CITY OF PITTSBURG
AGENDA
MARCH 07, 2022
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER
65 CIVIC AVENUE, PITTSBURG, CA
CLOSED SESSION
6:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETINGS
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING AUTHORITY
PITTSBURG ARTS AND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
PITTSBURG POWER COMPANY
SOUTHWEST PITTSBURG GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT II
SUCCESSOR AGENCY
PRESIDING
Holland Barrett White, Mayor/Chair
Shanelle Scales-Preston, Vice- Mayor/Chair
Juan Antonio Banales, Council Member/Board Member
Jelani Killings, Council Member/Board Member
Marilyn “Merl” Craft, Council Member/Board Member
FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY:
S.L. Floyd, Housing Authority Member
Annie Hill Herring, Housing Authority Member
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pittsburg City Council meetings are held the first and third Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m. The Housing Authority meets in conjunction with the City Council on the third Monday of each month. The Pittsburg City Council meets regularly in the Council Chamber at 65 Civic Avenue, unless otherwise noted above. The City Council also sits as the Board of Directors of several other City agencies. The stipends for all agency members conform to state statutes governing compensation amounts. All other Agencies meet on an as needed basis and will be listed above if applicable. Copies of the open session agenda packets, which are distributed to the City Council, are on file in the office of the City Clerk, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, California, and are available for public inspection, beginning 72 hours in advance, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except from noon to 1:00 p.m. and City holidays). The agenda and reports are also located on the City’s website at www.pittsburgca.gov.
Additionally, if any reports or documents, which are public records, are distributed to the City Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, those reports and documents will also be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office and on the day of the meeting in the Council Chamber at the public counter area below the dais. 1 AUDIENCE REMARKS
The Audience Remarks period is for the public to comment on any items scheduled to be heard during the Closed Session portion of the meeting, if applicable. 6:00 P.M. - CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Section 54956.8:
Property: Southwest corner of Center Drive and Railroad Avenue (APN 086- 100-045); Negotiator for the City of Pittsburg: Garrett Evans and Maria Aliotti; Negotiating Party: Stay Cal Pittsburg, LLC; Under Negotiations: Both price and terms of payment
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Section 54956.9(d)(4) Number of cases: one
3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Section 54957.6:
City designated representatives: Garrett Evans, Maria Aliotti, Charles Sakai, Sloan Sakai Yeung & Wong LLP
Employee organizations: American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 512 Management/Professional/Confidential Unit and Miscellaneous A Unit; Pittsburg Police Officers’ Association; Pittsburg Police Managers Group; Teamsters Local 856; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1295
Unrepresented employees: Management Group; Senior Executive Team 7:00 P.M. - CONVENE IN OPEN SESSION FOR REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS
4. NHA Financial Advisors LLC
Presentation on Water Rates Discussion and CalPers Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) Cost Management Strategies, and the potential issuance of a water bond to finance various water related capital improvement projects and a pension obligation bond to mitigate the rising UAL.
2 PROCLAMATIONS
5. Red Cross Month
6. World Down Syndrome Day
7. Cesar Chavez Day
CITY MANAGER REPORTS/REMARKS
The City Manager may make brief announcements or informal comments at this time and brief the Council on items of interest. (No Action Required)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
See Public Advisory.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Members may make a report on their committee assignments at this time. (see attached list of adhoc committees and other public agencies in which Council members particiapte). (No Action Required)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Approving an Update to the Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fees
On April 16, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 07-10745 approving the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, a regional conservation and mitigation plan for natural resources in East County. HCP/NCCP chapter 9, “Funding,” outlines estimated costs for implementing the HCP/NCCP and identifies development- based mitigation fees as a source of funding to offset development impacts to natural resources. The development mitigation fee amounts were established by City Council Resolution 07-10898 and have since been adjusted annually according to housing and consumer price indices. The HCP/HCCP requires periodic audits in years three, six, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of implementation to assess whether changes in HCP/NCCP implementation costs require an additional adjustment of the mitigation fees.
CONSIDERATION
9. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Nominating Two City Council Members to the Los Medanos Health Advisory Committee
The dissolution of the Los Medanos Community Healthcare District (District) in 2018 appointed Contra Costa County (County) as successor agency to the District. One condition of the dissolution is for the County to establish the Los Medanos Health Advisory Committee (Committee) to advise the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on how best to allocate ad valorem property tax dollars 3 previously controlled by the District. The Committee is composed of seven (7) seats, including two (2) to be nominated by the City.
10. Adoption of Resolutions Making Findings in Support of Continuing to Hold Public Meetings by Teleconference Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953(e)
Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) amended the Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely during proclaimed states of emergency under specified conditions. Findings must be made every 30 days.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
City Council/Agency Members may make any conflict of interest declarations pertaining to Consent Calendar items at this time.
COMBINED CITY COUNCIL, PITTSBURG ARTS AND COMMUNITY FOUNDATION,
PITTSBURG POWER COMPANY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY AND SOUTHWEST
PITTSBURG GHAD II CONSENT CALENDAR
11. Minutes of Special Meeting February 14, 2022, Special Meeting February 22, 2022 and February 22, 2022
12. Adoption of a City Council Resolution Establishing the Maximum Number of Condominium Conversions for Calendar Year 2022
Section 17.44.070 of the Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC), limits the number of apartments that can be converted annually to condominiums to an amount established by the City Council at the beginning of each calendar year. If approved by Council, the proposed resolution would establish the maximum number of condominium conversions for the year 2022.
COUNCIL REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Council Members may request items to be considered for future agendas. An item will only be brought forward with a majority vote and will appear on a future agenda with staff recommendations for further Council consideration.
COUNCIL MEMBER REMARKS
Council Members may make brief announcements or informal comments at this time. (No Action Required)
ADJOURNMENT to March 21, 2022
4 PUBLIC ADVISORY:
THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER WILL NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC This meeting will be held in compliance with California Government Code Section 54953(e)(2), which was added by Assembly Bill 361 which became effective Oct. 1, 2021, pursuant to the Governor’s Executive Order N-15-
21. On November 29, 2021, the City Council authorized hybrid meetings of the City Council and Commissions upon findings made in Resolution 21-13997 as required by state law. In addition, all Boards authorized teleconferenced meetings. City Council Members/Board Members/Commissioners and appropriate staff will be participating virtually. The Public will continue virtual participation via Zoom. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(3), the Council/Board/Commission authorization is effective for 30 days and may be extended every 30 days if the Council/Board/Commission makes required findings.
The public is invited to watch and participate in meetings via the methods listed below:
Watch the live meeting via the City’s webcast (www.pittsburgca.gov), or on Delta TV Comcast Channel 32, or Delta TV AT&T U-Verse Channel 99.
Members of the public may comment live via Zoom video conferencing. Download Zoom from its website:
www.zoom.com. Zoom also allows you to join the meeting by phone. Join the meeting at any point but be sure you are in the meeting prior to the City Council/Board/Commission consideration of the item on which you would like to provide comment.
From a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android:
Webinar ID: 896 4310 9548
Passcode: 106491
By phone: US: +1-669-900-6833 or +1346-348-7799
Speakers are asked to provide their name and city of residence for the record, although providing this is not required for participation.
Each speaker will be afforded up to 3 minutes to speak (at the discretion of the Mayor/Chair).
When the Mayor/Chair opens a public comment period on the item on which you would like to comment, please use the “Raise Hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide. You will be invited to speak when it is your turn. Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment. You will not be seen or heard until it is your turn to speak. You will be muted again after the allotted time to speak. Just as in a live meeting inside the Council Chamber, only one comment per agenda item per person is allowed.
When making public comment during the meeting, please
1. Try to be in a room or space without a lot of background noise.
2. Mute your microphone until it is your turn to speak, then mute your speakers while speaking.
3. Have a strong, reliable internet connection or cell phone signal.
In the event of a disruption which prevents the City Council/Board/Commission from broadcasting the meeting to the public or from receiving public comment, no further action will be taken at the meeting.
Written comments provided by the public will be accepted and given to the Council/Board/Commission although they will not be read at the meeting.
5 NOTICE TO PUBLIC
GENERAL INFORMATION
Copies of the open session agenda packets, which are distributed to the City Council, are on file in the office of the City Clerk, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, California, and are available for public inspection, beginning 72 hours in advance, during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except City holidays). The full packets are also located on the City’s website at www.pittsburgca.gov. If any reports or documents, which are public records, are distributed to the City Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, those reports or documents will be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office and on the day of the meeting in the Council Chamber at the public counter area below the dais.
SPEAKER’S CARD
Members of the audience who wish to address the City Council on issues that are not scheduled for the agenda and on any items listed as part of the agenda should complete a Speaker’s Card available at the dais. Please read the card carefully in order to fill out the card properly. Submit the completed card to the City Clerk before the item is called, preferably before the meeting begins. Individuals will be given up to three minutes to address the Council unless additional time is allowed as provided for spokespersons. Speakers are not permitted to yield their time to another speaker. Prior to speaking, each member of the public shall state their name and business and City of residence in a clear and audible tone of voice. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action may be taken by the City Council on items not already scheduled on the agenda; however, the City Council may refer your comments/concerns to staff or request that the item be placed on a future agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Persons who wish to speak on Public Hearings listed on the agenda will be heard when the Public Hearing is opened, except on Public Hearing items previously heard and closed to public comment. After the public has commented, the item is closed to public comment and brought to the Council/Agency level for discussion and action. Further comment from the audience will not be received unless requested by the Council/Agency.
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited, by California law, including but not limited to Government Code Section 65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting, regardless of whether it is a regular or special meeting.
NOTICE TO THE DISABLED AND VISUALLY OR HEARING IMPAIRED In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Pittsburg will provide special assistance for disabled citizens. Upon request, an agenda for any meeting shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats. The Council Chamber is equipped with sound amplifier units for use by the hearing impaired. The units operate in conjunction with the Chamber’s sound system. You may request the sound amplifier from the City Clerk for personal use during Council meetings. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, or are requesting a specially formatted agenda, please contact the City Clerk at 925-252-4850. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II)
DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT
The Council requests that you observe the order and decorum of our Council Chamber by turning off or setting to vibrate all cellular telephones and electronic devices, and that you refrain from making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks. Boisterous and disruptive behavior while the Council is in session, and the display of signs in a manner which violates the rights of others or prevents others from watching or fully participating in the Council meeting, is a violation of our Municipal Code and any person who engages in such conduct can be ordered to leave the Council Chamber by the Mayor.
LIVE MEDIA BROADCASTING ADVISEMENT
City Council meetings are webcast live on the City’s website at www.pittsburgca.gov on the Streaming Media page.
Past meetings are also archived on that webpage. Watch the live meeting via the City’s webcast (www.pittsburgca.gov), or on Delta TV Comcast Channel 32, or Delta TV AT&T U-Verse Channel 99. For more information, please contact the City Clerk’s office at 252-4850. 6 City Council Outside Agency / Liaison / Sub-Committees Assignments - 2022 Updated December 20, 2021
OUTSIDE AGENCY BOARDS COUNCIL MEMBER(S) TYPE MEETS STAFF ABAG Shanelle Scales-Preston / Holland White Alt. Standing Annual G. Evans Delta Diablo** Juan Banales / Shanelle Scales-Preston Alt. Standing 2nd Wednesday R. Abono East Co. Co. County Habitat Conservancy Juan Banales / Jelani Killings Alternate Standing Monthly Planning East County Water Management Juan Banales / Jelani Killings Alternate Standing Annual R. Abono MCE Clean Energy Board Shanelle Scales-Preston / Holland White Alt. Standing 4 Per Year D. Buchanan TRANSPLAN / ECCRFFA Holland White / Juan Banales Alternate Standing 2nd Thursday R. Abono Tri-Delta Transit (2 reps)*** S. Scales-Preston & Merl Craft / Jelani Killings Alt. Standing Last Wednesday R. Abono
LIAISON TO COUNCIL MEMBER(S) TYPE MEETS STAFF
East Bay League of Calif. Cities Shanelle Scales-Preston / Merl Craft Alt. Standing 3rd Thursday *Rotational Mayor’s Conference Holland White / Shanelle Scales-Preston Alt. Standing 1st Thursday G. Evans School Districts Committee (2x2) Shanelle Scales-Preston & Merl Craft / Jelani Killings Alt. Standing 2nd Thursday G. Evans even months
SUBCOMMITTEES COUNCIL MEMBER(S) TYPE MEETS STAFF
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Holland White / S. Scales-Preston / Juan Banales Alt. Ad Hoc As needed G. Evans CAC CDBG Subcommittee S. Scales-Preston & Jelani Killings / Holland White Alt. Standing As needed M. Aliotti City Council Policy and Procedures Review Juan Banales & Merl Craft Ad Hoc As needed G. Evans City Infrastructure and Transportation (2) S. Scales-Preston & Juan Banales / Holland White Alt. Standing As needed G. Evans Community Services Subcommittee Merl Craft & Shanelle Scales-Preston / Juan Banales Alt. Standing As needed M. Aliotti Constituent Management Services S. Scales-Preston & Juan Banales / Holland White Alt. Ad Hoc As needed G. Evans Government Performance Subcommittee Holland White & Jelani Killings Ad Hoc As needed G. Evans Hills Committee Juan Banales & Jelani Killings / Merl Craft Alt. Ad Hoc As needed G. Evans Pittsburg Recognition Committee Holland White / Shanelle Scales-Preston Alt. Standing As needed J. Hecht Economic Develop/Waterfront Subcommittee Jelani Killings & Holland White / S. Scales-Preston Alt. Standing As needed J. Davis Finance Subcommittee (1) Juan Banales & Holland White / S. Scales-Preston Alt. Standing As needed P. Rodrigues Land Use Subcommittee (3) Juan Banales & Holland White / S. Scales-Preston Alt. Standing As needed J. Davis Pittsburg Arts & Community Foundation Merl Craft & S. Scales-Preston / Jelani Killings Alt. Standing As needed G. Evans Pittsburg Police Activities League (PAL) Holland White & S. Scales-Preston / Jelani Killings Alt. Standing Monthly B. Addington Power Company Advisory Holland White & S. Scales-Preston / Juan Banales Alt. Standing As needed D. Buchanan Public Safety Subcommittee Holland White & Shanelle Scales-Preston Standing As needed B. Addington Sister City Committee Jelani Killings & Holland White / Merl Craft Alt. Standing As needed K. Simonton *Rotational Staff as assigned by City Manager
**Stipend of $170 per month
***Stipend of $100 per month
7 8
9 10
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Garrett Evans, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of a City Council Resolution Approving an Update to the Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fees
MEETING DATE: March 7, 2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 16, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 07-10745 approving the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, a regional conservation and mitigation plan for natural resources in East County. HCP/NCCP chapter 9, “Funding,” outlines estimated costs for implementing the HCP/NCCP and identifies development-based mitigation fees as a source of funding to offset development impacts to natural resources. The development mitigation fee amounts were established by City Council Resolution 07-10898 and have since been adjusted annually according to housing and consumer price indices. The HCP/HCCP requires periodic audits in years three, six, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of implementation to assess whether changes in HCP/NCCP implementation costs require an additional adjustment of the mitigation fees. The 2017 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study (“Fee Study”) undertaken by the Conservancy proposes specified adjustments to the fees.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund as a result of the mitigation fee audit and adjustment to the HCP/NCCP mitigation fees. Development-based mitigation fees that the City collects in accordance with the HCP/NCCP are passed through to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (“Conservancy,” implementing entity for the HCP/NCCP), to be used to pay for land acquisition, habitat restoration/creation and related construction costs, and management and monitoring costs associated with implementation of the HCP/NCCP. The City will continue to collect an administrative fee to cover its costs in staff time spent implementing the HCP/NCCP.
RECOMMENDATION
City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving an update to the HCP/NCCP development fees to the amounts described in the Resolution.
11 BACKGROUND
On April 16, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 07-10745 making findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving the HCP/NCCP.
Participating jurisdictions in the HCP/NCCP, including Contra Costa County and the cities of Pittsburg, Brentwood, Clayton and Oakley. HCP/NCCP chapter 9, “Funding,” sets forth estimated costs for implementing the HCP/NCCP and identifies development-based mitigation fees, state and federal funding programs, and grants as sources of funding for Plan implementation.
On November 19, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance 07-1293 adding Chapter
15.108, “Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan Implementation,” to the Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC. PMC section 15.108.070 authorized the collection of mitigation fees to offset impacts by development that disturbs open space, wetlands and waters, habitat, and sensitive special status species covered by the HCP/NCCP. The mitigation fee amounts were established by City Council Resolution 07-10898.
PMC section 15.108.070 includes a provision for automatic adjustment of mitigation fees according to market inflation or deflation, by March 15 of each year, as required by the HCP/NCCP. A periodic audit and adjustment of the mitigation fees is required to be done in years three, six, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years of Plan implementation to assess whether changes in HCP/NCCP implementation costs over time require an adjustment of the mitigation fees.
The fee audit includes a review of the Plan’s initial cost assumptions, and adjustment of those assumptions using actual land costs and experience in implementing the HCP/NCCP since the adoption of the Plan by the participating agencies.
Other than the automatic annual adjustments approved for the fees, the County has not updated its HCP/NCCP mitigation fees since their initial adoption in 2007. The fee adjustment based on the 2017 Fee Study was delayed due to litigation between the Conservancy and a private third-party. The litigation was settled in January 2021. In February 2021, the Conservancy adopted the adjusted fee schedule based on the 2017 Fees Study and now the participating cities and the County need to take action to adopt the updated fee schedule. The proposed resolution adjusts the mitigation fee schedule to reflect the 2017 Fee Study.
SUBCOMMITTEE FINDINGS
This item was not presented to a Subcommittee.
STAFF ANALYSIS
HCP/NCCP development-based mitigation fees applicable to Pittsburg development projects generally fall into two categories: Development Fees and Wetland Fees. The former are collected on a per-acre basis as mitigation for impacts to open space, habitat and species covered by the HCP/NCCP, while the latter are collected on a per-foot basis as mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters, riparian woodland/scrub, and stream buffers. Fees are higher for lands with higher habitat value (such as in open space areas south of the City) and lower for lands with less habitat value (such as disconnected or small infill sites without wetlands). All construction or capital improvement projects that would disturb specified undeveloped lands within the HCP/NCCP permit area are subject to 12 payment of the Development Fee, while the Wetland Mitigation Fee would be imposed in the event that the project would also permanently disturb a wetland, stream or other water feature.
Each of the HCP/NCCP’s participating agencies are required to take action to adopt the Fee Study’s updated fees, including automatic annual adjustments since the 2017 performance of the audit. 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 Fee Study are for 2017.
Annual adjustments consistent with the price indices, as authorized in the years 2018 through 2021, are shown in the table below.
2021 Mitigation Fee Schedule Based On 2017 Fee Study
Land Cover Fee Basis Current 2021
Fee
Updated 2021
Fee Based On
2017 Fee Study
Change from
Current 2021
Fee
Development Fee
Zone 1 per acre $17,602 $16,890 -4.04%
Zone 2 per acre $35,204 $33,780 -4.04%
Zone 3 per acre $8,801 $8,445 -4.04%
Wetland Mitigation Fee
Riparian per acre $85,924 $101,220 17.80%
Perennial Wetland per acre $117,581 $153,401 30.46%
Seasonal Wetland per acre $254,759 $358,985 40.91%
Alkali Wetland per acre $241,192 $362,908 50.46%
Ponds per acre $128,133 $197,540 54.17%
Aquatic (Open Water) per acre $64,820 $98,770 52.38%
Slough / Channel per acre $146,222 $141,043 -3.54%
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) per ln ft. $700 $520 -25.71%
Streams (>25 ft. wide) per ln ft. $1,055 $781 -25.97%
The updated Development Fees reflect an approximate 4% decrease from those currently charged by the County. For the non-stream wetlands, the costs of restoration are substantially higher than those originally estimated when the HCP/NCCP and the mitigation fees were originally adopted. The opposite is the case for streams. The changes in the Wetland Fees are due to the fact that estimates of restoration costs developed for the Plan did not have the benefit of actual project cost experience in eastern Contra Costa County.
But that experience has been gained since Plan adoption and is reflected in the proposed updates in the Fee Study.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Resolution
2. East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, dated June 2017
3. Urban Economics Memorandum, dated February 17, 2021
4. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, Memorandum to Governing Board, February 22, 2021
5. Public Hearing Notice
13 Report prepared by: Jordan Davis, Director of Community and Economic Development 14 Resolution No. 22- Page 1 of 6 March 7, 2022
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURG
In the Matter of:
Approving an Update to the ) RESOLUTION NO. 22-_____
Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural )
Community Conservation Plan )
(HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fees )
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 07-10745 making findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); approving the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP, or “Plan”); authorizing the City Manager to execute the Implementing Agreement for the HCP/NCCP; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Creating the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, the agency that performs the duties assigned to the Implementing Entity in the HCP/NCCP and Implementing Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the HCP/NCCP, as implemented in accordance with the Implementing Agreement, provides comprehensive species, wetlands, and ecosystem conservation and contributes to the recovery of endangered species within East Contra Costa County; balances open space, habitat, and urban development; encourages, where appropriate, multiple uses of protected areas; shares the costs and benefits of the HCP/NCCP as widely and equitably as possible; and protects the rights of private property owners; and WHEREAS, the HCP/NCCP also reduces the cost and increases the clarity and consistency of federal and state permitting and consolidates and streamlines these processes into one, locally controlled plan. On July 25, 2007, and August 6, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Services and California Department of Fish and Game issued permit numbers TE 160958-0 and 2835-2007-01-03 (respectively) to the City of Pittsburg, authorizing the City of Pittsburg to conduct and authorize activities that could result in take of threatened and endangered species subject to compliance with, and implementation of, the HCP/NCCP; and
WHEREAS, HCP/NCCP chapter 9, “Funding,” sets forth estimated costs for implementing the HCP/NCCP and identifies mitigation fees on development; state and federal funding programs; and grants as sources of funding for Plan implementation; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance 07-1293 adding chapter 15.108, “Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan Implementation,” to the Pittsburg Municipal Code (PMC); and WHEREAS, PMC section 15.108.070 authorizes the collection of mitigation fees to offset impacts by development that disturbs open space, wetlands and waters, habitat, and sensitive special status species covered by the HCP/NCCP. The mitigation fee amounts were established by City Council Resolution 07-10898; and WHEREAS, PMC section 15.108.070 provides for an automatic adjustment of mitigation fees according to market inflation or deflation, by March 15 of each year, as 15 Resolution No. 22- Page 2 of 6 March 7, 2022
provided in the HCP/NCCP. A periodic audit and adjustment of the mitigation fees is required to be done in years three, six, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years of Plan implementation to assess whether actual land costs and experience in implementing the HCP/NCCP since adoption of the Plan necessitate an additional adjustment of the mitigation fees; and WHEREAS, the fee audit for year 10 occurred in 2017 but was subject to litigation that was not settled until January 2021; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2021, the HCP Conservancy Governing Board adopted the 2017 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study; and WHEREAS, each of the participating agencies in the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP must now take action to adopt the 2017 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study’s updated fees, including automatic annual adjustments since the 2017 performance of the audit, to facilitate consistency in implementation of the HCP/NCCP across the participating agencies; and
WHEREAS, on or prior to February 25, 2022, notice of the March 7, 2022, public hearing was posted at City Hall, at the Pittsburg Library, at the City Housing Authority, and on the ‘Public Notices’ section of the city’s website; was mailed via first class or electronic mail to local developers; and was published in the East County Times; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and given consideration to all written material and spoken testimony presented before and during the hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Pittsburg finds and determines as follows:
Section 1. Findings
Based on the Staff Report entitled, “Adoption of a City Council Resolution Approving an Update to the Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fees,” dated March 7, 2022, and based on all the information contained in the Planning Division files on this item, incorporated here by reference and available for review in the Planning Division located at 65 Civic Avenue in Pittsburg, and based on all written and oral testimony presented at the meeting, the City Council finds that:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
B. For purposes of this Resolution, the terms defined in section 15.108.020 of the PMC are incorporated by reference herein.
C. The purpose of the habitat conservation mitigation fees is to help fund the HCP/NCCP conservation strategy, to mitigate the impacts of development on covered species, and to contribute to the recovery of those species in the plan area. 16 Resolution No. 22- Page 3 of 6 March 7, 2022
D. Based on the 2017 Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study, and the HCP/NCCP and the data and analyses referenced therein, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the HCP/NCCP implementation updated fees authorized by this Resolution and the type of development projects subject to the fees. The fees updated herein were adopted and are implemented by the City Council in reliance on the comprehensive studies that have been prepared for the HCP/NCCP. The updated Development Fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the acquisition of land, the enhancement and management of habitat and the other activities to mitigate for impacts to open space, habitat and covered species caused by affected Development Projects. The updated Wetland Mitigation Fee will be used to implement the HCP/NCCP by funding the restoration, creation and management Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian woodland/scrub and other actions to mitigate for impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters and riparian areas caused by Affected Development Projects. The HCP/NCCP implementation updated fees will not apply to all types of Development Projects; rather, it will only apply to those Development Projects that impact open space, habitat suitable for one or more covered species, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters or riparian areas.
In this way, the HCP/NCCP implementation updated fees will be used only for purposes reasonably related to the types of development projects that will be subject to the updated fees.
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:
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
17 Resolution No. 22- Page 4 of 6 March 7, 2022
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.
G. On April 16, 2007, prior to approving the HCP/NCCP implementing ordinance and fees, the City Council City Council adopted Resolution 07-10745 making findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving the HCP/NCCP. This update of the adopted schedule of fees is an administrative action that is not considered a “project” pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5,) and is, therefore, exempt from CEQA. 18 Resolution No. 22- Page 5 of 6 March 7, 2022
H. Future individual affected development projects subject to this resolution will require separate project-specific CEQA review.
Section 2. Implementation Fees Imposed
A. The applicability and application procedure for the payment of the HCP/NCCP Development Fee and Wetland Mitigation Fee and procedure for payment of such fees shall remain as specified by Chapter 15.108 of Pittsburg Municipal Code.
B. Development Fee.
1. The Development Fee shall be based on each acre of land, or portion thereof, permanently disturbed and is set as follows:
Location of Affected Development Project Development Fee Development Fee Zone I $16,890.46 per acre
Development Fee Zone II $33,780.93 per acre
Development Fee Zone III $8,445.23 per acre
2. The Development Fee Zones are set forth in Ordinance No. 412, Exhibit A, which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.
C. Wetland Mitigation Fee. The Wetland Mitigation Fee is set forth in Exhibit B.
D. The Development Fee and Wetland Mitigation Fee shall on March 15 of each year be automatically adjusted as follows:
1. The Development Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit C and based on the formula in Exhibit D, as explained in Chapter 9.3.1 of the HCP/NCCP.
As shown in Exhibit C and Exhibit D, both of which are incorporated herein by reference, one portion of the Development Fee’s amounts in effect before March 15 of each year shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Office of Federal Housing Finance Agency Annual Home Price Index for the Oakland- Berkeley-Livermore, California Metropolitan Division for the prior calendar year. The remaining portion of the Development Fee’s amounts shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco- Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for prior calendar year.
2. The Wetland Mitigation Fee shall be adjusted as provided in Exhibit C. As shown in Exhibit C, the Wetland Mitigation Fee’s amounts in effect before March 15 of each year shall be increased or decreased by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Combined Statistical Area (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) for the prior calendar year.
Section 3. Effective Date
19 Resolution No. 22- Page 6 of 6 March 7, 2022
The fees provided in this Resolution shall be effective 60 days after the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 4. Severability
All portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any provision of this Resolution be judged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the fees shall be fully effective except as to the portion that has been judged to be invalid.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pittsburg at a regular meeting on the 7th day of March 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
________________________________
Holland Barrett White, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Alice E. Evenson, City Clerk
20 Exhibit A: Development Fee Zones - Pittsburg
21 Exhibit B: Wetland Mitigation Fee and Acreage Determination Methods (Adapted from Table 9-5 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee amounts applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) 22 Exhibit C: Fee Adjustment Indices
(Adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee adjustment procedures applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) 23 24
Exhibit D: Automatic Development Fee Increase Formula
(Adapted from Table 9-7 of the HCP/NCCP to reflect the fee adjustment procedures applicable after the effective date of this Resolution) 25 26
EAST CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY HCP / NCCP
MITIGATION FEE AUDIT
AND NEXUS STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Prepared For:
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy
Prepared By:
Robert D. Spencer, Urban Economics
Sally E. Nielsen, Hausrath Economics Group
June 2017 (revised)
27 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iv
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 Plan Mitigation Fees ................................................................................................................ 2 Audit Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................... 3
2. Impacts ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Urban Development Area (UDA) ........................................................................................ 7 Development Fee Zones ........................................................................................................ 8 Summary of Impacts to Date ................................................................................................ 9 Remaining Permanent Impacts Under the Plan ...............................................................10
3. Cost Model .......................................................................................................................................13 General Approach .................................................................................................................13 Land Acquisition Costs .........................................................................................................14 Habitat Restoration/Creation Costs ...................................................................................15 Updates to Other Cost Categories ......................................................................................17 Summary of Cost Model Results .........................................................................................20
4. Endowment Model .........................................................................................................................24 Post-permit Term Costs and Revenues .............................................................................24 Endowment Funding Plan ...................................................................................................25 Endowment Fund Model Results .......................................................................................29 Endowment Management ....................................................................................................29
5. Wetland Mitigation Fee ..................................................................................................................31 Updated Fee Schedule ..........................................................................................................31 Mitigation Fee Act Findings ................................................................................................33
6. Development Fee ............................................................................................................................37 Updated Fee Schedule ..........................................................................................................37 Comparison with Original and Current Fee ......................................................................39 Mitigation Fee Act Findings ................................................................................................40
7. Rural Infrastructure and Temporary Impact Fees .....................................................................43 28 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report ii
Rural Infrastructure Fee .......................................................................................................43 Temporary Impact Fee .........................................................................................................45
8. Funding Plan ....................................................................................................................................48 Appendix A: Development Impacts Through Year 9 ................................................................ 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 .................................................................................................. E-1 Appendix F: Actual Revenue Through 2016 ................................................................................ F-1
29 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report iii
List of Tables
Table E.1: Application of Mitigation Fees to Covered Activities ........................................ iv Table E.2: Development Fee Comparison ............................................................................... v Table E.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison .................................................................... vi Table 1.1: Application of Mitigation Fees to Covered Activities ......................................... 3 Table 2.1: Covered Activities, Years 1-9 (2008-2016) ......................................................... 10 Table 2.2: Permanent Impacts (acres) .................................................................................... 11 Table 2.3: Wetland Impacts ..................................................................................................... 12 Table 3.1: Wetland Mitigation Costs (2016$) ........................................................................ 18 Table 3.2: Cost Model Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2016 $) .......... 21 Table 3.3: Cost Model Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2016 $) .. 22 Table 4.1: Investment Earnings .............................................................................................. 26 Table 4.2: Post-Permit Funding .............................................................................................. 29 Table 5.1: Wetland Mitigation Fee Schedule ......................................................................... 32 Table 5.2: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison ................................................................... 33 Table 5.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue ......................................................................... 34 Table 6.1: Development Fee Fair Share Analysis ................................................................. 38 Table 6.2: Development Fee Schedule ................................................................................... 39 Table 6.3: Development Fee Comparison (fee per acre) .................................................... 40 Table 8.1: Funding Plan (2016 dollars) .................................................................................. 50 Table 8.2: Funding Plan Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2016 dollars) ................................................................................................................................... 51 Table 8.3: Funding Plan Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2016 dollars) ...................................................................................................................... 52
30 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) 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 (the 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 Plan costs during the 30-year permit term include four types of mitigation fees:
w Development Fee
w Wetland Mitigation Fee
w Rural Infrastructure Fee
w Temporary Impact Fee.
Covered activities that cause permanent impacts pay the development fee or rural infrastructure fee depending on location (inside or outside the Urban Development Area or “UDA”). Covered activities that cause temporary impacts pay the temporary impact fee regardless of location. All projects that cause impacts on aquatic land cover types pay the wetland mitigation fee in addition to the applicable development or rural infrastructure fee. Table E.1 summarizes how the four types of mitigation fees are applied to covered activities based on location and type of impact.
Table E.1: Application of Mitigation Fees to Covered Activities Type of
Impact
Location of Impact
Inside UDA Outside UDA
Permanent w Development fee
w Wetland mitigation fee (if
applicable)
w Rural infrastructure fee
w Wetland mitigation fee (if
applicable)
Temporary w Temporary impact fee (plus temporary wetland mitigation fee if applicable)
Note: “UDA” is the urban development area.
This audit represents a significant turning point for implementation of the 2006 Plan. For the first time, this audit includes funding for post-permit term costs in perpetuity. Furthermore, this development of the funding plan is occurring five years prior to when it is required by the Plan. 31 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report v
Funding for post-permit term costs is required by the Plan but the Plan allowed the obligation to be deferred until year 15 of implementation, or when half of the impacts allowed under the permit occur, whichever comes first. This audit identifies available funding to provide the endowment with an opening balance. Combined with revenue contributions through year 30 from mitigation fees and possibly other funding sources, the endowment would grow with re-invested earnings. Following year 30 the endowment would be of a size sufficient to fully fund post-permit management and monitoring costs in perpetuity with adjustments for inflation.
The results of the audit in terms of a revised development fee schedule are compared to current adopted fees in Table E.2. The development fee is also the basis for the rural infrastructure and temporary fees so the same trends would apply to those fees as well. The "Cities/County" fees are imposed by Permittees (participating cities and the County) and have been adjusted annually for inflation since Plan adoption but do not reflect the results of fee audits. The "Conservancy" fees reflect the results of the 2013 audit and are imposed on participating special entities (PSEs) that apply for coverage under the Plan but are not a Permittee. Most covered activities are currently paying the “Cities/County” fee.
Table E.2: Development Fee Comparison
Current
Fee (2017) Fee
Audit
(2017)
Fee Audit
Compared To:
Zone
Cities/
County
Conserv-
ancy
Cities/
County
Conserv-
ancy
Zone 1 $14,711 $ 13,491 $14,078 (4.3%) 4.4%
Zone 2 $29,423 $ 26,983 $28,156 (4.3%) 4.3%
Zone 3 $ 7,356 $ 6,746 $ 7,039 (4.3%) 4.3%
Note: "Cities/County" fees are imposed by Permittees (participating cities and the County) and have been adjusted annually for inflation since Plan adoption but do not reflect the results of fee audits. "Conservancy" fees reflect the results of the 2011 and 2013 audits and are imposed on participating special entities (PSEs) that apply for coverage under the Plan but are not a Permittee.
Sources: Table 6.3.
As shown in the table, the recommended development fee, which includes necessary funding for the endowment, is about four percent higher than current fees imposed directly by the Conservancy, and four percent lower than fees currently imposed by participating cities and the County.
Required future revenue contributions to the endowment represent about 20 percent of total remaining Plan costs for years 10- 30. Current development 32 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report vi
fees require only a modest adjustment despite this additional cost because of cost savings over the 30-year permit term. These cost savings come primarily from the preserve management and maintenance cost category (see Chapter 3). Such savings were anticipated by the 2006 Plan as a source of funding for the endowment.
For the wetland mitigation fee the results of the audit are compared to the fees in the original Plan and the current adopted 2017 fees in Table E.3. The wetland mitigation fee is 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.
Table E.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison
Current
Fee (2017) Fee
Audit
(2017)
Fee Audit
Compared To:
Land Cover Type
Cities/
County
Conserv-
ancy
Cities/
County
Conserv-
ancy
Riparian per acre $ 76,433 $ 98,978 $ 90,039 18% (9%) Perennial Wetland per acre
$104,593 $145,423 $136,456 30% (6%)
Seasonal Wetland per acre $226,617 $337,101 $319,330 41% (5%) Alkali Wetland per acre $214,549 $340,512 $322,820 50% (5%) Aquatic (Open Water) per acre $113,979 $184,474 $175,719 54% (5%) Aquatic (Open Water) per acre $ 57,660 $ 92,237 $ 87,860 52% (5%) Slough / Channel per acre $130,070 $134,428 $125,463 (4%) (7%) Streams (<=25 ft. wide) per linear foot $ 623 $ 376 $463 (26%) 23% Streams (>25 ft. wide) per linear foot $ 939 $ 564 $695 (26%) 23% Note: "Cities/County" fees are imposed by Permittees (participating cities and the County) and have been adjusted annually for inflation since Plan adoption but do not reflect the results of fee audits. "Conservancy" fees reflect the results of the 2011 and 2013 audits and are imposed on participating specia l entities (PSEs) that apply for coverage under the Plan but are not a Permittee.
Sources: Table 5.2.
Wetland mitigation fees imposed per acre by the Conservancy decline compared to current fees because of a more detailed approach to the use of inflation indices in this audit versus a more general (and appropriate) approach used for the annual fee adjustments. Fees imposed by the cities and the County increase primarily because the cities and the County have not yet adopted the revised rates developed by the 2013 audit.
33 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 1
1. I NTRODUCTION
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 (the 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.
The purpose of this audit is to fulfill the requirements of the periodic audit requirements of the Plan. 1 The audit also provides the basis for findings required by the MFA related to any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee.
Background
The Plan was completed in 2006 after an extensive planning process initiated in 1999 that built on prior efforts begun in 1995. 2 The Plan enables the protection of natural resources in Eastern 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 permit) allowing the incidental take of endangered species by projects and activities covered by the Plan. Covered activities include all ground- or habitat- disturbing activities, 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. The five participating local agencies formed a joint powers authority in 2007 known as the East Contra
1 Jones and Stokes, “East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan”, prepared for the East Contra Costa County
Habitat Conservation Plan Association (hereafter referred to in footnotes as “2006 Plan”), p. 9-31.
2 2006 Plan, Chapter 1, pp. 1-1 to 1-2.
34 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 2
Costa County Habitat Conservancy (the Conservancy) to perform the many implementation duties assigned to the “Implementing Entity” by the Plan.
The Conservancy’s fiscal year is from January 1 to December 31. The first (partial) year of operation was 2007. The Conservancy began collecting mitigation fees in 2008. Consistent with the financial planning presented in Chapter 9 of the Plan, 2007 is year 0, 2008 is year 1, 2016 is year 9, and the permit term would end in 2037, year 30. This audit is completed in year 10 (2017) as required by the Plan, and is based on data as of December 31, 2016 (year 9). The next audit is required in year 15, or 2022.
Plan Mitigation Fees
Revenue sources to fund estimated Plan costs during the 30-year permit term include four types of mitigation fees:
w Development Fee
w Wetland Mitigation Fee
w Rural Infrastructure Fee
w Temporary Impact Fee.
The type of mitigation fee paid by a covered activity depends on the location of the activity and the type of impact (“impact” and “covered activity” are used interchangeably in this report). Location depends on whether the impact is located inside or outside the urban development area (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 in lieu of paying the fee subject to approval by the Conservancy.
Covered activities that permanently remove habitat cause permanent impacts and pay the development fee or rural infrastructure fee, depending on location (inside or outside the UDA). Covered activities that temporarily disturb habitat cause temporary impacts pay the temporary impact fee regardless of location.
All projects that cause impacts on aquatic land cover types (wetlands, ponds, and streams) pay the wetland mitigation fee in addition to the applicable development or rural infrastructure fee. Table 1.1 summarizes how the four types of mitigation fees are applied to covered activities based on location and type of impact.
3 2006 Plan, Chapter 2, pp. 2-16 to 2-18, Figure 2-3. Excludes City of Antioch that is not covered under the Plan. 35 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 3
Table 1.1: Application of Mitigation Fees to Covered Activities Type of
Impact
Location of Impact
Inside UDA Outside UDA
Permanent w Development fee
w Wetland mitigation fee (if
applicable)
w Rural infrastructure fee
w Wetland mitigation fee (if
applicable)
Temporary w Temporary impact fee (plus temporary wetland mitigation fee if applicable)
Note: “UDA” is the urban development area.
Audit Objectives and Scope
The objectives of this audit are defined by the requirements of the Plan. 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 Plan
The Plan calls for periodic audits of the mitigation fees in years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20, and 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 The Plan calls for the audit to be completed by an outside independent financial auditor.
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 to maintain mitigation fee funding as a share of total Plan costs based on the fair share allocation determined by the Plan.
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.
4 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.
5 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, p. 9-30.
36 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 4
Mitigation Fee Act Requirements
The mitigation fees collected pursuant to the Plan are authorized by California law under the Mitigation Fee Act (MFA) found in Sections 66000 through 66025 of the California Government Code. This audit provides a revised fee schedule based on updated cost data that proposes increasing the existing fee amount. Consequently, this audit must make the following four “reasonable relationship” or “nexus” findings that the MFA requires when increasing a fee:
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.
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.
Post-Permit Term Costs
Chapter 9 of the Plan describes the funding sources and estimates the total revenue needed to fully fund Plan costs during the 30-year permit term.
Following the end of the permit term the preserve system will need to be 37 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 5
managed and monitored in perpetuity to comply with the permit. Chapter 9 did not include a funding plan for post-permit term costs though it did identify a range of potential funding sources. 6 The Plan requires the Conservancy to develop a detailed plan for long-term funding before half of all authorized impacts occur (measured in acres) or at the end of year 15 of implementation, whichever occurs first.
For the first time in the Plan’s history , this audit provides an updated fee schedule and funding plan that fully funds post-permit term costs, in advance of the year 15 deadline. Post-permit term costs are funded with an ongoing share of development fee revenue deposited into an endowment account. The endowment account would be actively managed in accordance with state law.
Investment earnings would be reinvested and no withdrawals made through the end of the permit term in year 30. At that time, the endowment account balance is projected to be sufficient to generate a self-sustaining amount equal to annual post-permit term costs in perpetuity and adjusted for inflation.
Objectives and Scope
The findings required by the MFA described above are similar in intent to the Plan’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 reasonable 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
3. Affirm the reasonable relationship between new development and the need for the fee, the amount of the fee, and the use of fee revenues
4. Update the funding plan including sources and amounts of anticipated non-fee revenue
5. Incorporate post-permit term costs.
This audit uses the most recently available data on financial transactions and covered activities through December 31, 2016.
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. This report utilizes this audited financial data. The financial and other data compiled for this audit represents a level of accuracy sufficient to
6 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, pp. 9-40 to 9-42 and Table 9-9. 38 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 6
recalculate the mitigation fees and update the funding plan based on the five- year audit and reasonable relationship requirements of the MFA.
Organization of the Audit
Covered activities (impacts) under the Plan for years 1 -9 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 calculated independently of the other fees based on estimated costs to restore/create wetlands in proportion to the amount of impact . The development fee is calculated based on urban development’s fair share of total Plan costs net of wetland mitigation costs. Thus, the wetland mitigation fee analysis is presented in Chapter 5 and the development fee analysis is presented in Chapter 6. The other two fees, rural infrastructure and temporary impact, use the same rates as the development and wetland mitigation fees applied to rural infrastructure impacts and temporary impacts, respectively. Thus, these fees require no additional fee calculation. These fees are discussed in Chapter 7.
The updated 30-year funding plan based on revised cost and revenue estimates is presented in Chapter 8.
39 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 7
2. I MPACTS
This section of the audit describes the impacts that have occurred to date during the years 1- 9 of the Plan (2008-2016). This section also identifies the remaining impacts to be accommodated by the Plan’s implementation based on the total amount of impacts covered by the Plan.
The Plan uses the amount of acreage from urban development and rural infrastructure projects and activities as the primary unit of measurement for impacts. The Plan uses linear feet to measure stream impacts subject to the additional 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 Plan. 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.7
w The maximum UDA is the maximum development capacity for urban development under the terms of the permit. Although boundaries are not defined development capacity considers areas outside the initial UDA proposed for future development in the general plans of Brentwood, Clayton, Pittsburg, and the County. The maximum development capacity is consistent with the biological goals and objectives of the Plan.
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 Plan does not define the precise boundaries of the maximum UDA because the ultimate boundaries depend on local land use decisions occurring during the permit term. Rather, the Plan defines the maximum number of acres under the maximum UDA covered under the Plan. The conservation requirements of the Plan are greater
7 Excluding some areas within the County urban limit line surrounding the Byron Airport. See 2006 Plan, p. 2-
17. 40
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 8
for the maximum UDA 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 Plan.8 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 urban development and rural infrastructure activities and projects.
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 value. 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.” 9 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 that covers 34 percent of the land included in the Plan’s inventory area, and 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. 10 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
8 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, pp. 9-20 to 9-21.
9 Ibid.
10 2006 Plan, Chapter 4, pp. 4-14 to 4-22.
41 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 9
vacant lots but less value than natural areas. Chapter 4 of the Plan includes several findings to support this approach. 11 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. 12 The zones represent predominant land cover types, as described above, and the relative level of impact per acre from covered activities within a zone . 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.13
Summary of Impacts to Date
Impacts to date (2008-2016) are shown in Table 2.1. As explained in Chapter 1 (see Table 1.1) impacts fees were paid on these covered activities (impacts) as follows:
w Permanent impacts within the UDA paid the development fee on covered activities based on the three fee zones.
w Rural infrastructure impacts paid the rural infrastructure fee. w Temporary impacts paid the temporary impact fee.
w Impacts to aquatic land cover types paid the wetland mitigation fee in addition to the applicable development, rural infrastructure, or temporary impact fee.
11 2006 Plan, Chapter 4, pp. 4-6, 4-15, and 2006 Plan, Appendix D, Species Profiles. 12 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, p. 9-20.
13 See, for example, 2006 Plan, Chapter 3, pp. 3-2 to 3-5. 42 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 10
Table 2.1: Covered Activities, Years 1-9 (2008-2016)
Land
Conver-
sion
(acres)
Aquatic Impacts1
Wetlands
(acres)
Streams
(linear
feet)
Permanent Impacts
Urban Development Area (UDA)
Zone 1 411.99
Zone 2 34.19
Zone 3 12.46
Subtotal UDA 458.64
Rural Infrastructure (outside UDA)2 73.06
Total Land Conversion 531.70
Aquatic
Wetlands 1.83
Streams (linear feet) 923.31
Temporary Impacts
All Land Cover 429.30
Wetlands 5.99
Streams (linear feet)
4,517.70
1 Aquatic impacts (wetlands and streams) are included in land conversion impacts. Aquatic impacts pay wetland fees in addition to land conversion fees. 2 Covered activities occurring outside the UDA could occur in either zones 1 or 2. Includes rural road projects as shown in Table 9-6 of the 2006 Plan, plus rural infrastructure projects and activities, and activities within the preserve system (see Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.4 of the 2006 Plan).
Sources: Appendix A, Table A.1.
See Table A.1 in Appendix A for a detailed list of covered activities to date.
Remaining Permanent Impacts Under the Plan
The Plan allows for a fixed amount of permanent impacts within the UDA and from rural infrastructure. Permanent impacts are used to calculate and update the development fee. The remaining permanent impacts allowed under the Plan in years 10-30 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. This total for the maximum and initial UDAs is used to allocate costs to the development fee in Chapter 5. 43 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 11
Table 2.2: Permanent Impacts (acres)
Zone
1 Zone
2 Zone
3 Subtotal Share
Outside
UDA Total1 Share
Permit Limits (Years 1-30)
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 (Years 1-9, through 2016)
Initial UDA 412 34 12 458 5.3% 73 531 5.4%
Maximum UDA 412 34 12 458 3.9% 73 531 4.1%
Remaining Impacts (Years 10-30)
Initial UDA 5,786 2,272 154 8,212 94.7% 1,053 9,265 94.6% Maximum UDA 7,095 4,146 154 11,395 96.1% 1,103 12,448 95.9% Impact Weighting Factor2 2 4 1
Permit Limits - Equivalent Acres (Years 1-30)
Not Available3
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 (Years 1-9, through 2016) Initial UDA 824 136 12 972 4.5%
Maximum UDA 824 136 12 972 3.0%
Remaining Impacts - Equivalent Acres (Years 10-30)
Initial UDA 11,572 9,088 154 20,814 95.5%
Maximum UDA 14,190 16,584 154 30,928 97.0%
Notes: "UDA" is the urban development area.
T he permit limits used to calculate the initial fees sho wn in Chapter 9, Table 9-4, and Appendix H of the 2006 Plan are revised to control to the totals in Chapter 4, Tables 4 -2 and 4-3, of the 2006 Plan (14 acres less for the Initial UDA and 26 acres less for the Maximum UDA). These adjustments are made to zon e 1 though they could be allocated to any zone within the UDA. 1 Table 4-3 in Chapter 4 of the 2006 Plan appears to have a mathematical error for the maximum UDA permit limit, showing 13,029 acres instead of 12,979.
2 Weighting factor reflects relative impacts by zone (see 2006 Plan, Appendix H). Equivalent acres for impacts outside the UDA not calculated because impacts occur in both zones 1 and 2.
3 The 2006 Plan did not identify the location of all covered activities occurring outside the UDA by zone, except for rural road projects (see Table 9-6 of the 2006 Plan ). Includes rural infrastructure projects and activities, and activities within the preserve system (see Sections
2.3.2 through 2.3.4 of the 2006 Plan).
Sources: 2006 Plan, Tables 4-2 and 4-2, Table 9-4 (revised), and Appendix H, Table 1; Table 2.1.
Table 2.2 shows 12,979 acres for the permit limit under the maximum UDA.
Table 4-3 in the 2006 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.
Impacts to aquatic land cover types (wetlands, ponds, and streams) are shown in Table 2.3. This audit contains the same adjustment made by the 2013 audit to total acres of restoration/creation assumed in the 2006 Plan cost model to be consistent with Tables 5-16 and 5-17 in Chapter 5 of the Plan. Estimated 44 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 12
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.14
Table 2.3: Wetland Impacts
Estimated Impacts
(Years 1-30)1
(acres or linear feet)
Actual
Wetland
Impacts
(Years 1-9)2
Estimated Impacts
(Years 10-30)
(acres or linear feet)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Impacts Based on Acres
Riparian 30.00 35.00 1.08 28.92 33.92
Perennial Wetland 22.20 22.50 0.07 22.13 22.43 Seasonal Wetland 14.00 18.67 0.38 13.62 18.29
Alkali Wetland 9.33 10.33 0.14 9.19 10.19
Pond 7.00 8.00 0.10 6.90 7.90
Aquatic (Open Water) 12.00 12.00 - 12.00 12.00 Slough / Channel 72.00 72.00 0.07 71.93 71.93
Subtotal (acres) 166.53 178.50 1.83 164.70 176.67 Impacts Based on Linear Feet
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) 21,120 26,400 677 20,443 25,723 Streams (>25 ft. wide) 3,168 4,224 246 2,922 3,978 Subtotal (linear feet) 24,288 30,624 923 23,365 29,701 Note: "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 2006 Plan (see Tables 5 -16 and 5-17). 1 Discrepancies in the 2006 Plan in Appendix G, Wetland Fee Worksheet are corrected to be consistent with Chapter 5, Tables 5- 16 and Table 5 -17. 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, and the original Wetland Fee Worksheet in the Plan, footnotes 12 and 13), Stream impacts are added that were not included in the Wetland Fee Worksheet.
Source: 2006 Plan, Tables 5-16 and 5-17; Appendix A, Table A.1.
14 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 Plan. 45 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 13
3. C OST MODEL
This chapter presents a summary of the updated cost models for the 30-year permit term. As shown in Appendix G of the Plan a separate cost model is used for the initial and maximum UDAs to account for the difference in preserve system size and other differences in the conservation requirements of the Plan. The two models are identical in structure. The difference in cost between the two models is primarily related to the effect of different land acquisition and restoration requirements for the preserve system under each 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 2017 update, cost model revisions were made to the latest version of the model developed for the 2013 audit. The model for each scenario (initial and maximum UDA) includes approximately 30 pages of linked spreadsheets (see Appendix C and Appendix D). Total costs for the permit term are the sum of actual costs to date (through December 31, 2016) and remaining costs through the end of the permit term. All costs are expressed in 2016 dollars to support calculation of the mitigation fees.
Actual costs through December 31, 2016 were adjusted to 2016 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 (the 2011 and 2013 audit).15
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 2013 audit 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
4. Habitat restoration/creation
15 See the 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, pp. 30-31 and Table 9-7, and Appendix F, Table F.1. 46 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 14
5. Environmental compliance
6. Preserve management and maintenance
7. Monitoring, research, and adaptive management
8. Remedial measures
9. Contingency.
A separate endowment model was built for this audit and is described in the following chapter (Chapter 4).
Land Acquisition Costs
Land acquisition is the Plan’s largest cost category representing about 64 percent o f 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.
For this audit, Conservancy staff prepared an updated acquisition model for both the initial and maximum UDA scenarios. The model evaluates the characteristics of potential preserve land against preserve targets and acquisitions that have already occurred. The 2006 plan indicates a range of total acreage needed to achieve the various habitat acquisition requirements of the Plan. Total acquisition costs assumed in the cost model for the Plan and in the 2013 audit were based on a mid-point estimate. The improved mapping used for this audit found that the number of acres needing to be acquired would likely be at the high end of the range rather than the mid-point. Acquisition costs for this audit are based on acquiring about 15 percent more preserve acres in both the initial and maximum UDA scenarios than was the case i n 2006 and 2013.
The Conservancy, working with East Bay Regional Park District, has been very successful in acquiring preserve system lands since the Plan’s implementation.
Through year 9 (2016) the Conservancy has acquired approximately 10,987 acres, or 36 and 45 percent and of the preserve system required under the maximum and initial UDA scenarios, respectively. These totals exclude (1) acquired lands that cannot be credited to the preserve system because of existing conservation easements mitigating habitat impacts that occurred prior to Plan adoption 16 and (2) parts of acquired parcels that lie outside plan acquisition zones.
A database of over 90 land transactions in East Contra Costa County, most within the past five years, was compiled from a variety of sources to estimate costs per acre for future preserve system acquisitions. This database included
16 Unless those pre-Plan impacts were also counted against the Plan’s permit limits. 47 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 15
32 East Bay Regional Park District acquisitions (most of which were performed in partnership with the Conservancy), plus acquisitions by Save Mount Diablo (local nonprofit land trust organization), the Contra Costa Water District, 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 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 2012 when land prices reflected the fall off in demand due to the Great Recession. Since then, prices for larger parcels outside the urban limit line have increased between 20 and 50 percent, and prices for smaller parcels 10 acres or less have decreased about 20 percent. The fluctuation in prices for smaller open space parcels is because there are notably fewer transactions of this type and the characteristics of each parcel are more variable. 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 70 percent.
Consistent with changes made for the 2013 audit, due diligence costs are estimated based on a flat three percent charge on land acquisition costs and 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 21-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 12 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.
The most significant component of habitat restoration/creation costs is contract services to restore or create habitat across nine separate land cover types. The 2013 audit discovered that unit cost (costs per acre) assumptions in the 2006 Plan were significantly different than the Conservancy’s actual experience through 2012. Based on a detailed review of actual restoration projects completed by the Conservancy and other agencies, the 2013 audit significantly increased unit costs for most land cover types.
For the current audit, we reviewed cost data for Conservancy restoration projects undertaken since 2012. Based on this review, unit costs in the 2013 audit for seven of the nine land cover types are updated by applying the California Construction Cost Index developed by the California Department 48 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 16
of General Services.17 The remaining two land cover types (oak savanna and stream) are increased more than this inflation adjustment to reflect recent Conservancy cost experience and contractor experience on similar projects.
Unit costs for habitat restoration/creation construction are augmented by three types of soft costs:
w Construction-related costs including seven line items: 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.
Consistent with the 2013 audit, four of the construction-related cost line items (plans and specifications, bid assistance, construction oversight, and post- construction 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 the 2013 audit except restoration plans and specifications costs are increased to account for the shift of restoration design preparation from the Planning and Design cost category, and construction oversight is increased from 7 to 10 percent to reflect more reliance on contractors than Conservancy staff positions in this cost category.
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.
Conservancy staff and related costs are updated based on current hourly costs per position and experience with allocation of staff time for habita t restoration/creation projects. Consistent with that experience, this update eliminates Conservancy senior scientist and technical support positions in restoration, showing these tasks as higher contractor costs for construction oversight, as noted above.
This audit eliminates the cost line items for vehicle purchase and vehicle fuel and maintenance that in prior models had been allocated between planning and design, restoration, and monitoring cost categories. These costs are included in the Conservancy staff overhead cost and contractor rates.
The contingency of 20 percent on habitat restoration/creation construction costs remain unchanged from the 2006 Plan and the 2013 audit. The contingency applies to habitat construction costs only and not soft costs or Conservancy staff costs. The contingency is higher than the five percent rate applied to other Plan implementation activities because of the high degree of
17 This index is based on building cost indices for San Francisco and Los Angeles published by the Engineering News-Record.
49 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 17
cost variation and uncertainty associated with habitat restoration/creation projects.
Habitat restoration/creation mitigation unit costs for aquatic 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.
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, Conservancy 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 Conservancy staff hourly rates are updated based on actual costs and projected needs.
Planning and Design
Based on current Conservancy practice, for the 2017 audit, the cost model eliminates Conservancy senior scientist staffing and to compensate increases contractor costs for management planning. Management planning costs anticipated by the Plan but not yet incurred are shifted to later in the permit period. Restoration planning costs are shifted to the Habitat Restoration/Creation cost category. Vehicle purchase, fuel, and maintenance costs are included in staff overhead cost and contractor rates.
50 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 18
Table 3.1: Wetland Mitigation Costs (2016$)
Cost Category
Cost
Factor
Riparian
Perennial
Wetland
Seasonal
Wetland
Alkali
Wetland Pond
Open
Water
Slough/
Channel Stream2
(per
acre) (per acre) (per acre)
(per
acre)
(per
acre)
(per
acre)
(per
acre)
(per linear
foot)
Construction $42,200 $68,800 $82,100 $83,100 $91,300 $91,300 $62,500 $234 Construction-related costs
Plans, specs., allowance for
remedial measures1 33% 13,926 22,704 27,093 27,423 30,129 30,129 20,625 77 Bid assistance1 1.5% 633 1,032 1,232 1,247 1,370 1,370 938 4 Construction oversight1 10% 4,220 6,880 8,210 8,310 9,130 9,130 6,250 23 Post-construction maint.1 10% 4,220 6,880 8,210 8,310 9,130 9,130 6,250 23 Environmental compliance2,3 $6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 21 Pre-construction surveys2,4 $1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 4 Construction monitoring2,4 $2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 10 Staff and related costs2,5 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 20
Subtotal $81,599 $122,696 $143,245 $144,790 $157,459 $157,459 $112,963 $417 Contingency1 20% 8,440 13,760 16,420 16,620 18,260 18,260 12,500 47
Total Unit Cost $90,039 $136,456 $159,665 $161,410 $175,719 $175,719 $125,463 $463 Adjustment Factor for Streams >25 Feet Wide 1.50 Total Unit Cost (Streams >25 feet wide) $695
1 Percentage applied to construction costs.
2 Amount applied per acre of impact. Stream costs based on average of per acre costs as a percent of construction costs for all other aquatic land cover types. 3 Based on CEQA, CWA 401, CDFG 1602, and other permi t 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 constructi on and contractors) between initial and maximum UDA cost models for habitat restoration/creation cost category Sources: Appendices C and D (Habitat Restoration/Creation tab).
51 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 19
Environmental Compliance
Based on actual Conservancy experience with the permitting process, this 2017 update reinstates an allocation of Conservancy program staff time for permitting. In addition, some legal services are allocated to this category because of the need for legal assistance with on-going regional wetland permitting anticipated through year 20. 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. Current costs reflect land-bank ing of many acquired lands. Preserve management staffing is based on review of staffing patterns at Conservancy properties and other similar parkland units within the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) Interpretive Parklands Unit. Preserve management staff costs are based on EBRPD costs. Furthermore, in place of the detailed line item cost estimates for vehicles, equipment, materials, facilities and road maintenance, water pumping, weed management, pond maintenance, etc., this audit derives a cost factor per full-time equivalent (FTE) management staff to capture the wide range of equipment, materials and services required for land management on Conservancy properties. The factor is derived from analysis of spending in the Maintenance and Skilled Trades Department within the EBRPD Parks Operations Division.
Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management
Based on current Conservancy practice, for the 2017 audit, the model eliminates Conservancy senior scientist staffing and increases contractor costs for monitoring. Vehicle purchase, fuels, and maintenance costs are assumed to be included in staff overhead cost and contractor rates. Contractor costs are adjusted based on actual Conservancy cost for monitoring contractors.
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.
52 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 20
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 the 2006 Plan costs and the prior 2013 audit. All amounts are updated to 2016 dollars using the same inflation index used to update actual Conservancy costs to date in the cost model. Total costs excluding wetland mitigation fee revenue are shown at the bottom of the table because changes to this amount directly affect the development fee (see Chapter 5).
Adjusted for inflation, total costs are in the range of 10 percent lower than costs in the 2013 audit for both the initial and maximum UDA scenarios.
Similar results pertain for total costs excluding wetland mitigation fee revenue; costs used to calculate the development fee are eight percent lower than those in the 2013 audit for the initial UDA scenario and four percent lower for the maximum UDA scenario.
Trends in costs between this audit and the 2006 Plan, and this audit and the prior (2013) audit, are described below. All comparisons are in 2016 dollars as presented in Tables 3.2 and 3.3.
1. Program administration: Costs are higher than estimated for the 200 6 Plan due to higher costs for (1) overhead support and benefits, (2) legal and financial analysis services, and (3) higher than anticipated costs to assist Participating Special Entities with the permitting process, offset by revenue from higher administrative charges and other development exactions. Costs are unchanged from the 2013 audit.
2. Land acquisition: Costs adjusted for inflation have not changed significantly from the 2006 Plan and the 2013 audit.
3. Planning and design: Total costs remain higher than in the 2006 Plan because of higher costs for overhead support and benefits than originally anticipated. Cost decline from the 2013 audit because (1) that audit assumed Conservancy technical staffing while this audit assumes more planning services are contracted out, and (2) this audit shifts restoration design costs to the habitat restoration/creation category.
53 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 21
Table 3.2: Cost Model Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2016 $) Cost Category
2006
Plan
2013
Fee Audit
2017
Fee Audit
2017 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2017 Audit vs.
2013 Audit
Program Administration $20,540,000 $26,690,000 $26,630,000 $6,090,000 30% $(60,000) (0%) Land Acquisition 216,910,000 217,690,000 217,550,000 640,000 0% (140,000) (0%) Planning and Design 6,960,000 10,300,000 7,810,000 850,000 12% (2,490,000) (24%) Habitat Restoration/Creation 23,080,000 50,290,000 43,430,000 20,350,000 88% (6,860,000) (14%) Environmental Compliance 2,650,000 3,720,000 3,640,000 990,000 37% (80,000) (2%) Preserve Management &
Maintenance
37,400,000 46,730,000 28,990,000 (8,410,000) (22%) (17,740,000) (38%) Monitoring, Research, & Adaptive
Management
21,260,000 22,030,000 12,890,000 (8,370,000) (39%) (9,140,000) (41%) Remedial Measures 1,790,000 3,160,000 3,080,000 1,290,000 72% (80,000) (3%) Contingency 5,680,000 6,210,000 4,280,000 (1,400,000) (25%) (1,930,000) (31%)
Total Plan Implementation $336,270,000 $386,820,000 $348,300,000 $12,030,000 4% $(38,520,000) (11%) Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue 25,170,000 42,140,000 36,550,000 11,380,000 45% (5,590,000) (13%) Total Costs Excluding Wetland
Mitigation Fee $313,190,000 $336,530,000 $311,750,000 $(1,440,000) (0%) $(24,780,000) (8%) Note: 2006 Plan and 2013 Fee Audit costs are inflated to 2016 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.
Sources: 2006 Plan, Table 9-1; 2013 audit, Table 3.2; Appendix C (Summary tab); Appendix F, Table F.1.
54 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 22
Table 3.3: Cost Model Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2016 $) Cost Category
2006
Plan
2013
Fee Audit
2017
Fee Audit
2017 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2017 Audit vs.
2013 Audit
Program Administration $20,630,000 $26,770,000 $26,680,000 $6,050,000 29% $(90,000) (0%) Land Acquisition 266,760,000 257,140,000 268,650,000 1,890,000 1% 11,510,000 4% Planning and Design 7,050,000 10,430,000 7,810,000 760,000 11% (2,620,000) (25%) Habitat Restoration/Creation 25,910,000 56,090,000 51,750,000 25,840,000 100% (4,340,000) (8%) Environmental Compliance 2,650,000 3,720,000 3,640,000 990,000 37% (80,000) (2%) Preserve Management &
Maintenance
41,250,000 55,680,000 35,650,000 (5,600,000) (14%) (20,030,000) (36%) Monitoring, Research, & Adaptive
Management
23,860,000 24,800,000 14,880,000 (8,980,000) (38%) (9,920,000) (40%) Remedial Measures 1,920,000 3,590,000 3,650,000 1,730,000 90% 60,000 2% Contingency 6,170,000 6,920,000 4,890,000 (1,280,000) (21%) (2,030,000) (29%)
Total Plan Implementation $396,200,000 $445,140,000 $417,600,000 $21,400,000 5% $(27,540,000) (7%) Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue 26,770,000 48,100,000 42,200,000 15,430,000 58% (5,900,000) (12%) Total Costs Excluding Wetland
Mitigation Fee $370,290,000 $389,050,000 $375,400,000 $5,110,000 1% $(13,650,000) (4%) Note: 2006 Plan and 2013 Fee Audit costs are inflated to 2016 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.
Sources: 2006 Plan, Table 9-1; 2013 audit, Table 3.2; Appendix D (Summary tab); Appendix F, Table F.1.
55 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 23
4. Habitat restoration/creation: Costs are higher than the 2006 Plan due to higher construction unit costs than assumed in the Plan for nearly all habitat types based on actual Conservancy experience. Costs are lower than the 2013 audit because the inflation index used to inflate construction costs from 2012 dollars for this audit is lower than used in Tables 3.2 and
3.3 to inflate 2012 costs across all cost categories.
5. Environmental compliance: Costs are higher than the 2006 Plan because a more fine-grained approach in the 2013 audit documented significantly higher permitting costs for restoration projects than originally projected.
Costs remain nearly unchanged from the 2013 to the 2017 audit.
6. Preserve management and maintenance: Costs are lower than the 2006 Plan and the 2013 audit because this audit reflects economies of scale associated with the Conservancy ’s partnership with EBRPD. Also, costs in the 2006 Plan included recreation management and these costs were removed in the 2013 audit. Finally, with this audit t hrough year 9 (2016) nearly one-third of the permit term has elapsed. Actual costs to date have been lower due to lower levels of impacts from covered activities (see Table 2.2), and therefore total costs for the entire permit term decline with fewer years remaining for management and maintenance activities.
7. Monitoring, research, and adaptive management: Costs decline in part because higher contractor costs are more than offset by lower Conservancy staff costs. More significantly, and like the comment above regarding lower preserve management and maintenance costs, nearly one- third of the permit term has elapsed and there are fewer years over which the Conservancy will incur the remaining costs.
8. Remedial measures: Costs are higher than the 2006 Plan because they are primarily affected by habitat restoration/creation costs (see discussion, above). Costs are nearly unchanged from the 2013 audit.
9. Contingency: Costs are lower than the 2006 Plan and the 2013 audit because costs are deleted for prior years and instead reflected in actual costs for the other cost categories.
Overall, total costs are slightly higher compared to the 2006 plan and slightly lower compared to the 2013 audit. Total costs excluding wetland mitigation fee revenue, the total amount used to calculate the development fee, follow similar trend though not to the same degree.
56 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 24
4. E NDOWMENT MODEL
The 2006 Plan requires funding for post-permit term costs in perpetuity for the management and monitoring of the preserve system. 18 The Plan did not require that these costs be included in the initial funding plan. Instead, the Plan required that the Conservancy develop a funding plan for post-permit term costs, and secure all necessary commitments to implement the funding plan, by year 15 (2022) or when half of the impacts allowed under the permit occur, whichever comes first.
This audit represents a significant turning point for implementation of the 2006 Plan. For the first time, this audit includes funding for post-permit term costs in perpetuity. Due to cost savings in other areas, this audit proposes a mitigation fee schedule that fully funds post-permit term costs in perpetuity with small increase in current fees (see Chapters 5 and 6).
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 re-invested earnings through year 30. At that time, the endowment would be large enough to generate ongoing earnings sufficient to fully fund post-permit management and monitoring costs in perpetuity , including adjustments 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.19 The approach also ensures that, pursuant to the MFA, future development does not fund the endowment needs associated with development that has occurred to date.
Post-permit Term Costs and Revenues
Annual post-permit funding needs from the endowment were developed based on guidance provided in Chapter 9 of the 2006 Plan. Total post-permit 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:
18 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, pp. 9-40 to 9-42 and Table 9-9. 19 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.). 57 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 25
w 45 percent of program administration costs
w 100 percent of preserve management and monitoring costs w 50 percent of monitoring, research, and adaptive management costs The EBRPD has been building a lease revenu e stream from activities on preserve system lands primarily associated with wind turbine sites, cell towers, and grazing rights. The agency has been using these funds for preserve management and maintenance costs. Annual revenues have averaged $500,000 annually over the past four years (2013-2016). Some lease revenues are anticipated to continue in perpetuity and therefore to provide funding for post- permit term costs. To be conservative, the endowment model assumes that 50 percent of current average annual lease revenue will be available for post- permit term funding in perpetuity ($250,000 annually).
Endowment Funding Plan
The endowment fund balance is built through year 30 with a combination of three types of revenue:
1. Re-invested earnings from endowment investments.
2. An opening balance representing the fair share cost for development to date (years 1-9)
3. Allocation of a share of revenues from mitigation fees and possibly other Conservancy and local partner revenues through year 30
The Conservancy will need to develop a funding plan for the endowment to ensure that a sufficient balance is built by year 30 to fund post-permit term costs in perpetuity. Guidance for development of the funding plan is provided in the subsections, below.
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 58 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 26
fees, at a constant rate of 3.25 percent of the fund balance that is achieved by the end of the permit term in year 30 (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 endo wment 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 programs 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 by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency for its endowment fund being managed by the Santa Clara Valley Community Foundation.
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.
Opening Fund Balance
Development that has occurred through year 9 has not directly contributed funding for post-permit term costs. Therefore, the endowment fund requires a source of revenue other than future mitigation fees and their related investment earnings to represent prior development’s fair share of total endowment funding needs. This funding need will be satisfied by the 59 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 27
Conservancy contributing to the endowment’s opening fund balance when the fund is established.
The Conservancy has several options for sources of funding to cover the fair share of development impacts through year 9. One source is a $1 million currently being held by the California Wildlife Foundation that is available for the Conservancy’s endowment. Another source is the Conservancy’s own fund balance that was $2.3 million as of the end of the prior fiscal year (December 31, 2016).
The fair share endowment contribution from prior development was calculated in three steps with use of the endowment model:
1. Fee revenue contributions sufficient to build the endowment by year 30 were calculated for the initial and maximum UDA based on no opening fund balance.
2. The total revenue contribution for each scenario from step (1) was multiplied by a factor representing impacts to date, weighted by zone, as a percent of permit limits (see Table 2.2). This factor was 4.5 percent for the initial UDA and 3.0 percent for the maximum UDA.
3. The fair share revenue contributions represented by impacts to date from step (2) was used in the endowment model as the opening fund balance, and the model recalculated revenue contributions required from remaining development from each scenario.
The calculated fair share endowment contribution is $2,200,000 and $1,750,000 for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios, respectively. The average of these two amounts is $1,975,000.
Mitigation Fees and Other Revenues
Besides investment earnings, the other ongoing funding sources to build the endowment fund balance by year 30 are revenues from mitigation fees and possibly other Conservancy and local partner revenues. The Conservancy will need to develop a plan to fund this endowment contribution.
Many non -fee revenues sources, including state and federal sources, are generally limited to the following (overlapping) uses: (1) land acquisition, and (2) conservation component of the Plan over and above mitigation requirements. Therefore, these funding sources cannot fund the endowment costs for management and monitoring of lands associated with the conservation (non-mitigation) component in perpetuity. Consequently , other funding sources primarily mitigation fees will fund the share of the endowment associated with the conservation (non-mitigation) component of the Plan. In return, state, federal, and other sources will fund a larger share of land acquisition costs. In this manner both types of funding sources ( non-fee 60 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 28
sources and mitigation fees) will remain constrained to funding only their respective appropriate shares of total Plan costs.
The endowment model assumes that revenue contributions will be made at a constant rate on an annual basis through the end of the permit term. Of course, revenues may fluctuate above and below this annual average from year to year particularly if funding relies on mitigation fees. However, this variability is offsetting, i.e. lower endowment fund contributions in one year are compensated by higher contributions in other years. Furthermore, periodic audits such as this one enable the Conservancy to adjust its funding plan for the endowment, including revising mitigation fee levels, in response to changing conditions to ensure an adequate fund balance by the end of the permit term.
Mitigation Fees
Development and rural infrastructure fees are likely the primary mitigation fee funding source because there is a reasonable relationship (nexus) between development impacts and the size of the reserve, and the size of the reserve determines post-permit funding needs.
Wetland mitigation fees are associated with specific habitat impacts and only fund habitat restoration/creation projects. Wetland mitigation fees do not fund land acquisition so there is less of reasonable relationship between these types of impacts and the purpose of the endowment. Therefore, these fees are probably not appropriate to contribute to the endowment.
Temporary impact fees could be used to contribute to the endowment though these fees are only one percent of total revenues for the Conservancy’s overall plan for funding Plan implementation costs (see Chapter 8, Table 8.1).
Other Potential Funding
Other potential funding for the endowment includes:
w Administrative charges
w Other development exactions, e.g. contributions to recovery that are above and beyond mitigation payments
w Interest earnings (on the Conservancy’s operating account) w Lease revenues
Like temporary impact fees, the first three sources listed above together constitute only a small share of total revenues for the Conservancy’s overall funding plan (see Chapter 8, Table 8.1). Thus, these sources are unlikely to be depended upon for the endowment funding.
61 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 29
The fourth source, lease revenues, are received by the EBRPD. As described above, l ease revenues have averaged about $500,000 annually since 2013.
These revenues could be tapped for endowment funding.
Endowment Fund Model Results
The key inputs to and results from the endowment model are shown below in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Post-Permit Funding
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Endowment Opening Balance (Year 10) $2,200,000 $1,750,000 Endowment Revenue (Years 10-30) 45,930,000 57,290,000 Endowment Investment Earnings (Years 10-30) 21,660,000 26,060,000 Endowment Fund Balance (Year 30) $69,790,000 $85,100,000 Annual Distribution Rate (Year 31+) 3.25% 3.25%
Annual Distribution (Year 31+) $2,270,000 $2,770,000 Annual Lease Revenue (Year 31+) 250,000 250,000
Annual Endowment Funding (Year 31+) $2,520,000 $3,020,000 Source: Appendix E, Tables E.1 and E.2.
See Appendix E for detailed output of the endowment model for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios.
Endowment Management
The Conservancy may manage and invest endowment funds directly or have another entity hold and invest the endowment under contract as authorized by California Government Code section 65965. The Conservancy should ensure that the endowment is managed, invested, and disbursed in furtherance of the long-term stewardship of the preserve system by:
w Managing endowment funds efficiently.
w Achieving a reasonable long-term rate of return on investment of endowment funds like those of other prudent investors for endowment funds.
w Achieving a long-term rate of return that is equal to the annual real rate of return assumed in the funding plan (currently 3.25 percent), after deducting inflation and fees.
62 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 30
w Contributing to the endowment at least annually by transferring a fixed percentage of development fee and rural infrastructure fee revenues received.
w Use the periodic audits required by the Plan (such as this audit) to adjust fees and endowment contributions to ensure full funding of the endowment by the end of the permit term.
w Managing and investing endowment funds in good faith and with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances, consistent with the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (Part 7 (commencing with Section 18501) of Division 9 of the Probate Code).
w Utilizing generally accepted accounting practices as promulgated by either the Financial Accounting Standards Board or any successor entity for nonprofit organizations or the Governmental Accounting Standards Board or any successor entity for public agencies, to the extent those practices do not conflict with any other requirements of law. w Disbursing endowment funds on a timely basis and only for the long-term stewardship of the preserve system post-permit term.
63 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 31
5. W ETLAND 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, the wetland mitigation fee is applied to covered activities that generate permanent impacts on aquatic land cover types whether inside or outside the UDA.20 Wetland mitigation fees are calculated based on the surface area of the aquatic land cover type impacted, regardless of the size of the covered activity or the total amount of impacts. The wetland mitigation fee is therefore typically applied to 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 Plan. 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 aquatic 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 aquatic 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.
20 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, pp. 9-23 to 9-24 and Table 9-5. 64 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 32
Table 5.1: Wetland Mitigation Fee Schedule
Land Cover Type
Habitat Restoration /
Creation Cost
Mitigation
Ratio Wetland Mitigation Fee
Riparian $ 90,039 per acre 1:1 $ 90,039 per acre Perennial Wetland 136,456 per acre 1:1 136,456 per acre Seasonal Wetland 159,665 per acre 2:1 319,330 per acre Alkali Wetland 161,410 per acre 2:1 322,820 per acre Ponds 175,719 per acre 1:1 175,719 per acre
Aquatic (Open Water) 175,719 per acre 0.5:1 87,860 per acre Slough / Channel 125,463 per acre 1:1 125,463 per acre Streams (<=25 ft. wide) 463 per linear foot 1:1 463 per linear foot Streams (>25 ft. wide) 695 per linear foot 1:1 695 per linear foot Sources: 2006 Plan, Tables 5-16 and 5-17; Table 3.1.
Table 5.2 compares the updated wetland mitigation fees to current fees. The current fee has two levels. The "Cities/County" fees are imposed by Permittees with land use authority (participating cities and the County) and have been adjusted annually for inflation since Plan adoption but do not reflect the results of fee audits. The "Conservancy" fees reflect the results of the 2013 audit and are imposed on participating special entities (PSEs) that apply for coverage under the Plan but are not a Permittee.
Wetland mitigation fees imposed per acre by the Conservancy decline compared to current fees because of differences in the inflation index for certain cost components used for this audit versus the index used for the annual fee adjustments. The former uses the Building Cost Index (BCI) provided by the California Department of General Services, and the latter uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco Bay Area provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BCI increased less than the CPI so fees can be reduced compared to current Conservancy levels while still fully funding habitat restoration/creation costs.
Fee imposed by the cities and the County increase for most land cover types primarily because the cities and the County have not yet adopted the revised rates developed by the 2013 audit.
Estimated restoration costs and revenues associated with aquatic land cover impacts are shown in Table 5.3. The table multiplies the aquatic land cover acreage impacts from Table 2.4 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.
65 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 33
Table 5.2: Wetland Mitigation Fee Comparison
Current
Fee (2017) Fee
Audit
(2017)
Fee Audit
Compared To:
Land Cover Type
Cities/
County
Conserv-
ancy
Cities/
County
Conserv-
ancy
Riparian per acre $ 76,433 $ 98,978 $ 90,039 18% (9%) Perennial Wetland per acre
$104,593 $145,423 $136,456 30% (6%)
Seasonal Wetland per acre $226,617 $337,101 $319,330 41% (5%) Alkali Wetland per acre $214,549 $340,512 $322,820 50% (5%) Aquatic (Open Water) per acre $113,979 $184,474 $175,719 54% (5%) Aquatic (Open Water) per acre $ 57,660 $ 92,237 $ 87,860 52% (5%) Slough / Channel per acre $130,070 $134,428 $125,463 (4%) (7%) Streams (<=25 ft. wide) per linear foot $ 623 $ 376 $463 (26%) 23% Streams (>25 ft. wide) per linear foot $ 939 $ 564 $695 (26%) 23% Note: "Cities/County" fees are imposed by Permittees (participating cities and the County) and have been adjusted annually for inflation since Plan adoption but do not reflect the results of fee audits. "Conservancy" fees reflect the results of the 2011 and 2013 audits and are imposed on participating special entities (PSEs) that apply for coverage under the Plan but are not a Permittee.
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy; Table 5.1.
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 aquatic land cover types, including design, implementation, post- construction 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 Plan, but the cost of this restoration is included in the development fee because it is not associated with jurisdictional wetlands and waters.
66 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 34
Table 5.3: Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue
Fee Revenue
(Year 10-30)
Land Cover Type Wetland Mitigation Fee
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Riparian $ 90,039 per acre $ 2,600,000 $ 3,050,000 Perennial Wetland 136,456 per acre 3,020,000 3,060,000 Seasonal Wetland 319,330 per acre 4,350,000 5,840,000 Alkali Wetland 322,820 per acre 2,970,000 3,290,000 Ponds 175,719 per acre 1,210,000 1,390,000
Aquatic (Open Water) 87,860 per acre 1,050,000 1,050,000 Slough / Channel 125,463 per acre 9,020,000 9,020,000 Subtotal $24,220,000 $26,700,000
Streams (<=25 ft. wide) $463 per linear foot 9,470,000 11,910,000 Streams (>25 ft. wide) 695 per linear foot 2,030,000 2,760,000 Total
$35,720,000 $41,370,000
Fee Revenue
(Year 0-30)
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA
Actual (Year 0-9) $830,000 $830,000
Estimated (Year 10-30) 35,720,000 41,370,000
Total (Year 0-30) $36,550,000 $42,200,000
Note: "UDA" is the urban development area.
Sources: Tables 2.3, 5.1, and 8.1.
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 Plan 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 aquatic 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 Plan that relate to the restoration or creation of wetlands, ponds, and streams include:
67 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 35
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 Plan 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
w The share of monitoring, research, and adaptive management costs associated with habitat restoration/creation, specifically costs for pre- construction surveys and construction monitoring.
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 Plan explains the relationship between the 17 animal and 11 plant species covered under the Plan and aquatic 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 aquatic land cover types is demonstrated by:
w The eight aquatic land cover types provide habitat for all 17 animal species covered under the Plan.
w Individual aquatic 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.
68 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 36
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 Plan 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 acre s of wetland or pond, or linear feet of stream affected.
69 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 37
6. D EVELOPMENT FEE
This chapter presents the updated development fee schedule and the reasonable relationship findings required by the MFA and explained in Chapter
1. The development fee is applied to covered activities that generate permanent impacts inside the UDA.21 Applicants also have the option of dedicating land to the preserve system in lieu of a fee payment subject to approval by the Conservancy.
Updated Fee Schedule
The development fee is based on covered activities related to urban development (all covered activities within the UDA) funding a fair share of total Plan 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 Plan 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.22 As explained in Chapter 1, all covered activities pay the development fee unless the applicant provides their own mitigation. In cases where aquatic 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 Plan 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 to date (years 1-9) is deducted from the fair share allocated to the development fee to calculate the net revenue still required from the development fee for the remaining 21 years of the permit term. Using this approach in future periodic
21 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, pp. 9-17 to 9-22, Figure 9-1, Table 9-4. 22 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, p. 9-31.
70 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 38
audits will ensure that at the end of the permit term covered activities would have paid the fair share of plan costs as calculated in the Plan.
Table 6.1: Development Fee Fair Share Analysis
Maximum Urban
Development Area
Initial Urban
Development Area
Formula Amount Formula Amount
Plan Implementation Costs a $417,600,000 q $348,300,000 Wetland Mitigation Fee Revenue b (42,200,000) p (36,550,000) Endowment Contribution c 59,040,000 o 48,130,000
Net Cost Subject to Fair Share
Allocation d (sum) $434,440,000 m (sum) $359,880,000
Development Fair Share Allocation1 e 52% l = k / m 42%
Development Fair Share Costs f = d * e $225,910,000 k = m - i $151,350,000 Development Fee Revenue to Date g (6,190,000) g (6,190,000) Remaining Development
Fair Share Costs (Years 10-30) h = f - g $219,720,000 j = k + g $145,160,000 Remaining Non-Fee Funding i = d - f $208,530,000 i $208,530,000 1 "Development Fair Share Allocation" for maximum UDA based on 2006 Plan, Appendix H, Table 1, consistent with procedures required for periodic audit (2006 Plan, Chapter 9, p. 9 -31). Also, consistent with the 2006 Plan, the initial UDA Development Fair Share Allocation is based on holding constant non-fee revenue sources calculated for 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: 2006 Plan, Appendix H, Table 1; Tables 3.2, 3.3, 5.3, 8.1, and Appendix E, Table E.1 and E.2.
A range of federal, state, and local sources fund the remaining costs for Plan implementation, including rural infrastructure 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. 71
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 39
Table 6.2: Development Fee Schedule
Initial
UDA
Maximum
UDA Average
Fee per Equivalent Acre
Remaining Development Fair Share Costs
(Years 10-30)
$145,160,000
$219,720,000
Remaining Development Impacts
(equivalent acres) 20,814 30,928
Development Fee (per equivalent acre) $6,974 $7,104 $7,039 Fee Schedule (per acre of impact)
Weight
Zone 1 2 $13,948 $14,208 $14,078
Zone 2 4 $27,896 $28,416 $28,156
Zone 3 1 $ 6,974 $ 7,104 $ 7,039
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 2013 audit, 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. A discount factor for developable land is no longer warranted because public funding for land acquisition has been strong. The Conservancy will be well-positioned to pursue an extension if the impact estimates are not reached within the current 30-year permit term.
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. The current fee has two levels for the same reason explained in the prior chapter. The "Cities/County" fees are imposed by Permittees with land use authority (participating cities and the County) and have been adjusted annually for inflation since Plan adoption but do not reflect the results of fee audits. The "Conservancy" fees reflect the results of the 2013 audit and are imposed on participating special entities (PSEs) that apply for coverage under the Plan but are not a Permittee. Most covered activities are currently paying the “Cities/County” fee. 72 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 40
Table 6.3: Development Fee Comparison (fee per acre)
Current
Fee (2017) 2017
Fee
Audit2
Fee Audit
Compared To:
Zone
Cities/
County
Conserv-
ancy
Cities/
County
Conserv-
ancy
Zone 1 $14,711 $13,491 $14,078 (4.3%) 4.4%
Zone 2 $29,423 $26,983 $28,156 (4.3%) 4.3%
Zone 3 $ 7,356 $ 6,746 $ 7,039 (4.3%) 4.3%
Note: "Cities/County" fees are imposed by Permittees (participating cities and the County) and have been adjusted annually for inflation since Plan adoption but do not reflect the results of fee audits. "Conservancy" fees reflect the results of the 2011 and 2013 audits and are imposed on participating special entities (PSEs) that apply for coverage under the Plan but are not a Permittee.
1 Uses average development fee of in itial and maximum UDA scenarios as approved by the Conservancy Board when adopting the 2013 Audit recommendations (June 27, 2013).
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy; Table 6.2.
As shown in the table, the recommended development fee, which includes necessary funding for the endowment, is about four percent higher than current fees imposed directly by the Conservancy, and four percent lower than fees currently imposed by participating cities and the County.
Required future revenue contributions to the endowment represent about 20 percent of total remaining Plan costs for years 10-30. Current development fees require only a modest adjustment despite this additional cost because of cost savings over the 30-year permit term. These cost savings come primarily from the preserve management and maintenance cost category discussed in Chapter 3. Such savings were anticipated by the Plan as a source of funding for the endowment.
Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The following findings are required by the MFA and were presented in Chapter
1. Section 66001(a)(1)
The development fee is intended to pay the fair share cost of the Plan associated with permanent impacts from urban development excluding habitat restoration/creation costs for aquatic land cover types funded by the wetland mitigation fee.
73 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 41
Section 66001(a)(2)
The development fee will fund a fair share of all Plan costs except costs funded by 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 Plan 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 administration, land acquisition, planning and design, habitat restoration/creation, environmental compliance, p reserve 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 Plan 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.
74 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 42
Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the development fee on a specific covered activity and the proportionate share of Plan costs based on the fee schedule shown in Table 6.2 for three reasons:
w The fee is based on urban development’s fair share of Plan costs as determined by the share of urban 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).”23
w As explained in detail in Chapter 2 in the section “Development Fee Zone” 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.
23 2006 Plan, Chapter 5, p. 5-51.
75 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 43
7. R URAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND TEMPORARY IMPACT FEES
This chapter presents the updated fee schedule for the rural infrastructure fee and the temporary impact fee, and the reasonable relationship findings for each fee required by the MFA and explained in Chapter 1.
Rural Infrastructure Fee
The rural infrastructure fee is applied to all permanent impacts from covered activities outside the UDA based on the UDA boundaries at the time of the covered activity. The rural infrastructure fee is based on the development fee described in the prior chapter and shown in the fee schedule in Table 6.2.
The Plan focused on fee estimates for 18 specified rural road projects. 24 For these projects the development fee was adjusted for the more severe fragmentation, edge, and increased-mortality effects compared to urban development and other rural infrastructure projects and activities. 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. Some of these additional impacts can be partially reduced by wildlife-friendly design measures.
The Plan also covers other rural infrastructure projects and activities such as flood protection projects, utility projects, and related maintenance activities.
The Plan includes a revenue estimate for these covered activities but does not list specific projects or activities as it does for rural roads.25 Mitigation Fee Act Findings
The following findings are required by the MFA and were presented in Chapter
1. Section 66001(a)(1)
The rural infrastructure fee is intended to pay the costs of the Plan associated with mitigating permanent impacts outside the urban development area, excluding habitat restoration/creation costs for aquatic land cover types funded by the wetland mitigation fee.
24 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, pp. 9-24 to 9-25, Table 9-6.
25 2006 Plan, Appendix H, Table 1. See the $1,500,000 revenue assumption estimate in section 2 of the table for “other rural infrastructure mitigation costs”.
76 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 44
Section 66001(a)(2)
The rural infrastructure fee will fund Plan costs to mitigate permanent impacts outside the urban development area, excluding habitat restoration/creation costs for aquatic 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 infrastructure fee revenue and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 5 of the Plan 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, p reserve 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 aquatic land cover types are not included in the development fee.
Section 66001(a)(4)
A reasonable relationship exists between the need for the rural infrastructure fee and covered activities that would pay the fee. Chapter 3 of the Plan 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.
77 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 45
Section 66001(b)
A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the rural infrastructure fee on a specific covered activity and the proportionate share of Plan costs based on the fee schedule shown in Table 6.2 for three reasons:
w As explained in the prior chapter, the development fee is based only on urban development’s fair share of Plan costs and excludes permanent impacts outside the UDA. Permanent impacts within the UDA are reasonably like permanent impacts outside the UDA so it is reasonable to base the rural infrastructure fee at the same level as the development fee. w As explained in detail in Chapter 2 in the section “Development Fee Zone” 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 fee for rural road projects is also adjusted by a multiplier for individual rural road projects to reflect their respective level of additional fragmentation, edge and wildlife mortality effects.
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 Plan 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 78 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 46
impacts on aquatic 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 over the 30-year permit term; 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 Plan associated with mitigating temporary impacts.
Section 66001(a)(2)
The temporary impact fee will fund Plan costs to mitigate temporary impacts.
Chapter 5 of the Pl an 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 Plan 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 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, p reserve management and maintenance, monitoring, research, and adaptive management, remedial measures, and contingency fund.
79 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 47
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 Plan 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 Plan costs based on the fee schedules shown in Table 5.1 and Table 6.2 for three reasons:
w As explained in Chapter 4 regarding the wetland mitigation fee and Chapter 5 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 in the section “Development Fee Zone” 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.
80 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 48
8. F UNDING PLAN
This chapter provides an updated funding plan for the Plan based on the Plan 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.
Table 8.1 presents the updated funding plan under the initial and maximum UDA scenarios. Actual revenues and costs for years 0-9 inflated to 2016 dollars are added to estimates of remaining revenues and costs for each scenario to calculate total amounts for years 0-30.
Revenue estimates were developed using the following approach:
w Wetland mitigation fee and development fee revenue is based on the approaches explained in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively. w Rural infrastructure fees are based on the amounts estimated in the 2006 Plan adjusted for inflation to 2016 dollars.
w Temporary impact fees are estimated to continue at 50 percent of the average annual amount for the prior four years reflecting a loss of revenue from P.G.&E. utility projects because the utility now has its own approved habitat conservation plan.
w Administrative charges are for Conservancy costs associated with processing mitigation fees paid by participating special entities, and are estimated to continue at 100 percent of the average annual amount for the prior four years.
w Payments for non-covered activities are zeroed out because this revenue cannot be used for impacts under the Plan but must be used for additional conservation measures.
w Other development exactions are primarily from participating special entities and are for conservation beyond the mitigation requirem ents of the Plan (“contribution to recovery”). These revenues are estimated to continue at 100 percent of the average annual amount for the prior four years.
w State/federal funds are estimated to continue at 40 percent of the average annual amount for the prior four years reflecting the large amount of contributions to date and therefore less need in the future, as well as declining funding for Section 6 grants.
81 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 49
w Local capital funds, primarily from foundation grants and the EBRPD, are estimated to continue at 60 percent of the average annual amount for the prior four years, also reflecting the large amount of contributions to date and therefore less need in the future, as well as declining funding from EBRPD Measure WW.
w Local operating funds are composed of due diligence and closing costs for land acquisitions funded by the EBRPD, plus windmill turbine site, cell tower, and grazing lease revenues from preserve lands. These funds are estimated to continue at 100 percent of the average annual amount for the prior four years.
w Interest earnings and miscellaneous revenue are estimated to continue at 100 percent of the average annual amount for the prior four years.
The Conservancy anticipates that it soon will approve funding from special tax districts formed by development projects in exchange for providing discounts on development fees. Special district funding will be available in perpetuity.
Should this funding be realized, the next periodic audit in 2022 will integrate it into the funding plan.
Consistent with the original funding plan, revenues from non-mitigation fee sources are held constant under both scenarios. Revenue from other fees and exactions not anticipated in the original funding plan are included with non- mitigation fee revenues because the former is not associated with impacts from covered activities paying mitigation fees or are to cover costs not ref lected in the Plan. State and federal funding is calculated as a residual amount after accounting for all other non-mitigation fee revenue.
Table 8.1 supports the findings described above by identifying sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the Plan, and that funding is expected within the 30-year permit term.
Tables 8.2 and 8.3 compare the updated funding plan with the 2006 Plan and the 2013 audit for the initial and maximum UDA scenarios, respectively, in 2016 dollars. Key findings and conclusions from these tables include:
w The shares of total revenue for the three major funding sources (development fees, state/federal land acquisitions funds, and local land acquisition funds) that constitute about 80 percent of total funding have generally remained constant across all three funding plans. w Mitigation fee revenues generally have increased in line with overall cost increases. Development fees in the initial UDA funding plan increased less than overall costs compared to the 2013 audit because of a lower fair share percentage.
82 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 50
Table 8.1: Funding Plan (2016 dollars)
Initial UDA Maximum UDA
2007-2016 2017-2037 Total 2017-2037 Total
(Year 0-9) (Year 10-30) (Year 1-30) (Year 10-30) (Year 1-30) Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
PLAN FUNDING
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $6,190,000 $145,160,000 $151,350,000 $219,720,000 $225,910,000 Wetland Mitigation Fee 830,000 35,720,000 36,550,000 41,370,000 42,200,000 Rural Infrastructure Fees1 1,690,000 7,980,000 9,670,000 7,980,000 9,670,000 Temporary Impact Fee2 2,060,000 2,620,000 4,680,000 2,620,000 4,680,000 Subtotal $10,770,000 $191,480,000 $202,250,000 $271,690,000 $282,460,000 Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges2 $390,000 $800,000 $1,190,000 $800,000 $1,190,000 Non-Covered Activities3 3,540,000 (3,540,000) - (3,540,000) - Other Development Exactions2 1,450,000 2,050,000 3,500,000 2,050,000 3,500,000 Subtotal $5,380,000 $(690,000) $4,690,000 $(690,000) $4,690,000 Local, State & Federal Funds
State/Federal Funds2 $67,200,000 58,800,000 126,000,000 58,800,000 126,000,000 Local Capital Funds2 26,420,000 19,750,000 46,170,000 19,750,000 46,170,000 Local Operating Funds 4,560,000 13,380,000 17,940,000 13,380,000 17,940,000 Subtotal $98,180,000 $91,930,000 $190,110,000 $91,930,000 $190,110,000 Other Funds
Interest Earnings2 $250,000 $230,000 $480,000 $230,000 $480,000 Miscellaneous2 20,000 - 20,000 - 20,000
Subtotal $270,000 $230,000 $500,000 $230,000 $500,000 Total Revenue $114,600,000 $282,950,000 $397,550,000 $363,160,000 $477,760,000
PLAN COSTS
Plan Implementation (Permit Term) $105,500,000 $242,800,000 $348,300,000 $312,100,000 $417,600,000 Endowment Fund Contribution 48,130,000 59,040,000 Total Costs $396,430,000 $476,640,000
Surplus / (Deficit) $1,120,000 $1,120,000
1 Total Year 0-30 revenue estimated based on adjusting 2006 Plan estimate of $8,930,000 by the inflation index for 2006. 2 Future year estimates based on annual average actual revenue for prior four years, except: (1) future temporary impact fee re venue estimated at 50 percent of prior revenue reflec ting reduced PG&E need for Plan coverage , (2) future state/federal land acquisition funds are estimated at 40 percent of prior revenue to reflect funding commitment, and (3) future local land acquisition funds estimated at 55 percent of prior revenue to re flect loss of non-recurring revenue. 3 Prior year revenue deducted from future years because funding must augment and not substitute for Plan obligations (see Chapt er 9 of the Plan).
Sources: Tables 5.3 and 6.1, Appendices C and D (Summary), Appendix F, Table F.2.
83 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 51
Table 8.2: Funding Plan Comparison – Initial Urban Development Area (2016 dollars) Cost Category
2006
Plan
2013
Fee Audit
2017
Fee Audit
2017 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2017 Audit vs.
2013 Audit
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $133,760,000 40% $154,110,000 40% $151,350,000 38% $17,590,000 13% $(2,760,000) (2%) Wetland Mitigation Fee 25,170,000 7% 42,140,000 11% 36,550,000 9% 11,380,000 45% (5,590,000) (13%) Rural Infrastructure Fees 10,110,000 3% 10,040,000 3% 9,670,000 2% (440,000) (4%) (370,000) (4%) Temporary Impact Fee - 0% 1,210,000 0% 4,680,000 1% 4,680,000 NA 3,470,000 287% Subtotal $169,040,000 50% $207,500,000 53% $202,250,000 51% 33,210,000 20% (5,250,000) (3%) Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges $- 0% $1,450,000 0% $1,190,000 0% 1,190,000 NA $(260,000) (18%) Non-Covered Activities - 0% - 0% - 0% - NA - NA Other Development Exactions - 0% 1,220,000 0% 3,500,000 1% 3,500,000 NA 2,280,000 187% Subtotal $- 0% $2,670,000 1% $4,690,000 1% 4,690,000 NA 2,020,000 76% Local, State & Federal Funds
State/Federal Funds $106,960,000 32% $110,150,000 28% $126,000,000 32% $19,040,000 18% $15,850,000 14% Local Land Capital Funds 39,620,000 12% 44,130,000 11% 46,170,000 12% 6,550,000 17% 2,040,000 5% Local Operating Funds 22,640,000 7% 25,210,000 6% 17,940,000 5% (4,700,000) (21%) (7,270,000) (29%) Subtotal $169,220,000 50% $179,490,000 46% $190,110,000 48% 20,890,000 12% 10,620,000 6% Other Funds
Interest Earnings1 $- 0% $- 0% $480,000 0% 480,000 NA 480,000 NA Miscellaneous1 - 0% - 0% 20,000 0% 20,000 NA 20,000 NA Subtotal $- 0% $- 0% $500,000 0% $500,000 NA 500,000 NA
Total Funding $338,260,000 100% $389,660,000 100% $397,550,000 100% $59,290,000 18% $7,890,000 2% Total Costs 336,260,000 386,820,000 396,430,000 60,170,000 18% 9,610,000 2% Surplus / (Deficit) $2,000,000 $2,840,000 $1,120,000 $(880,000) $(1,720,000)
Note: 2006 Plan and 2013 Audit revenues are inflated to 2016 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.
Sources: 2006 Plan, Table 9-8 and Appendix H; 2013 Fee Audit, Table 7.1, p. 43; Table 8.1.
84 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report 52
Table 8.3: Funding Plan Comparison – Maximum Urban Development Area (2016 dollars) Cost Category
2006
Plan
2013
Fee Audit
2017
Fee Audit
2017 Audit vs.
2006 Plan
2017 Audit vs.
2013 Audit
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $192,100,000 48% $206,470,000 46% $225,910,000 47% $33,810,000 18% $19,440,000 9% Wetland Mitigation Fee 27,180,000 7% 48,100,000 11% 42,200,000 9% 15,020,000 55% (5,900,000) (12%) Rural Infrastructure Fees 10,110,000 3% 10,040,000 2% 9,670,000 2% (440,000) (4%) (370,000) (4%) Temporary Impact Fee - 0% 1,210,000 0% 4,680,000 1% 4,680,000 NA 3,470,000 287% Subtotal $229,390,000 58% $265,820,000 59% $282,460,000 59% 53,070,000 23% 16,640,000 6% Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges $- 0% $1,450,000 0% $1,190,000 0% 1,190,000 NA $(260,000) (18%) Non-Covered Activities - 0% - 0% - 0% - NA - NA Other Development Exactions - 0% 1,220,000 0% 3,500,000 1% 3,500,000 NA 2,280,000 187% Subtotal $- 0% $2,670,000 1% $4,690,000 1% 4,690,000 NA 2,020,000 76% Local, State & Federal Funds
State/Federal Funds $106,960,000 27% $110,150,000 25% $126,000,000 26% $19,040,000 18% $15,850,000 14% Local Capital Funds 39,620,000 10% 44,130,000 10% 46,170,000 10% 6,550,000 17% 2,040,000 5% Local Operating Funds 22,640,000 6% 25,210,000 6% 17,940,000 4% (4,700,000) (21%) (7,270,000) (29%) Subtotal $169,220,000 42% $179,490,000 40% $190,110,000 40% 20,890,000 12% 10,620,000 6% Other Funds
Interest Earnings1 $- 0% - 0% $480,000 0% 480,000 NA 480,000 NA Miscellaneous1 - 0% - 0% 20,000 0% 20,000 NA 20,000 NA Subtotal $- 0% $- 0% $500,000 0% $500,000 NA 500,000 NA
Total Funding $398,610,000 100% $447,980,000 100% $477,760,000 100% $79,150,000 20% $29,780,000 7% Total Costs 396,200,000 445,140,000 476,640,000 80,440,000 20% 31,500,000 7% Surplus / (Deficit) $2,410,000 $2,840,000 $1,120,000 $(1,290,000) $(1,720,000)
Note: 2006 Plan and 2013 Audit revenues are inflated to 2016 dollars using the inflation index in Appendix F.
Sources: 2006 Plan, Table 9-8 and Appendix H; 2013 Fee Audit, Table 7.1, p. 43; Table 8.1.
85 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report A-1
APPENDIX A: D EVELOPMENT IMPACTS THROUGH 2016
The following tables provide detail for impacts from covered activities (impacts from development projects and other covered activities) for years 1- 9 (2008 through 2016) of the Plan:
Table A.1 provides detail for permanent land conversion.
Table A.2 provides detail for wetland impacts.
Table A.3 provides detail for temporary land conversion and wetland impacts.
Table A.1: Covered Activities Through December 31, 2016 (Year 9) – Permanent Land Conversion (acres)
Year Project
Urban Development Area Rural
Infra-
structure1 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
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 PSE: Oakley Generating Station (Original-3rd
Amendment) ProjectNote 2
16.72 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 86
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report A-2
Year Project
Urban Development Area Rural
Infra-
structure1 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
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 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 Phillips 66 Pipeline Repair, 196,920.27.22
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 Horse Valley Wetland Creation Test Pits
2015 City of Brentwood PW: John Muir Parkway-Phase II 0.33 2.36 2015 PSE: PG&E Pole Replacement
87 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report A-3
Year Project
Urban Development Area Rural
Infra-
structure1 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
2015 PSE: Phillips 66 Line 200 Vasco Rd Remediation
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 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: SR4/Balfour & First AmendmentNote 2 29.58
Total 411.9869 34.19 12.463 73.057226
Note: "PSE" is participating special entity. "CCC" is Contra Costa County. "CTR" is contribution to recovery. Certain impacts reported in the 2013 Audit have been corrected in this table.Impact to other land cover types not tracked for Stay -Ahead provision (see Table 14 in the Conservancy's Annual Report) are not included here because they are impacts from non - covered activities and are not counted against permit limits. 1 Covered activities occurring outside the UDA could occur in either zones 1 or 2. Includes rural road projects as shown in Table 9 - 6 of the 2006 Plan, plus rural infrastructure projects and activities, and activities within the preserve system (see Section s 2.3.2 through 2.3.4 of the 2006 Plan).
2 There were various amendments to this project over multiple years and only the final total impacts are shown here.
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.
88 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report A-4
Table A.2: Covered Activities Through December 31, 2016 (Year 9) – Aquatic Land Cover Types
Year Project
Wetlands Streams
Total
Ripar-
ian/
Wood-
land
Perma-
nent
Wet-
land
Sea-
sonal
Wet-
land
Alkali
Wet-
land Pond
Res-
ervoir Slough ≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
Units (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 2009 City of Pittsburg: RileMart- 2515 Ant-Pitt Hwy Use 1 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 PSE: Chevron Pipeline KLM 32- 1st Ammend
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
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 89 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report A-5
Year Project
Wetlands Streams
Total
Ripar-
ian/
Wood-
land
Perma-
nent
Wet-
land
Sea-
sonal
Wet-
land
Alkali
Wet-
land Pond
Res-
ervoir Slough ≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
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 Project 45 2016 PSE: SR4/Balfour & First AmendmentNote 1 0.42 0.42
Total
1.8299 1.0814 0.066
0.3755 0.137 0.10 - 0.070
677.00
246.3096
Note: "PSE" is participating special entity. "CCC" is Contra Costa County. "CTR" is contribution to recovery.
Certain impacts reported in the 2013 Audit have been corrected in this table.
Aquatic impacts (wetlands and streams) are included in land conversion impacts and are shown separately because of the additi onal wetland fee that applies. 1 There were various amendments to this project over multiple years and o nly the final total impacts are shown here.
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.
90 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report A-6
Table A.3: Covered Activities Through December 31, 2016 (Year 9) – Temporary Impacts
Year Project Land
Conversion
Streams
Wet-
lands
≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
Units (acres) (acres) (linear feet)
2008 PSE: Ameresco Keller Canyon Landfill Gas Power Plant Project
0.6 2008 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Emergency Bridge Repair
Project
0.038 0.038 38.7
2008 City of Pittsburg: Mt. Diablo Recycling Center Project 5 2009 CCC LP07-2033: Verizon Wireless Martin Cell Tower
Project
0.65 2009 PSE: PG&E Contra-Costa-Las Positas Reconductoring Project
22.36 2009 City of Pittsburg: RileMart- 2515 Ant-Pitt Hwy Use 1 12.5 2010 PSE: CalTrans SR4 Median Buffer & Shoulder Widening Project
15.28 0.4
2010 CCC PWD: Vasco Road Safety Improvements 5.4418 0.1228 230.5 118 2010 CCC LP09-2033: Horizon Cell Tower Project 0.74
2010 PSE: ConocoPhillips Line 200 Repair & 1st Ammend 0.46 2010 PSE: Shell Oil Coalinga-Avon Pipeline Repair 0.27
2010 PSE: eBart Phase 1 Project 3.5
2010 City of Pittsburg: JBM Construction Use of 2515 Ant-Pitts Hwy (Use 2)
12.5 2010 City of Pittsburg: USS Psoco Site L-A Material 7.81 2011 CCC LP10-2070: Morgan Territory Rd
Telecommunications Facility Project
0.031
2011 CCC LP09-2037: Camino Diablo Vasco
Telecommunications Facility Project
0.86 2011 CCC LP10-2082: J4 Byron Hot Springs Communications Facility
0.25 2011 CCC PWD: Balfour Rd Culvert Repair Project 0.094 15 28 2011 CCC PWD: Byron Hwy Shoulder Widening Project-
Phase 1
0.74 112
2011 CCC PWD: Vasco Camino Diablo Intersection 4.85
2011 PSE: ConocoPhillips Line 200 Repair & Anode 1.37
2011 PSE: ConocoPhillips Line 200 Repair-2nd Amend 0.05 2011 PSE: Shell Oil Coalinga-Avon Pipeline Repair- 1st
Amend
0.05 2011 PSE: Oakley Generating Station (Original-3rd
Amendment) ProjectNote 3
42.02 2011 City of Pittsburg: Trash Capture Demonstration Project 0.06 2011 City of Brentwood: New Meetinghouse Brentwood
2011 City of Pittsburg: Bay Cities Paving & Grading for CA Ave Temp Storage Site
1.96 2012 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Safety Improvement
Project
1.63 0.23
91 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report A-7
Year Project Land
Conversion
Streams
Wet-
lands
≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
Units (acres) (acres) (linear feet)
2012 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Should Widening near Round
Valley Regional Preserve Project
1.418 0.028 24
2012 CCC BIG12-0004598: EBRIX Los Vaqueros
Communication Facility
1.0621
2012 CCC LP10-2009: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park
Emergency H2O Pipeline Extension
2.3 2012 EBRPD Round Valley Pedestrian Bridge Project 0.83 2012 PSE: CalTrans SR4 Median Buffer & Shoulder Widening Project- 2nd Amendment
1.05 0.6
2012 PSE: Phillips 66 Vasco Road Line 200 Pipeline
Emergency Release
24.22 2012 PSE: Shell Oil Coalinga-Avon Pipeline Repair-2nd Amend
0.05 2012 Emergency Marsh Creek Detention Center Bridge Repair 0.074 29 2012 PSE: eBart Phase II Extension 2.22
2012 PSE: eBart Phase II Extension-1st & 2nd Amend
2012 Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin Expansion 57.63 3.38 3639 2012 CCC PWD: Upper Sand Creek Detention Basin
Excavation Project
5.3 2012 City of Oakley PW: Marsh Creek Restoration at
Creekside Park
3 2013 CCC: Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park Stormdrain Outfall
0.08 0.04
2013 City of Pittsburg: PGE PSEP California Avenue Valve Automation
1.55 2013 PSE: SR160/SR4 Bypass Phase II Connectors 2.73 2013 Phillips 66 Pipeline Repair, 196,920.27.22 0.13
2013 PSE: Chevron Pipeline KLM Site 1357 Repair 0.837 0.599 2013 PSE: Phillips 66 Pipeline Repair Line 200 0.25
2013 PSE: Phillips 66 Pipeline Repair Line 200, First Ammend 0.8 2013 PSE: Phillips 66 Pipeline Requirement Survey 0.002 2013 PSE: PG&E Pittsburg-Tesla 230 kV Reconductoring &
1st Amend
10.74 2013 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Rd Emergency Cluvert Repair- Morgan Territory Rd
0.03 2014 City of Brentwood PW: Non-potable Water Dist. System Phase II
0.8 2014 CCC PWD: Three Stormwater Basins 0.201 0.201
2014 City of Brentwood: Ferro/Ronconi
2014 City of Pittsburg: Colombia Solar 96.69
2014 City of Pittsburg: Mt. Diablo Recycling Center 5 ac Lease Site- 5 yr Ext.
5 2014 City of Oakley: East Cypress Corridor Specfic
Plan/Stockpile Permit
25.74 92
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report A-8
Year Project Land
Conversion
Streams
Wet-
lands
≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
Units (acres) (acres) (linear feet)
2014 CCC PWD: Pacifica Ave Sidewalk 0.143 0.013 33
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Reservoir- Trash Rack
Replacement
0.17 0.02
2014 PSE: PG&E CC-Moraga 230(kV) Reconductoring & 1st
Amend
17.51 2014 PSE: Chevron Pipeline KLM 32 0.032 0.005
2014 PSE: Chevron Pipeline KLM 32- 1st Ammend 0.005 0.005 2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Bridge Scour Repair 0.075 0.038 30.5 2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek 142 Wingwall Repair 0.14 0.14 33 72 2014 CCC PWD: Deer Valley Road Shoulder Widening 3.89 0.04 2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Detention Center Bridge
Replacement
0.318 0.016 60
2014 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Road Safety Improvements 0.43 21 2014 CCC LP13-2097: Verizon Wireless Bethel Island 0.943 2014 CCC LP13-2111: AT&T Co-location Marsh Creek
Monopine
0.722315
2014 CCC LP13-2069: Marsh Creek Cell Tower 1.235
2014 PSE: Shell Pipeline North 20 ILI Repair and 1st Ammend 0.116 2015 City of Oakley PW: Marsh Creek Pedestrian Bridge 0.03 8 2015 City of Brentwood: Mission Grove
2015 City of Brentwood: Palmilla Phase I 0.08 20
2015 Duane Martin Jr. Vasco Caves 1.02
2015 City of Pittsburg: Greystone Place
2015 Hess Water Trough Installation 0.19 0.05
2015 Horse Valley Wetland Creation Test Pits 0.74
2015 City of Brentwood PW: John Muir Parkway-Phase II 2.94 2015 PSE: PG&E Pole Replacement 0.003
2015 PSE: Phillips 66 Line 200 Vasco Rd Remediation 1.9 2015 Vaquero Farms S. Wetland Creation & Repair 1.63
2015 CCC PWD: Vasco Road Embankment Repair 0.54
2015 CCC PWD: Marsh Creek Safety Improvement Project
(Fed. No. HRRL-5928 (095))
0.8 2016 City of Oakley: Verizon Wireless Empire Oakley Road 1.48 2016 CCC PWD: Port Chicago Hwy-Willow Pass Sidewalk
Improvements
0.284
2016 CCC PWD: Canal Road Sidewalk and Bike Lanes
Project
1.025 0.006 6
2016 CCC LP15-2029: Timber Rd Communication Facility 1.21 2016 CCC TP12-0026: Moita Road Improvement Project 2.32 2016 PSE: PG&E T1047A Hydrotest 1.47
2016 CCC PWD: Clifton Court Road Bridge Repair Project 0.064 0.014
Total 429.304215 5.9858 4,005.50 512.20
93 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report A-9
Year Project Land
Conversion
Streams
Wet-
lands
≤ 25 ft > 25 ft
Units (acres) (acres) (linear feet)
Note: "PSE" is participating special entity. "CCC" is Contra Costa County. "CTR" is contribution to recovery.
Certain impacts reported in the 2013 Audit have been corrected in this table.
Wetland and stream impacts are included in land conversion impacts and are shown separately because of the additional wetland fee that applies.
Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.
94 East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report B-1
APPENDIX B: L AND ACQUISITION COST ANALYSIS
The following tables provide detail for the land acquisition cost analysis update.
95 Table B.1
REMAINING LAND ACQUISITION BY COST CATEGORY, Acres and Estimated Total Cost
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2017 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 10,022 70% $64,511,878 54% 14,410 71% $92,598,003 55% 2 40 - 120 acres 1,814 13% 20,311,794 17% 3,252 16% 36,426,298 22% 3 10 - 40 acres 521 4% 12,111,660 10% 627 3% 14,451,580 9% 4 5 - 10 acres 15 0% 587,480 0% 33 0% 1,243,892 1% 5 < 5 acres - 0% - 0% 4 0% 240,350 0% 6 ALL, steep slopes 480 3% 2,160,000 2% 489 2% 2,202,300 1% INSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE 1,422 10% 19,669,487 16% 1,465 7% 20,498,210 12% TOTAL 14,273 100% $119,352,299 100% 20,281 100% $167,660,633 100% Source: East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and Hausrath Economics Group 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.
96 Table B.2
LAND ACQUISITION COST FACTOR
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2017 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
Change
from 2012
1 120 + acres < 26% $3,500 $4,800 $5,600 $5,300 $6,400 21% 2 40 - 120 acres < 26% $6,000 $8,200 $9,600 $7,500 $11,200 49% 3 10 - 40 acres < 26% $20,000 $27,400 $31,900 $18,600 $22,000 18% 4 5 - 10 acres < 26% $35,000 $48,000 $56,000 $49,000 $38,000 -22% 5 < 5 acres < 26% $50,000 $68,600 $80,000 $70,000 $55,000 -21% 6 ALL > 26% $3,000 $3,300 $3,800 $4,200 $4,500 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
Change
from 2012
7 No <15% $14,500 $18,300 $21,300 $11,000 $19,000 73%
8 No 15-26% $10,100 $12,700 $14,800 $6,600 $11,400 73%
9 No >26% $3,600 $4,500 $5,200 $2,800 $4,800 71%
10 Yes <15% $45,000 $56,800 $66,200 $35,000 $60,000 71% 11 Yes 15-26% $31,500 $39,760 $46,400 $21,000 $36,000 71% 12 Yes >26% $11,300 $14,263 $16,600 $8,800 $15,000 70%
INSIDE THE URBAN LIMIT LINE - BYRON AIRPORT
13 na na $8,000 $8,800 $10,300 $6,200 $10,700 4%
Source: East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and Hausrath Economics Group Per Acre Land Value Factor
Per Acre Land Value Factor
Note: The 2017 land cost factor for the Byron Airport Area is based on the $8,000 per acre value estimated in 2003, adjusted by the 2017 percentage change from values originally estimated in 2003 for Cost Category 10--about 33 percent. 97 Table B.3
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels > 120 acres (nominal dollars)
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2017 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value
per acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions
1 Souza 1 (appraisal) 2004 (2009) 575.1 $2,759,085 $4,798 2 Lentzner (appraisal) 2005 (2009) 320.0 $1,340,000 $4,188 3 Chaparral Springs 2008 183.0 $1,322,650 $7,228 4 Schwartz 2009 153.1 $803,880 $5,250
5 Souza 2 2009 190.6 $1,692,000 $8,879
6 Fox Ridge 2009 221.6 $1,760,000 $7,941
7 Vaquero Farms South 2009 708.2 $2,454,400 $3,466 8 Vaquero Farms North 2010 577.0 $2,770,000 $4,801 9 Martin 2010 232.4 $2,025,855 $8,717
10 Grandma's Quarter 2010 157.0 $1,036,200 $6,600 11 Ang 2010 460.6 $2,763,840 $6,000
12 Souza 3 2010 697.4 $2,222,765 $2,905
13 Irish Canyon - Chopra 2010 320.0 $1,760,000 $5,500 14 Barron 2010 798.0 $2,952,600 $3,700
15 Land Waste Management 2010 469.4 $3,050,000 $6,498 16 Austin 1 (Thomas Southern) 2010 852.3 $3,240,000 $3,801 17 Austin 2 (Thomas Central) 2010 160.0 $624,000 $3,900 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
Weighted Average $6,203
Save Mount Diablo
SMD 4 Mangini Ranch 2007 208.0 $1,454,530 $6,993 SMD 23 Curry Canyon Ranch 2013 1,080.5 $7,173,800 $6,639 Weighted Average $6,696
Contra Costa Water District
CCWD 5 Leonardini 2010 138.0 $899,000 $6,514
CCWD 6 Church Property 2011 340.0 $2,618,000 $7,700 CCWD 7 Evergreen 2011 658.0 $5,800,000 $8,815
Weighted Average $8,202
Overall Weighted Average $6,426
Land Cost Factor for 2017 Update: $6,400
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo, Contra Costa Water District, and Hausrath Economics Group
Note: Adjustments for some of the acquisitions for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy remove the value of lease income and conservation easements: Souza 1, Vaquero Farms South, Martin, Souza 3, Irish Canyon, and Austin 1.
Souza 1 and Lentzner analyses reflect 2009 appraisals prepared for the Conservancy in support of matching funds applications. The appraisals assumed the properties were available for private ownership and accounted for the conservation easement value on Souza 1.
98 Table B.4
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels 40 - 120 acres (nominal dollars)
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2017 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value per
acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions
18 Affinito - large parcel (appraisal) 2012 (2010) 101.5 $862,500 $8,500 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
Weighted Average $8,098
Save Mount Diablo
SMD 1 Wright Canyon 2001 76.0 $640,000 $8,421
SMD 20 Highland Springs 2012 105.0 $495,000 $4,714 SMD 22 Marsh Creek 8 2013 51.1 $690,684 $13,506 Weighted Average $7,865
Contra Costa Water District
CCWD 4 Acrew 2010 103.0 $694,000 $6,738
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Agricultural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 25 Brentwood 2014 40.3 $680,000 $16,881 Assessor 26 Brentwood 2014 40.4 $680,000 $16,828 Assessor 27 Brentwood 2015 40.4 $1,335,000 $33,012 Assessor 28 Brentwood 2016 50.3 $375,000 $7,463 Assessor 29 Byron 2013 72.9 $1,000,000 $13,710 Assessor 30 Knightsen 2012 73.8 $725,000 $9,827 Assessor 31 Byron 2015 76.4 $1,712,500 $22,417 Assessor 32 Byron 2015 80.0 $1,500,000 $18,750 Assessor 33 Byron 2014 85.0 $550,000 $6,471
Assessor 34 Byron 2013 108.9 $500,000 $4,592
Assessor 35 Brentwood 2016 57.7 $385,000 $6,669 Assessor 36 Byron 2016 68.8 $760,000 $11,053
Assessor 37 Brentwood 2014 49.3 $1,000,000 $20,284 Assessor 38 Byron 2016 40.9 $1,000,000 $24,438 Weighted Average $13,787
Overall Weighted Average $11,178
Land Cost Factor for 2017 Update: $11,200
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo, Contra Costa Water District, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Hausrath Economics Group
Note: Affinito value reflects the appraised market value of the largest parcel in a five-parcel acquisition that closed in February 2012.
The value is adjusted to reflect only the unimproved land, as presented in the 2010 appraisal. 99 Table B.5
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels 10 - 40 acres (nominal dollars)
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2017 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value per
acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions
21 Moss Rock 2012 20.5 $410,000 $20,010
22 Fan 2012 21.0 $220,000 $10,476
Weighted Average $15,184
Save Mount Diablo
SMD 3 Young Canyon 2006 17.6 $300,000 $17,026
SMD 7 Marsh Creek 2 2008 17.0 $320,000 $18,824 SMD 12 Oak Hill 2010 10.0 $87,500 $8,750
SMD 13 Oak Hill 2010 10.0 $87,500 $8,750
SMD 14 Oak Hill 2010 10.0 $87,500 $8,750
SMD 15 Oak Hill 2010 10.0 $87,500 $8,750
Weighted Average $12,999
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Agricultural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value) Assessor 14 Brentwood 2015 10.0 $280,000 $27,978 Assessor 15 Knightsen 2015 10.1 $295,000 $29,093 Assessor 16 Oakley 2015 10.3 $250,000 $24,307
Assessor 17 Knightsen 2013 10.6 $395,000 $37,194 Assessor 18 Brentwood 2016 14.5 $490,000 $33,910 Assessor 19 Byron 2014 15.0 $300,000 $20,000
Assessor 20 Brentwood 2012 16.9 $478,000 $28,284 Assessor 21 Brentwood 2014 19.6 $650,000 $33,101 Assessor 22 Brentwood 2013 21.5 $450,000 $20,971 Assessor 23 Byron 2016 31.1 $700,000 $22,509
Assessor 24 Clayton 2014 20.3 $625,000 $30,788 Weighted Average $27,310
Overall Weighted Average $22,003
Land Cost Factor for 2017 Update: $22,000
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Hausrath Economics Group 100
Table B.6
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels 5 - 10 acres (nominal dollars)
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2017 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value
per acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions
18 Affinito - part (appraisal) 2012 (2010) 6.50 $215,000 $33,077 Save Mount Diablo
SMD 6 Marsh Creek 1 2007 8.92 $315,000 $35,314 SMD 10 Dry Creek 2010 5.18 $84,000 $16,216
SMD 16 Marsh Creek 5 2011 7.37 $125,000 $16,972 SMD 18 Marsh Creek 6 2011 5.74 $395,000 $68,815 SMD 19 Marsh Creek 7 2011 7.57 $574,000 $75,826 Weighted Average $42,933
Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Rural land use, unimproved or improvements less than 5 percent of value Assessor 2 Brentwood 2015 5.00 $225,000 $45,000 Assessor 3 Clayton 2015 5.01 $220,000 $43,912
Assessor 4 Brentwood 2014 5.02 $250,000 $49,801 Assessor 5 Knightsen 2016 5.81 $275,000 $47,332 Assessor 6 Clayton 2015 6.42 $295,000 $45,950
Assessor 7 Brentwood 2014 6.45 $262,500 $40,698 Assessor 8 Knightsen 2015 8.55 $335,000 $39,190 Assessor 9 Knightsen 2013 8.87 $210,000 $23,675 Assessor 10 Knightsen 2016 9.33 $295,000 $31,618 Assessor 11 Brentwood 2013 9.44 $220,000 $23,305 Assessor 12 Knightsen 2016 9.49 $295,000 $31,085 Assessor 13 Brentwood 2016 9.72 $405,000 $41,667 Weighted Average $36,893
Overall Weighted Average $38,314
Land Cost Factor for 2017 Update: $38,000
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Hausrath Economics Group
Note: Affinito value reflects the appraised market value of the 6.5 acre parcel in a five-parcel acquisition that closed in February 2012. The value of that land as an unimproved parcel was appraised independently in 2010. 101
Table B.7
LAND ACQUISITION ANALYSIS - Price per acre for parcels less than 5 acres (nominal dollars)
EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HCP/NCCP
2017 Update
Transaction ID Project/Property Name Year of Sale Acres Purchase
Price/Market
Value
Price/Value
per acre
EBRPD/ECCC Habitat Conservancy Land Acquisitions
18 Affinito - A (appraisal) 2012 (2010) 3.94 $195,000 $49,492 18 Affinito - B (appraisal) 2012 (2010) 2.69 $175,000 $65,056 18 Affinito - C (appraisal) 2012 (2010) 1.89 $165,000 $87,302 24 Alaimo 2013 2.31 $185,000 $80,087
29 Clayton Radio LLC 2015 2.02 $75,000 $37,129 Save Mount Diablo
SMD 8 Marsh Creek 4 2008 2.65 $325,000 $122,642 Contra Costa County Assessor's Data - Rural land use, unimproved Assessor 1 Brentwood 2015 1.57 $120,000 $76,433 Overall Weighted Average $72,642
Land Cost Factor for 2017 Update: $55,000
Sources: East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo, Contra Costa County Assessor, and Hausrath Economics Group
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 per-acre premium above the average value for the 5 - 10 acre parcels ($38,000 for this 2017 update). In the 2006 analysis, the premium was about 40 percent. This 2017 analysis assumes a roughly similar premium, resulting in the $55,000 per acre land cost factor for parcels less than five acres.
Note: The Affinito A, B, and C values reflects the appraised market values of each of the three small parcels in a five-parcel acquisition tht closed in February 2012. The unimproved parcels were appraised independently in 2010. 102
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
2017 Update
Item Value Source
Average Sales Price $590,000 a New Home Sales 2016
Per Single Family Unit Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg Units per Gross Acre 4.7 b Average Lot Size of 7,000 sqft and net to gross ratio of 75 percent
Total Development Value $2,753,614 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 $247,825 e=c*d Calculated
Discount Rate 12% f Average land speculator
discount rate
Category 10 - 12.5 years to $60,106 g=e/(1+f)^12.5 Calculated entitlement/ development
Category 7 - 22.5 years to $19,353 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 ," from CoreLogic provided by DataquickNews; Hausrath Economics Group
103
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report C-1
APPENDIX C: I NITIAL 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.
104
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2017 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Initial Urban Development Area
105
Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Initial Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars rounded to the nearest $10,000)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total (2016) Program Administration $160,000 $6,800,000 $5,760,000 $4,630,000 $4,640,000 $4,650,000 $26,630,000 Land Acquisition $170,000 $88,930,000 $36,960,000 $30,500,000 $30,500,000 $30,500,000 $217,550,000 Planning and Design $0 $1,930,000 $2,110,000 $1,640,000 $1,060,000 $1,060,000 $7,810,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,910,000 $11,290,000 $9,410,000 $9,410,000 $9,410,000 $43,430,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,000 $1,060,000 $990,000 $820,000 $0 $3,640,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,930,000 $5,270,000 $5,470,000 $7,620,000 $8,690,000 $28,990,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $900,000 $2,410,000 $2,770,000 $3,230,000 $3,580,000 $12,890,000 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $330,000 $200,000 $760,000 $1,800,000 $3,080,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,060,000 $960,000 $1,090,000 $1,170,000 $4,280,000 Total $330,000 $105,170,000 $66,250,000 $56,570,000 $59,130,000 $60,860,000 $348,300,000 Capital Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total (2016) Program Administration INCLUDED IN STAFF AND OVERHEAD COSTS Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $86,370,000 $35,160,000 $29,400,000 $29,400,000 $29,400,000 $209,720,000 Planning and Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $0 $6,990,000 $5,820,000 $5,820,000 $5,820,000 $24,460,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $330,000 $200,000 $760,000 $1,800,000 $3,080,000 Total $0 $86,370,000 $42,480,000 $35,420,000 $35,980,000 $37,020,000 $237,260,000 Operational Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total (2016) Program Administration $160,000 $6,800,000 $5,760,000 $4,630,000 $4,640,000 $4,650,000 $26,630,000 Land Acquisition: transactional costs $170,000 $2,560,000 $1,800,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $7,830,000 Planning and Design $0 $1,930,000 $2,110,000 $1,640,000 $1,060,000 $1,060,000 $7,810,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,910,000 $4,300,000 $3,590,000 $3,590,000 $3,590,000 $18,970,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,000 $1,060,000 $990,000 $820,000 $0 $3,640,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,930,000 $5,270,000 $5,470,000 $7,620,000 $8,690,000 $28,990,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $900,000 $2,410,000 $2,770,000 $3,230,000 $3,580,000 $12,890,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,060,000 $960,000 $1,090,000 $1,170,000 $4,280,000 Total $330,000 $18,800,000 $23,770,000 $21,150,000 $23,150,000 $23,840,000 $111,040,000 Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
106
Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Initial Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars not rounded)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Program Administration $159,352 $6,795,011 $5,763,667 $4,625,183 $4,636,476 $4,647,769 $26,627,458 Land Acquisition $165,742 $88,927,630 $36,962,450 $30,497,618 $30,497,618 $30,497,618 $217,548,675 Planning and Design $0 $1,931,148 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 $7,809,972 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,909,578 $11,291,201 $9,409,334 $9,409,334 $9,409,334 $43,428,780 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,553 $1,064,764 $992,070 $817,070 $0 $3,644,457 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,929,601 $5,273,082 $5,469,235 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $28,985,388 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $897,309 $2,410,961 $2,769,446 $3,225,504 $3,581,812 $12,885,034 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $329,018 $200,632 $755,469 $1,799,321 $3,084,440 Contingency $0 $0 $1,062,909 $963,855 $1,085,207 $1,168,676 $4,280,646 Total $325,094 $105,160,830 $66,272,115 $56,562,393 $59,110,782 $60,863,635 $348,294,849 Capital Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Program Administration INCLUDED IN STAFF AND OVERHEAD COSTS Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $86,372,000 $35,161,110 $29,395,531 $29,395,531 $29,395,531 $209,719,704 Planning and Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $0 $6,988,585 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 $24,460,049 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $329,018 $200,632 $755,469 $1,799,321 $3,084,440 Total $0 $86,372,000 $42,478,713 $35,419,985 $35,974,821 $37,018,674 $237,264,193 Operational Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Program Administration $159,352 $6,795,011 $5,763,667 $4,625,183 $4,636,476 $4,647,769 $26,627,458 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $165,742 $2,555,630 $1,801,340 $1,102,086 $1,102,086 $1,102,086 $7,828,970 Planning and Design $0 $1,931,148 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 $7,809,972 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,909,578 $4,302,615 $3,585,513 $3,585,513 $3,585,513 $18,968,731 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,553 $1,064,764 $992,070 $817,070 $0 $3,644,457 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,929,601 $5,273,082 $5,469,235 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $28,985,388 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $897,309 $2,410,961 $2,769,446 $3,225,504 $3,581,812 $12,885,034 Contingency $0 $0 $1,062,909 $963,855 $1,085,207 $1,168,676 $4,280,646 Total $325,094 $18,788,830 $23,793,402 $21,142,408 $23,135,961 $23,844,961 $111,030,655 Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
107
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) Area:
Item:
Base Period:
Years:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2016 dollars 2005 201.2 202.5 201.2 203.0 205.9 203.4 202.7 201.5 203.9 0.7610 2006 207.1 208.9 209.1 210.7 211.0 210.4 209.2 207.9 210.6 0.7855 2007 213.688 215.842 216.123 216.240 217.949 218.485 216.048 214.736 217.361 0.8112 2008 219.612 222.074 225.181 225.411 225.824 218.528 222.767 221.730 223.804 0.8364 2009 222.166 223.854 225.692 225.801 226.051 224.239 224.395 223.305 225.484 0.8425 2010 226.145 227.697 228.110 227.954 228.107 227.658 227.469 226.994 227.944 0.8540 2011 229.981 234.121 233.646 234.608 235.331 234.327 233.390 232.082 234.698 0.8763 2012 236.880 238.985 239.806 241.170 242.834 239.533 239.650 238.099 241.201 0.8998 2013 242.677 244.675 245.935 246.072 246.617 245.711 245.023 243.894 246.152 0.9199 2014 248.615 251.495 253.317 253.354 254.503 252.273 251.985 250.507 253.463 0.9461 2015 254.910 257.622 259.117 259.917 261.019 260.289 258.572 256.723 260.421 0.9708 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 1.0000 2017 271.626
Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 2016 dollars
Series Id: 2005 98.0 98.8 99.5 100.0 0.7893
2006 101.0 101.8 103.1 103.9 0.8200
Series Title: 2007 104.9 105.9 106.7 107.3 0.8469
Ownership: 2008 108.3 109.0 109.9 110.3 0.8706
Component: 2009 111.0 111.1 111.4 111.4 0.8792
Occupation: 2010 112.2 112.6 113.3 113.5 0.8958
Industry: 2011 114.6 115.1 115.4 115.7 0.9132
Subcategory: 2012 116.8 117.3 117.7 118.2 0.9329
Area: 2013 118.9 119.5 120.2 120.5 0.9511
Periodicity: 2014 121.0 121.9 122.5 122.9 0.9700
Years: 2015 123.7 124.1 124.5 124.9 0.9858
2016 125.7 126.2 126.7 126.7 1.0000
California Construction Cost Index, Department of General Services Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2016 dollars 2006 4620 4603 4597 4600 4599 4593 4609 4616 4619 4867 4891 4877 4,674 0.74759 2007 4869 4868 4871 4872 4886 4842 4849 4851 4942 4943 4978 4981 4,896 0.78306 2008 4983 4983 4999 5004 5023 5065 5135 5142 5194 5393 5375 5322 5,135 0.82126 2009 5309 5295 5298 5296 5288 5276 5263 5265 5264 5259 5259 5262 5,278 0.84413 2010 5260 5262 5268 5270 5378 5394 5401 5401 5381 5591 5599 5596 5,400 0.86368 2011 5592 5624 5627 5636 5637 5643 5654 5667 5668 5675 5680 5680 5,649 0.90342 2012 5683 5683 5738 5740 5755 5754 5750 5778 5777 5780 5779 5768 5,749 0.91944 2013 5774 5782 5777 5786 5796 5802 5804 5801 5802 5911 5903 5901 5,820 0.93083 1.24% 2014 5898 5896 5953 5956 5957 5961 5959 5959 5959 5969 5981 5977 5,952 0.95197 2.27% 2015 6073 6077 6069 6062 6069 6055 6055 6055 6113 6114 6109 6108 6,080 0.97241 2.15% 2016 6106 6132 6248 6249 6240 6238 6245 6244 6267 6343 6344 6373 6,252 1.00000 2.84% 8.49% 2017 6373 6373 6373
The ENR BCI reports cost trends for specific construction trade labor and materials in the California marketplace.
This page last updated: 4/17/17
Available at: https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/resd/PMB/CCCI/Old/cccitable_2017/CCCIMasterListing_4-2017.pdf 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 2017
Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers
Original Data Value
CUURA422SA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
All workers
United States (National)
Index number
2005 to 2016
Total compensation for Private industry workers in
f Private industry workers
Total compensation
Professional and related occupations
All workers
Employment Cost Index (NAICS)
Original Data Value
CIU2010000120000I
Not seasonally adjusted
108
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 HEG, 2017
Updated with input from H.T. Harvey, 2017
Other estimated factors
Actual costs start-up and years 1 - 9
Estimate of EBRPD contributions to operational costs, start up and years 1-9 Summary actuals supercede model detail
109
Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Initial Urban Development Area 2017 Update
Initial UDA Source
Total acres acquired/managed 24,250 (Table 5-9: mid-point of range) Pond acres acquired 14 (Table 5-5a)
Acres Acquired and Managed by Time Period
0 1-9
10-15 (6 yr
period) 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Total reserve acres acquired per period - 10,987 3,789 3,158 3,158 3,158 24,250 Total reserve acres managed, per period 8,083 4,042 4,042 4,042 4,042 24,250 Total reserve acres managed, cumulative - 8,083 12,125 16,167 20,208 24,250 24,250 Pond acres acquired per period 10.86 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 14 Pond acres added to management per period 4.67 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 14 Pond acres managed cumulative, including restoration - 4.71 13.0 20.4 27.7 35.0 35.0 Assumptions:
Actual acquisition accounted for in years 1-5 and 6-9; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the remaining 21 years of the permit term.
Management and monitoring on acquired land and ponds has not kept pace with actual acquisition; land is assumed to come under management in 6 equal increments over the 30-yea 13,349.6 Total acres acquired through 2016 1,682.3 Easement acres on parcels acquired through 2016 680.0 Other acres (outside acquisition zones) not credited to reserve through 2016 10,987.2 Total acres acquired and credited toward reserve Land Cover Type Restored/Created by Time Period
Land Cover Type (acres except where noted) 0 1-9
10-15 (6 yr
period) 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
oak savanna - - 12.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 42.0 riparian woodland/scrub - 4.04 13.1 10.9 10.9 10.9 50.0 perennial wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 0.16 9.2 7.6 7.6 7.6 32.2 seasonal wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 5.79 11.3 9.4 9.4 9.4 45.2 alkali wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 2.12 5.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 21.8 slough/channel - - 20.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 72.0 open water - - - - - - - ponds - 0.04 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 21.0 streams (miles) - 1.10 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 4.6 Total (acres) - 12.82 78.3 65.3 65.3 65.3 287.0 Assumptions:
Actual restoration accounted for in years 1-9; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the next 21 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 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 MONITORING COST ESTIMATE Land Cover Type Restoration Sites 0 1-9
10-15 (6 yr
period) 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
riparian woodland/scrub - 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.3 perennial wetland - 0.1 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.1 12.9 seasonal wetland - 2.3 4.5 3.8 3.8 3.8 18.1 alkali wetland - 0.8 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 8.7 ponds - - 8.2 6.9 6.9 6.9 28.8 streams (miles/acres converted to sites) - 5.2 4.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.9 Total sites for monitoring cost estimate - 8.7 24.3 20.2 20.2 20.2 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)
Implementation Period (Years)
Defining sites:
wetlands and pond sites by acreage conversion
stream sites by linear feet conversion:
Implementation Period (Years)
110
Summary of HCP/NCCP Personnel
2017 Update
POST PERMIT
STAFFING
Number of FTEs
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Administrative staffing
Principal Planner 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.50 Senior Planner 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 -
Senior GIS Planner 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner 0.80 - - - - 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 0.50 Assistant Planner/Planning Technician 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 Accountant 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 Admin – Secretary (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - IT Support Staff (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - Total 2.35 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 Total 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 1.40 Land acquisition staffing
Principal Planner 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 - Senior GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Total 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Total 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 - Planning and design, restoration, and monitoring staffing Principal Planner 0.10 - - - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 - Senior GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.20 - - - - - - - - - Senior Scientist 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - - Associate Planner 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 - Technical Support 0.17 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 - - - - - Total 0.80 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 Total 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 - Habitat restoration and creation staffing
Principal Planner 0.10 - - - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 - Associate Planner/Project Manager 0.20 - - - - 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 - Senior Scientist 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - - Project Manager 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - - Technical Support 0.17 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 - - - - - Total 0.80 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 Total 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 - Environmental compliance staffing
Principal Planner - - - - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 - - Associate Planner 0.10 0.10 0.10 - -
Total - - - - - Total 0.15 0.15 0.15 - - Preserve management and maintenance staffing
Principal Planner 0.10 - - - - 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Senior Planner 0.20 - - - - - - - - - Associate Planner/Preserve Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Preserve Maintenance Staff 3.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 Total 4.30 5.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Total 4.075 5.075 7.075 8.075 8.075 Monitoring and research staffing
Principal Planner - - - - - 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Senior Planner 0.10 - - - - - - - - - Senior Scientist 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - - Associate Planner 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.30 0.33 0.33 - Technical Support 0.17 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 - - - - - Total 0.60 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 Total 0.075 0.325 0.358 0.358 0.025 Overall Staffing Plan
Principal Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.55 Senior Planner 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 - - - - - Senior GIS Planner 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05 Associate Planner/Preserve Manager 0.80 - - - - 2.95 3.10 3.13 3.03 0.55 Assistant Planner/Planning Technician 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 Accountant 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 Admin – Secretary (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - IT Support Staff (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - Senior Scientist 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - Project Manager 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - Technical Support 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 - - - - - Preserve Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - Preserve Maintenance Staff 3.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 Total 9.05 11.50 13.50 14.50 14.50 Total 8.75 9.90 11.93 12.78 9.50 2017 UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
2012 UPDATE STAFFING
Monitoring and research staffing
Overall Staffing Plan
UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
Administrative staffing
Planning and design, restoration, and monitoring staffing Habitat restoration and creation staffing
Land acquisition staffing
Preserve management and maintenance staffing
Environmental compliance staffing
111
HCP/NCCP Program Administration for Initial Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Capital Costs
Capital Subtotal INCLUDED IN STAFF AND OVERHEAD COSTS
Operational Costs
Staff and overhead $4,587,012 $3,822,510 $3,822,510 $3,822,510 Other administrative costs $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Vehicle / mileage allowance $9,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 Travel $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Insurance $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Legal assistance $600,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
Financial analysis assistance $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 Financial audit (annual) $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 In-lieu funding for law enforcement and firefighting $40,655 $45,173 $56,466 $67,759 Public relations and outreach $150,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 Operational Subtotal $159,352 $3,328,033 $3,466,978 $5,763,667 $4,625,183 $4,636,476 $4,647,769 Total $159,352 $3,328,033 $3,466,978 $5,763,667 $4,625,183 $4,636,476 $4,647,769 $26,627,458 Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Senior Planner and support $177 - - - - Senior GIS Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 Planning Technician and support $104 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Accountant and support $133 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 $764,502 $764,502 $764,502 $764,502
$4,587,012 $3,822,510 $3,822,510 $3,822,510
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.
Some actual costs for program administration staff and contractors through 2016 are included in actual costs under land acquisition, planning and design, preserve management, restoration, monitoring and environmental compliance.
Position
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
112
Other Administrative Costs
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
CHCPC membership (IEH) $30,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Miscellaneous equipment and supplies $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Cost per period $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Assumption:
$5,000 annual cost for CHCPC membership, based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 (Institute for Ecological Health) $1,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Vehicle / Mileage Allowance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost per period $9,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500
Assumption:
$1,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Travel
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost per period $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Assumption:
$6,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Insurance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost per period $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Assumption:
$20,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Legal Assistance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $600,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 Assumptions:
$100,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, years 10 - 15 $60,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, after year 15 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.
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)
113
Financial Analysis Assistance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $260,000 Assumptions:
$65,000 Cost per period for financial analysis assistance Financial analyst review will occur periodically over the life of the Plan (years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20 and 25).
Note: The financial analyis 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 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $420,000 Assumptions:
$20,000 Cost per year for financial audit services based on Conservancy experience through 2016 Annual financial audit of the Conservancy's financial statements by an independent auditor are required by the JPA agreement and Government Code.
In-Lieu Payments for Law Enforcement and Firefighting
0 1-5 6-10 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total preserve area per period - - 8,083 12,125 16,167 20,208 24,250 In-lieu payments for law enforcement per year $1,783 $2,675 $3,566 $4,458 $5,349 In-lieu payments for firefighting per year $2,734 $4,101 $5,468 $6,835 $8,202 Total cost per year $4,517 $6,776 $9,035 $11,293 $13,552 Cost per period $22,586 $40,655.29 $45,173 $56,466 $67,759 Assumptions:
$4.53 In-lieu law enforcement funding per preserve acre $2.96 In-lieu firefighting funding per preserve acre
In lieu costs per preserve acres are based on CCWD's annual in-lieu payments and the assumption that CCWD manages approximately 20,000 acres of preserve.
Public Relations/Outreach
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Total cost per year $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $100,000 Cost per period $150,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $525,000 Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
114
HCP/NCCP Land Acquisition for Initial Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
Capital Costs 0 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Acquisition $0 $34,100,657 $28,417,214 $28,417,214 $28,417,214 $205,724,299 Site improvements $0 $1,060,453 $978,317 $978,317 $978,317 $3,995,405 Capital Subtotal $0 $35,161,110 $29,395,531 $29,395,531 $29,395,531 $209,719,704 Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead na $778,320 $249,570 $249,570 $249,570 $1,527,030 Due diligence $165,742 $1,023,020 $852,516 $852,516 $852,516 $6,301,940 Operational Subtotal $165,742 $1,801,340 $1,102,086 $1,102,086 $1,102,086 $7,828,970 Total $165,742 $36,962,450 $30,497,618 $30,497,618 $30,497,618 $217,548,675 Acquisition Cost over 30-year Program, Actuals year 1 - 9 + Projections Years 10 - 30 (2016 dollars) Estimated
Acquisition Analysis Zone 0 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total Remainder 10-30 Zone 1 $0 $3,685,131 $3,070,943 $3,070,943 $3,070,943 $21,282,960 $12,897,960 Zone 2 $0 $12,806,707 $10,672,256 $10,672,256 $10,672,256 $75,961,473 $44,823,473 Zone 3 $0 $326,188 $271,823 $271,823 $271,823 $3,358,656 $1,141,656 Zone 4 $0 $9,158,247 $7,631,872 $7,631,872 $7,631,872 $38,470,864 $32,053,864 Zone 5 $0 $6,673,142 $5,560,952 $5,560,952 $5,560,952 $49,604,998 $23,355,998 Zone 6 (incl. within ULL along Marsh Creek) $0 $1,095,489 $912,907 $912,907 $912,907 $9,906,210 $3,834,210 Outside Inventory Area $0 $352,480 $293,733 $293,733 $293,733 $1,233,680 $1,233,680 Outside Acquisition Zones $0 $3,274 $2,728 $2,728 $2,728 $5,905,457 $11,457 Total $0 $34,100,657 $28,417,214 $28,417,214 $28,417,214 $205,724,299 $119,352,299 Assumptions: 42% 58%
See Appendix G and description of separate land cost model in Chapter 9.
Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Senior GIS Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 Total FTEs 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 Total cost per year $129,720 $49,914 $49,914 $49,914
Total cost per period $778,320 $249,570 $249,570 $249,570 Notes/Assumptions:
Actual staff costs for years 0 - 9 are included in the due diligence actuals below. 1,880 hours per year 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.
1-9
$8,385,000
$31,138,000
$2,217,000
$6,417,000
$26,249,000
Actual acquisition cost through year 9, in 2016 dollars. Updated 2016 land cost factors by cost category applied to remaining acquisition targets. Total remaining cost allocated evenly over remaining 21 years of the permit term.
$6,072,000
$86,372,000
1-9
$86,372,000
$0
$86,372,000
na
$2,555,630
$2,555,630
$88,927,630
$5,894,000
115
Due Diligence
Covers costs for appraisals, preliminary title report, escrow and other closing costs, boundary surveys, legal services, environmental and Phase 1 site assessment.
Includes Conservancy staff costs on land acquisition projects.
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 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Due Diligence $165,742 $1,504,429 $1,051,201 $1,023,020 $852,516 $852,516 $852,516 $6,301,940 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 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Demolition of old facilities $60,825 $50,688 $50,688 $50,688 Repair of boundary fence $567,640 $567,640 $567,640 $567,640 Repair and replacement of gates $204,626 $170,521 $170,521 $170,521 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) $125,049 $104,208 $104,208 $104,208 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) $102,313 $85,261 $85,261 $85,261 Total $1,060,453 $978,317 $978,317 $978,317
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. $8,026 Demolition of old facilities per 500 acres
$5,400 Repair and replacement of gates per 100 acres
$3,300 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) per 100 acres
$2,700 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) per 100 acres 240 Estimated number of parcels acquired years 10 - 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) $5.26 Average cost per linear foot for boundary fence repair 15% Proportion of boundary fence that needs repair
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
For the 2012 and 2016 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 2016, during which time about 35 percent of the reserve 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.
116
HCP/NCCP Management and Restoration Planning and Design for Initial Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Vehicle purchase (included in overhead and contractor cost) Capital subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational costs
Program staff and overhead $578,664 $482,220 $482,220 $482,220 Technical staff and overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Contractors $1,520,400 $1,140,300 $570,150 $570,150
Operational subtotal $0 $1,262,793 $668,355 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 Total $0 $1,262,793 $668,355 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 $7,809,972 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Senior GIS Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 $96,444 $96,444 $96,444 $96,444
$578,664 $482,220 $482,220 $482,220
Technical Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Senior scientist and support $177 - - - - Planning Technician and support $104 - - - - - - - - $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
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.
Capital costs Total
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
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, . 117
Travel (shared with restoration and monitoring)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total cost per period $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Assumption:
$6,250 annual cost based on Conservancy 2017 budget
0.40 Contractors
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Management planning $760,200 $570,150 $0 $0
Restoration planning $760,200 $570,150 $570,150 $570,150 Total per period $0 $1,520,400 $1,140,300 $570,150 $570,150 Assumptions:
Restoration designs included in habitat restoration/creation cost as of 2017 update.
The management and restoration planning and design staff and contractors will conduct the following activities:
Management Planning
Management plans prepared for cropland/pasture preserves Management plans prepared for natural area preserves
Grazing leases developed or renewed
Jurisdictional wetland delineation
Exotic Plant Control Program (Preserve System-wide)
Fire management/control plan (System-wide)
Restoration Planning & Design (restoration construction designs included in the habitat restoration/creation cost category) Pond creation plan and construction designs
Wetland creation plan and construction designs
Stream restoration plan and construction designs
Oak savanna restoration plan and construction designs
Riparian woodland/scrub restoration plan and construction designs Contract value per period
Contractor category
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
proportion of travel costs that are used for planning (40% used for restoration and included in the restoration spreadsheet, and 20% used for monitoring and included in the monitoring spreadsheet)
118
HCP/NCCP Habitat Restoration/Creation for Initial Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Creation/Restoration $6,988,585 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 Vehicle purchase (included in overhead and contractor cost) Capital Subtotal $6,988,585 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead $478,836 $399,030 $399,030 $399,030 Technical staff and overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Contractors $3,808,779 $3,173,983 $3,173,983 $3,173,983 Operational Subtotal $0 $2,439,332 $1,470,246 $4,302,615 $3,585,513 $3,585,513 $3,585,513 Total $0 $2,439,332 $1,470,246 $11,291,201 $9,409,334 $9,409,334 $9,409,334 $43,428,780 Land Cover Type Restored/Created
0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
oak savanna - - 12.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 42.0 riparian woodland/scrub - 4.0 13.1 10.9 10.9 10.9 50.0 perennial wetland - 0.2 9.2 7.6 7.6 7.6 32.2 seasonal wetland - 5.8 11.3 9.4 9.4 9.4 45.2 alkali wetland - 2.1 5.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 21.8 slough/channel - - 20.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 72.0 open water - - - - - - - ponds - 0.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 21.0 streams (miles) - 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 4.6 Total (acres) - 12.8 78.3 65.3 65.3 65.3 287.0 Cost of Restoration/Creation Construction
0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
oak savanna acres $15,000 $216,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000 riparian woodland/scrub acres $42,199 $664,966 $554,138 $554,138 $554,138 perennial wetland acres $68,846 $756,282 $630,235 $630,235 $630,235 seasonal wetland acres $82,115 $1,109,535 $924,613 $924,613 $924,613 alkali wetland acres $83,094 $560,668 $467,224 $467,224 $467,224 slough/channel acres $62,538 $1,543,789 $1,286,491 $1,286,491 $1,286,491 open water acres $91,251 $0 $0 $0 $0
ponds acres $91,251 $655,754 $546,462 $546,462 $546,462 streams linear feet $234 $1,481,590 $1,234,659 $1,234,659 $1,234,659 $6,988,585 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 $5,823,821
Assumptions:
20%
For 2017 update, 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.documents.dgs.ca.gov/resd/PMB/CCCI/Old/cccitable_2017/CCCIMasterListing_4-2017.pdf Construction costs 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.
Capital Costs Total
Land Cover Type (acres) Total
Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost per unit
Total
UnitsLand Cover Type
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.
119
Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 $79,806 $79,806 $79,806 $79,806
$478,836 $399,030 $399,030 $399,030
1,880 hours per year Technical Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Senior scientist and support $177 - - - - Associate Planner and support $112 - - - - Planning Technician and support $104 - - - - - - - -
$0 $0 $0 $0
Cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
Travel (shared with planning and monitoring)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total cost per period $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Assumption:
$6,250 annual cost based on Conservancy 2017 budget
0.40 Contractors
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Design, plans, specifications, and engineering $2,306,233 $1,921,861 $1,921,861 $1,921,861 Bid assistance $104,829 $87,357 $87,357 $87,357
Construction oversight $698,859 $582,382 $582,382 $582,382 Post-construction maintenance $698,859 $582,382 $582,382 $582,382 Cost per period $3,808,779 $3,173,983 $3,173,983 $3,173,983 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 The total area of restoration that occurs in each period will be designed as three different projects (approximately 14 acres each).
Design, plan, specification, and engineering work, bid assistance, and construction oversight will be conducted in the period in which construction takes place. percent of total construction cost required to complete restoration design and plans, specifications, engineering and provide allowance for remedial measures
Total cost per year
Habitat Conservancy staff select sites, hire and oversee consultants for plans, specifcations, and implementation. Staff shared with other implementation tasks; the amount listed is the estimated portion to support wetland mitigation creation/restoration. proportion of travel costs that are used for restoration (40% used for planning and included in the planning spreadsheet, and 20% used for monitoring and included in the monitoring spreadsheet)
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).
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Contractor category
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
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.
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
120
HCP/NCCP Environmental Compliance for Initial Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Program staff and overhead $226,164 $188,470 $188,470 $0 Legal assistance $210,000 $175,000 $0 $0
NEPA/CEQA $493,300 $493,300 $493,300 $0
CWA 404 $0 $0 $0 $0
CWA 401 $24,700 $24,700 $24,700 $0
CDFG 1602 $20,500 $20,500 $20,500 $0
NHPA $53,200 $53,200 $53,200 $0
Other $0 $632,307 $138,246 $36,900 $36,900 $36,900 $0
Total $0 $632,307 $138,246 $1,064,764 $992,070 $817,070 $0 $3,644,457 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 - Associate Planner and support $112 0.10 0.10 0.10 -
0.15 0.15 0.15 -
$37,694 $37,694 $37,694 $0
$226,164 $188,470 $188,470 $0
1,880 hours per year Legal Assistance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $210,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $385,000
Assumptions:
$35,000 Annual cost for legal assistance with wetland permitting, years 10 - 20 Number of Projects Requiring Environmental Compliance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles 4 4 4 - 20 Medium/more complex
10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles 4 4 4 - 20 Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles 2 2 2 - 10 10 10 10 - 30 Assumptions:
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.
Operational Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Number
Total projects
Size RangeProject size
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.
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
121
Environmental Compliance Cost per Project Size and Compliance Category (2016 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 $6,490 $0 $1,800 $983 $3,245 $3,077 Medium/more complex
10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles $ 25,001 $ 100,000 0.0121 0.07 $51,923 $0 $2,340 $2,109 $4,543 $3,692 Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles $ 100,001
$500,000
or more 0.073 0.30 $129,809 $0 $4,063 $4,048 $11,034 $4,923 Assumptions:
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
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements and Fees, Effective October 1, 2016. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=130459&inline 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.
CWA 401 fee cost estimate is based on impacts to jurisdictional waters of the state rather than project size. Fee is an average based on the minimum and maximum expected impacts. State Water Resources Control Board Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Water Quality Certification Dredge and Fill Application Fee Calculator (Effective Date 11/16/2016) 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.
Project Impacts to
Wetlands for CWA 401 Compliance Category
Project size Size Range
Estimate Project Cost within
DFG jurisdiction
122
HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Initial Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
Capital Costs 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Vehicle purchase $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment - capital $0 $0 $0 $0
Field facilities $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractors - capital $0 $0 $0 $0
Recreation facilities $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead $49,914 $41,595 $41,595 $41,595 Preserve staff and overhead $3,447,168 $3,577,640 $4,987,640 $5,692,640 Facilities Maintenance/Vehicles and equipment $1,776,000 $1,850,000 $2,590,000 $2,960,000 Equipment - operational $0 $0 $0 $0
Facilities maintenance and utilities $0 $0 $0 $0
Water pumping $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractors - operational $0 $0 $0 $0
Recreation - operational $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational Subtotal $0 $386,065 $1,543,536 $5,273,082 $5,469,235 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 Total $0 $386,065 $1,543,536 $5,273,082 $5,469,235 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $28,985,388 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and Support $177 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Senior Planner and Support $177 - - - -
0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 $8,319 $8,319 $8,319 $8,319
$49,914 $41,595 $41,595 $41,595
Preserve Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Preserve Manager and support $112 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Preserve maintenance staff 3,000 $75 4.0 5.0 7.0 8.0
4.05 5.05 7.05 8.05 $574,528 $715,528 $997,528 $1,138,528
$3,447,168 $3,577,640 $4,987,640 $5,692,640
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year, excluding vacation Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Number of FTEs
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
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 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.
NOTE: Costs for years 1 - 9 include expenditures by the East Bay Regional Park District on land maintenance activities on Conservancy properties (staff costs, maintenance supplies, maintenance services from inception throught 2016. Details provided by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.
Implementation Period (Years)
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Preserve area per
position (acres)
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Covered in facilities maintenance line item below.
Covered in facilities maintenance line item above.
123
Preserve maintenance including capital and operational costs for all maintenance activities (new cost approach for 2017 update) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
4.0 5.0 7.0 8.0 Total cost per year $296,000 $370,000 $518,000 $592,000 Total cost per period $1,776,000 $1,850,000 $2,590,000 $2,960,000 Notes/Assumptions:
Annual cost per FTE $74,000
For 2017 update, revised the approach to this component of the cost estimate. Replaced detailed estimates of schedules for vehicle and equipment purchases, field facilities construction, and various maintenance activities with a per-FTE factor derived from analysis of the EBRPD budget for the Maintenance and Skilled Trades Department within the Parks Operations Division. This department acquires, manages, and services the vehicles, trailers, landscaping equipment, heavy equipment, police vehicles, boats and fire apparatus needed to manage and maintain EBRPD properties. The department also repairs and maintains buildings and utilities infrastructure, including water utilities, roads and trails, and sanitation systems.
Vehicles, Maintenance, and Fuel - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total number of FTEs 4.05 5.05 7.05 8.05
New trucks purchased $27,600 $1,200 $1,300 0 0 0 0
Old trucks retired 0 0 0 0
Total trucks 0 0 0 0
New 4WDs purchased $46,000 $2,400 $2,000 0 0 0 0
Old 4WDs retired 0 0 0 0
Total 4WDs 0 0 0 0
New ATVs purchased $7,900 $330 $390 0 0 0 0
Old ATVs retired 0 0 0 0
Total ATVs 0 0 0 0
New dump trucks purchased $39,400 $530 $530 0 0 0 0
Old dump trucks retired 0 0 0 0
Total dump trucks 0 0 0 0
New tractors purchased $52,600 $660 $1,310 0 0 0 0
Old tractors retired 0 0 0 0
Total tractors 0 0 0 0
New auger, mower, scraper for tractor $52,600 $0 $130 0 0 0 0 Old auger, mower, scraper retired 0 0 0 0
Total auger, mower, scraper 0 0 0 0
New small tractors $18,400 $390 $390 0 0 0 0
Old small tractors retired 0 0 0 0
Total small tractors 0 0 0 0
New light 4WD vehicles $13,100 $330 $330 0 0 0 0
Old light 4WD vehicles retired 0 0 0 0
Total light 4WD vehicles 0 0 0 0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
Cost of 4WD truck includes cost of fire pumper, chain saw, sprayer, and small tool set for vehicle.
Total vehicle fuel and maintenance per period
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Total vehicle fuel and maintenance per year
Total vehicle purchase cost per period
Fuel cost per
vehicle per year
Number of vehicles, per period
Maintenance
cost per vehicle
per year
Purchase price per
vehicle
124
Equipment and Materials - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
New preserve area managed per period 8,083 4,042 4,042 4,042 4,042 Total preserve area managed per period 8,083 12,125 16,167 20,208 24,250 Capital cost of equipment and materials per
year $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational cost of equipment and materials
per year $0 $0 $0 $0
Total capital cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Total operational cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
$0 Capital cost of equipment and materials per 1,000 preserve acres per year. $0 Operational cost of equipment and materials per 1,000 preserve acres per year.
Capital costs include the capital component of fire fighting equipment/gear, small tools (pliers, wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.), glasses, gloves, hard hats, rain gear, irrigation supplies, cargo container, landscape plants and grass, oak trees, lumber, and truck hauling services.
Operational costs include the operational component of fire fighting equipment/gear, small tools (pliers, wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.), glasses, gloves, hard hats, rain gear, irrigation supplies, cargo container, landscape plants and grass, oak trees, lumber, and truck hauling services.
Operational costs also include portable radios, small pumps, piping, generator, saw, and demolition hammers.
Field Facilities - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total preserve area managed per period 8,083 12,125 16,167 20,208 24,250 Total field offices/parking areas - - - - New field offices/parking areas - - - - Cost per period for offices/workshops $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
10,000 Number of acres per workshop/parking area $556,000 Cost to build a workshop/parking area
Note: Field facilities contain an area for equipment storage, a manager's office, a shared office, a locker room, and restrooms.
Based on experience to date, cost assumes donated portable building, with costs representing transportation, installation, utilities, etc.
Facilities Maintenance and Utilities - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) Cost per facility per
year 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total facilities per period - - - - - - Maintenance cost per year $9,900 $0 $0 $0 $0
Utilities cost per year $5,300 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Water Pumping - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total preserve area managed 12,125 16,167 20,208 24,250 Total cost per year $0 $0 $0 $0
Total cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 Annual cost for pump and well drilling per 1,000 acres Total cost per year
Number of new units bought per period
Total cost per period
125
Contractors - operational: for 2017 update assume included in preserve management staffing cost 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total pond area managed 13 20 28 35 Total preserve area managed 12,125 16,167 20,208 24,250 Routine dirt road maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0
Feral pig management $0 $0 $0 $0
Pond maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0
Weed management $0 $0 $0 $0
Other maintenance services $0 $0 $0 $0
Total per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
$0 Cost for pond maintenance (dredging) per acre of pond every 5 years. $0 Cost of dirt road maintenance per 100 miles of road per year. 100 miles of dirt roads on preserves 4 miles of dirt roads per 1,000 acres of preserve $0 Cost of feral pig management per year per 1,000 acres managed $0 Cost of weed management per 1,000 acres of preserve per year. $0 Cost for other maintenance services per 1,000 acres of preserve per year.
Other maintenance services include mowing, grading, pest control, disking for fire breaks, fencing, alarms, janitorial services (pond maintenance subtracted based on the yearly pond maintenance costs above) Contractors - capital - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total preserve area managed 12,125 16,167 20,208 24,250 Construction services $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
$0 Cost for construction services per 1,000 preserve acres per year Construction services includes roadway design, paving, fencing, grading, weather station, and boundary surveying services Recreation Facilities and Maintenance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total facilities per period - - - - Facilities cost - capital, per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Facilities cost - maintenance and operations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
For this estimate, assumed costs covered by the East Bay Regional Park District. $0 Cost per unit for recreation facilities.
$0 Annual maintenance and operations cost for recreation facilities Contractor category
Contract value per period
Contract value per 5-year period
Contractor category
Total cost per period
Total facilities capital cost
Total cost per year
126
HCP/NCCP Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management for Initial Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Vehicle purchase (included in overhead and contractor cost) Capital Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead $113,082 $357,435 $392,528 $392,528 Technical staff and overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $7,500 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250
Field data collection (contractors) $1,530,879 $1,741,261 $2,162,226 $2,518,534 Directed research $570,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000
Adaptive management $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 Operational Subtotal $0 $466,449 $430,860 $2,410,961 $2,769,446 $3,225,504 $3,581,812 Total $0 $466,449 $430,860 $2,410,961 $2,769,446 $3,225,504 $3,581,812 $12,885,034 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Associate Planner and support $112 0.05 0.30 0.33 0.33
0.075 0.325 0.358 0.358 $18,847 $71,487 $78,506 $78,506
$113,082 $357,435 $392,528 $392,528
1,880 hours per year Technical Staff and Overhead (shared with planning and restoration/creation) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Senior scientist and support $177 - - - - Technical support $104 - - - - - - - - $0 $0 $0 $0
Cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Total cost per year
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.
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Capital 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.
Position
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
127
Travel (shared with planning and restoration/creation)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total cost per period $7,500 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250
Assumption:
$6,250 annual cost based on Conservancy 2017 budget
0.20 Field Data Collection (Contractors)
On-going and Construction Monitoring
0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
8,083 4,042 4,042 4,042 4,042 13 78 65 65 65 9 24 20 20 20 2 6 5 5 5 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
pre-construction surveys $2,694 1 site 5 5 5 5 subtotal $13,470 $13,470 $13,470 $13,470
construction monitoring $5,957 1 site 1 1 1 1 subtotal $5,957 $5,957 $5,957 $5,957
post-acquisition biological inventories $18 1 acre 674 808 808 808 subtotal $12,236 $14,683 $14,683 $14,683
monitoring: restoration, creation and
enhancement sites $10,776 10 acres 3 19 29 27 subtotal $3,233 $20,474 $31,250 $29,095
status and trends monitoring: key covered
species and ecosystems $18 1 acre 12,125 16,167 20,208 24,250 subtotal $220,251 $293,668 $367,084 $440,501
$255,147 $348,252 $432,445 $503,707
$1,530,879 $1,741,261 $2,162,226 $2,518,534
Assumptions:
Implementing entity monitoring staff will plan, coordinate, and report on the monitoring categories described below.
Contractors will conduct the field monitoring and data analysis. 10%
0.25 Ratio of area of other covered activities in preserves to area created/restored.
Planning, preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring for covered activities outside of preserves will be paid for by developers.
Post-acquisition inventories will build on planning surveys. Inventory will include mapping of noxious weeds.
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Monitoring type Cost per unit Unit
Average area requiring monitoring per year (acres or sites) and average annual cost per period Number of preserve covered activities requiring pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring per period (sites)
Number of restoration sites per period
Total acres of land added to reserve for management and monitoring each period New acres created/restored per period
Proportion of travel costs that are used for monitoring (40% used for planning and included in the planning spreadsheet, and 40% used for restoration and included in the restoration spreadsheet).
Status and trends monitoring is assumed to occur after preserve land is purchased through year 30. Status and trend monitoring will build on planning surveys and post-acquisition inventories, when appropriate.
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Implementation monitoring will be conducted by the GIS/Database technician in conjunction with the other monitoring staff. The cost for the GIS/database technician's time will be covered by the program administration cost category. The cost for the monitoring staffs' time is assumed to be included in the other monitoring categories.
Preconstruction surveys are assumed to occur prior to construction of covered activites on the Preserve System. Preconstruction surveys are for the following species only: Townsend's big- eared bat, San Joaquin kit fox, golden eagle, burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, and covered shrimp species. Surveys are assumed to require one visit by two associate biologists at $160/hour each. They are assumed to occur in the same 5-year period in which construction occurs. Assumes negative findings.
Monitoring of restoration, creation, and enhancement sites is assumed to occur 4 times per year for the 5-year period following the restoration activity and will require two associate biologists at $160/hr for one 8-hour day each visit. It will include species-response monitoring. It is assumed to begin in the 5-year period after the creation/restoration/enhancement takes place.
% of times construction surveys are anticipated to be required for covered activities within the preserve system (it is anticipated that Implementing Entity will whenever possible avoid habitat and breeding season of covered species).
Construction monitoring is assumed to occur periodically during construction of covered activities and conservation measures. An average of seven visits by one staff biologist at $100/hour is assumed.
128
Directed Research
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Average cost per year to fund directed
research $95,000 $95,000 $95,000 $95,000
Total cost per period $570,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 Adaptive Management
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Average Independent Conservation
Assessment Team cost per period $31,500 $31,500 $31,500 $31,500 Average Science Advisors cost per period $158,000 $158,000 $158,000 $158,000 Total cost per period $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 Assumptions:
Adaptive management experiments are covered under the monitoring staff and directed research categories.
It is assumed that the Independent Conservation Assessment Team will meet once every 4 years and have:
5 members $6,300 stipend per member per 5-year period
It is assumed that the Science Advisors will contain:
10 members $15,800 stipend per member per 5-year period
Field monitoring and analysis contractors
Associate Biologist Staff Biologist
Base cost per hour $160 $100 $ per hour
Direct Expenses $5 $3 3% of labor cost
Travel $27 $27 $ per day
assuming 50 50 miles and $0.54 $0.54 $ per mile
Hours per day 8 8 hours per day Total cost per hour including expenses and
amortized per diem and travel $168.38 $106.38 $ per hour Assumptions:
Bay Area billing rate, assuming all work will be conducted from a local office (no per diem needed). 129
Remedial Measures for Initial Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Remedial measures $0 $0 $0 $329,018 $200,632 $755,469 $1,799,321 $3,084,440 Total $0 $0 $0 $329,018 $200,632 $755,469 $1,799,321 $3,084,440 Note: Actual costs are included in habitat restoration/creation cost category Remedial Measures
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost of created/restored habitat per
period $2,439,332 $1,470,246 $6,988,585 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 $5,823,821 Cost for remedial measures for
created/restored habitat per period $243,933 $147,025 $698,859 $1,747,146 Area of new preserve not including
created/restored habitat per period - 7,682 3,292 3,711 3,093 3,093 3,093 Cost for remedial measures for
preserves per period $55,084 $23,608 $26,610 $22,175
Cost for other remedial measures
per period $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Total cost per period $329,018 $200,632 $755,469 $1,799,321 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. $359 Cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 26-30. 70% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 9 occurring in years 1 - 5 Implementation Period (Years)
Capital 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 21-30. The cost for these remedial actions is included in years 26-30 so that it can be included 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 26-30, and is assumed to be needed once, in the second 5-year period after the preserve land is purchased.
The cost for other remedial measures includes the costs for restoration or maintenance of preserve areas because of other changed circumstances, such as wildfire.
130
Contingency for Initial Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Total cost of program excluding land
acquisition and habitat restoration
capital costs $0 $0 $0 $21,258,171 $19,277,099 $21,704,136 $23,373,520 $85,612,926 Contingency fund $0 $0 $0 $1,062,909 $963,855 $1,085,207 $1,168,676 $4,280,646 Assumptions:
5.0% Percent of total program funding needed for contingency 131
Post-Permit Costs for Initial Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
Post-Permit Costs
Cost Category Annual Costs Assumptions
Total Cost
Program Administration $424,686
Land Acquisition $0
Planning and Design $0
Habitat Restoration/Creation $0
Environmental Compliance $0
Preserve Management and Maintenance $1,738,847
Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $358,181
Remedial Measures $0
Contingency $0
Total $2,521,714
Capital Costs Annual Costs Assumptions
Program Administration $0 Included in staff and overhead costs Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $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 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 Captured in annual operating costs Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 Captured in annual operating costs Remedial Measures $0 Not required, post permit
Total $0
Operational Costs Annual Costs Assumptions
Program Administration $424,686 Reduced staffing and no legal and finanical 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 $1,738,847 Assume 100 percent of annual average costs in years 26 - 30 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $358,181 Assume 50 percent of annual average costs in years 26 - 30 Contingency $0 Not required, post permit
Total $2,521,714
Total preserve acres 24,250
Annual average cost per acre managed $104
Percent of average annual cost years 26 - 30 21%
132
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report D-1
APPENDIX D: M AXIMUM 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.
133
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP
2017 Update
Implementation Cost Data and Assumptions with
Maximum Urban Development Area
134
Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars rounded to the nearest $10,000)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total (2016) Program Administration $160,000 $6,800,000 $5,770,000 $4,640,000 $4,650,000 $4,660,000 $26,680,000 Land Acquisition $170,000 $88,930,000 $51,540,000 $42,670,000 $42,670,000 $42,670,000 $268,650,000 Planning and Design $0 $1,930,000 $2,110,000 $1,640,000 $1,060,000 $1,060,000 $7,810,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,910,000 $13,670,000 $11,390,000 $11,390,000 $11,390,000 $51,750,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,000 $1,060,000 $990,000 $820,000 $0 $3,640,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,930,000 $6,560,000 $7,620,000 $8,690,000 $10,840,000 $35,650,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $900,000 $2,770,000 $3,200,000 $3,790,000 $4,220,000 $14,880,000 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $330,000 $200,000 $920,000 $2,190,000 $3,650,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,190,000 $1,130,000 $1,210,000 $1,360,000 $4,890,000 Total $330,000 $105,170,000 $85,000,000 $73,480,000 $75,200,000 $78,390,000 $417,600,000 Capital Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total (2016) Program Administration INCLUDED IN STAFF AND OVERHEAD COSTS Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $86,370,000 $49,330,000 $41,220,000 $41,220,000 $41,220,000 $259,370,000 Planning and Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $0 $8,530,000 $7,110,000 $7,110,000 $7,110,000 $29,850,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $330,000 $200,000 $920,000 $2,190,000 $3,650,000 Total $0 $86,370,000 $58,190,000 $48,530,000 $49,250,000 $50,520,000 $292,870,000 Operational Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total (2016) Program Administration $160,000 $6,800,000 $5,770,000 $4,640,000 $4,650,000 $4,660,000 $26,680,000 Land Acquisition: transactional costs $170,000 $2,560,000 $2,220,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000 $9,280,000 Planning and Design $0 $1,930,000 $2,110,000 $1,640,000 $1,060,000 $1,060,000 $7,810,000 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,910,000 $5,140,000 $4,280,000 $4,280,000 $4,280,000 $21,900,000 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,000 $1,060,000 $990,000 $820,000 $0 $3,640,000 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,930,000 $6,560,000 $7,620,000 $8,690,000 $10,840,000 $35,650,000 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $900,000 $2,770,000 $3,200,000 $3,790,000 $4,220,000 $14,880,000 Contingency $0 $0 $1,190,000 $1,130,000 $1,210,000 $1,360,000 $4,890,000 Total $330,000 $18,800,000 $26,820,000 $24,950,000 $25,950,000 $27,870,000 $124,730,000 Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
135
Summary of East Contra Costa HCP Implementation Costs for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars not rounded)
Total Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Program Administration $159,352 $6,795,011 $5,773,643 $4,636,266 $4,650,330 $4,664,394 $26,678,996 Land Acquisition $165,742 $88,927,630 $51,541,900 $42,670,811 $42,670,811 $42,670,811 $268,647,705 Planning and Design $0 $1,931,148 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 $7,809,972 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,909,578 $13,668,995 $11,390,829 $11,390,829 $11,390,829 $51,751,061 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,553 $1,064,764 $992,070 $817,070 $0 $3,644,457 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,929,601 $6,563,082 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $10,844,235 $35,650,388 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $897,309 $2,769,384 $3,204,307 $3,788,148 $4,223,749 $14,882,897 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $329,103 $200,669 $921,333 $2,194,046 $3,645,151 Contingency $0 $0 $1,187,771 $1,128,603 $1,211,024 $1,363,789 $4,891,187 Total $325,094 $105,160,830 $85,012,706 $73,477,810 $75,208,651 $78,416,724 $417,601,814 Capital Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Program Administration INCLUDED IN STAFF AND OVERHEAD COSTS Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $0 $86,372,000 $49,326,489 $41,223,665 $41,223,665 $41,223,665 $259,369,485 Planning and Design $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $0 $8,527,611 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $29,846,639 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Remedial Measures $0 $0 $329,103 $200,669 $921,333 $2,194,046 $3,645,151 Total $0 $86,372,000 $58,183,203 $48,530,677 $49,251,341 $50,524,054 $292,861,275 Operational Costs
Cost Category 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Program Administration $159,352 $6,795,011 $5,773,643 $4,636,266 $4,650,330 $4,664,394 $26,678,996 Land Acquisition: due diligence, transaction costs $165,742 $2,555,630 $2,215,411 $1,447,146 $1,447,146 $1,447,146 $9,278,220 Planning and Design $0 $1,931,148 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 $7,809,972 Habitat Restoration/Creation $0 $3,909,578 $5,141,384 $4,284,487 $4,284,487 $4,284,487 $21,904,422 Environmental Compliance $0 $770,553 $1,064,764 $992,070 $817,070 $0 $3,644,457 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 $1,929,601 $6,563,082 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $10,844,235 $35,650,388 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 $897,309 $2,769,384 $3,204,307 $3,788,148 $4,223,749 $14,882,897 Contingency $0 $0 $1,187,771 $1,128,603 $1,211,024 $1,363,789 $4,891,187 Total $325,094 $18,788,830 $26,829,503 $24,947,133 $25,957,310 $27,892,670 $124,740,539 Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
136
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) Area:
Item:
Base Period:
Years:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2016 dollars 2005 201.2 202.5 201.2 203.0 205.9 203.4 202.7 201.5 203.9 0.7610 2006 207.1 208.9 209.1 210.7 211.0 210.4 209.2 207.9 210.6 0.7855 2007 213.688 215.842 216.123 216.240 217.949 218.485 216.048 214.736 217.361 0.8112 2008 219.612 222.074 225.181 225.411 225.824 218.528 222.767 221.730 223.804 0.8364 2009 222.166 223.854 225.692 225.801 226.051 224.239 224.395 223.305 225.484 0.8425 2010 226.145 227.697 228.110 227.954 228.107 227.658 227.469 226.994 227.944 0.8540 2011 229.981 234.121 233.646 234.608 235.331 234.327 233.390 232.082 234.698 0.8763 2012 236.880 238.985 239.806 241.170 242.834 239.533 239.650 238.099 241.201 0.8998 2013 242.677 244.675 245.935 246.072 246.617 245.711 245.023 243.894 246.152 0.9199 2014 248.615 251.495 253.317 253.354 254.503 252.273 251.985 250.507 253.463 0.9461 2015 254.910 257.622 259.117 259.917 261.019 260.289 258.572 256.723 260.421 0.9708 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 1.0000 2017 271.626
Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 2016 dollars
Series Id: 2005 98.0 98.8 99.5 100.0 0.7893
2006 101.0 101.8 103.1 103.9 0.8200
Series Title: 2007 104.9 105.9 106.7 107.3 0.8469
Ownership: 2008 108.3 109.0 109.9 110.3 0.8706
Component: 2009 111.0 111.1 111.4 111.4 0.8792
Occupation: 2010 112.2 112.6 113.3 113.5 0.8958
Industry: 2011 114.6 115.1 115.4 115.7 0.9132
Subcategory: 2012 116.8 117.3 117.7 118.2 0.9329
Area: 2013 118.9 119.5 120.2 120.5 0.9511
Periodicity: 2014 121.0 121.9 122.5 122.9 0.9700
Years: 2015 123.7 124.1 124.5 124.9 0.9858
2016 125.7 126.2 126.7 126.7 1.0000
California Construction Cost Index, Department of General Services Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2016 dollars 2006 4620 4603 4597 4600 4599 4593 4609 4616 4619 4867 4891 4877 4,674 0.74759 2007 4869 4868 4871 4872 4886 4842 4849 4851 4942 4943 4978 4981 4,896 0.78306 2008 4983 4983 4999 5004 5023 5065 5135 5142 5194 5393 5375 5322 5,135 0.82126 2009 5309 5295 5298 5296 5288 5276 5263 5265 5264 5259 5259 5262 5,278 0.84413 2010 5260 5262 5268 5270 5378 5394 5401 5401 5381 5591 5599 5596 5,400 0.86368 2011 5592 5624 5627 5636 5637 5643 5654 5667 5668 5675 5680 5680 5,649 0.90342 2012 5683 5683 5738 5740 5755 5754 5750 5778 5777 5780 5779 5768 5,749 0.91944 2013 5774 5782 5777 5786 5796 5802 5804 5801 5802 5911 5903 5901 5,820 0.93083 1.24% 2014 5898 5896 5953 5956 5957 5961 5959 5959 5959 5969 5981 5977 5,952 0.95197 2.27% 2015 6073 6077 6069 6062 6069 6055 6055 6055 6113 6114 6109 6108 6,080 0.97241 2.15% 2016 6106 6132 6248 6249 6240 6238 6245 6244 6267 6343 6344 6373 6,252 1.00000 2.84% 8.49% 2017 6373 6373 6373
The ENR BCI reports cost trends for specific construction trade labor and materials in the California marketplace.
This page last updated: 4/17/17
Available at: https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/resd/PMB/CCCI/Old/cccitable_2017/CCCIMasterListing_4-2017.pdf 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
2005 to 2017
Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers
Original Data Value
CUURA422SA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
All workers
United States (National)
Index number
2005 to 2016
Total compensation for Private industry workers in
f Private industry workers
137
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 HEG, 2017
Updated with input from H.T. Harvey, 2017
Other estimated factors
Actual costs start-up and years 1 - 9
Estimate of EBRPD contributions to operational costs, start up and years 1-9 Summary actuals supercede model detail
138
Acres Acquired, Managed, and Restored within HCP/NCCP Preserves for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
Maximum UDA Source
Total acres acquired/managed 30,200 (Table 5-9: mid-point of range) Pond acres acquired 16 (Table 5-5a) Acres Acquired and Managed by Time Period
0 1-9
10-15 (6 yr
period) 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Total reserve acres acquired per period - 10,987 5,489 4,574 4,574 4,574 30,200 Total reserve acres managed, per period 10,067 5,033 5,033 5,033 5,033 30,200 Total reserve acres managed, cumulative - 10,067 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 30,200 Pond acres acquired per period 10.86 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 16 Pond acres added to management per period 5.33 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 16 Pond acres managed cumulative, including restoration - 5.37 14.3 22.2 30.1 38.0 38.0 Assumptions:
Actual acquisition accounted for in years 1-5 and 6-9; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the remaining 21 years of the permit term.
Management and monitoring on acquired land and ponds has not kept pace with actual acquisition; land is assumed to come under management in 6 equal increments over the 30-year perm 13,349.6 Total acres acquired through 2016 1,682.3 Easement acres on parcels acquired through 2016 680.0 Other acres (outside acquisition zones) not credited to reserve through 2016 10,987.2 Total acres acquired and credited toward reserve Land Cover Type Restored/Created by Time Period
Land Cover Type (acres except where noted) 0 1-9
10-15 (6 yr
period) 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
oak savanna - - 47.1 39.3 39.3 39.3 165.0 riparian woodland/scrub - 4.04 14.6 12.1 12.1 12.1 55.0 perennial wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 0.16 9.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 32.5 seasonal wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 5.79 13.7 11.4 11.4 11.4 53.6 alkali wetland (jurisdictional boundary) - 2.12 6.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 23.6 slough/channel - - 20.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 72.0 open water - - - - - - - ponds - 0.04 6.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 22.0 streams (miles) - 1.10 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.8 Total (acres) - 12.82 118.4 98.7 98.7 98.7 427.2 Assumptions:
Actual restoration accounted for in years 1-9; the net remaining requirement is allocated evenly over the next 21 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. 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 MONITORING COST ESTIMATE Land Cover Type Restoration Sites 0 1-9
10-15 (6 yr
period) 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
riparian woodland/scrub - 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 3.7 perennial wetland - 0.1 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.1 13.0 seasonal wetland - 2.3 5.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 21.4 alkali wetland - 0.8 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 9.4 ponds - - 8.2 6.9 6.9 6.9 28.8 streams (miles/acres converted to sites) - 5.2 6.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 27.6 Total sites for monitoring cost estimate - 8.7 27.2 22.7 22.7 22.7 103.9 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.
wetlands and pond sites by acreage conversion
stream sites by linear feet conversion:
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Implementation Period (Years)
Defining sites:
139
Summary of HCP/NCCP Personnel
2017 Update
POST PERMIT
STAFFING
Number of FTEs
0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Administrative staffing
Principal Planner 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.50 Senior Planner 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 -
Senior GIS Planner 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner 0.80 - - - - 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 0.50 Assistant Planner/Planning Technician 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 Accountant 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 Admin – Secretary (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - IT Support Staff (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - Total 2.35 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 Total 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 1.40 Land acquisition staffing
Principal Planner 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 - Senior GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Associate Planner 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 -
Total 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Total 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 - Planning and design, restoration, and monitoring staffing Principal Planner 0.10 - - - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 - Senior GIS Planner 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 -
Senior Planner 0.20 - - - - - - - - - Senior Scientist 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - - Associate Planner 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 - Technical Support 0.17 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 - - - - - Total 0.80 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 Total 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 - Habitat restoration and creation staffing
Principal Planner 0.10 - - - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 - Associate Planner/Project Manager 0.20 - - - - 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 - Senior Scientist 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - - Project Manager 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - - Technical Support 0.17 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 - - - - - Total 0.80 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 Total 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 - Environmental compliance staffing
Principal Planner - - - - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 - - Associate Planner 0.10 0.10 0.10 - -
Total - - - - - Total 0.15 0.15 0.15 - - Preserve management and maintenance staffing
Principal Planner 0.10 - - - - 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Senior Planner 0.20 - - - - - - - - - Associate Planner/Preserve Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Preserve Maintenance Staff 3.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 Total 4.30 5.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Total 5.075 7.075 8.075 ##### 10.075 Monitoring and research staffing
Principal Planner - - - - - 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Senior Planner 0.10 - - - - - - - - - Senior Scientist 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 - - - - - Associate Planner 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.30 0.33 0.33 - Technical Support 0.17 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.33 - - - - - Total 0.60 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 Total 0.075 0.325 0.358 0.358 0.025 Overall Staffing Plan
Principal Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.55 Senior Planner 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 - - - - - Senior GIS Planner 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05 Associate Planner/Preserve Manager 0.80 - - - - 2.95 3.10 3.13 3.03 0.55 Assistant Planner/Planning Technician 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 Accountant 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 Admin – Secretary (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - IT Support Staff (included in rates) - - - - - - - - - - Senior Scientist 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - Project Manager 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - Technical Support 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 - - - - - Preserve Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - - Preserve Maintenance Staff 3.00 4.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 Total 9.05 11.50 13.50 14.50 14.50 Total 9.75 11.90 12.93 14.78 11.50 Monitoring and research staffing
Overall Staffing Plan
UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
Administrative staffing
Planning and design, restoration, and monitoring staffing Habitat restoration and creation staffing
Land acquisition staffing
Preserve management and maintenance staffing
Environmental compliance staffing
2017 UPDATE STAFFING
Number of FTEs
2012 UPDATE STAFFING
140
HCP/NCCP Program Administration for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Capital Costs
Capital Subtotal INCLUDED IN STAFF AND OVERHEAD COSTS
Operational Costs
Staff and overhead $4,587,012 $3,822,510 $3,822,510 $3,822,510 Other administrative costs $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Vehicle / mileage allowance $9,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 Travel $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Insurance $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Legal assistance $600,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
Financial analysis assistance $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 Financial audit (annual) $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 In-lieu funding for law enforcement and firefighting $50,631 $56,256 $70,320 $84,384 Public relations and outreach $150,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 Operational Subtotal $159,352 $3,328,033 $3,466,978 $5,773,643 $4,636,266 $4,650,330 $4,664,394 Total $159,352 $3,328,033 $3,466,978 $5,773,643 $4,636,266 $4,650,330 $4,664,394 $26,678,996 Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Senior Planner and support $177 - - - - Senior GIS Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 Planning Technician and support $104 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Accountant and support $133 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 $764,502 $764,502 $764,502 $764,502
$4,587,012 $3,822,510 $3,822,510 $3,822,510
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.
Some actual costs for program administration staff and contractors through 2016 are included in actual costs under land acquisition, planning and design, preserve management, restoration, monitoring and environmental compliance.
Position
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
141
Other Administrative Costs
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
CHCPC membership (IEH) $30,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Miscellaneous equipment and supplies $6,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Cost per period $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Assumption:
$5,000 annual cost for CHCPC membership, based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 (Institute for Ecological Health) $1,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Vehicle / Mileage Allowance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost per period $9,000 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500
Assumption:
$1,500 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Travel
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost per period $36,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Assumption:
$6,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Insurance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost per period $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Assumption:
$20,000 annual cost based on actual Conservancy experience through 2016 Legal Assistance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $600,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 Assumptions:
$100,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, years 10 - 15 $60,000 Annual cost for legal assistance, after year 15 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.
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)
142
Financial Analysis Assistance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $260,000 Assumptions:
$65,000 Cost per period for financial analysis assistance Financial analyst review will occur periodically over the life of the Plan (years 3, 6, 10, 15, 20 and 25).
Note: The financial analyis 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 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $420,000 Assumptions:
$20,000 Cost per year for financial audit services based on Conservancy experience through 2016 Annual financial audit of the Conservancy's financial statements by an independent auditor are required by the JPA agreement and Government Code.
In-Lieu Payments for Law Enforcement and Firefighting
0 1-5 6-10 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total preserve area per period - - 10,067 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 In-lieu payments for law enforcement per year $2,221 $3,331 $4,441 $5,552 $6,662 In-lieu payments for firefighting per year $3,405 $5,107 $6,810 $8,512 $10,215 Total cost per year $5,626 $8,438 $11,251 $14,064 $16,877 Cost per period $28,128 $50,630.51 $56,256 $70,320 $84,384 Assumptions:
$4.53 In-lieu law enforcement funding per preserve acre $2.96 In-lieu firefighting funding per preserve acre
In lieu costs per preserve acres are based on CCWD's annual in-lieu payments and the assumption that CCWD manages approximately 20,000 acres of preserve.
Public Relations/Outreach
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Total cost per year $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $100,000 Cost per period $150,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $525,000 Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
143
HCP/NCCP Land Acquisition for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
Capital Costs 0 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Acquisition $0 $47,903,038 $39,919,198 $39,919,198 $39,919,198 $254,032,633 Site improvements $0 $1,423,450 $1,304,467 $1,304,467 $1,304,467 $5,336,851 Capital Subtotal $0 $49,326,489 $41,223,665 $41,223,665 $41,223,665 $259,369,485 Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead na $778,320 $249,570 $249,570 $249,570 $1,527,030 Due diligence $165,742 $1,437,091 $1,197,576 $1,197,576 $1,197,576 $7,751,190 Operational Subtotal $165,742 $2,215,411 $1,447,146 $1,447,146 $1,447,146 $9,278,220 Total $165,742 $51,541,900 $42,670,811 $42,670,811 $42,670,811 $268,647,705 Acquisition Cost over 30-year Program, Actuals year 1 - 9 + Projections Years 10 - 30 (2016 dollars) Estimated
Acquisition Analysis Zone 0 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total Remainder 10-30 Zone 1 $0 $4,362,019 $3,635,016 $3,635,016 $3,635,016 $23,652,065 $15,267,065 Zone 2 $0 $13,767,038 $11,472,532 $11,472,532 $11,472,532 $79,322,635 $48,184,635 Zone 3 $0 $326,188 $271,823 $271,823 $271,823 $3,358,656 $1,141,656 Zone 4 $0 $14,517,791 $12,098,160 $12,098,160 $12,098,160 $57,229,270 $50,812,270 Zone 5 $0 $11,382,988 $9,485,823 $9,485,823 $9,485,823 $66,089,456 $39,840,456 Zone 6 (incl. within ULL along Marsh Creek) $0 $2,814,940 $2,345,783 $2,345,783 $2,345,783 $15,924,289 $9,852,289 Outside Inventory Area $0 $356,064 $296,720 $296,720 $296,720 $1,246,224 $1,246,224 Outside Acquisition Zones $0 $376,011 $313,342 $313,342 $313,342 $7,210,038 $1,316,038 Total $0 $47,903,038 $39,919,198 $39,919,198 $39,919,198 $254,032,633 $167,660,633 Assumptions: 34% 66%
See Appendix G and description of separate land cost model in Chapter 9.
Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Senior GIS Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20 Total FTEs 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 Total cost per year $129,720 $49,914 $49,914 $49,914
Total cost per period $778,320 $249,570 $249,570 $249,570 Notes/Assumptions:
Actual staff costs for years 0 - 9 are included in the due diligence actuals below. 1,880 hours per year Actual acquisition cost through year 9, in 2016 dollars. Updated 2016 land cost factors by cost category applied to remaining acquisition targets. Total remaining cost allocated evenly over remaining 21 years of the permit term.
$6,072,000
$86,372,000
1-9
$86,372,000
$0
$86,372,000
na
$2,555,630
$2,555,630
$88,927,630
$5,894,000
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.
1-9
$8,385,000
$31,138,000
$2,217,000
$6,417,000
$26,249,000
144
Due Diligence
Covers costs for appraisals, preliminary title report, escrow and other closing costs, boundary surveys, legal services, environmental and Phase 1 site assessment.
Includes Conservancy staff costs on land acquisition projects.
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 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Due Diligence $165,742 $1,504,429 $1,051,201 $1,437,091 $1,197,576 $1,197,576 $1,197,576 $7,751,190 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 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Demolition of old facilities $88,113 $73,427 $73,427 $73,427 Repair of boundary fence $709,550 $709,550 $709,550 $709,550 Repair and replacement of gates $296,426 $247,021 $247,021 $247,021 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) $181,149 $150,958 $150,958 $150,958 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) $148,213 $123,511 $123,511 $123,511 Total $1,423,450 $1,304,467 $1,304,467 $1,304,467
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. $8,026 Demolition of old facilities per 500 acres
$5,400 Repair and replacement of gates per 100 acres
$3,300 Signs (boundary, landbank, etc.) per 100 acres
$2,700 Other security (e.g., boarding up barns) per 100 acres 300 Estimated number of parcels acquired years 10 - 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) $5.26 Average cost per linear foot for boundary fence repair 15% Proportion of boundary fence that needs repair
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
For the 2012 and 2016 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 2016, during which time about 35 percent of the reserve 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.
145
HCP/NCCP Management and Restoration Planning and Design for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Vehicle purchase (included in overhead and contractor cost Capital subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational costs
Program staff and overhead $578,664 $482,220 $482,220 $482,220 Technical staff and overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Contractors $1,520,400 $1,140,300 $570,150 $570,150
Operational subtotal $0 $1,262,793 $668,355 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 Total $0 $1,262,793 $668,355 $2,114,064 $1,635,020 $1,064,870 $1,064,870 $7,809,972 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Senior GIS Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 $96,444 $96,444 $96,444 $96,444
$578,664 $482,220 $482,220 $482,220
Technical Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Senior scientist and support $177 - - - - Planning Technician and support $104 - - - - - - - - $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year Capital costs Total
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
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, .
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
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.
146
Travel (shared with restoration and monitoring)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total cost per period $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Assumption:
$6,250 annual cost based on Conservancy 2017 budget
0.40 Contractors
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Management planning $760,200 $570,150 $0 $0
Restoration planning $760,200 $570,150 $570,150 $570,150 Total per period $0 $1,520,400 $1,140,300 $570,150 $570,150 Assumptions:
Restoration designs included in habitat restoration/creation cost as of 2017 update.
The management and restoration planning and design staff and contractors will conduct the following activities:
Management Planning
Management plans prepared for cropland/pasture preserves Management plans prepared for natural area preserves
Grazing leases developed or renewed
Jurisdictional wetland delineation
Exotic Plant Control Program (Preserve System-wide)
Fire management/control plan (System-wide)
Restoration Planning & Design (restoration construction designs included in the habitat restoration/creation cost category) Pond creation plan and construction designs
Wetland creation plan and construction designs
Stream restoration plan and construction designs
Oak savanna restoration plan and construction designs
Riparian woodland/scrub restoration plan and construction designs Contract value per period
Contractor category
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
proportion of travel costs that are used for planning (40% used for restoration and included in the restoration spreadsheet, and 20% used for monitoring and included in the monitoring spreadsheet)
147
HCP/NCCP Habitat Restoration/Creation for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Creation/Restoration $8,527,611 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 Vehicle purchase (included in overhead and contractor cost Capital Subtotal $8,527,611 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead $478,836 $399,030 $399,030 $399,030 Technical staff and overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Contractors $4,647,548 $3,872,957 $3,872,957 $3,872,957 Operational Subtotal $0 $2,439,332 $1,470,246 $5,141,384 $4,284,487 $4,284,487 $4,284,487 Total $0 $2,439,332 $1,470,246 $13,668,995 $11,390,829 $11,390,829 $11,390,829 $51,751,061 Land Cover Type Restored/Created
0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
oak savanna - - 47.1 39.3 39.3 39.3 165.0 riparian woodland/scrub - 4.0 14.6 12.1 12.1 12.1 55.0 perennial wetland - 0.2 9.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 32.5 seasonal wetland - 5.8 13.7 11.4 11.4 11.4 53.6 alkali wetland - 2.1 6.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 23.6 slough/channel - - 20.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 72.0 open water - - - - - - - ponds - 0.0 6.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 22.0 streams (miles) - 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.8 Total (acres) - 12.8 118.4 98.7 98.7 98.7 427.2 Cost of Restoration/Creation Construction
0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
oak savanna acres $15,000 $848,571 $707,143 $707,143 $707,143 riparian woodland/scrub acres $42,199 $737,308 $614,423 $614,423 $614,423 perennial wetland acres $68,846 $763,364 $636,136 $636,136 $636,136 seasonal wetland acres $82,115 $1,346,026 $1,121,688 $1,121,688 $1,121,688 alkali wetland acres $83,094 $611,949 $509,958 $509,958 $509,958 slough/channel acres $62,538 $1,543,789 $1,286,491 $1,286,491 $1,286,491 open water acres $91,251 $0 $0 $0 $0
ponds acres $91,251 $687,040 $572,533 $572,533 $572,533 streams linear feet $234 $1,989,564 $1,657,970 $1,657,970 $1,657,970 $8,527,611 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $7,106,343
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 by Implementation Period (Years)
Cost per unit
Total
UnitsLand Cover Type
Capital Costs Total
Land Cover Type (acres) Total
Implementation Period (Years)
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
For 2017 update, 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.documents.dgs.ca.gov/resd/PMB/CCCI/Old/cccitable_2017/CCCIMasterListing_4-2017.pdf Construction costs 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.
148
Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Associate Planner and support $112 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 $79,806 $79,806 $79,806 $79,806
$478,836 $399,030 $399,030 $399,030
1,880 hours per year Technical Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Senior scientist and support $177 - - - - Associate Planner and support $112 - - - - Planning Technician and support $104 - - - - - - - - $0 $0 $0 $0
Cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
Travel (shared with planning and monitoring)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total cost per period $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500
Assumption:
$6,250 annual cost based on Conservancy 2017 budget
0.40 Contractors
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Design, plans, specifications, and engineering $2,814,112 $2,345,093 $2,345,093 $2,345,093 Bid assistance $127,914 $106,595 $106,595 $106,595
Construction oversight $852,761 $710,634 $710,634 $710,634 Post-construction maintenance $852,761 $710,634 $710,634 $710,634 Cost per period $4,647,548 $3,872,957 $3,872,957 $3,872,957 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 The total area of restoration that occurs in each period will be designed as three different projects (approximately 14 acres each).
Design, plan, specification, and engineering work, bid assistance, and construction oversight will be conducted in the period in which construction takes place.
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).
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Contractor category
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
Number of FTEs
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.
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
percent of total construction cost required to complete restoration design and plans, specifications, engineering and provide allowance for remedial measures
Total cost per year
Habitat Conservancy staff select sites, hire and oversee consultants for plans, specifcations, and implementation. Staff shared with other implementation tasks; the amount listed is the estimated portion to support wetland mitigation creation/restoration. proportion of travel costs that are used for restoration (40% used for planning and included in the planning spreadsheet, and 20% used for monitoring and included in the monitoring spreadsheet)
149
HCP/NCCP Preserve Management and Maintenance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
Capital Costs 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Vehicle purchase $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment - capital $0 $0 $0 $0
Field facilities $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractors - capital $0 $0 $0 $0
Recreation facilities $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead $49,914 $41,595 $41,595 $41,595 Preserve staff and overhead $4,293,168 $4,987,640 $5,692,640 $7,102,640 Facilities Maintenance/Vehicles and
equipment $2,220,000 $2,590,000 $2,960,000 $3,700,000
Equipment - operational $0 $0 $0 $0
Facilities maintenance and utilities $0 $0 $0 $0
Water pumping $0 $0 $0 $0
Contractors - operational $0 $0 $0 $0
Recreation - operational $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational Subtotal $0 $386,065 $1,543,536 $6,563,082 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $10,844,235 Total $0 $386,065 $1,543,536 $6,563,082 $7,619,235 $8,694,235 $10,844,235 $35,650,388 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and Support $177 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Senior Planner and Support $177 - - - -
0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 $8,319 $8,319 $8,319 $8,319
$49,914 $41,595 $41,595 $41,595
Preserve Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Preserve Manager and support $112 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Preserve maintenance staff 3,000 $75 5.0 7.0 8.0 10.0
5.05 7.05 8.05 10.05 $715,528 $997,528 $1,138,528 $1,420,528
$4,293,168 $4,987,640 $5,692,640 $7,102,640
Notes/Assumptions:
1,880 hours per year, excluding vacation NOTE: Costs for years 1 - 9 include expenditures by the East Bay Regional Park District on land maintenance activities on Conservancy properties (staff costs, maintenance supplies, maintenance services from inception throught 2016. Details provided by the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.
Implementation Period (Years)
Hourly Cost per
FTE with Overhead
& Support
Preserve area per
position (acres)
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
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
Total FTEs
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Number of FTEs
Position
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Support
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
Covered in facilities maintenance line item below.
Covered in facilities maintenance line item above.
150
Preserve maintenance including capital and operational costs for all maintenance activities (new cost approach for 2017 update) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
5.0 7.0 8.0 10.0 Total cost per year $370,000 $518,000 $592,000 $740,000 Total cost per period $2,220,000 $2,590,000 $2,960,000 $3,700,000 Notes/Assumptions:
Annual cost per FTE $74,000
For 2017 update, revised the approach to this component of the cost estimate. Replaced detailed estimates of schedules for vehicle and equipment purchases, field facilities construction, and various maintenance activities with a per-FTE factor derived from analysis of the EBRPD budget for the Maintenance and Skilled Trades Department within the Parks Operations Division. This department acquires, manages, and services the vehicles, trailers, landscaping equipment, heavy equipment, police vehicles, boats and fire apparatus needed to manage and maintain EBRPD properties. The department also repairs and maintains buildings and utilities infrastructure, including water utilities, roads and trails, and sanitation systems.
Vehicles, Maintenance, and Fuel - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total number of FTEs 5.05 7.05 8.05 10.05
New trucks purchased $27,600 $1,200 $1,300 0 0 0 0
Old trucks retired 0 0 0 0
Total trucks 0 0 0 0
New 4WDs purchased $46,000 $2,400 $2,000 0 0 0 0
Old 4WDs retired 0 0 0 0
Total 4WDs 0 0 0 0
New ATVs purchased $7,900 $330 $390 0 0 0 0
Old ATVs retired 0 0 0 0
Total ATVs 0 0 0 0
New dump trucks purchased $39,400 $530 $530 0 0 0 0
Old dump trucks retired 0 0 0 0
Total dump trucks 0 0 0 0
New tractors purchased $52,600 $660 $1,310 0 0 0 0
Old tractors retired 0 0 0 0
Total tractors 0 0 0 0
New auger, mower, scraper for tractor $52,600 $0 $130 0 0 0 0 Old auger, mower, scraper retired 0 0 0 0
Total auger, mower, scraper 0 0 0 0
New small tractors $18,400 $390 $390 0 0 0 0
Old small tractors retired 0 0 0 0
Total small tractors 0 0 0 0
New light 4WD vehicles $13,100 $330 $330 0 0 0 0
Old light 4WD vehicles retired 0 0 0 0
Total light 4WD vehicles 0 0 0 0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
Cost of 4WD truck includes cost of fire pumper, chain saw, sprayer, and small tool set for vehicle.
Number of vehicles, per period
Maintenance
cost per vehicle
per year
Purchase price per
vehicle
Total vehicle fuel and maintenance per period
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Total vehicle fuel and maintenance per year
Total vehicle purchase cost per period
Fuel cost per
vehicle per year
151
Equipment and Materials - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
New preserve area managed per period 10,067 5,033 5,033 5,033 5,033 Total preserve area managed per period 10,067 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 Capital cost of equipment and materials per
year $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational cost of equipment and materials
per year $0 $0 $0 $0
Total capital cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Total operational cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
$0 Capital cost of equipment and materials per 1,000 preserve acres per year. $0 Operational cost of equipment and materials per 1,000 preserve acres per year.
Capital costs include the capital component of fire fighting equipment/gear, small tools (pliers, wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.), glasses, gloves, hard hats, rain gear, irrigation supplies, cargo container, landscape plants and grass, oak trees, lumber, and truck hauling services.
Operational costs include the operational component of fire fighting equipment/gear, small tools (pliers, wrenches, screwdrivers, etc.), glasses, gloves, hard hats, rain gear, irrigation supplies, cargo container, landscape plants and grass, oak trees, lumber, and truck hauling services.
Operational costs also include portable radios, small pumps, piping, generator, saw, and demolition hammers.
Field Facilities - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total preserve area managed per period 10,067 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 Total field offices/parking areas - - - - New field offices/parking areas - - - - Cost per period for offices/workshops $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
10,000 Number of acres per workshop/parking area $556,000 Cost to build a workshop/parking area
Note: Field facilities contain an area for equipment storage, a manager's office, a shared office, a locker room, and restrooms.
Based on experience to date, cost assumes donated portable building, with costs representing transportation, installation, utilities, etc.
Facilities Maintenance and Utilities - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) Cost per facility per
year 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total facilities per period - - - - - - Maintenance cost per year $9,900 $0 $0 $0 $0
Utilities cost per year $5,300 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Water Pumping - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total preserve area managed 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 Total cost per year $0 $0 $0 $0
Total cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 Annual cost for pump and well drilling per 1,000 acres Total cost per period
Total cost per year
Number of new units bought per period
152
Contractors - operational: for 2017 update assume included in preserve management staffing cost 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total pond area managed 14 22 30 38 Total preserve area managed 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 Routine dirt road maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0
Feral pig management $0 $0 $0 $0
Pond maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0
Weed management $0 $0 $0 $0
Other maintenance services $0 $0 $0 $0
Total per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
$0 Cost for pond maintenance (dredging) per acre of pond every 5 years. $0 Cost of dirt road maintenance per 100 miles of road per year. 100 miles of dirt roads on preserves 3 miles of dirt roads per 1,000 acres of preserve $0 Cost of feral pig management per year per 1,000 acres managed $0 Cost of weed management per 1,000 acres of preserve per year. $0 Cost for other maintenance services per 1,000 acres of preserve per year.
Other maintenance services include mowing, grading, pest control, disking for fire breaks, fencing, alarms, janitorial services (pond maintenance subtracted based on the yearly pond maintenance costs above) Contractors - capital - Captured in annual cost per FTE above (May 2017) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total preserve area managed 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 Construction services $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
$0 Cost for construction services per 1,000 preserve acres per year Construction services includes roadway design, paving, fencing, grading, weather station, and boundary surveying services Recreation Facilities and Maintenance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total facilities per period - - - - Facilities cost - capital, per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Facilities cost - maintenance and operations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
For this estimate, assumed costs covered by the East Bay Regional Park District. $0 Cost per unit for recreation facilities.
$0 Annual maintenance and operations cost for recreation facilities Contractor category
Total cost per period
Total facilities capital cost
Total cost per year
Contractor category
Contract value per period
Contract value per 5-year period
153
HCP/NCCP Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Vehicle purchase (included in overhead and contractor cost Capital Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0
Operational Costs
Program staff and overhead $113,082 $357,435 $392,528 $392,528 Technical staff and overhead $0 $0 $0 $0
Travel $7,500 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250
Field data collection (contractors) $1,889,302 $2,176,122 $2,724,870 $3,160,471 Directed research $570,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000
Adaptive management $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 Operational Subtotal $0 $466,449 $430,860 $2,769,384 $3,204,307 $3,788,148 $4,223,749 Total $0 $466,449 $430,860 $2,769,384 $3,204,307 $3,788,148 $4,223,749 $14,882,897 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Associate Planner and support $112 0.05 0.30 0.33 0.33
0.075 0.325 0.358 0.358 $18,847 $71,487 $78,506 $78,506
$113,082 $357,435 $392,528 $392,528
1,880 hours per year Technical Staff and Overhead (shared with planning and restoration/creation) 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Senior scientist and support $177 - - - - Technical support $104 - - - - - - - - $0 $0 $0 $0
Cost per period $0 $0 $0 $0
Assumptions:
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Capital 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.
Position
Number of FTEs
Total FTEs
Hourly Cost per FTE
with Overhead &
Total cost per year
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. 154
Travel (shared with planning and restoration/creation)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Total cost per period $7,500 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250
Assumption:
$6,250 annual cost based on Conservancy 2017 budget
0.20 Field Data Collection (Contractors)
On-going and Construction Monitoring
0 1-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
10,067 5,033 5,033 5,033 5,033 13 118 99 99 99 9 27 23 23 23 2 7 6 6 6 0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
pre-construction surveys $2,694 1 site 6 6 6 6 subtotal $16,164 $16,164 $16,164 $16,164
construction monitoring $5,957 1 site 1 1 1 1 subtotal $5,957 $5,957 $5,957 $5,957
post-acquisition biological inventories $18 1 acre 839 1,007 1,007 1,007 subtotal $15,238 $18,286 $18,286 $18,286
monitoring: restoration, creation and
enhancement sites $10,776 10 acres 3 27 44 40 subtotal $3,233 $29,095 $47,414 $43,104
status and trends monitoring: key covered
species and ecosystems $18 1 acre 15,100 20,133 25,167 30,200 subtotal $274,292 $365,722 $457,153 $548,583
$314,884 $435,224 $544,974 $632,094
$1,889,302 $2,176,122 $2,724,870 $3,160,471
Assumptions:
Implementing entity monitoring staff will plan, coordinate, and report on the monitoring categories described below.
Contractors will conduct the field monitoring and data analysis. 10%
0.25 Ratio of area of other covered activities in preserves to area created/restored.
Planning, preconstruction surveys and construction monitoring for covered activities outside of preserves will be paid for by developers.
Post-acquisition inventories will build on planning surveys. Inventory will include mapping of noxious weeds.
Status and trends monitoring is assumed to occur after preserve land is purchased through year 30. Status and trend monitoring will build on planning surveys and post-acquisition inventories, when appropriate.
Total cost per year
Total cost per period
Implementation monitoring will be conducted by the GIS/Database technician in conjunction with the other monitoring staff. The cost for the GIS/database technician's time will be covered by the program administration cost category. The cost for the monitoring staffs' time is assumed to be included in the other monitoring categories.
Preconstruction surveys are assumed to occur prior to construction of covered activites on the Preserve System. Preconstruction surveys are for the following species only: Townsend's big- eared bat, San Joaquin kit fox, golden eagle, burrowing owl, Swainson's hawk, and covered shrimp species. Surveys are assumed to require one visit by two associate biologists at $160/hour each. They are assumed to occur in the same 5-year period in which construction occurs. Assumes negative findings.
Monitoring of restoration, creation, and enhancement sites is assumed to occur 4 times per year for the 5-year period following the restoration activity and will require two associate biologists at $160/hr for one 8-hour day each visit. It will include species-response monitoring. It is assumed to begin in the 5-year period after the creation/restoration/enhancement takes place.
% of times construction surveys are anticipated to be required for covered activities within the preserve system (it is anticipated that Implementing Entity will whenever possible avoid habitat and breeding season of covered species).
Construction monitoring is assumed to occur periodically during construction of covered activities and conservation measures. An average of seven visits by one staff biologist at $100/hour is assumed.
Number of restoration sites per period
Total acres of land added to reserve for management and monitoring each period New acres created/restored per period
Proportion of travel costs that are used for monitoring (40% used for planning and included in the planning spreadsheet, and 40% used for restoration and included in the restoration spreadsheet).
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Monitoring type Cost per unit Unit
Average area requiring monitoring per year (acres or sites) and average annual cost per period Number of preserve covered activities requiring pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring per period (sites)
155
Directed Research
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Average cost per year to fund directed
research $95,000 $95,000 $95,000 $95,000
Total cost per period $570,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 Adaptive Management
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Average Independent Conservation
Assessment Team cost per period $31,500 $31,500 $31,500 $31,500 Average Science Advisors cost per period $158,000 $158,000 $158,000 $158,000 Total cost per period $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 $189,500 Assumptions:
Adaptive management experiments are covered under the monitoring staff and directed research categories.
It is assumed that the Independent Conservation Assessment Team will meet once every 4 years and have:
5 members $6,300 stipend per member per 5-year period
It is assumed that the Science Advisors will contain:
10 members $15,800 stipend per member per 5-year period
Field monitoring and analysis contractors
Associate Biologist Staff Biologist
Base cost per hour $160 $100 $ per hour
Direct Expenses $5 $3 3% of labor cost
Travel $27 $27 $ per day
assuming 50 50 miles and $0.54 $0.54 $ per mile
Hours per day 8 8 hours per day Total cost per hour including expenses and
amortized per diem and travel $168.38 $106.38 $ per hour Assumptions:
Bay Area billing rate, assuming all work will be conducted from a local office (no per diem needed). 156
HCP/NCCP Environmental Compliance for Maximum Urban Development Area 2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Program staff and overhead $226,164 $188,470 $188,470 $0 Legal assistance $210,000 $175,000 $0 $0
NEPA/CEQA $493,300 $493,300 $493,300 $0
CWA 404 $0 $0 $0 $0
CWA 401 $24,700 $24,700 $24,700 $0
CDFG 1602 $20,500 $20,500 $20,500 $0
NHPA $53,200 $53,200 $53,200 $0
Other $0 $632,307 $138,246 $36,900 $36,900 $36,900 $0
Total $0 $632,307 $138,246 $1,064,764 $992,070 $817,070 $0 $3,644,457 Program Staff and Overhead
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Principal Planner and support $177 0.05 0.05 0.05 - Associate Planner and support $112 0.10 0.10 0.10 -
0.15 0.15 0.15 -
$37,694 $37,694 $37,694 $0
$226,164 $188,470 $188,470 $0
1,880 hours per year Legal Assistance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Cost per period $210,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $385,000
Assumptions:
$35,000 Annual cost for legal assistance with wetland permitting, years 10 - 20 Number of Projects Requiring Environmental Compliance
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Small/simple
up to 10 acres or up to 0.1
stream miles 4 4 4 - 20 Medium/more complex
10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles 4 4 4 - 20 Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles 2 2 2 - 10 10 10 10 - 30 Assumptions:
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.
Operational Costs Total
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
Number
Total projects
Size RangeProject size
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.
Cost by Implementation Period (Years)
157
Environmental Compliance Cost per Project Size and Compliance Category (2016 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 $6,490 $0 $1,800 $983 $3,245 $3,077 Medium/more complex
10.1-50 acres or 0.1-0.5
stream miles $ 25,001 $ 100,000 0.0121 0.07 $51,923 $0 $2,340 $2,109 $4,543 $3,692 Large/most complex
over 50 acres or 0.5 stream
miles $ 100,001
$500,000
or more 0.073 0.30 $129,809 $0 $4,063 $4,048 $11,034 $4,923 Assumptions:
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
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.
CWA 401 fee cost estimate is based on impacts to jurisdictional waters of the state rather than project size. Fee is an average based on the minimum and maximum expected impacts. State Water Resources Control Board Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Water Quality Certification Dredge and Fill Application Fee Calculator (Effective Date 11/16/2016) 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.
Project Impacts to
Wetlands for CWA 401 Compliance Category
Project size Size Range
Estimate Project Cost within
DFG jurisdiction
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements and Fees, Effective October 1, 2016. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=130459&inline 158
Remedial Measures for Maximum Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Remedial measures $0 $0 $0 $329,103 $200,669 $921,333 $2,194,046 $3,645,151 Total $0 $0 $0 $329,103 $200,669 $921,333 $2,194,046 $3,645,151 Note: Actual costs are included in habitat restoration/creation cost category Remedial Measures
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30
Cost of created/restored habitat per
period $2,439,332 $1,470,246 $8,527,611 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 $7,106,343 Cost for remedial measures for
created/restored habitat per period $243,933 $147,025 $852,761 $2,131,903 Area of new preserve not including
created/restored habitat per period - 7,682 3,292 5,371 4,476 4,476 4,476 Cost for remedial measures for
preserves per period $55,170 $23,644 $38,572 $32,143
Cost for other remedial measures
per period $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Total cost per period $329,103 $200,669 $921,333 $2,194,046 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. $359 Cost per acre for preserve management and maintenance in years 26-30. 70% Percent of land acquisition in years 1 - 9 occurring in years 1 - 5 Implementation Period (Years)
Capital 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 21-30. The cost for these remedial actions is included in years 26-30 so that it can be included 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 26-30, and is assumed to be needed once, in the second 5-year period after the preserve land is purchased.
The cost for other remedial measures includes the costs for restoration or maintenance of preserve areas because of other changed circumstances, such as wildfire.
159
Contingency Fund for Maximum Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
0 1-5 6-9 10-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 Total
Total cost of program excluding land
acquisition and habitat restoration
capital costs $0 $0 $0 $23,755,424 $22,572,053 $24,220,473 $27,275,781 $97,823,731 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $1,187,771 $1,128,603 $1,211,024 $1,363,789 $4,891,187 Assumptions:
5.0% Percent of total program funding needed for contingency 160
Post-Permit Costs for Initial Urban Development Area
2017 Update
(2016 dollars)
Post-Permit Costs
Cost Category Annual Costs Assumptions
Total Cost
Program Administration $428,011
Land Acquisition $0
Planning and Design $0
Habitat Restoration/Creation $0
Environmental Compliance $0
Preserve Management and Maintenance $2,168,847
Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $422,375
Remedial Measures $0
Contingency $0
Total $3,019,233
Capital Costs Annual Costs Assumptions
Program Administration $0 Included in staff and overhead costs Land Acquisition: acquisition and site improvements $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 Preserve Management and Maintenance $0 Captured in annual operating costs Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $0 Captured in annual operating costs Remedial Measures $0 Not required, post permit
Total $0
Operational Costs Annual Costs Assumptions
Program Administration $428,011 Reduced staffing and no legal and finanical 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 $2,168,847 Assume 100 percent of annual average costs in years 26 - 30 Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management $422,375 Assume 50 percent of annual average costs in years 26 - 30 Contingency $0 Not required, post permit
Total $3,019,233
Total preserve acres 30,200
Annual average cost per acre managed $100
Percent of average annual cost years 26 - 30 19%
161
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report E-1
APPENDIX E: E NDOWMENT MODEL
Tables E.1 and E.2 present the endowment model results for the initial and maximum UDA, respectively.
162
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report E-1
Table E.1: Endowment Fund - Initial Urban Development Area (2016 Dollars) Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Opening Fund Balance1 $2,202,896 $4,497,108 $6,865,881 $9,311,640 $11,836,886 $14,444,203 $17,136,257 $19,915,803
Revenue 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 Investment Earnings2 107,134 181,696 258,681 338,168 420,239 504,977 592,468 682,804 Total Revenues $2,294,212 $2,368,774 $2,445,759 $2,525,246 $2,607,317 $2,692,055 $2,779,546 $2,869,882 Net Post-Permit Costs3 - - - - - - - -
Net Cash Flow $2,294,212 $2,368,774 $2,445,759 $2,525,246 $2,607,317 $2,692,055 $2,779,546 $2,869,882
Closing Fund Balance $4,497,108 $6,865,881 $9,311,640 $11,836,886 $14,444,203 $17,136,257 $19,915,803 $22,785,685
Year 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Opening Fund Balance1 $22,785,685 $25,748,838 $28,808,292 $31,967,180 $35,228,731 $38,596,283 $42,073,279 $45,663,279
Revenue 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 Investment Earnings2 776,075 872,377 971,810 1,074,473 1,180,474 1,289,919 1,402,922 1,519,597 Total Revenues $2,963,153 $3,059,455 $3,158,888 $3,261,551 $3,367,552 $3,476,997 $3,590,000 $3,706,675 Net Post-Permit Costs3 - - - - - - - -
Net Cash Flow $2,963,153 $3,059,455 $3,158,888 $3,261,551 $3,367,552 $3,476,997 $3,590,000 $3,706,675
Closing Fund Balance $25,748,838 $28,808,292 $31,967,180 $35,228,731 $38,596,283 $42,073,279 $45,663,279 $49,369,954 1 Opening balance is fair share of total revenue contribution associated with prior development (Years 0 -9). 2 Interest earnings estimated based (Opening Fund Balance + (Annual Fee Revenue / 2 )) x (Annual Interest Rate). Annual intere st rate equals 3.25% real rate of return (net of inflation and administrative fees) based on estimates by National Fish and Wildlif e Foundation for similar endowments. 3 Annual post-permit costs are net of ongoing revenue from leases equal to 50 percent of average annual amount for years 5 -9.
Sources: Appendix C (Post Permit Costs tab); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
163
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report E-2
Table E.1: Endowment Fund Cash Flow - Initial Urban Development Area (2016 Dollars) (continued) Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Ongoing Total
26 27 28 29 30 31+ Year 1 - 30
Opening Fund Balance $49,369,954 $53,197,095 $57,148,619 $61,228,567 $65,441,113 $69,790,566 $2,202,896
Fee Revenue 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 2,187,078 - 45,928,632 Investment Earnings2 1,640,064 1,764,446 1,892,870 2,025,468 2,162,376 2,268,193 21,659,038 Total Revenues $3,827,142 $3,951,524 $4,079,948 $4,212,546 $4,349,454 $2,268,193 $- Net Post-Permit Costs2 - - - - - 2,268,193 -
Net Cash Flow $3,827,142 $3,951,524 $4,079,948 $4,212,546 $4,349,454 $- $-
Closing Fund Balance $53,197,095 $57,148,619 $61,228,567 $65,441,113 $69,790,566 $69,790,566 $69,790,566 1 Opening balance is fair share of total revenue contribution associated with prior development (Years 0 -9). 2 Interest earnings estimated based (Opening Fund Balance + (Annual Fee Revenue / 2)) x (Annual Interest Rate). Annual interest rate equals 3.25% real rate of return (net of inflation and administrative fees) based on estimates by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for similar endowments. 3 Annual post-permit costs are net of ongoing revenue from leases equal to 50 percent of average annual amount for years 5 -9.
Sources: Appendix C (Post Permit Costs tab); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
164
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report E-3
Table E.2: Endowment Fund - Maximum Urban Development
Area (2016 Dollars)
Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Opening Fund Balance1 $1,748,669 $4,577,926 $7,499,134 $10,515,281 $13,629,453 $16,844,836 $20,164,719 $23,592,498
Revenue 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 Investment Earnings2 101,163 193,114 288,053 386,078 487,289 591,789 699,685 811,088 Total Revenues $2,829,257 $2,921,208 $3,016,147 $3,114,172 $3,215,383 $3,319,883 $3,427,779 $3,539,182 Net Post-Permit Costs3 - - - - - - - -
Net Cash Flow $2,829,257 $2,921,208 $3,016,147 $3,114,172 $3,215,383 $3,319,883 $3,427,779 $3,539,182
Closing Fund Balance $4,577,926 $7,499,134 $10,515,281 $13,629,453 $16,844,836 $20,164,719 $23,592,498 $27,131,680 Year 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Opening Fund Balance1 $27,131,680 $30,785,885 $34,558,852 $38,454,439 $42,476,634 $46,629,550 $50,917,436 $55,344,678
Revenue 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 Investment Earnings2 926,111 1,044,873 1,167,494 1,294,101 1,424,822 1,559,792 1,699,148 1,843,034 Total Revenues $3,654,205 $3,772,967 $3,895,588 $4,022,195 $4,152,916 $4,287,886 $4,427,242 $4,571,128 Net Post-Permit Costs3 - - - - - - - -
Net Cash Flow $3,654,205 $3,772,967 $3,895,588 $4,022,195 $4,152,916 $4,287,886 $4,427,242 $4,571,128
Closing Fund Balance $30,785,885 $34,558,852 $38,454,439 $42,476,634 $46,629,550 $50,917,436 $55,344,678 $59,915,806 1 Opening balance is fair share of total revenue contribution associated with prior development (Years 0 -9). 2 Interest earnings estimated based (Opening Fund Balance + (Annual Fee Revenue / 2)) x (Annual Interest Rate). Annual interest rate equals 3.25% real rate of return (net of inflation and administrative fees) based on estimates by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for similar endowments. 3 Annual post-permit costs are net of ongoing revenue from leases equal to 50 percent of average annual amount for years 5 -9.
Sources: Appendix D (Post Permit Costs tab ); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
165
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report E-4
Table E.2: Endowment Fund Cash Flow - Maximum Urban Development Area (2016 Dollars) (continued) Year 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Ongoing Total
26 27 28 29 30 31+ Year 1 - 30
Opening Fund Balance1 $59,915,806 $64,635,495 $69,508,574 $74,540,028 $79,735,004 $85,098,817 $1,748,669
Revenue 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 2,728,094 - 57,289,973 Investment Earnings2 1,991,595 2,144,985 2,303,360 2,466,882 2,635,719 2,765,712 26,060,175 Total Revenues $4,719,689 $4,873,079 $5,031,454 $5,194,976 $5,363,813 $2,765,712 $- Net Post-Permit Costs3 - - - - - 2,765,712 -
Net Cash Flow $4,719,689 $4,873,079 $5,031,454 $5,194,976 $5,363,813 $0 $-
Closing Fund Balance $64,635,495 $69,508,574 $74,540,028 $79,735,004 $85,098,817 $85,098,817 $85,098,817 1 Opening balance is fair share of total revenue contribution associated with prior development (Years 0 -9). 2 Interest earnings estimated based (Opening Fund Balance + (Annual Fee Revenue / 2)) x (Annual Interest Rate). Annual interest rate equals 3.25% real rate of return (net of inflation and administrative fees) based on estimates by National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for similar endowments. 3 Annual post-permit costs are net of ongoing revenue from leases equal to 50 percent of average annual amount for years 5 -9.
Sources: Appendix D (Post Permit Costs tab); National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
166
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report F-1
APPENDIX F: ACTUAL REVENUE THROUGH 2016
The following tables provide detail for revenue received in Year 0- 9 (2007 through 2016) of the Plan.
Table F.1 provides the index used to inflate actual costs and revenues from prior years to 2016 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 Conservancy’s fees are adjusted annually based on published price indices and periodically based on prior audits (the 2011 and 2013 audit).26 Table F.1: Inflation Index
Plan
Year
Fee
Adopted
in Year…
Uses
Inflation
Index
Data for
Year…
Is Applied
to Fiscal
Data For
Year…
Represents
Current
Dollars
For Year…
Zone 1
Fee
Inflation
Index
9 2017 2016 2016 $2016 $13,491.41 1.0000 2017 Audit 8 2016 2015 2015 $2015 12,788.47 0.9479
7 2015 2014 2014 $2014 11,877.42 0.8804
6 2014 2013 2013 $2013 11,146.99 0.8262
5 2013 2012 2012 $2012 10,076.00 0.7468 2013 Audit 4 2012 2011 2011 $2011 10,584.32 0.7845
3 2011 2010 2010 $2010 10,662.15 0.7903
2 2010 2009 2009 $2009 10,558.09 0.7826
1 2009 2008 2008 $2008 10,731.11 0.7954
0 2008 2007 2007 $2007 12,077.65 0.8952
0 2007 2006 2006 $2006 12,456.88 0.9233
0 2006 2005 2005 $2005 11,919.00 0.8835 2006 Plan
Note: Fees for all three UDA zones increase at the same rate. The Zone 1 fee is used in this table.
Fees reflect those charged to Participating Special Entities by the Conservancy, and include both annual inflation adjustments and periodic adjustments based on p rior audits, as required by the 2006 Plan.
Source: ECCC Habitat Conservancy.
Table F.2 shows actual revenue to date by source in current dollars (the year received) and inflated to 2016 dollars.
26 See the 2006 Plan, Chapter 9, pp. 30-31 and Table 9-7. 167
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report F-2
Table F.2: Revenue Summary 2007-2016 (Years 0-9)
Year Thru 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Annual
Avg.
Plan Year 0-5 6 7 8 9 0-9 6-9
Current Dollars
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $1,335,717 $1,703,067 $514,563 $975,432 $794,365 $5,323,144 $996,857 Wetland Mitigation Fee 383,296 4,087 207,226 17,564 67,651 679,824 74,132 Rural Road Fee 1,065,044 122,792 70,351 18,529 35,818 1,312,534 61,873 Temporary Impact Fee 830,779 296,551 432,631 59,577 84,252 1,703,790 218,253 Subtotal $3,614,836 $2,126,497 $1,224,771 $1,071,102 $982,086 $9,019,292 $1,351,114 Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges 182,004 62,452 35,448 25,816 8,658 314,378 33,094 Payments For Non-covered Activities 3,148,462 - - - - 3,148,462 - Other Development Exactions 812,310 146,502 38,298 141,709 20,160 1,158,979 86,667 Subtotal $4,142,776 $208,954 $73,746 $167,525 $28,818 $4,621,819 $119,761 Local, State & Federal Funds
State/Federal Funds 30,584,482 1,444,339 14,947,687 1,809,042 7,363,644 56,149,194 6,391,178 Local Land Capital Funds 15,602,742 18,500 5,098,850 224,250 789,700 21,734,042 1,532,825 Local Operating Funds 1,565,808 614,805 534,131 574,651 590,776 3,880,171 578,591 Subtotal $47,753,032 $2,077,644 $20,580,668 $2,607,943 $8,744,120 $81,763,407 $8,502,594 Other Funds
Interest Earnings 182,210 2,937 6,441 12,912 19,905 224,405 10,549 Miscellaneous 13,401 - - - 243 13,644 61
Subtotal $195,611 $2,937 $6,441 $12,912 $20,148 $238,049 $10,610
Total $55,706,255 $4,416,032 $21,885,626 $3,859,482 $9,775,172 $95,642,567 $9,984,078
168
East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study June 2017 (revised) Final Report F-3
Table F.2: Revenue Summary 2007-2016 (Years 0-9) (continued) Year Thru 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Annual
Avg.
Plan Year 0-5 6 7 8 9 0-9 6-9
Development Fee Index varies 0.7879 0.8716 0.9288 1.0000 Constant Dollars (2016 $)
Mitigation Fees
Development Fee $1,597,438 2,161,527 590,366 1,050,207 794,365 $6,193,903 $1,149,116 Wetland Mitigation Fee 462,897 5,187 237,754 18,910 67,651 792,399 82,376 Rural Road Fee 1,287,188 155,847 80,715 19,949 35,818 1,579,517 73,082 Temporary Impact Fee 991,153 376,382 496,364 64,144 84,252 2,012,295 255,286 Subtotal $4,338,676 $2,698,943 $1,405,199 $1,153,210 $982,086 $10,578,114 $1,559,860 Other Fees & Exactions
Administrative Charges 218,645 79,264 40,670 27,795 8,658 375,032 39,097 Payments For Non-Covered Activities 3,358,635 - - - - 3,358,635 - Other Development Exactions 978,158 185,940 43,940 152,572 20,160 1,380,770 100,653 Subtotal $4,555,438 $265,204 $84,610 $180,367 $28,818 $5,114,437 $139,750 Local, State & Federal Funds
State/Federal Funds 36,605,167 1,833,150 17,149,710 1,947,720 7,363,644 64,899,391 7,073,556 Local Land Capital Funds 18,384,051 23,480 5,849,989 241,441 789,700 25,288,661 1,726,153 Local Operating Funds 1,845,638 780,308 612,817 618,703 590,776 4,448,242 650,651 Subtotal $56,834,856 $2,636,938 $23,612,516 $2,807,864 $8,744,120 $94,636,294 $9,450,360 Other Funds
Interest Earnings 191,774 3,728 7,390 13,902 19,905 236,699 11,231 Miscellaneous 13,855 - - - 243 14,098 61
Subtotal $205,629 $3,728 $7,390 $13,902 $20,148 $250,797 $11,292
Total $65,934,599 $5,604,813 $25,109,715 $4,155,343 $9,775,172 $110,579,642 $11,161,261 Sources: ECCC Habitat Conservancy, Table F.1.
169
1135 CLARENDON CRESCENT [email protected]
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94610 (510) 816-9458
MEMORANDUM
To: Abigail Fateman, East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy From: Robert Spencer, Urban Economics
Date: February 17, 2021
Subject: 2020 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule
The East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (the Plan) requires that the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (the Conservancy) periodically update the Plan’s funding model to ensure that mitigation fees generated by development and other activities covered by the Plan are adequately covering their fair share of total Plan costs. This “periodic audit” as it is called in the Plan (or “fee audit”) results in an updated mitigation fee schedule based on a comprehensive review of all Plan costs and revenues. In between periodic audits the Conservancy updates fees annually based on inflation indexes prescribed by the Plan.
Local jurisdictions that are permittees under the Plan (the County of Contra Costa and the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg) impose the Plan’s mitigation fees on development projects covered by the Plan within their respective jurisdictions, and forward fee revenue to the Conservancy to fund Plan implementation. For a small share of activities covered by the Plan, the Conservancy imposes the Plan’s mitigation fees directly on “participating special entities” (PSEs) such as public utilities that seek coverage under the Plan.
To date the Conservancy has been imposing mitigation fees on PSEs based on the results of the 2013 Fee Audit adjusted annually for inflation. Due to prior litigation, local jurisdictions have been imposing mitigation fees on development projects based on the original 2006 fees included in the Plan, also adjusted annually for inflation. Consequently, two mitigation fee schedules have been used to implement the Plan, one used by local jurisdictions for most covered activities, and one used by the Conservancy for that small share of covered activities associated with PSEs.
The Conservancy completed a fee audit in 2017 (Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study) as required by the Plan but did not adjust the PSE fee schedule pending the resolution of the prior litigation. Now that the prior litigation has been resolved, the Conservancy can adopt the 2017 Fee Audit and both local jurisdictions and PSEs can now use the same mitigation fee schedule.
The updated 2020 mitigation fee schedule based on the 2017 Fee Audit is shown in Table 1. The fee schedule is based on the mitigation fees from the 2017 Fee Audit adjusted for inflation for the intervening three years (2018, 2019, and 2020).
The updated fee schedule results in only a modest change (+/- 5%) to the current development fees that are by all projects covered under the Plan. Wetland fees, paid in addition to the development fee fees when specific land cover types are disturbed, change more substantially because of the results of the 2013 and 2017 Fee Audits.
This fee schedule will be adjusted again for annual inflation this spring and again in 2022. The next periodic review will be conducted in 2022 with results reflected into the 2023 fee schedule. 170
To: Abigail Fateman 2020 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule February 17, 2021 Page 2
Table 1: 2020 Mitigation Fee Schedule Based On 2017 Fee Audit Land Cover
Fee
Basis
Current 2020 Fee
Updated
2020 Fee
Based
On 2017
Fee Audit
Change from
Current 2020 Fee
Cities/
County
Conserv-
ancy
Cities/
County
Conserv-
ancy
Development Fee
Zone 1 per acre $17,140 $15,694 $16,442 (4.1%) 4.8%
Zone 2 per acre $34,280 $31,387 $32,884 (4.1%) 4.8%
Zone 3 per acre $8,571 $7,847 $8,221 (4.1%) 4.8%
Wetland Fee
Riparian per acre $84,240 $109,088 $99,235 17.8% (9.0%) Perennial Wetland per acre $115,275 $160,276 $150,393 30.5% (6.2%) Seasonal Wetland per acre $249,763 $371,531 $351,945 40.9% (5.3%) Alkali Wetland per acre $236,462 $375,291 $355,792 50.5% (5.2%) Ponds per acre $125,621 $203,316 $193,666 54.2% (4.7%) Aquatic (Open Water) per acre $63,549 $101,658 $96,834 52.4% (4.7%) Slough / Channel per acre $143,355 $148,158 $138,277 (3.5%) (6.7%) Streams (<=25 ft. wide) per ln ft. $687 $414 $510 (25.7%) 23.2% Streams (>25 ft. wide) per ln ft. $1,035 $621 $766 (26.0%) 23.3%
171
Agenda Item 7