HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/15/2011 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A. ✓a*nV1
P
A.
A L IVY SQP
0.
F - CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 15, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE
ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION
OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION
PLAN ("CVMSHCP")
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
SUMMARY
In 2008, The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) approved a revised
and recirculated Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP is
a long-range planning document for the Coachella Valley, and its implementation will
ultimately conserve over 240,000 acres of open space and protect 27 plant and animal
species. The City of Palm Springs is one of the permittees under the proposed Plan. A
new Nexus study in 2010 established revised costs per acre for the Local Development
Mitigation Fee, which establishes funds for the purchase and preservation of lands
under the CVMSHCP. This report explains the new proposed fees and associated
recommended actions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, ADOPTING A REVISED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
MITIGATION FEE SCHEDULE APPLICABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA UNDER THE
COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN"
3. Waive reading and introduce by title only for first reading Ordinance No. ,
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER 8.95 OF THE PALM SPRINGS
MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION
ITEM NO. �
City Council Staff Report
June 15, 2011 -- Page 2 of 5
Revision in the Local Development Mitigation Fees for the CVMSHCP
FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN."
BACKGROUND
On October 3, 2007, the City Council adopted the CVMSHCP.
On January 9, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1734, establishing a Local
Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) for the purpose of funding the preservation and
conservation of natural ecosystems as part of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The implementation of the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) and the overall
ability to provide appropriate levels of financing for land purchase and conservation
under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
requires periodic review and adjustment of the fee schedules. At the direction of the
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC), the attached Nexus Study for the
Local Development Mitigation Fee, Revised Fee Ordinance and Resolution, were
prepared to address these concerns.
The CVCC directed its staff to prepare a new Nexus Study in January 2010. CVCC
staff worked with the Nexus consultant, Willdan Financial Services, to develop funding
scenarios. Different scenarios were developed addressing changes in potential
revenue for the MSHCP since the 2007 Nexus Study, while also working within the goal
of not raising the current fees.
Potential funding scenarios and the results of the Nexus Study were discussed with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Desert Valleys
Builders Association, Building Industry Association, Riverside County, Sierra Club,
Friends of the Desert Mountains and representatives of the Permittees.
Representatives of the Desert Valleys Building Association and the Sierra Club have
spoken in support of the proposed revisions to the LDMF at CVCC meetings.
The LDMF in the 2007 Nexus Study was only to be used for land acquisition-related
costs. The average value of land and the rate of development that would generate the
LDMF have changed significantly since 2007. The costs for land management,
biological monitoring and the establishment of an endowment, were to be funded by the
existing County tipping fee on waste generated in the Coachella Valley and fees
generated by the Eagle Mountain Landfill. Furthermore, the Eagle Mountain Landfill was
expected to generate a sufficient stream of revenue such that a loan from the Eagle
Mountain Landfill income could be made to the land acquisition program; this loan made
it possible for the approximately 90,000 acres expected to be acquired by CVCC to be
completed in 30 years.
w
City Council Staff Report
June 15, 2011 -- Page 3 of 5
Revision in the Local Development Mitigation Fees for the CVMSHCP
In November 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed a
lower court ruling that the federal land swap for Eagle Mountain Landfill was deficient.
While Eagle Mountain Landfill may yet overcome legal challenges, it is not being
considered as a revenue source in the new Nexus Study. Revenue from the existing
County tipping fee is also down about one third from what was expected in 2007 when
the funding plan was developed. Furthermore, the 2007 Nexus Study anticipated that
development would continue at the same rate as the period from 1988 to 2004 — or
roughly 1,370 acres per year. The rate of development in the last year for the
Coachella Valley jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP was less than 20% of the
historical average year.
In order to detei miine current land values in all the Conservation Areas for use in the
Nexus Study, a Market Study was prepared by Mike Scarcella, Capital Realty Analysts.
As would be expected in current market conditions, the average per acre value of
$2,739 per acre was found to be lower than the average per acre value of the 2006
Market Study of $3,729 per acre. Most notably, however, is the distribution of value
changes across the Conservation Areas. Much of the land within Conservation Areas is
extremely remote, has little development potential and has changed little in value since
2006. In contrast, the portion of land on the Valley floor with realistic development
potential in areas such as Thousand Palms has significantly declined in value since
2006, but these areas are still, on average, much higher values per acre than the
average acre values across all conservation areas. CVCC has focused acquisition
efforts in these areas as they contain some of the most biologically sensitive properties
with the greatest development threat.
The Nexus Study presents an objective basis and justification necessary to update the
LDMF. The analysis recognizes the following changes in key program assumptions:
• An increase in the acquisition period from 30 years to 45 years.
• An exemption for projects that were begun before October 1, 2008 (date of
MSHCP permit) and that meet strict criteria.
• Land acquisition for the Reserve System that occurred since late 2006 has
reduced the amount of acreage CVCC must acquire in future years.
• Land price estimates that have been adjusted to reflect the CVCC's recent
experience and priority locations in the short run, and updated market study
values in the long run.
• Estimates of annual land development have been revised downward to
reflect actual, recent development patterns in the Coachella Valley and the
constraints of the current economic climate.
• Eagle Mountain Landfill is no longer considered a source of revenue.
• The City of Desert Hot Springs (DHS) has begun the process of a Major
Amendment to the MSHCP so that the city can be a Local Permittee. The
Nexus Study considers both the current status of the MSHCP without DHS
and the adjustment to the LDMF when DHS becomes a Permittee.
3
City Council Staff Report
June 15, 2011 -- Page 4 of 5
Revision in the Local Development Mitigation Fees for the CVMSHCP
The Nexus Study supports lowering the LDMF from $5730 to $5600 per disturbed acre.
The residential per unit fee is adjusted accordingly as shown in the table below.
Proposed fee Proposed fee based
Current fee based on on 2010 Nexus Study
based on 2007 2010 Nexus with Desert Hot
Nexus Study Study Springs
Commercial/Industrial
per acre $5,730 $5,600 $5150
Residential
0-8 units per unit $1,284 $1,254 $1,154
8.1-14 units per unit $533 $521 $479
14+ units per unit $235 $230 $211
The Revised Ordinance maintains most of the language of the original Ordinance. The
major changes are :
• Language changes to reflect that the revised fee supports conservation in
perpetuity including land acquisition, land management, biological monitoring,
law enforcement and administration.
• An exemption for projects that were begun before October 1, 2008 (date of
MSHCP permit) and that meet strict criteria for continuous development.
• Clarification of how the fee is applied to mixed use projects that contain both
residential and commercial /industrial uses and mixed use on the same parcel
• Clarification of how the fee is applied in cases of the construction of additional
residential units, subsequent development of portions of a commercial or
industrial parcel for which the Fee was not originally collected, or changes in land
use
• Elimination of the term "being improved"
• Point of collection is moved to issuance of building permit with the allowance that
jurisdictions that collect all other fees assessed pursuant to the Mitigation Fee
Act a later time may collect the LDMF concurrently with the payment of all such
other fees
• Refund of the fee for the Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan (FTL
HCP) for projects that paid the FTL HCP fee and then pay the LDMF
The Revised Ordinance would go into effect throughout the Coachella Valley on
September 1, 2011.
Summary and Benefits of the MSHCP
The MSHCP will ultimately conserve over 240,000 acres of open space and protect 27
plant and animal species. Some of the benefits of the MSHCP are outlined below.
City Council Staff Report
June 15, 2011 -- Page 5 of 5
Revision in the Local Development Mitigation Fees for the CVMSHCP
■ Assures critical freeway and freeway interchange projects can be built without
delays resulting from endangered species conflicts
■ Offers certainty for the business community ultimately making the Coachella
Valley a more attractive place for businesses to relocate or expand
■ Preserves the Coachella Valley's native desert wildlife and creates a magnificent
system of open space parks, trails and reserves
■ Safeguards significant habitat linkages and wildlife corridors that enable animals
to move safely from one habitat area to another
■ By providing comprehensive compliance with federal and state endangered
species laws, the Plan not only safeguards the desert's natural heritage for future
generations, it benefits quality of life in the Coachella Valley.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The MSHCP is expected to cost the Permittees $492,544,000 (2011 dollars) during the
remaining 73 years of the permit (FY2012-2083). Implementation of the MSHCP is
designed to be self-funding and no assessments are required of the Permittees. The
MSHCP is to be funded from the Development Mitigation Fee, tipping fees and
infrastructure mitigation payments from CVAG, Coachella Valley Water District,
Caltrans, and Imperial Irrigation District. CVAG's contribution is $30 million in Measure
A funds to mitigate all Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) projects. The
LDMF is $5600 per acre. The residential fee per unit for a density of 0-8 units per acre
would be $1254.
,, Fai Eking, AP, mes Thompson,
Director-if Plannan Services City Clerk
j
David H. Ready, City ger
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution --
2. Draft Ordinance —
r
J
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PALM
SPRINGS CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A REVISED LOCAL
DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE SCHEDULE
APPLICABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY
OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA UNDER THE
COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, Cailfiornia ("City") finds
that the ecosystems of the City, the Coachella Valley and the surrounding mountains
located in central 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 must be established, maintained and perpetually preserved to prevent future
endangerment of the plant and animal species that are dependent upon them, and
WHEREAS, adoption and implementation of Ordinance 1734 (the "Ordinance")
and this Resolution will help to enable the City to achieve the habitat conservation goals
set forth in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"), adopted by the City Council on October 1,
2008, to implement the associated Implementing Agreement executed by the City
Council on October 3, 2007, and to preserve the ability of affected property owners to
make reasonable use of their land consistent with the requirements of applicable laws,
which could include the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Federal Endangered Species Act ("FESA"),
the California Endangered Species Act ("CESK) and the California Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act ("NCCP Act"); and
WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and this Resolution is to
amend the previously established Local Development Mitigation Fee to establish a new
portion of the fee dedicated to the conservation of those properties in perpetuity in order
to protect the biological diversity and the natural ecosystem processes that support this
diversity; the protection of vegetation communities and natural areas within the City, the
Coachella Valley and the surrounding mountains located in central Riverside County
which are known to support threatened, endangered or key sensitive populations of
plant and wildlife species; the maintenance of economic development within the City by
providing a streamlined regulatory process from which development can proceed in an
orderly process; and the protection of the existing character of the City and the region
through the implementation of a system of reserves which will provide for permanent
Resolution No.
Page 2
open space, community edges and habitat conservation for species covered by the
MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, as a Member Agency of Coachella Valley Conservation Commission
("CVCC"), the City participated in the preparation of a new "Local Development
Mitigation Fee Nexus Report", dated May 16, 2011 ("Nexus Report") prepared pursuant
to California Government Code, Section 66000 et seq., the Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the new Nexus Report, and hereby finds that
future development within the City will substantially adversely affect the natural
ecosystems and covered species within the City, as identified in the MSHCP, and that
unless such development contributes to the cost of acquiring land and preserving these
natural ecosystems and covered species, the conservation goals of the MSHCP will not
be met; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that the Nexus Report proposes a fair and equitable
method for distributing a portion of the cost of implementing the MSHCP and mitigates
the impact, including the costs of preservation, caused by new development; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council adopts the
Nexus Report, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's office, and the findings
contained therein which provide additional support for the fees adopted by this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the foregoing, the City Council hereby adopts in their
entirety the findings contained in Section 2 of the Ordinance and any fees adopted by
this Resolution shall be based on these findings; 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 provide 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 Palm Springs does hereby
resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. REPEALED.
Resolution No. 22124 is hereby repealed on the effective date hereof and all
prior Resolutions adopting the Local Development Mitigation Fee are hereby repealed
to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution.
'7
Resolution No.
Page 3
SECTION 2. FINDINGS.
The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings in support of this
Resolution. The findings contained in both the Nexus Report and Section 2 of the
Ordinance are also adopted herein as findings in support of this Resolution.
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS.
The terms of this Resolution shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in
the Palm Springs Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. FEE SCHEDULE.
There is hereby adopted the following fee schedule for the Local Development
Mitigation Fee:
(1) Residential, density less than 8.0 dwelling units per acre - $1,254 per
dwelling unit.
(2) Residential, density between 8.1 and 14.0 dwelling units per acre - $521
per dwelling unit.
(3) Residential, density greater than 14.1 dwelling units per acre - $230 per
dwelling unit.
(4) Commercial - $5600 per acre.
(5) Industrial - $5600 per acre.
SECTION 5. CEQA FINDINGS.
The City Council hereby finds that in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines the adoption of this
Resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and Public
Resources Code section 21166.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY.
This Resolution 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 Resolution shall not be
affected thereby. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Resolution,
or its application 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 Resolution, or person or entity; and shall not affect or impair any of the
Resolution No.
Page 4
remaining provision, parts, sentences, paragraphs, sections, or clauses of this
Resolution, or its application to other persons or entities. The City Council hereby
declares that this Resolution would have been adopted had such unconstitutional or
invalid part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Resolution not been
included herein; or had such person or entity been expressly exempted from the
application of this Resolution.
If the fees collected for the conservation of the land, including the monitoring and
management thereof, are later adjudged by a final unappealable judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, the prior Local Development
Mitigation Fee adopted under the prior Local Development Mitigation Fee Nexus Study
on January 15, 2007 and the corresponding Ordinance No. 1734, and Resolution No.
22124 shall each be revived and shall continue for the life of the MSHCP.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
September 1, 2011, however, in no event shall this Resolution take effect prior to
sixty (60) days after the date of its adoption.
PASSED APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY
COUNCIL THIS 15T" DAY OF JUNE, 2011.
DAVID H. READY, CITY MANAGER
AIIEST:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
Resolution No.
Page 5
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was dul� adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on the 15t day of June 2011, by
the following vote-
AYES-
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
City of Palm Springs, California
i)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND RESTATING CHAPTER
8.95 OF THE PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION
FEE FOR FUNDING THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL
ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN.
City Attornev's Summary
This Ordinance amends and restates a mitigation fee program that will
require new development to fund a portion of the cost of administering
and implementing the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,
including the acquisition and conservation of private land.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FINDS AND
DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS;
A. The ecosystems of the City, the Coachella Valley and surrounding
mountains located in central 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.
B. These vegetation communities and natural areas contain habitat value
which contributes to the City's and the region's environmental resources.
C. Special protections and conservation goals for these vegetation
communities and natural areas have been established to prevent future endangerment
of the plant and animal species that are dependent upon them, all as more specifically
set out in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan ("MSHCP").
D. The MSHCP was adopted by the City Council on October 3, 2008 and the
associated Implementing Agreement was executed by the City Council on October 3,
2007, to preserve the ability of affected property owners to make reasonable use of their
land consistent with the requirements of applicable laws, which could include the
National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), the Federal Endangered Species Act ("FESA"), the California Endangered
Species Act ("CESA") and the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
(NCCP Act").
Ordinance No.
Page 2
E. In order to further the purposes of the MSHCP, the City previously
established a Local Development Mitigation Fee to assist in the maintenance of
biological diversity and the natural ecosystem processes that support this diversity; the
protection of vegetation communities and natural areas within the City, Coachella Valley
and surrounding mountains located in central Riverside County which are known to
support threatened, endangered or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife
species; the maintenance of economic development within the City by providing a
streamlined regulatory process from which development can proceed in an orderly
process; and the protection of the existing character of the City and the region through
the implementation of a system of reserves which will provide for permanent open
space, community edges and habitat conservation for species covered by the MSHCP;
F. The findings and studies upon which the Local Development Mitigation
Fee was originally based, including the estimated acquisition costs for such property,
conservation of those properties in perpetuity as required under the MSHCP and the
growth projections for new development have now been updated to reflect the current
market conditions, as set forth in the mitigation fee Nexus report dated May 16, 2011
that was prepared at the direction of the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission
("Commission"), a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's office;
G. 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.
H. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code sections 66000 et
seq., the City is empowered to impose and modify fees and other exactions to provide
funding of public facilities in the form of acquired habitat land preserved as a community
amenity, and the public services required for conservation of this land in perpetuity in
order to mitigate the effect of new development projects.
I. All environmental impacts associated with the acquisition and
conservation of lands were fully and thoroughly analyzed within the Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement prepared and certified for the MSHCP,
and the City Council made all appropriate environmental findings at the time that the
MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement were approved on October 3
2007. Accordingly, and pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and State
CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no further environmental analysis is required.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 8.95 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code is amended and
restated to read:
Ordinance No.
Page 3
Chapter 8.95
MSHCP MITIGATION FEE
Sections
8.95.010 Short Title
8.95.020 Findings
8.95.030 Administrative Authority
8.95.040 Definitions
8.95.050 Mitigation Fee
8.95.070 Payment of the Mitigation Fee
8.95.060 Imposition of the Mitigation Fee
8.95.080 Refunds
8.95.090 Accounting and Disbursement of Collected Mitigation Fees
8.95.100 Automatic Annual Fee Adjustment
8.95.110 Exemptions
8.95.120 Fee Credits and Waivers
8.95.010 Short Title.
This Chapter shall be known as the "Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee Ordinance."
8.95.020 Findings.
The City Council finds and determines:
A. In order to realize the goals and objectives of the Coachella Valley Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan
("MSHCP") and to mitigate the impacts caused by new development in the City,
lands supporting species covered by the MSHCP must be acquired, monitored
and managed in order to achieve habitat conservation in perpetuity.
B. The Local Development Mitigation Fee (the "Fee") is necessary in order to
supplement the financing of the acquisition of lands supporting species covered
by the MSHCP and related public services, and to pay for new development's fair
share of the cost of acquisition and perpetual conservation.
C. The appropriate source of funding for the costs associated with mitigating the
impacts of new development to the natural ecosystems and covered species
within the City, as identified in the MSHCP, is a fee paid for by 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 the relative cost of mitigating such impacts.
Ordinance No,
Page 4
D. The Fee does not reflect the entire cost of the lands which need to be acquired
and perpetually conserved in order to implement the MSHCP and mitigate the
impact caused by new development. Additional revenues will be required from
other sources. The City finds that the benefit to each development project is
greater than the amount of the Fee to be paid by that project.
E. The use of the Fee is apportioned relative to the type and extent of impacts
caused by the development.
F. The costs of funding the proper mitigation for natural ecosystems and covered
species identified in the MSHCP which are impacted by new development are
apportioned relative to the type and extent of impacts caused by the
development.
G. The facts and evidence provided to and considered by the City Council establish
that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for acquiring and
conserving in perpetuity the natural ecosystems and covered species identified in
the MSHCP, and the impacts to such natural ecosystems and species 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 described in more
detail in the mitigation fee nexus report.
H. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance are reasonable and will not exceed
the estimated total cost of the acquisition and perpetual conservation of the lands
necessary to protect natural ecosystems and covered species, the plan and
schedules for which are set forth in the MSHCP. Conservation of the land shall
require monitoring and management beyond the life of the MSHCHP permit.
I. The Fee shall be used to finance the acquisition and perpetual conservation of
lands and certain improvements necessary to implement the goals and
objectives of the MSHCP
8.95.030 Administrative Responsibility.
The City Manager shall be responsible for the administration of this Chapter and
shall have the authority to adopt administrative procedures consistent with the
provisions of this Chapter for the purpose of implementing the provisions of this
Chapter.
8.95.040 Definitions.
As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
"Certificate of Occupancy" means a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City
14
Ordinance No.
Page 5
in accordance with all applicable ordinances, regulations, and rules of the City and state
law or such other authorization of the City's Building Official allowing a building to be
occupied.
"City" means the City of Palm Springs, California.
"City Manager" means the City Manager of the City or the City Manager's
designee.
"Commission" means the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC),
the governing body established pursuant to the MSHCP that is delegated the authority
to oversee and implement the provisions of the MSHCP.
"Conservation" means all the actions necessary for the permanent protection of
species, natural communities, and habitat land as required of the Coachella Valley
Conservation Commission under the MSHCP including land acquisition, land
management, biological monitoring, law enforcement and administration.
"Conservation Areas" has the same meaning and intent as such term is defined
and utilized in the MSHCP.
"Credit" means a Credit allowed pursuant to Section 11 of this Chapter, which
may be applied against the Fee paid.
"Development 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.
"Development Project Area" means the area, measured in acres, from the
adjacent road right-of-way line to the limits of project improvements. Development
Project Area includes all project improvements and areas that are disturbed as a result
of the project improvements on an owner's Gross Acreage, including all areas depicted
on the forms required to be submitted to the City pursuant to this Chapter and/or other
applicable development ordinance or regulation of the City. Except as otherwise
provided herein, the Development Project Area is the area upon which the project will
be assessed the Mitigation Fee.
"Fee" means the Local Development Mitigation Fee adopted pursuant to the
Mitigation Fee Act, Governmental Code Section 66000 et seq.
"Final Inspection" means a Final Inspection of a Development Project as defined
by the building codes of the City.
"Gross Acreage" means the total property area as shown on a land division map
of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area
shall be bounded by road right-of-way and/or legal property lines.
15
Ordinance No.
Page 6
"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 Coachella
Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation
Plan, adopted by the City Council on October 3, 2007, and as may be amended from
time to time.
"Ordinance" means this Ordinance No. 1734 of the City of Palm Springs,
California.
"Project" means any project undertaken pursuant to the issuance of a building
permit or any other approval, ministerial or discretionary development permit, by the
City as required by the applicable ordinances, regulations, and rules of the City and
state law. Projects undertaken by or on behalf of the City are subject to the Fee.
"Project Area" means the area, measured in acres, from the adjacent road right-
of-way line to the limits of project improvements. Project Area includes all project
improvements and areas that are disturbed as a result of the project improvements on
an owner's Gross Acreage, including all areas depicted on the forms required to be
submitted to the City pursuant to this Ordinance and/or other applicable development
ordinance or regulation of the City.
"Residential Unit" means a building or portion thereof used by one family and
containing but one kitchen, which unit is designed or occupied for residential purposes,
including single-family dwelling, multiple-family dwellings, and mobile homes on
permanent foundations, but not including hotels and motels.
"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 perpetually conserving 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.
8.95.050 Local Development Mitigation Fee.
A. To assist in providing Revenue for the Conservation of lands necessary to
implement the MSHCP, the Fee shall be paid for each Project, or portion thereof, to be
constructed within the City.
Five categories of the Fee are defined and include: (1) residential units, density
less that 8.0 dwelling units per acre; (2) residential units, density between 8.1 and 14.0
dwelling units per acre; (3) residential units, density greater than 14.1 dwelling units per
acre; (4) commercial acreage; and (5) industrial acreage. Because there can be mixed
traditional commercial, industrial and residential uses within the same project, for Fee
Ordinance No.
Page 7
assessment purposes only, the Fee which is applicable to commercial or industrial
Projects shall be calculated by reference to the Project Area of each parcel upon which
the commercial or industrial portions shall be sited. If the mixed use includes Residential
Units, the Fee applicable to the parcels upon which Residential Units are to be sited
shall be calculated by reference to the appropriate residential fee category. If the mixed
use occurs on the same parcel, the Fee which is applicable to commercial or industrial
projects shall be calculated by reference to the Project Area of the parcel. A fee
schedule which contains the Fee which is applicable to each of the five Fee categories
shall be adopted and may, from time to time, be amended by resolution ("Resolution").
The amount of the Fee required to be paid for a commercial or industrial Project
shall be based on the Project Area, as calculated by City staff based on the subdivision
map, plot plan, and/or other information submitted to or required by the City.
8.95.060 Imposition of the Mitigation Fee.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the City's Municipal Code, no permit shall
be issued for any Development Project except upon the condition that the Mitigation
Fee applicable to such Development Project has been paid in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter.
8.95.070 Payment of the Mitigation Fee.
A. The Fee shall be paid in full at the time of the issuance of a building permit
for the Project; provided, however, that if the City's Municipal Code provides for all fees
assessed pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act to be collected at a later time, then the Fee
collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be collected at the same time as that
mandated by the City's Municipal Code for the payment of all such other fees.
B. In no event shall a final inspection be made or a certificate of occupancy
be issued prior to full payment of the Fee.
C. The Fee shall be assessed one time per lot or parcel, except in cases of
the construction of additional Residential Units, subsequent development of portions of
a commercial or industrial parcel for which the Fee was not originally collected, or
changes in land use. The additional Fee required to be paid in the case of such
exceptions shall not include the amount of any previously paid Fee for that parcel. No
refunds shall be provided for changes in land use to a lower Fee category. It shall be
the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation of any previously paid Fee.
D. The Fee required to be paid under this chapter shall be the Fee in effect at
the time of payment.
E. Notwithstanding anything in the City's Municipal Code, or any other written
documentation to the contrary, the Fee shall be paid whether or not the Project is
subject to conditions of approval by the City.
+J
Ordinance No.
Page 9
Index for "All Urban Consumers" in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area,
measured as of the month of December in the calendar year which ends in the previous
fiscal year. The first Fee adjustment shall not be made prior to a minimum of ten (10)
months subsequent to the effective date of this Chapter. The Fee, as revised annually,
shall be compiled by the Director of Finance and shall be included in an annual report to
the City Council pertaining to the accounting for the MSHCP Fee as required by
Government Code section 66006.
8.95.110 Exemptions.
The following types of construction shall be exempt from the provisions of this
Chapter:
A. Reconstruction of a residential unit or commercial or industrial building
damaged or destroyed by fire or other natural causes.
B. Rehabilitation or remodeling to an existing residential unit, commercial or
industrial building, and additions to an existing residential unit or commercial or
industrial building.
C. A second Residential Unit, constructed on residential property previously
developed with a single-family dwelling, and meeting all state and City requirements for
such units.
D. Existing improvements that are converted from an existing permitted use
to a different permitted use, provided that no additional area of the property is disturbed
as a result of such conversion.
E. Projects for which the City is restrained by law from collecting the Fee due
to a Development Agreement or vested tentative map entered into with or issued by the
City prior to October 1, 2008.
F. Construction of a family residential unit upon property wherein a mobile-
home, installed pursuant to an installation permit, was previously located prior to the
effect date of this Ordinance.
G. Guest dwellings as defined by the Palm Springs Zoning Code, constructed
on residential property previously developed with a single-family dwelling.
H. Additional single family residential units located on the same parcel
pursuant to the provisions of any agricultural zoning classifications set forth in the Palm
Springs Zoning Code.
I. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single
family Residential Unit and as defined in the Palm Springs Zoning Code.
Ordinance No.
Page 8
F. If all or part of the Project is sold prior to payment of the Fee, the Project
shall continue to be subject to the requirement to pay the Fee as provided herein.
G. For Projects which the City does not require a permit, final inspection or
issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Fee shall be paid prior to any use or
occupancy.
H. For purposes of this Ordinance, congregate care residential facilities and
recreational vehicle parks shall pay the commercial acreage Fee.
8.95.080 Refunds.
A. There shall be no refund of all or part of any Mitigation Fee paid under this
Chapter, except in cases of overpayment or miscalculation of the
applicable Fee. Only in cases of overpayment or miscalculation of the Fee
will the person or entity that paid the Mitigation Fee be entitled to a refund.
B. Collection of the fee associated with the Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan (FTLHCP) ceased upon issuance of the MSHCP
permit. Projects that paid the FTLHCP fee are required to pay the Local
Development Mitigation Fee, but may obtain a refund of the FTLHCP fee
from CVCC. Refunds shall be granted subject to the rules and regulations
established by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission.
8.95.090 Collection, Accounting and Disbursement of Local Development Mitigation
Fees.
A. Subject to the provisions of this section, all Fees collected pursuant to this
Ordinance shall be collected, administered and remitted for deposit into the account
established therefor, to the Commission in compliance with all applicable policies and
procedures of the Commission monthly. The Fees will be expended solely for the
purpose of Conservation of the vegetation communities and natural areas within the
City and the region which support species covered in the MSHCP in accordance with
the plan and schedules set out in the MSHCP and the policies that have or may be
adopted pursuant thereto.
B. The City may recover the costs of administering the provisions of this
Ordinance using the Revenues generated by the Fees, in an amount and subject to the
rules and regulations established by the Commission.
8.95.100 Automatic Annual Fee Adjustment.
The Fee established by this Chapter shall be revised annually by means of an
automatic adjustment at the beginning of each fiscal year based on the average
percentage change over the previous calendar year set forth in the Consumer Price
1J
Ordinance No.
Page 10
J. Projects are exempt from paying the fee provided they meet each of the
following three conditions:
1. Completion of required infrastructure improvements including, but
not limited to, underground utilities, exterior project area walls,
streets and curbs and issuance of at least one building permit for a
discrete primary structure, such as a single family home, prior to
October 1, 2008 (date of MSHCP Permit Approval).
2. Continuous construction activity since October 1, 2008 as
demonstrated by issuance of a building permit for a discrete
primary structure and/or a certificate of occupancy permit for a
discrete primary structure in each six month period between
October 1, 2008 and April 1, 2011.
3. City registration of the Project and proposed lots to be exempted, in
accordance with CVCC procedures, by September 1, 2011.
Projects not meeting the standard exemption criteria above, that
made verifiable payments, as part of a legal settlement, to
specifically fund acquisition of habitat for a species listed as
"endangered" under the federal Endangered Species Act are
required to pay the LDMF but are eligible to receive a refund, on a
pro rata per acre basis based on the actual acreage being
assessed the LDMF. Any such Projects and proposed lots to be
exempted must be registered in accordance with CVCC procedures
by September 1, 2011.
8.95.120 Fee Credits and Waivers.
The City may grant to owners or developers of real property, a Credit against the Fee
that would otherwise be charged pursuant to this Ordinance, for the dedication of land
within a MSHCP Conservation Area, provided, however, that no Credit shall be given
unless (A) the dedication is secured by a conservation easement acceptable to a
grantee legally authorized to accept and hold such easements pursuant to Civil Code §
815.3 or pursuant to other legal instrument that ensures the area will be conserved in
perpetuity; (B) the land to be dedicated is appropriate for conservation and dedication
thereof is consistent with and furthers the goals of the MSHCP; and (C) the dedication
and Credit complies with all procedures and policies of the Commission. The amount of
the Credit granted shall be determined by an estimate of the fair market value of the
land dedicated. Any Credit granted by the City shall be given in stated dollar amounts
only.
An applicant for a proposed Project may apply for Credit to reduce the amount of the
Fee required to be paid prior to approval of the Project. Any Credit granted and the
amount of the Fee to be paid shall be included as a condition of approval of the Project.
However, if an applicant has already received approval from the City and has not
previously applied for a Credit to reduce the amount of the Fee required to be paid, an
20
Ordinance No.
Page 11
applicant may apply for such Credit at any time prior to issuance of a grading permit for
the Project and any Credit granted shall in that case be included as a condition of
approval of the grading permit issued for the Project.
SECTION 2. 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 application 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 person or entity; and
shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provision, 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
unconstitutional or invalid part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this
Ordinance not been included herein; or had such person or entity been expressly
exempted from the application of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect September 1,
2011, however; in no event shall this Ordinance take effect prior to sixty (60) days after
the date of its adoption.
SECTION 4. Amended and Restated. Ordinance 1734 is hereby amended and
restated on the effective date hereof and all prior Ordinances adopting the Local
Development Mitigation Fee are hereby repealed to the extent that they are inconsistent
with the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk is hereby ordered and
directed to codify the passage of the Ordinance, and to cause the same or a summary
thereof to be duly prepared according to law and to be published in accordance with
law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY
COUNCIL THIS 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011.
STEPHEN P. POUGNET, MAYOR
A I I EST:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
2i
Ordinance No.
Page 12
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS)
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do
hereby certify that Ordinance No. was introduced at a regular meeting of the
Palm Springs City Council on the 15t" day of June, 2011, and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council held on the 6t" day of July, 2011 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
City of Palm Springs, California
r
tiw
COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
RAL r.?O 'T
2011 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION
FEE NEXUS STUDY
May 16, 2011
W I LLDA� Urban
Financial Services Np
r
ti
[This page intentionally left blank.]
I able of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................... ................. II
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ........................................................................... 1
Introduction 1
Urbanization in the Plan Area 2
Need for Habitat Conservation 2
Cost of Habitat Conservation 2
Cost Allocation and Fee Schedule 4
Mitigation Fee Act Findings 5
Implementation 6
1 . INTRODUCTION.................................................. ............................
Habitat Conservation Planning Process 7
MSHCP and the Incidental Take Permit 8
Local Development Mitigation Fee 9
2. PLAN AREA LAND USE........................................•............................ 11
Plan Area Boundaries 11
Existing Land Use 11
New Development within the Plan Area 12
3_ NEED FOR HABITAT CONSERVATION ................................................. 16
Habitat Conservation Goals 16
Covered Species and Natural Communities 16
Identifying the MSHCP Reserve System 18
Identifying Impacts to Habitat 19
4. COST OF MSHCP ACTIVITIES .......................................................... 21
Allocation of the LDMF 21
Habitat Acquisition Program 22
Monitoring and Management Program 30
5. COST ALLOCATION AND FEE SCHEDULE ............................................ 41
Acreage Subject to the Fee 41
Fee Schedule 43
6. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ........................................................ 48
Purpose of Fee 48
Use of Fee Revenues 48
Benefit Relationship 49
Burden Relationship 50
Proportionality 51
7. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................ ..........................
52
Adoption of an Updated LDMF by Local Permittees 52
�J
Adoption of Administrative Guidelines 52
Programming Revenues and Projects 52
Annual Inflation Adjustment 52
Reporting Requirements 53
APPENDIX A: CASH FLOW ANALYSIS..................................................... 54
List of Tables 54
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY...................................................................... 95
� u
Executive Summary
Beginning in 1994 local, state, and federal agencies responsible for regulating development and
protecting habitat in the Coachella Valley participated in an extensive and comprehensive
planning process. This planning effort has produced the Coachella Valley Multiple Species
1
Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
The California Department of Fish and Game issued the Natural Community Conservation Plan
(NCCP) Permit for the MSHCP on September 9, 2008. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued
the federal permit (the "Permit") for the MSHCP on October 1, 2008. The Permit will expire in
2083, or 75 years from its date of issuance.The policy objectives of the MSHCP are to;
(1) Conserve adequate habitat in an unfragmented manner by assembling a Reserve
System of habitat lands and then managing and monitoring these lands in perpetuity to
maximize their conservation value, and
(2) Simplify compliance with environmental laws by providing an efficient and streamlined
regulatory approach to provide incidental take authority for otherwise lawful and permitted
activities such as new development.
The MSHCP obligates its Local Permittees to establish a Reserve System of lands to provide
habitat for Covered Species and conserved natural communities. After these lands are acquired
by Permittees, the Permittees are obligated to fund a monitoring program to track and measure
success of the Covered Species within the Reserve System, and a management program to
assess and tailor preservation activities and land management practices in order to conserve
Covered Species and natural communities in perpetuity.
Land acquisition is a critical component of the conservation process because conserving land
mitigates the effects of development and urbanization discussed below. Monitoring and
Management (M&M) programs serve as an ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of conservation
The studies conducted as part of the monitoring program assesses the biological characteristics
and particular needs of Covered Species and natural communities within the MSHCP The
management program conducts a range of activities to ensure that Reserve System sustains the
habitat values measured by monitoring program assessments. Since land acquisition, monitoring
and management are so intimately connected, conservation cannot be achieved without funding
all three concurrently.
A Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) imposed on new development projects will be a
primary source of funding necessary to comply with the provisions of MSHCP, the Implementing
1
This report contains terms defined in the MSHCP, and those terms are capitalized in the body of the report
The definitions established by the MSHCP are found in Appendix B
Final May 16.2011 Page 1
&. i d
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Agreement (IA), and the Permit This report documents the legal and policy basis necessary for
Coachella Valley cities and the County of Riverside to update the LDMF.
rbanizati
The Coachella Valley (the"Valley") is a broad, low elevation, northwest-southeast trending valley
comprising the westernmost limits of the Sonoran Desert The Valley is located in the central
portion of Riverside County, approximately 100 miles east of Los Angeles. The Plan Area
includes approximately 1.1 million acres, an amount that excludes Indian reservation lands not
subject to the MSHCP.
Growth projections are based on the estimates of residential dwelling units and commercial
square feet developed annually by agencies collecting the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) and data provided by the California Department of Resources Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program (FMMP). CVAG calculates that approximately 300 acres were developed in
the two year period beginning in 2009 and ending in 2010, also known as years one and two.
Approximately 1,750 acres, on average,were developed annually over a subset of the 1989-2010
data selected to simulate a trough to peak period of the current real estate cycle. When the share
of growth from the City of Desert Hot Springs is removed from this total, as the city currently does
not participate in the MSHCP, the long term average rate of development is 1,610 acres per year.
Since development has slowed markedly during the recent economic downturn, the LDMF
analysis assumes that the annual total of acres developed will increase gradually as the market
recovers. The analysis assumes that approximately 300 acres per year will be developed in the
Valley during the next few years, growing gradually to 1,610 acres per year by year 13. At this
rate, a total of 110,170 acres will be developed over the remainder of the 75-year life of the
MSHCP 1
Nip
Identifying 3the MSHCP Reserve System was the result of an extensive and comprehensive
analysis conducted by an inter-agency planning team and led by CVAG. The planning team used
the best available scientific and commercial data standard to develop the MSHCP with objectives
that include the establishment, monitoring, and management of a Reserve System
The planning team developed a list of 27 Covered Species and 27 natural communities to provide
habitat for the Covered Species. This planning process resulted in the identification of 745,900
acres across 21 conservation areas, from which the MSHCP Reserve System will be established.
The Reserve System ensures the conservation of these species and natural communities as new
development occurs. Without new development, there would be no need to establish the Reserve
System because t""h;;a loss of existing habitat would not occur as a result of development activities.
' oS}}L Oi IMii.6t.,J ««�� >. . e:°:' _!•yd4T lis«!
Of the 745,900 acres in the Conservation Areas, a maximum of 22,420 acres may be developed,
resulting in a Reserve System of 723,480 acres. Just over three-quarters of the MSHCP Reserve
System, or 564,800 acres, have been conserved through 2010. Complementary Conservation
Final May 16.2011 Page 2
7 �
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Stag
and state and federal contributions to MSHCP implementation will conserve an additional 5900
acres from September 2010 forward.
An additional 7,800 acres are in areas where the only Conservation Objective is maintaining the
fluvial sand transport function through flood control standards and other regulatory mechanisms;
these 7,800 acres will not be acquired. This leaves 102,100 acres to be conserved. Of this,
10,800 acres are non-Permittee public and quasi-public lands, and 7,500 acres are Permittee-
owned lands that will be conserved in perpetuity under the MSHCP As of December 31, 2010,
the land remaining to be purchased by Local Permittees is 86,580 acres The LDMF is the
primary funding source for this habitat acquisition program.
The LDMF is also the primary funding source of M&M for the conserved acres M&M activities
required by the MSHCP are directly related to the types and amounts of land acquired for the
Reserve System. As stated in the MSHCP, the Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program is
designed to increase the level of knowledge about species covered by the Plan, conserved
natural communities, ecological processes, and connectivity. Changes in management of the
Conservation Areas could result from monitoring studies. As a result, the cost of habitat
conservation necessarily includes the research, equipment and other costs associated with the
M&M programs.
An objective of the LDMF Nexus Study is to demonstrate that sufficient funding is available for the
Permittees' habitat acquisition program and all M&M required for these lands after acquisition. A
financial model was used to calculate the level of the LDMF needed to fully fund both acquisition
and M&M programs after deducting other anticipated revenues and interest earnings on fund
balances. In this model, LDMF revenue is allocated among three funds the Land Acquisition
Fund, the Monitoring&Management Fund and the Endowment Fund.
Habitat acquisition expenditures and matching revenues would be accounted for in a Land
Acquisition Fund. Meanwhile, M&M expenditures and matching revenues would be accounted for
in a Monitoring & Management Fund. A detailed accounting of cost and revenue components for
these two funds is found in Chapter 4
As stated in the MSHCP, the Local Permittees "shall also fund an endowment for the Monitoring
and Management Programs." Further, the MSHCP states that "The Local Permittees shall
establish an endowment to fund z the Monitoring and Management Programs for[conserved] lands
in perpetuity"(emphasis added) .Accordingly, such revenues contributed by the Local Permittees
and the funds used to generate a source of perpetual funding for M&M Programs are accounted
for in the Endowment Fund
The Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC), a joint powers authority that was
created to implement the MSHCP, would manage the funds as part of these responsibilities. The
CVCC would stop collecting LDMF revenue and would terminate the Land Acquisition Fund after
2
MSHCP Section E S 6 Obligations of the Permittees, p ES-18
Final May 16,2011 Page 3
7 �
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
50 years. A key objective of the Nexus Study is to support the purchase of all habitat
conservation lands within 45 years.
.. i.=:. �i��J�,a 'on and F�� `�'.ht- ule
Table EA presents the Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule for the MSHCP in 2011
dollars, the base year of cost and revenue estimates in this analysis The fee would be imposed
per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per acre for nonresidential land uses. Per the
MSHCP, "the proposed term of the Permits is 75 years, which is the length of time required to
3
fully fund Plan implementation , Accordingly, the LDMF is charged during the entire 75 year
lifetime of the Permit.
The MSHCP states that"the acquisition program is projected to require 30 years to acquire all the
4
Permittee obligation land." Current economic conditions make the acquisition of all Permittee
obligation lands within 30 years of the MSHCP impossible without the imposition of a substantially
higher fee.As a result, this analysis extends the projected land acquisition period to 45 years.
Accordingly, the fee schedule in Table E.1 below shows two distinct LDMF amounts for two
different periods. The years 2011-2053 are years in which the CVCC is in the process of
acquiring land. Years 2054-2083 occur after the CVCC will have completed land acquisition;
during these years LDMF revenue is allocated to M&M expenses for lands already acquired, and
to the endowment.
In 2054, habitat acquisition is complete and the LDMF amount is adjusted to cover remaining
program costs. Since the bulk of program costs are related to land acquisition, the fee decreases
by 75 percent in real terms in year 46 of the LDMF program. This adjustment is made to ensure
that the CVCC does not collect more LDMF revenue than is necessary to fund the MSHCP. The
financial model underlying the fee schedule in Table EA is designed to deplete the balance of the
Land Acquisition Fund after land acquisition is complete.
3
MSHCP Section ES 1 Background, Purpose, Scope, Process,and Regulatory Context, p ES-1
4
MSHCP Section E S 1 Background, Purpose, Scope, Process,and Regulatory Context,p. ES-2.
Final May 16,2011 Page 4
3+J
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table E.1: Fee per Acre
2011-2053 2054-2083
Fee per Acre' $ 5,600 $ 1,418
Total Acres Developed 61,603 48,300
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue $ 344,976,800 $ 68,489,400
Note,Local Development Mitigation Fee revenue rounded to thousands
'The fee for years 2054-2083 reported in this table is an average fee for this period Since
land acquisition is complete by 2053,the fee for years 2054-2083 rs adjusted so that the fee
amount is just high enough to cover remaining program costs and no more.
Excludes approximately 360 acres of development that w as begun prior to NISHCP Pearmit
approval w hich w ill be exempt from the Local Development Mitigation Fee.
Sources,Tables A-1 through A-6,Willdan Financial Services
Table E,2 shows the fee per acre calculated if development occurring in the City of Desert Hot
Springs Is included Details of the impact of the entry of the City of Desert Hot Springs into the
MSHCP are discussed in Chapter 1 of this analysis
Table E.2: Fee per Acre,with Desert Hot Springs
2011-2053 2054-2083
Fee per Acre' $ 5,150 $ 1,304
Total Acres Developed 66,983 52,500
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue $ 344,962,450 $ 68,460,000
Note Local Development Mitigation Fee revenue rounded to thousands.This fee is based on
an assumption that the City of Desert Hot Sprigs represents,on average,8%of
development in the Coachella Valley
'The fee for years 2054-2083 reported in this table is an average fee for this period Since
land acquisition is complete by 2053,the fee for years 2054-2083 is adjusted so that the fee
amount is just high enough to cover remaining program costs and no more.
2 Excludes approximately 360 acres of development that w as begun prior to MSHCP permit
approval w hich w ill be exempt from the Local Development Mitigation Fee
Sources,Tables A-1 through A-6;Wildan Financial Services
Development impact fees are one-time fees, typically paid when a building permit is issued,
imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities
Final May 16,2011 Page 5
3 �
Coachella Valley Association of Governments Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
and counties). The five statutory findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for adoption of the
LDMF are summarized in Chapter 6 and supported in detail by the remainder of the report.
impleme ,ig=!, 'j
The LDMF would be collected at time of, building, or other appropriate development- related
permit issuance.To implement the fee this report recommends the CVCC do the following:
• Assist Local Permittees in adopting an ordinance and resolution imposing the
LDMF on new development and that includes an inflation adjustment to the fee;
• Work with Local Permittees to develop administrative guidelines for the LDMF
program
• Program fee revenues to specific acquisition projects and related expenditures,
including M&M and related administrative costs;
• Maintain a reasonable relationship between M&M expenditures required by the
MSHCP and the inventory of land conserved for habitat, even if planned costs for
either M&M or acquisition vary from the estimates provided In this analysis; and
• Identify an appropriate inflation adjustment and recalculate the fee annually for
each Local Permittee to adopt.
Final May 16,2011 Page 6
I
1 . I ntrod uction
This chapter provides background the development projections used in this analysis, the
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Local
Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF).
The original LDMF was enacted by the legislative bodies of the County of Riverside and the Cities
of Cathedral City, Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and
Rancho Mirage between February 2008 and March 2008 with the LDMF becoming effective upon
issuance of the federal permit (the "Permit") on October 1, 2008. Although a member of the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments, the City of Desert Hot Springs voted to not
participate in the MSHCP in 2006 and is not currently a Local Permittee.
In response to changes in program revenues, costs, and projections of development since the
LDMF was first adopted, the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) has decided to
update the LDMF program and its funding plan
This study presents the technical documentation required to update the LDMF For the agencies
to impose an updated LDMF, this analysis recognizes the following changes in key program
assumptions:
• Land acquisition for the Reserve System that occurred since late 2006 has reduced
the amount of acreage the CVCC must acquire in future years.
• Land price estimates have been adjusted to reflect the CVCC's recent transactional
experience and priority acquisition locations in the short run, and updated market
study values in the long run.
• Near term estimates of annual land development have been revised downward to
reflect actual development patterns in the Coachella Valley and the constraints of
current market conditions
• The Eagle Mountain Landfill is no longer considered a source of revenue.
• The City of Desert Hot Springs has begun the process of amending the MSHCP so
that the city will be a Local Permittee. Because the MSHCP has not been amended
and approved by the Wildlife Agencies, this analysis includes primary calculations
based on development projected for the Valley net of growth that will occur in
Desert Hot Springs An alternative scenario shows the likely reduction in the per
acre LDMF amount once the calculations incorporate the participation of the city in
rp th}e MSHCP yR t ry y��y �y �r?.._ abitai it V �aY ��QI !t i� : . JI'ia�r�.a75
Beginning in 1994 local, state, and federal agencies responsible for regulating development and
protecting habitat in the Coachella Valley participated in an extensive and comprehensive
planning process. This planning effort has produced the Coachella Valley Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (MSHCP) The California
Final May 16,2011 Page 7
V 1
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Department of Fish and Game issued the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Permit
for the MSHCP on September 9, 2008 The U S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued the Permit for
the MSHCP on October 1, 200&
The MSHCP allows the loss of natural communities and taking of species incidental to
development and infrastructure projects, provided the mitigation and other measures set forth in
the MSHCP are satisfied.
The policy objectives of the MSHCP are to:
(1) Conserve adequate habitat in an unfragmented manner for the effective preservation of
Covered species and conserved natural communities, and
(2) Simplify compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California
Endangered Species Act (CESA), Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP),
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
other laws by providing an efficient and streamlined regulatory approach. The agencies that
participated in the MSHCP include
• Local government - cities in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, and five
special districts5;
• Regional agencies-Coachella Valley Association of Governments(CVAG);
• State agencies - California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California
Department of Parks and Recreation, Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
(CVMC)6 and California State Department of Fish and Game(CDFG); and
• Federal agencies - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFVVS), U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service. 7,
Implementation of the MSHCP will reasonably mitigate the impacts on Covered Species and
conserved natural communities from Covered activities including new development and
associated public infrastructure projects in the Coachella Valley
Completion of the MSHCP enabled the CDFG and USFWS (Wildlife Agencies) to grant a Permit
for the Take of Covered Species.8 Permittees are the local governments in the Coachella Valley
5
In addition to Riverside County, local agencies include the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Indian Wells,
Indio, La Qwnta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage, as well as the Coachella Valley Water
District, Imperial Irrigation District, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District, and Riverside County Waste Resources
Management District
6
CVMC prepared the MSHCP under contract to CVAG, and will also be a Permittee
7BLM, U S Forest Service, and National Park Service are cooperative partners in the MSHCP but did not
sign the Implementing Agreement
Final May 16,2011 Page 8
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
listed above (Local Permittees) and the three state agencies (excluding CDFG) listed above
(State Permittees). "Covered Species" include species that are endangered, threatened, of
special concern, or otherwise covered by the MSHCP. "Conserved natural communities" refers to
those natural communities protected under the MSHCP pursuant to the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act of 2002.
This type of permit is often referred to as an "Incidental Take Permit" in that it enables the
Permittee to engage in an otherwise lawful activity that, as an attendant Impact, causes the loss
of Covered Species. The Permit also allows limited take of habitat and species for scientific
purposes, also known as"scientific take".
The Permit enables the Permittees to allow or engage in activities (Covered Activities) that result
in the loss of Covered Species and the conserved natural communities without implementing
mitigation requirements beyond those required by the MSHCP. For example, local governments
are able to approve new development and the state will be able to construct highway
infrastructure in the Coachella Valley. As long as the Permittees remain in compliance with the
MSHCP, they are able to conduct these types of activities without developing and implementing
additional project-specific mitigation measures with respect to the Covered Species and
conserved natural communities, except as may be required by the MSHCP.
The CVCC is a joint powers authority created to implement the MSHCP. Failure to adequately
implement the MSHCP, such as not acquiring the lands necessary to protect habitat (described
below), could result in the Wildlife Agencies suspending or revoking the Permit.
The first requirement of the MSHCP is the establishment and ongoing monitoring and
management of a Reserve System of lands to provide habitat for Covered Species and the
conserved natural communities. Much of this MSHCP Reserve System already exists. Portions of
the Reserve System will be established through Complementary Conservation efforts and
contributions by state and federal agencies. Substantial lands remain to be purchased from
private landowners to complete the Reserve System as part of the Permittees' mitigation. The
Local Permittees are responsible for these habitat acquisition actions and associated monitoring
and management programs.
The LDMF imposed on new development projects is a primary source of funding for the habitat
acquisition program and the monitoring and management program under the MSHCP. This report
documents the legal and policy basis to support the adoption by local agencies in the Coachella
Valley of the LDMF, a type of development impact fee under California Government Code Section
66000 et seq. The fee would be adopted by Coachella Valley cities and the County of Riverside
and collected from new development under their jurisdiction within the Plan Area,
8
The permit was granted by USFWS under the Federal Endangered Species Act, Section 10(a), and by
CDFG under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, California Fish and Game Code
Section 2835
Final May 16,2011 Page 9
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
The LDMF is necessary for the following two reasons:
1) Local Permittees Must Uphold the MSHCP's Implementing Agreement (IA). The IA,
signed by Local Permittees in October of 2007, defines the roles and responsibilities of
Permittees and provides a common understanding of the actions that will be undertaken
to implement the MSHCP. For each local government agency to receive incidental take
authority for Covered Species, the Wildlife Agencies require that the Local Permittees
identify sufficient funding for implementation of the MSHCP. The Cities are also required
to adopt an ordinance imposing the Local Development Mitigation Fee
2) Proposed Development Must Mitigate its Impacts to Covered Species. Development
projects with direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to Covered species or critical habitat
are able to mitigate those impacts with payment of the LDMF Because the LDMF
supports the completion of the MSHCP's Reserve System and associated M&M activities
in perpetuity, the LDMF mitigates for the project's direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
to habitat and Covered Species under CEQA.
By creating a region-wide habitat conservation program, developers and local land use agencies
are able to rely on the payment of the fee as mitigation for certain habitat impacts and can avoid a
time consuming and costly process to receive incidental take authority on a project-by-project
basis. Implementation of the MSHCP, including the establishment, monitoring, and management
of a Reserve System, provides a comprehensive approach to mitigate such impacts for new
development throughout the Coachella Valley. In addition, the MSHCP provides a basis for
mitigating the impacts to Covered Species and conserved natural communities associated with
the development of public infrastructure necessary to serve new development.
Without the Permit, new development approved by a local government in the Coachella Valley
would face a significant constraint because projects would seek separate approval from the
wildlife agencies before proceeding. Project-by-project regulatory approval for habitat mitigation
would add substantially to the time and cost of the development process.
Final May 16,2011 Page 10
,. U
2. Plan Area ' .and Use
This chapter describes the boundaries of the area covered by the MSHCP (the "Plan Area"),
existing land use, and estimates of growth within the Plan Area.
The Coachella Valley is a broad, low elevation, northwest-southeast trending valley comprising
the westernmost limits of the Sonoran Desert. The Valley is located in the central portion of
Riverside County, approximately 100 miles east of Los Angeles.
The Plan Area encompasses the Coachella Valley and the surrounding mountains up to the
ridgeline. The Plan Area extends west to Cabazon where it is bounded by the range line common
to Range 1 East and Range 2 East. This is approximately the limit of the Sonoran or Colorado
Desert in the San Gorgonio Pass area. To the east the Plan Area extends to the range line
common to Range 13 East and Range 14 East. Either the ridgeline of the Little San Bernardino
Mountains or the boundary line with San Bernardino County where the ridgeline extends north of
the county line defines the northern boundary. On the south, either the ridgeline of the San
Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains or the boundary line with San Diego or Imperial Counties
forms the Plan Area boundary.
Ex;Sfing Use
The Plan Area comprises approximately 1.1 million acres, an amount that excludes Indian
reservation lands not subject to the MSHCP. Table 2.1 summarizes the existing acreage within
the Plan Area by land use. The acreage indicated as Urban and Rural in the table corresponds to
the Developed Areas shown in Figure 1, The MSHCP Reserve System will be composed of much
of the Open Space, Public and Private Conservation Lands plus some Public and Private Non-
Conservation Lands to be acquired with funding from the LDMF and other sources. Indian
Reservation lands are not subject to the MSHCP, reducing the total area covered by the MSHCP
to approximately 1.1 million acres.
Final May 16.2011 Page 11
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 2.1: Plan Area Existing Land Use
Percent of
Total Acres Plan Area
Urban 67,400 5 9%
Rural, Rural Residential 12,500 1 1%
Agriculture 84,900 7.5%
Lake(includes Salton Sea)' 43,500 3.8%
Reservoirz 800 0.1%
Wind Energy Uses 4,400 0 4%
Quarry 900 0.1%
Landfill 400 0 0%
Public and Private Non-Conservation Lands3 320,600 28 2%
Open Space-Public and Private Conservation Lands4 601,000 52 9%
Total Area Covered By Plan 1,136,400 100.0%
Indian Reservation Lands (Not Covered By Plan) 69,600
Total Plan Area 1,206,000
Note:Land use estimates above are current as of 2007,
' Includes Salton Sea and other natural water bodies
Z Includes Lake Cahudla,Whitewater River recharge ponds,and other artificial water bodies
3 Includes private lands which are primarily undeveloped and public lands used for non-conservation
purposes Public lands are owned by Riverside County,County Flood Control,Metropolitan Water District,
the State Lands Commission,cities,U S.Army Corps of Engineers,Coachella Valley Water District,U 5.
Bureau of Reclamation,and the U S military
°Includes public lands dedicated to open space and conservation purposes and private lands owned by
land trusts or conservation organizations,or protected by a conservation easement or deed restriction.
Source Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community
Conservation Plan;Willdan Financial Services
.� .r 0 _: eIC.,p,F 3.a:.. .r 1t7P'It! the rya° t o
With the assistance of data developed by CVAG staff, an estimate was made for the total amount
of new development anticipated within the Plan Area. These projections are used by this analysis
to allocate habitat acquisition and M&M program costs to new development and to calculate the
Local Development Mitigation Fee (see Chapter 4),
Planning Horizon
This analysis uses a 75-year planning horizon (2009 to 2083) to estimate future growth and
assumes that the LDMF could be discontinued after that time. This analysis also assumes a 45-
year land acquisition program followed by a 30-year fee collection period to fully fund an
endowment that supports M&M in perpetuity.
The 75 year planning horizon was selected to match the permit term for Incidental Take Permits.
One of the goals of the MSHCP was to acquire all necessary habitat for conservation in as little
time as practical within the timeframe of the planning horizon. The habitat acquisition portion of
the MSHCP was originally anticipated to occur within 30 years. However, the rate of development
Final May 16,2011 Page 12
•'i
.� 3
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
has significantly slowed, and several major sources of revenue, in particular the Fagle Mountain
Open Space Trust, have become unavailable to the CVCC.
Both factors limit the CVCC in acquiring habitat according to its original timeline. Accordingly, this
analysis adjusts the land acquisition period to 45 years.
The selection of a planning horizon is consistent with legal requirements for the issuance of
incidental take permits that allow the take of Covered Species in the course of otherwise lawful
activities such as land development. The MSHCP will, to the maximum extent practicable,
minimize and mitigate the impacts of this take and provide for conservation of Covered Species.
Evaluation of a Suildout Planning Horizon
If habitat acquisition and M&M costs were spread across all new development through build out
of the Plan Area then the Local Permittees would not fully fund the MSHCP until construction of
"the last home" in the Coachella Valley. Because the rate of growth slows as buildout
approaches, the time horizon for buildout could extend beyond 75 years given recent
development trends and the amount of land available for development.9 This period of time is not
a practicable planning horizon for the following reasons-
• Permit Compliance: The habitat acquisition program and establishment of an M&M
endowment should be accomplished within a reasonable period of time. If either
objective is not achieved before expiration of the Permit, the Wildlife Agencies
could determine that the Permittees are not fully funding their obligations under the
MSHCP and therefore are not in compliance with the Permit. Non-compliance
would constrain economic development within the region by requiring each
development project to separately mitigate habitat impacts.
• Land acquisition cost inflation: Acquiring land sooner rather than later will reduce
total costs by limiting the impact of land price Inflation Land, particularly residential
land, often increases in price faster than the average price inflation of all goods and
services as development in a region intensifies. Consequently, early funding of the
habitat acquisition program will reduce the total real (Inflation-adjusted) cost of the
program.
• Lost Conservation Opportunities: Given current development pressure, if land
acquisition is not completed within the first 45 years, development within the
conservation areas could impede establishment of the Reserve System.
A 75-year planning horizon was selected given these considerations. The 75-year horizon is
longer than most facility financing plans because most planned development functions at a
smaller scale and funds public infrastructure for a smaller increment of growth than the MSHCP.
The 75-year approach also does not unfairly burden near-term development with the entire cost
of the program because it spreads costs over such an extended (75-year) period.
9
The amount of undeveloped land available for development Is defined by land use policies contained in the
existing General Plans of cities and the County within the Plan Area
Final May 16,2011 Page 13
v .'
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
In sum, a 75-year planning horizon, by being reasonable, conservative, and flexible ensures that
the Permittees can provide the maximum practicable funding and benefit from compliance with
the Permit through fully funding of the MSHCP
Growth Projections
Growth projections for the 2007 Nexus Study were based on an analysis of actual development
patterns in the Plan area between 1989 and 2010, using data from the California Department of
Resources Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The 2007 Nexus Study update
used an estimate of acres developed per year based on historical development during the period
of 1989 to 2004 for the Plan Area Based on this analysis, CVAG then estimated that the rate of
development in the Plan Area excluding Indian Reservation land has averaged 1,370 acres per
year.
New Information
For this analysis, the development assumptions for Coachella Valley, including the City of Desert
Hot Springs, are based on both the estimates of residential dwelling units and commercial square
feet developed annually by agencies collecting the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee(TUMF)
and data from FMMP. Development data from 1995 to 2006 was selected in order to capture real
estate data from the trough year of 1995 to the peak year of 2006.
This data selection is done in anticipation that cycles like this will occur throughout the lifetime of
the LDMF; the average developed acreage calculated in this study captures development through
boom and bust years
Based on this approach, the revised long term rate of growth for the jurisdictions subject to the
fee is 1,750 acres per year
The current General Plans of the Coachella Valley cities and the County of Riverside have
sufficient undeveloped land zoned for urban uses within the Plan Area to accommodate this level
of development. As economic conditions affecting real estate development have persisted, this
analysis reduces development projections for the first eight to twelve years of the planning
horizon.
A Scenario for a New Permittee
This analysis also recognizes that the City of Desert Hot Springs has begun the process of
amending the MSHCP so that the city will be a Local Permittee. Because the MSHCP has not
been amended and approved by the Wildlife Agencies, this analysis first presents the LDMF if
based on growth projections that exclude all development in the City of Desert Hot Springs. An
alternative calculation for the LDMF assumes that the MSHCP is amended so that all future
development in the city is subject to the LDMF
Development data for the City of Desert Hot Springs indicates that the City has held between 6
and 10 percent of growth in the Coachella Valley. Accordingly, the LDMF is first shown using
estimates of annual developed acreage reduced by a midpoint market share for the City of 8
percent each year(see Table A-1 for the development schedule in detail).
Final May 16,2011 Page 14
40
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Based on this approach, the revised long term rate of growth for the jurisdictions subject to the
LDMF is 1,750 acres less 8 percent, or 1,610 acres. In the next ten years of the Plan, projected
annual development slowly increases to 1,610 acres but does not surpass this amount.
Final May 16,2011 Page 15
� t
3. Neec er Habi-a-1,. Conservation
Identifying the MSHCP Reserve System was the result of an extensive and comprehensive
analysis conducted by an inter-agency planning team and led by CVAG. The planning team used
the best scientific and commercial data available to develop the MSHCP and define activities
supporting acquisition of the Reserve System, followed by monitoring and management of
Reserve System lands in perpetuity. This chapter describes how the planning team originally
identified lands to include in the MSHCP Reserve System.
a b i t a t Col jsw rva or. C :4;Z.
The MSHCP was developed to achieve the following habitat conservation objectives.
• Represent native ecosystem types or natural communities across their natural
range of variation in a system of conserved areas.
• Maintain or restore viable populations of the species included in the MSHCP so
that incidental take permits can be obtained for currently listed species and non-
listed species can be covered in case they are listed in the future
• Sustain ecological and evolutionary processes necessary to maintain the viability of
the natural communities and habitats for the species included in the MSHCP.
These three goals were used to guide the development of the MSHCP Reserve System.
A fourth objective of the MSHCP is to manage the system adaptively to be responsive to short-
term and long-term environmental change.
The management activities required to achieve all four habitat conservation goals will continue in
perpetuity and will be funded by earnings from an endowment after the expiration of the Permit.
The MSHCP obligates Permittees to establish an endowment to fund these activities in perpetuity
for acquired lands. The LDMF will fund a portion of these costs. The endowment is also funded
by contributions from state and local agencies and revenue associated with landfill tipping fees
and interest earnings on the endowment's year to year balance.
Cover�ec' Spebes and Na.5u w {��►i a§I��.,: _�:�";
The planning team developed an initial list of 52 species to consider protecting under the
MSHCP. These species were identified as either endangered or threatened by the Wildlife
Agencies, or at risk for becoming listed as threatened or endangered Through the planning
process this list was reduced to 27 Covered Species. Species were eliminated from the final list
for reasons such as a lack of known locations in the Plan Area and insufficient data to facilitate
conservation planning. Table 3.1 lists the 27 Covered Species and identifies the reason for their
inclusion in the MSHCP
The Plan Area contains 46 natural communities. The 27 natural communities included in the
MSHCP Reserve System are those needed to provide habitat for the Covered Species. Table 3.2
lists the natural communities protected by the MSHCP Reserve System.
Final May 16,2011 Page 16
42
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 3.1: Covered Species Under the MSHCP
Plants
Mecca aster,Xvlorhiza c•ognata (NS)
Coachella Valley milkvetch,Astragalus lentiginosus var.couchellae (FE)
Triple-ribbed milkvetch,Astragalus trzcurinatzts (1-E)
Cirocopia sage,Salviagreatae (NS)
Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus,Linunthus maculatus(or Gilia maculuta) (NS)
Invertebrates-Insects
Coachella Valley giant sand-treader cricket. Uacrobaenetes valgunz
Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket,Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis
Fish
Desert pupfish, C'tnrinodon nzacularius (FF.-SE)
Amphibians
Arroyo toad, Bifo cali%ormcus (FF./CSC")
Reptiles
Desert tortoise, Gopherus agas%izii (F'UST)
Flat-tailed horned lizard, Phrtvwsoma mcallti (CSC)
Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Uma inornata (FT/SF.)
Birds
Yuma clapper rail,Rallus longirostrisYumanensis (FE;ST.,SFP)
California black rail, Laterallusjumaicensis (ST/SFP)
Burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia (CSC)
Southwestern willow flycatcher,Empidonar traillii extimus (SF/FE)
Crissal thrasher, Toxostoma crissale (CSC)
Le Conte's thrasher, To_rostoma lecontei (CSC)
Least Bell's vireo, Vireo bellii pusilltts (FE/S1 )
Gray vireo, Vireo vicinior (CSC)
Yellow warbler,Dendroiea petechia bi•ewsteri (CSC)
Yellow-breasted chat,Icteria virgins (CSC)
Summer tanager, Pit-aj,+a rubra (NS)
Mammals
Southern yellow bat,La,%hirus ega or xanthina% (NS)
Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel,Sperniophilus terethwuduti c•hlorus (CSC)
Palm Springs pocket mouse, Perognathus longinienibris bangsi (CSC)
Peninsular bighorn sheep, (h-is canudensis nelsoni (FE%STfSFP)
Note Species conservation information above current as of 2007
Key
FE Federal Endangered CSC Species of Special Concern(a state list of species that are at risk)
FT Federal Threatened NOS No Official Status(USFWS,CDFG,and the Scientific Advisory Committee that
SE State Endangered assisted in preparing the MSHCP recommend inclusion of these species because of
ST State Threatened the probability of their being placed on an official list
SC State Candidate
SFP State Fully Protected
Source Coachella Valley Association of Governments,Coachella Valley Multiple species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural
Community Conservation Plan, Table 3-1
Final May 16,2011 Page 17
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 3.2: Natural Communities Included in the MSHCP
Active desert dunes
Stabilized and partially stabilized desert dunes
Active desert sand fields
Ephemeral desert sand fields
Stabilized and partially stabilized desert sand fields
Stabilized shielded desert sand fields
Mesquite hummocks
Sonoran creosote bush scrub
Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub
Mojave mixed woody scrub
Desert saltbush scrub
Desert sink scrub
Chamise chaparral
Redshank chaparral
Semi-desert chaparral
Interior live oak chaparral
Cismontane alkali marsh
Coastal and valley freshwater marsh
Southern arroyo willow riparian forest
Sonoran cottonwood-willow riparian forest
Mesquite bosque
Desert dry wash woodland
Desert fan palm oasis woodland
Southern sycamore-alder riparian woodland
Arrowweed scrub
Mojavean pinyon-juniper woodland
Peninsular juniper woodland and scrub
Now Natural communities list current as of 2007
Source:Coachella Valley Association of Governments,Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, Table 3-3.
Reserve System
The MSHCP planning team collected information on each Covered Species' life history, habitat,
ecological requirements, overall range, distribution, threats, and conservation needs. The team
gathered similar information on the composition and distribution of natural communities and on
existing conservation areas, topography, watersheds, ecological processes, roads, and current
land uses. The team then had maps prepared of the natural communities and species' habitat
distribution. These maps became the basis of for identifying lands with the highest biological
resource value to include in the Reserve System.
For each Covered Species for which sufficient information was available, core habitat areas were
delineated with unfragmented habitat that contained intact ecological processes large enough for
self-sustaining populations of species. Areas needed to maintain essential ecological processes,
core habitat, biological corridors, and linkages were also identified. The following measures of
Final May 16.2011 Page 18
L1 tx
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
adequacy were used to determine the habitat necessary to preserve Covered Species and the
conserved natural communities and identify lands to be included in the MSHCP Reserve System.
• Size of habitat patches. For each Covered Species, the planning team assessed
whether a conservation area provided core habitat. The Core Habitat concept was
not applied to species that were considered to occur as metapopulations. These
species are the burrowing owl, Le Conte's thrasher, Yuma clapper rail, California
black rail, riparian bird species, and southern yellow bat A conservation area was
not deemed inadequate because of the lack of core habitat for these species. The
concept of core habitat was not used with natural communities
• The number of core habitat areas protected in conservation areas for each
Covered Species. Where possible, the planning team sought to conserve a
minimum of three core habitat areas for each Covered Species. In some cases,
more than three core habitat areas for a Covered Species occurred in the
conservation areas. In other instances, fewer than three core habitat areas for a
Covered Species occurred in the Plan Area.
• Representative range of environmental conditions, including temperature, moisture,
and elevation gradients, under which the species or natural community occurs in a
viable population. For each Covered Species, the planning team assessed whether
the conservation areas included other conserved habitat that provided for the
conservation of the range of environmental conditions in which the species occurs
in the Plan Area.
• Essential ecological processes. These could include hydrological processes (both
subsurface and surface), blowsand movement, erosion, deposition, substrate
development, soil formation, and biological processes such as reproduction,
pollination, dispersal, and migration. The planning team assessed the conservation
areas to evaluate whether the essential ecological processes necessary to sustain
the Covered Species and the conserved natural communities present were
included in the conservation areas.
• Biological corridors and linkages. For each Covered Species, the planning team
assessed whether connectivity of the population in each conservation area was
maintained with populations in other conservation areas and to populations outside
the Plan Area to the maximum extent feasible.
While the planning process resulted in the identification of an MSHCP Reserve System of
723,480 acres, habitat for each Covered Species can include additional areas within the 1.1
10
million acres subject to the Plan. Impacts to this habitat, including direct, indirect, and
10
As set forth in the MSHCP, development may occur on a maximum of 22,420 acres of the Reserve
System. In addition, development that is consistent with maintaining certain conservation objectives is also
allowed within 7,800 acres designated as fluvial sand transport areas
Final May 16.2011 Page 19
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
cumulative impacts,from land use decisions made by local governments are addressed by CEQA
among other state and federal laws A direct impact to habitat for a Covered Species results from
the construction of new residential, nonresidential, and public uses on lands containing habitat
value, or whenever habitat is modified to reduce its suitability for the Covered Species
Aside from direct impacts, development on lands in the Plan Area without habitat value for any
Covered Species can produce indirect impacts on Covered Species as well. New residential,
nonresidential, and associated public uses on land without habitat values economically support
developed uses on lands that either have or had habitat value for Covered Species. Examples
Include normal development patterns that allow proximate residential development to support
retail development, employment development to support additional housing, and public
Infrastructure to support all types of private development.
These market support relationships cross from lands containing habitat for Covered Species into
lands with no habitat value and vice versa. As a result, all new developed acres in the Coachella
Valley have direct or indirect impacts on Covered Species.
Development of lands containing habitat and lands that do not contain habitat are part of the
cumulative impacts on Covered Species Cumulative impacts include the impact of existing
development on former and current acres of natural communities. Cumulative impacts also
include noise, lighting, drainage, Intrusion of people into habitat areas, and the introduction of
non-native plants and non-native predators such as dogs and cats.
In addition to satisfying obligations of the IA and funding a Reserve System that benefits
residents of the community,the LDMF provides a means of mitigating the cumulative impact of an
estimated 110,170 acres of new development in the Plan Area on Covered Species between
2011 and 2083.
Final May 16,2011 Page 20
AD
4. Cast of MSHCP Activities
This chapter describes the cost of the land acquisition and M&M programs and presents the plan
for completing the program during the 75-year planning horizon. The land acquisition and M&M
programs occur concurrently because monitoring of Covered Species and natural communities
guides habitat acquisition objectives as the MSHCP progresses. Both sets of activities help
mitigate the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of take that occurs with development.
The LDMF must address the costs associated with both land acquisition and M&M programs in
order to support the full conservation effort. If no new development occurred within the Plan Area
then there would be no take of Covered Species' habitat and no need for conservation of habitat
lands and careful monitoring and management of potentially threatened species and natural
communities. Thus, new development is solely responsible for and benefits entirely from these
costs.
One objective of this analysis is to demonstrate that funding is available to cover the total costs
associated with acquisition of land, land preparation, and M&M activities. This analysis organizes
the costs associated with habitat acquisition and land preparation, as well as non fee revenues
dedicated to these activities, into a Land Acquisition Fund. Costs associated with M&M activities,
as well as non fee revenues dedicated to these activities, are organized in the M&M Fund,
The Land Acquisition and M&M Funds account for the year to year activity of the habitat
acquisition, monitoring and management components of conservation. In addition to these
activities, the MSHCP specifies that"The Local Permittees shall establish an endowment to fund
the Monitoring and Management Programs for those[conserved habitat] lands in perpetuity." 11
Even though funding to acquire land must be complete before the expiration of the Permit term,
the Local Permittees maintain possession of conserved habitat, as well as the obligation to
continue conservation in perpetuity per the MSHCP. As a result, a funding mechanism must be
established to ensure that enough funding has been received to continue the M&M programs
after year 75 of the planning horizon This analysis organizes the sources and uses of these
funds into an Endowment Fund.
This analysis is based on a financial model constructed to estimate annual revenues and costs
for the Land Acquisition Fund, Monitoring & Management Fund and Endowment Funds. The
model was used to calculate the level of the LDMF needed to fully fund the habitat acquisition
and M&M programs after deducting other anticipated revenues and interest earnings on the fund
balances. Implementation of the MSHCP includes other costs such as land management, habitat
monitoring, and administration that are In addition to the habitat acquisition program. The LDMF
11
MSHCP Section E S 6:Obligations of the Permittees,p ES-18
Final May 16,2011 Page 21
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
contributes to the funding of these costs; the mechanism by which this occurs is discussed in
detail below.
LDMF revenue is allocated among three funds, each of which supports different aspects of the
conservation program. All LDMF revenue and habitat acquisition expenditures are accounted for
in the Land Acquisition Fund, the Monitoring & Management Fund or the Endowment Fund.
CVCC manages the funds as part of its responsibilities to implement the MSHCP The funds,
whether functioning as one accounting fund or several subfunds, enable the CVCC to comply
with a provision of the Fee Mitigation Act described in Chapter 6 that requires development
impact fees to be placed in a separate fund.
Before year 45, LDMF revenue that directly supports M&M is only allocated to the M&M Fund.
After year 45, portions of LDMF revenue are dedicated to both the M&M Fund and to the creation
of an Endowment Fund that will support M&M after year 75. The endowment fulfills the obligation
of the Local Permittees set out in the MSHCP.
Permittees would continue collecting LDMF revenue through year 75 but the CVCC would
terminate the Land Acquisition Fund after 45 years
Table 4.1 presents a summary of the land acreage that will comprise the MSHCP Reserve
System described in the previous chapter. Of the 1.1 million acres in the Plan Area, 745,900
acres will be preserved as habitat. Seventy-eight percent or 561,700 acres of the Reserve
System has already been set aside. Complementary Conservation and state and federal
contributions to MSHCP implementation will conserve an additional 59,680 acres from November
2006 forward.
The remaining amount of 102,100 acres includes 10,800 acres of non-Permittee public and
quasi-public land, and 7,800 fluvial sand transport areas where acquisition is not required.
Approximately 7,500 acres is Permittee-owned land that will be conserved in perpetuity though
the MSHCP
There are now 86,580 acres remaining in that total after transactions that closed through
December 31, 2010.The LDMF is the primary funding source for this habitat acquisition program.
Another key objective of the LDMF Program is the purchase of all habitat conservation lands as
soon as financially feasible within 45 years. Given the current development pressure, if land
acquisition is not completed within the first 45 years, important resources may become
developed, or surrounded by new development to the extent that the land may become isolated
and unsuitable habitat.
The following sections describe the habitat acquisition revenues and expenditures included in this
analysis.
Final May 16.2011 Page 22
� a
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission _Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 4.1: MSHCP Reserve System
Acres
Conservation Areas Total 745,900
Potential Development Within Conservation Areas 22,420
MSHCP Reserve System Total 723,480
Existing Conservation Lands (as of June 2006)1 561,700
Land to be Conserved(as of June 2006) 161,780
Future Complementary Conservation(as of June 2006) 28,180
State and Federal Contribution To Plan Implementation (as of June 2006) 20,700
Consenlatlon of Lands Owned By Non-permittee Public or Quasi-Public Entitles' 10,800
Conserved Land Not Responsibility of Local Permittees 59,680
Remaining Lands to Be Conserved By Local Permittees 102,100
Local Permittee Responsibility
Conservation of Existing Local Permittee Lands3 7,500
Conservation of Fluvial Sand Transport Area 7,800
Subtotal Local Permittee Responsibility 15,300
Balance to be Acquired By Local Permittees at Time of Permit Issuance 86,800
Balance to be Acquired By Local Permittees, December 2010 86,580
Note Estimates of land in conservation areas are from different dates and have been combined into one table Minor
inconsistencies may remain
Lands set aside for conservation purposes and ow ned by federal,state,and local agencies and non-profit organizations
Lands currently ow ned by entities such as local utilities that the MSHCP estimates w ill be conserved through the regulatory
process as those entities seek approval to conduct various activities on their lands
3 Lands currently ow ned by Local Permittees that they w ill set aside for conservation
4 Lands that,through land use regulation w ill be required to maintain their natural function as fluvial sand transport areas
Source Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
PIanANatural Community Conservation Plan, Table 4-1
Revenues
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue
LDMF revenue would provide the majority of funding for the habitat acquisition program. The fee
generates revenue by multiplying the per acre fee by the estimated acres of new development.
The fee is assumed to increase at 3.29 percent annually The inflation rate of 3.29 percent per
year is based on the average annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los
Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)from 1984 to 2009.
The inflation rate of 3 29 percent is a long run average estimate of general costs in the economy,
and the actual increase will be based on the provisions of Permittee fee ordinances regarding
automatic updating of the fee and other jurisdiction-specific LDMF actions as implementation
proceeds.
Final May 16,2011 Page 23
� a
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Once all land acquisition has been completed in year 45, the only MSHCP costs that remain are
M&M and administrative costs required to continue the program through year 75 and after
expiration of the Permit The M&M activities that occur after habitat acquisition is complete will
evaluate the efficacy of conservation by studying Covered Species and natural communities
inhabiting conserved habitat. The findings that emerge from monitoring research may require
management measures taken to preserve habitat in conserved areas to adapt to changing
circumstances The LDMF will be adjusted to generate revenues sufficient to fund these costs in
years 46 through 75.
Actual fee levels may vary depending on the frequency of LDMF updates in response to changes
in the rate of development and the price of land, among other variables The MSHCP requires
that a new Nexus Study be completed at least every five years.
Regional Road Project Mitigation
Measure A is a half-cent sales tax approved by Riverside County voters to fund transportation
projects. From Measure A funds, $30 million are dedicated to fully mitigate the direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects of transportation projects on the Covered Species and the conserved
natural communities. Of this amount $21,819,000 will be contributed to the Land Acquisition
Fund, and the remaining$8,181,000 million will be deposited into the Endowment Fund.
Regional infrastructure Mitigation
This revenue source is generated by two public agencies in connection with mitigation of
infrastructure projects. The first agency is the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD is
anticipated to acquire 550 acres for the MSHCP Reserve System in the Thousand Palms
Conservation Area. The acquisition would mitigate habitat impacts of the Thousand Palms Flood
Control Project and is estimated to cost$10.5 million.
This acquisition is anticipated to occur in the early years of the MSHCP. The cost estimate is
based on the current average market value per acre for the Thousand Palms area of $15,700
(see discussion and table under Expenditures - Land Acquisition, below). The CVWD will also
have contributed a total of$4.0 million as payment to the CVCC for participation in the MSHCP
over the lifetime of the LDMF,this contribution will be part of the program Endowment.
The second agency is the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans has an
obligation to acquire 5,791 acres of habitat to mitigate non-interchange highway projects in the
Coachella Valley. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, Caltrans is assumed to acquire 1,930
acres in plan years 8 and 10, and 1,931 acres in year 15.
Acquisition costs per acre are assumed to be the same average cost for all acquired acres in the
year of acquisition. The actual phasing of the funding for this obligation by Caltrans on an annual
basis is not material to the calculation of the LDMF, because the mitigation is based on a given
amount of acreage to be acquired, not on a specific amount of revenue to be contributed.
Interest Earnings
The Mitigation Fee Act requires that interest earnings on development impact fee revenues be
credited to the same fund in which the fees are deposited and expended for the same purposes
This analysis assumes a long term interest rate of 5.73 percent on fund balances, a rate
Final May 16,2011 Page 24
50
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
approximately equal to the 1984-2009 average interest rate for Pooled Money Investment
Accounts (PMIA) reported by the California State Treasury. This fund is a proxy for the type of
investment vehicle CVCC must use to preserve fund balances for the benefit of MSHCP
objectives
Expenditures
Land Acquisition
Estimates for the price of land to be acquired by Permittees vary by the location of each
conservation area in the Valley. Per acre prices used in this analysis are based on the CVCC's
recent experience with land acquisition, as well as an independent study that relied on current
sales and listings of comparable properties (A Market Study of Land Values. Related to Several
Areas of Prospective Acquisition. Associated with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, Scarcella, June 2010)
The study estimated low, mid, and high range market values per acre for each of 20 conservation
areas within the Plan Area. Estimates were made of the percentage of land to be acquired at
each market level in each conservation area. These costs exclude transaction costs(see below).
Table 4.2 on the following page details land acquisition amounts and undiscounted (nominal
dollar) purchase costs by conservation area within the MSHCP Reserve System.
Analysis of this data uses a number of cost estimates per acre multiplied by acres acquired to
estimate total costs for each year of MSHCP. Average per acre costs include related transaction
costs for appraisals, escrow fees, and other costs that are estimated to be approximately five
percent in addition to the land purchase price The calculation of the average costs per acre used
in this analysis, including transaction costs in 2010 dollars are shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.2
informs the price per acre for acres to be acquired after acres designated high priority by the
CVCC The CVCC's criteria for setting land acquisition priorities are described below.
The Nexus Study bases its assumptions for land cost on the recent land purchasing patterns and
long term strategies adopted by the CVCC In the short run, the CVCC has identified the following
areas as its highest acquisition priorities-
• Thousand Palms Conservation Area
• Upper Mission Creek Conservation Area
• Coachella Valley Stormwater and Delta Conservation Area
• Willow Hole Conservation Area
• East Indio Hills Conservation Area.
Prioritization is based on how vulnerable natural habitat is in the area, the degree of threat
development poses to existing habitat or species and the extent to which the proportion of
developed to conserved land, or"Rough Step" has been satisfied in the area.
The areas identified above contain some of the highest priced land in the Plan Area. The CVCC
has been purchasing high priority land in these areas at an average of approximately $9,610 per
acre Table 4 2 above shows that this figure is roughly compatible with the average price per acre
in high-priced areas reported by the June 2010 Market Study of Land Values.
Final May 16,2011 Page 25
5 �.
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
The Nexus Study assumes that the first 22,000 acres purchased by the CVCC during the lifetime
of the LDMF will be purchased in these areas, and carries this price assumption forward until the
first 22,000 acres of conservation land are purchased. This analysis estimates that the CVCC will
have purchased Its first 22,000 of high priority land before year 30 of the planning horizon.
Table 4.2: Modified MSHCP Reserve System Local Permittees Land
Acquisition Costs
No. MSHCP Designation Priority Acres' $Per Acre Total Cast
Priority Areas
2 Stubbe&Cottonwood Canyons 1 1,705 $ 5,250 $ 8,949,938
3 Snow Creek!Windy Point 1 1,018 1,365 1,390,116
5 Highway 111 /1-10 1 358 7,550 2,703,353
6 Whitewater Floodplain 1 2,082 5,450 11,344,175
7 Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Cyn 1 5,117 8,885 45,462,146
8 Willow Hole 1 2,392 9,813 23,471,500
9 Edom Hill 1 1,185 7,781 9,223,349
10 Thousand Palms 1 4,995 15,700 78,421,500
19 CV Stormwater Channel&Delta 1 2,651 9,688 25,680,303
Total 21,503 $ 206,646,380
Priority Areas Average Price per Acre $ 9,610
Non-Priority Areas
1 Cabazon 2 2,806 $ 1,175 $ 3,296,968
4 Whitewater Canyon 2 78 1,081 84,770
11 West Deception Canyon 2 557 1,343 747,987
12 Indio Hills/Joshua Tree NP Linkage 2 2,088 4,325 9,029,865
13 Indio Hills Palms 2 1,525 1,706 2,601,229
14 East Indio Hills 2 1,014 3,925 3,980,343
15 Joshua Tree National Park 2 12,140 419 5,083,654
16 Desert Tortoise and Linkage 2 39,283 906 35,600,119
17 Mecca Hills/Orocopia Mountains 2 20,151 644 12,972,406
18 Dos Palmas 2 10,456 603 6,299,445
20 Santa Rosa&San Jacinto Mtns 2 33,052 2,875 95,025,276
Total 123,150 $ 174,722,062
Non-Priority Average Price per Acre $ 1,419
Note Transaction costs for appraisals,escrow fees and related costs not included
'Acres reflect acres actually available for conservation purchase by the CVCC.
Source Scarcella,A Malket Study of Land Values,Related to Several Areas of Prospective Acquisition Associated with the
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan June 2010
Final May 16,2011 Page 26
52
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 4.3: Land Acquisition and Transaction Costs
Actual Land Acquisition Period Total
2009 2010 2011-2038f 2039-2053
Average Cost Per Acre($2010) $ 9 159 $ 10,071 $ 9,610 $ 1,419
Transaction CostS2 5 00% 5 00% 5 00% 5 00%
Total Land Cost per Acre $ 9,617 $ 10,574 $ 10,091 $ 1,490
Acres Purchased 150 1 100 21,175 65,673 88,098
Titneframe in w hich CV CC purchases as first 22,000 priority acres in high priced areas
2 FiCludes costs for appraisals escrow fees and related transaction activities
Sources Coachella Valley Association of Governments Wildan Financial Services
Final May 16,2011 Page 27
v .J
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
After the CVCC purchases 22,000 acres of high priority land, the CVCC may purchase and
conserve parcels in less developed and less costly areas. This analysis assumes that the price of
the remaining acreage will equal the average cost of low priority acreage shown in Table 4.2.
The Nexus Study assumes that land acquisition costs will increase at 3.29 percent annually
during the 50-year acquisition period, resulting in the larger cost estimate in nominal dollars
shown in Appendix Table A-2, which summarizes the Land Acquisition Fund. This real estate
inflation factor of 3.29 percent per year is based on a more general proxy for changes in prices:
the average annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Riverside-
Orange County Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) from 1984 to 2009. The period chosen
extends beyond the prior decade in order to capture a data series for a long term average
Table 4 3 shows the land cost per acre assumptions used in this study for each stage of land
acquisition in the planning horizon. This analysis adds a 5 percent premium to the price of land in
an effort to account for escrow fees and other expenses that arise in the process of purchasing
land. Land costs per acre for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 are actual values based on CVCC
records The CVCC expects to update this analysis periodically based on new land appraisal
studies.
This analysis includes an estimate of the amount of land acquired on an annual basis over the
45-year acquisition period. The analysis assumes that as much land as possible is acquired as
early as possible subject to revenue constraints. To supplement LDMF revenues, regional road
project and infrastructure mitigation payments provide revenue through year 18 of the MSHCP.
These phasing assumptions meet the "Rough Proportionality" requirements of the MSHCP
regarding the amount of habitat land conserved compared to the amount of development that
occurs Actual land acquisition costs may turn out to be more or less than these estimates. Land
price inflation may also vary from the rate assumed here.
Costs would be lower to the extent that land is protected through methods other than fee simple
purchase, such as conservation easements. CVAG will conduct land market appraisals and
adjust the rate of increase in the LDMF discussed in the revenue section above to mirror actual
cost trends and ensure that total revenues do not exceed total costs within the Land Acquisition
Fund
Land Preparation
Land preparation consists of one-time capital costs to render the land usable for intended
conservation purposes. These costs primarily include the removal of an invasive species such as
the Saharan mustard, and fencing. Other costs include gates, signage, and trash removal.
Ongoing maintenance costs are not included. The cost of land preparation is based on a baseline
12
2010 assumption of$188,000 per year, and is increased by 3.29 percent annually for inflation
Costs terminate at the end of the 50-year acquisition period
12 MSHCP Section 5 3,Table 5-3c, p 5-24
Final May 16,2011 Page 28
Li
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Administration
The CVCC will contract with CVAG for staff services for the first five years of MSHCP
implementation and may continue to do so thereafter if desired. Total administration costs for all
MSHCP implementation activities are estimated to be $600,640 annually, on average. This
amount would fund management, accounting, information technology, and related overhead
costs. These amounts are based on actual expenditures made by the CVCC in Fiscal Years 2009
and 2010.
Administration costs also include $127,000 annually, on average, for a contract Land Acquisition
Manager funded solely by the Land Acquisition Fund. Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 reflect costs
adjusted for current economic pressures. This analysis assumes that the Land Acquisition
Manager will be restored to a full time position as the economy recovers. All administration costs
are increased 3.29 percent annually for inflation. Administration costs associated with the Land
Acquisition Fund terminate at the end of the 45-year acquisition period.
Table 4.4 summarizes total revenues, expenditures, and other assumptions for the Habitat
Acquisition Program, in nominal dollars. This analysis assumes that Local Permittees will begin to
impose the updated LDMF on new development during most of fiscal year 2011-2012 (FY2O12).
The summary below shows the 2010 value of revenues, expenditures, and fund balance, made or
accumulated through 2083. The Land Acquisition Fund is assumed to terminate 43 years later in
plan year 45 or 2053. See Tables A-1 through A-6 in the Appendix for the cash flow detail.
Final May 16,2011 Page 29
� J
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 4.4: Summary of Land Acquisition Revenues and
Expenditures
FY2012-2083
Revenues
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue' $ 276,919,000
CVAG- Measure A 4,626,000
Caltrans 31,398,000
CVWD 8,919,000
Contributions -
Grants -
Other -
Interest Earnings 20,538,000
Total Revenues $ 342,400,000
Expenditures
Land Acquisition $ 314,726,000
Land Preparation 8,156,000
Administration
Land Acquisition Manager(contract) 5,316,000
Administration (program-wide share) 9,585,000
Total Expenditures $ 337,783,000
Net Cashflow $ 4,617,000
Ending Fund Balance $ -
Note-In constant dollars.Table represents present value of total program revenues
collected and expenditures made by year 75 Values have been rounded to nearest
thousand
Denotes the portion of total LDMF revenue assigned to land acquisition,land preparation
and associated activities.
Sources:Coachella Valley Association of Governments,Wildan Financial Services.
Monitoring and Management Program
The MSHCP identifies an M&M program as a key element of the conservation effort.According to
the MSHCP, the M&M program is designed to
(1) Demonstrate that the Plan is achieving its Conservation Goals and Objectives for the
Covered Species and conserved natural communities;
(2) Specify the primary components of Reserve Lands management, and
Final May 16,2011 Page 30
f'
J tJ
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
(3) Identify how Adaptive Management strategies will be used to address changes in
13
Habitat condition, natural communities and/or species health (distribution and numbers)
The costs and revenues associated with this part of the conservation process are summarized in
the M&M Fund and described in this chapter.
A portion of the LDMF is allocated to the M&M Fund. The M&M Fund also includes non fee
revenues dedicated to M&M activities and program costs for M&M programs specified in the
MSHCP.
The most prominent non-fee revenue source is the Conservation Trust Fund, whose landfill
tipping fee allocations amount to$36 5 million over the life of the Permit. The CVCC plans to fund
all M&M expenses for activities affecting lands other than Permittee conserved lands using
revenue from the Conservation Trust Fund. In addition, if the agency has carryover M&M
expenses from land acquired before revisions to the LDMF, costs which can be termed existing
deficiencies, revenue from the Conservation Trust Fund will be more than sufficient,
This policy will ensure that new development, through payment of the LDMF, does not fund any
M&M activities required by the MSHCP if those activities relate to existing deficiencies in M&M
programs or lands not acquired by the Permittees.
These revenues and costs are summarized in Table 4.7 as a program level summary of
monitoring and management costs. Detailed components of M&M program costs are detailed in
Tables A-4 and A-5.
The following sections describe the revenues and expenditures associated with the monitoring
and management component of the LDMF.
Revenues
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue
The LDMF contributes nearly $100.2 million to the M&M program throughout the 75 year Permit
term. Year to year, the LDMF is designed to cover the M&M expenses remaining to be funded
once Conservation Trust Fund (see below) revenues are exhausted in a given year After land
acquisition is complete, the LDMF is re-set to collect sufficient revenue to fund annual M&M
expenses and contribute to the Endowment for M&M activities This role of the LDMF is
discussed in greater detail below, in the Funding M&M Costs in Perpetuity section of this
analysis
Conservation Trust Fund
The Conservation Trust Fund consists exclusively of Landfill Tipping Fees paid by the producers
of waste generated in the Coachella Valley and deposited in County landfills. The CVCC provided
the actual amounts of revenue received in this category for FY 2009 and 2010. In the future,
Landfill Tipping Fee revenue is projected to rise at the rate of inflation starting in year 3 and
continuing through year 75
13
MSHCP E.S.8: MSHCP Reserve Lands Management and Monitoring, p. ES-31.
Final May 16,2011 Page 31
U 1
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Expenditures
Monitoring Program
The Monitoring Program refers to the biological habitat monitoring and assessment program
associated with the MSHCP.The MSHCP states that the role of the Monitoring Program is to
Provide scientifically reliable data on:
(1) The status and spatial and temporal dynamics (amplitude and magnitude) of
key ecosystem components for the Covered plant and animal Species and
conserved natural communities, and
(2) The threats to these species and conserved natural communities. The
program will also identify, develop, [and] evaluate the extent to which
management practices and policies are sustaining the plan and animal species
14
and conserved natural communities covered under the Plan
The MSHCP states that the Monitoring Program will be implemented in phases starting with the
collection of baseline data (The Baseline Phase) and extending to a long term species and
natural communities monitoring program.
Fulfilling these objectives requires employment of several biological scientists, GIS analysts, field
researchers and the equipment associated with each employee. Table 4.6 breaks out the
baseline cost assumptions for the Monitoring Program All personnel and programs below
represent expertise in fields relevant to the Covered Species or natural communities identified in
the MSHCP or expertise in mapping, field equipment or surveillance. Estimates for the cost of
15
each personnel type, program and piece of equipment were provided by the CVCC
The sum of these expenditures for each year amounts to the total Monitoring Program
expenditure identified in the M&M Fund (see Table A-6). Note that some of the costs identified in
Table 4.5, such as the graduate research and sheep monitoring program, do not persist
throughout the 75 year planning horizon.
14
MSHCP Section E S 8 MSHCP Reserve Lands Management and Monitoring: Monitoring Program, p ES-
31.
15
MSHCP Section 8 8 2 Personnel for Monitoring Program, p 8-106
Final May 16,2011 Page 32
U l�
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 4.5: Monitoring Program Baseline Costs
FY2011
FY Ending June 30 Expenditures
Personnel-All Species except sheep
Monitoring Program Admin (1) $ -
Vertebrate Ecol -Field Supervisor(1) 96,100
Entomologist (1 @ 0.5) 42,700
Associate Biologist (1) 85,300
Biologist -Mammalogy (1@0.5) 37,400
Biologist-Ornithology (1-2@0.5) 74,700
Seasonal Aide-Ornithology (1@0 5) 16,000
Seasonal Aide (4-5@0,75) 120,000
Personnel-Sheep and Trails
Seasonal Aide (3@0.75) $ 72,000
Graduate Researcher 24,000
Sheep-Monitoring
Personnel $ 53,300
Personnel-Data Analysis
GIS Analyst (1 @ 0.5) $ 42,700
GIS Technician (1 @ 0.5) 37,400
Personnel Subtotal $ 701,600
One-time Cost Items
Revise/Update Natural Communities Map $ -
Equipment and Supplies
Satellite/Aerial Imagery $ 3,100
Sampling Gear 16,000
Transect Set-up& Maintenance 5,400
Radio-tracking Equipment 600
Other Supplies 1,000
Weather Stations (3) 200
Vehicle Costs 19,600
Sheep Monitoring 69,300
Sheep Monitoring/Research 51,200
Equipment Subtotal $ 166,400
Subtotal- Estimated Cost $ 868,000
10% Contingency $ 86,800
Monitoring Program Cost $ 955,000
We In constant dollars Costs change throughout the planning horizon as staffing
levels change See Table A-4.2011 costs have been adjusted from the 2003 base
using an annual inflation assumption of 3 29%,
Source Coachella Valley Wuntain Conservancy;Wildan Financial Services.
Final t4ay 16,2011 Page 33
rj
v
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Management Program
The MSHCP states that,
The goal of the Management Program, including Adaptive Management actions, is to
provide for the Conservation of Covered Species as anticipated by the Plan. To
accomplish this goal requires on-going management activities on reserve lands such as
fencing and fence maintenance, public use management, enforcement of appropriate
laws and regulations, and the implementation of other actions identified in the reserve
16
management plans.
To perform the functions outlined above, the management Program requires management and
enforcement personnel, as well as various types of equipment needed to protect and maintain
habitat in and out of the field. The Management Program consists of land management and
supervision personnel and field staff. Expenditures in this category include funding for land
management personnel as well as habitat maintenance equipment and supplies. This includes a
Ranger-warden for conservation lands, associated field staff and office personnel and equipment
17
for the program headquarters . Baseline expenditures for the Management Program are outlined
in Table 4.6.
16
MSHCP Section E.S.8: MSHCP Reserve Lands Management and Monitoring: Management
Program, p ES-33
17
MSHCP Section 8.8.1 Personnel for Management Program, p. 8-96
Final play 16,2011 Page 34
60
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 4.6: Management Program Baseline Costs
FY2011 Expenditures
Personnel i
Reserve Land Manager $ 96,300
Asst. Reserve Manager(4)2 80,200
Ranger-Warden (2) 187,800
Field Crew Labor(contract) 42,200
Admin. Assistant (0.25-0.5)2 14,900
Personnel Subtotal $ 421,400
Equipment and Supplies
Site Protection& Maintenance $ 26,600
Habitat Maintenance and Land
Preparation 4,100
Field Equipment and Supplies 14,400
Office Equipment 41,200
Public Education Services 5,900
Equipment Subtotal $ 92,200
Subtotal - Estimated Cost $ 513,600
10% Contingency $ 51,360
Administrative Overhead (10%) $ 51,360
Total - Estimated Cost $ 616,000
Notes:In constant dollars
'This salary includes benefits,worker'compensation
These positions are phased in as the number of acres acquired increases.
Source:Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy;Willdan Financial Services
Adaptive Management
The Management Program adopts an Adaptive Management strategy. The Adaptive
Management Program will address management uncertainty, including the following issues;
(1) Management action as responses to findings of the Monitoring Program in regards to
unanticipated changes, in the needs of individual species, groups of species, or
conserved natural communities, including fluvial and aeolian transport and sorting of
sand;
(2) Reserve and species management techniques and actions;
(3) Enhancement of the conservation values of lands in the Conservation Areas, and
Final May 16,2011 Page 35
J A
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
(4) Management actions to address Changed Circumstances, linking the Monitoring Program
with Adaptive Management actions to inform reserve managers of the status of Covered
Species, conserved natural communities, and essential ecological processes in a manner
that provides data to allow informed management actions and decisions. Existing
information about both the impact of threats and the management strategies for
addressing those threats will be used extensively in designing the initial management
1e
program for each Conservation Area.
Management Contingency
The MSHCP requires the Local Permittees to fund a $5,000,000 management contingency as
part of the M&M program in order to "provide ability to address immediate and/or large scale
19
M&M Program needs on Permittee lands" . The MSHCP specifies that this contingency fund
should be established within the first ten years of the planning horizon. The guideline for use of
these funds is as follows:
This fund shall be used when monitoring results and/or other information indicate that
corrective actions to address these management priorities are needed to achieve the
goals and objectives for Covered Species.
Accordingly, the Monitoring & Management Fund in this analysis includes an annual $500,000
contingency each year for the first ten years of the planning horizon. This provision amounts to a
$5,000,000 contingency by the end of the planning horizon.
Administration
Program wide administration costs for the LDMF include several types of administrative overhead
for MSHCP-related programs. Administrative expenses associated with the CVCC's
implementation of the MSHCP consist of legal, accounting, and other departmental and agency-
wide administrative support, and LDMF administrative costs include revenue collection, revenue
and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Endowment and LDMF Support for the Monitoring & Management Fund
The foregoing revenue section shows that the Conservation Trust Fund is the only source of non-
fee revenue dedicated specifically to M&M programs. Even in the near term, the Conservation
Trust Fund does not accumulate enough revenue in order to fund the year to year operations of
the M&M Fund on its own. To avoid year to year shortfalls in the M&M programs, this analysis
dedicates sufficient LDMF and Endowment revenues to fund Monitoring and management
activities in the following ways:
+ As a first priority, this analysis uses Endowment Fund revenues to support M&M
activities in years 1 to 45 of the planning horizon. During years 1 through 45, the
18MSHCP Section E S 8- MSHCP Reserve Lands Management and Monitoring. Adaptive
Management, p. ES-35.
19
MSHCP Section 8.2 4 2 Management Contingency Fund, p 8-26
20
MSHCP Section 8 2 4.2, Management Contingency Fund, p 8-26
Final May 16,2011 Page 36
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Endowment Fund transfers one-half of its fund balance to the M&M Fund every
year in which fund balance is available.
• As a second priority, this analysis allocates a variable portion of the LDMF to the
M&M Fund throughout the lifetime of the LDMF. The amount of LDMF revenue that
the M&M Fund is to receive is calculated to equal the shortfall that would otherwise
occur in the management, monitoring, administration and contingency expenses
detailed above net of endowment revenues transferred in a given year. This
ensures that the portion of LDMF revenue allocated to M&M activities can never
exceed the cost of programs detailed in Table 4.7 and prevents over-collection of
the fee.
• As a third priority, the LDMF gradually contributes revenue toward a full
endowment that can sustain of M&M costs in perpetuity.The method for this step is
discussed in detail below
Funding M&M Costs in Perpetuity
This analysis recognizes that, because the MSHCP specifies that the Local Permittees are
responsible for funding M&M activities in perpetuity, M&M costs will occur after the expiration of
the Permit, Since existing sources of revenue for habitat acquisition, including the LDMF, expire
with the Permit, sufficient revenues must be collected in years 1 through 75 to fund M&M
activities after the expiration of the Permit term.
The total amount of revenue required to yield sufficient interest was calculated using a long term
averaged public funds yield assumption of 5.73 percent per year, and total M&M expenses in
year 75 of approximately$2 million. The rate of 5.73 percent is approximately equal to the 1984-
2009 average interest rate for Pooled Money Investment Accounts (PMIA) reported by the
California State Treasury. The size of the endowment required to yield sufficient revenues for this
purpose is approximately$36.5 million
After land acquisition is complete in year 45, the LDMF is reset in order to contribute enough
revenue every year in years 46-75 to reach the target revenue above. This revenue is the LDMF
allocated to the Endowment Fund and fulfills the Permittees' obligation to establish an
Endowment Fund to support M&M activities in perpetuity per the MSHCP. The total amount
contributed from the LDMF over the planning horizon is$23.9 million; this amount is equivalent to
an annual contribution of approximately $800,000 each year over 30 years. The remainder of
contributions to endowment is comprised of interest earnings.
Table 4.7 summarizes the revenues and expenditures associated with the M&M Fund in constant
dollars. Table 4 7 is based on an assumed annual inflation rate of 3 29 percent, and shows the
discounted sum of revenues and expenditures across the 75-year period Table 4.7 also shows
the LDMF contribution to the endowment. Since these are not deposited into the M&M Fund until
after the end of the planning horizon, this amount is shown separately from the balanced
revenues and expenditures.
Final May 16,2011 Page 37
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 4.7: Summary of Monitoring and Management
Program Revenues and Expenditures
FY2012-2083
Revenues
Landfill Tipping Fees
Conservation Trust Fund $ 36,500,000
Eagle Mountain Open Space Trust -
Other Revenues -
Transfer From Endowment 17,911,000
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenuer 100,218,000
Interest Earnings 7,000
Total Revenues $ 154,636,000
Expenditures
Monitoring Program $ 63,394,000
Management Program 54,408,000
Adaptive Management 4,777,000
Management Contingency 4,341,000
Administration(program-wide share) 27,841,000
Total Expenditures $ 154,761,000
Net Cash Flow $ (125,000)
Ending Fund Balance $ -
LDMF Contribution to Endowmentz $ 23,860,000
Note,In constant dollars.Table represents present value of total program revenues
collected and expenditures made by year 75.Values have been rounded to nearest
thousand
Denotes the portion of total LDMF revenue assigned to Management and Monitoring
activities.
z This is the total value of transfers made from the LDMF to the Endowment Fund to
ensure that the Endow ment Fund will have sufficient balance to fund the Monitoring and
Management expenditures listed above after Year 75
Sources Coachella Valley Association of Governments,WIldan Financial Services
Table 4.8 shows the share of total revenues represented by each individual revenue source
detailed in Tables 4.4 and 4.7.The majority of funding for all activities in the MSHCP comes from
the LDMF.
Final May 16.2011 Page 38
ram, �1
s
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 4.8: Summary of Program-Wide Future MSHCP Revenues
Land Share of Monitoring and Share of
FY2012-2083 Acquisition Revenues Management Revenues
Revenues
Landfill Tipping Fees
Conservation Trust Fund $ - 0 0% $ 36,500,000 23 6%
Eagle Mountain Open Space Trust - 0.0% - 0 0%
Other Revenues - 0.0% - 0.0%
Transfer From Endowment - 0 0% 17,911,000 11.6%
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue 276,919,000 80.9% 100,218,000 64 8%
CVAG-Measure A 4,626,000 9 2% - 0.0%
Caltrans 31,398,000 1.4% - 0.0%
CVWD 8,919,000 2 6% - 0 0%
Contributions - 0 0% - 0.0%
Grants - 0 0% - 0. %
Interest Earnings 20,538,000 6 0% 7,000 0 0%
Total Revenues $ 342,400,000 100.0% $ 154,636,000 100 0%
Note In constant dollars Table represents present value of total program revenues collected through year 75
Sources Coachella Valley Association of Governments,Willdan Financial Services
Table 4.9 uses the share of available revenues represented by the LDMF to estimate how much
of each MSHCP expenditure is funded by the LDMF
Final May 16,2011 Page 39
� J
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 4.9: Summary of Program-Wide LDMF Allocation, FY2012-2083
Portion Funded
Expenditure Category Expenditures by LDMF
Land Acquisition
Land Acquisition $ 314,726,000 $ 254,537,000
Land Preparation 8,156,000 6,596,000
Administration
Land Acquisition Manager(contract) 5,316,000 4,299,000
Administration (program-wide share) 9,585,000 7,752,000
Total Expenditures $ 337,783,000 $ 273,184,000
Approximate LDMF Share' 80.9%
Monitoring Program
Monitoring Program $ 63,394,000 $ 41,085,000
Administration(program-wide share) 13,906,022 9,012,000
Total Expenditures $ 77,300,022 $ 50,097,000
Management Program
Management Program 54,408,000 35,261,000
Adaptive Management 4,777,000 3,096,000
Management Contingency 4,341,000 2,813,000
Administration(program-wide share) 13,934,978 9,031,000
Total Expenditures $ 77,460,978 $ 50,201,000
Approximate LDMF Share' 64.8%
Grand Total $ 492,544,000 $ 373,482,001
Average Share Funded by LDMF 75.8%
Note In constant dollars Table represents present value of total program expenditures through Ran Year 75
Represents a 72 year averaging of fee contributions to major program categories and not a strict accounting
allocation from a particular funding source
Sources:Coachella Valley Association of Governments,Wildan Financial Services
Final May 16,2011 Page 40
U
5. Cost Allocation and Foe Schedule
This chapter describes the fee schedule per acre of development during and after the period of
habitat acquisition in years 1 through 45
The MSHCP applies to development occurring anywhere in the Plan Area, with limited
exceptions This section defines which land is exempt from the fee, and then explains the direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts to Covered Species from land development in the Plan Area.
Exemptions
Certain development projects that were already in progress at the time the Permit was issued will
be exempted from the LDMF. Projects are exempt from paying the fee only if the project meets
each of the following three conditions:
(1) Completion of required infrastructure improvements including, but not limited to,
underground utilities, exterior project area walls, streets and curbs and were issued at
least one building permit for a discrete primary structure, such as a single family home,
prior to October 1, 2008(date of MSHCP Permit Approval)
(2) Continuous construction activity since October 1, 2008 as demonstrated by issuance of a
building permit for a discrete primary structure and/or a certificate of occupancy permit for
a discrete primary structure in each six month period between October 1, 2008 and April
1, 2011.
(3) City registration of the Project and proposed lots to be exempted, in accordance with
CVCC procedures.
Approximately 1,300 residential lots, or an estimated 260 acres of development, are expected to
receive exemptions from the LDMF. This exempt development is expected to occur between
FY2012 and FY2016.
In addition, some projects that made a separate payment to mitigate impacts on endangered
species habitat will receive a refund of a portion of their LDMF payment. The amount refunded is
assumed to have LDMF revenue impacts equivalent to a full exemption for approximately 100
acres of development. The refunds are expected to be granted between FY2012 and FY2021.
Table 6.1 summarizes the assumptions for the refunded fees and exemptions that will be granted
over the next ten years.
Final May 16.2011 Page 41
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 5.1 : LDMF Exemptions and Refunds
Exemptions for In-Progress Lots
Exempt Lots 1,300
Average Lot Size (acres)' 0.224
Exempt Acreage 291
Buildout of Exempt Lots (years)2 5
Acreage of Exemptions per Year 58
Fees Refunded for Alternative Mitigation Payments
Equivalent Exempt Acreage 100
Buildout of Development Receiving Refunds (years)4 10
Acreage of Exemptions per Year 10
Notes:
1 The average lot size matches the historical lot size for residential uses between
0 and 8 units per acre.Actual exemptions may differ from this range of densities.
A lower density is chosen to conservatively estimate reductions in fee revenue
Z Assumes exempt lots w ill be developed at an even rate per year between
FY2012 and FY2016
'Acreage of exemptions that would have an equivalent revenue impact to
expected fee refunds for alternative mitigation payments
°Assumes area subject to a refund w ill be developed at an even rate between
FY2012 and FY2021
Source.Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Direct, Indirect,and Cumulative Impacts
The cost of the habitat acquisition program is allocated to new development on vacant or partially
vacant land within the Plan Area (see Chapter 2) The amount of new development anticipated
during the Permit's life is first adjusted to exclude development that was already in progress on
the effective date of the MSHCP. The above section on exemptions provides the criteria that
define whether a project was already in progress on the MSHCP's effective date. No other
exemptions apply.
All vacant or partially vacant land that is subject to the fee, when developed, has direct, indirect,
or cumulative effects on Covered Species. Normal development patterns allow residential
development to support retail development, employment development to support additional
housing, and public infrastructure to support all types of private development. These types of
relationships between land uses links or connects development on lands with zero habitat value
with development on lands having significant habitat value.
As a result, any vacant or partially vacant land subject to the fee, once developed, has a direct or
indirect impact on Covered Species. Combined with the impacts of existing development, new
development also has cumulative impacts on Covered Species.
Final May 16,2011 Page 42
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 5.2 lists the Covered Species and the natural communities that may be found on vacant or
partially vacant land in urban areas on the valley floor. When habitat conversion takes place
anywhere there is an overall loss to habitat quantity and the quality of the remaining occupied or
potential habitat is degraded because these areas may become even more isolated and impede
species movement. Thus, all development has a direct, indirect and/or cumulative impact on the
loss of habitat for the Covered Species
Table 5.2: Covered Specieis and Natural Communities Found In Urban Areas
Covered Species Natural Communities
Invertebrates-Insects Active desert dunes
Coachella Valley giant sand-treader cncket, tfacrobuenetes valgian Active desert sand fields
Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket ,Stenopelmatus cahudaensis Ephemeral desert sand fields
Reptiles Stabilized and partially stabilized desert sand fields
Flat-tailed horned lizard,Phrvnosonui nkallii Stabilized shielded desert sand fields
Coachella Valley fnnge-toed lizard, I'mci ittornata Mesquite hummocks
Birds Sonoran creosote bush scrub
Burrowing owl,Athens cuiiiciilaria Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub
Cnssal thrasher, To_an.stoma crissale Desert saitbush scrub
Le Conte's thrasher, To_rnstnmu lec•uirlei
Mammals
Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel,Spernioplidus tereticaudu.s chlorus
Palm Spnngs pocket mouse, Perognathus longii mbris bangsi
Source Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy
� a e ched!.I:::.,
The LDMF is based on the net revenue requirements for the land acquisition, administration and
monitoring and management activities of the MSHCP As discussed above in Chapter 4
(Expenditures - Land Acquisition) for years 1 through 45, revenue requirements are based on
Land Acquisition Fund expenditures net of revenue from regional road project mitigation, regional
infrastructure mitigation and interest earnings, as well as monitoring and management program
requirements net of Conservation Trust revenues and non fee Endowment transfers. For years 46
through 75 revenue requirements are based on the year to year funding requirements of M&M
activities and the ultimate cost of the MSHCP's monitoring and management activities after year
75,
New development will pay the LDMF over the remainder of the 75 year life of the Permit,
representing 109,779 developed acres. Each newly developed acre has a similar proportionate
impact by causing direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on species and existing or potential
habitat and natural communities. New development also causes a need for and benefits from the
installation of public infrastructure, which also impacts habitat.
Final May 16,2011 Page 43
t
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Fee Without Desert Hot Springs in Plan
Table 5.3 presents the fee per developed acre for the land acquisition program before and after
land acquisition Is complete. The amount per acre of$5,600 in 2011-2053 is based on the total
revenues required for land acquisition, administration and monitoring and management in those
years. Increased at 3.29 percent annually, this is the net revenue needed to fund land acquisition
costs through year 45.
Table 5.3: Fee per Acre
2011-2053 2054-2083
Fee per Acre' $ 5,600 $ 1,418
Total Acres Developed 61,603 48,300
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue $ 344,976,800 $ 68,489,400
Note:Local Development Mitigation Fee revenue rounded to thousands
The fee for years 2054-2083 reported in this table is an average fee for this period Since
land acquisition is complete by 2053,the fee for years 2054-2083 is adjusted so that the fee
amount is just high enough to cover remaining program costs and no more
Z Excludes approximately,360 acres of development that w as begun prior to MSHCP Permit
approval w hich w ill be exempt from the Local Development Miigation Fee
Sources Tables A-1 through A-6,Willdan Financial Services
In year 46, the fee is adjusted to match the cost of remaining program activities The LDMF is
calculated to cover present M&M costs, as well as contribute to the accumulation of an
endowment to allow for perpetual funding of these activities using earned interest. Since the bulk
of expenses in the MSHCP are related to land acquisition,the fee falls 75 percent in year 46.
As a result, the MSHCP can fund the mitigation of these impacts with a fee imposed per
developed acre. The per acre cost from Table 5.3 provides the basis for the fee schedule. The
total fee for a specific project is based on its size as measured in acres.This approach ensures a
reasonable relationship between the fee for a specific development project and the impact of that
project on the need for habitat protection. Each acre of development has the same impact, and
the level of the fee is uniform for all residential and nonresidential uses.
The fee schedule uses the per acre cost shown In Table 5.3 to apply to all nonresidential
development projects. Industrial uses include mining and energy projects.
For residential development projects, the fee schedule converts the per acre cost to a cost per
dwelling unit based on the density of the project (dwelling units per acre). The mitigation fee is
based on average lot size for the three residential categories(0 to 8 units per acre, 8.1 to 14 units
per acre, and 14 units and over per acre). To simplify administration of the Coachella Valley
LDMF in conjunction with the Western Riverside County DMF, the same density categories and
Final May 16,2011 Page 44
f�
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
average lot size assumptions are used for this fee schedule(see Mitigation Fee Nexus Report for
the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan)
Table 5.4 presents the Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule for the MSHCP in 2011
dollars. The table Includes the average lot size assumption for each of the residential land use
categories. The LDMF would only apply to new development on vacant or partially vacant land.
The fee would not apply to development projects such as building additions or renovations that do
not enlarge the footprint of development.
Table 5A Fee Schedule
Cost Per Average
Acre Lot Size Fee'
Residential
0-8 Units Per Acre $ 5,600 0.224 $ 1,254
8 1 - 14 Units Per Acre 5,600 0.093 521
14.1+ Units Per Acre 5,600 0.041 230
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 5,600 NA $ 5,600
Industrial 5,600 NA 5,600
' Per dwelling unit for residential and per acre for nonresidential land uses.
Source-Table 5 3:Willdan Financial Services
Revenue requirements for the LDMF may vary substantially depending on economic factors
discussed in Chapter 4 that affect this analysis. These factors include, for example, land
acquisition price inflation, interest rates, and the rate of new development. The proposed fee
schedule represents a reasonable approach for allocating mitigation costs as evenly as
practicable across new developed acreage. The analysis is constrained by:
(1)The policy objectives to fund land acquisition as soon as feasible within 45 years; and
(2) The limited financing options available. Given these considerations, the fee schedule
presented here represents a reasonable approach to the fair allocation of costs across all
new development.
Fee with Desert Hot Springs in Plan
Table 5.5 shows the cost per acre calculated for development assumptions that include the City
of Desert Hot Springs. Development assumptions underlying this calculation are presented in
Chapter 2 of this analysis.
Final May 16,2011 Page 45
7 :.
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 5.5: Fee per Acre,with Desert Hot Springs
2011-2053 2054-2083
Fee per Acre' $ 5,150 $ 1,304
Total Acres Developed 66,983 52,500
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue $ 344,962,450 $ 68,460,000
Note Local Development Mitigation Fee revenue rounded to thousands.This fee is based on
an assumption that the City of Desert Fbt Springs represents,on average,8%of
development in the Coachella Valley
'The fee for years 2054-2083 reported in this table is an average fee for this period Since
land acquisition is complete by 2053,the fee for years 2054-2083 is adjusted so that the fee
amount is just high enough to cover remaining program costs and no more
z Excludes approximately 360 acres of development that w as begun prior to WHOP permit
approval w hich w ill be exempt from the Local Development Mitigation Fee
Sources Tables A-1 through A-6;Willdan Financial Services
Table 5.6 summarizes the fee schedule for an LDMF fee that includes development in the City of
Desert Hot Springs
Table 5.6: Fee Schedule, with Desert Hot
Springs Development
Cost Per Average
Acre Lot Size Fee'
Residential
0-8 Units Per Acre $ 5,150 0.224 $ 1,154
8 1 - 14 Units Per Acre 5,150 0 093 479
14.1+ Units Per Acre 5,150 0.041 211
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 5,150 NA $ 5,150
Industrial 6,160 NA 5,150
'Per dwelling unit for residential and per acre for nonresidential land uses.
Source Table 5 5,Wdldan Financial Services
Evaluation of Fee Uses in "Without Desert Hot Springs"Scenario
Table 6.7 shows the uses of LDMF revenue, assuming a fee calculated without Desert Hot
Springs, for the first five years of the program. From 2011 to 2015, approximately 65 percent of
LDMF revenue is devoted to habitat acquisition, with the remainder being used to fund monitoring
and management activities.
Final May 16,2011 Page 46
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Table 5.7: LDMF Allocation,2009-2015
FY Ending June 30 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Plan Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mitigation Fee Revenue
New Developed Acres 40 117 125 368 552 644 828
Fee Exempt Acres - - - 68 68 68 68
Acres Subject to Fee 40 117 125 300 484 576 760
Mitigation Fee $ 5.730 $ 5.730 $ 5,730 $ 5.600 $ 5.784 $ 6,975 $ 6 171
Local Development
Mitigation Fee Revenue $ 230,810 $ 673,242 $ 714,000 $ 1,679,000 $ 2,798,000 $ 3,440,000 $ 4,689,000
Allocation by Fund
Land Acquisition $ 230,810 $ 673.242 $ 714,000 $ 242,000 $ 1.669,000 $ 2,509,000 $ 3,268,000
Monitoring&Management - - - 1,437,000 1,129,000 931,000 1,421 000
Total Expenditures $ 230,810 $ 673,242 $ 714,000 $ 1,679,000 $ 2,798,000 $ 3,440,000 $ 4,689,000
Share by Fund
Land Acquisition 100% 100% 100% 14% 60% 73% 70%
Monitoring and Management 0% 0% 0% 86% 40% 27% 30%
Note See text for explanation of each revenue and cost line item
Sources Coachella Valley Association of Governments,Wiidan Financial Services
Final May 16.2011 Page 47
C. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Development impact fees are one-time fees, typically paid when a building or grading permit is
issued, imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use
(cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of impact fees, the State Legislature
adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the "Act") with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent
amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025,
establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of impact fee
programs The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting an impact
fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the LDMF to fund habitat acquisition and M&M
costs under the MSHCP are summarized in this chapter and supported in detail by the body of
this report.All statutory references are to the Act
i ;ro se of Fee
For the first finding the agency must:
Identify the purpose of the fee. (§66OO1(a)(1))
The purpose of the LDMF is threefold. First, the LDMF provides a funding source from new
development for the acquisition of habitat lands and the monitoring and management of those
lands in perpetuity All three activities mitigate development impacts and carry forward the
purposes and objectives of the MSHCP. The LDMF advances a legitimate public interest by
funding habitat conservation and maintaining habitat values of Reserve System lands in
perpetuity as required by the Implementing Agreement executed by each Permittee
Second,the conservation actions funded by the LDMF will also construct and maintain a Reserve
System that is a valuable community amenity Residents and visitors to the region will benefit
from a system of conserved lands containing native ecosystem types and natural communities in
their natural range of variation. Many of the Reserve System lands provide trails and other
passive recreational opportunities (e.g. bird watching) Conservation of these and other lands
provide the community with scenic vistas and backdrops to developed uses such as residential
and visitor serving uses.
Third, fulfillment of the MSHCP also provides a key public service to the Coachella Valley and its
prospects for streamlined economic development. The incidental take authority granted by the
Permit avoids a time consuming and costly process to determine mitigation for impacts to
Covered Species from new development
gg , t
For the second finding the agency must:
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the
facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to
a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in
Final May 16,2011 Page 48
7�#
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
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. (§66OO1(a)(2))
Fees covered by the requirements of the Act are those used to defray all or a portion of the cost
of public facilities related to new development. The Act defines public facilities as including"public
improvements, public services, and community amenities." (§66OOO(d)). LDMF revenue will
provide most of the funding necessary to acquire a Reserve System of 86,800 acres of habitat
and related costs as a community amenity. Under the MSHCP, this habitat acquisition program
provides a comprehensive approach to mitigate the loss of species and habitat caused by all
development in the Coachella Valley or adjacent areas.
All habitat acquired with funding from the LDMF will be located within the Conservation Areas.
The MSHCP represents the public document referenced in the statute above that adequately
identifies the amount, type, and general location of land to be acquired with LDMF funding.
The agencies responsible for implementing the LDMF (including the CVCC among others) will
restrict the use of fee revenues to costs associated with the habitat acquisition and M&M
programs. These costs include:
• Land acquisition and related costs such as appraisals and title insurance;
• Land preparation measures such as fencing to protect habitat from human impacts;
• M&M costs including adaptive management elements required by the MSHCP; and
• Administrative costs associated with management of the habitat acquisition and
M&M programs.
Each of the above cost elements should bear a reasonable relationship to the inventory of
acquired lands. The detailed breakdown of land acquisition and M&M costs to be funded by the
LDMF are given in Chapter 4 of this report, Cost of MSHCP Activities
srief'f Relationship
For the third finding the agency must
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed. (§66OO1(a)(3))
All new development within the Coachella Valley will directly or indirectly benefit from the LDMF
by funding a comprehensive approach to habitat mitigation The 86,800 acres to be acquired,
monitored, and managed in part with fee revenues are one component of the 723,480-acre
MSHCP Reserve System. The MSHCP Reserve System is the preferred alternative representing
the area necessary to protect the Covered Species and the conserved natural communities
identified in the MSHCP.
Establishment of the MSHCP Reserve System and funding its monitoring and management in
perpetuity will mitigate the impacts on Covered Species and conserved natural communities by all
new development and associated public infrastructure projects within the Coachella Valley for the
term of the Permit. Each type of project leads to the elimination of habitat, whether directly,
Final May 16,2011 Page 49
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
indirectly, or as a cumulative effect. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of
LDMF revenue and all types of new residential and nonresidential development throughout the
Coachella Valley that will pay the fee. Because the impact is the same for each developed acre,
the level of the fee is uniform across all land uses.
LDMF revenue is used to acquire land and conduct monitoring and management activities in
perpetuity as required by the IA. Because the Permit provides for incidental take authority, these
three actions benefit new development, as described in detail in Chapter 4 of this report, Cost of
MSHCP Activities
For the fourth finding the agency must:
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))
All vacant lands in the Coachella Valley, including vacant lands or partially vacant lands in urban
areas, represent current or potential habitat for Covered Species and the conserved natural
communities identified in the MSHCP All new development projects on vacant or partially vacant
lands regardless of location will have direct, indirect, and/or cumulative impacts on species and
existing or potential habitat and natural communities.
New development also causes a need for and benefits from the installation of public
infrastructure. Without new development, no further habitat conservation to mitigate for
development impacts would be needed in the Plan Area. Therefore, there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for habitat conservation and all types of residential and
nonresidential development throughout the Coachella Valley that will pay the fee.
The need for habitat conservation, including acquisition of land and monitoring and management
of those lands in perpetuity, was determined through the MSHCP planning process using
scientific standards. The MSHCP Reserve System includes land necessary to represent a range
of native ecosystem types, to maintain or restore viable populations of species, and to sustain
ecological and evolutionary process necessary for maintaining the viability of habitats. The
MSHCP obligates Permittees to establish an endowment to fund the M&M programs needed by
the Reserve System.
Based on these standards, the Reserve System only includes that amount of habitat conservation
necessary to mitigate new development impacts. In addition, the funding required to monitor and
manage Reserve system lands is the minimum required to establish an endowment capable of
funding these activities in perpetuity. Habitat needs are described in more detail in Chapter 3,
Need for Habitat Conservation
Final May 16,2011 Page 50
7 U
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
,.: : oporkiona-'l._ 8
For the fifth finding the agency must:
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. (§66OO1(b))
New development will pay the LDMF over the remainder of the 75 year Permit, representing
109,779 developed acres. Each newly developed acre has approximately the same proportionate
impact by causing the direct, indirect, or cumulative, loss of an acre of habitat for Covered
Species and the conserved natural communities. The Permit allows for incidental take authority to
be issued for otherwise lawful actions such as new development, provided the mitigation and
other measures set forth in the MSHCP are satisfied.
As the LDMF has been designed, habitat acquisition program costs are spread as evenly as
practicable across all developed acres. Habitat monitoring and management costs are also
spread as evenly as practicable across all developed acres The LDMF is calculated on a per
acre basis and the total fee for a specific project is based on its size as measured in acres. Thus
there is a reasonable relationship between the fee for a specific development project and the
direct, indirect, or cumulative impact of that project on the need for habitat protection.
The fee schedule uses the per acre cost of the program to apply to nonresidential development
projects. For residential development projects, the fee schedule converts the per acre cost to a
cost per dwelling unit based on the density of the project(dwelling units per acre).
See Chapter 2, Plan Area Land Use, for a description of how new development is determined.
See Chapter 5, Cost Allocation and Fee Schedule, for a presentation of the mitigation fee
schedule.
Final May 16,2011 Page 51
7. Implementation
This chapter identifies the responsibilities that the CVCC and Local Permittees should fulfill when
implementing the LDMF program.
of an Updated 'L DM,- b : .cal Permitte cz-
Each Local Permittee must adopt an updated ordinance or amend an LDMF existing ordinance,
and a fee resolution stating the amount of the updated fee. The revised fee ordinance shall
become effective 60 days after adoption.
However, updated fees shall not be collected until the 60-day period has been met, whichever
date is later. The ordinance should include provisions for an automatic inflation adjustment to the
fee The CVCC could assist in this process by preparing a model ordinance and resolution for the
LDMF update for each agency to review.
-'.'Jont:on r;f Administrative Gauidehc;E.�
The CVCC should work with Local Permittees to develop administrative guidelines for the LDMF
program. These guidelines would address,for example:
• A method for applying the fee to development of partially vacant parcels;
• Definitions of land use categories; and
• Transfer of fee revenues to various CVCC funds.
. ograrnmincg Revenues and Pro eots
The CVCC should program fee revenues to its acquisition program and related expenditures.
This ensures documentation of a reasonable relationship between new development and the use
of mitigation fee revenues.
The CVCC may alter the planned acquisition or related land preparation costs from those shown
in this report. However, all expenditures must continue to fund expansion of the inventory of land
conserved for habitat under the guidelines of the MSHCP or pay for the other costs set forth
above.
For a five-year planning period, the agency should allocate all existing fund balances and
projected fee revenue to specific acquisitions or related land preparation measures. The agency
can hold funds in an account for longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient funds to
complete the acquisition.
r":nnuai Inrlation /Aaiustrnent
The CVCC should identify an appropriate inflation adjustment and recalculate the fee annually for
each Local Permittee to adopt. Given that the majority of costs are associated with land prices,
the annual inflation adjustment could be calculated either by:
• Using actual prices per acre for recently purchased habitat; or
Final May 16,2011 Page 52
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
• Providing for an annual CPI adjustment based upon the Consumer Price Index for
"All Urban Consumers" in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area, measured as
of the month of December in fiscal year immediately prior to the fiscal year that the
revised fee will take effect
Regardless of the calculated annual inflation adjustment, the CVCC should revise the fee
accordingly if it appears that total program revenues and costs will not be in balance when the
Land Acquisition Fund is terminated. The MSHCP states that the CVCC will update the Nexus
Study at least every five years, and more often if deemed necessary, to ensure that the Local
Development Mitigation Fee is adequate over the life of the acquisition program to fund the
necessary land acquisition and land preparation
��:���:�`.?fit "i�'�"•!_=:i"��:;�`�#��:�
The CVCC should assist the Local Permittees in complying with the annual and five-year
reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. In addition to reporting on revenue and
expenditure activity, the agency must identify when the other revenues in addition,to the LDMF
are anticipated to be available to fund the habitat acquisition program.
Final May 16,2011 Page 53
Appendix A; Cas i Flow Analysis
Tables A-1 through A-6 present the cash flow analysis for the distribution of LDMF revenues,
Land Acquisition Fund, the Monitoring and Management Fund and the Endowment Fund. The
LDMF was calculated to result in a zero ending fund balance at the end of 50 years.
Table A-1:Table A-1- LDMF Revenue and Allocation (Nominal$)
Table A-2: Land Acquisition Fund(Nominal $)
Table A-3: Endowment Fund(Nominal $)
Table A-4: Monitoring Program Budget(Nominal$)
Table A-5: CVMSHCP Management Program Budget(Nominal$)
Table A-6: Monitoring &Management Fund (Nominal$)
Final May 16,2011 Page 54
80
Table A-1:LDMF Revenue
and Allocation(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Plan Leer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
hldioation Fee Revenue
Ne%Developed Acres •10 ill 125 368 552 $44 828 1104 1104 1380 1180 1380 1610
Fee Exr,npt Acres - - 68 68 68 66 68 10 10 10 l"+ 10
Acres Subject to Fee 40 117 1-15 300 484 616 760 1 036 1 094 1 370 1 370 1 370 1 600
Mitigation Fee $ 5 730 S 5 730 $ 5730 S 5 600 $ 5 794 S 5 975 $ 61 1-1 $ 6 374 $ 6,584 S 6 800 $ 7 024 S 7.255 $ 7 494
LOCAl Demlupmenl Mdlg3bnn
Fee Re mnue $ 230.810 $ 673,242 $ 714,000 S 1,679,000 S 2.799.000 S 3,440,000 S 4,689,000 $ 6,602.0010 $ 7,203,000 $ 9,317,000 $ 9.623,000 $ 9940,000 $11.990.000
,411uca0on by Fund
Land Acquisition $ 230 810 $ 673 242 S 714 000 $ 242,000 S 1 669 000 S 2,509 000 $3263,000 5 4 938 000 $6 642 000 $ 8 077 000 S 8 509 000 $ 8 332 000 $10 574 000
Endowment - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Monitoring d Management - - - 1,437 000 1 129 001) 9.31000 1 421,000 1 664 000 561 000 1 240 000 1 114,000 1,608 000 1 416 000
Total Expenditures S 230.810 $ 673,242 $ 714.000 $ 1,679,000 $ 2.798.000 $ 3,440,000 $4,689,000 $ 9,602,000 $ 7.203,000 S 9,317,000 $9,623,000 $2,940,000 $11,990,000
rL-re AY slues s ..n n nnmmal&IMm,e in[wing inflainn all M%perteM annually ...ott-1-noted 3—rye du avplgn~al•ie6 rc.enue and—,Nee item
Belk:alle,.—.,.nn a1 r—Mi'JAlldan Financial.nnc+y
V e
Table A-1:LUMF Revenue
and Allocation(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Plan Year 14 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Mln0a0on Fcr Rry nue
Nen C-Joped Ae.,1.. 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610
Fee Exempt Acre, - - - - - - - - - -
A�es 5ubjeLl to Fee 1610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 61 J 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610
M4lganon Fee $ 7 741 $ �995 $ 8 258 $ 8 530 $ 6 811 $ 9 100 $ 9 400 S 9 709 S 10 029 S 10 356 S 10 699 $ 11 051 $ 11 415
LuWI Develupment Mdgahun
Fee Re. nue $12,462.000 $12,872.000 $13,296,000 $11,733,000 $14,185,000 $14.652,000 $16,134,000 $16,632.000 $18,146,000 $16,677,000 $17,226,000 $17,793,000 $18,375000
Allocahon 6y Fun]
Land Acquisition $12109000 $11724000 $11.756000 $11919000 $12121000 $13488000 $13,165,000 $13175000 $13375000 S13596,000 $13977000 $14404000 $14864000
Endo.,nlent
Munitonng 8 Managernent 353 000 1 1413,000 1 540 000 1 814 000 2 064 000 1 164 000 1.969,000 2.457.000 2 771 000 3081.000 3,249 000 3 389 000 3 514 000
Total E Kpenditures $12.462,000 $12.872.000 $13,296,000 $13,733,000 $14,185,000 $14,652.000 $15,134,000 $16,632,000 $16,146,000 S16,677,000 $17,226,000 $17,793.000 $13.379000
Table A-1:LOMF Revenue
and Allocation(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047
Plan Year 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 36 39
M61ae0np Fee Fevenue
New Oeveloprd Aa 5 16f0 1610 1510 1610 1610 1810 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610
Frr E.wnp1 Acres - - - - - - - - - -
A-5.`.ubj—t to Fee 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610
Miligaton Fre f 11,790 S 1=172 S 12 579 f 12 993 f 13 420 f 13 862 S 13 318 1 14,789 S 15 275 S 15 778 3 16 297 $ 16 83J S 11.337
L-1 D—aiuprnent Mdlgalion
Fee Revenue $18,993,000 $19607,000 $20,252,000 $20,918,000 $21,607,000 $22.318.000 $23,062.000 $23,810,000 $24,694,000 $25,403,000 $26,238,000 $27,102,000 $27,993,000
Ajlotahon by Fund
Land Arquisd— $15 349 000 $15 855 000 $16 382 000 f16 929 000 $17 658 900 $18 250 000 f 18,861 000 $19.494.000 $20.147 000 $20 821 000 $21 518 000 $22 241 000 E22 986.000
Endr rnent - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Monnonng 8 Management 3 634 000 3 752 000 3 870 000 3 909 000 3949,000 4 069,000 4 191 000 4,316,000 4447,000 4 582 000 4 720 000 4 861 000 5 007 000
Total Expend-tures $19.993.000 $19,507,000 $20252,000 $20,218,000 $21,607.000 $22,319.000 $23.052,000 $23.810.000 $24,694,e00 $26.403.000 $26.238,000 $27,102,000 127.993.000
83
Table A-1:LDMF Revenue
and Allocation(Nominal$)
FY Ending Juno 30 2048 2049 2050 2051 2062 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2065 2060
Plan Year 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
MrBuan-n Fee Revenue
New Developed Acres 161" 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610
Feu E-m1_i A.6s - - - - - - - - -
A—,e. Oje•�t to Fee 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 6+i 1 610 +6+n 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 16111
Md,-gat,—Fee S 17,959 3 185.50 S 19 160 $ 19 791 $ 20 442 $ 21 114 $ 5 875 $ 6051, $ 6 243 $ 6 437 $ 6 635 $ 6 840 $ 7 050
Loral De,,elopment Mitgannn
Fee Re,enue $28,914.000 $29.866,000 $30,848,000 $31,563,000 $32.911,000 $33,994,000 $ 9,459000 S 3,732,000 $10,052,000 $10,364000 $ to,882,00o $71,012,000 $11351,000
Allowhun by Fund
Lend?rquisdion $23 758 OOD $24 554 000 $25 378 000 S26,228 000 $27.108.000 S28 01 S 000 S S S S - $ - S - S
Endowment - - - - - 3 304 000 3411000 3 525 000 3 641 D00 3 761 000 3 885 000 4 013 000
Monitoring 6 Management 5 156 O00 5 312 000 5 47D 000 5 635 000 5 803 ODO 5 976 000 6 155 000 6,339 000 6 527.000 6,723,000 6 921 000 7,127 000 7,338 000
Tohl Eglenddures $28.914,1100 $29.866.000 $30,843,000 $31.963.000 $32.911.000 $33.994,000 $ 9,469.000 $9.762.000 $10,052.000 $10.364.000 $10,682,000 $11.012,000 $11.361.000
V
Table A-1:LDMF Revenue
and Allocation(Nominal$)
FV Ending June 30 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073
plan Year 53 54 55 56 57 se 59 60 61 62 63 64 65
Md,9atmn Fee peve,,Up
New Devplaped Ares 1610 1510 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610
Fre E—yv Acre;
A,re,Sub ect to Fee 1 610 1 610 1,610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610
Mny0on Fen $ 7 268 $ 7 491 $ 7 722 S 7 960 S 8204 $ 8,457 S 8 716 $ 8 984 S 9 259 $ 9 541 $ 9 836 $ 10 139 $ 10 449
Lodi Oevebpment Mdgatlon
F-Remnue $11,701.000 $12,081,000 $12,432.000 $12,816,000 $13,209,000 $13,616,000 $14,033,000 $14.464.000 $14,907,000 $15,365.000 $15.836,000 $16,323,000 $16.823.000
Al10CanorLby Fund
Land Acqulselon S - $ $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ -
End9winenl 4 145 000 4 2E 1 000 4.422.000 4 568 000 4 718 000 4,873 000 5 033 000 5199.000 5 370 000 5 547 000 5 729 000 5 918 000 6 113 000
Monitoring R.Managenient 7.556,000 7,7eu,uuo 8 010 000 8,247,000 8 491 000 8742,000 9 000 000 9 265 000 9,637,000 9 818 000 10 197,000 10 405,000 10 710 000
Total E.penddures $11.701,000 $12.061.000 $12,432,800 $12,815,000 $13,209,000 $13,615.000 $14,033.000 $14,464,009 $14.907.000 $16,388,000 $15,836,000 $19,323,000 $16,923000
V
Table A-1;LDMF Revenue
and Allocation(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2091 2042 2083 2009.2083
Plan Y=ar 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Total
Mrtroa0on Fee Re-nue
New DewWped Acres 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 1610 110452
Fee E.empt Awes - - - - - - - - 391
Awes Subject to Fee 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 1 610 110 061
Mdrgatmn Fee 3 10 769 S 11 098 $ 11439 $ 11 788 $ 12 146 S 12 519 $ 12 901 S 13 293 S 13 6g8 S 14 116 NA
Local Development Mexlalinn
Fee Revenue $17,338,000 $17.869.000 $18,416,000 $13,979.000 $12,559,000 $20,155,000 $20,770.000 $21,402,000 $22,054,000 $22,726,000 $1,212,881.052
Allocation by Fund
Land Acquisition $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ 627 586 000
Endmvrnent 6 314 000 6,522 000 6 737 000 6 959 000 7 188 000 7 424 000 7 668,000 7 920 000 8,181,000 8 450 000 184 821 000
Mon4onW&Management 11 024 000 11,348 000 1167900 12 020,000 12 371 00 12 731 00 13 102,000 13 482 000 13 873,000 14 276 000 420,474 ODD
Total Expenditures $17,338,000 $17.868,000 $18,416,000 $18.979,000 $19,589,000 $20,155,000 $20,770,000 $21,402,000 $22,064.000 $22.726.000 $1,212,881.092
Table A 2 Land Acqulslban
Fund(Nominal$1
Fr en0lrp June 30MID :013 20,3 7. 2017 mid :01f �m l ::u36 U :02•
Pl.n•er = J . 5 6 T.
R le 11 1= Il 1. IS la • 16 1e
! ,.wW ! l-W S.7pd3. S=DID.1 s 16Yr„W f 1µ wa S•YY'DID l=a I',— Ito nl,+'0 st ,u,WO !:'-66 w, SA1-20W S1.Ia000 S3.'ISw SS.Qw I=.JF•o-r• s. se.I.n i 33�+•+'
R m
,cal bn+1 y,mM M.gm,F..
S 3 %I.dp 3 :._ddi i 1em 0m f'sor WO S 12W WJ f aPfOUM f 3au 000w
f s- 0 f e OW ]2331 OW Sln"I i}q SI.,lK 340 fl,�.000 f1,•53OM sit e16 o00 fit ttt on s 13 ue 000
F,�M.•.,..• Jxieui se-.--e s:-dn .ow ua to u00w
c.An•• It sue 000 14.66 0W 1.Maw
3 f04 aW
"—Enrvnor t,Odi I.20M 51,OM .,M6 ✓J,006 1.%,OMI 1,+W,OM 1,'.v,pn te6=00c t l, I OM `1S OM ,_]6000 I,MInd1
rqy pn.nue. f 3.9115 6Wr.NW f i00A0M f S,.OM f Ie1— f 2606 V. 1.•.'x4 f_•e]30M f StSSJ o00 f11596000 ftl eitl WO f YP:.7<1 i]n S.00M f1.0>'e060 1u:000 f'SA0M 3N3000 f,'SS3f16000 513 of 000 $J0a50W f 152-SOW
- i Y+•• S . S 10a., S IOc. S -Fe S 'rp J ll. S I•Ie. f - 30'J S ,SSW S 13540 S MW S 14 III S IS3-0 f S S -a i
,. - ,t s I_Nn s 1 300 Ito; SIW le 1d,
q♦.ry.wa� 3 Iw — SlIC311'se f=Ie uoo f=0es 000 s 215J' 3 ..OM 3 I--un f s 000 f s t•0ee S10I.Y 0M 3'OM.d» fin M000O s 000 ite�e— a'..-- sll Y w S,m 000 3 1`...dm
2010M =0.000 _IJOm .-1 d16 .;O,u4 ='n OM _u 000 ts2 o00 1B3 oO0 IS Ie1 OM it51'OJD :3a OM :.O MO 30`000 31e000 3_60w
�.MA WI.n M.,,aym„annadi - -,000 3I'M ,5'M ..006 15/OOu 5<OM 1.— 1.5000 I.. IB.. ro•OM =1inM
m iwtv'am.mn rhn.., _SY w+� -- xz6,M0 = .St uY � MO xM 000 tB',000 2W,J00 lww SIf." �A.— ael`,660 "a" =iota
rilaie Oem.urro i t1•s:e1, s.1,.e tj� f='n•Odl f=M30o0 $
z%3r 000 s.YtaoM 3_a..a0. 3 05•.MO s alas 000 5i0 e1c0m sii l•I dp s„5s3000 s1n,0_MO f1e"w I I.MO f1>••.�1000 fls 3t,00u s,u.-1 un s iE i.a 0t0
nn ash Fb• f 1nW30. 11,1 tY_'m,34L1.000 3f IMMI f r==0000,s 22-1 f .WWO 3:'_e0000 6 31•.000 f %0000 f -- 111614M,SIDUS000 si_._.di„3ia"W,34LB0mi f'.ea.00u1 f11.3.Om f
[ndp F.ndeverca ! If0.30. t •r_1e. f a.e000 e t 10— ! 16100. S I.'W S Ina uvP s=,Is-Ow 53633iOW 3I-WOM Si—WOOD SM 1•1 Oro Ix110tm 13.Ie6Ow s30.w mn i26.61 UOU 12,11W SS.MOMO S I....NO
7
Table A 3 Land Acquisition
Fund(Nominal$)
E}EiMlnq.xw 30 N
2031 2N2 10a] p03/ xo3e �Ss m3Y
.t
&yn I�+l Fumr Belfrvn t 4.1e[0t1 f In�1 bM t:+Wa O'M t:!1+/roil t�n11/i i/a 3s5 MM fro i.s O[0 S/T t6-aw 311.1— S [ S-6+— f 2..0 f 14"— f a11060 f n-Tue66 3.nv— f I` Mu f F"uw
...1 P�•�x......0 Mpq+lxn E..
311IM 400 3 Ir+T5011 S Ill?- p 311'"WI 1139'T 314 1I4564000 $15 f161as0ou 3 I63lz000 Sts Y_roao f1-sseo00 f 1..Su oou SI95sl SIY14" 510117W1 3.03110M SI1
,Mnaar•1
r.WDn
`�IM1mum
I..
ImnrvY Exmxge I,Mc,W(1 I'44,INp ,t ltl,p0u I,454,1rM _ - sus lxp _ 3251op4 I1p/00 tYepN 2ro_ 4`ro,p1p )M,000 ITS,Ik'l J44,W0
Tva1R+.wxnc S 1%Dl f 14 S 149 = 11So 315 49uou $1S4S uuo SISIT uo 311015W 916011= f 16MM 1112540.W !I''SIM f Ix ww f/a1r4 u0D fIe Ww f_0131nm I:I l9s 000 f_r pq26ep
E•p•mw m
lArq n.4 Ar•1+fu S 1'465 S Il' S INKS f r9_W 1 1 S as 1 T1a 3 "!1 S 341T S 1411T 1 3Poi 3 13i4 S 41%/ S 4117 S IT55 S 41f S .q5
poo Y00 An I9 s =/eM 1 IN TSo -T4 MM m - 4415
lwM4 f IS T46 pp/1 fi1mm t ICNAZ f11.1000 31i9=x lm S om $IS=om fls4seo11 ft'sss: 3 IIn f19ran fts x351oo $ t --ow f1e:54 tm 31'W 000 31014100/ 5 20 151 ON 520114ow
3_o00 34e-1 451m _T1 o0o 581OW IS Ip O(0 Opp 000 u':pM 4Yl flpp Vq 4651Yq M1 IXM 49xom 11300o Sao— 53T 000 sos 000 M4om
enx-xirswn Mel�r�wntruni -=O JM __f OM _3a 000 tslow Its Ooo 1'sM 264. :430p0 X). 11. t'. S»000 la'm0 35e o110 ]61nM ISD 1.1
• -F•M.•� 3p5um _ 4o1.po0 4jT,ppp 44e,0p0 4..= 46', eo,M 4%,00o e"op, 641 p(q 6634W
TwME.e.�.lYW.a f I.' 000 31Tt4e wo 31T 614M 31e4MIMp f14W M 119.1nn SIT09— $1.MI_ $115i91— 3 .__ STo sw oao fts 593 000 f 1 t3Y Ooo SI-ro3om fly34opW fJOIYd 44p 511-1T 000 3-T 4s_'ooa
1.-1,EI.a4 3 M4000r 5 t75T3o/xp S-3Y MI 39'OM,f141MWI Sn4110M1 f115` M1 f/1.1-1 f /31160001 3n 06-1 f II.— f 13m 000 f 1431— f so9 oao f I.—.1 1.1-1 3 —uMl
EmxfT Ewdeer4rv• 1 3o sas WM s.93na�vn S Ts_,�0ao STT IT�upe Srb[05000 f 14M'•Sm faef-W s".'pep f...— 1 5If1UrM 1 Z-011 S 3Li4OM 1 4- — i I— 1 fll a( f 6541 JIO 1 srf Mrr 1 S3A 1
Table A-2 Lana Acquisition
Fund(Nominal)Emery aun 0015 03 Ah S0a 3Mf 30 mt m MO at 1036
U.. a., al ,a a- sl Sa S' Sa 5.= 56 s
M^^✓y=„ru eaxn-+ f a'aE 000 f i-W W i an]f.n t r_ua0: S 2ta+1rN f fss•kU f See tiro t ,aY vn1 ii•5•r ap+i t i'S'r wu'! 5»arxa f 11 s-3 m0�5 11 7n�pi t.151m, MM/M . /3//1/ ////1e1 Ma//ta /MMM
•••n••onakNu'^il Mny.i...F—
Pe.+min s_=.si 00o i==aa6 OOO 3.1 a=9 nt0 3.t s=_a.w f=s 2:e o00 $.-11 00 SVIMOM 3NOIA-A' 3 3 f f f 3 3 f f f 3 3
E+�n
mrla
I.A.- am.M, _ uC - 1aO,OtM PO U)0 J♦UW
TW+i P�rnu+ 3__550 OOo s:-Sfi*sD S_Ixnx.N Sas IS100o fay EtaW f=a31'aaa f:11a_P00 3i601t 1" 3 3 s f f f f f S f 3 f
E•`p*aw•n _ S t a S 5W i f we f '1 1 a t 4w t eeaa Seala S ea/3 f IVa S Stl�-
a,SM SSW f a.Mc a,9U aSW �,50T _ _
a�5000 f=:W.mO S,W-Uw 3=33691W f=aar1000 3_:'000O S_6101000 3a'u0aW $
i
MI 000 E_]000 Hl om Sao uOO nW W 'ta 00O __00u TM 000
lr+e.yqunnan Menaa^•••"Irv.ii 0uo00 AM NV 4l tbo M: a6a om S1faM 4MW
...d.snare -Oe:V� 'f10a0 ±1=55000 - eoR�mo Ac1000 Sen•'6-M apa.0ap _
TMn IEI m sx a 11 w I f='03000 3=3—nM 1_a a:1 S:: 3t6fi0000%am fa-'-a0000 f'-S000 1 ii5000 S S —T f f f 3 3 f f f S S
1xx•.sn FW., f eat— fn03aaW1 Sir t_l—,3 f f f
ErapM Fwn Aaian+ f aan+ryu 5+f3s r+q S'=a3fa t tati aLa S r551 anti f MOW f fY/tm�to e•]uam Sit Y']0001 t i'S'S5a^1 f 11 s'3aw)f 1•S-3WI s,13•roa 1 t i•5'v M., •S///// +////// ////// 3///// M/Ma/ MM/M
8j
Table A 2 Land A�ul«dab
Fund lNominal=l
FV ErdlnO JYR aO zeli 3Ns 201p y0]! A13 201/ Wnt M0 Am Alf Mel DMI! A0s ABB•AB]
v.nr sy Se WI •+ ._ 0a ee b 6" ee ss ro -i ii . T�
synn rp Fam Gwrv• .[.«. ..•.[. fn.... ....o .....« •..u. —up 0.0,00. .0. m[... .rwn -..N.. ma:3u ....... ....... ....... ......8 s I.7 W,
P•
..S,pn..n Wgai-n Fir
P^'^+ f f 3 s 1 f f s f f 3 3 s S 3 f f f f52•seB 00o
wu� -AWm
w Me=
e0l non
«nm
.�.^u EnrniMn _ p grys qq
n ne P,,..nY+c 3 3 3 s 1 3 3 $ s 3 3 3 f L $ - 3 s L S-.e]B10B0
p•y. SrO.`•a irn lfn 11,s-1i SlrpN f11«1 ilr._•B sl.e5 Srlel' tl+nr 111a.1 3+11lu Sr.]B+ fr•B,] f 153.1 f 1i.:4
Leml P.vun.wn ! S { S S S f f 3 ! f L 1 s s L f S 109+50BIXY
i..E•pmnn u«am ww. 3 3 f L f 3 s 1 f f s f f f 3 ! L L f'45A 1Y0
—I Fr s s s s s s s $
E+..vy vwenwrn .,u... .....M .«.«. ..du .yr.am. K.w« •nu.. unn wB«M .r•.Bn rz... u..[. .w.... 00000.0 ..BB.BI 4..:•. •.um S fr i•�uWi
90
Table A-3:Endowment Fund
(Nominal$)
FY Ending one 30 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Flan Year I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Beginning Fund Rafan— S S 803 120 $ 2 024 000 S 1 548 000 S 2 269 MI S 2 627 000 S 1964 000 $ 1 595 000 $ 7 921 000 $ 2 685 000 $ 3 066 000 $ 2 209 OW
Revenues
C VAG Mea`u e? $ 300 000 $ 500,000 S 500 000 5 500 000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500 000 S 500 OOU S 500 000 $ 500 000 $ 500,000 S 500 OOO
Regional InlraSh-Urtum Mitigation IGVVVD 8II0) - - - - - - - - -
C`JFTL HCP Endowmenl Fund - - - - - - -
CV4GrCalhans - - - - 1070.000 - -
Caltrans - - - - 2 533,000 - - -
CVVvD 716680 864,0Z9 827.000 790000 753,000 - - - - -
Local D-v Iopment Mdlg3llon Fee Revenue - - - - - - - - - -
111) 105,000 126 588 121 000 116 000 110000
- - - - -
Intemst Earnings 9 993 15,659 116.000 89.000 130,000 151.000 113.000 91 004 225,000 154.000 17§,000 1371000
Total Rey nue5 $ 1 131 673 $ 1 506 476 S 1 564 000 $ 1 495 000 $ 1 493,000 $ 851,000 S 613,000 $ 3 124 000 S 725 000 $ 1 724 000 $ 676 000 $ 627 000
Expenditures
Transfer Tu lFromi Mgmnt 8 Mollltonng Fund 328,553 205,960 2,040 000 774 000 1,135,000 1.314.000 982.000 798 000 1 961,000 1,343,000 1 533 000 1 105.000
Total Expenditures S 328 553 $ 285 960 $ 2 040 000 $ 774 000 $ 1 135 000 $ 1 314 000 $ 982 000 $ 798 000 $ 1,961,000 $ 1 343 000 S 1 533 000 $ 1 105 000
Net Cash Flow $ 803 120 $ 1 220 518 $ (476 000) $ 721 000 $ 358 000 $ (663000. $ (369,000) $ 2 326 000 S(1 236 000) $ 381 090 $ 1857,000) $ (470,000)
Endfnq Fund Balance S $03 120 S 2 023 636 S 1 548 000 S 2 269,000 S 2 627 000 $ 1964 000 $ 1 595 000 S 3 921 OW S 2 685,000 S 3 066 000 $ 2 209 000 S 1 731 000
Cepacdy h FI✓N OpL annq Fund 1%) 6 02% 21 10% 3 47% 4 98% 5 61% 42096 3 20% 7 66% 5 1 f% 5 68% 3 99% 3 04%
Nnry?n.aWnb sh��wn in nominal Eullan a indudrg iMlarion at 1 M MrceM annueMy unkyv rahercnfe r,nred See 1e•1 br e•planMnn of each ra•anua ann ppar Imr item
'Awa apnroM yMN N 5-3 pe—t
Sa na'oaehalla n..Igo,A—.-tnn r r[N.,errvneMe aYlM,lon F--.15o—
94
Table A-3:Endowment Fund
(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2020 2029 2030 2031 2032
Plan Year 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Beginning Fund Balance It 1'31 000 S 3 997 000 $ 2 727 000 S 2 019 000 $ 1 625 000 S +286 000 $ 3250000 S 1 811 000 $ 1 009 000 $ 562 000 $313 000 S 174 000
Revenues
CVAG-Measure.. $ 500.000 S 500 000 S 500 000 S 500 000 S 381 000 $ - $ S - $ - $ $ - $ -
Regrnnel Infi-lAructure Mitigation rCVWD&110) - - -
CVFTL HCP Endowment Fund
CVAG CArans - - _ _
Caltrans 2533000 - - 2,523,000 - - - -
CVVyD
Loral Development Mrligatlnn Fee Revenue
uD
Interest Eaminq:' 99.000 229_000 156.000 116.000 93.092 74.000 186,0op 104.000 54.000 32.000 18.000 10,000
Total Revenues $ 3 132 000 S 729 000 $ 656 000 $ 616 000 $ 4'4 000 $ 2 607 000 5 186 000 $ 104 000 $ 58 000 $ 32 000 $ 18 000 $ 10 000
Expunddures
Transfer Tn(From)Mgmni&Mon6uring Fund 866,001) 1 999,000 1,364 000 1.010.000 813,000 843,000 1 625,000 90e`00 505.000 281 000 157,000 87 000
Tntal Expenditures $ 866 000 $ 1.999 000 $ 1 364 000 $ 1 010 000 $ 813 000 S 643 000 S 1 625 000 $ 906 000 $ 505 000 $ 281,000 $157 000 S 87 000
Net Cash Flow $ 2 268,000 $0 270 000) $ (708 000) S 1394 000) $ (339 000) $ 1 964 000 $(1,439 000) S (802 000) $ (447,000) S (249 000) $(139,000) $ (77 000)
Ending Fund Bmew, S 3 997 000 $ 2 727 000 S 2 019 000 $ 1 625 000 S 1 286 000 $ 3 250 000 S 1 811 000 $ 1 009 000 S 562 O00 $ 313 000 $ 174 000 S 97 000
Capar.rty to Fund Oper ting FLnd(%) 8 02% 5 30% 3 69% 2 9.1% 2 23% 5 47% 2 95% 1 59% 0 86% 0 46% 0:4% 0 13%
Q
Table A-3:Endowment Fund
(Nominal$)
F'Ending June 30 2033 2034 2036 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2046 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2061
Plan ve9r 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
B�wnnm0 Fond Balance $97 Ono S 54 000 $30 000 S 17 000 S 9 000 S 5 000 $ 2000 $ 1 000 $- $- $- $- S- S- S- S- S- S- S-
Rerenues
CVPG-MeasureA $ - $ - $ - S - S S - $ - $ - $ - $ - S S - 5 S S S - $ - $ S -
Regional Irltrastruclum Mle9abon(CVVVD&11Or - - - - - - - - - - -
G'IFTL HCP Endowment Fund - - - - - - - - - - -
CVaG Cnttrans - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r.a0rans - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lncal Development Mdyatlon Fee Revenue - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Il0 -
Interrst Eamm0s' 6,000 3,000 2.000 1 000 1,000 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Re•.enues S 8 000 $ 3 000 S 2000 $ 1 000 $ 1 000 $ - $ - $ - S S - $ $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Expenddure,
Transfer TohFrom)Mgmnt 6 MonBnnng Fund 49 000 27,000 15 000 9 000 5 000 3 000 1 000 1,000 - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures $49 000 S 27 000 S 15 000 $ 9 000 $ 5,000 $ 3 000 $ 1,000 S 1 000 $ $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ $ - S - S - $ -
Net Cash Flow $(43 000) $(24 0001 $(13 000) S (e 000r S (4 000) $ (3 000) S (1 000) $ (1 000) $ - $ - S - $ S - S - S S - $ - $ $ -
En Ong Fund Balance $.54000 S 30,000 S 17 000 $ 9 000 S 5 000 S 2000 S 1 000 S - S - $ - $ $ $ $ S - $ - S - $ - $
Capacity to Fund Operating Fund(%) J 07% 0 04% 00296 0 01% 0 01% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 00096 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00% 0 00%
13 J
Table A-3:Endowment Fund
(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2052 2053 2054 2055 7056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063
Plan Year 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
B"mmnq Fond Balance S- S- S - S 1,304000 S 6 906 000 S 10,827000 $ f 5 088 000 $ 19 714 000 S 24 729 000 $30 159 M) 136032000 1423,18000
Re remies
CVAG-Measure A S S - 5 5 - S - $ - 5 - $ $ - $ - S - $ -
Regional Infrastructure M6igatwn ICVVVD&IIDi - - - - - - -
CVFTL HCP Enau-nud Fund - - - - - - -
CII^GCaOran; - - - - -
Calhans - - - - - - -
CVV'A _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
Local De—lopmem Mitgatlon Fee Revenue - - 3,304 000 3413,000 3 525 000 3,641,000 3 761 000 3 985 000 4 013 000 4145 000 4 281 000 4 422 000
IID _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
InterestEammgs - - 180.000 396.000 620.000 865,900 1,130.000 1.417.000 1.728,000 2.065.000 2.428.000
Trial Revenues S $ - S 3 304 000 S 3 602 000 5 3921.000 S 4 261 000 S 4 626 000 $ 5 015 000 $ 5 430 000 $ 5 873 000 $ 6,346,000 $ 6 050 000
E>penddures
Transfer To'(Fmm)Mqmnt&Monitoring Fund - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tntal Expenditures S S - $ • $ • $ • S • $ - $ - a - $ - $ - $ -
Net Cash Flow $ - S - S 3304.000 S 3.602,000 S 3,921,D00 $ 4.261.000 S 4.826,000 S 5 015 000 $ 5 430 000 $ 5 873 000 $ 6 346 000 $ 6 850 000
Ending Fund Balance $ S - $3 304 000 S 6 906 000 S 10 827 000 S 15 088 000 $ 19 714 000 S 24 729 000 5 30 159 000 $36 032 000 $42 378 000 $49 228 000
C9p3r0y to Fund Operahng Furd(%) 0 00% 0 00% 2 30% 4 65% 7 06% 9 53% 12 07% 14 66% 17 32% 20 04% 22 83% 25 69%
J .0
I
Table A-3:Endowment Fund
(Nominal$)
FY Ending Jum 30 2064 2066 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074
Plan Year 56 57 58 59 80 61 62 63 64 65 56
Heyuony Fund Balance $49 228 000 $56 611 000 $64 579 000 5 73 1.52000 $82 377 000 1 92 296 000 It 102 955 000 $114 401 000 $126 685 000 $ 139 562 000 $ 153 989 000
Pe,�mles
C,V ,-Measure A $ S S $ - $ -
Feq—al Infrastructure Mitlgallon iC11WW&1101 - - - - - - - - -
C`:FTL HCP Endowment Fund - - - - - - - - -
CVvGCaltrane - - - - - - - -
CaBrans - - - - - - - -
Local Oemlopmenl Mrtlgawn Fee Revenues 4 568,000 4 718 000 4 873,000 5 013 000 5 199 000 5 370 000 5 547 000 5 729 000 5 919 000 6 113 000 6 314 000
II❑ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Interest Earnings' 2821.000 3,«44,000 3.700.000 4.192 000 4.720.000 5.289.000 5.899.000 6.555.000 7,259,000 8.014 000 8.824.000
Tntal Revenues $ 7 389 000 $ 7,962 000 S 8 573 000 S 9 225 000 $ 9 919 000 $ 10 659,000 S 11 446,000 $ 12,284,000 $ 13 177 000 $ 14 127 000 S 15 136 000
Expenditures
Transfer To CFrom)Mgmnt&Monitoring Fund - - - - _ _ _
Tntal Expenditures S - S • $ - S - $ - S - $ - $ - $ S ' $
Net Cash Flow $ 7 389 000 $ 7962.000 $ 5573000 $ 9 225 000 $ 9919,000 $ 10,659 000 $ 11 446 000 $ 12,284,000 $ 13,177,000 S 14 127,000 5 15,138 000
Ending Fund Balanl $56 617 000 $64 579 00o S 73 152 000 $82 37 7 000 $92 296 000 $ f02 955 000 S 114 401 000 $126 685 000 $139 862 000 1 153 989 000 $ 169 127 O00
Capacity to Fund Operating Fund(%) 28 82% 31 61% 54 68% 3'83% 41 06% 44 36% 47 75% 51 21% 54.'e% 58 40% 62 13%
I
a �
Table A-3:Endowment Fund
(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2076 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2009-2083
Plan Year 67 68 89 70 71 72 73 74 75 Total
6eymning Fund 6alanue $ 169 127 000 $ 185 340 000 $ 202 697 000 S 221 271 000 S 241 138 000 $ 262 379 000 S 285 081 000 $ 309 336 000 S 335 242 000
Revenues
CVAG•Measure A $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S 8 181 000
Regional Intrastnirlum Mdigat—1C IWO 8.IIDi - - - - - - - - - -
C✓FTL HCP Endowment Fund - - - - -
CVAG.CaBrans - - - - - - - - 1070000
C.Krans - - - - - - - - 7 599 000
CVWD - - - - - - - - 3,951000
Loral Development Mdlgation Fee Revenue 5522000 6 737 000 6969000 7 188 000 7 424 000 7 668 000 7920,000 9 181 000 8 450 000 164 821 000
IID - - - - - - - - - 579 000
Inlvi—I Eamings' 9.691.000 10.620.000 11,615,900 12.679000 13.817.000 15.034.000 16.335.000 17,725,000 19 ZQ9.000 200.666.000
Total Revenues $ 16 213 000 $ 17 357 000 5 18 574 000 $ 19 867,000 $ 21,241 000 $ 22 702.000 S 24 255 000 S 25 906 000 $ 27 659 000 $386 887,000
Expenditures
Transfer Tol(Fmmi Mgmnt 8 Monitoring Fund - - - - - - - $23.955.513
Tntal Expenditures S - $ - $ - S - $ - $ $ - $ - S - S 23 965 513
Net Cash Flow $ 16 213 000 S 17,357,000 S 18 574 000 S 19 867 000 $ 21,241,000 5 21.701000 S 24 255 000 $ 25,906 000 $ 27 659 900
Ending Fund Balance S 185 340 000 S 202 697 000 S .121 271 000 $241 138 000 $262 379 000 S 285 081 000 S 309 336 000 S 335 242 000 S 362 901 000
Capacity to Fund Operating Fund(%l 65 95% 09 65% 73 86% 779646 82 17% 66 47% 90 88% 95 40% 100 03%
9 �,
o,
!;m§7;|§ \ E k| § � / rr■m ' | 2! §
�!®mlmm; ® \%m � �■§5`:m! ' \ ®& �
|� /:`:-;;; § a■ ; �. .,�
!:[::,]! ■ G as
|� ;\■E;S,! � 5 ■«e �®: : ,r ) k� \ .
3 :
o
§ } i!;§;§; F, 1 '
1.
Is }!\ - E } \/ \ !
)
J] w rEBrlBE!! §
I�
� -~ � . . , - � _ ! ■
:a2
;oP
\
�} E r2 § :§ §® | 1
! /„
|ƒ /�(f/}/\ \f \/ /
.. /;��„�: _� ( / {
im eeee!
)!Q4
! [ ! ,/\&tf7l;!?>�
a� ; - `: � r • :; � -; |! f);|.f� ` §z
-
_ ! _i\ )
2! [ ,!
Table A-4,Monitonng Program
Budget-(Nominal$)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2020 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
FV Ending June 30 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Pw ,,poi al Spat+er•except=hepp
Monitoring Pingipm Admin i1, I 11n Mr, S 119 50n S 1,3 too $ 126 800 b 110 ROO S 134 5OO S 139 50U $ 141100 S 14-Ono S 151 400 S 1E5 9U11 i 15u Eon S 165 400
r•de•brate Ewl-Field Super,ia,r i 11 1246u0 lee 70u I'<9i iG I+-3n0 141800 1465uu 151 TO 155300 161400 too-00 1'22no 17'33u 183 eau
Ent,—ingat,1 01)05. 554-0 51100 59100 et Orin 63 Ono 65109 61_00 E9400 -1100 -41,1u 76 Fr-n 7gn01 31600
,» aie Biologist i it 110500 114 inn 11-9n0 1,1800 125801 12990n 134200 138600 14,,200 14-90o 1'-2 d'JO 15-8W InInn0
PiMOJui•Menu Mgr I1igD0 fil 464Uu 50 uU', 51 EOO 51'O0 55 IOU 5e,9u 53e00 fill 700 62,00 64800 66 qOo 63 ion '1 400
Biologist-OmnhnlCgy 11 2-M 51 481nn 49�n0 51 500 S4 200 65 Ono 5P Bn0 So 7OU 60600 E2 600 E4'00 6d ev'1 Su 000 -1-,w
li•aa nnl Ad-Omlthnlca1 i IGO 20,00 Z1 40u Z2 10.1 22 ROO 13600 14,4uO 25 ZM 26 Con .16900 27 Bon 26'no Z3 600 Jo BOO
w ,,nal ade f4-540 75, 1OR 500 113 ion 115 Buo IZu Rn0 124 600 129.ou 1J2 Bull 137 300 141 800 146 500 151 ann 1 F 300 161 400
FWsallel-Sheep and Trails
Seasonal Aide 13@0 75, E 93300 b 9F 40n 5 �q 6CO $ 102 9uu $ 106 30r1 S 10O'00 S 113 400 S 117100 $ 121 OLIO S 125 MO $ 1_9 10u $ 133 300 $ M0 00
watluate Researcher
�hewp-Von nlon'Ic
Personnel S 691LO S 7140n S -3-10 $ '5 100 $ -6600 S 01200 S 93 q00 $ 86'00 S 89600 S 92500 $ 95SOO S 98 COO $ 10100J
Per=o,ne/-Gala
�-Ic Ana1}si it Q 051 $ 55400 S 5-gnu S 51 Ion S fit 000 $ E3000 S 6510n S 6-200 S 63400 $ 11 IOU S 741nn S -E SOD 3 '9000 $ BI bOo
r-,I S TeLhnlclen i 1 @ 0 5 48.400 50000 51,e03 53100 55.100 S6,9U0 Se 80u 60,-00 62,'00 04 BOO fiR,9nn fig.100 71.400
rersonnel Subtotal S 399 e00 S 929 90n S 'r q onn S 990 100 $1 022 500 S 1 055 eon S 1090 100 5 1 125 500 $1 162 300 S 1200 300 $1 239 100 S 1:'y 300 $1 311 000
0--rne Cod Yams
R—se/Update Natural Lommunnies Ma{S $ $ $ - S - S $ $ - S 5 E - - - S
E4uip,ren)ynd 5u 0-0,'
Sideline Aenel Imagei A $ J 400 $ 4 OL"J I 4 1110 S 4 2G'0 $ 4 300 $ 4 401 5 4 500 S 4 FOO $ 4 80u S 5 000 S 5 20c S 5 400 $ 5 600
Sampling^+ear R 40n F F00 6 SOL 'Cull '200 '4n0 '600 '900 8200 $500 logo 9 100 9 400
T,nn 15e1•up S M—twn—it 1 000 1 Coll 1 Uu3 1 000 1 000 1 000 I lln1 1 000 1 000 1 Ou0 I non 1 Ono 1 0OU
Radio-tracking Equipment -90 62U 850 eSO 910 940 9'0 1 U00 1 No 1,0E0 1 G•e1 113n 1 1-0
Aher Supplies 1 230 11-0 1 420 1 470 1 520 1 970 1 E2o 1670 1 e0 1-RO 1 b40 1 900 1960
'heather Stations i3i 2-0 1n0 310 3.10 330 340 350 360 370 3130 190 400 410
hi 1.GOsts 25 4T(i 16;On 2-1 U0 :B 000 28 90n 29 900 30 900 31 SOO 32 900 34 000 39 10n 1F 300 37 500
Sheep Monitonng 89 900 92.un 96 On, 99 2no 102 500 105 90n I n9 4n0 113 000 116-00 I:0 50n 124 SOC 128 E00 122 8uO
Sheep Montlanngd2esearch - - - - - - - -
El'npment subtotal S 129 010 S 121190 S 13'SAO S 142,070 S 14fi 690 $ 151 45n $ 15b 340 $ to 1 431) $ 165 720 $ 172,220 S 17-92U S 102 b30 S 18q 840
Subtotal-Estimated CW S 1025610 L I W209n S I09F ion 51137110 $11691b0 $1207250 S 124fi 440 S 128E,930 $1324 U20 S 1372520 5 141'OZ9 $14t3130 $1519840
it Ir GOntlngency $ 102 RF1 $ 106_U3 $ 1U96c-t S 113217 S 11fi 91fi $ 12072E- $ 114.44 $ t2S 693 S 132902 $ 12'252 $ 141-32 S 146111 S 151054
T01LI Estimated Lost $1 111 000 S 1 16e LIUO $1 206 OOn S 1 245 000 S 1.96000 $1 328 000 $1 3-1 OM S 1 416 000 $1 4$2 000 $1 510 000 S 1 5s9 Ono S 1 R09 Ono $1 FEZ Ono
Table A-4 Monitoring Program
Budget-(Nominal$)
2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 Z042 2043 2044
FY Ending June 10 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Pr,��nng-4.5pe,a- •-gC 3hagP
Monjh,n 3 Program Adm,n i l l S 1-0 4Un $ 1-5 6no 16n goo S 186 210 $ 191 800 $ 137 6n0 3 203 500 $ 209 500 S 215 goo $ 222 4L'O S 229 1n0 S 238 000 S 243 100
enebrate E-,I-Field 5upe-3f 111 189 800 196 o0n 202 40171 .209 100 21E 000 223 100 210 400 '38 u0U 245 AOU 25�-an 262 30n 270 900 2'g EDO
Entlmlugl-1-1 e4 30n P7 in0 q0 On0 q3 DOD 96 1C0 99 300 10.600 106 DOD 109 500 113 10n 116 enn 1206nO 124 600
elate Brologi_t i I 1 168 400 1-3 900 1-9 EDO 195,SUu 1yl 500 197 WO 204 400 211 100 216 Don 225 20n 23:600 240 300 :48 200
21ologi<t Mammalogl 11Lbu E, -2'30 -6130 785n0 812no 93900 86700 89 F0o 92500 95500 93600 101200 105100 100600
Biologisr-n.nrtn�lcg;11 2.10 51 2eu0 'E L00 -e 500 C1100 43 uOn r6600 89400 92300 95303 3d 403 101 EDO Im 900 1Do 400
goal.lid. rl nimolcgt 110051 31600 3.600 33700 �4870 35,900 _-71U'1 3920u 196Ut1 4n guO 422M 43500 46000 45500
Snaso-I Aide i4-`1qn-51 166-00 1-22r1 1-1900 183800 189800 19E 000 '02400 209100 21c OUO 22'Ino :10 400 23600n 245503
pw:s�nnyl-Shoop and--1�
Swjsonal Aide Siar--5, S 14220 S 146,on S 151-L'fl S 156-On S 1519Cn $ 16-200 5 1-2-30 $ 1'8400 $ 164300 $ 1904U0 S 1y6'On S 2n3200 S 209900
uaduat.Pes.—h.1
3hyt p-&',,ionng
Personnel $ 105100 $ 1086OU $ 1122]0 $ 115900 $ 119,700 $ 123,600 $ 1_ -On $ 131900 S 136 ton S 140703 $ 145200 5 1501UO $ 155,000
F—?nnwl-D410 AnEWO
GIs Annlyst,1 QI.']5, $ 84 J00 S 8-100 S q0 non S 93 000 $ 96 100 S g9)n0 $ 102 FOJ S 106 000 S 109 500 $ 113 100 S 116 eOU S 120 600 S 124 600
Glc Tach— h,190'1 -3joO 7E,1DO '8,eUO 3120u 83900 86,700 tl96n0 92,500 95y00 98,E00 101900 105100 1DRAOU
Fmwnn_I oubtnral S 1363800 S 1408100 5 14`4000 S 1 501 500 S 1650500 $1 601 100 $1E53200 $1'07,000 $I'62400 $1819-00 S1tl 1tl 800 S 193Q 800 S 2003100
03 r f,: C-f 1w
F-n-Update tlglural r—nlundles Mgt$ S - $ - $ - $ - s - S S - $ ; ; $ - $ -
Eg.'Pm4nf-no_IPPOL
oatehfferAenal Imager. $ 5 800 $ E 000 $ 6.00 $ b 400 $ 6,600 $ 6 000 $ ,ODD $ 7 2DO S '400 $ _RN $ 'goo $ 8 700 $ 3 500
.mpling C 31 q 70n 1'))nn 10 300 10 600 10 am 11,300 11'0U 12,100 12 500 12 9'A7 13 9no 13 700 14 200
Trans--I Sit up S Malntenan-s 1 ODO 1 000 1 UOu 1 000 1 000 1 ON 1 n00 1 000 1 DOD 1 Goo 1 ODU 1 U00 1 UOO
1i]10-va,hng Equipment 1:10 1 250 129C 1130 1 e-0 1420 14-u 1 520 1 5'n 1620 1670 11:0 1780
"her Supphas 20:0 2Ogn 16n 2230 2200 2390 2460 2540 2620 2'lu 280'1 2890 2930
..eathgr Stabem 0, 420 410 440 450 460 470 44n 490 500 520 540 s60 580
ymq le Cosis 3p7n0 401 30 41300 42'00 44100 45,600 41tOU 48600 50200 519n0 53600 55400 57200
oh
MnnRonng 1]7200 141700 14b 4U0 1512uO 156200 1131300 166600 1721nO 1-'6o0 183600 189,E00 195800 2022w
Sheep tAonrtnr,ng Research - - - - - - -
Equipment 5u0Mtil $ 19605u $ 202470 $ 2UY Oy0 $ 2159to $ 24930 5 23n:�O $ 227810 S 245550 $ 251590 $ 261$50 $ 270410 $ 279270 $ 2A545U
'U"rM l F.t—ted Coat $ 1659 b5U S IEIn 5-n $ 1661 Dan S 1717410 S 1'75410 $1831310 $1 891 010 $1952550 $2015990 $2,081,550 S2144210 S 22190-0 S 22915-0
1U%'_gnimg-C, E 15596' $ 161 Oh' $ lot 20Y $ 171741 $ 11341 $ IV 13- S 1e9 I'`1 S 1962115 S 20159q S 2n6155 5 21492 $ 221,30' ; 229155
Total-EFbm-led—st S 1 7 16 000 $1"2'SOO $1[29 Ouu $1 689 OuO $1 951 000 $2 n15 non S 2 1'8n Ono S 2 148 1100 S 2 218 Ono 5 2.90 000 $2 A64 OW $2 441 000 $2 521 000
ti�
Table Al•Monitoring Program
Budget-(Nominal$)
2045 20M 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057
FV Ending June 30 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 40 47 48 49
FeF+r..w ,NI Scene;a•revf sM1esp
MnmMrmq Pirgiam Ad—I. $ 260 40J $ 257 900 $ ;e5 F00 $ 2-1 Fn0 E ZP•1 800 E 2qO 3no S 299110o S 408 000 $ 317200 $ 326 700 $ 336 500 $ 34c 60LI $ 35'01+0
enebratr E•.o1 Fi.ld oupernso,I1 i 283 non 290 500 308 300 318 400 3:8 900 339'u0 T5n gno 362 4110 374 300 386 600 3q9 300 412 400 42n 00,
Entnmnl,gist i t id,0 51 128 700 1,12900 13-3011 141 FoO 148 500 151 300 156 300 1t1 400 166,700 111,00 177 900 153 800 89 600
—ate B.-Iog,h 11 256 Opp 264 P,nn -1 Sun :e2 5,10 291 Sou 101 400 311 300 321 500 332 1no 143 Ono 154 300 3F6 non a non
BUu3el.Memma14y t(4051 112200 1159uU 111-11 1_1101 1-''11 111901 11620p 1411-00 145301 15110n 1`S(Port16010n b5401
Biologist-Omitholog r 11-2@0 51 112 000 115'OO 113 5no 123 400 12'500 131-00 136000 IQ 500 145 100 149 900 154 800 159 900 155 zoq
_ _rnal Aide-Ornithology 11@05) 48000 49500 5120n 929n0 54600 564u0 Se 3uO 60200 6.1200 64200 66300 68500 -3 itan
35 oval aide i 4 51Mp 751 253 900 292 3nO 270 Silo 2-9 80u _89 000 198 500 3OB 300 310 400 328 900 339 700 390 Sao 362 400 1-4'9n
Fe"npnel-:.veep and Trails
-e nal 4ije 1•Jidu-5) $ 216 800 E 223 3nO S 231 300 S 233�00 S 246 euu $ 254 900 $ 263 200 $ 212000 $ 290 900 S 290 100 E .99,600 E 309 50C S 119-On
—duate R--r-her
ShpeG-ill"d vmp
Per-onnel $ 160 100 $ 165 400 E 1-n eon S 176 400 S 1 y2 200 $ 149 200 $ 194 400 $ 200 800 $ 207 400 S 214 200 $ 2.1200 E Z26 50n S 21F•000
Fert�•n+e1 4n4l/qs
L'n1a
.3 An." 1 u 5 $ 128 700 E 132 900 S 1'7 300 S 141 COn $ 146 500 $ 151 J00 $ 156 100 $ 161 400 $ 165-00 $ 1-2 200 $ 171 900 E 183 800 S 199 ROO
VIS Te�hmui snit((}p 51 112200 115900 119100 1.3600 127.700 131,9p0 1362W 140,700 145300 150100 155,000 IW 100 1n54W
Persunnel auGt_te1 $2068400 E 2135'no 5 22n5 too $2276700 $2351 Wa $242'S00 $Z 506 500 $2588000 S 2872100 S 2-59009 S 2848700 S 2 941 Pn0 S 3-3 400
l..4 a Cn-r dam,
Re.iaelipdatr HArUr41 5 $ E b - $ - 5 - $ - $ - $ - $
Eq�ipmeni end�upwar•
�atwllde}wnallmagerl $ 5600 $ 91OU 3 9400 E 3700 S 1n Goo S 10300 5 10600 $ 10900 $ 113UO E 11700 $ 12100 $ 12500 E 12900
_ampling Gee 14700 19200 15700 16200 Its70u 112u0 11800 18400 lq nolo 196OO 20200 209n0 ZI 600
Tiansart Set-up 5 Maintenance 1 GOO
1 000 1 000 1 non 1 n0o 1 OOu 1 000 1 Wu 1 000 1 OOu 1,000 1 OOo 1 ono
Radio-na-Ping Equipment 184p 1900 1960 2020 2,0y0 21EO 2230 2300 23SO 2460 2540 2620 2-10
other c upphes soy"
1 190 3 290 3 400 '51 n 1630 3 7SO 3 870 4 000 4 130 4210 4 410 4 S6p
•.eether Etatwnsi31 800 P,20 640 660 660 !Do 720 740 760 780 BOO 820 e40
,hide Goats 5q 100 At 000 83000 b5,100 E'Z00 69400 -1700 74100 -6500 79000 81800 87300 8'130
;heap M.nitc,ing 208 900 215 800 Z22 900 230 ZOn 227800 245 600 253-00 262,000 270 600 2'9 Sao 288 700 -as 200 108 non
�hecp 1.1-ft nn34.e.earch - - - - - -
Equipment S ubtatal $ 298010 S 30'810 S 31-090 S 3202W $ 338980 $ 340990 S 361500 $ 3'3310 S 185540 S 390170 E 411210 $ 424'50 S 438-1n
Subtotal-Estimated Cost $2,386,4W $2 441 510 S 2 522 q9p S 2 Paul 960 1 2 889 920 S 2 7"490 $2 868 000 $2 981 110 S 3 057 640 S 3 157 1'0 $3 259 910 $3 3F6 3'o S 3 4-6 110
10% $ 21F B43 S 244 351 $ 252:99 $ 260 438 $ .Pa 335 $ '-49 S 2W Pao 5 296 121 S 30S'64 S 315 717 $ J25 991 S 336 6J5 $ 34'1,11
Total Eahmetrd Goat E Z 603 Ono S 2 868 Ono S 2"5 WO $2 8b5 000 $2 959 000 $3 055 0,10 S 3 19-too S 3 257 OoO S'g61000 S 3 4'3 000 S 3 589 1100 S 3 702 uW $e 8c4 UOU
10o
Table A-4 Monitoring Prognm
Budget-(Nominal$)
7058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2083 2054 2065 2066 2067 20W 2059 2070 2071
FY.Ending June 30 50 51 52 53 54 55 58 57 58 58 60 81 82 63
Feraonnel-4P'[qGe-e.,:epf shegp
Mcnitonna Pi-gram 44n,n,11 S IR7-00 5 2-5-00 8 190 IJn $ 401 eon $ 411 900 S 4211 30u 3 4J9 IGO $ 452 200 S 4E3 900 E 4-q q00 5 494 30n S 5n9 1u0 $ 524,400 $ 54u 1Ou
'ertewat,E=n1 Field Supervisor it 440 Onn 414 5nn 46D 500 4114 900 SOU ON 51'400 534 400 552 OUO 570 2OU 5a9 000 608 400 F28 400 649 100 F'0 cn0
Ent—lrglst I I in-1 5, I le Ono _uZ 4uu 209 100 21E 000 123 ion 210 400 238 WO 245 800 ..53 eon 262 30ri 270 9LM1 279 800 _39 009 _4b SOU
Ass—at,Sloloyiat,1- 9u 401, 403 20o 411 517-0 41n 20u 444 400 459 000 4'4 100 459 700 505 80u 5_2 4Uu 539 600 557 400 5-5'•lfl `94 6CO
EN mcn,t-M 9mmal+y,,1 @0 51 1�o 9Cn I-F 400 182 2uO 168,2u0 194 400 200 800 20-400 214 200 221 200 1.8 500 236 000 243 BOO 251 800 2C0 I Ou
nloluglct-0mahalog,-1-2@0 51 1-0 FOU 1'E 210 162 00n too Ono 194 20u 200,800 20',800 214000 _1000 22e 300 235 BOO 243 600 1 600 259 Son
ze3s-nal tide-Ornithclhg,I IfM 51 '3106 -S sw -8 we 80 Ono 83'00 �6000 88 BOO 91'Go 94'On q-eon 101 Goo 104200 101100 111200
Seasonal Aide 14f@O T51 38P bQo 1i9 200 412 40n 426 non 44n Gon 454 SOU 469 E00 484 900 50n+On 51'40u 534 40'3 552 OOu 5'0.00 `-39 030
Pars-nal-Sheen and 7ro-3
,ca5an81 Aide 11&0 7SI $ r0 200 S 141 1170 S HZ 300 $ 363 900 $ 3'5 900 $ 368 300 S 401 100 $ 414 300 $ 4.'90O ; 44.uOJ E 456500 $ 4'1 500 S 487 OOO 5 503 OUO
Graduate Fe-eafchn,
sh—P-tf,nnonnq
Pe,Fnnnel I 243 900 S 251 OOv $ ICO 1 U0 $ 2b8-00 $ 2 7 500 E 206 60n 5 296 0-10 S 305 700 $ J15 800 $ 3.6 201] $ 336 900 5 '48 000 S 359 401 s ''1 Z011
Fyra�rinal-�a1a AnaIYY a
„IS Ahal,$t 11 IM 0 51 $ 196 000 S Z 12 4,90 S _O9 Ind s 216 OOU $ 223 16a $ 230 400 S 2'8 000 S 245 BLNI $ 253 900 $ 262 300 $ 2'0 BOO 5 .79800 S 299 ODU f 298 5CO
31�Tachnldon it p$051 1-0 Ono 1-640LI 192200 188,100 IW.400 200,80n 207400 214,200 221,200 ;ze.$OO 236,000 247800 C51,800 _b0,111U
Personnel Subtotal 5 1 136 000 S 3 23-qon S•143 5nn S 2 452 500 S J 565 100 $3 681 100 S 3 801 000 S 3 924 600 $4 U52 400 $4 184 600 $4 320,700 $4 461 500 S 4 506700 14-56-iq
Jne-rime C-1 If—
Fe,is.,Update Natu,al Commund—M-j S $ $ E 8 - E - $ - $ S Y I - S - $ - E
Fv Pment-dff..PP.—
SatellftAerialImagery E 13200 S 1J-Uu $ 14200 $ 147p0 $ 15200 5 15700 $ 16,200 $ 16700 $ 17270 $ 17 Pnn S 18400 S 190u0 $ 19600 $ 20200
Semplmg wear 22 300 23 Ono 23 POO 24 600 25 400 .6200 2'100 28 O00 28 9UL' 29 quo 30 900 31 900 12 900 ,4000
Transact Set-up 4 IAa,ot4nance 1 OLIO 1 9ou 1 000 1 Ono 1 non 1 1011 1 000 1 GOO 1 mO 1 MO 1 OOn 1 000 1 000 1 000
Rad -ttie,hing Equipment 2 800 2 890 2 390 3 090 3 190 3,_'g0 3 400 3 510 J 630 _-53 3 870 4 000 4 130 4 2'0
Olh,r,Supph" 4'10 4 860 5 020 5,190 5 360 5 540 5 720 5,910 $100 6 3no 6 510 6720 6 940 '170
lM1eattar elation 31 8'0 9no 930 %0 .90 1020 1099 1080 1110 1140 1110 1210 1250 1290
•:ehlcle Costs 9O OOU 93 000 36 10n 9q 3oo 102 Ono 105 OUO 109,500 113 100 I16 eOO 120 e0O 124 600 128100 112 930 11'NO
Sheep MnmMUng 110 100 328 FOG 3J9 4U0 350 600 362 Ind 1-4 nOO 386 300 399,000 417 100 4.5 7n0 439700 454 200 469 100 4+4'--00
Sheep MonnonngT*es.arch - - - - - - - - - - -
Equipment Subtotal S 453 U80 $ 4b'9'-0 5 401 44n 5 499 44n S 515 940 $ 531150 $ 550 270 $ 568 300 S 586 54u S 50F IX- S 6261SO $ 646;30 $ 6F,7 820 S 999-30
Subtotal Eahmatnd Goat 1 3 5Fq n8n S 170'-5,I S 3 826 94U $J 951 940 $4 080 940 S 4.11950 S 4 151 270 $4 492 900 $4 639 240 b 4-90-97 $4 946 850 S 5 108 230 S 5 274 520 $5 44b 4JU
1016 Contingent, $ 253908 S '0'-8b E 382694 $ 335194 2 408 N4 S 421285 $ 435,127 5 449290 S 461 Q4 i 4-9 fi4 S 494685 S 510823 $ 52-452 5 E44643
Total-Estimated C nst $3 940 WO S 4 0-e UOU $4 210 000 S 4 347 000 E 4 439 nn0 S 4 E 35 000 $4'86 000 $4,942 00n S 5 103 m0 S e 2'O Ono S 5 442 000 $5 819 000 $$602 000 5 5 931 000
10
Table Ad,Monitonng Program
Budget-(NomlRal$)
2072 2073 2074 2073 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2092 2083
FY Ending June 30 64 65 66 67 fie 59 70 71 72 73 74 75
FPrsr 7, At, p... Q�rPpf'he^p
f4�nitri inq P,ogram Admin,1- S 5%,uO S F7,,WO S 590 200 $ E07 9u0 S 6_E 103 E b44 900 $ 664 700 $ 694 1GO a '04 600 F '25'00 E 74'500 $ -69 300
.ertebiatE E-I F1eld Supernsof i 1, .921,00 71E 400 73R gon 753 2011 768 30� P,14 ZrM S41 non MR-00 9q-iM 12h 800 95-300 q88 800
Ent7n✓4ngial 1 @ G 51 in8°no 11e 400 228 900 329-uO 310900 J62 400 374 30LI -9b EW 199 3no 412,400 428 000 440 000
--data Biulugi.t,11 b 14 200 634 400 ES'300 6-E 300 Eq9 2nG --Z 20n -46 n00 '-0 5.10 -95'0n R22 000 649 000 8-6 900
Bmloglst-Menimelogy I l llu 5, 2E0-Do 7-500 286 ROO 29F 000 105 7N 315 Rn0 328:no 315 900 341 Onn 35q 400 171 200 381 410
81o1u31st-prmthNl gy,1-Z@)-I Z68 500 7 300 28b,400 295 300 Jos 501 3IS Eon 326 000 jib 70u Al bOO 'E9 2u0 371 000 383 200
-a-rial A1dn-Ornnhningy,1 OZO 114 9Gn lie 700 122 COO 126 b00 110 800 1 JS 100 139 500 144 100 149 6uO 15J'f1O 158 boo 164 000
a-onal Aide 14b,D0 7'-1 608 400 6:8 400 649 100 670 500 fi92 Grin -19 4nn '38 qno -61 200 -Pa Inn 814 200 "1 000 868-00
P— -3h and Trade
E
eneac Aide-du 751 $ 519 500 $ 'A EOG $ 554 300 $ 5'2 500 $ 531 Ion S 610 8110 S 63n 900 S 551'm S 6-1 1CO S 695 200 S T 18 10o S 741 700
-ieduafe R-earuhef
wnp-4Mr Ip"g
Penonnd $ 351 40n $ 196 00n S 409 nCo S 4.2"0 I 436 40n S 450 800 5 4P5 6nO 5 430 gnll S 438 Inn I '13 nOn S 52q 90G S 54-40O
Pw.w—-�.fa Ana V-
�15 Analyaf 11 gp 0 51 E 30P,300 F 315 400 $ 3289,10 S 339 7nO S 1`0 qnO S 262 400 3 3'4 2On S 286 e0O S -9 1--uO S 4 t2 4Gu S 426 OOu $ 440 000
11c Terhninan 11fib O 51 26B-00 27-son 286 boo 29fi000 305,-Ou 315,800 326.200 336,300 349,uGO 359,4% 371,200 38E,400
Pei s44n41"ibWal S 4 911 Ono E 5 0'1 ROO 15 238 800 $5 407 300 S 5 583 400 S 5'd5 4W $5 953 100 $6 14c 900 S b,347 00u $6 553 400 $6 767 000 $6 987 300
0na4—--f I.en15
I3n•n:.Upd3ln tlatuial CrmmundlPs Ma{S - . - $ - $ - S $ $ $ E $ - $ - $
ECL1p—nl and Suppllac
ate114e Aenal Imager, 3 20 900 $ 21 GOO $ 22 300 $ 22,000 E :3 000 $ 24 E00 $ 25 400 $ 2E 200 E 27 10n $ 25 000 E 28 goo $ 29 900
-niplmg fxaf 35 too 36300 17500 3P,'n0 40 O0r. 41200 42700 4410n 496L'O 4-IOn 48 BOO 50200
T,ant.rt;0 fp S Maintfrnan-e 1 nnu t un0 1 000 1 Ono 1 OLIO 1 OLIO 1 000 1 OLIO 1 o0u 1 Ou0 1,000 1 000
Radio-harking Equip—t 4 410 4 SEO 4-10 4 860 50.0 5 130 5 360 5 S40 5-20 5 310 6,100 0 300
'thIr 4uppllas 7410 7650 7,9GO a160 8,420 871u 9000 9300 9b1u 9930 10,280 10 COO
.Wathrr Zfalmn$ill 1330 1170 141u 1450 1490 1530 1590 1630 1690 1730 1780 1830
-Iudi,rate 141 001) 146 fiuO 151 300 156 300 lb1 400 166 700 172�.u0 1"goo 193 500 193 800 196 000 70Z,400
cheep Manitonng `--nu 400 Stb 400 633 goo 551 Soo 569 COO 588 3n0 607 700 fit"0n fi45 4nn fifi9 700 691 700 714 500
,ierp 6l.-n R:ngy.Ar)arlh - - - - - - - -
Equipment uht_tal E '12 350 $ 735 580 $ -60 029 S -84 9-0 $ 81074,) S -3-330 I e64 W S 89J JTO S 922 910 S 953 17u S 964 340 $1 016 7-,u
Subtotal-Estimated Ccst $5 624 1 CO S 5 807 480 $5 995 020 $6 IK 2'0 5 6'9 140 $5 fi02 710 S 6 810 040 S-04n 2-0 S-2fi9 q 1 n E 7 906 970 3 7 751 340 3 0004030
10 R nmaUngehct S 562 4 t 5 $ SRr,74e 3 599 G82 $ 619 227 $ e39 414 $ 6bJ 2'2 $ E31 804 $ 704 02' $ '2e 991 F 7SO 657 $ 775 134 $ Boo 403
Tuta1 Ewn wt J Cmt S 6 1 R-Don E fi-,RP n00 S fi 597 000 S 6 811 000 S-034 000 S 7 20 000 $7 500 000 $7 744 000 S-99'uuu F 9 25-000 $8528,000 $8 804 u00
� o �
Table A-5:CVMSHCP
Management Program Budget-
(Nominal$)
Base PY 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2016 2017 2018
FY Ending June 30 Salary Salary' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Personnel
Reserve Land Manage S 82 000 90 200 $ 90 200 $ 93,200 5 96 300 $ 99,500 $ 102 800 S 106 200 $ 109 700 $ 113 300 $ 117 000 $ 120 800
Asst Reserve Manager(4)' 68 300 75,130 75,100 77 600 80 200 82 800 85 500 88 300 167,600 173 100 178,300 183,600
Ranger-Warden(2) 80 000 80 000 176 000 181 800 187 800 194,000 200,400 207.000 213 800 220 800 228 100 235,600
Field Crew Labor(contract) 36 OW 39 600 39 600 40 900 42,20o 43,600 45,000 46 500 48 000 49,600 51,200 52 900
admen Assistant(0 25-0 5)' 3a 700 43 670 13 895 14.400 14,900 15,400 15 900 16 400 26 900 27.800 28 700 29,600
Personnel Subtotal $ 394,795 $ 407,900 S 421400 $ 435300 $ 449600 $ 464400 $ 566,000 $ 584.600 $ 603300 $ 622.500
Staff per Year-Subtotal 425 425 425 425 425 425 55 55 55 55
Personnel Cost Wthout Inflation 394 795 395 000 395 000 395,000 395,000 395.000 468 000 468 000 468 000 468 000
Eaufo/nent and Sf10Dlfe5
Site Protection&Maintenance S 25 OOO $ 25 800 S 26 600 $ 27 500 $ 28 400 $ 29,300 $ 30,300 $ 31 3W $ 32 300 $ 33,400
Habitat Maintenance and Rest 9 700 4 000 4 100 4200 4,300 4 400 4 500 4 600 4 800 5 000
Field Equipment and Supplies 61 300 13 900 14 400 14,900 15,400 15,900 16 400 16 900 17 500 18,100
Office Equipment 44,600 39900 41,200 42,600 44000 45400 46900 48,400 50,000 51ISM
Public Education Services 9 000 5 700 5 900 6,100 6,300 6 500 6 700 6 900 7 100 7 300
Equipment Subtotal 149 600 89 300 92 200 95,300 98,400 101.500 104 800 108 100 111 700 115 400
Subtotal-Estimated Cost 544 395 497 200 513 600 530,600 $48,000 565 900 670 800 692 700 715 000 737 900
10%Contingency 54 440 49 720 51,360 53 060 54 800 56 590 67 080 69,270 71,500 73,790
Administrative Overhead(10%) 54,440 49 720 51 360 53 060 54 800 56 590 67,080 69,270 71 500 73,790
Total-Estimated Cost 653 000 597,OW 616.000 637 000 658 000 679 000 805 000 831 000 858 000 885.000
'This salary in-iudry ti-efts amrkei nm lientation 1(1 adrrhnnhatr o,erhead
•These pnsitinns aie phased in as the number of ages acquired-f-es
sour,e Coen-hells call*y Mountain Conservanry Nilldan Financial 9ernces
103
Table A-5:CVMSHCP
Management Program Budget-
(Nominal$)
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
FY Ending June 30 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Personnel
Reserve Land Manage S 124.800 S 128 900 5 133 100 $ 137.500 $ 142 000 S 146 700 $ 151 500 $ 156,500 5 161,600 $ 166 900 $ 172 400 $ 178 100
Asst Reserve Manager(412 189,100 194 800 200,600 206,600 286 200 294 800 303 600 312,700 322 100 331 800 341 800 352 100
Ranger-Warden(21 243 400 251,400 259.700 268 200 277 000 286 100 295 500 505 200 315.200 325 600 336 300 347 400
Field Crew Labor tcontract) 54,600 56,400 58 300 60 200 62,200 32,100 33,200 34 300 35 400 36,600 37,800 39 000
Admin Assistanti025-OV 30600 31,600 32600 33,700 34800 35,900 37100 38,300 39,600 40,900 42,200 43600
Personnel Subtotal $ 642 500 S 663 100 $ 684.300 $ 706.200 $ 802 200 $ 795 600 $ 820 900 $ 847,000 $ 873,9W S 901 800 S 9W 500 S 960 200
Staff perYear-Subtotal 55 55 55 55 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Personnel Cost Without Inflation 468 000 468 000 468 000 468 000 517 000 498,000 408.000 498 000 498 000 498 000 498,000 498,000
Caurnment and Supplies
Site Protection&Maintenance $ 34 500 $ 35 600 $ 36 800 S 36 000 $ 39 300 $ 40 600 $ 41 900 S 43 300 S 44 700 $ 46 200 $ 47,700 $ 49,300
Habitat Maintenance and Rest 5200 5,400 5 600 5 600 6 000 6,200 6 400 6 600 6 800 7 000 7,200 7,400
Field Equipment and Supplies 18 700 19,300 19 900 20 600 21 300 22,000 22 700 23 400 24 200 25,000 25 800 26,600
Office Equipment 53,300 55 100 56 900 58 800 60,700 62 700 64 800 66 900 69 100 71,400 73,700 76,100
Public Education Services 7 500 7 700 8,000 8,300 8 600 9 900 9200 9 500 9 800 10,100 10 400 10 700
Equipment Subtotal 119,200 123 100 127 200 131 500 135 900 140 400 145 000 149,700 154,600 159,'00 164 800 170 100
Subtotal-Estimated Cost 761700 786200 811500 837,700 938100 936000 965900 996700 1028,500 1,061,500 1,095300 1130300
loll.Contingency 76,170 78,620 81 150 83 770 93,810 93 600 96,590 99 670 102 850 106,150 109,530 113,030
Administrative Overhead 11O'�) 76 170 78,620 81 150 83 770 93,810 93,600 96,590 99 670 102 850 106 150 109,530 113,030
Total-Estimated Cost 914,000 943 000 974 000 1,005,000 1,126 000 1 123 000 1 159 000 1,196,000 1,234 000 1 274 000 1 314 000 1 356 000
1 li '1
Table A-5:CVMSHCP
Management Program Budget-
(Nominal$)
2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 21141
FY Ending June 30 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Personnel
Reserve Land Manage $ 184 000 S 190 100 S 196 400 $ 202 900 $ 209,600 5 216 500 $ 223.600 S 231,000 $ 238 600 $ 246 400 S 254 500
'.sst Reserve Manager(41' 440 000 453 200 466,800 480,800 495 200 510,100 525 400 541,200 557 400 574,100 591.300
Ranger-'✓Varden(2) 358 800 370 600 382 800 395 400 408 400 421 800 435 700 450 000 464 600 480 100 495 900
Field Crew Labor icontracti 40,300 41 600 43 000 44 400 45,900 47 400 49,000 50 600 52 300 54 000 55 800
Admin Assistant(0 25-0 V 45,000 46 500 48 000 49 600 51,200 52 900 54,600 56,400 58 300 60200 62,200
Personnel Subtotal $1,068100 5 1 102000 $1 137,000 S 1173100 $1,210300 $1248,700 $1288300 S 1,329200 $1371400 $1414,800 $ 1,459,700
Staff per Year-Subtotal 75 15 75 7 5 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Personnel Cost Without Inflation 498 000 538,000 538 000 538 000 538,000 538 000 538,000 538 000 538,000 538 000 538 000
Eouloment and Supolles
Site Protection&Maintenance $ 50 900 $ 52 600 S 54 300 $ 56,100 $ 57 900 $ 59,800 $ 61 800 $ 63,800 S 65 900 $ 68,100 S 70 300
Habitat Maintenance and Rest 7 600 7 900 8200 8,500 8 800 9,100 9 400 9,700 10 000 10,300 10,600
Field Equipment and Supplies 27 500 28,400 29 300 30,300 31 300 32 300 33,400 34,500 35 6W 36,800 38 000
Office Equipment 78,600 81 200 83 900 86 700 89,600 92 600 95,500 98 600 101,800 105 100 108 600
Public Education Services 11 100 11,500 11 900 12,300 12 700 13 100 13 500 13,900 14 400 14 900 15 400
Equipment Subtotal 175,700 181,600 187600 193900 200,300 206800 213,600 220500 227,700 235200 242,900
Subtotal-Estimated Cost 1,243800 1283600 1324,600 1367000 1,410,600 1455,500 1,501,900 1549,700 1,599,100 1650000 1,702,600
101.Contingency 124.380 128 360 132,460 136 700 141 060 145,550 150 190 154 970 159.910 165 000 170,260
Administrative Overhead t10no) 124.380 128,360 132 460 136 700 141 060 145 550 150 190 154,970 159 910 165,000 170 260
Total-Estimated Cost 1,493,000 1540000 1590,000 1640000 1,693,000 1747000 1802000 1860,000 1,919000 1980000 2043,000
10a
Table A-6:CVMSHCP
Management Program Budget-
(Nominal$)
2042 2043 2044 2046 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052
FY Ending June 30 34 36 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Personnel
Reserve Land Manage S 262 900 S 271 500 $ 280 400 $ 289 600 $ 299 100 $ 308 900 S 319 100 $ 329 600 $ 340,400 $ 351 600 $ 363,200
Asst Reserve Manager(41' 609 000 627 300 643 100 665 500 685 500 706 100 72'300 749 100 771,600 794 700 818,500
Ranger-Warden 121 512 200 529,100 546 500 564,500 583,100 602 300 622 100 642 600 663 700 685 500 708 100
Field Crew Labor(contract) 57 600 59 500 61 500 63 500 65 600 67 800 70 000 72 300 74,700 77 200 79,700
Admin Assistant 10 25-0 5)' 64 200 66 300 68 500 70,800 73,100 75 500 78 000 80,600 83 300 86 000 88,800
Personnel Subtotal $1505,900 $1553,700 $1,603,000 S 1,653,900 $1,706400 $1760,6W $1,816500 $1874200 $1933700 S 1,995000 $2050300
Staff per Year-Subtotal 75 7 5 7 5 7 5 is 7 5 75 7 5 7 5 75 7 5
Personnel Cost Without Inflation 538,000 538,000 538 000 538,000 538,000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000
Eouior(rfp(4/10 SUDD11@S
Site Protection&Maintenance $ 72,6W $ 75 000 S 77 500 $ 80,000 $ 82,600 $ $5,300 S 88 100 $ 91 000 $ 94,0W $ 97,100 S 100 300
Habitat Maintenance and Rest 10 900 11,300 11 700 12 100 12,500 12 900 13 300 13 700 14 200 14 700 15 200
Field Equipment and Supplies 39 300 40 600 41,900 43,300 44,700 46,200 47 700 49 300 50 900 52 600 54 300
Office Equipment 112,200 115,900 119,700 123,600 127 700 131 900 136 200 1407,00 145 300 150,100 155 000
Public Education Services 15,900 16,400 16,900 17,500 18,100 18,700 19 300 19,900 20 600 21 300 22 000
Equipment Subtotal 250 900 259,200 267 700 276 500 285,600 295 000 304 600 314 600 325 000 335 800 346 800
Subtotal-Estimated Cost 1 756 800 1 812,900 1 870 700 1930,400 1,992 000 2 055 600 2,121,100 2 188 800 2 258 700 2 330 800 2 405 100
10%Contingency 175 680 181 290 187 070 193.040 199.200 205.560 212 110 218,880 225,870 233,080 240 510
Administrative Overhead(10'.) 175,680 181,290 187070 193,040 199,200 205,560 212,110 218880 225870 233080 240510
Total-Estimated Cost 2.108.000 2,175,000 2 245 OW 2316.000 2,390 000 2,467 000 2.545.000 2 627,000 2,710 000 2,797,000 2,886 000
.i 1 D
Table A-5:CVMSHCP
Management Program Budget-
(Nominal$)
2053 2054 2055 2056 2067 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063
FY Ending June 30 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 62 63 64 66
Personnel
Reser.e Land Manage 6 375 100 S 387,400 5 400,100 $ 413 300 $ 426 900 $ 440 900 $ 455,400 $ 470 400 $ 485 900 $ 501 900 $ 518,400
Asst Reserve Manager(41- 843 100 868,400 894 500 921 300 948 900 977,400 1,0%,7W 1.036.900 1068.000 1 100 000 1 133 000
Ranger-Warden ill 731 400 755 500 780 400 806,100 832,600 860 000 888 300 917 500 947,700 978 900 1 011 100
Field Crew Labor tcontract) 82 300 85 000 87,800 90,700 93 700 96 800 100,000 103 300 106,700 110,200 113 800
Admin Assistant(025.05)= 91,700 94,700 97800 101000 104,300 107,700 111,200 114,900 118.700 122600 126600
Personnel Subtotal $2,123 600 $2,191,000 $2 260 600 S 2 332 400 $2,406,400 S 2482.800 $2,561 600 $2 643 000 $2 727 000 S 2,813 600 $2 902 900
Staff per Year-Subtotal 75 7 5 75 75 7 5 7 5 75 75 75 7 5 7 5
Personnel Cost Wthout Inflation 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538,000 538,000 538 000
Eoumment and Sunnbes
Site Protection&Maintenance S 103 600 $ 107,000 $ 110,500 $ 114,100 $ 117 900 $ 121 800 $ 125,800 $ 129,900 $ 134,200 $ 138,600 $ 143 200
Habitat Maintenance and Rest 15,700 16 200 16 700 17 200 17 800 18 400 19,000 19,600 20,200 20,900 21 600
Field Equipment and Supplies 56,100 57 900 59,800 61 800 63,800 65 900 68 100 70 300 72 600 75 000 77 500
Office Equipment 160100 165400 170,800 176.400 182200 188,200 194400 200,800 207,400 214.200 221.200
Public Education Services 22 700 23,400 24 200 25 000 25,800 26 600 27 500 28 400 29 300 30 300 31 300
Equipment Subtotal 358,200 369,900 382 000 394 500 407,500 420,900 434,800 449.000 463.700 479 000 494 800
Subtotal-Estimated Cost 2 481 800 2 560 900 2642,600 2,726,900 2,813 900 2 903 700 2 996 400 3 092 000 3 190 700 3 292 600 3397,700
10%Contingency 248 180 256 090 264 260 272,690 281.390 290 370 299 640 309 200 319 070 329,260 339 770
Administrative Overhead(10'.) 248180 256090 264,260 272,690 281390 290370 299640 309,200 319,070 329,260 339770
Total-Estimated Cost 2978000 3073000 3 171 000 3,272,000 3,377 000 3 484 000 3696000 3 710 000 3 829 000 3 951,000 4 077 000
i� i
Table A-5:CVMSHCP
Management Program Budget-
(Nominal$)
2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074
FY Ending June 30 66 6l 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 66 66
personnel
Reserve Land Manage $ 535500 $ 553100 S 571300 $ 590,100 $ 609500 $ 629,600 $ 650,300 $ 671,700 $ 693,800 $ 716600 S 740200
Asst Reserve Manager(4)' 1 167 000 1 202 000 1 238 100 1,275,200 1,313 500 1 352 900 1 393 500 1 435 300 1 478 400 1,522 800 1 568 500
Ranger-Warden(2) 1044,400 1 018 800 1 114 300 1 151 000 1 188 900 1 228 000 1268,400 1 310 100 1353,200 1,397 700 1,443 700
Field Crew Labor(contract) 11,1500 121 400 125,400 129,500 133.800 138.200 142 700 147 400 152 200 157 200 162 400
Admin Assistant(0 25-0 512 130 800 135 100 139,500 144,100 148.800 153.700 158,800 164.000 169.400 175 000 180 800
Personnel Subtotal $2,995 200 S 3 090 400 S 3 188 600 $3 289 900 $3 394,500 $3 502 400 $3 613 700 $3,728 500 $3,847.000 S 3 969 300 S 4 095 600
Staff per Year-Subtotal 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 7 5 75 7 5
Personnel Cost Wthout Inflation 538 000 538 000 538,0W 530.000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000
Equipment and Suonlles
Site Protection&Maintenance S 147 900 $ 152 800 $ 157 800 $ 163,001) $ 168 400 $ 173 900 S 179 600 $ 185 500 $ 191 600 $ 197,900 S 204 400
Habitat Maintenance and Rest 22 300 23 000 23,800 24,600 25 400 26,200 27 100 28 000 28 9W 29 900 30 900
Field Equipment and Supplies 80 000 82 600 85,300 88,100 91 000 94 000 97 101) 100,300 103 600 107 000 110 500
Office Equipment 228 500 236 000 243 800 251,800 260 100 268 700 277 500 286 600 296 000 305,700 315 800
Public Education Services 32 300 33,400 34 500 35 000 313800 38,000 39 300 40 600 41 900 43 300 44 700
Equipment Subtotal 511,000 527800 545200 563100 581,700 600800 620600 641000 662,000 683,800 -06,300
Subtotal-Estimated Cost 3,506,200 3618,200 3 733 800 3 853 000 3 976 200 4,103,200 4 234 300 4,369,500 4509,000 4 653 100 4 801 900
10%Contingency 350 620 361 820 373.380 385 300 397 620 410 320 423 430 436 950 450 900 465,310 480,190
Administrative Overhead t10'?'.) 350 620 361 820 373 380 385 300 397 620 410,320 423 430 436,950 450 900 465.310 480 190
Total-Estimated Cost 4,207,000 4,342 000 4,481 000 4 624 000 4771,000 4 924 000 5,081,000 5,243 000 5 411,0W 5,584 000 5762.000
:i J
Table A-5:CVMSHCP
Management Program Budget-
(Nominal$)
2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083
FY Ending June 30 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Personnel
Reser.e Land Manage $ 764 600 $ 789 800 $ 815 800 $ 842 600 $ 870 300 $ 890 900 $ 928,500 S 959 000 $ 990 600
usst Reserve Manageri4�2 1615600 1664100 1,714,000 1765400 1,818400 1873000 1929200 1987100 2,046,700
Ranqer harden(;i 1 491 200 1,540,300 1 591 000 1643,300 1 697 400 1,753 200 1 810,900 1,870%0 1,932 000
Field Crew Labor(contract 167 700 173 200 178 900 154 800 190,900 197 200 203700 210 400 217 300
Admin assistant(0 25-0 5l2 186,700 192 800 199 100 205 700 212 500 219.500 226 700 234 200 241,900
Personnel Subtotal $4,225 800 $4 360 200 $4,498 800 S 4 641 800 $4,789 500 $4 941,800 $5 099 000 $5261,200 $5,428,500
Stall per Year-Subtotal 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 75 75 7 5 75
Personnel Cost Althout Inflation 538 000 $38.000 538 000 538 000 538,000 538 000 538 000 538 000 538 000
Epwpmant and S(IOOI10S
Site Protection&Maintenance $ 211 100 S 216 000 $ 225,200 $ 232 600 $ 240 300 $ 248 200 $ 2%400 S 264 800 $ 273 500
Habitat Maintenance and Rest 31 900 32 900 34 000 35 100 36,300 37,500 38,00 40 000 41,300
Field Equipment and Supplies 114 100 117 900 121,800 125 800 129 900 134,200 138 600 143 200 147,900
Office Equipment 326 200 336,900 348 000 359 400 371 200 383 400 396 000 409 000 422 500
Public Education Services 46 200 47 700 49 300 50 900 52,600 54 300 56,100 57 900 59,800
Equipment Subtotal 729 500 753.400 778 300 803 800 830 300 857,600 885 800 914 900 945,000
Subtotal-Estimated Cost 4955,300 5 113 600 5 277 100 5 445 600 5,619 800 5799,400 5,984 800 6 176 100 6,373 500
101•o Contingency 495.530 511 360 527,710 5"560 561 980 579,940 598 480 617 610 637.350
Administrative Overhead(10%) 495.530 511,360 527710 544,560 561980 570940 598480 617,610 637350
Total-Estimated Cost 5,946 000 15136,000 6,333,000 6 535 000 6 744 000 6 959 000 7 182 000 7411,000 7,648 000
� n �
Table A-6:Monitoring&
Management Fund(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2019 2019 2017 2018
Plan Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10
Beginning Fund Balance $ - $ (138) $ 124 000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Revenues
Landfill Tipping Fees
Conservation Trust Fund $415 811 $ 372 172 $ 387 000 $ 402 000 $ 418 000 $ 435 000 $ 452.000 $ 470,000 $ 489,000 $ 509,000
Eagle Mountain Open Spate Trust - - - - - - - - - -
Other Revenues 20 000 273 - - - - - - - -
Transfer From/(To)Endowment 328 553 285 960 2.040.000 774,000 1,135,000 1 314,000 982,000 798,000 1 961 000 1 343 000
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue - - - 1 437 000 1 129 000 931 000 1421,000 1 664 000 561 000 1 240 000
Interest Earnings' - - 7,000 - - - - - -
Total Revenues $764 364 $ 658,405 $ 2,434 000 $ 2,613 000 $ 2,682 000 $ 2 680 000 $ 2855,000 $ 2 932 000 $ 3 011 000 $ 3092,000
Expenditures
Monitoring Program $235 304 $ 223 147 $ 955,000 $ 973,000 $ 1 004 000 $ 964 000 $ 995 000 $ 1 028 000 $ 1 061 000 $ 1 096 ODO
Management Program - - 616 000 637 000 658.000 679,000 805.000 831 000 85a,000 885 000
Adaptive Management - - 106,000 109 000 113 000 117 000 121 000 125 000 129 000 133 000
Management Contingency - - 500 000 500 000 500 000 500 000 500,000 500 000 500 000 500,000
Adnunlstration(program-wide sharer 529.198 311 235 3r§1 000 394.000 407.000 420.000 434.000 448•000 463.000 478.000
Total E,pendlttires $764.502 $ 534 381 $ 2 558 000 $ 2 613 000 5 2 682 000 $ 2 680 000 $ 2.055.000 $ 2,932,000 $ 3 011 000 $ 3092,000
Net Cash Flow $ (138) $ 124024 $ (124000) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ (138) $ 123 886 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
,fete All.Wuea shown in nommd dollam,i e in,ludng inflation at 3 23 percent annually unless othermse noted See textfor explanation of earh menu-and post line item
Assumes nominal In-stmem yield of 572 percent
swrces Tables 11-10 and 8 11 Coachella valley Assonation of Goremm-N R--de Count,ilhlldan F,nwcnal 5rnlces
110
Table A-B:Monitoring&
Management Fund(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Plan Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Beginning Fwnd Balance $ - $ - S - 8 - $ - $ - 8 - 8 - $ - $ -
Revenues
Landfill Tipping Fees
Conservation Trust Fund $ 529.000 $ 550 000 S 572 000 $ 595,000 $ 619,000 S 644 000 $ 670 000 $ 697 000 $ 725 000 $ 754,000
Eagle Mountain open Space Trust - - - - - - - -Other Revenues - - - - - - - - -
TransterFrom!(To)Endowment 1533,000 1105000 866000 1,999,000 1.364.000 1010000 813000 643000 1,625,000 906,000
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue 1 114 000 1 608 000 1 416 000 353.000 1 148 000 1 540 000 1 814 000 2,064,000 1 164 000 1 969 000
Interest Earnings' - - - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues $ 3 176 000 S 3 263 000 $ 2 854,000 $ 2,947,000 5 3 131 000 $ 3,194 000 $ 3 297 000 $ 3,404,000 $ 3,514 000 S 3,629 000
Expenditures
Monitoring Program $ 1131,0W $ 1168000 $ 1206000 $ 12450W $ 1286,0W S 1328000 $ 13710W $ 1,416,0W $ 1462Wo S 1510,W0
Management Program 914 000 943,000 974,000 1.005.000 1 126 000 1 123,000 1 159,000 1,196,000 1.234 000 1 274 000
Adaptive Management 137,000 142 000 147 000 152,000 157,000 162 000 167 000 172 000 178,000 184 OW
Management Contingency 500000 500000 - - - - - - - -
Ndmtmstrahon(program-wide share) 494.000 510.0()0 527.000 545.000 5P2.000 581.000 600.000 620,000 640.000 661.00Q
Total Expenditures S 3176000 $ 3263,000 $ 2,854 000 S 2 947 000 $ 3,131,000 $ 3,194,000 $ 3 297 000 S 3,404 000 S 3514000 S 3629000
Net Cash Flow $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ - 8 - $ - $ - $ -
Table A-6:Monitoring&
Management Fund(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
Plan Year 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Begurrirg Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ g _ $ _ g _ $ _ $ - g
Revenues
Landfill Tipping Fees
Conservation Trust Fund $ 78.4000 $ 815,000 $ 648 000 S 882 000 $ 917,000 $ 954 000 $ 992 000 $ 1032,000 S 1 073 000 $ 1 116 000
Eagle Mountain Open Space Trust - - _ _ _ _ _ _
Other Revenues - - - _ _ _ _ _
Transfer Froml(Tol Endowment 505,000 281 000 157 000 87,000 49 000 27 DDO 15 000 9,000 5 000 3 000
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue 2,457 000 2,771,000 3,081 000 3 249 000 3,389 000 3 514 000 5634000 3,752,000 3 870 000 3 989 000
Interest Earnings' - - - _ _ _
Total Revenues $ 3,746 000 $ 3 867 000 $ 4,066 000 S 4 218 000 $ 4355,000 S 4 495 000 S 4 641 000 $ 4,793 000 S 4 948 000 $ 5 108 000
Expenditures
Monitoring Program $ 1559.000 S 1 609 000 $ 1 662 000 S 1 716 000 S 1 772 000 $ 1,829 000 S 1 889 000 $ 1 951 000 $ 2015,000 S 2 080 000
Management Program 1,314 000 1,356,000 1493.000 1 540 000 1,590,000 1640,000 1,693 000 1,747 000 1802,000 1 860 000
Adaptive Management 190.000 196 000 202,000 209 000 216 000 223.000 230 000 238,000 246 000 254,000
Management Contingency - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Administration(program-wide share) 683.000 706.00Q 729000 753.000 777.000 803.000 829,O02 857.000 885,000 914,000
Total Evpendltures $ 3 746 000 S 3867,000 $ 4 086 D00 $ 4,218,000 S 4 355 000 $ 4 495 000 $ 4 641 000 $ 4,793,000 $ 4 946,000 $ 5 108 000
Net Cash Flaw $ - $ - S - $ - $ - S - S - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Table A-6:Monitoring&
Management Fund(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048
Plan Year 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Beginning Fund Balance S - $ - S - $ - S - $ - $ - S - $ - S -
Revenues
Landfill Tipping Fees
Consmatton Trust Fund S 1 161 000 S 1 207,000 $ 1255.000 S 1 305 000 $ 1 357.000 $ 1.411.000 $ 1,467,000 $ 1526,000 5 1,587,000 $ 1,650,000
Eagle Mountain Open Space Trust - - - - - - - - - -
Other Revenues - - - - - - - - -
TransferFrom/(To)Endowment 1,000 1,000 - - - - - -
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue 3 949 000 4 068 000 4191000 4316,000 4 447 000 4 582 000 4 720 000 4 861 000 5 007 000 5 156,000
Interest Earnings' - - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues $ 5,111,000 S 5276,000 $ 5 446 000 $ 5,621 000 $ 5,804 000 $ 5993,000 $ 6,187 000 $ 6 387 000 S 6 594 000 $ 6 806 000
Expenditures
Monitonng Program $ 2 148 000 $ 2 218 000 S 2.290.000 S 2 364 000 $ 2 441 000 $ 2 521 000 S 2 603 000 S 2.688.000 5 2 775 000 $ 2,865,o00
Management Program 1 919 o00 1,9eo 0oo 2,043,000 2108.000 2 175,000 2,245,000 2,316.000 2390,000 2467,000 2545,000
Adaptive Management 100 000 103 000 106 000 109 000 113 000 117 000 121 000 125 000 129 000 133.000
Management Contingency - - - - - - - - -
Administration(program-wide share) 944.000 975,000 1.007.000 1,040,Oo0 1.075,000 1.110.000 1.147.000 1.184.000 1.223.000 1.263,00Q
Total Expenditures S 5111000 $ 5,276,000 $ 5.446.000 $ 5,621.000 S 5804.000 $ 5.993.000 $ 6,187,0131) $ 6,387 000 $ 6 594 000 $ 6,806 000
Net Cash Flow $ - S - $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $
1
Table A-6:Monitoring&
Management Fund(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2049 2050 2051 2052 2063 2054 2066 2056 2057 2058
Plan Year 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Beginning Fund Balaacp S - 8 - 8 - $ - S - S - S - 8 - 8 - $ -
Revenues
Landfill Tipping Fees
Conservation Trust Fund S 1,716,000 S 1,785,000 S 1,856 000 $ 1 930 000 $ 2 007 000 S 2 087 000 $ 2170.000 $ 2257,000 $ 2347.000 $ 2.441 000
Eagle Mountain Open Space Trust - - - - - - - - _ -
Other Revenues
Transfer FromnToi Endowment - - - - - - - - -
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue 5312,000 5,470 000 5 635 000 5 603 000 5,976 000 6 155 000 6 339 000 6,527 000 6,723,000 6 921 000
Interest Earnings' - - - - _ - _ _ _ _
Total Revenues $ 7,028 000 5 7,255 000 S 7,491 000 $ 7 733 000 $ 7 983 000 $ 8242,000 $ 8 509 000 $ 8 784 000 $ 9070.000 $ 9,362 000
Ependdures
Monitoring Program $ 2959,000 $ 3055,000 $ 3,155,000 $ 3,257 000 3 3 363 000 S 3 473 000 $ 3 586 000 $ 3 703 000 $ 3 824 000 $ 3 948 000
Management Program 2,627 000 2 710 000 2 797 000 2886,000 2,078,000 3,073,000 3171,000 3.272.000 3 377 000 3 484 000
Adaptive Management 137,000 142 000 147 000 152 000 157 000 162 000 167,000 172,000 178,000 184,000
Management Contingency - - - - - - - - - -
Pdministration(program-wide share) 1.305.000 1.348.000 1.392.000 1.438.000 1.485 000 1.534 000 1595.000 1 637 000 1.691,000 1.746.000
TotalEcpenditures S 7.028.000 $ 7255.000 5 7491000 $ 7733000 $ 7,983000 $ 8242000 $ 8,509,000 $ 8,784,000 $ 9,070000 $ 9,362,000
Net Cash Flow $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Ending Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $
its
Table A-6:Monitoring&
Management Fund(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067
Plan Year 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Eeginnrng Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Revenues
Landfill Tipping Fees
Conservation Trust Fund $ 2,539,000 S 2 641 000 $ 2747,000 $ 2 857 000 $ 2,971,000 $ 3,090 000 $ 3,214,000 5 3 343 000 $ 3 477 000
Eagle Mountain Open Space Trust - - - - - - -
Other Revenues - - - - - - - - -
TransferFromhTo)Endowment - - - - - - - - -
Local Daselopment Mitigation Fee Revenue 7127.000 7 338 000 7,5%,000 7 780 000 8,010,000 8,247 000 8491,000 8 742 000 9,000,0m
Interest Earnings' - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues $ 9,666,000 S 9 979 000 $ 10,303,000 $ 10 637 000 S 10 981 000 S 11 337 000 $ 11,705,000 S 12 085 000 $ 12 477 000
Expenditures
Monitoring Program $ 4 076 000 $ 4,210 000 $ 4 347 000 $ 4489,000 $ 4635.000 $ 4,786,000 $ 4,942 000 S 5 103 000 $ 5,270,000
Management Program 3,596 000 3 710 000 3829,000 3 951 000 4,077,000 4,207 000 4342,000 4 481 000 4624,000
Adapti4e Management 190,000 196 000 202 000 209 000 216 000 223.000 230,000 238 000 246 000
Management Contingency - - - - - - - - -
Adminlstrahon(program-wide share) 1.804.000 1,863.000 1 925.000 1.988.000 ?,053,000 2,121.000 2.191.000 2.263.000 2.337.000
Total Expenditures $ 9666.000 $ 9 979 000 $ 10 303,000 $ 10 637 000 $ 10.981.000 $ 11,337 000 $ 11 705,000 $ 12 085 000 $ 12 477.000
Net Cash Flaw S - S - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
11 �
Table A-6:Monitoring&
Management Fund(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076
Plan Year 60 51 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Beginning Fund Balance $ - S - $ - $ - $ - S - S - S - $ -
Revenues
Landfill Tipping Fees
Conservation Trust Fund $ 3 616 000 $ 3,761000 $ 3,911 000 $ 4 067,000 $ 4 230,000 $ 4,399,000 $ 4 575 000 $ 4758,000 $ 4,948 000
Eagle Mountain Open Spare Trust - - - - - - - - -
Other Rwenues - - - - - - - - -
Transfer From/(To)Endowment - - - - - - - - -
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue 9265,000 9 537,000 9,018,000 10,107,000 10,405 000 10,710,000 11 024 000 11 346 000 11,679,000
Interest Eaming5' - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues $ 12 881 000 $ 13 298,000 $ 13,729 000 $ 14 174,000 $ 14 635 000 $ 15 109 000 S 15 599 000 $ 16 104 000 S 16 627.000
Expenditures
Monitoring Program S 5 442 000 S 5,619 000 $ 5,802 000 $ 5 991 000 $ 6 187 000 $ 6 388 000 5 6597.000 S 6011.000 5 7.034,000
Management Program 4771,000 4,924,000 5.001.000 5.243.000 5,411,000 5,584,000 5762000 5946,000 6,136000
Adaptive Management 254 000 262 000 271 000 280 000 289 000 299 000 309 000 319 000 329 000
Management Contingency - - - - - - - - -
Administration(program-wide share) 2,414,000 2.493.000 2,575,000 2.660,000 2,748.000 2,838.000 2 431,000 3.028.000 3128.000
Total E,penditures $ 12 881 000 $ 13 298 000 $ 13 729 000 $ 14 174 000 $ 14 635 000 $ 15,109 000 S 15 599 000 S 16 104 000 S 16 627.000
Net Cash Flow $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 - S - $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S
w �LI
Table A-6:Monitoring&
Management Fund(Nominal$)
FY Ending June 30 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2009-2083
Plan Year 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Total
Begmnrng Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ -
Revenues
Landfill Tipping Fees
Conservation Trust Fund S 5 146 000 S 5 352 000 $ 5,566,000 $ 5 789 000 S 6021,000 $ 6,262,000 S 6 512 000 $ 160,432,000
Eagle Mountain Open Space Trust - - - - - - _ -
Other Revenues - - - - - - - 20 000
Transfer From/(Tol Endowment - - - - - - - 23,966 000
Local Development Mitigation Fee Revenue 12 020 000 12 371 000 12 731 000 13 102 000 13 482,000 13,873 000 14 276 000 420,474,000
Interest Earnings' - - - - - - - 7 000
Total Revenues $ 17 166 000 S 17 723 000 $ 18 797 000 S 18 891 000 $ 19 503 000 $ 20.135.000 $ 20 788 000 $ 604,899,000
Expenditures
Monitonng Program $ 7,263,000 $ 7 500 000 $ 7744,000 $ 7.997.000 S 8 257 000 $ 8 526 000 $ 0,004,000 $ 252 795 000
Management Program 6,333 000 6,535,000 6 744 000 6,959 000 7 182 000 7 411 000 7,648 000 220.002 000
Adaptive Management 340 000 351 000 363.000 375 000 387 o00 400.000 413 000 14,700,000
Management Contingency - - - - - - - 5 000,000
Administration iprogram-wldesharel 3.230.000 3,337.000 3.446.000 3.560.000 3,677.000 3.798.000 3.923.000 112.402.000
Total Expenditures S 17 166 000 $ 17 723 000 $ 18.297.000 $ 18 891,000 $ 19,503,000 $ 20,135 000 $ 20 788,000 $ 604,899 000
Net Cash Flow $ - S - $ - S - $ - $ - $ _ $ -
Ending Fund Balance $ - 8 - S - E - $ - $ - $ - S -
Appencix 3: Glossary
This section contains definitions of terms used in the MSHCP and this analysis. Definitions
included below were provided by CVAG
Acceptable Biologist: A biologist whose name is on a list maintained by CVCC of biologist who
are acceptable to CVCC. CDFG, and USFWS for purposes of conducting surveys of Covered
Species.
Acquisition and Funding Coordinating Committee: A committee formed by the CVCC that
provides input on local funding priorities and Additional Conservation Land acquisitions.
Adaptive Management: To use the results of new information gathered through the monitoring
program of the Plan and from other sources to adjust management strategies and practices to
assist in providing for the Conservation of Covered Species.
Additional Conservation Lands: Conserved Habitat that will contribute to Reserve System
Assembly,as described in Section 4.2.2 of the MSHCP.
Allowable Uses: Uses allowed within the MSHCP Reserve System, as defined in Section 7.3.2
of the MSHCP.
Annual Report (s): The report(s) prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 6A of the
MSHCP.
Area Plan: A community planning area defined in the County of Riverside General Plan. Four
County of Riverside Area Plans are located within the MSHCP Plan Area
Biological Corridor. Wildlife movement area that is constrained by existing development,
freeways, or other impediments. [See also"Linkage."]
California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG"): A department of the California Resources
Agency.
California Department of Parks and Recreation ("State Parks"): A department of the
California Resources Agency.
California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans")� A department of the California
Business,Transportation, and Housing Agency.
California Endangered Species Act ("CESA"): California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050
et seq and all rules, regulations and guidelines promulgated thereunder, as amended.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)' California Public Resources Code, Section
21000 et seq. and all guidelines promulgated thereunder, as amended. For the MSHCP, CVAG
shall be the Lead Agency under CEQA, as defined under state CEQA Guidelines Section 15367
Candidate Species: "Candidate Species" means both (1) a species formally noticed by the
California Fish and Game Commission as under review for listing as threatened or endangered,
or a species for which the Fish and Game Commission has published a notice of proposed
Final May 16,2011 Page 95
�� y
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
regulation to add a species as threatened or endangered, and (2) a species which USFWS has
identified as being a candidate for listing, but for which development of a listing regulation is
precluded by other higher priority listing activities.
Certificate of Inclusion: The document attached as Exhibit "H" to the IA that would be required
to be executed prior to a Participating Special Entity receiving Take Authorization pursuant to
Section 11.7 of the IA or for other Covered Activities, as appropriate.
Changed Circumstances: Changes in circumstances affecting a Covered Species or geographic
area covered by the MSHCP, that can reasonably be anticipated by the Parties and that can
reasonably be planned for in the MSHCP Changed Circumstances and the planned responses to
those circumstances are more particularly described in Section 6.8.3 of the MSHCP. Changed
Circumstances do not include Unforeseen Circumstances.
Cities: The cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm
Springs, and Rancho Mirage, collectively.
Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"): A joint powers authority that
functioned as Lead Agency for the preparation of the MSHCP.
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission ("CVCC"): A joint powers authority formed by the
Local Permittees to provide primary policy direction for implementation of the MSHCP, as set
forth in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP, and Section 11 2.2 of the IA.
Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan ("CVFTL HCP"): The CVFTL
HCP in the Plan area, dated April 21, 1986, more particularly described in Section 16.2 of the IA.
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy ("CVMC"): A state agency within the California
Resources Agency.
Complementary Conservation: The land projected to be acquired in the Conservation Areas for
Conservation purposes independent of, but compatible with, the MSHCP, as described in Section
4.2.1 of the MSHCP.
Conservation: To use, and the use of, methods and procedures within the MSHCP Reserve
System and within the Plan Area as set forth in the MSHCP Plan,that are necessary to bring any
species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to FESA and the California Fish
and Game Code are no longer necessary. However, Permittees will have no duty to enhance,
restore or revegetate MSHCP Reserve System lands unless required by the MSHCP, the IA, or
agreed to through implementation of the Plan.
Conservation Areas. A system of lands described in Section 4.3 of the MSHCP that provides
Core Habitat and Other Conserved Habitat for the Covered Species, conserves natural
communities, conserves Essential Ecological Processes, and secures Biological Corridors and
Linkages between major Habitat areas. There are 21 Conservation Areas from which the MSHCP
Reserve System will be assembled.
Conservation Goal(s): A broad statement of intent that describes how the Plan will accomplish
the protection of Core Habitat, Essential Ecological Processes, Biological Corridors, and Linkages
Final May 16.2011 Page 96
1 ' :�
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
in the MSHCP Reserve System to ensure that the Covered Species are adequately conserved.
Conservation Goals are also designed to ensure the persistence of natural communities.
Conservation Level: A numerical designation, as described in Section 2 4 of the MSHCP,
assigned to all land within the Plan Area.
Conservation Objective(s): Measurable statements of actions or measures that will lead to
attainment of the Conservation Goals.
Conservation Strategy: The overall approach to assure Conservation of Covered Species within
the Plan Area.
Conserved Habitat: Land that is permanently protected and managed for the benefit of the
Covered Species under the institutional arrangements that provide for its ongoing management,
and under the legal arrangements that prevent its conversion to other uses.
Core Habitat, The areas identified in the Plan for a given species that are composed of a Habitat
patch or aggregation of Habitat patches that (1) are of sufficient size to support a self-sustaining
population of that species, (2) are not fragmented in a way to cause separation into isolated
populations, (3) have functional Essential Ecological Processes, and (4) have effective Biological
Corridors and/or Linkages to other Habitats, where feasible, to allow gene flow among
populations and to promote movement of large predators.
County: County of Riverside
County Flood Control: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
County Parks: Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District
County Waste: Riverside County Waste Resources Management District
Covered Activities: Certain activities carried out or conducted by Permittees, Participating
Special Entities, Third Parties Granted Take Authorization and others within the MSHCP Plan
Area, as described in Section 7 of the MSHCP, that will receive Take Authorization under the
Section 10(a) Permit and the NCCP Permit, provided these activities are otherwise lawful.
Covered Species: The species for which Take Authorization is provided through the Permits
issued in conjunction with the IA. These species are discussed in Section 9 of the MSHCP, and
listed in Exhibit C of the IA.
Critical Habitat: Habitat for species listed under FESA that has been designated pursuant to
Section 4 of FESA and identified in 50 C.F.R., Sections 17.95 and 17.96.
Development-The uses to which land shall be put, including construction of buildings, structures,
infrastructure, and all associated alterations of the land.
Discretionary Project: A proposed project requiring discretionary action by a Permittee, as that
term is used in CEQA and defined in state CEQA Guidelines, Section 15357, including issuance
of a grading permit for County projects.
Effective Date: Date on which the IA takes effect, as set forth in Section 19.1 of the IA.
Final May 16 2011 Page 97
� �it
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Emergency: A sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger,
demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss of, or damage to, life, health,
property, or essential public services. Emergency includes such occurrences as fire, flood,
earthquake, or other soils or geologic movements, as well as such occurrences as riot, accident,
or sabotage.
Endangered Species,Those species listed as endangered under FESA and/or CESA.
Essential Ecological Processes. Processes that maintain specific Habitat types and are
necessary to sustain the Habitat (in a state usable by Covered Species). Essential Ecological
Processes may include abiotic hydrological processes (both subsurface and surface), erosion,
deposition, blowsand movement, substrate development and soil formation, and disturbance
regimes such as flooding and fire; and biotic processes such as reproduction, pollination,
dispersal, and migration.
Essential Habitat: Certain lands delineated in the Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the
Peninsular Ranges, California(USFVVS 2000).
Existing Conservation Lands: Subset of MSHCP Reserve System lands consisting of lands in
public or private ownership and managed for Conservation and/or open space values that
contribute to the Conservation of Covered Species, as generally depicted in Figure 4-2 of the
MSHCP.
Existing Uses-An existing use, public or private, which is the primary use on the property.
Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). 16 U.S.C., Section 1531 et seq and all rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended.
Habitat: The combination of environmental conditions of a specific place providing for the needs
of a species or a population of such species
HabiTrak: A GIS application to provide data on Habitat loss and Conservation, which occurs
under the Permits.
Implementing Agreement (IA): The executed agreement that implements the terms and
conditions of the MSHCP.
Independent Science Advisors (ISA): The qualified biologists, Conservation experts and others
that provide scientific input to assist in the planning and implementation of the MSHCP for the
benefit of the Covered Species, as set forth in Section 3.1.2 of the MSHCP
Joint Project Review Process: The review process described in Section 6.6.1.1 of the MSHCP
for Development proposed in Conservation Areas
Land Manager, The entity, or entities, which has the responsibility to manage land acquired by
the Permittees as set forth in Section 6.1.5 of the MSHCP.
Final May 16,2011 Page 98
lz �
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, Standards delineated in Section 4.5 of the MSHCP for land
uses adjacent to or within the Conservation Areas that are necessary to avoid or minimize edge
effects. "Adjacent" means that a parcel shares a common boundary with a parcel in a
Conservation Area.
Legal Instrument: The term "Legal Instrument." as used within the Plan and/or IA, shall refer to
recorded legal instruments acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies, which provides legal protection in
perpetuity to conservation lands; this legal protection may consist of a conservation easement
consistent with California Civil Code Section 815 et seq or a perpetual deed restriction that
meets the requirements of a conservation easement under this statute.
Linkage. Habitat that provides for the occupancy of Covered Species and their movement
between larger blocks of Habitat over time, potentially over a period of generations. In general,
Linkages are large enough to Include adequate Habitat to support small populations of the
species and, thus, do not require that an individual of the species transit the entire Linkage to
maintain gene flow between populations What functions as a Linkage for one species may
provide only a Biological Corridor or no value for other species. [See also"Biological Corridor."]
Listed Species:A species that is listed under FESA and/or CESA.
Local Development Mitigation Fee: The fee imposed by applicable Local Permittees on new
Development pursuant to Government Code, Section 66000 et seq
Local Permittees- CVCC, CVAG, County, County Flood Control, County Parks, County Waste,
CVWD, IID, and the Cities.
Major Amendments: Those proposed amendments to the MSHCP and the IA, as described in
Section 20.5 of the IA and Section 6.12.4 of the MSHCP.
Management Program: MSHCP management actions, as described in Section 8 of the MSHCP.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 50 C.F.R., Section 21 et seq. and all rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder, as amended.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) Special Purpose Permit: A permit issued by the USFWS
under 50 Code of Federal Regulations section 21.27, authorizing Take, in connection with
Covered Activities, under the MBTA of the Covered Species listed in 50 Code of Federal
Regulations Section 10.13 that are also listed as endangered or threatened under FESA.
Minor Amendments: Minor changes to the MSHCP and the IA, as defined in Section 20.4 of the
IA and Section 6.12.3 of the MSHCP
Mitigation Lands: A subset of Additional Conservation Lands as described in Sections 4.1 and
4.2.2.2 of the MSHCP
Monitoring Program: The monitoring programs and activities set forth in Section 8 of the
MSHCP.
Monitoring Program Administrator(MPA):The individual or entity responsible for administering
the monitoring program, as described in Section 6.1.6 of the MSHCP.
Final May 16,2011 Page 99
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Monitoring Reports: Report(s) prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 8.7 of the
MSHCP.
MSHCP: Synonym for Plan, used in the text where needed for clarity.
MSHCP Reserve System: A reserve that will total approximately 745,900 acres. The MSHCP
Reserve System will provide for the Conservation of the Covered Species.
NCCP Act California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2002 (California Fish and
Game Code§2800 et seq.) including-all regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended
NCCP Permit: The Permit Issued under the NCCP Act for the MSHCP to permit the Take of
identified species listed under CESA as threatened or endangered, a species that is a candidate
for listing, and Non-listed Species
NEPA- National Environmental Policy Act, (42 U.S.C., Section 4321-4335) and all rules,
regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended. For the purposes of the MSHCP, USFWS is
the Lead Agency under NEPA, as defined in 40 C.F.R., Section 1508.16.
Non-Listed Species.A species that is not listed under FESA and/or CESA.
No Surprises Assurance- The guarantee that, provided Permittees are properly implementing
the terms and conditions of the MSHCP, the IA, and the Permit(s), the USFWS can only require
additional mitigation for Covered Species beyond that provided for in the MSHCP as a result of
Unforeseen Circumstances in accordance with the "No Surprises" regulations at 50 C.F.R.,
Sections 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5) and as discussed in Section 6.8 of the MSHCP.
Operation and Maintenance Activities (O&M): Those Covered Activities that include the
ongoing operation and maintenance of public facilities, as described in Section 7.3.1.1 of the
MSHCP.
Other Conserved Habitat: Part of a Conservation Area that does not contain Core Habitat for a
given species, but which still has Conservation value. These values may include Essential
Ecological Processes, Biological Corridors, Linkages, buffering from edge effects, enhanced
species persistence probability in proximate Core Habitat, genetic diversity, recolonization
potential, and flexibility in the event of long-term Habitat change.
Participating Special Entity: Any regional public service provider, such as a utility company or a
public district or agency, that operates and/or owns land within the MSHCP Plan Area and that
applies for Take Authorization pursuant to Section 11.7 of the IA.
Party and Parties. The signatories to the IA, namely CVAG, CVCC, County, County Flood
Control, County Parks, County Waste, the Cities, CVWD, IID, Caltrans, CVMC, State Parks,
USFWS, and CDFG and any other city within the Plan Area that incorporates after the Effective
Date and complies with Section 11.5 of the IA
Permit(s): Collectively, the Section 10(a)(1) Permit and NCCP Permit issued by the Wildlife
Agencies to Permittees for Take of Covered Species pursuant to FESA and the NCCP Act and in
conformance with the MSHCP and the IA.
Final May 16,2011 Page 100
1231
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Permittees. CVAG, CVCC, County, County Flood Control, County Parks, County Waste, the
Cities,CVWD, IID, Caltrans, CVMC, and State Parks.
Plan. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, a comprehensive multiple
species habitat conservation planning program that addresses multiple species' needs, including
Habitat and the preservation of natural communities in the Coachella Valley area of Riverside
County, California, as depicted in Figure 4-1 in Section 4.1 of the MSHCP and Exhibit "A" of the
IA.
Plan Area: The boundaries of the MSHCP, consisting of approximately 1.2 million acres in the
Coachella Valley area of Riverside County, as depicted in Figure 2-2 of the MSHCP Plan, and
Exhibit B of the IA
Planning Agreement: The Memorandum of Understanding prepared consistent with the NCCP
Act to guide development of the MSHCP that is contained in Appendix II of the MSHCP.
Plan Participants: CVAG, CVCC, County, County Flood Control, County Parks, County Waste,
the Cities, CVWD, IID, Caltrans, CVMC, State Parks, and others receiving Take Authorization
under the Permits.
Private Conservation Land: Land owned by a non-governmental entity committed to
Conservation in perpetuity through deed restriction, conservation easement, or other binding
agreement satisfactory to CDFG and USFWS.
Reserve Lands: Existing Conservation Lands, Additional Conservation Lands, and
Complementary Conservation.
Reserve Management Oversight Committee (BMOC). The committee established by the
CVCC to provide biological, technical and operational expertise for implementation of the
MSHCP, including oversight of the MSHCP Reserve System, as described in Section 6.1.3 of the
MSHCP.
Reserve Management Unit(RMU):The units identified in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.
Reserve Management Unit Plan (RMUP): The plan setting forth management practices for
identified portions of the MSHCP Reserve System Area, prepared and adopted as described in
Section 6.2 of the MSHCP.
Reserve System:A synonym for MSHCP Reserve System.
Reserve System Assembly: The process of conserving lands within the Conservation Areas
through acquisition or other means to assemble the MSHCP Reserve System,
Rough Step: A Conservation Area assembly accounting process to monitor Conservation and
loss of specified Habitats within the Plan Area.
Rough Step Analysis Unit: A geographic unit within which Rough Step is tracked. The
Conservation Areas are the Rough Step Analysis Units.
Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) The committee of scientists that provided scientific input
into the development of the Plan, as described in Section 3 1.1.
Final May 16,2011 Page 101
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Local Development Mitigation Fee(LDMF)Nexus Study
Section 10(a) Permit: The permit issued by the USFWS to Permittees pursuant to 16 U.S.C.,
Section 1539(a), authorizing Take of Covered Species
Special Provisions Area- Provisions that apply to a given location or area, identified by a
location description or in a figure, which address specific conditions necessary to achieve
Conservation in that location or area.
Species Conservation Goal(s). Goals for the Conservation of each Covered Species described
in Section 9 of the MSHCP.
State Assurances. Except as provided in Section 15 5 of the IA, provided Permittees are
implementing the terms and conditions of the MSHCP, the IA, and the Permits, if there are
Unforeseen Circumstances, CDFG shall not require additional land, water or financial
compensation, or additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources for
the life of the NCCP Permit without the consent of the Permittees, unless CDFG determines that
continued implementation of the IA, the MSHCP, and/or the Permits would jeopardize the
continued existence of a Covered Species, or as required by law and would therefore lead to
NCCP Permit revocation or suspension
State Permittees Caltrans, CVMC, and State Parks,
Take: The definition of such term in FESA and the California Fish and Game Code Section 9 of
FESA does not prohibit Take of Federally Listed plants
Take Authorization- The ability to incidentally Take species pursuant to the Section 10(a)(1)(B)
Permit and/or the NCCP Permit.
Third Party Take Authorization: Take Authorization received by a landowner, developer, or
other public or private entity from the Permittees pursuant to Section 17 of the IA, thereby
receiving Take Authorization for Covered Species pursuant to the Permits.
Threatened Species: Those species listed as threatened under FESA and/or CESA.
Unforeseen Circumstances: Changes in circumstances affecting a Covered Species or
geographic area covered by the MSHCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the
Parties at the time of the MSHCP's negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial
and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species. As defined, the term is intended to
have the same meaning as it is used: (1) to define the limit of the Permittees' obligation on the
"No Surprises" regulations set forth in 50 C.F.R., Sections 17 22 (b)(5) and 17 32 (b)(5); and (2)
in California Fish and Game Code, Section 2805(k).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): An agency of the United States Department
of the Interior.
Wildlife Agencies- USFWS and CDFG, collectively.
Final May 16,2011 Page 102
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
a
,A
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JUNE 15, 2011
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP)
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby
certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Desert Sun
on June 3, 2011 and June 8, 2011.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
AMES THOMPSON, City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, CINDY BERARDI, Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do
hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall,
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board and in the Office
of the City Clerk on June 1, 2011.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
CINDY BERARDI, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I, CINDY BERARDI, Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do
hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to each and
every person on the attached list on June 1, 2011, in a sealed envelope, with postage
prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (9 notices)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
CM I, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
120
The Desert Sun Certificate of Publication
750 N Gene Autry Trail
Palm Springs, CA 92262
760-778-4578/Fax 760-778-4731
State Of California ss:
County of Riverside
Advertiser:
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS/LEGALS
PO BOX 2743 No 1883�TICE OF PU UC �p1
PALM SPRINGS CA 922632 WV;W ION FEE
cm of PI}
DEVELOPMENT MI. CATION FEE
DEVELOPMENT WAR
ERVATION tE WITH THLE
FUNDING THE IN CCOM'TPLE SPECIES
ECOSYSTEMS CVMSHCP)
2000264967 HpBC CONSER AION PLAN(
GIVEN tttatihe GrtY hold
_NOTICE,ISo EP� dam,CalgoJ 15 2011.
of we city .n ffi meau^g°t at 6:00,
WCibry�nGWgl 1 er at y Hall.
the Council O ay,Palm rings.
Tahquitz Canyon
ose of mi :hearing is to co municinodiaalI.
I am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of the United oar and resol tio�Dndin neM Mifgetbn
States and not a party to, or have interest in this matter. I coda�mt-J, .the presenrat IlI v
hereby certify that the attached advertisement appeared Fee(vs��sin 'th
I Coonservau°n
in said newspaper (set in type not smaller than non padep ley Ma�1a1�ola
in each and entire issue of said newspaper and not in an (GVMSt+�P1�
y DETERM'N 'Nared under
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: ENV�OreNIMENT numtthe�alifa I En ronmenlaI
ma gyurdel t s( EGA at awdny E� MI gmo
Newspapen .The Desert Sun CVM HCPW36 Code bySecaon�2i16t rSm
Publ Re,
U.
mnm�ental is required
6/3/2011 6/8/2011 REVIEW OF FO�TMA110N:Tt�e� ptyro�
daumeublir 8nga�00
all
other supporo la pr P and 2 P.M.to 6:the m
are also aa, to i t a.m.
from 6:00 am Of-
h ThursdaY�76o M��t�itlou
Monday thr t1
five of the C Cl�k en�apW
wWld like to so
Case COMMENT N THIS APPLICATION.
at
I�
h z i 91nob may den ih theeBCIH d,Vq Y
I acknowledge that am a principal clerk of the printer of mn common maY to:
The Desert Sun, printed and published weekly in the City lettsi(1, ilof hand OekveM Clerk
of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California. me E.sTlwm Tahqu
dzCaaway
The Desert Sun was adjudicated a newspaper of general a Pawn Sorge,CA
- m open
circulation on March 24, 1988 by the Superior Court of the Any rfrM ol re mil. Nose of r
orm
Count of Riverside, State of California Case No. y hearing this
to the City Cleric
191236. at the Pp Written . sportdanpce delivered Government
Cade S n ro nfi5W9lb)l2))heann9 ( for all
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true .wit be 9rven W Queabonsre9a�
P JY P J rY 9 9 An to be hear L Associ-
persore to Kent at
and correct. Executed on this 8th day of June, 2011 in � rmp�aonire S�^'lCei m
Palm Springs,California. Pao)a 245. - to oem,Por favor(fame
SI.nece ileaquda con es. Y_„Qheolar con
a la CA ad tlretelefono(76 32�' 246
Nadrrie 9a J MPSON,CITY CLERK.
AMES THO
t.:
DeclAnt'90 re 1
I"rn = Y
-:a.T am =W
O_r
V C tO =rJ
�G �7 J—
t- Cr*
maquettes laser www3M.com/labels �■
Compatible avec le gabarit 51600 de Avery® 1-800-395-1223
L LZZ6 V9 '-LM3S30 W'lVd
3NV-1 (113139NIEdS OLSLL
'NSSV AN LsnON1 JNIa11f18
dIHSN3)INV-18 1119 '21W
09ZZ6 VO'SONWdS WIVd
AVM 3SRiNns 'N L LZ L 11,ZZ6 VO 'IM3S30 W1Vd
ANVdINOO 00L '31S '3AIH(I AVM3iVJ 009-K
SV0 VIN2i0d11VO NIOH1f10S 'NSSV Sa301If18 A311VA IU3S30 0 1-0- SUOSNOdS
inOHIWMS NOIUVd 2iW
LOLL$ WSW VO '01.NIOVf NVS
WN 'am:Bf1onmv 30 SOHONVH SO-1
N 1332i1S u�bZt�1 L9ti X08 "O"d
M
1VJ31V2iVd '30VM'O 02iUIS ,N11V 2i30VNVW S30bnOS3U ivuniino C'= �S3112iVd G31S3b3INI
dll S0HMUNO Hd3SOf:N11V
SNVIONi
'3snOHNHVB I?NOSNHOr N3883f11 01�3SIf11 d0 0NV8 V8080S
V9ZZ6 VO'SONRIdS WIVd
3AWO 3NOHS HVNICI LO"
SNVIaNI ( 4-c,-«cam SNVIONI
V111(1HVO d0 ONV8 31N311VO Vf1JV V11If1HVO d0 ONVS 31114311VO Vf1JV
Al ]Vd 13HVOHVIN SW
£bLZ-£9ZZ6 VO'SONINdS IN-IVd
Z9ZZ6 VO'S!JNINdS W1Vd £trLZ X08 Od
OVOi J VNIIVIVO ViNVS 'M 909 dOHSWAO /AHV132iO3S N11V 0-3000N NOIIVOIJIIH3M
SNVW39E)nb8 3NNVOr"SbIN IN3WI8Vd3(1 S3OIAH3S ONINNVId
dOHSWAO :3SVO SONINdS W1Vd d0"0
8£Lb-£9ZZ6 VO'SONRMS W1Vd
9£Lb X09 'O'd L b'SL'90 6UWW OO J03 NHd
33111WW00 Nb300114 SONIHdS WIVd dab 311S OIHOISIH Uwcn)
izzm:IOW 313d M (INV W0000W d3HSWA3 0880
Sd3a NOIIIIVOO CIOOHmosHOGN
waded paad a�eldwal 09ti5 gLany yjlre algljedwuO
9 OOtE a;eldwalVIE sj9geq.eseg
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION FEE (LDMF) FOR FUNDING THE
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN (CVMSHCP)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs,
California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of June 15, 2011. The City Council
meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz
Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider an ordinance and resolution amending
the municipal code concerning the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) for
funding the preservation of natural ecosystems in accordance with the Coachella Valley
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An environmental assessment was
been prepared under the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
at the time that the CVMSHCP was adopted by the City. According to Public Resources
Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no further
environmental analysis is required.
REVIEW OF INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents
regarding this project are also available for public review at City Hall from 8:00 a.m. to
11 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Please contact the Office of
the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review
these documents.
COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made
verbally at the public hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments
may be made to the City Council by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to:
James Thompson, City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only
those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing.
(Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)).
An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard.
Questions regarding this case may be directed to Ken Lyon, Associate Planner,
Planning Services Department at (760) 323-8245.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, por favor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y
puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245.
MES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK t 7