No recipient or subrecipient ("subgrantee") under this award, or entity that receives a procurement contract or subcontract with any funds under this award, may require any employee or contractor to sign an internal confidentiality agreement or statement that prohibits or otherwise restricts, or purports to prohibit or restrict, the reporting (in accordance with law) of waste, fraud, or abuse to an investigative or law enforcement representative of a federal department or agency authorized to receive such information.
The foregoing is not intended, and shall not be understood by the agency making this award, to contravene requirements applicable to Standard Form 312 (which relates to classified information), Form 4414 (which relates to sensitive compartmented information), or any other form issued by a federal department or agency governing the nondisclosure of classified information.
1. In accepting this award, the recipient--
a. represents that it neither requires nor has required internal confidentiality agreements or statements from employees or contractors that currently prohibit or otherwise currently restrict (or purport to prohibit or restrict) employees or contractors from reporting waste, fraud, or abuse as described above; and b. certifies that, if it learns or is notified that it is or has been requiring its employees or contractors to execute agreements or statements that prohibit or otherwise restrict (or purport to prohibit or restrict), reporting of waste, fraud, or abuse as described above, it will immediately stop any further obligations of award funds, will provide prompt written notification to the federal agency making this award, and will resume (or permit resumption of) such obligations only if expressly authorized to do so by that agency.
2. If the recipient does or is authorized under this award to make subawards ("subgrants"), procurement contracts, or both--
a. it represents that--
(1) it has determined that no other entity that the recipient's application proposes may or will receive award funds (whether through a subaward ("subgrant"), procurement contract, or subcontract under a procurement contract) either requires or has required internal confidentiality agreements or statements from employees or contractors that currently prohibit or otherwise currently restrict (or purport to prohibit or restrict) employees or contractors from reporting waste, fraud, or abuse as described above; and
(2) it has made appropriate inquiry, or otherwise has an adequate factual basis, to support this representation; and b. it certifies that, if it learns or is notified that any subrecipient, contractor, or subcontractor entity that receives funds under this award is or has been requiring its employees or contractors to execute agreements or statements that prohibit or otherwise restrict (or purport to prohibit or restrict), reporting of waste, fraud, or abuse as described above, it will immediately stop any further obligations of award funds to or by that entity, will provide prompt written notification to the federal agency making this award, and will resume (or permit resumption of) such obligations only if expressly authorized to do so by that agency.
Condition 19
OJP Training Guiding Principles
Any training or training materials that the recipient -- or any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier -- develops or delivers with OJP award funds must adhere to the OJP Training Guiding Principles for Grantees and Subgrantees, available at https://www.ojp.gov/funding/implement/training-guiding-principles-grantees-and-subgrantees.
Condition 20
Specific post-award approval required to use a noncompetitive approach in any procurement contract that would exceed $250,000
The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable requirements to obtain specific advance approval to use a noncompetitive approach in any procurement contract that would exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently, $250,000). This condition applies to agreements that -- for purposes of Page: 11 of 23
federal grants administrative requirements -- OJP considers a procurement "contract" (and therefore does not consider a subaward).
The details of the requirement for advance approval to use a noncompetitive approach in a procurement contract under an OJP award are posted on the OJP web site at https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/NoncompetitiveProcurement.htm (Award condition: Specific post-award approval required to use a noncompetitive approach in a procurement contract (if contract would exceed $250,000)), and are incorporated by reference here.
Condition 21
Requirement to report potentially duplicative funding
If the recipient currently has other active awards of federal funds, or if the recipient receives any other award of federal funds during the period of performance for this award, the recipient promptly must determine whether funds from any of those other federal awards have been, are being, or are to be used (in whole or in part) for one or more of the identical cost items for which funds are provided under this award. If so, the recipient must promptly notify the DOJ awarding agency (OJP or OVW, as appropriate) in writing of the potential duplication, and, if so requested by the DOJ awarding agency, must seek a budget-modification or change-of-project-scope Grant Award Modification (GAM) to eliminate any inappropriate duplication of funding.
Condition 22
Required training for Grant Award Administrator and Financial Manager The Grant Award Administrator and all Financial Managers for this award must have successfully completed an "OJP financial management and grant administration training" by 120 days after the date of the recipient's acceptance of the award. Successful completion of such a training on or after January 1, 2021, will satisfy this condition.
In the event that either the Grant Award Administrator or a Financial Manager for this award changes during the period of performance, the new Grant Award Administrator or Financial Manager must have successfully completed an "OJP financial management and grant administration training" by 120 calendar days after the date the Entity Administrator enters updated Grant Award Administrator or Financial Manager information in JustGrants. Successful completion of such a training on or after January 1, 2021, will satisfy this condition.
A list of OJP trainings that OJP will consider "OJP financial management and grant administration training" for purposes of this condition is available at https://onlinegfmt.training.ojp.gov/. All trainings that satisfy this condition include a session on grant fraud prevention and detection.
The recipient should anticipate that OJP will immediately withhold ("freeze") award funds if the recipient fails to comply with this condition. The recipient's failure to comply also may lead OJP to impose additional appropriate conditions on this award.
Condition 23
Compliance with 41 U.S.C. 4712 (including prohibitions on reprisal; notice to employees) The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must comply with, and is subject to, all applicable provisions of 41 U.S.C. 4712, including all applicable provisions that prohibit, under specified circumstances, discrimination against an employee as reprisal for the employee's disclosure of information related to gross mismanagement of a federal grant, a gross waste of federal funds, an abuse of authority relating to a federal grant, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a federal grant.
The recipient also must inform its employees, in writing (and in the predominant native language of the workforce), of employee rights and remedies under 41 U.S.C. 4712.
Should a question arise as to the applicability of the provisions of 41 U.S.C. 4712 to this award, the recipient is to contact the DOJ awarding agency (OJP or OVW, as appropriate) for guidance.
Condition 24
Requirements pertaining to prohibited conduct related to trafficking in persons (including reporting requirements and Page: 12 of 23
OJP authority to terminate award)
The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable requirements (including requirements to report allegations) pertaining to prohibited conduct related to the trafficking of persons, whether on the part of recipients, subrecipients ("subgrantees"), or individuals defined (for purposes of this condition) as "employees" of the recipient or of any subrecipient.
The details of the recipient's obligations related to prohibited conduct related to trafficking in persons are posted on the OJP web site at https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/ProhibitedConduct-Trafficking.htm (Award condition: Prohibited conduct by recipients and subrecipients related to trafficking in persons (including reporting requirements and OJP authority to terminate award)), and are incorporated by reference here.
Condition 25
Potential imposition of additional requirements
The recipient agrees to comply with any additional requirements that may be imposed by the DOJ awarding agency (OJP or OVW, as appropriate) during the period of performance for this award, if the recipient is designated as "highrisk" for purposes of the DOJ high-risk grantee list.
Condition 26
Requirement to report actual or imminent breach of personally identifiable information (PII) The recipient (and any "subrecipient" at any tier) must have written procedures in place to respond in the event of an actual or imminent "breach" (OMB M-17-12) if it (or a subrecipient) -- (1) creates, collects, uses, processes, stores, maintains, disseminates, discloses, or disposes of "Personally Identifiable Information (PII)" (2 CFR 200.1) within the scope of an OJP grant-funded program or activity, or (2) uses or operates a "Federal information system" (OMB Circular A-130). The recipient's breach procedures must include a requirement to report actual or imminent breach of PII to an OJP Program Manager no later than 24 hours after an occurrence of an actual breach, or the detection of an imminent breach.
Condition 27
Requirements related to System for Award Management and Universal Identifier Requirements The recipient must comply with applicable requirements regarding the System for Award Management (SAM), currently accessible at https://www.sam.gov/. This includes applicable requirements regarding registration with SAM, as well as maintaining the currency of information in SAM.
The recipient also must comply with applicable restrictions on subawards ("subgrants") to first-tier subrecipients (firsttier "subgrantees"), including restrictions on subawards to entities that do not acquire and provide (to the recipient) the unique entity identifier required for SAM registration.
The details of the recipient's obligations related to SAM and to unique entity identifiers are posted on the OJP web site at https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/SAM.htm (Award condition: System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal Identifier Requirements), and are incorporated by reference here.
This condition does not apply to an award to an individual who received the award as a natural person (i.e., unrelated to any business or non-profit organization that he or she may own or operate in his or her name).
Condition 28
Compliance with restrictions on the use of federal funds--prohibited and controlled equipment under OJP awards Consistent with Executive Order 14074, “Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices To Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety,” OJP has prohibited the use of federal funds under this award for purchases or transfers of specified equipment by law enforcement agencies. In addition, OJP requires the recipient, and any subrecipient (“subgrantee”) at any tier, to put in place specified controls prior to using federal funds under this award to acquire or transfer any property identified on the “controlled equipment” list. The details of the requirement are posted on the OJP web site at https://www.ojp.gov/funding/explore/prohibited-and-controlled-equipment (Award condition:
Page: 13 of 23
Compliance with restrictions on the use of federal funds--prohibited and controlled equipment under OJP awards), and are incorporated by reference here.
Condition 29
Restrictions on "lobbying"
In general, as a matter of federal law, federal funds awarded by OJP may not be used by the recipient, or any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, either directly or indirectly, to support or oppose the enactment, repeal, modification, or adoption of any law, regulation, or policy, at any level of government. See 18 U.S.C. 1913. (There may be exceptions if an applicable federal statute specifically authorizes certain activities that otherwise would be barred by law.)
Another federal law generally prohibits federal funds awarded by OJP from being used by the recipient, or any subrecipient at any tier, to pay any person to influence (or attempt to influence) a federal agency, a Member of Congress, or Congress (or an official or employee of any of them) with respect to the awarding of a federal grant or cooperative agreement, subgrant, contract, subcontract, or loan, or with respect to actions such as renewing, extending, or modifying any such award. See 31 U.S.C. 1352. Certain exceptions to this law apply, including an exception that applies to Indian tribes and tribal organizations.
Should any question arise as to whether a particular use of federal funds by a recipient (or subrecipient) would or might fall within the scope of these prohibitions, the recipient is to contact OJP for guidance, and may not proceed without the express prior written approval of OJP.
Condition 30
All subawards ("subgrants") must have specific federal authorization The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable requirements for authorization of any subaward. This condition applies to agreements that -- for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements -- OJP considers a "subaward" (and therefore does not consider a procurement "contract").
The details of the requirement for authorization of any subaward are posted on the OJP web site at https://ojp.gov/ funding/Explore/SubawardAuthorization.htm (Award condition: All subawards ("subgrants") must have specific federal authorization), and are incorporated by reference here.
Condition 31
Compliance with DOJ regulations pertaining to civil rights and nondiscrimination - 28 C.F.R. Part 54 The recipient, and any subrecipient ("subgrantee") at any tier, must comply with all applicable requirements of 28 C.F.R. Part 54, which relates to nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in certain "education programs." Among other items, 28 C.F.R. § 54.140 contains notice requirements that covered recipients must follow regarding the dissemination of information regarding federal nondiscrimination requirements.
Condition 32
The recipient understands that, in accepting this award, the Authorized Representative declares and certifies, among other things, that he or she possesses the requisite legal authority to accept the award on behalf of the recipient entity and, in so doing, accepts (or adopts) all material requirements that relate to conduct throughout the period of performance under this award. The recipient further understands, and agrees, that it will not assign anyone to the role of Authorized Representative during the period of performance under the award without first ensuring that the individual has the requisite legal authority.
Condition 33
Verification and updating of recipient contact information The recipient must verify its Grant Award Administrator, Financial Manager, and Authorized Representative contact information in JustGrants, including telephone number and e-mail address. If any information is incorrect or has Page: 14 of 23
changed, the award recipient’s Entity Administrator must make changes to contact information through DIAMD.
Instructions on how to update contact information in JustGrants can be found at https://justicegrants.usdoj.gov/training/ training-entity-management.
Condition 34
FFATA reporting: Subawards and executive compensation
The recipient must comply with applicable requirements to report first-tier subawards ("subgrants") of $30,000 or more and, in certain circumstances, to report the names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated executives of the recipient and first-tier subrecipients (first-tier "subgrantees") of award funds. The details of recipient obligations, which derive from the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), are posted on the OJP web site at https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/FFATA.htm (Award condition: Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation), and are incorporated by reference here.
This condition, including its reporting requirement, does not apply to-- (1) an award of less than $30,000, or (2) an award made to an individual who received the award as a natural person (i.e., unrelated to any business or non-profit organization that he or she may own or operate in his or her name).
Condition 35
Body-worn cameras, policies and procedures
In accepting this award, the recipient agrees not to use award funds for purchases of body-worn cameras or related expenses for any agency unless that agency has policies and procedures in place that reinforce appropriate agency Use of Force policies and training and address technology usage, evidence acquisition, data storage and retention, as well as privacy issues, accountability and discipline.
Condition 36
Body armor - compliance with NIJ standards and other requirements Ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body armor purchased with award funds may be purchased at any threat level, make or model, from any distributor or manufacturer, as long as the body armor has been tested and found to comply with applicable National Institute of Justice ballistic or stab standards, and is listed on the NIJ Compliant Body Armor Model List. In addition, ballistic-resistant and stab-resistant body armor purchased must be made in the United States and must be uniquely fitted, as set forth in 34 U.S.C. 10202(c)(1)(A). The latest NIJ standard information and the NIJ Compliant Body Armor List may be found by following the links located on the NIJ Body Armor page: https://nij.ojp.gov/ topics/equipment-and-technology/body-armor. In addition, if recipient uses funds under this award to purchase body armor, the recipient is strongly encouraged to have a "mandatory wear" policy in effect. There are no requirements regarding the nature of the policy other than it be a mandatory wear policy for all uniformed officers while on duty.
Condition 37
The recipient agrees to comply with OJP grant monitoring guidelines, protocols, and procedures, and to cooperate with BJA and OCFO on all grant monitoring requests, including requests related to desk reviews, enhanced programmatic desk reviews, and/or site visits. The recipient agrees to provide to BJA and OCFO all documentation necessary to complete monitoring tasks, including documentation related to any subawards made under this award. Further, the recipient agrees to abide by reasonable deadlines set by BJA and OCFO for providing the requested documents.
Failure to cooperate with BJA's/OCFO's grant monitoring activities may result in sanctions affecting the recipient's DOJ awards, including, but not limited to: withholdings and/or other restrictions on the recipient's access to grant funds; referral to the Office of the Inspector General for audit review; designation of the recipient as a DOJ High Risk grantee; or termination of an award(s).
Condition 38
Any written, visual, or audio publications funded in whole or in part under this award, with the exception of press releases, shall contain the following statements: "This project was supported by Grant No. <AWARD_NUMBER> awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the SMART Office. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official Page: 15 of 23
position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice." The current edition of the DOJ Grants Financial Guide provides guidance on allowable printing and publication activities.
Condition 39
Any Web site that is funded in whole or in part under this award must include the following statement on the home page, on all major entry pages (i.e., pages (exclusive of documents) whose primary purpose is to navigate the user to interior content), and on any pages from which a visitor may access or use a Web-based service, including any pages that provide results or outputs from the service: "This Web site is funded in whole or in part through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this Web site (including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided)." The full text of the foregoing statement must be clearly visible on the home page. On other pages, the statement may be included through a link, entitled "Notice of Federal Funding and Federal Disclaimer," to the full text of the statement.
Condition 40
Confidentiality of data
The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must comply with all confidentiality requirements of 34 U.S.C. 10231 and 28 C.F.R. Part 22 that are applicable to collection, use, and revelation of data or information. The recipient further agrees, as a condition of award approval, to submit a Privacy Certificate that is in accord with requirements of 28 C.F.R. Part 22 and, in particular, 28 C.F.R. 22.23.
Condition 41
The recipient agrees to cooperate with any assessments, national evaluation efforts, or information or data collection requests, including, but not limited to, the provision of any information required for the assessment or evaluation of any activities within this project.
Condition 42
Protection of human research subjects
The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must comply with the requirements of 28 C.F.R. Part 46 and all OJP policies and procedures regarding the protection of human research subjects, including obtainment of Institutional Review Board approval, if appropriate, and subject informed consent.
Condition 43
Justification of consultant rate
Approval of this award does not indicate approval of any consultant rate in excess of $650 per day. A detailed justification must be submitted to and approved by the OJP program office prior to obligation or expenditure of such funds.
Condition 44
The recipient agrees that no funds under this grant award (including via subcontract or subaward, at any tier) may be used for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), which includes unmanned aircraft vehicles (UAV), or for any accompanying accessories to support UAS.
Condition 45
Compliance with 28 C.F.R. Part 23
With respect to any information technology system funded or supported by funds under this award, the recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must comply with 28 C.F.R. Part 23, Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies, if OJP determines this regulation to be applicable. Should OJP determine 28 C.F.R. Part 23 to be applicable, OJP may, at its discretion, perform audits of the system, as per the regulation. Should any violation of 28 C.F.R. Part 23 occur, the recipient may be fined as per 34 U.S.C. 10231(c)-(d). The recipient may not satisfy such a fine with federal funds.
Page: 16 of 23
Condition 46
Justice Information Sharing
Information sharing projects funded under this award must comply with DOJ's Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) guidelines. The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must conform to the Global Standards Package (GSP) and all constituent elements, where applicable, as described at: https:/ / it.ojp.gov/ gsp_grantcondition.
The recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must document planned approaches to information sharing and describe compliance with the GSP and appropriate privacy policy that protects shared information, or provide detailed justification for why an alternative approach is recommended.
Condition 47
Required monitoring of subawards
The recipient must monitor subawards under this award in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, award conditions, and the DOJ Grants Financial Guide, and must include the applicable conditions of this award in any subaward. Among other things, the recipient is responsible for oversight of subrecipient spending and monitoring of specific outcomes and benefits attributable to use of award funds by subrecipients. The recipient agrees to submit, upon request, documentation of its policies and procedures for monitoring of subawards under this award.
Condition 48
In accepting this award, the recipient agrees that grant funds cannot be used for Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) unless the recipient has policies and procedures in place to ensure that the FRT will be utilized in an appropriate and responsible manner that promotes public safety, and protects privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties and complies with all applicable provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the First Amendment’s freedom of association and speech, as well as other laws and regulations. Recipients utilizing funds for FRT must make such policies and procedures available to DOJ upon request.
Condition 49
Avoidance of duplication of networks
To avoid duplicating existing networks or IT systems in any initiatives funded by BJA for law enforcement information sharing systems which involve interstate connectivity between jurisdictions, such systems shall employ, to the extent possible, existing networks as the communication backbone to achieve interstate connectivity, unless the recipient can demonstrate to the satisfaction of BJA that this requirement would not be cost effective or would impair the functionality of an existing or proposed IT system.
Condition 50
Law enforcement task forces - required training
Within 120 days of award acceptance, each current member of a law enforcement task force funded with award funds who is a task force commander, agency executive, task force officer, or other task force member of equivalent rank, must complete required online (internet-based) task force training. Additionally, all future task force members must complete this training once during the period of performance for this award, or once every four years if multiple OJP awards include this requirement.
The required training is available free of charge online through the BJA-funded Center for Task Force Integrity and Leadership (www.ctfli.org). The training addresses task force effectiveness, as well as other key issues including privacy and civil liberties/rights, task force performance measurement, personnel selection, and task force oversight and accountability. If award funds are used to support a task force, the recipient must compile and maintain a task force personnel roster, along with course completion certificates.
Additional information regarding the training is available through BJA's web site and the Center for Task Force Integrity and Leadership (www.ctfli.org).
Condition 51
Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act and related statutes Page: 17 of 23
Upon request, the recipient (and any subrecipient at any tier) must assist BJA in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act, and other related federal environmental impact analyses requirements in the use of these award funds, either directly by the recipient or by a subrecipient.
Accordingly, the recipient agrees to first determine if any of the following activities will be funded by the grant, prior to obligating funds for any of these purposes. If it is determined that any of the following activities will be funded by the award, the recipient agrees to contact BJA.
The recipient understands that this condition applies to new activities as set out below, whether or not they are being specifically funded with these award funds. That is, as long as the activity is being conducted by the recipient, a subrecipient, or any third party, and the activity needs to be undertaken in order to use these award funds, this condition must first be met. The activities covered by this condition are:
a. New construction;
b. Minor renovation or remodeling of a property located in an environmentally or historically sensitive area, including properties located within a 100-year flood plain, a wetland, or habitat for endangered species, or a property listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; c. A renovation, lease, or any proposed use of a building or facility that will either (a) result in a change in its basic prior use or (b) significantly change its size;
d. Implementation of a new program involving the use of chemicals other than chemicals that are (a) purchased as an incidental component of a funded activity and (b) traditionally used, for example, in office, household, recreational, or education environments; and
e. Implementation of a program relating to clandestine methamphetamine laboratory operations, including the identification, seizure, or closure of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories.
The recipient understands and agrees that complying with NEPA may require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement, as directed by BJA. The recipient further understands and agrees to the requirements for implementation of a Mitigation Plan, as detailed at https://bja.gov/Funding/nepa.html, for programs relating to methamphetamine laboratory operations.
Application of This Condition to Recipient's Existing Programs or Activities: For any of the recipient's or its subrecipients' existing programs or activities that will be funded by these award funds, the recipient, upon specific request from BJA, agrees to cooperate with BJA in any preparation by BJA of a national or program environmental assessment of that funded program or activity.
Condition 52
Establishment of trust fund
If award funds are being drawn down in advance, the recipient (or a subrecipient, with respect to a subaward) is required to establish a trust fund account. Recipients (and subrecipients) must maintain advance payments of federal awards in interest-bearing accounts, unless regulatory exclusions apply (2 C.F.R. 200.305(b)(8)). The trust fund, including any interest, may not be used to pay debts or expenses incurred by other activities beyond the scope of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG). The recipient also agrees to obligate the award funds in the trust fund (including any interest earned) during the period of performance for the award and expend within 90 days thereafter. Any unobligated or unexpended funds, including interest earned, must be returned to OJP at the time of closeout.
Condition 53
All State and Local JAG recipients must submit quarterly Federal Financial Reports (SF-425). Additionally, State JAG and Local JAG Category Two ($25K or more) must submit semi-annual performance reports through JustGrants and Local JAG Category One (Less than $25K) must submit annual performance reports through JustGrants. Consistent with the Department's responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, the recipient must provide data that measure the results of its work. The recipient must submit quarterly performance metrics reports through BJA's Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) website: https:// bjapmt.ojp.gov/. For more detailed information on reporting and other JAG requirements, refer to the JAG reporting Page: 18 of 23
requirements webpage (https://bjapmt.ojp.gov/help/jagdocs.html). Failure to submit required JAG reports by established deadlines may result in the freezing of grant funds and future High Risk designation.
Condition 54
Required data on law enforcement agency training
Any law enforcement agency receiving direct or sub-awarded funding from this JAG award must submit quarterly accountability metrics data related to training that officers have received on the use of force, racial and ethnic bias, deescalation of conflict, and constructive engagement with the public.
Condition 55
Authorization to obligate (federal) award funds to reimburse certain project costs incurred on or after October 1, 2022 The recipient may obligate (federal) award funds only after the recipient makes a valid acceptance of the award. As of the first day of the period of performance for the award (October 1, 2022), however, the recipient may choose to incur project costs using non-federal funds, but any such project costs are incurred at the recipient's risk until, at a minimum- - (1) the recipient makes a valid acceptance of the award, and (2) all applicable withholding conditions are removed by OJP (via an Award Condition Modification (ACM)). (A withholding condition is a condition in the award document that precludes the recipient from obligating, expending, or drawing down all or a portion of the award funds until the condition is removed.)
Except to the extent (if any) that an award condition expressly precludes reimbursement of project costs incurred "atrisk," if and when the recipient makes a valid acceptance of this award and OJP removes each applicable withholding condition through an Award Condition Modification (ACM), the recipient is authorized to obligate (federal) award funds to reimburse itself for project costs incurred "at-risk" earlier during the period of performance (such as project costs incurred prior to award acceptance or prior to removal of an applicable withholding condition), provided that those project costs otherwise are allowable costs under the award.
Condition 56
If award funds are used for DNA testing of evidentiary materials, any resulting eligible DNA profiles must be uploaded to the Combined DNA Index System ("CODIS," the DNA database operated by the FBI) by a government DNA laboratory with access to CODIS. With the exception of Forensic Genetic Genealogy, no profiles generated under this award may be entered or uploaded into any non-governmental DNA database without prior express written approval from BJA. Award funds may not be used for the purchase of DNA equipment and supplies unless the resulting DNA profiles may be accepted for entry into CODIS. Booking agencies should work with their state CODIS agency to ensure all requirements are met for participation in Rapid DNA (see National Rapid DNA Booking Operational Procedures Manual).
Condition 57
Recipients utilizing award funds for forensic genealogy testing must adhere to the United States Department of Justice Interim Policy Forensic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching (https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/ download), and must collect and report the metrics identified in Section IX of that document to BJA.
Condition 58
Submission of eligible records relevant to the National Instant Background Check System Consonant with federal statutes that pertain to firearms and background checks -- including 18 U.S.C. 922 and 34 U.S.C. ch. 409 -- if the recipient (or any subrecipient at any tier) uses this award to fund (in whole or in part) a specific project or program (such as a law enforcement, prosecution, or court program) that results in any court dispositions, information, or other records that are "eligible records" (under federal or State law) relevant to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS), or that has as one of its purposes the establishment or improvement of records systems that contain any court dispositions, information, or other records that are "eligible records" (under federal or State law) relevant to the NICS, the recipient (or subrecipient, if applicable) must ensure that all such court dispositions, information, or other records that are "eligible records" (under federal or State law) relevant to the NICS are promptly made available to the NICS or to the "State" repository/database that is electronically available to (and accessed by) the NICS, and -- when appropriate -- promptly must update, correct, modify, or remove such NICSrelevant "eligible records".
Page: 19 of 23
In the event of minor and transitory non-compliance, the recipient may submit evidence to demonstrate diligent monitoring of compliance with this condition (including subrecipient compliance). DOJ will give great weight to any such evidence in any express written determination regarding this condition.
Condition 59
Prohibition on use of award funds for match under BVP program JAG funds may not be used as the 50% match for purposes of the DOJ Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) program.
Condition 60
Extreme risk protection programs funded by JAG must include, at a minimum: pre-deprivation and post-deprivation due process rights that prevent any violation or infringement of the Constitution of the United States, including but not limited to the Bill of Rights, and the substantive or procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the States, and as interpreted by State courts and United States courts (including the Supreme Court of the United States). Such programs must include, at the appropriate phase to prevent any violation of constitutional rights, at minimum, notice, the right to an in-person hearing, an unbiased adjudicator, the right to know opposing evidence, the right to present evidence, and the right to confront adverse witnesses; the right to be represented by counsel at no expense to the government; pre-deprivation and post-deprivation heightened evidentiary standards and proof which mean not less than the protections afforded to a similarly situated litigant in Federal court or promulgated by the State's evidentiary body, and sufficient to ensure the full protections of the Constitution of the United States, including but not limited to the Bill of Rights, and the substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the States, and as interpreted by State courts and United States courts (including the Supreme Court of the United States). The heightened evidentiary standards and proof under such programs must, at all appropriate phases to prevent any violation of any constitutional right, at minimum, prevent reliance upon evidence that is unsworn or unaffirmed, irrelevant, based on inadmissible hearsay, unreliable, vague, speculative, and lacking a foundation; and penalties for abuse of the program.
Condition 61
Expenditures prohibited without waiver
No funds under this award may be expended on the purchase of items prohibited by the JAG program statute, unless, as set forth at 34 U.S.C. 10152, the BJA Director certifies that extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist, making such expenditures essential to the maintenance of public safety and good order.
Condition 62
Exceptions regarding Prohibited and Controlled Equipment under OJP awards Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the other terms and conditions of this award, including in the condition regarding "Compliance with restrictions on the use of federal funds--prohibited and controlled equipment under OJP awards," the requirements for the “Transfer/Sale of Award-Funded Controlled Equipment to Other LEAs” and the requirements for the “Transfer/Sale of Award-Funded Controlled Equipment to NON-LEAs” do not apply to this award.
Condition 63
Use of program income
Program income (as defined in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements) must be used in accordance with the provisions of the Part 200 Uniform Requirements. Program income earnings and expenditures both must be reported on the quarterly Federal Financial Report, SF 425.
Condition 64
Initial period of performance; requests for extension.
The recipient understands that for award amounts of less than $25,000 under JAG (Category 1), the initial period of performance of the award is two years. The recipient further understands that any requests for an extension of the Page: 20 of 23
period of performance for an award of less than $25,000 will be approved automatically for up to a total of two additional years, pursuant to 34 U.S.C. 10152(f) and in accordance with the program solicitation associated with this award.
Any request for an extension of the period of performance beyond a four-year award period will require approval, and the approval (if any) will be at the discretion of the Director of BJA.
Condition 65
Withholding of funds for Required certification from the chief executive of the applicant government The recipient may not expend or draw down any award funds until the recipient submits the required "Certifications and Assurances by the Chief Executive of the Applicant Government," properly-executed (as determined by OJP), and an Award Condition Modification has been issued to remove this condition.
Condition 66
Withholding of funds for Budget narrative or information The recipient may not expend or draw down any award funds until the recipient submits, and OJP reviews and accepts, the required budget information or narrative for the award, and an Award Condition Modification has been issued to remove this condition.
Condition 67
Withholding of funds for proposal narrative
The recipient may not expend or draw down any award funds until the recipient submits, and OJP reviews and accepts, the proposal narrative for this award, and an Award Condition Modification has been issued to remove this condition.
[ ] I have read and understand the information presented in this section of the Federal Award Instrument.
Award Acceptance
Declaration and Certification to the U.S. Department of Justice as to Acceptance By checking the declaration and certification box below, I-- A. Declare to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), under penalty of perjury, that I have authority to make this declaration and certification on behalf of the applicant.
B. Certify to DOJ, under penalty of perjury, on behalf of myself and the applicant, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the following are true as of the date of this award acceptance: (1) I have conducted or there was conducted (including by applicant’s legal counsel as appropriate and made available to me) a diligent review of all terms and conditions of, and all supporting materials submitted in connection with, this award, including any assurances and certifications (including anything submitted in connection therewith by a person on behalf of the applicant before, after, or at the time of the application submission and any materials that accompany this acceptance and certification); and (2) I have the legal authority to accept this award on behalf of the applicant.
C. Accept this award on behalf of the applicant.
D. Declare the following to DOJ, under penalty of perjury, on behalf of myself and the applicant: (1) I understand that, in taking (or not taking) any action pursuant to this declaration and certification, DOJ will rely upon this declaration and certification as a material representation; and (2) I understand that any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent information or statement in this declaration and certification (or concealment or omission of a material fact as to either) may be the subject of criminal prosecution (including under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and/or 1621, and/or 34 U.S.C. §§ Page: 21 of 23
10271-10273), and also may subject me and the applicant to civil penalties and administrative remedies under the federal False Claims Act (including under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3730 and/or §§ 3801-3812) or otherwise.
Agency Approval
Title of Approving Official
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Name of Approving Official
Brent J. Cohen
Signed Date And Time
1/10/25 7:45 PM
Authorized Representative
[ ] no value
Entity Acceptance
Title of Authorized Entity Official
no value
Signed Date And Time
no value
Page: 22 of 23
Page: 23 of 23
Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 12, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: AWARD CHIP SEAL 2025 PROJECT
From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Richard Pedersen, Town Engineer
Engineering Division
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council:
A. Review and approve the bid documents for the Chip Seal 2025 Project; B. Award a contract to American Pavement Systems, Inc. in the amount of $3,169,000.00, for the Chip Seal 2025 Project and a 10% contingency of $316,900.00, for a total amount not to exceed $3,485,900.00, subject to “Approval as to Form” by the Town Attorney and “Approval as to Content” by the Town Manager.
BACKGROUND
In 2022, the Town updated its Pavement Management Program (PMP), is a planning tool used to aid in pavement management decisions. It provides the following key components:
Inventory: This involves cataloging the pavement network, including its location, extent, and characteristics.
Condition Assessment: This component assesses the current condition of the pavement, using visual inspections, to identify areas needing repair or maintenance.
Data Management: PMPs need to manage and store pavement data, including inventory, condition assessments, maintenance history, traffic data, and costs.
Prioritization: Based on the condition assessment, areas are prioritized for treatment based on factors like severity of damage, traffic volume, and safety concerns.
Treatment Selection: The system helps determine the most appropriate and costeffective treatments for each pavement segment, ranging from preventative maintenance to major rehabilitation.
Performance Prediction: PMPs can predict how pavement conditions will change over time, allowing for proactive maintenance planning and resource allocation.
Decision Support: The system provides data and analysis tools to help decisionmakers choose the best strategies for maintaining the pavement network.
High-traffic volume streets that require only a seal coat, such as micro surface or chip seal, rank highest on the Pavement Management Program’s priority list. Conversely, low volume roads that require reconstruction are ranked lower on the list. The reasoning behind this pavement preservation priority strategy is that if the limited funds are used solely on reconstructing the most damaged roads, which can cost 10 times more than a seal coat, eventually all roads, if not treated with proactive maintenance treatments, such as the lower cost seal coats, will eventually require the more costly reconstruction. The common idiom, "pay a little now, or pay a lot later" applies significantly to our pavement preservation strategies.
This Chip Seal Project generally consists of providing necessary labor, equipment, and materials for the removal of existing striping and markings, application of chip seal and fog seal, and replacing thermoplastic striping. The Town’s Public Works crews are currently filling potholes, transverse cracks and areas of broken edges to prepare for the proposed resurfacing.
On July 25, 2025, the Town received and opened bids for the subject project. The bid results are as follows:
Contractor Base Bid Price
1. American Pavement Systems, Inc. $3,169,000.00
2. VSS International, Inc. $3,385,120.00
3. Pavement Coatings, Co. $3,534,674.50
ANALYSIS
The bid documents were reviewed for accuracy and completeness. Staff determined American Pavement Systems, Inc. to be a qualified, responsible, and responsive bidder.
The agreement provides 30 working days from the date of mobilization to complete the work, with a deadline of October 17, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this project has been appropriated in the adopted FY 2025-2026 budget using a combination of Measure I ($1,096,426.00) and RMRA ($2,072,574.00) funds.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Project Location Map
B. Contract for Construction
28314.00015\41921969.1
32 SECTION 400 - CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION
THIS CONTRACT is made this 12th day of August, 2025, in San Bernardino County, State of California, by and between the Town of Apple Valley, hereinafter called Town, and American Pavement Systems, Inc., hereinafter called Contractor. Town and Contractor agree, for valuable consideration, as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SCOPE OF WORK. The Contractor shall perform all Work and provide all labor, materials, equipment, tools, utility services, and transportation to complete all of the Work required in strict compliance with the Contract Documents (specified in Article 5 below) for the public work of improvement titled:
Chip Seal 2025
The Contractor and its surety shall be liable to the Town for any damages arising as a result of the Contractor’s failure to comply with this obligation.
ARTICLE 2. CONTRACT TIME. Time is of the essence in the performance of the Work. The Work shall commence on the date stated in the Town’s Notice to Proceed. The Contractor shall complete all Work required by the Contract Documents within 30 Working Days from the commencement date stated in the Notice to Proceed, hereafter the Contract Time.
By its signature hereunder, Contractor agrees the Contract Time is adequate and reasonable to complete the Work.
ARTICLE 3. CONTRACT PRICE. The Town shall pay to the Contractor as full compensation for the performance of the Contract, subject to any additions or deductions as provided in the Contract Documents, and including all applicable taxes and costs, the sum of Three Million One Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($3,169,000.00), hereinafter, the Contract Price. Payment shall be made as set forth in the General Conditions.
ARTICLE 4. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. Contractor acknowledges that Town will sustain actual damages for each and every Working Day completion of the Project is delayed beyond the Contract Time. Because of the nature of the Project, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to determine the Town’s actual damages. Accordingly, as provided in Government Code section 53069.85, it is agreed that the Contractor will pay the Town the sum of $500 for each and every Working Day of delay in completing the Work beyond the Contract Time, as Liquidated Damages and not as a penalty or forfeiture. In the event the Liquidated Damages are not paid, Town may deduct that amount from any money due or that may become due the Contractor under the Contract. This Article does not affect the Town’s rights to other damages or remedies specified in the Contract Documents or allowed by law.
Should Contractor be inexcusably delayed in the performance of the Work, Town may deduct liquidated damages based on its estimate of when Contractor will achieve Final Completion or other Milestones. Town need not wait until Final Completion to withhold liquidated damages from Contractor.
Liquidated damages are not a penalty but an agreed estimate of the actual damages that would be sustained by the Town for delay, including but not limited to loss of revenue, inconvenience to the Town and the public, and increased Project administration expenses such as extra inspection, construction management, staff time, and architectural and engineering expenses.
Liquidated
28314.00015\41921969.1
33 damages do not include damages the Town incurs on account of claims by third parties against the Town on account of any delay.
Should money due or to become due to Contractor be insufficient to cover liquidated damages or other offsets due, then Contractor forthwith shall pay the remainder of the assessed liquidated damages to Town.
ARTICLE 5. COMPONENT PARTS OF THE CONTRACT. The “Contract Documents” include only the following documents, each of which is incorporated into this Contract for Construction by reference:
Notice Inviting Bids
Instructions to Bidders
Contractor's Bid Forms
Contractor’s Certificate Regarding Workers’ Compensation Bid Bond
Designation of Subcontractors
Information Required of Bidders
Non-Collusion Declaration Form
Iran Contracting Act Certification
Public Works Contractor Registration Certification
California Air Resources Board – Fleet Compliance Certification Performance Bond
Payment (Labor and Materials) Bond
General Conditions
Special Conditions
Technical Specifications
Standard Specifications
Addenda
Project Exhibits
Change Orders executed by Town
The Contactor shall complete the Work in strict accordance with all of the Contract Documents.
All of the Contract Documents are intended to be complementary. Work required by one of the Contract Documents and not by others shall be done as if required by all. In the event of a conflict, the various Contract Documents will be given effect in the order set forth in Article 2.b of the General Conditions.
This Contract constitutes the full and complete agreement between the parties with regard to the Project and the Work, and supersedes any prior agreement of the parties, whether written or oral.
The Contract can be modified only by a written Change Order executed in accordance with the Contract Documents.
ARTICLE 6. PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY LAW. Each and every provision of law required to be included in these Contract Documents shall be deemed to be included in these Contract Documents. The Contractor shall comply with all requirements of applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, the provisions of the California Labor Code and California Public Contract Code which are applicable to this Work.
28314.00015\41921969.1
34 ARTICLE 7. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor shall provide indemnification and defense as set forth in the General Conditions.
ARTICLE 8. PREVAILING WAGES. Contractor shall pay not less than the prevailing rate of wages in accordance with the Labor Code, which rates have been determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations and shall be made available at the office of the Town Clerk or may be obtained online at http//www.dir.ca.gov/dlse.
If the Work involves federal funds or otherwise requires compliance with the Davis-Bacon Fair Labor Standards Act, the Contractor and all its subcontractors shall pay the higher of the state or federal prevailing wage rates.
The wage rates must be posted at the job site.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
28314.00015\41921969.1
35 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Contract has been duly executed by the above-named parties, on the day and year above written.
TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY CONTRACTOR
By: By:
Scott Nassif
Mayor
ATTEST:
Ms. La Vonda M. Pearson, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________
Douglas B. Robertson, Town Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
__________________________
Thomas Rice, Town Attorney
END OF CONTRACT
Dave Pimley
Vice President
Town of Apple Valley
Chip Seal 2025
Segments and Process Map
(Addendum No. 1)
(For Reference Only) Not to Scale AREA 1 AREA 2 516" Chip Seal AR Chip 3 8" (Double Chip Seal) Type III Microsurface Leveling Course Page 141 of 249 Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 12, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: BEAR VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE OVER MOJAVE RIVER PROJECT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. 22-
1002754
From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Richard Pedersen, Town Engineer
Engineering Department
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council approve Amendment No. 1 to Project Funding Agreement No. 22-1002754 with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority for Bear Valley Road Bridge over Mojave River Project, subject to approval as to form by the Town Attorney and as to content by the Town Manager.
BACKGROUND
The Bear Valley Road Bridge Over Mojave River Project is one of the projects identified in The Measure I 2010-2040 Expenditure Plan by the Victor Valley Subarea transportation planning partners as eligible for partial funding from Measure I 2020-2040. Additionally, the project is eligible for funding through the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) for up to
88.53% of participating costs.
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) prepared the Nexus Study, dated November 2, 2011, updated every two (2) years in accordance with the Measure I 2010-2040 Expenditure Plan, that identified for projects located in Town, the SBCTA Public Share as 45% and the Town Developer Share as 55% of costs necessary to complete the Project not covered by HBP and other applicable grants.
In May of 2022, Town Council approved Funding Agreement No. 22-1002754 for Phase 1 of the Project which included utilities relocation work only. Since then, the Project was restructured to be built in just one single construction phase which will include utilities relocation, drainage, roadway and bridge work.
Construction is expected to start in December of 2025 and end in April of 2028. Based on the engineer’s cost estimate, staff has developed a cost split as follows:
Caltrans HBP share: $41,933,100
Active Transportation Program (ATP) Grant: $ 232,200
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) Grant $ 1,380,800
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) via SB Co. Flood Control: $ 538,900 SBCTA’s Measure I 2010-2040 share: $ 3,844,087
City of Victorville’s share: $ 281,750
City of Hesperia’s share: $ 1,017,733
Town’s share $ 3,471,930
Total: $53,111,600
ANALYSIS
The development of the Project has been in process since 2014. At this time, design, encroachment permits and the necessary Right-of-Way acquisition have been completed and Caltrans has issued authorization to proceed with construction on 5/29/2025. The Town has issued a Request For Proposals for Construction Management Services and proposals are due on 7/31/2025. Construction is scheduled to begin in December of 2025 and the estimated total construction cost is $53,111,600. In preparation for the commencement of construction, a Funding Agreement Amendment has been prepared between the Town of Apple Valley and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to formalize the construction funding commitments between the two agencies. The Funding Agreement includes a pledge of $3,844,087 funding from SBCTA using Measure I Major Local Highway Program. The Town’s pledge for $3,471,930 local match share will come from a combination of Local Measure I and Traffic Impact Fees (TIF).
FISCAL IMPACT
The total estimated amount for the Project’s construction and construction management is $53,111,600. The Town’s share will be covered by a combination of TIF and Local Measure I in a total of $3,471,930. These amounts are reflected in the budget for FY 25/26 through FY 27-28.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Amendment No. 1 to Project Funding Agreement No. 22-1002754 with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority for Bear Valley Road Bridge over Mojave River Project.
Council Meeting Date: May 24, 2022 X-3
1. Vicinity Map.
22-1002754-01
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. 22-1002754 FOR
BEAR VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE OVER MOJAVE RIVER PROJECT
(TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY)
THIS Amendment No. 1 to Project Funding Agreement (“AGREEMENT”) is made and entered into by and between the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority ("SBCTA") and the Town of Apple Valley ("TOWN"). SBCTA and TOWN are each a “Party” and collectively “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. The Measure I 2010-2040 Expenditure Plan and the Victor Valley Subarea transportation planning partners have identified projects eligible for partial funding from Measure I 2010-2040 Victor Valley Subarea Major Local Highway Program ("MLHP") funds; and B. The Bear Valley Road Bridge Over Mojave River Project (“PROJECT”) is one of the projects identified as eligible for such funding and is described more fully in Attachment A; and C. The Parties entered into Project Funding Agreement 22-1002754 on or about June 8, 2022, to fund Phase I Utility Relocation Construction of the PROJECT with an approved allocation of $50,400 in Victor Valley Subarea MLHP funds; and
D. TOWN has requested to expand the definition of PROJECT WORK in the AGREEMENT to include all construction phases of the PROJECT, which includes utility relocation construction and road widening; and
E. TOWN has identified a need for an additional $3,793,687 to fully fund the expanded PROJECT WORK; and
F. TOWN has requested updates to Attachment A: Description of Project and Milestones and Attachment B: Summary of Estimated Costs; and
G. TOWN has requested an extension of the AGREEMENT termination date to December 31, 2028.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to the following:
1. Recital G of the Agreement is replaced with the following:
“G. PROJECT WORK is defined as all construction phases of the PROJECT, including the utility relocation construction and road widening, as further described in Attachment A.1; and”
2. Paragraph 1 of Section I is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
22-1002754-01
“1. To reimburse TOWN for the actual cost of the PROJECT WORK up to a maximum of $3,844,087 in MLHP funds. An estimate of costs for the PROJECT WORK is provided in Attachment B.1. SBCTA shall have no further responsibilities to provide any funding for PROJECT WORK exceeding this amount without an amendment to this AGREEMENT.”
3. Paragraph 2 of Section II is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“2. To be responsible for expending that portion of allocated MLHP funds on eligible PROJECT WORK expenses in an amount not to exceed $3,844,087 in MLHP Funds unless AGREEMENT is amended and approved increasing PROJECT WORK costs. Reimbursement by SBCTA shall be in accordance with Section I, Paragraph 2. Additionally, expenses relative to time spent on the PROJECT WORK by TOWN staff are considered eligible PROJECT expenses and may be charged to the PROJECT, subject to SBCTA’s guidelines.”
4. Paragraph 8 of Section III is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“8. This AGREEMENT will be considered terminated upon reimbursement of all eligible costs by SBCTA or December 31, 2028, whichever is sooner, provided that the provisions of Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Section II, and Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Section III, shall survive the termination of this AGREEMENT. The AGREEMENT may also be terminated by SBCTA, in its sole discretion, in the event the PROJECT WORK described in Attachment A.1 has not been initiated by CITY within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date of this AGREEMENT.”
5. Attachment A to the Agreement is replaced with the Revised Description of Project and Milestones attached to this Amendment as Attachment A.1 and incorporated herein. All references to “Attachment A” in the Agreement are hereby replaced with “Attachment A.1”.
6. Attachment B to the Agreement is replaced with the Revised Summary of Estimated Costs attached to this Amendment as Attachment B.1 and incorporated herein. All references to “Attachment B” in the Agreement are hereby replaced with “Attachment B.1”.
7. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and are incorporated herein by this reference.
8. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.
9. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and may be signed and transmitted with electronic signatures which shall be binding on the Party.
10. This Amendment No. 1 shall be effective on the date executed by SBCTA. ----------------------------SIGNATURES ARE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE----------------------------
22-1002754-01
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 by their authorized signatories below.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
By: ______________________________ By: _______________________________ Rick Denison, President Scott Nassif
Board of Directors Mayor
Date: _____________________________ Date: ______________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: __________________________________ By: _________________________________ Iain MacMillan Thomas A. Rice
SBCTA Assistant General Counsel Town Attorney
Date: _________________________________ Date: _______________________________
22-1002754-01
ATTACHMENT A.1
BEAR VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE OVER MOJAVE RIVER PROJECT
Revised Description of Project and Milestones
Project Title
Bear Valley Road Bridge Over Mojave River Project
Location, Project Limits, Description, Scope of Work
The project generally consists of rehabilitation, widening and partial replacement of the Bear Valley Road Bridge over the Mojave River in the Town of Apple Valley, including pedestrian and ADA improvements, and the necessary utility relocations, roadway approach widening and intersection modifications.
Project Milestone Proposed
Begin Environmental (PA&ED) Phase 06/10/2013
Circulate Draft Environmental Document Document Type ISMND February 2017 Revalidation - December 2019
End Environmental Phase (PA&ED Milestone) 03/01/2017
Begin Design (PS&E) Phase 04/01/2017
End Design Phase (Ready to List for Advertisement Milestone) 09/19/2025 Begin Right of Way Phase 01/01/2020
End Right of Way Phase (Right of Way Certification Milestone) 08/08/2023 Begin Construction Phase (Contract Award Milestone) 11/11/2025 End Construction Phase (Construction Contract Acceptance Milestone) 04/01/2028 Begin Closeout Phase 04/30/2028
End Closeout Phase (Closeout Report) 07/31/2028
22-1002754-01
ATTACHMENT B.1
BEAR VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE OVER MOJAVE RIVER PROJECT
Revised Summary of Estimated Costs
Construction Phase – Table 1
Grants Local Match
TOWN City of Hesperia City of Victorville
Caltrans HBP Share $41,933,100 $3,791,500 $695,700 $515,200 Active Transportation
Program (ATP) Grant $232,200 $157,900 $0 $74,300
Carbon Reduction Program
(CRP) Grant $1,380,800 $178,900 $0 $0
American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) $538,900 $0 $0 $0
Total Grant/Total Match
$44,085,000 $4,128,300 $695,700 $589,500
Total Remaining Local
Components $2,521,100 $1,032,200 $59,800
Subtotal
$44,085,000 $6,649,400 $1,727,900 $649,300
GRAND Total $53,111,600
Measure I Eligible Costs – Table 2
Components TOWN(1) City of Hesperia(1) City of Victorville(1) HBP Local
Match +
Remaining Local
Components
TOWN Share
55%
SBCTA Share
45%
City Share
58.9%
SBCTA Share
41.1%
City Share
49%
SBCTA Share
51%
$3,471,930 $2,840,670 $1,017,733 $710,167 $281,750 $293,250 TOTALS $6,312,600 $1,727,900 $575,000
Additional Note:
TOWN shall be responsible for coordination of Development Impact Fee (DIF) funds with the City of Hesperia and City of Victorville.
Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 12, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: ADOPT THE FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY AND APPROVE INCREASES IN THE
FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES, VEHICLES, AND EQUIPMENT
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ON BEHALF OF THE APPLE VALLEY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Doug Robertson, Town Manager
Town Manager Department
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council:
A. Find, for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) the Town Council has determined that the activity is not a “project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change in the environment. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not a project subject to CEQA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it has also been determined that the activity qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no environmental review is required.
B. Hold a noticed consolidated public hearing and receive public testimony; and C. Consider the approval of a resolution entitled: A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley, California, Adopting a Development Impact Fee Update Study, the Findings Contained Therein, and Increasing the Amount of Development Impact Fees to Finance Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment and Taking Certain Other Actions Related Thereto.
BACKGROUND
In 2007, the Town of Apple Valley (the “Town”), in partnership with the Apple Valley Fire Protection District (the “District”), imposed a development impact fee (the “DIF”) on behalf of the District to finance necessary fire suppression facilities, vehicles, and equipment required to mitigate the impacts of new development on existing fire protection, suppression, and emergency services. The DIF rates have not been updated since 2007 and, according to the District, are no longer sufficient to fund the necessary fire suppression facilities, vehicles, and equipment required to keep pace with the demands of new development.
The proposed Resolution adopts a development impact fee update study (the “Study”) prepared by the District’s independent rate consultant, the findings contained therein, and approves increases the existing DIF as specified in Exhibit “B” of the attached Resolution.
ANALYSIS
On April 15, 2025, the District’s Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 25-003, which among other things, approved the Study and respectfully requested the Town to review and approve the Study and the increased DIF on behalf of the District.
As such, the District has requested the Town Council increase the DIF rates to ensure the District can continue to provide vital fire protection, suppression, and emergency services to the Town. The DIF is only applicable to new development and is designed to provide funding for necessary fire suppression facilities, vehicles, and equipment made necessary by the impacts of new development. The DIF rates have not been increased since 2007 and, according to the District, do not generate sufficient revenue enabling the District to keep pace with the increased demands caused by new development.
Increasing the DIF rates allows for increased funding to meet these demands.
Proposed Rate Increases
The proposed increased DIF rates applicable to new development effective Fiscal Year 2025-26 are included in the table below.
In an effort to ensure the proposed DIF rates keep pace with inflation the DIF is proposed to be increased annually for inflation. The DIF will increase annually commencing July 1, 2026, and each July 1 thereafter, by the percentage increase in the Engineering NewsRecord Building Cost Index (“ENR Index”) calculated by the year-over-year annual change in the ENR Index, or a comparable index if such ENR Index is discontinued or is otherwise not available. In the event the calculated percentage change in the ENR Index is negative in any year, the DIF schedule from the immediate preceding year will serve as the current year’s DIF schedule without adjustment.
Public Hearing
The Town is required to conduct a public hearing for approving the Study and a public hearing to adopt the DIF schedule. The Town is conducting a consolidated public hearing to approve both the Study and the DIF. Notice of the consolidated public hearing was provided in compliance with all applicable Government Code requirements. Following the consolidated public hearing the Town may adopt the attached Resolution approving both the Study and DIF.
Option 1 – Adopt Resolution No. 2025-24
First, the Town Council must hold the noticed consolidated public hearing and then the Town Council may adopt Resolution No. 2025-24
Option 2 – Take No Action
The Town Council may opt to take no action and not approve the Study and DIF.
However, according to the District, such action will leave the District without the necessary funding to continue to provide the existing level of fire protection, suppression, and emergency services necessary to keep pace with the impacts of new development.
According to the District, failure to approve the Study and DIF could result in the District’s inability to timely respond to life threatening emergencies within the Town affecting the community at large.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Town Council conduct the consolidated public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 2025-24 to approve the Study and DIF for fire suppression facilities, equipment, and vehicles.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the Town as the costs of this proceeding have been paid for by the District.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. 2025-24
B. AVFPD Nexus Study 2025
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF APPLE VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY, THE
FINDINGS CONTAINED THEREIN, AND INCREASING THE
AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO FINANCE
FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES, VEHICLES, AND
EQUIPMENT AND TAKING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS
RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, the Town of Apple Valley (the “Town”) Town Council (the “Town Council”) recognizes the need to adequately finance fire suppression facilities, vehicles, and equipment (collectively, the “Fire Facilities”) made necessary by the impacts from new residential, commercial, office, and industrial development occurring within the Town and desires to ensure that new development mitigates its impacts on such Fire Facilities; and
WHEREAS, it is the Town’s policy that future new development should pay its fair share of the Fire Facilities in accordance with good fiscal management as determined by the Town Council, including the current costs for providing the Fire Facilities in direct proportion to the demand generated by new development; and WHEREAS, in 2007 through a prior agreement with the Apple Valley Fire Protection District (the “District”) the Town and District caused to be imposed certain development impact fees to finance the required fire suppression facilities, vehicles, and equipment (the “DIF”) in compliance with Chapter 5, Division 1, Title 7 of the California Government Code commencing with section 66000 et seq. known as the Mitigation Fee Act (the “Act”); and
WHEREAS, the Town and District desire to update the DIF for the Fire Facilities to ensure new development continues to pay its share of the Fire Facilities required to serve such new development and in order to maintain the existing level of service; and WHEREAS, the District retained an independent consultant to prepare an updated “Fire Suppression Facilities Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report For The Apple Valley Fire Protection District California” (the “Study”) dated April 2025; and WHEREAS, the Study provides the legal basis and support regarding the nexus between the planned public improvements and the benefiting land uses that would pay the DIF at the time of issuance of a building permit; and WHEREAS, the Study also provides the Town with the findings necessary to impose the proposed increased DIF in accordance with section 66001 of the Act; and WHEREAS, the District Board of Directors at its April 15, 2025 meeting adopted Resolution No. 25-003, which among other things, approved the Study and respectfully
requested the Town to review and approve the Study and the increased DIF on behalf of the District; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the adoption of the proposed Study and DIF and provided an opportunity for the public to be heard, pursuant to the provisions of sections 66016.5, 66018, and 66019 of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Study has been made available for public review and comment pursuant to the provisions of section 66016.5 and 66019 of the Act; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to adopt the Study and the findings contained therein as the findings of the Town Council, which Study is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and by this reference incorporated herein, and to adopt the DIF schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and by this reference incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley, as follows:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and made an operative part of this Resolution.
Section 2. The Town Council finds and determines that the Study complies with the Act by establishing the basis for the imposition of the DIF on new development. The Town Council hereby adopts the Study and the findings contained therein attached hereto as Exhibit “A” as the findings of the Town Council, which contain the following findings with respect to the DIF, and which are by this reference incorporated herein as if fully stated herein. The Study:
(a) Identifies the purpose of the fee;
(b) Identifies the use to which the fee will be put;
(c) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
(d) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and
(e) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
Section 3. That the Town Council hereby determines that the DIF collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the Fire Facilities described or
identified in the Study or such other fire suppression facilities, vehicles, and equipment as may from time to time be adopted by the Town Council on behalf of the District.
Section 4. The Town Council has considered the specific project descriptions and the cost estimates identified in the Study and hereby approves such project descriptions and cost estimates and finds them reasonable as the basis for calculating and imposing the DIF.
Section 5. The Town Council hereby approves the schedule of DIF contained in and attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. The DIF shall be imposed upon property owners or developers when applying for a building permit or due at final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, as provided in the Act.
Section 6. The Town Council further finds that an annual inflation adjustment is a necessary component of the ongoing DIF to ensure the revenue collected keeps pace with the costs of constructing the Fire Facilities defined in the Study. Keeping pace with inflation ensures projects can be timely completed as needed to accommodate new development. Timely completion of projects also ensures those who have paid the DIF receive the benefit of their contributions towards the Fire Facilities while at the same time mitigating the expected impacts to the existing community. Without an annual inflationary adjustment projects could become delayed, underfunded, and potentially not able to be completed at all due to insufficient funds available to complete such projects. As such, the DIF shall be annually adjusted pursuant to the following provisions:
(a) Commencing July 1, 2026, and each July 1 thereafter, the DIF schedule shall be increased by the percentage increase in the Engineering NewsRecord Building Cost Index (“ENR Index”) calculated by the year-over-year annual change in the ENR Index, or a comparable index if such ENR Index is discontinued or is otherwise not available. In the event the calculated percentage change in the ENR Index is negative for any year, the DIF schedule from the immediate preceding year shall serve as the current year’s DIF schedule without adjustment;
(b) The annual inflation adjustments shall be imposed each July 1 without further action of the Town Council or need for future public hearings, until such time as a new impact fee nexus study and DIF are adopted pursuant to the Act, or this authorization is revoked in writing by the Town Council; and
(c) The Town Manager, or their designee, in consultation with District staff, is authorized to apply the annual inflation adjustment to the DIF schedule each year.
Section 7. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.
Section 8. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) the Town Council has determined that the activity is not a “project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change in the environment. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not a project subject to CEQA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it has also been determined that the activity qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Therefore, no environmental review is required.
Section 9. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Town Council, and the Town Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this Resolution. The new DIF schedule attached hereto as Exhibit “B” shall become effective sixty (60) days following the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley this 12th day of August 2025.
________________________________
Scott Nassif, Mayor
ATTEST:
La Vonda M-Pearson, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT “A”
FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
AND NEXUS REPORT FOR THE APPLE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT APRIL 2025
[REPORT ATTACHED]
EXHIBIT “B”
FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
Fire Suppression Facilities
Development Impact Fee Calculation
and Nexus Report For the
Apple Valley Fire Protection District,
California
April, 2025
April 14, 2025
Honorable District Board
Via Mr. James Peratt, Fire Chief
Apple Valley Fire Protection District
22400 Headquarters Drive
Apple Valley, CA 92307
RE: 2025 Development Impact Fee (DIF) Calculation and Master Facilities Plan (MFP) Dear Honorable Chairperson, District Board, and Chief Peratt:
The Apple Valley Fire Protection District continues to experience substantial private development of vacant land, placing growing demands on fire protection services. These demands are expected to persist well into the future. To respond to this growth while maintaining the existing level of service (LOS) for the current community, Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC (RCS) was engaged to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the capital projects and acquisitions required to support new development without diminishing service quality.
This analysis is presented in the accompanying Development Impact Fee Calculation Report and Master Facilities Plan. It identifies the capital improvements necessary to sustain LOS and calculates the corresponding development impact fees (DIFs) needed to fund these projects. The updated Master Facilities Plan includes a total of $108,127,554 in capital project costs determined to be growth-inducing and capacity-expanding in nature.
The scale of these costs reflects the significant infrastructure that will be required to meet the demands of new residential and business development. The District and ultimately the Town of Apple Valley must recognize the justified need for these fees to ensure that future development contributes proportionately to the infrastructure it will rely upon.
If the proposed maximum DIFs are adopted and imposed on remaining development opportunities within the District, they could generate up to $108.1 million in revenue through a mix of direct improvement dedications and impact fee payments. This funding is essential for maintaining equitable service levels and avoiding service dilution as growth occurs.
To provide context, the existing community has contributed over $73 million (at current replacement value) in facilities, vehicles, and equipment through decades of taxes, assessments, and public improvements. The DIFs proposed herein are designed not to remedy existing deficiencies, but to ensure that new development funds the infrastructure it requires, consistent with California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and principles of equity.
RCS acknowledges the essential contributions made by your staff in compiling the data for this report. We extend our thanks to your team for their cooperation and diligence, which enabled the development of this accurate and legally supportable DIF program.
The enclosed report is respectfully submitted for your review and consideration. RCS stands ready to assist with further analysis, presentations, or public engagement to support implementation of the updated fees.
Sincerely,
Gregory Brown
Vice President
ScottThorpe
Principal
APPLE VALLEY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERS PAGES
Chapter 1 – Background and Introduction 1
Chapter 2 – Demographics and Findings 15
Proposed Development Impact Fees/Summary Schedules 19
Chapter 3 – Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment 20 Appendix A – Master Facilities Plan & AB-602 CIP Explanation 35 Appendix B – Master Facilities Plan 38
Appendix C - Application of Accessory Dwelling Unit as a Function of Detached Dwelling 68 Appendix D - Justification to Impose Residential Development Impact Fees on a Per Unit Basis 70 Appendix E – Historical DIF Accounting & Nexus Validation 74 Appendix F – Annual Development Impact Fee Adjustment Methodology 77
Chapter One
Background and Introduction
In 2007, the Apple Valley Fire Protection District retained Revenue & Cost Specialists (henceforth referred to as RCS) to calculate the District's Development Impact Fees (henceforth referred to as DIFs). The DIF study area was limited to the district area that matched the boundaries of the Town of Apple Valley (or urban service area). The District Board and staff had determined that development Impact Fees were an important part of capital financing and should be calculated, and that all efforts be undertaken to support the amount of the Impact Fees to allow for proper consideration of their adoption. The currently adopted set of fees has served the District well for the last 18 years. However, the periodic review and adjustment of the District’s DIFs are both appropriate and warranted to ensure that the District collects sufficient monies over time to construct or acquire the additional infrastructure needed to serve all the new residential, commercial lodging, and business development at the level of service similar to the way existing development is served now.
This update to the original 2007 report remains consistent with the structure and purpose of the original report. However, the Land Use Database, calls-for-service, and costs for both projects and assets in the District have been updated. Since fire stations outstrip the Engineering NewsRecord, RCS has used data from similar cities to update the pricing of the District’s existing fire stations as well as future stations. Like the fire stations, the fire vehicle costs typically outstrip the CPI, and as such, RCS has asked the District’s staff to find the replacement cost of all existing vehicles.
This DIF Calculation Report includes a significant amount of detail, such as a complete list of all projects to be financed by Impact Fees1 and current service demands by land use. The Development Impact Fee Calculation Report and the Master Facilities Plan (included as Appendix A) offer substantial information to support future Board policy decisions, greater understanding by the development community, and an easier tracking (and updating) system for the staff. One important component of this Report is that it includes a proportional analysis of the infrastructure needs required to support the continued development of the District compared to the existing infrastructure.
Nollan/Dolan Standards and Sheetz v. County of El Dorado The Nollan/Dolan Standards require a public entity to show that a fee bears an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” directly related to the impact of the development being charged the fee. The standard or test is derived from two separate court cases, and most recently reaffirmed and clarified in the 2024 Sheetz v. County of El Dorado U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The first case was Nollan v. California Coastal Commission in 1986. This established the “essential nexus,” or the first part of the Standard. In this particular case, the Nollans wanted to tear down their dilapidated bungalow and build a larger new home. The California Coastal Commission stated that since the larger house would block the public’s view of the ocean, the Nollans would need to dedicate a strip of their land along the beach to allow the public to pass along the beach for 20 years. The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Nollans and
1. For greater details of each project, refer to the District’s Master Facilities Plan.
1 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report found no clear relationship or “nexus” between the public’s view of the ocean and the Coastal Commission’s requirement that the Nollans dedicate a part of their land for public access.
The second case was Dolan v. City of Tigard in 1993. This case established the “rough proportionality,” the second part of the Standard. In this case, Dolan owned a plumbing supply store and wanted to expand the store and the parking lot. The City of Tigard’s planning commission granted conditional approval of the expansion, dependent on Dolan dedicating 10% of her land to a public greenway along an adjacent creek and constructing a bicycle and pedestrian pathway. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Dolan. The Court found that although an “essential nexus” (in this case, increased runoff due to impervious surfaces) was established, there was no clear proportionality between the expansion of Dolan’s store and the city’s requirement for a public greenway and bike path. Therefore, the condition was found to be an unconstitutional exaction.
These cases combined resulted in the Nollan/Dolan Standards. The first part of the Standard is the “essential nexus.” When applied to Impact Fees, this means that each fee must have a nexus directly related to that development's impact on a city's infrastructure. For example, it would make sense to have development contribute to increasing the capacity of the water conveyance system in the city, since all new developments increase water demand. However, it would not make sense for all developments to contribute to a reverse osmosis plant that only benefits a few industrial uses.
The second part of the Standard is “rough proportionality.” This means that the fee charged to new development must be proportional to the impact that development will have on the city’s infrastructure. For example, a single-family home should not bear the cost of an entire new water treatment plant, but rather contribute based on its relative demand, such as gallons per day.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, further clarified and reinforced the application of the Nollan/Dolan Standards, particularly in the context of monetary impact fees. In that case, the Court held that development impact fees imposed on an individual basis must also meet the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards, even if such fees are part of a legislatively adopted fee schedule rather than an ad hoc, project-specific condition.
Mr. Sheetz had challenged El Dorado County’s traffic impact fee, which was uniformly imposed on all new residential development under a county ordinance. The Court ruled that constitutional protections against takings under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments apply equally to fees imposed through legislation as they do to fees imposed on a case-by-case basis. This decision rejects the idea that legislative enactments are immune from individualized scrutiny when they demand concessions from property owners in exchange for building permits.
The ruling in Sheetz emphasizes that all exactions—monetary or otherwise—must be justified with a clear, individualized connection to the specific development's impacts. Cities and public agencies must be able to demonstrate that a fee relates to a public need caused by the development and that the amount charged is reasonably proportional to the development’s actual impact.
PROPORTIONAL ANALYSIS REGARDING NEW AND EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE A helpful component of this Report is the proportional analysis of the infrastructure needs required to accommodate the District's continued development compared to the existing infrastructure generated through years of taxes and other contributions currently serving the existing
2 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report community. This proportional analysis is intended to recognize and reconcile the difference between the District's desired level of service required for new development, per statements in the various General Plan elements, with that of the de facto or actual level of service provided to the existing community. Including the proportional analysis will assist the Town Council and the District’s Board of Directors in adopting a DIF structure that recognizes intergenerational equity and assists the Council in making difficult policy decisions regarding the required capital additions needed to accommodate new development by increasing the layperson’s understanding of fairness.
The proportional analysis is important if there is no other reason than for community intergenerational equity, i.e., fairness in the infrastructure investment that existing residents and businesses have made with those of new residents and businesses that wish to use the existing infrastructure. For example, new development may be required to expand the number of arterial and collector lane miles in the Town, but new development also benefits from the immediate use of Yuca Loma Road, constructed so many years ago, just as an existing citizen can use a newly constructed arterial street segment. In short, previous generations of businesses and residents have contributed to the development of the District's infrastructure, and future residents and businesses should recognize this fact by contributing a similar capacity toward completing the various infrastructure systems.
Identifying the many public improvement projects needed through buildout is one thing. It is entirely different to assume that all of the identified improvements are required to meet the demands of the new development. Some projects will replace the existing infrastructure, while others will be capacity-increasing projects. A more detailed explanation of each example is as follows;
1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e., projects required, regardless of whether there is additional development. An example would be a traffic intersection currently controlled by stop signs that would meet demand warrants based on continued development.
2. Projects are required to accommodate future development. An example of this would be a signal that is currently controlled quite adequately by stop signs but will ultimately need to be signalized because of development in the near and downstream areas.
All impact fee calculations claim to be fair. Most DIF calculations will identify the desired or required capital projects, most ostensibly generated as a result of development. However, little evidence is ever offered in support of such a claim. Therefore, what is fair and equitable? Is it fair to require future residents and businesses in a District to construct a new Fire Station via payment of impact fees when the current stations are merely rented or leased space? On the other hand, if a community already has all the fire stations they will need at buildout, are they precluded from imposing an impact fee to recoup some of the expenses incurred in constructing those existing facilities? These are difficult questions that may be made easier by the following examples.
Development Impact Fee Structure. The General Plan provides a range of potential densities for residential development; as such, the DIFs for residential uses need to be calculated on a perdwelling unit basis to reflect more accurately the impacts of a specific development.2 For
2. Appendix E, AB-602 Justification, will address this topic in much more detail.
3 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report example, a property zoned as a detached dwelling residential development may contain from three to six units per acre. If fees are calculated on an acreage basis, the developer proposing three units per acre would pay the same amount as a developer constructing six units per acre.
Similarly, fees are calculated on a square footage basis for business parcels (retail/service, office, and industrial, etc.) to reflect the impacts of different building intensities for these types of development. Some of the infrastructures have optional fee structures recommended for unusual developments, such as a parking structure, which in itself does not create demand beyond additional storm drainage run-off, whereas a structure requiring additional parking does.
A second reason for the proposed DIF fee structure recommended in this Report involves building expansion or intensifying retail, office, and industrial areas. For example, suppose a commercial or industrial property owner proposes an expansion to their building. In that case, the question exists about how to charge this proposed expansion for its impact on the District's streets, storm drainage system, and other infrastructures. A fee calculated on a building's square footage (and an average Floor Area Ratio) basis simplifies this calculation.
CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of DIFs. This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66009. This State law went into effect on January 1, 1989.
AB1600 requires documentation of projects to be financed by Development Impact Fees prior to their levy and collection, and that the monies collected be committed within five years to a project of "direct benefit" to the development that paid the fees. Many states have such controlling statutes.
Specifically, AB1600 requires the following:
1. Delineation of the PURPOSE of the fee.
2. Determination of the USE of the fee.
3. Determination of the RELATIONSHIP between the use of the fee and the type of development paying the fee.
4. Determination of the relationship between the NEED for the facility and the type of development project. NOTE: Numbers 3 & 4 will be reversed throughout the chapters in this Report in recognition that need should be identified before use.
5. Determination of the relationship between the AMOUNT of the fee and the COST of the portion of the facility attributed to the specific development project.
This Report, with some additions, utilizes the basic methodology consistent with the above requirements of AB1600. Briefly, the following steps were undertaken in the calculation of impact fees for the District and are listed below:
1. Define the level of service needed within the General Plan area for each project or acquisition identified as necessary. In some areas, certain
4 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report statistical measures are commonly used to measure or define an acceptable level of service for a category of infrastructure. Street intersections, for instance, are commonly rated based on a Level of Service scale of "A" to "F" developed by transportation engineers.
2. Review the Land use map and determine the existing mix of land uses and the amount of undeveloped and developed land. The magnitude of growth and its impacts can thus be determined by considering this land use data when planning needed infrastructure. This inventory can be found in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2.
3. Identify all additions to the capital facilities or equipment inventory necessary to maintain the identified levels of service in the area and determine their cost.
4. Identify a level of responsibility, identifying, as termed in this Report, the relative need (or as referred to in the accompanying schedules as "PERCENT NEED") for the facility or equipment necessary to accommodate "growth" as defined and as opposed to current needs.
5. Distribute the costs identified as a result of development growth on the basis of land use. Costs are distributed between each land use based on their relative (or proportional) use of the capital system. For this Report, the capital costs are distributed based on the various land use fire response demands from records from previous years.
OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT
In addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this Report, other important assumptions of this study include the following:
Land Costs. Land acquisition cost estimates were developed after discussions with District officials over recent acquisitions or current negotiations for all land purchase needs. Arguments for higher or lower costs can be made; however, $214,551/acre (or $4.93/square foot) for the acquisition of land consistent with the proper locating of fire stations to maximize access/egress to the community’s circulation system, appears to be the most appropriate current figure for this study.
Appropriate Expansion. Debt service is a reasonable construction cost for many, but not all, public facilities and infrastructure. The following example illustrates. DIFs are collected in incremental amounts, but facilities are not expanded in those same incremental amounts. As an example, a fire station fee, based upon a standard of one basic station per 5,000 Detached dwellings, may be collected for each residential dwelling in the District, but after collecting the fee for a 250-unit subdivision (5% of the total amount needed to construct a station), it would be impractical to build just 5% of a station. Fees will be collected and placed in a separate fund, generating interest until such a time that a parcel may be purchased or the acquisition of architectural/engineering plans may be obtained. During that build-up time, any existing station will experience some temporary over-demand as the standard drops from one station per 5,000 dwellings to about one station per 5,250 dwellings. This "temporary over-demand" will clearly bring about some over-demand and increased unavailability until enough DIFs have been collected for full construction or a practical expansion to bring the actual existing fire station
5 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report standard back up to the original standard. In short, a development of 250 homes may be brought "online" (occupancy approved) and bring about a temporary reduction in fire station facility standards, probably without endangering the citizens’ health and safety.
However, a “temporary overcapacity” in fire suppression is not infinite. At some point, the capacity to respond to calls-for-service needs to be made available prior to the private construction that, in effect, is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If the nearest fire station is currently at maximum operational capacity (a point beyond nominal or planned capacity), no additional residential or business units can be brought online until additional response capacity can be created and the existing stations drop back to planned capacity. Again, there is a practical size of fire station addition to construct, and it is not likely practical for developers to wait until there is enough added demand (and fees) to pay for the facility addition. As a result, financing through a debt instrument may be the only alternative at some point. Circumstances will vary from agency to agency as to what facility expansions are critical and which can absorb temporary overcapacity for limited periods of time.
Financing costs would only be included in the impact fee calculation for facilities where, based on the staff's estimate, the immediacy of the need for the facility requires debt financing. In such cases, the debt service payments would be discounted to today's cost to account for the diminishing value of the dollar and would be in keeping with the cost methodology used in this study to show projects in current costs. To consider the face value of bond payments when determining costs, on the other hand, would be inaccurate, as it would treat the value of a dollar today the same as the value of a dollar twenty years from now. Such an approach would tend to overvalue the costs of debt service requirements and, therefore, cause an agency to overcharge its development impact fees. However, the District has stations currently spread throughout the community so as to be able to absorb cumulative demand from new development within reasonable response times, while adequate DIF receipts are collected to build the future eight stations. Thus, no project requiring debt service was identified in the Master Facilities Plan.
Comparison of Needed Infrastructure with Existing Infrastructure. The answer to these difficult questions may best be answered by comparing various fixed-location infrastructure scenarios.
This can be accomplished by looking closely at our friends in the planned community of Happy Valley3 for a few scenarios to explain the three possible conditions that can occur regarding the agency's current infrastructure and the demand for it. We will use the provision of fire protection, a service that most of us, as nonprofessional firefighters, can somewhat comprehend. These three "conditions" include the fire suppression system of infrastructure construction:
1. is On-target;
2. has been Deficient; and;
3. has created Excess Service Capacity.
Adoption of a Standard - According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a standard two-bay fire station (estimated for purposes of this example to cost about $2,000,000) can meet the needs of 5,000 homes or 10,000,000 square feet of business pad. If these standards were adopted as Happy Valley's public safety element of the District's General Plan,
3. "Happy Valley" has been used as an imaginary community for purposes of DIF example for about nine years.
Clearly no insult is intended to any real or imagined community of Happy Valley. It is also a Happy Valley because there is no inflation, and the value of a dollar remains nominal.
6 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report they would be known as the de jure or stated (or desired) standard (i.e., the standard the community would like to meet). The inductive impact fees (or cost per proportional unit served) for this de jure standard would then be:
Table 1-1
Calculation of N.F.P.A. Impact Cost
Land Use Station Cost Units Served Impact Fee
Residential Units $2,000,000 5,000 $400.00 per home
Business S.F. $2,000,000 10,000,000 $0.20 per S.F.
Service Base - Happy Valley's General Plan indicates that there will be 10,000 residential units and about 20,000,000 square feet of commercial/industrial space, creating a need for four stations at buildout. The station calculation is as follows:
Table 1-2
Determination of the Required Number of Stations
Number
of Units
Units served by
One Station
Stations
Required
Residential Units 10,000 5,000 2 Stations
Business S.F. 20,000,000 10,000,000 2 Stations
Required Stations at General Plan Buildout 4 Stations
Infrastructure is "On-target" - The need for four stations appears quite clear, and the Happy Valley Council only needs to impose the impact fees calculated in Table 1-1. Currently, Happy Valley has 6,250 residential units and 7,500,000 square feet of commercial/industrial building pad and is half "built-out" (in terms of fire calls for service). The existing development in Happy Valley is generating half of its ultimate (General Plan buildout) fire calls-for-service. This is demonstrated in Table 1-3 below:
Table 1-3
Development of Current Infrastructure is "On-Target"
Number
of Units
Units served by
One Station
Stations
Required
Residential Units 6,250 5,000 1.25 Stations
Business S.F. 7,500,000 10,000,000 0.75 Stations
Total Number of Stations Required Currently 2.00 Stations Conversely, Happy Valley has the remaining half of its fire demand (in terms of calls-for-service)
7 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report yet to come. Left to build are 3,750 detached dwelling units and 12,500,000 square feet of business floor space, and when constructed, would generate the following capital needs identified on Table 1-4:
Table 1-4
Remaining Development and Station Requirements
Number
of Units
Units served by
One Station
Stations
Required
Residential Units 3,750 5,000 0.75 Stations
Business S.F. 12,500,000 10,000,000 1.25 Stations
# of New Stations Required from Land to be Developed 2.00 Stations If the earlier calculated impact fees ($400 per residence and $0.20 per square foot of business pad) were adopted and imposed, Happy Valley would collect (by General Plan buildout) enough capital revenues to construct the remaining two stations. Table 1-5 demonstrates this:
Table 1-5
Remaining DIF Collection
Number
of Units
Impact
Fee
Amount
Collected
Residential Units 3,750 $400.00 $1,500,000
Business S.F. 12,500,000 $0.20 $2,500,000
Amount Collected in Impact Fees $4,000,000
Cost of a New Station $2,000,000
Stations to be Built with Impact Fees 2.00
Infrastructure is in Deficient Condition - And everyone is pleased in Happy Valley (in particular, the Fire Chief, who now has four stations). However, consider the implications if the current Happy Valley residents and businesses had only shown the earlier commitment to construct a single station when they should have constructed two stations based on their adopted standards.
Three more stations would be needed on the path to General Plan “buildout.” We can easily dismiss the possibility of requiring the remaining future home and business owners to finance all three remaining stations as completely inequitable. But would it be fair and equitable to charge new residents $400 per home and new businesses $0.20 per square foot to build the remaining two stations required to meet the NFPA standards?
The simple and direct answer is no. The Happy Valley community has not (with only one station constructed at half buildout) demonstrated its full and complete commitment to meeting the
8 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report N.F.P.A. standards. As a result, it would not have a strong case to assert that others who build after them need to contribute towards the construction of multiple (two) fire stations at a higher level of service (LOS) by including the “missing” second station.4 The service provided by the single existing station is the community's de facto (or "in fact") standard service level. With one station, the contributed equity to build the single station would be half of the impact fee proposed in Table 1-1, or $200/residential unit and $0.10/square foot of business space, respectively (see Table 1-6, following).
Table 1-6
Impact Fee at Deficient Condition
Number
of Units
Existing
Contribution
Amount
Collected
Residential Units 3,750 $200.00 $750,000
Business S.F. 12,500,000 $0.10 $1,250,000
Amount Contributed by Existing Community $2,000,000
Cost of One New Station $2,000,000
Station(s) built with Community's Contribution 1.00
If Happy Valley had only built one station when the General Plan was at half buildout, we would have been forced to conclude that the district was currently deficient by one station. If the future residents were asked to pay at a rate that would build two stations (the $400/$0.20 rates), the District would have three stations at buildout, one financed and built by the first half of the community, and two financed and built by the second half of the community. The first half of the community would, in effect, "inherit" one-half of a station at no cost to themselves. In short, Happy Valley would fail the proportionality test required by the Dolan standard. The inequity would then be exacerbated when the community decides to build the final “missing” second station from a District-wide assessment or from annual General Fund receipts, paid for by the entire community, including those who just paid for the two new stations.
The only truly equitable option is for the District to adopt impact fees at the $200/residence and $0.10/business square foot rates. Adopting this fee would be called the Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Impact Fee. Admittedly, the District will go further into a deficit position in terms of the number of required stations, from being deficient by one station at half buildout to a deficiency of two stations at final buildout, but the ratio of deficiency (or overall proportionality) would remain a constant 50% of the stations needed at either time. The District, if they are truly serious about meeting the recommended NFPA standard, would then need to assess the entire community in some fashion to raise the needed money for the remaining two stations, either in the form of an assessment or the dedication of general receipts of the District.
Infrastructure - Excess Capacity - One final but important scenario remains and must be considered. In this scenario, the existing residents of Happy Valley were the industrious sort and
4. Barring the specific definitions of the number and location of fire stations in a large specific plan.
9 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report (at half buildout) had constructed three stations when they were at the point when they only needed two stations. There is demonstrable excess capacity at each of the three existing stations.
In this case, the Happy Valley's current de facto standard would be well above the de jure or target standard. Statistically, each of the three stations would have approximately 1/3 excess capacity (for providing services) and should be busy only about two-thirds of the time. Should the impact fee be limited to the marginal $200 per residence and $0.10 per business square foot required to construct the remaining station? If so, future residents will receive a gift of the extra (third) station. There will be tough decisions to be made by the Happy Valley District Council.
Marginal or Recoupment Fee? Hopefully, we would all agree that the Happy Valley District Council should adopt, at a minimum, the $200/residence and $0.10/square foot business space rates to ensure that the fourth station would be built. This would be referred to as the marginal needs-based fee. This would be a benevolent gesture, giving the new residents and businesses, in effect, a free ride on the cost of the (already built and paid for) third station.
Or, in the alternative, the Council can recognize that the $2,000,000 used to build the third station was little more than a loan from the existing community's General Fund and needs to be repaid by the future community receiving an instantaneous level of fire protection the day they receive their occupancy permit,5 through the imposition and collection of impact fees.6 In this case, the
Impact Fees for $400/residence and $0.20/square foot of business space should be adopted, imposed, and collected. The Impact Fee would accumulate $4,000,000 through buildout, $2,000,000 required to repay the General Fund in delayed revenue (for Station #3), and the $2,000,000 necessary to build the fourth station. This would be referred to as the Fair Share at General Plan Buildout-based fee. More importantly, at General Plan built-out, long-term equity would be achieved as each home and business would contribute the same $400 per residence and $0.20 per square foot.
However, it is not possible to accept and support the idea that the proportionality test, when it limits the amount of the impact fee due to existing deficiencies, is a reasonable argument, but reject it when it indicates that there is excess capacity in the existing system.
Exceptions. The previous discussion applies particularly well to above-ground or facility-based services such as public-use centers, pools, police and fire stations, civic center maintenance yards, or other fixed locations and fixed-capacity facilities that serve the entire population.
However, it does not necessarily work well on ground level or below system infrastructure such as streets, utilities, and storm drainage, where the continuation of a deficient system into the future is not at all possible and the lack of additions would ensure the complete inability to approve any further private construction without creating unsafe conditions to a specific area. As an example, if the agency’s storm drainage system is currently deficient and creates some periodic flooding but not necessarily in dangerous amounts, the agency may not be able to approve and allow additional future development unless the storm drainage run-off created by the new development, is properly collected and released into a river or regional flood control channel.
Additionally, a currently deficient water system, i.e., one with only the most minimal of distribution pipes, may not be able to serve any more future development without a substantial increase in the capacity of the water distribution system.
5. Actually, the permitted structure receives fire protection services as it is being constructed.
6. This example assumes that each of the three existing stations is debt-free and owned outright.
10 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Density may also be a factor. Circulation improvements to date may be spread over a more compact density (4-5 homes per acre) than the remaining development in the District (say 2-3 homes per acre). Chances are that the circulation cost per home for the lower density will be higher than that of the more compact but higher density. However, the current agency's commitment to that particular infrastructure may still be used to give the reader a perspective on the agency’s efforts to deliver service in proportional amounts.
Public Utilities. The treatment for municipal utilities is particularly clear in that the utility’s operating and capital funds did not receive any General Fund financial support or charge standby fees to vacant property. This means that the entire utility system has been supported only by what are called user fees (payments by the utility’s customers). Or, as stated in another way, userfinanced. In many cases, the utility may have significant extra capacity because most infrastructure cannot be expanded in small, defined portions that match the pace of new development (e.g., water reservoirs are generally expanded in 1.0-million-gallon portions, not 1,000 gallons at a time). Should this excess capacity not be paid for by new users who connect to the system where the excess capacity has been constructed and identified? The distribution system may also have significant distribution system capacity to reach homes and businesses in more outlying areas. RCS recently worked with a city where the existing water users, representing some 55% of the water use demand at General Plan buildout, had already constructed 70% of the entire water system. The 15% difference amounted to just over $7.0 million. Does this mean the excess capacity paid for by the existing users should be a gift to future users? Does the Government Code §66000 et. seq. prevent this city from recouping the advanced costs invested by the current users that will be the direct benefit of future users? Simply stated, excess capacity can and should be identified wherever possible and recovered.7 The excess capacity must be identified as an “existing project segment,” and how it will benefit future users must be determined. Any recoupment must be returned to the fund that financed the excess capacity, in this example, the Water Fund.
Excess capacity is often challenging to identify and even more challenging to convince others of.
The community of Apple Valley is likely much like Happy Valley, with excess capacity in some areas of infrastructure and perhaps slightly deficient8 in others, as you will see in the remainder of the Report.
Areas with Special Infrastructure Needs. Another exception to the proportionality test would be a developing area in the municipality that needs some special infrastructure not required by the remainder of the agency. An example would be a series of pumps necessary to lift water to a small developing hillside area of the agency that is 1,000 feet higher than the rest of the area, where the urban residents and businesses are. The reservoir needs for a detached dwelling would be the same in either the hillside or the more urban area; the reservoirs would be located in different places. However, there is no reason for the builder of a detached dwelling in the urban area to subsidize the acquisition of the water pumps necessary to pump water up to the reservoir necessary to support the twenty-four-hour water needs for the elevated hillside area.
Large Scale Annexations. Many agencies have annexed large areas of mostly vacant land to accommodate new development. Recently, two client cities were asked to annex very large parcels by the landowners and a County that was either unable or unwilling to manage long-term
7. This action would be more supportable with a recent appraisal of the existing utility assets.
8. It is not necessarily in a manner that indicates a danger, just below the standard being asked of future residents.
11 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report development and then provide municipal services to the large annexation areas. In both cases, the annexed areas will double the respective populations of the cities to which they were annexed.
Both agencies made it very clear that each annexation area would have to meet its own infrastructure service needs and could not depend on improvements in the City to serve the annexation area. So, in short, the two agencies indicated that they would not support construction in the annexation areas in any way or increase any existing deficiency the agency may have. In these cases, two different sets of impact fees would be necessary: one for the primary (existing city area prior to the annexation) and the annexation area itself. There may be some overlapping services, such as a new fire station that would serve a portion of each of the two separate areas.
The issues in developing Impact Fees are often complex, but are best addressed when equity between existing and future users is the goal. This report aims to achieve such equity.
OTHER ISSUES
Some building industry members have claimed that the addition of impact fees unfairly creates an inflated resale price for existing homes. The argument is that if the public agency adopts a $15,000 to $20,000 impact fee per single-family home, then the price for an existing home is "artificially" increased by the same amount. We will use the example of a detached residential dwelling that costs the developer $250,000 to construct and complete to the point that the occupancy permit is approved.
Full Cost of a Residential Dwelling. The $250,000 represents only the above-ground costs. The true and actual cost of a new home is the cost of acquiring the parcel, necessary government approvals and permits, construction supplies, labor, debt service on the above, on-site9 public improvements, and the hidden cost of extending public services10 to that home These public service extension costs include (but are not limited to):
• The addition of law enforcement personnel requires the expansion of the police station and response vehicles
• Additional fire stations and response vehicles.
• Road widening of traffic arterials and collectors.
• Additional capacity in downstream storm drainage pipes. • Additions to water delivery capability, including source, treatment, storage, and delivery. • Additions to the sewage capability, including collection, treatment, and disposal. • Additions to the maintenance capabilities (i.e., municipal corporation yard and maintenance vehicles) are necessary to maintain the above-added infrastructure. • Additional parks, library, and public meeting space for recreational/social purposes.
Thus, while the cost of constructing the above-ground portion of a single-family home may be
9. On-site improvements include local streets and medians, curbs and sidewalks, sewer lines, water lines, streetlights, storm gutter or drainage pipes, electrical power lines, and all of the other requirements of the District’s building requirements on the privately held property, hence the "on-site" reference. "Off-site" improvements are increased capacity needs that occur "downstream" from the private property. The on-site public improvements generally become a city asset upon acceptance of the on-site public improvements made by the developer, while the property upon which the on-site improvements are still privately owned.
10. Apple Valley Fire Protection District provides only fire suppression/prevention services. These services are only highlighted to make a point about the types of public services typically required to support any new development.
12 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report $250,000, the "downstream" costs identified above may be $15,000 to $20,000 per single-family home or 6% to 8% of the above-ground cost.
If this argument is not clear, picture a 2,700 square-foot home, costing $250,000 to construct the above-ground structure, located in the middle of an empty square mile, with no roads, no utility service, no public safety response, no flood control, and no recreational facilities. What is the market value of this home? Probably not even the $250,000 that it cost to construct the structure.
All of a sudden, the $15,000 impact fee for all the infrastructure needed to support that one home seems like a good bargain.
Thus, the true and complete cost of a new single-family home is the cost of building the structure and the cost of extending the municipal services to the home, regardless of who pays for the actual costs of extending those services. To some degree, these service-related infrastructure costs have been recognized; the only question remaining is who should pay for them, existing or new residents?
Effect on Market Price. Again, let us assume that a cumulative $17,500 impact fee imposed upon new detached dwelling construction increases the market price of an existing single-family home.
Wouldn't this just be the recognition that the existing detached dwelling already has those physical links to the municipal services? A slightly different way of looking at this argument is that the existing detached dwellings each have a "share" in a municipal corporation11 and the share is valued at the cost of connecting to the various municipal utilities, transportation systems, flood protection, and public safety. It is logical to require any newly constructed home to purchase a "share" at an equal cost.
CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
At the end of Chapter 3, there will be three cost/fee tables. They are:
The first schedule, 3.1, the Allocation of Project Cost Estimates, identifies the twenty-five projects, their costs, and their relationship, in a percentage, to the development or amount of increased capacity.
"Marginal Needs”-based Impact Fee - This schedule, 3.2, will identify the Impact Fees that would need to be adopted to meet the basic capital needs identified in the Report for that infrastructure.
With the adoption of this level of Impact Fees, one could claim that new development is occurring without any additional cost to the existing residents and businesses. You could not, however, claim that new development is paying its “fair share.”
Existing Commitment or "Equity”-based Impact Fee - Schedule 3.3 identifies the cost (in current nominal dollar value) of the existing infrastructure, including land, physical improvements, and capital equipment. This is the average amount that has been "invested" by the current community of residents and businesses. This equity will be expressed in terms of the cost to construct or acquire the agency’s existing assets at current replacement costs.
11. Not unlike a share in a corporation such as Apple or Amazon.
13 Chapter One __________ ___ Background and Introduction Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Distribution of Existing Impact Fee Fund Balance. There is currently a fund balance of $473,275 in the Apple Valley Fire Protection District. This amount has been applied to the total project cost, reducing the total project cost by $473,275.
End of Chapter Text
14 Chapter Two
Demographics and Findings
This Chapter provides an inventory of developed and undeveloped land within the Apple Valley Fire Protection District and the Town of Apple Valley’s common boundaries and may be referred to as the Urban Service Boundary. The Chapter also presents a summary of the recommended schedule of Development Impact Fees detailed in Chapter 3 of this Report. The area within the Urban Service Boundary contains significant potential for development of residential, lodging, commercial, and industrial uses, and this Report is limited to those parcels currently within the area described above.
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
The following is a discussion of the inventory of developed and undeveloped land within the boundaries of the Urban Service Boundary. The inventory of undeveloped land within the entire Urban Service Boundary forms the base for the distribution of the estimated costs of impacts from new development. The developed land inventory forms the base for distributing the cost of the existing infrastructure for comparison and for the de facto identification of the existing levels of service (LOS) provided by those existing infrastructures.
Table 2-1 below provides the inventory of all private land uses contained within the current District limits.12 The acreage amounts indicated in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 are based on the Town of Apple Valley’s General Plan's land use inventory and a staff analysis of privately held parcels.13 It should be noted that the 2009 Land Use Element from the Town’s General Plan and the 2021 Housing Element have been used because they are the most recent land use data available. RCS spent over a year trying to obtain new data from the Town of Apple Valley; however, the Town was unable to provide any newer land use data, and thus, the 2009 Land Use Element and 2021 Housing Element were used.
[This space is left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page]
12. No annexations have been included in the land use database.
13. The figures are consistent with the most recent Town of Apple Valley General Plan (2009)
15 Chapter Two ________________ Demographics and Findings Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report Table 2-1
District Urban Service Boundary Land Use Inventory
Total - Land-use Database Existing Development Potential Development Total G. P. Build-out Summary of A & B Below Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Detached Dwelling Units 13,872.85 20,811 16,307.09 24,463 30,179.94 45,274 Attached Dwelling Units 871.60 4,826 1,114.43 6,171 1,986.03 10,997 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 178.50 1,440 1.50 12 180.00 1,452 Commercial Lodging Units 11.10 222 2.00 40 13.10 262
Commercial/Office Uses 929.59 11,065,987 5,417.16 47,277,398 6,346.75 58,343,385 Industrial Uses 293.20 1,927,814 1,130.74 7,387,689 1,423.94 9,315,503 Total - AVFPD Urban Boundary 16,156.84 0 23,972.92 0.0 40,129.76 0 Residential Dwelling Units 14,923.0 27,077 17,423.02 30,646 32,345.97 57,723 Commercial Lodging 11.1 222 2.00 40 13.10 262
Business Uses 1,222.8 12,993,801 6,547.90 54,665,087 7,770.69 67,658,887 Summary Sub-total 16,156.84 23,972.92 40,129.76
Land Use Definitions. This Report classifies properties as either one of three residential land uses or three different categories of business development. These land uses are defined below:14 Residential Land Uses:
• Detached Dwellings - Corresponds to an allowable use designation of Very Low Density (R-VLD), Residential-Agriculture (R-A), Low Density Residential (RLD), Estate Residential (R-E), Equestrian Residential (R-EQ), and Single Family Residential (R-SF). Most Planned Residential Development (PRD) will be Single Family Residential.
• Attached Dwellings - Corresponds to the Town's approval of Multi-Family Residential (R-M) uses.
• Mobile Homes (in parks) - Must meet density requirements and qualify for a CUP.
Business/Commerce Land Uses:
• Commercial Lodging - This category corresponds to a limited portion (as an allowable use) generally within the various Commercial designations. • Commercial/Office - As utilized in this Report, Commercial uses include the general category of retail services and thus include outlets ranging from restaurants to auto
14. Per Chapters 9.28, 9.35, and 9.45 of the Town’s Development Code 2000.
16 Chapter Two ________________ Demographics and Findings Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report repair shops to shopping centers. This category includes the Office Professional (O-P), General Commercial (C-G), Service Commercial (C-S), Regional Commercial (C-R), and Village Commercial (C-V)
• Industrial/Manufacturing Uses - This category contains all businesses engaged in heavy manufacturing or industrial development in a single industrial zone, which is Planned Industrial (I-P).
Definitions of Land Use Status. For each of the major land use categories detailed above and in Table 2-2, land is categorized as either Developed or Undeveloped. Definitions regarding the status of each land use are as follows:
Developed Acreage - Includes land in the District that is fully developed and in conformance with the zoning designation for that area, or land that has received a building permit but has not yet been constructed. Acreage in this category may also include non-conforming use areas of the Town, which were subject to extensive development before changes to the General Plan were made.
RCS did not request projections regarding properties that are currently classified as "Developed" but may undergo redevelopment in the future. The District may wish to establish a policy now about how to charge impact fees for these redeveloping properties, especially in the situation where an older property (i.e., a building constructed in the 1960s) may never have paid an impact fee to the District.
Undeveloped Acreage - Refers to all non-public vacant acreage located within the agency (and limited to only the portions of a parcel that can be developed). This category also includes any largely vacant properties anticipated to be redeveloped in the future.
Table 2-2
Summary of Undeveloped and Developed Acreage
Developed
Acres
% of
Total
Undeveloped
Acres
% of
Total
Total
Acres
Detached Dwellings 13,872.85 34.57% 16,3074.09 40.64% 30,179.94 Attached Dwellings 871.60 2.17% 1,114,43 2.78% 1,986.03 Mobile Home (in Parks) 178.50 0.44% 1.50 0.00% 180.00
Commercial Lodging 11.10 0.03% 2.00 0.00% 13.10
Commercial/Office Uses 929.59 2.32% 5,417.16 13.50% 6,346.75 Industrial Uses 293.20 0.73% 1,130.74 2.82% 1,423.94
Total 16,156.84 40.26% 23,972.92 59.74% 40,129.76
Table 2-2 summarizes the detailed land use inventory, limited to privately held property, as provided in Table 2-1. The Town staff's land use inventory reveals that there are 16,156.84 acres of privately held developed land within the current Town/District boundaries. Conversely, the agency has 23,972.92 acres of vacant or substantially undeveloped land. Undeveloped land represents approximately 59.74% of the total 40,129.76 privately held acres within the Town of
17 Chapter Two ________________ Demographics and Findings Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report Apple Valley Fire Protection District boundaries.
15 Not surprisingly, detached dwellings
designated land constitutes the greatest amount (68.02%) of vacant acreage of all the land uses (16,307.09 vacant detached dwelling acres ÷ 23,972.92 total vacant acres).
Business Development. In order to assess the costs of impact from commercial or industrial building intensification or building expansions, this Report includes a calculation of impact fees both on an acreage basis and per gross square foot basis for commercial and industrial development. In order to accomplish this, the Town planning staff has, where necessary, estimated the average square feet of building coverage developed per net acre of land (often referred to as the average FAR, or Floor Area Ratio), shown following:
Commercial/Office Development – 8,727 Gross Square Feet per Acre (about 27% F.A.R.) Industrial Development – 6,533 Gross Square Feet per Acre (about 15% F.A.R.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
District staff has identified $114,643,545 in needed and desired capital improvement projects required through the General Plan buildout of the remaining development within the boundaries of the Town of Apple Valley, and includes projects necessary only to support future growth; replacement projects have not been included. There is an existing development impact fee fund balance of $473,275, offsetting the total proposed cost. Adopting the recommended Marginal Need-based impact fees, as supported by the calculations in this Report (Schedule 3.2), would finance 94.73% of the capital facilities needed; the remaining 5.27% will need to be funded by other sources.
[This space is left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page] The total recommended maximum DIF schedule for each land use is also summarized on the following page.
Based on these costs and the schedules found at the end of Chapter Three of this Report, costs attributable to future development were derived on a per-unit basis for residential land uses and on a per-square-foot-pad basis for commercial and industrial land uses.
15. The Fire District covers 206 square miles, the reference to the Town of Apple Valley Fire Protection District boundaries is limited to the Urban Service Boundary.
18 Chapter Two ________________ Demographics and Findings Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report Table 2-3
Summary of Proposed 2025-26 Development Impact Fees
Land Use
Recommended Development
Impact Fees
Detached Dwelling Units $2,219/Dwelling Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $2,604/Dwelling Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (in parks) $1,518/Dwelling Unit Commercial Lodging Units $3,492/Lodging Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $0.756/Square Foot
Industrial Uses $0.254/Square Foot
End of Chapter Text
19 Chapter Three
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
The Existing System. The Fire District currently responds to calls-for-service within the District Urban Service Boundary with some combination of the existing twenty-eight vehicles from one or more of the seven existing stations. The seven existing stations are:
Fire Station #331 is located on a two-and-a-half-acre parcel at 22400 Headquarters Road. At 10,000 square feet, it is the largest station in the Department’s inventory.
Station #332 is a 3,000-square-foot facility on a quarter-acre parcel at 18857 Highway (SR-18).
Station #333 is 2,400 square feet and is located on a quarter-acre parcel at 20604 Highway (SR-18).
Station #333 is currently leased to American Medical Response.
Station #334 is 3,040 square feet and is located on a half-acre parcel at 12431 Kiowa Road.
Station #335 is located at 21860 Tussing Ranch Road. It is 1,700 square feet and on a half-acre parcel. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is currently leasing this station.
Station #336 is the Department’s second-largest station, at 6,000 square feet, and is located on a
1.13-acre parcel at 19235 Yucca Loma Road.
Station #337 is located on Apple Valley Road on a quarter-acre parcel. It is 4,500 square feet.
The land acquisition and construction replacement costs of the seven existing stations are approximately $46,173,016. Not surprisingly, the District also has a sizable fleet of response and prevention units consisting of (but not limited to):
• Six Type I engines/pumpers, one mini pumper, and three Type III brush engines • One aerial (ladder) fire response truck
• Two water tenders
• A REMS rescue vehicle with trailer
• Five command SUV staff vehicles
• Four CRRD vehicles consisting of Chevy Tahoes
• One Ford Ranger for Hazard Abatement
• One HazMat pick-up truck and trailer
• Three vehicles dedicated to Fleet Services : a Ford pick-up truck for parts, a medium-duty service truck with crane, welder, and generator, and a Ford flatbed truck
• Two medic squad vans and
• One Mobile Command vehicle
20 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report The total investment in the vehicle complement is $19,767,804. State and County vehicles and equipment have not been included in the equity figure. The District’s firefighter-assigned equipment, at $23,535 per firefighter, is approximately $1,129,693 total for the staff of forty-eight firefighters.
The District also has a significant inventory of specialty equipment, including (but not limited to):
• 40 iPads
• 120 HT Radios and 120 Mobile Radios
• Complete communications system with 50 units
• 12 laptop computers, 30 desktop computers, 20 network switches, and two servers • Physical training equipment
• Shop tools and machine/equipment (welders, tire installation/balancing equipment, lifts, etc.), and
• Specialty equipment for fire operations
The total replacement value of the Department’s specialty equipment is $5,362,760. Combined with the $46,173,016 in fire facilities, $1,129,693 in officer equipment, $235,083 in recruitment costs, $19,767,804 in response fleet, and the DIF fund balance of $473,275, the current net equity or investment in the fire stations and training facilities, response fleet with specialty equipment is a sizable $73,141,631. This figure represents what it would cost to establish the existing Department response capability at the current vehicle, equipment, land acquisition, and construction costs. The relevance of this sizable financial amount will be established later in this Chapter in the proportionality application.
Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Vacant Parcels.
While it can be said that numerous factors are considered when determining the number and location of fire stations within any agency, it can be stated without any logical argument that all new private development in the District will affect the District’s current ability to respond to fire, rescue, and emergency calls for service. The effect, simplified but not trivialized, is twofold. Initially, each new residential and business development will create, on average, more calls for service, increasing the likelihood of simultaneous (and thus competing) calls for service. Additionally, as development spreads further from the existing station, as large-scale development is often likely to do, the distances (and thus response times) will increase, taking the existing pumper, rescue, and truck companies out of service for longer periods.
The capacity of any fire station is finite and will reach practical limits (through call frequency and total time). When that capacity is exceeded, the level of service afforded to existing development will be greatly reduced. As stated in another way, if development continues without the addition of fire stations, the existing stations could be overwhelmed, making a timely response for emergency service a virtual coin flip. Will the existing engine companies be available to respond to your needs, or will they most likely be out of service on a call in a different part of the community? The Purpose of the Fee. In order to continue to be able to respond to an ever-increasing number of expected calls, the District staff has determined the need for the addition of seven stations and a significant expansion of the existing fleet to accommodate known and anticipated development.
Having the right type and number of fire stations in the right locations will enable policymakers, the District Board, the Chief, and command staff to house firefighters, apparatus, and equipment in a rational way for maximum use of resources.
21 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report Conversely, the penalties are high and extremely visible for poor fire station location or no facility location. Adverse effects are felt by the District staff, the Board, and indeed by the existing Town’s taxpayers. With poor location or no additional location, response times (via distance or out-ofservice due to a previous call) can become excessive, and if a tragedy occurs, the incident will be well publicized.
Response time is often mistaken for only the first-in unit, which can be a grave error. Instead, response time must consider all the forces necessary to place the incident under control. Suppose the first unit arrives within five minutes but cannot provide the necessary water flow or perform the needed functions due to insufficient staffing. In that case, the five-minute response becomes insignificant and irrelevant. Thus, increasing the number and type of response vehicles is also necessary to match and equip the additional staff needed. The following sections identify how the District plans to meet the demands of additional calls for service.
The Use of the Fee. The revenues raised from properly calculated and legally supported Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Impact Fees would be limited to capital costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to construct a new station or expand the response capacity of the existing station. Conversely, the Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Impact Fee receipts cannot be used to repair any of the existing fire stations or fully replace any existing emergency response vehicles.
Additional facilities are planned to come online, as needed, as development creates additional demands beyond the capability (volume, calls, and distance) of the existing stations. The capital expansions include:
Station #338 (FD-001/FD-002) - The acquisition of 1.25 acres and construction of an 8,586 square foot three-bay wide by two-vehicle deep station. This medium-sized station is estimated to cost approximately $11,675,157. The station is necessary to consistently meet the City’s target response standard of five minutes to the area of Falchion Road and Tao Road, and aerial truck response to the larger contiguous area. In addition to a basic Type I engine, this station would also be assigned a four-wheel drive officer vehicle.
Station #339 (FD-003/FD-004) - Acquisition of one acre and construction of a 6,197 square foot standard “basic” two-bays-wide by two-vehicle-deep station is estimated to cost approximately $8,779,120. The smaller station is necessary to consistently meet the City’s engine company target response standard of five minutes to the area in the vicinity of Joshua Road and Keator Road. The two-by-two station configuration would not generally house an aerial truck but would be assigned a Type I engine and a Type III brush engine.
Station #340 (FD-005/FD-006) - Acquisition of 1.25 acres and construction of an 8,586 square foot three-bay wide by two-vehicle deep station. This medium-sized station is estimated to cost approximately $11,675,157. The station is necessary to consistently meet the City’s engine company target response standard of five minutes to the area of Waalew Road and Aztec Road, and aerial truck response to the larger contiguous area. In addition to a basic Type I engine, this station would also be assigned a Type I aerial truck, a four-wheel drive officer vehicle, an incident support vehicle, and a hazardous materials response vehicle.
Station #341 (FD-007/FD-008) - The acquisition of 1.25 acres and construction of an 8,586 square foot three-bay wide by two-vehicle deep station. This medium-sized station is estimated to cost approximately $11,033,717. The station is necessary to consistently meet the City’s engine company
22 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report target response standard of five minutes to the area of Bear Valley Road and Candlewood Road, and aerial truck response to the larger contiguous area. In addition to a basic Type I engine, this station would also be assigned a four-wheel drive officer vehicle.
Station #343 (FD-009/FD-010) - Acquisition of one acre and construction of a 6,197 square foot two-bay wide by two-vehicle deep standard “basic” station is estimated to cost approximately $8,779,120. The small-sized station is necessary to consistently meet the City’s engine company target response standard of five minutes to the vicinity of Gustine Road and Navajo Road. The twoby-two station configuration does not generally house an aerial truck. This station would also be assigned a Type I engine and a Type III brush engine.
Station #345 (FD-011/FD-012) - Acquisition of one acre and construction of a 6,197 square foot two-bay wide by two-vehicle deep standard “basic” station is estimated to cost approximately $8,779,120. The small-sized station is necessary to consistently meet the City’s standard engine company target response standard of five minutes to the area of Johnson Road and Wasco Road. The two-by-two station configuration would not generally house an aerial truck but would be assigned a basic Type I engine and a rescue unit.
Station #350 (FD-013/FD-014) - Acquisition of one acre and construction of a 6,197 square foot, two-bay wide, two-vehicle deep standard “basic” station is estimated to cost approximately $8,779,120. The small-sized station is necessary to consistently meet the City’s engine company target response standard of five minutes to the vicinity of Central Road and Quarry Road. The twoby-two station configuration would not generally house an aerial truck but would be assigned a basic Type I engine and a Type III brush engine.
Administrative Center Expansion (FD-015) - Acquire about five acres of warehouse storage, administrative office, and parking spaces for an estimated 30 administrative employees. The facility would also have a larger Board meeting room. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Training Center (FD-016/FD-017) - This important two-acre component facility is to be located, if possible, contiguous to the administrative headquarters location along with the three-quarter-acre maintenance facility, creating a centralized management/training/maintenance/stores complex.
The training facility would consist of a four-story live fire tower for hands-on manipulation training, a drafting pit, a pipe trench, an airplane fuselage, and other various training apparatus. The addition of a training facility would allow for more coordinated training in a single facility and safer water draft testing. The facility would have a training classroom that would also act as either the primary or secondary Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The facility would also have a basic ½ ton pickup truck assigned to it for use by the training officer. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Maintenance Facility (FD-018/FD-019) - Construct a 10,000-square-foot maintenance facility located, if possible, contiguous to the administrative headquarters. The facility would require approximately three acres to be added to the two-acre training center. The maintenance structure would likely have three bay doors on each of the two sides to allow for the drive-through servicing of up to three large vehicles. The facility would require several hydraulic and above-ground lifts
23 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report and/or pits, as well as storage and repair equipment or machines (presses, saws, welders, etc.). The facility would also have a basic ¾ ton utility pick-up truck assigned to it for use in retrieving parts and supplies, as well as a forklift, service truck, and Pettibone. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Mobile Air and Lighting Support Vehicle (FD-020) - The vehicle or trailer would have highintensity lights that can be aimed to improve the visibility of an involved structure or other accident site. The vehicle would also have an air bottle refilling capability. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Special Operations Support Vehicle (FD-021) - This vehicle would serve as an on-site supply warehouse and canteen for long-term responses. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Acquire Two Reserve Engine/Pumpers (FD-022) - Based upon the addition of eight new stations and thus eight new engines/pumpers, two additional front-line engines/pumpers are necessary to maintain an appropriate ratio of reserves to front-line vehicles.
Acquire Administrative Vehicles (FD-023) - There will be a need for at least six additional fullsized sedans to support the demand for additional fire prevention/administrative/educational services. The educational trailer was purchased for $5,950 and the tow truck to pull the trailer was purchased for $13,958. The total of $19,908 has been deducted from the project cost, reducing the cost to $250,647.
Acquire Additional Assigned Firefighter Equipment (FD-024) - Based on the proposed addition of eight new stations, ninety-two additional firefighters need to be recruited and equipped. Each of the new ninety-two firefighters will cost the district $15,378 to equip.
Debt Service Payment for Station #336 (FD-025) – The debt for Station #336 has been paid off.
The dollar amount of the debt has been removed from the project list, but the project number has been retained to assist in future audits.
Type I Engine for Station #337 Fleet (FD-026) - Acquire a fleet for Station #337. The fleet for this facility would consist of a Type I engine for Station #337 and the required equipment for operational readiness.
Inspector Vehicle for CRRD Fleet (FD-027) - Acquire an additional vehicle for the Community Risk Reduction Fleet at Headquarters. The needed addition to the fleet is a pickup truck. As this is a new vehicle for a new position, all required equipment will need to be operationally ready.
Ambulances for Surge Fleet (FD-028) - Acquire a fleet for emergency transportation. The fleet would include two (2) ambulances, fully equipped with all required EMS equipment and supplies.
24 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report REMS Fleet (FD-029) - Acquire a fleet for the Rapid Extraction Module Support program. The REMS fleet would be made up of a ¾ ton pickup truck, a side-by-side Utility Vehicle, and a box trailer. The REMS team is a pre-staged rescue team that helps firefighters who are injured or become ill while fighting wildfires. This project is to acquire the vehicle for the program.
The proposed projects and costs are identified on Schedule 3.1 and detailed in the Master Facilities Plan. Completing the fire suppression system will cost the District $114,643,545.
Where the amount of equity of the existing community is larger than the Marginal Needs-based Development Impact Fee, there is tacit evidence of existing capacity, and the difference may be, under certain circumstances, imposed, collected, and then returned to the District’s operations fund as repayment from the developing properties for the initial creation of the excess capacity. This is the financial case with the Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Impact Fee.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project. Fire service response standards extended to new development should be consistent with the fire response currently enjoyed by the District’s existing residents and business community by constructing new facilities, or the result will be a deterioration in the level of service provided both to the existing residents and future citizens and businesses within the Apple Valley Fire Protection District boundaries. It follows that assessing future development to contribute additional fire facilities is appropriate.
To project the impact of future development on fire services, it was first necessary to quantify the current impact on services from each of the Town’s land uses. Then, the costs of future capital facilities necessary to meet this increased demand were determined. The following section illustrates the relative impact of each land use on fire services and facilities.
While Apple Valley Fire Protection District citizens made the majority of these requests for service from their residences, some were generated from business uses within the District. To project the impact of future development on fire services, a survey of each land use and its existing effect on requests for calls for service was conducted.
Table 3-1 summarizes an analysis of the number of calls for service per year received by the District in calendar year 2023. The breakdown of calls into the land uses that generated them, divided by the number of developed units (during the same period of time), generates a "calls for service" demand factor.
[This space is left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page].
25 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report Table 3-1
Calls Generated by Land Use (average over 2023)
Land Use
Developed
Dwellings
or Acres
Calls
For
Service
Total Calls Per
Dwelling or Acre
Detached Dwellings 20,811 7,600 0.365/Unit
Attached Dwellings 4,826 2,070 0.429/Unit
Mobile Homes (in parks) 1,440 330 0.229/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units 222 130 0.586/Unit
Commercial/Office Use Acres 929.59 1,010 1.087/Acre
Industrial Use Acres 293.20 80 0.273/Acre
For example, there were approximately 7,600 calls for service per year that generated a response to one of the existing 20,811 detached dwelling units within the Town/District boundaries. The result indicates that, on average, each dwelling will generate 0.365 calls per year. The same analysis was undertaken for the other two residential uses and the three business land uses. Since these calls for service by land use are an average, they can be used to project the number of additional calls that could be expected in the future by multiplying the average calls per residential unit or business acre by the anticipated number of new residential dwellings or business square feet.
Only requests for calls-for-services to privately held property were counted. Requests for service to public property, such as parks and public ROW or intersections, were excluded, and these calls were distributed pro rata through the requests for service from privately held property. This is based upon the argument that all public land serves privately held land in some manner.
Of residential land uses, a detached dwelling is just slightly less likely to require an emergency fire service response at 0.365 annual responses per unit than an attached dwelling at 0.429 annual responses per unit. Commercial and industrial acre development generates 1.087 and 0.273 responses per acre of developed land, respectively. However, it should be noted that while there appear to be fewer calls to industrial properties, significant training is required to be prepared for business responses (i.e., mass casualty and hazardous and flammable materials training).
Table 3-2 indicates that on a comparative basis (and at average densities at build-out), an acre of attached dwelling units creates the highest demand for fire services for residential land uses. Thus, the impact fee for that use is the highest on an acreage basis. Commercial uses create the highest demand for business uses at 1.087 calls per acre.
[This space is left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page].
26 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report Table 3-2
Fire Suppression/Medic Calls Generated by Land Use
Land Use
Average
Calls for
Service
Average
Units per
Acre
Total
Calls
per Acre
Detached Dwelling Units 0.365 1.50 0.548/Acre
Attached Dwelling Units 0.429 5.54 2.375/Acre
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 0.229 8.07 1.849/Acre
Commercial Lodging Units 0.586 20.00 11.712/Acre
Commercial/Office Use Acres 1.168 1.168/Acre
Industrial Use Acres 0.273 0.273/Acre
However, the raw number of additional calls-for-service is only part of the nexus equation. A secondary but equally important factor is the number of major response vehicles required by land use. Most of the (first five) land uses will receive the same 1st alarm response vehicles consisting of two engines, a truck, a water tender, a medic squad, and a duty officer (with the last two being minor vehicles). However, the rare response to an industrial/manufacturing use, due to the typical amount of fuel and thus increased potential to become a major conflagration, automatically advances to a 2nd alarm response, which consists of four engines, two trucks, two water tenders, an incident support vehicle, a commanding officer, a duty officer and a medic squad and a medic ambulance (with the final four being minor vehicles). From a cost standpoint, the six land uses listed receiving the 1st alarm require only four major vehicles, while the automatic 2nd alarm response for industrial/manufacturing uses requires nine major vehicles.16 This vehicle/response demand factor adjusts the nexus (or distribution factor) to the following in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3
Emergency Response Vehicles Factor
(Adjustment to Table 3-2)
Type of
Land-use
Response
Annual Calls
per Unit
or Acre
1st Alarm
Response
Vehicles
1st Alarm
Vehicle
Demand
Detached Dwellings 0.365 4 1.461
Attached Dwellings 0.429 4 1.716
Mobile Homes 0.229 4 0.917
Commercial Lodging Units 0.586 4 2.342
Commercial/Office Acres 1.087 4 4.346
Industrial Acres 0.273 9 2.456
16. The policy of an automatic 2nd alarm response to industrial/manufacturing land uses is current practice but is not contained within current written policy in the District’s Standard Operating Policy manual.
27 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report As a result of this analysis, the existing developed community demand level required the dispatch of 45,280 major response vehicles to the existing 11,220 annual calls-for-service to the existing privately held properties. Future development will require the dispatch of some 72,748 major response vehicles to the additionally anticipated 17,801 calls-for-service. Demand is based on the total number of vehicles dispatched to the calls-for-service. Based on the existing rate of responses by land use, the increased number of fire service vehicles/responses generated by future development was extrapolated. This was accomplished by multiplying the average responses per unit or acre, established in Table 3-1, by the number of probable units, rooms, or acres. This data is summarized in Table 3-4 on the following page.
Table 3-4
Additional Annual Vehicle Responses Generated
by Future Development (Rounded)
Land Use
Calls for
Service per
Unit
Undeveloped
Units or Acres
Additional
Fire Responses
Detached Dwelling Units 0.365/unit 24,463 units 8,934 calls Attached Dwelling Units 0.429/unit 6,171 units 2,647 calls Mobile Home Dwelling Units 0.229/unit 12 units 3 calls
Commercial Lodging Units 0.586/unit 40 units 23 call
Commercial/Office Uses 1.087/acre 5,417.2 acres 5,886 calls Industrial Uses 0.273/acre 1,130.7 acres 309 calls
Total (rounded) -- -- 17,801 calls
When the number of major response vehicles required for a first alarm response is factored in, the new demand changes the data in Table 3-5. The Vehicles/Response per unit (or acres) in Table 3-5 will be used to distribute the costs of the infrastructure necessary to serve the development proposed in Table 2-1.
Table 3-5
Additional Annual Fire Vehicle Responses Generated
by Future Development (Rounded)
Land Use
Vehicles/
Response per
Unit or Acre
Undeveloped
Units or Acres
Additional
Fire Major
Vehicle Responses
Detached Dwelling Units 1.461 24,463 units 35,736
Attached Dwelling Units 1.716 6,171 units 10,587
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 0.917 12 units 11
Commercial Lodging Units 2.342 40 units 94
Commercial/Office Uses 4.671 5,417.2 acres 23,543
Industrial Uses 2.456 1,130.7 acres 2,777
Total (rounded) -- -- 72,748
28 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report Resulting Marginal Needs-based Impact Fees. Adopting the resulting Marginal Needs-based impact fee through buildout would pay for most of the proposed expansions and equipment. Table 3-6, and summarized from Schedule 3.2, indicates the Fire Suppression Facilities Vehicles and Equipment fee schedule necessary that, if imposed and collected, would raise $108,127,554 necessary to finance the additional stations, administrative center space, training center, maintenance facility, response vehicles, and specialty equipment.
Table 3-6
Marginal Needs-based Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Impact Fees Land Use
Allocation
of Costs
Total Equity
Per Unit or SF
Detached Dwelling Units $54,266,438 $2,219/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $16,078,270 $2,604/Unit
Mobile Home Residential $18,222 $1,518/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $139,705 $3,492/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $35,750,899 $0.756/S.F.
Industrial Uses $1,874,020 $0.254/S.F.
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. The use of the fee is equivalent to the need for the fee. The impact fee would be collected as the development occurs (generally at building permit). As the development occurs, the impact is generated. The collected fee would be put to use to acquire land, construct fire stations, and acquire additional emergency response vehicles and specialty equipment necessary to respond to those additional calls for service, without reducing the capability of responding to calls from the existing community.
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. A replacement value of the existing fire suppression/medic infrastructure (land and stations, response fleet, and related safety equipment) of $73,141,631 was referenced. This represents the current investment or commitment toward fire suppression capability made by the existing District’s community. When this figure is distributed over the existing community in the same manner as the future costs, by the land use demands, investment, or financial commitment (or equity, for that matter) per unit can be determined. For example, each detached dwelling unit has invested a significant $2,381 into fire suppression/medic capital. A large figure like $2,381 is not uncommon in a rural or low-density community, given that there is a minimum or “base” capital infrastructure necessary to be a functioning station, regardless of how few residents and businesses are within the service boundary (i.e., five minutes) of that station. Compare the $2,381 investment by each existing with the $2,219 required for each new detached dwelling.
There is no rational argument for requiring any less commitment from future businesses or citizens.
The current community’s commitment has been to establish a five-station capability paid for via past impact fees and General Fund receipts. To allow future residents to benefit from the use of all of the capital needs without contributing additional assets would be unfair to the existing residents. Table 3-7, following, summarizes the distribution of the net $73,141,361 in replacement cost to the existing community (Schedule 3.3 shows it in greater detail).
29 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report Table 3-7
District Financial Commitment or Equity-based Impact Fees Land Use
Allocation
of Equity
Total Equity
Per Unit or SF
Detached Dwelling Units $49,543,351 $2,381/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $13,494,044 $2,796/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $2,151,224 $1,494/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $847,452 $3,817/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $6,584,051 $0.595/S.F.
Industrial Uses $521,509 $0.271/S.F.
Table 3-8 identifies some of the key system attributes of the Fire Suppression system. The attributes identify that approximately 38.66% (or 11,220) of the total 29,021 annual response vehicles/ calls-for-service at "buildout" are represented by the existing community, which has contributed
40.35% of the total financing of the entire system. The new fire/medic demands to be added, in the form of additional calls-for-service, represent about 61.34% of the total calls-for-service at General Plan buildout, while that same new development will be asked to finance 59.65% of the fire infrastructure system by General Plan buildout. All the above generally indicates that the District is advanced in terms of the construction of fire suppression infrastructure. Or another way to state it is that the future District members will generate 61.34% of the ultimate “buildout” calls for service and would be asked to finance 59.65% of the total required fire infrastructure system. It would certainly not be unreasonable to assume that the remaining 61.34% of the new calls for service generators would be asked to contribute the remaining 59.65% of the cost of the infrastructure.
Table 3-8
Comparison of Fire Suppression System Attributes
Infrastructure
Factor
Existing
Community
Future
Community
Total at
Build-out
Annual Vehicles/Calls for Service 11,220 17,801 29,021
Percentage of Total 38.66% 61.34% 100.0%
Cost of Total Infrastructure $73,141,631 $108,127,554 $181,269,185 Percentage of Total 40.35% 59.65% 100.0%
30 Chapter 3 __________ Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Apple Valley Fire Protection District 2025-26 Development Impact Fee and Nexus Study Report
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED FIRE SUPPRESSION IMPACT FEES
• Create a Development Impact Fee Fund titled “Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment.”
• Adopt Schedule 3.2 and place all proceeds into the above-referenced Fund.
END OF CHAPTER TEXT
31 Schedule 3.1
Apple Valley Fire Protection District
2025-26 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Allocation of Project Cost Estimates
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Estimated Percent Apportioned Percent Apportioned
Line # Cost Need Dollar Cost Need Dollar Cost
FD-001 Station #338 @ Falchion/Tao $11,675,157 0.00% $0 100.00% $11,675,157 FD-002 Fleet for #338 Station @ Falchion/Tao $3,639,073 0.00% $0 100.00% $3,639,073 FD-003 Station #339 @ Joshua/Keator $8,779,120 0.00% $0 100.00% $8,779,120 FD-004 Fleet for #339 @ Joshua/Keator $2,593,059 0.00% $0 100.00% $2,593,059 FD-005 Station #340 @Waalew/Aztec $11,675,157 0.00% $0 100.00% $11,675,157 FD-006 Fleet for Station #340 @ Waalew/Aztec $5,341,781 0.00% $0 100.00% $5,341,781 FD-007 Station #341 @ Bear Valley/Candlewood $11,033,717 0.00% $0 100.00% $11,033,717 FD-008 Fleet for Station #341 @ Bear Valley/Candlewood $3,639,073 0.00% $0 100.00% $3,639,073 FD-009 Station #343 @Gustine/Navajo $8,779,120 0.00% $0 100.00% $8,779,120 FD-010 Fleet for Station #343 @ Gustine/Navajo $2,593,059 0.00% $0 100.00% $2,593,059 FD-011 Station #345 @ Johnson/Wasco $8,779,120 0.00% $0 100.00% $8,779,120 FD-012 Fleet for Station #345 @ Johnson/Wasco $2,052,492 0.00% $0 100.00% $2,052,492 FD-013 Station #350 @ Central/Quarry $8,779,120 0.00% $0 100.00% $8,779,120 FD-014 Fleet for Station #350 @ Central/Quarry $2,593,059 0.00% $0 100.00% $2,593,059 FD-015 Administrative Center $4,821,439 38.66% $1,863,968 61.34% $2,957,471 FD-016 Training Center $5,848,609 38.66% $2,261,072 61.34% $3,587,537 FD-017 Fleet for Training Center $48,598 38.66% $18,788 61.34% $29,810 FD-018 Fleet Maintenance Shop $3,988,213 38.66% $1,541,843 61.34% $2,446,370 FD-019 Fleet for Vehicle Maintenance Shop $48,598 38.66% $18,788 61.34% $29,810 FD-020 Acquire a Mobile Air and Lighting Support Vehicle $795,445 38.66% $307,519 61.34% $487,926 FD-021 Acquire a Special Operations Support Vehicle $79,509 38.66% $30,738 61.34% $48,771 FD-022 Acquire Two Reserve Engine/Pumpers $3,349,022 0.00% $0 100.00% $3,349,022 FD-023 Acquire Administrative Vehicles $250,647 0.00% $0 100.00% $250,647 FD-024 Acquire Additional Assigned Fire-Fighter Equipment $1,414,773 0.00% $0 100.00% $1,414,773 FD-025 Remaining Fire Department Debt on Station #336 $0 100.00% $0 100.00% $0 FD-026 Type1 Engine for Station 337 Fleet $1,393,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $1,393,000 FD-027 Inspector Vehicle for CRRD Fleet $46,635 0.00% $0 100.00% $46,635 FD-028 Ambulances for Surge Fleet $430,150 0.00% $0 100.00% $430,150 FD-029 REMS Fleet $176,800 0.00% $0 100.00% $176,800
Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs $114,643,545 5.27% $6,042,716 94.73% $108,600,829 Total Mitigating Financial Resources
Existing Development Fee Fund Balance $473,275 0.00% $0 100.00% $473,275 Non Project Identified Fund Balance Use $0 0.00% $0 100.00% $0 $473,275 0.00% $0 100.00% $473,275 -
Total Net General Plan Project Costs $114,170,270 5.29% $6,042,716 94.71% $108,127,554 Construction Needs Infrastructure Needed
Supported by the to Accommodate
Existing Community Increased Development
32 Schedule 3.2
Apple Valley Fire Protection District
2025-26 Development Impact Cost Calculation
General Plan Minimal Needs-based Impact Costs
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Call Anticipated Percentage Allocation of Cost Average Units Acres Units Generation New Calls of Additional Expansion Distribution or Square Proposed Land Use Rate for Service Service Calls Costs Per Acre Feet/Acre Detached Dwelling Units 16,307.1 24,463 0.365 8,934 50.19% $54,266,438 $3,328 1.50 $2,219 per Unit Attached Dwelling Units 1,114.4 6,171 0.429 2,647 14.87% $16,078,270 $14,427 5.54 $2,604 per Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.5 12 0.229 3 0.02% $18,222 $12,148 8.00 $1,518 per Unit Commercial Lodging Units 2.0 40 0.586 23 0.13% $139,705 $69,853 20.00 $3,492 per Unit Commercial/Office Uses 5,417.2 47,277,398 1.087 5,886 33.06% $35,750,899 $6,600 8,727 $0.756 per S.F.
Industrial Uses 1,130.7 7,387,689 0.273 309 1.73% $1,874,020 $1,657 6,533 $0.254 per S.F.
TOTAL 23,972.92 -- -- 17,801 100.00% $108,127,554
Undeveloped Development
Impact Fee per Unit
or Square Foot
Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs
33 Schedule 3.3
Apple Valley Fire Protection District
2025-26 Development Impact Cost Calculation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Call Existing Percentage Allocation of Distribution Average Units Acres Units Generation Calls for of Existing Infrastructure of "Equity" or Square Proposed Land Use Rate Service Service Calls "Equity" per Acre Feet/Acre Detached Dwelling Units 13,872.85 20,811 0.365 7,600 67.74% $49,543,351 $3,571 1.50 $2,381 per Unit Attached Dwelling Units 871.60 4,826 0.429 2,070 18.45% $13,494,044 $15,482 5.54 $2,796 per Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units 178.50 1,440 0.229 330 2.94% $2,151,224 $12,052 8.07 $1,494 per Unit Commercial Lodging Units 11.10 222 0.586 130 1.16% $847,452 $76,347 20.00 $3,817 per Unit Commercial/Office Uses 929.59 11,065,987 1.087 1,010 9.00% $6,584,051 $7,083 11,904 $0.595 per S.F.
Industrial Uses 293.20 1,927,814 0.273 80 0.71% $521,509 $1,779 6,575 $0.271 per S.F.
TOTAL 16,156.84 -- -- 11,220 100.00% $73,141,631
$46,173,016
$19,767,804
$5,362,760 in Specialty Equipment Assets
$235,083 in Recruitment Costs
$1,129,693 in Officer Assigned Equipment
$473,275
in Fire Suppression Facilities Assets
in Fire Suppression DIF Fund Balance
in Fire Suppression Vehicles Assets
Total Infrastructure Master Plan Assets
Developed Current Financial
Commitment per Unit
or Square Foot
34 Appendix A
Master Facilities Plan & AB-602 CIP Explanation
35 AB-602 §66016.5(a)(6) Compliance
Master Facilities Plan & AB-602 CIP Explanation
The Apple Valley Fire Protection District’s Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail (2025) serves as a comprehensive and well-structured Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), aligning closely with the standards typically expected under California law, including AB-602 and Government Code §66000 et seq. This document outlines a series of capital projects—ranging from fire station construction to vehicle acquisitions and training infrastructure—designed to accommodate both the District’s current operational needs and the anticipated demands of future development.
A unique project number identifies each project within the plan and includes detailed descriptions of scope, scale, and location. Projects such as Station #338 at Falchion/Tao, Station #339 at Joshua/Keator, and others are accompanied by site specifications, architectural configurations, and cost breakdowns. These include allocations for design, land acquisition, construction, equipment, and contingency, with costs phased across fiscal years 2025–26 through build-out.
Importantly, the plan provides updated cost estimates that incorporate inflation using recognized indices such as the Engineering News-Record Building Cost Index and the Consumer Price Index.
This ensures that the cost data remains current, transparent, and defensible.
A notable strength of the document is the consistent inclusion of a justification for each project.
These sections articulate the service demand implications of projected growth within the District, most notably, a projected 158% increase in annual calls-for-service due to the addition of nearly 30,000 residential units and significant commercial expansion. The plan emphasizes that failure to implement these projects would result in degraded response times, reduced service levels, and operational strain on existing facilities and personnel.
Beyond physical infrastructure, the Plan includes the acquisition of fire apparatus, specialty vehicles, administrative fleet units, and essential equipment. For example, each new station is matched with a tailored fleet of response vehicles such as Type I engines, HAZMAT units, and aerial trucks. Equipment needs for fire personnel are also addressed, including turnout gear, training tools, and reserve units to maintain operational continuity. This integrated approach ensures that the District is not only expanding in footprint, but also in functional readiness.
Furthermore, each project includes a proportional funding analysis that supports compliance with AB-602. Projects directly tied to new development are allocated 100% to General Plan Development, while projects with broader community benefits—such as administrative facilities or training centers—are assigned a shared cost structure (typically 66.1% attributed to growth).
This distinction upholds the legal requirement that development fees must reflect a fair share of actual infrastructure needs attributable to growth, not general operations.
Although the document is titled as a “Master Facilities Plan” rather than a formal “Capital Improvement Plan,” its structure, methodology, and content clearly fulfill the functional role of a CIP. It lays out a roadmap for planned capital expenditures, tied directly to service demand
36 projections, updated cost data, and a logical implementation timeline. These attributes make the document not only suitable for internal planning and budget alignment but also for public presentation, development fee justification, and inter-agency collaboration.
In conclusion, the Apple Valley Fire Protection District’s 2025 plan can confidently be considered a fully compliant and operationally robust Capital Improvement Plan.
37 Appendix B
Master Facilities Plan
38 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-01
Project Title Station #338 @ Falchion/Tao
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire land for and construct the proposed station #338 near the area of Falchion Road and Tao Road. The 8,586-square-foot station would require approximately 1.25 acres and would be able to house two response companies. The station configuration would be three bays wide and two vehicles deep (4,176 S.F.).
Approximately 2,622 SF would be required for living quarters (kitchen, day room, restrooms/showers, and sleeping dorms). Approximately 1,169 square feet would be required for mechanical/storage uses (laundry, workroom/shop, storage, electrical panel, vestibule, and lobby). The remainder would consist of a 224-squarefoot office and 395-square-foot conference/training room. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The construction of an additional 30,646 residential units, 40 hotel/motel units, and over 54.67 million square feet of business use within the District will generate some 17,801 additional annual calls-for-service to private properties. That is a 159% increase over the existing 11,220 annual calls-for-service to private property currently experienced. If no additional fire stations are constructed, the level of service within the District will drop as the calls-for-service increase due to new development. 2025 Update:
Due to the fact that Fire Stations consistently outstrip the Engineering News-Record in building cost, RCS has used the cost of similar fire stations, gathered from multiple cities RCS has worked with, to accurately update the cost of the project from the 2007 figure of $4.6 million to $11.7 million.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design $934,013
Land Acquisition/ROW $1,050,764
Construction $8,406,113
Contingency $467,006
Equipment/Other $817,261
Total Estimated Cost $11,675,157
39 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-02
Project Title Fleet for #338 Station @ Falchion/Tao
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire fleet for proposed station #338. The response fleet for this station would consist of a Type I engine, a Type I truck with aerial/lift capability, and a four-by-four-wheeled officer vehicle. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
Station #338 (Falchion/Tao Roads) would need a response fleet consistent with the area’s needs. Each station is assigned a basic engine/pumper and has additional response vehicles assigned as needed to properly serve the area.
2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 316.44% from the 2007 pricing.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $3,639,073
Total Estimated Cost $3,639,073
40 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-03
Project Title Station #339 @ Joshua/Keator
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire land for and construct proposed station #339 near the area of Joshua Road and Keator Road. The 6,197 square-foot station would require approximately one acre and would be able to house a single response company. The station configuration would be two bays wide and two vehicles deep (2,784 S.F.). Approximately 1,934 SF would be required for living quarters (kitchen, day room, restrooms/showers, and sleeping dorms).
Approximately 992 square feet would be required for mechanical/storage uses (laundry, workroom/shop, storage, electrical panel, vestibule, and lobby). The remainder would consist of a 224-square-foot office and 263-square-foot conference/training room. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The construction of an additional 30,646 residential units, 40 hotel/motel units, and over 54.67 million square feet of business use within the District will generate some 17,801 additional annual calls-for-service to private properties. That is a 159% increase over the existing 11,220 annual calls-for-service to private property currently experienced. If no additional fire stations are constructed, the level of service within the District will drop as the calls-for-service increase due to new development. 2025 Update:
Due to the fact that Fire Stations consistently outstrip the Engineering News-Record in building cost, RCS has used the cost of similar fire stations, gathered from multiple cities RCS has worked with, to accurately update the cost of the project from the 2007 figure of $3.3 million to $8.8 million.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design $702,330
Land Acquisition/ROW $877,912
Construction $6,233,175
Contingency $351,165
Equipment/Other $614,538
Total Estimated Cost $8,779,120
41 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-04
Project Title Fleet for #339 @ Joshua/Keator
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire fleet for proposed station #339. The response fleet for this station would consist of a Type I engine and a Type Ill brush engine. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
Station #339 (Joshua/Keator Roads) would need a response fleet consistent with the area’s needs. Each station is assigned a basic engine/pumper and has additional response vehicles assigned as needed to properly serve the area. Failure to acquire or construct the needed capacity improvements would also reduce the existing level of service to current residents/businesses near that station by increasing the probability of simultaneous calls for service and increased response time to any new development. 2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 432.18% from the 2007 pricing.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $2,593,059
Total Estimated Cost $2,593,059
42 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-05
Project Title Station #340 @Waalew/Aztec
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire land for and construct proposed station #340 near the area of Waalew Road and Aztec Road. The 8,586 square-foot station would require approximately 1.25 acres and would be able to house up to three companies.
The station configuration would be three bays wide and two vehicles deep (4,176 S.F.). Approximately 2,622 S.F. would be required for living quarters (kitchen, day room, restrooms/showers, and sleeping dorms).
Approximately 1,169 square feet would be required for mechanical/storage uses (laundry, workroom/shop, storage, electrical panel, vestibule, and lobby). The remainder would consist of a 224-square-foot office and 395-square-foot conference/training room. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The construction of an additional 30,646 residential units, 40 hotel/motel units, and over 54.67 million square feet of business use within the District will generate some 17,801 additional annual calls-for-service to private properties. That is a 159% increase over the existing 11,220 annual calls-for-service to private property currently experienced. If no additional fire stations are constructed, the level of service within the District will drop as the calls-for-service increase due to new development. 2025 Update:
Due to the fact that Fire Stations consistently outstrip the Engineering News-Record in building cost, RCS has used the cost of similar fire stations, gathered from multiple cities RCS has worked with, to accurately update the cost of the project from the 2007 figure of $4.6 million to $11.7 million.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design $934,013
Land Acquisition/ROW $1,050,764
Construction $8,406,113
Contingency $467,006
Equipment/Other $817,261
Total Estimated Cost $11,675,157
43 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-06
Project Title Fleet for Station #340 @ Waalew/Aztec
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire fleet for proposed station #340. The response fleet for this station would consist of a Type I engine, a Type I truck with aerial/lift capability, an incident support unit, a HAZMAT vehicle, and a four-by-four-wheel officer vehicle. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
Station #340 (Waalew/ Aztec Roads) would need a response fleet consistent with the area’s needs. Each station is assigned a basic engine/pumper and has additional response vehicles assigned as needed to properly serve the area. Failure to acquire or construct the needed capacity improvements would also reduce the existing level of service to current residents/businesses near that station by increasing the probability of simultaneous calls for service and increased response time to any new development. Failure to acquire or construct the needed capacity improvements would also reduce the existing level of service to current residents/businesses near that station by increasing the probability of simultaneous calls for service and increased response time to any new development.
2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 333.86% from the 2007 pricing.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $5,341,781
Total Estimated Cost $5,341,781
44 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-07
Project Title Station #341 @ Bear Valley/Candlewood
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire land for and construct proposed station #341 near the area of Bear Valley Road and Candlewood Road.
The 8,586 square-foot station would require approximately one acre and would be able to house a single response company. The station configuration would be three bays wide and two vehicles deep (4,176 S.F.).
Approximately 2,622 SF would be required for living quarters (kitchen, day room, restrooms/showers, and sleeping dorms). Approximately 1,169 square feet would be required for mechanical/storage uses (laundry, workroom/shop, storage, electrical panel, vestibule, and lobby). The remainder would consist of a 224-squarefoot office and 395-square-foot conference/training room. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The construction of an additional 30,646 residential units, 40 hotel/motel units, and over 54.67 million square feet of business use within the District will generate some 17,801 additional annual calls-for-service to private properties. That is a 159% increase over the existing 11,220 annual calls-for-service to private property currently experienced. If no additional fire stations are constructed, the level of service within the District will drop as the calls-for-service increase due to new development. 2025 Update:
Due to the fact that Fire Stations consistently outstrip the Engineering News-Record in building cost, RCS has used the cost of similar fire stations, gathered from multiple cities RCS has worked with, to accurately update the cost of the project from the 2007 figure of $4.6 million to $11 million.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design $882,697
Land Acquisition/ROW $993,035
Construction $7,944,276
Contingency $441,349
Equipment/Other $772,360
Total Estimated Cost $11,033,717
45 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-08
Project Title Fleet for Station #341 @ Bear Valley/Candlewood Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire fleet for proposed station #341 The response fleet for this station would consist of a Type I engine, a Type I truck with aerial/lift capability and a four-by-four-wheel officer vehicle. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order In which the facilities will be needed or constructed, or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
Station #341 (Bear Valley/Candlewood Roads) would need a response fleet consistent with the area’s needs.
Each station is assigned a basic engine/pumper and has additional response vehicles assigned as needed to properly serve the area. Failure to acquire or construct the needed capacity improvements would also reduce the existing level of service to current residents/businesses near that station by increasing the probability of simultaneous calls for service and increased response time to any new development. 2025 Update:
RCS has used the Consumer Price Index to update the original 2007 cost by 316.44%.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $3,639,073
Total Estimated Cost $3,639,073
46 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-09
Project Title Station #343 @Gustine/Navajo
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire land for and construct proposed Station #343 near the area of Gustine Road and Navajo Road. The 6,197 square-foot station would require approximately one acre and would be able to house a single response company. The station configuration would be two bays wide and two vehicles deep (2,784 S.F.). Approximately 1,934 SF would be required for living quarters (kitchen, day room, restrooms/showers, and sleeping dorms).
Approximately 992 square feet would be required for mechanical/storage uses (laundry, workroom/shop, storage, electrical panel, vestibule, and lobby). The remainder would consist of a 224-square-foot office and 263-square-foot conference/training room. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The construction of an additional 30,646 residential units, 40 hotel/motel units, and over 54.67 million square feet of business use within the District will generate some 17,801 additional annual calls-for-service to private properties. That is a 159% increase over the existing 11,220 annual calls-for-service to private property currently experienced. If no additional fire stations are constructed, the level of service within the District will drop as the calls-for-service increase due to new development. 2025 Update:
Due to the fact that Fire Stations consistently outstrip the Engineering News-Record in building cost, RCS has used the cost of similar fire stations, gathered from multiple cities RCS has worked with, to accurately update the cost of the project from the 2007 figure of $3.3 million to $8.8 million.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design $702,330
Land Acquisition/ROW $877,912
Construction $6,233,175
Contingency $351,165
Equipment/Other $614,538
Total Estimated Cost $8,779,120
47 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-10
Project Title Fleet for Station #343 @ Gustine/Navajo
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire fleet for proposed station #343. The response fleet for this station would consist of a Type I engine and a Type Ill brush engine. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
Station #343 (Gustine Road) would need a response fleet consistent with the area’s needs. Each station is assigned a basic engine/pumper and has additional response vehicles assigned as needed to properly serve the area. Failure to acquire or construct the needed capacity improvements would also reduce the existing level of service to current residents/businesses near that station by increasing the probability of simultaneous calls for service and increased response time to any new development. 2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 432.18% from the 2007 pricing.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $2,593,059
Total Estimated Cost $2,593,059
48 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-11
Project Title Station #345 @ Johnson/Wasco
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire land for and construct proposed station #345 near the area of Johnson Road and Wasco Road. The 6,197 square-foot station would require approximately one acre and would be able to house a single response company. The station configuration would be two bays wide and two vehicles deep (2,784 S.F.). Approximately 1,934 SF would be required for living quarters (kitchen, day room, restrooms/showers, and sleeping dorms).
Approximately 992 square feet would be required for mechanical/storage uses (laundry, workroom/shop, storage, electrical panel, vestibule, and lobby). The remainder would consist of a 224-square-foot office and 263-square-foot conference/training room. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order In which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The construction of an additional 30,646 residential units, 40 hotel/motel units, and over 54.67 million square feet of business use within the District will generate some 17,801 additional annual calls-for-service to private properties. That is a 159% increase over the existing 11,220 annual calls-for-service to private property currently experienced. If no additional fire stations are constructed, the level of service within the District will drop as the calls-for-service increase due to new development. 2025 Update:
Due to the fact that Fire Stations consistently outstrip the Engineering News-Record in building cost, RCS has used the cost of similar fire stations, gathered from multiple cities RCS has worked with, to accurately update the cost of the project from the 2007 figure of $3.3 million to $8.8 million.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design $702,330
Land Acquisition/ROW $877,912
Construction $6,233,175
Contingency $351,165
Equipment/Other $614,538
Total Estimated Cost $8,779,120
49 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-12
Project Title Fleet for Station #345 @ Johnson/Wasco
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire fleet for proposed station #345. The response fleet for this station would consist of a Type I engine and a rescue unit. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
Station #34S (Johnson/Wasco Roads) would need a response fleet consistent with the area’s needs. Each station is assigned a basic engine/pumper and has additional response vehicles assigned as needed to properly serve the area. Failure to acquire or construct the needed capacity improvements would also reduce the existing level of service to current residents/businesses near that station by increasing the probability of simultaneous calls for service and increased response time to any new development. 2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 342.08% from the 2007 pricing.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $2,052,492
Total Estimated Cost $2,052,492
50 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-13
Project Title Station #350 @ Central/Quarry
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire land for and construct proposed station #350 near the area of Central Road and Quarry Road. The 6,197 square-foot station would require approximately one acre and would be able to house a single response company. The station configuration would be two bays wide and two vehicles deep (2,784 S.F.). Approximately 1,934 SF would be required for living quarters (kitchen, day room, restrooms/showers, and sleeping dorms).
Approximately 992 square feet would be required for mechanical/storage uses (laundry, workroom/shop, storage, electrical panel, vestibule, and lobby). The remainder would consist of a 224-square-foot office and 263-square-foot conference/training room. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The construction of an additional 30,646 residential units, 40 hotel/motel units, and over 54.67 million square feet of business use within the District will generate some 17,801 additional annual calls-for-service to private properties. That is a 159% increase over the existing 11,220 annual calls-for-service to private property currently experienced. If no additional fire stations are constructed, the level of service within the District will drop as the calls-for-service increase due to new development. 2025 Update:
Due to the fact that Fire Stations consistently outstrip the Engineering News-Record in building cost, RCS has used the cost of similar fire stations, gathered from multiple cities RCS has worked with, to accurately update the cost of the project from the 2007 figure of $3.3 million to $8.8 million.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design $702,330
Land Acquisition/ROW $877,912
Construction $6,233,175
Contingency $351,165
Equipment/Other $614,538
Total Estimated Cost $8,779,120
51 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-14
Project Title Fleet for Station #350 @ Central/Quarry
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire fleet for proposed station #350. The response fleet for this station would consist of a Type I engine and a Type Ill brush engine. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
Station #350 (Central/Quarry Road) would need a response fleet consistent with the area’s needs. Each station is assigned a basic engine/pumper and has additional response vehicles assigned as needed to properly serve the area. Failure to acquire or construct the needed capacity improvements would also reduce the existing level of service to current residents/businesses near that station by increasing the probability of simultaneous calls for service and increased response time to any new development. 2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 432.18% from the 2007 pricing.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $2,593,059
Total Estimated Cost $2,593,059
52 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-15
Project Title Administrative Center Expansion
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire about two acres with additional administrative office and parking space. The facility would be constructed in a manner that is contiguous to the existing administrative facility. The facility would provide space for an administrative office, board room space, document storage, and a large training room. NOTE: The order in which the proposed Improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The existing facility has reached its maximum potential for administrative space and will become insufficient to meet future administrative needs. Failure to acquire or construct the needed capacity Improvements would ultimately reduce the existing operational level of service to current residents/businesses. 2025 Update:
RCS has used the Engineering News-Record Building Cost Index to update the original 2007 project cost by 241.07%. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 61.3%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design $236,598
Land Acquisition/ROW $887,241
Construction $1,656,184
Contingency $177,448
Equipment/Other $0
Total Estimated Cost $2,957,471
53 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-16
Project Title Training Center
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire approximately two acres and construct a training facility. No specific or optimum location has been determined at this time. The facility would include a "live fire" training facility for "hands-on" manipulated training.
The project would include a multi-story "burn" training tower/hose rack. Probable improvements would include a drafting pit, pipe/trench, classrooms, observation tower, and other numerous situation devices or props, including potential aircraft response. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The proposed facility would enable the Fire Department to meet mandated and recommended training requirements. Training while on-site and on duty is cost-effective. Additionally, squads undergoing training would be available as second-alarm response crews. Lastly, the pumping capabilities of each pumper could be tested more frequently without risk to the pumps. Failure to acquire or construct the needed capacity improvement would also reduce the existing level of service to current residents/businesses near that station by increasing the probability of simultaneous calls for service and increased response time to any new development.
2025 Update:
RCS has used the Engineering News-Record Building Cost Index to update the original 2007 project cost by 239.22%. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 61.3%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design $229,961
Land Acquisition/ROW $939,576
Construction $2,100,144
Contingency $119,824
Equipment/Other $198,032
Total Estimated Cost $3,587,537
54 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-17
Project Title Fleet for Training Center
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire a fleet for the training facility. The fleet for this facility would consist of a 3/4-ton utility pick-up truck.
NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The vehicle would be assigned to the Districts' training officer and would be needed to transport equipment and supplies needed for training. Failure to acquire or construct the needed capacity improvements would also reduce the existing level of service to current residents/businesses near that station by increasing the probability of simultaneous calls for service and increased response time to any new development. 2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 215.99% from the 2007 pricing. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 61.3%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $29,810
Total Estimated Cost $29,810
55 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-18
Project Title Fleet Maintenance Shop
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire approximately three quarters of an acre and construct an additional 4,800 square feet of maintenance facility. No specific or optimum location has been determined. The facility would house the Department's maintenance: and storage functions.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The facility would be needed to maintain the Department's fleet inventory of up to 60 large vehicles. If the project is not completed, the Department will be limited to its current maintenance capabilities even in light of an over 50% increase in the Department's major fleet items. 2025 Update:
RCS has used the Engineering News-Record Building Cost Index to update the original 2007 project cost by 241.07%. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 61.3%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design $171,246
Land Acquisition/ROW $366,956
Construction $1,663,532
Contingency $97,855
Equipment/Other $146,782
Total Estimated Cost $2,446,370
56 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-19
Project Title Fleet for Vehicle Maintenance Shop
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire fleet for vehicle maintenance shop. The fleet for this facility would consist of a 3/4-ton utility pick-up truck. NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The proposed facility would enable the Fire Department to continue to meet mandated and recommended training requirements. Training while on-site and on duty is cost-effective. Additionally, squads undergoing training would be available as second-alarm response crews. Lastly, the pumping capabilities of each pumper can continue to be tested without risk to the pumps. Of significant importance is that the value of the existing parcel has risen to the point that a sale of the property can result in revenues capable of financing the relocation of the facility to a more appropriate location. If this project is not completed, training will continue with the current ad hoc status at various spread-out facilities. 2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 215.99% from the 2007 pricing. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 61.3%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $29,810
Total Estimated Cost $29,810
57 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-20
Project Title Acquire a Mobile Air and Lighting Support Vehicle Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire a mobile air and lighting support vehicle. The truck (or trailer) would consist of aimable lights to increase visibility of any involved structure (during any time of the day). Additionally, the truck would have air bottle refilling capacity.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
An increase in the visibility of involved structures, via external lighting, would provide firefighters with an additional tool or capability. Additionally, an on-site air bottling capability will be necessary for taller or larger facilities requiring longer periods of time within the involved structure. Increased fire suppression response capabilities by improving firefighting conditions.
2025 Update:
District staff have provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 176.77%. from the 2007 pricing. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 61.3%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $487,926
Total Estimated Cost $487,926
58 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-21
Project Title Acquire a Special Operations Support Vehicle Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire a special operations support vehicle. The vehicle would be, in effect, a rolling warehouse and canteen.
NOTE: The order in which the proposed improvements are listed on this schedule does not necessarily reflect the order in which the facilities will be needed or constructed or equipment will be acquired.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The vehicles are necessary for long-term incidents. Without this project, supplies and, when necessary, nourishment would need to be brought over by pickup trucks. 2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 265.03% from the 2007 pricing. RCS has identified that only 61.34% (the percentage of increased calls for service due to new development) of this project’s cost can be financed by future development. The remaining 38.66% will have to be funded by other sources because this project serves the entire community and is not a direct result of new development.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 61.3%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $48,771
Total Estimated Cost $48,771
59 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-22
Project Title Acquire Two Reserve Engine/Pumpers
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire two reserve engines/pumpers. The vehicles would be placed into service when any of the roughly eight newly added front-line units were brought into the maintenance facility for normal or extraordinary maintenance.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The proposed stations require six front-line engine/pumpers to be assigned to them. Three additional engine/pumpers are required to maintain a 50% reserve capability. If this project is not completed, the frontline vehicles would become overused and subject to a greater rate of breakdown without routine and scheduled maintenance, requiring backup vehicles.
2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 268.87% from the 2007 pricing.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $3,349,022
Total Estimated Cost $3,349,022
60 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-23
Project Title Acquire Administrative Vehicles
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire six full-sized administrative sedans and one educational trailer.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The increase in the number of residential dwelling units and commercial/industrial business will increase the demand for both fire prevention and educational services requiring basic sedans for the staff. The existing seven full-sized sedans would not be adequate for all future management/prevention/education requirements. 2025 Update:
District staff has provided updated pricing on fire vehicles, increasing the vehicle cost by 118.32% from the 2007 pricing.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $272,146
Total Estimated Cost $272,146
61 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-24
Project Title Acquire Additional Assigned Fire-Fighter Equipment Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
Acquire additional assigned fire-fighter equipment. (12 companies X 10 firefighters = 120 total, twelve companies X three firefighters/shift X three shifts = 108 firefighters) plus twelve additional firefighters for required leave coverage requires the addition and outfitting of 120 firefighters (108 + 12 = 120 firefighters).
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
Firefighters require specialty equipment and cannot perform their unusual or specific duties without it. Failure to complete this project would result in the Department being forced to continue responding with the existing finite capability and capacity based upon the single station and the existing fleet and equipment. Over the City's long-term development, the lone station's existing capability would become overextended, and there would likely be multiple calls and longer time-outs due to longer distances. 2025 Update:
RCS has used the Consumer Price Index to update the original 2007 cost by 156.66%.
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $1,434,681
Total Estimated Cost $1,434,681
62 Apple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-25
Project Title Remaining Fire Department Debt on Station #336 Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Project Description
The Fire Department constructed a 9,776-square-foot station at 19235 Yucca Loma. There are $148,661 in remaining debt service payments.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The debt service payment must be made. Failure to make the debt service payments is not an option. 2025 Update:
Completed
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other
Total Estimated Cost $ 0 $ 0
63 RApple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-026
Project Title Type 1 Engine for Station 337 Fleet
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $1,393,000.00
Total Estimated Cost $1,393,000.00
Acquire a fleet for Sation 337. The fleet for this facility would consist of a Type I engine for Station 337 and required equipment for operational readiness.
Project Description
Currently Station 337 is staffed with a captain and firefighter and its fleet consists of a Medic Patrol Type XI Pumper. With the increase in commercial properties being built in Station 337’s first due, a Type I Engine in required to properly serve the area. Minimal equipment can be transferred from the current Medic Patrol to a Type I engine, therefor the equipment will be needed to equip the engine.
Failure to acquire the needed Type I Engine will reduce the expected level of service. Commercial buildings require higher pumping capacities to save lives and properties, due to size and occupancy levels.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
This is a newly identified project that was not part of the District’s 2007 Nexus Study. 2025 Update:
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
64 RApple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-027
Project Title Inspector Vehicle for CRRD Fleet
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $46,635.00
Total Estimated Cost $46,635.00
Acquire an additional vehicle to the Community Risk Reduction Fleet at Headquarters. The needed addition to the fleet is a pickup truck. As this is a new vehicle for a new position, all required equipment will be needed to be operationally ready.
Project Description
Due to the increase in construction of buildings that require an annual State Mandated (SB1205) Inspection, the Fire District will need to look at increasing FTE’s for the position of Inspector. This position will be conducting numerous inspections each day and a pickup truck is needed.
If a vehicle is not available for the inspector required annual Sate Mandated inspections could be left incomplete, increasing potential risks and becoming noncompliant to SB1205 inspections.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
This is a newly identified project that was not part of the District’s 2007 Nexus Study. 2025 Update:
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
65 RApple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-028
Project Title Ambulances for Surge Fleet
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $430,150.00
Total Estimated Cost $430,150.00
Acquire a fleet for emergency transportation. The fleet would include two (2) ambulances, fully equipped with all required EMS equipment and supplies.
Project Description
Currently the Fire District does not have any ambulances in its fleet, as emergency transportation is currently not provided. With the rise in new construction and population the District is looking at a high probability of including emergency transportation to its services offered, to cover surge times. As the new construction increases, so does the urgency to provide additional services. Without vehicles for emergency transportation the service would be null, risking the lives of the growing community. These vehicles will augment private ambulances that go out of service due to lack of staffing, leaving the Fire District without a way to transport patients to hospitals.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
This is a newly identified project that was not part of the District’s 2007 Nexus Study. 2022 Update:
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
66 RApple Valley Fire Protection District
Master Facilities Plan – Project Detail
2025
Project Number FD-029
Project Title REMS Fleet
Infrastructure Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Submitting Department Administrative and Command Staff
Reference Document: Fire Department Staff Planning
Project Costs 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Build-Out TOTAL Design
Land Acquisition/ROW
Construction
Contingency
Equipment/Other $176,800.00
Total Estimated Cost $176,800.00
Acquire a fleet for the Rapid Extraction Module Support program. The REMS fleet would be made up of one ¾ ton pickup truck, a side-by-side Utility Vehicle and a box trailer. The REMS team is a pre-staged rescue team that helps firefighters who are injured or become ill while fighting wildfires. This project is to acquire the vehicle for the program.
Project Description
As new construction grows, homes and business are inching their way further into the Mojave River Riverbed, a Watershed/Waterway project and 140 miles of Wild Urban Interface (WUI) that Apple Valley Fire manages. As new homes and business increase, so does the risk of wildfire. As the incidents increase or become more involved, the health and safety of our firefighters needs to be evaluated. Without this fleet, the REMS program could not operate, risking lives of our suppression personnel.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
This is a newly identified project that was not part of the District’s 2007 Nexus Study. 2022 Update:
Allocation to General Plan Development 100.0%
67 Appendix C
Application of Accessory Dwelling Unit
as a Function of Detached Dwelling
68 Application of Development Impact Fees Upon Accessory Dwelling Units Application of Development Impact Fee on Accessory Dwelling Units. The approach recommended for calculating DIFs for application to the construction of ADUs is to make them a function of the demand for one detached dwelling unit, which is consistent with current State statutes. One can assume that the State identified them as functions of a detached dwelling DIF, as they more closely resemble detached dwellings, albeit smaller in size, as they are largely located within detached dwelling neighborhoods and will likely function as such.
The application of an ADU DIF as a function of a Detached Dwelling is consistent with the Government Code §66324(c)(1).
(c)(1) A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet.
Anyimpact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.
The following Table is an example of a proposed 750-square-foot accessory dwelling unit to be constructed behind a 3,000-square-foot primary dwelling unit. The 750 square feet ADU represents 25.0% of the 3,000 square foot primary unit (750 SF/3,000 SF = 25.0%). The Town will also receive a spreadsheet application enabling staff to make other such calculations depending on the facts presented within the ADU application.
Existing Mitigation Fee Act Findings. The five required Government Code §66000 findings within each chapter would apply to the imposition/collection of ADU DIFs. The fees collected would be used to finance the same projects limited for use in that DIF-defined area in each corresponding infrastructure chapter in the 2025-26 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report.
Square Feet of Attached Dwelling Unit (ADU) 750
Square Feet of Primary Dwelling Unit 3,000
Ratio of ADU to Primary Unit 25.0%
Detached Dwelling Unit Impact Fee $2,381
ADU Impact Fee $595
69 Appendix D
Justification to Impose Residential
Development Impact Fees on a Per Unit Basis
70 AB-602 §66016.5(a)(5)(A) & (B) Compliance
Justification to Impose Residential Development Impact Fees on a Per Unit Basis AB-602 (Gov't C. sections 66016.5(a)(5)(A) and (B)) states that if the Apple Valley Fire Protection District adopts a calculation and nexus study after July 1, 2022, it must either "calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development" or make the following findings:
(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development projects.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
(iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
There is no requirement for the District to have a financial element in the Town of Apple Valley's General Plan document. Thus, a properly calculated Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report functions as the de facto financial plan in support of the Town's General Zoning Plan. It identifies the anticipated service demands by infrastructure based upon averages and lays out a fair and reasonable method with which to finance the required capital projects and acquisitions necessary to accommodate those anticipated new service demands.
The Apple Valley Fire Protection District (hereafter referred to as AVFPD) has expressed that it will continue to impose residential development impact fees based upon the same manner that additional development service demands are calculated – that is, by type of average unit. The District will not impose development impact fees based on residential development projects proportionate to the square footage of proposed units. The current set of fees fosters greater accuracy in planning and provides the District with the required level of certainty in impact fee collection.
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §66000, et. seq.), which was first established in 1987, specifies that every public agency that adopts development impact fees must provide the essential calculation and nexus report with fees calculated upon data that is as empirical as possible. AB-602's Proportionate to Square Footage is based upon an presumption that a smaller detached dwelling creates less local government service demands than a larger detached dwelling. AB-602 does not offer any peer-reviewed, thirdparty empirical data that substantiates that a small square-footage detached dwelling unit creates less municipal service impacts than a larger square-footage detached dwelling. As such, the District has determined that the best practices for both managing development and obtaining adequate impact fee financing for the development-generated infrastructure are as identified in this Report.
The Town of Apple Valley's zoning code allows for identification of the use of privately held land
71 and, in some cases, primarily business uses, provides for a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that limits the amount of square feet that can be constructed on an acre of business space. No such limitation is placed upon the construction of a detached dwelling unit (AKA "single-family residence"). The detached dwellings can be a size that the developer determines to be a marketable product.
This Report indicates that the Town of Apple Valley (using recent GIS data) has 30,180 acres zoned for detached dwellings. At approximately 1.5 detached dwelling units per acre, this equates to an additional 24,463 detached dwellings to be constructed by General Plan build-out of the Town. The Town does not, however, have any information as to how many square feet any of these 24,463 detached dwelling units will be, that is, within applicable zoning, determined by the developers of the various parcels.
This Report employs the most defensible empirical sources, appropriate to the demands of that particular infrastructure, to determine the average demands of an average detached dwelling. These sources determine demand by an average detached dwelling, but do not produce this demand data for various-sized detached dwellings. Such data is simply not available.
The amount and complexity of any City's infrastructure defines (in all or part) the Level of Service (LOS) of that infrastructure, not just currently but in perpetuity. This makes the one-time DIF financing of any City's infrastructure that much more important. It takes balance to accommodate development with the firefighting responses within the desired standard. It will take a combination of additional fire station space, response and support vehicles, and specialty equipment to support the required firefighters (non-impact supported). The importance of having a properly calculated and documented DIF schedule in order to accommodate development-related demands cannot be overstated.
The collection of an impact fee to raise capital revenue for development-based demands is one- time but represents the municipal service needs of that dwelling unit as long as that structure exists.
Thus, the argument that any new detached dwelling will generate less municipal service demand based on its smaller square footage is divorced from the reality that any particular residential dwelling may have different occupants over 50 years (e.g., a home for a family of four to a single resident).
Fire Calls-for-Service (CFS) - For the calculation of Fire demand data, RCS used AVFPD- sourced GIS-based calls-for-service matched up with the Town of Apple Valley's Land-Use GIS database.
As an example, in 2023 there were 7,600 calls-for-service logged into the dispatch data to the 20,811 existing detached dwellings for an average of 0.365 calls-for-service to a single detached dwelling.
Again, the District does not know what size these detached dwellings are so could not possibly determine the total square feet of 20,811 detached dwellings or the individual square footage of each of those 20,811 dwellings. GIS data does not include the size of each residential dwelling in the Town.
Importance of a Static or Average Development Impact Fee Schedule. The District must be able to depend on the collection of sufficient impact fee revenues with which to finance development-generated projects necessary to accommodate new development with adequate and sufficient service levels without decreasing the existing levels of service. This assurance will be diminished should the District choose a per residential square foot impact fee schedule.
As an example, the District has identified that a 6,200 square foot basic 2X2 fire station is required to service an area with about 3,000 average detached dwellings. However, if a greater proportion of the 3,000 homes are far smaller than the District had anticipated, the District will not have adequate DIF revenue to construct that station. With a flat fee representing an average demand per unit, the District can have greater confidence in receiving the DIF revenue
72 necessary to construct that station and thus respond to those 3,000 detached dwellings, regardless of the size of the detached dwellings.
The Town of Apple Valley's development practices neither favor nor penalize any one land use over another. Nor are the Town's policies unfair within any one land use. For residential units based upon empirically based averages, all are assessed the same fee; no developer is charged disproportionately. The type of dwelling unit drives the fee, not the square footage. For residential units, all are assessed the same fee; none are charged disproportionately.
Since the District does not impose per square foot-based impact fees for residential land uses, it also does not apply such fees on any room addition to a residential dwelling.
DIFs for non-residential uses (i.e., the variety of businesses) have always been calculated and imposed on a per square foot basis, as empirical data is available for those uses. Additionally, each of those business uses (see Table 2-1) has a differing maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR).
The District is mindful that the state is encouraging the construction of smaller detached dwellings and is assuming that these types of residential dwellings create less demand merely because they are smaller. However, given the lack of any empirical data supporting such an assumption, the District feels obligated to adopt residential impact fees that are fair to all developers of residential dwellings, regardless of size. In the end, the District has determined to err on the side of fair treatment of all residential development.
In conclusion, given the empirically based and significant effort spent on identifying the number and capacity of increasing infrastructure projects needed to accommodate the planned-for and anticipated new development and the fair means demonstrated in the calculation and Report, the District has determined that the empirically-driven per Unit residential fee is the most appropriate metric with which to calculate and fairly impose the District's schedule of impact fees.
73 Appendix E
Historical DIF Accounting & Nexus Validation
74 AB-602 §66016.5(a)(4) Compliance
Historical DIF Accounting & Nexus Validation
Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(4) requires agencies that administer Development Impact Fee (DIF) programs to fulfill several key responsibilities: they must track the amount of fees collected, document how those funds have been used, verify that the original nexus between new development and infrastructure needs remains valid, and provide a transparent accounting of DIF fund balances, revenues, and expenditures.
This report has been prepared to satisfy those requirements. Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC (RCS), the consulting firm that authored both the original 2007 DIF Nexus Study and this updated evaluation, has reviewed the current conditions of the Apple Valley Fire Protection District. As part of this process, RCS has reevaluated the capital improvement projects originally identified in the 2007 study. This review has confirmed that the nexus of the relationship between private development and its impact on the District continues to be appropriate and legally supportable.
In addition to reaffirming the validity of the development-to-impact relationship, the report accounts for the increased costs of construction and capital acquisition due to inflation and evolving service demands. As a result, the scope and costs of the required capital projects have been updated to reflect current conditions and anticipated future needs.
To ensure transparency, the report includes a comprehensive DIF Fund Summary covering fiscal years 2007–08 through 2023–24. This summary documents fee collections, expenditures, and year-end balances over a 17-year period. Although some early financial data is missing, specifically for years prior to FY 2012–13, due to the loss of paper records in a 2017 fire that destroyed the District’s administrative storage container, every effort has been made to compile and present all available information in good faith.
Altogether, this report demonstrates the District’s continued compliance with the statutory requirements of AB-602. It offers a clear, updated foundation for evaluating and adjusting the DIF program to ensure that new development pays its fair share toward necessary infrastructure while maintaining the quality of fire protection services for the entire community.
75 Fiscal Year Development Impact Fee
Fund Balance
Development Impact Fees
Collected
DIF-Related
Expenditures
Expenditure Details
2007–08 Not stated $37,704.00 Walmart land closing, Station 336 lease 2008–09 Not stated $0.00 No expenditures reported
2009–10 $139,112 $191,248.00 Land, lease payoff, garage (FD-16, FD-25, FD-15) 2010–11 $28,445 $114,766.00 Foam systems, MDCs, fire hydrant (FD-24, FD-16) 2011–12 $16,950 $154,178.00 MDCs, SCBA, fit tester, Toughbook, pumper lease 2012–13 $13,158 $28,383.00 Seagrave pumper lease
2013–14 $10,228.00 $101,103.00 Jaws of Life, tow truck, lease 2014–15 $11,481.15 $2,960 $0.00 No expenditures reported 2015–16 $67,250.16 $57,956 $56,766.00 No expenditures reported 2016–17 $127,433.11 $55,671 $0.00 No expenditures reported 2017–18 $295,185.90 $59,869 $0.00 Capital outlay (1.2% of total expenditures) 2018–19 $98,991.19 $166,957 $0.00 No expenditures reported 2019–20 $188,794.90 $21,285 $252,500.00 Admin and fleet reimbursements, 3 Chevy Tahoes 2020–21 $237,389.82 $75,478 $0.00 No expenditures reported 2021–22 $400,627.53 $48,229 $0.00 No expenditures reported 2022–23 $473,275.48 $155,727 $0.00 No expenditures reported 2023–24 $473,275 $58,064 $0.00 Current year projects and interest Total $702,196.00 $936,648.00
DIF Fund Summary FY 2007 to FY 2024
76 Appendix F
Annual Development Impact Fee
Adjustment Methodology
77 Annual Development Impact Fee Adjustment Methodology To ensure that development impact fees remain aligned with current construction costs, the District can apply an annual adjustment based on the percentage increase in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Building Cost Index. The fees should be increased annually by the percentage increase calculated by the year-over-year annual change in the ENR index. This adjustment will continue annually until the next comprehensive update of the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, as required by AB-602 every eight years.
78 End of Report
Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 12, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: ADOPT 2025-2026 MEASURE I FIVE (5) YEAR PLAN
From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Richard Pedersen, Town Engineer
Engineering Division
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the Town Council:
A. Approve Fiscal Year 2025/26—2029/30 Measure I Five (5) Year Plan B. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-25 A Resolution Adopting the Measure I Five (5) Year Capital Improvement Program
BACKGROUND
Local jurisdictions that receive Measure I funds must annually adopt a Five (5) Year Capital Improvement Plan, which outlines the specific projects for which those funds will be expended. In addition to accounting for the Measure I local pass-through funds, the Town is required to provide San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) with an updated master list of projects eligible for Major Local Highways funding.
SUMMARY
The Measure I Five (5) Year Plan may be revised at any time should the Town Council find it appropriate to do so, due to various reasons, such as project schedule adjustments, and recent approved grant allocations. The proposed list of projects aligns with the adopted FY 2025/2026 Town Budget and Capital Improvement Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
The attached Measure I Five (5) Year Plan identifies proposed expenditures for the current year, and projected expenditures for the next five (5) fiscal years. However, approval of this plan does not commit funding for these projects. Funding allocation will be recommended and included during the annual budget process.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Expenditure Strategy
B. Resolution No. 2025-25
C. List of Projects
TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY
MEASURE I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
EXPENDITURE STRATEGY
Fiscal Year 2025/2026 – Fiscal Year 2029/2030
Measure I Local Pass-Through Funds will be used by the Town of Apple Valley for a variety of transportation related projects, including adding capacity to our regional arterial system, reconstruction, and regular and periodic maintenance of existing roadways.
These Measure I funds allocated for the Town’s local street program (68%) are allocated with a minimum of 50% of the funds expended on these roads identified specifically on our plan (categorical). For those roads specifically identified within the plan, some require that the Town accumulate Measure I revenue for such large projects. The balance of these funds, up to 50% of the total fund are identified for reconstruction and regular maintenance chosen based on the Town’s priority within the Town's Pavement Management Program (non-categorical).
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING THE MEASURE I FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FY 2025/2026
THROUGH 2029/2030
WHEREAS, San Bernardino County voters approved passage of Measure I in November 2004, authorizing the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority to impose a one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino; and
WHEREAS, revenue from the tax can only be used for transportation improvement and traffic management programs authorized in the Expenditure Plans set forth in Ordinance No. 04-01 of the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Strategic Plan requires each local jurisdiction applying for revenue from the Local Street Program to annually adopt and update a FiveYear Capital Improvement Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY, California, that the Measure I Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan, attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley this 12
th day of August 2025.
___________________________
Scott Nassif, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
La Vonda M-Pearson, Town Clerk
Resolution Number:
Resolution Approval Date:
Contact Person/Title:
Phone:
Email:
6/30/25 Carryover Balance $4,498,552.18
FY2025/26 Est. Revenue FY2026/27 Est. Revenue FY2027/28 Est. Revenue FY2028/29 Est. Revenue FY2029/30 Est. Revenue Total Est. Rev. $2,495,408 $2,564,774 $2,636,574 $2,711,183 $2,788,994 $13,196,933 Projects:
Apple Valley Village Accessibility Phase 2 No No 0.0% 0.0% $1,884,882 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Bear Valley Bridge Rehabilitation (Mojave River Bridge) Yes No 45.0% 55.0% $58,230,000 $444,105 $1,017,143 $663,053 $0 $0 $2,124,300 Bear Valley Intersection Improvements No No 0.0% 0.0% $1,804,636 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Bear Valley Road Pathway: Apple Valley High School to Singh Center No No 0.0% 0.0% $1,000,000 $100,000 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $700,000 Captain Joseph McConnell Jr., USAF Park No No 0.0% 0.0% $7,986,972 $364,920 $0 $0 $0 $0 $364,920 Central Road Widening Yes No 45.0% 55.0% $8,405,901 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 Dale Evans Parkway @ Waalew Road (Realignment) No No 0.0% 0.0% $3,351,630 $0 $3,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000 Mojave Riverwalk North No No 0.0% 0.0% $1,000,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Paving Priorities No No 0.0% 0.0% $3,847,574 $1,800,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $7,800,000 Powhatan Road Complete Streets No Yes 0.0% 0.0% $2,332,652 $41,647 $717,401 $0 $0 $0 $759,048 Rancherias Plaza Frontage Road Conversion No No 0.0% 0.0% $8,000,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 Town Wide Complete Streets Plan No No 0.0% 0.0% $792,414 $5,051 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,051
0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0.0% 0.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$3,440,723 $7,034,544 $2,163,053 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $15,638,319 Total Programming is currently 88% Total Estimated Programming: $15,638,319 2025- Jurisdiction:
8/12/2025
Rich Berger
760-240-7000 ext. 7530
Measure I Local Pass-through Program
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Fiscal Years 2025/2026 thru 2029/2030
[email protected]
Projects Total:
Apple Valley
Current
Estimate
Current
Estimate
Total Current
Estimate
Current
Estimate
Current
Estimate
(Must not exceed 150% of Carryover Balance +
Total Estimated Revenue)
Is Project in
City's
Non-motorized
Transportation
Plan?
(Yes/No)
Does Project
have an ATP
Component?
(Yes/No)
Is the Project on the City's
Nexus Study List?
(Public/DIF Share %)
Estimated Total
Project Cost
Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 12, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: TOWN’S PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Richard Pedersen, Town Engineer
Engineering Division
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Have presentation given by staff and provide direction.
BACKGROUND
In 2022 Town Council authorized an update to the Pavement Management Program (PMP) to provide a current inventory and pavement conditions of the Town’s road network. Recently the Town Council requested a report on the Town’s pavement preservation strategy based on the PMP.
ANALYSIS
The Pavement Management Program (PMP) is a planning tool used to aid in pavement management decisions. It provides the following key components:
Inventory: This involves cataloging the pavement network, including its location, extent, and characteristics.
Condition Assessment: This component assesses the current condition of the pavement, using visual inspections, to identify areas needing repair or maintenance.
Data Management: PMPs need to manage and store pavement data, including inventory, condition assessments, maintenance history, traffic data, and costs.
Prioritization: Based on the condition assessment, areas are prioritized for treatment based on factors like severity of damage, traffic volume, and safety concerns.
Treatment Selection: The system helps determine the most appropriate and costeffective treatments for each pavement segment, ranging from preventative maintenance to major rehabilitation.
Performance Prediction: PMPs can predict how pavement conditions will change over time, allowing for proactive maintenance planning and resource allocation. Decision Support: The system provides data and analysis tools to help decisionmakers choose the best strategies for maintaining the pavement network.
Staff’s presentation of the PMP will provide a general overview of pavement maintenance strategies with the current available funds.
FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
Town Council Agenda Report
Date: August 12, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: SELECTION OF TOWN COUNCIL VOTING DELEGATE AND VOTING ALTERNATES TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES’ 2025
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: La Vonda M-Pearson, Director of Government Services Department of Government Services
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Nominate one Council Member as voting delegate and two (2) Council Members as voting alternates representing the Town of Apple Valley at the League of California Cities’ 2025 Annual Conference.
SUMMARY
The League’s 2025 Annual Conference is scheduled for Wednesday, October 1 through Friday, October 3, 2025 in Long Beach, California.
One very important aspect of the conference is the Annual Business Meeting where the membership takes action on conference resolutions. Annual conference resolutions guide cities and the League in our efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government in California.
Each city has one vote at any League membership meeting. Accordingly, the Town must designate one voting delegate and two voting alternates for the Annual Business Meeting to be held on Friday, October 3, 2025, in Long Beach, California.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends adoption of the form motion.