues are inflated to 2021 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.
Sources: HCP/NCCP, Table 9-8 and Appendix H; 2017 Fee Audit, Table 8.2, p. 51; Table 8.2 (this report).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report 52
Table 8.4: Funding Plan Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) 2006
Plan
2017
Fee Audit
2022
Fee Audit
2022 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2022 Audit vs.
2017 Audit
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $258,010,000 48% $317,110,000 47% $291,630,000 48% $33,620,000 13% ($25,480,000) (8%) Wetland Mitigation Fee $36,500,000 7% $59,240,000 9% $49,110,000 8% $12,610,000 35% ($10,130,000) (17%) Rural Road Fee $13,580,000 3% $13,570,000 2% $11,300,000 2% ($2,280,000) (17%) ($2,270,000) (17%) Temporary Impact Fee $0 0% $6,570,000 1% $7,230,000 1% $7,230,000 NA $660,000 10% Subtotal $308,090,000 58% $396,490,000 59% $359,270,000 59% $51,180,000 17% ($37,220,000) (9%) Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges $0 0% $1,670,000 0% $2,450,000 0% $2,450,000 NA $780,000 47% Non-Covered Activities $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 NA $0 NA
Other Mitigation Fees $0 0% $4,910,000 1% $6,610,000 1% $6,610,000 NA $1,700,000 35% Subtotal $0 0% $6,580,000 1% $9,060,000 1% $9,060,000 NA $2,480,000 38% Local, State & Federal Funds
State & Federal Funds $143,660,000 27% $176,870,000 26% $156,680,000 26% $13,020,000 9% ($20,190,000) (11%) Local Capital Funds $53,210,000 10% $64,810,000 10% $55,720,000 9% $2,510,000 5% ($9,090,000) (14%) Local Operating Funds $30,400,000 6% $25,180,000 4% $27,040,000 4% ($3,360,000) (11%) $1,860,000 7% Subtotal $227,270,000 42% $266,860,000 40% $239,440,000 39% $12,170,000 5% ($27,420,000) (10%) Other Funds
Interest Earnings1 $0 0% $670,000 0% $1,190,000 0% $1,190,000 NA $520,000 78% Miscellaneous1 $0 0% $30,000 0% $60,000 0% $60,000 NA $30,000 100% Subtotal $0 0% $700,000 0% $1,250,000 0% $1,250,000 NA $550,000 79% Fund Balance $0 0% Not Included 0% $3,960,000 1% $3,960,000 NA $3,960,000 NA Total Funding $535,360,000 100% $670,630,000 100% $612,980,000 100% $77,620,000 14% ($57,650,000) (9%) Total Costs $532,140,000 $669,060,000 $609,940,000 $77,800,000 15% ($59,120,000) (9%) Surplus / (Deficit) $3,220,000 $1,570,000 $3,040,000 ($180,000) $1,470,000 Note: HCP/NCCP and 2017 Audit revenues are inflated to 2021 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.
Sources: HCP/NCCP, Table 9-8 and Appendix H; 2017 Fee Audit, Table 8.3, p. 52; Table 8.2 (this report).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-1
APPENDIX A: DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
The following tables provide detail for impacts from covered activities for 2008 through 2021 of the HCP/NCCP.
Table A.1 provides detail for permanent land conversion impacts Table A.2 provides detail for wetland impacts.
Temporary impacts are not shown because they do not affect audit calculations of the development fees.
Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2009 CCC LP07-2033: Verizon Wireless Martin Cell Tower Project 1.39 2009 CCC LP09-2002: US Coast Guard/SBA Cell Tower Project 1.158 2009 PSE: State Route 4 Bypass, Segment 4, Phase 2 24.69 23.81 2010 PSE: CalTrans SR4 Median Buffer & Shoulder Widening Project 7.34 2010 CCC PWD: Vasco Road Safety Improvements 6.201
2010 CCC LP09-2033: Horizon Cell Tower Project 1.19
2010 PSE: eBart Phase 1 Project 0.3
2011 CCC LP10-2070: Morgan Territory Rd Telecommunications Facility Project 0.901
2011 CCC LP09-2037: Camino Diablo Vasco Telecommunications Facility Project 2.35
2011 CCC LP10-2082: J4 Byron Hot Springs Communications Facility 0.8 2011 CCC PWD: Balfour Rd Culvert Repair Project 0.01
2011 CCC PWD: Byron Hwy Shoulder Widening Project-Phase 1 0.44 2011 CCC PWD: Vasco Camino Diablo Intersection 1.94
2011 PSE: ConocoPhillips Line 200 Repair & Anode 0.003
2011 City of Oakley: Stonewood III-Unit #1 Sub #9183 2.21 2011 City of Pittsburg: Trash Capture Demonstration Project 0.02 2011 City of Brentwood: New Meetinghouse Brentwood 3.4
2012 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Safety Improvement Project 0.53 2012 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Should Widening near Round Valley Regional Preserve Project 2.79
2012 CCC BIG12-0004598: EBRIX Los Vaqueros Communication Facility 0.026
2012 CCC LP10-2009: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park
Emergency H2O Pipeline Extension 0.5
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-2
Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) (continued)
Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2012 EBRPD Round Valley Pedestrian Bridge Project 0.15
2012 City of Oakley: iPark Oakley Project 9.14
2012 PSE: eBart Phase II Extension 37.91
2012 PSE: eBart Phase II Extension-1st & 2nd Amend 2.56 2012 Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin Expansion 6.89
2013 City of Brentwood: AutoZone Store 4136 0.9
2013 City of Oakley: Emerson Ranch 138.25
2013 CCC: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park Stormdrain Outfall 0.2 2013 PSE: SR160/SR4 Bypass Phase II Connectors 18.01
2013 PSE: Chevron Pipeline KLM Site 1357 Repair 0.007
2014 City of Brentwood: Ferro/Ronconi 42.23
2014 CCC PWD: Pacifica Ave Sidewalk 0.204
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Bridge Scour Repair 0.003
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek 142 Wingwall Repair 0.009
2014 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Shoulder Widening 1.77
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Detention Center Bridge Replacement 0.18 2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements 1.3
2014 CCC LP13-2097: Verizon Wireless Bethel Island 0.036 2014 CCC LP13-2111: AT&T Co-location Marsh Creek Monopine 0.000226 2014 CCC LP13-2069: Marsh Creek Cell Tower 0.019
2015 City of Brentwood: Bella Fiore 13.5
2015 City of Brentwood: Celebration Preschool 0.87
2015 City of Brentwood: Mangini 9.77
2015 CCC LP14-2044: Mariner's Discovery Church 3.49
2015 City of Oakley PW: Marsh Creek Pedestrian Bridge 0.02 2015 City of Brentwood: Mission Grove 15.6
2015 City of Brentwood: Palmilla Phase I 20.64
2015 Duane Martin Jr. Vasco Caves 0.1
2015 City of Pittsburg: Greystone Place 4.9
2015 Hess Water Trough Installation 0.01
2015 City of Brentwood PW: John Muir Parkway-Phase II 0.33 2.36 2015 Vaquero Farms S. Wetland Creation & Repair 0.01
2015 CCC PWD: Vasco Road Embankment Repair 0.02
2015 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Safety Improvement Project (Fed. No.
HRRL-5928 (095)) 0.76
2016 City of Brentwood: Maffeo 9.1
2016 City of Brentwood: Palmilla Phase II 38.7
2016 City of Brentwood: Sparrow at Marsh Creek 6.71
2016 City of Brentwood: Cornerstone Church 4.51
2016 City of Brentwood: Elite (Pacific Union) Self Storage 4 2016 City of Oakley: Verizon Wireless Empire Oakley Road 0.33 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-3
Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) (continued)
Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2016 City of Pittsburg: Sonic Drive-In Project 1.22
2016 City of Brentwood: Tractor Supply Project 2.8
2016 City of Pittsburg: Delta Gateway Pad No. 12 1.8
2016 CCC PWD: Port Chicago Hwy-Willow Pass Sidewalk
Improvements 0.156 0.143
2016 CCC PWD: Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lanes Project 0.4709 2016 CCC LP15-2029: Timber Rd Communication Facility 0.05 2016 CCC TP12-0026: Moita Road Improvement Project 0.36 0.9 2016 PSE: Oakley Generating Station (Original-3rd Amendment) Project 16.72 [see footnote 2]
2016 PSE: SR4/Balfour & First Amendment 29.58 [see footnote 2] 2017 Canal Road Bridge Replacement Project 0.01
2017 Morgan Territory Road Slide Repair and Temporary Access Road Alignment 0.03
2017 Palermo Subdivision 18.84
2017 Sellers Pointe Subdivision 13.82
2017 Verna Way 1.96
2017 Oakley Recreation Center 4.294
2017 Gilbert Property Phase I 51.91
2017 Oakley Gateway 3.63
2017 iPark Oakley Phase 2: Executive RV and Boat Storage 0.67 2017 PG&E Walnut Crossover Rebuild Project 0.1
2018 Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Climbing Lane - Inside 3.12 2018 Marsh Creek Road Bridge #141 Replacement Project 0.09 2018 Sciortino Ranch Development 51.94
2018 Bella Verde Development 6.1
2018 Tri-City Plaza - Parcel D 0.87
2018 Shops at Lone Tree (Center Pointe Commercial Development) 7.64 2018 City of Brentwood Recycled Water Project - Phase 1 0.9 2018 Cypress Self Storage Project 3.24
2018 Bay Point Family Apartments (DP15-3023) 7.61
2018 Shell Pipeline AC Mitigation Site at Valve 158 0.03 2018 Empire Ave Development - Hovnanian Homes Project 8 2018 30 Technology Court 1.46
2018 PG&E RMSCC15-303 Project 0.48
2018 Gilbert Property Phase 2 70.626
2019 Marsh Creek Road Traffic Safety Improvements Project 0.00015 2019 Alicante (The Village at Main) 20.06
2019 The Vines at Oakley 9.9
2019 Liberty Residential Subdivision 4.24
2019 Praxair Pittsburg Cylinder Storage Facility - Phase 1 0.16 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-4
Table A.1: Permanent Land Conversion Impacts (2008-2021) (acres) (continued)
Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Outside
UDA1
2019 Praxair Pittsburg Cylinder Storage Facility - Phase 4.93 2019 eBART Phase II Extension - 4th Amendment 0.21
2019 EBRPD FEMA Pond Repair Projects 2019 0.002
2020 Quick Quack Car Wash and 7-11 2.64
2020 Brentwood Goddard School 0.86
2020 The Groves 19.47
2020 Silvergate Condominium Community 8.35
2020 City of Brentwood Recycled Water Project Phase 2 - NonPotable Water Distribution System 0.17 2020 Oakley Logistics Center 66.046
2020 Acacia Development 12.56
2020 Twin Oaks Senior Residence 6.06
2020 Diablo Energy Storage 10.41
2020 Tuscany Meadows 168.86
2020 Department of Water Resources Old Banks Landfill Cap Project 6.49 2020 CCTA Mokelumne Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project 1.85 2021 Tuscany Estates Project- at the Baldocchi Property 23.26 2021 Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery Park 10.26
2021 Diablo Meadows Residential Development 8.28
2021 Byron Highway Solar Project 34.13
2021 Byron Highway/Byer Road Safety Improvements Project 0.18 2021 Rotten Robbie Brentwood 2.11
2021 Amber Lane Apartments 13.91
2021 Orchard Trails (Walnut Villas) 27.88
2021 Zip Thru Car Wash 1.42
Total 931.44 211.33 34.05 76.94
Notes: Only includes impacts subject to permit limits.
"PSE" is participating special entity. "CCC" is Contra Costa County. 1 Includes covered activities outside the urban development area (UDA) that pay either the zones 1 or 2 fee. Includes rural road projects as shown in Table 9-6 of the 2006 Plan.
2 These covered activities occurred over multiple years. Total impacts and last year of impacts are shown here.
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-5
Table A.2: Permanent Wetland Impacts, 2008 Through 2021 Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Wetlands Streams
Total
Riparian/
Woodland
Permanent
Wetland
Seasonal
Wetland
Alkali
Wetland Pond Aquatic Slough ≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
(acres) (linear feet)
2008 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Emergency
Bridge Repair Project 0.3096
2009 PSE: State Route 4 Bypass, Segment 4,
Phase 2 0.19 0.19
2010 PSE: CalTrans SR4 Median Buffer &
Shoulder Widening Project 0.41 0.05 0.29 0.07 6
2010 CCC PWD: Vasco Road Safety
Improvements 0.007 0.006 0.001 110 22
2011 CCC PWD: Balfour Rd Culvert Repair
Project 12
2011 CCC PWD: Byron Hwy Shoulder Widening
Project-Phase 1 47
2011 City of Pittsburg: Trash Capture
Demonstration Project 0.02 0.02
2012 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Safety
Improvement Project 0.13 0.13
2012
CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Should Widening
near Round Valley Regional Preserve
Project
0.064 0.064 29
2012 Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin
Expansion 0.17 0.11 0.04 0.02 295
2013 CCC: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park
Stormdrain Outfall 0.1 0.1
2013 PSE: Chevron Pipeline KLM Site 1357
Repair 0.007 0.007
2014 CCC PWD: Pacifica Ave Sidewalk 0.044 0.044 36
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Bridge Scour
Repair 0.003 0.003 23
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek 142 Wingwall
Repair 0.009 0.009
2014 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Shoulder
Widening 0.1 0.1
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Detention Center
Bridge Replacement 0.132 0.132 60
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report A-6
Table A.2: Permanent Wetland Impacts, 2008 Through 2021 (continued) Fiscal
Year Project / Description
Wetlands Streams
Total
Riparian/
Woodland
Permanent
Wetland
Seasonal
Wetland
Alkali
Wetland Pond Aquatic Slough ≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Road Safety
Improvements 148
2015 City of Oakley PW: Marsh Creek
Pedestrian Bridge 15
2015 City of Brentwood: Palmilla Phase I 25
2015
CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Safety
Improvement Project (Fed. No. HRRL-5928
(095)
0.02 0.02 29
2016 CCC PWD: Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike
Lanes Project 0.0039 0.0034 0.0005 21
2016 CCC TP12-0026: Moita Road Improvement 45
2016 PSE: SR4/Balfour & First Amendment 0.42 0.42
2017 CCC PWD: Garin Ranch Basin and Heron
Park Basin Improvements 0.469 0.469
2017 City of Oakley: Gilbert Property Phase I 0.703 0.126 0.577 2018 CCC PWD: Kirker Pass Road Northbound
Truck Climbing Lane 0.046 0.046
2018 CCC PWD: Morgan Territory Road Bridges
4.30 and 4.40 Scour Repair 0.002 0.002 65
2018 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Road Bridge #141
Replacement 0.16 0.16 93
2018 City of Oakley: Gilbert Property Phase 2 0.124 0.124 2019 EBRPD FEMA Pond Repair Projects 2019 8
2020 City of Oakley: Oakley Logistics Center 0.984 0.984
Total 4.32 1.29 0.07 1.61 0.14 0.10 0.47 0.65 685.00 404.31 Notes: Only includes impacts subject to permit limits.
"PSE" is participating special entity. "CCC" is Contra Costa County.
Wetland impacts are included in land conversion impacts (Table A.1). Wetland impacts are subject to the additional wetland fee.
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report B-1
APPENDIX B: LAND ACQUISITION COST ANALYSIS
The following tables provide detail for the land acquisition cost analysis update.
Appendix B - page 1
Table B.1
REMAINING LAND ACQUISITION BY COST CATEGORY, Acres and Estimated Total Cost
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Acquisition Cost
Category Parcel Size Acres % of Total Estimated Cost % of Total Acres % of Total Estimated Cost % of Total
OUTSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
1 120 + acres 9,389 70% $85,441,820 56% 13,778 72% $125,376,779 59% 2 40 - 120 acres 1,822 14% 20,445,821 13% 3,074 16% 34,461,669 16% 3 10 - 40 acres 322 2% 8,852,800 6% 459 2% 12,612,600 6% 4 5 - 10 acres 15 0% 726,620 0% 33 0% 1,538,498 1%
5 < 5 acres - 0% - 0% 4 0% 288,420 0%
6 ALL, steep slopes 480 4% 2,016,000 1% 489 3% 2,055,480 1% INSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE 1,342 10% 34,513,035 23% 1,385 7% 35,559,843 17% TOTAL 13,371 100% $151,996,096 100% 19,222 100% $211,893,289 100% Source: East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Initial Urban Development Area Maximum Urban Development Area Note: includes acres that may be acquired outside the Inventory Area and outside Acquistion Analysis zones that do not count towards preserve targets but are part of larger preserve parcels.
Appendix B - page 2
Table B.2
LAND ACQUISITION COST FACTOR
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
OUTSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
Acquisition Cost
Category Parcel Size
Slope
Characteristics
(percent of parcel)
2003
Valuation
2005
Valuation
2006
Valuation
2012
Valuation
2017
Valuation
2022
Valuation
Change
from 2017
1 120 + acres < 26% $3,500 $4,800 $5,600 $5,300 $6,400 $9,100 42% 2 40 - 120 acres < 26% $6,000 $8,200 $9,600 $7,500 $11,200 $11,200 0% 3 10 - 40 acres < 26% $20,000 $27,400 $31,900 $18,600 $22,000 $27,500 25% 4 5 - 10 acres < 26% $35,000 $48,000 $56,000 $49,000 $38,000 $47,000 24% 5 < 5 acres < 26% $50,000 $68,600 $80,000 $70,000 $55,000 $66,000 20% 6 ALL > 26% $3,000 $3,300 $3,800 $4,200 $4,500 $4,200 -7%
INSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE
Acquisition Cost
Category
Currently
Designated for
Development
(Yes/No)
Slope
Characteristics
(percent of parcel)
2003
Valuation
2005
Valuation
2006
Valuation
2012
Valuation
2017
Valuation
2022
Valuation
Change
from 2017
7 No <15% $14,500 $18,300 $21,300 $11,000 $19,000 $24,000 26% 8 No 15-26% $10,100 $12,700 $14,800 $6,600 $11,400 $14,400 26% 9 No >26% $3,600 $4,500 $5,200 $2,800 $4,800 $6,000 25% 10 Yes <15% $45,000 $56,800 $66,200 $35,000 $60,000 $74,000 23% 11 Yes 15-26% $31,500 $39,760 $46,400 $21,000 $36,000 $44,400 23% 12 Yes >26% $11,300 $14,263 $16,600 $8,800 $15,000 $18,500 23%
INSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE - BYRON AIRPORT
13 na na $8,000 $8,800 $10,300 $6,200 $10,700 $13,200 23% Source: East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Per Acre Land Value Factor
Per Acre Land Value Factor
Note: The 2022 land cost factor for the Byron Airport Area is based on the $8,000 per acre value estimated in 2003, adjusted by the 2022 percentage change from values originally estimated in 2003 for Cost Category 10--about 65 percent.
Appendix B - page 3
Table B.3
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels > 120 acres (nominal dollars)
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value
per acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years 19 Vaquero Farms Central 2012 319.9 $1,855,700 $5,800
23 Thomas North 2012 135.0 $863,900 $6,400
26 Smith 2014 960.0 $5,376,000 $5,600
27 Roddy Ranch (part) 2014 994.5 $13,500,000 $13,575
28 Viera/Perley 2015 260.0 $1,950,000 $7,500
30 Nunn 2016 646.0 $6,072,000 $9,400
32 Coelho 2016 199.4 $1,495,750 $7,500
34 Viera North Peak 2017 165.0 $1,080,000 $6,545
36 Casey 2017 320.0 $2,400,000 $7,500
37 Roddy Ranch Golf Course 2018 230.0 $1,955,000 $8,500 Weighted Average $8,641
Save Mount Diablo
SMD 23 Curry Canyon Ranch 2013 1,080.5 $7,173,800 $6,639 Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2016 181.32 $1,250,000 $6,894
2014 155.76 $1,200,000 $7,704
2014 251.00 $1,824,840 $7,270
2014 640.00 $4,500,000 $7,031
2015 400.00 $3,140,000 $7,850
2014 188.77 $950,000 $5,033
2014 205.55 $2,450,000 $11,919
2016 158.40 $455,000 $2,872
2010 139.83 $1,294,500 $9,258
2017 343.82 $2,063,000 $6,000
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Agricultural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 1 Brentwood 2018 1,566.25 $20,000,000 $12,769
Assessor 2 Knightsen 2017 411.56 $3,900,000 $9,476
Assessor 3 Antioch 2021 400.00 $2,720,000 $6,800
Assessor 4 Byron 2019 291.82 $1,400,000 $4,797
Assessor 5 Byron 2020 251.31 $3,945,000 $15,698
Assessor 6 Knightsen 2017 141.53 $2,820,000 $19,925
Assessor 7 Byron 2020 135.96 $3,711,500 $27,298
Overall Weighted Average $9,070
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $9,100
Notes:
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Marciel Road, San Ramon
Patterson Pass Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.
Bollinger Canyon Road, Moraga
Chadbourne Road, Brentwood Road
Off Marsh Creek Road, Antioch
Christensen Road, Livermore
Byron Hot Springs Road, Byron
Tesla Road, Livermore
Altamont Pass Road, Livermore1
Morgan Territory Road, San Ramon
1. This is a relatively old sale but is included as a comparable because it was an abandoned golf course in an "agricultural" area in the same region, purchased for mitigation.
Appendix B - page 4
Table B.4
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels > 40 - 120 acres (nominal dollars)
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value per
acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years 20 Galvin 2012 61.7 $370,000 $5,999
25 Adrienne Galvin 2013 112.0 $884,400 $7,900
31 Hanson Hills 2016 76.5 $730,000 $9,547
33 Campos 2017 80.0 $520,000 $6,500
38 Poppi/Halstead (Lucas) 2018 72.0 $725,000 $10,071
39 Olesen/Duke 2019 120.0 $1,080,000 $9,000
42 Civic Rancho Meadows 2021 80.0 $1,500,000 $18,750
Weighted Average $23,229
Save Mount Diablo
SMD 20 Highland Springs 2012 105.0 $495,000 $4,714
SMD 22 Marsh Creek 8 2013 51.1 $690,684 $13,506
Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2015 110.70 $262,500 $2,371
2014 79.02 $550,000 $6,960
2016 68.76 $760,000 $11,053
2012 105.00 $495,000 $4,714
2015 76.46 $690,000 $9,024
2015 41.04 $470,000 $11,452
2014 60.00 $500,000 $8,333
2017 100.21 $900,000 $8,981
2016 50.25 $375,000 $7,463
2017 50.25 $490,000 $9,751
2017 95.41 $800,000 $8,385
2020 48.48 $1,154,000 $23,804
2019 118.00 $1,225,000 $10,381
2019 50.81 $1,650,000 $32,474
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Agricultural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 8 Byron 2020 115.34 $2,700,000 $23,409
Assessor 9 Byron 2021 87.37 $1,589,500 $18,193
Assessor 10 Byron 2020 70.45 $1,450,000 $20,582
Assessor 11 Byron 2021 65.61 $1,100,000 $16,766
Overall Weighted Average $11,228
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $11,200
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Altamont Pass Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.
North Vasco Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.
N Bruns Road, Byron Highway, Byron
Morgan Territory Road/Highland Springs, Livermore
Marsh Creek Road, Clayton
Wirthman Lane, Clayton
Crane Ridge Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.
Ruess Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.
Deer Valley Road, Brentwood
Deer Valley Road, Brentwood
Whispering Pines Road, Clayton
Alhambra Valley Road, Martinez
Franklin Canyon Road, Martinez
Marsh Creek Road, Clayton
Appendix B - page 5
Table B.5
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels 10 - 40 acres (nominal dollars)
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value per
acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years 21 Moss Rock 2012 20.5 $410,000 $20,010
22 Fan 2012 21.0 $220,000 $10,476
35 Roddy Home Ranch 2017 40.0 $1,536,000 $38,400
Weighted Average $26,580
Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2016 14.45 $490,000 $33,910
2014 20.30 $625,000 $30,788
2015 22.86 $650,000 $28,434
2017 10.00 $500,000 $50,000
2017 16.77 $599,000 $35,719
2017 17.00 $220,000 $12,941
2017 18.27 $875,000 $47,893
2018 36.24 $295,000 $8,140
2018 38.54 $558,000 $14,478
2018 40.00 $680,000 $17,000
2019 10.04 $425,000 $42,331
2020 13.66 $525,000 $38,433
2020 25.55 $600,000 $23,483
2019 10.00 $425,000 $42,500
2020 28.73 $650,000 $22,624
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Agricultural and Vacant Rural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 12 Brentwood 2020 38.80 $850,000 $21,907
Assessor 13 Clayton 2019 21.78 $500,000 $22,957
Assessor 14 Brentwood 2021 13.22 $530,000 $40,091
Assessor 15 Byron 2021 12.78 $400,000 $31,299
Assessor 16 Knightsen 2021 11.35 $600,000 $52,863
Assessor 17 Livermore 2020 10.64 $349,000 $32,801
Assessor 18 Brentwood 2017 10.00 $550,000 $55,000
Assessor 19 Knightsen 2018 10.00 $252,500 $25,250
Assessor 20 Knightsen 2018 10.00 $302,500 $30,250
Assessor 21 Knightsen 2020 10.00 $399,000 $39,900
Assessor 22 Brentwood 2021 10.00 $425,000 $42,500
Overall Weighted Average $27,452
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $27,500
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Byron Hwy, Brentwood
Marsh Creek Road, Clayton
Crow Canyon Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.
Knightsen Avenue, Oakley
Willow Way, Byron
Marsh Creek Road, Clayton
Camino Diablo, Byron
Altamont Pass Road, unincorporated Alameda Co.
Bragdon Way, Clayton
Deer Valley Road & Balfour Road, Antioch
Sunset Road, Knightsen
Kellogg Creek Road, Byron
Briones Valley Road, Brentwood
Silver Hills Drive, Byron
Morgan Territory Road, Clayton
Appendix B - page 6
Table B.6
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels 5 - 10 acres (nominal dollars)
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value
per acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years (none in this size category) Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2015 6.42 $295,000 $45,950
2015 5.01 $220,000 $43,912
2017 5.32 $360,000 $67,669
2016 5.00 $350,000 $70,000
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Rural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 23 Byron 2020 9.99 $200,000 $20,020
Assessor 24 Knightsen 2018 9.88 $370,000 $37,449
Assessor 25 Knightsen 2018 9.88 $370,000 $37,449
Assessor 26 Knightsen 2018 9.84 $370,000 $37,602
Assessor 27 Brentwood 2019 9.60 $475,000 $49,479
Assessor 28 Knightsen 2018 9.51 $460,000 $48,370
Assessor 29 Brentwood 2020 8.21 $75,000 $9,135
Assessor 30 Brentwood 2018 5.00 $400,000 $80,000
Assessor 31 Brentwood 2018 5.00 $350,000 $70,000
Assessor 32 Brentwood 2018 5.00 $350,000 $70,000
Assessor 33 Brentwood 2021 5.00 $480,000 $96,000
Overall Weighted Average $47,165
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $47,000
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Bragdon Way, Clayton
Bragdon Way, Clayton
Leon Drive, Clayton
Morgan Territory Road, Clayton
Appendix B - page 7
Table B.7
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels less than 5 acres (nominal dollars)
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value
per acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions in the last 10 years 24 Alaimo 2013 2.31 $185,000 $80,087
29 Clayton Radio LLC 2015 2.02 $75,000 $37,129
40 Bloching 2020 3.25 $210,000 $64,615
Comparables from 2017 - 2021 Appraisals
2018 4.00 $225,000 $56,250
Overall Weighted Average $60,017
Land Cost Factor for 2022 Update: $66,000
Note: Only a small number of parcels less than 5 acres might be acquired as part of the acquisition strategy to fill gaps between larger parcels. Following the rationale presented in "NCCP/HCP Land Cost Data", Technical Memorandum to John Kopchik, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, August 3, 2006 and included in Appendix G: HCP/NCCP Cost Data, the value assumption is based on a peracre premium above the average value for the 5 - 10 acre parcels ($47,000 for this 2022 update). In the 2006 analysis, the premium was about 40 percent. This 2022 analysis assumes a similar premium, resulting in the $66,000 per acre land cost factor for parcels less than five acres.
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy and Insight Data & Economic Analysis Bollinger Canyon Road, Moraga
Appendix B - page 8
Table B.8
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Basis for price per acre calculation for parcels inside the Urban Limit Line
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Item Value Source
Average Sales Price (placeholder estimate) $680,000 a New Home Sales 2021 Per Single Family Unit Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg Units per acre (gross) 5.0 b Average Lot Size of 7,000 sqft and net to gross ratio of 80 percent
Total Development Value $3,385,234 c=a*b Calculated
Raw Entitled Land Value 9.0% d Based on standard 10 percent ratio, as % of Development Value adjusted down slightly based on real estate broker conversations
Raw Entitled Land Value $304,671 e=c*d Calculated
Discount Rate 12% f Average land speculator
discount rate
Category 10 - 12.5 years to $73,893 g=e/(1+f)^12.5 Calculated entitlement/ development
Category 7 - 22.5 years to $23,792 h=e/(1+f)^22.5 Calculated entitlement/ development
Note: This table updates the cost factors in the calculations for this land cost factor as established in the August 3, 2006 Technical Memorandum from Economic & Planning Systems, "NCCP/HCP Land Cost Data". The average sales price for new single family units is updated to reflect current market conditions.
This table calculates the average values for cost categories 7 and 10, Following the methodology established in 2006, the values for categories 8 and 11 are discounted 40 percent from the value for a level site and the values for categories 9 and 12 are discounted 75 percent from the average for the level site.
Sources: "Annual New Home Sale Data for Selected Contra Costa County Cities ," Contra Costa Association of REALTORS® MLS (CCAR); Insight Data & Economic Analysis
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report C-1
APPENDIX C: INITIAL UDA COST MODEL UPDATE
The following tables provide comprehensive documentation for the cost model update based on estimated impacts for the initial urban development area.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Initial Urban Development Area
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary (rounded) Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars rounded to the nearest $10,000)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total (2021)
Program Administration $220,000 $14,590,000 $6,660,000 $6,260,000 $7,500,000 $35,240,000 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,240,000 $48,440,000 $48,440,000 $58,060,000 $294,180,000 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $250,000 $4,390,000 $1,920,000 $1,920,000 $2,300,000 $10,780,000 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $820,000 $8,260,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,050,000 $13,430,000 $13,430,000 $16,110,000 $50,020,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,410,000 $1,220,000 $1,020,000 $0 $3,650,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,650,000 $7,430,000 $9,340,000 $13,900,000 $37,320,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,200,000 $1,710,000 $2,340,000 $3,520,000 $9,760,000 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $260,000 $210,000 $2,810,000 $3,280,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,370,000 $1,840,000 $4,480,000 Total $470,000 $180,080,000 $83,800,000 $85,780,000 $106,860,000 $456,970,000 Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary table Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars not rounded)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program Administration $223,698 $14,594,336 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,495,644 $35,236,418 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,241,000 $48,437,737 $48,437,737 $58,059,276 $294,175,751 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $253,166 $4,387,960 $1,919,403 $1,919,403 $2,303,284 $10,783,217 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,853 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,051,220 $13,427,192 $13,427,192 $16,112,631 $50,018,236 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,411,927 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,648,120 $7,429,960 $9,336,250 $13,902,207 $37,316,537 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,195,918 $1,710,132 $2,335,132 $3,520,011 $9,761,193 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500 $3,276,720 Contingency $0 $0 $1,276,931 $1,370,752 $1,835,652 $4,483,335 Total $476,864 $180,081,334 $83,792,958 $85,763,202 $106,855,569 $456,969,927 Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
BLS Data CPI_ECI_CCI_2021 Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 NOTE: Original unit cost estimates for the 2006 HCP/NCCP were in 2005 dollars, inflated to 2006 dollars for use in the plan document.
Series Id:
Data extracted on: August 2, 2022
Series Title:
Area:
Item:
Base Period:
Years:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2021 dollars 2005 201.2 202.5 201.2 203.0 205.9 203.4 202.7 201.5 203.9 0.6545 2006 207.1 208.9 209.1 210.7 211.0 210.4 209.2 207.9 210.6 0.6754 2007 213.688 215.842 216.123 216.240 217.949 218.485 216.048 214.736 217.361 0.6976 2008 219.612 222.074 225.181 225.411 225.824 218.528 222.767 221.730 223.804 0.7193 2009 222.166 223.854 225.692 225.801 226.051 224.239 224.395 223.305 225.484 0.7245 2010 226.145 227.697 228.110 227.954 228.107 227.658 227.469 226.994 227.944 0.7344 2011 229.981 234.121 233.646 234.608 235.331 234.327 233.390 232.082 234.698 0.7535 2012 236.880 238.985 239.806 241.170 242.834 239.533 239.650 238.099 241.201 0.7738 2013 242.677 244.675 245.935 246.072 246.617 245.711 245.023 243.894 246.152 0.7911 2014 248.615 251.495 253.317 253.354 254.503 252.273 251.985 250.507 253.463 0.8136 2015 254.910 257.622 259.117 259.917 261.019 260.289 258.572 256.723 260.421 0.8349 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 0.8599 2017 271.626 274.589 275.304 275.893 277.570 277.414 274.924 273.306 276.542 0.8877 2018 281.308 283.422 286.062 287.664 289.673 289.896 285.550 282.666 288.435 0.9220 2019 291.227 294.801 295.259 295.490 298.443 297.007 295.004 293.150 296.859 0.9525 2020 299.690 298.074 300.032 300.182 301.736 302.948 300.084 299.109 301.059 0.9689 2021 304.387 309.419 309.497 311.167 313.265 315.805 309.721 306.724 312.718 1.0000 2022 320.195 324.878 330.539 323.408
Data extracted on: August 2, 2022 (8:36:09 PM)
Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 2021 dollars
Series Id: 2005 98.0 98.8 99.5 100.0 0.6974
2006 101.0 101.8 103.1 103.9 0.7245
Series Title:
2007 104.9 105.9 106.7 107.3 0.7483
Ownership: 2008 108.3 109.0 109.9 110.3 0.7692
Component: 2009 111.0 111.1 111.4 111.4 0.7768
Occupation: 2010 112.2 112.6 113.3 113.5 0.7915
Industry: 2011 114.6 115.1 115.4 115.7 0.8068
Subcategory: 2012 116.8 117.3 117.7 118.2 0.8243
Area: 2013 118.9 119.5 120.2 120.5 0.8403
Periodicity: 2014 121.0 121.9 122.5 122.9 0.8570
Years: 2015 123.7 124.1 124.5 124.9 0.8710
2016 125.7 126.2 126.7 126.7 0.8835
2017 127.8 128.7 129.1 129.6 0.9038
2018 130.8 131.6 132.3 132.8 0.9261
2019 133.7 134.4 135.1 135.6 0.9456
2020 136.8 137.0 137.8 138.4 0.9651
2021 139.7 140.5 142.2 143.4 1.0000
California Construction Cost Index, Department of General Services Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2021 dollars 2006 4620 4603 4597 4600 4599 4593 4609 4616 4619 4867 4891 4877 4,674 0.60878 2007 4869 4868 4871 4872 4886 4842 4849 4851 4942 4943 4978 4981 4,896 0.63766 2008 4983 4983 4999 5004 5023 5065 5135 5142 5194 5393 5375 5322 5,135 0.66876 2009 5309 5295 5298 5296 5288 5276 5263 5265 5264 5259 5259 5262 5,278 0.68739 2010 5260 5262 5268 5270 5378 5394 5401 5401 5381 5591 5599 5596 5,400 0.70331 2011 5592 5624 5627 5636 5637 5643 5654 5667 5668 5675 5680 5680 5,649 0.73568 2012 5683 5683 5738 5740 5755 5754 5750 5778 5777 5780 5779 5768 5,749 0.74872 2013 5774 5782 5777 5786 5796 5802 5804 5801 5802 5911 5903 5901 5,820 0.75799 1.24% 2014 5898 5896 5953 5956 5957 5961 5959 5959 5959 5969 5981 5977 5,952 0.77520 2.27% 2015 6073 6077 6069 6062 6069 6055 6055 6055 6113 6114 6109 6108 6,080 0.79185 2.15% 2016 6106 6132 6248 6249 6240 6238 6245 6244 6267 6343 6344 6373 6,252 0.81432 2.84% 8.49% 2017 6373 6373 6373 6461 6455 6470 6474 6620 6620 6596 6596 6596 6,501 0.84664 3.97% 2018 6596 6596 6596 6596 6596 6598 6643 6613 6674 6679 6679 6684 6,629 0.86339 1.98% 2019 6684 6700 6616 6841 6852 6854 6854 6823 6814 6851 6895 6924 6,809 0.88681 2.71% 2020 6995 6945 6947 6955 6958 7041 6984 6988 7036 7120 7123 7120 7,018 0.91399 3.06% 2021 7090 7102 7130 7150 7712 7746 7892 8122 7900 8080 8141 8072 7,678 1.00000 9.41% 21.14% The ENR BCI reports cost trends for specific construction trade labor and materials in the California marketplace.
Accessed 8/2/2022
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division-Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI The California Construction Cost index is developed based upon Building Cost Index (BCI) cost indices for San Francisco and Los Angeles produced by Engineering News Record (ENR) and reported in the second issue each month for the previous month. This table is updated at the end of each month.
All items
1982-84=100
2005 to 2022
Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers
Original Data Value
CUURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
All workers
United States (National)
Current dollar index number
2005 to 2016
Total compensation for Private industry workers in
Professional and related, Index
Private industry workers
All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all
Total compensation
Professional and related occupations
All workers
Employment Cost Index (NAICS)
Original Data Value
CIU2010000120000I
Not seasonally adjusted
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Legend Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Legend
red numbers are assumptions or data entered directly into the worksheet blue numbers are links from other worksheets in the workbook black numbers are calculations based on the above numbers Cost factors are colored coded by primary source considered:
EBRPD (for HCP)
CCWD (for HCP)
Average of CCWD/EBRPD
ECCC Habitat Conservancy
J&S and EPS (for HCP)
AECOM, 2012
Updated by Insight Data & Economic Analysis, 2022
Updated with input from H.T. Harvey, 2017
Other estimated factors
Actual costs start-up and years 1 - 14
Estimate of EBRPD contributions to operational costs, start up and years 1-14 Summary actuals supercede model detail
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
ReserveAcresAcquiredRestored Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
Initial UDA Source
Total acres acquired/managed 24,250 (Table 5-9: mid-point of range) Acres Acquired and Managed by Time Period
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
Total preserve acres acquired per period - 12,050 3,813 3,813 4,575 24,250 Total preserve acres managed, cumulative - 12,050 15,862 19,675 24,250 24,250 Assumptions:
Actual acquisition accounted for in years 1-5, 6-9 and 10 - 14; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the remaining 16 years of the permit term.
Management and monitoring on acquired land has not kept pace with actual acquisition. 14,463.76 Total acres acquired through 2021
1,681.1 Already conserved acres (no credit acres) on parcels acquired through 2021 (Annual Report Table 8a) 732.93 Other acres (outside acquisition zones) not credited to preserve system through 2021 12,049.7 Total acres acquired and credited toward preserve system Land Cover Type Restored/Created by Time Period
Land Cover Type (acres except where noted) 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year
period) Total
oak savanna - - 13.1 13.1 15.8 42.0
riparian woodland/scrub - 5.40 13.9 13.9 16.7 50.0
perennial wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 0.16 10.0 10.0 12.0 32.2 seasonal wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 10.70 10.8 10.8 12.9 45.2 alkali wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 2.40 6.1 6.1 7.3 21.8 slough/channel - - 22.5 22.5 27.0 72.0
open water - - - - - -
ponds - 0.61 6.4 6.4 7.6 21.0
streams (miles) - 2.16 0.8 0.8 0.9 4.6
Total (acres) - 20.58 83.3 83.3 99.9 287.0
Assumptions:
Total restoration requirements based on assumptions in the HCP/NCCP. Actual restoration will depend on actual impacts to these features.
Actual restoration accounted for in years 1-14; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the next 16 years of the permit term.
For total acre calculation, streams are assumed to be 5 feet wide 30% % of perennial, seasonal or alkali wetland complex acreage assumed to be jurisdictional wetland; for compensatory restoration only.
USED IN WETLAND FEE CALCULATION
average acres/site
or linear feet/site
(streams)
% requiring
substantial soil
disturbance
riparian/woodland scrub sites by acreage conversion: 3 20%
2.0 80%
1,000 90%
Restoration sites that require significant soil disturbance by land-cover type USED IN WETLAND FEE CALCULATION Land Cover Type Restoration Sites 0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
riparian woodland/scrub - 0.4 0.9 0.9 1.1 3.3
perennial wetland - 0.1 4.0 4.0 4.8 12.9
seasonal wetland - 4.3 4.3 4.3 5.2 18.1
alkali wetland - 1.0 2.4 2.4 2.9 8.7
ponds - - 9.0 9.0 10.8 28.8
streams (miles/acres converted to sites) - 10.2 3.6 3.6 4.4 21.9 Total sites for monitoring cost estimate - 15.9 24.3 24.3 29.2 93.7 Assumptions:
Average acres/site and percent of sites requiring substantial soil disturbance calculated in table above.
Seasonal, perennial, and alkali wetland acreages in Tables 5-16 and 5-17 are for wetland complexes; for cost estimates and revenue projections the wetted acres of these complexes are assumed to be 30% of the total acres.
Implementation Period (Years)
Defining sites:
wetlands and pond sites by acreage conversion
stream sites by linear feet conversion:
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Personnel Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of HCP/NCCP Personnel (Conservancy Staffing)
2022 Update
POST PERMIT
STAFFING
Number of FTEs
0-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Administrative staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.50
Senior Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.25
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.25
Assistant Planner 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.25
Planning Technician 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.10
Accountant 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20
Admin – Secretary -
IT Support Staff -
Total 3.70 3.70 3.70 1.60
Land acquisition staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Total 0.30 0.30 0.30 -
Management planning and design staffing lower in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.10 0.10 0.05 -
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.05 0.05 0.02 -
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.02 -
Total 0.25 0.25 0.14 -
Habitat restoration and creation staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner 0.10 0.10 0.10 -
Total 0.15 0.15 0.15 -
Environmental compliance staffing no change except 0 in last period Principal Planner 0.02 0.02 - -
Senior Planner 0.05 0.05 - -
Associate Planner - wetland fees 0.05 0.05 - -
Assistant Planner - wetland fees 0.10 0.10 - -
Total 0.22 0.22 - -
Preserve management and maintenance staffing higher in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10
Assistant Planner 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15
Preserve Maintenance Staff -
Total 0.20 0.20 0.32 0.32
Monitoring and research staffing higher in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.05
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.05
Total 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.10
Overall Staffing Plan
Principal Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62
Senior Planner 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.25
Principal GIS Planner 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05
Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40
Assistant Planner 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.40
Planning Technician 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.10
Accountant 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20
Admin – Secretary -
IT Support Staff -
Preserve Maintenance Staff -
Total 4.90 4.90 4.77 2.02
included in per acre cost factors
UPDATE STAFFING
2022 UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
included in per acre cost factors
Included in overhead rates
Included in overhead rates
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 3 date printed:1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Program Administration for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Staff and overhead $5,156,370 $5,156,370 $6,187,644
Contractor assistance with administration $400,000 $400,000 $480,000 Other administrative costs $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Vehicle / mileage allowance $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Travel $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Insurance $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Legal assistance $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Other permitting costs $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Financial analysis assistance $150,000 $75,000 $75,000
Financial audit (annual) $100,000 $100,000 $120,000
Public relations and outreach $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Total $223,698 $4,671,472 $3,168,141 $6,754,723 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,495,644 $35,236,418 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.70 0.70 0.70
Senior Planner and support $156 0.70 0.70 0.70
Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner and support $132 0.70 0.70 0.70
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.80 0.80 0.80
Planning Technician and support $119 0.35 0.35 0.35
Accountant and support $157 0.40 0.40 0.40
3.70 3.70 3.70
$1,031,274 $1,031,274 $1,031,274
$5,156,370 $5,156,370 $6,187,644
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year
All Costs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
Position
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Number of FTEs
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed:1/31/23 Contractor Assistance with Administration
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $400,000 $400,000 $480,000
Assumption:
$80,000 annual contractor cost per 2022 budget: for assistance with database, annual report, and permitting Other Administrative Costs
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Memberships $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Miscellaneous equipment and supplies $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 Cost per period $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Assumption:
$10,000
$1,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Vehicle / Mileage Allowance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Assumption:
$1,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Assumption:
$7,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Insurance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Assumption:
$23,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
annual cost for Institute for Ecological Health (state and national), Bay Area Open Space Council, and East County Water Management Agency, based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed:1/31/23 Legal Assistance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Assumptions:
$115,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, years 15 - 19 $50,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, after year 19 Note: The legal assistance category covers legal assistance required for program administration and (for years 6 - 10) the environmental compliance category.
Legal assistance for land acquisition included in the due diligence cost factor in the land acquisition category.
Legal assistance is also estimated for the environmental compliance category.
Other Permitting Costs
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Assumptions:
$3,000 Annual cost per 2022 Budget
Financial Analysis Assistance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $150,000 $75,000 $75,000
Assumptions:
$75,000 Cost per period for financial analysis assistance $15,000 Annual cost years 15 - 19 for assistance with endowment and EBRPD cost sharing agreement Financial analyst review will occur periodically over the life of the Plan (years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20 and 25).
Note: The financial analysis assistance category covers the periodic assistance of a financial analyst to review the program's cost/revenue balance, ensure that charges are adjusted in line with changing land costs and ensure compliance with State requirements on collection of fees.
Annual Financial Audit
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $100,000 $100,000 $120,000
Assumptions:
$20,000 Cost per year for financial audit services based on Conservancy experience through 2021 Annual financial audit of the Conservancy's financial statements by an independent auditor are required by the JPA agreement and Government Code.
Public Relations/Outreach
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per year $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Cost per period $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Land Acquisition for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Acquisition $0 $139,241,000 $47,498,780 $47,498,780 $56,998,536 $291,237,096 Site improvements $0 $0 $938,957 $938,957 $1,060,740 $2,938,655 Staff and overhead na na $494,440 $494,440 $593,328 $1,582,208 Due diligence $253,166 $4,387,960 $1,424,963 $1,424,963 $1,709,956 $9,201,009 Total $253,166 $143,628,960 $50,357,141 $50,357,141 $60,362,560 $304,958,967 Acquisition Cost over 30-year Program, Actuals year 1 - 14 + Projections Years 15 - 30 (2021 dollars) Estimated
Acquisition Analysis Zone 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year period) Total Remainder 15-30 Zone 1 $0 $12,711,000 $4,470,888 $4,470,888 $5,365,065 $27,017,841 $14,306,841 Zone 2 $0 $52,222,000 $19,210,120 $19,210,120 $23,052,144 $113,694,384 $61,472,384 Zone 3 $0 $3,553,000 $356,768 $356,768 $428,121 $4,694,656 $1,141,656 Zone 4 $0 $10,748,000 $13,557,880 $13,557,880 $16,269,455 $54,133,214 $43,385,214 Zone 5 $0 $42,738,000 $7,909,303 $7,909,303 $9,491,163 $68,047,769 $25,309,769 Zone 6 (incl. within ULL along Marsh Creek) $0 $8,523,000 $1,444,275 $1,444,275 $1,733,130 $13,144,680 $4,621,680 Outside Inventory Area $0 $0 $546,523 $546,523 $655,828 $1,748,873 $1,748,873 Outside Acquisition Zones $0 $8,746,000 $3,024 $3,024 $3,629 $8,755,677 $9,677 Total $0 $139,241,000 $47,498,780 $47,498,780 $56,998,536 $291,237,096 $151,996,096 Assumptions: 48% 52%
See Appendix G and description of separate land cost model in Chapter 9.
Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year period)
Principal Planner and support $206 0.05 0.05 0.05
Senior Planner and support $156 0.20 0.20 0.20
Principal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Total FTEs 0.30 0.30 0.30
Total cost per year $98,888 $98,888 $98,888
Total cost per period $494,440 $494,440 $593,328
Notes/Assumptions:
Actual staff costs for years 0 - 14 are included in the due diligence actuals below. 1,880 hours per year
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE with
Overhead & Support
Number of FTEs
All Costs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Actual acquisition cost through year 14, in 2021 dollars. Updated 2021 land cost factors by cost category applied to remaining acquisition targets. Total remaining cost allocated evenly over remaining 16 years of the permit term.
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Due Diligence
Covers costs for appraisals, preliminary title report, escrow and other closing costs, boundary surveys, legal services, environmental and Phase 1 site assessment.
The 2006 cost model used more detailed unit costs. The result of applying those cost factors in the 2006 model was that due diligence represented about 4% of land acquisition costs. 0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
Due Diligence $253,166 $2,296,923 $1,479,004 $612,033 $1,424,963 $1,424,963 $1,709,956 $9,201,009 Assumptions:
3.0% Due diligence costs as a percentage of land acquisition cost.
Planning Surveys (Pre-Acquisition)
Based on Conservancy and EBRPD experience to date, initial property evaluation and planning is included in staff and consultant time.
Most significant field biological work is done post acquisition and is included as a monitoring cost.
Site Improvements
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year period)
Demolition of old facilities $75,152 $75,152 $90,183
Repair of boundary fence $330,043 $330,043 $330,043
Repair and replacement of gates $251,631 $251,631 $301,957 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) $156,316 $156,316 $187,579 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) $125,815 $125,815 $150,978 Total $938,957 $938,957 $1,060,740
Assumptions:
Most demolition to date is a condition of the transaction and assigned to the seller. Other site improvement costs included in EBRPD operations and maintenance costs to date. $9,856 Demolition of old facilities per 500 acres
$6,600 Repair and replacement of gates per 100 acres
$4,100 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) per 100 acres
$3,300 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) per 100 acres 120 Estimated number of parcels acquired years 15 - 30 assuming 100 acres per parcel 15,000 Average parcel boundary length in linear feet (from GIS analysis, grouping adjacent parcels with the same landowner) $6.11 Average cost per linear foot for boundary fence repair 15% Proportion of boundary fence that needs repair
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
For the 2012, 2016, and 2022 updates the model is simplified to assume due diligence costs (not including Conservancy staff costs) at 3% of land acquisition costs, roughly consistent with the experience of the Conservancy and EBRPD through 2021, during which time more than 50 percent of the preserve system goals for land acquisition took place. For years 10-30, Conservancy staff time costs are separately estimated and included in Program Staff line item above.
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Management Planning and Design for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Staff and overhead $433,340 $433,340 $306,365
Travel $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Contractors $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total $0 $1,772,511 $938,155 $1,840,187 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.10 0.10 0.05
Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Senior Planner and support $156 0.05 0.05 0.02
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.02
0.25 0.25 0.14
$86,668 $86,668 $51,061
$433,340 $433,340 $306,365
1,880 hours per year
Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per period $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Assumption:
$2,500 annual cost based on Conservancy 2022 budget
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies, .
Number of FTEs
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Contractors
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Management planning $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total per period $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Assumptions:
Restoration planning and designs included in habitat restoration/creation cost category. $1,000,000 per-period budget for management planning, through year 24 $500,000 per-period budget for management planning, years 25 - 30 The management planning and design staff and contractors will conduct the following activities:
Management plans for cropland/pasture preserves
Management plans for natural area preserves
Grazing plans
Mapping work for management plans
Exotic plant control program (for the entire preserve system) Fire management/control plan (for the entire preserve system) Contractor category
Contract value per period
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Habitat Restoration & Creation Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Habitat Restoration/Creation (including planning and design) for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Restoration/Creation Construction Cost $8,539,671 $8,539,671 $10,247,606 Staff and overhead $220,900 $220,900 $265,080
Travel $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Contractors $4,654,121 $4,654,121 $5,584,945
Total $0 $3,424,071 $2,063,773 $1,563,376 $13,427,192 $13,427,192 $16,112,631 $50,018,236 creation/restoration per acre $102,574 $102,574 $102,574 Land Cover Type Restored/Created
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
oak savanna - - 13.1 13.1 15.8 42.0
riparian woodland/scrub - 5.4 13.9 13.9 16.7 50.0
perennial wetland - 0.2 10.0 10.0 12.0 32.2
seasonal wetland - 10.7 10.8 10.8 12.9 45.2
alkali wetland - 2.4 6.1 6.1 7.3 21.8
slough/channel - - 22.5 22.5 27.0 72.0
open water - - - - - -
ponds - 0.6 6.4 6.4 7.6 21.0
streams (miles) - 2.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 4.6
Total (acres) - 20.6 83.3 83.3 99.9 287.0
Cost of Restoration/Creation Construction
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
oak savanna acres $18,420 $290,119 $290,119 $348,143
riparian woodland/scrub acres $51,822 $866,717 $866,717 $1,040,060 perennial wetland acres $84,544 $1,015,797 $1,015,797 $1,218,956 seasonal wetland acres $100,838 $1,304,598 $1,304,598 $1,565,518 alkali wetland acres $102,041 $742,345 $742,345 $890,814 slough/channel acres $76,798 $2,073,533 $2,073,533 $2,488,240 open water acres $112,058 $0 $0 $0
ponds acres $112,058 $856,821 $856,821 $1,028,185
streams linear feet $287 $1,389,742 $1,389,742 $1,667,690 $8,539,671 $8,539,671 $10,247,606
Assumptions:
20%
For 2017 and 2022 updates, unit costs increased based on change in the California Construction Cost Index published by the State of California Department of General Services. Available at:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division-Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI Construction costs are highly variable and depend mostly on the amount, depth, and linear extent of earthwork expected, and whether water control structure are required. Plant propagation, seeding, and watering also included.
All Costs Total
Land Cover Type (acres)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Cost per unit
Total
Land Cover Type Units
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Contingency factor for restoration projects; assumed higher than the standard contingency because of the higher degree of uncertainty in this portion of the conservation program.
2017 update:
Revised cost per unit for oak
savanna to $15K based on
review/input from H.T. Harvey
Revised cost per LF for stream
restoration by eliminating the low
cost outlier from the list of
example projects. Also did not
reduce unit cost by applying a
10% discount to be more
conservative.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Habitat Restoration & Creation Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner and support $132 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.15 0.15 0.15
$44,180 $44,180 $44,180
$220,900 $220,900 $265,080
1,880 hours per year
Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per period $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Assumption:
$2,500 annual cost based on Conservancy 2022 budget
Contractors for restoration planning, design, construction oversight, and post-construction maintenance 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Design, plans, specifications, and engineering $2,818,092 $2,818,092 $3,381,710 Bid assistance $128,095 $128,095 $153,714
Construction oversight $853,967 $853,967 $1,024,761
Post-construction maintenance $853,967 $853,967 $1,024,761 Cost per period $4,654,121 $4,654,121 $5,584,945
Assumptions:
33%
1.50% percent of total construction cost required for bid assistance 10% percent of total construction cost required for construction oversight 10% percent of total construction cost required for post construction maintenance Restoration plans and designs of all types included in habitat restoration/creation cost category.
Design, plan, specification, and engineering work, bid assistance, and construction oversight will be conducted in the period in which construction takes place.
Monitoring of restoration sites covered in the Monitoring cost category.
Habitat Conservancy staff select sites, hire and oversee consultants for plans, specifcations, and implementation.
Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Two years of post-construction maintenance will be conducted in the period after construction takes place to maintain irrigation systems, conducting weeding, etc. Management costs after success criteria are met are included in development fee paid for same site (wetland mitigation fee is in addition).
Contractor category
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Cost includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
percent of total construction cost required to complete restoration design and plans, specifications, engineering and provide allowance for remedial measures Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Environmental Compliance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Staff and overhead $276,548 $276,548 $0
Legal assistance $250,000 $50,000 $0
NEPA/CEQA $558,300 $558,300 $0
CWA 404 $0 $0 $0
CWA 401 $11,000 $11,000 $0
CDFG 1602 $23,500 $23,500 $0
NHPA $60,200 $60,200 $0
Other $41,800 $41,800 $0
Total $0 $887,562 $194,053 $330,312 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Note: Detail is not intended to be prescriptive; it is used as a means to generate an overall environmental compliance cost estimate.
Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.02 0.02 -
Senior Planner and support $156 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 -
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.10 0.10 -
0.22 0.22 -
$55,310 $55,310 $0 $32,900 $32,900
$276,548 $276,548 $0 $164,500 $164,500
1,880 hours per year
Legal Assistance and Technical Support for Coordinated Regional Wetland Permitting 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Cost per period $250,000 $50,000 $0 $300,000
Assumptions:
$25,000 Annual cost for legal assistance with wetland permitting, years 15 - 20 $25,000 Annual cost for technical support with wetland permitting, years 15 - 20 Number of Projects Requiring Environmental Compliance
0 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total over
Permit Term
Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles 4 4 - 20
Medium/more complex
10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles 4 4 - 20
Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles 2 2 - 10
10 10 - 20
Assumptions:
Details are not prescriptive but are a reasonable means of generating an overall cost for the environmental cost category.
Of the total of approximately 50 projects that would require environmental compliance, 1/5 would require compliance in each 5-year period between years 1 and 25.
Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Number
include in wetland fee
calculation
All Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Total projects remainder of permit term
Project size Size Range
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE with
Overhead & Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Environmental Compliance Cost per Project Size and Compliance Category (2021 dollars) Minimum Maximum CEQA CWA 404 CWA 401 CDFG 1602 NHPA Other Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles $ 2,000 $ 25,000 0.001 0.01 $7,346 $0 $968 $1,130 $3,673 $3,482 Medium/more complex
10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles $ 25,001 $ 100,000 0.0121 0.07 $58,767 $0 $1,130 $2,425 $5,142 $4,179 Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles $ 100,001
$500,000 or
more 0.073 0.30 $146,918 $0 $1,291 $4,654 $12,488 $5,572 Assumptions:
Details are not prescriptive but are a reasonable means of generating an overall cost for the environmental cost category.
For NEPA/CEQA, 401/404 and 1602 compliance, varying costs have more to do with project complexity than with project size.
Clean Water Act 401 and 1602 permits will be done on a per-project basis Cultural compliance permits will be done on a per-project basis.
Permitted projects would be completed within the time limit allotted for the permits; no extensions or re-application would be required.
The "other" compliance category could include county grading permits, road encroachment permits, or other local approvals.
NEPA/CEQA
Depending on the level of detail that is provided for specific projects, they may or may not be able to be covered under the HCP EIR/EIS.
For those without sufficient detail, additional environmental documentation may need to be prepared.
It is likely that the majority of those would be in the form of mitigated negative declarations.
Because it is difficult to provide a cost estimate for a project without knowing details such as location, size, etc., the following are some rough numbers based on level of controversy:
Small scale non-controversial projects = Cat Excl/Cat Exemp Medium scale more controversial projects = IS MND/EA FONSI Larger scale more controversial projects = EIR/EIS
All land acquisitions would be a categorical exemption under CEQA as well as under NEPA, when NEPA applies. 401/404
The cost of conducting wetland delineations is not included under CWA 404/401 compliance; it is expected that delineation would be covered under land acquisition costs.
Each project implemented under the HCP will qualify for compliance under the USACE 404 regional permit program for the inventory area; there is no fee for 404 permit applications.
Tasks associated with Section 402 compliance are not included in this cost estimate.
NHPA
Archaeological surveys can be conducted at an intensive level at a rate of 40 acres per person per day.
No more than one cultural resource will be identified per 40 acres or part thereof.
This scope of work and cost estimate does not include tasks necessary for significance evaluations and resolution of adverse effects.
CDFG 1602
CWA 401 fee cost estimate assumes all projects qualify for flat fees in Category D Ecological Restoration and Enhancement Projects, as allowed under State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Materials to Waters of the State, adopted by the State Water Board on April 2, 2019. FY 21/22 Water Quality Certification Dredge and Fill Application Fee Calculator (Effective 11/8/21) Available:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/ DFG 1602 costs are estimated based on the assumed cost of project activities within DFW jurisdiction per Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616, and the fee schedule corresponding to the project costs. Average cost based on mean of minimum and maximum fee amounts for standard agreements. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements and Fees, Effective January 1, 2022. Available:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/LSA#55227743-fees Project Impacts to Wetlands
for CWA 401
Project size Size Range
Estimate Project Cost within DFG
jurisdiction
Assumed wetland impact determined by AECOM based experience with typical projects that would be expected to be implemented by the Conservancy. For example wetland restoration/creation projects, stream restoration projects, adaptive management measures for existing wetland features and facilities improvements. In general, it is expected that impacts to wetlands and streams would be avoided if at all possible. Of the stream length indicated, assumed only 10% of that length would be impacted and an average stream width of 10 feet.
Contra Costa Conservancy staff will prepare permit applications and notification for the 401, 404 and 1600 applications, thereby resulting in no consultant cost for permit preparation. This table also assumes that the permits for Water Quality Certification (CWA 401) and Streambed Alteration Agreement (DFG 1602) will not be secured under programmatic or Master permit processes.
Compliance Category
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program staff and overhead $261,320 $261,320 $495,982
Invasive Plant Control $1,433,728 $1,814,986 $2,681,245 Invasive Wildlife Control $286,746 $362,997 $536,249
Grazing Management $716,864 $907,493 $1,340,622
Wildfire Management $1,218,669 $1,542,738 $2,279,058
Security $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Roads and Trails $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Maintenance and Support $286,746 $362,997 $536,249
Annual Reporting $71,686 $90,749 $134,062
Law Enforcement $1,075,296 $1,361,240 $2,010,934
Administrative and General Expense $1,648,787 $2,087,234 $3,083,432 Total $0 $548,525 $2,478,883 $3,620,712 $7,429,960 $9,336,250 $13,902,207 $37,316,537 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and Support $206 0.05 0.05 0.07
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.10
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.10 0.10 0.15
0.20 0.20 0.32
$52,264 $52,264 $82,664
$261,320 $261,320 $495,982
1,880 hours per year, excluding vacation
NOTE: Costs for years 1 - 14 include expenditures by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on land maintenance activities on Conservancy properties (staff costs, maintenance supplies, maintenance services from inception throught 2021). Details provided by the EBRPD and East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.
Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Position
Hourly Cost per
FTE with
Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Preserve Acres Managed
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Total preserve acres acquired per period 12,050 3,813 3,813 4,575 Acres acquired and managed by end of period 12,050 15,862 19,675 24,250 Assumptions:
Total costs related to habitat and species protection on preserve system lands whether or not costs incurred by EBRPD or Conservancy.
Invasive Plant Control
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $1,433,728 $1,814,986 $2,681,245
Assumptions:
$20 annual cost per acre for invasive plant control
Patrol, work planning, cultural, manual, mechanical, chemical control.
Invasive Wildlife Control
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $286,746 $362,997 $536,249
Assumptions:
$4 annual cost per acre for invasive wildlife control
Observation, recording, and controlling bullfrog, fish, and feral mammals.
Grazing Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $716,864 $907,493 $1,340,622
Assumptions:
$10 annual cost per acre for grazing management
Data collection, administration, infrastructure repair, permitting, grazing management, reporting.
Wildfire Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $1,218,669 $1,542,738 $2,279,058
Assumptions:
$17 annual cost per acre for wildfire management
Fire suppression planning and wildfire management; fuels coordinator. Fuel reduction included in invasive plant control cost category.
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
All work (except law enforcement) performed by EBRPD staff including Park Rangers, Supervisors, Stewardship staff, Heavy Equipment Operators, and Fire Department. Law enforcement cost assumes contract with Contra Costa County Sheriff.
Costs per acre (except law enforcement) based on estimates prepared by EBRPD staff for implementation of the Vasco Hills / Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan prepared for the Conservancy (2018 draft).
Cost estimates assume preserve system land is acquired and managed in equal annual increments over the remainder of the implementation period and that cost increases incrementally as acreage under management increases.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Security
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Assumptions:
$3 annual cost per acre for security maintenance and repair Gate and fence installation, inspection, and repairs.
Roads & Trails
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $215,059 $272,248 $402,187
Assumptions:
$3 annual cost per acre for roads and trails maintenance and repair Road grading, maintenance, and tree and brush removal.
On-going Maintenance and Support
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $286,746 $362,997 $536,249
Assumptions:
$4 annual cost per acre for on-going maintenance and support Equipment maintenance, service yard, (including support). Trash and debris removal from non-recreation areas.
Annual Reporting
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $71,686 $90,749 $134,062
Assumptions:
$1 annual cost per acre for annual management reporting Internal EBRPD reporting (Red Book) and Annual Report to ECCCHC.
Law Enforcement
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $1,075,296 $1,361,240 $2,010,934
Assumptions:
$15 annual cost per acre for law enforcement
Administrative and General Expense
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period)
Cost per period $1,648,787 $2,087,234 $3,083,432
Assumptions:
$23 annual cost per acre for administrative and general expense Covers the following General and Administrative Expenses: fuel, tools, equipment, and other supplies used in the course of preserve land management and services (utility fees, contractors, and other costs) incurred in the course of reserve land management. Also covers internal services costs for equipment replacement and infrastructure renovation and replacement. Does not include indirect and direct EBRPD overhead costs.
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Law enforcement primarily for habitat and species protection. Based on annual cost of Contra Costa County Sheriff contract to provide law enforcement services to the Contra Costa Water District Los Vaqueros Watershed (18,500 acres of protected watershed lands and 1,900 acres reservoir). Includes a level of cost related to public access commensurate with the level of service required at the Los Vaqueros Watershed.
Implementation Period
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Monitoring&Research Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management for Initial Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Staff and overhead $120,132 $120,132 $305,011
Contractors $875,000 $1,500,000 $2,400,000
Directed research $500,000 $500,000 $600,000
Adaptive management $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Total $0 $654,741 $604,793 $936,384 $1,710,132 $2,335,132 $3,520,011 $9,761,193 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.03 0.03 0.08
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.08
0.08 0.08 0.16
$24,026 $24,026 $50,835
$120,132 $120,132 $305,011
1,880 hours per year
Contractors
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Monitoring contractors $875,000 $1,500,000 $2,400,000
Total per period $875,000 $1,500,000 $2,400,000
Metrics for gross annual budget estimate==> Preserve Acres (end of period)
Restored Acres
(per period)
Rough annual cost
per preserve acre
$175,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 15-19 15,862 83 $11 $300,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 20-24 19,675 83 $15 $400,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 25-30 24,250 100 $16 Assumptions:
Contractor activities include field data collection, analysis, and reporting. Costs include travel.
Note that planning, preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring for covered activities outside of preserves will be paid for by developers. These costs are not included here.
Species-response monitoring is covered in the restoration category when contractors will monitor restoration, creation, and enhancement sites during the 5-year period following the restoration activity.
Post-acquisition biological inventories will build on planning surveys. Inventory will include mapping of weeds and invasive plants.
Status and trends monitoring will occur after preserve land is purchased through year 30. Status and trend monitoring will build on planning surveys and post-acquisition inventories, when appropriate.
Some preserve covered activities and conservation measures require pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring. This work will be done by contractors. Contractors will conduct pre-construction surveys prior to construction as well as construction monitoring periodically during the construction period. All covered activities require compliance with HCP/NCCP pre-construction avoidance and minimization measures.
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
Number of FTEs
Contract value per period
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Monitoring&Research Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Directed Research
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Average cost per year to fund directed research $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total cost per period $500,000 $500,000 $600,000
Adaptive Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Average Independent Conservation Assessment
Team cost per period $36,000 $36,000 $36,000
Average Science Advisors cost per period $179,000 $179,000 $179,000 Total cost per period $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Assumptions:
Adaptive management experiments are covered under the monitoring staff and directed research categories.
As of this 2022 update, this type of periodic scientific review is conducted by the Conservancy's on-call biologist contractors.
The Conservancy convened a Science Advisory Panel in year 10 and plans to do the same in year 20.
The Conservancy's Preserve Monitoring Plan remains in the draft stage.
The following assumptions generate a scientific review budget to inform adaptive management:
An Independent Conservation Assessment Team meets once every 4 years and has:
5 members
$7,200 stipend per member per 5-year period
Science Advisors Panel consists of:
10 members
$17,900 stipend per member per 5-year period
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Remedial Measures Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Remedial Measures for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Remedial measures $0 $0 $0 $0 $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500 $3,276,720 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500 $3,276,720 Note: Actual costs are included in habitat restoration/creation and preserve management cost categories.
Remedial Measures
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost of created/restored habitat per
period $2,063,773 $1,563,376 $8,539,671 $8,539,671 $10,247,606 Cost for remedial measures for
created/restored habitat per period $206,377 $156,338 $2,732,695 Area of new preserve not including
created/restored habitat per period - 7,578 3,488 962 3,729 3,729 4,475 Cost for remedial measures for
preserves per period $6,666 $1,839 $22,805
Cost for other remedial measures per
period $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Total cost per period $263,044 $208,177 $2,805,500
Assumptions:
2% Percent of annual preserve management and maintenance cost assumed to be needed for preserve remedial actions. 10% Percent of created/restored habitat for which remedial measures will be required. $96 Cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 26-30. 63% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 1 - 5 29% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 6 - 9 8% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 10 - 14 Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Remedial actions are assumed to occur in the second 5-year period after habitat is created/restored or preserve land is purchased, with the exception of remedial actions for habitat created/restored in years 20-30. The cost for these remedial actions is included in years 25-30 so that it can be captured in this cost estimate.
The remedial cost for preserve lands is assumed to be a percentage of the cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 25-30, and is assumed to be needed once, in the second 5-year period after the preserve land is purchased. The costs for preserves areas acquired in years 20 - 30 is included in years 26-30 so that it can be captured in this cost estimate.
The cost for other remedial measures includes the costs for restoration or maintenance of preserve areas because of other changed circumstances, such as wildfire.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Contingency Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Contingency for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Total cost of program excluding land
acquisition/site improvements and habitat
restoration/creation construction costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,538,618 $27,415,041 $36,713,036 $89,666,695 Contingency fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,276,931 $1,370,752 $1,835,652 $4,483,335 Assumptions:
5.0% Percent of total program funding needed for contingency East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Post Permit Costs Appendix C Initial UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Post-Permit Costs for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Post-Permit Costs
Cost Category Annual Costs Assumptions
Total Cost
Program Administration $548,300 Reduced staffing and no legal and financial contractor costs Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $0 Acquisition complete during permit term Planning and Design $0 Planning and design work complete during permit term Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 Restoration/creation projects constructed during permit term Environmental Compliance $0 Not required, post permit
Preserve Management and Maintenance $2,317,000 Assume 100 percent of annual average costs in years 25 - 30 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $293,300 Assume 50 percent of annual average costs in years 25 - 30 Remedial Measures $0 Not required, post permit
Contingency $0 Not required, post permit
Total $3,158,600
Total preserve system acres 24,250
Annual average cost per acre managed $130
Percent of average annual cost years 25 - 30 18%
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report D-1
APPENDIX D: MAXIMUM UDA COST MODEL UPDATE
The following tables provide comprehensive documentation for the cost model update based on estimated impacts for the maximum urban development area.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Maximum Urban Development Area
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary (rounded) Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars rounded to the nearest $10,000)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total (2021)
Program Administration $220,000 $17,350,000 $6,660,000 $6,260,000 $7,500,000 $37,990,000 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,240,000 $67,360,000 $67,360,000 $80,710,000 $354,680,000 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $250,000 $4,390,000 $2,480,000 $2,480,000 $2,980,000 $12,580,000 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $820,000 $8,260,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,050,000 $16,620,000 $16,620,000 $19,950,000 $60,240,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,410,000 $1,220,000 $1,020,000 $0 $3,650,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,650,000 $7,990,000 $10,820,000 $16,910,000 $42,370,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,200,000 $1,840,000 $2,710,000 $4,120,000 $10,860,000 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $260,000 $210,000 $3,480,000 $3,950,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,400,000 $1,550,000 $2,150,000 $5,100,000 Total $470,000 $182,840,000 $107,280,000 $110,480,000 $138,620,000 $539,680,000 Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Summary table Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars not rounded)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program Administration $223,698 $17,346,583 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,498,644 $37,991,665 Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $139,241,000 $67,361,587 $67,361,587 $80,711,223 $354,675,397 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $253,166 $4,387,960 $2,480,940 $2,480,940 $2,977,127 $12,580,133 Planning and Design $0 $4,550,853 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $7,051,220 $16,620,916 $16,620,916 $19,945,099 $60,238,151 Environmental Compliance $0 $1,411,927 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $6,648,120 $7,987,773 $10,823,750 $16,914,392 $42,374,035 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $2,195,918 $1,835,132 $2,710,132 $4,120,011 $10,861,193 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $262,890 $208,134 $3,477,304 $3,948,328 Contingency $0 $0 $1,395,470 $1,548,281 $2,151,289 $5,095,040 Total $476,864 $182,833,581 $107,273,265 $110,482,298 $138,616,454 $539,682,462 Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
BLS Data CPI_ECI_CCI_2021 Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 NOTE: Original unit cost estimates for the 2006 HCP/NCCP were in 2005 dollars, inflated to 2006 dollars for use in the plan document.
Series Id: Data extracted on: March 29, 2017 (8:35:58 PM) Data extracted on: August 2, 2022
Series Title:
Area:
Item:
Base Period:
Years:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2021 dollars 2005 201.2 202.5 201.2 203.0 205.9 203.4 202.7 201.5 203.9 0.6545 2006 207.1 208.9 209.1 210.7 211.0 210.4 209.2 207.9 210.6 0.6754 2007 213.688 215.842 216.123 216.240 217.949 218.485 216.048 214.736 217.361 0.6976 2008 219.612 222.074 225.181 225.411 225.824 218.528 222.767 221.730 223.804 0.7193 2009 222.166 223.854 225.692 225.801 226.051 224.239 224.395 223.305 225.484 0.7245 2010 226.145 227.697 228.110 227.954 228.107 227.658 227.469 226.994 227.944 0.7344 2011 229.981 234.121 233.646 234.608 235.331 234.327 233.390 232.082 234.698 0.7535 2012 236.880 238.985 239.806 241.170 242.834 239.533 239.650 238.099 241.201 0.7738 2013 242.677 244.675 245.935 246.072 246.617 245.711 245.023 243.894 246.152 0.7911 2014 248.615 251.495 253.317 253.354 254.503 252.273 251.985 250.507 253.463 0.8136 2015 254.910 257.622 259.117 259.917 261.019 260.289 258.572 256.723 260.421 0.8349 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 0.8599 2017 271.626 274.589 275.304 275.893 277.570 277.414 274.924 273.306 276.542 0.8877 2018 281.308 283.422 286.062 287.664 289.673 289.896 285.550 282.666 288.435 0.9220 2019 291.227 294.801 295.259 295.490 298.443 297.007 295.004 293.150 296.859 0.9525 2020 299.690 298.074 300.032 300.182 301.736 302.948 300.084 299.109 301.059 0.9689 2021 304.387 309.419 309.497 311.167 313.265 315.805 309.721 306.724 312.718 1.0000 2022 320.195 324.878 330.539 323.408
Data extracted on: August 2, 2022 (8:36:09 PM)
Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 2021 dollars
Series Id: 2005 98.0 98.8 99.5 100.0 0.6974
2006 101.0 101.8 103.1 103.9 0.7245
Series Title:
2007 104.9 105.9 106.7 107.3 0.7483
Ownership: 2008 108.3 109.0 109.9 110.3 0.7692
Component: 2009 111.0 111.1 111.4 111.4 0.7768
Occupation: 2010 112.2 112.6 113.3 113.5 0.7915
Industry: 2011 114.6 115.1 115.4 115.7 0.8068
Subcategory: 2012 116.8 117.3 117.7 118.2 0.8243
Area: 2013 118.9 119.5 120.2 120.5 0.8403
Periodicity: 2014 121.0 121.9 122.5 122.9 0.8570
Years: 2015 123.7 124.1 124.5 124.9 0.8710
2016 125.7 126.2 126.7 126.7 0.8835
2017 127.8 128.7 129.1 129.6 0.9038
2018 130.8 131.6 132.3 132.8 0.9261
2019 133.7 134.4 135.1 135.6 0.9456
2020 136.8 137.0 137.8 138.4 0.9651
2021 139.7 140.5 142.2 143.4 1.0000
California Construction Cost Index, Department of General Services Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2021 dollars 2006 4620 4603 4597 4600 4599 4593 4609 4616 4619 4867 4891 4877 4,674 0.60878 2007 4869 4868 4871 4872 4886 4842 4849 4851 4942 4943 4978 4981 4,896 0.63766 2008 4983 4983 4999 5004 5023 5065 5135 5142 5194 5393 5375 5322 5,135 0.66876 2009 5309 5295 5298 5296 5288 5276 5263 5265 5264 5259 5259 5262 5,278 0.68739 2010 5260 5262 5268 5270 5378 5394 5401 5401 5381 5591 5599 5596 5,400 0.70331 2011 5592 5624 5627 5636 5637 5643 5654 5667 5668 5675 5680 5680 5,649 0.73568 2012 5683 5683 5738 5740 5755 5754 5750 5778 5777 5780 5779 5768 5,749 0.74872 2013 5774 5782 5777 5786 5796 5802 5804 5801 5802 5911 5903 5901 5,820 0.75799 1.24% 2014 5898 5896 5953 5956 5957 5961 5959 5959 5959 5969 5981 5977 5,952 0.77520 2.27% 2015 6073 6077 6069 6062 6069 6055 6055 6055 6113 6114 6109 6108 6,080 0.79185 2.15% 2016 6106 6132 6248 6249 6240 6238 6245 6244 6267 6343 6344 6373 6,252 0.81432 2.84% 8.49% 2017 6373 6373 6373 6461 6455 6470 6474 6620 6620 6596 6596 6596 6,501 0.84664 3.97% 2018 6596 6596 6596 6596 6596 6598 6643 6613 6674 6679 6679 6684 6,629 0.86339 1.98% 2019 6684 6700 6616 6841 6852 6854 6854 6823 6814 6851 6895 6924 6,809 0.88681 2.71% 2020 6995 6945 6947 6955 6958 7041 6984 6988 7036 7120 7123 7120 7,018 0.91399 3.06% 2021 7090 7102 7130 7150 7712 7746 7892 8122 7900 8080 8141 8072 7,678 1.00000 9.41% 21.14% The ENR BCI reports cost trends for specific construction trade labor and materials in the California marketplace.
Accessed 8/2/2022
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division-Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all
urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted
Total compensation
Professional and related occupations
All workers
Employment Cost Index (NAICS)
Original Data Value
CIU2010000120000I
Not seasonally adjusted
The California Construction Cost index is developed based upon Building Cost Index (BCI) cost indices for San Francisco and Los Angeles produced by Engineering News Record (ENR) and reported in the second issue each month for the previous month. This table is updated at the end of each month.
All items
1982-84=100
Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers
Original Data Value
CUURS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
All workers
United States (National)
Index number
2005 to 2016
Total compensation for Private industry workers in
Professional and related, Index
Private industry workers
2005 to 2022
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Legend Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, page 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Legend
red numbers are assumptions or data entered directly into the worksheet blue numbers are links from other worksheets in the workbook black numbers are calculations based on the above numbers Cost factors are colored coded by primary source considered:
EBRPD (for HCP)
CCWD (for HCP)
Average of CCWD/EBRPD
ECCC Habitat Conservancy
J&S and EPS (for HCP)
AECOM, 2012
Updated by Insight Data & Economic Analysis, 2022
Updated with input from H.T. Harvey, 2017
Other estimated factors
Actual costs start-up and years 1 - 14
Estimate of EBRPD contributions to operational costs, start up and years 1-14 Summary actuals supercede model detail
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
PreserveAcresAcquiredRestored Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
Maximum UDA Source
Total acres acquired/managed 30,200 (Table 5-9: mid-point of range) Acres Acquired and Managed by Time Period
0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
Total preserve acres acquired per period - 12,050 5,672 5,672 6,806 30,200 Total preserve acres managed, cumulative - 12,050 17,722 23,394 30,200 30,200 Assumptions:
Actual acquisition accounted for in years 1-5, 6-9 and 10 - 14; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the remaining 16 years of the permit term.
Management and monitoring on acquired land has not kept pace with actual acquisition. 14,463.76 Total acres acquired through 2021 (Annual Report Table 8a) 1,681.1 Already conserved acres (no credit acres) on parcels acquired through 2021 (Annual Report Table 8a) 732.93 Other acres (outside acquisition zones) not credited to preserve system through 2021 12,049.7 Total acres acquired and credited toward preserve system Land Cover Type Restored/Created by Time Period
Land Cover Type (acres except where noted) 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 (6-year
period) Total
oak savanna - - 51.6 51.6 61.9 165.0
riparian woodland/scrub - 5.40 15.5 15.5 18.6 55.0
perennial wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 0.16 10.1 10.1 12.1 32.5 seasonal wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 10.70 13.4 13.4 16.1 53.6 alkali wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 2.40 6.6 6.6 8.0 23.6 slough/channel - - 22.5 22.5 27.0 72.0
open water - - - - - -
ponds - 0.61 6.7 6.7 8.0 22.0
streams (miles) - 2.16 1.1 1.1 1.4 5.8
Total (acres) - 20.58 127.1 127.1 152.5 427.2
Assumptions:
Total restoration requirements based on assumptions in the HCP/NCCP. Actual restoration will depend on actual impacts to these features.
Actual restoration accounted for in years 1-14; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the next 16 years of the permit term.
For total acre calculation, streams are assumed to be 5 feet wide 30% % of perennial, seasonal or alkali wetland complex acreage assumed to be jurisdictional wetland; for compensatory restoration only.
USED IN WETLAND FEE CALCULATION
average acres/site
or linear feet/site
(streams)
% requiring substantial
soil disturbance
riparian/woodland scrub sites by acreage conversion: 3 20%
2.0 80%
1,000 90%
Restoration sites that require significant soil disturbance by land-cover type USED IN WETLAND FEE CALCULATION Land Cover Type Restoration Sites 0 1-14 15-19 20-24
25-30 (6-year
period) Total
riparian woodland/scrub - 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.2 3.7
perennial wetland - 0.1 4.0 4.0 4.9 13.0
seasonal wetland - 4.3 5.4 5.4 6.4 21.4
alkali wetland - 1.0 2.7 2.7 3.2 9.4
ponds - - 9.0 9.0 10.8 28.8
streams (miles/acres converted to sites) - 10.2 5.4 5.4 6.5 27.6 Total sites for monitoring cost estimate - 15.9 27.5 27.5 33.0 103.9 Assumptions:
Average acres/site and percent of sites requiring substantial soil disturbance calculated in table above.
Seasonal, perennial, and alkali wetland acreages in Tables 5-16 and 5-17 are for wetland complexes; for cost estimates and revenue projections the wetted acres of these complexes are assumed to be 30% of the total acres.
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Defining sites:
wetlands and pond sites by acreage conversion
stream sites by linear feet conversion:
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Personnel Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx date printed:1/31/23 Summary of HCP/NCCP Personnel (Conservancy Staffing)
2022 Update
POST PERMIT
STAFFING
Number of FTEs
0-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Administrative staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.50
Senior Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.25
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.25
Assistant Planner 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.25
Planning Technician 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.10
Accountant 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20
Admin – Secretary -
IT Support Staff -
Total 3.70 3.70 3.70 1.60
Land acquisition staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Total 0.30 0.30 0.30 -
Management planning and design staffing lower in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.10 0.10 0.05 -
Principal GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.05 0.05 0.02 -
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.02 -
Total 0.25 0.25 0.14 -
Habitat restoration and creation staffing no change
Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner 0.10 0.10 0.10 -
Total 0.15 0.15 0.15 -
Environmental compliance staffing no change except 0 in last period Principal Planner 0.02 0.02 - -
Senior Planner 0.05 0.05 - -
Associate Planner - wetland fees 0.05 0.05 - -
Assistant Planner - wetland fees 0.10 0.10 - -
Total 0.22 0.22 - -
Preserve management and maintenance staffing higher in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.07
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10
Assistant Planner 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15
Preserve Maintenance Staff -
Total 0.20 0.20 0.32 0.32
Monitoring and research staffing higher in last 5 years Principal Planner 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.05
Associate Planner 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.05
Total 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.10
Overall Staffing Plan
Principal Planner 1.00 1.00 1.000 0.62
Senior Planner 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.25
Principal GIS Planner 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05
Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40
Assistant Planner 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.40
Planning Technician 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.10
Accountant 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20
Admin – Secretary -
IT Support Staff -
Preserve Maintenance Staff -
Total 4.90 4.90 4.77 2.02
UPDATE STAFFING
included in per acre cost factors
2022 UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
Included in overhead rates
Included in overhead rates
included in per acre cost factors
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Program Administration and Permitting for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Staff and overhead $5,156,370 $5,156,370 $6,187,644
Contractor assistance with administration $400,000 $400,000 $480,000 Other administrative costs $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Vehicle / mileage allowance $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Travel $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Insurance $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Legal assistance $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Other permitting costs $15,000 $15,000 $18,000
Financial analysis assistance $150,000 $75,000 $75,000
Financial audit (annual) $100,000 $100,000 $120,000
Public relations and outreach $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Total $223,698 $4,671,472 $4,866,552 $7,808,559 $6,661,370 $6,261,370 $7,498,644 $37,991,665 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.70 0.70 0.70
Senior Planner and support $156 0.70 0.70 0.70
Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner and support $132 0.70 0.70 0.70
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.80 0.80 0.80
Planning Technician and support $119 0.35 0.35 0.35
Accountant and support $157 0.40 0.40 0.40
3.70 3.70 3.70
$1,031,274 $1,031,274 $1,031,274
$5,156,370 $5,156,370 $6,187,644
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
Position
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Number of FTEs
All Costs
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 Contractor Assistance with Administration
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $400,000 $400,000 $480,000
Assumption:
$80,000 annual contractor cost per 2022 budget: for assistance with database, annual report, and permitting Other Administrative Costs
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Memberships $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Miscellaneous equipment and supplies $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 Cost per period $55,000 $55,000 $66,000
Assumption:
$10,000
$1,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Vehicle / Mileage Allowance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $7,500 $7,500 $9,000
Assumption:
$1,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $37,500 $37,500 $45,000
Assumption:
$7,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Insurance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $115,000 $115,000 $138,000
Assumption:
$23,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021 Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
annual cost for Institute for Ecological Health (state and national), Bay Area Open Space Council, and East County Water Management Agency, based on actual Conservancy experience through 2021
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Program Admin. Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 Legal Assistance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $575,000 $250,000 $300,000
Assumptions:
$115,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, years 15 - 19 $50,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, after year 19 Note: The legal assistance category covers legal assistance required for program administration and (for years 6 - 10) the environmental compliance category.
Legal assistance for land acquisition included in the due diligence cost factor in the land acquisition category.
Legal assistance is also estimated for the environmental compliance category.
Other Permitting Costs
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $15,000 $15,000 $18,000
Assumptions:
$3,000 Annual cost per 2022 Budget
Financial Analysis Assistance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $150,000 $75,000 $75,000
Assumptions:
$75,000 Cost per period for financial analysis assistance $15,000 Annual cost years 15 - 19 for assistance with endowment and EBRPD cost sharing agreement Financial analyst review will occur periodically over the life of the Plan (years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20 and 25).
Note: The financial analysis assistance category covers the periodic assistance of a financial analyst to review the program's cost/revenue balance, ensure that charges are adjusted in line with changing land costs and ensure compliance with State requirements on collection of fees.
Annual Financial Audit
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $100,000 $100,000 $120,000
Assumptions:
$20,000 Cost per year for financial audit services based on Conservancy experience through 2021 Annual financial audit of the Conservancy's financial statements by an independent auditor are required by the JPA agreement and Government Code.
Public Relations/Outreach
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per year $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Cost per period $50,000 $50,000 $60,000
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Land Acquisition for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Land Acquisition $0 $139,241,000 $66,216,653 $66,216,653 $79,459,983 $351,134,289 Site improvements $0 $0 $1,144,934 $1,144,934 $1,251,240 $3,541,108 Staff and overhead na na $494,440 $494,440 $593,328 $1,582,208 Due diligence $253,166 $4,387,960 $1,986,500 $1,986,500 $2,383,799 $10,997,925 Total $253,166 $165,742 $69,842,527 $69,842,527 $83,688,351 $223,792,311 Acquisition Cost over 30-year Program, Actuals year 1 - 14 + Projections Years 15 - 30 (2021 dollars) Estimated
Acquisition Analysis Zone 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total Remainder 15-30 Zone 1 $0 $12,711,000 $5,405,441 $5,405,441 $6,486,530 $30,008,413 $17,297,413 Zone 2 $0 $52,222,000 $20,527,038 $20,527,038 $24,632,446 $117,908,522 $65,686,522 Zone 3 $0 $3,553,000 $356,768 $356,768 $428,121 $4,694,656 $1,141,656 Zone 4 $0 $10,748,000 $21,381,668 $21,381,668 $25,658,001 $79,169,336 $68,421,336 Zone 5 $0 $42,738,000 $13,737,272 $13,737,272 $16,484,726 $86,697,269 $43,959,269 Zone 6 (incl. within ULL along Marsh Creek) $0 $8,523,000 $3,742,794 $3,742,794 $4,491,353 $20,499,940 $11,976,940 Outside Inventory Area $0 $550,443 $550,443 $660,532 $1,761,417 $1,761,417 Outside Acquisition Zones $0 $8,746,000 $515,230 $515,230 $618,276 $10,394,735 $1,648,735 Total $0 $139,241,000 $66,216,653 $66,216,653 $79,459,983 $351,134,289 $211,893,289 Assumptions: 40% 60%
See Appendix G and description of separate land cost model in Chapter 9.
Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.05 0.05 0.05
Senior Planner and support $156 0.20 0.20 0.20
Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Total FTEs 0.30 0.30 0.30
Total cost per year $98,888 $98,888 $98,888
Total cost per period $494,440 $494,440 $593,328
Notes/Assumptions:
Actual staff costs for years 0 - 9 are included in the due diligence actuals below. 1,880 hours per year
All Costs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
Actual acquisition cost through year 14, in 2021 dollars. Updated 2021 land cost factors by cost category applied to remaining acquisition targets. Total remaining cost allocated evenly over remaining 16 years of the permit term.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Land Acquisition Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Due Diligence
Covers costs for appraisals, preliminary title report, escrow and other closing costs, boundary surveys, legal services, environmental and Phase 1 site assessment.
The 2006 cost model used more detailed unit costs. The result of applying those cost factors in the 2006 model was that due diligence represented about 4% of land acquisition costs. 0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Due Diligence $253,166 $2,296,923 $1,479,004 $612,033 $1,986,500 $1,986,500 $2,383,799 $10,997,925 Assumptions:
3.0% Due diligence costs as a percentage of land acquisition cost.
Planning Surveys (Pre-Acquisition)
Based on Conservancy and EBRPD experience to date, initial property evaluation and planning is included in staff and consultant time.
Most significant field biological work is done post acquisition and is included as a monitoring cost.
Site Improvements
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Demolition of old facilities $111,803 $111,803 $134,164 Repair of boundary fence $495,065 $495,065 $495,065
Repair and replacement of gates $118,341 $118,341 $118,341 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) $232,550 $232,550 $279,060 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) $187,175 $187,175 $224,610 Total $1,144,934 $1,144,934 $1,251,240
Assumptions:
Most demolition to date is a condition of the transaction and assigned to the seller. Other site improvement costs included in EBRPD operations and maintenance costs to date. $9,856 Demolition of old facilities per 500 acres
$6,600 Repair and replacement of gates per 100 acres
$4,100 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) per 100 acres
$3,300 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) per 100 acres 180 Estimated number of parcels acquired years 15 - 30 assuming 100 acres per parcel 15,000 Average parcel boundary length in linear feet (from GIS analysis, grouping adjacent parcels with the same landowner) $6.11 Average cost per linear foot for boundary fence repair 15% Proportion of boundary fence that needs repair
For the 2012, 2016, and 2022 updates the model is simplified to assume due diligence costs (not including Conservancy staff costs) at 3% of land acquisition costs, roughly consistent with the experience of the Conservancy and EBRPD through 2021, during which time more than 50 percent of the preserve system goals for land acquisition took place. For years 10-30, Conservancy staff time costs are separately estimated and included in Program Staff line item above.
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Management Planning and Design for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Program staff and overhead $433,340 $433,340 $306,365
Travel $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Contractors $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total $0 $1,772,511 $938,155 $1,840,187 $1,445,840 $1,445,840 $821,365 $8,263,898 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.10 0.10 0.05
Prinicipal GIS Planner and support $222 0.05 0.05 0.05
Senior Planner and support $156 0.05 0.05 0.02
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.02
0.25 0.25 0.14
$86,668 $86,668 $51,061
$433,340 $433,340 $306,365
1,880 hours per year
Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per period $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Assumption:
$2,500 annual cost based on Conservancy 2022 budget
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies, .
Number of FTEs
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Planning & Design Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Contractors
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Management planning $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Total per period $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $500,000
Assumptions:
Restoration planning and designs included in habitat restoration/creation cost category. $1,000,000 per-period budget for management planning, through year 24 $500,000 per-period budget for management planning, years 25 - 30 The management planning and design staff and contractors will conduct the following activities:
Management plans for cropland/pasture preserves
Management plans for natural area preserves
Grazing plans
Mapping work for management plans
Exotic plant control program (for the entire preserve system) Fire management/control plan (for the entire preserve system) Contractor category
Contract value per period
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Habitat Restoration & Creation Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Habitat Restoration/Creation (including planning and design) for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Creation/Restoration $10,606,806 $10,606,806 $12,728,168 Staff and overhead $220,900 $220,900 $265,080
Travel $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Contractors $5,780,709 $5,780,709 $6,936,851
Total $0 $3,424,071 $2,063,773 $1,563,376 $16,620,916 $16,620,916 $19,945,099 $60,238,151 Land Cover Type Restored/Created
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
oak savanna - - 51.6 51.6 61.9 165.0
riparian woodland/scrub - 5.4 15.5 15.5 18.6 55.0
perennial wetland - 0.2 10.1 10.1 12.1 32.5
seasonal wetland - 10.7 13.4 13.4 16.1 53.6
alkali wetland - 2.4 6.6 6.6 8.0 23.6
slough/channel - - 22.5 22.5 27.0 72.0
open water - - - - - -
ponds - 0.6 6.7 6.7 8.0 22.0
streams (miles) - 2.2 1.1 1.1 1.4 5.8
Total (acres) - 20.6 127.1 127.1 152.5 427.2
Cost of Restoration/Creation Construction
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
oak savanna acres $18,420 $1,139,755 $1,139,755 $1,367,706 riparian woodland/scrub acres $51,822 $963,882 $963,882 $1,156,659 perennial wetland acres $84,544 $1,025,308 $1,025,308 $1,230,370 seasonal wetland acres $100,838 $1,622,239 $1,622,239 $1,946,687 alkali wetland acres $102,041 $811,222 $811,222 $973,467 slough/channel acres $76,798 $2,073,533 $2,073,533 $2,488,240 open water acres $112,058 $0 $0 $0
ponds acres $112,058 $898,842 $898,842 $1,078,611
streams linear feet $287 $2,072,024 $2,072,024 $2,486,429 $10,606,806 $10,606,806 $12,728,168
Assumptions:
20% Contingency factor for restoration projects; assumed higher than the standard contingency because of the higher degree of uncertainty in this portion of the conservation program.
Cost per unit
Total
Land Cover Type Units
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs Total
Land Cover Type (acres)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
For 2017 and 2022 updates, unit costs increased based on change in the California Construction Cost Index published by the State of California Department of General Services. Available at:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division-Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI Construction costs are highly variable and depend mostly on the amount, depth, and linear extent of earthwork expected, and whether water control structure are required. Plant propagation, seeding, and watering also included. 2017 update:
Revised cost per unit for oak savanna
to $15K based on review/input from
H.T. Harvey
Revised cost per LF for stream
restoration by eliminating the low
cost outlier from the list of example
projects. Also did not reduce unit cost
by applying a 10% discount to be
more conservative.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Habitat Restoration & Creation Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.05 0.05 0.05
Associate Planner and support $132 0.10 0.10 0.10
0.15 0.15 0.15
$44,180 $44,180 $44,180
$220,900 $220,900 $265,080
1,880 hours per year
Assumptions:
Travel
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total cost per period $12,500 $12,500 $15,000
Assumption:
$2,500 annual cost based on Conservancy 2022 budget
Contractors for restoration planning, design, construction oversight, and post-construction maintenance 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Design, plans, specifications, and engineering $3,500,246 $3,500,246 $4,200,295 Bid assistance $159,102 $159,102 $190,923
Construction oversight $1,060,681 $1,060,681 $1,272,817 Post-construction maintenance $1,060,681 $1,060,681 $1,272,817 Cost per period $5,780,709 $5,780,709 $6,936,851
Assumptions:
33%
1.50% percent of total construction cost required for bid assistance 10% percent of total construction cost required for construction oversight 10% percent of total construction cost required for post construction maintenance Restoration plans and designs of all types included in habitat restoration/creation cost category.
Design, plan, specification, and engineering work, bid assistance, and construction oversight will be conducted in the period in which construction takes place.
Monitoring of restoration sites covered in the Monitoring cost category.
Two years of post-construction maintenance will be conducted in the period after construction takes place to maintain irrigation systems, conducting weeding, etc. Management costs after success criteria are met is included in development fee paid for same site (wetland mitigation fee is in addition).
Contractor category
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Cost includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
percent of total construction cost required to complete restoration design and plans, specifications, engineering and provide allowance for remedial measures Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Habitat Conservancy staff select sites, hire and oversee consultants for plans, specifcations, and implementation.
Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Environmental Compliance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Staff and overhead $276,548 $276,548 $0
Legal assistance $250,000 $50,000 $0
NEPA/CEQA $558,300 $558,300 $0
CWA 404 $0 $0 $0
CWA 401 $11,000 $11,000 $0
CDFG 1602 $23,500 $23,500 $0
NHPA $60,200 $60,200 $0
Other $41,800 $41,800 $0
Total $0 $887,562 $194,053 $330,312 $1,221,348 $1,021,348 $0 $3,654,623 Note: Detail is not intended to be prescriptive; it is used as a means to generate an overall environmental compliance cost estimate.
Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.02 0.02 -
Senior Planner and support $156 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 -
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.10 0.10 -
0.22 0.22 -
$55,310 $55,310 $0 $32,900 $32,900
$276,548 $276,548 $0 $164,500 $164,500
1,880 hours per year
Legal Assistance and Technical Support for Coordinated Regional Wetland Permitting 0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $250,000 $50,000 $0
Assumptions:
$25,000 Annual cost for legal assistance with wetland permitting, years 15 - 20 $25,000 Annual cost for technical support with wetland permitting, years 15 - 20 Number of Projects Requiring Environmental Compliance
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total over
Permit Term
Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles 4 4 - 20
Medium/more complex
10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles 4 4 - 20
Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles 2 2 - 10
10 10 - 20
Assumptions:
Details are not prescriptive but are a reasonable means of generating an overall cost for the environmental cost category.
Of the total of approximately 50 projects that would require environmental compliance, 1/5 would require compliance in each 5-year period between years 1 and 25. include in wetland fee
calculation
All Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Total projects remainder of permit term
Project size Size Range
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE with
Overhead & Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
Number of FTEs
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Number
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Environmental Compliance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Environmental Compliance Cost per Project Size and Compliance Category (2021 dollars) Minimum Maximum CEQA CWA 404 CWA 401 CDFG 1602 NHPA Other Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles $ 2,000 $ 25,000 0.001 0.01 $7,346 $0 $968 $1,130 $3,673 $3,482 Medium/more complex
10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles $ 25,001 $ 100,000 0.0121 0.07 $58,767 $0 $1,130 $2,425 $5,142 $4,179 Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles $ 100,001
$500,000 or
more 0.073 0.30 $146,918 $0 $1,291 $4,654 $12,488 $5,572 Assumptions:
Details are not prescriptive but are a reasonable means of generating an overall cost for the environmental cost category.
For NEPA/CEQA, 401/404 and 1602 compliance, varying costs have more to do with project complexity than with project size.
Clean Water Act 401 and 1602 permits will be done on a per-project basis Cultural compliance permits will be done on a per-project basis.
Permitted projects would be completed within the time limit allotted for the permits; no extensions or re-application would be required.
The "other" compliance category could include county grading permits, road encroachment permits, or other local approvals.
NEPA/CEQA
Depending on the level of detail that is provided for specific projects, they may or may not be able to be covered under the HCP EIR/EIS.
For those without sufficient detail, additional environmental documentation may need to be prepared.
It is likely that the majority of those would be in the form of mitigated negative declarations.
Because it is difficult to provide a cost estimate for a project without knowing details such as location, size, etc., the following are some rough numbers based on level of controversy:
Small scale non-controversial projects = Cat Excl/Cat Exemp Medium scale more controversial projects = IS MND/EA FONSI Larger scale more controversial projects = EIR/EIS
All land acquisitions would be a categorical exemption under CEQA as well as under NEPA, when NEPA applies. 401/404
The cost of conducting wetland delineations is not included under CWA 404/401 compliance; it is expected that delineation would be covered under land acquisition costs.
Each project implemented under the HCP will qualify for compliance under the USACE 404 regional permit program for the inventory area; there is no fee for 404 permit applications.
Tasks associated with Section 402 compliance are not included in this cost estimate.
NHPA
Archaeological surveys can be conducted at an intensive level at a rate of 40 acres per person per day.
No more than one cultural resource will be identified per 40 acres or part thereof.
This scope of work and cost estimate does not include tasks necessary for significance evaluations and resolution of adverse effects.
CDFG 1602
CWA 401 fee cost estimate assumes all projects qualify for flat fees in Category D Ecological Restoration and Enhancement Projects, as allowed under State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Materials to Waters of the State, adopted by the State Water Board on April 2, 2019. FY 21/22 Water Quality Certification Dredge and Fill Application Fee Calculator (Effective 11/8/21) Available:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/ DFG 1602 costs are estimated based on the assumed cost of project activities within DFW jurisdiction per Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616, and the fee schedule corresponding to the project costs. Average cost based on mean of minimum and maximum fee amounts for standard agreements. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements and Fees, Effective January 1, 2022. Available:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/LSA#55227743-fees Project Impacts to Wetlands
for CWA 401 Compliance Category
Project size Size Range
Estimate Project Cost within DFG
jurisdiction
Contra Costa Conservancy staff will prepare permit applications and notification for the 401, 404 and 1600 applications, thereby resulting in no consultant cost for permit preparation. This table also assumes that the permits for Water Quality Certification (CWA 401) and Streambed Alteration Agreement (DFG 1602) will not be secured under programmatic or Master permit processes.
Assumed wetland impact determined by AECOM based experience with typical projects that would be expected to be implemented by the Conservancy. For example wetland restoration/creation projects, stream restoration projects, adaptive management measures for existing wetland features and facilities improvements. In general, it is expected that impacts to wetlands and streams would be avoided if at all possible. Of the stream length indicated, assumed only 10% of that length would be impacted and an average stream width of 10 feet.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Program staff and overhead $261,320 $261,320 $495,982
Invasive Plant Control $1,545,290 $2,112,486 $3,283,682 Invasive Wildlife Control $309,058 $422,497 $656,736
Grazing Management $772,645 $1,056,243 $1,641,841
Wildfire Management $1,313,497 $1,795,613 $2,791,130
Security $231,794 $316,873 $492,552
Roads and Trails $231,794 $316,873 $492,552
Maintenance and Support $309,058 $422,497 $656,736
Annual Reporting $77,265 $105,624 $164,184
Law Enforcement $1,158,968 $1,584,365 $2,462,762
Administrative and General Expense $1,777,084 $2,429,359 $3,776,235 Total $0 $548,525 $2,478,883 $3,620,712 $7,987,773 $10,823,750 $16,914,392 $42,374,035 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and Support $206 0.05 0.05 0.07
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.10
Assistant Planner and support $109 0.10 0.10 0.15
0.20 0.20 0.32
$52,264 $52,264 $82,664
$261,320 $261,320 $495,982
1,880 hours per year, excluding vacation
Implementation Period (Years)
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
Position
Hourly Cost per
FTE with
Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
All Costs
NOTE: Costs for years 1 - 14 include expenditures by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on land maintenance activities on Conservancy properties (staff costs, maintenance supplies, maintenance services from inception throught 2021). Details provided by the EBRPD and East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Preserve Acres Managed
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Total preserve acres acquired per period 12,050 5,672 5,672 6,806 Acres acquired and managed by end of period 12,050 17,722 23,394 30,200 Assumptions:
Total costs related to habitat and species protection on preserve system lands whether or not costs incurred by EBRPD or Conservancy.
Invasive Plant Control
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $1,545,290 $2,112,486 $3,283,682
Assumptions:
$20 annual cost per acre for invasive plant control
Patrol, work planning, cultural, manual, mechanical, chemical control.
Invasive Wildlife Control
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $309,058 $422,497 $656,736
Assumptions:
$4 annual cost per acre for invasive wildlife control
Observation, recording, and controlling bullfrog, fish, and feral mammals.
Grazing Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $772,645 $1,056,243 $1,641,841
Assumptions:
$10 annual cost per acre for grazing management
Data collection, administration, infrastructure repair, permitting, grazing management, reporting.
Wildfire Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $1,313,497 $1,795,613 $2,791,130
Assumptions:
$17 annual cost per acre for wildfire management
Fire suppression planning and wildfire management; fuels coordinator. Fuel reduction included in invasive plant control cost category.
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
All work (except law enforcement) performed by EBRPD staff including Park Rangers, Supervisors, Stewardship staff, Heavy Equipment Operators, and Fire Department. Law enforcement cost assumes contract with Contra Costa County Sheriff.
Costs per acre (except law enforcement) based on estimates prepared by EBRPD staff for implementation of the Vasco Hills / Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan prepared for the Conservancy (2018 draft).
Cost estimates assume preserve system land is acquired and managed in equal annual increments over the remainder of the implementation period and that cost increases incrementally as acreage under management increases.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Preserve Management&Maintenance Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 3 of 3 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Security
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $231,794 $316,873 $492,552
Assumptions:
$3 annual cost per acre for security maintenance and repair Gate and fence installation, inspection, and repairs.
Roads & Trails
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $231,794 $316,873 $492,552
Assumptions:
$3 annual cost per acre for roads and trails maintenance and repair Road grading, maintenance, and tree and brush removal.
On-going Maintenance and Support
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $309,058 $422,497 $656,736
Assumptions:
$4 annual cost per acre for on-going maintenance and support Equipment maintenance, service yard, (including support). Trash and debris removal from non-recreation areas.
Annual Reporting
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $77,265 $105,624 $164,184
Assumptions:
$1 annual cost per acre for annual management reporting Internal EBRPD reporting (Red Book) and Annual Report to ECCCHC.
Law Enforcement
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $1,158,968 $1,584,365 $2,462,762
Assumptions:
$15 annual cost per acre for law enforcement
Administrative and General Expense
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost per period $1,777,084 $2,429,359 $3,776,235
Assumptions:
$23 annual cost per acre for administrative and general expense Law enforcement primarily for habitat and species protection. Based on annual cost of Contra Costa County Sheriff contract to provide law enforcement services to the Contra Costa Water District Los Vaqueros Watershed (18,500 acres of protected watershed lands and 1,900 acres reservoir). Includes a level of cost related to public access commensurate with the level of service required at the Los Vaqueros Watershed.
Covers the following General and Administrative Expenses: fuel, tools, equipment, and other supplies used in the course of preserve land management and services (utility fees, contractors, and other costs) incurred in the course of reserve land management. Also covers internal services costs for equipment replacement and infrastructure renovation and replacement. Does not include indirect and direct EBRPD overhead costs.
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
Implementation Period
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Monitoring&Research Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 HCP/NCCP Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management for Maximum Urban Development Area 2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Staff and overhead $120,132 $120,132 $305,011
Contractors $1,000,000 $1,875,000 $3,000,000
Directed research $500,000 $500,000 $600,000
Adaptive management $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Total $0 $654,741 $604,793 $936,384 $1,835,132 $2,710,132 $4,120,011 $10,861,193 Conservancy Staff and Overhead
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Principal Planner and support $206 0.03 0.03 0.08
Associate Planner and support $132 0.05 0.05 0.08
0.08 0.08 0.16
$24,026 $24,026 $50,835
$120,132 $120,132 $305,011
1,880 hours per year
Contractors
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Monitoring contractors $1,000,000 $1,875,000 $3,000,000 Total per period $1,000,000 $1,875,000 $3,000,000
Metrics for gross annual budget estimate==> Preserve Acres (end of period)
Restored Acres
(per period)
Rough annual cost
per preserve acre
$200,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 15-19 17,722 127 $11 $375,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 20-24 23,394 127 $16 $500,000 annual budget for monitoring contractors, years 25-30 30,200 152 $17 Assumptions:
Contractor activities include field data collection, analysis, and reporting. Costs include travel.
Note that planning, preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring for covered activities outside of preserves will be paid for by developers. These costs are not included here.
Species-response monitoring is covered in the restoration category when contractors will monitor restoration, creation, and enhancement sites during the 5-year period following the restoration activity.
Post-acquisition biological inventories will build on planning surveys. Inventory will include mapping of weeds and invasive plants.
Status and trends monitoring will occur after preserve land is purchased through year 30. Status and trend monitoring will build on planning surveys and post-acquisition inventories, when appropriate.
Some preserve covered activities and conservation measures require pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring. This work will be done by contractors. Contractors will conduct pre-construction surveys prior to construction as well as construction monitoring periodically during the construction period. All covered activities require compliance with HCP/NCCP pre-construction avoidance and minimization measures.
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Note: Hourly cost factor includes staff salary and benefits, salaries and benefits of administrative support staff (secretaries, clerks, IT staff, etc.) and associated overhead, including space and utility costs, office furniture, equipment, and supplies.
Number of FTEs
Contract value per period
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Monitoring&Research Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 2 of 2 date printed: 1/31/23 Directed Research
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Average cost per year to fund directed research $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total cost per period $500,000 $500,000 $600,000
Adaptive Management
0 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Average Independent Conservation Assessment
Team cost per period $36,000 $36,000 $36,000
Average Science Advisors cost per period $179,000 $179,000 $179,000 Total cost per period $215,000 $215,000 $215,000
Assumptions:
Adaptive management experiments are covered under the monitoring staff and directed research categories.
As of this 2022 update, this type of periodic scientific review is conducted by the Conservancy's on-call biologist contractors.
The Conservancy convened a Science Advisory Panel in year 10 and plans to do the same in year 20.
The Conservancy's Preserve Monitoring Plan remains in the draft stage.
The following assumptions generate a scientific review budget to inform adaptive management:
An Independent Conservation Assessment Team meets once every 4 years and has:
5 members
$7,200 stipend per member per 5-year period
Science Advisors Panel consists of:
10 members
$17,900 stipend per member per 5-year period
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Remedial Measures Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Remedial Measures for Maximum Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Remedial measures $0 $0 $0 $0 $262,890 $208,134 $3,477,304 $3,948,328 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $262,890 $208,134 $3,477,304 $3,948,328 Note: Actual costs are included in habitat restoration/creation and preserve management cost categories.
Remedial Measures
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30
Cost of created/restored habitat per period $2,063,773 $1,563,376 $10,606,806 $10,606,806 $12,728,168 Cost for remedial measures for
created/restored habitat per period $206,377 $156,338 $3,394,178 Area of new preserve not including
created/restored habitat per period - 7,578 3,488 962 5,545 5,545 6,654 Cost for remedial measures for preserves
per period $6,513 $1,797 $33,126
Cost for other remedial measures per
period $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Total cost per period $262,890 $208,134 $3,477,304
Assumptions:
2% Percent of annual preserve management and maintenance cost assumed to be needed for preserve remedial actions. 10% Percent of created/restored habitat for which remedial measures will be required. $93 Cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 26-30. 63% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 1 - 5 29% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 6 - 9 8% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 14 occurring in years 10 - 14 Implementation Period (Years)
All Costs
Remedial actions are assumed to occur in the second 5-year period after habitat is created/restored or preserve land is purchased, with the exception of remedial actions for habitat created/restored in years 20-30. The cost for these remedial actions is included in years 25-30 so that it can be captured in this cost estimate.
The remedial cost for preserve lands is assumed to be a percentage of the cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 25-30, and is assumed to be needed once, in the second 5-year period after the preserve land is purchased. The costs for preserves areas acquired in years 20 - 30 is included in years 26-30 so that it can be captured in this cost estimate.
The cost for other remedial measures includes the costs for restoration or maintenance of preserve areas because of other changed circumstances, such as wildfire.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Contingency Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Contingency Fund for Maximum Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Total
Total cost of program excluding land
acquisition/site improvements and habitat
restoration/creation construction costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,909,402 $30,965,623 $43,025,775 $101,900,800 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,395,470 $1,548,281 $2,151,289 $5,095,040 Assumptions:
5.0% Percent of total program funding needed for contingency East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Cost Tables
Post Permit Costs Appendix D Maximum UDA Cost Model Update_2022_20230113.xlsx, 1 of 1 date printed: 1/31/23 Post-Permit Costs for Initial Urban Development Area
2022 Update
(2021 dollars)
Post-Permit Costs
Cost Category Annual Costs Assumptions
Total Cost
Program Administration $497,000 Reduced staffing and no legal and financial contractor costs Land Acquisition $0 Acquisition complete during permit term Planning and Design $0 Planning and design work complete during permit term Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 Restoration/creation projects constructed during permit term Environmental Compliance $0 Not required, post permit
Preserve Management and Maintenance $2,819,100 Assume 100 percent of annual average costs in years 25 - 30 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $343,300 Assume 50 percent of annual average costs in years 25 - 30 Remedial Measures $0 Not required, post permit
Contingency $0 Not required, post permit
Total $3,659,400
Total preserve system acres 30,200
Annual average cost per acre managed $121
Percent of average annual cost years 25 - 30 16%
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report E-1
APPENDIX E: ENDOWMENT MODEL UPDATE
Tables E.1 and E.2 present the endowment model results for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios, respectively.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report E-2
Table E.1: Endowment Fund - Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Permit Year 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Beginning Fund Balance $3,917,630 $6,990,803 $14,798,497 $18,214,633 $21,741,794 $25,383,587 $29,176,637 $33,125,859 Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 CWF2 $0 $3,182,808 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 Summer Lakes $0 $1,462,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cypress Preserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,898 $65,796 $98,694 Subtotal $2,821,678 $7,466,986 $2,821,678 $2,821,678 $2,821,678 $2,854,576 $2,887,474 $2,920,372 Leases3 $124,172 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 Investment Earnings4 $127,323 $227,201 $480,951 $591,976 $706,608 $824,967 $948,241 $1,076,590 Total Revenues $3,073,173 $7,807,694 $3,416,136 $3,527,161 $3,641,793 $3,793,050 $3,949,222 $4,110,469 Ending Fund Balance $6,990,803 $14,798,497 $18,214,633 $21,741,794 $25,383,587 $29,176,637 $33,125,859 $37,236,328 Year 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Permit Year 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Beginning Fund Balance $37,236,328 $41,513,286 $45,959,742 $50,583,607 $55,390,645 $60,383,685 $66,591,487 $72,014,350 Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 $2,802,400 CWF2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 Summer Lakes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cypress Preserve $131,592 $164,490 $197,388 $230,286 $263,184 $1,315,672 $328,980 $347,293 Subtotal $2,953,270 $2,986,168 $3,019,066 $3,051,964 $3,084,862 $4,137,350 $3,150,658 $3,168,971 Leases3 $113,507 $111,107 $111,107 $111,107 $107,982 $107,982 $107,982 $58,461 Investment Earnings4 $1,210,181 $1,349,182 $1,493,692 $1,643,967 $1,800,196 $1,962,470 $2,164,223 $2,340,466 Total Revenues $4,276,958 $4,446,457 $4,623,865 $4,807,038 $4,993,040 $6,207,802 $5,422,863 $5,567,899 Ending Fund Balance $41,513,286 $45,959,742 $50,583,607 $55,390,645 $60,383,685 $66,591,487 $72,014,350 $77,582,249
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report E-3
Table E.1: Endowment Fund - Initial Urban Development Area (2021 $) (continued) Year Total Annual
Permit Year Year 15 - 30 Post-Permit
Beginning Fund Balance $3,917,630 $77,582,249
Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $44,838,400 $0
CWF2 $3,182,808 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $308,448 $19,278
Summer Lakes $1,462,500 $0
Cypress Preserve $3,176,273 $347,293
Subtotal $52,968,429 $366,571
Leases3 $1,747,957 270,605
Investment Earnings4 $18,948,234 $2,521,423
Total Revenues $73,664,619 $3,158,600
Post-Permit Costs NA ($3,158,600)
Net Cash Flow $73,664,619 ($0)
Ending Fund Balance $77,582,249 $77,582,249
1 Mitigation fee calculated to result in close to $0 annual net cash flow post-permit term. 2 Proceeds from California Wildlife Foundation (CWF) primarily associated with mitigation payments made prior to Plan implementation (in 2021 $). 3 Based on 2021 revenue from 13 leases. Eight communication tower leases are assumed to continue in perpetuity. Five wind power, residential, and agricultural leases are assumed to expire prior to the end of the permit term. 4 Investment earnings = Beginning Fund Balance x Annual Real Rate of Return on Investments (ROI). Real ROI equals 3.25% and is net of inflation and all administrative and investment management fees.
Sources: Regional Parks Foundation (2022 beginning fund balance); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (rate of return on investment); Appendix C (Post-Permit Costs table); and Appendix F, Tables F.2, F.3, and F.4 (endowment contributions to date, development project revenue, and lease revenue).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report E-4
Table E.2: Endowment Fund – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Permit Year 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Beginning Fund Balance $3,917,630 $7,740,310 $16,321,870 $20,537,023 $24,889,168 $29,382,758 $34,055,288 $38,912,573 Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 CWF2 $0 $3,182,808 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 Summer Lakes $0 $1,462,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cypress Preserve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,898 $65,796 $98,694 Subtotal $3,571,185 $8,216,493 $3,571,185 $3,571,185 $3,571,185 $3,604,083 $3,636,981 $3,669,879 Leases3 $124,172 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 $113,507 Investment Earnings4 $127,323 $251,560 $530,461 $667,453 $808,898 $954,940 $1,106,797 $1,264,659 Total Revenues $3,822,680 $8,581,560 $4,215,153 $4,352,145 $4,493,590 $4,672,530 $4,857,285 $5,048,045 Ending Fund Balance $7,740,310 $16,321,870 $20,537,023 $24,889,168 $29,382,758 $34,055,288 $38,912,573 $43,960,617 Year 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Permit Year 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Beginning Fund Balance $43,960,617 $49,205,621 $54,651,586 $60,307,443 $66,180,013 $72,273,214 $79,616,932 $86,212,630 Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 $3,551,907 CWF2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 $19,278 Summer Lakes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cypress Preserve $131,592 $164,490 $197,388 $230,286 $263,184 $1,315,672 $328,980 $347,293 Subtotal $3,702,777 $3,735,675 $3,768,573 $3,801,471 $3,834,369 $4,886,857 $3,900,165 $3,918,478 Leases3 $113,507 $111,107 $111,107 $111,107 $107,982 $107,982 $107,982 $58,461 Investment Earnings4 $1,428,720 $1,599,183 $1,776,177 $1,959,992 $2,150,850 $2,348,879 $2,587,550 $2,801,910 Total Revenues $5,245,004 $5,445,965 $5,655,857 $5,872,570 $6,093,201 $7,343,718 $6,595,697 $6,778,850 Ending Fund Balance $49,205,621 $54,651,586 $60,307,443 $66,180,013 $72,273,214 $79,616,932 $86,212,630 $92,991,480
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report E-5
Table E.2: Endowment Fund – Maximum Urban Development Area (2021 $) (continued) Year Total Annual
Permit Year Year 15 - 30 Post-Permit
Beginning Fund Balance $3,917,630 $92,991,480
Development Revenue
Mitigation Fee1 $56,830,512 $0
CWF2 $3,182,808 $0
Pinn Bros./Pulte $308,448 $19,278
Summer Lakes $1,462,500 $0
Cypress Preserve $3,176,273 $347,293
Subtotal $64,960,541 $366,571
Leases3 $1,747,957 270,605
Investment Earnings4 $22,365,352 $3,022,223
Total Revenues $89,073,850 $3,659,400
Post-Permit Costs NA ($3,659,400)
Net Cash Flow $89,073,850 ($0)
Ending Fund Balance $92,991,480 $92,991,479
1 Mitigation fee calculated to result in close to $0 annual net cash flow post-permit term. 2 Proceeds from California Wildlife Foundation (CWF) primarily associated with mitigation payments made prior to Plan implementation (in 2021 $). 3 Based on 2021 revenue from 13 leases. Eight communication tower leases are assumed to continue in perpetuity. Five wind power, residential, and agricultural leases are assumed to expire prior to the end of the permit term. 4 Investment earnings = Beginning Fund Balance x Annual Real Rate of Return on Investments (ROI). Real ROI equals 3.25% and is net of inflation and all administrative and investment management fees.
Sources: Regional Parks Foundation (2022 beginning fund balance); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (rate of return on investment); Appendix D (Post-Permit Costs table); and Appendix F, Tables F.2, F.3, and F.4 (endowment contributions to date, development project revenue, and lease revenue).
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-1
APPENDIX F: REVENUE DATA
Appendix F provides detail on the revenue data used in the audit.
Table F.1 provides the index used to inflate actual costs and revenues from prior years to current (2021) dollars. The index is based on changes in the Conservancy’s mitigation fee schedule, thus replicating the same index used to reflect inflation in Plan costs. The fees are adjusted annually based on published price indices and periodically based on prior.37 Table F.2 shows endowment contributions through fiscal year 2022.
Table F.3 shows how development project revenue paid in lieu of the development fee is estimated for the remaining permit term. This revenue is entirely allocated to the endowment.
Table F.4 shows lease revenue from activities on preserve lands using 2021 as the base year. The table shows the allocation of estimated future revenue to the endowment, land acquisition and preserve management for the remainder of the permit term based on the 2020 lease revenue allocation agreement between the Conservancy and the Park District.
Table F.5 shows actual revenue to date by source in current dollars (the year received) and inflated to 2021 dollars.
37 HCP/NCCP, Chapter 9, pp. 30-31 and Table 9-7.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-2
Table F.1: Inflation Index (FY 2021 = 1.00)
Plan
Year
Fiscal
Year
Fee
Adopted
Zone 1
Fee1 Change
Inflation
Index
(2021 $)2
Fiscal
Year for
Application of
Inflation
Index3 Notes
-1 2006 $11,919.00 NA 0.6294 2005 Plan completed
0 2007 $12,456.88 4.5% 0.6578 2006 JPA formed & permits issued 1 2008 $12,077.65 (3.0%) 0.6377 2007 1st full yr. of implementation 2 2009 $10,731.11 (11.1%) 0.5666 2008
3 2010 $10,558.09 (1.6%) 0.5575 2009
4 2011 $10,662.15 1.0% 0.5630 2010
5 2012 $10,584.32 (0.7%) 0.5589 2011
6 2013 $10,076.00 (4.8%) 0.5321 2012 2013 Audit
7 2014 $11,146.99 10.6% 0.5886 2013
8 2015 $11,877.42 6.6% 0.6272 2014
9 2016 $12,788.47 7.7% 0.6753 2015
10 2017 $13,491.41 5.5% 0.7124 2016 2017 Audit
11 2018 $14,404.82 6.8% 0.7606 2017
12 2019 $15,342.88 6.5% 0.8102 2018
13 2020 $16,442.17 7.2% 0.8682 2019
14 2021 $16,890.46 2.7% 0.8919 2020
15 2022 $18,937.95 12.1% 1.0000 2021 2022 Audit
16 2023 $19,506.09 3.0% 1.0300 2022 Endowment model inflation rate 17 2024 $20,091.27 3.0% 1.0609 2023 Endowment model inflation rate 1 Fees for all three zones increase by the same inflation index. Fee reflects both annual inflation adjustments and periodic adjustments based on prior audits. Fee reflects amount charged by Conservancy for participating special entities. Fees charged by other JPA members (cities and the County) varied from this schedule in certain years due to pending litigation at that time. That litigation has been settled and all JPA members now charge the same fee. 2 Inflation index based on change in Zone 1 fee and is prescribed in Chapter 9 of the Plan using a combination of the Consumer Price Index (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and the Home Price Index (Federal Housing Finance Agency). 2023 fee and index estimated based on 3.0 percent inflation rate used in endowment model. 3 The development fee is increased based on inflation for the prior year, so the index applies to fiscal data for the year prior to the year the fee is adopted.
Source: ECCC Habitat Conservancy, Annual Mitigation Fee Adjustment Summary (PDF); Table 4.1.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-3
Table F.2: Endowment Contributions (through FY 2022)
Fiscal
Year Source Notes
Amount
(current $)
Amount
(2021 $)
Through FY 2021
Development Fee Funds
2020 California Wildlife Foundation Prior Pinn Bros. special tax inception to 2020; 1st and 2nd Summer Lakes payments (see Table F.2) $1,997,000.00 $2,239,040.25 Local Operating Funds
2020 Endowment share of lease revenue Plan inception through FY 2019-20 $1,103,556.00 $1,237,309.12 2021 Endowment share of lease revenue FY 2020-21 annual $72,596.89 $72,596.89 Subtotal $1,176,152.89 $1,309,906.01
Total $3,173,152.89 $3,548,946.26
After FY 2021
Development Fee Funds
2023 California Wildlife Foundation
Pinn Bros. special tax for 2021 and 2022; prePlan mitigation payments for other development projects; received by Conservancy 2022;
assumed to be deposited into endowment in
2023.
$3,376,641.53 $3,182,808.49
Local Operating Funds
2022 Endowment share of lease revenue1 FY 2021-22 total annual revenue $125,929.30 $122,261.46 Total $3,502,570.83 $3,305,069.95
1 Amount is slightly different than calculated amount in Table F.3. Amount in Table F.3 used for endowment model.
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-4
Table F.3: Development Project Revenue
Project (location) Amount Revenue Requirement Notes
Pinn Bros. / Pulte (Brentwood)
0.2% fee on all property resales in
perpetuity.
Project is built out; assume sales prices and
therefore fee revenue increases with
inflation.
2016 Revenue $14,196
2017 Revenue $8,026
2018 Revenue $17,417
2019 Revenue $21,008
2020 Revenue $24,539
2021 Revenue $31,465
2022 Revenue $18,297
7-Year Average $19,278
Summer Lake / Shea Homes (Oakley) 5 payments of $487,500 each paid at recording of each
subdivision ($500,000 each net of
2.5% CA Wildlife Foundation fee).
1st & 2nd payments received in 2020 from
CA Wildlife Foundation and deposited into
endowment fund; 3rd payment received in
2022; anticipate 4th and 5th payments in
2023.
Total Obligation $2,437,500
Paid Through 2021 (2 payments) $975,000
Remaining Funding (3 payments) $1,462,500
Cypress Preserve (Oakley) Special tax adjusted annually for inflation, in perpetuity; must
generate $2.5 mil. (cumulative) by
2035 or pay difference.
Assume absorption of 300 units annually
starting in 2027 and buildout by 2037;
requires additional payment of $1.0M in
2035 to meet $2.5 mil. minimum revenue
requirement.
Total Dwelling Units $3,167
Special Tax per Unit $110
Total Annual Revenue at Buildout $347,293
Note: Summer Lakes phases 2 and 5 of the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan. Cypress Preserve is phases 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the same specific plan, though new units in phase 6 are not subject to the special tax.
Source: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-5
Table F.4: Lease Revenue, 2022-2037 (2021 $)
Park Property Lessee
Lease
Type
Expiration
After All
Renewals
Annual
Revenue
(2021)
Remaining Lease
Years Post-2021
Permit
Term
PostPermit
Black
Diamond
Affinito Affinito Residential Terminated
Austin Thomas - South PG&E Communication NA $76,300 16 In perpetuity Byron Vernal
Pools
Pugh (Owens-Maness)
Souza III T-Mobile Communication NA $39,413 16 In perpetuity Souza III Sprint Communication Terminated
Souza III Sprint Nextel Communication NA $27,345 16 In perpetuity Martin CCATT Communication NA $20,024 16 In perpetuity
Martin Crown Castle Communication NA $23,531 16 In perpetuity Martin T-Mobile Communication NA $34,028 16 In perpetuity Martin American Tower Communication NA $34,364 16 In perpetuity Gramma's Quarter Buena Vista-Lease #4 Wind 2033 $12,500 12 0 Souza III Buena Vista-Lease #8 Wind 2036 $198,083 15 0
Martin Martin - 14031 Vasco Rd. Residential 2030 $6,000 9 0 Souza II Martin - 6400 Armstrong Rd. Residential Demolishe d
Deer Valley Roddy Cell Easement CC TM PA Communication NA $15,600 16 In perpetuity Roddy Home Ranch Jack + Donna Roddy Residential Terminated Delta Access Nunn RRS Farms Agricultural 2022 $71,100 1 0 Morgan
Territory Galvin Galvin Residential 2030 $6,000 9 0
Vasco Caves Souza III Sprint Nextel Communication Assigned Vasco Hills Vaquero Farms, Inc. Martin - 15500 Vasco Rd. Residential Terminated All Parks All Properties Interest Earnings NA 2037 $7,986 16 0 Total $572,274
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-6
Table F.4: Lease Revenue, 2022-2037 (2021 $) (continued) Park Property
Total Revenue
Endowment
Revenue Land Acquisition
Preserve
Management
Share1
Permit
Term Share1
Permit
Term Share1
Permit
Term2 Share1
Permit
Term
Black Diamond
Affinito
Austin Thomas -
South 100% $1,220,800 15% $183,120 0% $0 85% $1,037,680 Byron Vernal
Pools
Pugh (OwensManess)
Souza III 100% $630,614 25% $157,653 15% $94,592 60% $378,368 Souza III
Souza III 100% $437,520 25% $109,380 15% $65,628 60% $262,512 Martin 100% $320,390 25% $80,097 15% $48,058 60% $192,234 Martin 100% $376,489 25% $94,122 15% $56,473 60% $225,894 Martin 100% $544,448 25% $136,112 15% $81,667 60% $326,669 Martin 100% $549,824 25% $137,456 15% $82,474 60% $329,894 Gramma's Quarter 100% $150,000 25% $37,500 15% $22,500 60% $90,000 Souza III 100% $2,971,242 25% $742,811 15% $445,686 60% $1,782,745 Martin 100% $54,000 25% $13,500 15% $8,100 60% $32,400
Souza II
Deer Valley Roddy Cell Easement 100% $249,600 15% $37,440 0% $0 85% $212,160 Roddy Home Ranch
Delta Access Nunn 100% $71,100 15% $10,665 0% $0 85% $60,435 Morgan Territory Galvin 100% $54,000 15% $8,100 0% $0 85% $45,900 Vasco Caves Souza III
Vasco Hills Vaquero Farms, Inc.
All Parks All Properties 100% $127,778 0% $0 0% $0 100% $127,778 Total $7,757,805 $1,747,957 $905,179 $5,104,669
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-7
Table F.4: Lease Revenue, 2022-2037 (2021 $) (continued) Notes: Table reflects Lease Revenues Allocation Agreement (Agreement) between the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy dated October 2020.
Amount for 2022-2037 shown in 2021 dollars and assume that annual revenue increases with inflation (most but not all leases include an inflation clause).
The Agreement and therefore this table excludes grazing revenue that is assumed to only cover grazing costs with no net contribution to Plan funding. 1 Agreement does not address allocation of interest earnings on fund balances that are assumed to be allocated 100% to land management costs. 2 Land acquisition allocation is subject to a $2,000,000 maximum after which revenue is allocated to preserve management. An initial allocation to land acquisition of $525,875 was made when the Agreement was adopted, so with the additional estimated funding shown in this table, this maximum will not be reached during the permit term. All preserve lands must be acquired by the end of the permit term, so land acquisition lease revenue post-permit is allocated to the endowment.
Sources: East Bay Regional Park District; Lease Revenues Allocation Agreement between the East Bay Regional Park District and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, October 2020.
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-8
Table F.5: Revenue By Year (through FY 2021)
Fiscal
year
Inflation
Index
Mitigation Fees Other Project Fees
State &
Federal
Grants
Permanent Impacts
Temporary
Impact
Fee
Administrative
Charges
Payments
For Noncovered
Activities
Other
Mitigation
Fees
Development
Fee1
Wetland
Mitigation
Fee
Rural
Road Fee
Current Dollars
2005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,140,000 $0 $0
2006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,245,000 $0 $0
2007 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $475,759 $0 $273,000
2008 $0 $236 $0 $25,542 $4,150 $243,725 $0 $1,410,695
2009 $880,435 $11,774 $30,978 $518,547 $10,000 $0 $49,131 $5,536,623 2010 $0 $141,363 $282,672 $160,043 $40,000 $0 $90,037 $10,028,928 2011 $220,239 $48,552 $5,235 $83,715 $68,410 $0 $318,492 $8,745,668 2012 $235,043 $181,371 $730,055 $66,547 $59,444 $43,978 $347,138 $4,862,568 2013 $1,703,067 $4,087 $122,792 $296,551 $62,452 $0 $146,502 $1,444,339 2014 $514,563 $207,226 $70,351 $432,631 $35,448 $0 $38,298 $14,947,687 2015 $975,432 $17,564 $18,529 $59,577 $25,816 $0 $141,709 $1,809,042 2016 $794,365 $67,651 $35,818 $84,252 $8,658 $0 $20,160 $7,363,644 2017 $1,510,425 $177,711 $128,303 $258,014 $16,657 $0 $69,933 $4,853,931 2018 $1,826,485 $142,820 $0 $205,456 $210,363 $90,261 $123,432 $3,066,502 2019 $1,420,049 $3,234 $4,833 $117,713 $73,383 $0 $34,769 $821,867 2020 $2,573,363 $0 $0 $46,284 $67,573 $0 $2,172,653 $590,030 2021 $1,985,014 $0 $4,743 $320,613 $14,223 $0 $102,389 $280,900 Total $14,638,479 $1,003,590 $1,434,310 $2,675,485 $696,577 $3,238,723 $3,654,643 $66,035,424 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-9
Table F.5: Revenue By Year (through FY 2021) (continued) Fiscal
year
Inflation
Index
Mitigation Fees Other Project Fees
State &
Federal
Grants
Permanent Impacts
Temporary
Impact
Fee
Administrative
Charges
Payments
For Noncovered
Activities
Other
Mitigation
Fees
Development
Fee1
Wetland
Mitigation
Fee
Rural
Road Fee
Constant 2021 Dollars
2005 0.6294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,811,249 $0 $0
2006 0.6578 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,892,673 $0 $0
2007 0.6377 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $746,055 $0 $428,101
2008 0.5666 $0 $417 $0 $45,079 $7,324 $430,154 $0 $2,489,754 2009 0.5575 $1,579,256 $21,119 $55,565 $930,130 $17,937 $0 $88,128 $9,931,163 2010 0.5630 $0 $251,090 $502,082 $284,269 $71,048 $0 $159,923 $17,813,371 2011 0.5589 $394,058 $86,871 $9,367 $149,786 $122,401 $0 $569,855 $15,648,002 2012 0.5321 $441,726 $340,859 $1,372,026 $125,064 $111,715 $82,649 $652,392 $9,138,447 2013 0.5886 $2,893,420 $6,944 $208,618 $503,825 $106,103 $0 $248,900 $2,453,854 2014 0.6272 $820,412 $330,398 $112,167 $689,781 $56,519 $0 $61,062 $23,832,410 2015 0.6753 $1,444,442 $26,010 $27,438 $88,223 $38,229 $0 $209,846 $2,678,871 2016 0.7124 $1,115,055 $94,962 $50,278 $118,265 $12,154 $0 $28,298 $10,336,390 2017 0.7606 $1,985,834 $233,646 $168,687 $339,224 $21,900 $0 $91,945 $6,381,713 2018 0.8102 $2,254,363 $176,277 $0 $253,586 $259,643 $111,406 $152,348 $3,784,870 2019 0.8682 $1,635,624 $3,725 $5,567 $135,583 $84,523 $0 $40,047 $946,634 2020 0.8919 $2,885,259 $0 $0 $51,893 $75,763 $0 $2,435,982 $661,543 2021 1.0000 $1,985,014 $0 $4,743 $320,613 $14,223 $0 $102,389 $280,900 Total $17,449,450 $1,572,317 $2,511,795 $3,714,708 $985,259 $5,074,185 $4,738,727 $106,525,123 Five-Year Avg.
(2017-2021)2 $2,149,219 $82,730 $35,799 $220,180 $91,210 $22,281 $116,734 $2,411,132 10-Year Avg.
(2017-2021)2 $1,746,115 $121,282 $194,952 $262,606 $78,077 $19,406 $178,417 $6,049,563
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-10
Table F.5: Revenue By Year (through FY 2021) (continued) Fiscal
year
Inflation
Index
Other Local Funds Other Revenue
Total
Local
Funds
(NonEBRPD)
Local - EBRPD
Interest
Earnings
MiscellaneousLand
Purchase
Due
Diligence
& Closing
Preserve
Mgt. (excl.
lease rev.)
Lease
Revenue
Current Dollars
2005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,537 $129 $1,161,665
2006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,610 $0 $1,275,610
2007 $1,500,000 $632,002 $131,444 $0 $0 $87,054 $11,503 $3,110,762 2008 $0 $0 $21,608 $0 $0 $36,492 $1,521 $1,743,969
2009 $880,000 $1,077,249 $65,622 $0 $0 $1,070 $0 $9,061,430 2010 $2,417,300 $4,603,901 $183,146 $0 $11,437 $0 $0 $17,958,828 2011 $0 $2,266,900 $92,500 $0 $386,357 $4,832 $248 $12,241,149 2012 $1,302,500 $649,890 $127,393 $0 $502,132 $615 $0 $9,108,673 2013 $0 $18,500 $107,555 $125,097 $521,364 $2,937 $0 $4,555,244 2014 $1,000,000 $4,098,850 $105,736 $115,536 $486,649 $6,441 $0 $22,059,416 2015 $0 $224,250 $51,344 $65,769 $469,448 $12,912 $0 $3,871,391 2016 $0 $937,275 $80,263 $80,876 $582,419 $19,905 $243 $10,075,529 2017 $28,000 $829,600 ($20,195) $94,421 $555,064 $24,377 $5,195 $8,531,436 2018 $0 $368,000 ($82,515) $75,731 $612,357 $48,760 $1,012 $6,688,664 2019 $15,000 $467,750 $50,147 $80,145 $610,781 $51,129 $693 $3,751,491 2020 $0 $105,000 $2,074 $84,283 $599,733 $30,379 $693 $6,272,064 2021 $50,003 $939,500 ($88,165) $90,784 $572,274 $16,768 $285 $4,289,332 Total $7,192,803 $17,218,667 $827,957 $812,642 $5,910,015 $395,818 $21,521 $125,756,654 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study February 2023 Final Report F-11
Table F.5: Revenue By Year (through FY 2021) (continued) Fiscal
year
Inflation
Index
Other Local Funds Other Revenue
Total
Local
Funds
(NonEBRPD)
Local - EBRPD
Interest
Earnings
MiscellaneousLand
Purchase
Due
Diligence
& Closing
Preserve
Mgt. (excl.
lease rev.)
Lease
Revenue
Current Dollars
2005 0.6294 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,218 $204 $1,845,671
2006 0.6578 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,534 $0 $1,939,207
2007 0.6377 $2,352,203 $991,065 $206,122 $0 $0 $136,512 $18,038 $4,878,097 2008 0.5666 $0 $0 $38,136 $0 $0 $64,406 $2,685 $3,077,955 2009 0.5575 $1,578,475 $1,932,285 $117,708 $0 $0 $1,919 $0 $16,253,687 2010 0.5630 $4,293,606 $8,177,444 $325,304 $0 $20,314 $0 $0 $31,898,450 2011 0.5589 $0 $4,056,003 $165,504 $0 $691,281 $8,645 $445 $21,902,216 2012 0.5321 $2,447,848 $1,221,368 $239,416 $0 $943,680 $1,156 $0 $17,118,348 2013 0.5886 $0 $31,431 $182,730 $212,532 $885,770 $4,990 $0 $7,739,116 2014 0.6272 $1,594,388 $6,535,156 $168,584 $184,210 $775,907 $10,269 $0 $35,171,263 2015 0.6753 $0 $332,075 $76,031 $97,392 $695,169 $19,120 $0 $5,732,847 2016 0.7124 $0 $1,315,658 $112,666 $113,526 $817,545 $27,941 $341 $14,143,079 2017 0.7606 $36,813 $1,090,718 ($26,551) $124,140 $729,771 $32,050 $6,830 $11,216,719 2018 0.8102 $0 $454,209 ($101,845) $93,472 $755,810 $60,182 $1,250 $8,255,571 2019 0.8682 $17,277 $538,758 $57,760 $92,311 $703,502 $58,891 $798 $4,320,999 2020 0.8919 $0 $117,726 $2,325 $94,498 $672,422 $34,061 $776 $7,032,250 2021 1.0000 $50,003 $939,500 ($88,165) $90,784 $572,274 $16,768 $285 $4,289,332 Total $12,320,610 $26,793,896 $1,563,889 $1,012,082 $7,691,172 $540,895 $31,366 $192,525,474 Five-Year Avg.
(2017-2021)2 $20,819 $628,182 ($31,295) $99,041 $686,756 $40,390 $1,988 $6,575,166 10-Year Avg.
(2017-2021)2 $414,633 $1,257,660 $62,295 $110,287 $755,185 $26,543 $1,028 $11,278,048 1 Development fees include fees applied to rural covered activities (outside urban development area) except rural road fees. 2 For "Other Mitigation Fees" average excludes extraordinary endowment contribution from California Wildlife Foundation in 2020 (see Table F.2).
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.
[Type here] Agenda Item: 8(a)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Bret Prebula, City Manager
DATE: July 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Adopt a resolution approving a Franchise Agreement with Allied Waste Systems, Inc. (Republic Services) for garbage, recyclable materials and organic waste collection services and revising the maximum limit for rates for such services starting on January 1, 2024.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) approving the following:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement with Allied Waste Systems, Inc. for a term expiring December 31, 2033; and
2. Approving the rates included within the agreement as outlined in the agreement (Exhibit 1 to the Franchise Agreement).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Republic Services, Inc. (Republic) and its prior entities (Allied Services and Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal) have been providing garbage, recycling, and organics collection services for decades in Clayton. The current Franchise Agreement was extended on August 17, 2011, and was again extended on September 20, 2022 via Amendment 3. Amendment 3 allowed for up to two six-month extensions, extending the Agreement term through December 31, 2023.
Republic has already implemented extensive adjustments to their collection services to facilitate state law compliance, including automatic roll-out of organics service to customers who generate sufficient quantities of solid waste to be required to subscribe under State law, as well as extensive additional recordkeeping and reporting. The company did not request a rate increase when these services were implemented, but as a part of extending the agreement requested a rate increase to cover both additional services as well as inflationary impacts.
As the City wished to continue services with Republic, the City worked with its consultant, R3 Consulting, to develop a new, modern franchise agreement which reflects current best practices, and will also help to facilitate state law compliance.
Subject: Adopt a resolution approving a Franchise Agreement with Allied Waste Systems, Inc. (Republic Services) for garbage, recyclable materials and organic waste collection services and revising the maximum limit for rates for such services starting on January 1, 2024.
Date: July 18, 2023