HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 24 - Local Devel Mitigation Fee Update Western Riverside County MSHCPCity Council Agenda Report
City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
www.lake-elsinore.org
File Number: ID# 21-130
Agenda Date: 4/13/2021 Status: Approval FinalVersion: 1
File Type: Council Business
Item
In Control: City Council / Successor Agency
Agenda Number: 24)
Local Development Mitigation Fee Update for Funding the Preservation of Natural Ecosystems
in Accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP)
1. Introduce by title only and waive further reading of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 16.85
OF TITLE 16 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL
ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN; and
2. Direct the City Clerk to set a duly noticed public hearing for the April 27, 2021 regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore at which time oral or written presentations can be made
regarding the proposed increase in the existing local development mitigation fee for funding the
preservation of natural ecosystems in accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan and otherwise comply with the requirements of Government
Code sections 66016, 66017, and 66018.
Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 4/8/2021
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jason Simpson, City Manager
Prepared by: Barbara Leibold, City Attorney
Date: April 13, 2021
Subject: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 16.85 OF TITLE 16 OF
THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF
NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WESTERN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Recommendation
Introduce by title only and waive further reading an ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 16.85
OF TITLE 16 OF THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL
ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN; and
Direct the City Clerk to set a duly noticed public hearing for the April 27, 2021 regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore at which time oral or written presentations can be
made regarding the proposed increase in the existing local development mitigation fee for funding
the preservation of natural ecosystems in accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan and otherwise comply with the requirements of Government
Code sections 66016, 66017, and 66018.
Background
The City of Lake Elsinore is a Member Agency of the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority (RCA), a joint powers authority comprised of the County of Riverside and
the eighteen (18) cities located in western Riverside County. The RCA was formed to acquire,
administer, operate, and maintain land and facilities to establish habitat reserves for the
conservation and protection of species covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan).
The Western Riverside County MSHCP, originally adopted in 2004, is a comprehensive, multi-
jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the permanent conservation of
500,000 acres and the protection of 146 species, including 33 that are currently listed as
threatened or endangered. The MSHCP was developed in response to the need for future growth
opportunities in western Riverside County, from housing developments to transportation and
Ordinance Updating MSHCP
April 13, 2021
infrastructure, while addressing the requirements of the State and federal Endangered Species
Acts (ESA). The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)
under California’s NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP streamlines environmental permitting
processes by allowing the participating jurisdictions such as the City to authorize the “take” of
plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. Without the MSHCP, each development
and transportation project would need to conduct an individual assessment and mitigation for
impacts to endangered species, an approach that would be less efficient and effective, and more
costly.
The City receipt of local Measure A sales tax funds for local streets and roads is conditioned upon
the City participation in the MSHCP. This condition of funding is memorialized in the voter-adopted
ordinance that authorizes Measure A.
The MSHCP required a Nexus Study under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.)
to establish a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) that would then be adopted by each
jurisdiction participating in the MSHCP. The LDMF pays for acquisition of Additional Reserve
Lands (ARL) to meet the target conservation acreage that local governments are responsible to
acquire per the Plan. The original Nexus Study was completed in 2003 coinciding with the
adoption of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and signing of the Permits. Section 8.5.1 of
the MSHCP allows the fee to be reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover
mitigation of new development.
Based on the 2003 Nexus Study, the City Council approve Ordinance No. 1124 in 2004 as part
of the adoption of the MSHCP and authorizing the imposition of the LDMF.
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, RCA prepared a new nexus study (“2020 Nexus Study”) to
update the fees for the first time since original adoption. On December 7, 2020, the RCA Board
of Directors adopted the 2020 Nexus Study. On December 31, 2020 RCA transmitted a model
ordinance and model resolution to the City. The RCA Board of Directors also approved the use
of the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual to assist Member Agencies with LDMF
collection questions.
An updated Nexus Study was needed to ensure adequate funding to complete reserve acquisition
to fulfill local governments’ responsibilities under the MSHCP. Over the last 16 years, many of the
assumptions underlying the original Nexus Study were not borne out by reality. Forces
contributing to the unmet expectation include the Great Recession, less acreage dedicated to
RCA by private landowners, and less state and federal funding than expected. The 2020 Nexus
Study calculated the expected costs to complete ARL acquisition, manage the conservation lands
in perpetuity via an endowment, and administration of the MSHCP. The Nexus Study extended
the reserve acquisition period by an additional fifteen years. Currently, the acquisition period ends
in 2029. By extending the acquisition period, the LDMF increase is lower because it covers more
development over a longer period. The RCA Board also adopted a phased increase of the new
fee, with 50 percent of the fee increase taking effect on July 1, 2021 and the remainder of the
increase taking effect on January 1, 2022. Public deliberation over the 2020 Nexus Study
stretched over a year in multiple public meetings.
Discussion
The proposed Ordinance provides the legal basis for a revised MSHCP LDMF schedule. The
actual MSHCP LDMF schedule will be established through a separate resolution that will be
presented to the City Council at the time that the City Council considers whether or not to adopt
Ordinance Updating MSHCP
April 13, 2021
the Ordinance following the first reading of the Ordinance this evening. Adoption of the Ordinance
and the fee mitigation resolution are to be considered at a duly noticed public hearing set for April
27, 2021.
In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, the proposed Ordinance and 2020 Nexus Study: (i)
identifies the purpose of the revised fees; (ii) identifies the use to which the revised fees is to be
put, including identification of any facilities to be financed; (iii) determines how there is a
reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the
fee is imposed; (iv) determines how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
public facilities and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed; and (v)
determines how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
the public facility or portion or the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee
is imposed.
Recognizing the current economic situation, the RCA Board, in consultation with the Building
Industry Association (BIA), adopted the lowest possible fee evaluated in the Nexus Study, along
with a phase-in of the increase. 50% of the increase will take effect on July 1, 2021, with the
remaining 50% taking effect on January 1, 2022. Upon adoption of the Ordinance (which is
anticipated to be considered by the City Council on April 27, 2021 along with a separate resolution
setting the mitigation fee), the Fee Schedule for the MSHCP mitigation is proposed to increase
as shown on the following chart:
Category
Current July 1, 2021 –
Dec 31, 2021
Jan 1, 2022 –
June 30,
2022
Residential, density less than 8.0 dwelling
units per acre (fee per dwelling unit)
$2,234 $2,935 $3,635
Residential, density between 8.0 and 14.0
dwelling units per acre (fee per dwelling
unit)
$1,430 $1,473 $1,515
Residential density greater than 14.0
dwelling units per acre (fee per dwelling
unit)
$1,161 $670 $670
Commercial (fee per acre) $7,606 $11,982 $16,358
Industrial (fee per acre) $7,606 $11,982 $16,358
The City may accept prepayment of fees at its own discretion for applicants wishing to pay
current fee levels prior to July 1, 2021. Generally, a fee increase does not go into effect until 60
days following approval of the required legislative enactments. Accordingly, the City must adopt
the updated MSHCP mitigation fee before May 2, 2021 to remain compliant with the MSHCP.
The Ordinance, if approved at the April 27 th public hearing, will supersede the original MSHCP
ordinance adopted in 2004.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact as all fees collected are passed through to the Western Riverside County
Regional Conservation Authority
Ordinance Updating MSHCP
April 13, 2021
Exhibits
A – Ordinance No. 2021-___
B – Nexus Study Background Summary
C – MSHCP LDMF Implementation Frequently Asked Questions
D – MSHCP Nexus Study
ORDINANCE NO. 2021-___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 16.85 OF TITLE 16 OF
THE LAKE ELSINORE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATI ON OF
NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE
COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore (“City”) finds that the ecosystems of
the City and western Riverside County, and the vegetation communities and sensitive species they
support are fragile, irreplaceable resources that are vital to the general welfare of all residents; and
WHEREAS, these vegetation communities and natural areas contain habitat value which
contributes to the City’s and the region’s environmental resources; and
WHEREAS, special protections for these vegetation communities and natural areas are
being established to prevent fu ture endangerment of the plant and animal species that are
dependent upon them; and
WHEREAS, adoption and implementation of this Ordinance will help t o enable the City to
achieve the conservation goals set forth in the Western Riverside County Multiple Spe cies Habitat
Conservation Plan (“MSHCP”), adopted by the City Council on July 27, 2004, to implement the
associated Implementing Agreement approved by the City Council on January 13, 2004, and to
preserve the ability of affected property owners to make rea sonable use of their land consistent with
the requirements of the National Environme ntal Policy Act (“NEPA”), the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Federal Endangered Species Act (“FESA”), the California Endangered
Species Act (“CESA”), the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (“NCCP Act”),
and other applicable laws; and
WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to update the City’s Local
Development Mitigation Fee to assist in the maintenance of biological diversity a nd the natural
ecosystem processes that support this diversity; to protect vegetation communities and natural
areas within the City and western Riverside County which are known to support threatened,
endangered, or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species; to maintain economic
development within the City by providing a streamlined regulatory process from which development
can proceed in an orderly process; and to protect the existing character of the City and the region
through the implementation of a system of reserves which will provide for perma nent open space,
community edges, and habitat conservation for species covered by the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, the findings set forth herein are based on the MSHCP and the 2020 Nexus
Study, and the estimated implementation costs of the MSHCP as set forth in the 20 20 Nexus Study,
a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s office; and
WHEREAS, The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (“RCA”) has
prepared an updated nexus study entitled “WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN NEXUS FEE STUDY UPDATE” (2020 Nexus Study”) pursuant
to California Government code sections 66000 et seq. for the purpose of updating the Local
Development Mitigation Fee (“LDMF”). On December 7, 2020, the RCA Board of Directors reviewed
the 2020 Nexus Study and directed RCA Permittees to adopt this updated MSHCP fee ordinance ;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City is
authorized to enact measures that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 66000 et seq., the City is empowered to
impose fees and other exactions to provide necessary funding and public fa cilities required to
mitigate the negative effect of new development projects; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2004 the City Council took action on the MSHCP and the associated
Implementing Agreement and adopted the original LDMF, and made appropriate findings pu rsuant
to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the levying of LDMF has been reviewed by the City Council and staff in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines
and it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinan ce is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
Section 21080(b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15273 and 15378(b)(4)
of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 66016, 66017, and 66018, the City has:
(a) made available to the public, at least ten (10) days prior to its public hearing, data indicating the
estimated cost required to provide the facilities and infrastructure for which these development fees
are levied and the revenue sources anticipated to prov ide those facilities and infrastructure; (b)
mailed notice at least fourteen (14) days prior to this meeting to all interested parties that have
requested notice of new or increased development fees; and (c) held a duly noticed, regularly
scheduled public hearing at which oral and written testimony was received regarding the proposed
fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WALNUT, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated fully herein.
SECTION 2. Chapter 16.85 of Title 16 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code is hereby
amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
16.85.010 Findings. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. The preservation of vegetation communities and natural areas within the City
and western Riverside County which support species covered by the MSHCP is
necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of
the City by reducing the adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of
urbanization and development and providing for permanent conservation of h abitat
for species covered by the MSHCP.
B. It is necessary to update certain development impact fees to ensure that all
new development within the City pays its fair share of the costs of acquiring and
preserving vegetation communities and natural areas within the City and the region
which are known to support plant and wildlife species covered by the MSHCP.
C. A proper funding source to pay the costs associated with mitigating the direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts of development to the natural ecosystems within the
City and the region, as identified in the MSHCP, is a development impact fee for
residential, commercial, and industrial development. The amount of the fee is
determined by the nature and extent of the impacts from the development to the
identified natural ecosystems and or the relative cost of mitigating such impacts.
D. The MSHCP and the 2020 Nexus Study, a copy of which is on file in the City
Clerk’s office, provides a basis for the imposition of development impact fees on new
construction.
E. The use of the development impact fees to mitigate the impacts to the City’s
and the region’s natural ecosystems is reasonably related to the type and extent of
impacts caused by development within the City.
F. The costs of funding the proper mitigation of natural ecosystems and
biological resources impacted by development within the City and the region are
apportioned relative to the type and extent of impacts ca used by the development.
G. The facts and evidence provided to the City establish that there is a
reasonable relationship between the need for preserving the natural ecosystems in
the City and the region, as defined in the MSHCP, and the direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts to such natural ecosystems and biological resources created by
the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a
reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the types of development for
which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is desc ribed in more detail in
the MSHCP and the 2020 Nexus Study.
H. The cost estimates for mitigating the impact of development on the City’s and
the region’s natural ecosystem and biological resources, as set f orth in the MSHCP,
are reasonable and will not exceed the reasonably estimated total o f these costs.
I. The fee set forth herein does not reflect the entire cost of the lands which
need to be acquired in order to implement the MSHCP and mitigate the impact
caused by new development. Additional revenues will be required from other
sources. The City Council finds that the benefit to each development project is
greater than the amount of the fee to be paid by the project.
J. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the
acquisition and perpetual conservation of the natural ecosystems and certain
improvements necessary to implement the goals and objectives of the MSHCP.
16.85.020 Administrative Responsibility. The RCA is hereby reaffirmed as
the Administrator of the MSHCP pursuant to this Chapter. The RCA is hereby
authorized to receive all fees generated pursuant to this Chapter from the Local
Development Mitigation Fee within the City and to invest, account for, and expend
such fees in accordance with the provisions of the M SHCP, MSHCP Implementing
Ordinance, this Chapter, and the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual.
The detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of thi s
Chapter shall be contained in the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Man ual
adopted December 7, 2020 and as may be amended from time to time. The RCA
Board of Directors may adopt a policy that will allow the City to authorize the RCA to
calculate the fees due and collect those amounts directly from property owners. If
such a policy is adopted, it will be included in the MSHCP Mitigation Fee
Implementation Manual.
16.85.030 Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have
the following meanings:
“Accessory Dwelling Unit” means an accessory dwelling unit as defined by
California Government Code section 65852.2(j)(1), or as defined in any successor
statute.
“City” means the City of Lake Elsinore, California.
“City Council” means the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore, California.
“Credit” means a credit allowed pursuant to Section 16.85.100 of this
Chapter, which may be applied against the development impact fee paid.
“Development” means a human-created change to improved or unimproved
real estate, including buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading,
paving, excavating, and drilling.
“Development Project” or “Project” means any project undertaken for the
purpose of development pursuant to the issuance of a building permit by the City
pursuant to all applicable ordinances, regulations, and rules of the City and state law.
“Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” means a junior accessory dwelling unit as
defined by California Government Code section 65852.22(h)(1), or as defined in any
successor statute.
“Local Development Mitigation Fee” or “Fee” means the development impact
fee imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.
“Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan” or “MSHCP” means the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, adopted by
the City Council on January 13, 2004.
“MSHCP Conservation Area” has the same meaning and intent as such term
is defined and utilized in the MSHCP.
“Chapter” means Chapter 16.85 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code.
“Project Area” means the area, measured in acres, within the Development
Project including, without limitation, any areas to be developed as a condition of the
Development Project. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Project Area is the
area upon which the project will be assessed the Local Development Mitigation Fee.
See the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual for additional guidance for
calculating the Project Area.
“Revenue” or “Revenues” means any funds received by the City pursuant to
the provisions of this Chapter for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost
of acquiring and preserving vegetation communities and natural areas within the City
and the region which are known to support threatened, endangered , or key sensitive
populations of plant and wildlife species.
“Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority” or “RCA”
means the governing body established pursuant to the MSHCP that is delegated the
authority to oversee and implement the provisions of the MSHCP.
Any capitalized term not otherwise defined herein shall carry the same
meaning and definition as that term is used and defined in the MSHCP.
16.85.040 Development Mitigation and Local Infrastructure Fee.
A. Adoption of Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule. The City Council
shall adopt an applicable Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule provided by
the RCA through a separate resolution, which may be amended from time to time.
B. Public Projects. The City is required to mitigate the impacts of Public Projects
pursuant to the MSHCP and the MSHCP Impleme nting Agreement. The definition of
Public Project and the method for mitigating Public Projects will be set forth in the
MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual.
C. Periodic Fee Adjustment. The Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule
set forth in the fee resolution referenced above may be periodically reviewed and the
amounts adjusted as set forth in the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual.
D. Automatic Annual Fee Adjustment. In addition to the Periodic Fee
Adjustment mentioned above, the RCA shall provide the City with an automatic
annual fee adjustment for the Local Development Mitigation Fee established by this
Chapter as set forth in the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual.
16.85.050 Imposition of the Local Development Mitigation Fee.
A. The Local Development Mitigation Fee will be paid no later than at the
issuance of a building permit. Notwithstanding any other provision of the City’s
Municipal Code, no building permit shall be issued for any Development Project
unless the Local Development Mitigation Fee applicable to such Development Project
has been paid. The amount of the Fee shall be calculated in accordance with the
MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual.
B. In lieu of the payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee as pr ovided
above, the Fee for a Development may be paid through a Community F acilities
District, provided that such arrangement is approved by the RCA in writing.
16.85.060 Payment of Local Development Mitigation Fee.
A. The Local Development Mitigation Fee shall be paid in full in accordance with
applicable law.
B. The Local Development Mitigation Fee required to be paid under this Chapter
shall be the fee in effect at the time the fee is paid for which the Local Development
Mitigation Fee is assessed; provided, however, that Housing Development Projects
as defined by California Government Code section 65589.5(h)(2) may be en titled to
pay the fee in effect at the time the preliminary application was submitted.
C. Notwithstanding anything in the City’s Municipal Code, or any other written
documentation to the contrary, the Local Development Mitigation Fee shall be paid
whether or not the Development Project is subject to conditions of approval by the
City imposing the requirement to pay the fee.
D. If all or part of the Development Project is sold prior to payment of the Local
Development Mitigation Fee, the Project shall continue to be subject to the
requirement to pay the fee as provided herein.
E. The fee title owner(s) of the Property is responsible for the payment of the
Local Development Mitigation Fee.
16.85.070 Refunds. Under certain circumstances, such as double paymen t,
expiration of a building permit, or fee miscalculation due to clerical error as set forth
below, an applicant may be entitled to a refund. Refunds will be reimbursed by the
end of the fiscal year on a first come, first served basis, depending upon the net
revenue stream. Refunds will only be considered reimbursable if requested within 3
years of the original LDMF payment. In all cases, the applicant must promptly submit
a refund request with proof of LDMF payment to the RCA if RCA collected the LDMF,
or if collected by a local jurisdiction, the refund request shall be submitted to that local
jurisdiction, which will subsequently forward the request to RCA for verification,
review, and possible action.
1. Expiration of Building Permits - if a building permit should expire, is
revoked, or is voluntarily surrendered and is, therefore voided and no construction or
improvement of land has commenced, then the applicant may be entitled to a refund
of the LDMF collected which was paid as a condition of approval, less administration
costs. Any refund must be requested within three (3) years of the original payment.
The applicant shall pay the current LDMF in effect at the time in full if s/he reapplies
for the permit.
2. Double Payments – on occasion due to a clerical error, a developer may
have paid all or a portion of the required LDMF for project twice. In such cases, a
refund of the double payment may be required.
3. Balance Due – when LDMF is incorrectly calculated due to City clerical
error, it is the City’s responsibility to remit the balance due to RCA. The error must be
discovered within three (3) years of the original payment for the City to be held
accountable. The amount due can be remitted through alternate me thods agreed to
by the RCA Executive Committee. If first approved through RCA staff in writing, the
calculation is not subject to additional review.
16.85.080 Accounting and Disbursement of Collected Local Development
Mitigation Fees.
A. All fees paid pursuant to this Chapter shall be deposited, invested, accounted
for, and expended in accordance with Section 66006 of the Government Code and all
other applicable provisions of law.
B. Subject to the provisions of this section, all fees collected pursuant to this
Chapter shall be remitted to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation
Authority at least quarterly.
C. In the resolution referenced in Section 16.85.040(A), the City may also add an
additional cost to the Local Development Mitigation Fee sch edule to cover the costs
of collecting the fees from project proponents. Any amounts collected by the City shall
not reduce the amount collected and remitted to the RCA under this Chapter.
16.85.090 Exemptions. The following types of construction shall be exempt from
the provisions of this Chapter:
A. Reconstruction or improvements that were damaged or destroyed by fire or
other natural causes, provided that the reconstruction or improvements do not result
in additional usable square footage.
B. Rehabilitation or remodeling to an existing Development Project, provided that
the rehabilitation or remodeling does not result in additional usable square footage .
C. Accessory Dwelling Units, but only to the extent such fee is exempted under
state law.
D. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, but only to the extent such fee is exempted
under state law.
E. Existing structures where the use is changed from an existing permitted use to
a different permitted use, provided that no additional improvements are constructed
and the changed use does not result in additional usable square footage.
F. Certain Agricultural Operations as allowed by the MSHCP, as amended.
G. Vesting Tentative Tract Maps entered into purs uant to Government Code
section 66452 et seq. (also, Government Code section 66498.1 et seq.) and
Development Projects which are the subject of a development agreement entered
into pursuant to Government Code sec tion 65864 et seq., prior to the effective date of
Ordinance No. 1124, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited,
provided that if the term of such a vesting map or development agreement is
extended by amendment or by any other manner after the effective date of Ordinance
No. 1124, the MSHCP Fee shall be imposed.
Except as exempted above, all projects are required to make a mitigation payment/
contribution and where no mitigation payment process is specified, the project will pay
the updated per acre mitigation fee.
16.85.100 Fee Credits. Any Local Development Mitigation Fee credit that may
be applicable to a Development Project shall be determined by the City and approved
by the RCA. All Fee Credits shall comply with the resolutions, ordinances ,
Implementing Agreement, and policies of the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority including, without limitation, the MSHCP Mitigation Fee
Implementation Manual.
SECTION 3. Severability. This Ordinance and the various parts, sections, and clauses
thereof, are hereby declared to be severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause is
adjudged unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby. If
any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Ordinance, or its a pplication to any person
entity is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall affect only
such part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Ordinance, or such person or entity; and
shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, parts, sentences, paragraphs, sections, or
clauses of this Ordinance, or its application to other persons or entities. The City Council hereby
declares that this Ordinance would have been adopted had such u nconstitutional or invalid part,
sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of t his Ordinance not been included herein; or had such
person or entity been expressly exempted from the application of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby finds that in accordance with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section
21080(b)(8) of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15273 and 15378(b)(4) of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 5. Ordinance Superseded. This Ordinance supersedes the provisions of
Ordinance No. 1124 provided this Ordinance is not declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction. If, for whatever reason, this Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable
by a court of competent jurisdiction, Ordinance No. 1124 and all other related ordinances and
policies shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall
attest thereto and shall within fifteen (15) days of its adoption cause it, or a summary of it, to be
published in the Press Enterprise, a newspaper published and circulated in t he City of Lake
Elsinore, and thereupon and thereafter this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force according to
law, but in no event earlier than July 1, 2021 . Pursuant to Section 13.2(A) of the MSHCP
Implementing Agreement, the City Clerk shall send a copy of this Ordinance to RCA within 30 days
of the date of adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Lake Elsinore, California, on this ___ day of ____________ 2021.
____________________________
Robert E. Magee, Mayor
Attest:
Candice Alavarez, MMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk, of the City of Lake Elsinore, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. 2021-_____ was introduced at the Regular meeting of April 13, 2021, and adopted
by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore at its Regular meeting of April __, 2021, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
I further certify that a summary of said Ordinance was published as required by law in a newspaper
of general circulation in the City of Lake Elsinore, California on the _____day of __________, 2021,
and on the ______day of _________, 2021.
____________________________
Candice Alavarez, MMC
City Clerk
Nexus Study Background Summary
March 3, 2021
For more information, contact:
Anne Mayer (amayer@rctc.org) or Aaron Hake (ahake@rctc.org)
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) – Originally adopted in 2004, the MSHCP is a comprehensive
plan focusing on permanent conservation of 500,000 acres and protection of 146 species in Western Riverside County.
Contribute to the economy – Implementation of the MSHCP accelerates construction of infrastructure and
development, reduces project costs, and provides permitting efficiencies that lead to economic growth.
Ensure financial stability – The MSHCP fee has not been increased (other than CPI adjustments) since inception in 2004.
•Several assumptions in the original 2004 nexus study did not occur, causing a revenue gap that would only get
wider by further delaying the implementation of a new nexus study.
•RCA must demonstrate full funding of the MSHCP to the state and federal wildlife agencies who provide the
permits for the MSHCP. Without these permits, the MSHCP cannot provide coverage for private development and
public infrastructure projects under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Without this coverage, each
project would be responsible for mitigating their own impacts pursuant to these laws, which could be very costly
and uncertain.
Mindful implementation – Recognizing the current economic situation, the RCA Board, in consultation with the BIA,
adopted the lowest possible fee evaluated in the Nexus Study, along with a phase-in of the increase. 50% of the
increase will take effect on July 1, 2021, with the remaining 50% taking effect on January 1, 2022.
•The lower fee increase is made possible by
extending the land acquisition period by an
additional 15 years. Adding this time for
development to occur spreads the fee and
mitigates the increase.
•The Nexus Study identified an equitable
distribution of the fee where each acre
developed is treated roughly the same.
Prepayment allowed – Cities and the County may accept prepayment of fees at their own discretion for applicants
wishing to pay current fee levels prior to July 1, 2021.
Transparent decision making – The RCA Board, consisting of elected officials representing 18 cities and the County
Board of Supervisors, adopted the Nexus Study on December 7, 2020 at its public meeting. The RCA Executive
Committee discussed the Nexus Study in six Brown Act public meetings over the course of a year (November 2019 -
November 2020). On November 2, 2020, the draft Nexus Study was posted on the RCA website, more than 30 days
before the full Board of Directors’ consideration, in excess of minimum transparency requirements.
Legacy Home Rebate Pilot Program – The RCA board adopted the program on March 1, 2021, allowing those who
owned their land before the implementation of the MSHCP to apply to RCA for a rebate for the difference between the
LDMF at the time of payment and LDMF as of June 30, 2021 (adjusted for CPI).
Meeting the commitment – Cities and the County must adopt the updated MSHCP fee before May 2, 2021 to remain
compliant with the MSHCP and be eligible to receive the Plan’s benefits. RCA has transmitted the model ordinance and
resolution to adopt the updated fee to city and county staffs. RCA staff is available to assist with implementation
questions.
New management, enhanced services – RCA is now under the management of RCTC. RCTC is committed to enhancing
its service to the private sector through joint project reviews and to public agencies seeking to build infrastructure .
Nexus Study LDMF Fee Schedule
Category
Current fee per
unit or per acre
Effective
July 1, 2021
Effective
Jan.1, 2022
Residential: Up to 8.0
dwelling units/acre
(DUAC)
$2,234 $2,935 $3,635
Residential: 8.0-14 DUAC $1,430 $1,473 $1,515
Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $1,161 $670 $670
Commercial (per acre) $7,606 $11,982 $16,358
Industrial (per acre) $7,606 $11,982 $16,358
MSHCP LDMF Implementation
Frequently Asked Questions
February 5, 2021
For more information, contact:
Anne Mayer (amayer@rctc.org) or Aaron Hake (ahake@rctc.org)
1.What is the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)?
The Western Riverside County MSHCP, originally adopted in 2004, is a comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on the permanent conservation of 500,000 acres and the protection of 146 species,
including 33 that are currently listed as threatened or endangered. The MSHCP was developed in response to the need for
future growth opportunities in western Riverside County, from housing developments to transportation and infrastructure,
while addressing the requirements of the State and federal Endangered Species Acts (ESA). The MSHCP serves as an HCP
pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (NCCP) under California’s NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting
processes by allowing the participating jurisdictions to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species identified within the
Plan Area and has saved taxpayers by expediting the construction of more than 30 major freeway and road improvements
in Riverside County valued at more than $5 billion.
2.What is the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF)?
Funding of the MSHCP is derived from federal, state, and local sources. However, the main funding source for local
acquisitions is the imposition and collection of the LDMF. The LDMF is a fee imposed on new local residential, commercial,
and industrial development and infrastructure and civic projects and contributes to the overall funding required to
implement the MSHCP. The LDMF is imposed pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (“The
Mitigation Fee Act”). The fee is administered by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) but
collected by the Local Permittees. Imposition of the LDMF is an express commitment of local agencies that signed the
MSCHP and Implementing Agreement (IA).
3.What is the Implementing Agreement (IA)?
The IA was entered into by signatories to the MSHCP in June 2004 to ensure implementation of and compliance with each
of the terms of the MSHCP and for the benefit of the 146 Covered Species, while allowing for future economic growth. In
addition, the IA:
•Provides remedies and recourse should any Party fail to perform its obligations, responsibilities, and tasks as set
forth in the MSHCP, the Permits, and the IA;
•Provides assurances to Permittees and others participating in the MSHCP that implementation of the IA and the
MSHCP will adequately provide for the conservation and protection of Covered Species Adequately Conserved in
their habitats in the Plan Area; and
•Provides that if the terms of the MSHCP, the IA, and the Permits are properly implemented, the Wildlife Agencies
will not require additional mitigation from Permittees with respect to Covered Species Adequately Conserved.
Signatories to the IA include the 18 western Riverside County cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona,
Eastvale, Hemet, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto,
Temecula, and Wildomar; the County of Riverside; County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; County Regional
Park and Open-Space District; County Department of Waste Resources; the Riverside County Transportation Commission;
the California Department of Transportation; the California Department of Parks and Recreation; the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service; and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4.Who are Local Permittees?
Local Permittees are the local agencies which are signers of the federal Endangered Species Act permit issued by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service. They include the 18 western Riverside County cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa,
Canyon Lake, Corona, Eastvale, Hemet, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris,
Riverside, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar; the County of Riverside; County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District; County Regional Park and Open-Space District; County Department of Waste Resources; and the Riverside County
Transportation Commission. The California Departments of Transportation and Parks and Recreation are also signers of the
permit; however, those organizations are not considered local permittees. Per Section 6 of the MSHCP, local jurisdictions
will implement the MSHCP through their normal land use, planning, and approval process as described in Sectio n 6.1.1 as
well as through management of contributed public lands. By fulfilling their requirements under the MSHCP, including
imposition of the LDMF, Local Permittees retain the benefits of the MSHCP, ranging from ESA coverage for projects within
their jurisdiction and Measure A transportation funding.
5.Who are Member Agencies of the RCA?
Member Agencies are the signatories to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement forming the Western Riverside County
Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). They include the 18 western Riverside County cities of Banning, Beaumont,
Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Eastvale, Hemet, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco,
Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, Temecula, and Wildomar and the County of Riverside. The Member Agencies form the
independent RCA Board of Directors to acquire, administer, operate, and maintain land and facilities to establish habitat
reserves for the conservation and protection of species covered by the MSHCP and to implement the MSHCP.
6.What other Funding Sources Contribute to the MSHCP?
•Measure A
•Regional Transportation Funding (Public contributions from regional transportation infrastructure projects)
•Landfill Tipping Fees
•Mitigation Fees, including private development mitigation fees
•Federal and State grants
7.What is the 2020 Nexus Study?
The Western Riverside County MSHCP 2020 Nexus Study establishes the legal and policy basis by which a mitigation fee,
pursuant to "The Mitigation Fee Act" (California Government Code Section 66000, et seq.), contributes to finance habitat
acquisition and other appropriate uses in connection with new development in the MSHCP Plan Area. The 2020 Nexus
Study provides a thorough analysis of costs, funding sources, and forecasts future development in western Riverside
County. It also provides the financial and technical justification for changes to the LDMF. The full 2020 Nexus Study can be
reviewed at www.wrc-rca.org.
8.Why was a Nexus Study update needed?
An updated Nexus Study was needed to ensure adequate funding to complete the MSHCP and fulfill the responsibilities of
Local Permittees as required by the MSHCP Implementing Agreement.
A Nexus Study was completed in 2003 coinciding with the adoption of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and the
signing of the Permits. Section 8.5.1 of the MSHCP allows the fee to be reevaluated and revised should it be found to
insufficiently cover mitigation of new development. The 2020 Nexus Study represents the first reevaluation of the LDMF
since originally implemented.
9.What were the results of the 2020 Nexus Study?
The 2020 Nexus Study determined the fee level required to provide sufficient revenues to support the full
implementation of the MSHCP, including the completion of all land acquisition and the funding for the Plan endowment,
by 2044 (Year 40 of Plan implementation). The endowment will cover the administration and land management and
monitoring after the completion of land acquisition. This represents a 15-year extension of the acquisition period as
approved by the RCA Board of Directors at its December 2020 board meeting.
As noted on pages 6 and 7 of the 2020 Nexus Study and discussed in detail in Chapters 2 through 7, the key drivers of the
fee change are:
2
• Lower-than-expected land dedications through the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy
(HANS);
• Lower than expected regional infrastructure public contributions; and
• Desire to implement a “per gross acre” fee which provides a more consistent and equitable approach for all land
use development types.
10. Why is the LDMF Changing?
As a result of lower-than-expected land dedications, regional infrastructure public contributions, and the desire to
implement a “per gross acre” fee, the 2020 Nexus Study determined the LDMF will increase on all categories except for
high-density residential, to provide the financial certainty to complete the MSHCP and maintain the habitat in perpetuity.
The LDMF increases will support the continued implementation of the MSHCP and the streamlining of endangered species
incidental take permitting for new western Riverside County development provided under the MSHCP, while providing the
funding necessary to acquire, monitor, and manage the 500,000 acres required by the MSHCP. Also, the LDMF increases
will ensure long-term protection and maintenance of the habitats. Without updating the LDMF, Local Permittees would be
unlikely to meet their commitments as agreed to in the Implementing Agreement, the ultimate consequence of which
would be revocation of the endangered species incidental take permits by state and federal agencies.
11. How is the LDMF Changing?
Nexus Study LDMF Fee Schedule
Category
Current fee per
unit or per
acre
Effective
July 1, 2021
Effective
January 1, 2022
Residential: Up to 8.0
dwelling units/acre
(DUAC)
$2,234 $2,935 $3,635
Residential: 8.0-14
DUAC
$1,430 $1,473 $1,515
Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $1,161 $670 $670
Commercial (per acre) $7,606 $11,982 $16,358
Industrial (per acre) $7,606 $11,982 $16,358
12. Who Approved the Nexus Study and LDMF Increase?
The RCA Board of Directors adopted the 2020 Nexus Study and increase in LDMF at its December 7, 2020 public board
meeting by a 17-1 vote.
13. When is the LDMF increase effective?
The LDMF increase is effective in two phases. The first phase, an increase of 50%, is effective July 1, 2021. The second
phase, full implementation, is effective January 1, 2022.
14. What is needed from Member Agencies regarding the Ordinance and Resolution?
Member Agencies must prepare the ordinance and resolution to be considered and approved by the City Council (Board of
Supervisors in the case of the County of Riverside) in time to implement the new fee by July 1, 2021. Final action of the city
council/Board of Supervisors must be no later than May 2, 2021 to ensure the new Ordinance takes effect by July 1, 2021.
California Government Code Section 66017 states that the fee “shall be effective no sooner than 60 days following the final
action on the adoption of the fee or charge or increase in the fee or charge.”
Per the Implementing Agreement which cities and the County of Riverside signed, the cities and County must adopt the
Ordinance, “in substantially the same form or at a minimum, containing the same requirements as the model ordinance,”
adopted by the RCA Board of Directors.
3
15. Why was the Resolution added separately from the Ordinance?
The Resolution was added in addition to the Ordinance to allow for a more efficient process to update future fee changes.
16. What changes are in the Ordinance?
The original model ordinance for Member Agencies to implement the LDMF was included in the Implementing Agreement
which was approved in June 2004. Several changes are made to the model Ordinance including:
• Language is added to the Ordinance reaffirming RCA as the administrator of the Ordinance; authorizing the RCA to
receive all fees generated; and to invest, account for, and expend such fees in accordance with the MSHCP. These
functions are consistent with current practices;
• Additional clarification is added with respect to refunds;
• Exemptions are clarified;
• Language is added to clarify that the LDMF will be paid no later than at the issuance of a building permit;
• Language was added concerning the mitigation of public projects and fee credits allowing the RCA Board of
Directors to rescind Resolution Nos. 2007-04 and 2016-003 and the “Tenets Relating to Local Infrastructure
Contribution” adopted on February 5, 2007.
17. What is the MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual?
The MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual (Manual) is an administrative document that provides direction to local
jurisdictions under the MSHCP concerning their obligations under the MSHCP and the incidental take permits regarding the
imposition, collection, accounting, remittance, and calculation of the LDMF. The Manual sets the rules for fee
implementation, discusses collection and remittance of fees, outlines the appropriate methods for calculating mitigation
fee payments for different types of projects, and provides multiple examples of how to apply the LDMF. The Manual can
be updated by the RCA Board of Directors to address ongoing concerns at any time. Changes to the LDMF can only be made
by Resolution and not through an update to the Manual.
18. How are Measure A transportation sales tax funds related to the LDMF?
To be eligible for Measure A transportation funds, Member Agencies are required to implement and remit the LDMF in
accordance with the MSHCP. This is a requirement of the Measure A Ordinance adopted by Riverside County voters.
Annually, RCA certifies Member Agency compliance to RCTC.
19. Who should I contact with questions about implementation of the LDMF?
Jennifer Fuller
Financial Administration Manager
jfuller@rctc.org
(951) 787-7141
4
Final Report
Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Nexus Fee Study Update
Prepared for:
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
October 2020
EPS #171034
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................. 1
Background ............................................................................................................ 1
Original and Existing Fee Schedule ............................................................................ 2
Updated Mitigation Fee Schedules ............................................................................. 3
Key Drivers of Fee Change ....................................................................................... 6
Organization of Report ............................................................................................. 8
2. MSHCP POLICIES, GOALS, AND FINANCING STRATEGY ....................................................... 9
MSHCP Purpose, Basis, and Goals.............................................................................. 9
MSHCP Financing Strategy ..................................................................................... 11
MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources ................................................... 13
Development Mitigation Fees and Calculation ............................................................ 16
3. HABITAT PROTECTION TO DATE AND FUTURE CONSERVATION SCENARIO ................................. 18
Habitat Protection Accomplishments Through 2019 .................................................... 18
Conservation Goals and Progress ............................................................................ 18
Land Dedications .................................................................................................. 20
Future Conservation Scenario ................................................................................. 21
4. FORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT, DEDICATION, FEE PAYMENT ................................................ 25
Historic Development and HCP Fees ......................................................................... 25
Growth Projections ................................................................................................ 26
5. MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS .............................................................................. 31
Land Costs ........................................................................................................... 31
Other Costs—Administration, Management, and Monitoring ......................................... 35
Endowment Funding .............................................................................................. 38
Total Implementation Costs .................................................................................... 40
6. RCA NON-FEE REVENUES ....................................................................................... 43
MSHCP Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues ..................................................................... 43
New Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues ......................................................................... 44
7. MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION ................................................................................. 46
8. MITIGATION FEE ACT (NEXUS) FINDINGS ..................................................................... 52
Purpose of Fee ..................................................................................................... 52
Use of Fee Revenues ............................................................................................. 53
Relationship ......................................................................................................... 53
Need ................................................................................................................... 54
Proportionality ...................................................................................................... 54
9. FEE IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................ 56
Adoption of Revised LDMF ...................................................................................... 56
Securing Supplemental Funding .............................................................................. 56
Annual Review ...................................................................................................... 56
Surplus Funds ...................................................................................................... 57
Annual and Periodic Updates................................................................................... 57
Appendix I: Detailed Time Series of Implementation Costs, Excluding Endowment Funding
Appendix II: Detailed Time Series of Endowment Funding
List of Tables
Table 1 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule ............................................................ 3
Table 2 Updated MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees .................. 4
Table 3 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule by Extension Scenario ................................... 6
Table 4 MSHCP Goals by Area Plan ........................................................................ 11
Table 5 2004 Estimates: MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources ............... 14
Table 6 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule .......................................................... 17
Table 7 Conservation Through End of 2019 ............................................................. 18
Table 8 Required Acquisition Acres to Achieve ARL Goals .......................................... 24
Table 9 Projected Growth in Western Riverside County, through 2050 ......................... 29
Table 10 Projected Developed Acres in Western Riverside County, by
Extension Scenario ................................................................................... 30
Table 11 Per-Acre Land Value Estimates—2003 Dollars (2003 Nexus Study) .................. 32
Table 12 Local Conservation Costs Through 2018 ...................................................... 32
Table 13 Planning Level Per Acre Land Value Estimates by Category ............................. 33
Table 14 Illustrative Distribution of Land Acquisitions by Land Use and Size................... 34
Table 15 Aggregate Land Value of Remaining Areas (2017 dollars) ............................... 34
Table 16 Administrative and Professional Services Costs ............................................. 36
Table 17 Management and Monitoring Anticipated Costs in 2004 and 2019 Dollars ........ 38
Table 18 Annual Implementation Cost Estimate (2019$) ............................................. 39
Table 19 Endowment Funding (2019$), by Extension Scenario .................................... 40
Table 20 Total Implementation Costs (2019$*), by Extension Scenario ......................... 41
Table 21 Average Annual Implementation Costs (2019$), by Extension Scenario ............ 42
Table 22 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources ................................................... 44
Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection (2019$s) .............................................. 45
Table 24 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees ............................ 47
Table 25 Recommended Fee Level—No Extension ...................................................... 48
Table 26 Recommended Fee Level—5-Year Extension ................................................. 49
Table 27 Recommended Fee Level—10-Year Extension ............................................... 50
Table 28 Recommended Fee Level—15-Year Extension ............................................... 51
List of Figures
Figure 1 State of Conservation in 2003: Conserved Land, Additional Reserve
Land to be Acquired, and Total MSHCP Conservation Area Needed .................. 10
Figure 2 MSHCP Estimated Annual Costs in Millions, 2004 Dollars ................................ 15
Figure 3 MSHCP Estimated Annual Revenues in Millions, 2004 Dollars .......................... 16
Figure 4 MSHCP Conservation Goals, 2019 and 2029 Goals Highlighted ........................ 19
Figure 5 Progress Towards ARL Through End of 2019 ................................................ 20
Figure 6 Residential Unit Development, Western Riverside County, 2005-2019 .............. 25
Figure 7 New Housing Units per Year, SCAG and MSHCP Projections and
Historic Production (2005-2019) ................................................................. 27
Figure 8 Newly Developed Commercial Acres per Year ............................................... 27
Figure 9 Comparison of Costs by Category ............................................................... 40
Figure 10 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources ................................................... 44
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS
This Updated Nexus Study (2020 Nexus Study) provides the technical justification for changes to
the Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule that applies to Local Permittee participants in the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan). These
changes are necessary to ensure adequate funding of the obligations of the Local Permittees
under the MSHCP and the associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement. The
resulting increased fee revenues will support the continued implementation of the MSHCP and
the streamlining of endangered species incidental take permitting for new Western Riverside
County development provided under the MSHCP. This Nexus Study is consistent with the
requirements of California Government Code 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act) that requires
specific findings (as well as administration and implementation procedures) for “any action
establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by
a local agency.”
Background
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan),
originally adopted in 2004, is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside
County. The MSHCP was developed in response to the need for future growth opportunities in
Western Riverside County while addressing the requirements of the State and federal
Endangered Species Acts. The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan
under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting processes
by allowing the participating jurisdictions to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species
identified within the Plan Area. At the same time, Plan implementation provides a coordinated
MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and
maintain the region’s quality of life.
The MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and Incidental Take Permit collectively
determine a set of conservation actions that must be taken to meet the terms of the Incidental
Take Permit and benefit from the regulatory streamlining and other benefits of the MSHCP. This
includes the identification of the responsible parties, including the responsibilities of the Local
Permittees.1 One of the key requirements of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and
Incidental Take Permit (consistent with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act)
is the provision of adequate funding by Local Permittees to the Implementing Entity (the Western
Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2) to conduct their portion of the conservation
actions identified in the MSHCP.
1 Local Permittees include the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, County Regional Park and Open-Space District, County Department
of Waste Resources, and Riverside County Transportation Commission.
2 The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency is a Joint Powers Authority established
in 2004 to implement the MSHCP.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Section 8.0 of the MSHCP outlines the MSHCP funding/financing approach. It also identified best
estimates of Plan implementation costs at the time of Plan adoption, including the local funding
commitment that represents a portion of the overall land acquisition, management and
monitoring, and Plan administration costs. The Local Funding Program included a mix of funding
sources to provide “an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP.”
The proposed funding sources included Local Development Mitigation Fees (and land
dedications), regional infrastructure project public contributions (including contributions to
mitigate for transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital
construction projects, and regional flood control projects), and landfill tipping fees.
Participating cities and the County were each required to implement a Local Development
Mitigation Fee under California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee
Act”) and supported by the separate “Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Report for the Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,” July 1, 2003 (Original or 2003
Nexus Study). The MSHCP funding chapter notes the need for frequent evaluations of the
performance of the funding mechanisms and assessments of the funding plan and the need to
make any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms. The MSHCP also notes that the
mitigation fee will need to be “reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover
mitigation of new development.”
In addition to the common practice of updating mitigation fees periodically to account for
changing circumstances, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA)
has determined that significant changes have occurred and/or circumstances have arisen that
justify an update to the mitigation fees. These changes include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• The need to acquire more land than originally forecast due to the lower than expected land
dedication.
• The lower-than-expected levels of non-fee funding from local and regional funding sources.
• The lower than expected levels of residential development.
• The need to diversify land acquisitions away from a focus on the larger, more remote parcels
to also acquiring parcels closer to urbanized areas, consistent with the reserve assembly
requirements of the MSHCP.
Original and Existing Fee Schedule
All local jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP and obtaining coverage for public and private
take in their jurisdictions were required to adopt and implement the 2004 Mitigation Fee
Schedule through ordinance and resolution and then to pass through the fee funding (except for
any additional administrative charges added by the jurisdictions) to the RCA to fund MSHCP
implementation. The ordinances allowed for periodic inflationary increases based on the annual
change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area. In 2018 the
Bureau of Labor Statistics implemented a geographic revision, establishing Riverside as its own
Core Based Statistical Area. As a result, Riverside was removed from the Consumer Price Index
encompassing Los Angeles and Anaheim. Going forward, inflationary increases will be based on
the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the newly established Riverside-San
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Bernardino-Ontario area. As outlined in the 2003 Nexus Study (Original Nexus Study), all new
development in Western Riverside County is required to pay the mitigation fee.
Table 1 shows the original 2004 Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule and the current
2021 Fee Schedule that reflects periodic inflationary fee adjustments using the indexing process
that collectively increased the fees by 35 percent between 2004 and 2020 (this was below the
overall inflation index increase over this period).
Table 1 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule
Fee Category
2004 Fee per unit or
per acre
2021 Fee per
unit or per acre 3
Residential: Up to 8.0 dwelling units per acre
(DUAC) $1,651 $2,234
Residential: 8.0-14.0 DUAC $1,057 $1,430
Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $859 $1,161
Commercial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Industrial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Updated Mitigation Fee Schedules
This 2020 Nexus Study has estimated the increased fee level that would be required to provide
sufficient revenues, based on the best available forecasts of future growth, to support the full
implementation of the MSHCP, including the completion of all land acquisition and the
establishment of the necessary endowment, by 2029 (Year 25 of Plan implementation).4
Because, as shown below, this would require a major increase in the fee levels, three other
scenarios are also considered where different time extensions provide more time for land
acquisition.5 These extensions allow for the costs of Plan implementation (including land
acquisitions) to be spread across more development and, as a result, moderate the level of
mitigation fee increase required. In addition, the longer extension scenarios require a pace of
land acquisition that is more consistent with what has proven to be achievable. All of these fee
3 Note it is RCA procedure to refer to fees during, for example, Fiscal Year 2020/2021, as the 2021
fee. The 2021 fee became effective July 1, 2020, and applies for the fiscal year of 2020-21 (i.e., until
June 30, 2021 when the 2022 Fee begins).
4 The MSHCP provided a 25-year period of the required land acquisition with the larger 75-year permit
term. This is labelled the “No Extension” or “Baseline Scenario” in this Update Study.
5 The baseline scenario as well as the extension scenarios assume that all land acquisition as well as
the full endowment will be completed/ established by the end of the specified implementation/ land
acquisition period. Interest from the non-depleting endowment will fund all ongoing costs thereafter.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
increases would be consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and the MSHCP and associated
Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement.
The mitigation fee levels shown for each extension scenario are the fee levels required to cover
the appropriate portion of the Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs based on the best
information available at this time. The revised mitigation fee levels reflect changes in estimated
costs, expected levels of land dedication, and non-fee funding. Consistent with the MSHCP and
Original Nexus Study, it is assumed that all new development in Western Riverside County will
pay the mitigation fee because, as noted in the MSHCP, “new development affects the
environment through construction activity and cumulatively through population bases that result
from such development.”6 Importantly, the revised mitigation fee levels also reflect the decision
to determine the mitigation fee that applies to different land uses on a consistent per gross acre
basis. This approach is considered to provide a clear, consistent, and proportionate method for
determining mitigation fees on new development.7 The 2020 Nexus Study does convert the
overarching per gross acre fee into per unit residential fees for different density ranges; this
conversion was conducted to provide implementation/administrative consistency for member
jurisdictions.
Table 2 Updated MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees
6 Consistent with the Original Nexus Study and the technical analysis in this study update (and as
described in more detail in the Fee Implementation Handbook), certain types of public improvements/
infrastructure projects will make mitigation payments calculated as a percent of total improvement
cost. All projects are required to make a mitigation payment/contribution (except where exempted as
specified in the Ordinance); where no mitigation payment process is specified, the project will pay the
updated per acre mitigation fee.
7 This is the approach taken by the majority of regional Habitat Conservation Plans in California,
including the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee.
Fee Per Acre No Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Net Cost $912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805
Acres of Development
Residential 14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403
Nonresidential 6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637
Total 20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040
Mitigation Fee per Acre $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
As shown in Table 2, the required mitigation fee per gross acre of development varies
substantially based on level of extension as follows:
• No Extension. Under the current structure, where all land acquisition must occur by the
end of Year 25 of MSHCP implementation (2029), a mitigation fee of $45,041 per acre of
development would be required.
• 5-Year Extension. With a 5-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the
end of Year 30 of MSHCP implementation (2034), a mitigation fee of $28,625 per acre of
development would be required.
• 10-Year Extension. With a 10-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the
end of Year 35 of MSHCP implementation (2039), a mitigation fee of $20,868 per acre of
development would be required.
• 15-Year Extension. With a 15-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the
end of Year 40 of MSHCP implementation (2044), a mitigation fee of $16,358 per acre of
development would be required.
For residential development, the per gross acre fee is translated into per residential unit fees by
density category to provide for a fee framework that is consistent with the current fee structure.
The per residential unit fees are calculated by dividing the per gross acre fee by an assumed
typical/ average density for each of the three density ranges (low, medium, and high).8 The full
mitigation fee schedule (for each extension scenario) is shown in Table 3, including the per unit
residential fees by density category and per gross acre fees for non-residential development.
The typical/ average residential densities used to calculate the per-unit residential fees are the
same as the density assumptions in the Original Nexus Study.9
8 For example, the $3,635 per unit Residential – Low fee under the 15-year extension is derived by
dividing the overall per gross acre mitigation fee of $16,358 (shown in Figure 2) by the assumed
typical/average density of Residential Low of 4.5 units/acre.
9 The Fee Implementation Handbook provides more specifics on how to determine a project’s
residential density and therefore the appropriate per unit residential fee that applies.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 3 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule by Extension Scenario
Key Drivers of Fee Change
The change in Local Development Mitigation Fee is the result of a number of different
contributing factors (“moving parts”), fully documented and detailed in Chapters 2 through 7.
This Nexus Study is based on the most current information available including, for some inputs,
recent years of experience from MSHCP implementation. The factors that have had the most
significant effect on the Local Development Mitigation Fee calculations are summarized below.
1. Lower-than-expected land dedications substantially increase the Local Permittee
habitat acquisition cost component of MSHCP implementation. The MSHCP assumed
that 41,000 of the 97,000 acres (42 percent) to be conserved by Local Permittee
action/funding would be provided at no cost through land dedication associated with
development inside the Criteria Cells. Through the first sixteen years of Plan
implementation, less than 1,000 acres of the Local Permittee habitat conservation obligations
have been generated through these dedications. An additional 10,000 acres of land
dedication requirements have been required as part of proposed developments that have yet
to occur. Beyond the dedication associated with previously proposed projects, additional
land dedication is not expected.10 As a result, the 2020 Nexus Study assumes the noted
10,000 acres of land dedication is formalized over the next eight years (an average annual
land dedication of 1,250 acres per year) prior to the end of the current land acquisition
period. No additional land dedication is assumed, even if the acquisition period is extended.
As a result, at the end of the current habitat acquisition period (Year 25 of Plan
10 In September 2016, the RCA revised its fee credit and waiver policy, limiting the likelihood of
projects paying fees and dedicating land.
Fee Per Unit No
Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Residential - Low (Up to 8.0 DUAC)2 3 $2,234 $10,009 $6,361 $4,637 $3,635
Residential - Medium (8.0-14.0 DUAC)2 3 $1,430 $4,170 $2,650 $1,932 $1,515
Residential - High (14.0+ DUAC) 2 3 $1,161 $1,846 $1,173 $855 $670
Commercial / Industrial (per acre)$7,606 $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc.
3. DUAC stands for Dwelling Units per Acre.
Current Fee
20211
1. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule for FY 2020-21
(Effective July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021), annually adjusted using the Consumer Price Index.
2. Per acre mitigation fees translated into per unit fees based on the following residential densities: for low density, 4.5 units
per acre; for medium density, 10.8 units per acre; for high density, 24.4 units per acre, consistent with the assumptions used
in Appendix E of the original Nexus Study.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
implementation), total land dedication is expected to represent about 11,000 acres and about
11 percent of the Local Permittee land conservation requirement. The RCA therefore needs
to directly acquire an additional 30,000 acres of land relative to the expectations of the
Original Nexus Study.
2. Lower than expected regional infrastructure public contributions have reduced the
non-fee funding available, increasing the costs to be funded through the mitigation
fee. The MSHCP assumed a substantial level of funding from regional infrastructure project
public contributions, including transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local
public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects, as well as from
landfill tipping fees. While the Measure A sales tax has provided substantial funding as
expected, other revenue sources, on aggregate, have provided (and are expected to continue
to provide) substantially less funding than forecast in the 2003 Nexus Study. As a result,
mitigation fees will need to cover about 91 percent of Local Permittee MSHCP implementation
costs relative to the original assumption of about 56 percent.
3. The change towards a consistent “per gross developed acre” fee basis provides a
more consistent approach for all land use development types. The 2003 Nexus Study
used an “Equivalent Benefit Unit” approach to distributing mitigation costs between different
land use categories. This Nexus Study adjusts the fee calculation to the more commonly
used per gross acre basis. Under this approach, the new Local Development Mitigation Fees
are all based on one “across the board” per gross acre fee determination. Non-residential
development then pays this per acre fee, while per unit residential fees by density category
are derived from this common per gross acre fee.11 This change evens out some of the prior
differences in mitigation fee levels.
4. The estimates of average per acre land values have not changed substantially, so
they have had a limited effect on the change in mitigation fees. The original MSHCP
implementation cost estimate was based on an average land value of about $13,100 per
acre. This was based on research on land transactions of parcels with different land use
designations and sizes in 2001/2002. The land valuation analysis conducted for this Nexus
Study estimated a planning-level land value of about $14,300 per acre based on land
transactions primarily in the 2014 to 2017 period (inflated to 2019-dollar terms). As a
result, land value estimates have not changed substantially in nominal dollar terms since the
Original Nexus Study. This estimated per acre land value is above the cost of most RCA
transactions to date, though the average land values of future RCA land acquisition are
expected to increase due to the increasing need to purchase more expensive land in
“linkage” areas.
11 Similar to the Original Nexus Study, all new development in Western Riverside County is required
to pay the mitigation fee (or otherwise provide the necessary mitigation). The conversion from per
gross acre to per unit fees for residential development is conducted to provide administrative
continuity for member agencies.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
O rganization of Report
This Nexus Study includes several chapters. Chapter 1, this chapter, describes the purpose and
need for this Nexus Study, the recommended changes in the Local Development Mitigation Fee,
and the key drivers of these changes. Chapters 2 through 7 provide the technical analysis that
supports the updated fees and nexus findings. Chapter 2 summarizes the purpose of and basis
for the MSHCP, the conservation requirements of the MSHCP, and the financing strategy and
approach developed to implement the MSHCP in 2004. Chapter 3 describes the conservation
achievements to date, identifies the remaining conservation requirements, and identifies
expected land dedication. Chapter 4 provides the development forecast used in the calculation
of the updated mitigation fees. Chapter 5 provides the estimates of MSHCP implementation
costs, including land acquisition, management and monitoring, program administration, and
endowment. Chapter 6 describes the historical levels of non-fee revenues available to help fund
Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs. Chapter 7 brings together the technical analysis
in Chapters 2 through 6 to estimate the updated 2020 Local Development Mitigation Fees.
Chapter 8 provides the nexus findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act as require to
establish the updated fees. Finally, Chapter 9 highlights some of the administration and
implementation requirements under the Mitigation Fee Act, recognizing that the Fee
Implementation Handbook provides more specific guidance to the RCA and its partner agencies
on the implementation of the mitigation fee program.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
2. MSHCP POLICIES, GOALS, AND FINANCING STRATEGY
MSHCP Purpose, Basis, and Goals
In response to the need to maintain future growth opportunities in Western Riverside County
while addressing the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, the County
and the Riverside County Transportation Commission initiated the Riverside County Integrated
Project (RCIP) in 1999. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP) is one part of the RCIP that includes:
• Updated County General Plan. Addresses the required general plan elements such as land
use, circulation, housing and open space, and conservation and includes programs to
implement the MSHCP, enhance transit alternatives, and encourage development of mixed-
use centers.
• Community and Environment Transportation Acceptability Process. Identifies future
transportation corridors in Western Riverside and provides needed environmental
documentation to allow preservation of future right-of-ways.
• MSHCP. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP
or Plan) is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on
the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The
MSHCP conserves vulnerable plant and animal species and their associated habitats in
Western Riverside County and supports economic development.
The MSHCP was adopted in 2003 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Subsequently,
all of the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, County Regional Parks and Open-Space District, County Department of
Waste Resources, Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Department of
Transportation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Fish and
Game, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the RCA signed an Implementing Agreement for the
MSHCP. The Implementing Agreement includes terms to ensure MSHCP-implementation, defines
remedies and recourses should any of the parties of the Agreement fail to perform obligations,
and provides assurances that, as long as the MSHCP is being implemented, the Wildlife Agencies
will not require additional mitigation from the Permittees.12
The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species
Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan under the NCCP Act of 2001.
The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting processes by allowing the participating
jurisdictions to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. At
the same time, Plan implementation provides a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and
implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region’s quality of life.
12 The Wildlife Agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife and the Permittees include all of the other parties to the Implementing Agreement.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
The MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and Incidental Take Permit collectively
determine a set of conservation actions, and the associated responsible parties, that must be
taken to meet the terms of the Incidental Take Permit and benefit from the regulatory
streamlining and other benefits of the MSHCP. This includes the identification of the
responsibilities of the Local Permittees.13
MSHCP Conservation Requirements
The goal of the MSHCP is to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystems processes
while allowing future economic growth. The MSHCP calls for an MSHCP Conservation Area of
500,000 acres and focuses on the conservation of 146 species.
Figure 1 State of Conservation in 2003: Conserved Land, Additional Reserve Land to
be Acquired, and Total MSHCP Conservation Area Needed
e County
Regional
As shown in Figure 1, when the MSHCP was adopted, existing public and quasi-public
conservation lands covered 347,000 acres, leaving a need for 153,000 acres of land, called
Additional Reserve Land (ARL), to meet the goals of the MSHCP (see Figure 1). The MSHCP
specifies that responsibility for the conservation of the 153,000-acre Additional Reserve Lands is
shared by the local development process (97,000 acres) and state and federal purchases
(56,000).
13 Local Permittees include the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, County Regional Park and Open Space District, County Department
of Waste Resources, and Riverside County Transportation Commission.
282,000
56,000
338,000
65,000
97,000
162,000347,000
153,000
500,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2004 Existing
Public/Quasi Public
Land
Acquire: Additional
Reserve Land
Total
Acres
Federal/State Local
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 4 MSHCP Goals by Area Plan
The MSHCP includes methods to determine whether the goals of the Plan are being met. One of
the methods is measuring the extent to which conservation acquisitions are moving toward
acquisition goals by each Area Plan.14 Area Plans are established in the County’s General Plan
and are used in the MSHCP as a common geographic unit in Western Riverside County. The
MSHCP established low, high, and midpoint acquisition goals for each Area Plan based on
biological needs. The midpoint acquisition goals for each Area Plan range from 165 to nearly
49,935 acres, as shown in Table 4. The midpoint goals sum to 158,605 which represents
5,605 acres more than are needed to fulfill the MSHCP goals. As a result, acquisitions in some
Area Plans can fall below the mid-point targets while the total ARL can still achieve the
153,000-acre goal.
MSHCP Financing Strategy
One of the key requirements of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and Incidental Take
Permit (consistent with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act) is the provision
of adequate funding by Local Permittees to the Implementing Entity (the Regional Conservation
Authority) to conduct the conservation actions identified in the MSHCP as the responsibility of the
Local Permittees.
14 Other geographic units include Rough Steps, city jurisdictions, and Area Plan subunits. For the
purposes of this analysis, Area Plans have been selected as the primary unit of analysis because they
are the middle-sized unit (smaller than Rough Steps and larger than Area Plan subunits) and have not
changed over time (unlike jurisdictions, several of which have incorporated since the adoption of the
MSHCP.
Cities of Riverside and Norco 1,756 90 240 165
Eastvale 665 145 290 220
Elsinore 28,946 11,700 18,515 15,110
Harvest Valley / Winchester 820 430 605 515
Highgrove 1,452 345 675 510
Jurupa 5,476 890 1,870 1,380
Lake Mathews / Woodcrest 11,673 3,215 5,470 4,340
Lakeview / Nuevo 14,682 6,650 10,235 8,445
Mead Valley 7,703 1,885 3,635 2,760
Reche Canyon / Badlands 26,000 10,520 15,610 13,065
REMAP 78,423 41,400 58,470 49,935
San Jacinto Valley 32,828 11,540 19,465 15,500
Southwest Area 66,076 22,500 36,360 29,430
Sun City / Menifee Valley 2,059 1,120 1,585 1,355
Temescal Canyon 10,007 3,485 5,800 4,645
The Pass 22,652 8,540 13,925 11,230
Total 311,218 124,455 192,750 158,605
Area Plan Total Area of
Criteria Cells Low End of Goal High End of
Goal Midpoint
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Section 8.0 of the MSHCP addresses “MSHCP Funding/Financing of Reserve Assembly and
Management.” This section provides best estimates of Plan implementation costs at the time of
Plan adoption, including the local funding commitment – the portion of Plan implementation costs
that represents the Local Permittees’ portion of the overall land acquisition, management,
monitoring, adaptive management, and Plan administration costs. Section 8.5 describes the
Local Funding Program. The Local Funding Program included a mix of funding sources to provide
“an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP.” The proposed
funding sources included Local Development Mitigation Fees, density bonus fees, regional
infrastructure project public contributions (including transportation infrastructure, regional utility
projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects), and
landfill tipping fees. Key components of the overall MSHCP implementation and funding strategy
are highlighted below:
• The Regional Conservation Authority would implement the MSHCP with funding from different
sources.
• The permanent protection of 97,000 acres in Additional Reserve Lands by Year 25 of the Plan
(2029) would be achieved through direct purchase of habitat lands by the RCA using local
funding and through the HANS dedication process.15
• Local funding sources would fund the ongoing management and maintenance costs of the
local portion of the Additional Reserve Lands acquired through local funding (97,000 acres by
end of acquisition period).
• Local funding sources would fund monitoring activities on the pre-Plan local conservation and
all the new Additional Reserve Lands (500,000 acers by end of acquisition period).
• The permanent protection of 56,000 acres in Additional Reserve Lands by Year 25 would be
achieved using state/federal funding sources or contributions.
• State and federal funding sources would fund the management and maintenance costs of the
State/federal portion of the required Additional Reserve Lands.
• Local Development Mitigation Fees (on private development) would fund the Local Permittee
MSHCP implementation costs that were not funded by other local/regional funding sources or
public contributions for public development project mitigation.
• The overall permit period was set at 75 years. Once habitat acquisition was completed by
Year 25, remaining funds along with newly created revenue sources were to be used to fund
15 Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP describes the HANS process. The Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition
Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process applied to any property owner applying for a discretionary
permit for land within a Criteria Area/Criteria Cell. Under the process, the County determined whether
portions of the property are needed for conservation and then may send their evaluation to the RCA
for Joint Project Review (JPR). During JPR, the project applicant negotiated the terms of the
development and conservation of the project. The applicant also paid fees on the new development.
This approach was refined when a new fee credit policy, adopted in 2016, provided for fee credits
where appropriate lands are dedicated.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
monitoring and management as well as to fund the establishment of an endowment to cover
ongoing post-permit costs (beyond Year 75).
Importantly, the MSHCP funding chapter notes that frequent evaluations of the performance of
the funding mechanisms and assessments of the funding plan will occur and that any necessary
modifications to the funding mechanisms will be developed.
MSHC P Implementation Costs and Funding Sources
The original estimated costs and proposed funding sources were documented in the MSHCP and
are summarized in Table 5. These were developed based on research and analysis conducted as
part of MSHCP development.
As shown, Plan implementation costs over the first 25 years of implementation were estimated at
about $950 million in 2004-dollar terms. Key assumptions driving the implementation cost
estimates included:
• Dedications. Direct acquisition using local funding sources would be required to acquire
56,000 acres, with 41,000 acres (or 42 percent) of the required local habitat protection
coming through HANS dedication.
• Land Cost. Average land value of $13,100 per acre for Additional Reserve Lands purchased
by the RCA.
• Management and Monitoring: Management and monitoring costs included three key
components as follows: Reserve Management, Adaptive Management, and Biological
Monitoring.16
• Program Administration. RCA program administration costs would average about
$1.2 million each year in 2004 dollars during the 25-year period where land acquisition was
required.
• Cost Distribution. Overall, land acquisition costs were estimated at 77 percent of total
implementation costs, with management and monitoring at 20 percent, and program
administration at 3 percent (see Figure 2).
16 See Chapter 5 of the MSHCP for a description of these activities.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 5 2004 Estimates: MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources
Total for % of
2004 - 2028 Average Total Cost/
Item (Years 1 - 25)Annual Funding Need
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 97,000 acres 3,880 acres na
HANS Dedication 41,000 acres 1,640 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 56,000 acres 2,240 acres na
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)$733,600,000 $29,344,000 76.91%
Management & Monitoring $190,200,000 $7,608,000 19.94%
RCA Staff $30,000,000 $1,200,000 3.15%
Other Costs na na na
Endowment not included not included na
Total Costs $953,800,000 $38,152,000 100.0%
Local Revenues
Private Development Mitigation Fees $539,600,000 $21,584,000 50.1%
Density Bonus Fees $66,000,000 $2,640,000 6.1%
Regional Transportation Infra. (2)$250,000,000 $10,000,000 23.2%
Local Roads (Measure A) $121,000,000 $4,840,000 (3)11.2%
Tipping Fees (4)$100,000,000 $4,000,000 9.3%
Miscellaneous Revenues (5)$0 $0 0.0%
Total Revenues $1,076,600,000 $43,064,000 100%
(1) Average land value per acre assumed to be $13,100 per acre.
(2) Public contributions at specificed % of new road construction.
(3) $121 million to be provided over 10 years, so $12.1 million annually over that period.
(4) Includes $90 million from El Sobrante Landfill and $10 million from other County landfills.
(5) Other potential revenues, including public contributions from other public projects, tipping fees
from Eagle Mountain Landfill, and potential new voter-approved regional funding were noted but not estimated.
Source: Chapter 8 of MSHCP; Economic & Planning Systems.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Figure 2 MSHCP Estimated Annual Costs in Millions, 2004 Dollars
As also shown in Table 5, MSHCP funding from local/regional sources was estimated to be about
$1.0 billion in 2004 dollars through Year 25, sufficient to cover the implementation costs over
this period. Key assumptions driving the funding estimates included:
• Measure A. Measure A (local sales tax transportation funding measure) would provide $121
million over 10 years in 2004-dollar terms.
• Regional Transportation Funding. Public contributions from regional transportation
infrastructure projects would provide an average of $10 million each year or $250 million
through Year 25.
• Tipping Fees. Landfill tipping fees would provide about $100 million in revenue over 25
years, about $4 million each year, primarily from the El Sobrante landfill.
• Mitigation Fees. Private development fees, including private development mitigation fees
and density bonus fees, would generate over $600 million over the first 25 years, about $24
million annually.
• Development Forecast and Participation. The forecast of private development fees was
based on a preliminary fee schedule and the forecast of 336,000 new residential units
(13,440 units each year) and 371 acres each year of commercial and industrial development.
All new development was assumed to pay the private development mitigation fee with a
portion paying the density bonus fee.
• Other Funding Options. Potential additional funding might come through contributions
from other local/regional public entities, other landfills, or new voter-approved funding
initiatives.
• Funding Distribution. Overall, about 55 percent of the estimated funding was expected to
be generated by private development fees, with 45 percent from other funding sources.
Land,
$29.3, 77%
Mangmnt.
&
Monitoring
$7.6 , 20%
RCA Staff,
$1.2 , 3%
$38.1 million total
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Figure 3 MSHCP Estimated Annual Revenues in Millions, 2004 Dollars
Development Mitigation Fees and Calculation
The MSHCP notes that “new development affects the environment directly through construction
activity and cumulatively through population bases that result from Development.” As a result,
the cities and County are required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee that was
expected to represent one of the primary sources of funding for the implementation of the
MSHCP. The MSHCP indicates that the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be adopted under
California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”) that “allows cities
and counties to charge new development for the costs of mitigating the impacts of new
development.”
The MSHCP identified preliminary estimates of Local Development Mitigation Fees and indicated
that these mitigation fees were expected to generate the majority of funding for Local Permittee
obligations. The MSHCP noted that, under the Mitigation Fee Act, “a nexus study is required to
demonstrate that the proposed fee is proportionate to the impacts of new development.” The
Mitigation Fee Act also includes a number of reviewing and reporting requirements. The MSHCP
also notes that the fee will need to be “reevaluated and revised should it be found to
insufficiently cover mitigation of new development.”
A nexus study entitled “Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Report for the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan” was completed on July 1, 2003
(2003/Original Nexus Study). This nexus study conducted a detailed analysis of the costs of
implementing the Plan, identified the Local Permittee funding obligations, determined the portion
to be funded through the Local Development Mitigation Fee, and made the necessary nexus
findings under the Mitigation Fee Act. The MSHCP and 2003 Nexus Study both indicated that all
new development in the Western Riverside County Plan Area affects covered species and habitat
and so the Local Development Mitigation Fees would apply to all new development in
participating jurisdictions in Western Riverside County.
Private
Dev. Mit.
Fees,
$21.6, 50%
Density
Bonus Fees,
$2.6 , 6%
Regional
Transp.
Infra.,
$10.0 , 23%
Local Roads
(Meas. A) ,
$4.8 , 11%
Tipping
Fees, $4.0 ,
10%
$43.3 million total
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Mitigation Fee Schedule and Adjustments
All local jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP and obtaining coverage for public and private
take in their jurisdictions were required to adopt and implement this mitigation fee schedule
through ordinance and resolution and then to pass through the fee funding (minus any additional
administrative charges) to the RCA to fund MSHCP implementation. Indexed-increases based on
the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area were
provided for in the ordinances to allow modest adjustments in mitigation fees to respond to
inflationary cost increases. Due to the geographic revision implemented by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, going forward indexed-adjustments will be based on the annual change in the
Consumer Price Index for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area.
Table 6 shows the original 2004 Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule and current 2021
Fee schedule that reflects periodic inflationary fee adjustments using the indexing process.
Table 6 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule
Fee Category
2004 Fee per unit or
per acre
2021 Fee per unit or per
acre
Residential: Up to 8.0 dwelling
units per acre (DUAC) $1,651 $2,234
Residential: 8.0-14.0 DUAC $1,057 $1,430
Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $859 $1,161
Commercial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Industrial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
3. HABITAT PROTECTION TO DATE AND FUTURE CONSERVATION
SCENARIO
The RCA has achieved substantial levels of habitat protection to date using the funding sources
established and the associated variable flows of incoming revenues. The level of habitat
protection achieved, because of lower levels of funding and land dedication than expected, has
however fallen behind the pace of protection forecast in the Original Nexus Study. This chapter
summarizes the achieved protection to (1) establish both the scale of future acquisitions required
to meet the overall Additional Reserve Land (ARL) goals, (2) consider the annual pace of habitat
protection through acquisitions and dedications in absolute terms and relative to the original
MSHCP forecasts, and (3) inform the development of the Conservation Scenario that forms the
baseline (project description) for estimating future MSHCP implementation costs and associated
funding requirements and updated mitigation fees.
Habitat Protection Accomplishments Through 2019
Between the start of the MSHCP program and the end of 2019, the most recent full calendar
year, about 40 percent of the 153,000-acre ARL target has been achieved, totaling almost
62,000 acres in acquisitions, easements, or dedications (see Table 7).17 As shown of the
97,000 acres in Local Permittee ARL obligation about 40,200 acres had been protected by the
end of 2019. Of the 56,000 acres in State/Federal ARL obligation, about 21,600 acres have been
protected to date.
Table 7 Conservation Through End of 2019
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Annual Reports;
RCA information on 2019 purchases; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Conservation Goals and Progress
The MSHCP anticipated that acquisition would take place for 25 years, through the end of 2029,
with 97,000 acres conserved through local means and 56,000 acres conserved with State/federal
funding. To achieve this goal, an average of 6,120 acres of conservation is required each year,
17 Note that while the MSHCP was adopted in 2004, certain conservation which took place between
2000 and 2003 was counted toward the MSHCP reserve.
Total
Party Need Conserved Conserved Conserved Remaining Need
2000-2003 2004 - 2019 2000 - 2019 2020-2043
Local 97,000 4,531 35,681 40,212 56,788
State + Fed 56,000 12,408 9,200 21,608 34,392
Total 153,000 16,939 44,881 61,820 91,180
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
including an average of 3,880 annually from local funding sources/dedications and 2,240
annually from State and federal conservation.
Figure 4 illustrates how steady progress would result in achievement of the ARL goals by 2029.
Figure 5 shows actual progress toward the goals, through 2019. More than 21,000 acres have
been conserved through State/federal means, and over 40,000 acres have been conserved
through local actions. These totals sum to about 40 percent of the total ARL goal of 153,000
acres. As shown in Figure 5, with 16 years of the 25-year acquisition period completed, the ARL
acquisitions have fallen behind the pace forecast in the Original Nexus Study. Protection through
the end of 2019 represents 63 percent of the original forecast (65 percent for Local obligations
and 60 percent for State/federal obligations). For the Local Permittee obligations, as discussed
further below, the lower level of land dedication relative to the original forecasts account for
much of the habitat protection gap that has emerged over the last 16 years.
Figure 4 MSHCP Conservation Goals, 2019 and 2029 Goals Highlighted
62,080
97,000
35,840
56,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028MSHCP Goals, 2019 and 2028 Highlighted
Local State/Fed
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Figure 5 Progress Towards ARL Through End of 2019
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Land Dedications
The MSHCP envisioned a conservation program where land and easements would be purchased
by the RCA and land would be dedicated to the RCA through the development process.18
In addition, the potential for no-cost and low-cost donations for tax benefit purposes was also
created. The MSHCP did not assume donations or conservation easement acquisitions as part of
its financial analysis (this is appropriate given the limited number of such transactions). The
MSHCP did, however, anticipate that 41,000 acres would be conserved through dedications,
56,000 acres through purchases on behalf of local permittees, and 56,000 acres through
purchases conducted by or funded by federal and State agencies/sources for a total of
153,000 acres.
For the local portion of the goal (97,000 acres), this translates into about 42 percent of the goal
conserved via dedications associated with the development review process—called Habitat
Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS)—and the other 58 percent purchased by
the RCA from willing sellers. The level of dedication is a key assumption for the MSHCP
implementation cost estimate as each acre dedicated through HANS is one fewer acre which
must be conserved through land acquisitions at market values.
The HANS process was established to apply to developments proposed within the Criteria Cells of
the MSHCP Study Area. The Criteria Cells represent areas with high conservation values relative
to the areas outside of the Criteria Cells. The HANS process was designed to indicate what
conservation (dedication) may be needed from new development from a biological needs
18 This process is known as the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS).
Fed+State Local Total
Acqu. through 2019 21,608 40,212 61,820
Remaining Need 34,392 56,788 91,180
% of 2019 Expected Goal Achieved 60%65%63%
% of Total Goal Achieved 39%41%40%
60%65%63%
39%41%40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Acres153,000
97,000
56,000
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
perspective. Subsequent to that technical analysis, applicants could then proceed to the Joint
Project Review (JPR) process during which the parties negotiate an implementation plan for the
project, consistent with the HANS findings. The applicants would also pay mitigation fees on the
actual development. To date, a modest amount of land (less than 1,000 acres) has been
conserved via the HANS/JPR method compared to the 26,000 acres that was forecast to have
occurred by this point in the MSHCP implementation.
While very little land has been dedicated to the RCA through HANS/JPR, several projects went
through the HANS/JPR process and have agreements in place for dedication/conservation of
lands, but the start date (if any) for these projects is unknown (i.e., may be far in the future).
These projects cover about 35,000 acres in the Criteria Cells and, under the JPR agreements,
have set aside about 30 percent of that total or about 10,000 acres for conservation/dedication.
The adoption of Resolution No. 2016-003 in September 2016 revised the RCA’s fee credit and
waiver policy. This resolution indicated that MSHCP fee credit should be provided in exchange
for land that contributes to reserve assembly. As a result, after the adoption of this resolution,
new development is not be expected to pay mitigation fees and dedicate land in the manner
originally envisioned in the MSHCP limiting the likelihood of the types of dedications envisioned in
the Original Nexus Study.
Future Conservation Scenario
This updated financial analysis, nexus study, and mitigation fees estimate require a base
description of the additional habitat protection required. In subsequent chapters, cost estimates
are developed in reference to, and in application to, this conservation scenario to develop the
overall implementation costs and the associated funding required, both in aggregate and through
time during the land acquisition period of the program. Four questions are of particular
importance:
1. Remaining Habitat Protection. The amount of habitat protection required to meet the
MSHCP requirements.
2. Dedications. The amount of land dedication assumed to occur through the HANS/JPR
process over the habitat protection period and the associated amount of habitat that must be
acquired.
3. Time Frame. The period over which habitat protection goals must be met.
4. Land Characteristics. The characteristics of the land to be protected to meet MSHCP
requirements (e.g., goals by Area Plan, habitat cores and linkages etc., land use designations
and parcel sizes).
The answers to question 1 are provided in the data above (see Table 7). The answer to
question 4 is provided in the subsequent chapter on land costs, with illustrative answers coming
from RCA data and GIS analysis. The answer to question 2 is addressed below and is based on
information on accomplishments to date (described above), discussions with RCA staff, the
current Fee Waiver and Credit Policy, and an assessment of realistic opportunities and
expectations. Finally, question 3 raises the issue of whether an extension to the MSHCP land
acquisition implementation period should be provided. As described below, three different
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
extension scenarios (5-, 10-, and 15-year extension scenarios) are evaluated, as well as the
baseline, “No Extension Scenario,” to indicate the outcomes under different scenarios.
Habitat Protection, Land Dedication, and Conservation Scenarios
As shown in Table 8, there is a total of about 91,200 acres of land protection still required to
complete the land protection obligations under the MSHCP and to bring the Additional Reserve
Lands to 153,000 acres. Of this, the State/federal requirements is for about 34,400 acres, while
the Local Permittee requirement is for about 56,800 acres.
The experience of the last 16 years indicates that the MSHCP was overly optimistic in terms of
land dedications, assuming that 41,000 acres would be dedicated to the RCA. As noted above,
about 10,000 acres of potential future land dedication is associated with a range of previously
proposed projects. Based on historical information on actual, dedications agreements on
proposed projects, current RCA policy, and consultations with RCA staff, minimal additional
dedication is expected or assumed. This analysis, therefore, assumes that the prior agreement
concerning dedications, summing to about 10,000 acres, will be secured over the next eight
years and prior to the end of the current habitat protection period. Even if the implementation
period were extended, no extra land dedication is forecast to occur.
As a result, and as shown in Table 8, a total of about 46,800 acres of Additional Reserve Land
acquisition is required by Local Permittees for MSHCP implementation once the forecast of
dedications is incorporated. As shown in Table 8, the required average annual pace of habitat
protection varies considerably under the different acquisition period extension scenarios, as
described below: 19
• Baseline/No Extension Scenario. As currently structured, RCA is required to complete
land acquisition by the end of Year 25 of Plan implementation in 2029. This provides nine
(9) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the
assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 5,200 acres each year.
• 5-Year Extension. With a 5-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be
required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 30 of Plan implementation in 2034.
This provides fourteen (14) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition
(distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 3,300
acres each year.
• 10-Year Extension. With a 10-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be
required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 35 of Plan implementation in 2039.
This provides nineteen (19) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition
(distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 2,500
acres each year.
19 As a point of reference, the historical pace of Local Permittee-driven habitat protection has been
somewhat above 2,000 acres each year with availability of funding being an important determinant of
the pace of acquisition. The pace of State/federal-driven acquisition has averaged about 1,000 acres
each year.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
• 15-Year Extension. With a 15-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be
required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 40 of Plan implementation in 2044.
This provides twenty-four (24) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land
acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of
about 2,000 acres each year.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 8 Required Acquisition Acres to Achieve ARL Goals
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Entity/Item Through 2019
2020-End of
Acquisition
Period
Years
Remaining
Annual
Conservation
Acres Required Total Acres
State/Federal 21,608 34,392 9 3,821 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication (1)715 10,000 9 1,111 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 39,497 46,788 9 5,199 86,285
Total Local Conservation 40,212 56,788 9 6,310 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 61,820 91,180 9 10,131 153,000
State/Federal 14 2,457 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 14 714 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 14 3,342 86,285
Total Local Conservation 14 4,056 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 14 6,513 153,000
State/Federal 19 1,810 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 19 526 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 19 2,463 86,285
Total Local Conservation 19 2,989 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 19 4,799 153,000
State/Federal 24 1,433 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 24 417 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 24 1,950 86,285
Total Local Conservation 24 2,366 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 24 3,799 153,000
State/Federal 29 1,186 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 29 345 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 29 1,613 86,285
Total Local Conservation 29 1,958 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 29 3,144 153,000
NO EXTENSION
10 YEAR EXTENSION
15 YEAR EXTENSION
20 YEAR EXTENSION
5 YEAR EXTENSION
Shading indicates acreage to be acquired with fee revenue.
See above
See above
See above
See above
1. About 10,000 acres of potential future land dedication is associated with a range of previously proposed projects. Based on historical
information on actual, dedications agreements on proposed projects, current RCA policy, and consultations with RCA staff, minimal
additional dedication is expected or assumed beyond these agreements. This analysis, therefore, assumes that the prior agreements
concerning dedications will occur with future dedications summing to about 10,000 acres. The precise timing of these dedications is
uncertain, but are assumed to occur over the next eight years. Average annual numbers in this table are shown distributed across the full
remaining acquisition period of each extension scenario.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
4. FORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT, DEDICATION, FEE PAYMENT
Future development within Western Riverside County will both reduce land available for
conservation while also serving as a primary funding mechanism for habitat acquisitions. This
chapter identifies forecasts of future growth in Western Riverside County and develops an
associated forecast of land development that is a key component of the fee calculation.
Historic Development and HCP Fees
The MSHCP anticipated that 13,000 to 14,000 residential units and about 370 commercial and
industrial acres would be developed on average annually. Specifically, between 2005 and 2019,
206,000 residential units were expected in the Plan Area. A review of new units in the Plan Area
indicates about 130,000 units were developed over the period (see Figure 6), about 37 percent
below the forecast.20 While the substantial volatility in the real estate market over the period
(including the housing boom, deep recession, and modest recovery) may explain some of this
difference, the slower pace of development means that fee revenues have been similarly
constrained relative to the original revenue projections.
Figure 6 Residential Unit Development, Western Riverside County, 2005-2019
Source: California Department of Finance; MSHCP Projections
20 Actual units developed have been derived from the California Department of Finance (DOF),
Demographics Unit information through January 1, 2019. Note that the DOF reports data by city and
for the entire Riverside County unincorporated area. Western Riverside’s portion of the total
unincorporated area has been derived based on the area’s historic share of unincorporated County,
taking into account the incorporations of new cities that occurred in Western Riverside County since
MSHCP Plan adoption (Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar).
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Number of Residential UnitsProjected
Actual
76,000
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Growth Projections
SCAG Forecasts in Context
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO)21 representing six counties, 191 cities and more than 18 million residents.
MPOs, such as SCAG are charged under California Senate Bill 375 with developing Sustainable
Community Strategies (SCSs) as part of regional transportation plans. SCAG’s SCS includes
population, household, and job projections through 2040 by city and unincorporated area. SCAG
consults with local governments within the region, including the Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG) which represents Western Riverside County, to develop the projections.
SCAG adopted the 2012-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy
(RTP/SCS) in 2016. The 2016 RTP/SCS forms the basis of the SCAG projections; EPS
extrapolated an annual growth rate from the SCAG projections and, assuming consistent
development trends through 2050, applied the rate in order to estimate development projections
through 2050.
SCAG forecasts for the future, on an annualized basis, were compared with the MSHCP’s original
forecast along with historical information (when available) as described further below:
• Residential Development Forecast. Figure 7 shows, for Western Riverside County, the
annual residential unit count for SCAG projections through 2050, MSHCP projections through
2029, and residential units produced in Western Riverside County between 2005 and 2019.
As shown, the SCAG projections suggest about 8,750 units each. This is similar to the
average annual historic pace of growth between 2005 and 2019 of about 9,260 units, but
well below the original MSHCP projections of about 13,400 units each year. Based on the
similarity between the historical average and the SCAG forecast, the SCAG forecast is
considered a reasonable basis for determining the future pace of residential development and
associated residential land development (based on assumed densities of development).
• Commercial Development Forecast. The SCAG jobs forecast of about 15,000 jobs each
year was converted into an annual gross amount of commercial/industrial development using
the employment density and FAR assumptions used in the most recent Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) update documents. As shown in Figure 8, this results in a
forecast of about 690 acres of commercial/industrial land development each year
(representing an overall average of about 21 jobs per acre of development), considerably
above the original MSHCP projections of about 370 acres each year. The higher SCAG
number, however, appears reasonable given recent and ongoing trends in Western Riverside
County where substantial amounts of new logistics/distribution development have occurred
covering substantial land areas and, as such, is considered reasonable as the basis of the
future forecast of commercial/industrial land development.
21 Federal law requires that an urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000 be guided by a
regional entity known as an MPO. California’s Senate Bill 375 expands the role of the State’s 18 MPOs
to include regional plans that help the State reach its greenhouse gas reduction targets by
encouraging compact development and new development near public transit.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Figure 7 New Housing Units per Year, SCAG and MSHCP Projections and Historic
Production (2005-2019)
SCAG (2012-2040) and MSHCP Projections (2004-2029) and Historic Production (2005-2019)
Figure 8 Newly Developed Commercial Acres per Year
SCAG (2012-2040) and MSHCP Projections
Note: SCAG job projections converted into acres by EPS
8,747
13,440
9,262
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
SCAG MSHCP Historic
693
371
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
SCAG MSHCP
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Forecasts for Fee Calculation
For this fee program update, the SCAG projections are considered a reasonable basis for
forecasting future land development. Because all new development is expected to pay the
mitigation fee, all of the forecasted household and job growth is converted into a land
development forecast that is, in turn, used to calculate the mitigation fees. Table 9 shows
SCAG’s overall projections for households and employment in Western Riverside County between
2012 and 2050, and Table 10 shows the implied average annual land development rates, and,
in turn, the overall level of residential and commercial/industrial land development that would be
expected to occur through the end of the land acquisition period for each of the extension
scenarios.22 As shown, all scenarios assume an overall average annual land development of
2,252 acres each year, including 693 acres in commercial/industrial land development and 1,558
acres in annual residential land development.23
• Baseline/No Extension Scenario. Under the no extension scenario, a total of 20,265
acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation
period of nine (9) years and would pay the mitigation fees.
• 5-Year Extension. Under the 5-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 31,523
acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation
period of 14 years and would pay the mitigation fees.
• 10-Year Extension. Under the 10-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of
42,782 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan
implementation period of 19 years and would pay the mitigation fees.
• 15-Year Extension. Under the 15-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of
54,040 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan
implementation period of 24 years and would pay the mitigation fees.
22 Under the MSHCP, all new development is required to pay the mitigation fee and contribute to
funding the implementation of the MSHCP except where specifically exempted in the Ordinance.
23 The 1,558 acres of residential land development was derived based on the forecasted 8,747
residential units each year and assumptions concerning distribution by density category and an
average density level. More specifically, consistent with the recent TUMF analysis assumptions,
70 percent of new residential units are assumed to be in the low density category (less than 8 units
per acre) with an average of 4.5 units/acre, 20 percent are assumed to be the medium density
category (8 to 16 units per acre) with an average of 10.8 units/acre, and 10 percent are assumed to
be the high density category (over 16 units per acre) with an average of 24.4 units/acre. The unit per
acre factors are consistent with those indicated in the Original Nexus Study. The overall implied
average residential density is 5.6 units/gross acre.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 9 Projected Growth in Western Riverside County, through 2050
SCAG
Households Employment
2012 530,970 463,833
2040 Projection 775,882 869,792
2050 Projection (1)863,350 1,014,777
New Households/Jobs Expected by 2050 332,380 550,944
Average Annual 8,747 14,499
Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area
(1) SCAG projections forecast growth through 2040. EPS assumes the annual growth rate from
2012 to 2040 remains constant through 2050 and applies the rate to an additional 10 years in
order to project growth through 2050.
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 10 Projected Developed Acres in Western Riverside County, by Extension
Scenario
Proportionate Share 2020-20281 78,722 Households 130,487 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2028 14,026 Acres 6,239 Acres 20,265 Acres
Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Proportionate Share 2020-20341 122,456 Households 202,979 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2034 21,818 Acres 9,705 Acres 31,523 Acres
Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Proportionate Share 2020-20381 166,190 Households 275,472 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2038 29,611 Acres 13,171 Acres 42,782 Acres
Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Proportionate Share 2020-20431 209,924 Households 347,965 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2043 37,403 Acres 16,637 Acres 54,040 Acres
Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Sources: California Department of Finance; US Census Bureau; Southern California Association of Governments; Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area
5 Year Extension
10 Year Extension
15 Year Extension
(1) SCAG forecasts from the 2016 Report have been used for all cities in Western Riverside County. The projections for the entire
unincorporated area in Riverside have been split into just the Western part of the County through a review of WRCOG's recent
proportion of unincorporated growth, compared to the whole County.
(2) Conversion from household projections to residential acres of developed land is based on expected development mix and
average residential density by land use type, with an average residential density of 5.6 DUAC. Similarly, conversion from job
projections to nonresidential acres of developed land is based on distribution of jobs by workspace type and average employment
density by land use type, with an average nonresidential density of 21 jobs per land acre. Residential density assumptions are
based on data from the Census and California Department of Finance; Employment density assumptions are based on SCAG
data.
Total
No Extension
Residential Non ResidentialSCAG
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
5. MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
This chapter describes the analysis and assumptions that underpin the estimation of the total
remaining MSHCP implementation costs in 2019 dollars. Key cost factors evaluated include land
costs, management and monitoring costs, administration and professional services costs, and
endowment costs. Together these cost components form the total MSHCP implementation costs.
Because the duration allowed for land acquisition and endowment establishment affect several of
these cost items, distinct total implementation cost estimates are provided for all scenarios
(i.e., Baseline/ No Extension and the three extension scenarios).
Land Costs
Planning-level estimates of the per acre values associated with potential Additional Reserve Land
(ARL) acquisitions are a critical input into the estimation of total land acquisition costs associated
with Plan implementation. Land acquisition costs represented the majority of the original
estimates of MSHCP implementation costs. This chapter provides planning-level estimates of per
acre land conservation costs in 2019-dollar terms based on available information. In
combination with assumptions concerning the characteristics of the Additional Reserve Lands to
be acquired and potential levels of dedication, the per acre land value estimates drive the
estimate of overall land acquisition costs.
Actual per acre habitat conservation costs may vary from the average planning-level estimates
presented in this chapter for a number of reasons, including differences in the specific
characteristics of the actual parcels acquired as well as fluctuations in economic, real estate, and
land market conditions over time. Individual transactions will require appraisals to establish
their value at the time of acquisition based on parcel characteristics and pertinent market
conditions at the time of appraisal. Over time, per acre and overall cost estimates typically
change for a number of reasons as discussed further in Chapter 9.
MSHCP/Original Nexus Study
The initial adoption of the mitigation fees was based on a nexus study completed in July 2003
that included a land valuation analysis that was completed in December 2002. The land
valuation analysis assumed the acquisition of vacant and unentitled lands in the Criteria Cells.
The land value analysis provided planning-level estimates of per acre land values by grouped
land use designation and by Area Plan. Planning-level land value estimates were based on sales
comparables. The land value estimates indicated per acre land values that were primarily driven
by differentiation in land use category. The land use designation categories represent groupings
of the broad number of land use designations present in the Study Area. Table 11 summarizes
the per-acre land value ranges and resulting averages. Based on this analysis, an overall
weighted average of $13,100 per acre was applied in the MSHCP financial sections in the Original
Nexus Study.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 11 Per-Acre Land Value Estimates—2003 Dollars (2003 Nexus Study)
Land Use Designation Value Range Resulting Average *
Open Space $2,500 to $10,000 per acre $ 8,000 per acre
Rural/Agricultural $5,000 to $25,000 per acre $11,000 per acre
Community Development $20,000 to $80,000 per acre $45,000 per acre
Overall (1) $2,500 to $80,000 per acre Varied (1)
* Per acre values rounded to the nearest 1,000.
(1) Reported overall average land value per acre depends on mix of land types. Number varies by
documents, though $13,100 per acre was overall value applied in the MSHCP financing sections.
Source: Original 2003 Nexus Study
RCA Experience to Date
Table 12 summarizes average RCA land acquisition costs to date. Including land purchased
shortly before the MSHCP was adopted through the end of 2018, costs for Local Permittee land
acquisitions summed to $352.5 million in nominal dollar terms, an average of $9,400 per acre.
However, for the year 2018, about 2,100 acres were acquired at the higher average per acre
cost of $13,200 per acre.
Table 12 Local Conservation Costs Through 2018
Item Pre-MSHCP
through 2018
2018
Total Acres Acquired (1) 37,547 2,066
Total Cost (millions) $352.5 $27.4
Cost per Acre (Nominal $s) $9,400 $13,200
(1) Includes all acres purchased; does not include acres conserved via easement.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Annual Report 2018;
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
To date, the overall historical level of per acre land acquisition expenditures is well below the
original 2004 per acre land value estimates. The cost of RCA acquisitions during this timeframe
were kept relatively low by concentrating more on lower cost parcels (larger parcels in remote
areas with limited development potential). In 2018, as in the future, the average cost per acre
is expected to be higher than this historical average due to the characteristics of land still
needing to be acquired.
New Land Value Analysis and Conclusions
New 2019 per acre land value estimates were developed based on recent historical transactions
as reported in the sales comparables sections of appraisals conducted for RCA acquisitions. This
data set provided a substantial inventory of over 150 land sales between 2012 and 2017 that
supported conclusions concerning per acre land values by key land value characteristic.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Similar to the Original Nexus Study, land values were determined to be substantially affected by
land use designation and by parcel size. Land values were developed for twelve different value
categories based on combinations of three land use designations and four different size ranges.
Based on the land valuation data and detailed GIS analysis by RCA staff, parcels were divided
into three groups of development potential based on their land use designation:24
• Open Space. Low development potential land use designations included open space, rural
mountainous, and rural residential.
• Rural. Medium development potential land use designations include agriculture and rural
communities land use designations.
• Community Development. High development potential land use designations include all
community development designations, including residential, non-residential, and other
community development designations.
In addition to these three land use designation groupings reflecting different levels of
development potential, parcels were also divided by parcel size. The land value information
indicated a per acre value distinction between the following parcels sizes:
• Parcels less than 5 acres.
• Parcels between 5 and 20 acres.
• Parcels between 20 and 80 acers.
• Parcels over 80 acres.
Based on the analysis of the sales comparables, Table 13 shows the planning level per acre land
value by land use designation grouping/size range in 2017 dollars.
Table 13 Planning Level Per Acre Land Value Estimates by Category
24 RCA staff developed a consistent set of land use designation categories across different jurisdictions
in the Study Area for the purposes of this study. These formed the basis of the development potential
categories.
Land Use Designation
Less than 5
Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres
Open Space $11,761 $5,091 $3,949 $1,866
Rural $33,363 $11,553 $8,337 $5,531
Community Development $177,414 $76,050 $72,369 $24,335
Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Per Acre Land Value ($ / Acre)1
1. Most land sale comparables used for pricing are from 2013 to 2017 and were converted to 2017 dollars using BLS
CPI adjustments for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
The average land value per acre for future RCA acquisitions is dependent on the different land
values per acre as well as the expected distribution of future acquisitions. The actual land to be
acquired is uncertain and is dependent on the availability of land through willing sellers.
However, based on the conservation needs by Area Plan, the suitable land available for
protection, as well as the specific linkages that must be created between the core reserve areas,
RCA staff provided sufficient information for EPS to develop a general expression of parcels by
characteristic to support the land value analysis. An illustration of the expected distribution of
acres by land use designation and size range is provided in Table 14.
Table 14 Illustrative Distribution of Land Acquisitions by Land Use and Size
Applying the per acre land values in Table 13 to the illustrative land conservation distribution in
Table 14 provides an estimate of the aggregate land value, supporting the estimate of the
average planning level land value per acre in 2017-dollar terms (see Table 15).
Table 15 Aggregate Land Value of Remaining Areas (2017 dollars)
Land Use Designation
Less than 5
Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres
Open Space 535 1,531 3,626 4,654 10,346
Rural 1,901 17,241 26,802 29,428 75,371
Community Development 638 1,707 3,613 4,384 10,342
Total Purchases by Acreage 3,074 20,479 34,041 38,466 96,059
1. Conservation scenario analysis was conducted in 2017 so overall acres acquired more than those required as of end of 2019.
Sources: RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Total
Conservation Scenario (Acres) (1)
Land Use Designation
Less than 5
Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres
Open Space $6,292,633 $7,795,633 $14,319,467 $8,682,942 $37,090,674
Rural $63,411,345 $199,183,566 $223,437,526 $162,777,034 $648,809,470
Community Development $113,198,910 $129,817,405 $261,456,200 $106,682,740 $611,155,254
Total Cost of Purchases $182,902,887 $336,796,603 $499,213,192 $278,142,716 $1,297,055,399
% of Total 14%26%38%21%100%
1. This table is the average land value per acre multiplied by the Conservation Scenario. See Table E-1 and E-2.
Sources: RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Total
Land Comparables by Acres
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
As shown in Table 15, the aggregate land value of the approximately 96,000 acres remaining to
be protected as part of the MSHCP as of 2017 is estimated at about $1.3 billion in 2017 dollars.
This represents an average land value of about $13,500 per acre. To convert this land value into
2019 dollars terms (similar to the rest of the analysis), EPS indexed the value to about $14,300
per acre in 2019-dollar terms.25
Other Costs—Administration, Management, and
Monitoring
Program administration, reserve management, and reserve monitoring are required functions
that require annual funding. The forecasts for each of these cost categories are described below.
Administration and Professional Service Costs
The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority is responsible for implementing
the MSHCP. Since 2004, RCA staff members have directed the acquisition, management, and
monitoring of the local portion of the Additional Reserve Land (ARL) required by the MSHCP,
monitored State and federal Public/Quasi-Public lands and the State and federal portions of the
ARL, and undertook all of the administrative tasks associated with maintaining the permit.
Costs categorized in this fee study under MSHCP administration include all RCA staff costs and
other costs like building rents and average expenditures on non-acquisition related professional
services that are not anticipated to vary as the size of the ARL increases. The forecast for the
acquisition period assumes that these costs will remain at approximately $4.2 million in constant
2019 dollars, increasing with inflation but not increasing as the size of the ARL grows (see Table
16). This includes salaries and benefits of about $2.3 million annually and about $1.5 million in
professional services, supplies, and other costs.
25 Two years of inflation (2017 – 2019) based on by BLS CPI adjustment for Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario Metro Area.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 16 Administrative and Professional Services Costs
Management and Monitoring
Reserve Management
The MSHCP describes reserve management activities focused on maintaining and improving
habitat conditions and ecosystem functions including habitat and landscape-based activities and
species-specific activities. For the purposes of this analysis, the average per acre cost estimate
for Reserve Management as reported in the RCA actual spending for FY 2018-19 has been used
to inform cost projections through the full acquisition period. Because RCA staff and relevant
contractors have indicated that the current spending on staff capacity is not adequate to
accomplish necessary management with existing land holdings, additional staffing and associated
expenditures have been added to the current reserve management expenditures. Specifically,
three new full time equivalent (FTE) positions are added to the current 2019 spending for
reserve management. Overall, the 2019 per acre reserve management cost of $25.39 per acre
was adjusted to $32.70 per acre (2019 dollars) to account for three new mid-level park ranger
FTEs. While as of the end of 2019 about 40,200 acres were under management, ultimately,
reserve management activities will cover the entire 97,000 acres to be acquired by the RCA.
Biological Monitoring
The purpose of biological monitoring is to provide Reserve Managers with information and data
upon which reserve management decisions will be made. According to the MSHCP, the
monitoring program must provide “sufficient, scientifically reliable data for Reserve Managers to
assess the MSHCP’s effectiveness at meeting resource objectives and achieving or maintaining a
Expenditures
RCA FY16/17- 18/19
3-Year Average of
Actuals
CPI Adjusted to
2019$1
Total Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,219,261 $2,288,495
Professional Services and Supplies
Environmental
Legal $394,320 $406,621
Auditing, Accounting & Financial Services $101,717 $104,891
GIS Services $10,000 $10,312
Personnel Services $13,920 $14,354
Real Estate Services $653,774 $674,169
Other Services $247,979 $255,715
Subtotal $1,421,710 $1,466,062
Other Charges $388,145 $400,254
Total $4,029,116 $4,154,811
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Bureau of Labor Statistics;
(1) Three year average CPI-adjusted by one year, the average of the annual CPI adjustments for the
three years.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 37 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
healthy MSHCP Conservation Area in perpetuity.” Unlike the RCA’s reserve management
activities which are limited to local ARL acres, the RCA will ultimately be responsible for
monitoring all 500,000 acres of the reserve lands mandated under the MSHCP. The acreage
currently being monitored totals roughly 408,000 acres. For the purposes of this analysis, the
$1.1 million annual cost estimate based on FY 2018-19 actual spending was used to inform cost
projections through the full acquisition period. Because current staff capacity is not adequate to
accomplish necessary biological monitoring with existing land holdings, to address the additional
land acquisitions, two new full time equivalent (FTE) positions are added to the current 2019
spending for reserve monitoring. The 2019 per acre reserve monitoring cost of $2.67 was
adjusted to $3.01 (2019 dollars) to account for two new entry-level biologist FTEs. (see Table
17). This constant dollar per acre cost was assumed to apply throughout the period of
implementation.
Reserve Management and Biological Monitoring Costs
Table 17 summarizes estimated per acre costs for reserve management and monitoring in 2019
dollars. Applying these per acre costs (in 2019 dollars) to current acreage under management
and monitoring projects results in annual costs of $1.32 million and $1.23 million, respectively.
The annual reserve management and biological monitoring costs increase as new acquisitions
occur.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 38 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 17 Management and Monitoring Anticipated Costs in
2004 and 2019 Dollars
Endowment Funding
The overall permit period was set at 75 years, ending in 2079. To cover ongoing management
and monitoring costs beyond the duration when mitigation fees will be collected, the
establishment of a non-depleting endowment is required. In other words, the endowment must
be sufficient such that expected average interest revenues (after inflation and transaction costs)
can cover the ongoing costs associated with administration, management and monitoring in
perpetuity. This section summarizes the estimated cost of establishing this endowment under
the different scenarios. A key assumption is that the endowment must be fully established by
Reserve Management1
Acres under Management 40,212
Existing Reserve Management Expenses $1,021,000
Additional Staff Capacity Required3 $294,000
Total Reserve Management Expenses $1,315,000
$/Acre $32.70
$/Acre without additional staff capacity $25.39
Biological Monitoring2
Acres being Monitored 408,820
Existing Biological Monitoring Expenses $1,092,000
Additional Staff Capacity Required3 $140,000
Total Biological Monitoring Expenses $1,232,000
$/Acre $3.01
$/Acre without additional staff capacity $2.67
Item Actual FY 2019
Spending
3. Current staff capacity is not sufficient to accomplish necessary management
and monitoring. An Expanded staff capacity scenario envisions adding 3 FTE mid-
level park rangers to Reserve Management and 2 FTE entry-level biologists to
Reserve Monitoring, with salaries and benfits of $98,000 and $70,000
ti l
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1. Reserve Management costs include Parks & Open Space contract fees,
maintenance of motor vehicles, and HOA dues.
2. Biological Monitoring costs include SAWA contract fees, office and computer
supplies, training, private mileage reimbursement, building rent, and rental
vehicles/fuel.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 39 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
the end of the land acquisition period as it is assumed that no more mitigation fees will be
collected at that time.26
For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that habitat management and habitat
monitoring costs continue in full, while administration costs are reduced by half following the end
of the land acquisition period. All of these costs then continue in perpetuity. As a result and as
shown in Table 18, the endowment is sized to cover the expected annual management and
monitoring costs and 50 percent of the administration costs, totaling $6.8 million (2019 dollars)
once all lands have been acquired.
Table 18 Annual Implementation Cost Estimate (2019$)
Consistent with many regional habitat conservations plans, the average annual net, real
(allowing for inflation and institutional fees) interest rate is assumed to be three (3) percent.27
Under all extension scenarios, the total required endowment funding is $225.2 million. Because
the longer extension periods provide more time for the accrual of interest revenues, the net
endowment cost (that must be funded by mitigation fees) is different for each scenario. Table
19 shows the consistent total endowment funding required by scenario as well as the different
levels of aggregate endowment interest and associated net endowment funding requirement. For
a detailed time-series accounting of endowment funding by extension scenario, see
Appendix II.
26 It is important to note that the RCA has collected a distinct set of endowment funds for situations
where specific conservation activities are required over-and-above the core activities covered by this
endowment calculation.
27 This assumes that the implementing entity can use investment vehicles that may be not be typical
for Riverside County.
Annual Cost
Cost Categories
by Last Year of
Land Acquisition
Period
Adjustment
Ongoing Habitat Management $3,172,063 100%$3,172,063
Ongoing Habitat Monitoring $1,506,776 100%$1,506,776
Administration1 $4,154,811 50%$2,077,406
Total $8,833,650 $6,756,244
1. Adminsitration includes salaries and benefits, accounting, auditing and reporting, contracts, etc.. Assumes less
administration is needed following the land acquisition period; ongoing adminsitrative needs include oversight, auditing
and reporting, and board staffing.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Annual Post-Land
Acquisition Cost
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 40 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 19 Endowment Funding (2019$), by Extension Scenario
Total Implementation Costs
Implementation costs include land costs, administrative and professional services expenses,
management and monitoring costs, and the required net endowment funding. The remaining
MSHCP implementation costs, as described in detail in the preceding sections, are all estimated
in 2019 constant dollar terms. Under the Baseline/ No Extension scenario, as shown in Figure
9, the $702 million in estimated land acquisition costs make up 72 percent of the total
implementation cost of $974 million. Administrative costs total about 4 percent of total costs,
management and monitoring sum to 3 percent of total implementation costs, and the
endowment constitutes 21 percent of total costs.
Figure 9 Comparison of Costs by Category
Total implementation costs vary by extension scenario. Land acquisition costs are the same for
all scenarios. Administrative, management and monitoring costs increase the longer the
acquisition period is extended, but the endowment funding required decreases the longer the
No Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Total Endowment Funding Required $225,208,133 $225,208,133 $225,208,133 $225,208,133
(Less) Endowment Interest ($25,695,187)($40,679,628)($54,846,349)($68,206,990)
Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $184,528,506 $170,361,785 $157,001,144
Item
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Land Acqusition
72%
M&M
3%
RCA Staff
2%
Prof Svcs+Misc
2%
Endowment
21%
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 41 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
acquisition period is extended. As shown in Table 20, total implementation costs range from
$890 million to $967 million depending on the extension period. Although total costs over time
increase with longer extension periods the per-year implementation costs decrease with longer
extension periods, as shown in Table 21. For a detailed time-series of all implementation costs
excepting the endowment, see Appendix I.
Table 20 Total Implementation Costs (2019$*), by Extension Scenario
* All costs are provided in constant 2019 dollar terms. Costs will change over time due to inflation and other
factors. These changes will be addressed through the fee indexing/ updating process that will include automatic
inflation-indexed fee changes annually based on the regional Consumer Price Index and periodic comprehensive
updates to the Nexus Study.
Total for Total for Total for Total for
2020 - 2028 2020 - 2033 2020 - 2038 2020 - 2043
No Extension 5-Yr Extension 10-Yr Extension 15-Yr Extension
Land 1 $701,931,902 $701,931,902 $701,931,902 $701,931,902
Management & Monitoring $33,582,193 $51,646,790 $69,711,387 $87,775,983
RCA Staff 2 $20,596,453 $32,038,927 $43,481,401 $54,923,875
Professional Services and Supplies 2 $13,194,561 $20,524,873 $27,855,185 $35,185,497
Loan Repayment 3 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Other Costs 2 4 $3,602,285 $5,603,554 $7,604,824 $9,606,093
Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $184,528,506 $170,361,785 $157,001,144
Total Costs $974,420,341 $998,274,552 $1,022,946,483 $1,048,424,494
Sources: Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Local Permittee MSHCP
Implementation Costs
1. Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms.
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
3. RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $5 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million starting in FY 2018.
4. Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
NOTE: In some cases numbers may not perfectly sum due to rounding.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 42 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 21 Average Annual Implementation Costs (2019$), by Extension Scenario
2020 - 2028 2020 - 2033 2020 - 2038 2020 - 2043
No Extension 5-Yr Extension 10-Yr Extension 15-Yr Extension
Land 1 $77,992,434 $50,137,993 $36,943,784 $29,247,163
Management & Monitoring $3,731,355 $3,689,056 $3,669,020 $3,657,333
RCA Staff 2 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services and Supplies 2 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3 $222,222 $142,857 $105,263 $83,333
Other Costs 2 4 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Net Endowment Funding Required $22,168,105 $13,180,608 $8,966,410 $6,541,714
Total Costs $108,268,927 $71,305,325 $53,839,289 $43,684,354
3. RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $5 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million starting in FY 2018.
4. Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
Average AnnualLocal Permittee MSHCP
Implementation Costs
Sources: Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1. Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms.
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
NOTE: In some cases numbers may not perfectly sum due to rounding.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 43 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
6. RCA NON-FEE REVENUES
MSHCP Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues
The MSHCP forecast an array of revenue sources, in addition to fee revenue, supporting the
conservation program. These sources were anticipated to total about 44 percent of the revenue
for the program, including:
• Transportation funding – includes the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through
2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fees (TUMF) charged on new development. Note that the MSHCP envisioned up to $121
million of Measure A money to the HCP.
• Other infrastructure projects – funding from this source was not quantified in the MSHCP
but reflected the expectation that local public construction projects such as schools,
administrative facilities, libraries, jails, and other projects like flood control and utility
projects would mitigate the construction through the payment of a per-acre fee.28 Since
MSHCP adoption, the standard contribution has been three to five percent of total project
costs.
• Landfill contributions – Landfill tipping fees have been used in the County since the 1990
for conservation programs. Under county permitting of landfills, the County has committed
to divert portions of tipping fees to MSHCP implementation.
Table 22 and Figure 10 summarizes the revenue forecasts under the MSHCP. Including the fee
revenues, these sources totaled $1.07 billion or an estimated average almost $43 million per
year for 25-years (in 2004 dollars). Excluding fee revenues, a total of $18.84 million in annual
revenues were forecast, including Measure A funding, $10 million each year from other
transportation projects, and $4.0 million from land fill contributions.
As described further below, at this point, the average annual funding from non-fee revenues
sources are well below the MSCHP forecast. Measure A, a voter-approved ½ cent sales tax
measure did provide substantial funding as envisioned (though is now fully used/ allocated) and,
collectively, the other non-fee funding sources are well beyond what was originally envisioned.
28 See Chapter 8.5.1 Funding Sources in the MSHCP.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 44 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 22 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources
Figure 10 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources
New Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues
Non-fee revenues to the RCA are projected to be $6.85 million annually in 2019 dollars. This
estimate was derived from a line by line review of the major revenue items for a 3-year period
from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19, projections by collection entities (e.g., TUMF revenue), and
recent dynamics likely to affect the revenue source (e.g., greater diversion of trash to recycling
MSHCP Anticipated Funding Source
Estimate
(millions)
% of
Total
Avg/Yr (millions over 25
years)
Fee Funded Sources:
Cities and County Development Mitigation Fees $539.6 50%$21,584,000
Density Bonus Fees $66.0 6%$2,640,000
Non-Fee Funded Sources $605.6 $24,224,000.0
Public Funding Sources
Local Roads (Measure A)$121.0 11%$4,840,000
Other Transportation $250.0 23%$10,000,000
Other infrastructure Projects unknown 0%$0
El Sobrante Landfill $90.0 8%$3,600,000
County Landfills $10.0 1%$400,000
Eagle Mountain Landfill unknown 0%$0
New Regional funding unknown 0%$0
Non-Fee Funded Sources $471.0 $18,840,000
Total, Local Funds $1,076.6 100%$43,064,000
Fee funded
56%
Local Roads
11%
Other
Transportation
23%
El Sobrante/Other
County Landfills
10%
Non-Fee Funded
44%
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 45 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
will likely reduce tipping fees). The estimates have been inflated from a three-year average to
2019 dollars, as detailed in Table 23.
Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection (2019$s)
Non-Fee Revenue Item
RCA FY16/17- 18/19
3-Year Average of
Actuals
CPI Adjusted to
2019$
Transportation Mitigation1
TUMF Revenue-Developer Fees $950,000 $979,637
Subtotal $950,000 $979,637
Tipping Fee $3,865,728 $3,986,326
Public Project Mitigation
PSE Mitigation Fee2 NA $500,000
Other Gov MSHCP Infrastructure $284,570 $293,448
Other Gov MSHCP Civic Projects $93,629 $96,550
Flood Control District $293,084 $302,227
Subtotal $671,283 $1,192,225
Other Revenue
Interest and Other Sources $467,073 $481,644
Rents $80,531 $83,043
Joint Project Review Fees $124,762 $128,654
Subtotal $672,365 $693,341
Total Revenue NA $6,851,529
1. All Measure A funding was provided prior to 2020 and the associated obligations have
been met.
2. Participating Special Entities fees. This does not include Developer Mitigation Fees.
These fees vary widely year over year, $500,000 is used as an annual average per the
recommendation of RCA staff.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 46 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
7. MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee is based on a generally similar methodology to the
Original Nexus Study that ensures the fee level is proportional to the development impact. This
methodology looks at the remaining conservation requirements associated with Local Permittee
obligations under the MSHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing
Agreement, determines the remaining Local Permittee implementation cost, subtracts out
reasonable estimates of non-fee revenues and other contributions, to determine the overall fee-
funding obligation. This obligation is then divided among the new development forecast to
determine the required mitigation fee. In others words, the original 2003 and updated 2020
Local Development Mitigation Fee estimates are the outcome of the following formula (the 2003
and 2020 Nexus Studies differ in their process of allocating funding required between land uses):
1. Implementation Costs
minus
2. Non-Fee Funding
equals
3. Outstanding Funding Required
divided by
4. Development Forecast
equals
5. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule
Table 24 summarizes the estimated Net Implementation Costs, Expected Acres of Development,
and the associated per gross acre mitigation fee. As shown, the average mitigation fee per gross
acre decreases with each extension as similar levels of net implementation costs are spread
across more development. Tables 25 through 28 provide the detailed calculations that
determine the total net MSHCP implementation costs shown in Table 24. As noted in
Chapter 1, for residential development, the per-gross-acre fee is translated into a per-unit fee
schedule for administrative continuity.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 47 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 24 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees
Fee Per Acre No Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Net Cost $912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805
Acres of Development
Residential 14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403
Nonresidential 6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637
Total 20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040
Mitigation Fee per Acre $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 48 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 25 Recommended Fee Level—No Extension
Total for
2020 - 2029
Item (Years 17 - 25)9 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 6,310 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 1,111 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 5,199 acres na
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)$701,931,902 $77,992,434 72.0%
Management & Monitoring $33,582,193 $3,731,355 3.4%
RCA Staff (2)$20,596,453 $2,288,495 2.1%
Professional Services and Supplies (2)$13,194,561 $1,466,062 1.4%
Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $222,222 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4)$3,602,285 $400,254 0.4%
Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $22,168,105 20.5%
Total Costs $974,420,341 $108,268,927 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)$10,730,025 $1,192,225 1.4%
Transportation Mitigation (7)$8,816,731 $979,637 1.1%
Tipping Fees $35,876,934 $3,986,326 4.6%
Other Revenues (8)$6,240,068 $693,341 0.8%
Total Selected Revenues $61,663,758 $6,851,529 8.0%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $912,756,583 $101,417,398 93.7%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development)
Growth Projection:
Development 2020 - 2028 Annual
Residential Units 79,000 8,778
Residential Acres 14,026 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 6,239 693
Total Acres 20,265 2,252
Mitigation Fee $45,041 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost.
(4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
(5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
% of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
Average
Annual
(6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues.
(3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years.
(2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 49 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 26 Recommended Fee Level—5-Year Extension
Total for
2020 - 2034
Item (Years 17 - 30)14 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 4,056 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 714 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 3,342 acres na
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)$701,931,902 $50,137,993 70.3%
Management & Monitoring $51,646,790 $3,689,056 5.2%
RCA Staff (2)$32,038,927 $2,288,495 3.2%
Professional Services and Supplies (2)$20,524,873 $1,466,062 2.1%
Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $142,857 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4)$5,603,554 $400,254 0.6%
Net Endowment Funding Required $184,528,506 $13,180,608 18.5%
Total Costs $998,274,552 $71,305,325 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)$16,691,150 $1,192,225 2.1%
Transportation Mitigation (7)$13,714,915 $979,637 1.7%
Tipping Fees $55,808,564 $3,986,326 6.9%
Other Revenues (8)$9,706,772 $693,341 1.2%
Total Selected Revenues $95,921,402 $6,851,529 11.8%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $902,353,150 $64,453,796 90.4%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development)
Growth Projection:
Development 2020 - 2033 Annual
Residential Units (4.2 DU/Acres)122,456 8,747
Residential Acres 21,818 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 9,705 693
Total Acres 31,523 2,252
Mitigation Fee $28,625 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost.
(4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
(5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
% of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
Average
Annual
(6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues.
(3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years.
(2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 50 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 27 Recommended Fee Level—10-Year Extension
Total for
2020 - 2039
Item (Years 17 - 35)19 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 2,989 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 526 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 2,463 acres na
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)$701,931,902 $36,943,784 68.6%
Management & Monitoring $69,711,387 $3,669,020 6.8%
RCA Staff (2)$43,481,401 $2,288,495 4.3%
Professional Services and Supplies (2)$27,855,185 $1,466,062 2.7%
Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $105,263 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4)$7,604,824 $400,254 0.7%
Net Endowment Funding Required $170,361,785 $8,966,410 16.7%
Total Costs $1,022,946,483 $53,839,289 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)$22,652,275 $1,192,225 2.7%
Transportation Mitigation (7)$18,613,099 $979,637 2.2%
Tipping Fees $75,740,195 $3,986,326 8.9%
Other Revenues (8)$13,173,476 $693,341 1.5%
Total Selected Revenues $130,179,045 $6,851,529 15.3%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $892,767,438 $46,987,760 87.3%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development)
Growth Projection:
Development 2020 - 2038 Annual
Residential Units (4.2 DU/Acres)166,000 8,737
Residential Acres 29,611 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 13,171 693
Total Acres 42,782 2,252
Mitigation Fee $20,868 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost.
(4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
(5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues.
Average
Annual
(2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
% of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
(3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 51 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 28 Recommended Fee Level—15-Year Extension
Total for
2020 - 2044
Item (Years 17 - 40)24 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 2,366 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 417 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 1,950 acres na
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)$701,931,902 $29,247,163 67.0%
Management & Monitoring $87,775,983 $3,657,333 8.4%
RCA Staff (2)$54,923,875 $2,288,495 5.2%
Professional Services and Supplies (2)$35,185,497 $1,466,062 3.4%
Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $83,333 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4)$9,606,093 $400,254 0.9%
Net Endowment Funding Required $157,001,144 $6,541,714 15.0%
Total Costs $1,048,424,494 $43,684,354 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)$28,613,400 $1,192,225 3.2%
Transportation Mitigation (7)$23,511,283 $979,637 2.6%
Tipping Fees $95,671,825 $3,986,326 10.7%
Other Revenues (8)$16,640,181 $693,341 1.9%
Total Selected Revenues $164,436,689 $6,851,529 18.4%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $883,987,805 $36,832,825 84.3%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development)
Growth Projection:
Development 2020 - 2043 Annual
Residential Units 210,000 8,750
Residential Acres 37,403 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 16,637 693
Total Acres 54,040 2,252
Mitigation Fee $16,358 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost.
(4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
(5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues.
(3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years.
(2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
Average
Annual
% of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 52 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
8. MITIGATION FEE ACT (NEXUS) FINDINGS
Mitigation fees are utilized in California to finance public facilities necessary to mitigate impacts
stemming from new development. In 1987, the California Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee
Act to provide a framework for the application and administration of such fees. Current
prevailing practice among the majority of approved and permitted regional multiple-species
Habitat Conservation Plans is that any habitat mitigation fees are to be adopted by the relevant
jurisdictions (cities and Counties) consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act.29 As discussed further
in Chapter 9, the adoption of fees under the Mitigation Fee Act includes a number of auditing
and reporting requirements.
The Mitigation Fee Act, defined in California Government Code Sections 66000 to 66025, requires
all public agencies to document five findings when establishing or increasing a fee as a condition
for new development. These findings were made when the Western Riverside County MSHCP
Local Development Mitigation Fees were first justified and established.30
This Chapter of the Western Riverside Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study was prepared
to describe how the proposed increase in the Local Development Mitigation Fee satisfies the five
statutory findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act and is based on the appropriate nexus
between new development and the imposition of a mitigation fee. The five statutory findings
required for the establishment of a mitigation fee are summarized in the sections below and
supported by the technical analysis in the prior chapters of this Study.
Purpose of Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee. (66001(a)(1))
The purpose of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is to contribute to the funding required to
implement the MSCHP and, as a result, help maintain the incidental take permits for new private
and public development in Western Riverside County under the federal and State Endangered
Species Acts. Maintaining the incidental take permit is necessary to allow for future development,
and without the development community paying for the cost of the MSHCP, individual applicants
will need to apply independently for development approval under federal and State law if the
project impacts a threaten or endangered species. The federal Endangered Species Act
specifically requires that the applicant for incidental take permit “ensure that adequate funding
for the plan will be provided.”31 In addition, the Local Development Mitigation Fee helps provide
the regional benefit of streamlined economic development in Western Riverside County as well as
29 In addition to the current Western Riverside County habitat mitigation fee, see also the Coachella
Valley habitat mitigation fee, the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open
Space Fee, and the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP mitigation fee.
30 See the Final Mitigation Nexus Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, published July 1, 2003.
31 See Section 1539(a)(2)Biii of the federal Endangered Species Act.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 53 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
the provision of contiguous open spaces that will serve as a community amenity to residents,
workers, and visitors.
Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities
shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital
improvement plan as specific in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or
specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public
facilities for which the fee is charged. (66001(a)(2)).
The MSHCP is the public document that outlines the actions required as a whole and the
particular set of actions required by the Local Permittees (and the Regional Conservation Agency
as their agent) to obtain incidental take permits—associated with State and federal Endangered
Species Act requirements—for new public and private development in Western Riverside County.
Failure to meet the requirements of the MSHCP will result in an inability to obtain or maintain
incidental take permits through the MSHCP, which would require future development to secure
individual take authorization if the project impacts a threaten or endangered species.
Revenues from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be used, in conjunction with other local
and regional funding sources, to fund the conservation actions identified as the responsibility of
Local Permittees in the MSHCP. The revenue from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be
used to help fund the appropriate habitat acquisition (land acquisition and associated transaction
costs), maintenance and monitoring of habitat land (preserve management, monitoring, and
adaptive management), and program management, administration, and oversight activities and
costs.32 Chapter 3 of this report describes the Local Permittee conservation requirements,
progress to date, and the remaining actions required under the MSHCP.
Relationship
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed. (66001(a)(3)).
The implementation of the MSHCP, and the mitigation fee as a fundamental part of it, will benefit
all new development by mitigating their collective impacts on covered species and associated
habitat. All new public and private development in the Plan area will affect habitat and species
either directly, indirectly, or as a cumulative effect. New infrastructure development, for
example, in addition to its direct effects, will support new development on other parcels and
other locations in the Plan Area. Similarly, new private development will require new
infrastructure and also result in additional demand for new developments through linkages—for
32 Consistent with the interpretation applied to the majority of permitted and approved regional,
multiple-species Habitat Conservation Plans in California and guidance from RCA Counsel, the Local
Development Mitigation Fee is assumed to fund its proportionate share (as determined by the
technical analysis and constrained by the statutory requirements) of applicable MSHCP implementation
costs including, but also limited to, habitat acquisition costs (and associated transaction costs), the
costs of managing and monitoring the habitat preserves in perpetuity, and the administrative and
other costs of managing the overall program.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 54 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
example, the need for new housing to accommodate new workers at commercial developments
or the need for new retail developments to serve new residents at residential developments.
In other words, all new development in Western Riverside County will benefit from the incidental
take permits obtained through the MSHCP and via the use of the mitigation fee revenues.
In addition, the incidental take permits are necessary to permit any future development within
the Plan Area, and in order to obtain or maintain such incidental take permits, the MSHCP must
be fully funded. Because funding the MSHCP is required in order to allow for future development
under the MSHCP, there is a direct relationship between the proposed use of the mitigation fee
and development within the Plan Area.
Need
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the
type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (66001(a)(4)).
Without new development, no MSHCP would be necessary and no further habitat conservation
would be required under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. To allow for any future
development under the Plan, the MSHCP must be fully funded. New development in the Plan
Area, as noted above, will directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect species and habitat in
Western Riverside County. Because of this, development of the MSHCP was undertaken to
provide a regional, streamlined approach to benefit future development of all types in Western
Riverside County, including the development and improvements envisioned under the numerous
General Plans and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The requirements of the
MSHCP (habitat acquisition, management and monitoring, program administration) are a direct
result of the regional approach to mitigation that is engendered by all new development in the
Plan Area under the pertinent environmental regulations. Meeting the requirements of the
MSHCP is necessary to obtain the necessary federal authorization to develop within the Plan
Area.
Proportionality
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee
is imposed. (66001(b)).
The MSHCP includes detailed conservation requirements based on the scientific evaluations that
form the basis of the MSHCP. Based on these evaluations, conservation responsibilities were
allocated between the Local Permittees and other agencies, such as the State and federal
governments. The Local Development Mitigation Fee appropriately provides funding towards the
fulfillment of the Local Permittee conservation requirements. Furthermore, the Local Permittee
obligations are not fully funded through the Local Development Mitigation Fee revenues. Other
local and regional funding sources, such as the Measure A sales tax and tipping fees, provide
additional mitigation and/or offsetting revenues that reduce the overall cost allocation to the
Local Development Mitigation Fee Program. In addition, consistent with the relationship between
new development in Western Riverside County and the need for the public facilities (conservation
program) described above, proportional attribution between new development is ensured
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 55 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
through the determination of a consistent per gross acre Local Development Mitigation Fee.33 As
a result, the Local Development Mitigation Fee level calculations are carefully determined to fund
only the proportionate (or less than) conservation costs attributable to the new development on
which the fee is imposed and to allocate the fee levels proportionally across all new
development. It is this process of careful calculation based on the requirements of the MSHCP
that is the subject of a substantial portion of this Nexus Study (see Chapters 2 through 7).
33 Determining habitat mitigation fees on a gross acre basis is the clearest way of ensuring
proportionate cost allocations among new developments and is a common practice among adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans. For purposes of implementation/administrative consistency, for
residential uses, the per-gross-acre fee is translated into per unit fees for different density categories.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 56 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
9. FEE IMPLEMENTATION
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee must be implemented consistent with the MSHCP
(and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement) as well as the California
Mitigation Fee Act. A detailed set of guidance is included in the Fee Implementation Handbook to
support clarity and specificity in the implementation of the updated fee program by Local
Permittees. The sections below summarize some of the key implementation and administration
actions to be consistent with the requirements.
Adoption of Revised LDMF
• Consistent with the MSHCP and associated documents, each Local Permittee (i.e., all
participating jurisdictions) must adopt an updated LDMF ordinance and a fee resolution
establishing the revised fee level as prescribed by the Mitigation Fee Act.
• Consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, the revised ordinance and associated fee resolution
will become effective after a public hearing and 60 days.
• RCA Legal Counsel will prepare a Fee Update Ordinance and Resolution to facilitate the
consistent adoption of the updated LDMF by Local Permittees.
Securing Supplemental Funding
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee is set at the level that would cover the Local
Permittee cost obligations once expected non-fee revenues are subtracted out. To the extent
any discounts/exemptions are provided to new Western Riverside County development below the
updated fee level, additional funding will be required to backfill the fee revenue losses. To the
extent, these revenues do not make up for any fee discounts provided, other sources of funding
will need to be sought by the RCA and the Local Permittees to fulfill their Plan obligations. At the
same time, if new substantial funding sources become available to the RCA for Local Permittee
obligations, the funding required through fees may decrease, in turn reducing the required fee
levels through a new update.
Annual Review
The Mitigation Fee Act (at Gov. C. §§ 66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency
that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within
180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. In this case, the RCA can play this role on behalf of
the Local Permittees. This information includes the following:
• A description of the type of fee in the account.
• The amount of the fee (the mitigation fee schedule).
• The beginning and ending balance of the fund.
• The amount of fees collected and interest earned.
• Identification of the improvements constructed.
• The total cost of the improvements constructed.
• The fees expended to construct the improvement.
• The percentage of total costs funded by the fee.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 57 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
If sufficient fees have been collected to fund specific improvement cost, the agency must specify
the approximate date for the cost of that improvement. Because of the dynamic nature of
growth and MSHCP implementation costs and consistent with current practice, the RCA should
continue to monitor progress towards MSHCP goals. The overall adequacy of the fee revenues
and other available funding in meeting these goals should be reviewed annually.
Surplus Funds
The Mitigation Fee Act also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or
uncommitted in an account for 5 years or more after deposit of the fee, the RCA, acting for the
Local Permittees, shall make findings once each year (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee
is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for
which it was charged, (3) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete
financing of incomplete improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the
funding identified in (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund (§66001(d)).
If adequate funding has been collected for specific investments, an approximate date must be
specified as to when the cost of the investment will be incurred. If the findings show no need for
the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative costs
of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds must
refund them (Gov. C §66001(e)(f)).
Annual and Periodic Updates
Consistent with the current practice, the Fee Ordinance should allow an automatic annual
adjustment to the fees based on the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Consumer Price Index
(CPI) or a similar inflation factor. In addition, a more comprehensive update should be
conducted required periodically. The Nexus Study and the technical information it contains
should be reviewed periodically by the RCA (every five years is recommended) to identify any
necessary refinements to the Local Development Mitigation Fees to ensure adequate funding to
implement the MSHCP. Under certain circumstances, the RCA may wish to conduct a Nexus
Study update sooner than after five years. For example, to the extent there are significant and
unexpected changes in implementation costs, in the level of non-fee funding, and/ or the level of
fee-paying private development over time, a more immediate fee update may be appropriate.
APPENDIX I:
Detailed Time Series of Implementation Costs
All Implementation Costs Over Time – No Extension
Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0
Total Local 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 6,310
State/Fed 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821
Total 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 10,131
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 45,272 50,332 55,391 60,451 65,511 70,571 75,630 80,690 87,000
State/Fed 25,429 29,251 33,072 36,893 40,715 44,536 48,357 52,179 56,000
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000
Total 71,951 82,082 92,213 102,344 112,476 122,607 132,738 142,869 153,000
Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000
ARL RCA State 25,429 29,251 33,072 36,893 40,715 44,536 48,357 52,179 56,000
Total 307,429 311,251 315,072 318,893 322,715 326,536 330,357 334,179 338,000
Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
ARL RCA RCA 46,522 52,832 59,141 65,451 71,761 78,071 84,380 90,690 97,000
Total 111,522 117,832 124,141 130,451 136,761 143,071 149,380 155,690 162,000
Total Acres under RCA Management 46,522 52,832 59,141 65,451 71,761 78,071 84,380 90,690 97,000
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 418,951 429,082 439,213 449,344 459,476 469,607 479,738 489,869 500,000
COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $90,154,055
Land Transaction Costs 5%of acquisition costs $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $4,507,703
Total, Land Acquisition Costs $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $94,661,758
Local, ARL, Cumulative $75,908,768 $151,817,536 $227,726,304 $303,635,072 $379,543,840 $455,452,608 $531,361,376 $607,270,144 $701,931,902
Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,521,340 $1,727,681 $1,934,021 $2,140,361 $2,346,702 $2,553,042 $2,759,382 $2,965,723 $3,172,063
Management Cumulative $1,521,340 $3,249,021 $5,183,042 $7,323,403 $9,670,105 $12,223,147 $14,982,530 $17,948,252 $21,120,315
Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,262,531 $1,293,061 $1,323,592 $1,354,122 $1,384,653 $1,415,184 $1,445,714 $1,476,245 $1,506,776
Monitoring Cumulative $1,262,531 $2,555,592 $3,879,184 $5,233,306 $6,617,959 $8,033,143 $9,478,857 $10,955,102 $12,461,878
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105
Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $22,168,105 $44,336,210 $66,504,316 $88,672,421 $110,840,526 $133,008,631 $155,176,736 $177,344,842 $199,512,947
Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Total Annual $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811
Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $106,015,555 $106,252,426 $105,489,297 $105,726,168 $105,963,039 $106,199,910 $106,436,781 $106,673,652 $125,663,513
TOTAL Cumulative $106,015,555 $212,267,981 $317,757,279 $423,483,447 $529,446,486 $635,646,396 $742,083,177 $848,756,829 $974,420,341
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
End of:
Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility
Habitat Lands/
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
All Implementation Costs Over Time – 5 Year Extension
Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Local 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056
State/Fed 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457
Total 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 43,018 45,825 48,631 51,437 54,243 57,050 59,856 62,662 66,719 70,775 74,831 78,887 82,944 87,000
State/Fed 24,065 26,521 28,978 31,434 33,891 36,347 38,804 41,261 43,717 46,174 48,630 51,087 53,543 56,000
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total 68,333 74,846 81,359 87,871 94,384 100,897 107,410 113,923 120,436 126,949 133,461 139,974 146,487 153,000
Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000
ARL RCA State 24,065 26,521 28,978 31,434 33,891 36,347 38,804 41,261 43,717 46,174 48,630 51,087 53,543 56,000
Total 306,065 308,521 310,978 313,434 315,891 318,347 320,804 323,261 325,717 328,174 330,630 333,087 335,543 338,000
Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
ARL RCA RCA 44,268 48,325 52,381 56,437 60,493 64,550 68,606 72,662 76,719 80,775 84,831 88,887 92,944 97,000
Total 109,268 113,325 117,381 121,437 125,493 129,550 133,606 137,662 141,719 145,775 149,831 153,887 157,944 162,000
Total Acres under RCA Management 44,268 48,325 52,381 56,437 60,493 64,550 68,606 72,662 76,719 80,775 84,831 88,887 92,944 97,000
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 415,333 421,846 428,359 434,871 441,384 447,897 454,410 460,923 467,436 473,949 480,461 486,974 493,487 500,000
COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178
Land Transaction Costs 5%of acquisition costs $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809
Total, Land Acquisition Costs $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987
Local, ARL, Cumulative $42,100,997 $84,201,995 $126,302,992 $168,403,990 $210,504,987 $252,605,985 $294,706,982 $336,807,979 $397,661,967 $458,515,954 $519,369,941 $580,223,928 $641,077,915 $701,931,902
Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,447,647 $1,580,295 $1,712,942 $1,845,589 $1,978,237 $2,110,884 $2,243,532 $2,376,179 $2,508,826 $2,641,474 $2,774,121 $2,906,768 $3,039,416 $3,172,063
Management Cumulative $1,447,647 $3,027,942 $4,740,884 $6,586,474 $8,564,710 $10,675,595 $12,919,126 $15,295,305 $17,804,131 $20,445,605 $23,219,726 $26,126,494 $29,165,910 $32,337,973
Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,251,627 $1,271,254 $1,290,880 $1,310,507 $1,330,134 $1,349,761 $1,369,388 $1,389,015 $1,408,641 $1,428,268 $1,447,895 $1,467,522 $1,487,149 $1,506,776
Monitoring Cumulative $1,251,627 $2,522,880 $3,813,761 $5,124,268 $6,454,402 $7,804,163 $9,173,551 $10,562,566 $11,971,207 $13,399,476 $14,847,371 $16,314,893 $17,802,041 $19,308,817
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608
Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $13,180,608 $26,361,215 $39,541,823 $52,722,430 $65,903,038 $79,083,645 $92,264,253 $105,444,860 $118,625,468 $131,806,076 $144,986,683 $158,167,291 $171,347,898 $184,528,506
Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811
Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $63,135,690 $63,287,964 $62,440,239 $62,592,513 $62,744,787 $62,897,061 $63,049,335 $63,201,610 $82,106,873 $82,259,148 $82,411,422 $82,563,696 $82,715,970 $82,868,244
TOTAL Cumulative $63,135,690 $126,423,655 $188,863,893 $251,456,406 $314,201,193 $377,098,254 $440,147,590 $503,349,199 $585,456,073 $667,715,220 $750,126,642 $832,690,338 $915,406,308 $998,274,552
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
End of:
Reserve Summary
Financial Responsibility
Habitat Lands/
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
All Implementation Costs Over Time – 10 Year Extension
Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989
(less) Anheuser Busch purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Local 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989
State/Fed 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810
Total 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 41,951 43,690 45,429 47,167 48,906 50,645 52,384 54,123 57,112 60,100 63,089 66,078 69,067 72,056 75,045 78,033 81,022 84,011 87,000
State/Fed 23,418 25,228 27,038 28,848 30,659 32,469 34,279 36,089 37,899 39,709 41,519 43,329 45,139 46,949 48,760 50,570 52,380 54,190 56,000
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total 66,619 71,418 76,217 81,016 85,815 90,614 95,413 100,212 105,011 109,809 114,608 119,407 124,206 129,005 133,804 138,603 143,402 148,201 153,000
Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000
ARL RCA State 23,418 25,228 27,038 28,848 30,659 32,469 34,279 36,089 37,899 39,709 41,519 43,329 45,139 46,949 48,760 50,570 52,380 54,190 56,000
Total 305,418 307,228 309,038 310,848 312,659 314,469 316,279 318,089 319,899 321,709 323,519 325,329 327,139 328,949 330,760 332,570 334,380 336,190 338,000
Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
ARL RCA RCA 43,201 46,190 49,179 52,167 55,156 58,145 61,134 64,123 67,112 70,100 73,089 76,078 79,067 82,056 85,045 88,033 91,022 94,011 97,000
Total 108,201 111,190 114,179 117,167 120,156 123,145 126,134 129,123 132,112 135,100 138,089 141,078 144,067 147,056 150,045 153,033 156,022 159,011 162,000
Total Acres under RCA Management 43,201 46,190 49,179 52,167 55,156 58,145 61,134 64,123 67,112 70,100 73,089 76,078 79,067 82,056 85,045 88,033 91,022 94,011 97,000
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 413,619 418,418 423,217 428,016 432,815 437,614 442,413 447,212 452,011 456,809 461,608 466,407 471,206 476,005 480,804 485,603 490,402 495,201 500,000
COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552
Land Transaction Costs 5%of acquisition
costs $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228
Total, Land Acquisition Costs $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780
Local, ARL, Cumulative $26,086,790 $52,173,581 $78,260,371 $104,347,161 $130,433,952 $156,520,742 $182,607,532 $208,694,323 $253,534,102 $298,373,882 $343,213,662 $388,053,442 $432,893,222 $477,733,002 $522,572,782 $567,412,562 $612,252,342 $657,092,122 $701,931,902
Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,412,740 $1,510,480 $1,608,220 $1,705,961 $1,803,701 $1,901,441 $1,999,181 $2,096,921 $2,194,661 $2,292,402 $2,390,142 $2,487,882 $2,585,622 $2,683,362 $2,781,102 $2,878,843 $2,976,583 $3,074,323 $3,172,063
Management Cumulative $1,412,740 $2,923,220 $4,531,441 $6,237,402 $8,041,102 $9,942,543 $11,941,725 $14,038,646 $16,233,307 $18,525,709 $20,915,851 $23,403,733 $25,989,355 $28,672,717 $31,453,819 $34,332,662 $37,309,245 $40,383,568 $43,555,631
Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,246,462 $1,260,924 $1,275,386 $1,289,847 $1,304,309 $1,318,771 $1,333,233 $1,347,695 $1,362,157 $1,376,619 $1,391,081 $1,405,542 $1,420,004 $1,434,466 $1,448,928 $1,463,390 $1,477,852 $1,492,314 $1,506,776
Monitoring Cumulative $1,246,462 $2,507,386 $3,782,771 $5,072,619 $6,376,928 $7,695,699 $9,028,932 $10,376,627 $11,738,784 $13,115,403 $14,506,484 $15,912,026 $17,332,030 $18,766,497 $20,215,425 $21,678,815 $23,156,667 $24,648,980 $26,155,756
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410
Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $8,966,410 $17,932,819 $26,899,229 $35,865,639 $44,832,049 $53,798,458 $62,764,868 $71,731,278 $80,697,687 $89,664,097 $98,630,507 $107,596,917 $116,563,326 $125,529,736 $134,496,146 $143,462,556 $152,428,965 $161,395,375 $170,361,785
Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811
Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 $64,322,166 $68,476,977 $72,631,788 $76,786,599 $80,941,410
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $42,867,213 $42,979,415 $42,091,617 $42,203,819 $42,316,021 $42,428,223 $42,540,425 $42,652,627 $61,517,819 $61,630,021 $61,742,223 $61,854,425 $61,966,627 $62,078,829 $62,191,031 $62,303,233 $62,415,435 $62,527,637 $62,639,839
TOTAL Cumulative $42,867,213 $85,846,628 $127,938,245 $170,142,065 $212,458,086 $254,886,309 $297,426,735 $340,079,362 $401,597,181 $463,227,202 $524,969,425 $586,823,850 $648,790,477 $710,869,307 $773,060,338 $835,363,571 $897,779,006 $960,306,644 $1,022,946,483
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
Habitat Lands/
End of:
Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
All Implementation Costs Over Time – 15 Year Extension
Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Local 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366
State/Fed 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433
Total 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 41,328 42,444 43,561 44,677 45,793 46,909 48,025 49,141 51,508 53,874 56,240 58,606 60,972 63,338 65,705 68,071 70,437 72,803 75,169 77,535 79,902 82,268 84,634 87,000
State/Fed 23,041 24,474 25,907 27,340 28,773 30,206 31,639 33,072 34,505 35,938 37,371 38,804 40,237 41,670 43,103 44,536 45,969 47,402 48,835 50,268 51,701 53,134 54,567 56,000
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total 65,619 69,418 73,218 77,017 80,816 84,615 88,414 92,213 96,013 99,812 103,611 107,410 111,209 115,008 118,808 122,607 126,406 130,205 134,004 137,803 141,603 145,402 149,201 153,000
Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000
ARL RCA State 23,041 24,474 25,907 27,340 28,773 30,206 31,639 33,072 34,505 35,938 37,371 38,804 40,237 41,670 43,103 44,536 45,969 47,402 48,835 50,268 51,701 53,134 54,567 56,000
Total 305,041 306,474 307,907 309,340 310,773 312,206 313,639 315,072 316,505 317,938 319,371 320,804 322,237 323,670 325,103 326,536 327,969 329,402 330,835 332,268 333,701 335,134 336,567 338,000
Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA
Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
ARL RCA RCA 42,578 44,944 47,311 49,677 52,043 54,409 56,775 59,141 61,508 63,874 66,240 68,606 70,972 73,338 75,705 78,071 80,437 82,803 85,169 87,535 89,902 92,268 94,634 97,000
Total 107,578 109,944 112,311 114,677 117,043 119,409 121,775 124,141 126,508 128,874 131,240 133,606 135,972 138,338 140,705 143,071 145,437 147,803 150,169 152,535 154,902 157,268 159,634 162,000
Total Acres under RCA Management 42,578 44,944 47,311 49,677 52,043 54,409 56,775 59,141 61,508 63,874 66,240 68,606 70,972 73,338 75,705 78,071 80,437 82,803 85,169 87,535 89,902 92,268 94,634 97,000
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 412,619 416,418 420,218 424,017 427,816 431,615 435,414 439,213 443,013 446,812 450,611 454,410 458,209 462,008 465,808 469,607 473,406 477,205 481,004 484,803 488,603 492,402 496,201 500,000
COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL,
Annual $14,288 $/Acre $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771
Land Transaction
Costs 5%of acquisition
costs $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389
Total, Land Acquisition Costs $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159
Local, ARL,
Cumulative $16,745,170 $33,490,339 $50,235,509 $66,980,678 $83,725,848 $100,471,017 $117,216,187 $133,961,356 $169,459,515 $204,957,674 $240,455,833 $275,953,992 $311,452,152 $346,950,311 $382,448,470 $417,946,629 $453,444,788 $488,942,947 $524,441,106 $559,939,265 $595,437,424 $630,935,583 $666,433,743 $701,931,902
Management and Monitoring Costs
Management,
Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,392,378 $1,469,755 $1,547,133 $1,624,511 $1,701,888 $1,779,266 $1,856,643 $1,934,021 $2,011,399 $2,088,776 $2,166,154 $2,243,532 $2,320,909 $2,398,287 $2,475,664 $2,553,042 $2,630,420 $2,707,797 $2,785,175 $2,862,553 $2,939,930 $3,017,308 $3,094,685 $3,172,063
Management
Cumulative $1,392,378 $2,862,133 $4,409,266 $6,033,776 $7,735,664 $9,514,930 $11,371,574 $13,305,595 $15,316,993 $17,405,770 $19,571,923 $21,815,455 $24,136,364 $26,534,651 $29,010,315 $31,563,357 $34,193,777 $36,901,574 $39,686,749 $42,549,302 $45,489,232 $48,506,540 $51,601,225 $54,773,288
Monitoring,
Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,243,449 $1,254,898 $1,266,347 $1,277,796 $1,289,245 $1,300,694 $1,312,143 $1,323,592 $1,335,041 $1,346,490 $1,357,939 $1,369,388 $1,380,837 $1,392,286 $1,403,735 $1,415,184 $1,426,633 $1,438,082 $1,449,531 $1,460,980 $1,472,429 $1,483,878 $1,495,327 $1,506,776
Monitoring
Cumulative $1,243,449 $2,498,347 $3,764,694 $5,042,490 $6,331,735 $7,632,429 $8,944,572 $10,268,163 $11,603,204 $12,949,694 $14,307,633 $15,677,021 $17,057,857 $18,450,143 $19,853,878 $21,269,062 $22,695,694 $24,133,776 $25,583,307 $27,044,286 $28,516,715 $30,000,593 $31,495,919 $33,002,695
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment
Funding, Annual $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714
Net Endowment
Funding,
Cumulative
$6,541,714 $13,083,429 $19,625,143 $26,166,857 $32,708,572 $39,250,286 $45,792,000 $52,333,715 $58,875,429 $65,417,143 $71,958,858 $78,500,572 $85,042,286 $91,584,001 $98,125,715 $104,667,429 $111,209,144 $117,750,858 $124,292,572 $130,834,286 $137,376,001 $143,917,715 $150,459,429 $157,001,144
Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811
Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 $64,322,166 $68,476,977 $72,631,788 $76,786,599 $80,941,410 $85,096,221 $89,251,032 $93,405,843 $97,560,654 $101,715,465
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $31,077,521 $31,166,348 $30,255,175 $30,344,001 $30,432,828 $30,521,655 $30,610,481 $30,699,308 $49,541,124 $49,629,951 $49,718,777 $49,807,604 $49,896,430 $49,985,257 $50,074,084 $50,162,910 $50,251,737 $50,340,563 $50,429,390 $50,518,217 $50,607,043 $50,695,870 $50,784,697 $50,873,523
TOTAL Cumulative $31,077,521 $62,243,870 $92,499,044 $122,843,046 $153,275,874 $183,797,528 $214,408,009 $245,107,317 $294,648,441 $344,278,392 $393,997,169 $443,804,773 $493,701,203 $543,686,460 $593,760,544 $643,923,454 $694,175,191 $744,515,754 $794,945,144 $845,463,361 $896,070,404 $946,766,274 $997,550,971 $1,048,424,494
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
Habitat Lands/
End of:
Reserve
Summary Financial Responsibility
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
APPENDIX II:
Detailed Time Series of Endowment Funding
Annual Cost Estimate for Management and Monitoring, Constant 2019$
Annual Cost
Cost Categories
by Last Year of
Land Acquisition
Period
Adjustment
Ongoing Habitat Management $3,172,063 100%$3,172,063
Ongoing Habitat Monitoring $1,506,776 100%$1,506,776
Administration1 $4,154,811 50%$2,077,406
Total $8,833,650 $6,756,244
1. Adminsitration includes salaries and benefits, accounting, auditing and reporting, contracts, etc.. Assumes less
administration is needed following the land acquisition period; ongoing adminsitrative needs include oversight, auditing
and reporting, and board staffing.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Annual Post-Land
Acquisition Cost
Endowment Funding – No Extension Scenario
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Post-Permit
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
Average Per Acre $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105
Endowment Balance $22,168,105 $44,336,210 $67,169,359 $90,687,502 $114,911,189 $139,861,586 $165,560,496 $192,030,373 $219,294,346
Annual Interest $0 $665,043 $1,350,038 $2,055,582 $2,782,293 $3,530,804 $4,301,772 $5,095,868 $5,913,787
Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $665,043 $2,015,081 $4,070,663 $6,852,955 $10,383,760 $14,685,531 $19,781,399 $25,695,187
Total Endowment $22,168,105 $45,001,254 $68,519,396 $92,743,083 $117,693,481 $143,392,391 $169,862,268 $197,126,241 $225,208,133
Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244
Assumptions
20,265 impact acres developed
9 year plan
3%interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$9,845 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit
annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Endowment Funding – 5 Year Extension Scenario
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Post-Permit
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
Average Per Acre $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608
Endowment Balance $13,180,608 $26,361,215 $39,937,241 $53,920,547 $68,323,353 $83,158,243 $98,438,180 $114,176,514 $130,386,999 $147,083,799 $164,281,502 $181,995,136 $200,240,180 $219,032,574
Annual Interest $0 $395,418 $802,699 $1,222,198 $1,654,282 $2,099,329 $2,557,727 $3,029,877 $3,516,192 $4,017,096 $4,533,027 $5,064,436 $5,611,787 $6,175,559
Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $395,418 $1,198,117 $2,420,315 $4,074,598 $6,173,927 $8,731,654 $11,761,531 $15,277,723 $19,294,819 $23,827,846 $28,892,281 $34,504,069 $40,679,628
Total Endowment $13,180,608 $26,756,633 $40,739,940 $55,142,746 $69,977,636 $85,257,572 $100,995,907 $117,206,392 $133,903,191 $151,100,894 $168,814,529 $187,059,572 $205,851,967 $225,208,133
Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244
Assumptions
31,523 impact acres developed
14 year plan
3%interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$5,854 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Endowment Funding – 10 Year Extension Scenario
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Post-Permit
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
Average Per Acre $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410
Endowment Balance $8,966,410 $17,932,819 $27,168,221 $36,680,686 $46,478,524 $56,570,297 $66,964,823 $77,671,185 $88,698,738 $100,057,118 $111,756,249 $123,806,354 $136,217,962 $149,001,918 $162,169,393 $175,731,892 $189,701,266 $204,089,722 $218,909,831
Annual Interest $0 $268,992 $546,054 $831,428 $1,125,363 $1,428,117 $1,739,952 $2,061,143 $2,391,970 $2,732,721 $3,083,695 $3,445,198 $3,817,547 $4,201,065 $4,596,089 $5,002,964 $5,422,046 $5,853,699 $6,298,303
Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $268,992 $815,047 $1,646,475 $2,771,838 $4,199,955 $5,939,907 $8,001,051 $10,393,020 $13,125,742 $16,209,437 $19,654,635 $23,472,182 $27,673,247 $32,269,336 $37,272,301 $42,694,347 $48,548,046 $54,846,349
Total Endowment $8,966,410 $18,201,812 $27,714,276 $37,512,114 $47,603,887 $57,998,413 $68,704,775 $79,732,328 $91,090,708 $102,789,839 $114,839,944 $127,251,552 $140,035,508 $153,202,983 $166,765,482 $180,734,856 $195,123,312 $209,943,421 $225,208,133
Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244
Assumptions
42,782 impact acres developed
19 year plan
3%interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$3,982 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Endowment Funding – 15 Year Extension Scenario
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
Average Per Acre $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714
Endowment Balance $6,541,714 $13,083,429 $19,821,394 $26,761,499 $33,909,807 $41,272,564 $48,856,204 $56,667,353 $64,712,836 $72,999,684 $81,535,138 $90,326,655 $99,381,917 $108,708,838 $118,315,566
Annual Interest $0 $196,251 $398,390 $606,594 $821,043 $1,041,925 $1,269,435 $1,503,769 $1,745,134 $1,993,739 $2,249,803 $2,513,548 $2,785,206 $3,065,014 $3,353,216
Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $196,251 $594,642 $1,201,235 $2,022,278 $3,064,204 $4,333,638 $5,837,407 $7,582,541 $9,576,280 $11,826,083 $14,339,631 $17,124,837 $20,189,851 $23,543,067
Total Endowment $6,541,714 $13,279,680 $20,219,785 $27,368,093 $34,730,850 $42,314,490 $50,125,639 $58,171,122 $66,457,970 $74,993,424 $83,784,941 $92,840,203 $102,167,123 $111,773,852 $121,668,781
Average Annual Post Permit Interest
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Post-Permit
2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
$2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905
$6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714
$128,210,496 $138,402,273 $148,899,805 $159,712,262 $170,849,092 $182,320,028 $194,135,092 $206,304,607 $218,839,209
$3,650,063 $3,955,817 $4,270,743 $4,595,116 $4,929,221 $5,273,349 $5,627,801 $5,992,887 $6,368,925
$27,193,130 $31,148,947 $35,419,689 $40,014,806 $44,944,027 $50,217,377 $55,845,178 $61,838,065 $68,206,990
$131,860,559 $142,358,090 $153,170,547 $164,307,378 $175,778,314 $187,593,377 $199,762,893 $212,297,494 $225,208,133
$6,756,244
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Assumptions
54,040 impact acres developed
24 year plan
3%interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$2,905 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation