Oakley City Council
June 13, 2023

participating cities each separately adopted the mitigation fees and procedures to implement the HCP/NCCP.

The HCP/NCCP requires automatic annual adjustments to the mitigation fees based on economic indices. The HCP/NCCP also requires periodic audits in years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20, and 25 of the Plan’s implementation. The periodic audits are conducted to assess whether changes in HCP/NCCP implementation costs over time require adjustment of the fees. Per HCP/NCCP requirements, the Conservancy hired an outside, independent financial auditor to conduct a fee analysis. The 2022 Fee Study was prepared to comply with the requirement of a fully funded mitigation strategy that would achieve the goals of the HCP/NCCP. The 2022 Fee Study provides a revised fee schedule based on updated cost data.

Since the initial adoption of the HCP/NCCP mitigation fees in 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-21 on October 26, 2021 and the HCP/NCCP mitigation fees were updated based on the 2017 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study (the delay in adoption was due to pending litigation between the Conservancy and a private third-party).

In February 2023, the Conservancy adopted the 2022 Fee Study and the updated fee schedule based on the 2022 Fee Study. Now, the participating cities and the County need to take action to adopt the 2022 Fee Study and the updated fee schedule. The proposed Ordinance updates the mitigation fee schedule to reflect the 2022 Fee Study. The procedures included in the proposed ordinance for implementing the HCP/NCCP are unchanged from those adopted by the City Council in 2007 and 2021.

Updated 2023 Fee Schedule
In addition to the periodic fee audit, the mitigation fees are automatically adjusted annually 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 2022 Fee Study are for 2022. The Conservancy has further updated these fees to reflect the annual adjustments made in March 2023. The updated Development Fees reflect an approximate 1.31% increase from those currently charged by the City. For the nonstream wetlands, the costs of restoration are slightly higher than the existing fees (between 0.35% and 2.46%). Similarly, the costs of restoration for streams are slightly higher than the existing fees (between 1.75% and 1.88%). The 2022 Fee Study compares current actual costs to the cost assumptions used to calculate current mitigation fee amounts. The updated mitigation fee schedule, calculated as of 2023, is shown in Table 1 on the following page. Table 1 also shows the percent change from the 2023 fee calculated under the current fee schedule compared to the corresponding updated fee.
853
Subject: Consideration of an Ordinance to Update Mitigation Fees Imposed to Implement the HCP/NCCP Date: June 13, 2023

Table 1. 2023 Mitigation Fee Schedule Based on 2022 Fee Study Land Cover Fee Basis Current 2023
Fee
Updated 2023
Fee Based On
2022 Fee
Study
Change
from
Current
2023 Fee
Development Fee
Zone 1 per acre $19,611.52 $19,871.91 1.31%
Zone 2 per acre $39,223.04 $39,743.83 1.31%
Zone 3 per acre $9,805.76 $9,935.96 1.31%
Wetland Mitigation Fee
Riparian 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 ft.
wide) per ln ft. $569.07 $580.00 1.88%
Streams (>25 ft.
wide) per ln ft. $854.23 $869.47 1.75%
Environmental
Adoption of the ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) (governmental fiscal activity) and is therefore exempt from further environmental analysis under CEQA.

Fiscal Impact
Adoption of this ordinance will not impact the General Fund. The impact fees being updated by this ordinance are paid by developers to the City and then passed through to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy on a quarterly basis. 854
Subject: Consideration of an Ordinance to Update Mitigation Fees Imposed to Implement the HCP/NCCP Date: June 13, 2023

Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance updating the mitigation fees imposed to implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan.

Attachments

1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study (February 2023)

3. Proposed Ordinance with Exhibits A-E
855
City of Oakley
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
www.oakleyinfo.com

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 13, 2023 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council of the City of Oakley will hold a Public Hearing at the Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for the purposes of considering the item as described below:

Project Name: Consideration of an Ordinance to Update Mitigation Fees Imposed to Implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan.

Project Location: Citywide.

Applicant: City of Oakley, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561.

Request: This is a public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance that updates mitigation fees imposed to implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (“HCP/NCCP” or “Plan”) based on the 2022 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study (“2022 Fee Study”). The fees are used for the conservation of habitat for covered species in mitigation of the impacts of development in eastern Contra Costa County.

How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before June 8, 2023 online at www.ci.oakley.ca.us/agendas-minutes-videos-archive/ by navigating to the June 13, 2023 agenda and clicking the project title link. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments prior to 5:00 P.M. the day of the hearing to Ken Strelo, Planning Manager ([email protected]).

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at a Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Oakley City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. 856

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
857
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 ....................................................................................40 858
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-1 859
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

860
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.
861
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.
862
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.
863
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.
864
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.
865
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.
866
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.
867
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.
868
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). 869
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. 870
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.
871
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.
872
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.
873
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. 874
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. 875
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). 876
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 877
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).
878
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. 879
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. 880
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.
881
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). 882
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. 883
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.
884
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.
885
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). 886
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). 887
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. 888
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.
889
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.
890
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, 891
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. 892
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. 893
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.
894
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.
895
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
896
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.

897
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.
898
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. 899
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.
900
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 901
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.
902
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.
903
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 904
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; 905
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 906
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. 907
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. 908
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.
909
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. 910
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.
911
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). 912
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). 913
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). 914
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). 915
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
916
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 0.33 917
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 0.16 918
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.
919
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
920
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.
921
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.
922
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.
923
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. 924
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.
925
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
926
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
927
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
928
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
929
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
930
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.
931
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Initial Urban Development Area
932
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)
933
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)
934
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
935
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
936
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)
937
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
938
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
939
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)
940
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)
941
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.
942
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)
943
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
944
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
945
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.
946
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)
947
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. 948
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
949
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.
950
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. 951
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
952
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
953
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
954
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. 955
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 956
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%
957
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.
958
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2022 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Maximum Urban Development Area
959
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)
960
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)
961
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
962
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
963
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:
964
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
965
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
966
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
967
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)
968
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.
969
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)
970
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
971
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
972
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.
973
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)
974
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
975
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. 976
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. 977
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. 978
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
979
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
980
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
981
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. 982
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 983
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%
984
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.
985
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

986
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). 987
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

988
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). 989
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.
990
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. 991
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.
992
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.
993
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

994
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
995
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.
996
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 $66,035,424 997
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

998
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 $125,756,654 999
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.
1000
Ord. No. -23 Page 1 of 12
ORDINANCE NO. -23

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL UPDATING MITIGATION

FEES IMPOSED TO IMPLEMENT THE EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HABITAT

CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN

RECITALS
The City Council of the City of Oakley does ordain as follows:

SECTION I. Summary
This ordinance provides for the adoption of fees to be used for the conservation of habitat for covered species in mitigation of the impacts of development in eastern Contra Costa County and procedures to implement the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan.

SECTION II. Authority
This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, § 66000 et seq.) and Article 11, section 7 of the California Constitution.

SECTION III. Notice and Hearing
This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in Government Code sections 54986, 66016.5, and 66017-66018, and all required notices have been properly given and public hearing held.

SECTION IV. Definitions
As used in this ordinance:

A. "Affected Development Projects" means the development projects to which this ordinance applies, as set forth in Section V of this ordinance.

B. "Covered species" means those species of plants and animals whose conservation and management are provided for by the HCP/NCCP for which limited take is authorized pursuant to the state and federal permits.

C. "Development Fee" means the fee described in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP and imposed on development projects pursuant to Section VIII.A of this ordinance.

D. "Development Fee Zones" means the three areas depicted as Zones I, II, and III on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and in the detailed map data used to create Exhibit A, both of which are incorporated herein by reference and attached to the ordinance codified in this section. The Development Fee imposed on a development project is determined based on the Development Fee Zone in which the project is located. 1001
Ord. No. -23 Page 2 of 12
E. "Development project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development, including a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction, but not a permit to operate.

F. "HCP/NCCP" means the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 19, 2006, as may be revised from time to time.

G. "HCP/NCCP implementation fees" means the Development Fee and the Wetland Mitigation Fee.

H. "Implementing Agreement" means the January 22, 2007, Implementing Agreement for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan by and between East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, County of Contra Costa, City of Pittsburg, City of Clayton, City of Oakley, City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, East Bay Regional Park District, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and California Department of Fish and Game.

I. "Implementing Entity" means the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, a joint exercise of powers agency formed by the County and the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg to oversee the implementation of the HCP/NCCP.

J. "Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters" means State and federally regulated wetlands and other water bodies that cannot be filled or altered without permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), from the State Water Resources Control Board under either section 401 of the Clean Water Act or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (California Water Code, § 13000 et seq.), or from the California Department of Fish and Game under section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, as further explained in Chapter 1.3.5 of the HCP/NCCP.

K. "Project applicant" means a property owner, or duly designated agent of the property owner, who has submitted to the City a request for approval of a development project on the property.

L. "Public facilities" includes public improvements, public services, and community amenities.

M. "State and federal permits" means the permit issued by the California Department of Fish and Game to the City and other local agencies on August 6, 2007, authorizing take of covered species pursuant to the HCP/NCCP and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (permit number 2835-2007-01-03), and the permit issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to the City and other local agencies on July 25, 2007, authorizing incidental take of covered species pursuant to the HCP/NCCP and the 1002
Ord. No. -23 Page 3 of 12
federal Endangered Species Act (permit number TE160958-0), as those documents may be amended from time to time.

N. "Take" has the same meaning provided by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) ("FESA") and its implementing regulations with regard to activities subject to that Act, and also has the same meaning provided in the California Fish and Game Code with regard to activities subject to the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2800 et seq.). Specifically, take is defined in FESA to mean "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct" (16 U.S.C. § 1532(18)) and in California Fish and Game Code section 86 as "to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill or attempt to hunt, pursue, capture, or kill.''
O. "Urban Development Area" means the areas designated for urban development that are either (1) within the area designated as the "Initial Urban Development Area" as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference and attached to the ordinance codified in this section, or (2) areas added to or removed from the Initial Urban Development Area according to the procedures set forth in Section 3.50 of the Implementing Agreement.

P. "Wetland Mitigation Fee" means the fee described in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP and imposed on development projects pursuant to Section VIII.B of this ordinance.

SECTION V. Application of Ordinance
A. This ordinance applies to all development projects within the City of Oakley that are within the Urban Development Area except for the following:

1. Any development project that will permanently disturb less than one acre. The "acreage of land permanently disturbed" by a project, as that term is defined in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP, shall be determined by the Community Development Director or his designee.

2. Any development project that the Community Development Director or his designee determines is contained entirely within an area mapped as urban, turf, landfill, and/or aqueduct land cover types in the HCP/NCCP, as generally depicted on Exhibit A and in the map data used to create Exhibit A.

3. Any development project of a type not covered by the HCP/NCCP within the Urban Development Area, as set forth in Chapter 2.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.

4. Development projects with vested rights pursuant to an agreement by and between the project applicant and the City.

5. Development projects exempt under any provision of law. 1003
Ord. No. -23 Page 4 of 12

6. Development projects where the City determines based on written evidence submitted by the project applicant that application of the ordinance would deprive the project applicant of all reasonable economic use of the property in violation of federal or state constitutional prohibitions against the taking of property without just compensation.

B. The development projects to which this ordinance applies, as set forth above, may be referred to as the "Affected Development Projects." SECTION VI. Purpose of Fees; Use of Fee Revenue
A. The purpose of the Development Fee is to mitigate for impacts to open space, habitat and species covered by the HCP/NCCP. The Development Fee revenues will be used to fund the acquisition of land that does or could provide habitat for covered species, the management and enhancement of that land and habitat, and the administrative actions necessary to accomplish these tasks, as more particularly set forth in the HCP/NCCP, incorporated herein by reference.

B. The purpose of the Wetland Mitigation Fee is to mitigate for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters, riparian woodland/scrub, or stream buffers. The Wetland Mitigation Fee revenues will be used to fund the restoration, creation and management of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub, and the administrative actions necessary to perform these tasks, as more particularly set forth in the HCP/NCCP.

SECTION VII. Findings
The City Council of the City of Oakley finds and determines as follows:

A. There is a need to establish a comprehensive framework to protect and conserve species, wetlands, natural communities, and ecosystems in East Contra Costa County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts of future development on rare, threatened, and endangered species.

B. To meet the need identified in Section VII.A, the City participated as a member of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association, a joint exercise of powers authority, to develop the HCP/NCCP and the Implementing Agreement. The City Council finds that the HCP/NCCP, implemented in accordance with the Implementing Agreement, will provide comprehensive species, wetlands, and ecosystem conservation and contribute to the recovery of endangered species within East Contra Costa County; balance open space, habitat, and urban development; reduce the cost and increase the clarity and consistency of federal and state permitting; consolidate and streamline these processes into one, locally controlled plan; encourage, where appropriate, multiple uses of protected areas; share the costs and benefits of the HCP/NCCP as widely and equitably as possible; and protect the rights of private property owners.

C. Adoption and implementation of this Ordinance will enable the City to promote the health, safety and welfare of all of its residents by helping to achieve the conservation goals set forth in the HCP/NCCP, to implement the associated Implementing Agreement, 1004
Ord. No. -23 Page 5 of 12
and to preserve the ability of affected property owners to make reasonable use of their land consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, 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.

D. Based on the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the HCP/NCCP implementation fees and the type of development projects subject to the fees. The 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 public facilities identified in Section VI.A in order to mitigate for impacts to open space, habitat, and covered species caused by Affected Development Projects. The Wetland Mitigation Fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the restoration, creation, and management of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub, and the other public facilities identified in Section VI.B in order to mitigate for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian areas caused by Affected Development Projects. The HCP/NCCP implementation fees will not apply to all types of development projects, but only to those 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 fees will be used only for purposes reasonably related to the types of development projects that will be subject to the fees.

E. Based on the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities to be funded by the HCP/NCCP implementation fees and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the need for these facilities, which include the acquisition of land and the management, enhancement, restoration, and creation of habitat, arises from the development projects to which the fees will apply, i.e., development projects of all types that disturb open space, habitat, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian areas.

F. Based on the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the HCP/NCCP implementation fees and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development projects on which the fees will be imposed. The costs of the public facilities needed to mitigate cumulative impacts from development projects subject to the 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 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:
1005
Ord. No. -23 Page 6 of 12
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, which is 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, which is 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, which is 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, these 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.

SECTION VIII. HCP/NCCP Implementation Fees
HCP/NCCP implementation fees are hereby adopted to fund the public facilities identified in Section VI of this ordinance, as follows:

A. Development Fee

1. Except as otherwise provided in Sections VIII.D and VIII.F of this ordinance, a Development Fee shall be imposed upon and collected from any and all Affected Development Projects for each acre of land permanently disturbed, as follows:
1006
Ord. No. -23 Page 7 of 12
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 Community Development Director, or his designee, shall determine in which of the three Development Fee Zones an Affected Development Project is located, pursuant to Exhibit A and the map data used to create Exhibit A.

3. The Development Fee for each Affected Development Project shall be calculated by multiplying the fee for the applicable Development Fee Zone by the acreage of the site permanently disturbed by the Project, as determined by the Community Development Director or his designee pursuant to Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.

4. Upon or before the issuance of a grading permit or, if no grading permit is issued, upon or before issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall either (1) pay the entire Development Fee or, (2) with the prior written approval of the City, pay at least 67 percent of the Development Fee and execute an agreement with the City, in a form approved by City Attorney, to provide additional funding payments through assessments on the subject parcels or other mechanisms, provided that assessments or other funding mechanisms are legally authorized for this purpose and approved by the Implementing Entity, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.

5. The Development Fee amount applicable to an Affected Development Project shall be the Development Fee amount in effect at the time a grading permit is issued or, if no grading permit is issued, at the time the first building permit is issued for the project.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a project applicant may request to pay the Development Fee in a calendar year prior to the calendar year in which the grading permit or first building permit is issued. This request may be granted by the Community Development Director or his designee only in accordance with Section 13.2.2.1 of the Implementing Agreement and Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. If such request is granted, the applicable Development Fee shall be the Development Fee in effect during the calendar year in which the fee is to be paid, including any adjustments made pursuant to Section IX of this ordinance.

B. Wetland Mitigation Fee

1. Except as otherwise provided in Sections VIII.E and VIII.F of this ordinance, in addition to a Development Fee, a Wetland Mitigation Fee shall be imposed upon and collected from any and all Affected Development Projects that will fill, dredge, or remove Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian woodland/scrub, and from any and all Affected Development Projects that have been granted an exception to the stream setback established pursuant to Conservation Measure 1.7 of the HCP/NCCP. 1007
Ord. No. -23 Page 8 of 12

2. The Wetland Mitigation Fee applicable to Affected Development Projects that will fill, dredge, or remove Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian woodland/scrub varies by the land cover type impacted by those projects. The Community Development Director or his designee shall determine which of the land cover types will be impacted by an Affected Development Project and the corresponding fee amounts in accordance with Exhibit C, incorporated herein by reference and attached to the ordinance codified in this section, and in accordance with Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. The Wetland Mitigation Fee applicable to an Affected Development Project that has been granted an exception to the stream setback shall be determined by the Community Development Director or his designee based on the acreage of setback encroachment, in accordance with Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP and Exhibit C.

3. Upon or before the issuance of a grading permit or, if no grading permit is issued, upon or before issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall pay the Wetland Mitigation Fee determined for the Affected Development Project.

4. The Wetland Mitigation Fee amount applicable to an Affected Development Project shall be the Wetland Mitigation Fee amount in effect at the time a grading permit is issued or, if no grading permit is issued, at the time the first building permit is issued for the project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a project applicant may request to pay the Wetland Mitigation Fee in a calendar year prior to the calendar year in which the grading permit or first building permit is issued. This request may be granted by the Conservation and Development Director or his designee only in accordance with Section

13.2.2.1 of the Implementing Agreement and Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. If this request is granted, the applicable Wetland Mitigation Fee shall be the Wetland Mitigation Fee in effect during the calendar year in which the fee is to be paid, including any adjustments made pursuant to Section IX of this ordinance.

C. Condition of Approval

1. Compliance with this ordinance, including but not limited to the payment of the fees specified herein, as applicable, shall be a condition of approval of all Affected Development Projects.

D. Dedications

1. On a case-by-case basis, and upon a voluntary offer by the project applicant, the City may accept a dedication of land in lieu of some or all of the Development Fee that would otherwise be imposed upon a development project. Any offer of dedication may be considered for acceptance only if the land dedication is determined by the Implementing Entity to be consistent with the HCP/NCCP and Implementing Agreement.

The amount of the Development Fee for which the dedication would substitute shall be determined by the Implementing Entity pursuant to Section 13.2.2.2 of the Implementing Agreement and Chapters 8.6.7 and 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. 1008
Ord. No. -23 Page 9 of 12

2. If required to comply with the Stay Ahead provision set forth at Chapter

8.6.1 of the HCP/NCCP and Section 9.2 of the Implementing Agreement, the City may require that some or all Affected Development Projects offer a dedication of land in lieu of some or all of the Development Fee that would otherwise be imposed.

E. Creation/Restoration of Habitat

1. On a case-by-case basis, and upon a voluntary offer by the project applicant, the City may accept the restoration or creation of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian woodland/scrub in lieu of some or all of the Wetland Mitigation Fee that would otherwise be imposed on an Affected Development Project. The offer of restoration or creation of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian woodland/scrub in lieu of some all or a portion of the Wetland Mitigation Fee may be considered for acceptance only if the restoration or creation is determined by the Implementing Entity to be consistent with the HCP/NCCP and Implementing Agreement. The amount of the Wetland Mitigation Fee for which such restoration or creation would substitute shall be determined by the Implementing Entity pursuant to Conservation Measures 2.1 and 2.2 and Chapter 9.3. l of the HCP/NCCP.

F. Separate Take Authorization

1. On a case-by-case basis, a project applicant that possesses separate and final approval from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife for incidental take of all federally or state listed species that may be adversely affected by the development project may apply to the City to pay a fee, the amount to be negotiated by the project applicant with the Implementing Entity, to support the conservation of habitat and open space under the HCP/NCCP in lieu of the HCP/NCCP implementation fees. If the Community Development Director or his designee determines that the mitigation and conservation requirements under the separate approval are equivalent to or exceed what would be required under this ordinance, the City may determine that no further fees are required for purposes of complying with the HCP/NCCP, in which case the HCP/NCCP implementation fees described herein shall not be required of the project.

G. Fee Transmittal

1. All fees collected hereunder shall be transmitted to the County AuditorController quarterly, within thirty (30) days of the end of the quarter within which the fee was collected, for deposit into a separate account or fund, and for investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance, the HCP/NCCP, the Implementing Agreement, and the Mitigation Fee Act.

SECTION IX. Adjustments to Fees
The Development Fee and Wetland Mitigation Fee shall on March 15 of each year be automatically adjusted automatically as follows:
1009
Ord. No. -23 Page 10 of 12
A. The Development Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit D and based on the formula in Exhibit E, as explained in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP. As shown in Exhibit D and Exhibit E, both of which are incorporated herein by reference and attached to the ordinance codified in this section, one portion of the Development Fee 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 12-month period ending December 31. The remaining portion of the Development Fee 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 the 12-month period ending December 31.

B. The Wetland Mitigation Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit D. As shown in Exhibit D, the Wetland Mitigation Fee 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 Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the 12-month period ending December 31.

SECTION X. Take Authorization Application and Review Procedures A. The City shall require project applicants for any and all Affected Development Projects to submit an application for take authorization to the Planning Division for review simultaneously with the submittal of the request for approval of the project. The Community Development Director may require that the application be submitted on one or more standard application forms. The application for take authorization must include the following information:

1. A description of the Affected Development Project, including maps, detailed information on the project footprint, extent of construction, and extent of any ongoing maintenance activities covered by the HCP/NCCP consistent with Chapter 2 of the HCP/NCCP.

2. One or more reports documenting the methods and results of planning surveys and the methods of applicable preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring, in accordance with Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP. The Community Development Director or his designee may allow specific components of the required surveys, including some or all of the results of planning surveys and the methods of applicable preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring, to be provided after the submittal of the initial application and prior to approval of the development project; however, the application for take authorization is not complete until all items in this Section X.A have been submitted.

3. Evidence of compliance or planned compliance with applicable avoidance and minimization measures, in accordance with Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP. 1010
Ord. No. -23 Page 11 of 12

4. Quantification of the anticipated acreage of land permanently disturbed, consistent with Chapters 6.2 and 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.

5. Estimated HCP/NCCP implementation fees due and/or documentation of proposed land dedication and/or proposed habitat restoration or creation, consistent with Section VIII of this ordinance.

6. Other information as directed by the Community Development Director in accordance with the HCP/NCCP. ·
B. The City may grant take authorization to a project applicant only upon satisfaction of all of the following conditions:

1. The application for take authorization is deemed by the Community Development Director to be complete.

2. The conditions of approval for the project require the project applicant to comply with all terms and conditions of the implementing Agreement, the HCP/NCCP, and the state and federal permits that apply to the project. These terms and conditions include but are not limited to the following:
a. Payment of the required HCP/NCCP implementation fees and/or approval by the City of an offer of land dedication and/or habitat restoration or creation, pursuant to the requirements of Section VIII of this ordinance. b. Compliance with all relevant surveys, monitoring, avoidance, minimization and conservation measures determined by the Community Development Director to apply to the project, pursuant to Chapter 6 of the HCP/NCCP. c. The City determines that extension of take authorization is consistent with the HCP/NCCP, implementing Agreement, the state and federal permits, and all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

SECTION XI. Judicial Review
Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the fees established by this ordinance must be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days after the effective date of this ordinance. Any action to attack an increase adopted pursuant to Section IX must be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days after the effective date of the increase.

SECTION XII. Repeal and Replacement of Existing Ordinance A. Except as specified in this Section XII and Section XIII, below, City Council Ordinance No. 08-21 is hereby repealed and superseded by this ordinance, as of the effective date of this ordinance. However, this repeal does not affect any fees that were imposed prior to the effective date of this ordinance, which fees shall be paid and collected under the provisions of City Council Ordinance No. 08-21. 1011
Ord. No. -23 Page 12 of 12
B. This ordinance shall supersede and repeal Article 7 of Chapter 2 of Title 9 of the Oakley Municipal Code.

SECTION XIII. Severability
If any individual component of the HCP/NCCP implementation fees or any provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining fee components and/or ordinance provisions, and the City Council declares that it would have adopted each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance to the contrary, if a court of competent jurisdiction determines any fee set forth in Section VIII of this ordinance is invalid or unenforceable, the corresponding fee adopted by City Council Resolution No. 08-21 shall be deemed not to have been repealed and shall remain in effect and subject to the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance to the contrary, if a court of competent jurisdiction determines this ordinance is invalid or unenforceable, City Council Resolution No. 08-21 shall be deemed not to have been repealed and shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION XIV. Effective Date
This ordinance becomes effective 60 days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the names of Councilmembers voting for or against it in the Contra Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County.

The foregoing ordinance was adopted with the reading waived at a regular meeting of the Oakley City Council on , 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Aaron Meadows, Mayor Date
ATTEST:

Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
1012
Ord. No. -23 Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Development Fee Zones
(adapted from Figure 9-1 of the HCP/NCCP)
1013
Figure 9-1: Development Fee Zones
Legend
Inventory Area
alkali grassland
alkali wetland
aquatic
aqueduct
chaparral
cropland
grassland
landfill
non-native woodland
oak savanna
oak woodland
orchard
pasture
pond
riparian
rock outcrops
ruderal
seasonal wetland
slough/channel
turf
urban / future urban
vineyard
wetland
wind turbines
Fee Zone
Zone I
Zone II
Zone III
Miles
2 1 0 2
09/05/2006 1014
Ord. No. -23 Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Initial Urban Development Area
(Figure 2-3 of theHCP/NCCP)
1015
*
Figure2-3:InitialUrbanDevelopmentArea
Legend
InventoryArea
County Urban
LimitLine
Initial Urban
DevelopmentArea
LandUseDesignations*
ForAreasOutside
InitialUrbanDevelopmentArea
AgriculturalCore
Agriculture
Development
OpenSpace
(Designatedin
GeneralPlan)
Parks,Public
WatershedLands,
andDeedRestricted
OpenSpace
UrbanParks&
OpenSpaces
(inInventoryArea)
PublicFacilities
PublicFacilities
withUndeveloped
Land
Water
LandUseDesignationswere derived
fromCounty and City GeneralPlan
Maps.Designationswerecombined
tocreate a simplermap.

Miles
2102
07/1016 12/2006
Ord. No. -23 Exhibit C
Exhibit C
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 Ordinance)
Land CoverType 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 wetlands $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 ofstate 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.

Streamwidth measured between top of bank.

Streams greaterthan
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. 1017
Ord. No. -23 Exhibit D
Exhibit D
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 Ordinance 2021-25)
Fee Annual AdjustmentIndex1
Development Fee
Average
Annual Rate
(2006-2020)
Example
Portion for Land Acquisition2
(62.52 % initially
3 )
Change in the annual Home Price Index (HPI) for
theOakland-Berkeley-Livermore, 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-FremontCombined 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%
Note:
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 Ordinance, 59.53% of the initial fees will be adjusted according to the HPI and 40.47% 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-Index-Datasets.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 . 1018
Ord. No. -23 Exhibit E
Exhibit E
Automatic Development Fee Increase Formula
(adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee amounts applicable after the effective date of this Ordinance)
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 yearn applies from March 15 of year n through March 14 of the following year)
Fee17 = $39,743.83 for Zone II; $19,841.91 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 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 = l 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
1019

STAFF REPORT
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council
DATE: June 13, 2023
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Tim Przybyla, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolutions Adopting the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Proposed Operating Budget, Statement of Financial Policies, Appropriations Limit, Adopting the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 through 2027-2028 and Making Findings Related Thereto, and Approving Additional Sworn Police Positions on a Temporary Basis Background and Analysis
The City Council held a budget workshop on May 9, 2023 to review and discuss the Preliminary City of Oakley Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating and Capital Budgets, and the 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2023- 2024 through 2027-2028. The Preliminary Operating Budget workshop focused on the General Fund and included $30,414,665 of operating revenues and $30,208,546 of operating expenditures. Since that time, the revenue projections have not changed but the total proposed expenditures have increased to $30,224,377. That $15,831 or 0.05% increase is related to General Fund contributions to certain landscape and lighting assessment districts whose assessments do not cover the cost of the limited services that are provided for those districts. Rather than loaning funds from the General Fund to these districts as the City has done in the past, staff recommend expensing those interfund transfers for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

After minimal changes to the General Fund Budget since the May 9th workshop and with the addition of all other funds, total City-wide Proposed Budget revenues amount to just under $58 million, with proposed City-wide expenditures of nearly $70 million, excluding transfers. Total projected revenues, expenditures and available resources by fund can be found in the Proposed All Fund Summary, beginning on page 48 of the Operational Budget. The Revenue Summary by Fund with total revenue by fund shown for Fiscal Years 2019-2020 through 2023-2024 can be found on pages 49 and 50. The Expenditure Summary by Fund can be found on pages 51 and 52 of the Operational Budget document, with transfers included in expenditures.
1020
Noticeable changes taking place in the proposed budget compared to last year’s budget are the change of the General Fund Reserve Policy from 20% to 30% of operating expenditures, the integration of the stunning City of Oakley Strategic Plan 2022-2027+ (SP27+) throughout the budget document, the addition of performance indicators and objectives that are tied to the SP27+, and the changes related to compensation and benefits. We have also simplified the 10-Year Plan projections to only include the General Fund, consistent with City policy. Staff has also recognized a noticeable change in the budget process this year, as compared to past years, with a higher level of input and direction from the City Council and a much higher level of inclusion of the public, throughout the process that brought about the SP27+ and throughout the budget preparation process.

The City Council, City Manager and all departments have worked diligently during this time of positive change and improvement to prepare this budget that the Oakley community can be proud of.

There will be some fine-tuning required for some of the performance indicators, as this is something new to the departments, and we are still working to gather accurate statistics. Those changes will be made after the budget is adopted but before it is presented to the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) for consideration of an award. Such changes will not impact the budget figures that are being considered for approval.

Highlights of the Proposed Budget are presented below. The Preliminary Budget also includes the City’s Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Appropriations Limit calculation and Statement of Financial Policies.

Appropriations:

Total Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Recommended Appropriations (excluding transfers) by fund type are:

General Fund $27,938,546
Special Revenue Funds $25,443,479
Debt Service Funds $2,253,040
Capital Projects Funds $13,226,118
Internal Service Funds $1,112,960
Grand Total $69,974,143
General Fund Reserves:

The projected beginning unreserved, undesignated fund balance in the General Fund for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 is approximately $10.8 million, or 38.8% of proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2024 General Fund expenditures, before transfers. The projected fiscal year-end unreserved, undesignated fund balance in the General Fund for fiscal 1021
year 2023-2024 is approximately $11.0 million, or approximately 39.5% of projected Fiscal Year 2023-2024 General Fund recurring expenditures.

A review of the 10-Year Plan, which anticipates the City’s continued restoration of services and transfers for roadway maintenance or improvements, shows the reserve level remaining above the 30% minimum level required by the City’s policies.

Adjustments are expected to be made to the Plan and to future budgets each year, to ensure that the City remains in compliance with the City’s 30% Reserve policy.

Financial Policies:

In preparing the Budget each year, Staff provides an update on the comprehensive Statement of Financial Policies and proposes changes, if appropriate. This year, a change is being proposed to the Operating Budget Policies on page 30 to add “and Community Facilities Districts” into the policy regarding appropriations of Asset Lifecycle Replacement Program reserves for the Lighting and Landscaping Districts.

The other proposed change is to the Revenue Policies on page 31, where staff is proposing the policy to read that the user fees will be adjusted “annually”, rather than “bi-annually”, because analyzing and adjusting user fees twice a year is not practical or necessary. On pages 36 and 37, we continue to recognize that we are not meeting the reserve policies relating to a Facilities Maintenance Capital Asset Reserve or the Storm Drain Depreciation Reserve. We plan to revisit this again in Fiscal Year 2024- 2025.

Internal Control:

Each year the City’s management team meets with the outside Auditors at the beginning of the fiscal year audit. As part of that meeting, the Auditors suggested City Council annually review the internal controls of the City. The attached report provides some background and the current controls in place.

Capital Projects:

Each year, the City’s 5-Year CIP is presented to the Council with the Budget. Capital Projects planned for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 include new appropriations of $16,290,939, compared to $22,878,000 in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. Major projects include $9.5 million for the East Cypress Road Widening at CCWD Canal Crossing Project, $2.8 million for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Street Repair and Resurfacing Project, $762,563 for East Cypress Road Widening (Jersey Island Road to Bethel Island Road) Project, $700,000 for the Enrico Cinquini Park Construction Project, and $500,000 for the Marsh Creek Glenn Park Renovation Project. A summary of all CIP projects can be found on pages CIP-2 and CIP-3 of the Budget document.

Appropriations Limit:

State Law requires the annual calculation of the City’s Appropriation (Gann) Limit, and the City’s practice is to include the annual calculation and adoption at the same time as it reviews and approves the Budget. Staff has calculated the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Limit at $15,761,694. The calculation shown on page 226 of the Budget document shows last year’s adjusted Limit and the growth factors used to calculate the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Limit. Further narrative regarding the Appropriations Limit has been added on page 225 of the Budget document, to provide further understanding to the 1022
readers of the Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan, which is attached to the City’s Operating Budget.

Temporary Additional Sworn Police Positions
During the Budget Work Session on May 9th, the concept of over-hiring sworn Police positions to temporarily fill the positions for officers who are not able to fulfill their duties due to long-term injuries was presented to the City Council. A separate resolution authorizing two (2) positions, which could temporarily create forty-three (43) sworn positions is being presented with this agenda item for consideration of approval.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
The approval of the resolutions related to the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Operational Budget, Capital Budget and 5-Year CIP are consistent with all of the SP27+ goals, as the SP27+ has been made an integral part of the City’s Budget and has driven the City’s decisions on how to best appropriate the funds that are available to run this City.

Fiscal Impact
The recommended operating and capital budgets total $69,974,143 (excluding transfers) and are supported by estimated Fiscal Year 2023-2024 revenues and estimated June 30, 2023 fund balances.

A full discussion of the budget, and information regarding each fund’s revenues and each fund and department proposed expenditures are included in the attached Proposed Budget document, which includes the Operating Budget and the Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan.

Approving two (2) additional, temporary sworn Police positions could have a potential cost of up to $150,000; but that will be evaluated throughout the fiscal year and a onetime transfer from reserves will be presented to the City Council for consideration of approval, if the funding is needed.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council approve the first attached Resolution, which adopts the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Proposed Operating Budget, Statement of Financial Policies, Appropriations Limit. Staff also recommends that City Council approve the second attached resolution, which adopts the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Recommended Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 through 2027-2028 and confirms the Plan is consistent with the adopted Oakley General Plan and meets the requirements of Section 65401 of the Government Code.

Finally, staff recommends approval of the third attached resolution, approving additional sworn Police positions on a temporary basis.

Attachments

1. Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and Proposed Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and Recommended 5- Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 through 2027-2028 1023

2. Internal Control Report

3. First Resolution

4. Second Resolution

5. Third Resolution (pertaining to over-hiring of Police Officers) 1024

CITY OF OAKLEY

PROPOSED

ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
1025
Budget Cover: The photo included on this year’s budget cover attempts to reflect the significant scale of capital improvements that are taking place within the City of Oakley, particularly in Downtown Oakley, with the new Oakley Mercantile nearing completion and the Downtown Gateway Roadway and Parking project under way. The Oakley Mercantile is a new Downtown Commercial Center spanning 10,000 square feet, intended to house Oakley small businesses. It will host two new Restaurants, a Coffee Shop, a Taproom, and a Dance Studio. The Oakley Mercantile is expected to be fully leased with long-term lease agreements in place. This modern building provides all the amenities that today’s merchants and customers desire in a downtown establishment. This building is strategically located in Downtown across from the Civic Center and will be complemented by new street infrastructure, a new Amtrak Platform Station and parking lots that accommodate over 275 parking spaces, including EV Charging Stations. 1026
1027
This page intentionally left blank.
1028
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS
CITY MANAGER’S BUDGET MESSAGE................................................................................. 5 COMMUNITY PROFILE........................................................................................................... 21 ELECTED OFFICIALS................................................................................................................ 23 ELECTED OFFICIALS & CITY MANAGEMENT TEAM...................................................... 24 CITY’S ORGANIZATIONAL CHART...................................................................................... 25 BUDGET STRATEGIES AND FINANCIAL POLICIES ......................................................... 27 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POLICIES .............................................................................. 28 GENERAL FINANCIAL GOALS ...................................................................................................................................28 OPERATING BUDGET POLICIES................................................................................................................................28 REVENUE POLICIES..................................................................................................................................................30 EXPENDITURE POLICIES...........................................................................................................................................30 CAPITAL BUDGET IMPROVEMENT BUDGET POLICIES .............................................................................................31 OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICIES ..............................................................................................................32 SHORT-TERM DEBT POLICIES ..................................................................................................................................32 LONG-TERM DEBT POLICIES ....................................................................................................................................33 RESERVE POLICIES ...................................................................................................................................................34 INVESTMENT POLICIES............................................................................................................................................36 ACCOUNTING, AUDITING & FINANCIAL REPORTING POLICIES................................................................................37 GRANT FUNDING POLICIES......................................................................................................................................38 HUMAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT POLICIES................................................................................................................38 APPROPRIATIONS CONTROL ...................................................................................................................................40 BUDGET SCHEDULE................................................................................................................ 41 CITY-WIDE BUDGET OVERVIEW.......................................................................................... 43 PROPOSED ALL FUNDS SUMMARY.................................................................................... 45 REVENUE SUMMARY BY FUND........................................................................................... 47 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY FUND ................................................................................. 49 2023-2024 POSITION ALLOCATION SUMMARY................................................................ 51 2023-2024 POSITION ALLOCATION SUMMARY (CONTINUED).................................... 52 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ............................................................................................................. 53 GENERAL FUND BUDGET OVERVIEW................................................................................ 55 GENERAL FUND PROPOSED BUDGET ............................................................................... 56 OVERALL ANALYSIS OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE ..................................................... 57 1029
2 MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES ................................................................................................. 58 INTERFUND CHARGES FOR SERVICES ......................................................................................................................59 PROPERTY TAXES.....................................................................................................................................................60 SALES TAX................................................................................................................................................................61 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES.........................................................................................................................62 FRANCHISE FEES...................................................................................................................... 63 OTHER TAXES ..........................................................................................................................................................64 DEVELOPMENT FEES ...............................................................................................................................................65 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES........................................................................................ 67 PROPOSED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ...........................................................................................................69 DEPARTMENT DETAIL ........................................................................................................... 71 ANIMAL CONTROL...................................................................................................................................................71 CITY COUNCIL..........................................................................................................................................................73 CITY CLERK...............................................................................................................................................................76 CITY ATTORNEY .......................................................................................................................................................80 CITY MANAGER .......................................................................................................................................................84 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................................87 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................................89 FINANCE..................................................................................................................................................................92 HUMAN RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................................................96 NON-DEPARTMENTAL.............................................................................................................................................99 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT........................................................................................................102 PLANNING.............................................................................................................................................................103 BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT .......................................................................................................................106 POLICE...................................................................................................................................................................110 PUBLIC WORKS/ ENGINEERING/MAINTENANCE & PARKS ....................................................................................116 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................129 RECREATION .........................................................................................................................................................132 TRANSFERS............................................................................................................................................................135 CAPITAL OUTLAY-LAND AQUISITIONS...................................................................................................................136 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS.................................................................................................. 137 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #1....................................................................................................................137 (CYPRESS GROVE)..................................................................................................................................................137 OAKLEY CREEKSIDE PARK RESTORATION GRANT ..................................................................................................139 AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA)...................................................................................................................141 DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION FUND...................................................................................................................143 SPORTS FIELD MAINTENANCE...............................................................................................................................145 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING DISTRICT ...............................................................................................................147 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #2015-1 (EMERSON RANCH) ..........................................................................165 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #2015-2A........................................................................................................168 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #2018-1 ..........................................................................................................177 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #2020-1 ..........................................................................................................179 ROAD MAINTENANCE FUNDS ...............................................................................................................................181 STORM WATER PROGRAM FUND..........................................................................................................................185 POLICE SERVICE FUNDS.........................................................................................................................................187 DEVELOPER DEPOSITS FUND.................................................................................................................................191 1030
3 SUCCESSOR HOUSING ASSETS...............................................................................................................................193 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS.......................................................................................................... 195 CAPITAL BUDGET AND 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)......... 197 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS ................................................................................................ 201 FUND 501 FLEET INTERNAL SERVICE FUND ..........................................................................................................203 FUND 502 CAPITAL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE &.................................................................................................204 REPLACEMENT FUND............................................................................................................................................204 FUND 503 TECHNOLOGY INTERNAL SERVICE FUND .............................................................................................205 AGENCY FUNDS..................................................................................................................... 206 2004-1 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT.....................................................................................................................207 2006-1 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT.....................................................................................................................208 10 YEAR PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 209 CONTRACTS ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 217 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT ..................................................................................................... 219 RESOLUTION NO. ____......................................................................................................... 221 GLOSSARY OF BUDGET TERMINOLOGY......................................................................... 223 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREAVIATIONS................................................................ 228 CITY OF OAKLEY PROPOSED ANNUAL CAPITAL BUDGET & 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM..............................................................................................CIP-1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM............................................................................CIP-5 PROPOSED CIP PROJECTS FOR FY 2023/24 ...................................................................CIP-7 1031
4 This page intentionally left blank.
1032
5 CITY MANAGER’S BUDGET MESSAGE
Fiscal Year 2023-2024

INTRODUCTION
It is my pleasure to present the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Proposed Budget for your consideration. The Proposed Budget is structurally balanced and continues to provide for the core service operations of the City of Oakley and includes City-wide appropriations totaling $69,974,143, which includes $30,224,377 of expenditures for the General Fund.

As the City moves past the second anniversary of the onset of the global COVID-19 pandemic, we have had to adapt through an unprecedented and constantly evolving time in our City’s history. The result is a City and Staff that have evolved and changed our core service delivery to ensure we are efficient and effective. To help adapt, the City received a total of $10,177,000 from the American Rescue Plan Act which has been partially allocated over this last two years, with the focus being on projects that INVEST (Infrastructure, Nonprofit and Community Support, Vital Services, Economic Development, Staff and Safety Needs, and Technology Upgrades) in the community and the City. The City Council is prioritizing those investments along with prioritizing projects with the adopted Strategic Plan 27+ used to guide and inform the allocations.

The City is positioned well now and into the future to ensure that the existing and future residents and business owners in Oakley thrive and enjoy a high quality of life.

As always, we have developed the Proposed Budget with fiscal restraint and with a strategic focus on core services. We have taken great care to evaluate the recurring revenues and have ensured that recurring expenditures do not exceed the available and expected recurring revenues over time. As further explained below, there continue to be transfers of one-time revenues to important capital projects, including a much-needed increase in the investment in our annual pavement repair and resurfacing projects. So many of Oakley’s roadways were built over the last 24 years but need more frequent 1033
6 attention based on best-practices in on-going paving management. This increased annual investment will save the City millions of dollars over time and provide safer and more attractive roadways for the community.

Due to the rise in interest rates, home sales dropped considerably from Fiscal Year 2021- 2022 to Fiscal Year 2022-2023, and we are projecting development-related revenues for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 to be at a level similar to Fiscal Year 2018-2019, when approximately 125 building permits were pulled for single family homes. In Fiscal Year 2021-2022, 292 single family housing unit permits were issued, and we are anticipating less than half that amount for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. As of June 1, 2022, the City had issued building permits for 116 single family homes and zero apartment units in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The revenue projections for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 are based on the addition of approximately 125 single-family housing units and zero multi-family housing units, which staff believe are conservative estimates. We will continue to handle the processing and inspections of these projects with a combination of in-house and contract staff to maintain flexibility and cost-effectiveness.

The proposed overall staffing is something we are continually monitoring to ensure we can provide the core services to the Oakley community. The Proposed Budget includes the addition of one Custodian position, two Parks and Landscape Maintenance Workers and one Police Officer, with the Police Officer position to be hired in January of 2024. It also includes the elimination of one part-time Parks and Landscape Maintenance Worker position, the increase of an Administrative Assistant position and a Police Services Assistant position from part-time to full-time and the reclassification of an Administrative Specialist Position to an Administrative Technician position. In Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the City moved from a merit-based compensation system to a more industry standard step-based compensation system that not only aligned the City with our comparable cities but will also help us with employee recruitment and retention.

The Proposed Budget includes step increases for any employees that will be eligible for them, plus a three percent cost of living increase for Miscellaneous employees.

Each year, we also look at the State Budget to determine whether there are components likely to affect the local outlook for the City. Last year, as the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget was being prepared, it was announced that the State of California had its largest surplus ever, with a $97.5 billion budget surplus and $55 billion of surplus tax revenues.

By January of 2023, that surplus had suddenly morphed into what Governor Newsom said was a $22.5 billion deficit due to sharp declines in tax revenues. The Governor proposed a $297 billion budget for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 that clawed back some of the money that had not been spent in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. So, the State no longer appears 1034
7 to be in the strong fiscal position that we thought it was at this time last year. However, the City of Oakley is in a healthy fiscal position and expects to finish off Fiscal Year 2022-2023 better than budget. Overall U.S. economic conditions continue to show signs of reasonable growth and stability. The labor market has remained strong, with low unemployment rates and steady job growth. However, there are still concerns about persistent inflation, high cost of credit, Federal debt conditions and the unresolved Russia-Ukraine crisis, which could potentially hinder economic growth in the near future. These and other factors have prompted low consumer confidence which could also breed concerns of a pending recession. The City of Oakley positioned itself to handle a potential downturn in the economy or cooling of the housing market by adopting a minimum General Fund Reserve Policy of 30% of its operating expenditures budget and setting aside an additional $1 million in that Emergency Reserve Fund.

Federal assistance from the America Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) has also strengthened the City of Oakley. Approximately $10.18 million dollars in total ARPA funding has been allocated to Oakley, with half of that received in July of 2021 and the other half received in July of 2022. Thanks to the Final Rule, the first $10 million can be used to fund governmental services. The roughly $177,000 balance over the $10 million threshold was used to reimburse the City for a portion of the special COVID-19 sick leave pay that was paid to employees during the Pandemic. The ARPA funds must be spent before December 31, 2026 and should be considered one-time revenues.

As always, the City’s 2023-2024 Preliminary Budget does not include all that we know is on the wish list, but what is presented here remains structurally balanced and true to the City’s newly adopted strategic priorities.

GENERAL FUND
The Preliminary General Fund Budget reflects our continued commitment to keeping City administrative operations efficient and effective and ensuring the budget reflects a focus on the City’s highest priorities as outlined in the Strategic Plan 27+.

The General Fund Budget includes $30,344,665 in recurring revenues and $30,224,377 of recurring expenditures, including $2,285,831 in recurring transfers to other funds. The Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget does not include non-recurring General Fund transfers to other funds. Total Fiscal Year 2023-2024 transfers out are estimated to be $2.29 million, compared to $10.38 million in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 with a planned spending-down of fund balance in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and no planned spending-down of fund balance in Fiscal Year 2023-2024. By comparison, Transfers out amounted to $5.62 million in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and $2.61 million in Fiscal Year 2020-2021. 1035
8 Available Fund Balance as of June 30, 2024 is projected to be an adequate $11.1 million, or almost 40% of projected Fiscal Year 2023-2024 recurring expenditures, leaving approximately $2.7 million in available fund balance, beyond the minimal 30% Reserve Policy and including the extra $1 million in the Emergency Reserve Fund. City policy was amended during Fiscal Year 2021-2022 to maintain at least a 30% General Fund reserve, rather than the 20% reserve that was previously included in the policy. This threshold was increased to ensure fiscal stability, should the housing market and home values decline. As noted in the 10-Year Plan, the Budget has been prepared to ensure that recurring revenues remain in excess of recurring expenditures.

TRANSFERS
As has long been discussed and recommended by pavement condition studies, a significantly larger investment is needed to maintain Oakley’s roadways. One recent estimate was $7 million per year to keep our Pavement Condition Index (PCI) near 80.

That large amount may not be feasible with the current revenue stream, but a larger and more consistent investment is recommended to avoid even larger costs over time. As mentioned, this year’s Preliminary Budget includes a continued transfer to the Street Maintenance and Rehab Fund, and there is a significant transfer for overall street maintenance projects. The Proposed Budget includes $2.29 million of transfers for the following purposes:
• $2,080,000 to the Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Fund • $190,000 to the Technology Internal Service Fund for equipment replacements • $15,831 to assist with Lighting and Landscaping District maintenance costs

RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
As a team, the City Council and all City departments and divisions play a role in accomplishing the goals and objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan. Towards that end, just some of the accomplishments from this past fiscal year include:
• Disposed of the real property located at 3980 Empire Avenue and the real property located at 204 2nd Street
• Conducted an initial Emergency Management Assessment
• Initiated a study to determine the viability of a new Library in the downtown • Worked with the Yellow Roof Foundation to dispose of four parcels on Teakwood Drive for the development of eight deed-restricted affordable units 1036
9 • Made an operational change to change the vacant and unfilled Assistant to the City Manager position to an Assistant City Manager position • Conducted three Staff Forums to bring the team together to discuss issues relevant to our operations, culture and for team building • Released an RFP for the potential development of the southeast corner of Neroly Road and Main Street
• Designated property located to the north of the new Mercantile building as surplus and will next release an RFP for the potential development of the site • Conducted three small business and one non-profit roundtable meetings • Developed a new Citywide Retail & Industrial Revitalization Grant Program • Initiated an update to the City’s Economic Development Workplan • Appropriated ARPA funds to establish a fund to promote tourism activities related to the Delta
• Awarded 14 Non-Profit Grants using ARPA funds
• Received recognition by the California State Auditor, through the high-risk local government agency audit program, for being among the three safest/least-risky cities in the State with respect to fiscal health
• Received the Operating Budget Excellence Award from the California Society of Municipal Financial Officers (CSMFO) for the City’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget
• Successfully completed the audit of our Fiscal Year 2021-2022 financial statements and received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) • Designated $1 million for the Emergency Reserve Fund, in addition to the minimum 30% reserve, to help the City hedge against a slow down in the housing market and/or economic downturn
1037
10 • Completed the selection and contract negotiations for a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, Tyler Enterprise ERP, to replace the Tyler Eden system which has been used by the City for many years and is reaching end of life • Negotiated a contract with Koa Hills to provide consulting services related to the approximately three-year implementation of the new Tyler Enterprise ERP system
• The Oakley Police Department is networking with the Brentwood, Antioch and Pittsburg police departments in a far more effective manner than before, which is contributing to improved police services in East Contra Costa County • Took delivery of two patrol bicycles to give our officers options on how they want to interact with the public
• Took delivery of new 9mm handguns to accommodate the newly hired officers • Presented the regional problem of sideshow enforcement to the council and drafted a new ordinance allowing the police to issue citations to the bystanders of sideshows
• Drafted a new ordinance articulating how the police department manages, inventories and procures military equipment (rifles, drones etc.) • Increased the social media presence for the Oakley Police Department • Handled the first Critical Incident Tactical Debrief of the Oakley Police Department, which occurred after an officer-involved shooting on Teresa Lane • Completed the 2020-2022 P.O.S.T. Training cycle, putting Oakley PD into State compliance on mandatory training
• Held the first annual Oakley Police Awards Ceremony honoring Lieutenant Cartwright, Sergeant Morris, Sergeant Minister and Detective Horn for exceptional service
1038
11 • 3D Scanner was purchased to lessen the amount of man hours needed to process crime scenes/fatal crashes
• Continued work on the City of Oakley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update leading to City Council adoption on March 28, 2023 and subsequent adoption of Optional Amendments on May 9, 2023
• Completed and submitted City of Oakley Housing Element Annual Progress Report and SB 341 Annual Report for Calendar Year 2022 and submitted to HCD and OPR
• Completed the General Plan Annual Report and submitted to OPR and HCD • Processed 23 Planning Land Use Entitlements, including final approvals of eight residential and commercial projects
• Held at least nine public hearings and three work sessions with the Planning Commission, including five recommendations to the City Council • Updated the Oakley Municipal Code Chapter 4.31 (Water-Efficient Landscape Requirements) to follow the State’s Model Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance (“WELO”) and ban non-functional turn in new projects
• Added Chapter 4.38 (Single-Use Foodware Accessories and Condiments) to the Oakley Municipal Code to comply with State law
• Conducted four public hearings leading to adoption of an ordinance approving amendments to the Oakley Zoning Code related to Special Land Uses (DriveThrough Restaurants, Carwashes, and Gas Stations) • Continued relationship with EcoHero Show Team through a contract funded by grant money to continue their local grade school shows related to learning about the environment and recycling
• Secured $11,418 in grant funding through the City/County Annual Payment and Reporting System (related to recycling)
1039
12 • Submitted reimbursements for REAP (Regional Early Action Planning) and LEAP (Local Early Action Planning) grants totaling $77,515 related to Housing Element Update consultant costs
• Participated in County-wide Energy Efficiency Collaborative Meetings • Continued to plan check, permit, and inspect the development of all the Tenant Improvements at the Contra Costa Logistics Center
• Processed over 1,288 property registrations as part of the Residential Rental Inspection Program
• Developed new electronic payment process for Residential Rental Inspection Program
• Implemented a new Schedule for Building Inspectors to be available 5 days a week for each week of the month.
• Processed over 93 Home Business Permits, Opened over 2,400 Code Enforcement Cases after confirmed violations, Issued over 1,900 Building Permits and Initialized over 500 property maintenance cases
• Worked on over 3 dozen illegal marijuana growing operations • Provided numerous CASp related inspections upon request • Co-sponsored Shred-It Event with Tri-Delta Transit
• Worked with active homebuilders to get Code Updates complete for the 2022 California Building Code Cycle
• Staff attended various trainings related to the 2022 California Building Code updates
• Hired 9 new police officers
• Adopted new Personnel Rules
• Updated our pay scale to be consistent with other cities by adopting the step system
1040
13 • Added additional benefits including more medical plan options as well as increased dental/vision coverage
• Enhanced our Open Enrollment process to provide for more transparency for employees
• Implemented an online platform for employee evaluations • Implemented an incentive and recruitment program for Police Officers • Negotiated a five-year MOU with the Oakley Police Officers Association • Managed the construction of the following projects, through to completion: the Oakley Logistics Center, the Tri Delta Transit Park and Ride Parking Lot, the Shiloh Subdivision, the Cypress Estates Subdivision, the Vines Subdivision, the Alicante Subdivision, the Acacia Subdivision, the Repair and Resurfacing project (Live Oak and Brownstone Road, Miguel Neighborhood), the Downtown Parking Lot adjacent to the new Oakley Mercantile Building, the Holly Creek Restroom, the Demolition of the Sheriff Annex Building, the Senior Center Roof & HVAC Repair & Replacement, the application of Mulch to Laurel Road and Empire Avenue Landscaping, the City Hall Solar Rooftop, the Holy Creek Park Playground Resurfacing, the Delaney Park Irrigation Systems assessment and programming, the Security Systems Upgrades to Magnolia Park, Daffodil Park, and Holly Creek Park, the inventory of landscape maintenance areas in the City within GIS
• Returned Facility Rentals and all Special Events to full service • Implemented Free ARPA funding for Summer Camps, which resulted in all camps filling all available spaces
• Completed the first year of our Summer Fest event, which transformed Main Street from Vintage to O’Hara into a family fun event
• Hosted our first ever 5k running event in partnership with Iron House Sanitary District
• Increased our social media following on both Facebook and Instagram 1041
14 • Implemented new Tiny Adventures programming including: OakLeigh the Elf’s Stuffed Animal Sleepover, Cookies and Cocoa with Mrs. Claus, Butterflies and Lizards and Fairies and Dragons
• Worked with the City’s current vendor to migrate records to a single platform to store records resulting in significant cost savings
• Implemented e-recording with Contra Costa County Recorder’s Office • Conducted the 2022 Municipal Election and certified the results of the election in December of 2022
• Implemented a visitor check-in kiosk at Administrative Services main desk GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
The City Council adopted the Strategic Plan 27+ on April 12, 2022, which was the result of a 5-month process that involved the Community, City Council, and Staff. The result was a brand-new plan that created a new Mission, Vision and Core Values along with six goals, 9 sub-goals and over 100 objectives. Departmental objectives and performance indicators have also been added into this budget and tied to the Strategic Plan 27+ goals as new elements to the City’s Operating Budget.

Mission
The City of Oakley will create a resilient future that fosters and attracts a vibrant and evolving community that welcomes and values all people.

Vision
The City of Oakley celebrates our unique Delta lifestyle and small-town feel where we Live in a safe, dynamic community, Work together to build the future, and Play in our own backyard.

Core Values
Our values will guide us on a PATH to where we want to Live, Work, and Play in the heart of the Delta.
• Promote fair and equitable stewardship for the welfare of our diverse individuals that comprise our inclusive community.
1042
15 • Advocate a professional and family-friendly environment where Council, Staff, and the Public can envision and realize the City’s future together with a recognition of our shared commitments and opportunities. • Transparency is how we will create accountable partnerships to cultivate communication and collaboration to engage our thriving community. • Honesty and integrity are the foundation for building trust and fostering teamwork to live our mission and vision.

Goals (not listed in priority order)
• A. Community & Economic Development Goal: The City will inspire and encourage Community & Economic Development through strategic and thoughtful growth, a business-friendly environment, and local employment opportunities.
o A1. Strategic and Thoughtful Growth: We will strategically plan and thoughtfully align our residential, commercial, and industrial growth to meet our short- and long-term vision.
o A2. Business-friendly Environment: Our business-friendly environment will attract residential, commercial, and industrial partners to revitalize Oakley where people will come to live, work, and play.
o A3. Local Employment Opportunities: The City will partner with and attract businesses that can employ our regional workforce to invest in local talent and expertise.
• B. Community Health & Safety Goal: The City of Oakley will protect our public and prioritize safe streets, healthy neighborhoods, and robust community resources to benefit our most valued assets -- our people. o B1. Safe Streets: We will preserve and secure the City of Oakley with safe streets that are welcoming to motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. o B2. Safe and Healthy Neighborhoods + Community Resources: We will offer a high quality of life by partnering with residents and businesses to promote and maintain a safe and healthy living and work environment with community resources to serve our diverse community. • C. Parks and Open Space Goal: The City of Oakley will capitalize on our greatest Delta asset where our residents, businesses, and visitors can recreate and relax.
o C1. Parks and Public Areas: We will upgrade and maintain our City parks and open spaces to be a focal point that encourages community use and civic pride.
1043
16 o C2. Programs and Recreation: We will serve our diverse people, parks, and programs by providing inclusive activities and access to engage the City's family and friends in science, culture, sports, and creativity. • D. Community and Collaborative Partnerships Goal: The City of Oakley will build strong community and collaborative partnerships to be mutually beneficial and co-create shared goals.
o D1. Community Outreach and Engagement: We will engage and partner with our residents and businesses in meaningful and relevant dialogue to realize our shared vision and values.
o D2. Collaborative Partnerships: We will foster and maintain strong relationships with our public-private partnerships to mutually benefit our shared goals.
• E. Finance and Fiscal Responsibility Goal: The City of Oakley will leverage its financial resources for the long-term benefit of our residents and businesses while maintaining sufficient reserves to provide stability and ensure a successful future.
• F. Sustainable Organization Goal: The City of Oakley will create a vibrant municipal workforce that reflects our commitment to an inclusive and equitable community and can meet our mission today while striving for our envisioned future tomorrow.

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CHALLENGE UPDATE
We continue to face the challenge of better ensuring the funding of our Lighting and Landscaping District maintenance costs. Current economic conditions still do not support additional assessments or taxes, and staff manage many of the landscape districts simply at the bare minimum because adequate funds are not available. Two of the neighborhood zones remain structurally imbalanced, while nearly half the remaining zones are financially balanced, but challenged. A number of them can provide for current year operations but are unable to set aside enough for less frequently needed maintenance, remediation and asset replacements. Two such zones have a negative fund balance and are discussed below. Staff continue to manage District operations to live within our means; however, a longer-term solution will be necessary in the years ahead.

INTERFUND LOANS AND ASSISTANCE TO LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING

DISTRICTS
One of the City’s financial policies is that the City Council must approve inter-fund loans. Considering all aspects of the Preliminary Budget as presented, it appears that the two funds listed below will likely need assistance from the General Fund during 1044
17 Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Accordingly, Staff recommends the following inter-fund transfers as part of the Budget:

Fund 180 – Country Fair (aka Meadow Glen), assistance of $5,831. The maintenance cost of the irrigation systems, trails, landscaping, and appurtenant facilities located within public rights-of-way, public property, and designated easements within Zone 3, is higher than the revenue collected by this district. In past years, the City has loaned funds to help cover the shortfall of revenue to cover basis costs. However, it does not appear likely that there will be sufficient revenues collected in the future to repay these loans. Therefore, the shortfall projected for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 is recommended to be covered by an operating transfer from the General Fund, rather than extending further funding as a loan. If revenue collections for the Country Fair Landscape and Lighting District improve or costs are reduced in the future, the District will begin to pay down the existing loan balance to the General Fund.

Fund 187 – Country Place, assistance of $10,000. This landscaping zone contains Nutmeg Park. The Park was constructed knowing that the annexation of future homes to the zone would be required for it to be able to collect assessments sufficient to perform proper regular maintenance. The annexations have yet to occur, and the General Fund has provided loans to the Fund each year so that the work could be performed and so that the General Fund can be repaid in the future when more revenues become available. Similar to Fund 180, Fund 187 does not currently appear likely to repay further loans. Therefore, the shortfall projected for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 for the Country Place Landscaping District is also recommended to be covered by an operating transfer from the General Fund, rather than extending further funding as a loan. If revenue collections for the Country Place Landscape and Lighting District improve or costs are reduced in the future, the District will begin to pay down the existing loan balance to the General Fund.

ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM CONVERSION
During Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the City of Oakley selected the Tyler Enterprise ERP (Tyler EERP) to replace our current ERP system, Tyler Eden, the support for which will be sunsetting soon. The conversion from Tyler Eden to Tyler EERP will represent a substantial commitment of staff time and effort but will be well worth it as the City of Oakley vastly improves efficiency, provides customer-friendly public access to City financial information, and allows easier transactions without the need for customers to come in to City Hall. The conversion of ERP systems will also represent a substantial financial commitment. Fortunately, funds became available from the American Rescue Plan Act that will be utilized to cover the costs of this project, including the cost for 1045
18 consultants to help us manage the conversion project. A $976,123 software as a service (SAAS) agreement with Tyler Technologies for and a $254,080 professional consulting services agreement with Koa Hills were approved by the City Council, related to this ERP system conversion, which will take approximately three years to complete and will be completed in phases, as depicted in the chart, below:

In July of 2023, as depicted above, the City of Oakley will begin its conversion from the Tyler Eden enterprise resource planning (ERP) system to the Tyler Enterprise ERP system. This ERP conversion project is expected to take nearly three (3) years to complete and will happen in five (5) phases, starting with the Finance module in Phase 1, followed by the Human Capital Management (HCM) in Phase 2, Business Licensing in Phase 3, Permitting and Licensing in Phase 4 and Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) in Phase 5, with some overlapping of modules and plans for completion at the end of March of 2026. An asset replacement analysis, which was previously planned for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 will be completed as part of Phase 5, since the EAM module provides the tools to monitor asset maintenance and performance.

CAPITAL PROJECTS
Presented separately and being approved by separate resolution are the detailed Proposed 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and City of Oakley Fiscal Year 1046
19 2023-2024 Capital Budget with funds totaling $16,346,000. The majority of the allocations are for infrastructure improvements.

New construction and improvement projects include:
• Oakley Regional Community Park Project
• West Cypress Road Bridge Reconstruction at CC Canal Project • Main Street Bridge Rehabilitation at CC Canal Project • Piper Lane Drainage Channel Trash Capture Device Project • Downtown Gateway Plaza Roadway & Parking Lot Project
• Main Street/Rose Avenue Intersection Improvement Project • Downtown Parking Lot Project
• Civic Center Emergency Generator
• Sellers Avenue (Riverrock Drive to CCWD Canal Crossing) Widening and Improvement Project
• East Cypress Road Widening (Knightson Avenue to Jersey Island Road) Project
• Recreation Center Emergency Generator Project
• Downtown Storm Drain (Area 29) Improvement Project
• Cypress Grove Subdivision Pump Station Building Project • O'Hara Avenue/Carpenter Road Intersection Improvement Project • Irrigation Well Installation @ City's Freedom Basin Project • Main Street/Delta Road Intersection Improvement Project • Main Street/Brownstone Road Intersection Improvement Project • Hall Street Extension Project
• Laurel Road Extension (TetonRd. To Sellers Av)
• Neroly Road Repair and Resurfacing (Empire Av to O'Hara Av) • FY 2022/23 Street Repair & Resurfacing
• Laurel Road Widening (Cloverbrook Av to O'Hara Av)
• Enrico Cinquini Park Construction
• Laurel Road Bridge Widening over Marsh Creek
• Bethel Island Road (Rock Slough Bridge to Delta Rd)
• City Hall Rooftop Solar Power
• Koda Dog Park Shade Structure
• Main Street Slurry Seal (at Highway 160) Project
• Pedestrian Crossing Lighting System Installation on O’Hara Avenue at Trail Crossing Project
• FY 2023/24 Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk Repair and Reconstruction • FY 2023/24 Street Restriping
• FY 2023/24 Street Repair and Resurfacing
• FY 2023/24 Traffic Calming
1047
20 • FY 2023/24 Traffic Signal Modernization
• Bridgehead Road Widening
• East Cypress Road Lane Alignment Analysis (RR tracks to Main Street)
• East Cypress Road Widening (Jersey Island Road to Bethel Island Road)
• Public Works Operations Building Remodeling
• FY 2023-24 ADA Implementation
• Briarwood Park Playground Resurfacing
• Marsh Creek Glenn Park Renovation
• Daffodil Park Playground Resurfacing
• City Parks Drinking Fountain Replacement
• Laurel Ballfields Parking Lot Resurfacing

CONCLUSION
As mentioned, this year’s Preliminary Budget focuses on providing efficient and effective core services, is structurally balanced and is true to the City Council’s newly adopted strategic priorities. We all can take great pride in the successes over the past 24 years since Incorporation which includes a solid foundation of sound fiscal management, a well-trained and committed Staff and a forward-thinking City Council.

Thank you for your continued support and leadership in keeping Oakley on a PATH guided by our Mission, Vision and Core Values!
Respectfully submitted,
Josh McMurray
City Manager
1048
21 COMMUNITY PROFILE
The City of Oakley, incorporated in July 1999, is one of California’s youngest cities.

Residents enjoy a charming area with an abundant housing supply, quality schools, and a friendly atmosphere that truly make Oakley, “A Place for Families in the Heart of the Delta.” Oakley is located in Eastern Contra Costa County, along Highway 4, in a corridor that also includes the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood, with proximity to the Mount Diablo State Recreation Area, California San Joaquin Delta, and access to the many amenities of the San Francisco Bay Area. The Big Break Regional Shoreline and the Big Break Visitors Center at the Delta are also among the many treasures enjoyed by Oakley and others who come to visit the City of Oakley.

1049
22 Today, a landscape of gently rolling fields, orchards, and vineyards gives us a glimpse of Oakley’s agricultural past. From a quiet Delta farming town, Oakley has blossomed into a growing community of landscaped parks, abundant recreational opportunities, shopping centers, and planned business and commercial development. Oakley’s 44,533 residents enjoy a safe, progressive community that is rich in history, supports strong family values, and offers a high quality of life. Safewise.com ranked Oakley as number 19 among California’s 50 Safest Cities of 2022.

Our residents take pride in being part of a City that is building a prosperous future for generations to come. The new Contra Costa Logistics Center in Oakley that is nearing completion includes nearly 2 million square feet of light industrial building space and is expected to bring 2,100 jobs to the community. Amazon occupied the first of five buildings planned for the Logistics Center. Building #2 is occupied Pac Pride Distribution, Enchant Christmas Light Maze, Paramount Global, and Pet Food Express.

Building #3 is occupied by Lowe's Home Improvement and Enchant Christmas Light Maze. Building #4 is occupied by Amazon and Building #5 construction is nearing completion and will be occupied by Amazon as well. This regional hub of e-commerce industry will help to attract other businesses and will certainly help this rapidly growing community continue to prosper.

The new Oakley Mercantile, highlighted on the Budget cover, is also nearing completion and the Downtown Gateway Roadway and Parking project is well under way. The Oakley Mercantile building will bring two new Restaurants, plus a Coffee Shop, a Taproom, and a Dance Studio, which will create more attraction to Downton Oakley. This building is strategically located across from the Oakley Civic Center and will be complemented by new street infrastructure, a new Amtrak Platform Station and parking lots that accommodate over 275 parking spaces, including EV Charging Stations.
1050
23 ELECTED OFFICIALS
1051
24 ELECTED OFFICIALS & CITY MANAGEMENT TEAM
- CITY COUNCIL -
Aaron Meadows, Mayor
Anissa Williams, Vice Mayor
George Fuller, Councilmember
Shannon Shaw, Councilmember
Hugh Henderson, Councilmember
- MANAGEMENT TEAM -
Joshua McMurray, City Manager
Paul Beard, Chief of Police
Tim Przybyla, Finance Director
Kevin Rohani, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk
Derek Cole, City Attorney
Brent Smith, Community Development Director
Lindsey Bruno, Recreation Director
Jeri Tejeda, Human Resources Director
Danielle Navarro, Assistant City Manager
1052
25 CITY’S ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

1053
26 This page intentionally left blank.
1054
27 BUDGET STRATEGIES AND FINANCIAL POLICIES
The City Council provides long-term policy guidance for conducting the City’s financial activities through its Statement of Financial Policies. These strategies and policies are presented to the Council with the intent they be reviewed each year to meet the following strategic objectives:

BUDGET STRATEGIES
 Strategic focus – The City’s financial management should be strategic, reflecting the Council’s and the community’s priorities for service while providing resources that realistically fund routine operations. The City Council and Staff participate in annual strategic planning sessions which results in an updated Strategic Planning Document. The Budget is intended to implement the City’s Strategic Plan.
 Fiscal control and accountability – The City’s financial activities should be fiscally sound and accountable to the City Council through the City Manager.
 Clarity – The City’s financial planning and reporting should be clear and easy to understand so that all participants, the Council, the community and Staff can make informed decisions.
 Long-term Planning – The City’s financial planning should emphasize multi-year horizons to promote long-term planning of resource use.  Flexible and cost-effective responses – The City’s financial management practices should encourage a mission-driven organization that responds to community demands quickly and in a straight-forward manner. The City’s management should flexibly respond to opportunities for better service, proactively manage revenues and cost-effectively manage ongoing operating costs.
 Staffing philosophy – The City Council desires to retain a mix of contract and permanent staff in order to ensure a cost effective and flexible service delivery system. Annually, the City Manager will review with the City Council his/her recommendations regarding the ratio for the number of contract employees to total Staff.
1055
28 The following Statement of Financial Policies includes the City’s policies, an assessment of whether the City is in compliance with each one and space for any comments or recommended changes to the policies.

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POLICIES

GENERAL FINANCIAL GOALS
In
Compliance? Comments
To maintain a financially viable City that can maintain an adequate level of municipal services.

Yes
To maintain financial flexibility in order to be able to continually adapt to local and regional economic changes Yes
To maintain and enhance the sound fiscal condition of
the City.

Yes

OPERATING BUDGET POLICIES
The City Council will adopt a balanced budget by June 30 of each year.

Yes
The City Manager will submit a budget calendar to the
City Council no later than January 15th of each year.

Yes
An annual base operating budget will be developed by
verifying or conservatively projecting revenues and
expenditures for the current and forthcoming fiscal year.

Yes
During the annual budget development process, the
existing base budget will be thoroughly examined to
assure removal or reduction of any services or programs that could be eliminated or reduced in cost.

Yes
Current revenues will be sufficient to support current
operating expenditures (i.e., recurring expenditures will not exceed recurring revenues). One-time or
unpredictable revenues will be used for one-time
expenditures (including capital and reserves).

Yes
1056
29 Annual operating budgets will provide for adequate
design, construction, maintenance and replacement of the City’s capital plant and equipment.

No Some older
Lighting and
Landscaping
District zones
do not have
sufficient
revenues to set
aside enough to
fund asset
replacements
when needed.

The purchase of new or replacement capital equipment
with a value of $50,000 or more and with a useful life of two years or more will require Council approval.

Yes
The City will project its equipment replacement needs for the next three years and will update this projection each year. From this projection a replacement schedule will be developed, funded, and implemented.

Yes
The City will avoid budgetary and accounting procedures which balance the current budget at the expense of future budgets.

Yes
The budget will include the appropriation of available but unassigned fund balances in special purpose funds.

In the Lighting and Landscaping Funds and Community
Facilities Districts, the budget will include an
appropriation of Asset Lifecycle Replacement Program
reserves in an “unassigned asset replacement reserves”
line item in each fund, equal to 25% of the available
reserve balance, up to $100,000.

Prior approval of the City Manager will be required for the assignment and/or use of these appropriations.

Yes
Yes
Yes
All recommended increased appropriations of general
purpose revenues, General Fund reserves, or that transfer appropriations between funds during the year shall be
presented to the City Council for approval. Amendments
to that are made to authorize spending of increased or
Yes
1057
30 new special purpose revenues may be approved by the
City Manager.

The City will forecast its General Fund expenditures and revenues for each of the next 10 years and will update this forecast at least annually.

Yes

REVENUE POLICIES
The City will work to develop a diversified and stable
revenue system to protect it from short-term fluctuations in any one revenue source.

Yes
User fees will be adjusted annually to recover the full cost of services provided, except when the City Council
determines that a subsidy from the General Fund is in the public interest.

Yes Changing from
bi-annually to
annually in FY
2023-2024
The City will seek, and with Council approval, apply for all possible Federal and State reimbursement for
mandated projects and/or programs and Federal and State grant monies for City programs and projects.

Yes
Capital improvements will be financed primarily through user fees, service charges, impact fees, or developer
agreements when benefits can be specifically attributed to users of the facility. For projects financed with debt, the fees, charges, and/or contractual payments shall be
established at a level sufficient to fund the project in its entirety, including the repayment of principal and interest on amounts borrowed. The City will consider future
operations and maintenance costs as part of each project’s financing plan and ensure that funding sources are
identified to properly operate and maintain the
improvements when constructed.

Yes

EXPENDITURE POLICIES
The City will maintain a level of expenditures which will provide for the public well-being and safety of the
residents of the community.

Yes
1058
31 Purchases shall be approved as described in the City’s Municipal Code; more specifically:

Purchases for more than $10,000 shall be supported by a Purchase Order approved by the Finance Director and
City Manager, and;
Purchases for more than $50,000 shall be approved by
City Council.

Yes

CAPITAL BUDGET IMPROVEMENT BUDGET

POLICIES
The City will make all capital improvements in
accordance with an adopted and funded capital
improvement program (CIP).

Yes
The City will develop an annual Five-Year Plan for
Capital Improvements, including sections for CIP design, development, implementation, and operating and
maintenance costs.

Yes
The City will identify the estimated capital and ongoing operations and maintenance costs, potential funding
sources and project schedule for each capital project
proposal before it is submitted to the Council for
approval.

Yes
The City will coordinate development of the annual
capital improvement budget with the development of the
operating budget. All costs for internal professional
services needed to implement the CIP will be included in the operating budget for the year the CIP is to be
implemented.

Yes
The Capital Budget will be based on the CIP, and each
project’s unused appropriations at each year-end will be automatically rolled over to the subsequent year, until the project is completed. Additions to project funding plans require Council approval. Changes that do not increase
funding levels may be approved by the City Manager.

Yes
Cost tracking for components of the CIP will be Yes
1059
32 implemented and updated quarterly to ensure project
completion within budget and established timelines.

The Council will review the pavement management
program each year at budget time and will seek to
supplement Gas Tax, Measure J, other street improvement funds, and the Street Maintenance and Rehab Fund to
adequately fund the program.

Yes
City Impact Fees shall be used to fund the direct and
indirect costs associated with capital projects identified in the City’s impact fee studies.

Yes

OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICIES
Design of capital improvements shall consider long-term cost efficiency and be based on standards that minimize construction costs while assuring acceptable useful life and reduce maintenance requirements.

Yes

SHORT-TERM DEBT POLICIES
The City may use short-term debt to cover temporary or
emergency cash flow shortages. All short-term borrowing will be subject to Council approval by ordinance or
resolution.

Yes
The City may issue interfund loans in lieu of outside debt instruments to meet short-term cash flow needs. Such
loans will be permitted only if an analysis of the lending fund indicates excess funds are available and the use of these funds will not impact its current operations. The prevailing interest rate, as established by the Finance Director, will be paid to the lending fund, and such loan shall be approved by the City Council, documented by a
memorandum signed by the City Manager and filed with
the Finance Department and City Clerk.

Both the Original Budget adopted each year, and the MidYear Budget Report, will include a separate section identifying anticipated interfund loans, and the City
Council’s approval of these reports shall be approval of Yes
Yes
.
1060
33 the interfund loans.

LONG-TERM DEBT POLICIES
The City will confine normal long-term borrowing to
capital improvement projects it is unable to fund from
current revenues in time to meet community needs or
where a fiscal analysis shows that a significant benefit would accrue from building sooner at current prices and at current interest rates.

Yes
When the City issues City long-term debt, it will employ a professional financial advisor to assist the City in
obtaining the best possible outcomes in terms of planning, sizing, underwriting, insuring, and presentation of the City’s plans and position to bond rating agencies and the public. The City will also employ the services of qualified bond counsel and, as appropriate, disclosure counsel.

Yes
When the City issues assessment type debt, it will work cooperatively with the project area Developers to identify an appropriate and acceptable financing team to obtain
the best possible outcomes for the City and its citizens and ensure compliance with all legal requirements.

Yes
The City projects that the Community Parks assessment
program will, over time, be sufficient to pay for ongoing costs and repay General Fund advances (loans); but that until further development occurs in the City, the General Fund may make such advances to the Community Parks
program to cover operating shortfalls. All such advances will be approved by City Council.

Both the Original Budget adopted each year, and the MidYear Budget Report will include a separate section identifying anticipated interfund loans, and the City
Council’s approval of these reports shall be approval of the interfund loans.

Yes
Yes
Where possible, the City will use special assessment
bonds, revenue bonds, or other self-supporting bonds
instead of general obligation bonds.

Yes
1061
34 Proceeds of long-term debt will not be used for current ongoing operations.

Yes
The City may pledge General Fund revenues to facilitate debt; however, all debt will be supported by a dedicated revenue source identified prior to issuance that is
31expected to be sufficient to make the required debt
service payments.

Yes

RESERVE POLICIES
The City will maintain General Fund Emergency reserves
at a level at least equal to 30% of General Fund operating expenditures. The primary purpose of this reserve is to protect the City’s essential service programs and funding requirements during periods of economic downturn
(defined as a recession lasting two or more years) or other unforeseen catastrophic costs not covered by the
Contingency Reserve. Should the balance in the reserve
fall below the 30% threshold, a plan to restore the level over a period of no more than five years shall be included in each proposed annual budget reviewed with the City
Council until the reserve has been returned to at least 30% of General Fund operating expenditures.

Yes The threshold
for this reserve
policy was
increased from
20% to 30% in
Fiscal Year
2021/2022.

A Contingency Reserve will be budgeted each year for
non-recurring unanticipated expenditures or to set aside funds to cover known contingencies with unknown costs.

Yes
The level of the Contingency Reserve will be established as needed but shall not be less than 2% of General Fund operating expenditures.

Yes
The City will establish an account to accumulate funds to be used for payment of accrued employee benefits for
terminated employees. At each fiscal year end, the
accumulated amount in the reserve shall be adjusted to
equal the projected payout of accumulated benefits
requiring conversion to pay on retirement for employees then eligible for retirement. (This is so there are funds to pay out accumulated benefits requiring conversion to pay on termination).

Yes
1062
35 The City Manager may release and appropriate funds
from this reserve during the year, but solely for terminal pay expenditures.

Yes
Claims Reserves will be budgeted at a level which,
together with purchased insurance, adequately protects
the City. The City will maintain a reserve of two times its deductibles for those claims covered by the insurance
pool of which the City is a member (currently the
Municipal Pooling Authority of Northern California). In addition, the City will perform an annual analysis of past claims not covered by the pool and reserve an appropriate amount to pay for uncovered claims.

Yes
The City had previously established a Street Maintenance Reserve Fund for the accumulation of funds for the longterm maintenance of the City’s streets. In Fiscal Year 2021-2022, that title is being changed from “Reserve” to “Rehab” as these funds will be used on projects, rather than being set aside. The amounts transferred into this Fund will be used to augment the City’s Gas Tax,
Measure J, and other street improvement revenues in
completing street maintenance and improvement projects.

City staff has recognized that we are not able to keep up with the $7 million of costs that are necessary to maintain the streets to the level that we desire, much less establish a reserve that is sufficient to pay for the next 3 years’ anticipated maintenance. Therefore, this unrealistic
Reserve policy was abandoned, beginning in Fiscal Year
2021-2022.

Yes
The City established a Vehicle and Equipment
Replacement Reserve Fund for the accumulation of funds
for the replacement of worn and obsolete vehicles and
other capital equipment. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2021- 2022, that reserve will be split into two separate funds, Fund 501 for Fleet Vehicle Replacements and Fund 503 for IT Equipment Replacements. Adequate funds shall be set
aside in each fund to ensure that funds are available for asset replacement at the end of the assets’ life cycles.

Yes
1063
36 The City will seek to build and maintain a Facilities Maintenance Capital Asset Reserve for capital costs
associated with the maintenance of all City building
facilities. The reserve will be maintained at a level at least equal to projected five-year facilities maintenance capital costs.

No We do not have
a 5-year reserve
built up at this
time. We plan
to establish a
new Internal
Services Fund
for that purpose
in 2025-2026.

Each year-end, until fully funded, all revenues in excess of expenditures in each landscaping district zone, shall increase the funds’ capital asset lifecycle replacement reserve. Each zone’s operating budget shall consider
annual capital/asset lifecycle replacement needs
Yes
The City will seek to build and maintain a Storm Drain
Depreciation Reserve for costs associated with the major maintenance and capital improvement costs included in
the Storm Drain program budget. The minimum reserve
level will be 50% of the costs projected over the next five years.

No With existing
revenues, such a
reserve is not
feasible. We will
revisit this in
2024-2025.

The City will establish a Reserve for Qualifying
Expenditures and will transfer into it from current
revenues all amounts necessary to ensure compliance
with Gann Limit provisions. These funds will be used
solely to pay for Gann Limit excludable capital
expenditures. To qualify, they must be for assets having a value greater than $100,000 and having a useful life of at least 10 years.

Yes

INVESTMENT POLICIES
The City Manager and Finance Director will annually
submit an investment policy to the City Council for
review and adoption and shall provide the Council with
quarterly investment reports.

Yes
The Finance Director will invest the City’s monies in
accordance with applicable laws and adopted investment
policies and direct the investment of bond or note monies Yes
1064
37 on deposit with a trustee or fiscal agent in accordance with the applicable indenture or issuance documents.

The City will maintain liquid assets at a level sufficient to pay at least six months operating expenses. Yes

ACCOUNTING, AUDITING & FINANCIAL

REPORTING POLICIES
The City’s accounting and financial reporting systems will be maintained in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

Yes
A capital asset system will be maintained to identify all City assets, their condition, historical and estimated
replacement costs, and useful life. All equipment with a cost of $5,000 or more and a useful life of more than two years, and all buildings, improvements and infrastructure with a cost of $50,000 or more and a useful life of more than two years will be capitalized and included in the
system. While asset purchases and disposals will be
tracked and accounted for each year, unless otherwise
needed, vehicles and office equipment will be inventoried and infrastructure assets will be subject to an internal audit, every 3 years on a rotating cycle, with each
category reviewed in turn.

Yes
Fixed Assets shall be accounted for using the following useful lives:

Buildings – 40 years
Improvements – 5-15 years
Machinery & Equipment – 5 years
Vehicles – 5 years
Roadways:

Streets (Includes Pavement, Sidewalk, Curb & Gutters,
Trees & Signs) – 7-40 years
Traffic Signals – 25 years
Street Lights – 40 years
Bridges – 100 years
Parks & Recreation:

Yes
1065
38 General Improvements – 25 years
Specialty features – 10 years
The Finance Department will prepare monthly reports for the City Manager and Department Heads so that they
may effectively evaluate their financial performance.

Yes
A Mid-Year Budget Review, assessing the status of both
operating and capital activities and recommending
appropriate mid-year adjustments, will be submitted to
the City Council and made available to the public in
February each year.

Yes
An annual audit will be performed by an independent
public accounting firm with the subsequent issue of an
official Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,
including an audit opinion.

Yes
Full and continuing disclosure will be provided in the
City’s financial statements and bond representations.

Yes
The City will build and maintain a good credit rating in the financial community.

Yes

GRANT FUNDING POLICIES
The City will remain current on available local, state, and federal grant funding and seek to make the most of grant opportunities for both operations and capital projects.

Yes
The City will establish accounting procedures to support the tracking of grant funds and their use and for the
timely administration of grant programs.

Yes
Grants that the City makes to others will be such that the City retains control of funds sufficient to ensure their use is consistent with grant specifications. This is expected to be accomplished by limiting grant disbursements to
reimbursements or for the City to pay agreed upon costs directly on behalf of the Grantee, all of which should be outlined in a grant agreement approved by the Council.

Yes

HUMAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT POLICIES
The City will invest in its employees by maintaining a Yes 1066
39 compensation structure that is based on market norms, considers internal alignment and equity among various
groups of employees, supports and recognizes innovation and exceptional performance, and fosters teamwork
within the organization.
1067
40 APPROPRIATIONS CONTROL
In addition to the Statement of Financial Policies above, the Council has established the following policy regarding Appropriations Control:

Appropriations requiring Council action are:
 Appropriation of reserves, except asset replacement or accrued benefits reserves  Transfers between funds
 Appropriations of any unassigned revenues (unassigned revenues are those revenues that are not associated with a particular business or service unit) Appropriations requiring City Manager action are:
 Transfer within a fund or department
 Appropriation of unbudgeted assigned revenues – assigned revenues support a specific business or service unit and allow expansion or contraction of that unit in response to demand.
 Appropriation of asset replacement reserves, accrued benefits reserves and unassigned balances in special purpose funds.

Appropriations of fiscal resources are approved by the City Council and managed by the City Manager.
1068
41 BUDGET SCHEDULE
FY 2023-2024
Date Function
February 27 2023-2024 Budget Instructions Distributed
February 28 Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Midyear review with City Council Week of March 6 Finance Available for Budget System Training to anyone needing assistance.

March 13 Department Head Strategic Planning Session
Week of March 13 City Manager Discussions with DH’s Individually, as needed March 24 2023-2024 Operating Budgets due to Finance Director 2023-2024 Final CIP Requests due to City Engineer
March 24 – 31 Finance & Engineering Review Period
April 3 – 7 City Manager Review Period
April 10 Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Draft Departmental Accomplishments Due to City Manager & Finance Director
April 10-14 City Manager Review with Department Heads individually, as needed April 28 Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Final Departmental Accomplishments Due to City Manager & Finance Director
April 18 – 26 Preparation and Final City Manager Review of Proposed Budgets, CIP and Presentations
April 30 – May 7 Production and Distribution of Proposed Budget and CIP to Council and Staff
May 9 Budget Work Session with the City Council
June 13 Public Hearing and Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget Adoption The City of Oakley Strategic Plan 2022-2027+ which was completed in April of 2022 and became a guiding document for the City of Oakley Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget continues to guide the City of Oakley in its decisions, including budget preparations.

Included in the department detail of this budget are departmental objectives and key performance measures that are tied directly to the City of Oakley Strategic Plan goals.

On January 10, 2023, a work session was held to discuss the Strategic Plan. In that work session, the City Council had no changes and they directed staff to proceed with 1069
42 implementing the plan. An update on the Strategic Plan was also presented to the City Council at the May 23, 2023 City Council meeting. The City of Oakley Strategic Plan 2022-2027+ is a very informative document that shares the City’s vision for the future, along with its mission and goals, and all are encouraged to read it.

The strategic plan is available on the City’s website and can be accessed at https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/city-meetings/strategic-plan/ 1070
43 CITY-WIDE BUDGET OVERVIEW
As can be seen in the Proposed All Funds Summary on the following pages, the Citywide projected revenues for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 amount to just under $58.0 million, with projected expenditures of nearly $70.0 million. The Citywide expenditures are approximately $1.4 million or 2% lower than the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Adopted Budget of just over $71.4 million. However, the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 included $5 million was transferred from the General Fund Reserve of Capital Projects to be expended on the Downtown Gateway Plaza Roadway and Parking Lot project, which helps to account for the decrease in total City-wide expenditures between fiscal years. We are estimating total City-wide available resources to be $46.7 million at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and $34.7 million at the end of the fiscal year, due to substantial capital projects that will be taking place during Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

The Budget includes the appropriation of unassigned balances in special purpose funds so they can be assigned if needed during the year; although in the landscaping district funds, available resources appropriated for unanticipated asset replacements or remediation are shown in the appropriation of available asset replacement reserves pursuant to City policy.

General Fund resources exclude the value of real estate held, which on June 30, 2023 is estimated to at roughly $3.6 million. General Fund activity on this schedule also excludes interagency and economic development loan activity, which are required by City policy or approved separately by the City Council.

Since all revenues in excess of expenditures at year-end in the landscaping and community service district funds are added to each Fund’s reserves for asset replacement, the estimated available resources on July 1, of each year are $0, unless the reserve is fully funded.

Appropriations from a prior year capital project will roll into the new fiscal year, as with all capital project appropriation, per City policy. Otherwise, the beginning of the year available resources in these funds will be $0.

The amounts shown in the appropriation of asset replacement reserves are included in the recommended expenditures. These reduce the amount of replacement reserves available for appropriation for unanticipated replacement or remediation activities. 1071
44 The Successor Housing Agency fund accounts for assets of the former Oakley Redevelopment Agency and loan repayments restricted to low and moderate income housing projects.
1072
45 PROPOSED ALL FUNDS SUMMARY
1073
46 PROPOSED ALL FUNDS SUMMARY (continued)
Please note that the total for the All Funds Summary differs from the Revenue Summary by Fund and Expenditure summary by Fund, due to transfers between funds, which can be recorded as revenue to some funds and expenditures to other funds but zero out in total, as can be seen in the All Funds Summary, above. 1074
47 REVENUE SUMMARY BY FUND
1075
48 REVENUE SUMMARY BY FUND (Continued)
Please note that the total for the All Funds Summary differs from the Revenue Summary by Fund and Expenditure Summary by Fund, due to transfers between funds, which can be recorded as revenue to some funds and expenditures to other funds but zero out in total, as can be seen in the All Funds Summary.
1076
49 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY FUND
1077
50 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY FUND (Continued)
Please note that the total for the All Funds Summary differs from the Revenue Summary by Fund and Expenditure summary by Fund, due to transfers between funds, which can be recorded as revenue to some funds and expenditures to other funds but zero out in total, as can be seen in the All Funds Summary.
1078
51 2023-2024 Position Allocation Summary
1079
52 2023-2024 Position Allocation Summary (Continued)
1080
53 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Defined Benefit Retirement Plan - The City participates in the California Public Employees’ Retirement system (CalPERS) and provides the following benefit formulas, with the formula designation depending on the hire date and prior CalPERS service of the employee:

Miscellaneous Employees
• Classic Tier 1: 2.5% @ 55, highest single year, if hired before October 18, 2010
• Classic Tier 2: 2.0% @ 60, highest single year, if hired on or after October 18, 2010
• PEPRA Tier 3: 2.0% @ 62, average 3-year final compensation, if hired on or after January 1, 2013
Safety
• PEPRA 2.7% @ 57, average 3-year final compensation, all sworn personnel For employees that are currently active in CalPERS, the City does NOT participate in Social Security, except for the mandatory 1.45% payroll deduction for Medicare.

Health and Welfare – City offers numerous plans including both HMO and PPO plans with the City currently providing up to $1,835 per month for family coverage (will change to $1,935 in December of 2022) or up to $1,235 for employee only coverage to be used toward the premium for health insurance coverage. If an employee has existing group coverage, they can receive $400 as cash-in-lieu. Dental and Vision coverage for employee and family is paid for by the City.

Medical Trust – Safety employees receive a contribution of $450 per month toward their Medical Trust with Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC).

All non-Safety Employees receive a contribution of $50 per pay period toward a retiree health savings plan.

Deferred Compensation – 457 and 401a plans available, including a City match of employee’s contributions (up to 1% of base salary) for miscellaneous employees.

Holidays – 14 scheduled holidays
Vacation – Accrual of 80 hours per year initially and incrementally increasing up to 200 hours per year after 15 years of service (accrued with each pay period). 1081
54 Management Leave – 96 hours per year (for management only) Sick Leave – 96 hours per year (accrued with each pay period).

Life Insurance - If an employee’s death occurs while covered under this plan, the employee’s designated beneficiary will receive a benefit of $100,000. The City of Oakley pays for this benefit premium. Additional life insurance benefit amounts (over the $100,000) are available, but premiums are paid for solely by the employee.

Long Term Disability – City paid plan - Long Term Disability Insurance provides you with income protection in the event of a disability. The plan pays 2/3’s of your salary up to a maximum monthly benefit of $6,667. If you are eligible for income from other sources, such as Social Security and/or Worker’s Compensation, LTD benefits are adjusted so that the maximum monthly benefit you receive from all sources does not exceed 2/3’s of pre-disability earnings. The elimination period is 90 days with a duration for benefits paid up to age 65. The City of Oakley pays for your coverage offered through The Standard. Sworn Police personnel have employee-paid disability insurance through the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC).

Flexible Spending Accounts – Tax deferred options for dependent care, health care, and commuter expenses is offered.

Wellness – Gym or physical fitness premiums for employee only can be reimbursed, up to $35 per month.

Tuition Reimbursement – Employees have up to $2,500 per fiscal year available to cover tuition and book costs to continue their education at an institution accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
1082
55 GENERAL FUND BUDGET OVERVIEW
The Proposed General Fund Operational Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 is balanced, with $30,414,665 of revenues and $30,224,377 of recurring expenditures, net of $0 of non-recurring Transfers Out. Of the $2,285,831 of Transfers Out proposed for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, all $2,285,831 is considered recurring, including $2,080,000 for Street Maintenance and Repairs, $190,000 for Technology equipment replacements and $15,831 to assist landscape and lighting assessment districts. Total proposed General Fund Expenditures, including Transfers Out, amount to $30,224,377 and are $190,288 less than projected revenues.

As depicted in the chart above, total General Fund revenues have tended to exceed expectations and exceed total expenditures from Fiscal Years 2018-2019 through 2020- 2021. With substantial contributions into capital projects for both Fiscal Years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, expenditures were expected to exceed revenues, due to the planned spend-down of fund balance. For Fiscal Year 2023-2024, there is no planned spenddown of fund balance for the General Fund. 1083
56 GENERAL FUND PROPOSED BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024
Actual Actual Actual Estimated Proposed
Revenues:

Property Taxes $ 7,206,055 7,683,832 8,270,514 9,289,930 9,847,326 Sales Tax 2,183,052 2,485,023 3,245,824 3,200,000 3,100,000 Franchise Taxes 1,893,515 2,043,872 2,285,075 2,162,000 2,674,000 Other Taxes 635,353 606,518 1,001,023 585,000 610,000
Total Taxes 11,917,975 12,819,244 14,802,436 15,236,930 16,231,326 Interfund Charges for Services 8,530,263 8,350,135 9,544,106 11,062,178 11,142,039 Developer Fees 2,059,111 4,700,723 3,316,117 2,601,300 1,628,000 Intergovernmental Revenues 434,484 999,829 515,361 515,361 418,000 Business Licenses 148,066 190,154 189,699 155,000 180,000 Other Revenue 781,616 425,943 216,513 191,339 445,300
Other Financing Sources 357,935 356,355 (76,769) - 370,000 Total Revenue 24,229,450 27,842,384 28,507,463 29,762,108 30,414,665 Expenditures:

Animal Control 266,521 273,294 288,310 341,874 405,696
City Council 63,167 62,620 138,174 125,732 73,795
City Clerk 345,831 375,251 379,030 513,542 537,596
City Attorney 293,448 314,944 358,280 458,279 457,605
City Manager 585,531 585,769 621,906 791,795 923,128
Community Outreach 123,538 155,044 181,685 - -
Finance 832,204 807,782 800,900 975,488 988,993
Human Resources 276,394 386,264 693,434 742,078 613,229 Building Maintenance 105,777 111,208 272,176 570,101 647,240 IT 293,120 297,023 485,445 342,906 303,267
Non Departmental 816,980 568,754 (568,594) (255,263) -
Economic Development 259,039 186,705 196,444 270,735 284,361 Building & Code Enforcement 1,052,987 1,125,697 1,210,924 1,307,790 1,364,672 Police 9,796,066 9,751,044 10,590,530 12,866,479 14,719,915 Planning 638,980 686,134 655,757 1,095,600 982,696
Public Works 2,520,069 2,721,894 3,671,455 4,684,025 4,532,011 Recreation 659,390 590,125 719,116 1,004,934 1,104,342
Transfers Out 3,356,000 2,609,222 5,621,000 10,380,000 2,285,831 Total Expenditures 22,285,042 21,608,774 26,315,972 36,216,095 30,224,377 Net Revenue (Expense) 1,944,408 6,233,610 2,191,491 (6,453,987) 190,288 Beginning Fund Balance 16,645,985 17,860,393 24,094,003 26,285,494 19,831,507 Disposition of Land Held (730,000)
Reserved Fund Balance 11,263,438 11,465,822 16,126,861 8,980,211 8,980,211 Unassigned Fund Balance 6,596,955 12,628,181 10,158,633 10,851,296 11,041,584 Total Ending Fund Balance 17,860,393 24,094,003 26,285,494 19,831,507 20,021,795 1084
57 OVERALL ANALYSIS OF GENERAL FUND REVENUE
Overall General Fund revenues for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 are estimated to come in nearly $1.2 million or 4.4% higher than actual Fiscal Year 2021-2022 revenues, totaling just over $29.7 million in 2022-2023 and just under $28.5 million in 2021-2022. Fiscal Year 2023-2024 revenues are projected to be $30.4 million, which is about $653,000 or

2.2% higher than total estimated Fiscal Year 2022-2023 revenues. This increase is primarily due to higher projections of approximately $557,000 more for Interfund Charges for Services, $512,000 more for Franchise Fees, $370,000 more for Interest Income and $80,000 more for Property Taxes. Offsetting much of those increases is a projected $973,000 decrease in Developer Fees, a $100,000 drop in Sales Taxes and a $223,000 drop in Other Revenues. The impacts that COVID-19 would have on the global economy and on the City’s General Fund revenues were uncertain when we prepared our Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget and there continued to be uncertainty about the future of COVID-19 as we prepared the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget. As we now prepare the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget, it appears that the COVID-19 Pandemic and much of the uncertainties related to it have passed. However, rising interest rates and their impact on the housing market have become the primary point of concern for General Fund revenue projections. Fortunately, even with lower Developer Fee projections, total overall General Fund revenue has continued to grow. In addition, the City of Oakley has received a total of $10,177,190 from the federal government through the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) over the past two fiscal years. The City of Oakley used $177,190 to reimburse the City’s General Fund in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 for a portion of the special COVID sick leave that has been paid out during the pandemic. The other $10 million is being accounted for in of a separate fund (Fund 120) and must be expended on governmental services by December of 2026. Although this $10 million will not be run through the General Fund, it will clearly help the City to provide many governmental services that could typically rely on the General Fund for funding. 1085
58 MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES
As can be seen in the graph below, the City’s largest projected General Fund Revenues for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 are Interfund Charges and Property Taxes. Those two revenue sources are projected to bring in 70% of General Fund Revenues. Combined, Sales Tax and Franchise Fees make up another 19% of projected General Fund revenues.

Developer Fees at 6% and Other Revenues and Taxes at 5% making up the remaining 11% of the General Fund revenue projections. Each of these revenues is discussed in further detail, on the following pages.

Proposed General Fund Revenues
Fiscal Year 2023-2024
1086
59 INTERFUND CHARGES FOR SERVICES
Interfund Charges for Services is the largest revenue source for the City of Oakley.

More than 36.7% of total projected Fiscal Year 2023-2024 General Fund revenues are made up of these cost recoveries for activities funded by impact fees, developer application fees, special taxes, assessments and other special purpose revenues. For Fiscal Year 2023-2024, estimated Interfund Charges total approximately $7.5 million for Police Services, $890,000 for Engineering Services, $1,480,000 for Parks Maintenance Services, $310,000 for Public Works Maintenance, $760,000 for Contractors, and $202,000 in total for Legal, Planning and Other Services, combined. Total Interfund Charges are projected to increase by more than $80,000 or 0.7% in Fiscal Year 2023-2024, up to $11,142,000, compared to an estimated $11,062,000 in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. 1087
60 PROPERTY TAXES
The City receives two significant types of property taxes: 1) the City’s share of the 1% Property Taxes collected by the County; and 2) Property Tax In Lieu Of Vehicle License Fees. Both are driven primarily by changes in assessed values. Estimates for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 anticipate an increase of 6% in citywide assessed values. The budget includes projected 1% Property Taxes of $4,929,000 and Property Taxes In Lieu Of Vehicle License Fees of $4,918,000. A 6% increase is considered by City staff to be a reasonable projection, as these revenues have increased by at least 6% and as much a 12% combined, year over year, since Fiscal Year 2019-2020. As seen below, Property Taxes In Lieu of Vehicle License Fees have been growing faster than the 1% Property Taxes.
1088
61 SALES TAX
The City receives a share of sales taxes where the point of sale is located in the City.

While the City does not yet have a large commercial base, business activity is expected to grow over time and these revenues will increase. For fiscal year 2023-2024, the estimated Sales Tax revenues are $3,100,000, which $100,000 lower than estimated 2022- 2023 Sales Tax revenues. The City utilizes the services of HdL Companies for our Sales Tax projections.
1089
62 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
The City receives revenue from various other governmental agencies in the form of grants, motor vehicle tax, school resource officer reimbursements, vehicle abatement, recycling grants and administrative charges. Total projected Intergovernmental Revenues for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 are $418,000, which is only about $5,000 or 1.3% more than is estimated for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

1090
63 FRANCHISE FEES
The City collects Utility Franchise Fees related to pipelines, electricity, cable and garbage. Total budgeted Franchise Fees for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 are $2,162,000, with $22,000 from pipelines, $340,000 from electricity, $500,000 from cable, and $1,300,000 from Garbage Franchise Fees. For Fiscal Year 2023-2024, we are budgeting a total of $2,674,000 in Franchise Fees, with $24,000 from pipelines, $470,000 from electricity, $500,000 from cable and $1,680,000 from Garbage Franchise Fees. Mt. Diablo Resource Recovery (MDRR) submitted the request for a large rate increase in Garbage Franchise Fees, which was approved by the City Council in March of 2022 and was necessitated by Senate Bill (SB) 1383, Short-lived Climate Pollutants Reduction, as enacted in 2017.

SB 1383 established targets to reduce the statewide disposal of organics by 75% by 2025 and is the most significant waste reduction mandate adopted in California in the last thirty years. It requires that each jurisdiction redefine and develop methods for managing, tracking, regulating, procuring organics, and more. MDRR submitted a

5.31% rate increase proposal for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, which was approved by the City Council in May of 2023 and becomes effective in July of 2023. 1091
64 OTHER TAXES
In addition to the above-mentioned Taxes, the City collects a Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Tax, Property Transfer Taxes, and Business License Taxes, which are all grouped into the category of “Other Taxes”. For Fiscal Year 2023-2024, total Other Taxes are estimated to be approximately $610,000, which is $25,000 or 4% more than estimated for Fiscal Year 2021-2023 and $391,000 less than Fiscal Year 2021-2022 actual revenues.

The largest drop in Other Taxes from Fiscal Year 2021-2022 to Fiscal Year 2023-2024 projections was in Property Transfer Taxes, which peaked at $550,000 in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and is estimated at $200,000 per fiscal year in both Fiscal Years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. This large decline in revenue is a result of the slowed housing market, which was caused by rising home loan mortgage interest rates. 1092
65 DEVELOPMENT FEES
Development Fees consist primarily of building permit, plan review, and administrative fees. For Fiscal Year 2020-2021 was a stellar year, with total actual Development Fees of $4,701,000, up 128% from $2,059,000 in Fiscal Year 2019-2020. This large increase was due to record home sales resulting from record low interest rates and people moving from big cities to more rural communities. Unfortunately, those record low interest rates have become a thing of the past and we are no longer riding that wave of housing development that we enjoyed in Fiscal Year 2020-2021 and even Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

With the Feds raising interest rates in an attempt to slow inflation, home mortgage interest rates have increased from roughly 3% to over 6% in the past couple of years, which has considerably slowed the housing market. Estimated Development Fees for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 total $2,601,000 or nearly 22% less than Fiscal Year 2021-2022.

Projected Development Fees for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 total $1,628,000, which 37.4% less than is estimated for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. As mentioned in the City Manager’s Budget Message, as of June 1, 2023, the City had issued building permits for 122 single family homes and no apartment units in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget projections for Development Fees are based on the addition of approximately 125 single-family housing units, no multi-family units and some new non-residential construction.
1093
66 This page intentionally left blank
1094
67 General Fund Expenditures
Department
Salaries &
Benefits
Services &
Supplies
Capital
Outlay
Transfers
Out Total
Animal Control 405,696 405,696
City Council 29,795 44,000 73,795
City Clerk 448,605 88,991 537,596
City Attorney 35,696 421,909 - 457,605
City Manager 640,038 283,090 923,128
Community Outreach - - -
Finance 760,676 227,317 1,000 988,993
Human Resources 417,197 194,032 2,000 613,229
Building Maintenance 284,734 362,506 647,240
Information Technology 226,687 76,580 303,267
Non Departmental 776,188 (776,188) - -
Economic Development 150,095 134,266 284,361
Building Permit 548,643 406,338 954,981
Code Enforcement 309,347 100,344 409,691
Police 9,882,835 4,550,861 286,219 14,719,915
Planning 647,753 334,943 982,696
Engineering 1,091,740 1,508,111 21,450 2,621,301
Public Works Maintenance 231,440 316,835 10,000 558,275 Recreation 585,855 518,487 1,104,342
Parks 970,122 275,313 107,000 1,352,435
Transfers Out 2,285,831 2,285,831
Total 17,810,759 9,623,538 504,249 2,285,831 30,224,377

58.9% 31.8% 1.7% 7.6% 100.0%
As can be seen above, total General Fund expenditures for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 amount to $30,224,377, including $2,285,831 of Transfers Out. As mentioned earlier, all $2,285,831 of the Transfers Out is considered to be recurring transfers out and there are no non-recurring or one-time costs included in the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 General Fund Budget.
1095
68 Salaries and Benefits account for 58.9% and Services and Supplies account for 31.8% of General Fund Budget expenditures. The breakout of expenditure by type, as percentages of the Budget, can be seen in the chart below. Proposed Transfers Out of $2,285,831 as a percentage of Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 are much lower than estimated Transfers Out for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget which includes $10,380,000 of Transfers Out. Actual Transfers Out in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 were also higher than usual, totaling $5,621,000. The average for the four-year period prior to Fiscal Year 2021- 2022 was about $3.1 million. The large amounts of Transfers Out for Fiscal Years 2022- 2023 and 2021-2022 were only possible because reserves have been built up over time to be used for these purposes. Expenditures by department can be seen on the following page.
1096
69 PROPOSED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Fiscal Year 2023-2024
As depicted in the chart above, the Police Department Budget makes up 48.7% and Public Works makes up about 15.0% of the General Fund Budget. Transfers Out make up 7.6% of Proposed General Fund Expenditures, compared to the 28.6% that is estimated for Transfers Out in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget. Each of the remaining departmental budgets are 7.2% or less of the Proposed General Fund Budget.

By comparison, the Amended Fiscal Year 2022-2023 General Fund Budget includes expenditures of $36,266,695, with $10,380,000 of Transfers Out. The Proposed 2023-2024 Budget reflects a decrease of $6,128,000 or 16.9% of total expenditures compared to Fiscal Year 2022-2023, primarily due to an $8.2 million decrease in Transfers Out for one-time capital improvement projects.
1097
70 This page intentionally left blank
1098
71 DEPARTMENT DETAIL
The following pages review each of the proposed Department budgets with a summary discussion of program description, staffing, and objectives for fiscal year 2023-2024:

ANIMAL CONTROL
Program Costs and Revenues
The City contracts with Contra Costa County for Animal Control services. The costs are funded entirely by General Fund revenues.

Program Description
Animal control services patrol the City’s streets and respond to public health and safety calls concerning animals in the City. The County Animal Services Department provides the service and access to its animal shelter facility in Martinez.

Staffing Summary
The County Animal Services Department provides all staffing for an annual per capita charge. There are no City staff allocated to this function.

Program Changes
There are no significant program changes for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. The Contra Costa County Animal Services Department increased our fees by $53,564 or 18.6% for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, with per capita rates increasing from $6.79 to $7.97. Our fees for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 increased by $63,822 or 18.7%, with per capita rates increasing to $9.11. 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024
Actual Actual Actual Estimated Proposed
$ 266,521 $ 273,295 $ 288,310 $ 341,874 $ 405,696

ANIMAL CONTROL
1099
72 This page intentionally left blank.
1100
73 CITY COUNCIL
Program Costs and Revenues
The City Council’s costs are funded entirely by General Fund.

Program Description
The Council is the legislative body of the City, in essence the City’s “Board of Directors.” The Council establishes the City’s laws and policies and provides direction to the City Manager to implement them.

Staffing Summary
The City Council is comprised of five elected members, each for a four-year term. The City Manager, who directs the day-to-day operations of the City, and the City Attorney, are accountable directly to the Council.

Program Changes
The City Council program remains relatively unchanged for fiscal year 2023-2024 with the exception of $50,000 that was budgeted in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 for consulting services but has not been utilized and $0 proposed for consulting services in Fiscal Year 2023-2024.
1101
74 This page intentionally left blank.
1102
75 1103
76 CITY CLERK
Program Costs and Revenues
All City Clerk costs are part of City Administration. Revenue is generated for the General Fund through the passport acceptance program.

Program Description
The City Clerk’s Office coordinates the distribution of meetings packets for the City Council, the City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and Public Financing Authority, records the proceedings of those meetings and processes approved documents such as resolutions, ordinances, minutes and contracts; maintains the City Seal; coordinates municipal elections; advertises and coordinates City Council appointments; maintains and protects the official records of the City; coordinates the records management program; maintains the Municipal Code; administers the Fair Political Practices Commission’s regulations; maintains Statements of Economic Interest and Campaign Disclosure Statements submitted by public officials and staff; processes claims against the City; receives and opens sealed bids for public projects; provides a passport acceptance agent and notary services.

Staffing Summary
The City Clerk is assigned to work in both the City Clerk and City Attorney Offices, with approximately 85% of her time serving as City Clerk. The City Clerk’s Office also has one Deputy City Clerk, one Office Assistant and one Administrative Assistant.

Program Objectives
• Continue to participate in the State Department‘s Passport Acceptance Agents Program; • Continue to coordinate implementation of records destruction procedures in accordance with the City’s Records Retention Schedule:
• Continue to implement the citywide records scanning program; • Continue to refine internal processes to improve the function of the City Clerk’s office; • Continue to process claims for damages against the City; • Continue to receive bids and participate in bid openings for public projects; • Continue to process appeals for Administrative Citations; 1104
77 • Provide electronic agenda packets for City Council, City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and Public Financing Authority meetings as well as Planning Commission meetings, and to accomplish all meeting follow-up activities in a timely manner;
• Coordinate General Municipal Election;
• Continue to process claims for damages against the City; • Continue to receive bids and participate in bid openings for public projects; • Continue to process appeals for Administrative Citations; • Continue to assist elected officials and staff with their filing obligations under the State’s regulations and the City’s Local Conflict of Interest Code; • Continue to identify and implement cost-saving measures within the department; • Make public information accessible through the City’s website.

Program Changes
There are no proposed program changes for fiscal year 2023-2024. 1105
78 1106
79 1107
80 CITY ATTORNEY
Program Costs and Revenues
The City Attorney’s costs shown in the General Fund are part of City Administration.

A portion of the department costs are expected to be recovered through inter-fund charges to development services and redevelopment related funds.

Program Description
The City Attorney works closely with the City Manager and his staff to carry out the Council’s goals. The City Attorney directs and manages the work of the City Attorney’s Office. The City Attorney’s Office provides legal services, advice, and representation to the Mayor, City Council, City Manager, and City departments.

The City Attorney’s Office represents the City’s interest in lawsuits filed against or on behalf of the City, its officers, employees, and agencies in administrative venues, before boards and commissions, and in the state and federal court system. The City Attorney’s Office assists in the investigations of claims for damages filed against the City and defends the City’s interests when necessary.

The City Attorney’s Office similarly provides legal advice in the areas of land use, personnel, elections, conflicts of interest, and economic development, among others.

Services include drafting and reviewing contracts, ordinances, resolutions, and other documents, as well as legal research. The City Attorney also provides counsel to and attends meetings of the City Council, and special committees (as required).

Staffing Summary
The City contracts for City Attorney services and employs a full-time paralegal. The paralegal is assigned to work in both the City Attorney and City Clerk Offices, with approximately 15% of her time serving as a paralegal.

Program Objectives
• Assist with code enforcement, recovery of damage to City property, amortization of nonconforming uses, and related redevelopment efforts. • Assist with major public works projects and advising staff on acquisition of necessary right-of-ways.
• Manage the City’s outside counsel and assist in various litigation matters. • Review and update the Municipal Code, as needed.
1108
81 • Assist staff on legal issues related to land use and development throughout the City.
• Promptly advise each department of legal implications of proposed actions and of permissible alternatives when legal restrictions arise. • Administer the City Attorney’s Office in a cost-effective manner. • Participate in existing and new City programs and assist in their successful completion.
• Assist in the reinstitution of the City Planning Commission.

Program Changes
There are no proposed program changes for fiscal year 2023-2024. 1109
82 This page intentionally left blank
1110
83 1111
84 CITY MANAGER
Program Costs and Revenues
The City Manager’s Office is comprised of City Administration, Economic Development, Community Outreach/Public Information, Emergency Management and Information Technology, with a portion of its budget attributable to the oversight and support of the Successor Agency to the dissolved Oakley Redevelopment Agency.

Program Description
The City Manager is responsible for the administration and oversight of all municipal operations, including Successor Agency activities and excluding City Attorney services.

Programs, services, and activities include: coordinating organizational programs, developing and general managing of operating and capital budgets, conducting fiscal planning, selecting personnel, managing contracted Information Technology services (hardware, software, and technology infrastructure that supports the City’s operations), disseminating public information, emergency management, encouraging civic engagement and community participation, implementing key initiatives, providing oversight of the City’s Strategic Plan 2022-2027 (SP 27+), and facilitating the implementation of the City’s short and long-term economic development strategies.

Under the policy direction of the City Council, and through the implementation of the Council’s policies and legislative actions, the City Manager is responsible for ensuring that the City Council is provided with information and recommendations to effectively evaluate and establish policies. The City Manager’s Office also provides administrative support to the City Council in their legislative role within the organization and its activities with other agencies and organizations.

The City Manager’s Office administers Community Outreach and engagement activities and provides public information support to all City departments and programs under the direction of the Assistant City Manager. Community Outreach aims to increase residents’ awareness of the City’s ongoing efforts to make Oakley a desirable place to live by communicating with residents and business owners via multiple communication channels that include capitalizing on the City’s own communications tools, promoting the City’s efforts through press releases to local print media, and face to face through public information workshops and at events.
1112
85 Staffing Summary
The recommended budget includes the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager, and an Economic Development Analyst.

Program Objectives
The City Manager’s Office is directly responsible for the City’s day-to-day operations and for successfully implementing the City Council’s policy direction, including the Strategic Plan 2022-2027.

Program Changes
During Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the City Manager made an operational change to change the vacant and unfilled Assistant to the City Manager position to an Assistant City Manager position. The City hired an Assistant City Manager and the person in that role will assume oversight and implementation of both Emergency Management and Information Technology and serve as the City’s Community Outreach/Public Information Officer.
1113
86 City of Oakley Strategic Plan Goals

A B C D
Community
and Economic
Development
Community
Health &
Safety
Parks and
Open Space
Community
and
Collaborative
Partnerships
Fiscal Year 2022/2024 Departmental Objectives

A B C D E F
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
Key Performance Indicators
Goals
B
B
A
A
F
FY
2021/2022
FY
2022/2023
Increase in social media followers 1,112 FB
** The City did not assess this indicator during the fiscal year. The FY 2022/2023 percentage is the percentage of the leadership team in place at the time of the CM's 360 evaluation that agreed or strongly agreed that they feel supported by the CM in their role as a director.
156,986 FB
22,007 IG
N/A
Percentage of staff that feel supported by City leadership** 100% * The City did not assess this indicator during the fiscal year. A business satisfaction suervey will be conducted in FY 2023/2024.

Actions undertaken to connect with potential private sector investors, local businesses for expansion, and public-private collaborations kick-started. 300-plus
private
investors
15-plus
business
workshops
Increase Oakley's communication through outward-facing media, social media platforms, and website
Reinforce Team Oakley
Number of social media engagements
Percent of businesses that feel that the quality of services provided to businesses by the City exceeds or greatly exceeds their expectations * Consider creating new partnerships that will involve community participation Seek to supplement existing funding sources with State and Federal grants for special projects
Metric
FY
2020/2021
Showcase local businesses through active engagement and outreach Connect and promote the County and NGOs resources available to assist vulnerable Actively uphold Oakley's Governance Guidelines & Protocols Policy to encourage productive partnerships, positive communication, and achievement of short and long-term goals F
Finance and Fiscal
Responsibility
Sustainable Organization
Strategically plan and pursue commerce that meets the new service demands of local residents
Pursue an economic development strategic plan, including a strategic business outreach plan City Manager's Office (City Administration & Economic Development) E
1114
87 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Program Costs and Revenues
The Economic Development budget represents an investment of taxes and general fund resources in activities to retain and expand existing Oakley businesses as well as marketing activities and materials to attract new investment and businesses to the City in order to generate additional sales, property, and transient occupancy related tax revenue. Additionally manage the Oakley Entrepreneur Center.

Program Description
The Economic Development goals and objectives as outlined in the City’s General Plan include:
• Retain and strengthen existing businesses and expand Oakley’s economic base • Establish a diverse and balanced local economy
• Remove or reduce constraints to economic development
• Facilitate new business opportunities and new investment in the community Program Objectives
Economic Development will focus on:
• Implementation of programs and activities designed to retain, strengthen and expand existing Oakley businesses
• Revitalization of the Main Street/Downtown area
• Facilitation of commercial development projects
• Attraction of retailers and commercial tenants for existing shopping centers and commercial space
• Attraction of development for all City-owned and former redevelopment property
• Participation in trade show and conferences such as the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) and other activities to promote the City of Oakley’s commercial and retail sites
Staffing Summary
The Economic Development Division is staffed by a full-time Economic Development Analyst.

Program Changes
There are no proposed program changes for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. 1115
88 1116
89 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Program Costs and Revenue
All Information Technology Department costs are part of City Administration. Some of the costs are recovered as a part of the city overhead added to Parks, Planning, and Public Works staff’s hourly rates charged to developers and special revenue funds.

Program Description
The Information Technology Department provides support services citywide with the goal of providing on demand network availability for City Staff, and timely troubleshooting when problems arise. Department activities are primarily network maintenance, user support, and strategic planning consulting related to managing and maintaining the City’s networks.

Staffing Summary
The Information Technology Department is managed by the Finance Director and staffed by Operational Technology Integrators (“OTI”), a private contractor. OTI has staff at the City Offices approximately 24 hours per week and manages the City’s network 24/7.

Program Objectives
The primary operating objectives for the department for fiscal year 2023-2024 are unchanged: To provide outstanding network support and assist the City in planning related to its networks.

Program Changes
There are no proposed program changes for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. However, this program is now under the City Manager’s Office, rather than under Finance. 1117
90 1118
91 1119
92 FINANCE
Program Costs and Revenues
Most Finance Department costs are part of City Administration. Some of the costs are recovered as direct charges and some as a part of the city overhead added to Parks, Planning, and Public Works staff hourly rates charged to developers and special revenue funds. A small amount of Finance Department costs are recovered through impact fee program and bond administration fees, and a portion is funded via the Administrative Allowance chargeable to the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency.

Program Description
The Finance Department provides support services citywide, and for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, with the goal of intelligent and prudent financial management. Department activities include Treasury and Debt Management; Accounting for Payroll; Accounts Payable; General Ledger; Capital Projects and Grant Accounting; Financial Reporting, Budget Development and Management; Long-Term Planning; Purchasing; Billing and Collections; Business License Administration; and Risk Management. The Department is also engaged in a significant amount of Successor Agency compliance matters.

Staffing Summary
The Finance Department consists of four full-time staff and one limited-term part-time, as follows: The Finance Director, one Accounting Manager, one Senior Accounting Technician, one Accounting Assistant and one part-time Accounting Assistant.

Program Objectives
The primary operating objectives for the department for fiscal year 2023-2024 are to maintain and improve the financial and procedural infrastructure appropriate for performing the City and Successor Agency’s financial functions and to support their many ongoing projects. The Department’s primary objective will be to support the City Manager as we attempt to recover from the impacts of COVID-19 on the economy and on the City. Finance has submitted the City’s Fiscal Years’ 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 Budgets to the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) and received the CSMFO Operating Budget Excellence Award for each budget. Finance will continue to apply for and receive the CSMFO Operating Budget Excellence Award as well as the Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Annual Comprehensive 1120
93 Financial Report (ACFR) Award, which the City of Oakley has been awarded since the City’s inception and its original ACF.

Program Changes
There are no proposed program changes for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. 1121
94 City of Oakley Strategic Plan Goals

A B C D
Community
and Economic
Development
Community
Health &
Safety
Parks and
Open Space
Community
and
Collaborative
Partnerships
Fiscal Year 2023/2024 Departmental Objectives

A B C D E F

X X X X X X

X X X X X X
X X
X X
X
Key Performance Indicators
Goals
E, F
E, F
E, F
A
E
E
E F
Finance and Fiscal
Responsibility
Sustainable Organization
Finance
Implement technology upgrades to improve transparency and public access to City documents and remote transactions
Begin the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system conversion from Tyler Eden to Tyler Enterprise ERP and be prepared to go live with the Financials module in July of 2024 Maintain a 30% General Fund Reserve, per City policy, plus $1 million to further protect the City's operations from a drop in property tax and development-related revenues Expand the City's investment options through the use of brokers and implement a new investment-tracking software system to better track City investments Provide quarterly budget and financial updates/presentations to the City Council Number of printed payroll checks
Number of automatically deposited payroll checks
127
2,618
Metric
Number of agenda items presented by Finance to the City Council FY
2020/2021
22 Received the GFOA ACFR Award for the previous fiscal year X Number of issued or renewed business licenses
Received the CSMFO Excellence Award for Budgets
690
X X
X
FY
2022/2023
20 20
2,737
1,710
X
X
FY
2021/2022
24 33
2,304
1,318
1122
95 1123
96 HUMAN RESOURCES
Program Costs and Revenues
All costs are part of City administration and come from the General Fund.

Program Description
The Human Resources Department serves as a citywide support department in employer-employee and labor relations, recruitment and selection, classification and compensation, worker’s compensation management, benefits administration and workforce training and development. The staff are motivated and enthusiastic about contributing to the City, enhancing its quality and providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all.

The department strives to create a workforce of forward-thinking employees who are customer focused and committed to excellence each day. Honesty and integrity will always be at the forefront and will guide us as we create a safe and welcoming environment for all employees.

Staffing Summary
The Human Resources Department includes a full-time Human Resources Director, a full-time Human Resources Technician and a part time Human Resources Assistant.

Program Objectives
The Human Resources Department will strive to continuously improve efficiencies, remain current with guidelines, best practices, and legal requirements, and proactively work to build a transparent, trustworthy environment. We will prioritize employee well-being by reducing workplace injuries and enhancing our employee wellness program. We will collaborate with and continue to improve upon what our department can do to support the needs of employees, departments, and the City as a whole.

Program Changes
There are no proposed program changes for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. 1124
97 1125
98 Key performance indicators are not available for Fiscal Years 2020-2021 or 2021-2022 because Fiscal Year 2022-2023 was the first year that these indicators were selected and utilized in the budget, and this information had not been tracked prior to Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
1126
99 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Program Costs and Revenues
All Non-Departmental costs are part of City Administration and are allocated to City departments. Some of the costs are recovered as a part of the city overhead added to Parks, Planning, and Engineering staff’s hourly rates charged to developers and special revenue funds. The Non-Departmental budget includes central services and supplies, certain non-employee specific retirement system charges, and a General Fund Contingency.

Program Description
There is no program in the Non-Departmental budget unit. This budget is for costs better managed on a citywide basis, such as office supplies, utilities, storage space rentals, copier costs, insurance, web page maintenance costs, telephone services and transfers to the City’s internal service funds.

Staffing Summary
The Non-Departmental budget unit is managed by the Finance Director and City Manager.

Program Objectives
The objectives related to the Non-Departmental budget are unchanged: to monitor and manage these citywide costs, and seek out opportunities to get the best value for each public dollar spent.

Program Changes
There are no proposed program changes for fiscal year 2023-2024. 1127
100
* Proposed amount includes the 2% General Fund Contingency in accordance with policy

NON-DEPARTMENTAL STAFFING
None
1128
101
1129
102

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The Community Development Department is responsible for implementing City Council policies related to planning, zoning, code enforcement, building and housing.

The department promotes the community’s quality of life and economic vitality through land use planning; protection of public health and safety related to development, elimination of blight, development of affordable housing, and oversees the building and development of residential and non-residential projects, ensuring that these projects meet established requirements related to public health and safety. The Community Development Department also manages the City’s Permit Center, which coordinates and streamlines the development review and permitting process among various departments and outside agencies, thereby facilitating economic development and excellent customer service.
1130
103

PLANNING
Program Costs and Revenue
Planning Division costs are primarily related to long range planning and current planning projects. Long Range planning includes planning responsibilities that must be implemented whether there is development or not, and these are paid for by the General Fund. Current planning projects can be divided into two categories, private developer projects funded by developer paid fees and daily planning duties are funded by the General Fund.

Program Description
The Planning Division is part of the Community Development Department.

The Planning Division provides land use, current and long range planning, and environmental services. The Division is responsible for the implementation of policy pertaining to orderly development and balanced, quality growth in the City of Oakley.

Over the years, the Division has focused their efforts on streamlining the development process. The Division continues to focus on programs that assist the City in economic development and planned growth. Specifically, the Division is continually processing both residential and commercial applications to help facilitate the goals of the City’s General Plan and Strategic Plan.

There are several planning projects that continue to have activity at this time. Several projects within the East Cypress Road corridor have been entitled for some time and continue to work towards development. There is a continued focus on the redevelopment of the City’s Downtown and the future Train Platform and Parking Lot highlighting the marque project expected to break ground in this fiscal year. The 2023- 2031 Housing Element has been adopted and is currently being certified by the State and implementation will begin in FY23-24. The development of the Contra Costa Logistics Center is nearly complete.

Staff are currently working on numerous residential and commercial projects to ensure the City’s General Plan is compliant with State Law and addresses the needs of the community today. There is always a continued effort to identify areas for Zoning Code improvements and enhancements as the City grows and evolves. The Division also serves as the in-house environmental Staff to prepare environmental documents for City projects.
1131
104
Program Staffing
The Planning Division is made up of one Planning Manager, one Associate Planner. The Community Development Department shares a part-time administrative Assistant.

Program Objectives
• Process Development projects.
• Assist the City in economic development tasks, including the redevelopment of the City’s downtown and facilitation of current planning development projects. • Provide support to the Code Enforcement Division in matters involving land use and zoning.
• Continue to implement AB 939 to provide Oakley residents and businesses with new and expanded recycling and waste reduction programs. • SB 375 and AB 32 Implementation: Continue to participate in regional and local programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Develop a Climate Action Plan.
• Implement the Policy Action Programs in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. • Identify areas for improvement and enhance the zoning code. • Continue to monitor changes in State Laws that would require the General Plan to be amended.
• Serve as the City’s in-house environmental staff to prepare environmental documents for small to medium-sized City Capital Improvement and Park projects.

Program Changes
There are no proposed program changes for fiscal year 2023-2024. 1132
105
1133
106

BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT
Program Costs and Revenue
Revenues for these two divisions are comprised of building permit, plan check, inspection, building and code enforcement citations, rental dwelling unit inspection fees, and code enforcement re-inspection fees.

Program Description
The Building Division and Code Enforcement Division are part of the Community and Economic Development Department.

The Building Division is responsible for the administration and enforcement of building codes (California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical Codes, the National Electrical Code, and the International Property Maintenance Code). The Building Division provides minimum standards to safeguard public health and welfare, and property, by regulating and controlling the design of structures through plan review, construction of structures through field inspection to monitor quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures within the City of Oakley.

The Code Enforcement Division is responsible for ensuring all residential and commercial properties abide by municipal codes applicable to the health, safety, and quality of life for Oakley residents and business owners. This is achieved primarily by managing the property maintenance program and the Residential Dwelling Unit program. These requirements are met through pro-active on-site inspections, responding to citizen complaints, and educating the public through in-house developed community awareness programs.

Program Staffing
The Building Division consists of a part-time contract Building Official/ Permit Center Manager, and two full-time Building Inspector’s, and one full-time Permit Technician II and one Permit Technician I. The Code Enforcement Division consists of one full-time Code Enforcement Officer and two full-time Code Enforcement Technician’s. The Community and Economic Development Department shares a part-time administrative Assistant.
1134
107
Program Objectives
• Work with development community to ensure projects integrate Green Building and Energy Code design provisions that support energy efficiency and the reduction in construction waste to help in the reduction of greenhouse gases.
• Continue to refine internal processes within functions of the two divisions. • Improve customer experiences and efficiencies by expanding the use of existing technological programs for the permitting of projects.
• Maintain standard fifteen-day plan review as a maximum turnaround time but the Building Division’s goal is to review most simple projects within five days. • Provide inspections on the next workday upon request, same day when needed and as workload allows, and provide 2-hour inspection timeframe. • When needed, provide Friday, weekend or after-hour inspections when City Hall is normally scheduled for closure by utilizing after hour inspections. • Respond to all code enforcement inquires within one working day. • Issue over the counter type permits at a 95% rate, the same day. • Continue to work with property owners, realtors, and lending institutions whose buildings have fallen into disrepair.
• Work with Economic Development on commercial projects as well as other projects within the City that help to further the development of the City. • Continue to provide homeowner’s code compliance direction from plan submittal to final inspection by being focused on education and customer service. • Continually ensure the Building Division and Code Enforcement webpage is userfriendly. • Continue to provide updated training to staff on the adopted codes. • Work with homeowners and contractors to resolve issues in a professional, polite and progressive manner; prior to and during construction. • Improve the Residential Rental Property Inspection Program compliance rate. • Continue to make a positive impact in the City by enforcing the Property Maintenance Ordinance.
• Enhance enforcement of vacant/abandoned property maintenance standards. • Work with all departments, outside agencies and the contractor to ensure that all projects are constructed in the most efficient and cost effective way possible. • Work together to address and reduce unpermitted construction.

Program Changes
There are no proposed program changes for fiscal year 2023-2024. 1135
108
1136
109
1137
110
POLICE
Program Costs and Revenues
As the Police Department completes its seventh year since inception, we are more committed than ever to perform our role of providing the community of Oakley with high-quality and professional law enforcement services. We build on a strong foundation to ensure the success and long-lasting contributions of the Police Department to its community and local government. In reviewing this budget submission, you will find it to be a conservative goal towards the future of the department and the City. For FY 2023- 2024, the department will continue to deepen our available resources, develop our personnel, hone our skills, and introduce specific technology to better serve our residents.

Program Description
The Oakley Police Department’s principle responsibility is protecting life and property while preserving and safeguarding the public’s peace.

The Police Department takes a progressive stance policing the community. Officers respond to calls for service, investigate crimes, arrest criminal suspects, seek prosecution for criminal acts, and engage in crime prevention strategies with community members.

Uniformed officers provide proactive patrol operations and actively pursue those involved in illegal activity. Detectives investigate crimes against persons and property, cases involving missing persons, and death cases. The detectives also work closely with neighboring jurisdictions to track the criminal element.

Emphasis is placed on traffic safety, education, and enforcement. The Department conducts traffic collision investigations, identifies potential roadway hazards and works with other city departments to find reasonable traffic calming solutions to alleviate traffic concerns.

Department goals emphasize that each officer and professional staff recognize that daily activities and contacts with the community are an integral part of our community service effort. Each citizen contact is an opportunity to create a positive and lasting impression, enhance our community relationships, and gain a partner in public safety. The actions of each officer contribute to the community’s sense safety and confidence in our ability to provide professional police services.
1138
111
Program Staffing
The costs for fiscal year 2023-2024 are for fully-staffed department with 41 sworn FTE law enforcement positions. This submission includes the addition of one (1) officer for this fiscal year.

With the expansion of the Department the Chief of Police will set up a Special Operations Division. The Special Operations Division will be headed by a sergeant and the division will encompass the Traffic Enforcement Unit and the newly formed Special Services Team. The Special Services Team will consist of four officers, whose duty will be to focus on quality of life issues that impact the City of Oakley.

Program Objectives
• Make Oakley a clean and safe place to live and work through the protection of life and property.
• Promote outstanding customer service to the community throughout all levels of the police department.
• Continue working with the engineering department on traffic calming solutions for neighborhoods with a focus on traffic safety.
• Maintain average response times of under-five (5) minutes to emergency (Priority 1) calls, and under 13 minutes for less urgent (Priority 2) calls. • Continue the collaborative efforts with other city departments to properly address homelessness, providing assistance and seeking permanent housing when available.
• Ensure that all personnel remain current in their continued professional training, thereby meeting POST and NIMS training requirements.
• Continue to use technological advances as a force multiplier to assist officers with providing the Oakley community with the best possible service. • Partner with local fire departments and coordinate with local East Contra Costa County Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) members to enhance our response to a local emergency.
• Continue the expansion of both ALPR and situational awareness cameras to monitor key ingress/egress points throughout the City.
• Improve all staff’s knowledge and understanding of the Emergency Operations Response.
1139
112
Program Changes
The police department in FY 2023-2024 is adding one (1) officer full-time position to its sworn staff, bringing the total full-time sworn positions to forty-one (41). 1140
113
1141
114
This page intentionally left blank
1142
115
1143
116

PUBLIC WORKS/ ENGINEERING/MAINTENANCE &
PARKS
Program Description
The Public Works and Engineering Department provides street, drainage, traffic signal, facility, parks, and landscape maintenance through a combination of internal staff and outside contractors. The Department also administers design, construction inspection, and contract management for Capital Improvement projects within the City. The Department also implements the City’s Clean Water Program to ensure compliance with current NPDES requirements and permits; processes the plan reviews and inspects private development project grading and infrastructure improvements for compliance with City standards.

Program Changes
This Capital Improvement Program will continue to actively design and construct new infrastructure for the community to enhance the quality of life for residents. The maintenance operations will continue to focus on timely responses to various public inquiries and maintenance of City streets, parks, and facilities.

The Maintenance Division will continue to contract major park and landscape maintenance services. The in-house maintenance crew will focus on our park facilities to ensure that the quality of all park and facility infrastructure is kept at a high level. There will be an emphasis on cross-training of staff in all areas of streets, parks, and facility maintenance to better support the wide range of service requests that need to be accommodated by the department.

The overall goal of the above referenced programs is to improve and enhance the quality of all City infrastructure, and in turn, the quality of life for the residents of Oakley.

Staffing Changes
The Department has formed a cohesive team that services the needs of the community infrastructure. As the City continues to grow and more residents move to Oakley, so is the increased need for services that the Public Works Department provides for the community. The addition of new residential subdivisions and infrastructure that come under the maintenance of the Public Works Department, necessitate increased staffing to be able to provide maintenance services and to continue to have public infrastructure that is maintained to high standards.
1144
117
The Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-2024 budget includes the following staffing changes. The addition of two (2) Maintenance Workers to support a wide range of tasks for the maintenance of City parks and landscaping areas; and to run the programming, maintenance, and operations of the irrigation systems that service all the parks and landscaping areas. This is specialty work and is critical in coordinating the operation of the complex irrigation systems.

One (1) additional Custodial Worker will be added as well to better service the Recreation Center, Public Works Operations Building, and Entrepreneur Building. Currently the custodial services for the above-mentioned facilities are performed by an outside contractor. By hiring another Custodial Worker, it will not only save the City nearly $30K per year but also give staff flexibility and added support in the deploying of maintenance resources. The existing Part Time Administrative Assistant will be changed to a Full-Time position to support the increasing administrative service needs of the Public Works Operations Building
Revenues
The Public Works and Engineering budget relies on funds from a variety of sources, many of which restrict expenditures to specific categories.
• Gas Tax- Funds are restricted to “the planning, construction, improvement, maintenance, and operation of public streets and highways (and their related public facilities for non-motorized traffic), including the mitigation of their environmental effects, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, and the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes.” Anticipated Revenues-$1,269,107
• Senate Bill (SB) No. 1 Transportation Funding- The California Legislature passed SB 1 in 2017, raising gas taxes and vehicle fees which will generate tens of billions of dollars for municipalities and agencies to fix the state's road system. The funds that the City of Oakley receives as part of SB 1 will be used for various street repairs and resurfacing citywide. Anticipated Revenues- $1,100,866
• Measure J- These expenditures are restricted to the same uses as Gas Tax but can also be applied to transit improvements and operations, growth management planning and compliance, pedestrian and bicycle trail construction/maintenance/operation, parking facility development, and transportation efficiency program development and operation (ridesharing, 1145
118
etc.). Since Measure J contains a growth management component, funds may not be used to replace developer obligations that would otherwise not be publicly funded under the jurisdiction policy. Anticipated Revenues-$810,833 • Storm Water Utility Assessments- The City has adopted a Storm Water Management Plan, and based on the estimated maintenance, inspection, and administrative activities required to enact the plan; has established an annual parcel assessment. Anticipated Revenues-$563,310
• Traffic Impact Fee- The City of Oakley has an official Traffic Impact Fee program which funds the improvement of major roadways and signalized intersections; including the design, staff support, and construction management activities associated with private development projects. Anticipated Revenues- $1,785,396
• Park Impact Fee- The City of Oakley has an official Park Impact Fee program which funds the improvement of parks in the community. This Park Impact Fee is paid for by private developers as related to their respective projects.

Anticipated Revenues-$1,273,657
• Development Deposits/Permit Applications- Public Works and Engineering collects deposits for the review and inspection of final maps, grading plans and improvement plans related to development applications. In addition, fees are collected for encroachment permits, transportation permits, and documentation related to the FEMA Floodplain Management program. Actual staff expenditures are tracked and applied against a deposit, and refunds or additional deposits are made as necessary. Anticipated Revenues-$1,200,000 • Citywide Park Assessments- Zone 1 of the Oakley Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1 provides for the maintenance and utilities for citywide parks and landscaping facilities. Anticipated Revenues- $1,450,000 • Streetlight Assessments- Zone 2 of the Oakley Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1 provides for the maintenance and utilities for citywide street lighting. Anticipated Revenues - $255,000 • Neighborhood Landscaping Assessments - Zone 3 of the Oakley Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1 provides for the maintenance and utilities for Neighborhood Park and landscaping improvements throughout the City.

Zone 3 currently consists of 26 sub-zones, and revenues and expenditures are tracked at the sub-zone level. Anticipated Revenues - $3,120,000 1146
119
• Community Facilities District No. 1 - This District was formed in 2006 to fund the operations and maintenance of the levee system, stormwater pond, and the associated pump, force main, and outfall for the Cypress Grove development.

Landscape and lighting maintenance for the project are funded through a separate mechanism. Anticipated Revenues - $352,000
• Community Facilities District No. 2015-1 - This District was formed in 2015 to fund the operations and maintenance of the City’s Community and Regional Parks and the public neighborhood parks and landscaping, street lighting, and stormwater improvements associated with the Emerson Ranch development.

Anticipated Revenues - $1,135,00
• Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 - This District was formed in 2015 to fund the operations and maintenance of the City’s Community and Regional Parks and the public neighborhood parks and landscaping, street lighting, and stormwater improvements constructed with new developments. Anticipated Revenues - The revenue for FY 2023-2024 will depend on the number of new developments that annex into the District prior to the end of the current fiscal year and the timing of when improvements will be turned over to the City for maintenance. Anticipated Revenues - $1,900,000
• Community Facilities District No. 2018-1 - This District was formed in 2018 to provide a financing mechanism to mitigate new development’s financial impact on East Contra Costa County Fire District’s fire protection services that are provided to the City. Anticipated Revenues - The revenue for FY 2023-2024 will depend on the number of new developments that annex into the District prior to the end of the current fiscal year and the timing of new building permit issuances. Anticipated Revenues - $325,000
• Community Facilities District No. 2020-1- This District was formed in 2020 to fund a portion of the operations and maintenance associated with the City’s community parks, stormwater inspections, and maintenance of public landscaping, and street lighting associated with the Contra Costa Logistics Center project. Anticipated Revenues - $425,000.
• Police Special Tax Area (P-6) - This special tax provides funding for City police protection equipment and services. Anticipated Revenues - The revenue for FY 2023-2024 will depend on the type and number of new developments that 1147
120
annex into the Police Special Tax Area prior to the end of the current fiscal year.

Anticipated Revenues - $7,250,000
• General Fund- Since most of the funding sources for Public Works and Engineering are restricted to specific expenditures, it is recognized that some staff time and activities will require other funding sources. Those activities will be kept to a minimum, and eligible funding sources will continually be sought out.

PROGRAM AND STAFFING SUMMARY
The mission of Public Works and Engineering is to Steward Oakley’s infrastructure by utilizing a variety of maintenance, improvement, and service activities. Through a blend of contract and seasonal staffing and City staff, the Department provides its services to the community. The Department is managed by the Public Works Director and has 7 primary functions. The FY 2023-2024 Budget proposes the following operating areas and staffing:

Operating Areas
• Operations and Maintenance- One of the most important tasks for Public Works and Engineering is to maintain the City’s wide range of infrastructure. City staff will monitor and direct all maintenance activities, and maintenance services will be provided by both City staff and contract services. The individual maintenance elements are as follows:
• Roadway- Routine maintenance is necessary to keep the City’s road network operating in a safe and efficient manner. This includes pavement maintenance activities such as pothole patching, crack sealing, shoulder repair, signing and striping repair and replacement, and keeping the roadways free of obstructions via street sweeping and debris cleanup. As a supplement to the regular patrols of the maintenance staff, public works staff will field and investigate citizen requests to determine corrective action for conditions that may not be known or readily apparent. Since surface treatment projects like pavement overlays or chip seals tend to be extensive in nature, they are recognized as a Capital Improvement, and not included in this maintenance element. The City uses oncall maintenance service contractors to supplement City maintenance staff in performing various maintenance services (i.e. pavement repair and patching, curb, gutter, and sidewalk repair, striping, guard rail repair, etc.) The City’s maintenance staff will utilize these contract services to supplement in-house resources to better provide maintenance services for the community in a proactive way. 1148
121
• Signals & Lighting- The City owns and operates traffic signals at 40 separate intersections, as well as numerous pedestrian safety flashing lights throughout Oakley. In addition to traffic signals, the City owns and maintains well over 1,510 street lights throughout the community. There are some street lights that are owned and maintained by PG&E, in addition to the City owned street lights. Traffic Signal, Street Light, and Parking Lot Light maintenance is provided through a contract with a specialized electrical contractor who has the resources and expertise needed.
• Drainage- In order to minimize potential flooding, and to ensure that storm water is collected and conveyed properly in accordance to the regional storm water quality permits that the City operates under; maintenance staff will conduct routine inspection and service on the storm drainage system. These activities include catch basin cleaning, ditch cleaning, culvert flushing and repair, and inlet maintenance. Drainage maintenance will primarily be performed by the City’s maintenance staff in coordination with the on-call service contractor to supplement in-house resources and better provide maintenance service for the community.
• Parks and Landscaping- The City currently maintains 37 public parks. The City supplements the Oakley Union Elementary School District financially for the maintenance of another four (4) joint-use public park facilities. In addition, the City maintains thousands of square feet of public right of way landscaping, street median landscaping, and public trail corridors. The City’s park and landscape maintenance staff, and outside maintenance contract resources provide landscape maintenance services for the City. The Parks Division staff works diligently every day to provide the best quality of maintenance services for the City’s Parks and Landscaped medians and pathways. • Facilities- The City currently owns and manages multiple facilities, and the maintenance and operations of these facilities are under the Public Works Department to better align the service needs with maintenance resources that are available and managed by the Public Works Department. • Engineering Services- Engineering staff will supply technical services to assist with various City activities, ranging from design and construction of public works projects, to addressing requests and questions raised by the general public and officials. Also, Engineering staff, in collaboration with the City Planning and Economic Development Team, review and process various private development projects, from residential 1149
122
subdivisions to commercial building projects. The typical engineering services that may be provided include:
• Capital Project Engineering- Engineering staff performs design and construction management for all City public projects. A detailed explanation of this service is provided in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) section of the budget document.
• Traffic Engineering- Engineering staff throughout the year perform a variety of tasks associated with traffic engineering. These tasks will include: completing speed surveys to ensure that traffic citations issued by the Police Department are enforceable, implementing neighborhood traffic calming projects, coordinating activities with the Police Department Traffic Division on traffic safety projects around Oakley and especially at school sites, investigating citizen’s requests for traffic control devices and speed limit changes. • Private Development Engineering- Engineering staff review and process private development projects that are submitted to the City for construction. The scope and complexity of development projects vary from small office buildings to large residential subdivisions. Engineering staff work on each step of the entitlement process to ensure development projects are designed and constructed according to City standards and codes. In addition to addressing the engineering needs of development projects, Engineering staff coordinate regularly with the Community and Economic Development Department and Economic Development Manager to facilitate the development applications in Oakley.
• Surveying- The primary need for land surveying services are in the area of subdivision map review and will be funded by private developer deposits. The City utilizes contract services on an as-needed basis to address any land surveying service needs.
• Floodplain Management- Certain areas within the City are subject to periodic flooding, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires Oakley to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program so that flood insurance can be provided to affected property owners. As a result of participating in the program, the City must keep Flood Insurance Rate Maps for viewing by the public and must provide certain information upon request.

Additionally, the City will review and process applications to modify known floodplain boundaries.
1150
123
• Clean Water Program- The City’s joint municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and its participation in the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program necessitate several expenditures. Maintenance related activities have been accounted for in both the roadway and drainage maintenance categories. Other tasks include contributions to the Clean Water Program for staff and resources, illicit discharge investigation, industrial and commercial site inspections, and public outreach.
• Assessment District Engineering- To collect the funds for the City’s assessment district and community facilities district, an annual engineer’s report and associated budgets must be completed. The City has a contract with a financial services consultant for the processing and administration of this task, due to its specialized nature of work.
• Administration- The administration of the department has evolved over the years as the department restructuring took place. This process has been completed and it is anticipated that the department will move forward as a solid team with the staffing levels as follows:
• Public Works Director/City Engineer (1 FTE) – Day to day operations in Public Works and Engineering will be managed by the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Duties will include coordination with other City departments and outside agencies, consultant/maintenance/construction contract management, development review and coordination, public outreach, traffic calming, and a wide range of other activities.
• Administrative Specialist (1 FTE) – This City staff position performs a wide range of important tasks for the department including: contract administration and processing, budget preparation assistance, City Council reports, accounting, and vendor invoice processing, responding to inquiries, complaints and service requests by the public, issuance of permits, claims processing, department analyst and liaison, and general administrative tasks. The Administrative Specialist is supported by the Administrative Assistant in performing department support services.
• Administrative Assistant (1 FTE) – This City staff position assists the Public Works and Engineering staff, as well as the Maintenance Divisions with general administrative functions such as: answering phones, filing, records management, data entry, public inquiries, service requests and various administrative project tasks related to the general operation of the department. 1151
124
• Principal Civil Engineer, (1 FTE) – This City staff position manages work on the processing of private development projects and operation of the City’s traffic signal system to ensure that the systems are working efficiently, while keeping up with new technologies related to the maintenance and operation of the traffic signal system. The Principal Civil Engineer will also manage the new Traffic System Operations Center which will be used for the operation of the Downtown Oakley traffic signal systems and serve as the City Traffic Engineer.

The Principal Civil Engineer will also be leading the City’s NPDES stormwater permit program and working with the engineering and planning team to review and process park development projects. Other primary duties include the review and processing of private development projects and their related building permits and traffic control plans.
• Capital Projects Engineer, (1 FTE) - City staff position focuses on the design and construction of Capital Improvement Projects. The responsibilities of the position include management and administration, development, design, and construction of a wide range of Capital Improvement Projects. The Capital Projects Engineer also works collaboratively with State agencies in securing and processing various grants for Capital Improvement Projects for the City of Oakley.
• Public Works Inspector (1 FTE) - This City staff position provides inspection of work within the public right of way and all Capital Improvement Projects construction inspection services. The Public Works Inspector is also responsible for processing encroachment permits and for performing related construction inspections. Any additional inspection services will be provided by a contract Inspector as needed for private development projects.
• Engineering Technician (.80 FTE) - This City staff position provides a wide range of tasks related to the processing of private development projects, ranging from plan checking, permit issuance, and inspection services. The Engineering Technician will also perform.
• Street Maintenance Foreman (1 FTE) – This City staff position supervises the Street Maintenance Worker which is the crew for the street maintenance division who address the increasing maintenance needs of the City’s infrastructure. This maintenance team provides a wide range of maintenance services such as: pothole patching, storm drain cleaning and inspections, sign installation, pavement striping and marking, roadside brushing and spraying, and other maintenance services.
1152
125
• Street Maintenance Worker (1 FTE) – This City staff position provides a wide range of maintenance services such as: pothole patching, storm drain cleaning and inspections, sign installation, pavement striping and marking, roadside brushing and spraying, and other maintenance services.
• Parks and Landscape Maintenance Division Manager (1 FTE) - This City staff position manages the maintenance efforts for all publicly maintained streets, parks, and facilities within the city. The position develops and manages the division budget, monitors all water and utility uses associated with the facilities, schedules, and manages the work of the park and landscape maintenance contractors, and coordinates facility uses and service needs with the Recreation Department.
• Park Ranger (1 FTE) – This City staff position will enforce the laws and regulations related to the City’s parks and facilities. The Park Ranger will work cooperatively with the Police Department to assist in all issues related to illicit activities that may take place in the City’s parks and facilities. This position will provide park information to visitors and present interpretive programs, as well as perform an assortment of maintenance duties as needed. • Parks and Landscape Foreman (1 FTE) – This City staff position plans, schedules, and coordinates the in-house landscape maintenance staff, performs playground inspections, and assists with other parks and landscape operations.

This is a working foreman position that reports to the Division Manager. • Parks and Landscape Maintenance Worker (5 FTE) – These City staff positions perform various parks and landscape maintenance services for all City parks and landscaping zones to ensure the condition of these parks is maintained at the highest levels. One of the areas of focus will be the programming and operation of the irrigation systems that the City has deployed in its parks and landscaped zones to enhance the efficiency of the irrigation system. • Custodian (2.0 FTE) – These City staff positions perform the custodian services for City Hall, the Police Department, Recreation Center, Public Works Operations Building, and Entrepreneur Building daily to ensure staff and customer service needs are accommodated efficiently.
• Facility Maintenance Worker (1.0 FTE) – This staff position performs the facility maintenance services to all City owned facilities that include City Hall and 1153
126
Police Department, Recreation Center, Public Works Operations Building, Entrepreneur Center, 3070 Main Street, and 3080 Main Street buildings.

Program Objectives
The goals and objectives of the Public Works and Engineering Department for FY 2023- 2024 are:
• Focus on pro-active maintenance of the City’s infrastructure and facilities to protect the infrastructure assets of the community using a combination of in-house staff and contract services. This will be a key component of the quality of life for the community residents.
• Expand the Traffic Operations Center which will operate and monitor traffic signal operations on major roadways in Oakley in coordination with the Police Department. • Proactively, and in coordination with the Police Department, work with residents and neighborhood groups in resolving traffic and parking related issues and the implementation of traffic calming and parking programs. • Actively and proficiently implement the planned Capital Improvement Program and ensure timely project delivery within approved budgets and timelines. • Participate in regional engineering efforts such as Transplan, the City-County Engineering Advisory Committee, and the Contra Costa Clean Water Program to ensure that Oakley is recognized as a contributor and is represented in any funding programs.
• Actively pursue State and Federal grants to supplement funding for the City’s infrastructure improvement projects.
• Coordinate and collaborate with other City Departments to provide exemplary and proactive service to potential developers to enhance Oakley’s economic development opportunities.
1154
127
1155
128
1156
129

FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
Program Costs and Revenues
All costs are part of the City Administration and come from the General Fund.

Program Description
The Facilities Maintenance function is responsible for the cleanliness and general maintenance of City buildings. This Division is under the supervision of the Public Works Director.

Staffing Summary
The Division consists of a full-time Facilities Maintenance Custodian and two Custodians.

Program Objectives
Keep assigned areas and City buildings in a clean, neat, and orderly condition; perform minor building maintenance work; and perform related work as required.

Program Changes
There are no proposed program changes for FY 2023-2024. 1157
130
1158
131
1159
132

RECREATION
Program Costs and Revenues
Programs for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget are funded in part by the following revenues:

Group picnic area rentals, Recreation Center rentals, sports field rental fees, class fees, program fees, grants, and sponsorships. The majority of costs will be paid for with general purpose revenues and one time allocations of ARPA Funding.

Program Description
Recreation focuses on creating community through people, parks and programs. The Recreation Department provides diverse and innovative programming, offering programs and activities to citizens of all ages throughout the year. The programs promote physical health and wellness, improve community image and community pride, and provides opportunities for children, and adults in Oakley. The Recreation Department works in partnership with community organizations, non-profit organizations and commercial businesses to ensure quality recreation services for Oakley residents.

Staffing Summary
The Recreation Department consists of one Recreation Director, one Recreation and Event Coordinator, a full time Administrative Assistant and several part time seasonal Recreation Leaders and Aides.

Recreation Director- The Recreation Director is responsible for day to day operations of the Recreation Department, including After Youth School Programs, Youth CORE, Youth Advisory Council, City website, Government Outreach, Utility Box Mural Project Recreation Guide and various other assignments.

Recreation and Event Coordinator- The full-time Recreation and Events Coordinator is responsible for the Kids and Tots Programs, sports field rentals and Special Events.

Administrative Assistant- This full-time Administrative Assistant is responsible for reception duties, contract classes, group picnic area rentals, facility rentals.

Recreation Leaders, Aides and Facility Attendants- The City hires temporary and seasonal Recreation Leaders and Aides to assist with After School Programs, Summer Camps, Facility Rentals, Special Events, and other assignments. Recreation Leaders and Aides total 5.23 FTE.
1160
133
Program Objectives
The mission of The Recreation Department is to provide the residents of Oakley with quality programming meeting the following FY 2023-2024 objectives:
• Special Events- Special Events facilitated by the Recreation Department will continue our traditional annual special event programming include the Science Week Program, six Movies in the Plaza, Summer Fest, Kids Fishing Derby, Harvest Festival, Christmas Tree Lighting, Breakfast with Santa, Hometown Halloween Decorating Contest, Summer Concerts, Heart of Oakley, Hometown Holiday Decorating Contest, Art in the Park, Memorial Day, Veteran’s Day, and Juneteenth events as well as our Tiny Adventures mini special events for pre-school and school age children. • Youth Programs- The objective of youth programs is to provide safe and fun activities for kids after school, during the summer as well as on their breaks from school including After School Programming, Summer Fun Day Camp, Junior Recreation Leader Program, Youth Committed to Ongoing Revitalization Efforts Program, Youth Employment Workshop, Oakley’s Got Talent, Youth Business Awards and more. • Recreation Classes- The Recreation Department offers over 30 classes through the use of independent instructor contracts. Independent instructors also provide a number of seasonal camp programs designed to provide opportunities for kids and youth during school breaks.
• Park and Facility Rentals- The Recreation Department reserves sports fields, 4 group picnic areas and the Recreation Center.

Program Changes
The Recreation Department proposed budget incorporates changes made from last year’s budget. This includes the allocation of ARPA Funding to continue a free session of summer camp, and one free class for Oakley residents. Additionally, public art and expansion of event activities at Summer Fest, Heart of Oakley, and other special events. 1161
134
1162
135

TRANSFERS
Staff proposes nine transfers from the General Fund in Fiscal Year 2023-2024. $ 2,080,000 To Fund 201 for CIP Projects
$ 190,000 To Fund 503 – Technology for equipment upgrades and replacements $ 10,000 To Fund 187 to cover operational deficit
$ 5,831 To Fund 180 to cover operational deficit
1163
136

CAPITAL OUTLAY-LAND AQUISITIONS
There are no appropriations for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.
*Acquired property/assets through a settlement agreement between the City, Successor Agency, and State Department of Finance regarding the dissolution of the former Oakley Redevelopment Agency. ** Acquired 3570 Main Street, opened escrow on 310 4th Street & 305 5th Street 1164
137

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #1
(CYPRESS GROVE)
In October 2005, the City formed CFD #1 (Cypress Grove) to account for drainage maintenance activities in this new development. This was the first such district formed in the City and serves as a model for future developments. These activities are funded entirely by assessments to property owners.
1165
138
This page intentionally left blank
1166
139

OAKLEY CREEKSIDE PARK RESTORATION GRANT
This grant from the Delta Conservancy has the purpose of developing plans to restore 775 linear feet of Marsh Creek to provide habitat for native fish and wildlife. Various partners will be participating in the analysis including American Rivers, Inc., Contra Costa Flood District and the adjacent property owner/developer.
1167
140
This page intentionally left blank
1168
141

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA)
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) is a $1.9 trillion Coronavirus rescue package designed to facilitate the United States’ recovery from the devastating economic and health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The nearly $2 trillion price tag makes this economic rescue legislation one of the most expensive in U.S. history. The City of Oakley received $10,177,190 of ARPA funding. As a result of legislation referred to as the Final Rule, the City of Oakley was allowed to claim $10 million of those funds as an economic loss and that $10 million can be used to provide government services. The remaining $177,190 was claimed by the City as a partial-reimbursement for special COVID-19 sick leave that the City’s General Fund paid out to employees during the Pandemic.

In Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the Oakley City Council approved just over $5 million of ARPA program expenditures, with $50,000 for a broadband feasibility study and fiber master plan, $150,000 for a fire hydrant replacement program, $180,000 for a non-profit grant program, $34,000 for Oakley Summer Camp sponsorship, $50,000 for ARPA consultant services, $1 million for certain economic development programs related to local businesses, $250,000 for COVID-19 sick leave and other staff support, and $3.3 million for technology upgrades. Included in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 proposed expenditures were $400,000 for the design and construction of a drainage channel trash capture device, $300,000 for an emergency generator at the Recreation Center and $400,000 for a Bethel Island Road project. To date, just over $1 million of the $10.18 million of ARPA funds have been expended, with $566,120 expended in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and $445,532 in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget requests include an increase of $100,000 for the Emergency Generator project at the Recreation Center, $50,000 to complete the City Hall Rooftop Solar Power project, and $378,503 to help complete the East Cypress Road Widening project from Jersey Island Road to Bethel Island Road. The balance of the nearly $4.1 million is for previously approved budgets that have not been expended or encumbered. Much of the estimated 2022-2023 expenditures are tied to projects, such as the ERP Conversion project, that will take multiple years to complete. Appropriations for such projects will be carried forward and added to the Proposed 2023-2024 figures.

However, total expenditures of ARPA funds by the City of Oakley will not exceed the $10.18 million that has been awarded to the City of Oakley and must be expended by December of 2026. Please see the Capital Budget, attached, for further project detail. 1169
142
1170
143

DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION FUND
The City has developed an economic development revolving loan program. This fund was created so that the funding of the program, and ultimately the accounting for its activities can be tracked and reported on separately. Uses for loans will be made as approved by the City Council, pursuant to the program parameters.

In Fiscal Year 2015/16, the City received the transfer from the Oakley Redevelopment Successor Agency, the properties designated for “government use” and for “future development”. In order to track the rents and services related to these properties they are included in this fund and the name of the fund was changed from Economic Development Revolving Loan Program to Downtown Revitalization Fund to more accurately describe the activities tracked in this fund.
1171
144
This page intentionally left blank.
1172
145

SPORTS FIELD MAINTENANCE
The Sports Field Maintenance Fund is a special fund established first in Fiscal Year 2014- 2015. Recognizing that organized sports field usage results in the need for more intensive upkeep and maintenance, the Fund is used to account separately for the collection of fees from the ball field rentals (revenue) and expenditure of funds for an on-going maintenance program of the facilities. The funds are used for annual field renovation costs, equipment repair and replacement, supplies, and to employ a part-time sports field maintenance position.
1173
146
This page intentionally left blank.
1174
147

LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING DISTRICT
The City has a Lighting and Landscaping District with 3 zones:

Zone 1 – Fund 132 Community Parks
This zone is citywide and is used to maintain the City’s larger parks (3 acres or larger). It is funded primarily by assessments.

Zone 2 – Fund 133 Street Lighting
This zone provides street lighting for the entire City. It is funded primarily by assessments but does not generate sufficient revenues to be self-supporting. The Gas Tax Fund has been and is expected to continue to subsidize its operations. For fiscal year 2023-2024, the subsidy is estimated to be $190,000.

Zone 3 – Funds 170-195 Neighborhood Parks (made up of 26 sub-zones) This zone maintains the City’s smaller neighborhood parks. Each sub-zone generally represents a park or neighborhood with several parks and/or roadway landscaping. Each sub-zone is funded by assessments.

Several Park Zones do not have sufficient revenues to fully fund their Capital Asset Lifecycle Replacement Reserves. The Capital Asset Lifecycle Replacement Program establishes reserves necessary to ensure funds for asset replacements and remediation projects are available when needed. These reserves are used primarily to pay for longerterm replacement or remediation activities, periodic tree pruning (performed on a 7 year cycle), and streetscape replacements (on a 20 year cycle); although they may be used for the replacement, improvement or remediation of any asset or amenity in the Zone or subZone. 19 of the City’s 26 zones were formed by the County prior to incorporation, and most of them do not have sufficient annual revenues to both operate and fund an appropriate contribution to their replacement reserves. While no existing critical need is going unaddressed at present, Staff continues to work to find ways to ensure these long-term future needs are met.

Below are a series of tables showing the revenues and expenditures for each fund. The City’s policies require the budgets consider lifecycle replacement reserves be considered as a part of the budget development process. As a result, some funds show revenues in 1175
148
excess of expenditures – in which case the surplus will become contributions to the reserve; and some funds show expenditures in excess of revenues– reflecting the need to use reserves for replacements and remediation activities during the year. 1176
149
1177
150
1178
151
1179
152
1180
153
1181
154
1182
155
1183
156
1184
157
1185
158
1186
159
1187
160
1188
161
1189
162
1190
163
1191
164
This page intentionally left blank.
1192
165
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #2015-1
(EMERSON RANCH)
The City of Oakley formed Community Facilities District No. 2015-1 (Emerson Ranch Maintenance) (“CFD”) on January 13, 2015. The City of Oakley has a separate fund to account for the CFD revenues and expenditures. Each year the City levies a special tax on parcels within the CFD to augment their financial impact to the City’s services budget for regional, community and neighborhood parks, street lighting, neighborhood landscaping and stormwater services. In FY 2020/2021, these district were split into individual funds to better track revenues and expenditures.
1193
166
1194
167
1195
168
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #2015-2A
The City of Oakley formed Community Facilities District No. 2015-2 (Parks, Street Light, Landscape and Stormwater Services) (“CFD”) on January 12, 2016. Each year the City levies a special tax on parcels within the CFD to augment their financial impact to the City’s services budget for regional, community and neighborhood parks, street lighting, neighborhood landscaping and stormwater services. In FY 2020-2021 this district were split into individual funds to better track revenues and expenditures. 1196
169
1197
170
1198
171
1199
172
1200
173
1201
174
1202
175
1203
176
1204
177
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #2018-1
The City of Oakley formed Community Facilities District No. 2018-1 (Fire Protection) (“CFD”) in September of 2018. The City of Oakley has a separate fund to account for the CFD revenues and expenditures. Each year the City levies a special tax on parcels within the CFD to augment financial impacts. All revenues received, excluding administrative costs, are paid to the fire district to offset fire protection expenses. 1205
178
1206
179
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT #2020-1
The City of Oakley formed Community Facilities District No. 2020-1 (Parks, Street Light, Landscape and Stormwater Services) (“CFD”) in April of 2020. The City of Oakley has a separate fund to account for the CFD revenues and expenditures. Each year the City levies a special tax on parcels within the CFD to augment their financial impact to the City’s services budget for regional, community and neighborhood parks, street lighting, neighborhood landscaping and stormwater services.
1207
180
This page intentionally left blank
1208
181

ROAD MAINTENANCE FUNDS
The City has four Special Revenue funds used mostly for Road Maintenance: the Gas Tax Fund, the Road Maintenance & Rehab Fund (SB1), the Measure J Fund, and the Streets Maintenance & Rehab Fund.

GAS TAX FUND
The Gas Tax Fund is used to account for the City’s share of local gas tax revenues and congestion management funds received from the State. These revenues are for the research, planning, construction, improvement, maintenance, and operation of public streets and highways (and their related public facilities for non-motorized traffic), including the mitigation of their environmental effects, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, and the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes. The City uses them for local roadway maintenance, roadway projects, and to subsidize the Street Lighting Fund.
*This account moved to fund 141 in FY 2021
1209
182

ROAD MAINTENANCE & REHAB FUND
The Road Maintenance & Rehab Fund is used to account for the City’s share of SB1 revenues received from the State. These revenues are an ongoing revenue source for the purpose of addressing deferred maintenance on the local streets and roads. The City uses them for local roadway maintenance and rehabilitation projects. Prior to FY 2021 these revenues and expenditures were part of the Gas Tax Fund (140). 1210
183

MEASURE J
The Measure J Fund is used to account for the City’s share of the voter-approved 1/2% sales tax for transportation projects. Measure J was passed by the voters as a successor tax to Measure C. Both are restricted to the same uses as Gas Tax revenues but can also be applied to transit improvement and operations, growth management planning and compliance, pedestrian and bicycle trail construction/maintenance/operations, parking facility development, and transportation efficiency program development and operations (ridesharing, etc.). The City uses its Measure J tax revenues for local roadway maintenance and roadway projects.
1211
184

STREETS MAINTENANCE & REHAB FUND
The Streets Maintenance Reserve Fund was first established in Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and received its first funding in Fiscal Year 2014-2015. Contributions to this Fund are largely expected to be transfers in from the General Fund. Street maintenance follows the longterm lifecycle of the streets themselves, and as a result, long-term costs are best contained by ensuring maintenance is performed routinely. The Streets Maintenance Reserve Fund was formed to provide: 1) a place to set aside funds so that maintenance activities remain available in both good times and bad, 2) a place to save up funds for more significant future maintenance projects, and 3) to be a reserve for funding unexpected projects or higher than planned project costs on critical maintenance projects. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the Fund is being renamed as the Streets Maintenance and Rehab Fund, as the emphasis will be on expending the necessary dollars to maintain and rehabilitate City streets as much as possible every year, rather than attempting to set aside funds for future projects. It has been estimated that it would take roughly $7 million per year to keep the streets in desirable condition. Since we don’t currently have sufficient funding for such street maintenance costs, the City has made the commitment to contribute at least $2 million per year, with annual increases of 4%, to maintain its streets on a prioritized basis.

As part of the City’s plan to improve its streets in Fiscal Year 2023-2024, the City has elected to utilize $2.2 M for the construction of the East Cypress Widening project (CIP 310), $1M for the Completion if FY 2022-23 Streets Repair & Resurfacing Project (CIP 279), $50K for the FY2023-24 ADA Implementation (CIP 304) and $30K for the pedestrian Crossing Lighting System on O'Hara Avenue at Trail Crossing Project (CIP 294) from existing fund balances. The $2,080,000 transfer from the General Fund for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 will go to the General Capital Projects Fund (Fund 201) for the East Cypress Widening project (CIP 310).
1212
185

STORM WATER PROGRAM FUND
The City has a separate fund to account for its Storm Water Program activities. The program is funded by assessments on property owners and pays for storm water and pollution runoff management activities mandated by the Federal Government. 1213
186
This page intentionally left blank
1214
187

POLICE SERVICE FUNDS
The City has two police service funds: The P-6 Fund and the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF). The P-6 Fund is where the City accounts for the City’s police services special tax, all of which are budgeted to augment general fund resources in funding the Police Department budget. The SLESF is where the City accounts for Supplemental Law Enforcement Grants from the State. In FY 2020-2021 the City was awarded an Office of Traffic Safety police grant. This was a one-time grant and not anticipated each year.
1215
188
1216
189
1217
190
This page intentionally left blank
1218
191

DEVELOPER DEPOSITS FUND
The City has a separate fund to account for developer deposits and related development application processing costs. The revenues are earned only as work is performed and costs incurred. All deposits that are unused in the application review process are returned to the applicant when the review is completed. 1219
192
This page intentionally left blank.
1220
193

SUCCESSOR HOUSING ASSETS
Successor Housing Assets
The City is the Successor Housing Agency to the now dissolved Oakley Redevelopment Agency and the City Successor Housing Assets Fund is used to account for all related City Housing activity.

Program Costs and Revenues
Funding is provided by the repayment of housing loans. Most housing loans are repayable from affordable housing developers when the project’s rents meet certain hard thresholds and produce what are called “residual receipts” (amounts more than the thresholds). The City has one project which currently is forwarding residual receipts payments in accordance with its loan. A portion of the receipts are retained in the Successor Housing Assets Fund, and a portion is deposited in the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency’s Operating Fund, each receiving a share in proportion to their contribution to the original amount loaned. Program costs are currently limited to staff and internal administrative support costs for the program. Proceeds in any year that are not utilized for program costs are used to pay prior Redevelopment Agency obligations for Impact Fees on affordable housing projects.

Program Description
The Planning Division provides housing program oversight to ensure developer compliance with the terms of any agreements with the City or the dissolved Oakley Redevelopment Agency.

Staffing Summary
The work is performed by the Community and Economic Development Director and his time is charged to the program on an hourly basis.

Program Objectives
The primary operating objectives for the program in the fiscal year is to ensure Developers continue to comply with their obligations. There are no significant changes to the Department’s objectives. To the extent costs are less than funds available, the balance will be used towards paying down a portion of the $1.3 million in deferred impact fee obligations from prior affordable housing projects that remain outstanding.

Program Changes
There are no increases in regular staffing levels or significant one-time costs proposed. 1221
194
Note: The Successor Housing Assets Fund was established in February 2012 as a result of the Dissolution Act that dissolved redevelopment agencies throughout California. 1222
195

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Program Costs and Revenues
Debt Service Funds are where we account for the principal, interest, and administrative costs associated with the City’s debt.

Program Description
The City currently has one debt outstanding:
• The 2016 Lease Revenue Bond was issued by the City’s financing Authority to refund the 2006 Certificates of Participation and issue new debt of $4,000,000 to pay for the first phase of the City of Oakley Recreation Center. It’s being repaid with Public Facilities Impact Fees.

Staffing Summary
No staffing is permanently allocated to debt management; however, the Finance Department ensures the City complies with financial reporting requirements and interfaces with contracted administrators, trustees, bond counsel, rating agencies, and others in meeting the Agency’s bond covenants. The City hires NBS Financial as its dissemination agent, and U.S. Bank as trustee and Fiscal Agent.

Program Objectives
The primary operating objectives for the City remain unchanged for the fiscal year 2021- 2022: to make the debt service payments, to oversee the services provided by the contractors, and to ensure the preparation of all required public reporting.

Program Changes
No program changes for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.
1223
196
DEBT SERVICE 2016 LEASE REVENUE BONDS
FUND 351
DEBT LISTING:

REMAINING DEBT SERVICE:

Transfers In Interest Income Total Revenues
$666,769 $0 $666,769

ESTIMATED REVENUES
1224
197
CAPITAL BUDGET AND 5-YEAR CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
The Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a major public infrastructure and planning tool for the City of Oakley. The CIP serves as a statement of the City's policies and financial abilities to manage the development of the community. The creation of a five- year CIP provides a systematic plan for providing infrastructure improvements within a prioritized framework and a general schedule for projects to proceed. Projects identified in the CIP meet the City’s General Plan. The first year reflects the adopted budget for the upcoming fiscal year (FY) and includes revenue and expenditure detail by project, whereas the Operating Budget only includes total revenues and expenditures by fund. The remaining four years represent a schedule and estimate of future capital needs that may be funded, given projected revenues and priorities.

There are several benefits for developing and adopting a Capital Improvement Program. Not only does the CIP become a management tool for the City Council and City staff; a CIP also provides valuable information to the citizens, developers, and businesses who are interested in the development of the community. The CIP document will assist in leveraging available resources through the timing of projects, and the coordination of City projects with improvements constructed by otherentities.

Despite the many benefits of a CIP, it is important to highlight the fact that this is a planning document. Changes can occur for many reasons. Revenues can fluctuate as a result of changing economic conditions or shifts in City policy. Private economic decisions can also affect the timing, scale, and location of capital projects. The City of Oakley’s CIP reflects the Strategic Goals of the City Council and is a critical investment tool for the community to help promote the economic vitality and viability for the City of Oakley.

The focus of the proposed CIP for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 through Fiscal Year 2027-2028 is to maintain the core infrastructure of the City of Oakley utilizing the most cost effective and creative approach. The CIP continues to prioritize and build new infrastructure for the community, which will enhance the quality of life for residents. In preparation of the CIP for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, a comprehensive review of prospective projects was performed.
1225
198
The CIP for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 is divided into specific projects to address unique needs for each component of the City’s infrastructure system (i.e. Streets, Parks & Facilities). This approach provides funding for the infrastructure maintenance, construction of new improvements, and the long-range goals for protecting the quality of the public infrastructure system in the City of Oakley.

The funding for CIP projects are generally from the following sources: Measure J Sales Tax, Gas Tax, Development Traffic Impact Fees, Development Park Impact Fees, Federal & State Grants, Assessment District Funds, and the City’s General Fund. The revenues from Development Traffic Impact Fees and Development Park Impact Fees are dependent upon the private development activity and regional economic growth. The CIP for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 conservatively budgets a portion of these funding sources to account for unforeseen downturns in the regional economic and development activity.

There is a direct relationship between CIP project construction, economic development, and the vitality of the community. New residents want to come and live in a community that is vibrant and provides a wide range of amenities (i.e. new Recreation Center, Library, etc.). Commercial developers also look to build in communities that thrive and provide amenities for today’s lifestyle. The construction of CIP projects helps to enhance amenities and the quality of life for the community residents, which in turn makes Oakley a desired community for private development. The increase in the level of private development activity will provide opportunities for the City to undertake projects with various infrastructure improvements to complement the private development projects.

The summary on the following page shows total capital project expenditures by fund. For further details, please refer to the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), attached to this Operating Budget document, beginning on page CIP-1.
1226
199
Capital Projects Expenditure Summary
by Funding Source
Estimated Proposed
FY 2019/2020 FY 2020/2021 FY 2021/2022 FY 2022/2023 FY 2023/2024 Fund # Fund Name
110 Cypress Grove CFD NO. 1 $0 $0 $213,182 $1,338,143 $199,000 120 ARPA 0 0 0 1,100,000 528,503
132 Parks Landscaping Assessment Zone 1 0 0 0 250,000 60,000 138 Downtown Revitalization 44,426 11,002 0 0 0
140 Gas Tax HUTA 0 0 0 536,000 600,000
141 Gas Tax RMRA 0 81,033 1,033,396 2,229,199 955,000
145 Stormwater Fund 109 1,002 107,516 240,340 0
148 Measure J 328,656 366,971 1,750 1,440,000 1,460,000 189 Marsh Creek Glen (Zone 3-20) 0 0 0 0 200,000
191 Cypress Grove (Zone 3-22) 0 0 0 0 150,000
194 Magnolia Park (Zone 3-25) 0 0 0 0 150,000
201 General Capital Projects 546,044 1,482,275 858,159 7,386,832 4,064,376 202 Traffic Impact Fee 424,607 4,233,983 858,159 13,265,613 3,344,060 204 Park Impact Fee 52,086 472,852 69,439 7,631,009 1,100,000 206 Public Facilities Impact Fee 0 0 0 689,500 0
221 2012 Bond Benefit 0 109,581 55,090 62,377 0
231 Main Street Fund 85,261 70,752 1,408,699 1,257,049 0 232 Regional Park Fund 413,743 38,685 46,500 25,339 0
235 Street Maintenance & Rehab 0 269,378 2,558,152 2,100,000 3,280,000 351 2016 Debt Service 0 0 0 35,000 0
407 Emerson Ranch Storm Water (CFD 2015-1) 0 0 0 20,000 0 502 Facilities Fund 0 0 245,436 657,479 200,000
Total $1,894,933 $7,137,515 $7,455,479 $40,263,880 $16,290,939 Remaining Available Fund Balances $24,090,148 $36,234,542 $40,616,278 $26,100,340 $29,185,427 Expenditures
As can be seen above, total proposed capital project expenditures for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 amount to nearly $16.3 million, leaving total estimated Available Fund Balances of nearly $29.2 million between all of these capital project funds. Total estimated capital project expenditures from Fiscal Year 2022-2023 of nearly $40.3 million reflect an exceptional year of investment into the City’s infrastructure. However, projects often take more than one year to complete, and the budgets for those uncompleted projects will be carried forward into subsequent fiscal years.
1227
200
This page intentionally left blank
1228
201

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Program Costs and Revenues
The City’s Internal Service Funds are used to establish reserves for equipment replacement, vehicle maintenance and replacement, and for capital facilities maintenance and replacement. The Fleet Internal Service Fund (Fund 501) charges departments for their share of the costs related to the maintenance and replacement of their respective vehicles. The Capital Facilities Maintenance and Replacement Fund (Fund 502) and the Technology Internal Service Fund (Fund 503) depend on transfers from the General Fund to maintain and replace facilities and equipment as needed. No transfer into Fund 502 is proposed for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 because sufficient funds are available to cover the proposed expenditures in that fund. The funds transferred from the General Fund or charged directly to the departments come partially from taxes and partially from fees and other revenues.

Program Description
The City charges all of its departments for a share of the costs that are determined necessary each year, according to City policies, to keep the reserves for equipment, vehicle maintenance and replacement and capital facilities maintenance and replacement appropriately funded; and the proceeds are transferred to these Internal Service Funds.

Asset replacement and significant facilities maintenance costs are then paid for by these funds.

Staffing Summary
Staff time related to asset replacement activities and accounting for these funds is charged to the funds.

Program Objectives
The Fleet Internal Service Fund budget includes expenditures to replace and outfit: four Police patrol vehicles, one Police administrative vehicle and one traffic motorcycle. The Capital Facilities Maintenance and Replacement Fund budget includes expenditures for remodeling of the Public Works Operations Building (PWOB). The Technology Internal Service Fund budget includes expenditures to replace or update certain equipment and warranties.
1229
202
Program Changes
The Fleet Internal Services Fund will increase the Fleet Police Services Assistant position from part-time to full-time in Fiscal Year 2023-2024, to help meet the increasing needs of the Fleet program. No program changes are proposed for the Capital Facilities or Technology Internal Service Funds.
1230
203
FUND 501 FLEET INTERNAL SERVICE FUND
*Amounts shown include equipment and installation/implementation costs. * Transfer In from the General Fund Since Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the Fleet Internal Service Fund handles all Fleet activities and charges the various departments for their share of the costs related to vehicle maintenance, vehicle replacements and vehicle leases. Prior to Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the General Fund would make occasional contributions into Fund 501 for the purchase of replacement vehicles. Under the new accounting methods for this Fund, each department is charged to have its vehicles maintained and replaced after a specified amount of time.

In Fiscal Year 2020-2021, the City started leasing certain vehicles, which were to be sold off and replaced with other leased vehicles at the end of their one-year lease. However, at the end of the one-year leases, no vehicles were available to replace the vehicles that the City had been leasing. So, the City opted to purchase those vehicles and discontinue the leasing program until the automotive industry has stabilized. 1231
204
FUND 502 CAPITAL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE &

REPLACEMENT FUND
Revenues
$0
Total Revenues $0
Expenditures
Capital Improvement $200,000
Repairs & Maintenance 0
Interfund Charges 710
Total Expenditures $200,710
Transfers in
The available fund balance in Fund 502 is projected to be $232,354 as of July 1, 2023. Staff do not believe that amount is sufficient to meet the policy target of enough to pay for 5 years’ estimated costs. However, the balance is sufficient to cover the cost of the Public Works Operations Building Remodel project. The City plans to set up a Facilities Internal Service Fund in Fiscal Year 2025-2026 for the purpose of maintaining City facilities and setting aside sufficient funds for future major capital improvements. The process will take place as part of the final phase of the conversion to the new Tyler Enterprise ERP system, which phase is scheduled to begin in June of 2025.
1232
205
FUND 503 TECHNOLOGY INTERNAL SERVICE FUND
Revenues
$190,000
Total Revenues $190,000
Expenditures
Capital Improvement $190,000
Interfund Charges 0
Total Expenditures $190,000
Transfers in
*Transfer In from the General Fund
1233
206

AGENCY FUNDS
Program Costs and Revenues
The Agency Funds included below contain the principal, interest, and administrative costs associated with debt issued by City Assessment Districts. All of these costs are supported by special assessments. No General Fund support is required or anticipated, and they are not backed by the full faith and credit of the City. They are secured only by the assessments.

Program Description
The City currently has two Assessment District debts outstanding:
• The 2004-1 Assessment District Bond. It was issued to acquire infrastructure assets in the Cypress Grove and Live Oak Ranch areas and is being repaid from special assessments levied on property owners in the two developments. • The 2006-1 Assessment District Bond. It was issued to acquire infrastructure assets in the Magnolia Park and Riata areas and is being repaid from special assessments levied on property owners in the two developments.

Staffing Summary
No staffing is permanently allocated to managing these funds; however, the Finance Department ensures the City complies with financial reporting requirements and interfaces with contracted administrators, trustees, bond counsel, rating agencies, and others in meeting the Agency’s bond covenants. The City hires NBS Financial to administer its assessments and Wells Fargo as trustee and Fiscal Agent.

Program Objective
The primary operating objectives for the City remain unchanged for fiscal year 2023-2024:
to ensure the assessment and collection of the assessments, to make the debt service payments, oversee the services provided by the contractors, and ensure the preparation of all required public reporting.

Program Changes
No program changes.
1234
207
2004-1 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT
Fund 621
DEBT LISTING:
2004-1 AD Cypress Grove/Live $10,496,000
REMAINING DEBT SERVICE:
1235
208
2006-1 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT
FUND 622
DEBT LISTING:

REMAINING DEBT SERVICE:
1236
209
10 YEAR PLAN
The 10 Year Plan is the City’s tool for evaluating our success in ensuring service sustainability. It is organized by revenue type and function; and includes an indication of the general character of the revenues and expenditures shown as either recurring or onetime in nature.

For purposes of the 10 Year Plan, if a revenue class is likely to be recurring for a period of 5 years or more, we treat it as recurring. This includes certain development-related fees that can be, as current times prove, less predictable. For instance, building permit revenue will always exist, but it is more sensitive to economic changes than property taxes. In accordance with the City’s Financial Policies, the Plan is based on what we believe are reasonable, conservative assumptions.

As always, since the Plan includes both general purpose and special purpose (assigned) revenues, it’s important to reiterate that the while the City may fund eligible programs with both restricted and unrestricted funds, its policy is to apply restricted funds to such programs first, followed by general purpose revenues if necessary. Reviewing this is important in order to establish in general the reason the rollover balances (excluding reserves) for assigned revenues are smaller in the Plan.

Overall, the Plan is intended to help us see where we are succeeding in achieving service sustainability and where we must improve, and it should be reviewed with this goal in mind. In particular, loans, transfers, and subsidies are shown separately and should be examined to determine and consider why they are necessary or desirable, if they should continue over the long-term, or whether these funds are better allocated to higher priorities.

Staff’s Conclusions and Recommendations
The Plan included on the following pages confirms that from a service sustainability perspective, the Preliminary Budget is structurally balanced, and it provides a look forward at how, with discipline, it can remain that way.

Certainly, the City’s near-term position is improved when compared to recent years, and although there is still a backlog of restoration to accomplish, the near-term Plan for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 helps in moving that restoration forward. 1237
210
The transition to a mostly in-house Police Department was completed in Fiscal Year 2015- 16, and as a result, during the 10 Year Period, a more aggressive approach to keeping police staffing on pace with new development is possible, as well as continuing the gradual restoration of other services that had been reduced during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The General Fund reserve balance remains healthy, and in compliance with the City’s new policy of at least 30% of expenditures. The Plan shows its balance remaining stable over the 10-year period. However, the Plan includes certain assumptions that are likely to change over time, and further adjustments may be needed to remain in compliance with the City’s policy.

Lastly it is useful to remind ourselves, especially in improving times, that developing a “Plan” that remains in balance can be more easily resolved in the math, while the work to ensure the organization remains positioned to actually stay in balance requires both vigilance and discipline.
1238
211

GENERAL FUND SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
10 YEAR PLAN
The City of Oakley Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Operating Budget has been prepared to ensure that recurring revenues remain in excess of recurring expenditures. The chart above and the table on the following page show that total General Fund Revenues are projected to exceed expenditures and leave an available fund balance, which represents undesignated fund balances in excess of the 30% General Fund Reserve Policy. In Fiscal Year 2022-2023, it is estimated that total expenditures will exceed revenues by $6.1 million. However, $7.2 million of expenditures are coming from General Fund Capital Reserves that were designated for that purpose in past years, rather than from current year revenues.

Therefore, that $7.2 million of expenditures is not reflected in the chart above as impacting the Available Fund Balance, which is also referred to as the Undesignated Fund Balance.

Total General Fund revenues in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 are projected to exceed total General Fund expenditures by $190,000.
1239
212
10 YEAR PROJECTION SUMMARY
FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 29,762,108 30,414,665 32,075,856 34,200,076 35,989,728 TOTAL SALARY EXPENDITURES 15,244,406 16,877,966 17,853,085 18,388,677 19,340,337 TOTAL RECURRING EXPENDITURES 10,591,689 11,130,634 11,501,398 11,974,229 12,546,184 TOTAL ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES 10,380,000 2,285,831 2,627,264 2,982,355 3,351,649 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 36,216,095 30,294,431 31,981,746 33,345,261 35,238,170 NET GENERAL OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENDITURES) (6,453,987) 120,234 94,109 854,815 751,558 ESTIMATED BEGINNING UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE 10,158,633 10,904,646 11,024,880 11,118,990 11,973,804 NET GENERAL OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENDITURES) (6,453,987) 120,234 94,109 854,815 751,558 TRANSFER FROM RESERVE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS 7,200,000
ESTIMATED ENDING UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE 10,904,646 11,024,880 11,118,990 11,973,804 12,725,362 30% RESERVE (7,750,828) (8,402,580) (8,806,345) (9,108,872) (9,565,956) $1 MILLION ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY RESERVE (1,000,000) (1,000,000) ESTIMATED AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE 2,153,818 1,622,300 2,312,645 2,864,933 3,159,406 10 YEAR PROJECTION SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 37,842,101 39,365,427 40,957,242 42,798,194 44,536,368 TOTAL SALARY EXPENDITURES 19,920,548 20,968,164 21,597,209 22,695,125 23,375,979 TOTAL RECURRING EXPENDITURES 13,062,975 13,687,121 14,252,006 14,933,170 15,550,680 TOTAL ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES 3,735,715 4,135,144 4,550,549 4,982,571 5,431,874 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 36,719,237 38,790,429 40,399,764 42,610,866 44,358,533 NET GENERAL OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENDITURES) 1,122,864 574,998 557,478 187,327 177,835 ESTIMATED BEGINNING UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE 12,725,362 13,848,226 14,423,224 14,980,702 15,168,030 NET GENERAL OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENDITURES) 1,122,864 574,998 557,478 187,327 177,835

TRANSFER FROM RESERVE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS
ESTIMATED ENDING UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE 13,848,226 14,423,224 14,980,702 15,168,030 15,345,865 30% RESERVE (9,895,057) (10,396,586) (10,754,765) (11,288,488) (11,677,998) $1 MILLION ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY RESERVE
ESTIMATED AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE 3,953,169 4,026,639 4,225,938 3,879,541 3,667,867 1240
213
10 YEAR PROJECTION – REVENUE
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected PROPERTY TAXES 4,650,000 4,929,000 5,150,805 5,382,591 5,624,808 5,877,924 6,142,431 6,418,840 6,707,688 7,009,534 PROPERTY TAX IN LEU OF VLF 4,639,930 4,918,326 5,139,651 5,370,935 5,612,627 5,865,195 6,129,129 6,404,940 6,693,162 6,994,354 SALES AND USE TAXES 3,200,000 3,100,000 3,239,500 3,385,278 3,537,615 3,696,808 3,863,164 4,037,006 4,218,672 4,408,512 ST MOTOR VEH IN LIEU TAX 49,000 46,000 48,070 50,233 52,494 54,856 57,324 59,904 62,600 65,417 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (10%) 230,000 230,000 240,350 251,166 262,468 274,279 286,622 299,520 312,998 327,083 PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX 200,000 200,000 209,000 218,405 228,233 238,504 249,236 260,452 272,172 284,420 FRANCHISE 2,162,000 2,674,000 2,794,330 2,920,075 3,051,478 3,188,795 3,332,291 3,482,244 3,638,945 3,802,697 BUSINESS LICENSES 155,000 180,000 188,100 196,565 205,410 214,653 224,313 234,407 244,955 255,978 TRAFFIC FINES 50,000 85,000 88,825 92,822 96,999 101,364 105,925 110,692 115,673 120,879 INTEREST INCOME - 370,000 386,650 404,049 422,231 441,232 461,087 481,836 503,519 526,177 SUBTOTAL GENERAL PURPOSE 15,335,930 16,732,326 17,485,281 18,272,118 19,094,364 19,953,610 20,851,522 21,789,841 22,770,384 23,795,051

FEE/REIMBURSEMENT REVENUE
BUILDING PERMITS/PLAN CHECK/RENTAL INSPECT 1,985,500 1,223,200 1,467,840 1,957,120 2,201,760 2,446,400 2,446,400 2,446,400 2,556,488 2,556,488 ENGINEERING FEES 25,500 25,500 26,648 27,847 29,100 30,409 31,778 33,208 34,702 36,264 PLANNING FEES 38,300 28,000 29,260 30,577 31,953 33,391 34,893 36,463 38,104 39,819 LAW ENFORCEMENT FEES 135,400 160,800 168,036 175,598 183,500 191,757 200,386 209,403 218,827 228,674 RECREATIONS FEES 47,500 118,000 121,540 125,186 128,942 132,810 136,794 140,898 145,125 149,479 CITY ADMINISTRATION FEES 910,000 750,000 899,950 1,199,850 1,349,800 1,499,750 1,499,750 1,499,750 1,567,228 1,567,228 INTERFUND COST RECOVERY (OPERATIONS) 11,062,178 11,142,039 11,643,431 12,167,385 12,714,917 13,287,089 13,885,008 14,509,833 15,162,776 15,845,100 INTERFUND COST RECOVERY (GRANT REIMB) 22,000 11,000 - - - - - - - - OTHER MISC FEES/CHARGES 199,800 223,800 233,871 244,395 255,393 266,886 278,896 291,446 304,561 318,266 SUBTOTAL FEE/REIMBURSEMENT REVENUE 14,426,178 13,682,339 14,590,575 15,927,957 16,895,364 17,888,491 18,513,904 19,167,401 20,027,810 20,741,317 TOTAL GENERAL OPERATING REVENUE 29,762,108 30,414,665 32,075,856 34,200,076 35,989,728 37,842,101 39,365,427 40,957,242 42,798,194 44,536,368 1241
214
10 YEAR EXPENDITURE PROJECTION
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected

DEPARTMENT SALARIES
Animal Control - - - - -
City Council 30,532 29,795 30,987 31,916 32,874
City Clerk 391,353 448,605 466,549 480,546 494,962
Elections - - - - -
City Attorney 32,673 35,696 37,124 38,238 39,385
City Manager 537,601 640,038 665,640 685,609 706,177
Community Outreach - - - - -
Finance 732,251 760,676 791,103 814,836 839,281
Human Resources 466,220 402,597 418,701 431,262 444,200 Maintenance Custodial 191,130 284,734 296,123 305,007 314,157 Information Technology - - - - -
Economic Development 139,077 150,095 156,099 160,782 165,605 Building Inspection 526,217 548,643 570,589 587,706 605,338 Code Enforcement/Rental Inspections 287,271 309,347 321,721 331,373 341,314 Public Safety 8,831,796 9,882,835 10,578,148 10,895,493 11,622,358 Community Development/Planning 576,495 647,753 673,663 693,873 714,689 Public Works/Engineering 1,012,692 1,091,740 1,135,410 1,169,472 1,204,556 Public Works Maintenance 259,455 231,440 240,698 247,919 255,356 Recreation 456,412 443,850 461,604 475,452 489,716
Parks 773,231 970,122 1,008,927 1,039,195 1,070,371
TOTAL DEPARTMENT SALARIES 15,244,406 16,877,966 17,853,085 18,388,677 19,340,337 2,413,502 1,633,560 975,119 535,593 951,660

OTHER OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Animal Control 341,874 405,696 421,924 438,801 456,353
City Council 95,200 44,000 45,760 47,590 49,494
City Clerk 88,148 88,991 92,551 96,253 100,103
Elections 34,041 - 36,764 - 39,705
City Attorney 425,607 421,909 438,785 456,337 474,590
City Manager 254,194 283,090 294,414 306,190 318,438
Finance 243,237 228,317 237,450 246,948 256,826
Human Resources 275,858 210,632 219,057 227,820 236,932 Maintenance Custodial 378,971 362,506 377,006 392,086 407,770 Information Technology 342,906 303,267 315,398 328,014 341,134 Economic Development 131,658 134,266 139,637 145,222 151,031 Building Inspection 397,779 406,338 380,332 395,546 411,367 Code Enforcement/Rental Inspections 96,523 100,344 104,358 108,532 112,873 Public Safety 4,034,683 4,837,080 5,078,934 5,332,881 5,599,525 Community Development/Planning 519,105 334,943 348,341 362,274 376,765 Public Works/Engineering 1,544,578 1,529,561 1,590,743 1,654,373 1,720,548 Public Works Maintenance 812,606 326,835 339,908 353,505 367,645 Recreation 548,522 660,492 686,912 714,388 742,964
Parks 281,463 382,313 397,606 413,510 430,050
TOTAL OTHER OPERATING EXPENDITURES 10,846,952 11,060,580 11,545,879 12,020,269 12,594,113

NON-DEPARTMENTAL EXPEDITURES
Other Non-Departmental Expenses 2,376,433 2,332,588 2,425,892 2,522,927 2,623,844 Interim Needs/Contingency 180,838 550,000 587,979 608,179 638,689 Amount charged to Departments (2,812,534) (2,812,534) (3,058,352) (3,177,146) (3,310,463) TOTAL NON-DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES (255,263) 70,054 (44,481) (46,040) (47,930) TOTAL RECURRING EXPENDITURES 25,836,095 28,008,600 29,354,482 30,362,906 31,886,521 NET OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENDITURES) 3,926,013 2,406,065 2,721,374 3,837,170 4,103,207

ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES
Land Purchases - - - - -
Operating Transfers 10,380,000 2,285,831 2,627,264 2,982,355 3,351,649 TOTAL ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES 10,380,000 2,285,831 2,627,264 2,982,355 3,351,649 NET SOURCES (USES) OF FUNDS (6,453,987) 120,234 94,109 854,815 751,558 1242
215
10 YEAR EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (CONTINUED)
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected

DEPARTMENT SALARIES
Animal Control - - - - -
City Council 33,860 34,876 35,922 37,000 38,110
City Clerk 509,811 525,105 540,858 557,084 573,797
Elections - - - - -
City Attorney 40,566 41,783 43,037 44,328 45,658
City Manager 727,362 749,183 771,659 794,808 818,653
Community Outreach - - - - -
Finance 864,460 890,393 917,105 944,618 972,957
Human Resources 457,526 471,252 485,389 499,951 514,949 Maintenance Custodial 323,582 333,289 343,288 353,587 364,194 Information Technology - - - - -
Economic Development 170,573 175,691 180,961 186,390 191,982 Building Inspection 623,498 642,203 661,469 681,313 701,752 Code Enforcement/Rental Inspections 351,553 362,100 372,963 384,152 395,676 Public Safety 11,971,028 12,780,159 13,163,564 14,008,471 14,428,725 Community Development/Planning 736,130 758,214 780,960 804,389 828,521 Public Works/Engineering 1,240,693 1,277,914 1,316,251 1,355,738 1,396,411 Public Works Maintenance 263,017 270,907 279,034 287,406 296,028 Recreation 504,407 519,539 535,126 551,179 567,715
Parks 1,102,482 1,135,556 1,169,623 1,204,711 1,240,853 TOTAL DEPARTMENT SALARIES 19,920,548 20,968,164 21,597,209 22,695,125 23,375,979 580,210 1,047,616 629,045 1,097,916 680,854

OTHER OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Animal Control 474,607 493,591 513,335 533,868 555,223
City Council 51,474 53,533 55,674 57,901 60,217
City Clerk 104,107 108,271 112,602 117,106 121,790
Elections - 42,881 - 46,312 -
City Attorney 493,574 513,317 533,849 555,203 577,412
City Manager 331,175 344,422 358,199 372,527 387,428
Finance 267,099 277,783 288,894 300,450 312,468
Human Resources 246,410 256,266 266,517 277,177 288,264 Maintenance Custodial 424,081 441,044 458,686 477,033 496,114 Information Technology 354,779 368,971 383,730 399,079 415,042 Economic Development 157,072 163,355 169,889 176,685 183,752 Building Inspection 427,822 444,935 462,732 481,242 500,491 Code Enforcement/Rental Inspections 117,388 122,084 126,967 132,046 137,328 Public Safety 5,879,501 6,173,476 6,482,150 6,806,257 7,146,570 Community Development/Planning 391,836 407,509 423,810 440,762 458,393 Public Works/Engineering 1,789,370 1,860,945 1,935,383 2,012,798 2,093,310 Public Works Maintenance 382,351 397,645 413,551 430,093 447,296 Recreation 772,682 803,590 835,733 869,162 903,929
Parks 447,252 465,142 483,748 503,098 523,222
TOTAL OTHER OPERATING EXPENDITURES 13,112,580 13,738,760 14,305,448 14,988,799 15,608,250

NON-DEPARTMENTAL EXPEDITURES
Other Non-Departmental Expenses 2,728,798 2,837,950 2,951,468 3,069,527 3,192,308 Interim Needs/Contingency 660,663 694,138 718,053 753,678 779,685 Amount charged to Departments (3,439,066) (3,583,727) (3,722,963) (3,878,835) (4,029,562) TOTAL NON-DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES (49,605) (51,639) (53,442) (55,630) (57,569) TOTAL RECURRING EXPENDITURES 32,983,522 34,655,285 35,849,215 37,628,295 38,926,659 NET OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENDITURES) 4,858,579 4,710,142 5,108,027 5,169,899 5,609,709

ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES
Land Purchases - - - - -
Operating Transfers 3,735,715 4,135,144 4,550,549 4,982,571 5,431,874 TOTAL ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES 3,735,715 4,135,144 4,550,549 4,982,571 5,431,874 NET SOURCES (USES) OF FUNDS 1,122,864 574,998 557,478 187,327 177,835 1243
216
The 10-year projections on the previous 6 pages include the following assumption:
• Most General Fund revenues are projected to increase by 4.5%, year after year. • Building revenue projections are also based on estimated numbers of homes to be built, with 125 homes projected for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, 150 homes projected for Fiscal Years 2024-2025, 200 homes projected for Fiscal Year 2025-2026, and 250 homes projected for Fiscal Years 2026-2027 through 2031-2032. • General Fund personnel cost projections are based on the step system and include salary and benefit adjustments that were approved for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, after a compensation study was completed and an MOU (memorandum of understanding) was approved with the Oakley Police Officers Association. • General Fund other operating expenditures are generally projected to increase by 4% annually.
• Two additional police officers are programmed into the budget every two years, including two new officers being added in Fiscal Year 2024-2025 and two more officer to be hired in Fiscal Years 2026-2027, 2028-2029, etc. However, per City Council direction, one of the two officers that would have been hired in Fiscal Year 2024-2025 will be hired to start working for the City of Oakley in January of 2024. • General Fund transfers for street maintenance and improvements will be at least $2 million beginning in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 and are projected to increase by 4% each year, thereafter. In Fiscal Year 2023-2024, the $2,080,000 transfer will be utilized on the East Cypress Widening project (CIP 310).
• Also included in the General Fund transfers is $190,000 for Information Technology purposes, which are also projected to increase by 4% each year, beginning in Fiscal Year 2024-2025.
• In Fiscal Year 2022-2023, $7.2 million was transferred from Reserves to be used on capital projects. At this time, no such transfers from Capital Reserves are included in the 10-Year Plan for the future.
1244
217

CONTRACTS ANALYSIS
1245
218
This page intentionally left blank
1246
219

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
Under California Law, the City of Oakley annually calculates its “Appropriation Limit”, which is the level of expenditures that can be funded using tax dollars. This calculation has its origin in Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative; thus, this calculation is sometimes referred to as the Gann Limit.

Proposition 4 was passed by California voters in November 1979 and places limits on the amount of tax revenue which can be spent by governmental entities on an annual basis.

Prop 4 became effective in fiscal year 1980-81 and used fiscal year 1978-79 revenues as the base for the calculation. The calculations were further refined by the passage of Proposition 111 in June of 1990. The base year revenues are increased annually by a factor that combines the governmental entity’s population growth rate and the increase in the California per capita personal income. Cities may choose to use their population growth rate or their county’s population growth rate. For fiscal year 2023-2024, the City elected to use the City’s growth rate and has calculated the appropriation limit to be $15,761,694.

The following types of revenues received by the City of Oakley have been deemed to be from tax proceeds and therefore included in the appropriation limit calculation:

Property Tax Sales & Use Tax Motor Vehicle In-Lieu
Business License Tax Transient Occupancy Tax
The following types of revenues received by the City of Oakley have been deemed not to be from tax proceeds as they fall within the exclusions of the appropriations limits:

Gasoline Tax Impact Fees Charges for Services
Local Transportation Funds SB 90 Mandate Reimbursement
Due to the pass-through nature of many city revenues, there was concern that revenues would be included in both the City’s and the State’s calculation. California Government Code Section 7903 requires that if State funds are provided to cities with no restrictions on their expenditures, the city includes these funds in their calculation. If the State specifies use of the funds, they are included in the State’s calculation. 1247
220

CITY OF OAKLEY

APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATION
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
.
1248
221
RESOLUTION No. ____
1249
222
1250
223

GLOSSARY OF BUDGET TERMINOLOGY
Appropriation: An authorization by the City Council to make expenditures and to incur obligations for a specific purpose within a specific time frame.

Assessed Value: The value placed on real estate or other property by the County Assessor as a basis for levying ad valorem (rate based) property tax.

Assessment
District:

A defined area of land that is benefited by the acquisition, construction or maintenance of a public improvement. An assessment is levied and collected on the regular property tax bill to fund the improvements.

Audit: Scrutiny of the City’s accounts by an independent auditing firm to determine whether the City’s financial statements are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. An independent audit is performed annually.

Available
Beginning Fund
Balance:

Unencumbered resources available in a fund from the prior fiscal year after payment of prior fiscal year expenditures.

Bond: Capital raised by issuing a written promise to pay a specified sum of money, called the face value or principal amount, with interest at predetermined intervals.

Budget: A financial plan, usually for a one or two year period, listing an estimate of recommended expenditures and the recommended means of financing them.

Capital
Improvement
Plan (CIP):

The five-year financial plan for capital improvements, including considerations for related debt service and future ongoing maintenance. The CIP is adopted in a separate document and updated annually.
1251
224
Deficit: An excess of expenditures over revenues (resources).

Department: An organizational unit comprised of divisions or functions. It is the basic unit of service responsibility encompassing a broad mandate of related activities.

Expenditure: The actual payment for goods and services.

Fiscal Year (FY): The period designed by the City for the beginning and ending of financial transactions. The City of Oakley fiscal year begins July 1st and ends June 30th of the following year.

Full-Time
Equivalent
(FTE):

The amount of time a regular full or part-time position has been budgeted for in terms of the amount of time an employee works in a year.

Gas Tax: Administered by the State Board of Equalization, this is an 18-cent per gallon tax on fuel used to propel a motor vehicle or aircraft. Use of the revenue is for research, planning, construction, improvement, maintenance and operation of public streets and highways or public mass transit.

General Fund: The fund used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund.

General Fund
Taxes:

This is the term in the Budget to describe the City’s use of general purpose tax revenue, including primarily: Property Taxes, Property Taxes in lieu of VLF, and Sales Tax.

General Plan: A policy document that serves as a guideline for future development. California State law requires each city to adopt a General Plan.

Infrastructure: Facilities on which the continuance and growth of the community depend on such roads, water lines, sewers, public buildings, etc. 1252
225
Internal Service
Fund (ISF)
Internal service funds account for the financing of goods and services provided by one department to another department on a cost-reimbursement basis. In Oakley, we have ISF’s that serve as sinking funds for the future replacement of vehicles and equipment, and for repairs and replacements for facilities. In each case, the costs are supported by charges to departmental operating budgets.

Lighting and
Landscaping
District:

The City has established a separate District to manage and fund the maintenance of the City’s Public Landscaping, Community Parks, Street Lighting, and Neighborhood Parks. Each activity is accounted for in a separate fund and budgets are established yearly as part of the District’s activities. Detailed breakdowns of estimated revenues and expenditures are provided in a required engineer’s report. Costs are funded by landscape assessments levied in each zone, and as necessary, subsidies or loans from other eligible funds.

Measure J: In 2004, voters approved Measure J, extending a previously approved Countywide ½ cent sales tax measure for transportation related purposes. The original Measure (Measure C) included a provision that 18% of the funds are returned to local agencies based on an allocation relative population and relative maintained street miles. Expenditures are restricted to the same uses as Gas Tax but may also be applied to transit improvement and operation, growth management planning and compliance, pedestrian and bicycle trail construction, maintenance and operation parking facility development and transportation efficiency program development and operation (ridesharing, etc.). Measure J continues to be subject to Measure C’s growth management component and funds may not be used to replace developer obligations that would otherwise not be publicly funded under jurisdiction policy. Measure J runs until March 2034.

Motor Vehicle
License Fee:

A State vehicle license fee imposed on motorists for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public highways.
1253
226
Police Services
Tax:

A voter approved special tax levied by the City and collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes that is used exclusively for Public Safety.

Property Tax: Property Tax is imposed on real property (land and permanently attached improvements) and tangible personal property located within the City. Proposition 13 set the basic property tax at one percent of the assessed value of the property, and the limited the assessed value to the cash value at acquisition plus inflation, at no more than 2% per year. Property taxes are shared by all local agencies that provide service to the property. On average, Oakley receives between 5% - 6% of the basic property taxes paid by Oakley property owners.

Property Tax in
Lieu of VLF:

In the early 1990’s the State levied a local tax on vehicles, in the form of a 2% Motor Vehicle License Fee (see above). The then Governor successfully lobbied the legislature and passed a law allowing a temporary discount on the fee, if the State could afford it. A provision of that law was that the State backfill the lost revenue to the local agencies that resulted (since it was a local tax being reduced). Since then, the State has permanently lowered the Fee, and permanently backfilled it by shifting additional property taxes from their control to each local agency. This separate revenue is referred to as Property Taxes in Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF).