Agenda packet — Victorville City Council, June 7, 2022 (part 1 of 5)

City Council Chambers
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, CA
www.victorvilleca.gov

VICTORVILLE CITY COUNCIL

VICTORVILLE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS RAIL AUTHORITY

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS AIRPORT AUTHORITY

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

THE CITY AS HOUSING ASSETS SUCCESSOR

JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY

VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT
Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, June 7, 2022
5:00 p.m. Closed Session
6:00 p.m. Regular Session
The City Council holds its business meetings in public in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M.

Brown Act, its established policies and procedures, and its adopted parliamentary authority. The Council strives to carry out its meetings in an atmosphere of professionalism with full participation by members of the body and the public. As such, the Presiding Officer is empowered to govern City Council Meetings to foster the efficient and fair administration of City business and reserves the right to enforce (or cause to be enforced) the Meeting Rules of Conduct and Decorum as set forth in Chapter 5 of the City Council Policy and Procedures Manual.

Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 54953 (as amended by AB 361) which authorizes teleconferenced meetings under the Brown Act during certain proclaimed states of emergency, this Meeting will be conducted utilizing teleconference and electronic means. The City Council welcomes and encourages public participation and invites the community to attend in person or via Zoom. Members of the public can observe the meeting using Zoom or YouTube and can participate in and provide public comment via ZOOM by following the instructions below.

The City Council welcomes and encourages public participation and invites the community to attend in person. If you cannot attend in person, the meeting will also be available via Zoom and YouTube.

To join via Computer, Laptop, or Smart Device:

Click the blue Zoom icon located on the City’s website at victorvilleca.gov/government/agendas or enter the following:

Meeting ID: 852 3841 6320
Passcode: VV123
*To provide comment, click the “Raise Hand” button and the Clerk will unmute you.

To join via Audio only (cell phone or landline):

Dial: (669) 900-9128
Meeting ID: 852 3841 6320
*To provide comment dial *9 to “Raise Hand”
Public Comments: Members of the public may submit comments electronically to [email protected] by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting to be distributed to City Council. Participants are invited to address the Council on agendized and non-agendized topics at the beginning of the meeting. Public comments will be no longer than three (3) minutes per community member. Should a speaker conclude their comments prior to the expiration of three (3) minutes, the speaker waives the right to speak for any remaining amount of time. For further information about how to address the Council, please refer to the City’s website at victorvilleca.gov/government/agendas .

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (760) 955-5188 no later than 72 hours prior to the meeting. 5:00 p.m. Closed Session
Call to Order
Roll Call
Introduction to Public Comments
Public Comments for Closed Session Items
Declaration of Closed Session Item(s) by City Attorney

CITY COUNCIL
A. Conference With Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Case name unspecified: (Disclosure would jeopardize existing settlement negotiations)
B. Conference With Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Case name unspecified: (Disclosure would jeopardize existing settlement negotiations)
C. Conference With Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Case name unspecified: (Disclosure would jeopardize existing settlement negotiations)
Recess to Closed Session
6:00 p.m. Regular Session
Call to Order
Roll Call
Closed Session Announcements by the City Attorney
Invocation: Pastor Dez Fedoryszyn of Victorville Church of the Nazarene Moment of Silence to Remember the 19 Children and Two Teachers Killed in the Mass Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX
Pledge of Allegiance: Police Captain, John Wickum
Proclamations/Special Presentations
City Clerk Swearing in of Fire Chief Brian Fallon
City Clerk Presents Agenda/Revisions to Agenda
Conflict of Interest Declarations
Any items on this agenda that might be a conflict of interest to any Council Members/Board Members should be identified at this time.

Introduction to Public Comments
Public Comments

PUBLIC HEARING(S)

1. Consideration of Resolution Nos. VWD 22-009 and VWD 22-010 - Resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Victorville Water District making its determination to Fix, Levy, and Collect Standby Charges for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Recommendation:

That the Honorable Victorville Water District Board of Directors:
(1) Conduct a public hearing, receive testimony for the adoption of proposed Resolution Nos. VWD 22-009 and VWD 22-010, and close the public hearing; (2) Approve Resolution No. VWD 22-009 entitled, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Victorville Water District making its determination to Fix, Levy, and Collect Standby Charges for Water Improvement District One for Fiscal Year 2022-2023”; and
(3) Approve Resolution No. VWD 22-010 entitled, “A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Victorville Water District making its determination to Fix, Levy, and Collect Standby Charges for Water Improvement District Two for Fiscal Year 2022-2023”.

2. Development Impact Fee (DIF) Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plan and Annual Reports
Recommendation:

The Honorable City Council and Victorville Water District Board of Directors (District Board):
(1) Open and conduct the Public Hearing;
(2) Close the Public Hearing;
(3) Adopt Resolution Nos. 22-045 and VWD 22-005, adopting the Nexus Studies and Capital Improvement Plan related to the Development Impact Fee Program; and (4) Adopt Resolution No. 22-053 approving the annual AB 1600 reports for Fiscal Years 2016-2017 through 2020-2021 and making the associated five-year findings.

3. Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Capacity Charges – Master Fee Schedule, Implementation Policy and Infrastructure Financing Programs Recommendation:

The Honorable City Council and Victorville Water District Board of Directors (District Board):
(1) Open and conduct the Public Hearing;
(2) Close the Public Hearing;
(3) Adopt Resolution Nos. 22-050 and VWD 22-007, adopting a Master Fee Schedule for DIF and Capacity Charges and the associated City Council Policy No. CP-22-01 to establish guidelines for implementation, superseding any prior resolutions and policies related to the same;
(4) Adopt Resolution No. 22-051 authorizing the City to join the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP); and
(5) Adopt Resolution No. 22-052 authorizing the use of the Bond Opportunities for Land Development (BOLD) program.

4. City Council Resolution No. 22-055 Adopting a City-Wide Comprehensive User Fee Study and Master User Fee Schedule and Victorville Water District Resolution No.

VWD-22-008 Adopting Water District Related Portions of Said Study and Fee Schedule
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council and Victorville Water District Board of Directors:
(1) Open and conduct the Public Hearing,
(2) Close the Public Hearing,
(3) Adopt Resolution No. 22-055 thereby adopting a city-wide comprehensive user fee study and adopting a comprehensive master user fee schedule establishing and amending certain service and development-related fees for city services; and adopt Resolution No. VWD-22-008 thereby adopting the water district fee related portions of a city-wide comprehensive user fee study and adopting the water district related portions of a comprehensive master user fee schedule establishing and amending certain service and development-related fees for water district services, respectively.

CONSENT CALENDAR

5. Notice of Completion for Meter Endpoints Installation Services, Project No. CC22-014 Recommendation:

That the Honorable Victorville Water District Board of Directors (Board) accept as complete the Meter Endpoints Installation Services and authorize the execution of the Notice of Completion by the Director of Public Works and Water.

6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2428
Recommendation:

That the City Council adopt, by second reading, Ordinance No. 2428 amending Section 2.16.020 of Chapter 2.16 of the Victorville Municipal Code, for the purpose of adjusting the salaries of the members of the Victorville City Council.

7. Commercial Demand Schedule No. 22
Recommendation:

That the City Council and Board of Directors ratify Commercial Demand Schedule No. 22 in the amount of $3,795,163.70, covering Electronic Fund Transfers No. 330127 through 330244 and Warrant No. 785651 through 785822 for 05/11/2022 through 05/18/2022 and Wire Transfers dated 05/16/2022 through 05/20/2022, per the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 for the period covering July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

8. Payroll Warrant List
Recommendation:

That the City Council and Board of Directors ratify the Payroll Demand Schedule No. 10B for Payroll Period April 01, 2022 through April 15, 2022, in the amount of $1,585,868.55 covering Check Nos. 32747 through Nos. 32767, including Vendor checks. Please note employee Check Nos. 32754 has a live Check and an EFT Advice.

Also included are Advice Nos. 287316 through 287760, per adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 period covering July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.

9. Reduction of Public Improvement Securities for Case Nos. EROW20-00087 & BLDC18-00108
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Accept the public improvements for maintenance; and (2) Approve a reduction of 80% for the public improvement securities.

10. Tract Map No. 16719 Security Release
Recommendation:

That the City Council:
(1) Approve an 80% Release of the Street Faithful Performance Security for Tract Map No. 16719, Case No. EROW20-00027; and
(2) Accept the completed Street Improvements.

11. Tract Map No. 16774 Securities Release
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve a 60% Release of the Water, Drainage, Sewer, Streets, and Landscaping Maintenance Assessment District’s Faithful Performance Securities for Tract Map No. 16774.

12. Full Release of Labor & Materials Securities for Case No.

EROW20-00109/BLDC20-00057
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve the full release of the Labor & Materials securities for case EROW20-00109/BLDC20-00057.

13. Assessment District Audit Findings
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council receive and file the recently completed Audit Reports for the City’s 15 Assessment Districts.

14. Electric Facilities Contract – Lot 19
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council accept and approve an Electric Facilities Contract with Prologis, Inc., and authorize execution by the City Manager.

15. Settlement Agreement between the City of Victorville and Hong Keng Zheng Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve the Citation Settlement Agreement by and between Hong Keng Zheng and the City of Victorville in regard to Citation No. 23358 and Superior Court Case No. CIVSB2105994, and authorize the City Manager to sign the Citation Settlement Agreement.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

16. Conduct of City Council Meetings Pursuant to AB 361 Recommendation:

That the City Council make the following findings:
(1) A state of emergency, as a result of the threat of COVID-19 still exists and continues to impact the ability of members of the public, the City Council members, City staff and consultants/presenters to meet safely in person; and (2) The State of California and the City of Victorville continue to follow safety measures in response to COVID-19 as ordered or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and/or County of San Bernardino, as applicable, including facial coverings when required and social distancing; and
(3) The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to these findings, City staff are authorized to utilize teleconferencing accessibility to conduct public meetings pursuant to AB 361 (Stats. 2021, ch. 165) and Government Code § 54953, as amended thereby.

17. Consultant/Professional Services Provider Agreement and Sublease Agreement with High Desert Homeless Services, Inc. as Lead Operator of the Interim Homeless Shelter at the Westwinds Sports Center
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council, also serving as the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority Board of Directors, take the following actions:
(1) Approve a Consultant/Professional Services Provider Agreement with High Desert Homeless Services, Inc. for an initial term through June 30, 2023 to operate the Interim Homeless Shelter at the Westwinds Sports Center in an amount not to exceed $2,041,119.00; and
(2) Adopt Resolution No. 22-048 authorizing a no cost sublease of the Westwinds Sports Center to High Desert Homeless Services, Inc. to coincide with the operations of the Interim Homeless Shelter, finding the sublease to be for the common benefit and protection of health, safety and welfare of the City, subject to final review and non- substantive changes by the City Manager and City Attorney.

18. Project Proposal to California Transportation Commission for Local Streets and Roads Funding for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-054 approving the Bear Valley Road (Amethyst Road to US-395) Project for submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to be eligible to receive Local Streets and Roads Funds for Fiscal Year 2022-2023; and (2) Authorize staff to submit this project proposal to the California Transportation Commission.

19. Wellness Center Project – Amendment to Agreement with Connect Homes for Community Buildings
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to the General Services Provider Standard Agreement with Connect Homes for community buildings for the Victorville Wellness Center in an amount not to exceed of $3,385,515.00 and authorize the City Attorney to make non-substantive revisions to the agreement as necessary prior to the Mayor’s execution thereof.

20. Vacation of Vehicular Access Restrictions along Bear Valley Road Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council adopt the attached Resolution No. 22-056 to vacate portions of vehicular access rights along Bear Valley Road.

21. Fifth Amendment to the General Services Provider Standard Agreement by and Between the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority and Mission Ambulance, Inc. DBA Mission Aviation Fire-Rescue for Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighting (ARFF) Services
Recommendation:

That the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority (“SCLAA”) Board of Directors:
(1) Approve Amendment 5 to the General Services Provider Standard Agreement by and between the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority and Mission Ambulance, Inc. DBA Mission Aviation Fire-Rescue for Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighting (ARFF) Services, Project BM18-061, increasing the compensation by $100,000; and (2) Adopt Resolution No. SCLAA 22-010 amending the fiscal year 2021/2022 budget by increasing expenditures to Fund 450 by $100,000 and increasing revenue by $115,000.

22. First Amended and Restated Interfund Loan Agreement between the City of Victorville Development Impact Fee Building Fund and various City of Victorville Contributing Development Impact Fee Funds
Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council approve the First Amended and Restated Interfund Loan Agreement between the City of Victorville Development Impact Fee Building (DIF) Fund and various City of Victorville contributing DIF Funds.

23. Consideration of providing public comment to the State Assembly Members and Senators in support of Cal Cities’ request to use the state's historic surplus to allocate $1.6 billion for programs that achieve shared city and state goals for housing and climate resiliency, as well as reimburse cities for unfunded, state-mandated programs Recommendation:

That the Honorable City Council authorize the Mayor to submit a letter to all Assembly Members and Senators in support of requesting the state's historic surplus to allocate $1.6 billion for programs that achieve shared city and state goals for housing and climate resiliency, as well as reimburse cities for unfunded, state-mandated programs.

24. Cancellation of the July 5, 2022 regular City Council meeting Recommendation:

Any action is at the discretion of Your Honorable City Council.

25. City Manager Reports

26. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Upcoming Agenda Items

27. Reports from Council Members
Adjournment
Item Number: 1
City Council / Board of Directors
Public Hearing
Meeting of: June 7, 2022
Submitted By:

Doug Mathews, Director of Public Works and Water

Subject:

Consideration of Resolution Nos. VWD 22-009 and VWD 22-010 - Resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Victorville Water District making its determination to Fix, Levy, and Collect Standby Charges for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

Recommendation:

Fiscal Impact:

The Victorville Water District (“District”) will incur nominal costs, estimated under $5,000, from publishing required notices, which have been budgeted for in the current fiscal year. • 4100030-52170, Water Admin Advertising and Notices
o 410 = Water Fund
o 0030 = Administration Group
o 52170 = Advertising and Notices
Proposed Resolution Number VWD 22-009 authorizes the District to have all Victorville Water District Improvement District Number One (“WID1”) Standby Charges for Fiscal 2 6
3 1
Year 2022-2023 assessed by the County Assessor; assessments to be submitted total 5,078 parcels for $88,590.

Proposed Resolution Number VWD 22-010 authorizes the District to have all Victorville Water District Improvement District Number 2 (“WID2”) Standby Charges for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 assessed by the County Assessor; assessments to be submitted total 11,893 parcels for $331,163.15.

Background:

On May 17, 2022, the Board of Directors of the District approved and adopted Resolution Nos. VWD 22-003 and VWD 22-004, Initiating Proceedings to Fix, Levy and Collect Standby Charges for WID1 and WID2 respectively, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. In compliance with those resolutions, the scheduled actions have been completed. Notices of the Public Hearing and availability of the written report were mailed to all affected parcel owners, and notice was further posted on the City’s website and published twice in the newspaper (on May 20, 2022 and May 27, 2022).

After May 27, 2022, staff noticed that Notice of Public Hearing had been published with the correct resolution titles; however, there was a typographical error in the resolution numbers. Staff took immediate corrective action and published a Notice of Correction that reflected the correct resolution numbers in the newspaper and the City’s website.

Discussion:

Proposed Resolution Nos. VWD 22-009 and VWD 22-010 finalize the proceedings by having the District Board of Directors make the determination to fix, levy and collect the Standby Charges, following the close of the public hearing.

Standby Charges must be assessed annually, on an uninterrupted basis, in order to maintain the assessment rate. The proposed attached resolutions do not change the rate or calculation by which these charges are assessed. If Standby Charges are discontinued, they may not be reinstated in a subsequent year, except as noted in California Government Code Section 53753 and in compliance with notice, protest, and hearing procedures applicable to increased assessments under Proposition 218.

Water Improvement District Number One
Since 1975, WID1 (formerly known as the Victor Valley Water District) has assessed a Water Standby Charge. This charge, authorized by California Water Code §31031, may not exceed $10.00 per acre per year for each acre of land, or ten dollars per year for each parcel of land less than an acre. For example: 0.2 acres = $10.00; 5.0 acres = $50.00; and 5.2 acres = $60.00. By means of the proposed Resolution No. VWD 21-009, the District is fixing, levying and collecting this charge (at the same rate as last year) as to all parcels within WID1 for which water service facilities have been constructed within close proximity thereto (660 feet). Any parcel of land which is connected to and obtains water from the District’s water system as well as any governmental or public agency is exempt from the assessment.
2 6
3 1
The revenues from the Water Standby Charge directly offset WID1’s actual cost to maintain facilities, including water mains, which are immediately available to provide water service to those parcels.

Water Improvement District Number Two
Since 1969, WID2 (formerly known as the Baldy Mesa Water District) has assessed a Water Standby Charge. This charge, authorized by California Water Code §31032.1, may not exceed $30.00 per acre per year for each acre of land, or $30.00 per year for each parcel of land less than an acre. The proposed charge remains unchanged at $15.00 rather than the allowable maximum of $30.00 and is prorated based on the number of acres in excess of one acre. For example: 0.2 acres = $15.00; 5.0 acres = $75.00; and

5.2 acres = $78.00. By means of the proposed Resolution No. VWD 21-010, the District is fixing, levying and collecting this charge (at the same rate as last year) as to all parcels within WID2 for which water service facilities have been financed and constructed. All governmental or public agencies are exempt from the assessment.

The revenues from these charges directly offset WID2’s actual cost of financing water infrastructure capital facilities within the Improvement District. These revenues are pledged to the debt service on the issuance of a Certificate of Participation (bond).

Provisions of the LAFCO consolidation action requires debt incurred in one improvement district to be paid by the rate payers of that same improvement district.

Staff recommends that the Board of Directors approve Resolution Nos. VWD 22-009 and VWD 22-010, making its determination to Fix, Levy, and Collect Standby Charges for WID1 and WID2 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

Staff remains available for any questions the Board of Directors might have.

Attachments: A. Resolution No. VWD 22-009
B. Resolution No. VWD 22-010
C. Water Code §31031 through 31032.9

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. VWD 22-009

VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. VWD 22-009

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT MAKING ITS

DETERMINATIONS TO FIX, LEVY AND COLLECT

STANDBY CHARGES FOR WATER IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NUMBER ONE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Victorville Water District (“District”) is authorized and empowered by Water Code Section 31031 et seq. to fix, levy and collect water standby charges within Water Improvement District Number One (the “Improvement District”); and
WHEREAS, a written report on such water standby charges has been prepared by Staff and filed with the Secretary of the District (“Secretary”); and WHEREAS, the Secretary has caused notice of the filing of a report (the “Report”) on water standby charges and the time and place of a public hearing thereon to be published and mailed, pursuant to Section 31032.2 of the Water Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the Report at the time and place specified in said notice; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, all objections or protests to said Report were heard and considered.

NOW THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DISTRICT (“BOARD OF DIRECTORS”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1 That all objections and protests to the Report on water standby charges are hereby overruled.

Section 2 That the Report and each water standby charge contained therein are hereby approved and adopted.

Section 3 That the water standby charges of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per acre per year for each parcel of land within the Improvement District for which water service facilities have been constructed within close proximity thereto (660 feet), and Ten Dollars ($10.00) per year for each parcel of land less than an acre for which water service facilities have been constructed within close proximity thereto (660 feet), are hereby fixed for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023.

Section 4 That any parcel of land which is connected to and obtains water service from the District’s water system and all parcels owned by a governmental or public agency are exempted from said water standby charges.

Section 5 That the Secretary shall file with the San Bernardino County Tax Collector (“Tax Collector”) in the time and manner required by law and specified by the Tax Collector a copy of such written Report with a statement endorsed thereon over the signature of the Secretary that such report has been adopted by this Board of Directors.

Section 6 That on or before the fifteenth (15 th) day before the first day of the month in which the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County (“Board of Supervisors”) is required by law to levy the amount of taxes required for county purposes, the Board of Directors shall furnish the Board of Supervisors and the Tax Collector with a description of each and every parcel of land within the Improvement District upon which a water standby charge is to be assessed; and the Tax Collector shall enter the amount of such assessments against the respective lots or parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll, pursuant to Section 31032.4 of the Water Code.

Section 7 That the Tax Collector shall include the amount of such assessments on bills for taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land, and thereafter, the amount of such assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general taxes pursuant to Section 31032.6 of the Water Code.

Section 8 That all resolutions or administrative actions by the Board of Directors, or parts thereof that are inconsistent with any provision of this Resolution are hereby superseded only to the extent of such inconsistency.

Section 9 That if any section, subsection, clause, or phrase in this Resolution is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected thereby.

Section 10 That the Secretary shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of the District; and shall make a minute of passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the District, in the minutes of the meeting at which this Resolution is passed and adopted.

Section 11 That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Board of Directors.

ATTACHMENT B
Resolution No. VWD 22-010

VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. VWD 22-010

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT MAKING ITS

DETERMINATIONS TO FIX, LEVY AND COLLECT

STANDBY CHARGES FOR WATER IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT NUMBER TWO FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Victorville Water District (“District”) is authorized and empowered by Water Code Section 31031 et seq. to fix, levy and collect water standby charges within Water Improvement District Number Two (the “Improvement District”); and
WHEREAS, a written report on such water standby charges has been prepared by Staff and filed with the Secretary of the District (“Secretary”); and WHEREAS, the Secretary has caused notice of the filing of a report (the “Report”) on water standby charges and the time and place of a public hearing thereon to be published and mailed, pursuant to Section 31032.2 of the Water Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the Report at the time and place specified in said notice; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, all objections or protests to said Report were heard and considered.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DISTRICT (“BOARD OF DIRECTORS”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1 That all objections and protests to the Report on water standby charges are hereby overruled.

Section 2 That the Report and each water standby charge contained therein are hereby approved and adopted.

Section 3 That the water standby charges of Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) per acre per year for each parcel of land, and Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) per acre per year prorated based on the number of acres per parcel in excess of one acre, for all properties within the Improvement District to which water service facilities have been constructed for any purpose by the Improvement District, whether the water service is actually used or not, are hereby fixed for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023.

Section 4 That all parcels owned by a governmental or public agency are exempted from said water standby charges.

Section 9 That if any section, subsection, clause, or phrase in this Resolution is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected thereby.

Section 11 That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Board of Directors.

ATTACHMENT C
Water Code §31031 through 31032.9

WATER CODE

31031.

A district may, pursuant to the notice, protest, and hearing procedures in Section 53753 of the Government Code, fix, on or before the first day of July in each calendar year, a water standby or availability charge. The water standby or availability charge shall not exceed ten dollars ($10) per acre per year for each acre of land, or ten dollars ($10) per year for each parcel of land less than an acre within the district to which water is made available for any purpose by the district, whether the water is actually used or not, unless the standby charge is imposed pursuant to the Uniform Standby Charge Procedures Act (Chapter 12.4 (commencing with Section 54984) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code). The board of directors of a district which fixes such a charge may establish schedules varying such charge according to the land uses and the degree of availability or quantity of use of such water to the affected lands, and may restrict such charge to lands lying within one or more improvement districts within such district. If the procedures set forth in this section as it read at the time a standby or immediate availability charge was established were followed, the board of directors may, by resolution, continue the charge in successive years at the same rate. If new, increased, or extended assessments are proposed, the board shall comply with the notice, protest, and hearing procedures in Section 53753 of the Government Code.

31032.

In case any water standby charge remains unpaid on the first day of the month before the month in which the board of supervisors of the county in which the district or any part thereof is located is required by law to levy the amount of taxes required for county purposes, a 6 percent penalty thereon shall accrue. The amount of the unpaid standby charge plus the said penalty shall be added to and become a part of the annual tax levied upon the land to which water for which the standby charge is unpaid was available and same shall constitute a lien on that land.

If a district collects taxes pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 31700) of Part 7 of this division, the amount of tax attributable to unpaid water standby charges, and the penalty thereon, shall be stated on the tax bill separately from all other taxes.

If a district collects taxes pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 31730) of Part 7 of this division, it shall provide each person whose property is subject to taxation for unpaid water standby charges, and the penalty thereon, with a tax bill stating the amount of such charges and penalty separately.

In such case and at least fifteen (15) days before the first day of the month in which said board of supervisors is required by law to levy the amount of taxes required for county purposes, the board of directors of the district shall furnish in writing to the board of supervisors and to the county auditor, respectively, a description of each and every parcel of land within the district upon which a standby charge remains unpaid, together with the amount of said unpaid charge plus said penalty on each said parcel of land. Whenever land in two or more counties is included in a district, the board of directors of the district shall furnish in writing to the board of supervisors and to the county auditor of each of said counties, respectively, a description of each and every parcel within said county upon which a standby charge remains unpaid, together with the amount of said unpaid standby charge plus penalty thereon.

31032.1.

A district may, pursuant to the notice, protest, and hearing procedures in Section 53753 of the Government Code, fix, as an alternative to the charge prescribed by Section 31031, in each fiscal year, water standby or availability assessments of not to exceed thirty dollars ($30) per acre per year for each acre of land, or thirty dollars ($30) per year for each parcel of land less than an acre within the district to which water is made available for any purpose by the district, whether the water is actually used or not, unless the standby charge is imposed pursuant to the Uniform Standby Charge Procedures Act (Chapter 12.4 (commencing with Section 54984) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code). The board of directors of a district that fixes the assessment may establish schedules varying the assessment according to the land uses and the degree of availability or quantity of use of water to the affected lands, and may restrict the assessment to lands lying within one or more improvement districts within the district. If the procedures set forth in this section as it read at the time a standby charge was established were followed, the board of directors may, by resolution, continue the charge pursuant to this section in successive years at the same rate. If new, increased, or extended assessments are proposed, the board shall comply with the notice, protest, and hearing procedures in Section 53753 of the Government Code.

A district may elect to have the assessments for the fiscal year collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes. In that event, it shall cause a written report to be prepared and filed with the secretary which report shall contain a description of each parcel of real property and the amount of the assessment for each parcel for the year.

31032.2.

The secretary shall cause notice of the filing of the report and of a time and place of hearing thereon to be published, pursuant to Section 6066 of the Government Code, prior to the date set for hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published within the district, if there is one and if not then in such paper printed and published in the county, and shall cause a notice in writing of the filing of the report to be mailed to each person to whom any parcel or parcels of real property described in such report is assessed in the last equalized assessment roll available on the date the report is prepared, at the address shown on the assessment roll or as known to the secretary.

31032.3.

At the time stated in the notice, the board shall hear and consider all objections or protests, if any, to the report referred to in the notice and may continue the hearing from time to time. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the board may adopt, revise, change, reduce or modify an assessment or overrule any or all objections. The board shall make its determination upon each assessment as described in the report which determination shall be final. The board may make appropriate adjustments that may be necessary as a result of the equalization of the assessment roll subsequent to the filing of the report.

31032.4.

On or before the 10th day of August of each year following such final determination, the secretary shall file with the county auditor a copy of the report with a statement endorsed thereon over his signature that it has been finally adopted by the board and the auditor shall enter the amounts of the assessment against the respective lots or parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. If a district collects taxes pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 31730), Part 7 of this division, the secretary shall file the report with the collector.

31032.5.

The amount of the assessments shall constitute a lien against the lot or parcel of land against which the assessment has been imposed as of noon on the first Monday in March immediately preceding the date of levy.

31032.6.

The county tax collector or district collector shall include the amount of the assessments on bills for taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land.

Thereafter the amount of the assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes for the district, and shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of general taxes of the district, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to such assessments.

31032.7.

In the event a district does not elect to collect such assessments with the general taxes of the district, it may issue separate bills payable in the time and manner designated by the board.

31032.8.

A district may provide for a basic penalty of not more than 6 percent for nonpayment of the assessment within the time and in the manner prescribed by it, and in addition may provide for a penalty of not exceeding one-half of 1 percent per month for nonpayment of the assessment and basic penalty. It may provide for collection of the penalties herein provided for.

31032.9.

Any district may make the election specified in Section 31032.1 with respect only to delinquent assessments and may do so by preparing and filing the written report, giving notice and holding the hearing therein required only as to such delinquencies.

Item Number: 2
City Council / Board of Directors
Public Hearing(s)
Meeting of: June 7, 2022
Submitted By:

Jenele Davidson, Deputy City Manager

Subject:

Development Impact Fee (DIF) Nexus Studies, Capital Improvement Plan and Annual Reports
Recommendation:

The Honorable City Council and Victorville Water District Board of Directors (District Board):

1. Open and conduct the Public Hearing;

2. Close the Public Hearing;

3. Adopt Resolution Nos. 22-045 and VWD 22-005, adopting the Nexus Studies and Capital Improvement Plan related to the Development Impact Fee Program; and

4. Adopt Resolution No. 22-053 approving the annual AB 1600 reports for Fiscal Years 2016-2017 through 2020-2021 and making the associated five-year findings.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact directly associated with the recommended actions. Adopting the Nexus Studies will establish the maximum fees/charges that may be imposed upon new development by development type and under each fee/charge category (Parks and Recreation; Fire Protection; Police; Public Buildings; Road Improvements; Sewer Capacity; Water System Capacity; Regional Drainage; Libraries and Administration) but will not authorize implementation of any updated or increased fees. Such action will be considered under a separate Public Hearing, and individual Capital Improvement Plan projects funded by DIF or Capacity Charges will follow the applicable procurement protocols established by the Victorville Municipal Code (“V.M.C.”) on a per project basis.

Background:

Development Impact Fees (DIF) are one-time fees assessed on new development to fund the cost of providing municipal facilities to serve the impact created by new development.

The authorization for a local jurisdiction to collect DIF and Capacity Charges exists 2 6
3 7
through the enactment of California Government Code sections 66001 through 66025 (also known as the “Mitigation Fee Act” and sometimes referred to as “AB 1600” or “AB 602”). Additionally, under V.M.C. Section 16-5.01.080, development impact fees are applicable to all development in the City of Victorville.

The Mitigation Fee Act is premised on the concept that new development pays its own way or, put another way, new development must mitigate its own impacts on the City’s infrastructure. For the City to levy DIF, a comprehensive study must be completed to verify there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose of the fee, the fee’s use, and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. Capacity Charges must also be studied to ensure that the charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of the services and public improvements/facilities for which the charges are imposed and are of proportional benefit to the person/property being charged.

The California State Legislature passed AB 602 in 2021, which modified the Mitigation Fee Act and created new requirements relative to impact fees. Changes went into effect on January 1, 2022 and included additional stipulations that will apply to studies adopted after July 1, 2022. For studies adopted before July 1, 2022, changes include a requirement to adopt a nexus study at a public hearing with a thirty (30) day public notice and large jurisdictions, defined as counties of 250,000 or more and cities within those counties, must also adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study. AB 602 further established that the nexus study be updated at least every eight (8) years.

On August 20, 2019, the City Council approved a professional service agreement with N.B.S. Government Finance Group (N.B.S.) for multiple financial studies, one of which was an updated DIF study. A separate study with N.B.S. had been previously approved for a Sewer and Recycled Water Rate and Capacity Study update to ensure the capacity charges comply with the legal requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 66013 and industry standards to serve new connections or future customers. Then, on February 18, 2020, City Council approved a professional service agreement with David Taussig and Associates (D.T.A.) to provide an updated analysis of the Regional Drainage Development Impact Fee Study. Collectively, these three studies are known as the “Nexus Studies” and are included as Attachments C and D.

On March 17, 2020, shortly after the Nexus Studies were initiated, the City declared a local state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. As a result, the projects were significantly delayed as staff resources shifted to address the COVID-19 pandemic at the local level. As the needs of the pandemic lessened, staff worked with the 2 6
3 7
consultants to resume the projects. On June 1, 2021, the City Council approved an amendment to the contract with D.T.A. to finalize the Regional Drainage Development Impact Fee Study as updates were needed based upon the adoption of the SCLA Specific Plan. On March 15, 2022, City Council approved Amendment No. 3 with N.B.S. to finalize the DIF study.

On March 10, 2022, City staff hosted a stakeholder meeting inviting development partners to review the Draft Nexus Studies. During this meeting staff provided a presentation and example projects to help illustrate the difference between current DIF and Capacity Charges and the maximum DIF and Capacity Charges established in the Draft Nexus Studies. During this meeting one stakeholder questioned the availability of the annual AB 1600 reports as required under the Mitigation Fee Act and now required to be posted on the City’s website under AB 602. Upon further research, staff determined that these annual reports had not been prepared and brought forward to the Council in a timely manner, prompting staff to prepare reports for the past five fiscal years, which have been included as Attachment F.

At the March 29, 2022, special meeting of the City Council/District Board a workshop was held to review the Draft Nexus Studies and sample projects with the City Council/District Board and stakeholders to solicit additional feedback.

Discussion:

Nexus Studies & Capital Improvement Plan
Following the workshop held with the City Council/District Board on March 29, 2022, staff continued conversations with various stakeholders regarding the Nexus Studies for DIF and Capacity Charges. Staff and the consultants have responded to numerous questions and comments, but ultimately no significant changes were needed to finalize the Nexus Studies. The final documents are presented in Attachments C and D. These documents have been available for public review and posted on the City’s website since May 23, 2022.

Staff has also compiled a Capital Improvement Plan to be adopted in conjunction with the Nexus Studies, included as Attachment E. The Capital Improvement Plan pulls from various City/District master plans to establish a comprehensive list of projects to be funded, or partially funded, from the DIF and Capacity Charges imposed. As required by the Mitigation Fee Act and AB 602, the Capital Improvement Plan includes the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with DIF or Capacity Charges, as well as the portion attributed to new development and any anticipated alternative funding sources. The Capital Improvement Plan must be reviewed and updated, if necessary, on an annual basis. The Capital Improvement Plan has been available for public review and posted on the City’s website since May 23, 2022.
2 6
3 7
AB 602 requires that the Nexus Studies and associated Capital Improvement Plan be adopted before the adoption of the associated fees/charges to be imposed. Resolution No. 22-045 (Attachment A) and Resolution No. VWD 22-005 (Attachment B) propose to adopt the Nexus Studies and Capital Improvement Plan. These Resolutions do not set the DIF and Capacity Charges, but instead adopt the justification for imposing DIF and Capacity Charges as a condition of land development. The Nexus Studies, included as Exhibits A and B to the Resolutions, only establish the maximum allowable fees/charges to be assessed by development type for the development impact fee program based on this justification. The Capital Improvement Plan, included as Exhibit C to the Resolutions, outlines the various public facilities/improvements to be funded, in whole or in part, by DIF and Capacity Charges collected.

Annual AB 1600 Reports
In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, the City imposes DIF and Capacity Charges on new development to finance various public improvements to mitigate the impact of new development on the community. The City deposits DIF and Capacity Charges into special revenue accounts for each improvement category. Government Code Sections 66006(b)(1) and 66013(d) require all local agencies that collect DIF and Capacity Charges to make available for public review a report specifying information about the DIF and Capacity Charge accounts within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year. The annual reports are to include:
A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund; the amount of the fee; The beginning and ending fund balance of the account or fund; the amount of the fees collected, and interest earned;
An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees; An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement; A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan; and The amount of refunds made due to sufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements and volume of reallocation of funds made due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded.

Government Code Section 6606(b)(2) requires that the report be placed on an agenda for review at a public meeting not less than 15 days after the report is made available to the public.
2 6
3 7
Furthermore, Government Code Section 66001(d)(1) requires that, if DIF remains unexpended or uncommitted five years after being collected, the local agency must make the following findings:
The purpose to which the fees are to be put;
A demonstration of a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
All sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements; and
Approximate dates on which the funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Staff has compiled the required information to constitute the annual AB 1600 reports for Fiscal Years 2016-2017 through 2020-2021, included as Exhibit A to Resolution No. 22- 053 (Attachment F). Although not completed within 180 days following the last day of the each fiscal year, the report includes sufficient information for the City Council to make the required five-year findings for the fee/charge categories that have an unexpended or uncommitted fund balance for the past five years (Public Buildings; Fire; Roads; Public Safety; Recreation and Storm Drain). For each of these fee/charge categories with an existing balance, the City has ongoing or future projects that require funding for fees/charges. Reports will be completed in a timely manner on an annual basis going forward, in conjunction with the annual review/update of the Capital Improvement Plan.

Resolution No. 22-053 and the AB 1600 Reports (Exhibit A thereto) have been available for public review and posted on the City’s website since May 23, 2022.

Staff recommends that the City Council/District Board adopt Resolution Nos. 22-045 and VWD 22-005 adopting the Nexus Studies commissioned by the City/District and the associated Capital Improvement Plan; and adopt Resolution No. 22-053 approving the annual AB 1600 reports for Fiscal Years 2016-2017 through 2020-2021 and making the associated five-year findings.

Staff remains available for any questions the City Council/District Board may have.

Attachments: A. Resolution No. 22-045
B. Resolution No. VWD 22-005
C. NBS City of Victorville DIF Study
D. DTA DIF Justification Study - Regional Drainage Facilities E. Capital Improvement Plan
F. Resolution No. 22-053 – Annual AB 1600 Reports
1 1
4 7
1 ATTACHMENT A
1 1
4 7
1 RESOLUTION NO. 22-045

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING NEXUS STUDIES AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PLAN RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Victorville Municipal Code (“VMC”) Section 16-5.01.080 outlines the imposition of development impact fees applicable to all development in the City of Victorville (“City”) in accordance with applicable laws including, but not limited to, Government Code section 66000, et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”), and allows for development impact fee amounts to be set by City Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, development impact fee amounts were most recently established or updated by Resolution Nos. 90-158 (Drainage), 91-219 (Sewer), 06-151 (Public Buildings, Public Safety, Parks) and 08-064 (Roads); and WHEREAS, the City must periodically review development impact fees to ensure they are sufficient to mitigate the impacts of new development on the associated capital facilities and other improvements needed to maintain the existing level of public service; and WHEREAS, the City has commissioned two reports from N.B.S. Government Finance Group entitled “City of Victorville Development Impact Fee Study” and “Sewer Capacity Fee Study” (attached hereto as Exhibit A), and a report from DTA entitled “Development Impact Fee Justification Study Regional Drainage Facilities” (attached hereto as Exhibit B) (collectively, the “Nexus Studies”) to analyze and establish the relationship, or nexus, between the imposition of an updated development impact fee program (“Development Impact Fees” or “Fees”) and the estimated, reasonable costs of constructing the City capital facilities for which the Fees are charged; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66013 (a part of the Mitigation Fee Act) the City is authorized to establish and impose facility capacity charges for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged, including supply or facility capacity contracts for rights or entitlements, real property interests, and entitlements and other rights of the local agency involving capital expense relating to its use of existing or new public facilities (“Sewer Capacity Charges”); and WHEREAS, the Nexus Studies establish updated maximum fees/charges by development type for Parks and Recreation, Fire Protection, Police, Public Buildings, Road Improvements, Sewer Capacity, and Regional Drainage, and establish new fees for Libraries and Administration of the development impact fees program; and WHEREAS, City staff prepared a Capital Improvement Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit C) that establishes public facilities pursuant to Government Code section 66000(d) which the Development Impact Fees and Sewer Capacity Charges will fund; and 1 1
4 7
1 WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, Assembly Bill 602 (“AB 602”) was signed into law, amending the Mitigation Fee Act to create new requirements related to nexus studies, capital improvement plans, related reporting, and public noticing that went into effect on January 1, 2022, as well as a new residential fee calculation methodology that will go into effect on July 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Studies and the Capital Improvement Plan collectively provide the information needed to make the required findings under the Mitigation Fee Act, including those recently added under AB 602, by identifying the purpose of the fees, the use of the fees and establishing a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee, the need for the public facility, the maximum amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development type upon which the fee is imposed; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66013 further provides that when a local agency imposes Sewer Capacity Charges, those charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the charge is imposed and that the facilities being funded thereby are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged; and
WHEREAS, with respect to the Sewer Capacity Chagres, Appendix D of the Nexus Study found in Exhibit A, and the corresponding section of the Capital Improvement Plan collectively provide the information needed to make the required findings under the Mitigation Fee Act, as well as the requirements of Government Code Sections 66013 with respect to reasonable costs and proportional benefits; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Studies and Capital Improvement Plan have been made available for public review with copies on file in the City Clerk’s office and posted on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, to comply with the new public noticing requirements enacted under AB 602, a 30-day advance notice of a public hearing to be held on June 7, 2022, was published in the Valley Wide Newspaper on May 6, 2022, with a second notice thereof published on May 13, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held and conducted a public hearing on June 7, 2022 in accordance with the duly published public hearing notice, to review and consider the adoption of the Nexus Studies and the Capital Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Nexus Studies will establish the maximum Development Impact Fees, including the Sewer Capacity Charges, that may be imposed by development type under the various Fee categories, but does not authorize implementation of any updated or increased Fees, which will be separately considered following a subsequent, duly noticed public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1 1
4 7
1 SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference together with any definitions set forth therein.

SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and hereby approves and adopts the Nexus Studies attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, as well as the City of Victorville Capital Improvement Plan attached hereto as Exhibit C. Adoption of the Nexus Studies will establish the maximum Development Impact Fees and Sewer Capacity Charges that may be imposed by development type under the various Fee categories. Implementation of updated or increased Fees and Charges will be considered and adopted separately by the City Council following a duly noticed public hearing.

SECTION 3. As required by Government Code Section 66001(a), the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the Parks and Recreation, Fire Protection, Police, Public Buildings, Road Improvements, Regional Drainage, Libraries and Administration Development Impact Fees:

A. The purpose of the Development Impact Fees is to prevent new development from reducing the quality and availability of public services provided to residents of the City by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of additional public facilities needed to meet the additional demands placed on public services by new development.

B. The Development Impact Fees collected will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the public facilities identified in the attached Nexus Studies and Capital Improvement Plan.

C. A reasonable relationship exists between the use of Development Impact Fees and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed as described in detail in the Nexus Studies and Capital Improvement Plan.

D. A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the Development Impact Fees and the cost of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the Fees are imposed as indicated by the Nexus Studies. The method of allocation of the respective Fees to a particular development project bears a fair relationship, and is roughly proportional to, the development project’s burden on, and benefits from, public facilities to be funded by the Development Impact Fees.

SECTION 4. With respect to the Sewer Capacity Charges, the City Council has reviewed the data and recommendations in Appendix D of the Nexus Study found in Exhibit A, and the corresponding section of the Capital Improvement Plan, and further finds that: (1) the rates for the Sewer Capacity Charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of the services and public improvements/facilities for which such charges may be imposed; and (2) the public improvements/facilities are of proportional benefit to person or property being charged.
1 1
4 7
1 SECTION 5. The adoption of this Resolution is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(4), which provides that the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment are not projects subject to CEQA review.

SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of original Resolutions; and shall make a minute of passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings, in the minutes of the meeting at which this Resolution is passed and adopted.
1 1
4 7
1 ATTACHMENT B
1 1
4 7
1 RESOLUTION NO. VWD 22-005

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING CHAPTER 8 “WATER
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS” OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE NEXUS

STUDY RELATING TO WATER SYSTEM CAPACITY CHARGES AND

PORTIONS OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN RELATED TO

WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Victorville Water District (the “District”), is a county water district and subsidiary district of the City of Victorville (the “City” or “Victorville”); and WHEREAS, the District constructs, owns, operates, improves, and maintains the water system and related facilities and infrastructure that serves the District's existing customers and provides water service availability to new customers and new developments within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66013 (a part of the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code § 66000 et seq.) the District is authorized to establish and impose facility capacity charges for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged, including supply or facility capacity contracts for rights or entitlements, real property interests, and entitlements and other rights of the local agency involving capital expense relating to its use of existing or new public facilities (“Water System Capacity Charges”); and WHEREAS, the District’s Water System Capacity Charges (formerly referred to as Water Connection Fees) were last updated by Resolution No. VWD 13-003 in 2013; and WHEREAS, the governing bodies of local agencies, including the District Board of Directors (“District Board”), may approve and adopt fee studies, including those associated with Water System Capacity Charges, by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the District Board must periodically review Water System Capacity Charges to ensure they are sufficient to mitigate the impacts of new development on the associated capital facilities and other improvements needed to maintain the existing level of public service and to ensure they reflect the estimated reasonable costs of providing the improvements and facilities for which they are being charged; and WHEREAS, the City and the District commissioned a report from N.B.S.

Government Finance Group entitled “City of Victorville Development Impact Fee Study”, (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (the “Nexus Study”), Chapter 8 of which provides the calculation basis and methodology for the proposed Water System Capacity Charges and reflects the estimated, reasonable costs of constructing the water improvements and facilities for which said fees are being charged; and
1 1
4 7
1 WHEREAS, Chapter 8 of the Nexus Study further establishes the updated maximum Water System Capacity Charges for the District’s water system improvements associated with new development, which said maximum includes a new percentage component for administration of the City’s development impact fees program of which it is a part; and WHEREAS, City staff prepared a Capital Improvement Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit C) to establish the public facilities pursuant to Government Code section 66000(d), which include the water improvement facilities the Water System Capacity Charges will fund; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, Assembly Bill 602 (“AB 602”) was signed into law, amending the Mitigation Fee Act to create new requirements related to nexus studies, capital improvement plans, related reporting, and public noticing that went into effect on January 1, 2022, as well as a new residential fee calculation methodology that will go into effect on July 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, although Government Code Section 66013 exempts water capacity charges from the requirements of Mitigation Fee Act Sections 66000 through 66008, including the requirement that the local agency make findings regarding the purpose and use of the charges and to establish that there is a reasonable relationship between those charges and the impacts of development subject to the charges, Chapter 8 of the Nexus Study establishes that the Water System Capacity Charges have been calculated in such a way as to provide a defensible nexus in terms of the relationship between the capacity charges and the burden imposed by development on the water system; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66013 provides that when a local agency imposes Water System Capacity Charges, those charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the charge is imposed and that the facilities being funded thereby are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 8 of the Nexus Study and the Capital Improvement Plan collectively provide the information needed to make the required findings under the Mitigation Fee Act, including the requirements of Government Code Sections 66013 and 66016 with respect to reasonable costs and proportional benefits; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Study and Capital Improvement Plan have been made available for public review with copies on file in the City Clerk’s office and posted on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, although Water System Capacity Charges are not subject to the new public noticing requirements enacted under AB 602, given that these charges were consolidated with other impact fees in the City’s Nexus Fee Study, a 30-day advance notice of the public hearing to be held on June 7, 2022, was published in the Valley Wide Newspaper on May 6, 2022, with a second notice thereof published on May 13, 2022; and 1 1
4 7
1 WHEREAS, together with the City Council, the District Board of Directors held and conducted a public hearing on June 7, 2022, in accordance with the duly published public hearing notice, to review and consider the adoption of Chapter 8 of the Nexus Study and the Capital Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS, approval and adoption of Chapter 8 of the Nexus Study will establish the maximum Water System Capacity Charges that may be imposed by the District Board for water system improvements, but does not authorize implementation of any updated or increased charges, which will be considered separately at a subsequent, duly noticed public hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference, together with any definitions set forth therein.

SECTION 2. The District Board has reviewed and hereby approves and adopts Chapter 8 of the Nexus Study, attached hereto as Exhibit A, as well as those portions of the City of Victorville Capital Improvement Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit C, relating to water system improvements. Adoption of the Nexus Study will establish the maximum Water System Capacity Charges that may be imposed by the District Board for water system improvements necessitated by new development. Actual adoption and implementation of updated or increased charges will be considered and adopted separately by the District Board following a duly noticed public hearing.

SECTION 3. The District Board has reviewed the data and recommendations in Chapter 8 of the Nexus Study and finds that: (1) the rates for the Water System Capacity Charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of the services and public improvements/facilities for which such Water System Capacity Charges may be imposed; (2) the allocation of those costs are fair or reasonable in relationship to the burdens on, or benefits that those who pay a Water System Capacity Charge will receive from such services and facilities; and (3) the public improvements/facilities are of proportional benefit to person or property being charged.

SECTION 4. All resolutions or administrative actions by the District Board, or parts thereof that are inconsistent with any provision of this Resolution are hereby superseded, but only to the extent of such inconsistency.

SECTION 5. The adoption of this Resolution is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(4), which provides that the creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment are not projects subject to CEQA review.
1 1
4 7
1 SECTION 6. The District Secretary shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of the District; and shall make a minute of passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the District, in the minutes of the meeting at which this Resolution is passed and adopted.

SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

ATTACHMENT C
NBS City of Victorville DIF Study
(Exhibit A to Resolution Nos. 22-045 and VWD 22-005)
Final Report
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ S-1 Organization of the Report ...................................................................................................... S-1 Development Projections......................................................................................................... S-2 Impact Fee Analysis.................................................................................................................. S-2 Impact Fee Summary................................................................................................................ S-5 Chapter 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Legal Framework for Developer Fees ......................................................................................1-1 Recent Legislation ....................................................................................................................1-5 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology ......................................................................................1-7 Facilities Addressed in this Study .............................................................................................1-9 Chapter 2. Development Data............................................................................................. 2-1 Study Area and Time Frame..................................................................................................... 2-1 Population Growth...................................................................................................................2-1 Development Types..................................................................................................................2-2 Demand Variables ....................................................................................................................2-4 Demand Factors .......................................................................................................................2-7 Existing and Future Development............................................................................................2-7 Chapter 3. Parks and Recreation Facilities........................................................................... 3-1 Methodology............................................................................................................................3-1 Service Area..............................................................................................................................3-1 Demand Variable......................................................................................................................3-1 Existing Level of Service – Parks...............................................................................................3-2 Cost Per Capita - Parks ............................................................................................................. 3-3 Impact Fees per Unit - Parks .................................................................................................... 3-4 Existing Level of Service – Recreation Facilities ....................................................................... 3-5 Impact Fees per Unit – Recreation Facilities............................................................................ 3-7 Combined Impact Fees per Unit – Parks and Recreation Facilities ......................................... 3-7 Projected Revenue ...................................................................................................................3-8 Updating the Fees ....................................................................................................................3-8 Nexus Summary........................................................................................................................3-8 Chapter 4. Fire Protection Facilities..................................................................................... 4-1 Service Area..............................................................................................................................4-1 Demand Variable......................................................................................................................4-1 Methodology............................................................................................................................4-1 Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment .......................................................................................4-2 Cost per Call for Service ........................................................................................................... 4-4 Impact Fees per Unit ................................................................................................................4-5 Projected Revenue ...................................................................................................................4-6 Updating the Fees ....................................................................................................................4-6 Nexus Summary........................................................................................................................4-7 Chapter 5. Police Facilities .................................................................................................. 5-1 Service Area..............................................................................................................................5-1 Demand Variable......................................................................................................................5-1 Methodology............................................................................................................................5-1 Level of Service.........................................................................................................................5-1 Cost per Capita .........................................................................................................................5-4 Impact Fees per Unit ................................................................................................................5-4 Projected Revenue ...................................................................................................................5-5 Updating the Fees ....................................................................................................................5-5 Nexus Summary........................................................................................................................5-5 Chapter 6. Public Buildings ................................................................................................. 6-1 Service Area..............................................................................................................................6-1 Demand Variable......................................................................................................................6-1 Methodology............................................................................................................................6-1 Level of Service.........................................................................................................................6-1 Cost per Capita .........................................................................................................................6-3 Impact Fees per Unit ................................................................................................................6-3 Projected Revenue ...................................................................................................................6-4 Updating the Fees ....................................................................................................................6-5 Nexus Summary........................................................................................................................6-5 Chapter 7. Libraries ............................................................................................................ 7-1 Service Area..............................................................................................................................7-1 Demand Variable......................................................................................................................7-1 Methodology............................................................................................................................7-1 Level of Service – Library Buildings ..........................................................................................7-1 Level of Service – Library Materials .........................................................................................7-2 Total Cost per Capita for Library Building and Library Materials............................................. 7-3 Impact Fees per Unit ................................................................................................................7-3 Projected Revenue ...................................................................................................................7-3 Updating the Fees ....................................................................................................................7-4 Nexus Summary........................................................................................................................7-4 Chapter 8. Water System Improvements ............................................................................ 8-1 Service Area..............................................................................................................................8-1 Demand Variable......................................................................................................................8-1 Methodology............................................................................................................................8-1 Level of Service.........................................................................................................................8-2 System Improvement Needs.................................................................................................... 8-2 Cost per Gallon per Day - Pipelines..........................................................................................8-3 Cost per Single-Family Dwelling Unit (SFDU) - Pipelines..........................................................8-3 Cost per Single-Family Dwelling Unit (SFDU) – New Wells and Storage.................................. 8-3 Cost per Single-Family Dwelling Unit (SFDU) – Water Rights ..................................................8-4 Water System Capacity Charges by Meter Size ....................................................................... 8-5 Projected Revenue ...................................................................................................................8-6 Updating the Capacity Charges ................................................................................................8-6 Nexus Summary........................................................................................................................8-6 Chapter 9. Road Improvements .......................................................................................... 9-1 Service Area..............................................................................................................................9-1 Demand Variable......................................................................................................................9-1 Methodology............................................................................................................................9-1 Level of Service.........................................................................................................................9-1 Improvement Needs ................................................................................................................9-2 Cost per Peak Hour Trip ........................................................................................................... 9-2 Impact Fees per Unit ................................................................................................................9-3 Project-Specific Fees ................................................................................................................9-3 Projected Revenue ...................................................................................................................9-4 Updating the Fees ....................................................................................................................9-4 Nexus Summary........................................................................................................................9-5 Chapter 10. Administrative Fee......................................................................................... 10-1 Chapter 11. Implementation............................................................................................. 11-1 Adoption................................................................................................................................. 11-1 Administration........................................................................................................................11-2 Requirements Imposed by AB 602.........................................................................................11-7 Training and Public Information.............................................................................................11-8 Recovery of Administrative Costs ..........................................................................................11-8 Appendices
Parks – Vehicles & Equipment Appendix A
Public Buildings – Vehicles & Equipment Appendix B
Comparison Survey Appendix C
Sewer Capacity Charge Study – Final Appendix D
City of Victorville Page S-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Executive Summary
The City of Victorville has retained NBS Government Finance Group to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of new development on many types of City capital facilities and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

Organization of the Report
Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees, and methods that can be used to calculate impact fees.

Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in this report.

Chapters 3 through 9 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities and calculate impact fees for those facilities. The facilities addressed in this report are listed by chapter below:

Chapter 3. Parks and Recreation Facilities
Chapter 4. Fire Protection Facilities
Chapter 5. Police Facilities
Chapter 6. Public Buildings
Chapter 7. Libraries
Chapter 8. Water System Improvements
Chapter 9. Roads, Bridges and Traffic Control
Chapter 10 calculates an administrative fee. The City incurs costs to comply with the accounting and reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, including capital budgeting, fee adjustments, mandated annual reports and periodic impact fee study updates. This study proposes that the City add an administr ative charge to the impact fees calculated in this report.

The percentage increase in the impact fees (0.2%) needed to recover the City’s administrative costs is calculated in Chapter 10 of this report. Table S.2, below, shows the amount of the impact fees after the administrative charge is added.

Chapter 11 contains recommendations for adopting and implementing impact fees, including suggested findings to satisfy the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Attachment D to this report provides an analysis of Sewer Capacity Charges. The timing of this effort was separate from the list of fees reviewed in Chapters 3 through 11, and therefore a separate report was issued. However, all fees are being brought forward for the City Council’s review, adoption, and implementation together.

City of Victorville Page S-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Development Projections
Chapter 2 of this report presents estimates of existing development in Victorville and a forecast of future development out to 2040 based on SCAG projections. Future development shown in Chapter 2 indicates that the City’s population could increase by about 43% to almost 177,000 by 2040. Other measures of development such as employment and peak hour traffic are also projected to increase by 43% to 45%. Although the planning horizon for this study is 2040, it is the quantity of development that is significant in this study. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this report do not require assumptions about the rate or timing of future development. So, the future development shown in Chapter 2 may occur so oner or later than 2040 without affecting the impact fee calculations.

Chapter 2 also establishes values for factors such as population per unit, service population per unit, and peak hour trips per unit that are used in the impact fee calculations.

Impact Fee Analysis
The impact fee analysis for each type of facility addressed in this report is presented in a separate chapter. In each case, the relationship, or nexus, between development and the need for a particular type of facility is defined in a way that allows the impact of additional development on facility needs to be quantified.

The impact fees are based on capital costs for facilities and other capital assets needed to mitigate the impacts of additional development. Impact fees may not be used for maintenance or operating costs. The impact fees calculated in this report are compared with the City’s existing impact fees later in this chapter.

The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methods used to calculate impact fees for the facilities addressed in this study.

Parks and Recreation Facilities. Chapter 3 of this report calculates impact fees for park land acquisition, park improvements, and community and recreation center facilities.

The City currently does not have an ordinance requiring residential subdivisions to dedicate land for parks or pay fees in lieu of dedication as authorized by the Quimby Act. Therefore, the park land impact fees calculated in Chapter 3 apply to all types of development, regardless of whether they involve a subdivision or not. The park land impact fees are based on the City’s existing ratio of improved park acres to population, which is approximately 2.5 acres per 1,000.

Fees for park improvements are also based on Victorville’s existing ratio of improved park acreage to population and would apply to all residential development in the City, whether or not a subdivision is involved.

Impact fees for Victorville’s community centers and recreation facilities and related vehicles and equipment based on the existing level of service, defined as asset replacement cost per capita of population. That per -capita cost represents the amount needed from each resident associated City of Victorville Page S-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
with new development to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows. The cost per capita is converted into fees per unit of development based on the estimated average population per unit for each type of residential development defined in this report.

All of the impact fees in Chapter 3 are calculated as a cost per capita an d then converted into fees per unit of residential development based on the estimated average population per unit for one of the three types of residential development defined in this report. Because parks and recreation facilities are intended to serve residents of the City, these fees apply only to residential development.

Fire Protection Facilities. Chapter 4 calculates impact fees for fire protection facilities, apparatus and vehicles by allocating costs for both existing and future Fire Department fac ilities to both existing and future development, so that the impact fees reflect new development’s proportionate share of the total capital costs. In this case, “facilities” also includes apparatus and vehicles.

Costs are allocated based on fire department calls for service per year, based on an analysis of the distribution of calls by development type. The impact fees are calculated as a cost per call for service and then converted into fees per unit of development based on the average number of calls for service-per-unit-per-year for each type of development defined in this report. Fire protection impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new development in the City.

Police Facilities . Chapter 5 calculates impact fees for police facilities, vehicle s and equipment based on the existing level of service defined as asset replacement cost per capita of service population.

Costs for police facilities, vehicles and equipment are allocated in Chapter 5 using service population because data on calls for service were not available from the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department. Service population is a weighted composite of residents and employees (see Chapter 2 for a discussion of Service Population). The impact fees are calculated as a cost per capita of service population which represents the amount needed from each added unit of service population to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows. The cost per capita is converted into fees per unit of development based on the estimated avera ge service population per unit for each type of development defined in this report. Police impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new development in the City.

Public Buildings. Chapter 6 calculates impact fees for Victorville’s public buildings including City Hall, the Public Works yard and several other City facilities, as well as related vehicles and equipment. The impact fees are based on the existing level of service, defined as asset replacement cost per capita of service population. That pe r-capita cost represents the amount needed from each added unit of service population to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows. The cost per capita is converted into fees per unit of development based on the estimated average service pop ulation per unit for each type of development defined in this report. Impact fees for public buildings are intended to apply all types of new development in the City.

City of Victorville Page S-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Libraries. Chapter 7 calculates impact fees for library buildings and library materials based on the existing level of service for libraries in the City. The existing level of service for library facilities is defined in terms of square feet of building area per capita of resident population. That square footage standard is converted into a co st per capita using the estimated cost of new library facilities from the Library Master Plan. The level of service for library materials (books and other items) is defined as replacement cost per capita.

The combined per-capita costs for library facilities and materials represents the amount needed from each resident associated with new development to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows. The cost per capita is converted into fees per unit of development based on the estimated average population per unit for each type of residential development defined in this report. Library impact fees are intended to apply only to new residential development in the City.

Water System Capacity Charges. Chapter 8 calculates capacity charges for water s ystem improvements needed to serve new development in Victorville. The capacity charge calculations are based on the cost of three types of water system improvements: new distribution pipelines, new wells, and new reservoir storage as well as the cost of acquiring additional water rights. The basic measure of demand used to allocate those improvement costs to new development is average day demand (ADD) in gallons per day (GPD). However, the demand for water supply and storage capacity is defined in terms of maximum day demand (MDD), which is 1.5 times ADD.

The cost per GPD used in the capacity charge calculations is based on unit costs for each type of improvement in terms of either ADD or MDD depending on the type of improvement.

Water capacity charges are calculated in terms of water meter size. This study equates a single - family dwelling unit connection to a ¾” meter, so the costs associated with a ¾” meter connection are based on the ADD and MDD for a single-family dwelling unit connection. The cost per gallon per day for each type of water system improvement is multiplied by the estimated ADD or MDD for a single -family dwelling unit to get the cost per unit for a single -family dwelling unit connection to the system. Since the standard water meter size for a single-family dwelling unit (SFDU) is a ¾” meter, the capacity charge for a ¾” meter is equated to the cost per SFDU. Capacity charges for larger meter sizes are scaled up relative to the ¾” meter using flow factors based on meter capacity for the larger meters.

Water capacity charges are intended to apply to all new development in the area served by the Victorville Water District.

Roads. Chapter 9 calculates road impact fees using new development’s share of the estimated costs for a set of needed road, bridge and traffic control improvements identified by the City Engineer based on the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. New d evelopment’s share of the cost of those improvements is divided by the projected increase in peak hour trips generated by new development to get a cost per peak hour trip.

The cost per peak hour trip is converted into fees per unit of development using th e number of peak hour trips per unit generated by each type of development defined in this report. Peak hour trips per unit are based on rates for the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent street from 10 th edition City of Victorville Page S-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE ) manual, Trip Generation. Road impact fees are intended to apply to all types of new development in the City.

Sewer Capacity Charges. Attachment D to this report calculates capacity charges for sewer improvements needed to serve future development in Vict orville. Demand for sewer capacity is represented by average daily wastewater flows generated by development. Those flows are stated in equivalent dwelling units (EDU). The capacity charges calculated in Attachment D are based on the cost of sewer system i mprovements needed to serve future development and the projected wastewater flows associated with future development.

Impact Fee Summary
Table S.1 shows the impact fees calculated in this report, except for water capacitycharges which are shown in Table S.5. The blank area in the table indicates that some impact fees are not calculated for non-residential development.

Table S.2 on the next page shows the proposed impact fees from Table S.1 with the administrative charge added, as discussed in Chapter 10.

Table S.1: Summary of Proposed Citywide Impact Fees

Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Parks &
Recreation Library Fire Police
Public
Buildings Roads Total
Residential - Detached DU 6,942$ 253$ 284$ 292$ 1,198$ 9,625$ 18,594$ Residential - Attached DU 4,900$ 178$ 374$ 206$ 847$ 5,445$ 11,950$ Residential - Mobile Home Park DU 4,288$ 156$ 239$ 180$ 742$ 4,472$ 10,078$ Retail/Service Commercial KSF 486$ 104$ 429$ 37,042$ 38,062$ Professional Office KSF 666$ 84$ 344$ 11,181$ 12,274$
Lodging Room 247$ 47$ 191$ 3,695$ 4,179$
Industrial/Business Park KSF 52$ 28$ 113$ 5,153$ 5,346$ High-Cube Warehouse KSF 7$ 19$ 78$ 972$ 1,077$
Self-Service Storage KSF 22$ 1$ 4$ 1,653$ 1,680$
Gasoline/Service Station Pump 628$ 12$ 51$ 47,640$ 48,331$ Institutional KSF 67$ 23$ 94$ 6,320$ 6,503$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Pump = vehicle fueling position
City of Victorville Page S-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Table S.3 shows the City’s existing impact fees. The impact fees calculated in this report include fees for a more detailed breakdown of commercial and industrial development types. The blank rows in Table S.3 indicate development types not i ncluded in the City’s existing impact fee schedule.

Table S.4 shows the difference between the existing fees in Table S.3 and the proposed fees with the administrative charge in Table S.2. Numbers in parentheses indicate that the proposed fees are lower than the existing fees.

Table S.2: Summary of Proposed Citywide Impact Fees Including Administration Charge

Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Parks &
Recreation Library Fire Police
Public
Buildings Roads Total
Residential - Detached DU $6,956 $253 $285 $292 $1,201 $9,644 $18,631 Residential - Attached DU $4,910 $179 $375 $207 $849 $5,455 $11,974 Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $4,296 $156 $240 $181 $743 $4,481 $10,098 Retail/Service Commercial KSF $487 $105 $430 $37,116 $38,138 Professional Office KSF $667 $84 $344 $11,203 $12,298
Lodging Room $247 $47 $192 $3,702 $4,188
Industrial/Business Park KSF $52 $28 $113 $5,163 $5,357 High-Cube Warehouse KSF $7 $19 $78 $974 $1,079
Self-Service Storage KSF $22 $1 $4 $1,656 $1,683
Gasoline/Service Station Pump $629 $12 $51 $47,735 $48,428 Institutional KSF $67 $23 $94 $6,332 $6,516
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Pump = vehicle fueling position
Table S.3: Summary of Existing Citywide Impact Fees

Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Parks &
Recreation Library Fire Police
Public
Buildings Roads Total
Residential - Detached DU $5,046 $329 $139 $1,334 $4,470 $11,318 Residential - Attached DU $3,847 $232 $98 $717 $2,745 $7,639 Residential - Mobile Home Park DU
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $170 $170 $1,340 $7,600 $9,280 Professional Office KSF
Lodging Room
Industrial/Business Park KSF $10 $10 $440 $2,980 $3,440 High-Cube Warehouse KSF $20 $20 $250 $1,580 $1,870
Self-Service Storage KSF
Gasoline/Service Station Pump
Institutional KSF
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Pump = vehicle fueling position
City of Victorville Page S-7
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Table S.5 shows existing and proposed water capacity charges, which are based on water meter size. Note that the City currently uses the term “water connection fee” instead of “water capacity charge.” Those terms are commonly used interchangeably, but we recommend that the City use the term water capacity charge as defined in Government Code Section 66013.

Table S.4: Difference Between Existing and Proposed Citywide Impact Fees

Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Parks &
Recreation Library Fire Police
Public
Buildings Roads Total
Residential - Detached DU $1,910 $253 ($44) $153 ($133) $5,174 $7,313 Residential - Attached DU $1,063 $179 $143 $109 $132 $2,710 $4,335 Residential - Mobile Home Park DU
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $317 ($65) ($910) $29,516 $28,858 Professional Office KSF
Lodging Room
Industrial/Business Park KSF $42 $18 ($327) $2,183 $1,917 High-Cube Warehouse KSF ($13) ($1) ($172) ($606) ($791) Self-Service Storage KSF
Gasoline/Service Station Pump
Institutional KSF
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Pump = vehicle fueling position
Note: The difference shown in this table = the proposed fees including the administrative charge shown in Table S.2 less the existing fees shown in Table S.3
Table S.5: Proposed and Existing Water Capacity Charges Meter Proposed Cap Charge + Existing
Size Cap Charges 1 Admin Charge 2 Capacity Fees Difference 3 3/4" 5,687$ 5,698$ 5,142$ 556$
1" 9,497$ 9,516$ 7,672$ 1,844$
1-1/2" 18,936$ 18,974$ 16,671$ 2,303$
2" 30,310$ 30,370$ 26,954$ 3,416$
3" 56,866$ 56,980$ 54,129$ 2,851$
4" 94,795$ 94,985$ 90,250$ 4,735$
6" 189,534$ 189,913$ 180,464$ 9,449$
8" 303,266$ 303,872$ 283,291$ 20,581$
1 The proposed water capacity charges shown in this table include the equivalent of the Alternate Water Source Fee currently charged by the City addition to the water connection fee
2 Proposed impact fees including the administrative charge discussed in Chapter 10
3 Difference between the existing fees and the proposed water capacity charges, including the administrative charge
City of Victorville Page S-8
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Regarding sewer capacity charges, the calculated cost per EDU shown in Attachment D is $2,867.

The EDUs assigned to a given customer is a measure of the expected impact on the sewer utility relative to the average impact of a single -family residential (SFR) user. The measure is based on a customer’s expected flow. One EDU is equivalent to one single -family dwelling unit. The estimated daily flow for one single -family dwelling unit is estimated to be 149 gallons per day (GPD). EDU assignments for connecting customers are based on customer classification determined by City staff. The EDU assignments are then used to calculate the capacitycharge for connecting customers. For example, a standard single -family dwelling would be assessed a capacity charge of $2,867 for the sewer connection (1 EDU × $2,867). If a connecting customer is assigned 3 EDUs (based on flow), presumably for a larger residential property or a commercial property, the sewer capacity charge would be $8,601 (3 EDUs × $2,867) for this connecting customer. Please see Attachme nt D for further presentation of the sewer capacity charge analysis and outcomes.

City of Victorville Page 1-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 1. Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the need for several types of public facilities provided by the City of Victorville and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the approach, data and meth odology used in this study to calculate impact fees.

The methods used to calculate impact fees in this report are intended to satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025).

Legal Framework for Developer Fees
This brief summary of the legal framework for development fees is intended as a general overview. It was not prepared by an attorney, and should not be treated as legal advice.

U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Bot h state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against “regulatory takings.” A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably deprive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution.

In two landmark cases dealing with exactions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that when a government agency requires the dedication of land or an interest in land as a condition of development approval or imposes ad hoc exactions as a condition of approval on a single development project that do not apply to development generally, a higher standard of judicial scrutiny applies. To meet that standard, the agency must de monstrate an "essential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987) and make an” individualized determination” that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden createdby development (See Dolan v. City of Tigard,1994).

Until recently, it was widely accepted that legislatively enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the higher standard of judicial scrutiny flowing from the Nollan and Dolan decisions. But after the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St.

Johns Water Management District (2013), state courts have reached conflicting conclusions on that issue.

In light of that uncertainty, any agency enacting or imposing impact fees would be wise to demonstrate a nexus and ensure proportionality in the calculation of those fees.

Defining the “Nexus.” While courts have not been entirely consistent in defining the nexus required to justify exactions and impact fees, that term can be thought of as having the three City of Victorville Page 1-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
elements discussed below. We think proportionality is logically included as one element of that nexus, even though it was discussed separately in Dolan v. Tigard. The elements of the nexus discussed below mirror t he three “reasonable relationship” findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act for establishment and imposition of impact fees.

Need or Impact. Development must create a need for the facilities to be funded by impact fees.

All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deter iorate.

Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development -related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees.

The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that devel opment exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of d evelopment and the demand for public facilities based on applicable level -of-service standards. This report contains all of the information needed to demonstrate compliance with this element of the nexus.

Benefit. Development must benefit from facilities funded by impact fees. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic requirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the development paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee reve nues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or California law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to development projects paying the fees.

Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended expeditiously or refunded.

Those requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, procedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus.

Proportionality. Impact fees must be proportional to the impact created by a particular development project. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development-related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard.

California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to local governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police power is the source of authority for local governments in California to imp ose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only City of Victorville Page 1-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
if the fees charged to a project exceed the cost of providing facilities needed to serve the project.

In that case, the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act.

Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added to the California Constitution by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some “property-related fees,” but exempt “the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development.”
The Mitigation Fee Act. California’s impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time, the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the “Mitigation Fee Act.” Unless otherwise noted, code sections referenced in this report are from the Government Code.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, it is clear both in case law and statute (see Government Code Section 65913.8) that impact fees may not be used to pay for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only.

The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term “mitigation fee” except in its official title. Nor does it use the more common term “impact fee.” The Act simply uses the word “fee,” which is defined as “a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment…that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a developme nt project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ….” To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely -accepted terms “impact fee” and “development impact fee” which both should be understood to mean “fee” as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that gov ern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re -evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the implementation chapter of this report.

Required Findings. Section 66001 req uires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify the use of the fee; and,

3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; City of Victorville Page 1-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. (Applies when fees are imposed on a specific project.)
Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below.

Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund construction of certain capital improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public services as the City grows.

This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development.

Identifying the Use of the Fe es. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specifi c Plan, or in other public documents. In this case, we recommend that the City Council adopt this report as the public document that identifies the facilities to be funded by the fees.

Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between:

1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed;

2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and,

3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

These three reasonable relationship requirements, as defined in the statute, mirror the nexus and proportionality requirements o ften cited in court decisions as the standard for defensible impact fees. The term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The “duality” of the nexus refers to (1) an impact or need created by a development project subject to impact fees, and (2) abenefit to the project from the expenditure of the fees.

Although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual rational nexus formulation, it was explicitly required by t he Supreme Court in the Dolan case, and we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus.

Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreeme nts (see Govt. Code Section City of Victorville Page 1-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477).

Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees “shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities,…” The legislature’s intent in adopting this amendment, as stated in the bill, was to codify the holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991).

That amendment does not appear to be a substantive change. It is widely understood that other provisions of law make it improper for impact fees to include costs for correcting existing deficiencies.

However, Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees “may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.) Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for existing facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus.

Recent Legislation
Several new laws enacted by the State of California in 2019 to facilitate development of affordable housing will affect the implementation of impact fees calculated in this stud y. Below are brief overviews of some key bills passed in 2019.

SB 330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019.Amendments to existing law contained in SB 330 prohibit the imposition of new approval requirements on a housing development project once a preliminary application has been submitted. That provision applies to increases in impact fees and in -lieu fees, except when the resolution or ordinance establishing the fee authorizes automatic, inflationary adjustments to the fee or exaction.

AB 1483 – Housing Data: Collection and Reporting.AB 1483 requires that a city, county or special districts must post on its website a current schedule of its fees and exactions, as well as associated nexus studies and annual reports. Updates must be posted within 30 days.

SB 13 – Accessory Dwelling Units. SB 13 prohibits the imposition of impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) smaller than 750 square feet and provides that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The proportionality requirement means that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be calculated on a case-by-case basis during the approval process.

Existing law requires a water or sewer connection fee or capacity charge for an accessory dwelling unit requiring a new or separate utility connection to be based on either the accessory dwelling City of Victorville Page 1-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
unit’s size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. SB 13 revises the basis for calculating the connection fee or capacity charge to either the accessory dwelling unit’s square feet or the number of its drainage fixture units.

AB 602 – Amendments to the Planning and Land Use Law and the Mitigation Fee Act. AB 602, which was passed and signed in 2021, adds section 65940.1 to the Plann ing and Land Use Law requiring cities, counties and special districts that have internet websites to post schedules of fees, exactions and affordability requirements, annual fee reports, and an archive of nexus studies on that website, and to update that information within 30 days after any changes.

AB 602 also adds Section 66016.5 to the Mitigation Fee Act imposing several new requirements for impact fees that go into effect on January 1, 2022, including:
 A nexus study must identify the existing level of s ervice for each facility, identify the proposed new level of service (if any), and explain why the new level of service is appropriate.
 If a nexus study supports an increase in an existing fee the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus stud y supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
 Large jurisdictions (counties over 250,000 and cities within those counties) must adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.
 All impact fe e nexus studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin and impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.  Nexus studies shall be updated at least every eight years, from the period beginning on January 1, 2022.
 A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units in the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with this requirement if the local agency makes certain findings specified in the law. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of units in the development shall be deemed t o have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
 Authorizes any member of the public, including an applicant for a development project, to submit evidence that impact fees proposed by an agency fail to comply with the Mitigation Fee Act, and requires the legislative body of the agency to consider such evidence and adjust the proposed fee if deemed necessary.

SB 9, the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (“HOME”) Act. SB 9 facilitates the subdivision of existing residential lots and allows for ministerial approval (without discretionary review or hearings) of no more than two dwelling units, including duplexes, on parcels zoned for single-family City of Victorville Page 1-7
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
dwellings if the property satisfies certain requirements. To qualify under SB9 the property must be located within either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster.

The law allows for qualifying lot splits to be approved ministerially upon meeting certain requirements.

Each parcel may not be smaller than forty (40%) percent of the original parcel size and each parcel must be at least one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet in size unless permitted by local ordinance. The parcel must be limited to residential use.

The law does not allow demolition or alteration of certain types of dwellings, including: (a)housing thatis subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to affordable levels; (b)housing subject to rent control; (c)housing that has been tenant-occupied in the last threeyears; or (d) housing located in a historic district. In addition, the proposed development may not demolish more than 25% of the exterior structural walls of an existing unit, unless expressly permitted by a local ordinance.

A local agency may impose objective zoning standards, subdivision standards, and design standards unless they would preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.

No setback may be required for an existing structure, or a structure constructed in the same location and dimensions as an existing structure. Otherwise, a local agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines. Off-street parking of up to onespace per unit may be required by the local agency, unless the project is located within a half-mile walking distance of a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop, or if there is a car share vehicle within one block of the parcel. If a local agency makes a written finding that a project would create a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the environment without a feasible way to mitigate such impact, the agency still may deny the project.

It is impossible to predict how much SB 9 will affect the number of future residential units constructed in the City. Unlike recent laws dealing with accessory dwelling units, SB 9 does not address the imposition of impact fees on the new dwelling units it allows, and it appears at this point that such units would be subject to the same impact fees as other new residential development.

Impact Fee Calculation Methodology
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the facility type being addressed. Each method has adv antages and disadvantages in a particular situation. To some extent they are interchangeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.

Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development is measured by some attribute of development such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the impacts created by different types and amounts of development.

City of Victorville Page 1-8
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Plan-Based or Improvements-Driven Method. Plan-based impact fee calculations are based on the relation ship between a specified set of improvements and a specified increment of development. The improvements are typically identified in a facility plan, while the development is identified in a land use plan that forecasts potential development by type and quantity.

Using this method, facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the service demand created by each type of development. To calculate plan-based impact fees, it is necessary to determine what facilities will be needed to serve a particular increment of new development.

With this method, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by total units of additional demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand (e.g. a cost per capita for parks). Then, the cost p er unit of demand is multiplied by factors representing the demand per unit of development (e.g. population per unit) to arrive at a cost per unit of development.

This method is somewhat inflexible in that it is based on the relationship between a specif ic facility plan and a specific land use plan. If either plan changes significantly the fees will have to be recalculated.

Capacity-Based or Consumption -Driven Method . This method calculates a cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship between total cost and total capacity of a system. It can be applied to any type of development, provided the capacity required to serve each increment of development can be estimated and the facility has adequate capacity available to serve the development. Si nce the cost per unit of demand does not depend on the particular type or quantity of development to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans.

In this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development. Capacity-based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems, where the cost of a system component is divided by the capacity of that component to derive a unit cost. However, a similar analysis can be applied to other types of faciliti es. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of non -residential building area), the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of capacity required to serve a typical unit of development in each of several land use categories.

Standard-Based or Incremental Expansion Method. Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. The standard can be established as a matter of policy or it can be based on the level of service being provided to existing development in the study area.

Using the standard-based method, costs are defined on a generic unit-cost basis and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.

Park impact fees are commonly calculated this way. The level of service standard for parks is typically stated in te rms of acres of parks per thousand residents. A cost -per-acre for park land City of Victorville Page 1-9
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
or park improvements can usually be estimated without knowing the exact size or location of a particular park. The ratio of park acreage to population and the cost per acre for parks is used to calculate a cost per capita. The cost per capita can then be converted into a cost per unit of development based on the average population per dwelling unit for various types of residential development.

Facilities Addressed in this Study
Impact fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report:
 Parks and Recreation Facilities
 Fire Protection Facilities
 Police Facilities
 Public Buildings
 Libraries
 Water System Improvements
 Roads, Bridges and Traffic Control
Each of those facilities is addressed in a separate chapter of this report, beginning with Chapter

3. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact fee analysis.

City of Victorville Page 2-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 2. Development Data
This chapter presents data on existing and future development that will be used to calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report.

The information in this chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze facility needs, and/or allocate the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various types of new development.

Study Area and Time Frame
The study area for this studyis the planning area defined in Victorville’s General Plan 2030, which includes both the existing incorporated City and the sphere of influence. The future development scenario used in this study is based on the Southern California Association of Governme nts (SCAG) development projections to 2040.

However, it is the quantity of future development shown in this study, not the target date, that is significant. Buildout of the additional development projected for Victorville in this study may occur sooner or later than 2040 without affecting the impact fee calculations.

Population Growth
The graph below shows the California Department of Finance (DOF) official January 1 population estimates for the City of Victorville for the years from 2010 through 2020.

The DOF population estimate for
Victorville has grown at an average rate
of about 0.8% per year since 2011. That
growth rate was around 2% in 2011 and
2012 has since slowed, and the City has
grown at only about 0.5% per year since
2015. The City’s estimated total
population for January 1, 2021 is
127,170, an increase of 9.7% from the
2010 Census population of 115,903.

The figures shown above reflect the
City’s total population, including both
household population and population in group quarters such as dormitories, group homes and correctional facilities. The group quarters population in Victorville was estimated at 3,818 in 2021, which is approximately 3% of the City’s total population. Most of that number are inmates at the Federal Correctional Complex in Victorville. The population numbers used in this study include only household population, because where population is used to represent the impact of development on City facilities, the inmate population is not a factor.

City of Victorville Page 2-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Development Types
The development types defined in this study are intended to reflect actual land uses rather than zoning or general plan land use designations. The following breakdown of development types is used to calculate impact fees in this study:
 Residential – Detached
 Residential – Attached
 Residential – Mobile Home Park
 Retail/Service Commercial
 Professional Office
 Lodging *
 Industrial/Business Park
 High-Cube Warehouse *
 Self-Service Storage *
 Gasoline/Service Station*
 Institutional *
 Public Facilities
While the full list of development types shown above is reflected in Figure 2A and in Table 2.1 in this chapter and is used to calculate impact fees in this report, the categories marked with an asterisk (*) are omitted from Tables 2.2 through 2.4 which show estimates of existing development and forecasts of future development. In Tables 2.2 through 2.4, the de velopment in those categories is grouped into broader categories because specific data on existing and/or future development are not available for those categories. For example, development in the High-Cube Warehouse and Self -Storage categories is combined with other industrial development in the Industrial/Business Park category. However, because factors such as employees per unit and peak hour trips per unit can be estimated for those development types, it is possible to calculate impact fees for those categories in this report.

The following paragraphs define the development types used in this report.

Residential - Detached - Any residential building containing one dwelling unit on one parcel of land, including a single -family residence, single family res idential condominium or detached townhome, and a manufactured home on an individual lot.

Residential - Attached - Apartments, townhomes, condominiums or any other residential unit that is attached to any other residential unit; usually corresponding to lan d use district designation that allows attached units, such as Medium Density, High Density or Mixed Use. Mixed Use Residential Units are attached residential dwelling units built above or beside commercial uses and are treated as attached units for purposes of assessing impact fees.

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or Second Unit - A smaller, independent residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a stand -alone single -family home. Government Code Section 65852.2 City of Victorville Page 2-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
(f)(3)(a) states that impact fee s may not be charged to ADUs less than 750 square feet, and that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be proportional to the square footage of the ADU in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Because of the latter requirement, impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be calculated on a case -by-case basis.

Therefore, no schedule of impact fees for ADUs is shown in this report. The formula for calculating impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more can be stated as:

Impact fee for detached dwelling unit X (ADU square feet / primary unit square feet) Mobile Home Park – Units developed at an existing mobile home park or units developed on an undeveloped parcel zoned for mobile home use where a structure is designed for human habitation and for being moved on a street or highway will be located. This designation also applies to modular or manufactured homes that are developed is a similar type of mobile home park setting.

Retail/Service Commercial – Any building with a primary use of general retail sales, restaurant, office and/or services; usually corresponding to uses in the Neighborhood Service Commercial (C -1), General Commercial (C-2), and Commercial Manufacturing (C-M) land use designations.

Professional Office – A building designed primarily for office uses. This includes office uses, such as banks, other financial institutions, professional and medical offices, usually located in commercial land use designations.

Lodging - A building with t he primary use as either a hotel, motel or residence inn or a building containing six (6) or more rooms intended to be used for sleeping purposes for guests.

Industrial/Business Park – A building with the primary use of warehouse, manufacturing, or distribution, including multi-tenant buildings designed for industrial uses usually located within the Industrial Park District (IPD), Light Industrial (M-1) and Heavy Industrial (M-2) land use designation.

High-Cube Warehouse – A building used for the storage o f manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail outlets. These facilities consist of large shell buildings with a typical ceiling height of 24 to 30 feet. They are also characterized by a small employment count due to a high level of mechanization.

Self-Service Storage – Facilities in which storage space, also known as " storage units," including rooms, lockers, containers, and/or outdoor space, are rented to tenants.

Gasoline/Service Station – Facilities in which vehicles refuel from an on-site pump.

Institutional – Buildings used as private schools, private meeting/assembly places, such as churches and other places of worship, occurring in any land use designation.

In addition to the development types specifically addressed by this Study , the City has developed a number of additional procedures for other development types. The City requested the following definitions be included within the Development Impact Fee Study report:

City of Victorville Page 2-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Square Feet/Building Area – The area of each floor and mezzanin e within the exterior walls of a building, exclusive of the vent shafts and courts. When no exterior walls are provided, the square footage shall be the usable area under the roof or floor above (e.g. fueling canopy, service canopy, storage canopy). Exter ior accessory hardscaped areas (e.g. customer/employee daily parking, walkways, courtyards) covered by a roof shall be excluded.

Solar Power Plant – a primary use of land that converts sunlight into electricity, either directly using photovoltaics (PV), o r indirectly using concentrated solar power (CSP). These facilities shall be assessed Industrial Use development impact fees based on the square footage of any building and utility/equipment enclosures on site.

Wireless Communication Facilities – any publi c or private structure that supports antennae, microwave dishes, and other related equipment that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals.

These facilities shall be assessed Industrial Use development impact fees based on the square footage on site.

Demolition Credit – The square footage or unit count of a demolished building or buildings that previously paid Development Impact Fees may be deducted from the development impact fees of a new development provided the new development is located on the sa me parcel of land, subject to the review and approval of the Building Official.

Demand Variables
To calculate impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attribut es of development (for example, population or vehicle trips) are used as “demand variables” in those formulas to represent the impact of different types of development on various types of facilities.

Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure the service demand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably correlated with that demand.

For example, the need for parks in a community is typically defined in terms of the relationship between population and acres of parks. As population grows, more parks are needed to maintain that relationship. Logically, then, the increase in population related to new residential development is an appropriate yardstick, or demand variable, for use in measuring the impact of development on the need for additional parks.

Each demand variable has a specific value for each type of development defined in this study.

Those values may be referred to as “demand factors.” So, if thedemand variable used to calculate impact fees for a particular type of facility is added population, the demand factor for single- family residential development would be the population per dwelling unit for that specific type of development.

Demand variables used in this study are discussed below. Spec ific demand factors can be found in Table 2.1 on page 2-7.

City of Victorville Page 2-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Population. Household population is used in this study to represent the need for facilities such as parks and community centers that are intended to serve residents of the City. Those facilities a re impacted by the additional population associated with residential development and are not impacted substantially by non-residential development or by population in group quarters such as prisons.

Peak Hour Trips. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for street system improvements in this report is weekday p.m. peak hour vehicle trips. The p.m. peak hour trip generation factors used in this study are for the street adjacent to the development rather than for the development itself.

Peak hou r trips -per-unit-per-day factors for each type of development are from Trip Generation , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and are shown in Table 2.1.

Fire Department Calls for Service per Year. In analyzing the impact of development on the need for fire protection and emergency response services, this study uses calls for service per year as the demand variable. NBS analyzed a random sample of one year of calls to the Victorville Fire Department to establish the distribution of calls by development type, and to calculate calls per-unit- per-year factors for each development type. See Chapter 5 for more details.

Service Population. Population alone does no t represent all of the impacts of development on facilities that serve both residential and non -residential development. A variable called service population is commonly used to calculate impact fees for certain types of public facilities and will be used in this study.

Service population is a composite variable that includes both residents of the City and employees of businesses in Victorville. Population is included to represent the impacts of residential development, and employees of businesses in the City are included to represent the impacts of non-residential development, such as retail, office and industrial development.

Because the impact of one new resident is not necessarily the same as the impact of one new employee, each component of the service population is given a weight relative to a base weight of 1.0 for a hypothetical resident who spends 100% of his/her time in the City.

Service population is intended to reflect the relative impact of various types of development on certain types of City services and the facilities that support them. Service population is based on the number of residents or employees associated with one unit of development for each development type defined in this study. Weighting of residents or employees for each development type is ba sed on the estimated number of hours they spend in the City during an average week.

It is difficult to estimate that number precisely for several reasons. Some residents work in the City, some residents commute to work outside the City, and some residents don’t work at paid jobs. Non-residents may be present in the City for work, shopping, recreation, or any number of other reasons.

Our estimate of the average number of hours per week that residents spend in the City is based in part on an analysis of how many residents commute to work outside the City. We also assume City of Victorville Page 2-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
the average resident spends four hours a week outside the City for activities like shopping and recreation.

The Department of Finance 2018 household population estimate for Victorville was 1 19,331. 2018 data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey show that 52.9% of Victorville residents over age 16 are in the labor force with 48.7% employed and 4.2% unemployed. About 74% of employed residents work outside the City, according to 2016 Census data summarized in the SCAG 2019 Local Profile for Victorville.

Using 2018 data, we estimate that Victorville’s out -commuters numbered 30,817. If we assume they spent 47.5 hours a week (9.5 hours per day) outside the City at work and commuting, and that all residents spend 4 hours a week outside the City for shopping and recreation, we can conclude that out-commuters spent an average of 116.5 (168 – 47.5 – 4) hours per week in the City. That’s a total of 3,590,181 hours.

If the remaining 88,514 r esidents spent 164 (168 -4) hours per week in the City, that would be 14,516,296 hours. So, with 119,331 residents spending a total of 18,106,447 hours in the City, the average for all residents is 151.7 hours. Dividing that number by the total of 168 hours per week gives us a weight of 0.903 for all residents.

The weights assigned to employees of business associated with various types of non -residential development are based on the estimated hours per week of operation divided by 168 total hours per week. E xhibit 2A shows the estimated hours of operation per week for non -residential development types and the resulting weight for each category of non -residential development.

That exhibit also shows the weighting of population for residential development types , as discussed above.

Exhibit 2A: Service Population Weights
Development
Type
Avg Hrs
per Wk
Total Hrs
per Wk
Svc Pop
Weight 1
Residential - Detached 151.7 168.0 0.903
Residential - Attached 151.7 168.0 0.903
Residential - Mobile Home Park 151.7 168.0 0.903
Retail/Service Commercial 84.0 168.0 0.500
Professional Office 45.0 168.0 0.268
Lodging 84.0 168.0 0.500
Industrial/Business Park 45.0 168.0 0.268
High-Cube Warehouse 45.0 168.0 0.268
Self-Service Storage 84.0 168.0 0.500
Gasoline/Service Station 112.0 168.0 0.667
Institutional 40.0 168.0 0.238
Public Facilities 45.0 168.0 0.268
1 Service population weight = average hours per week / total hours per week
City of Victorville Page 2-7
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Demand Factors
Table 2.1 shows the values of demand factors used in this study by development type.

Existing and Future Development
Summaries of existing and future development by development type are presented in Tables 2.2 through 2.4.

Please note that the list of development types in those tables is somewhat different from those listed in Table 2.1. The breakdown of development types shown in Table 2.1 is used to calculate impact fees in this report and the demand factors sho wn in that table are specific to those development types. However, because limited detail is available in data sets for existing and Table 2.1: Demand Factors
Development
Type
Unit
Type 1
Population
per Unit 2
Employees
per Unit 3
Svc Pop
per Unit 4
Pk Hr Trips
per Unit 5
Fire Calls
per Unit 6
Residential - Detached DU 3.40 3.07 0.99 0.38
Residential - Attached DU 2.40 2.17 0.56 0.50
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU 2.10 1.90 0.46 0.32
Retail/Service Commercial KSF 2.20 1.10 3.81 0.65
Professional Office KSF 3.30 0.88 1.15 0.89
Lodging Room 0.98 0.49 0.38 0.33
Industrial/Business Park KSF 1.10 0.29 0.53 0.07
High-Cube Warehouse KSF 0.73 0.20 0.10 0.01
Self-Service Storage KSF 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.03
Gasoline/Service Station Pump 0.19 0.13 4.90 0.84
Institutional KSF 1.00 0.24 0.65 0.09
Public Facilities KSF 3.30 0.88 0.94 0.90
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Pump = vehicle fueling position
2 Average household population per unit based on analysis of data from U. S. Census Bureau, 2018 American Community Survey (2017, 5-Year Estimate), Tables B25032 and B25033 3 Employees per unit estimated by NBS using data from multiple sources including a 2001 employment density study by the Natelson Co. for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and a summary of Census Bureau data from ESRI
4 Service population per unit = population or employees per unit X the service population weight from Exhibit 2A; see discussion of service population weighting in text 5 Peak hour trips per unit based on p.m. peak hour trip generation rates for the adjacent street from from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual, Trip Generation , 10th Edition with pass-by trip reductions of 30% for the Retail/Service Commercial category and 65% for the Gasoline/ Service Station category
6 Fire calls per unit per year; see discussion in Chapter 4 City of Victorville Page 2-8
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
future development, some of the development types shown in Table 2.1 do not appear in Tables

2.2 through 2. For example, th e three industrial categories (industrial/business park, high -cube warehouse and self-service storage) are lumped into a single industrial category in those tables.

Consequently, the factors used to convert units into employees per unit, service population per unit and peak hour trips per unit in Tables 2.2 through 2.4 are composites intended to reflect the average rate for the broader industrial category. As long as the totals for population, service population and peak hour trips in those tables are reaso nably accurate, the impact fee calculations will meet the reasonable relationship standard required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Table 2.2 shows estimated existing development in the City as of January 1, 2021.

Table 2.3 shows potential future development in Victorville to 2040, reflecting the difference between 2040 development in Table 2.4 and existing development in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Existing Development January 1, 2021 - City of Victorville Development
Type
Dev
Acres 1
Unit
Type 2
No. of
Units 3
Popu-
lation 4
Emplo-
yees 5
Service
Pop 6
Pk Hour
Trips 7
Fire Calls
per Year 8
Residential - Detached 7,697 DU 30,788 104,993 94,525 30,480 11,828 Residential - Attached 489 DU 6,107 14,657 13,235 3,420 3,040 Residential - Mobile Home Park 175 DU 1,763 3,702 3,343 811 562 Subtotal Residential 8,361 38,658 123,352 111,104 34,711 15,430 Retail/Service Commercial 768 KSF 8,369 19,238 9,619 31,884 5,467 Professional Office 154 KSF 2,007 6,691 1,793 2,308 1,788 Industrial 337 KSF 5,141 4,470 1,198 2,337 357
Public Facilities 128 KSF 1,676 5,532 1,483 1,576 1,507 Subtotal Non-residential 1,387 17,193 35,931 14,093 38,106 9,119 Totals 9,748 123,352 35,931 125,196 72,817 24,549
1 Existing developed acres estimated based on number of units and estimated residential densities or non-residential floor areas by development type
2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area 3 Number of existing residential units based on the January 2021 CA Department of Finance E-5 report; existing non-residential units estimated using ESRI Business Summary employee data and employee density factors from Table 2.1
4 Existing household population = existing residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 5 Existing employees = estimated by NBS based on data from ESRI 2021 Business Summary for Victorville and SCAG 2020 projections
6 Existing service population = existing employees X service population weight from Exhibit 2A; see discussion in text
7 Existing peak hour trips = existing units X peak hour trips per unit; see discussion in text 8 Existing fire calls per year; see discussion in Chapter 4 City of Victorville Page 2-9
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Table 2.4 on the following page shows total development in the Victorville planning area in 2040, as projected by SCAG.

Table 2.3: Future Development to 2040 - City of Victorville Planning Area Development
Type
Dev
Acres
Unit
Type
No. of
Units
Popu-
lation
Emplo-
yees
Service
Pop
Pk Hour
Trips
Fire Calls
per Year
Residential - Detached 3,387 DU 13,547 45,746 41,589 13,412 5,204 Residential - Attached 257 DU 2,840 6,816 6,163 1,590 1,414 Residential - Mobile Home Park 37 DU 353 741 671 162 113 Subtotal Residential 3,680 16,740 53,303 48,423 15,164 6,731 Retail/Service Commercial 357 KSF 3,891 8,946 6,319 14,827 2,542 Professional Office 74 KSF 963 3,111 820 1,107 858
Industrial 247 KSF 3,766 2,079 583 1,712 262
Public Facilities 31 KSF 399 1,383 343 375 359
Subtotal Non-residential 708 9,019 15,519 8,066 18,021 4,020 Totals 4,389 53,303 15,519 56,489 33,185 10,750
Note: the numbers in Table 2.3 represent the difference between 2040 development in Table 2.4 and existing development in Table 2.2
City of Victorville Page 2-10
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
The amount of growth shown in the tables above indicates a potential increase of between 43% and 45% in population, employees, service population, peak hour trips and fire department calls for service in the City from 2021 to 2040.

Table 2.4: Total 2040 Development - City of Victorville Planning Area Development
Type
Dev
Acres 1
Unit
Type 2
No. of
Units 3
Popu-
lation 4
Emplo-
yees 5
Service
Pop 6
Pk Hour
Trips 7
Fire Calls
per Year 8
Residential - Detached 11,084 DU 44,335 150,739 136,108 43,892 17,032 Residential - Attached 746 DU 8,947 21,473 19,415 5,010 4,454 Residential - Mobile Home Park 212 DU 2,116 4,444 4,020 973 675 Subtotal Residential 12,041 55,398 176,655 159,544 49,875 22,161 Retail/Service Commercial 1,126 KSF 12,260 28,184 15,938 46,711 8,009 Professional Office 227 KSF 2,970 9,802 2,614 3,416 2,646 Industrial 584 KSF 8,906 6,549 1,781 4,050 619
Public Facilities 159 KSF 2,075 6,915 1,826 1,951 1,866 Subtotal Non-residential 2,096 26,211 51,450 22,159 56,126 13,139 Totals 14,137 176,655 51,450 181,703 106,001 35,299
1 Buildout developed acres estimated based on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2040 development projections of housing and employment and densities and floor area ratios estimated by NBS 2 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area; Room = guest room or suite 3 Buildout units based on 2040 projections by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); distribution of units by type assumes a small increase in the percentage of attached units and a small decrease in the percentage of mobile homes.
4 Buildout population = residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 5 Buildout employees based on 2040 projections by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); distribution of employees by non-residential development category assumes the same percentage increase for all categories except public facilities which assumes a slighly smaller percentage increase 6 Buildout service population = buildout units X service pop. per unit; see Exhibit 2A and discussion in text 7 Buildout peak hour trips = buildout units X peak hour trips per unit; see discussion in text 8 Buildout fire calls per year; see discussion in Chapter 4 City of Victorville Page 3-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 3. Parks and Recreation Facilities
This chapter calculates impact fees for park land acquisition, park improvements and recreation facilities. As used in this chapter, recreation facilities include community centers and several other types of facilities listed in Table 3.7 in this chapter.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the standard -based method discussed in Chapter 1.

Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. The standard used to calculate impact fees for park land acquisition and park improvements in this chapter is the City’s existing ratio of developed park acres to population. The standard used to calculate Impact fees for recreation facilities is the relationship between the existing population and the value of the City’s existing recreation. The impact fee calculated using that method are intended to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

Service Area
Parks and recreation impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new residential development in the City.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate park impact fees in this chapter is population.

Population is used here because the need for parks is typically defined in terms of the relationship between park acreage and population and the Victorville General Plan establishes a level -of- service standard for parks that is based on population (see the Level of Service section, below).

Population is also widely used to represent the demand for recreation facilities.

Population per dwelling unit varies by development type, so the average population per unit is estimated for each type of residenti al development defined in this study. Those individual population-per-unit factors are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.

Because added population is associated with residential development, the impact fees calculated in this chapter apply only to residential development.

The next section of this chapter deals with park impact fees and is followed by a section addressing impact fees for recreation facilities.

City of Victorville Page 3-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Existing Level of Service – Parks
The Resource Element of the Victorville General Plan (Objective 2.1 and Policy 2.1.1) establishes a standard of three acres of park land per 1,000 residents. In this chapter, calculation of impact fees for park land acquisition and park improvements is based on the City’s existing level of service at the time of this st udy. Table 3.1 lists the City’s existing parks and shows both City - owned acres and improved acres of parks.

Table 3.2 calculates the existing levels of service in terms of developed acres per capita and acres per 1,000 population for total City-owned park land and City-improved park land. The difference between the two numbers is the acreage of several parks developed by the City on land owned by school districts as indicated in Table 3.1. Because the City has paid for the improvements to those parks, they are included in the total of City-owned park land in Table 3.2.

Table 3.1: Existing Parks
Park City-Owned Improved
Name Acres Acres
Avalon Park 4.4 4.4
Brentwood Park 7.3 7.3
Center Street Park 5.4 5.4
Doris Davies Park (Pool) 22.2 22.2
Eagle Ranch Park 6.7 6.7
Eva Dell Park 13.1 13.1
Grady Trammel Park 2.6 2.6
Green Tree Golf Course 148.5 148.5
Hollyvale Park 1 0.0 0.8
Hook Park 1 0.0 25.3
Liberty Park 1 0.0 8.5
Mesa Linda Park 1 0.0 11.6
Mojave Riverwalk 0.2 0.2
Mojave Vista Park 9.2 9.2
Old Victor Park 1.3 1.3
Rockview Park 9.6 9.6
Schmidt Park 11.2 11.2
Sunset Ridge Park 15.7 15.7
Village Park 2.6 2.6
Total 260.0 306.2
Source: City of Victorville 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Park Atlas; Las Haciendas Park is not included in this list because it was a developer-initiated park
1 Site leased from school district; improvements funded by the City of Victorville
City of Victorville Page 3-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
The level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees for park land acquisition and park improvements in this study is the existing ratio of improved park land to population as shown in Table 3.2.

The park improvement impact fees also include the cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment. The standard used to calculate impact fees for park maintenance vehicles and equipment in this study is the existing cost per capita as shown in Table 3.3.

Cost Per Capita - Parks
Table 3.4 shows per -capita costs for park land, park improvements, and park maintenance vehicles and equipment. Per -capita costs for park land and park improvements are based on existing improved park acres per capita from Table 3.2. The per-capita cost for park maintenance vehicles and equipment is from Table 3.3.

Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service - Parks
Facility
Existing
Acres1
Existing
Population2
Acres per
Capita 3
Acres per
1,000 4
City-owned Park Land 260.0 123,352 0.002108 2.108
Improved Park Land 306.2 123,352 0.002482 2.482
1 See Table 3.1
2 See Table 2.2
3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population 4 Acres per 1,000 population = acres per capita X 1,000 Table 3.3: Cost per Capita - Park Maintenance Vehicles & Equipt Acquisition
Cost1
Existing
Population2
Cost per
Capita 3
$3,068,620 123,352 $24.88
1 Acquisition cost from the City's asset inventory; see Appendix A for a detailed list of vehicles and equipment
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per capita = acquisition cost / existing population City of Victorville Page 3-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
In the next section, the per-capita costs from Table 3.4 are used to calculate impact fees per unit of development.

Impact Fees per Unit - Parks
Park Land Acquisition Impact Fees. Table 3.5 shows the calculation of park land impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using per-capita costs from Table 3.4 and average population per dwelling unit from Table 2.1.

Park Improvement Impact Fees (Including Park Maintenance Vehicles and Equipment). Table

3.6 shows the calculation of park improvement impact fees per unit of development, by development type. The park improvement impact fees include the cost of park maintenance vehicles and equipment. These fees are calculated using the combined per -capita costs for park improvements and park maintenance vehicles and equipment from Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Cost per Capita - Parks
Fee Type
Cost per
Acre1
Acres per
Capita 2
Cost per
Capita3
Park Impact Fee (Park Land Acquisition) 153,000$ 0.002482 379.75$ Park Impact Fee (Park Improvements) 554,823$ 0.002482 1,377.07$ Park Impact Fee (Vehicles and Equipment) 24.88$
1 Cost per acre for park land and improvements estimated by the City of Victorville 2 Acres per capita for park land and improvements is the existing ratio of improved parks per 1,000 population from Table 3.2
3 Cost per capita for park land and park improvements = cost per acre X acres per capita; cost per capita for vehicles and equipment from Table 3.3 Table 3.5: Park Land Impact Fees per Unit
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per DU 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential - Detached DU $379.75 3.40 1,291.15$
Residential - Attached DU $379.75 2.40 911.40$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $379.75 2.10 797.48$
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.4
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit City of Victorville Page 3-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
The following section calculates impact fees for recreation facilities.

Existing Level of Service – Recreation Facilities
Table 3.7 on the next page lists the City’s existing community and recreation centers with their square footage, building replacement cost and the value of existing furniture fixtures and equipment. Land cost is also included for facilities not located in parks.

Table 3.6: Park Improvement Impact Fees per Unit
Development
Type Units 1
Cost per
Capita 2
Population
per DU 3
Impact Fee
per Unit 4
Residential - Detached DU $1,401.95 3.40 $4,766.63
Residential - Attached DU $1,401.95 2.40 $3,364.68
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $1,401.95 2.10 $2,944.10 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 Includes the combined per-capita costs for park improvements and park maintenance vehicles and equipment; see Table 3.4
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit City of Victorville Page 3-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for community and recreation centers.

The level of service standard used to calculate impact fees for those facilitie s in this chapter is the relationship between the City’s existing population and the replacement cost of Victorville’s existing community and recreation centers.

That relationship is represented by a cost per capita, which is calculated in Table 3.8 using the replacement costs from Table 3.7 and the existing population from Table 2.2 in Chapter 2.

Table 3.7: Existing Recreation Facilities
Square Building FF&E Site Land Impact Fee
Facility Feet 1 Repl Cost 2 Value 3 Acres 4 Value 5 Cost Basis 6 Community Center-Hook Park 33,000 5,579,828$ 381,289$ - -$ 5,961,117$ Victorville Activities Center 12,373 3,983,299$ 104,390$ 1.93 295,290$ 4,382,979$ Old Victor School 7,400 2,206,435$ -$ 1.90 290,700$ 2,497,135$ Westwinds Sports Center Owned by SCLA
8th St. Community Center (HDCFTA) 1,155 218,625$ -$ 0.81 123,930$ 342,555$ 15609 8th St. (Small Bldg at 8th St.) 840 159,055$ -$ 0.81 123,930$ 282,985$ Fire Museum (15615 8th St.) 6,370 2,059,376$ 339,000$ 0.33 50,490$ 2,448,866$ Bad News Bear Den #1 1,418 278,204$ 42,931$ - -$ 321,135$ Bad News Bear Den #2 1,160 227,587$ 42,931$ - -$ 270,518$ Doris Davies Recreation Building 6,774 1,283,442$ 70,702$ - -$ 1,354,144$ Sunset Ridge Community Center 7,572 1,458,651$ -$ - -$ 1,458,651$ Westwinds Activity Center Owned by SCLA
GreenTree Golf Course Clubhouse 25,636 11,553,115$ 848,826$ - -$ 12,401,941$ Rockview Nature Center 1,678 327,817$ 29,628$ - -$ 357,445$ Total 29,335,434$ 1,859,697$ 5.78 884,340$ 32,079,471$
1 Building square feet from City of Victorville Property Schedule 2 Estimated building replacement cost from City of Victorville Property Schedule; Westwinds facilities are owned by SCLA, not by the City
3 Furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) from the City's of property schedule, personal property column 4 Site acres provided by the City of Victorville' no site acreage is inluded for facilities located in parks 5 Land value = site acres X land value per acre ($153,000) estimated by the City of Victorville 6 Impact fee cost basis = building replacement cost + FF&E value + land value Table 3.8: Cost per Capita - Recreation Facilities
Impact Fee Existing Cost
Cost Basis1 Population 2 per Capita 3
$32,079,471 123,352 $260.06
1 See Table 3.7
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per Capita = impact fee cost basis / existing population City of Victorville Page 3-7
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Below, the cost per -capita from Table 3.8 is used to calculate impact fees per unit of development, by development type, for recreation facilities.

Impact Fees per Unit – Recreation Facilities
Table 3.9 shows the calculation of recreation facilities impa ct fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per capita from Table 3.8 and average population per dwelling unit from Table 2.1.

Combined Impact Fees per Unit – Parks and Recreation Facilities Table 3.10 combines the impact fees for park land acquisition, park improvements and recreation facilities into a single impact fee for parks and recreation facilities. Each of the combined fees is the sum of impact fees from Tables 3.5, 3.6 and 3.9.

Table 3.9 Impact Fees per Unit - Recreation Facilities
Development Cost per Population Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential - Detached DU $260.06 3.40 884.20$
Residential - Attached DU $260.06 2.40 624.14$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $260.06 2.10 546.13$
1 DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 7.2
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per unit Table 3.10 Combined Parks and Recreation Impact Fees
Development Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Unit 2
Residential - Detached DU 6,941.98$
Residential - Attached DU 4,900.22$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU 4,287.71$
Total
1 DU = dwelling unit
2 Sum of impact fees from Tables 3.5, 3.6 and 3.9
City of Victorville Page 3-8
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Projected Revenue
Table 3.11 calculates projected revenue from the combined parks and recreation impact fees based on the impact fees per unit from Table 3.10 and the number of future units projected in Table 2.3, Chapter 2.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated cost of park land, park improvements and recreation facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed annually and adjusted as needed using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Recor d Construction Cost Index (CCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facilityand the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and Table 3.11: Projected Revenue - Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential - Detached DU 6,941.98$ 13,547 94,043,003$
Residential - Attached DU 4,900.22$ 2,840 13,916,625$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU 4,287.71$ 353 1,513,562$ Total 109,473,190$
1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 3.10
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units City of Victorville Page 3-9
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fee s” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for parks and recreation facilities in Victorville.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks and recreation facilities to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks and recreational facilities to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Victorville.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the need for parks and recreation facilities to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional parks and recreation facilities, the incr ease in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Devel opment Project. The amount of the parks and recreation impact fees charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each ty pe of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit for that type of development in Victorville. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for parks in the City.

City of Victorville Page 4-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 4. Fire Protection Facilities
This chapter calculates impact fees for fire protection and emergency response facilities apparatus and equipment needed to serve future development in the area served by the City of Victorville (City). Where the general term “facilities” is used in this chapter, it is intended to include all types of capital assets needed by the City to carry out its mission.

At present, the City operates six fire stations. Five stations are owned by the City and a sixth station located within the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA) area of the City is leased from the Federal government. The City is re sponsible for all repairs, maintenance and upgrades to the SCLA station. One additional fire station is planned for the Southwest area of the City (Fire Management Zone 316).1
As discussed in more detail below, the impact fees calculated in this chapter a re based on the forecasted level of service at buildout, defined as the relationship between projected calls for service per year at buildout and the replacement cost of the department’s existing and future facilities.

Service Area
Victorville’s fire f acilities serve the entire City, so the fire facilities impact fees are intended to apply to all future development in the City, including any areas annexed in the future.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development tha t is used in fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a certain type of capital facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for fire facilities in this report is calls for service per year.

As part of this study, NBS analyzed a random sample of the 24,559 calls for service logged by the City between March 30, 2019 and March 30, 2020 to estimate the number of calls per unit per year generated by each type of development defined in this study. Chapter 2 discusses t hat analysis and Table 2.1 shows the calls per unit per year factors derived from that analysis. Those factors are used to calculate impact fees per unit later in this chapter.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the plan -based method discussed in Chapter 1. Plan - based fees allocate costs of a specific set of facilities to a specific increment of development.

In this case, the costs for all existing and future fire facil ities, apparatus and equipment are allocated to all existing and future development, so that impact fees charged to future 1 Public Safety Plan Staff Report, April 29, 2020, Page 38 City of Victorville Page 4-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
development will pay future development’s proportionate share of the overall cost of those assets.

Facilities, Apparatus and Equipment
Table 4.1 lists the City’s existing and planned fire stations. Six of the fire stations shown in Table

4.1 are existing. Station 316 is planned for future construction. Station 319 is a leased facility and its value is not included in the impact fee calculations.

The building replacement cost in the table includes the depreciated replacement cost for existing buildings. For future fire stations, the costs shown are estimates based on current costs and those costs are not depreciated.

Table 4.2 on the next page lists the City’s existing firefighting apparatus and other vehicles and equipment. Costs for all vehicles and equipment shown in the far -right column of Table 4.2 are depreciated replacement costs based on the useful life shown in that table. Vehicles and equipment are assumed to have a residual value of at least 15% of replacement cost, regardless of age.

Table 4.1: Existing and Future Fire Stations
Constr Building Site Bldg Cost/ Useful Est Land Impact Fee Facility Date Sq Ft 1 Acres 2 Repl Cost 3 Life 4 Cost 5 Cost Basis 6 Fire Station 311 Existing 1975 10,500 1.10 2,116,333$ 50 168,300$ 2,284,633$ Fire Station 312 Existing 2005 5,384 1.08 2,803,592$ 50 165,240$ 2,968,832$ Fire Station 313 Existing 1988 4,800 0.94 872,595$ 50 143,820$ 1,016,415$ Fire Station 314 Existing 1994 6,000 1.04 1,087,403$ 50 159,120$ 1,246,523$ Fire Station 315 Existing 2009 4,676 0.67 2,300,949$ 50 102,510$ 2,403,459$ Fire Station 319 Existing -$
Fire Station 316 Future n/a 10,000 0.98 7,000,000$ 50 149,940$ 7,149,940$ Total 17,069,802$
1 Sourced from City asset records
2 Sourced from City Fire Chief and City GIS Analyst
3 Replacment cost for existing stations sourced from City Insured Property Schedule; future station . cost assumed at $700 per square foot; Station 319 is a leased facility in the SCLA area and excluded 4 Sourced from City asset records
5 Average value of recent land sales provided by City of Victorville at $153,000 6 Impact fee cost basis = sum of building, FF&E and site cost or value City of Victorville Page 4-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Table 4.3 lists the future vehicles and equipment that will be needed. The costs shown in Table

4.3 are estimated costs for the items listed.

Table 4.2: Existing Fire Apparatus and Vehicles
Model Useful Replacement Depr Repl Impact Fee
Year Description Location Life (Yrs) Cost 1 Cost 2 Cost Basis 3 1996 International Brush Engine STA 312 15 400,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 1998 Crash Truck M-15, Oshkosh 1977 SCLA 8 800,000$ 120,000$ -$ 2001 E-One Truck STA 314 8 800,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$
2001 Ford F-450 SCLA 8 55,000$ 8,250$ -$
2002 Westates Pumper STA 311 10 800,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ 2002 Westgate Pumper STA 311 10 800,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ 2003 Remanufacture Vehicle Oshkosh Crash SCLA 10 800,000$ 120,000$ -$ 2005 Chevy Colorado Compact Pickup 6 55,000$ 8,250$ 8,250$ 2005 Fire Apparatus (Truck) STA 314 12 800,000$ 120,000$ 120,000$ 2006 Fire Department Communication Trailer 8 40,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 2006 Ford F250 2WD Supercab Truck 8 55,000$ 8,250$ 8,250$ 2006 Fire Suppression System SCLA 12 650,000$ 97,500$ -$ 2006 Pierce Enforcer Pumper TBD 10 800,000$ 120,000$ -$ 2006 Pierce Dash 75' Heavy Aerial Ladder STA 311 10 1,400,000$ 210,000$ 210,000$ 2006 Pierce Enforcer Pumper TBD 10 800,000$ 120,000$ -$ 2012 Oshkosh Crash Fire Rescue Vehicle SCLA 10 800,000$ 80,000$ -$ 2014 KME Pumper Fire Truck STA 311 10 800,000$ 240,000$ 240,000$ 2018 Ford Explorer STA 311 10 55,000$ 38,500$ 38,500$
2018 Ford Explorer STA 311 10 55,000$ 38,500$ 38,500$
2018 Ford Explorer STA 311 10 55,000$ 38,500$ 38,500$
2018 Ford Explorer STA 311 10 55,000$ 38,500$ 38,500$
2018 Ford Explorer STA 311 10 55,000$ 38,500$ 38,500$
2018 Paramedic Squad Unit STA 311 10 190,000$ 133,000$ 133,000$ 2018 Paramedic Squad Unit STA 313 10 190,000$ 133,000$ 133,000$ 2019 KME Pumper Fire Truck STA 312 15 800,000$ 693,333$ 693,333$ 2019 KME Pumper Fire Truck STA 313 15 800,000$ 693,333$ 693,333$ 2020 BME International (Type 3 Brush Engine) TBD 15 400,000$ 373,333$ 373,333$ 2020 Dodge Durango City Hall 6 55,000$ 45,833$ 45,833$
2020 Ford F-250 City Hall 8 55,000$ 48,125$ 48,125$
2020 Eagle Air Traler STA 313 8 125,000$ 109,375$ 109,375$ 2021 Ford F-350 City Hall 8 55,000$ 55,000$ 55,000$
2021 ATC Enclosed Trailer STA 315 8 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ Total 13,640,000$ 4,195,083$ 3,529,333$
1 Replacement cost provided by the City of Victorville
2 Depreciated replacement cost using straight-line depreciation over the useful life of the asset; minimum depreciated value = 15% of replacement cost
3 Impact fee cost basis equals the depreciated replacement cost; SCLA assets and assets shown in Table 4.3 as replacements of existing assets are excluded
City of Victorville Page 4-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Table 4.4 summarizes the costs from the preceding three tables and adds the existing cash balance of the Fire Impact Fee Fund. Additionally, a reduction in the total cost basis equivalent to the outstanding principal on an interfund loan to the fire impact fee fund from the roads impact fee fund is warranted.

Cost per Call for Service
Table 4.5 calculates the cost per call for service for City fire facilities, apparatus and equipment using the total cost from Table 4.4 and the projected number of c alls for service per year at buildout.

Table 4.3: Future Fire Apparatus, Vehicles and Equipment Planned No. of Cost Impact Fee
Purchase Yr. Description Location Units 1 per Unit 1 Cost Basis 2 FY 2022 Type 1 Engine (grant funded) STA 311 1 800,000$ -$ FY 2022 Type 1 Engine (grant funded) STA 315 1 800,000$ -$ FY 2022 Type 1 Engine (grant funded) STA 314 1 800,000$ -$ FY 2022 Ladder Truck (grant funded) STA 311 1 1,600,000$ -$ FY 2023 SCLA ARF Unit SCLA 2 750,000$ -$
FY 2024 Brush Engine STA 315 1 400,000$ 400,000$
FY 2025 Type 1 Engine STA 314 2 800,000$ 1,600,000$
FY 2025 Medic Squad STA 311 1 150,000$ 150,000$
FY 2025 Medic Squad STA 313 1 150,000$ 150,000$
FY 2025 Water Tender STA 316 1 320,000$ 320,000$
FY 2026+ Type 1 Engine STA 316 2 800,000$ 1,600,000$
FY 2026+ Ladder Truck TBD 1 1,600,000$ 1,600,000$
Total 8,970,000$ 5,820,000$
1 Number, type and cost per unit sources from May 2020 Public Safety Plan and City of Victorville 2 Impact fee cost basis equals the cost per unit x number of units; SCLA and grant funded assets are excluded Table 4.4: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing and Future Assets Total
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing and Future Fire Stations 17,069,802$
Existing Fire Apparatus and Vehicles 3,529,333$
Future Fire Apparatus and Vehicles 5,820,000$
Fire Impact Fee Fund Balance (19,394)$
Total Cost 26,399,741$
1 See Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3; Fire Impact Fee fund balance as of 6/30/21
City of Victorville Page 4-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 4.6 below shows the calculation of fire facilities impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per call for service from Table 4.5and the calls-per-unit-per-year factors from Table 2.1.

Table 4.5: Cost per Call for Service
Total 2040 Calls for Cost per Call for
Cost Basis1 Service per Year 2 Service per Year 3
$26,399,741 35,299 $747.89
1 Total asset cost; see Table 4.4
2 Projected 2040 Calls for Service for the City; see Table 2.4 3 Cost per call for service = total cost basis / buildout calls for service Table 4.6 Impact Fee per Unit
Development Cost per CFS Impact Fee
Type Units 1 CFS 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential - Detached DU $747.89 0.38 284.20$
Residential - Attached DU $747.89 0.50 373.95$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $747.89 0.32 239.32$
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $747.89 0.65 486.13$
Professional Office KSF $747.89 0.89 665.62$
Lodging Room $747.89 0.33 246.80$
Industrial/Business Park KSF $747.89 0.07 52.35$
High-Cube Warehouse KSF $747.89 0.01 7.48$
Self-Service Storage KSF $747.89 0.03 22.44$
Gasoline/Service Station Pump $747.89 0.84 628.23$
Institutional KSF $747.89 0.09 67.31$
Public Facilities KSF $747.89 0.90 673.10$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Pump = vehicle fueling position
2 Cost per call for service per year; see Table 4.5
3 Calls for service per unit per year; see Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = cost per call for service X calls for service per unit City of Victorville Page 4-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the fire facilities impact fees can be estimated by applying the fees per unit from Table 4.6 to forecasted future units from Table 2.3. Table 4.7 shows th e projected revenue to buildout from the fire facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter.

This projection assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2. Due to a lack of data, no revenue is projected for future units for lodging, hig h-cube warehouse, self -service storage, assemblies, churches or private schools. Instead, for purposes of analysis, the projected revenue analysis counts those types of future units as either Retail/Service Commercial, Professional Office, or Industrial/Business Park, as appropriate.

The total revenue projected in Table 4.7 is approximately 60% of the cost of future planned facilities, vehicles and equipment shown tables 4.1 and 4.3. Additional funding will be required to cover the entire cost to construct and equip the future fire station.

Although this analysis accounts for the cost of serving public institutions and facilities such as schools, the City either may not have authority, or may not be likely to charge impact fees to other governmental agencies. Consequently, no revenue is attributed to public facilities. We estimate the costs allocated to these facilities are approximately $1.1 million.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated replacement costs for fire facilities, with depreciation as shown in this chapter. We recommend that the fees be Table 4.7 Projected Revenue
Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential - Detached DU 284.20$ 13,547 3,850,057$
Residential - Attached DU 373.95$ 2,840 1,062,018$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU 239.32$ 353 84,480$
Retail/Service Commercial KSF 486.13$ 3,891 1,891,532$
Professional Office KSF 665.62$ 963 640,992$
Industrial/Business Park KSF 52.35$ 3,766 197,150$
Total 7,726,229$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area 2 Impact fee per unit see Table 4.6
3 Future units see Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = future units X impact fee per unit City of Victorville Page 4-7
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bea ring on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for fire facilities provided by the City of Victorville.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional fire facilities to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those facilities in the City.

As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional fire facilities and to serve the added demand for fire protection and other emergency servi ces associated with new development in Victorville.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed.New development increases the demand for fire protection and other emergency services provided by the City. Without additional facilities, apparatus and equipment, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively impact the ability of the City of Victorville to provide services efficiently and effectively to all development in the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the fire facilities impact fees charged to a development City of Victorville Page 4-8
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated calls for service per unit per year for that type of development in in the City’s service area. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the overall need for facilities, apparatus and equipment used by the City to serve development in the City.

City of Victorville Page 5-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 5. Police Facilities
This chapter calculates impact fees for police facilities needed to serve future development in the City. The San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department has provided contract law enforcement services for the City since 1962. The Victorville Station located at 14200 Amargosa Road is owned by the City and serves as a headquarters for County personnel assigned to the Victorville Police Department.

As discussed in more detail below, the police facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service, defined as the relationship between the population served by the Police Department, and the replacement cost of the City’s existing police facilities and equipment.

Service Area
The City’s Police Department serves the entire City, s o the police facilities impact fees are calculated for a single service area encompassing the entire City.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development on a certain type of facilities. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for police facilities is service population. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of service population.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the sta ndard-based method discussed in Chapter 1.

Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.

In this case, the standard is the existing level of service as discussed in the next section. This approach is used so that the police facilities impact fees paid by new development are based on the cost of maintaining the current level of service as the City grows.

Level of Service
The City comp leted a Public Safety Master Plan in May 2020, which discusses the current and recommended level of service for the Victorville Police Department. The Master Plan recommends increased staffing over time to respond to anticipated increases in call volume bu t does not make recommendations for expansion of the existing police station, future stations, or acquisition of additional vehicles and equipment needed to serve future increase call volume or future development. Through the contract with the County Sheri ff’s Department, most capital needs are included such as use of County buildings, vehicles and equipment. However, it should be noted that staff have indicated that the existing Police headquarters building is over capacity.

City of Victorville Page 5-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Therefore, the existing level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of City -owned police facilities, vehicles, and equipment shown in tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, and the City’s existing service population as sh own in Table 2.2 in Chapter 2.

Table 5.1 shows the estimated replacement cost of the City’s existing police station. Replacement cost is used in this analysis as an indicator of the cost of constructing additional facilities to serve future development. In Table 5.1, the replacement cost of the existing building is calculated using the square footage of the building and the cost per square foot for a police facility constructed in Hesperia in 2010. That cost per square foot was about 3% lower than the cost of another police facility constructed in Yucaipa in 2014. Costs for both buildings were escalated 2021 levels using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index before they were compared.

Table 5.2 on the following page lists the existing City -owned police vehicles and equipment and their acquisition cost.

Table 5.1: Existing Police Building Replacement Cost
Existing Estimated Repl Replacement
Sq Ft 1 Cost per Sq Ft 2 Cost 3
15,828 $586.70 $9,286,288
1 Existing Police building square feet from City asset records 2 Estimated replacement cost per square foot based on the cost of a police facility constructed in Hesperia in 2010; that cost has been escalated to current levels using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index
3 Total replacement cost = existing square feet X estimated cost per square foot, rounded to the nearest dollar
City of Victorville Page 5-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Table 5.3 summarizes the costs from the preceding two tables, and also shows a credit for the current cash balance in the City’s Public Safety Impact Fee Fund as well as the amount owed to that fund by the Road Fund. Those amounts are existing assets that can be used to upgrade or expand the existing police headquarters to meet current requirements.

Table 5.2: Existing Police Vehicles and Equipment
Model Impact Fee
Year Description Cost Basis 1
1999 Honda CRV SUV 8,689$
2002 Trailer, Sobriety Check Point 18,463$
2003 Spacesaver System 16,981$
2006 Generator 7,966$
2006 Mobile Command Post Vehicle Equipment 5,846$
2008 Light Tower 7,602$
2008 GMC Comms Equipment 12,098$
2008 GMC 3500 HD Crew Cab Truck 30,402$
2009 Evidence Storage System 142,207$
2010 Surveilance Tower 12,846$
2010 Boxing Ring 7,069$
2011 Thermal Imager 27,296$
2011 Phone Reader system 7,686$
2018 Radar Speed Display Trailer 11,808$
2018 Radar Speed Display Trailer 11,808$
2020 License Plate Reader 444,914$
Total 773,681$
1 Impact fee cost basis = acquisition cost sourced from City asset inventory Table 5.3: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing Assets
Impact Fee
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Police Station 9,286,288$
Existing Police Building Land Value (1.4 Acres at $153,026) 214,236$ Existing Police Vehicles and Equipment 773,681$
Existing Police Impact Fee Fund - Balance Owed from Roads DIF 1,023,437$ Existing Police Impact Fee Fund - Cash 597,578$
Total Cost 11,895,220$
1 See Tables 5.1 and 5.2; Public Safety Impact Fee Fund cash balance and balance owed provided by City Finance Department as of June 30, 2021 City of Victorville Page 5-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Cost per Capita
Table 5.4 calculates the replacement cost per capita of servicepopulation for police facilities and equipment using the impact fee cost basis from Table 5.3 and the existing service population from Table 2.1.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 5.5 shows the calculation of police facilities impact fees per unit of developme nt, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per capita from table 5.4 and the service population per unit factors from Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.

Table 5.4 Cost per Capita
Impact Fee Existing Cost
Cost Basis1 Service Population 2 per Capita 3
$11,895,220 125,214 $95.00
1 Impact Fee Cost Basis; see Table 5.3
2 Existing service population; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per Capita = Total Cost Basis / Existing Service Population Table 5.5 Impact Fees per Unit
Development Cost per Service Pop Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential - Detached DU $95.00 3.07 291.65$
Residential - Attached DU $95.00 2.17 206.15$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $95.00 1.90 180.50$
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $95.00 1.10 104.50$
Professional Office KSF $95.00 0.88 83.60$
Lodging Room $95.00 0.49 46.55$
Industrial/Business Park KSF $95.00 0.29 27.55$
High-Cube Warehouse KSF $95.00 0.20 19.00$
Self-Service Storage KSF $95.00 0.01 0.95$
Gasoline/Service Station Pump $95.00 0.13 12.35$
Institutional KSF $95.00 0.24 22.80$
Public Facilities KSF $95.00 0.88 83.60$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Pump = vehicle fueling position
2 Cost per Capita; see Table 5.4
3 Service Population per Unit; see Table 2.1
4 Impact Fee per Unit = Cost per Capita X Service Popluation per Unit City of Victorville Page 5-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the police facilities impact fees can be estimated by applying the fees per unit from Table 5.5 to forecasted future units from Table 2.3.

Table 5.6 shows the projected revenue to 2040 from the police facilities impact fees calculated in this chapter. This projection assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2.

Due to a lack of data, no revenue is projected for future units for lodging, High-Cube Warehouse, Self-Service Storage, or Assemblies, Churches and Private Schools. Instead, the revenue projection counts those types of future units as either Retail/Service Commercial, Professional Office, or Industrial/Business Park, as appropriate.

Although this analysis accounts for the cost of serving public institutions and facilities such as schools, the City either may not have autho rity, or may not be likely to charge impact fees to other governmental agencies. Consequently, no revenue is attributed to public facilities. We estimate the costs allocated to these facilities are approximately $33,500 dollars.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated replacement costs for police facilities. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building Cost Inde x. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:

Table 5.6 Projected Revenue
Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential - Detached DU 291.65$ 13,547 3,950,983$
Residential - Attached DU 206.15$ 2,840 585,466$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU 180.50$ 353 63,717$
Retail/Service Commercial KSF 104.50$ 3,891 406,610$
Professional Office KSF 83.60$ 963 80,507$
Industrial/Business Park KSF 46.55$ 3,766 175,307$
Total 5,262,590$
1 DU=dwelling unit; KSF=1,000 gross squre feet of building area 2 Impact fee per unit; see Table 5.5
3 Future units; see Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = future units X impact fee per unit City of Victorville Page 5-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on whichthe fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for police facilities in Victorville.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional po lice facilities to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those facilities in the City.

As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional police facilities and to serve the added demand for law enforcement services ass ociated with new development in Victorville.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development increases the need for police facilities to maintain the existing level of ser vice, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional police facilities, the increase in demand associated with new development would negatively impact the ability of the Victorville Police Department to provide services efficiently and effectivel y to all development in the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the police facilities impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the increase in calls for service associated with that project.

The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated calls for service per unit per year for that type of development in Victorville. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for police facilities in the City.

City of Victorville Page 6-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 6. Public Buildings
This chapter calculates impact fees for public buildings and general governmental vehicles and equipment needed to serve future development in the City. Public buildings included in this chapter include City Hall, corporate yard s and maintenance buildings, the Victor Valley Transportation Center, and the animal control building.

As discussed in more detail below, the impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the existing level of service, defined as the relationship bet ween the population served by these buildings, vehicles, and equipment, and their respective replacement cost.

Service Area
Victorville’s public buildings and general government vehicles serve the entire City, so the impact fees calculated in this chapter will apply to all new development in the City.

Demand Variable
Victorville’s public buildings and vehicles provide services to both residential and non-residential development in the City, so the demand variable used to calculate impact fees forthose facilities is service population, which represents both residential and non -residential development. See Chapter 2 for a detailed explanation of service population.

Methodology
The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the standard-based method discussed in Chapter 1. The standard used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of service defined below.

Level of Service
The level of service used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the existing level of s ervice, which is defined as the relationship between the replacement cost of City -owned facilities, vehicles, and equipment shown in tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, and the City’s existing service population as shown in Table 2.2 in Chapter 2.

Table 6.1 on the next page lists the City’s existing public buildings with their estimated replacement cost and land value. Building replacement cost is used here because it will be necessary for the City to build additional public buildings to maintain the existing level of service as the City grows.

City of Victorville Page 6-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Table 6.2 lists the existing City -owned general government vehicles and equipment with their acquisition cost. Vehicles and equipment considered in this analysis exclude those used for public safety and recreation, and ass ets in proprietary funds. The full detailed list of vehicle and equipment assets can be found as Appendix B to this report.

Table 6.3 summarizes the costs from the preceding two tables and shows a credit for the current balance in the City’s public build ings impact fee fund which is an existing asset and can be used to fund additional facilities. In addition, the Impact Fee Cost Basis is also reduced by the amount of remaining principal on interfund loans that were utilized to pay for City Hall.

Table 6.1: Existing Public Buildings
Square Building Site Land Impact Fee
Facility Feet 1 Repl Cost 2 FF&E 3 Acres 4 Value 5 Cost Basis 6 City Hall 107,545 32,114,143$ 4,922,974$ 7.37 1,127,610$ 38,164,727$ Public Works Yard 17,000 4,551,383$ 1,006,857$ 5.88 899,640$ 6,457,880$ Sign Shop 2,268 428,831$ 102,981$ - -$ 531,812$
CNG Fueling Station - PW Yard 900 447,554$ -$ - -$ 447,554$ Animal Control 18,888 4,186,584$ 520,610$ - -$ 4,707,194$ Victor Valley Transportation Center 6,500 1,862,475$ -$ 5.17 791,010$ 2,653,485$ CNG Fueling Station - Transportation Ctr 900 447,554$ -$ - -$ 447,554$ Palmdale Satellite Yard 1,200 54,849$ -$ 2.37 362,610$ 417,459$ Building 999 3,800 350,614$ -$ 2.00 306,000$ 656,614$
8th Street Facilities Building 5,124 968,923$ 191,085$ 0.33 50,490$ 1,210,498$ Total 45,412,910$ 6,744,507$ 23.12 3,537,360$ 55,694,777$ 1 Building square feet from COV Property Schedule
2 Estimated building replacement cost from COV Property Schedule 3 Furniture fixtures and equipment (FF&E) from the COV Property Schedule 4 Site acres provided by City of Victorville; buildings without site acreage are located in the Public Works Yard/ Transportation Center; acreage shown for Public Works Yard excludes the Police Building site 5 Average value of recent land sales provided by City of Victorville at $153,000 6 Impact Fee Cost Basis = Building Replacement Cost + FF&E + Land Value Table 6.2 Existing General Government Vehicles and Equipment Impact Fee
Department Cost Basis 1
Public Works 7,888,479$
Administrative Services 307,819$
Engineering 1,555,076$
Development Services 515,700$
City Manager 35,973$
Total Cost 10,303,047$
1 Acquisition cost sourced from City asset inventory
City of Victorville Page 6-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Cost per Capita
Table 6.4 calculates the replacement cost per capita of service population for public building facilities using the impact fee cost basis from Table 6.3 and the existing service population from Chapter 2.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 6.5 shows th e calculation of impact fees per unit of development, by development type, for public buildings, vehicles and equipment. Those fees are calculated using the cost per capita from Table 6.4 and the service population per unit factors from Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.

Table 6.3: Impact Fee Cost Basis - Existing Assets
Impact Fee
Component Cost Basis 1
Existing Buildings 55,694,777$
Existing Vehicles and Equipment 10,303,047$
City Hall - Outstanding Debt Owed to DIF funds 2
(17,156,991)$
Public Buildings Impact Fee Fund Balance 2
40,539$
Total Cost 48,881,372$
1 See Tables 6.1 and 6.2
2 Impact Fee Fund cash balance and balance owed provided by City Finance Department as of 6/30/21
Table 6.4: Cost per Capita of Service Population
Impact Fee Existing Cost
Cost Basis1 Service Population 2 per Capita 3
$48,881,372 125,214 $390.38
1 Total asset cost; see Table 6.3
2 Existing Service Population; see Table 2.2
3 Cost per Capita = Impact Fee Cost Basis / Existing Service Population City of Victorville Page 6-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the public buildings impact fees can be estimated by applying the fees per unit from Table 6.5 to forecasted future units from Table 2.3.

Table 6.6 shows the projected revenue to buildout from the public buildings impact fees calculated in this chapter. This projection assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2. Due to a lack of data, no revenue is projected for future units for lodging, high -cube warehouse, self-service storage, assembl ies, churches or private schools. Instead, for purposes of analysis, the projected revenue analysis counts those types of future units as either Retail/Service Commercial, Professional Office, or Industrial/Business Park, as appropriate.

Table 6.5 Impact Fees per Unit
Development Cost per Svc Pop Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential - Detached DU $390.38 3.07 1,198.47$
Residential - Attached DU $390.38 2.17 847.13$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $390.38 1.90 741.73$
Retail/Service Commercial KSF $390.38 1.10 429.42$
Professional Office KSF $390.38 0.88 343.54$
Lodging Room $390.38 0.49 191.29$
Industrial/Business Park KSF $390.38 0.29 113.21$
High-Cube Warehouse KSF $390.38 0.20 78.08$
Self-Service Storage KSF $390.38 0.01 3.90$
Gasoline/Service Station Pump $390.38 0.13 50.75$
Institutional KSF $390.38 0.24 93.69$
Public Facilities KSF $390.38 0.88 343.54$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Pump = vehicle fueling position
2 Cost per capita; see Table 6.4
3 Service population per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Cost per unit = cost per capita X service popluation per unit City of Victorville Page 6-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Although this analysis accounts for the cost of serving public institutions and facilities such as schools, the City either may not have authority, or may not be likely to charge impact fees to other governmental agencies. Consequently, no revenue is attributed to publi c facilities. We estimate the costs allocated to these facilities are approximately $138,000 dollars.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated replacement costs for public buildings and general governmental vehicles and equipment. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as theEngineering News Record Building Cost Index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Table 6.6 Projected Revenue
Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential - Detached DU 1,198.47$ 13,547 16,235,673$
Residential - Attached DU 847.13$ 2,840 2,405,849$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU 741.73$ 353 261,831$
Retail/Service Commercial KSF 429.42$ 3,891 1,670,873$
Professional Office KSF 343.54$ 963 330,829$
Industrial/Business Park KSF 113.21$ 3,766 426,349$
Total 21,331,404$
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area 2 Impact fee per unit see Table 6.5
3 Future units see Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = future units X impact fee per unit City of Victorville Page 6-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in th is chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for public buildings and general government vehicles and equipment in Victorville.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional public buildings, vehicles, and equipment to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those facilities in the City.

As provided by the Mitigation FeeAct, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapte r will be used to pay for the cost of public buildings and general government vehicles and equipment needed to maintain the existing level of service in Victorville as the City grows.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. All development creates a need for additional public buildings and general government vehicles and equipment. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will pay for additional assets needed to maintain the existing level of service in the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the public buildings and vehicles impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the amount of added service population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the estimated service population per unit for that type of development in Victorville. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects that project’s proportionate share of the cost of the City’s public buildings and general government vehicles.

City of Victorville Page 7-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 7. Libraries
This chapter calculates impact fees for library facilities and materials needed to serve future development in the City. The City owns and operates the Victorville City Library which is housed in an existing building on Circle Drive in Old Town. The City completed a Library Master Plan in April 2021 to guide the future of the Library.

Service Area
Impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all new residential development in the City.

Population is used as the demand variable for these fees because the need for libraries is commonly defined in terms of the size of the population to be served. Added population is used in this chapter to measure the impact of new development on the need for library facilities.

Because population per dwelling unit vari es by development type, the average population per unit is estimated for each type of residential development defined in this study. Those individual “demand factors” are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees usi ng the standard -based method discussed in Chapter 1.

Standard-based fees are calculated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development.

In this case, the standard is the existing level of service as discussed in the next section. This approach is used so that the library impact fees paid by new development are based on the cost of maintaining the current level of service as the City grows.

Level of Service – Library Buildings
The City has not adopted a formal level of service standard for libraries and, as stated in the recently completed Library Master Plan, the American Library Association long ago stopped publishing such standards. Consequently, the level of service sta ndard used to calculate impact fees for library buildings in this chapter is the relationship between the City’s existing population and the size of the existing Victorville Library in square feet. For library materials, the standard is the relationship be tween the City’s existing population and the value of the estimated existing Library collection.

City of Victorville Page 7-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Table 7.1 shows the estimated cost per capita to be used for Library buildings in the impact fee calculations. That cost is based on the square feet per capi ta of existing Library space in the City and the estimated cost per square foot for the preferred building program in the 2021 Victorville Library Master Plan. That cost per capita represents the cost of providing additional library space to serve future r esidents at the same level of service provided to the existing population of Victorville in terms of square feet per capita.

Level of Service – Library Materials
Table 7.2 calculates the existing level of service for library materials based on the City’ s existing population and the estimated value of the existing Library collection.

In the next section, the replacement cost per -capita from Table 7.2 is used to calculate library impact fees per unit of development, by development type.

Table 7.1: Existing Library Building Cost per Capita
Existing Existing Sq Ft per Est Cost Cost per
Sq Ft 1 Population 2 Capita 3 per Sq Ft 4 Capita 5
8,229 123,352 0.0667 $594.74 $39.68
1 Existing library building square feet from the 2021 Victorville Library Master Plan
2 See Table 2.2
3 Square feet per capita = existing square feet / existing population 4 Estimated cost per square foot including furniture, fixtures and equipment from the 2021 Victorville Library Master Plan, Table 8.1, 73,200 sq ft option 5 Cost per capita = square feet per capita X estimated cost per square foot Table 7.2: Existing Library Materials Cost per Capita
Est Value of Existing Cost
Existing Materials 1 Population 2 per Capita 3
$4,273,576 123,352 $34.65
1 Estimated value of existing library materials from the City of Victorville property schedule
2 See Table 2.2
3 Cost per Capita = estimated value of existing library materials / existing population
City of Victorville Page 7-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Total Cost per Capita for Library Building and Library Materials Table 7.3 shows the sum of the costs per capita from Tables 7.1 and 7.2, as well as the percentages represented by each component. Those percentages may be used for tracking expenditures of impact fee revenue for library buildings and materials.

Impact Fees per Unit
Table 7.4 shows the calculation of library impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the total cost per capita from Table 7.3 and averag e population per dwelling unit from Table 2.1.

Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the library impact fees can be estimated by applying the fees per unit from Table 7.4 to forecasted future units from Table 2.3. Because population is used as the demand variable in calculating these impact fees and population is a function of residential development, the fees apply only to residential development.

Table 7.5 shows the projected revenue from the library impact fees calculated in this chapter.

This projection assumes that future development occurs as shown in Chapter 2 Table 7.3: Total Cost per Capita
Cost Cost per Percent
Component Capita 1
of Total
Library Building $39.68 53.4%
Library Materials $34.65 46.6%
Total $74.33 100.0%
1 See Tables 7.1 and 7.2
Table 7.4 Impact Fee per Unit
Development Total Cost Population Impact Fee
Type Units 1 per Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential - Detached DU $74.33 3.40 252.72$
Residential - Attached DU $74.33 2.40 178.39$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $74.33 2.10 156.09$
1 DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 7.3
3 See Table 2.1
4 Impact fee per unit = total cost per capita X population per unit City of Victorville Page 7-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
It is important to note that the total projected revenue from the impact fees would represent less than 10% of the project cost for the 73,200 square foot option proposed in the Library Master Plan. In addition, only 53.4% of that revenue is attributable to the library building portion of the impact fees. The rest is based on the cost of library materials.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the curre nt estimated costs for library facilities and materials. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (BCI). See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fee s” in Chapter 1.) The Table 7.5 Projected Revenue
Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential - Detached DU 252.72$ 13,547 3,423,598$
Residential - Attached DU 178.39$ 2,840 506,628$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU 156.09$ 353 55,100$
Total 3,985,326$
1 DU = dwelling unit
2 See Table 7.4
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units City of Victorville Page 7-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for library facilities and materials in Victorville.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional library facilities and materials to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those facilities in the City.

As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional libraries facilities and materials to serve the needs of added population associated with new residential development in Victorville.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the need for libraries to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional library facilit ies and materials, the increase in population associated with new residential development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cos t Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the library impact fees charged to a residential development project will depend on the increase in population associated with that project. The fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the estimated average population per unit for that type of development in Victorville. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for library facilities and materials in the City.

City of Victorville Page 8-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 8. Water System Improvements
This chapter calculates capacity charges for water system improvements and water rights needed by the Victorville Water District to serve future development. System improvements include water distribution pipelines, additional operational and emergency res ervoir storage and additional ground water wells.

The water system capacity charges calculated in this chapter also include the cost of acquiring rights to additional ground water or alternative sources of supply. The Victorville Water District is curren tly exceeding its adjudicated base annual production rights for the Alto Basin and currently has no additional water rights available to serve new customers. The water rights component of the overall water system capacity charge is based on the cost of acq uiring additional ground water rights, but may be used to purchase permanent supplemental water from outside the Alto Basin if ground water rights in the basin are not available. This charge could also be used for projects and technology that would provide permanent supplemental water to the basin in lieu of ground water rights.

Service Area
Water service in Victorville is provided by the Victorville Water District, which is a subsidiary District of the City of Victorville. The City Council members also s erve as the Board of Directors of the Water District which serves the City as well as some areas within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) not currently within the city limits.

Methodology
This chapter calculates water system capacity charges using the plan-based method discussed in Chapter 1. The plan-based method allocates costs for specific improvements to the new development served by those improvements.

A capacity charge is defined in Government Code Section 66013 as “a charge for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged, including supply or capacity contracts for rights or entitlements, real property interests, and entitlements and other rights of the local agency involving capital expense relating to its use of existing or new public facilities. A ‘capacity charge’ does not include a commodity charge.” City of Victorville Page 8-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
As required by Government Code Sections 66013 and 66016, w ater capacity charges are calculated in this chapter in such a way as to not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing water service to new development in the District.

Level of Service
Level of service for a water system involves a number of considerations related to water supply, water quality, storage capacity, wat er pressure and reliability. The 2021 Water Master Plan Update spells out the criteria used to engineer the system needed to serve existing and future development within the water district.

Government Code Section 66016.5, added by AB 602 in 2021, states t hat, when applicable, a nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.

However, that requirement does not apply to the water system capacity charges calculated in this chapter because it excludes fees or charges pursuant to Section 66013, which governs capacity charges for water and sewer systems.

System Improvement Needs
The water system improvements ne eded to serve future development in Victorville include additional water distribution pipelines, reservoir storage and ground water wells. Table 8.1 lists the new water distribution pipelines needed to serve future development in Victorville out to 2040, along with the estimated cost of those pipelines.

Table 8.1: Future Water Distribution Pipelines
Improvement Linear Cost Impact Fee
Type Feet (LF) per LF 1 Cost Basis 2
12" Pipelines 202,161.17 230.72$ 46,642,625$
16" Pipelines 50,793.60 279.46$ 14,194,779$
24" Pipelines 27,984.00 447.36$ 12,518,922$
30" Pipelines 792.00 512.35$ 405,781$
Total 281,730.77 73,762,107$
Source: Linear feet and estimated costs by the City of Victorville City Engineer, based on the 2021 Water Master Plan; costs updated to 2021 levels using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index
1 Costs for 12" and 16" pipelines include the cost of laterals 2 Impact fee cost basis = linear feet X cost per linear foot, rounded to the nearest dollar
City of Victorville Page 8-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Cost per Gallon per Day - Pipelines
Table 8.2 converts the total cost of pipelines from Table 8.1 into a cost per gallon per day using the projected increase in average daily demand (ADD) from 2021 to 2040.

Cost per Single-Family Dwelling Unit (SFDU) - Pipelines Table 8.3 calculates a cost per single-family dwelling unit for new water pipelines, using the cost- per-gallon-per-day from Table 8.2 and the estimated average day demand in gallons per day.

Average day demand is estimated at 319 gallons per day per single family residential connection using data presented in the Victorville Water District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 4-7. For purposes of calculating water system capacity charges i n this chapter, a single - family dwelling unit is equated to a 3/4” water meter.

Cost per Single-Family Dwelling Unit (SFDU) – New Wells and Storage Table 8.4 calculates the cost per single -family dwelling unit for new ground water wells and reservoir storage. The storage requirement is based on capacity needed for operational storage and emergency storage. No cost is included for fire flow storage.

Table 8.2: Cost per GPD of Average Day Demand - Pipelines Impact Fee Cost 2021-2040 Increase Cost per Gallon
Basis-Pipelines 1 in ADD (MGD) 2 per Day 3
$73,762,107 9.65 $7.644
1 See Table 8.1
2 2021-2040 increase in average daily demand (ADD) in millions of gallons per day (MGD) based on the 2021 Water Master Plan Update, Table 4-8 3 Cost per gallon per day (GPD) = impact fee cost basis / (Increase in ADD X 1,000,000)
Table 8.3: Cost per Single Family Dwelling Unit - Pipelines Average Day Demand Cost per Cost per SFDU
per SFDU (GPD) 1 GPD 2 (3/4" Meter) 3
319.00 $7.644 $2,438.44
1 Average day demand per single family dwelling unit (SFDU) provided by the Victorville Water District based on data presented in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 4-7
2 See Table 8.2
3 Cost per single family dwelling unit with a 3/4" meter = average day demand per SFDU in gallons per day (GPD) X cost per GPD City of Victorville Page 8-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
The cost of new ground water wells is calculated here based on the cost and capacity of a 1,500 gallon per minute (GPM) well. The cost of storage is calculated based on the cost and capacity of a five-million-gallon steel tank reservoir. Costs for those facilities were estimated by WSC, the consultant for the District’s 2021 Water Master Plan Update.

The need for water supply and storage capacity is stated in the 2021 Water Master Plan Update in terms of maximum day demand (MDD). The systemwide average MDD is shown in Table 4 -10 of the 2021 Water Master Plan as 1.5 X average day demand (ADD). Water supply sources (e.g., wells) are required to provide 1.0 X MDD. The capacity factors for operational storage and emergency storage are defined as 0.25 MDD and 0.5 MDD, respectively.

Cost per Single-Family Dwelling Unit (SFDU) – Water Rights Table 8.5 calculates the cost per single-family dwelling unit for additional ground water pumping rights needed to supply new development in the District, based on the cost per acre foot per year and the acre feet required for a single-family dwelling unit based on the Average Day Demand of 319 gallons shown in Table 8.3.

Table 8.4: Cost per Single Family Dwelling Unit - Wells and Storage System Max Day Capacity Required Cost per Cost per
Component Demand 1 Factor 2 Capacity 3 GPD or Gal 4 SFDU 5 Water Supply/Wells (GPD) 478.50 1.00 478.500 $1.75 $837.38 Operational Storage (Gallons) 478.50 0.25 119.625 $1.54 $184.22 Emergency Storage (Gallons) 478.50 0.50 239.250 $1.54 $368.45 Total $1,390.05
1 Maximum day demand = average day demand from Table 8.3 X MDD peaking factor of 1.5, which is the systemwide MDD peaking factor from Table 4-10 in the 2021 Water Master Plan 2 Capacity factor = required capacity relative to MDD
3 Required capacity = maximum day demand X capacity factor 4 Cost per gallon per day (water supply) or per gallon (storage) based on estimates by Water Master Plan consultant WSC for a 1,500 GPM well and a 5 MG gallon reservoir City of Victorville Page 8-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Water System Capacity Charges by Meter Size
Table 8.6 calculates water system capacity charges by meter size for meters from 3/4” to 8”. The charge for each meter size is based on the capacity of the meter relative to the capacity of a 3/4” meter.

In Table 8.6, the cost basis for the capacity charge associated with a ¾” meter is based on the combined cost per single-family dwelling unit (SFDU) connection for pipelines from Table 8.3, for water supply and storage facilities from Table 8.4 and for water rights from Table 8.5.

The cost per ¾” meter equivalent in the fourth column from the left is the sum of the costs per SFDU from Tables 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5.

Table 8.5: Cost per Single Family Dwelling Unit - Water Rights System Cost per Acre Feet Cost per
Component Acre Foot 1 per SFDU 2 SFDU 3
Water Rights $5,200.00 0.357326 $1,858.10
1 Current cost per acre foot per year for Alto Basin groundwater pumping rights estimated by the Victorville Water District 2 Acre feet per year per single family dwelling unit = (319 gallons per day X 365 days per year) / 325,851 gallons per acre foot 3 Cost per single family dwelling unit
Table 8.6: Water System Capacity Charges by Meter Size Meter Capacity Flow Cost per 3/4" Water System
Size (GPM) 1 Factor 2 Meter Equiv 3 Capacity Charge 4
3/4" 30 1.00 $5,686.59 5,686.59$
1" 50 1.67 $5,686.59 9,496.61$
1-1/2" 100 3.33 $5,686.59 18,936.34$
2" 160 5.33 $5,686.59 30,309.52$
3" 300 10.00 $5,686.59 56,865.90$
4" 500 16.67 $5,686.59 94,795.46$
6" 1000 33.33 $5,686.59 189,534.04$
8" 1600 53.33 $5,686.59 303,265.84$
1 Meter capacity in gallons per minute based on data from the American Water Works Association (AWWA)
2 Flow factor = meter capacity / 3/4" meter capacity
3 Combined cost per single family dwelling unit from Tables 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5; demand for one SFDU is equated to a 3/4" meter 4 Water system capacity charge = flow factor X cost per 3/4" meter equivalent City of Victorville Page 8-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Projected Revenue
No projection of water system capacity charge revenue is provided in this chapter because the capacity charges are based on meter size. It is not possible to forecast with a reasonable degree of accuracy the number and size of meters that will be needed by future development.

Updating the Capacity Charges
The water system capacity charges calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated costs for water system improvements and ground water rights identified in this chapter. We recommend that the charges be reviewed and adjustedannually using local cost data or an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Nexus Summary
Government Code Section 66013 exempts water capacity charges from the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act Sections 66000 through 66008, including the requirement that the governing body make findings regarding the purpose and use of the charges and to establish that there is a reasonable relationship between those charges and the impacts of development subject to the charges.

However, these capacity charges have been calculated in such a way as to establish a defensible nexus in terms of the relationship between the capacity charges and the burden imposed by development on the water system.

City of Victorville Page 9-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 9. Road Improvements
This chapter calculates impact fees for road, bridge, interchange and traffic signal improvements including both locally funded facilities and those funded in part by Measure I, a half -cent sales tax collected throughout San Bernardino County for transport ation Improvements. Originally approved by voters in 1989, Measure I was re -authorized in 2004 for an additional thirty years, from 2010 to 2040.

One requirement of the Measure I 2010 -2040 Ordinance is that Measure I funds not be used to replace developer funding of transportation improvements. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) 2016 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) and the 2020 Development Mitigation Nexus Study, which is part of the CMP, establish the amounts to be collected by local agencies from developers to help fund projects which are partially funded by SBCTA public funds, including Measure I Major Local Highways funding. The developer share of costs for those projects, labeled “Nexus Study” projects in this chapter are identified in Table 9.1.

Service Area
Victorville’s road improvements serve the entire City, so the road impact fees calculated in this chapter apply to all new development in the City.

Demand Variable
A “demand variable” is a quantifiable attribute of development that is used in fee calculation formulas to represent the impact of development. The demand variable used to calculate impact fees for road improvements in this study is peak hour trip generation, specifically trips generated during the P.M. peak hour of the adjacent street as estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the 10th edition of its Trip Generation manual.

Because the number of peak hour trips per unit varies by development type, the specific trip generation rates to be used for each type of development defined in this study are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2.

Methodology
This chapter calculates impact fees using the plan -based method discussed in Chapter 1. Plan - based fees are calculated by allocat ing costs for specific improvements to new development served by those improvements.

Level of Service
Level of service for streets and intersections is commonly defined in terms of level -of-service (LOS) categories A through F as defined in the Highway C apacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. The Circulation Element of the current Victorville General Plan adopted level of service standards on that basis. The need for road improvements identified in this chapter has been determined by the City using the LOS standard.

City of Victorville Page 9-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Improvement Needs
Table 9.1 summarizes the list of road improvements needed to serve future development in Victorville, along with the cost of those improvements. Table 9.1 shows both total improvement costs and the shareof those costs to be recovered through impact fees calculated in this chapter.

Cost estimates for arterial roads include only the two interior lanes and cost estimates for super arterial roads include only the four interior lanes. Because the two outer l anes on arterial roads are not included in the cost estimates, only the interior lanes are eligible for impact fee credits.

In Table 9.1, SCLA refers to the area covered by the Southern California Logistics Airport Specific Plan. As explained earlier, pro jects designated as SBCTA Nexus Study projects are partly funded by Measure I Major Local Highways or other public funding from SBCTA. Cost estimates and descriptions for each improvement project are available from the Victorville City Engineer.

Cost per Peak Hour Trip
Table 9.2 calculates a cost per peak hour trip for road improvements using the impact fee cost basis from Table 9.1 and the added peak hour trips from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2.

Table 9.1: Road Improvements
Improvement Project New Dev Impact Fee
Type Cost 1 Share 2 Cost Basis 3
Local Road Improvmts and Bridges (except SCLA) 143,339,107$ 89.2% 127,873,454$ Local Road Imprvmts Under Pwr Lines (except SCLA) 8,667,564$ 100.0% 8,667,564$ Local Traffic Signals (except SCLA) 18,414,000$ 100.0% 18,414,000$ Local Interchanges 28,510,465$ 65.8% 18,758,065$
Local Road Improvements (SCLA) 33,691,983$ 100.0% 33,691,983$ Local Intersection Improvements & Signals (SCLA) 8,724,969$ 96.2% 8,396,943$ Subtotal Local Road Improvements 241,348,088$ 89.4% 215,802,009$ SBCTA Nexus Study Road Improvements and Bridges 100,538,856$ 47.1% 47,358,254$ SBCTA Nexus Study Interchanges 167,391,501$ 35.5% 59,477,189$ Subtotal SBCTA Nexus Study Road Improvements 267,930,357$ 39.9% 106,835,443$ Total Road Improvements 509,278,445$ 63.4% 322,637,452$ 1 Estimated project costs provided by the City of Victorville City Engineer; detailed cost estimates are available from the City Engineer; costs for SBCTA Nexus Study projects are subject to the the requirements of the SBCTA Congestions Management Plan (CMP) and the Development Mitigation Nexus Study (CMP Appendix G) and are partly funded by SBCTA 2 New development share of project costs provided by the City Engineer 3 Impact fee cost basis = project cost X new development share City of Victorville Page 9-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Impact Fees per Unit
Table 9.3 shows the calculation of road impact fees per unit of development, by development type. Those fees are calculated using the cost per peak hour trip from Table 9.2 and the peak hour trips per unit factors from Table 2.1.

Project-Specific Fees
Impact fees are calculated in Table 9. 3 for a fairly detailed breakdown of development types.

Even so, the City may receive applications for projects that don’t fit neatly into one of those categories. In that case, it is an easy matter to calculate a customized road impact fee for an Table 9.2: Cost per Peak Hour Trip
Impact Fee Added Peak Cost per Peak
Cost Basis 1 Hour Trips 2 Hour Trip 3
$322,637,452 33,185 $9,722.39
1 See Table 9.1
2 See Table 2.3
3 Cost per peak hour trip = impact fee cost basis / added peak hour trips from Table 2.3
Table 9.3: Road Impact Fees per Unit
Development Cost per Pk Pk Hr Trips Impact Fee
Type Units 1 Hr Trip 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4
Residential - Detached DU $9,722.39 0.99 9,625.17$
Residential - Attached DU $9,722.39 0.56 5,444.54$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU $9,722.39 0.46 4,472.30$ Retail/Service Commercial KSF $9,722.39 3.81 37,042.31$ Professional Office KSF $9,722.39 1.15 11,180.75$
Lodging Room $9,722.39 0.38 3,694.51$
Industrial/Business Park KSF $9,722.39 0.53 5,152.87$
High-Cube Warehouse KSF $9,722.39 0.10 972.24$
Self-Service Storage KSF $9,722.39 0.17 1,652.81$
Gasoline/Service Station Pump $9,722.39 4.90 47,639.71$ Institutional KSF $9,722.39 0.65 6,319.55$
Public Facilities KSF $9,722.39 0.94 9,139.05$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq. feet of building area; Room = guest room or suite; Pump = vehicle fueling position 2 See Table 9.2
3 Peak hour trips per unit; see Table 2.1
4 Cost per unit = cost per peak hour trip X peak hour trips per unit City of Victorville Page 9-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
individual project using the cost per peak hour trip from Table 9.2 and an estimate of the peak hour trips per day to be generated by the development project. Project -specific peak hour trip rates can be based on either a traffic study for the project or the appropriate rate from ITE’s Trip Generation manual.

Projected Revenue
Potential revenue from the road impact fees can be estimated by applying the fees per unit from Table 9.3 to forecasted future units from Table 2.3. However, since the list of development types in Table 2.3 is less detailed than the list for which impact fees are calculated in this chapter, projected revenue is only an approximation. See the discussion in Chapter 2 for an explanation of the reasons for that difference in the breakdown of development types.

Table 9.4 shows the projected revenue to 2040 from the road impact fees calculated in this chapter. This projection assumes that future development occurs as forecasted in Chapter 2. It should also be noted that no revenue is projected for t he Public Facilities development type because it is unlikely the City would be able to collect road impact fees for facilities constructed by other public agencies including school districts.

Updating the Fees
The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based the current estimated costs for road improvements identified in this chapter. We recommend that the fees be reviewed and adjusted annually using local cost data or an index such as theEngineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) or a similar index. See the Implementation Chapter for more on indexing of fees.

Table 9.4: Road Impact Fees - Projected Revenue
Development Impact Fee Future Projected
Type Units 1 per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4
Residential - Detached DU 9,625.17$ 13,547 130,392,178$ Residential - Attached DU 5,444.54$ 2,840 15,462,494$
Residential - Mobile Home Park DU 4,472.30$ 353 1,578,722$ Retail/Service Commercial KSF 37,042.31$ 3,891 144,131,628$ Professional Office KSF 11,180.75$ 963 10,767,062$
Industrial/Business Park KSF 5,152.87$ 3,766 19,405,708$ Total 321,737,792$
1 Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area 2 Impact fee per unit; see Table 9.3
3 See Table 2.3
4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units City of Victorville Page 9-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Nexus Summary
As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act requires an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees to make findings to:

Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use of the fee; and,
Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project.

Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the “rational nexus” and “ro ugh proportionality” standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see “Legal Framework for Impact Fees” in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter satisfy those requirements.

Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for road, bridge, interchange and traffic signal improvements in Victorville.

Use of the Fee. Impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional road, bridge, interchange and traffic signal improvements to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for those facilities in the City.

As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another.

Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide road, bridge, interchange and traffic signal improvements to serve the needs of additional development in Victorville.

Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Development on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New development creates a need for additional road system improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service on the City’s road system. A failure to provide those improvements would result in increased congestion on Victorville’s road system.

Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost Attributable to the Development Project. The amount of the road impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the estimated increase in peak hour vehicle trips associated with that project. The City of Victorville Page 9-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
fees per unit of development calculated in this chapter for each type of development are based on the number of peak hour trips per unit generated by that type of development. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the impact of that project on the need for road, bridge, interchange and traffic signal improvements in the City.

City of Victorville Page 10-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 10. Administrative Fee
This chapter provides a cost -of-service analysis to substantiate an administrative fee that is added to each impact fee (see Executive Summary). This charge recovers the cost of accounting, reporting and other administrative activities required by the Miti gation Fee Act, as well as the cost of periodic updates to the impact fee study.

The following table establishes an Administrative Fee for the impact fee program.

NBS recently completed a Citywide Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) analysis for the City of Vic torville.

CAP analyses are widely utilized by local governments nationwide for purposes of establishing a fair and reasonable allocation of centralized administrative costs to various funds, departments, and/or divisions within the organization that provide services to the public. Common applications of the results of a CAP analysis include use as a tool in recovering overhead costs from special and/or enterprise revenue funds, calculating fully burdened hourly rates for use in billing or calculating fees f or service, and recovering administrative costs from various grants or inter - agency funding agreements. In fact, use of a CAP analysis as a tool for justifying recovery of administrative costs from impact fee funds was most recently supported by the Walker v. City of San Clemente decision made by the California Court of Appeals on August 28, 2015.

The table above includes theallocated costs of program administration as established by the CAP analysis, and the annualized costs of completing a comprehensive impact fee analysis every five years. The projected and annualized revenue assumptions were developed throughout the various chapters included in the body of this report. Two percent of the impact fee amount is a widely implemented administrative fee in California for impact fee programs. Comparatively, the fee calculated above for the City of Victorville’s program is well wit hin the range of similar fees charged for other California local government agencies.

Table 10.1: Administrative Fee Calculation
Annual Administrative Costs for CIF funds 45,271$ [1]
Annualized Fee Study Costs 14,000$ [2]
Total Annual Costs 59,271$
Projected Revenue 543,278,638$ [3]
Annualized Revenue 27,163,932$ [4]
Fee Program Administration as Percent of Fees 0.20%
[1] Cost Allocation Plan prepared by NBS; costs adjusted annually by CPI to 2021 [2] Estimated and amortized cost of fee/nexus every five years, [3] Estimated revenue collected from impact fees through 2040/buildout [4] 20 year annualized revenue for analysis purposes
City of Victorville Page 11-1
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Chapter 11. Implementation
This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration of impact fees, and for the interpretation and application of the development impact fees and in-lieu fees calculated in this study. It was not prepared by an attorney and is not intended as legal advice.

Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development appro val (impact fees) are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.).

Adoption
The form in which development impact fees are enacted should be determined by the City attorney.

Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public - hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6062a, which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice during the 10 -day notice period. Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body.

Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001and discussed below and in Chapter 1 of this report.

Establishment of Fees . Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Section 66001(a), when an agency establishes fees to be imposed as a condition of development approval, it must make findings to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify the use of the fee; and

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
Examples of findings that could be used for impact fees calculated in this study are shown below.

The specific language of such findings should be provided by the City Attorney. A more complete discussion of the nexus for each fee can be found in individual chapters of this report.

Sample Finding: Purpose of the Fee . The City Council finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby enacted is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development.

City of Victorville Page 11-2
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Sample Finding: Use of the Fee. The City Council finds that revenue from the impact fees hereby enacted will be used to provide public facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in the City and identified in the 2021 City of Victorville Development Impact Fee Study by NBS. 2
Sample Finding: Reasonable Relationship: Based on analysis presented in the 2021 City of Victorville Development Impact Fee Study by NBS, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed; and,
b. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed.

Administration
The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) mandates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code.

Imposition of Fees . Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, Section 66001(a), when an agency imposes an impact fee upon a specific development proj ect, it must make essentially the same findings adopted upon establishment of the fees to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify the use of the fee; and

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
a. The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed;
b. The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
Per Section 66001 (b), at the time when an impact fee is imposed on a specific development project, the City is also required to make a finding to determine how there is a reasonable relationship between:
c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project on which it is imposed.
2 According to Gov’t Code Section 66001 (a) (2), the use of the fee may be specified in a capital improvement plan, the GeneralPlan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. The findings recommended here identify this impact fee study as the source of that information.

City of Victorville Page 11-3
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
In addition, Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." The required notification could refer to the improvements identified in this study.

Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the agency, at the time it imposes an impact fee, provide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90 -day period during which the imposition of the fee can be proteste d. Failure to protest imposition of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to subsequent legal challenge.

Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment.

Collection of Fees . Section 66007(a) provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

However, "utility service fees" (not defined, but likely referring to water and sewer connections) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, S ection 66007 (a) allows the agency to choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed.

Section 66007 (b) provides two exceptions when the local agency may require the payment of fees from developers of residential projects at an earlier time: (1) when the local agency determines that the fees “will be collected for public improvements or fac ilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy” or (2) the fees are “to reim burse the local agency for expenditures previously made.”
Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non-residential development.

Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, many cities routinely collect impact fee s for all facilities at the time building or grading permits are issued, and builders may find it convenient to pay the fees at that time.

In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Sections 66007 (c) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid.

Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be deposited “with other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely f or the purpose for which the City of Victorville Page 11-4
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
fee was collected.” Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital account and used for the same purpose.

The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees " with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improvements (e.g., street improvements).

We are not aware of any municipality that has interpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individu al projects. And, as a practical matter, that approach would be unworkable because it would mean that no pay -as-you-go project could be constructed until all benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improvements), but not for individual projects.

Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers . In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees.

If a project has characteristics that will make its impacts on a particular public facilit y or infrastructure system significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accordingly. Per Section 66001 (b), there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not proportional to the impact of the development on relevant public facilities.

In some cases, the age ncy may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction is within the discretion of the governing body butmay not result in increased costs to other development projects. So, the effect of such policies is that the lost revenue must be made up from sources other than impact fees.

Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condition of project approval, to dedicate land or construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees are charged, the City should ensure that the impact fees are adjusted so that the overall contribution by the developer does not exceed the impact created by the development.

In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such offers, and may negotiate the terms under wh ich such an offer would be accepted. Excess contributions by a developer may be offset by reimbursement agreements.

Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, i mpact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for relevant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that impact fee.

City of Victorville Page 11-5
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Annual Report. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the following information for each separate account established to receive impact fee revenues:

1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund;

2. The amount of the fee;

3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;

4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned;

5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;

6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement;

7. A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the improvement on which the transfer or loan will be expended;

8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f).

The annual report must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public, per Section 66006 (b) (2).

Refunds under the Mitigation Fee Act. Prior to 1996, The Mitigation Fee Act required that a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit impact fe e revenue within five years or make findings to justify a continued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that requirement in material ways.

Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:

1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put;

2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;

3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used; City of Victorville Page 11-6
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022

4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund, per Section 66001 (d).

Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on incomplete improvements for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 180 days of that determinat ion, identify an approximate date by which construction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d).

Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan . Section 66002 (b) of the Mitigation Fee Act provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative, per Section 66001 (a) (2) is to identify improvements by applicable general or specific plans or in other public documents.

In most cases, the CIP identifies pro jects for a limited number of years and may not include all improvements needed to serve future development covered by the impact fee study. To the extent allowed by Government Code amendments adopted in AB 602, we recommend that the City Council cite thi s development impact fee study as the public document identifying the use of the fees.

Indexing of In -Lieu/Impact Fees . Where impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs, those costs should be adjusted periodically to account for ch anges in the cost of facilities or other capital assets that will be funded by the impact fees. That adjustment is intended to account for escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles and other relevant capital assets. We recommend the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index as the primary basis for indexing building construction costs. Where land costs are covered by an impact fee or in-lieu fee, land costs should be adjusted based on changes in local land prices.

Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Government Code Section 65852.2 (f)(3)(A) states that impact fees may not be charged to ADUs less than 750 square feet, and that impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be proportional to the square footage of the ADU in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Because of the latter requirement, impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more must be calculated on a case -by-case basis. The formula for calculating impact fees for ADUs of 750 square feet or more can be stated as:

Impact fee for detached dwelling unit X (ADU square feet / primary unit square feet) City of Victorville Page 11-7
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
Requirements Imposed by AB 602
In 2021, the California Legislature passed AB 602 and the Governor signed it into law. AB 602 creates some ne w requirements for impact fees that will go into effect in 2022. The new law amends Government Code Section 65940.1 and adds Section 66016.5 to impose the following requirements:3
1) A city, county or special district that has an internet website shall post on its website:
a) A current written schedule of fees, exactions and affordability requirements applicable to a proposed housing development project, and shall present that information in a manner that identifies the fees, exactions and affordability requirements that apply to each parcel and the fees that apply to each new water and sewer utility connection b) All zoning ordinances and development standards and specifying the zoning, design and development standards that apply to each parcel
c) A list of the infor mation that will be required from any applicant for a development project, as specified in Government Code Section 69540
d) The current and five previous annual fee reports required by Government Code Section 66006 and Subsection 66013 (d).
e) An archive of impact fee nexus studies, cost of service studies or equivalent conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
2) The above information shall be updated within 30 days of any changes 3) A City or County shall request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the total amount fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate it issued. That information must be posted on the website and updated at least twice a year.
4) Before adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted. 5) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service and explain why the new level of service is appropriate
6) If a n exus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of the fees collected under the original fee.
7) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022 , shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage if the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish 3 Water and Sewer fees are pursuant to GC 66013 and not subject to the requirements in GC 66016.5, as stat-ed in section (b).

City of Victorville Page 11-8
Development Impact Fee Study
May 6, 2022
a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. The law outlines some possible exceptions to this requirement. 8) Large jurisdictions as defined in Section 5 3559.1 (d) of the Health and Safety Code (counties of 250,000 or more and cities in those counties) shall adopt a capital improvement plan as part of a nexus study.
9) All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 -days’ notice, and the loc al agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing.
10) Studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022.

Training and Public Information
Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale.

It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particular impact fees should be made clear.

Finally, anyone responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project management for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. Fees must be expended for the purposes identified in the impact fee report in which they were calculated, and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly expended.

Recovery of Administrative Costs
To recover the cost of periodic impact fee update studies and ongoing staff costs for capital budgeting, annual reports, five-year updates and other requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, an administrative charge may be added to the impact fees calculated in this report. The Executive Summary shows an administrative charge percentage.

Prepared by NBS for the City of Victorville

APPENDIX A
Parks – Vehicles & Equipment
Appendix A
Acquisition
Year Location Description Cost 1
1989 COMM SVCS/PARKS FORD L-8000, BOBTAIL, 1989 40,000.00$ 1996 COMM SVCS/PARKS BACKHOE LOADER, JOHN DEERE 510D 20,877.00$ 1997 COMM SVCS/PARKS GRAFFITI REMOVAL TRAILER 31,786.00$ 1986 COMM SVCS/PARKS MIXER, CONCRETE CONTINENTAL TRLR 20,000.00$ 1989 COMM SVCS/PARKS TRENCHER, MODEL 380 15,520.00$
1990 COMM SVCS/PARKS DUMP TRUCK, FORD LN8000 20,000.00$ 1991 COMM SVCS/PARKS LOADER, LANDSCAPE-JOHN DEERE 310C 34,889.00$ 1995 COMM SVCS/PARKS SPRAYER, 200G KOHLER ELEC 7,753.00$ 2001 COMM SVCS/PARKS MOWER, RIDING 48" LAYER 5,875.95$
2002 COMM SVCS/PARKS MOWER, ROTARY JACOBSEN, MODEL H 48,147.10$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS JOHN DEERE TRACTOR CANOPY-OFF ROAD EQPT 21,047.65$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS AERIAL DEVICE, TELELECT MODEL TL38 BOOM 68,205.75$ 2004 COMM SVCS/PARKS RIDING LAWNMOWER W/HITCH & MULCH 6,610.47$ 2004 COMM SVCS/PARKS RIDING SAND RAKE 10,243.79$
2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS TRAILER, BIG TEX MODEL#10EQ 6,535.75$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS UTILITY VEHICLE CUSHMAN PTO ACCESSORIES 12,907.37$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS DIESEL RAKE, SAND SCORPION 13,025.90$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS SPRAYER, CUSHMAN DS-175 13,841.56$ 1990 COMM SVCS/PARKS MIXER, CONCRETE 19,870.00$
1991 COMM SVCS/PARKS 1991 GREEN&BLUE REC VAN 25,230.00$ 2001 COMM SVCS/PARKS DODGE RAM 2500 TRUCK, 2001 22,872.68$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV BLAZER SUV 4DR, 2003 22,143.14$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS FORD F350 TRUCK, 2003 28,890.77$
2004 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV MALIBU, 2003 13,055.54$
2004 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV COLORADO TRUCK, 4WD, 2004 18,777.21$ 2001 COMM SVCS/PARKS DODGE DAKOTA, 2001 21,995.20$
2001 COMM SVCS/PARKS DODGE DAKOTA TRUCK, CREW CAB, 2001 21,995.20$ 1990 COMM SVCS/PARKS GMC 1990 PICKUP 17,626.00$
1995 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV 3500 UTILITY ONE TON TRUCK, 1995 20,651.00$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV 2500 HD TRUCK, 2002 28,202.10$ 2004 COMM SVCS/PARKS DODGE RAM 2500 TRUCK, 2004 20,995.78$ 2004 COMM SVCS/PARKS DODGE 2500 RAM FULL SIZE 2WD, 2004 20,995.78$ 2004 COMM SVCS/PARKS DODGE 2500 RAM, FULL SIZE CREW CAB, 2004 20,995.78$ 2004 COMM SVCS/PARKS FORD F350, HD CREW CAB FLAT BED, 2004 28,212.72$ 2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS BB150A BOX SCRAPER GROOM MASTER 13,117.49$ 2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV COLORADO PICK-UP 4 DOOR, 2005 18,732.00$ 2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS DODGE DR2500, FULL SIZE PICKUP, 2005 22,679.00$ 2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS GMC CANYON COMPACT PICKUP, 2005 13,283.00$ Parks - Vehicles & Equipment
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7515 5/6/2022 1 of 4 Appendix A
Acquisition
Year Location Description Cost 1
Parks - Vehicles & Equipment
2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV EXPRESS VAN, FULL SIZE, 2005 16,419.00$ 2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS DODGE DR2500 FULL SIZE PICKUP, 2005 22,679.00$ 2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS STAGE SECTIONER, STAIRS, CADDIES, SKIRT 6,958.84$ 2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS WEATHER STATION 8,256.59$
2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS POWER WASHER FOR TRASH TRUCK 6,442.32$ 2006 COMM SVCS/PARKS GMC SIERRA 3500, EXTENDED CAB, 2006 33,445.78$ 2006 COMM SVCS/PARKS FORD F350, 2005 28,122.38$
2006 COMM SVCS/PARKS FORD F350 FLAT BED, 2006 24,484.22$ 2006 COMM SVCS/PARKS GMC SIERRA 3500, 2005 33,118.64$
2006 COMM SVCS/PARKS TURF TRUCK 16,730.35$
2006 COMM SVCS/PARKS TURF TRUCK 16,730.34$
2006 COMM SVCS/PARKS TURF TRUCK 16,730.34$
2006 COMM SVCS/PARKS JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPE LOADER, 2006 61,052.20$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS GMC 3500 EXTENDED CAB TRUCK, 2006 30,764.91$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV COLORADO, 2007 21,816.19$
2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS ROTARY MOWER, LG AREA, JACOBSEN 71,814.30$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS TURFCAT, JACOBSEN 628D 28HP 4 WD 19,512.45$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS BALLFIELD PREP MACHINE/ GROOM MASTER II 17,310.04$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS FLASHCAM-880 VANDAL DETERRENT SYS/DIGITL 6,489.62$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV KODIAK C4500 DMP TRK 3YD BED, 2007 37,423.46$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS TRENCHER, VERMEER RT450 38,077.77$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS TRENCHER, VERMEER RT100, 2006 9,923.78$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS MOWER, NEW 48" EXMARK 17HP HYDRO MIDSIZE 5,631.02$ 2008 COMM SVCS/PARKS JOHN DEERE TURF GATOR 6,298.82$
2009 COMM SVCS/PARKS FLASH CAMERA (CAM-880) -VANDALISM DETECT 15,282.15$ 2004 COMM SVCS/PARKS RIDING MOWER, 72" 15,818.79$
1988 COMM SVCS/PARKS GREEN TORO AERATOR 9,325.00$
2000 COMM SVCS/PARKS UTILITY VEHICLE, JAC84040 CUSHMAN 12,907.37$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS TOP DRESSER, TOW TYPE 8,070.00$
2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS JOHN DEERE TRACTOR 4120 20,560.31$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS TURF GATOR, JOHN DEERE CX UTIL VEHICLE 6,276.44$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS TURF GATOR, JOHN DEERE CX SM UTIL VEHICL 6,276.44$ 2009 COMM SVCS/PARKS JACOBSEN 9016 ROTARY MOWER 73,226.50$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS TURF GATOR, JOHN DEERE CX SM UTIL VEHICL 6,276.44$ 2007 COMM SVCS/PARKS FORD F150 TRUCK, 2007 21,759.17$
2005 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV SILVERADO 2500 TRUCK, 2004 36,627.29$ 2002 COMM SVCS/PARKS FORD RANGER TRUCK, 2002 16,861.00$ 2002 COMM SVCS/PARKS FORD RANGER TRUCK, 2002 17,007.00$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7515 5/6/2022 2 of 4 Appendix A
Acquisition
Year Location Description Cost 1
Parks - Vehicles & Equipment
2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS FORD WINDSTAR VAN, 2003 22,556.35$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV SILVERADO 2500 DURAMAX, 2003 27,027.09$ 2003 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV SILVERADO 2500 TRUCK, 2003 33,739.03$ 1998 COMM SVCS/PARKS GMC 1 TON UTILITY TRUCK, 1998 37,732.00$ 2002 COMM SVCS/PARKS GMC SIERRA 1500, 2002 28,850.06$
2004 COMM SVCS/PARKS CHEV S-10 TRUCK, 2003 18,795.00$
2000 COMM SVCS/PARKS DODGE DAKOTA, 2001 14,517.16$
2000 COMM SVCS/PARKS DODGE DAKOTA, 2001 14,517.16$
2014 COMM SVCS/PARKS ZIEMAN 818 TRAILER 6,879.60$
2014 COMM SVCS/PARKS ZIEMAN 418 TRAILER 6,879.60$
2017 COMM SVCS/PARKS JACOBSEN HR800 MOWER 85,338.00$
2017 COMM SVCS/PARKS CARSON DUMP TRAILER 7,787.63$
2018 COMM SVCS/PARKS FORD F250 XL SRW PICKUP 2018 33,592.15$ 2019 COMM SVCS/PARKS KENWORTH T270 REFUSE TRUCK 2019 126,565.31$ 2020 COMM SVCS/PARKS JACOBSEN TURFCAT MOWER 26,797.09$
2020 COMM SVCS/PARKS KENWORTH T370 GRAPPLE TRUCK 199,011.90$ 2001 GOLF COURSE MOWER, ROTARY JACOBSEN HR 9016 48,147.10$ 2004 GOLF COURSE RIDING MOWER, 72" MDI#946714 15,818.78$ 1986 GOLF COURSE SAND PRO, TORO 14HP 6,900.00$
1988 GOLF COURSE DRESSER, TURFCO 5,782.00$
1994 GOLF COURSE MOWER, TORO GREEN MASTER 16,053.00$
2000 GOLF COURSE MOWER, JAFLF34005 GANG 25,425.77$
2000 GOLF COURSE UTILITY VEHICLE, JAC84040 12,907.37$
2000 GOLF COURSE MOWER, TEE JAC1900D3 GANG 14,740.20$
2000 GOLF COURSE MOWER, REEL JAFLF34005 GANG 25,425.77$ 2000 GOLF COURSE MOWER, ROTARY, JCHR9016 ROTARY 48,259.07$ 2000 GOLF COURSE MOWER, TEE, JAC1900D3 GANG 14,740.20$
2001 GOLF COURSE GREEN AERATOR, TORO MODEL0912 10,712.51$ 2002 GOLF COURSE MOWER, GREENS KING V12WD 22,335.28$
2002 GOLF COURSE MOWER, GREENS KING V12WD 22,335.28$
2002 GOLF COURSE JMC SAND SCORPION 3WD WITH BOX 13,025.90$ 2004 GOLF COURSE EXPRESS DUAL 3000 REEL GRINDER W/C 20,397.07$ 2004 GOLF COURSE SV UTILITY TRUCK, MD#898627 42,261.72$ 2004 GOLF COURSE WHEEL TURF TRKSTR KOHLER ENGINE 4WHEEL 9,697.51$ 1989 GOLF COURSE GMC JIMMY, 1989 16,500.00$
1992 GOLF COURSE CHEV S-10 TRUCK, 1992 13,389.00$
1988 GOLF COURSE NISSAN PICK UP, 1986 6,081.00$
2005 GOLF COURSE ROTARY MOWER 42,538.62$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7515 5/6/2022 3 of 4 Appendix A
Acquisition
Year Location Description Cost 1
Parks - Vehicles & Equipment
2005 GOLF COURSE GREEN AERATOR; 4 TINE 16,417.50$
2006 GOLF COURSE GREEN MOWER EPLEX II 898868 24,161.86$ 2006 GOLF COURSE MOWER JACOBSEN 628 D 19,041.58$
2006 GOLF COURSE FAIRWAY MOWER 67945 JACOBSEN 2WS 31,862.74$ 2006 GOLF COURSE FAIRWAY MOWER 67945 JACOBSEN 2WS 31,862.74$ 2006 GOLF COURSE TORO WORKMAN 1100 VEHICLE WITH CANOPY 7,074.06$ 2006 GOLF COURSE TORO WORKMAN 1100 VEHICLE WITH CANOPY 7,074.06$ 2007 GOLF COURSE JACOBSEN TRI-KING 1900D REEL MOWER 23,353.74$ 2002 GOLF COURSE JACOBSEN TRI-KING 1900D REEL MOWER 20,317.50$ 2007 GOLF COURSE JACOBSEN TRI-KING 1900D REEL MOWER 23,353.74$ 2007 GOLF COURSE CUSHMAN TURF-TRUCKSTER #84043 18,533.00$ 2015 GOLF COURSE TOYOTA TACOMA REG CAB 2001 5,000.00$
2009 GOLF COURSE G27AF GAS UTILITY RANGE PICKER, 2008 7,219.25$ 2009 GOLF COURSE PROCORE 864 CMAS GOLF AERATORS 49,197.35$ TOTAL 3,068,620.34$
1 Acquisition cost sourced from City asset inventory; vehicles and equipment for public safety, recreation, and proprietary funds excluded NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7515 5/6/2022 4 of 4 Prepared by NBS for the City of Victorville

APPENDIX B
Public Buildings – Vehicles & Equipment
Appendix B
Impact Fee
Year Location Description Cost Basis 1
1986 PUBLIC WOR TIRE BALANCER WB400 MANUAL SNAP-ON 5,089$ 1987 PUBLIC WOR TRAILER, EQUIPMENT 12,287$
1987 PUBLIC WOR ROLLER, EAGER BEAVER 5,000$
1987 ADMIN SERV DESK, EXECUTIVE 5,100$
1989 DEVELOPMEN MICROFILM, READER & PRINTER 5,135$
1989 ENGINEERIN LETTER CUTTING MACHINE 6,115$
1989 ENGINEERIN GMC 3500, 1989 16,500$
1990 PUBLIC WOR TRAILER, 5TH WHEEL, LANDOLL 350 38,780$ 1990 PUBLIC WOR ROLLER, DD35, INGERSOLL RAND 27,119$
1991 PUBLIC WOR CRAWLER TRACTOR 650-G 83,489$
1991 PUBLIC WOR TIRE CHANGER HT 5000 6,079$
1991 PUBLIC WOR HI WASHER PRESSURE 5,220$
1991 PUBLIC WOR AERIAL LIFT WITH UTILITY BODY 54,728$
1991 ENGINEERIN COPIER, 5028 ZOOM 5,460$
1991 ADMIN SERV COPIER, 5028 ZOOM 5,460$
1991 ENGINEERIN DISTOMAT W/REC 11,411$
1991 PUBLIC WOR FORD LN8000 FLATBED CHASSIS 40,823$
1991 PUBLIC WOR CHEV 1 TON FLAT BED, 1991 23,800$
1992 PUBLIC WOR SMITH COMPRESSOR 11,517$
1992 DEVELOPMEN MICROFILM MACHINE 9,602$
1993 PUBLIC WOR FORD 1 TON FLATBED TRUCK, 1992 103 14,307$ 1994 ENGINEERIN CONFLICT MONITOR TESTER 6,411$
1995 ENGINEERIN PAVEMENT GRINDER 6,624$
1995 PUBLIC WOR ACCUTURN BRAKE LATHE/ACCESSORIES 8,925$ 1995 PUBLIC WOR CNG REFUELING STATION D STREET 240,000$ 1996 PUBLIC WOR AUTOMATIC CURBER 8,762$
1997 PUBLIC WOR GMC SIERRA TRUCK, 1996 18,567$
1998 ENGINEERIN AUTO INVESTIGATION SYSTEM 8,606$
1998 PUBLIC WOR CHEV Z-71 PICK UP TRUCK, 1998 20,819$
1998 PUBLIC WOR GMC SONOMA TRUCK, 1998 18,095$
1999 PUBLIC WOR KONI ELECTRO HYDRAULIC LIFT PORT 7,138$ 1999 PUBLIC WOR KONI ELECTRO HYDRAULIC LIFT PORT 7,138$ 1999 PUBLIC WOR KONI ELECTRO HYDRAULIC LIFT PORT 7,138$ 1999 PUBLIC WOR KONI ELECTRO HYDRAULIC LIFT PORT 7,138$ 1999 PUBLIC WOR FOXBORO GAS DETECTION SYSTEM ALARM 26,962$ 2000 ENGINEERIN STRIPER, TMT 357P 201,233$
2000 PUBLIC WOR LOADER, JOHN DEERE 210LE 71,785$
2000 PUBLIC WOR LOADER, JOHN DEERE 544H 114,754$
2000 PUBLIC WOR PATCH TRUCK, HOT BOX 109,568$
2000 ENGINEERIN GMC, HEAVY DUTY 2000 44,385$
2000 DEVELOPMEN MICROPRINTER SYSTEM, CANON MS50 12,454$ 2000 ENGINEERIN AUTO TRACKING DIGITAL CAMERA, LEICA 20,001$ 2000 ADMIN SERV DOCUMENT IMAGINE SYSTEM 132,331$
2000 PUBLIC WOR LOCKERS, SINGLE 7,200$
2000 PUBLIC WOR FORD F250 TRUCK, 2000 29,309$
Public Buildings - Vehicles & Equipment
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7515 5/6/2022 1 of 5 Appendix B
Impact Fee
Year Location Description Cost Basis 1
Public Buildings - Vehicles & Equipment
2000 ADMIN SERV DODGE DURANGO 4X4, 2000 29,321$
2001 ENGINEERIN FORD F450, AERIAL UNIT 2000 72,946$
2001 PUBLIC WOR SPRAYER HERBICIDE 11,314$
2001 PUBLIC WOR BUCKET, MULTI PURPOSE WITH LOADER 15,447$ 2001 DEVELOPMEN SCANNER 10,139$
2001 PUBLIC WOR BROADLUX SM 510 SITE CNTRLR FOR CNG FUEL 19,931$ 2001 PUBLIC WOR DODGE RAM 2500 TRUCK, 2001 22,719$
2001 PUBLIC WOR DODGE RAM 2500 TRUCK, 2001 22,719$
2001 PUBLIC WOR FORD F250 CREW CAB TRUCK, 2001 26,067$
2001 PUBLIC WOR FORD F350 UTIL SD TRUCK, 2001 34,173$
2001 PUBLIC WOR FORD EXPEDITION XLT 4X4 SUV, 2000 28,273$ 2001 DEVELOPMEN DODGE DAKOTA, 2001 21,995$
2001 ENGINEERIN DODGE DAKOTA 4X4, 2001 21,995$
2001 DEVELOPMEN DODGE DAKOTA, 2001 21,995$
2001 DEVELOPMEN DODGE DAKOTA TRUCK, CREW CAB, 4X4, 2001 21,995$ 2001 PUBLIC WOR DODGE RAM 2500 TRUCK, 2001 22,719$
2001 PUBLIC WOR GMC SIERRA 3500 UTILITY TRUCK, 2001 35,176$ 2002 PUBLIC WOR STERLING TRUCK, PRO PATCH, 2002 118,591$ 2002 PUBLIC WOR WACKER ROLLER, SMOOTH DOUBLE DRUM 11,214$ 2002 PUBLIC WOR LIGHT TOWER, TOWABLE 7,047$
2002 ENGINEERIN SURVEYING EQUIPMENT, RCS 1100 CONTROLLER 11,347$ 2002 PUBLIC WOR DODGE RAM 2500 TRUCK, 2002 24,346$
2002 DEVELOPMEN GMC SONOMA, CREW CAB TRUCK, 2002 21,615$ 2002 PUBLIC WOR GMC SONOMA, CREW CAB TRUCK, 2002 21,615$ 2002 DEVELOPMEN GMC SONOMA, CREW CAB TRUCK, 2002 21,615$ 2003 PUBLIC WOR FREIGHTLINER WATER TRUCK, 2003 53,402$
2003 PUBLIC WOR MOHAWK TP15 MED DUTY VEHICLE LIFT 11,269$ 2003 PUBLIC WOR MOBILE PLANT SCREENING 53,821$
2003 PUBLIC WOR CNG FUELING STATION AT MCART 684,163$
2003 PUBLIC WOR FORKLIFT, CLARK STAND UP REACH 11,314$
2003 DEVELOPMEN INSPECTOR TRACK BASE SYSTEM 10,706$
2003 PUBLIC WOR STUMP GRINDER W/TRAILER 11,561$
2003 ADMIN SERV CHEV MALIBU, 2003 14,743$
2003 PUBLIC WOR CHEV MALIBU, 2003 14,743$
2003 PUBLIC WOR CHEV MALIBU, 2003 14,743$
2003 ENGINEERIN GMC 1500 HALF TON PICK UP, 2003 22,198$ 2003 PUBLIC WOR VACUUM, TRAILER MOUNTED UTILITY 15,074$ 2004 ENGINEERIN SPEED RADAR TRAILER 11,009$
2004 PUBLIC WOR ASPHALT MELTER, 2003 CRAFCO MD#41500 25,000$ 2004 PUBLIC WOR TOW MOTOR TGC25 LP FORKLIFT 18,042$
2004 PUBLIC WOR HYDROKLEEN WATER WASTE SYSTEM 47,764$
2004 DEVELOPMEN CHEV 2500 PICK UP TRUCK, 2003 33,662$
2004 PUBLIC WOR FORD F350 SD TRUCK, CREW CAB, 2004 28,213$ 2004 PUBLIC WOR FORD F350 TRUCK, CREW CAB, 2004 28,213$ 2004 ADMIN SERV FORD F150 F17REG CAB 139"WHEELBASE, 2003 21,143$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7515 5/6/2022 2 of 5 Appendix B
Impact Fee
Year Location Description Cost Basis 1
Public Buildings - Vehicles & Equipment
2004 ADMIN SERV CHEV CARGO VAN, FULL SIZE, 2004 21,412$ 2004 PUBLIC WOR FORD F350 4X4 FULLSZ EXT CAB TRUCK, 2004 31,242$ 2004 DEVELOPMEN CHEV MID SIZE 6 PASSENGER PICK UP, 2004 18,777$ 2004 DEVELOPMEN CHEV MID SIZE 6 PSSNGR PICK UP 4X4, 2004 18,777$ 2004 DEVELOPMEN CHEV MID SIZE 6 PSSNGR PICK UP 4X4, 2004 18,777$ 2004 ENGINEERIN CHEV MID SIZE PICK UP 4X4, 2004 18,777$ 2004 PUBLIC WOR FORD F350, CREWCAB PICK UP, 2004 28,213$ 2004 PUBLIC WOR CHEV COLORADO, COMPACT, 4X4, 2004 18,777$ 2004 DEVELOPMEN FORD CROWN VICTORIA SEDAN, 2003 15,811$ 2004 PUBLIC WOR CHEV C7500 DUMP TRUCK, 2004 68,512$
2005 PUBLIC WOR MOTOR GRADER, CAT 203,309$
2005 DEVELOPMEN CHEV MALIBU MIDSIZE SEDAN, 2004 11,370$ 2005 DEVELOPMEN CHEV COLORADO, 4X4, 4-DOOR, 2005 20,759$ 2005 DEVELOPMEN CHEV COLORADO, 4X4, 4 DOOR, 2005 20,759$ 2005 ENGINEERIN CHEV COLORADO, 4X4, 4 DOOR, 2005 21,717$ 2005 ENGINEERIN CHEV COLORADO COMPACT PICKUP, 2005 20,153$ 2005 DEVELOPMEN CHEV COLORADO COMPACT PICKUP, 2005 20,755$ 2005 ENGINEERIN GMC SIERRA 2500 PICKUP, 2005 23,607$
2005 PUBLIC WOR CHEV COLORADO MID-SIZE PICKUP, 2005 16,503$ 2005 PUBLIC WOR CHEV REFUSE TRUCK, 2005 69,498$
2005 PUBLIC WOR SELF-PROPELLED 35 HP GAS CONCRETE SAW 9,710$ 2005 PUBLIC WOR PORTABLE PRESSURE WASHER 16,421$
2006 PUBLIC WOR FORD TAURUS SEDAN, 2005 12,500$
2006 PUBLIC WOR FORD TAURUS SEDAN, 2005 12,500$
2006 DEVELOPMEN CHEV COLORADO PICK UP 4X4, 2006 21,253$ 2006 DEVELOPMEN GMC K3500 SIERRA 4X4, 2006 43,432$
2006 DEVELOPMEN CHEV COLORADO 4X4, 2006 21,253$
2006 PUBLIC WOR FORD EXPEDITION 4X4 SUV, 2006 27,933$
2006 ENGINEERIN GMC SIERRA C2500HD, 2006 23,499$
2006 PUBLIC WOR DODGE RAM 2500 PICK UP, 2006 22,173$
2006 PUBLIC WOR GMC 3500 FLAT BED, 2006 33,446$
2006 PUBLIC WOR PRESSURE WASHER 7,235$
2006 PUBLIC WOR MESSAGE BOARD MINI MATRIX 17,779$
2006 PUBLIC WOR PAVING MACHINE 121,297$
2006 ENGINEERIN STENCIL TRUCK 121,457$
2006 PUBLIC WOR NEW PUMP @D ST. COMPRESSOR 57,373$
2006 ADMIN SERV FLUKE NETWORK TOOL 38,380$
2006 PUBLIC WOR BRUSH CHIPPER 100XL 27,150$
2006 PUBLIC WOR JOHN DEERE 410G, 2005 90,477$
2006 ENGINEERIN VIDEO DETECTION 149,773$
2006 PUBLIC WOR DODGE RAM 2500 PICK UP, 2006 22,990$
2007 PUBLIC WOR 1400 SERIES PLATFORM MOUNT & OTHER EQPT 5,846$ 2007 PUBLIC WOR CNG DRIVER TRAINING VIDEO MODULES 19,535$ 2007 PUBLIC WOR ZIEMAN 116 TURF SPECL TRAILER-GRAY, 2006 8,044$ 2007 ENGINEERIN GPS SURVEYING EQUIPMENT 52,591$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7515 5/6/2022 3 of 5 Appendix B
Impact Fee
Year Location Description Cost Basis 1
Public Buildings - Vehicles & Equipment
2009 PUBLIC WOR ELGIN CNG BROOM BEAR SWEEPER, 2009 267,933$ 2009 ENGINEERIN VIDEO DETECTION SYSTEM 113,308$
2009 ENGINEERIN HP DESIGNJET 4000PS PLOTTER W/5YR HWSPRT 14,106$ 2009 PUBLIC WOR MCART CNG STATION 98,733$
2009 ADMIN SERV FORD EXPEDITION SUV, 2008 27,511$
2009 ENGINEERIN FORD F150 4X4 TRUCK, 2009 26,524$
2009 ENGINEERIN STRIPE REMOVAL MACH W/S600TX SKIDSTEER 55,751$ 2010 PUBLIC WOR 880K DIGITAL VANDAL DETER/GRAFFITI CHSR 17,076$ 2010 ENGINEERIN AXIS 233D PTZ TRAFFIC MONITORING CAMERAS 6,695$ 2010 PUBLIC WOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANTENNA TOWER @ CYE 47,634$ 2013 PUBLIC WOR HEAVY DUTY PRESSURE WASHER & TRAILER 12,638$ 2013 PUBLIC WOR FORD F450 SUPER DUTY 2013 42,503$
2014 PUBLIC WOR FORD F-350 UTILITY TRUCK 2014 31,058$
2014 PUBLIC WOR BOBCAT S650 SKID STEER LOADER 58,821$
2014 PUBLIC WOR JACOBSEN TRUCKSTER SPRAYER 27,797$
2014 PUBLIC WOR SDI SPRAYER 200 GAL TRAILER MOUNT 13,017$ 2014 PUBLIC WOR GREENFIELD COMPRESSOR REBUILD 41,446$
2014 ADMIN SERV FUJITSU FI-6770A SCANNER W/VRS 6,209$
2014 ADMIN SERV FUJITSU FI-6770A SCANNER W/VRS 6,209$
2015 PUBLIC WOR KENWORTH DUMP TRUCK 2015 115,019$
2015 PUBLIC WOR KENWORTH DUMP TRUCK 2015 115,019$
2015 PUBLIC WOR CRACK SEAL MACHINE CRAFCO 58,668$
2015 ENGINEERIN FORD F550 4X2 ALTEC AT40M 142,811$
2015 PUBLIC WOR BACKHOE LOADER, JOHN DEERE 410L 135,555$ 2015 PUBLIC WOR KENWORTH DUMP TRUCK 2015 116,243$
2015 PUBLIC WOR DODGE 2500 REG CAB PICKUP, 2015 25,766$ 2015 PUBLIC WOR FORD F350 PICKUP, 2015 33,392$
2015 ENGINEERIN PAVEMENT GRINDER SCARIFIER 10,378$
2015 CITY MANAG SCANNER CONTEX HD ULTRA 14,858$
2015 CITY MANAG SCANNER FUJITSU 90PPM SHTFD 6,258$
2015 PUBLIC WOR FUELFORCE FUEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 31,061$ 2016 DEVELOPMEN FORD F250 REG CAB 4X4 PICKUP 2015 36,093$ 2016 PUBLIC WOR SCHWARZE M6 STREET SWEEPER 353,287$
2016 PUBLIC WOR KENWORTH T370 WATER TRUCK CAB & CHASSIS 118,517$ 2016 PUBLIC WOR KENWORTH T370 LOW BED TRACTOR 100,901$
2016 PUBLIC WOR HYUNDAI SINGLE SPD CONCRETE SAW 17,622$ 2016 CITY MANAG SCANNER CONTEX HD ULTRA 14,858$
2016 ENGINEERIN GRACO THERMOLAZER 21,768$
2016 ENGINEERIN SURVEY ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION 21,756$
2016 PUBLIC WOR LOADER, JOHN DEERE 544K 207,082$
2016 PUBLIC WOR LOADER, JOHN DEERE 210L 101,886$
2016 ENGINEERIN TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS 52,235$
2017 PUBLIC WOR FORD F250 4X2 REG CAB PICKUP 2017 34,358$ 2017 PUBLIC WOR BENDPAK XPR 18-10AL TRUCK & CAR LIFT 9,055$ 2017 PUBLIC WOR JOHN DEERE 772G GRADER, 2017 400,502$
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7515 5/6/2022 4 of 5 Appendix B
Impact Fee
Year Location Description Cost Basis 1
Public Buildings - Vehicles & Equipment
2017 PUBLIC WOR KENWORTH T370 REFUSE TRUCK 2018 124,680$ 2017 DEVELOPMEN FORD F250 4X4 SUPER CAB W/AC TRANSPORT 56,969$ 2017 PUBLIC WOR FORD F250 EXTENDED CAB LONGBED 2017 32,797$ 2017 PUBLIC WOR FORD F250 EXTENDED CAB LONGBED 2017 32,797$ 2018 ENGINEERIN FORD F450 FLATBED 2017 53,692$
2018 PUBLIC WOR SCHWARZE M6 AVALANCHE STREET SWEEPER 362,448$ 2018 ENGINEERIN FORD F550 UTILITY 2017 96,397$
2018 PUBLIC WOR GMC TERRAIN SUV, 2018 31,062$
2018 PUBLIC WOR PRO CUT WARTHOG BRAKE LATHE TROLLEY 13,726$ 2018 PUBLIC WOR AMMCO 4100B BRAKE LATHE 8,942$
2018 PUBLIC WOR CRAFCO CRACK SEAL MACHINE 62,661$
2018 PUBLIC WOR TOWMASTER TRAILER MODEL T-40 29,577$
2018 PUBLIC WOR JOHN DEERE 410L BACKHOE LOADER 137,176$ 2018 PUBLIC WOR JOHN DEERE 544K WHEEL LOADER 201,537$
2018 PUBLIC WOR CARSON TRAILER, 2018 6,610$
2018 PUBLIC WOR VERMEER RTX130 WALK BEHIND TRENCHER 11,856$ 2018 ENGINEERIN THERMOPLASTIC PRE-MELTER 20,920$
2018 ENGINEERIN THERMOPLASTIC PRE-MELTER 20,920$
2019 PUBLIC WOR FORD F450 SD GRAFFITI TRUCK 38,096$
2019 PUBLIC WOR FIBER SPLICING 7 X 12 TRAILER 25,457$
2019 PUBLIC WOR ARIAL BUCKET TRUCK 191,382$
2019 PUBLIC WOR EVACUBLAST DPF CLEANING EQUIPMENT 14,041$ 2019 PUBLIC WOR EVACUBLAST DPF REGENERATION OVEN 11,644$ 2019 PUBLIC WOR AC SERVICE EQUIPMENT 5,980$
2020 PUBLIC WOR CROSSWIND SWEEPER 384,035$
2020 PUBLIC WOR CAN-AM COMMANDER 15,485$
2020 PUBLIC WOR BROOKS BROS POLE/CARGO TRAILER 39,830$
2020 PUBLIC WOR CHEVROLET SILVERADO 3500 55,404$
Total Vehicles 10,303,047$
1 Impact fee cost basis = Acquisition cost sourced from City asset inventory; vehicles and equipment for public safety, recreation, and proprietary funds excluded NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7515 5/6/2022 5 of 5 Prepared by NBS for the City of Victorville

APPENDIX C
Comparison Survey

APPENDIX C
City of Victorville
Development Impact Fee Study 2021
Fee Comparison
Development Impact Fee Type Units 1 Current Fee 2 Proposed Fee 3 BEAUMONT 4 FONTANA 5 HESPERIA 6 LANCASTER 7 PALMDALE 8 RIALTO 9 Residential - Detached DU
Parks 5,046$ 6,059$ $ 2,872 6,633$ 5,487$ 3,661$ 5,536$ 3,649$ Fire 329$ 287$ 576$ 369$ 648$ Contr w/ LA Co 1,900$ 1,104$ Police 139$ 292$ 498$ 472$ 10$ n/a n/a 1,501$
Public Buildings 1,199$ 424$ 445$ 779$ 125$ 1,751$ 2,114$ Library 253$ n/a 99$ n/a n/a n/a 379$
Community/Rec Centers 884$ 725$ in Parks n/a n/a n/a n/a Roads 4,470$ 9,625$ 2,485$ 7,106$ 9,952$ 3,060$ 1,740$ 3,533$ Water 5,142$ 5,686$ n/a Multiple
Providers 6,589$ LA County n/a 3,261$
Total Residential Detached 15,126$ 24,285$ 7,580$ 15,124$ 23,465$ 6,846$ 10,927$ 15,541$ Residential - Attached DU
Parks 3,847$ 4,277$ $ 2,416 6,301$ 5,487$ 3,284$ 4,313$ 3,440$ Fire 232$ 372$ 184$ 369$ 491$ Contr w/ LA Co 1,140$ 1,042$ Police 98$ 206$ 419$ 448$ 8$ n/a 1,415$
Public Buildings 846$ 357$ 423$ 620$ 125$ 850$ 1,992$
Library 178$ n/a 94$ n/a n/a n/a 356$
Community/Rec Centers 624$ 610$ in Parks n/a n/a n/a n/a Roads 2,745$ 5,445$ 1,699$ 4,881$ 6,895$ 2,853$ 1,212$ 2,448$ Water By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 n/a Multiple
Providers
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 LA County n/a By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
Total Residential Attached 6,922$ 11,948$ 5,685$ 12,516$ 13,501$ 6,262$ 7,515$ 10,693$ Residential - Mobile Home DU
Parks 3,847$ 3,742$ $ 2,672 3,440$
Fire 232$ 238$ 277$ 1,042$
Police 98$ 180$ 463$ 1,415$
Public Buildings 740$ 395$ 1,992$
Library 156$ n/a 356$
Community/Rec Centers 546$ 674$ n/a
Roads 2,745$ 4,472$ 1,607$ n/a
Water By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 n/a By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
Total Mobile Home 6,922$ 10,076$ 6,087$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,245$

CITY OF VICTORVILLE COMPARISON AGENCIES
n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/6/2022 1 of 5

CITY OF VICTORVILLE COMPARISON AGENCIES
Retail/Service Commercial KSF
Fire 170$ 489$ 212$ 101$ 187$ Contr w/ LA Co 950$ 290$
Police 170$ 105$ 111$ 129$ 4$ n/a n/a 178$
Public Buildings 429$ 94$ 122$ 203$ 40$ 227$ 250$
Library n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Community/Rec Centers n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Roads 7,600$ 37,043$ 3,405$ 8,981$ 6,000$ 1,890$ 466$ 4,870$ Water By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 n/a Multiple
Providers
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 LA County n/a By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
Total Retail/Service Commercial 7,940$ 38,066$ 3,822$ 9,333$ 6,394$ 1,930$ 1,643$ 5,588$ Professional Office KSF
Fire 170$ 666$ 101$ 187$ Contr w/ LA Co 950$ 290$
Police 170$ 84$ 129$ 4$ n/a n/a 178$
Public Buildings 345$ 122$ 203$ 40$ 227$ 250$
Library n/a 27$ n/a n/a n/a n/a
Community/Rec Centers n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Roads 7,600$ 11,181$ 7,338$ 6,000$ n/a n/a 8,080$
Water By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 n/a Multiple
Providers
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 LA County n/a By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
Total Professional Office 7,940$ 12,277$ -$ 7,717$ 6,394$ 40$ 1,177$ 8,798$ Lodging Room
Fire 170$ 247$ 88$
Police 170$ 46$ 2$
Public Buildings 190$ 81$
Library n/a n/a
Community/Rec Centers n/a n/a
Roads 7,600$ 3,695$ 7,001$
Water By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 n/a Multiple
Providers
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 LA County n/a By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
Total Lodging 7,940$ 4,178$ -$ -$ 7,172$ -$ -$ -$
n/a
n/a n/a n/an/a n/a
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/6/2022 2 of 5

CITY OF VICTORVILLE COMPARISON AGENCIES
Industrial/Business Park KSF
Fire 10$ 52$ 176$ 29$ 908$ Contr w/ LA Co 950$ 88$
Police 10$ 28$ 77$ 38$ 16$ 54$
Public Buildings 115$ 66$ 36$ 878$ 40$ 269$ 73$
Library n/a -$ 8$ n/a n/a n/a n/a
Community/Rec Centers n/a -$ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Roads 2,980$ 5,153$ 2,343$ 3,618$ 1,500$ 153$ 1,240$ 2,800$ Water By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 n/a Multiple
Providers
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 LA County n/a By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
Total Industrial/Business Park 3,000$ 5,348$ 2,663$ 3,729$ 3,302$ 193$ 2,459$ 3,015$ High-Cube Warehouse KSF
Fire 20$ 7$ 132$ 950$
Police 20$ 19$ 44$ n/a
Public Buildings 76$ 38$ n/a
Library n/a -$ n/a
Community/Rec Centers n/a -$ n/a
Roads 1,580$ 972$ 327$ n/a
Water By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 n/a Multiple
Providers
By Meter Size
See Footnote 10 LA County n/a By Meter Size
See Footnote 10
Total High Cube Warehouse 1,620$ 1,075$ 541$ -$ -$ -$ 950$ -$ Notes:
1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq ft of building area 2 Residential - Detached assumes Single Family rate; Attached and Mobile Home assumes Multi Family rate; 3 Proposed fees are maximum fees established by the NBS 2021 Impact Fee Study 4 Beaumont fees effective January 1, 2021
5 Fontana fees last updated 2019
6 Hesperia fees as of March, 2021;
7 Lancaster fees adopted in2021; Traffic fees include an additional ADTE charge not shown above 8 Palmdale fees effective FY 2023, except parkland development fees are from 2014 and assume 2 bedrooms for SFR detached and 1 bedroom for attached 9 Rialto fees effective July 2020
10 See table comparing meter size fees
n/an/a n/a n/a
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/6/2022 3 of 5

APPENDIX C
Water System Capacity
Fees by Meter Size Current Fee 1 Proposed Fee 2 BEAUMONT FONTANA HESPERIA 3 LANCASTER PALMDALE RIALTO 4 Meter Size
3/4" 5,142$ 5,686$ 3,513$ 3,261$
1" 7,672$ 9,477$ 5,270$ 5,445$
1-1/2" 16,671$ 18,955$ 14,052$ 10,858$
2" 26,954$ 30,328$ 22,483$ 17,380$
3" 54,129$ 56,865$ 44,966$ 34,792$
4" 90,250$ 94,775$ 70,260$ 54,357$
6" 180,464$ 189,550$ 140,520$ 108,681$
8" 283,291$ 303,280$ 224,832$ 173,897$
Notes:
1 Current fees include the existing Water Connection Fee and the Alternate Water Source Fee 2 Proposed fees are maximum fees established by the NBS 2021 Impact Fee Study 3 Hesperia fees as of March, 2021;
4 Rialto fees effective July 2020

CITY OF VICTORVILLE COMPARISON AGENCIES
no comparison
available
Multiple water
service providers
- no comparison
available
Serviced by LA
County - no
comparison
available
no comparison
available
City of Victorville
Development Impact Fee Study 2021
Fee Comparison - Water
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/6/2022 4 of 5 Sewer Capacity
Fees 1 Current Fee 2 Proposed Fee 3 BEAUMONT 4 FONTANA 5 HESPERIA 6 LANCASTER 7 PALMDALE 8 RIALTO 9 Collection System 350$ 2,867$ 5,923$ $876.61 x # of EDUs 1,409$ 1,527$ 2,658$ 2,941$ Collection Only Collection &
Treatment Collection Only Collection Only Collection & Treatment
Collection &
Treatment
Collection &
Treatment
n/a City of Rialto VVWRA LACSD LACSD n/a
Notes:
1 Sewer capacity fees pertain to the sewer collection system only and do not include fees for sewage that flows through the Victor Valley Water Reclamation Authority (VVWRA - $4,414 per EDU effective July 1, 2021). 2 Current capacity fees are generally figured at a minimum of $350.00 per house connection and increase based on the type of connection and the EDU assignment as outlined on the City's website. 3 Proposed fees are based on the NBS 2021 Sewer Capacity Fee Study and are calculated on a per EDU basis (1 EDU = 149 GPD). 4 Beaumont fees are effective as January 1, 2022.
5 Fontana fees are effective as July 1, 2020.
6 Hesperia fees are for the Hesperia Water District and effective as of January 19, 2020 (1 EDU = 20 Fixture Units).
7 Lancaster is serviced by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.

These fees are for Single Family Homes and effective as of July 1, 2020. 8 Palmdale fees are for Single Family Residential (SFR) customers and based on the City's FY 2022 Adopted Budget.
9 Rialto fees are for SFR customers and effective as of July 22, 2020.

CITY OF VICTORVILLE COMPARISON AGENCIES
What agencies do these cities partner with?
What do these fees cover?

APPENDIX C

CITY OF VICTORVILLE
Development Impact Fee Study 2021
Fee Comparison - Sewer
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/6/2022 5 of 5 Prepared by NBS for the City of Victorville

APPENDIX D
Sewer Capacity Fee Study - Final

CITY OF VICTORVILLE

Final Report for:

Sewer Capacity Charge Study
May 2022
Aerial view of the City of Victorville
via Google Earth

nbsgov.com

City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 TOC
Table of Contents
Section 1. Purpose and Introduction to the Study ................................ ................................ ...............1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Capacity Charge Methodology .................................................................................... 1 Section 2. Sewer Capacity Charge Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 3 A. Introduction 3
B. Existing Connections and Projected Future Growth ........................................................................ 3 C. Existing and Planned Future Assets ................................................................................................... 5 D. Adjustment to the Cost Basis ............................................................................................................. 7 E. Calculated Capacity Charges .............................................................................................................. 8 F. Summary of the Sewer Capacity Charge Study ................................................................................. 9 Section 3. Recommendations And Next Steps ................................ ................................ ................... 10 A. Consultant Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 10 B. Principal Assumptions and Considerations .................................................................................... 10 Appendix - Tables from the Sewer Capacity Charge Study ................................ ................................ . 11 City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 TOF
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Flow Data for Treatment Plants .................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Calculation of Equivalent Dwelling Units ...................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Allocation of Capacity to Current and Future Customers ............................................................. 5 Figure 4. System Buy-in Cost Basis by Asset Category ................................................................................. 5 Figure 5. Existing Asset Values Allocated to Current and Future Customers .............................................. 6 Figure 6. Planned Asset Values Allocated to Current and Future Customers .............................................. 7 Figure 7. Cash Allocated to Existing and Future Customers ........................................................................ 7 Figure 8. Summary of Costs Allocated to Future Customers ...................................................................... 8 Figure 9. Summary of New Base Capacity Charges ...................................................................................... 8

City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 1
Section 1. Purpose and Introduction to the Study
Background and Purpose
The City of Victorville (City) retained NBS to conduct a sewer capacity charge study for the following reasons: (1) to ensure that the capacity charges are updated to comply with legal requirements and industry standards, and (2) to ensure that the capacity charges reflect the cost of capital infrastructure needed to serve new connections, or any person requesting additional capacity in the City’s sewer collection utility (referred to throughout as “future customers”).

California Government Code Section 66013 defines a capacity charge as a one-time “charge for public facilities in existence at the time a charge is imposed or charges for new public facilities to be acquired or constructed in the future that are of proportional benefit to the person or property being charged, including supply or capacity contracts for rights or entitlements, real property interests, and entitlements and other rights of the local agency involving capital expense relating to its use of existing or new public facilities.” It authorizes public agencies to impose capacity charges on customers connecting to or upsizing their connection to the sewer system in order to ensure that they pay their fair share of the existing utility asset costs plus the costs of new facilities needed to serve them. In its simplest form, capacity charges are the result of dividing the cost (or value) of the utility’s current system assets plus planned capital improvements by the expected number of future customers. As a result, future customers connecting to the City’s sewer system would enter as equal participants, along with current customers, regarding their financial commitment and obligations to the utility.

Whereas sewer rate increases imposed on existing customers require a protest ballot procedure (under Proposition 218), capacity charges do not because they are considered an appropriate funding mechanism for facilities that benefit new development city-wide. These charges may be imposed by a majority vote of the governing legislative body, which in this case is the Victorville City Council. This report provides the documentation and findings necessary for the adoption of the proposed capacity charges.

Overview of Capacity Charge Methodology
Various methodologies have been, and are currently, used to calculate sewer capacity charges. The most common methodologies are based on industry standards established by the American Water Works Association in Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges,1 also referred to as Manual M1. A capacity charge ensures that future customers pay their proportional share of costs to recover the following:

1. A system “buy-in” component that reflects future customers’ proportional share of existing utility asset costs.

2. An “incremental” component that reflects future customers’ proportional share of planned (or “incremental”) capital improvement costs that are required to provide them sufficient capacity in the utility.

1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, M 1 Manual, American Water Works Association, Seventh Edition, 2017.

City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 2
This analysis uses the “Combination Approach,”2 which requires new customers to pay both their fair share of existing system assets as well as their share of the planned future capital improvements needed to provide them with capacity in the City’s sewer collection system. As a result, new customers connecting to the City’s sewer system would enter as equal participants with existing customers in terms of their financial commitment and obligations to the utility.

In its simplest form, capacity charges (also referred to as capacity charges, system development charges, or development impact charges) are calculated by dividing the costs allocated to future development by the number of units of new development anticipated as defined below:
➢ Costs of existing and planned future facilities and improvements required to serve new development are those that can reasonably be allocated to future development. ➢ The number of new units (i.e., growth) are those units projected to occur within the timeframe covered by the capacity charge analysis.

Capacity charges are one-time charges intended to reflect the cost of existing infrastructure and planned improvements which are, or will be, available to the new utility customers and will place the new utility customers (or existing customers requesting an increase in service capacity) on equal basis from a financial perspective with existing customers. Once new customers are added to the system, they then incur the obligation to pay the same service charges or sewer rates that existing customers pay.

As a result, future customers connecting to the City’s sewer system would enter as equal participants (compared to current customers) regarding their financial commitment and obligations to the utility. All sewer utility asset values included in this study are in 2021 dollars.

In developing the new capacity charges, NBS worked cooperatively with City staff. The charges presented in this study reflect input provided by City staff regarding financial matters, available capacity in the sewer system, existing asset values, and planned capital improvements. The capacity charges were calculated in such a way as to not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service.

Section 2 discusses in more detail the development of the sewer capacity charges, and presents the updated charges recommended for new and upsized connections.

2 Method of calculating capacity charges is set forth in American Water Works Association’s Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, Seventh Edition (2017), pages 311-347.

City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 3
Section 2. Sewer Capacity Charge Study
A. Introduction
As previously mentioned, the “Combination Approach” is used to calculate the City’s capacity charges for the sewer utility (a combination of the system buy-in and incremental cost methods). This combination approach requires new customers to pay both their fair share of existing system assets as well as their share of the planned future capital improvements needed to provide them with capacity in the City’s sewer collection system. New customers connecting to the City’s sewer system would enter as equal participants to the existing customers regarding their financial commitment and obligations to the utility.

In addition, sewer capacity charges also use the Replacement-Cost-New-Less-Depreciation (RCNLD) value of existing system assets to calculate the system buy-in component of the capacity charge.

Inflation values from the Handy Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction Costs for Water Utility Construction are used to estimate the replacement value of the existing system assets. NBS believes this is an accurate inflation index and can also be used for sewer utilities. A detailed summary of the sewer utility’s capacity charge calculations is provided in the Appendix.

B. Existing Connections and Projected Future Growth
Different types of customers have the potential to use more of the sewer system’s capacity depending on the flow and the strength of effluent. The potential capacity demanded is therefore proportional to the type of customer (i.e., residential, low-, medium-, or high-strength commercial, etc.). The number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) is used as a variable for the potential demand that each customer can place on the sewer collection system. A significant portion of a sewer system’s capacity and, in turn, the utility’s fixed capital costs, are related to meeting system capacity requirements. Therefore, the capacity charge for new service will be proportional to the number of EDUs assigned to each connecting customer.

The City’s industrial sewage flows through the City-operated Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant located at the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA), while the remainder flows through the wastewater treatment plant owned and operated by Victor Valley Water Reclamation Authority. The treatment plants combined currently average an annual flow of 3,139 million gallons (MG), or 8.6 million gallons per day (MGD). Figure 1 shows the monthly sewer flow to the treatment plants for FY 2020/21, which is used to determine the daily flow that is then used to estimate the number of EDUs that will connect to the sewer collection utility. The result of the analysis on projected future growth is summarized in Figure 2, and while there are currently 28,417 connections to the City’s sewer collection system, there are 52,699 EDUs.

City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 4
Figure 1. Flow Data for Treatment Plants

Figure 2. Calculation of Equivalent Dwelling Units

Capacity in the City’s sewer collection system is allocated to current and future customers as shown in Figure 3. The average daily flow calculated from the annual effluent average for FY 2020/21 equaled 8.6 million gallons per day (MGD) and when subtracted from the system’s total estimated capacity of 21.5 MGD, 12.9 MGD of capacity remains available for future customers. The percentage of capacity assigned to current and future customers is based on their assigned share of EDUs.

VVWRA2
Industrial Sanitary Victorville
2020 July 10.52 57.03 197.01 264.56 2020 August 9.74 58.00 198.49 266.23 2020 September 9.98 52.78 192.41 255.17 2020 October 10.97 50.00 202.99 263.96 2020 November 9.50 55.08 198.29 262.87 2020 December 7.94 56.25 204.31 268.50 2021 January 9.68 52.54 205.00 267.22 2021 February 9.39 48.94 184.62 242.95 2021 March 9.90 59.32 201.36 270.58 2021 April 8.16 55.93 193.83 257.92 2021 May 8.43 61.42 197.00 266.85 2021 June 8.41 60.10 183.36 251.87 Total (MG) 112.62 667.39 2,358.66 3,138.67 FY 2020/21 Average (MGD) 0.31 1.83 6.46 8.60

1. Flow data for the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant. Source file: IWWTP Flow FY 20-21.xlsx .

2. Flow data for the Victor Valley Water Reclamation Authority. Source file: VVWRA Flows.xlsx .

IWWTP1
Year Month Total
Customer Class Number of
Accounts1
Number of
Dwelling Units2
Estimated
Number of
EDUs3
1 EDU = 149 GPD
Single Family Residential 27,054 27,730 27,730 Multi-Family Residential 350 6,972 5,307 Commercial 783 -- 5,278
Institutional 225 -- 5,938
Industrial
Dr. Pepper/Snapple 1 -- 2,615 PlastiPak 1 -- 55
FCC 2 5,620
Hydration Source 1 -- 156 Total 28,417 34,702 52,699

1. Number of accounts is based on the number of sewer customers billed a charge in June 2021. Source file:

SewerRateStudyFY20-21.xlsx .

2. Number of dwelling units is as of June 2021 per customer billing data.

3. Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) are based on flow of 149 GPD, the estimated flow per single-family dwelling unit.

City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 5
Figure 3. Allocation of Capacity to Current and Future Customers

C. Existing and Planned Future Assets
The sewer utility’s capital assets include existing assets and planned capital improvements (i.e., system buy-in and incremental assets). The estimated replacement costs (RCNLD value) are developed as the cost basis for the new sewer capacity charge. Figure 4 summarizes the resulting RCNLD value of existing assets which includes adjustments to account for assets that are considered to have no remaining value. Although these assets have no remaining value, they remain in service and, therefore, are assessed a nominal value of 10 percent of the replacement cost.

Figure 4. System Buy-in Cost Basis by Asset Category

All the RCNLD costs are allocated to current customers based on the 37.7 percent allocation factor shown in Figure 3 and the remaining 62.3 percent allocated to future customers. Figure 5 shows the allocation of the $310 million in existing sewer assets to current and future customers. Future customers are allocated $155.2 million of the existing sewer assets.

Existing
Customers
Future
Customers Total
Growth Through 2040 52,699 86,938 139,637 37.7% 62.3% 100%

1. Assumes that the 52,699 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) are based on flow of 149 GPD, the estimated flow per single-family residential dwelling unit.

Allocation Factors
Total
Expected Future
Customers
(thru FY
2039/40)
Existing
Customers
(EDUs)1
Sewer Collection System
Asset Cost Depreciation
to Date Asset Cost Depreciation
to Date
Sewer Collection System
Gravity Mains3 474,215,046$ 392,575,723$ 81,639,323$ 462,796,117$ 271,556,716$ 191,239,401$ Cleanouts 1,962,480 658,886 1,303,594 3,356,641 1,150,103 2,206,537 Manholes 36,805,200 18,099,830 18,705,370 124,673,333 77,989,046 46,684,287 Lift Stations 1,178,762 552,527 626,235 2,256,402 986,803 1,269,598 Pressurized Mains 6,312,973 4,635,631 1,677,342 34,293,349 26,485,956 7,807,393 Sewer Laterals 53,024,160 19,442,192 33,581,968 95,933,885 35,175,758 60,758,127 Total: Fixed Assets 573,498,621$ 435,964,789$ 137,533,832$ 723,309,726$ 413,344,382$ 309,965,344$

1. The original asset cost provided by the City and depreciation calculated by NBS (depreciation is as of June 30, 2021).

2. Replacement values are calculated by escalating the original values from service date to 2021 values using historical cost inflation factors from the Handy-Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction Costs for Water Utility Construction in the Pacific Region. The percentage change in the asset cost can be found in the individual source files for each fixed asset category provided by City staff.

3. The original value for gravity mains includes all pipe sizes, while the replacement value does not include pipes that are less than 10 inches in diameter.

System Component1
Original Values1
Asset Cost Less
Depreciation
Replacement Values2
System Buy-In
Cost Basis
City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 6
Figure 5. Existing Asset Values Allocated to Current and Future Customers

As noted earlier, the City’s capital improvement plans extend through 2040. The estimated cost of planned future improvements (in 2021 dollars) is used to calculate the system development component of the capacity charge. Some of the cost estimates for planned future improvements used to calculate the system development component of the capacity charge are allocated using the same allocations found in Figure 3, as these projects benefit both current and future customers. Based on the

62.3 percent allocation factor, future customers are allocated $88.4 million of these future capital project costs as shown in Figure 6.

Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Sewer Collection System
Gravity Mains 191,239,401$ 37.7% 62.3% 72,173,679$ 119,065,722$ Cleanouts 2,206,537 37.7% 62.3% 832,746 1,373,791 Manholes 46,684,287 37.7% 62.3% 17,618,633 29,065,654 Lift Stations 1,269,598 37.7% 62.3% 479,146 790,452 Pressurized Mains 7,807,393 37.7% 62.3% 2,946,507 4,860,886 Sewer Laterals4 60,758,127 100.0% 0.0% 60,758,127 - Total: Fixed Assets 309,965,344$ 154,808,839$ 155,156,505$ Percentage of Total Asset Value 49.9% 50.1%

1. The original asset cost provided by the City and depreciation calculated by NBS (depreciation is as of June 30, 2021).

3. The Allocation Basis is based on the proportionate allocation between existing and future customers.

4. NBS assumes that sewer laterals connect to existing customers directly and provide no extra capacity from which new customers can participate.

Allocation Basis (%)3 Distribution of Cost Basis ($)System Buy-In Cost Basis2System Component1
City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 7
Figure 6. Planned Asset Values Allocated to Current and Future Customers

The City may have additional capital projects that are needed to serve future developments and the cost of these projects may be recovered through a development agreement. This will be evaluated on a case- by-case basis as part of the development review process.

D. Adjustment to the Cost Basis
Only o ne adjustment was made to the cost basis to account for existing cash reserves, as the City’s Interfund Loan will be repaid through connection and developer charges. Existing cash reserves are treated as an asset since they are contributed by current customers and are available to pay for capital and/or operating costs of the sewer utility from which future customers will benefit. Using the allocation factor from Figure 5, $5.7 million in existing cash reserves was allocated to future customers as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Cash Allocated to Existing and Future Customers

Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
City's Capital Improvement Program
C12 3,060,200$ 1,530,100$ 4,590,300$ 37.7% 62.3% 1,732,378$ 2,857,922$ C13 3,799,480 1,899,740 5,699,220 37.7% 62.3% 2,150,884 3,548,336 C14 554,500 277,250 831,750 37.7% 62.3% 313,902 517,848 C15 4,141,275 2,070,638 6,211,913 37.7% 62.3% 2,344,373 3,867,539 C16 3,354,720 1,677,360 5,032,080 37.7% 62.3% 1,899,105 3,132,975 C17 2,224,650 1,112,325 3,336,975 37.7% 62.3% 1,259,373 2,077,602 C18 4,301,145 2,150,573 6,451,718 37.7% 62.3% 2,434,876 4,016,842 C19 3,067,350 1,533,675 4,601,025 37.7% 62.3% 1,736,425 2,864,600 C20 3,972,460 1,986,230 5,958,690 37.7% 62.3% 2,248,807 3,709,883 C21 2,037,740 1,018,870 3,056,610 37.7% 62.3% 1,153,563 1,903,047 C23 2,073,790 1,036,895 3,110,685 37.7% 62.3% 1,173,971 1,936,714 C24 3,117,040 1,558,520 4,675,560 37.7% 62.3% 1,764,555 2,911,005 C25 1,153,900 576,950 1,730,850 37.7% 62.3% 653,222 1,077,628 C28 180,280 90,140 270,420 37.7% 62.3% 102,056 168,364 C34 (Parallel Pipe Option) 25,318,150 12,659,075 37,977,225 37.7% 62.3% 14,332,591 23,644,634 New Extension Sewer 20,123,055 10,061,528 30,184,583 0% 100% - 30,184,583 Sub-Total: Collection System 82,479,735$ 41,239,868$ 123,719,603$ 29% 71% 35,300,082$ 88,419,521$

1. Capital project costs identified in the 2016 Sewer Rate Study.

2. City's capital improvement program costs are based on current year values.

3. Additional costs include costs for construction contingency (30%), design (10%), and administration and construction (10%).

4. Cost basis for consideration is calculated as current cost estimate less any known external funding sources (e.g., grants, contributions, bond proceeds).

5. Capital projects are allocated proportionately in the same manner as existing assets (in total) in Figure 3.

System
Development
Cost Basis4
% Allocation5 Distribution of Cost Basis ($)
Project No.1
Current Cost
Estimate
(FY 2021/22
Values) 2
Additional
Costs3
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Sewer Operations Fund (Fund 425)1 11,367,869$ 49.9% 50.1% 5,677,559$ 5,690,310$ Capacity Fees Held in Reserve - 0.0% 0.0% - - Cash Net of Unspent Capacity Fees 11,367,869$ 49.9% 50.1% 5,677,559$ 5,690,310$

1. Total beginning cash balance for FY 2021/22 provided by City staff in source file: FUND 425-SEWER.xlsx

2. Cash reserves are allocated proportionately in the same manner as existing assets (in total) in Figure 5. $ - Allocation
Cash Reserves Cash Amount1
% Allocation2
City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 8
E. Calculated Capacity Charges
The sum of the existing asset values (i.e., the system buy-in and system development components), along with the adjustment for existing cash reserves, defines the total cost basis allocated to future customers. Figure 8 summarizes how this cost basis was developed.

Figure 8. Summary of Costs Allocated to Future Customers

The cost basis for new development is then divided by the number of future customers, measured in EDUs, expected to connect to the system (i.e., 86,938 EDUs shown in Figure 3). The calculation for the base sewer capacity charge is shown in Figure 9. This represents the maximum that the City could charge per EDU for future customers.

Figure 9. Summary of New Base Capacity Charges

The EDUs assigned to a given customer is a measure of the expected impact on the sewer utility relative to the average impact of a single -family residential (SFR) user. The measure is based on a customer’s expected flow. One EDU is equivalent to one single-family dwelling unit. The estimated daily flow for one single-family dwelling unit is estimated to be 149 gallons per day (GPD). EDU assignments for connecting customers are based on customer classification determined by City staff. The EDU assignments are then used to calculate the capacity charge for connecting customers. For example, a standard single -family dwelling would be assessed a capacity charge of $2,867 for the sewer connection (1 EDU × $2,867). If a connecting customer is assigned 3 EDUs (based on flow), presumably for a larger residential property or a commercial property, the sewer capacity charge would be $8,601 (3 EDUs × $2,867) for this connecting customer.

System Asset Values Allocated to Future Development Collection System System Buy-In and Expansion Components
Existing System Buy-In $ 155,156,505
Future System Expansion 88,419,521
Subtotal: System Buy-In and Expansion Components 243,576,026$ Adjustments to Cost Basis:

Cash Reserves 5,690,310$
Outstanding Long-Term Debt (Principal) -
Subtotal: Adjustments to Cost Basis 5,690,310$
Total: Cost Basis for New Development 249,266,336$
Capacity Fee Development Collection System
Cost Basis for New Development $ 249,266,336 Projected Growth in EDUs (through 2040) 86,938
Capacity Fee Per EDU (1 EDU = 149 GPD) $2,867
City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 9
F. Summary of the Sewer Capacity Charge Study
The new sewer capacity charges calculated in this study are based on regulatory requirements and generally accepted industry standards and are further detailed in the Appendix. This study concludes the following findings:
• The purpose of the City’s sewer capacity charge is to ensure that new connections reimburse and/or mitigate a reasonable portion of the City’s planned capital investments. These investments benefit and/or are necessary to accommodate increased demand for sewer service.
• The City uses capacity charge proceeds to fund capital investments in the sewer system, which may include the design and construction of planned facilities. • All customers seeking permission to connect to the City’s sewer system are subject to the sewer capacity charge, payment of which is a condition of connection approval. • Capacity charges for new sewer customers vary depending on the estimated number of EDUs (or capacity units) the connection will serve, which is generally proportionate to the demands a customer places on the sewer utility system. Figure 2 illustrates the number of EDUs, along with the number of accounts currently connected to the system. • The City has made investments in sewer infrastructure and plans to invest further in expanded and upgraded facilities. These investments make possible the availability and continued reliable provision of utility service sufficient to meet demands of growth within the City’s service area. • Without capital investment in existing facilities, the sewer system capacity available to serve the needs of future connections would be uncertain. Without planned investments in future facilities, sewer service would not be sustainable at the level of service enjoyed by current users. Figure 6 identifies the total value of planned sewer system assets that are attributable to serving future connections.
• Upon payment of a capacity charge, a new customer incurs the obligation to pay the same ongoing service rates as existing customers regardless of the date of connection to the system or actual start of service. Capacity charges ensure that, over time, ongoing service rates are not disproportionately burdened by the accommodation of system growth.

City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 10
Section 3. Recommendations And Next Steps
A. Consultant Recommendations
NBS recommends the City take the following actions:
• Approve and Accept this Study: NBS recommends the City Council formally approve and adopt this Study and its recommendations and proceed with the steps outlined below to implement the new capacity charges. This will provide documentation of the study and the basis for adopting the new charges.
• Implement the New Sewer Capacity Charges: Based on the analysis presented in this report, the City Council should implement the new capacity charge of $2,867 per sewer EDU, as recommended in this report.
• Periodically Review Rates, Charges, and Revenue: Any time an Agency adopts new charges, they should be periodically reviewed to incorporate new capital facility plans, significant repair and replacements projects that are undertaken, and new planning data (i.e., customer growth estimates). This will help ensure the charges generate sufficient revenue to cover the cost of capital projects, support the fiscal health of the City, and future customers bear their fair share of infrastructure costs.

B. Principal Assumptions and Considerations
In preparing this study and the recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on a number of principal assumptions and considerations with regard to financial matters, number of customer accounts, asset records, planned capital improvements, and other conditions and events that may occur in the future. This information and assumptions were provided by sources we believe to be reliable, although NBS has not independently verified this data.

While we believe NBS’ use of such information and assumptions is reasonable for the purpose of this study and its recommendations, some assumptions will invariably not materialize as stated herein or may vary significantly due to unanticipated events and circumstances. Therefore, the actual results can be expected to vary from those projected to the extent that actual future conditions differ from those assumed by us or provided to us by others.

City of Victorville – Sewer Capacity Charge Study
Prepared by NBS – May 2022 11
Appendix - Tables from the Sewer Capacity Charge Study
CITY OF VICTORVILLE Exhibit 1
Collection System - Sewer Capacity Charge Analysis
Demographic Data and Projections
TABLE 1.A : FLOW STATISTICS1
Customer Class Number of Dwelling
Units / Accounts2
Annual Water
Consumption
(HCF)3
Annualized Winter
Average
Consumption
(HCF)4
Estimated
Annual Volume
Total (HCF)5
Adjusted Annual
Volume Total (HCF)
Percentage of
Adjusted Volume
Single Family Residential 27,730 5,137,740 3,683,428 3,683,428 2,012,488 52.6% Multi-Family Residential 6,972 704,920 535,752 704,920 385,142 10.1% Commercial6 780 701,050 694,072 701,050 383,028 10.0%
Institutional 225 788,733 205,124 788,733 430,934 11.3% Industrial
Dr. Pepper/Snapple7 1 189,754 n/a 189,754 189,754 5.0%
PlastiPak7 1 3,970 n/a 3,970 3,970 0.1%
FCC7 2 407,860 n/a 407,860 407,860 10.7%
Hydration Source7 1 11,332 n/a 11,332 11,332 0.3%
Total: 35,712 7,945,359 6,491,047 3,824,508 100.0%
Estimated Combined WWTP Flow (hcf/yr.) 8 4,195,807
Estimated Combined WWTP Flow (mgs/yr.) 8 8.60
Flow Adj. Factor (Non-Industrial) 0.55

1. Consumption data is based on the City of Victorville's FY 2019/20 customer billing data for the water utility. Source file: 2019-20 Customer Data.xlsx .

2. Residential classes are by number of dwelling units. Source file: SewerRateStudyFY20-21.xlsx . All other customer classes are by number of accounts. Source file:
2019-20 Customer Data.xlsx .

3. Annual water consumption is for FY 2019/20 and excludes fire, irrigation, and recycled water meters. Source file: VWD - 2019-20 Customer Data.xlsx .

4. Annualized average winter water consumption is based on consumption in the lowest three months (January - March 2020). Source file: VWD - 19-20 Consumption Data.xlsx .

5. Estimated annual volume is based on winter water consumption for SFR, and annual water consumption for MFR, Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional customers.

6. Includes all other Industrial customers and commercial flow meters.

7. Consumption data provided by City staff for the 2016 Sewer Rate Study..

8. The Wastewater Treatment Plant flow is for VVWRA flow and the City's IWWTP flow for FY 2020/21.

TABLE 1.B : WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN FLOW/STRENGTH DATA FOR VVWRA Flow
FY 2020/21 6.46

1. City staff provided data in source files: VVWRA Flows.xlsx & VVWRA - BOD and TSS DATA 2019-2021.xlsx.

TABLE 1.C : WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW/STRENGTH DATA FOR CITY OF VICTORVILLE Flow
Feb 20 - Jan 21 2.14

1. City staff provided data in source files: IWWTP - Sanitary Influent .pdf & IWWTP - Process Influent Data.pdf.

Year
Year
Prepared by NBS
www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7516 1. Demographics, Page 1 of 10 CITY OF VICTORVILLE Exhibit 1
Collection System - Sewer Capacity Charge Analysis
Demographic Data and Projections
TABLE 2.A : CUSTOMER STATISTICS
Customer Class Number of
Accounts1
Number of
Dwelling Units2
Estimated Number
of EDUs3
1 EDU = 149 GPD
Single Family Residential 27,054 27,730 27,730 Multi-Family Residential 350 6,972 5,307 Commercial 783 -- 5,278
Institutional 225 -- 5,938 Industrial
Dr. Pepper/Snapple 1 -- 2,615 PlastiPak 1 -- 55
FCC 2 5,620
Hydration Source 1 -- 156 Total 28,417 34,702 52,699

1. Number of accounts is based on the number of sewer customers billed a charge in June 2021. Source file:

SewerRateStudyFY20-21.xlsx .

2. Number of dwelling units is as of June 2021 per customer billing data.

3. Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) are based on flow of 149 GPD, the estimated flow per single-family dwelling unit.

TABLE 2.B : ESTMATED FLOW PER EDU CALCULATION
Customer Class
Estimated Annual
Flow for

SFR & MFR
Estimated Flow
(GPD) % of SFR Flow
Single Family Residential 2,012,488 149 -- Multi-Family Residential 385,142 113 76% TABLE 2.C : ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EDUs
Estimated No. of EDUs in City's System 52,699
Estimated Flow/Day Per EDU (gal) 149
Prepared by NBS
www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7516 1. Demographics, Page 2 of 10 CITY OF VICTORVILLE Exhibit 1
Collection System - Sewer Capacity Charge Analysis
Demographic Data and Projections
TABLE 3 : GROWTH PROJECTION FROM DECEMBER 2016 SEWER MASTER PLAN UPDATED (THROUGH 2040)1 Residential Commercial Industrial Total Residential Commercial Industrial Total SCLA 0.00 0.01 0.71 0.73 0.00 0.01 0.51 0.52
Baldy Mesa 3.11 0.70 0.00 3.81 3.11 0.70 0.00 3.81
Central City 0.68 0.28 0.03 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
East Bear Valley 0.24 0.38 0.05 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden Triangle 0.70 0.61 0.00 1.32 0.16 0.14 0.00 0.31 North Mojave 0.35 0.07 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Spring Valley Lake 0.03 0.15 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 West Bear Valley 0.01 0.58 0.01 0.60 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.31 West City 3.07 0.93 0.18 4.18 1.19 0.36 0.07 1.62
Total Additional Flow (mgs) 8.19 3.72 1.02 12.93 4.47 1.52 0.59 6.58 Additional EDUs2 55,053 25,012 6,874 86,938 30,068 10,191 3,968 44,227 Annual Growth (2017 to 2040) 2,898 1,316 362 4,576 1,583 536 209 2,328

1. Source file: COV_2040 Future Wastewater Flow Projection_FINAL.xlsx .

2. Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) are based on flow of 149 GPD, the estimated flow per single-family dwelling unit.

TABLE 4 : CALCULATED GROWTH IN CUSTOMERS TO VVWRA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT1 Residential Commercial Industrial Total
SCLA 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20
Baldy Mesa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Central City 0.68 0.28 0.03 0.98
East Bear Valley 0.24 0.38 0.05 0.67
Golden Triangle 0.54 0.47 0.00 1.01
North Mojave 0.35 0.07 0.04 0.46
Spring Valley Lake 0.03 0.15 0.00 0.18
West Bear Valley 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.29
West City 1.88 0.57 0.11 2.56
Total Additional Flow (mgs) 3.72 2.20 0.43 6.35
Additional EDUs2 24,985 14,820 2,906 42,711
Annual Growth (2017 to 2040) 1,086 644 126 1,857

1. Calculated difference in the Total City vs. City of Victorville Wastewater Treatment Plant shown in Table 3. Source file:

COV_2040 Future Wastewater Flow Projection_FINAL.xlsx .

2. Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) are based on flow of 149 GPD, the estimated flow per single-family residential dwelling unit.

TABLE 5 : SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM - EXISTING VS. FUTURE CUSTOMERS ALLOCATION Existing Customers Future Customers Total
Growth Through 2040 52,699 86,938 139,637 37.7% 62.3% 100%

1. Assumes that the 52,699 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) are based on flow of 149 GPD, the estimated flow per single-family residential dwelling unit.

Allocation Factors
Total
Expected Future
Customers
(thru FY 2039/40)
Existing Customers
(EDUs)1Sewer Collection System
Planning Area
Total City
Planning Area
Assumed Growth in Connections to VVWRA
Estimated Additional Wastewater Flow from Developing Vacant Parcels (MGD) Estimated Additional Wastewater Flow from Developing Vacant Parcels (MGD) Estimated Additional Wastewater Flow from Developing Vacant Parcels (MGD) City of Victorville Wastewater Treatment Plant
Prepared by NBS
www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7516 1. Demographics, Page 3 of 10 CITY OF VICTORVILLE Exhibit 2
Collection System - Sewer Capacity Charge Analysis
Existing Capital Facilities and Equipment (System Buy-In) TABLE 6 : FIXED ASSETS - GRAVITY SEWER MAINS
Asset Cost5 Accumulated
Depreciation
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Gravity Sewer Main6
Gravity Mains 4 507,240$ 507,240$ -$ 507,240$ 13 -$ -$ -$ 37.7% 62.3% -$ -$ Gravity Mains 6 9,805,420 9,805,420 - 9,805,420 13 - - - 37.7% 62.3% - - Gravity Mains 8 308,987,966 308,987,966 - 308,987,966 13 - - - 37.7% 62.3% - - Gravity Mains 10 22,125,702 11,871,130 10,254,572 11,871,130 13 65,613,413 37,006,647 28,606,766 37.7% 62.3% 10,796,183 17,810,583 Gravity Mains 12 26,273,910 12,168,353 14,105,556 12,168,353 13 73,847,468 42,504,254 31,343,213 37.7% 62.3% 11,828,917 19,514,296 Gravity Mains 14 1,041,073 864,481 176,592 864,481 13 6,417,594 4,759,062 1,658,532 37.7% 62.3% 625,929 1,032,603 Gravity Mains 15 23,749,463 13,021,529 10,727,935 13,021,529 13 85,188,074 55,829,049 29,359,024 37.7% 62.3% 11,080,085 18,278,939 Gravity Mains 18 23,575,470 10,742,340 12,833,130 10,742,340 13 76,613,410 47,291,735 29,321,675 37.7% 62.3% 11,065,989 18,255,686 Gravity Mains 21 15,761,064 6,843,642 8,917,421 6,843,642 13 45,388,994 25,717,033 19,671,961 37.7% 62.3% 7,424,191 12,247,770 Gravity Mains 24 7,926,803 3,183,608 4,743,196 3,183,608 13 16,311,840 6,051,649 10,260,191 37.7% 62.3% 3,872,192 6,387,999 Gravity Mains 27 31,623,455 12,362,336 19,261,119 12,362,336 13 77,214,933 39,719,716 37,495,217 37.7% 62.3% 14,150,681 23,344,536 Gravity Mains 30 17,699 8,849 8,849 8,849 13 44,955 22,477 22,477 37.7% 62.3% 8,483 13,994 Gravity Mains 33 416,572 326,315 90,257 326,315 13 2,386,674 1,869,561 517,113 37.7% 62.3% 195,158 321,955 Gravity Mains 36 2,403,209 1,882,514 520,695 1,882,514 13 13,768,763 10,785,531 2,983,232 37.7% 62.3% 1,125,871 1,857,361 Subtotal: Gravity Mains 474,215,046$ 392,575,723$ 81,639,323$ 392,575,723$ 462,796,117$ 271,556,716$ 191,239,401$ 72,173,679$ 119,065,722$ TABLE 7 : FIXED ASSETS - CLEANOUTS
Asset Cost5 Accumulated
Depreciation
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Cleanouts7
Cleanouts As-Built 1,913,520$ 641,410$ 1,272,110$ 641,410$ 18 3,269,663$ 1,118,886$ 2,150,777$ 37.7% 62.3% 811,703$ 1,339,075$ Cleanouts Other 10,200 3,740 6,460 3,740 18 18,454 6,767 11,688 37.7% 62.3% 4,411 7,277 Cleanouts Plan 36,720 12,988 23,732 12,988 18 64,832 23,098 41,735 37.7% 62.3% 15,751 25,984 Cleanouts Unknown 2,040 748 1,292 748 18 3,691 1,353 2,338 37.7% 62.3% 882 1,455 Subtotal: Cleanouts 1,962,480$ 658,886$ 1,303,594$ 658,886$ 3,356,641$ 1,150,103$ 2,206,537$ 832,746$ 1,373,791$ TABLE 8 : FIXED ASSETS - MANHOLES
Asset Cost5 Accumulated
Depreciation
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Manholes8
Manholes 24 4,200$ 1,120$ 3,080$ 1,120$ 21 6,986$ 1,863$ 5,123$ 37.7% 62.3% 1,933$ 3,190$ Manholes 48 35,868,000 17,713,290 18,154,710 17,713,290 21 122,441,836 76,932,968 45,508,868 37.7% 62.3% 17,175,030 28,333,838 Manholes 60 924,000 383,020 540,980 383,020 21 2,209,540 1,050,223 1,159,317 37.7% 62.3% 437,526 721,791 Manholes 72 9,000 2,400 6,600 2,400 21 14,970 3,992 10,978 37.7% 62.3% 4,143 6,835 Subtotal: Manholes 36,805,200$ 18,099,830$ 18,705,370$ 18,099,830$ 124,673,333$ 77,989,046$ 46,684,287$ 17,618,633$ 29,065,654$ Allocation Basis (%)
Allocation Basis (%)
System
Buy-In
Cost Basis
Asset Type Pipe Diameter Original Cost1
Distribution of Cost Basis ($)
Asset Type Pipe Diameter Original Cost1 Depreciation2 Book Value3 Accumulated Depreciation
Asset
Category
(for inflation) 4
Replacement Value System
Buy-In
Cost Basis
Distribution of Cost Basis ($)
Depreciation2 Book Value3 Accumulated
Depreciation
Asset
Category
(for inflation) 4
Replacement Value
Asset Type Original Cost1Pipe Diameter Depreciation2 Book Value3 Distribution of Cost Basis ($)Accumulated
Depreciation
Asset
Category
(for inflation) 4
System
Buy-In
Cost Basis
Replacement Value Allocation Basis (%)
Prepared by NBS
www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7516 2. Existing Assets Detail, Page 4 of 10 CITY OF VICTORVILLE Exhibit 2
Collection System - Sewer Capacity Charge Analysis
Existing Capital Facilities and Equipment (System Buy-In) TABLE 9 : FIXED ASSETS - LIFT STATIONS
Asset Cost5 Accumulated
Depreciation
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Lift Stations9
SCLA Lift Station No. 1 South of hangar 678 20,000$ 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ 19 4,244$ -$ 4,244$ 37.7% 62.3% 1,602$ 2,642$ SCLA Lift Station No. 2 Wash Rack, west of GE Hangar 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 19 4,244 - 4,244 37.7% 62.3% 1,602 2,642 SCLA Lift Station No. 3 Bldg 862 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 19 4,244 - 4,244 37.7% 62.3% 1,602 2,642 SCLA Lift Station No. 4 Bldgs 862 & 685 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 19 4,244 - 4,244 37.7% 62.3% 1,602 2,642 SCLA Lift Station No. 5 NTC Wash Rack, 18806 Perimeter Rd 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 19 4,244 - 4,244 37.7% 62.3% 1,602 2,642 SCLA Lift Station No. 6 Hangar 868 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 19 4,244 - 4,244 37.7% 62.3% 1,602 2,642 Stoddard Wells Road 871,070 413,758 457,312 413,758 21 2,036,558 967,365 1,069,193 37.7% 62.3% 403,513 665,680 10th St & D Street 187,692 18,769 168,923 18,769 1 194,382 19,438 174,944 37.7% 62.3% 66,024 108,920 Subtotal: Lift Stations 1,178,762$ 552,527$ 626,235$ 552,527$ 2,256,402$ 986,803$ 1,269,598$ 479,146$ 790,452$ TABLE 10 : FIXED ASSETS - PRESSURIZED MAINS
Asset Cost5 Accumulated
Depreciation
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Pressurized Mains10
Pressurized Mains 3 10,688$ 4,631$ 6,056$ 4,631$ 16 23,400$ 10,140$ 13,260$ 37.7% 62.3% 5,004$ 8,256$ Pressurized Mains 4 182,827 182,827 - 182,827 16 286,429 - 286,429 37.7% 62.3% 108,098 178,331 Pressurized Mains 6 346,745 257,040 89,705 257,040 16 1,601,465 1,192,258 409,207 37.7% 62.3% 154,435 254,773 Pressurized Mains 8 2,337,231 1,474,307 862,924 1,474,307 16 10,581,400 7,944,609 2,636,791 37.7% 62.3% 995,124 1,641,667 Pressurized Mains 10 354,481 295,401 59,080 295,401 16 2,716,404 2,263,670 452,734 37.7% 62.3% 170,862 281,872 Pressurized Mains 12 33,852 14,669 19,183 14,669 16 74,118 32,118 42,000 37.7% 62.3% 15,851 26,149 Pressurized Mains 14 2,666,780 2,089,780 577,000 2,089,780 16 16,095,347 12,614,173 3,481,174 37.7% 62.3% 1,313,794 2,167,380 Pressurized Mains 15 380,369 316,974 63,395 316,974 16 2,914,786 2,428,988 485,798 37.7% 62.3% 183,340 302,458 Subtotal: Pressurized Mains 6,312,973$ 4,635,631$ 1,677,342$ 4,635,631$ 34,293,349$ 26,485,956$ 7,807,393$ 2,946,507$ 4,860,886$ TABLE 11 : FIXED ASSETS - SEWER LATERALS
Asset Cost5 Accumulated
Depreciation
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Existing
Customers
Future
Customers
Sewer Laterals11
Sewer Laterals 53,024,160$ 19,442,192$ 33,581,968$ 19,442,192$ 18 95,933,885$ 35,175,758$ 60,758,127$ 37.7% 62.3% 22,930,095$ 37,828,032$ Subtotal: Sewer Laterals 53,024,160$ 19,442,192$ 33,581,968$ 19,442,192$ 95,933,885$ 35,175,758$ 60,758,127$ 22,930,095$ 37,828,032$ Total: Sewer Collection System 573,498,621$ 435,964,789$ 137,533,832$ 435,964,789$ 723,309,726$ 413,344,382$ 309,965,344$ 116,980,806$ 192,984,538$

1. Original asset cost is calculated based on unit costs provided by the City.

2. Depreciation is estimated based on all assets (except lift stations) having a useful life of 60 years. Lift stations are assumed to have a useful life of 20 years.

3. Book value calculated as original cost less depreciation.

4. Asset categories are assigned according to the Handy-Whitman Utility Construction Cost Index for Water Utility Construction in the Pacific Region and used to calculate inflation factors based on asset age.

5. The original cost for those assets with "No Remaining Value" are assessed a minimum value of 10% of the replacement cost, as they are still functional.

6. Assets for gravity mains are presented based on pipe diameter. Source file: Gravity Main Data with summary by age and length 11-2-2017.xlsx . (Note: Asset values for 4-inch and 6-inch are based on the unit cost of an 8-inch pipe)

7. Source file: Clean Out Data.xlsx .

8. The original cost of the City's manholes with a 24-inch diameter are based on the unit cost for a 48-inch diameter manhole. Source file: Manhole Data.xlsx .

9. Source file: Lift Station Data.xlsx .

10. Source file: Pressurized Main Data.xlsx .

11. Source file: Sewer Laterals.xlsx .

Allocation Basis (%)
Allocation Basis (%)
Allocation Basis (%) Distribution of Cost Basis ($)Accumulated Depreciation
Asset
Category
(for inflation) 4
Replacement Value System
Buy-In
Cost Basis
Asset Type Pipe Diameter Original Cost1 Depreciation2 Book Value3 Distribution of Cost Basis ($)
Asset Type Pipe Diameter Original Cost1 Depreciation2 Book Value3 Accumulated Depreciation
Asset
Category
(for inflation) 4
Replacement Value System
Buy-In
Cost Basis
Distribution of Cost Basis ($)
Depreciation2 Book Value3 Accumulated
Depreciation
Asset
Category
(for inflation) 4
Replacement Value
Asset Type Pipe Diameter Original Cost1
System
Buy-In
Cost Basis
Prepared by NBS
www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7516 2. Existing Assets Detail, Page 5 of 10 CITY OF VICTORVILLE Exhibit 3
Collection System - Sewer Capacity Charge Analysis
Existing Capital Facilities and Equipment for Consideration (System Buy-In) TABLE 12 : EXISTING ASSETS - ORIGINAL AND REPLACEMENT VALUES Asset Cost Depreciation to
Date Asset Cost Depreciation to
Date
Sewer Collection System
Gravity Mains3 474,215,046$ 392,575,723$ 81,639,323$ 462,796,117$ 271,556,716$ 191,239,401$ Cleanouts 1,962,480 658,886 1,303,594 3,356,641 1,150,103 2,206,537 Manholes 36,805,200 18,099,830 18,705,370 124,673,333 77,989,046 46,684,287 Lift Stations 1,178,762 552,527 626,235 2,256,402 986,803 1,269,598 Pressurized Mains 6,312,973 4,635,631 1,677,342 34,293,349 26,485,956 7,807,393 Sewer Laterals 53,024,160 19,442,192 33,581,968 95,933,885 35,175,758 60,758,127 Total: Fixed Assets 573,498,621$ 435,964,789$ 137,533,832$ 723,309,726$ 413,344,382$ 309,965,344$

1. The original asset cost provided by the City and depreciation calculated by NBS (depreciation is as of June 30, 2021).

3. The original value for gravity mains includes all pipe sizes, while the replacement value does not include pipes that are less than 10 inches in diameter.

TABLE 13 : EXISTING ASSETS - COST ALLOCATION TO EXISTING AND FUTURE CUSTOMERS Existing
Customers
Future
Customers Existing Customers Future
Customers
Sewer Collection System
Gravity Mains 191,239,401$ 37.7% 62.3% 72,173,679$ 119,065,722$ Cleanouts 2,206,537 37.7% 62.3% 832,746 1,373,791 Manholes 46,684,287 37.7% 62.3% 17,618,633 29,065,654 Lift Stations 1,269,598 37.7% 62.3% 479,146 790,452 Pressurized Mains 7,807,393 37.7% 62.3% 2,946,507 4,860,886 Sewer Laterals4 60,758,127 100.0% 0.0% 60,758,127 - Total: Fixed Assets 309,965,344$ 154,808,839$ 155,156,505$ Percentage of Total Asset Value 49.9% 50.1%

1. The original asset cost provided by the City and depreciation calculated by NBS (depreciation is as of June 30, 2021).

3. The Allocation Basis is based on the proportionate allocation between existing and future customers.

4. NBS assumes that sewer laterals connect to existing customers directly and provide no extra capacity from which new customers can participate.

Replacement Values2
System Buy-In
Cost Basis
Allocation Basis (%)3 Distribution of Cost Basis ($)
System Component1 System Buy-In
Cost Basis2
System Component1 Asset Cost Less
Depreciation
Original Values1
Prepared by NBS
www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7516 3. Summary of Existing Assets, Page 6 of 10 CITY OF VICTORVILLE Exhibit 4
Collection System - Sewer Capacity Charge Analysis
Allocation of Cash Reserves and Outstanding Debt to Existing and Future Services TABLE 14 : ALLOCATION OF CASH RESERVES TO EXISTING AND FUTURE USERS Existing
Customers Future Customers Existing
Customers Future Customers
Sewer Operations Fund (Fund 425)1 11,367,869$ 49.9% 50.1% 5,677,559$ 5,690,310$ Capacity Charges Held in Reserve - 0.0% 0.0% - - Cash Net of Unspent Capacity Charges 11,367,869$ 49.9% 50.1% 5,677,559$ 5,690,310$

1. Total beginning cash balance for FY 2021/22 provided by City staff in source file: FUND 425-SEWER.xlsx

2. Cash reserves are allocated proportionately in the same manner as existing assets (in total) in Table 13.

TABLE 15 : ALLOCATION OF OUTSTANDING DEBT TO EXISTING AND FUTURE CUSTOMERS (for information only, not included in the analysis) Existing
Customers Future Customers Existing
Customers Future Customers
Interfund Loan1 27,223,643$ 49.9% 50.1% 13,596,554$ 13,627,089$ Total 27,223,643$ 0.0% 0.0% 13,596,554$ 13,627,089$

1. The interfund loan was initially issued to cover the cost to design and construct the Wastewater Treatment Facility located at SCLA. Source file: Interfund Loan - Fund 412.pdf .

2. Outstanding debt is allocated proportionately in the same manner as existing assets (in total) in Table 13. $ - Allocation
% Allocation2 $ - Allocation
Cash Reserves Cash Amount1
Description of Debt
Cash Reserves
Allocated to Future
Customers
% Allocation2
Prepared by NBS
www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7516 4. Cash Reserves and Debt, Page 7 of 10 CITY OF VICTORVILLE Exhibit 5
Collection System - Sewer Capacity Charge Analysis
Planned Capital Facilities and Equipment (System Development) TABLE 16 : PLANNED CAPITAL PROJECTS
Existing Customers Future Customers Existing Customers Future Customers
City's Capital Improvement Program
C12 3,060,200$ 1,530,100$ 4,590,300$ 37.7% 62.3% 1,732,378$ 2,857,922$ C13 3,799,480 1,899,740 5,699,220 37.7% 62.3% 2,150,884 3,548,336 C14 554,500 277,250 831,750 37.7% 62.3% 313,902 517,848 C15 4,141,275 2,070,638 6,211,913 37.7% 62.3% 2,344,373 3,867,539 C16 3,354,720 1,677,360 5,032,080 37.7% 62.3% 1,899,105 3,132,975 C17 2,224,650 1,112,325 3,336,975 37.7% 62.3% 1,259,373 2,077,602 C18 4,301,145 2,150,573 6,451,718 37.7% 62.3% 2,434,876 4,016,842 C19 3,067,350 1,533,675 4,601,025 37.7% 62.3% 1,736,425 2,864,600 C20 3,972,460 1,986,230 5,958,690 37.7% 62.3% 2,248,807 3,709,883 C21 2,037,740 1,018,870 3,056,610 37.7% 62.3% 1,153,563 1,903,047 C23 2,073,790 1,036,895 3,110,685 37.7% 62.3% 1,173,971 1,936,714 C24 3,117,040 1,558,520 4,675,560 37.7% 62.3% 1,764,555 2,911,005 C25 1,153,900 576,950 1,730,850 37.7% 62.3% 653,222 1,077,628 C28 180,280 90,140 270,420 37.7% 62.3% 102,056 168,364 C34 (Parallel Pipe Option) 25,318,150 12,659,075 37,977,225 37.7% 62.3% 14,332,591 23,644,634 New Extension Sewer 20,123,055 10,061,528 30,184,583 0% 100% - 30,184,583 Sub-Total: Collection System 82,479,735$ 41,239,868$ 123,719,603$ 29% 71% 35,300,082$ 88,419,521$

1. Capital project costs identified in the 2016 Sewer Rate Study. Source file: victorville smp_capacity cip (2040)_FINAL_NOT including septic_Adjusted CIP Costs per LF_SN 8.26.2021.xlsx .

2. City's capital improvement program costs are based on current year values.

3. Additional costs include costs for construction contingency (30%), design (10%), and administration and construction (10%). Source file: Victorville SMP_Final Report Dec-2016_R1 reduced size.pdf .

4. Cost basis for consideration is calculated as current cost estimate less any known external funding sources (e.g., grants, contributions, bond proceeds).

5. Capital projects are allocated proportionately in the same manner as existing assets (in total) in Table 5.

Distribution of Cost Basis ($)% Allocation5
Project No.1
Current Cost
Estimate
(FY 2021/22
Values) 2
System
Development Cost
Basis4
Additional Costs3
Prepared by NBS
www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7516 5. Planned Assets, Page 8 of 10 CITY OF VICTORVILLE Exhibit 6
Collection System - Sewer Capacity Charge Analysis
Unit Cost Calculation
TABLE 17 : DEVELOPMENT OF COLLECTION SYSTEM COST BASIS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT System Asset Values Allocated to Future Development Collection System System Buy-In and Expansion Components
Existing System Buy-In1 $ 155,156,505
Future System Expansion2 88,419,521
Subtotal: System Buy-In and Expansion Components 243,576,026$ Adjustments to Cost Basis:3
Cash Reserves 5,690,310$
Outstanding Long-Term Debt (Principal)4 -
Subtotal: Adjustments to Cost Basis 5,690,310$
Total: Cost Basis for New Development 249,266,336$

1. Refer to Tables 6-11 for detail of existing assets.

2. Refer to Table 16 for detail related to capital projects needed for expansion.

3. Refer to Table 14 for detail related to cash reserves allocated to future customers.

4. No adjustment for outstanding debt because it will be repaid through connection charges and DPSG capital fees (not rates).

TABLE 18 : DEVELOPMENT OF COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPACITY CHARGE PER EDU Capacity Charge Development Collection System
Cost Basis for New Development $ 249,266,336 Projected Growth in EDUs (through 2040)1 86,938
Capacity Charge Per EDU (1 EDU = 149 GPD) $2,867

1. Refer to Table 5 for growth projections.

Prepared by NBS
www.nbsgov.com | Toll-Free: 800.676.7516 6. Updated Unit Cost, Page 9 of 10

ATTACHMENT D
DTA DIF Justification Study - Regional Drainage Facilities (Exhibit B to Resolution Nos. 22-045 and VWD 22-005)

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Facility Name Total Cost for
Facility
Off-setting
Revenues Net Cost to City
Percent of Cost
Allocated to New
Development
Cost Allocated to
New Development Policy Background or Objective
Storm Drain (City)
1 Line A-01 $45,436,615 -$ $45,436,615 52.91% $24,041,796 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 2 Line A-02 $4,674,896 -$ $4,674,896 52.91% $2,473,619 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 3 Line A-03 $8,899,710 -$ $8,899,710 52.91% $4,709,088 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 4 Line A-04 $7,688,702 -$ $7,688,702 52.91% $4,068,309 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 5 Line A-06 $23,123,324 -$ $23,123,324 52.91% $12,235,204 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 6 Line A-10C $2,816,973 -$ $2,816,973 52.91% $1,490,540 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 7 Line A-12 $5,255,298 -$ $5,255,298 52.91% $2,780,726 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 8 Line A-13 $2,726,744 -$ $2,726,744 52.91% $1,442,797 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 9 Line B-01 $26,397,503 -$ $26,397,503 52.91% $13,967,664 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 10 Line D-01 $20,959,268 -$ $20,959,268 52.91% $11,090,141 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 11 Line D-02 $6,875,409 -$ $6,875,409 52.91% $3,637,973 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 12 Line D-03 $1,722,404 -$ $1,722,404 52.91% $911,372 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 13 Line E-01 $48,336,814 -$ $48,336,814 52.91% $25,576,374 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 14 Line E-02 $7,715,120 -$ $7,715,120 52.91% $4,082,288 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 15 Line E-03 $2,899,514 -$ $2,899,514 52.91% $1,534,215 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 16 Line E-04 $2,915,617 -$ $2,915,617 52.91% $1,542,735 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 17 Line E-05 $6,808,749 -$ $6,808,749 52.91% $3,602,701 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 18 Line E-06 $4,143,998 -$ $4,143,998 52.91% $2,192,706 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 19 Line J-01 $7,005,617 -$ $7,005,617 52.91% $3,706,870 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 20 Line J-02 $3,386,741 -$ $3,386,741 52.91% $1,792,020 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List 21 Line J-03 $4,843,040 -$ $4,843,040 52.91% $2,562,589 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Offsetting Revenues 1,163,746 $
Facilties Maintenance - $
General City Services Subtotal 244,632,054$ 1,163,746$ 243,468,309$

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE

CITY OF VICTORVILLE
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2050

Facility Name Total Cost for
Facility
Off-setting
Revenues
Net Cost to
City
Percent of Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
Policy Background or Objective
Storm Drain (SCLA)
Storm Drain Pipes
Line A Hydrology ID 4 $649,566 -$ $649,565.81 78.64% $510,841 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID5 $593,902 -$ $593,901.88 78.64% $467,065 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 9 $483,034 -$ $483,034.06 78.64% $379,875 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 10 $614,728 -$ $614,728.09 78.64% $483,443 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 11 $639,122 -$ $639,122.07 78.64% $502,628 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 13 $814,759 -$ $814,758.66 78.64% $640,754 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 16 $1,488,032 -$ $1,488,032.29 78.64% $1,170,240 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Line A-1 Hydrology ID 6 $443,324 -$ $443,324.24 78.64% $348,645 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Line A-2 Hydrology ID 12 $179,179 -$ $179,178.74 78.64% $140,912 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Line A-3 Hydrology ID 14 $152,379 -$ $152,378.78 78.64% $119,836 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 15 $334,610 -$ $334,609.55 78.64% $263,148 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Line B Hydrology ID 18 $495,677 -$ $495,676.60 78.64% $389,817 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 19 $369,808 -$ $369,808.16 78.64% $290,830 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 20 $298,163 -$ $298,163.40 78.64% $234,486 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 21 $635,936 -$ $635,936.37 78.64% $500,122 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 25 $414,029 -$ $414,029.20 78.64% $325,607 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 26 $285,220 -$ $285,220.11 78.64% $224,307 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 27 $356,525 -$ $356,525.14 78.64% $280,384 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 28 $459,112 -$ $459,112.38 78.64% $361,062 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 30 $374,926 -$ $374,926.44 78.64% $294,855 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 31 $954,567 -$ $954,567.31 78.64% $750,705 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 24 $202,336 -$ $202,336.30 78.64% $159,124 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Line B-1 Hydrology ID 23 $66,554 -$ $66,554.33 78.64% $52,341 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Line B-1-1 $151,710 -$ $151,710.46 78.64% $119,310 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Line B-2 $125,913 -$ $125,913.00 78.64% $99,022 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Line C Hydrology ID 33.1 $23,391 -$ $23,391.48 78.64% $18,396 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 33 $28,694 -$ $28,693.55 78.64% $22,566 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 34 $70,976 -$ $70,976.43 78.64% $55,818 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 35 $150,641 -$ $150,641.13 78.64% $118,469 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 36 $260,425 -$ $260,425.14 78.64% $204,807 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Hydrology ID 37 $61,486 -$ $61,486.18 78.64% $48,355 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Construction $12,178,727 -$ $12,178,727 78.64% $9,577,769 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Contingencies at 15% $1,826,809 -$ $1,826,809 78.64% $1,436,665 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Total $14,005,536 -$ $14,005,536 78.64% $11,014,435 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Design, Permits @20% $2,435,745 -$ $2,435,745 78.64% $1,915,554 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Construct. Management @10% $1,400,554 -$ $1,400,554 78.64% $1,101,443 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Total Storm Drain Pipes $17,841,835 -$ 17,841,835$ Channels
Channel Improvements
Air Exwy to Innovation Way $1,150,952 -$ $1,150,952 78.64% $905,148 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Innovation Way $2,498,778 -$ $2,498,778 78.64% $1,965,125 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List West side of KDP (Innovation to Momentum) $2,218,612 -$ $2,218,612 78.64% $1,744,792 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Momentum (W. side of KDP to Adelanto Rd) $696,629 -$ $696,629 78.64% $547,853 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List West of Adelanto Rd $1,045,701 -$ $1,045,701 78.64% $822,375 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Subtotal $7,610,671 -$ $7,610,671 78.64% $5,985,293 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Access Roads
Air Exwy to Innovation Way $119,844 -$ $119,844 78.64% $94,249 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Innovation Way $209,556 -$ $209,556 78.64% $164,802 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List West side of KDP (Innovation to Momentum) $190,908 -$ $190,908 78.64% $150,136 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Momentum (W. side of KDP to Adelanto Rd) $89,604 -$ $89,604 78.64% $70,467 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List West of Adelanto Rd $112,838 -$ $112,838 78.64% $88,740 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Subtotal $722,748 -$ $722,748 78.64% $568,394 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Fencing
Air Exwy to Innovation Way $79,040 -$ $79,040 78.64% $62,160 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Innovation Way $171,600 -$ $171,600 78.64% $134,952 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List West side of KDP (Innovation to Momentum) $152,360 -$ $152,360 78.64% $119,821 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List

STORM DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE UPDATE

CITY OF VICTORVILLE
PUBLIC FACILITIES NEEDS LIST THROUGH 2050 Study Area B
Momentum (W. side of KDP to Adelanto Rd) $47,840 -$ $47,840 78.64% $37,623 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List West of Adelanto Rd $71,812 -$ $71,812 78.64% $56,475 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Subtotal $522,652 -$ $522,652 78.64% $411,031 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Construction $8,856,072 -$ $8,856,072 78.64% $6,964,719 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Contingencies @ 15% $1,328,411 -$ $1,328,411 78.64% $1,044,708 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Inspection, material testing, constr.mgmnt @ 10% $885,607 -$ $885,607 78.64% $696,472 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Planning, design, permits @ 8% $708,486 -$ $708,486 78.64% $557,177 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Total Channels $11,778,575 -$ 11,778,575$ Basins
Excavation
Flood Control Basin $968,000 -$ $968,000 78.64% $761,268 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #1 $350,416 -$ $350,416 78.64% $275,579 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #2 $290,400 -$ $290,400 78.64% $228,381 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #3 $25,168 -$ $25,168 78.64% $19,793 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Subtotal $1,633,984 -$ $1,633,984 78.64% $1,285,021 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Asphalt Paving - access road
Flood Control Basin $242,926 -$ $242,926 78.64% $191,045 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #1 $150,536 -$ $150,536 78.64% $118,386 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #2 $150,536 -$ $150,536 78.64% $118,386 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #3 $52,553 -$ $52,553 78.64% $41,329 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Subtotal $596,550 -$ $596,550 78.64% $469,148 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Aggregate Base - access road
Flood Control Basin $137,101 -$ $137,101 78.64% $107,821 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #1 $84,958 -$ $84,958 78.64% $66,814 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #2 $84,958 -$ $84,958 78.64% $66,814 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #3 $29,659 -$ $29,659 78.64% $23,325 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Subtotal $336,677 -$ $336,677 78.64% $264,775 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Fencing
Flood Control Basin $250,638 -$ $250,638 78.64% $197,110 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #1 $155,315 -$ $155,315 78.64% $122,145 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #2 $155,315 -$ $155,315 78.64% $122,145 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Water Quality Basin #3 $54,221 -$ $54,221 78.64% $42,641 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Subtotal $615,488 -$ $615,488 78.64% $484,041 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Construction $3,182,700 -$ $3,182,700 78.64% $2,502,984 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Contingencies @ 15% $477,405 -$ $477,405 78.64% $375,448 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Inspection, material testing, constr.mgmnt @ 10% $318,270 -$ $318,270 78.64% $250,298 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Planning, design, permits @ 8% $254,616 -$ $254,616 78.64% $200,239 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Total Basins $4,232,991 -$ $4,232,991 Box Culverts
Gateway, S. side of Innovation $288,552 -$ $288,552 78.64% $226,927 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Innovation, 710' NW of Gateway $288,552 -$ $288,552 78.64% $226,927 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Adelanto Rd, N. side of Momentum /Chamberlaine Way $288,552 -$ $288,552 78.64% $226,927 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Construction $865,655 -$ $865,655 78.64% $680,781 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Contingencies @ 15% $129,848 -$ $129,848 78.64% $102,117 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Inspection, material testing, constr.mgmnt @ 10% $86,566 -$ $86,566 78.64% $68,078 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Planning, design, permits @ 8% $69,252 -$ $69,252 78.64% $54,462 City of Victorville Regional Drainage Facilities Project List Total Box Culverts $1,151,322 -$ $1,151,322 General SCLA Services Subtotal $35,004,723 -$ $35,004,723 Total Storm Drainage 279,636,777$ 1,163,746$ 278,473,032$

Existing EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit/
Number of Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/ Number of Units/ Total Land Use Type Persons Served 1,000 Non-Res. SF per 1,000 Non-Res. SF Non-Res. SF Number of EDUs Single-Family Residential 109,333 3.40 1.00 32,190 32,190 Multi-Family Residential 17,100 2.80 0.82 6,107 5,035
Retail 6,396 1.00 0.29 6,395,593 1,883
Industrial 3,227 0.39 0.11 8,383,056 950
Office 4,080 1.67 0.49 2,450,720 1,201
Other 8,678 2.00 0.59 4,339,177 2,555
Total 148,814 43,814
Future EDU Calculation
Service Factor (Future Residents and Employees)
Residents per Unit/
Number of Persons Served per EDUs per Unit/ Number of Units/ Total Land Use Type Persons Served 1,000 Non-Res. SF per 1,000 Non-Res. SF Non-Res. SF Number of EDUs Single-Family Residential 85,750 3.40 1.00 27,057 27,057 Multi-Family Residential 67,393 2.80 0.82 28,458 23,460 Retail 811 1.00 0.29 810,907 239
Industrial 9,670 0.39 0.11 25,116,274 2,847
Office 2,883 1.67 0.49 1,731,580 849
Other 11,496 2.00 0.59 5,747,823 3,385
Total 178,002 57,836

Existing Existing Units/SQ ft. Units per Acre / FAR Developed Acreage Single-Family Residential 32,190 4.12 7,813
Multi-Family Residential 6,107 15.44 396
Retail 6,395,593 0.25 587
Industrial 8,383,056 0.35 550
Office 2,450,720 0.30 188
Other 4,339,177 0.30 332
I Run off Rate Coeffificiant Calculation
Runoff Rate Current
Land Use Category Coeffecient "C" Developed Acreage Total Unit Runoff Single-Family Residential 0.41 7,813 3,219 Multi-Family Residential 0.80 396 316 Retail 0.90 587 529 Industrial 0.90 550 495 Office 0.90 188 169 Other 0.90 332 299
9,865 5,026
Thru Buildout Build out thru 2050 Units/SQ ft. Units per Acre / FAR Developed Acreage Single-Family Residential 27,057 4.12 units per acre 6,567 Multi-Family Residential 28,458 15.44 units per acre 1,843 Retail 810,907 0.25 74
Industrial 25,116,274 0.35 1,647
Office 1,731,580 0.30 133
Other 5,747,823 0.30 440
I Run off Rate Coeffificiant Calculation
Runoff Rate Future
Land Use Category Coeffecient "C" Developed Acreage Total Unit Runoff Single-Family Residential 0.41 6,567 2,706 Multi-Family Residential 0.80 1,843 1,475 Retail 0.90 74 67 Industrial 0.90 1,647 1,483 Office 0.90 133 119 Other 0.90 440 396
10,705 6,245
II Proposed Facilities 11,271.5
New Development
Facility Facility Costs
Storm Drain Facilities City 244,632,054$
Storm Drain Facilities SCLA 35,004,723$
Offsetting Revenues 1,163,746
Total 278,473,032$
Overall
Cost Per Unit Runoff Cost Per Net Acre
Cost Per unit Run off $44,591 $26,014.39
III Allocation Rate per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet
Cost Per Unit Runoff
Runoff Rate Allocation Rate
Land Use Category Coeffecient "C" per Acre Cost Financed Single-Family Residential 0.41 $18,372 $120,650,914
Multi-Family Residential 0.80 $35,673 $65,750,346
Retail 0.90 $40,132 $2,988,386
Industrial 0.90 $40,132 $66,113,901
Office 0.90 $40,132 $5,317,738
Other 0.90 $40,132 $17,651,748
$278,473,032
Allocation by
Land Use Category Total Unit Runoff (EBUs) Percentage New Development Costs Existing Development 5,026 44.59% $124,184,157
New Development 6,245 55.41% $154,288,875
Total 11,271 100.00% $278,473,032
Cost per Unit of Runoff $24,706
Number of Units/ New Development
Land Use Category Fee Non-Res. Acres
Single-Family Residential $2,471 27,057 $66,847,025
Multi-Family Residential $1,280 28,458 $36,429,189
Non-Residential $22,235 2,294 $51,012,660
$154,288,875

ATTACHMENT E
Capital Improvement Plan
(Exhibit C to Resolution Nos. 22-045 and VWD 22-005)

Development Impact Fee &
Capacity Fee
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2023

SUMMARY
The Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, §66000 – 66025) outlines requirements for establishing, increasing and imposing fees as a condition of development. A “nexus study” must be completed to demonstrate a “reasonable relationship” between the fees, the public facilities to be funded by the fees and the development projects upon which the fees are assessed.

In 2021, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 602 and the Governor signed it into law. AB 602 created new statewide requirements for Development Impact Fees. Among other things, AB 602 added the requirement that large jurisdictions (counties with populations of at least 250,000 or any city located therein, regardless of population) adopt a capital improvement plan as part of their nexus study.

The following sections constitute the required capital improvement plan, outlining projects for public facilities to be funded in whole or in part by development impact fees and capacity fees assessed for development projects in Victorville. In the case of Water System Improvement, Sewer Capacity and Regional Drainage facilities, project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed. For all other projects, availability is described within the capital improvement plan as follows:

CITY OF VICTORVILLE
1 Capital Improvement Plan
Parks & Recreation
Library
Public Buildings
Police
Fire Protection
2 Facility Name Facility Cost
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Timeframe to
Complete Notes 1
Sports Complex $ 17,300,000.00 50% Measure P;
General Fund;
Existing Fund Balance;
State & Federal Grants
50% Mid-Term The City's 2020- Park & Rec
Master Plan established a need
for 5-8 additional multipurpose
rectangular fields for the City's
existing population & future
population into 2040.

Westside Dog Park $ 100,000.00 50% Measure P; General Fund;
Existing Fund Balance;
State & Federal Grants
50% Mid-Term Cost is for fencing, amenities,
shade structure & ADA access
for a 20,000 sq.ft. dog park.

Sunset Ridge Slash
Pad
$ 795,785.92 50% Measure P;
General Fund;
Existing Fund Balance;
State & Federal Grants
50% Mid-Term Cost basis includes a splash
pad; restrooms; equipment
room; shade structures and a
tempered shower tower & 2.75
acre site acquisition.

Westside Pool
Complex
$ 11,000,000.00 50% Measure P;
General Fund;
Existing Fund Balance;
State & Federal Grants
50% Long-Term A single mid-sized pool with 14
swim lanes, plus supporting
machinery and facilities
Parks & Recreation
3 Westside Skatepark $ 1,400,000.00 50% Measure P; General Fund;
Existing Fund Balance;
State & Federal Grants
50% Mid-Term Estimate is based on a 20,000
(No Suggestions). skatepark
with a restroom facility.

Eagle Ranch Park
Restrooms
$ 280,000.00 0% Existing DIF Fund
Balance
100% Short-Term Estimate would cover the
manufacturing and install of a
pre-fabricated unit with two
stalls and approximately 20' x
10'.

Brentwood Park -
Restrooms
$ 280,000.00 0% Existing DIF Fund
Balance
100% Short-Term Estimate would cover the
manufacturing and install of a
pre-fabricated unit with two
stalls and approximately 20' x
10'.

Hook Park - Track
Field Lighting
$ 400,000.00 0% Existing DIF Fund
Balance
100% Short-Term Estimate would cover the
addition of sports field lighting
at Hook Park's track.

Shade Structure $ 150,000.00 0% Existing DIF Fund Balance
100% Short-Term 30 x 60 shade structure would
be added to Doris Davies Park
to expand covered picnic
areas.

Eva Dell Dog Park $ 150,000.00 0% Existing Fund Balance;
Measure P
100% Short-Term Project will be combined with
Grant dollars awarded to
renovate Eva Dell Park for
20,000 sq.ft. dog park.

Trails Master Plan $ 50,000.00 0% Existing DIF Fund Balance
100% Short-Term Estimate would cover a
comprehensive study to
address the need for additional
trails & connectivity throughout
the City.
1 Any projects without a location specified, project site will be selected using GRASP or other tools from the Park & Recreation Master Plan - 2020 with the goal to improve access to outdoor recreation.
4 Facility Name Facility Cost New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Timeframe to
Complete
Notes
Central Library
Facility
$ 43,534,968.00 9% Measure P;
General Fund;
State & Federal Grants
91% Long-Term Estimate is for a $72,300 sq.ft.
facility and acquisition for land
at five acres.

Libraries
5 Facility Name Facility Cost
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Timeframe to
Complete Notes
Central Facilities
Yard
$1,569,600 50% General Fund 50% Long-Term A central located facility for staff and facility equipment;
includes acquisition of two
acres.

Central Household
Hazardous
Waste/Consolidated
Recycling Facility
$2,040,000 50% Solid Waste Fund;
Landfill Mitigation
Fund
50% Long-Term Facility to house operations
and acquisition of five acres.

Public Buildings
6 Facility Name Facility Cost
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Timeframe to
Complete Notes
Central Police
Department Building
$29,335,000 22% American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA)
78% Short-Term Construction of new facility to
house operations and
acquisition of two and a half
acres.

Police Facility
7 Facility Name Facility Cost
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Timeframe to
Complete Notes
Fire Station 316 $7,000,000 50% Measure P;
General Fund
50% Long-Term Acquisition of approximately
one acre of land located in
APN book 3133 or 3134 and
construction of a new facility.

Fire Protection
8 Capital Improvement Plan
Roads, Traffic Signals
and Intersection
Projects
9 Roads, Traffic Signals and Intersection Projects
Road Name From To Estimated Cost
New
Development
Alternative
Funding Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
National Trails Highway At Mojave River Bridge $21,053,775 75% Measure I; General Fund 25%
Mojave Dr. At I-15 Phase 1, 2 to 4 lanes $12,862,800 24% Measure I; General Fund 76%
Mojave Dr. At I-15 Phase 2, 4 to 6 lanes $15,647,665 100% 0% Air Expressway Phantom East National Trails Hwy $11,111,206 100% 0% Air Expressway At National Trails Hwy $2,102,962 100% 0% Amargosa Rd. Rancho Rd. Village Dr. $3,596,680 100% 0%
Amethyst Rd. Rancho Rd. Hopland Rd. $944,453 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Amethyst Rd. Hopland Rd. Mojave Dr. $944,453 100% 0%
Amethyst Rd. Seneca Rd. Palmdale Rd. $1,789,514 100% 0% Amethyst Rd. Sycamore St. Eucalyptus St. $7,000,961 100% 0% Baldy Mesa Rd. Palmdale Rd. La Mesa Rd. $3,579,028 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Baldy Mesa Rd. La Mesa Rd. Olivine Rd. $1,193,009 100% 0% Bear Valley Rd. US-395 Monte Vista Rd. $4,584,044 100% 0% Bear Valley Rd. Remuda Rd. 330 ft. W. of Jade Rd. $1,104,242 100% 0% Bellflower Rd. Palmdale Rd. Sycamore St. $8,426,840 100% 0% Cactus Rd. US-395 0.25 mi. E. of US-395 $236,113 100% 0% Cantina Dr. La Mesa Rd. Palmdale Rd. $1,416,680 100% 0% DIF Roadway Projects
10 Roads, Traffic Signals and Intersection Projects
Cantina Dr. Palmdale Rd.

0.25 mi. N. of Palmdale
Rd. $236,113 100% 0%
Civic Dr. Mojave Dr. Roy Rogers Dr. $491,116 100% 0%
El Evado Rd. Hopland St. Air Expressway $10,448,383 100% 0% Eucalyptus St. Bellflower Rd. Mesa View Dr. $1,146,011 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Eucalyptus St. Mesa View Dr. US-395 $1,146,011 100% 0%
Eucalyptus St. US-395 Mesa Linda Ave. $1,193,009 100% 0% Eucalyptus St. W. of Cobalt Rd. Amargosa Rd. $2,292,022 100% 0% Green Tree Blvd. 7th St. Hesperia Rd. $2,554,307 100% 0% Holly Rd. (Hopland Rd.) US-395 Cobalt Rd. $1,416,680 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Hook Blvd. US-395

0.4 mi. W. of Amethyst
Rd. $1,482,792 100% 0%
La Mesa Rd. White Rd. Baldy Mesa Rd. $2,292,022 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
La Mesa Rd. Baldy Mesa Rd. Pena Rd. $6,417,661 100% 0%
La Mesa Rd. Pena Rd. Cantina Dr. $691,945 100% 0%
La Paz Dr. At I-15 Northbound ramps $679,313 100% 0%
Mojave Dr. Village Dr. Condor Rd. $1,623,555 100% 0%
Mojave Dr. Condor Rd. Amargosa Rd. $1,553,324 100% 0%
Monte Vista Rd. Bear Valley Rd. Sycamore St. $472,227 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
National Trails Highway 200 ft. S. of Turner Rd.
800 ft. S. of Mojave River
Bridge $418,423 100% 0%
National Trails Highway
N. end of Mojave River
Bridge 1st St. at City Limit $2,248,422 100% 0%
11 Roads, Traffic Signals and Intersection Projects
Olivine Rd. Cantina Rd. Pena Rd. $283,336 100% 0%
Ottawa St. Mariposa Rd. Third Ave. $1,435,569 100% 0%
Ottawa St. Hesperia Rd.

0.43 mi. E. of Hesperia
Rd. $406,115 100% 0%
Pahute Ave Locust Ave. Balsam Rd. $236,113 100% 0%
Petaluma Rd. Bear Valley Rd.

0.16 mi. NE of Bear
Valley Rd. $151,113 100% 0%
Rancho Rd. Cobalt Rd. Amethyst Rd. $538,338 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Rancho Rd. Amethyst Rd. El Evado Rd. $1,855,829 100% 0% Rancho Rd. Amargosa Rd. National Trails Highway $1,086,121 100% 0% Seneca Rd. Hesperia Rd. GreenTree Blvd. $1,822,795 100% 0% Seneca Rd. US-395 Topaz Rd. $944,453 100% 0%
Seneca Rd. Topaz Rd. Amethyst Rd. $944,453 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Smoke Tree Rd. Topaz Rd. Amargosa Rd. $6,031,391 100% 0% Smoke Tree Rd. Mesa Linda St. Topaz Rd. $321,114 100% 0% Spring Valley Parkway Bear Valley Rd. 0.06 mi. N. of Lindero Rd. $2,832,859 100% 0% Sycamore US-395 Pena Rd. $132,223 100% 0%
Tamarisk Bear Valley Rd. 414 ft. N. of Lindero St. $725,462 100% 0% Third Ave. GreenTree Blvd. Nisqualli Rd. $9,981,140 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Third Ave. 575 ft. S. of Nisqualli Rd. Silica Rd. $358,892 100% 0% Third Ave. 600 ft. N. of Bear Valley Rd. Bear Valley Rd. $122,779 100% 0% 12 Roads, Traffic Signals and Intersection Projects
Topaz Rd. Hopland St. Luna Rd. $3,305,586 100% 0%
Topaz Rd. Bear Valley Rd. Sycamore St. $481,671 100% 0% Topaz Rd. Eucalyptus St. Smoke Tree Rd. $982,231 100% 0% White Rd. La Mesa Rd. Olivine Rd. $472,227 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Bear Valley Rd. At I-15 $26,950,000 17% Measure I;
General Fund 83%
Eucalyptus St. At I-15 $65,758,000 27% Measure I;
General Fund 73%
La Mesa Rd. / Nisqualli
Rd. At I-15 $74,683,501 50% Measure I;
General Fund 50%
Monte Vista Rd. Palmdale Rd. Bear Valley Rd. $5,156,000 100% 0% National Trails Highway I-15

0.1 mi. N. of Air
Expressway $14,213,000 49% Measure I;
General Fund 51%
Nisqualli Rd. Balsam Rd. Hesperia Rd. $22,757,000 49% Measure I; General Fund 51%
Bear Valley Rd. Industrial Blvd.
400 ft. E. of Ridgecrest
Rd. $13,328,856 15% Measure I;
General Fund 85%
Green Tree Blvd. Hesperia Rd. City Limit $45,084,000.00 49% Measure I; General Fund 51%
1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed. 13 Roads, Traffic Signals and Intersection Projects
Road Name From To Estimated Cost
New
Development
Amargosa Rd. Village Dr. 0.12 mi. N. of Village Dr. $305,359 100% Amargosa Rd. 0.12 mi. N. of Village Dr. 0.40 mi. N. of Village Dr. $897,082 100% Amargosa Rd. Air Expressway

0.12 mi. S. of Air
Expressway $384,464 100%
Amethyst Rd. Hopland St. 0.20 mi. N. of Hopland St. $640,773 100% Hook Blvd. 0.2 mi. E. of US-395 0.4 mi. E. of US-395 $608,734 100% Hook Blvd. Diamond Rd. Flamenco Pl. $256,308 100%
Hopland St. Amethyst Rd.

0.1 mi. W. of Amethyst
Rd. $248,972 50%
Hopland St. Amethyst Rd. 0.1 mi. E. of Amethyst Rd. $248,972 100% La Mesa Rd. Topaz Rd. 0.10 mi. E. of Topaz Rd. $45,999 100% La Mesa Rd. 0.30 mi. E. of Topaz Rd. 0.46 mi. E. of Topaz Rd. $73,599 100% Rancho Rd. 0.10 mi. E. of El Evado Rd.

0.12 mi. W. of El Evado
Rd. $704,850 100%
Rancho Rd. Village Dr. 0.09 mi. W. of Village Dr. $224,075 100% Rancho Rd. 0.33 mi. E. of Boh Ln. 0.78 mi. E. of Boh Ln. $1,074,442 100% Seneca Rd. 0.46 mi. E. of US-395 0.52 mi. E. of US-395 $320,386 100% Seneca Rd. Topaz Rd. 0.08 mi. W. of Topaz Rd. $256,309 100% Seneca Rd. 0.34 mi. W. of El Evado Rd. South Trail $295,085 100% Topaz Rd. Seneca Rd. 0.15 mi. N. of Seneca Rd. $455,859 100% Under Power Line
14 Roads, Traffic Signals and Intersection Projects
Village Dr.

0.08 mi. W. of Amargosa
Rd.

0.30 mi. W. of Amargosa
Rd. $101,199 100%
Village Dr. Rancho Rd. 0.07 mi. N. of Rancho Rd. $83,914 100% Village Dr.

0.10 mi. S. of Air
Expressway

0.27 mi. S. of Air
Expressway $203,791 100%
Air Expressway 0.32 mi. W. of Village Rd. 0.38 mi. W. of Village Rd. $108,167 100% El Evado Rd. 0.1 mi. N. of Hook Bl. 0.37 mi. N. of Hook Bl. $543,831 100% Bear Valley Rd. 0.09 mi. W. of Cobalt Rd. 0.19 mi. W. of Cobalt Rd. $229,025 100% Bear Valley Rd. 0.2 mi. W. of Topaz Rd. 0.3 mi. W. of Topaz Rd. $229,025 100% Mojave Dr. 0.09 mi. E. of El Evado Rd.

0.25 mi. E. of El Evado
Rd. $387,609 100%
Mojave Dr. 0.02 mi. E. of Cobalt Rd. 0.03 mi. W. of Cobalt Rd. $121,128 100% Mojave Dr. 0.22 mi. E. of US-395 0.24 mi. E. of US-395 $48,451 100% 1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed. 15 Roads, Traffic Signals and Intersection Projects
Road Name From To Estimated Cost Future Customer Costs
New
Development
Cost Share
Air Expressway 0.1 mi. W. of Gateway St. Phantom West $5,066,502.00 $5,066,502.00 100% Air Expressway Phantom West Phantom East $4,873,159.00 $4,873,159.00 100% Adelanto Rd. Innovation Way Momentum Rd $751,344.00 $751,344.00 100% Adelanto Rd. Momentum Rd El Mirage Rd. $1,659,054.00 $1,659,054.00 100% Gateway St. Air Expressway Innovation Way $1,262,259.00 $1,262,259.00 100% Gateway St. Innovation Way

0.15 mi. No. of
Innovation Way $323,637.00 $323,637.00 100%
Gateway St. 0.15 mi. No. of Innovation Way El Mirage Rd. $2,405,628.00 $2,405,628.00 100% Innovation Way Adelanto Rd. Gateway St. $961,721.00 $961,721.00 100% Innovation Way Gateway St.

0.35 mi. W. of Phantom
West $4,637,382.00 $4,637,382.00 100%
Innovation Way Phantom West

0.28 mi. E. of Phantom
West $792,607.00 $792,607.00 100%
Innovation Way 0.28 mi. E. of Phantom West Nevada Ave. $659,679.00 $659,679.00 100% Innovation Way N evada Ave. Phantom East $5,353,494.00 $5,353,494.00 100% Phantom East A ir Expressway Innovation Way $804,202.00 $804,202.00 100% Phantom East Innovation Way Nevada Ave. $1,084,737.00 $1,084,737.00 100% Phantom West 0.25 mi. W. of Nevada Ave. Nevada Ave. $345,095.00 $345,095.00 100% Nevada Ave. Air Expressway Innovation Way $940,087.00 $940,087.00 100% SCLA Roadway Projects
16 Roads, Traffic Signals and Intersection Projects
Nevada Ave. Innovation Way

0.13 mi. N. of Innovation
Way $251,734.00 $251,734.00 100%
Nevada Ave. 0.13 mi. N. of Innovation Way George Blvd. 250,000 250,000 100% Nevada Ave. George Blvd. Phantom West 1,269,664 1,269,664 100% 1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed. 17 Road 1
Road 2
Estimated Cost Future Customer Costs New Development
Cost Share
Alternative
Funding Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Air Expressway Village Dr. 396,000$ 396,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Air Expressway National Trails Highway 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Rancho Rd. Amethyst Rd. 396, 000$ 396,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Rancho Rd. El Evado Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Rancho Rd. Village Dr. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Rancho Rd. Amargosa Rd. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Rancho Rd. National Trails Highway 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Hopland Rd. Topaz Rd. 264, 000$ 264,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Hopland Rd. Amethyst Rd. 396, 000$ 396,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Hopland Rd. El Evado Rd. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Amargosa Rd Village Dr. 132, 000$ 132,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Mojave Dr. Topaz Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Mojave Dr. Civic Dr. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Hook Blvd. US-395 264, 000$ 264,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Hook Blvd. Topaz Rd. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
La Paz Dr. I-15 Northbound Ramp 264, 000$ 264,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Seneca Rd. US-395 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Seneca Rd. Topaz Rd. 396, 000$ 396,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Citywide Traffic Signals
18 Seneca Rd. Amethyst Rd. 396,000$ 198,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Seneca Rd. Green Tree Blvd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Palmdale Rd. Baldy Mesa Rd. 132, 000$ 132,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Palmdale Rd. Bellflower Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Palmdale Rd. Topaz Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Palmdale Rd. Amethyst Rd. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Ottawa St. Mariposa Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Ottawa St. Third Ave. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Ottawa St. Hesperia Rd. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
La Mesa Rd. White Rd. 132, 000$ 132,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
La Mesa Rd. Baldy Mesa Rd. 396, 000$ 396,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
La Mesa Rd. Monte Vista Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
La Mesa Rd. Bellflower Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
La Mesa Rd. US-395 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
La Mesa Rd. Topaz Rd. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Olivine Rd. US-395 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Bear Valley Rd. Monte Vista Rd. 264, 000$ 264,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Bear Valley Rd. Bellflower Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Bear Valley Rd. Third Ave. 264, 000$ 264,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Bear Valley Rd. Tamarisk Rd. 264, 000$ 264,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Bear Valley Rd. Spring Valley Pkwy (Realigned) 528,000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
19 Sycamore St. US-395 528,000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Eucalyptus St. Topaz Rd. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Eucalyptus St. Amethyst Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Eucalyptus St. Amargosa Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Mesa St. US-395 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Smoke Tree Rd. Topaz Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Smoke Tree Rd. Amargosa Rd. 528, 000$ 528,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Green Tree Blvd. 7th St. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Green Tree Blvd. Burning Tree Dr. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Green Tree Blvd. Arrowhead Dr. 528, 000$ 264,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Green Tree Blvd. Third Ave. 264, 000$ 132,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Green Tree Blvd. Hesperia Rd. 264, 000$ 132,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed. 20 Road 1 Road 2 Estimated Cost Future Customer Costs
New Development
Cost Share Alternative
Funding Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Innovation Way Adelanto Rd. $656,073 $328, 036 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Air Expressway Gateway Dr. $720, 109 $720,109 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Air Expressway Phantom West $460, 036 $460,036 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Air Expressway Nevada Ave. $848, 181 $848,181 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Air Expressway George $396, 000 $396,000 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Air Expressway Phantom East $460, 036 $460,036 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Phantom West Innovation Way $656, 073 $656,073 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Phantom West Aerospace Dr. $528, 000 $528,000 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Phantom West Sabre $656, 073 $656,073 100% Measure I;
General Fund 0%
Phantom West Nevada Ave. $528, 000 $528,000 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Phantom East Perimeter Rd. $528, 000 $528,000 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Innovation Way Gateway Dr. $976, 254 $976,254 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Innovation Way Nevada Ave. $528, 000 $528,000 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Phantom East Innovation Way $784, 145 $784,145 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed.

SCLA Intersection Improvements
21 Capital Improvement Plan
Water System
Improvements
22 Water System Improvement Projects
Street From To Length New Development
Total Cost
New Development
Cost Share
Vinton Rd Palmdale Rd Olivine Rd 9,240.00 2,131,852.80$ 100% Wagon Wheel Rd Palmdale Rd La Mesa Rd 7,920.00 1,827,302.40$ 100% Wagon Wheel Rd La Mesa Rd Lindero Rd 5,280.00 1,218,201.60$ 100% Braceo St Palmdale Rd Dos Palmas Rd 2,640.00 609,100.80$ 100% Braceo St Luna Rd Olivine Rd 5,280.00 1,218,201.60$ 100% Verbena Rd Palmdale Rd Dos Palmas Rd 2,640.00 609,100.80$ 100% Verbena Rd Luna Rd Sycamore St 10,560.00 2,436,403.20$ 100% Bellflower St Sierra Rd Sycamore St 660.00 152,275.20$ 100% Mesa Linda Ave Hopland St Mojave Dr 5,280.00 1,218,201.60$ 100% Mesa Linda Ave Hook Blvd Palmdale Rd 5,280.00 1,218,201.60$ 100% Topaz Rd Hopland St Mojave Dr 5,280.00 1,218,201.60$ 100% Topaz Rd Hook Blvd Seneca Rd 2,640.00 609,100.80$ 100% Topaz Rd Palmdale Rd Arvila St 1,980.00 456,825.60$ 100% cobalt Rd Hook Blvd Seneca Rd 2,640.00 609,100.80$ 100% Cordova Rd Rancho Rd Clovis St 2,640.00 609,100.80$ 100% Pacoima Rd Seneca Rd Palmdale Rd 2,640.00 609,100.80$ 100% 23 Water System Improvement Projects
Cahuenga Rd Hopland St Tawney Ridge Ln 4,224.00 974,561.28$ 100% 11th St Verde St Cherry Hill Dr 13,147.20 3,033,321.98$ 100% .25mile E of HWY 395 Mesa St .25 mile south 1,320.00 304,550.40$ 100% Cataba Rd Mesa St .25 mile south 1,320.00 304,550.40$ 100% .5 mile E of Cataba Rd Mesa St .25 mile south 1,848.00 426,370.56$ 100% Dos Palmas Rd Caughlin Rd Braceo St 12,144.00 2,801,863.68$ 100% Dos Palmas Rd Verbena Rd Fuchsia Ln 4,620.00 1,065,926.40$ 100% Luna Rd Caughlin Rd White Rd 5,280.00 1,218,202.06$ 100% Luna Rd Caughlin Rd Braceo St 12,144.00 2,801,863.68$ 100% Luna Rd Monte Vista Rd Daisy Rd 1,320.00 304,550.40$ 100% Luna Rd Bellflower St Fremontia Rd 1,320.00 304,550.40$ 100% La Mesa Rd Caughlin Rd Baldy Mesa Rd 10,560.00 2,436,403.20$ 100% La Mesa Rd Pena Rd Hwy 395 792.00 182,730.24$ 100% Olivine Rd Caughlin Rd Braceo St 12,144.00 2,801,863.68$ 100% Pahute Ave Locust Ave Balsam Rd 1,003.20 231,458.30$ 100% Bear Valley Rd .12 mile E Caughlin Rd Pueblo Trail Rd 4,065.60 938,015.23$ 100% Sycamore St Caughlin Rd Vinton Rd 2,640.00 609,100.80$ 100% 24 Water System Improvement Projects
Sycamore St Joshua Rd Monte Vista Rd 1,320.00 304,550.40$ 100% Mesa St Hwy 395 .25 mile east 1,320.00 304,550.40$ 100% Hopland St Topaz Rd Cobalt Rd 2,640.00 609,100.80$ 100% Cactus St Hwy 395 Cobalt Rd 7,480.18 1,725,826.21$ 100% Mojave Dr Topaz Rd Cobalt Rd 2,640.00 609,100.80$ 100% Seneca Rd Hwy 395 Amethyst Rd 10,560.00 2,436,403.20$ 100% Clovis St Cordova Rd El Evado Rd 8,357.71 1,928,291.31$ 100% Rancho Rd Rancho Rd Victoria Drive 5,351.28 1,234,647.32$ 100% Caughlin Rd Palmdale Rd Goss Rd 18,480.00 5,164,420.80$ 100% Vinton Rd Bear Valley Rd Goss Rd 3,960.00 1,106,661.60$ 100% White Rd Palmdale Rd Bear Valley Rd 13,200.00 3,688,872.00$ 100% Baldy Mesa Rd La Mesa Rd Olivine Rd 2,640.00 737,774.40$ 100% Monte Vista Rd Palmdale Rd Dos Palmas Rd 2,640.00 737,774.40$ 100% Monte Vista Rd Olivine Rd Sierra Rd 3,960.00 1,106,661.60$ 100% Bear Valley Rd Caughlin Rd .12 mile east 633.60 177,065.86$ 100% Hopland St Hwy 395 Topaz Rd 5,280.00 1,475,548.80$ 100% Baldy Mesa Rd Palmdale Rd La Mesa Rd 7,920.00 3,543,091.20$ 100% 25 Water System Improvement Projects
Bellflower St Palmdale Rd Luna Rd 5,280.00 2,362,060.80$ 100% La Mesa Rd White Rd Bellflower St 14,784.00 6,613,770.24$ 100% Bear Valley Rd Pena Rd Hwy 395 792.00 405,781.20$ 100% 1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed. 26 Capital Improvement Plan
Sewer Capacity
27 Sewer Capacity Projects
Master Plan Project From To Estimated Cost
New Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding
Cost Share
C12 N. of Turner Rd S. of Rancho Rd 4,590,300.00$ 61% Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C13 Village Drive Rancho Rd 5,699,220.00$ 61% Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C14 Cantina Dr Mesa Linda St 831,750.00$ 61% Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C15 Sycamore Amethyst 6,211,913.00$ 61%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C16 North Star Dos Palmas 5,032,080.00$ 61%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C17 Baldy Mesa Monte Vista 3,336,975.00$ 61%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C18 Bell Flower Mesa Linda 6,451,718.00$ 61%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C19 Mesa Linda Cobalt 4,601,025.00$ 61%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C20 Dos Palmas Gaucho CT 5,958,690.00$ 61%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C21 El Evado Amargosa 3,056,610.00$ 61%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C23 Locust Sixth 3,110,685.00$ 61%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C24 W. of Ottawa Pl Third 4,675,560.00$ 61%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C25 Mariposa Burning Tree 1,730,850.00$ 61%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C28 E of Lambert Lane Hesperia 270,420.00$ 61% Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
C34 S. of Tawney Ridge IWWTP 37,977,225.00$ 61% Sewer Fund;
General Fund 39%
New Extension N/A N/A 30,184,583.00$ 100%
Sewer Fund;
General Fund 0%
1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed. 28 Capital Improvement Plan
Regional Drainage
29 Regional Drainage Facilities
Facility Name Facility Cost New Development Cost
Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding Cost
Share
Line A-01 45,436,615.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line A-02 4,674,896.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line A-03 8,899,710.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line A-04 7,688,702.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line A-06 23,123,324.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line A-10C 2,816,973.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line A-12 5,255,298.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line A-13 2,726,744.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line B-01 26,397,503.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line D-01 20,959,268.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line D-02 6,875,409.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line D-03 1,722,404.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line E-01 48,336,814.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line E-02 7,715,120.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line E-03 2,899,514.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line E-04 2,915,617.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line E-05 6,808,749.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line E-06 4,143,998.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line J-01 7,005,617.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line J-02 3,386,741.00$ 53% General Fund 47% Line J-03 4,843,040.00$ 53% General Fund 47% 30 Regional Drainage Facilities
1 Additional project information can be found in:
•Victorville Master Plan of Drainage, dated March 1992, prepared for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. •Hesperia Master Plan of Drainage, dated May, 1996, prepared for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. •Baldy Mesa Master Plan of Drainage, dated December, 2006, prepared for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 2 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed. 31 Regional Drainage Facilities
Facility Name Facility Cost New Development Cost
Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding Cost
Share
Line A - Hydrology ID 4 649,566.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line A - Hydrology ID5 593,902.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line A - Hydrology ID 9 483,034.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line A - Hydrology ID 10 614,728.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line A - Hydrology ID 11 639,122.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line A - Hydrology ID 13 814,759.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line A - Hydrology ID 16 1,488,032.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line A1 - Hydrology ID 6 443,324.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line A2 - Hydrology ID 12 179,179.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line A3 - Hydrology ID 14 152,379.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line A3 - Hydrology ID 15 334,610.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B - Hydrology ID 18 495,677.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B - Hydrology ID 19 369,808.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B - Hydrology ID 20 298,163.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B - Hydrology ID 21 635,936.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B - Hydrology ID 25 414,029.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B - Hydrology ID 26 285,220.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B - Hydrology ID 27 356,525.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B - Hydrology ID 28 459,112.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B - Hydrology ID 30 374,926.00$ 79% General Fund 21% SCLA - Storm Drain
32 Regional Drainage Facilities
Line B - Hydrology ID 31 954,567.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B - Hydrology ID 24 202,336.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B-1 Hydrology ID 23 66,554.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B-1-1 151,710.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line B-2 125,913.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line C Hydrology ID 33.1 23,391.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line C - Hydrology ID 33 28,694.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line C - Hydrology ID 34 70,976.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line C - Hydrology ID 35 150,641.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line C - Hydrology ID 36 260,425.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Line C - Hydrology ID 37 61,486.00$ 79% General Fund 21% 1 Additional project information can be found in the SCLA Specific Plan Update, dated March 2021. 2 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed. 33 Regional Drainage Facilities
Facility Name Facility Cost New Development Cost
Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding Cost
Share
Air Exwy to Innovation Way 1,150,952.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Innovation Way 2,498,778.00$ 79% General Fund 21% West side of KDP (Innovation to
Momentum) 2,218,612.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Momentum (W. side of KDP to
Adelanto Rd) 696,629.00$ 79% General Fund 21% West of Adelanto Rd 1,045,701.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Facility Name Facility Cost New Development Cost
Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding Cost
Share
Air Exwy to Innovation Way 119,844.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Innovation Way 209,556.00$ 79% General Fund 21% West side of KDP (Innovation to
Momentum) 190,908.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Momentum (W. side of KDP to
Adelanto Rd) 89,604.00$ 79% General Fund 21% West of Adelanto Rd 112,838.00$ 79% General Fund 21% SCLA - Access Roads
SCLA - Channel Improvements
34 Regional Drainage Facilities
Facility Name Facility Cost New Development Cost
Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding Cost
Share
Air Exwy to Innovation Way 79,040.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Innovation Way 171,600.00$ 79% General Fund 21% West side of KDP (Innovation to
Momentum) 152,360.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Momentum (W. side of KDP to
Adelanto Rd) 47,840.00$ 79% General Fund 21% West of Adelanto Rd 71,812.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Facility Name Facility Cost New Development Cost
Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding Cost
Share
Flood Control Basin 968,000.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #1 350,416.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #2 290,400.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #3 25,168.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Facility Name Facility Cost New Development Cost
Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding Cost
Share
Flood Control Basin 242,926.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #1 150,536.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #2 150,536.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #3 52,553.00$ 79% General Fund 21% SCLA - Fencing
SCLA - Asphalt Paving - Access Road
SCLA - Basin Excavation
35 Regional Drainage Facilities
Facility Name Facility Cost
New Development Cost
Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding Cost
Share
Flood Control Basin 137,101.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #1 84,958.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #2 84,958.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #3 29,659.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Facility Name Facility Cost New Development Cost
Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding Cost
Share
Flood Control Basin 250,638.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #1 155,315.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #2 155,315.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Water Quality Basin #3 54,221.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Facility Name Facility Cost New Development Cost
Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding Cost
Share
Gateway, S. side of Innovation 288,552.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Innovation, 710' NW of Gateway 288,552.00$ 79% General Fund 21% Adelanto Rd, N. side of
Momentum /Chamberlaine Way 288,552.00$ 79% General Fund 21% 1 Additional project information can be found in the SCLA Specific Plan Update, dated March 2021. 2 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed.

SCLA - Box Culverts
SCLA - Fencing
SCLA - Aggregate Base - Access Road
36 ATTACHMENT F

RESOLUTION NO. 22-053

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2016 - 2017 THROUGH 2020- 2021 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED TO THE

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE MITIGATION FEE ACT (AB1600)

WHEREAS, in 1987 the California State Legislature adopted AB 1600 which established Government Code § 66000-66025 (the “Mitigation Fee Act”, which has been subsequently amended) e stablishing a process by which local agencies may impose development impact fees and capacity charges on new development to finance various public improvements to mitigate the impacts of new development; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act the City Council of the City of Victorville (“City Council”) adopted Ordinance No. 1031 (as subsequently amended and currently codified in Victorville Municipal Code Section 16- 5.01.080) which established the authority to impose Development Impact Fees (“DIF”) and Capacity Charges for Sewer and Water Improvements (“Capacity Charge(s)”) on new developments within the City to mitigate the impacts of development upon public infrastructure and various public facilities; and

WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 66006(a) and 66013(c) require all local agencies that collect DIF and Capacity Charges to deposit the fees into separate capital facility accounts in a manner that avoids commingling of DIF and Capacity Charges collected with other funds of the local agency; and

WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 66006(b)(1) and 66013(d) require all local agencies that collect DIF and Capacity Charges to make available for public review a report specifying information about the DIF and Capacity Charge accounts, including but not limited to the amount of fees /charges, the amount collected each year, a list of expenditures from the account, and the beginning and ending balances in each account, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year (the “AB 1600 Report”); and

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66001(d) requires local agencies to make certain findings every five years with respect to unexpended funds contained in any development impact fee accounts, whether committed or uncommitted; and

WHEREAS, the City of Victorville (“City”) prepared an AB 1600 Report for Fiscal Years 2016-2017 through 2020-2021, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which substantially contains the information required by Government Code § 66006(b)(1) and 66013(d) and has been made available for public review; and

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66001(d)(1) stipulates that if DIF or Capacity Charges remain unexpended or uncommitted five years after being collected, the local agency must make the findings specified in subsections (A) through (D) thereof, which include:

• The purpose to which the fees are to be put;
• A demonstration of a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
• All sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements; and
• Approximate dates on which the funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund; and

WHEREAS, the following DIF accounts have existing balances for each fiscal year that may have unexpended or uncommitted funds collected in the last five years:

• Public Buildings Development Impact Fee
• Fire Development Impact Fee
• Road Development Impact Fee
• Public Safety Development Impact Fee
• Recreation Development Impact Fee
• Storm Drain Development Impact Fee; and

WHEREAS, for each of the above DIF accounts with existing balances, the City has ongoing or future projects that require funding from said DIF and a reasonable relationship exists between the current need for the DIF and the purposes for which they were originally collected.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS.

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference together with any definitions set forth therein.

SECTION 2. The City Council has conducted a public meeting, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006(b)(2), to review the AB 1600 Report for Fiscal Years 2016- 2017 through 2020-2021, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 3. T hat the following DIF accounts have existing balances for each fiscal year that may include unexpended or uncommitted funds collected in the last five years:

SECTION 4. Upon review of the AB 1600 R eport for Fiscal Years 2016- 2017 through 2020-2021, t he City Council finds that the report contains sufficient information and outlines the required findings relative to Government Code Section 66001(d)(1) , which are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 5. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage an adoption of this Resolution; shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions; and shall make a minute of passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings, in the minutes of the meeting at which this Resolution is passed and adopted.

Exhibit A
City of Victorville

Annual Report on
Development Impact Fees & Capacity Charges
(Government Code Sections 66006 and 66013)
Fiscal Year 2016-2017
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Fiscal Year 2019-2020
Fiscal Year 2020-2021*
(*Includes 5-Year Report per Government Code Section 66001)

Rev. 5/31/22

1 | P a g e

Background
The Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66000 et seq., (the “Act”) governs the establishment and administration of development impact fees and capacity charges paid by new development projects for public facilities needed to serve new development. Fees/charges must be separately accounted for and used for the specific purpose for which the fee /charge was imposed. The City’s adopted development impact fees and capacity charges are listed in the attached exhibits. Expenditures are authorized through t he annual Operating Budget and the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Sections 66001 and 66006 of the Government Code provide that the City of Victorville ("City") shall make available to the public certain information and adopt described findings relativ e to development impact fees ("Impact Fees") collected pursuant to Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code. The described information and findings relate to Impact Fees received, expended or to be expended in connection with public facilities to accom modate new development. Section 66013 of the Government Code provide s that the City make available to the public certain information relative to capacity charges.

Annual Development Fee Reporting
The Act requires that the City prepare an annual review of all development impact fees and capacity fees as defined in the Act and make a public report on the fees available to the public after the end of each fiscal year. Section 66006(b) of the Government Code requires that for each Impact Fee the City shall, within 180 days after the last day of each Fiscal Year, make available to the public the following information for the Fiscal Year:
• A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund; • The amount of the fee;
• The beginning and ending fund balance of the account or fund; • The amount of the fees collected, and interest earned; • An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees;
• An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement; • A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan; and • The amount of refunds made due to sufficient funds being collected to complete financing on incomplete public improvements and volume of reallocation o f funds made due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded.

Sections 66013(d) has very similar requirements in that, within 180 days after the last day of each Fiscal Year, the City must make available to the public the following information for the Fiscal Year:
2 | P a g e

• A description of the charges deposited in the fund;
• The beginning and ending balance of the fund and the interest earned from investment of moneys in the fund;
• The amount of charges collected in that fiscal year;
• An identification of:
o Each public improvement on which charges were expended and the amount of expenditure for each improvement, including the percentage of the total cost of the public improvement that was funded with those charges if more than one source of funding was used;
o Each public improvement on which chares were expended that was completed during that fiscal year;
o Each public improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken I the following fiscal year;
• A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the capital facilities fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned charges are or will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid and the rate of interest that the fund will receive on the loan.

Government Code Section 66013(e) allows for the required information on capacity charges to be included in the local agency’s annual financial report. However, Government Code Section 66006(b)(2) requires that the Impact Fee report be placed on an agenda for review at a public meeting not less than 15 days after the report is made available to the public. Additionally, Section 66001(d) of the Government Code requires that for each Impact Fee, the City shall make all of the following findings every fifth year with respect to that portion of the account remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
• Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put;
• Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it is charged;
• Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements; and
• Designate the approximate dates on which the funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

3 | P a g e

Annual Reports

4 | P a g e

Brief Description and Amount of Fees
Government Code Sections
66006(b)(1)(A) and (B); 66013(d)(1)

* Collected at a rate of $2,585 per acre on all new development types. 1 Meter Size ¾”. Fee will increase based on meter size. 2 Fees can be located on City of Victorville Engineering Fee schedule 3 The local connection fee is three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) per house, habitation or structure, or number of equivalent dwelling units (“EDUs”)

Fund # Fund Description Fee Description Last
Updated
Residential Fees per
Dwelling Unit Non-Residential Fees per Building SF
Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Industrial High Cube
350 Public Buildings Construction of Public Buildings, Facilities 06-151 1,334.35 716.95 1.34 0.44 0.25 351 Fire Construction of Fire Service Buildings,
Equipment 06-151 328.81 232.13 0.17 0.01 0.02
352 Road Construction of Public Roads 08-064 4,469.90 2,744.62 7.60 2.98 1.58 353 Public Safety Construction of Public Safety Buildings, Facilities 06-151 139.07 98.18 0.17 0.01 0.02
354 Recreation Construction of Parks, Recreational
Amenities 06-151 5,045.87 3,847.12 0.00 0.00 0.00
357 Storm Drain Construction of Drainage Facilities 90-158 * * * * * 410 Water Capacity Charge Connection to Water District
Pipelines/Capacity and Infrastructure 13-003 5,1421 Fee Varies2 Fee Varies2 Fee Varies2 Fee Varies2 425 Sewer Capacity Charge Connection to Victorville Sewer Infrastructure 91-219 350.003 350.003 350.003 350.003 350.003 5 | P a g e

Fund Balances, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, and Project Expenditures - Five Year History Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(C)(D) and (G); Government Code Section 66013(d)(2) and (3)

Fee Type 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021

Public Buildings – 350
Beginning Balance -7,672 4,185 2,728 144,468 32,478
Revenue 251,560 217,778 538,092 534,354 907,929
Interest 297 765 3,648 5,615 436
Other Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Capital 0 0 0 -1,959 -1,103
Interfund Loan Payment -240,000 -220,000 -400,000 -650,000 -900,000 Ending Balance 4,185 2,728 144,468 32,478 39,740

Fire – 351
Beginning Balance -3,169 900 3,269 29,809 12,602
Revenue 46,017 74,213 100,840 132,445 206,835
Interest 52 156 700 1,328 109
Other Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Capital 0 0 0 -980 -152
Interfund Loan Payment -42,000 -72,000 -75,000 -150,000 -200,000 Ending Balance 900 3,269 29,809 12,602 19,394

Road – 352
Beginning Balance 1,126,996 1,339,801 1,753,975 1,625,745 6,605,713 Revenue 1,450,754 1,268,195 2,164,676 6,443,752 3,332,605 Interest 3,586 12,451 21,582 34,369 13,975
Other Revenue 0 0 0 0 588,345
Capital -1,367,075 -1,015,050 -2,528,721 -1,498,153 -277,038 Interfund Loan Payment 125,540 148,578 214,233 0 200,000 Ending Balance 1,339,801 1,753,975 1,625,745 6,605,713 10,463,600

Public Safety – 353
Beginning Balance 161,868 197,764 247,244 326,067 419,798 Revenue 22,786 36,235 53,679 56,800 92,237
Interest 674 1,845 4,417 4,229 885
Other Revenue 0 0 0 0 84,811
Capital 0 0 0 -980 -152
Interfund Loan Payment 12,436 11,400 20,727 33,682 0
Ending Balance 197,764 247,244 326,067 419,798 597,579

*Fund balances reflected are listed on a cash basis

6 | P a g e

Fund Balances, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, and Project Expenditures - Five Year History Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(C)(D) and (G); Government Code Section 66013(d)(2) and (3) “(continued)”

Fee Type 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021

Recreation - 354
Beginning Balance 2,184,344 2,751,583 3,796,444 5,366,217 7,286,107 Revenue 516,451 1,001,977 1,473,393 2,020,214 3,059,753 Interest 9,476 26,967 72,093 77,137 12,619
Other Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Capital -6,000 -27,453 -54,567 -305,598 -1,621,014
Interfund Loan Payment 47,312 43,370 78,854 128,137 0
Ending Balance 2,751,583 3,796,444 5,366,217 7,286,107 8,737,465

Storm Drain - 357
Beginning Balance 241,294 334,576 490,939 752,393 1,079,365 Revenue 57,513 119,187 185,642 210,884 304,776
Interest 1,091 3,434 9,575 10,412 2,159
Other Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Capital -5,064 -2,688 0 -1,959 -304
Interfund Loan Payment 39,742 36,430 66,237 107,635 0
Ending Balance 334,576 490,939 752,393 1,079,365 1,385,996

Water Capacity Charge - 410*
Beginning Balance 56,748,579 54,279,678 44,616,190 39,678,327 39,589,393 Revenue from Capacity Fee 747,931 1,022,749 1,467,137 2,052,597 3,078,389 Interest 259,499 925,245 1,722,906 1,491,694 218,596
Other Revenue 28,056,794 26,518,477 26,294,673 23,196,791 32,972,348 Capital and Operating Expenditures -31,533,125 -38,129,959 -34,422,579 -26,830,016 -34,590,454 Interfund Loan Payment 0 0 0 0 0
Ending Balance 54,279,678 44,616,190 39,678,327 39,589,393 41,268,272

Sewer Capacity Charge - 425*
Beginning Balance 24,600,698 23,585,819 16,887,417 14,759,360 12,265,973 Revenue from Capacity Fee 59,569 85,601 137,613 205,907 292,828 Interest 93,922 162,022 212,208 157,312 20,002
Other Revenue 11,349,757 10,683,549 13,419,540 14,457,148 17,049,360 Capital and Operating Expenditures -12,518,127 -17,629,574 -15,897,418 -17,313,754 -16,551,589 Interfund Loan Payment 0 0 0 0 0
Ending Balance 23,585,819 16,887,417 14,759,360 12,265,973 13,076,574

*Fund balances reflected are listed on a cash basis

7 | P a g e

City of Victorville
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017

Projects by Fund FY17
Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(E); Government Code Section 66013(d)(4)(A)

Project
# Project Project
Completion
Annual Budgeted
Project Cost
Budgeted
Development
Impact Fees
Expended
Development
Impact Fees
Remaining DIF
Expenditures
% From
Development
Impact Fees

Public Buildings (350)

Fire (351)

Road (352)
City Engineer Project Review FY17 13,196 13,196 13,770 0 100 Cost Allocation FY17 4,876,148 4,508 4,508 0 >1
60087 Bear Valley – Mariposa to Amargosa
Pavement FY17 2,131,054 371,900 377,671 0 17
60005 Nisqualli Interchange (Loan
Repayment with SBCTA) FY20 42,821,785 6,403,168 1,000,000 5,403,168 15

Public Safety (353)

Recreation (354)
80029 Skate Park at Doris Davies FY21 20,000 20,000 10,888 9,112 100

Storm Drain (357)

Water Capacity Charge (410)
74310 Schmidt Park Reclaimed Pipeline FY17 334,000 334,000 79,955 254,045 100 74311 Schmidt Park Ball Field Reclaimed
Pipeline FY17 66,000 66,000 55,104 10,896 100
74242 Booster Pumping Station WID 1 to
WID 2 FY19 970,800 970,800 133,294 837,506 100

Sewer Capacity Charge (425)
77423 Joshua Street/S. Culver Rd Sewer
Project FY17 2,619,500 2,619,500 1,825,013 794,487 100

* Project Expenditures and Budgets are listed on a budgetary basis whereas fund balances on prior pages are listed on a cash basis.

8 | P a g e

City of Victorville
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018

Projects by Fund FY18
Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(E); Government Code Section 66013(d)(4)(A)

Project
# Project Project
Completion
Annual Budgeted
Project Cost
Budgeted
Development
Impact Fees
Expended
Development
Impact Fees
Remaining DIF
Expenditures
% From
Development
Impact Fees

Public Buildings (350)

Fire (351)

Road (352)
City Engineer Project Review FY18 9,821 9,821 9,567 254 100 60005 Nisqualli Interchange (Loan
Repayment with SBCTA) FY20 2,030,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 98

Public Safety (353)

Recreation (354)
80029 Skate Park at Doris Davies FY21 604,150 604,150 22,565 581,585 100

Storm Drain (357)

Water Capacity Charge (410)
74312 Pipeline Connection -Schmidt Park FY18 20,000 20,000 14,461 5,539 100 74242 Booster Pumping Station WID 1 to
WID 2 FY19 597,614 597,614 118,006 479,608 100
74345 Pipeline Replacement SD 01 FY19 517,000 517,000 44,313 472,687 100

Sewer Capacity Charge (425)

9 | P a g e

City of Victorville
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019

Projects by Fund FY19
Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(E); Government Code Section 66013(d)(4)(A)

Project
# Project Project
Completion
Annual Budgeted
Project Cost
Budgeted
Development
Impact Fees
Expended
Development
Impact Fees
Remaining DIF
Expenditures
% From
Development
Impact Fees

Public Buildings (350)

Fire (351)

Road (352)
City Engineer Project Review FY19 10,286 10,286 10,200 86 100 60005 Nisqualli Interchange (Loan
Repayment with SBCTA) FY20 1,512,173 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 99

Public Safety (353)

Recreation (354)
80029 Skate Park at Doris Davies FY21 1,379,138 1,310,483 54,905 1,255,578 95

Storm Drain (357)

Water Capacity Charge (410)
74242 Booster Pumping Station WID 1 to
WID 2 FY19 597,614 597,614 479,608 118,006 100
74345 Pipeline Replacement SCLA West
Feed FY19 505,000 505,000 505,000 0 100
74355 Pipeline Replacement SD 01 FY20 427,688 427,688 156,199 271,568 100 60013 Green Tree Extension - Water FY22 2,072,273 2,072,273 59,697 2,012,576 100 74373 One Million Gallon Water Tank FY23 2,025,539 2,025,539 15,688 2,009,851 100

Sewer Capacity Charge (425)

10 | P a g e

City of Victorville
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020

Projects by Fund FY20
Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(E); Government Code Section 66013(d)(4)(A)

Project
# Project Project
Completion
Annual Budgeted
Project Cost
Budgeted
Development
Impact Fees
Expended
Development
Impact Fees
Remaining DIF
Expenditures
% From
Development
Impact Fees

Public Buildings (350)
Impact Fee Study FY22 76,770 7,677 1,959 5,718 10

Fire (351)
Impact Fee Study FY22 76,770 3,839 980 2,859 5

Road (352)
City Engineer Project Review FY20 10,420 10,420 10,468 0 100 60005 Nisqualli Interchange (Loan
Repayment with SBCTA) FY20 2,061,000 2,000,000 1,903,188 96,812 97 Impact Fee Study FY22 76,770 11,516 2,939 8,577 15

Public Safety (353)
Impact Fee Study FY22 76,770 3,839 980 2,859 5

Recreation (354)
80029 Skate Park at Doris Davies FY21 1,272,359 1,260,359 493,299 666,903 100 80046 Parks Master Plan FY21 150,000 150,000 57,810 92,190 100 80061 Doris Davies Park Amenities FY21 652,467 652,467 12,659 639,807 100 Impact Fee Study FY22 76,770 34,547 8,817 25,730 45

Storm Drain (357)
Impact Fee Study FY22 76,770 7,677 1,959 5,718 10

Water Capacity Charge (410)
74345 Pipeline Replacement SD 01 FY20 2,086,444 2,086,444 116,502 1,969,942 100 60013 Green Tree Pipeline Extension FY22 4,023,127 996,576 13,684 982,892 100 74373 One Million Gallon Water Tank FY23 2,109,851 2,109,851 29,425 2,080,426 100

Sewer Capacity Charge (425)
77436 Green Tree Sewer Extension FY23 3,219,766 3,219,766 227,446 2,992,320 100

11 | P a g e

City of Victorville
Annual Report
Development Impact Fees
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021

Projects by Fund FY21
Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(E); Government Code Section 66013(d)(4)(A)

Project
# Project Project
Completion
Annual Budgeted
Project Cost
Budgeted
Development
Impact Fees
Expended
Development
Impact Fees
Remaining DIF
Expenditures
% From
Development
Impact Fees

Public Buildings (350)
Impact Fee Study FY22 57,177 5,718 1,103 4,615 10

Fire (351)
Impact Fee Study FY22 57,177 2,859 552 2,307 5

Road (352)
City Engineer Project Review FY21 12,397 12,397 12,763 0 100 Impact Fee Study FY22 57,177 8,577 1,654 6,923 15
60014 Bear Valley Rd-Bridge over BNSF FY23 470,821 190,448 208,812 0 40 60013 Green Tree Extension FY24 16,530,203 5,768,180 697,143 5,071,037 35

Public Safety (353)
Impact Fee Study FY22 57,177 2,858 551 1,172 5

Recreation (354)
80029 Skate Park at Doris Davies FY21 791,735 779,735 656,903 122,832 98 80046 Parks Master Plan FY21 92,190 92,190 82,360 9,830 100 80061 Doris Davies Park Amenities FY21 639,807 639,807 613,057 26,750 100 42001 SBC Flood District/Wellness Center FY21 42,000 42,000 42,000 0 100 Impact Fee Study FY22 57,177 25,730 4,964 20,766 45

Storm Drain (357)
Impact Fee Study FY22 57,177 5,718 1,103 4,615 10

Water Capacity Charge (410)
60013 Green Tree Pipeline Extension FY22 16,530,203 2,082,892 974,483 1,024,409 47 74373 One Million Gallon Water Tank FY23 2,080,426 2,080,426 2,457 2,077,969 100

Sewer Capacity Charge (425)
77436 Green Tree Sewer Extension FY23 3,219,766 3,219,766 2,297,006 922,760 100

12 | P a g e

Government Code Section 66006(b)(1)(F), (G) and (H)
Government Code Section 66013(d)(1), (4)(B) and (C)
Annual Reporting for FYE 2017 through 2021

Public Buildings – Fund 350
Funding collected is to be used for new facilities, capital equipment, or improvements of existing city facilities to aid in the services of future population. Due to an existing interfund loan payable and minimal fund balance, the construction of eligible improvements for City buildings is not expected to begin until sufficient funds are accumulated.

Funds previously collected were used to expand City Hall facilities. Due to a population g rowth spurt in the early 2000’s, more room was needed to expand services and to house additional staffing. Additional funding was needed for this project, so an interfund loan payable was established on November 15, 2011 in the amount of $20,290,000. The i nterest rate for the loan was established at the annualized (averaged) Local Agency Investment Fund “LAIF” rate and originally had a term ending on June 30, 2016. The loan term was subsequently extended to June 30, 2021. Such loan had a balance of $18,84 0,197 as of June 30, 2021, which is payable from Fund 350 to various other DIF funds. The annual payments made from Fund 350 in connection with the interfund loan are included on the five-year history chart earlier in this report.

Subsequent to this reporting period, a request for an additional extension of the loan term is begin made prior to FYE 22.

Additionally, a loan payable in the original amount of $1,903,000 was established from Fund 350 payable to the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority, with an annualized (averaged) and compounded LAIF interest rate, in connection with the acquisition of land for a City library. Such loan had a balance of $ 1,940,094.54 as of June 30, 2021. The annual payments made from Fund 350 in connection with the interfund loan are included on the five-year history chart earlier in this report. Subsequent to this reporting period, on May 17, 2022, the City Council approved the termination of the loan agreement which was payable from the Public Buildings DIF to t he Southern California Logistics Airport Authority.

During each reporting annual period listed above, no refunds were made from this fund pursuant to Government Code Section 6600.1

Fire – Fund 351
Funding collected is to be used for building and equipping of new fire stations to aid in the service of future population. Due to an existing interfund loan payable and minimal fund balance, the construction of eligible improvements for City building is n ot expected to begin until sufficient funds are accumulated.

Funds collected were used to build two new fire stations – Station 312 at 15182 El Evado Road and Station 315 at 12820 Eucalyptus Street. Due to a population growth spurt in the early 2000’s, more stations were needed to support the additional growth. Additional funding was needed for this project so an interfund loan payable from Fund 351 to the Roads DIF fund 352 was established at the annualized (averaged) LAIF rate as simple interest . Such loan had a term ending June 30, 2021 and had a balance of $2,286,536 as of June 30, 2021. The payments made from Fund 351 in connection with the interfund loan are detailed annually on the five-year history chart earlier in this report. Subsequent to this r eporting period, on May 17, 2022, repayment to the Road DIF in the amount of $2,286,536 by the General Fund, on behalf of the Fire DIF, was approved by the City Council.
13 | P a g e

During each reporting annual period listed above, no refunds were made from this fund pursuant to Government Code Section 6600.1

Roads – Fund 352
Funding collected is to be used for building new roads to expand the city as new development occurs in previously undeveloped areas. This funding is currently supporting the projects for the Green Tree Extension to connect to Yucca Loma and the Bear Valley Bridge Widening project over the BNSF Railroad Bridge west of Industrial Blvd. The City of Victorville has established an agreement with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority to bo rrow funding to complete the Green Tree Extension in exchange for repayment from future DIF funding received by the City. Future financing will continue the use of this funding for the above listed projects.

As mentioned previously, and interfund loan in the amount of $7,725,000 was made from Roads Fund 352 to the Public Building Fund 350 as described above. The interest rate for the loan was established at the annualized (averaged) Local Agency Investment Fund “LAIF” rate and originally had a term ending on June 30, 2016. The loan term was subsequently extended to June 30, 2021 and a request to extend the term is being made prior to FYE 22.

Additionally, an interfund loan was made from Road Fund 352 to the Fire Fund 351 as described above. The loan in t he original amount of $2,658,525 was established at the annualized (averaged) LAIF rate as simple interest. Such loan had a term ending June 30, 2021. Subsequent to this reporting period, on May 17, 2022, repayment to the Road DIF in the amount of $2,286,536 by the General Fund, on behalf of the Fire DIF, was approved by the City Council.

During each reporting annual period listed above, no refunds were made from this fund pursuant to Government Code Section 6600.1
Public Safety – Fund 353
Funding collected is to be used for facilities and equipment in connection with the expansion of police services as new development occurs. The majority of the funds are currently tied into an interfund loan receivable, and the focus of this fund is toward a new larger police facility. That project is not expected to commence until sufficient funds have been collected.

An interfund loan in the amount of $1,150,000 was made from the Public Safety Fund 353 to the Public Building Fund 350 as described above. The interest rate for the loan was established at the annualized (averaged) Local Agency Investment Fund “LAIF” rate and originally had a term ending on June 30, 2016. The loan term was subsequently extended to June 30, 2021 and a request to extend the term is being made prior to FYE 22.

During each reporting annual period listed above, no refunds were made from this fund pursuant to Government Code Section 6600.1

Recreation – Fund 354
Funding collected is to be used for new or expanded parks, park amenities, recreational facilities, or expansions of services as new development occurs in the area. Certain City parks and community centers were pledged as security for a 2007 bond, so the city must seek approval prior to modifying or taking any action on these properties outside of routine maintenance. The encumbrance on these City facilities has made it difficult and cost prohibitive to u tilize much of 14 | P a g e

the existing fund balance for park and recreational amenities. However, subsequent to this reporting period, on May 19, 2022, such bonds were refinanced, and the encumbrance of such properties will be lifted. This will facilitate the ability to spend the existing fund balance.

Recent expenditures include the completion of a skate park, new restrooms, and additional park amenities at Doris Davies Park as well as the completion of a new Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

An interfund loan in the amount of $4,375,000 was made fro m the Recreation Fund 354 to the Public Building Fund 350 as described above. The interest rate for the loan was established at the annualized (averaged) Local Agency Investment Fund “LAIF” rate and originally had a term ending on June 30, 2016. The loan term was subsequently extended to June 30, 2021 and a request to extend the term is being made prior to FYE 22.

During each reporting annual period listed above, no refunds were made from this fund pursuant to Government Code Section 6600.1

Storm Drain – Fund 357
Funding collected is to be used for the building of storm drain infrastructure as new development occurs in previously undeveloped areas or in areas with deficiencies as a result of new growth.

An interfund loan in the amount of $3,675,000 was made from the Storm Drain Fund 357 to the Public Building Fund 350 as described above. The interest rate for the loan was established at the annualized (averaged) Local Agency Investment Fund “LAIF” rate and originally had a term ending on June 30, 2016. The loan term was subsequently extended to June 30, 2021 and a request to extend the term is being made prior to FYE 22.

During each reporting annual period listed above, no refunds were made from this fund pursuant to Government Code Section 6600.1

Water Capacity Charge – Fund 410
Water Capacity Fees are one -time charges to new development connecting to the City of Victorville/Victorville Water District’s water system. Listed projects include the expansion of the water line connections for the extension of Green Tree Boulevard to Yucca Loma as well as the building of a one-million-gallon underground water storage tank at SCLA.

Sewer Capacity Charge – Fund 425
Sewer Capacity fees are one -time charges to new development or existing development f irst connecting to the City of Victorville’s sewer system. Listed projects in FY22 include continuing work on the expansion of the sewer line connections for the extension of the Green Tree Boulevard to Yucca Loma.

15 | P a g e

Five-Year Report

16 | P a g e

This Five-Year Report provides information and findings on unexpended funds in the various DIF accounts as of June 30, 2021, pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(d). It also provides supplemental information for Government Code Section 66013(d)(4) and information specific to Government Code Section 66013(d)(5), if applicable.

Public Buildings – Fund 350
Purpose: Funding collected is to be used for new facilities, capital equipment, or improvements of existing city facilities to aid in the services of future population. As outlined in the Development Impact Fee & Capacity Fee Capital Improvement Plan FY 2023, the Central Facilities Yard and Central Household Hazardous Waste/Consolidated Recycling Facility will help to serve a future population. The City Hall facility , which houses the majority of the city’s workforce, has existing capacity to serve new development, but may be further expanded, or otherwise improved in the future.

Unexpended Fees: This Fund has a balance of $39,740 of unexpended fees as of June 30, 2021.

Relationship between fee and purpose : There is a reasonable relationship between the unexpended fee and the purpose for which it was charged because it will continue to fund the expansion of city facilities or equipment as the population grows.

Sources and Amounts of funding anticipated: A Potential funding sources other than DIF for the Central Facilities Yard is the City’s general fund at 50%. The solid waste fund and landfill mitigation funds may provide funding for the Central Household Hazardous Waste/Consolidated Recycling Facility at 50%. The exact amounts potentially needed from these sources is undetermined.