Attachment B - Resolution No. VWD-25-002 — Victorville City Council, December 16, 2025

Attachment B
Resolution No. VWD-25-002

RESOLUTION NO. VWD-25-002

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT AD OPTING THE WATER DISTRICT

RELATED PORTIONS OF THE UP DATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN, REVISED CITY COUNCIL PO LICY NO. CP-25-01, AND THE

WATER DISTRICT RELATED PORTIO NS OF THE UPDATED MASTER

FEE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND CAPACITY

CHARGES

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, improv es, and maintains the water system and related facilities and infras tructure that serves the District's existing customers and provides water service availability to new customers and new development 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 author ized 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, includin g 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 governing bodies of local agencies, including the District Board of Directors (“District Board”), may approve and adopt fee studies and charges, including those associated with Water System Capacity Charges, by resolution; and

WHEREAS, the District Board must periodically review Wa ter 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, on June 7, 2022, by means of Resolution No. VWD-22-005, the District Board adopted the relev ant portion of a report from N.B.S. Government Finance Group entitled “City of Victorville Development Impact Fee Study” (the “Nexus Study ”),
Chapter 8 of which provided the calculat ion basis and methodol ogy for the proposed Water System Capacity Charges and reflec ted the estimated, reasonable costs of constructing the water improvements and facilities for which said fees are being charged; and

WHEREAS , on June 7, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of the Mitigation

Fee Act and by means of adopting Resolution No. VWD-22-005, the District Board adopted those portions of a Capi tal Improvement Plan that es tablished public facilities pursuant to Government Code section 66000( d) which the Water System Capacity Charges would fund; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 8 of the Nexus Study established the updated maximum Water System Capacity Charges for the District’s water system improvements associated with new development, which said ma ximum included a new pe rcentage co mponent for administration of the City’s development impact fees program; and

WHEREAS , there is no requirement to implement fees/charges at the maximum rate determined through the Nexus Study and/or at the maximum increased rates as calculated annually, and it is within the discretion of the District Board to establish fees/charges at an amount less than the maximums to further the strategic goals of the City; and

WHEREAS, the District Board also adopted Resolution No. VWD-22-005 on June 7, 2022 which resolution approved: (1) City Council Policy No. CP-22-01 (“ CP-22-01”), establishing policy guidelines for implementing the new and updated Development Impact Fees and Sewer and Wa ter System Capacity Charges, providing for an annual review process, and setting forth a four-year phase-in plan to foster and encourage residential development; and (2) a Development Impact Fee and Capacity Charges Master Fee Schedule imposing the new and updated fees and charges established by the Nexus Study in accordance with CP-22-01; and

WHEREAS, on December 19, 2023, the Distri ct Board adopted Resolution No.

VWD-23-015, approving: (1) an updated Master Fee Sc hedule for Development Impact Fees and Capacity Charges for 2024; (2) City Council Policy No. CP-23-02 (“CP-23-02”), which superseded and replaced CP-22-01; and (3) an updated Capital Improvement Plan for 2024; and

WHEREAS, in the subsequent year, and as part of the annual review process, on December 17, 2024, the District Board adopted Resolution No. VWD-24-011, approving:
(1) an updated Master Fee Schedule for De velopment Impact Fees and Capacity Charges for 2025; (2) City Council Policy No. CP-24-05 (“CP-24-05”), which superseded and replaced CP-23-02; and (3) an updated Capital Improvement Plan for 2025; and

WHEREAS, City Council Policy No. CP-24-05 requires annual adjustment of the applicable Development Impact Fees and Capacity Charges in the Master Fee Schedule by applying the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) to account for inflation, and, as a best practice, the District c onducts annual review of: (1) the Master Fee Schedule for Development Impact Fees and Capacity Charges; (2) the City Council Policy; and (3) the Capital Improvement Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Master Fee Schedule for Development Impact Fees and Capacity Charges (attached hereto as Exhibit A), in combination with updated City Council Policy No.

CP-25-01 (attached hereto as Exhibit B), and the Capital Improvement Plan for 2026

(attached hereto as Exhibit C), respectively outline the amounts of the proposed CCCI adjusted fees and charges, the minor u pdates to the implem entation guidelines recommended to achieve the City’s development encouragement strategy, and the projects to be funded by said fees and charges; and

WHEREAS , said Master Fee Schedule for Development Impact Fees and Capacity Charges, Council Policy No. CP-25-01, and the Capital Improvement Plan have been made available for public review with copies on file in the City Clerk/Board Secretary’s office and posted on the City/Board’s website; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, notice of a public hearing to be held on December 16, 2025, was published in the Valley Wide Newspaper on December 5, 2025 with a second notice thereof published on December 12, 2025; and

WHEREAS, the City Council, together with the District Board, held and conducted a public hearing on December 16, 2025, in accordance with the duly published public hearing notice, to review and consider the adoption of the Master Fee Schedule for Development Impact Fees and Capacity Charges, Coun cil Policy No. CP-25- 01, and the Capital Improvement Plan attached hereto; and

WHEREAS , by adopting this Resolution No. VWD-25-002, the District Board finds that: (1) the amount of Wate r System Capacity Charges does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of the servic es and public improv ements/facilities for which such Water System Capacity Charges are being 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 fa cilities; and (3) the public improvements/facilities are of proportional benefit to person or property being charged; and

WHEREAS, adoption of those portions of the Master Fee Schedule for Water System Capacity Charges, Council Policy No. CP-25-01, and the Capital Improvement Plan relating thereto will establish the Wate r System Capacity Charge s that may be imposed by development type under the various Fee categories.

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 and findings set forth therein.

SECTION 2. The District Board has reviewed and hereby approves and adopts the Water System Capacity Charges portion of the Master Fee Schedule for Development Impact Fees and Capacity Charges attached hereto as Exhibit A, Council Policy No. CP-25-01 attached hereto as Exhibit B, and the Water District related projects within the Capital Improvement Plan as listed in Exhibit C. Adoption of the Master Fee Schedule for Development Impact Fees and Capacity Charges will update fees and charges to be implemented in accordance

with guidelines found in the City Council Policy No. CP-25-01, including without limitation the Annual Cost Adjustment to such fees and charges as set forth in Section III of said policy.

SECTION 3. The District Board hereby reaffirms the Mitigation Fee Act findings previously made as set forth in Section 3 of Resolution No. VWD-22-005 and the recitals hereof with respect to the Water System Capacity Charges being adopted in the Master Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A as it relates to non-residential fees and year four of the originally adopted phased implementation of residential fees/charges.

SECTION 4. All resolutions or administrative actions by the District Board, or parts thereof that are inconsistent with any provision of this Resolution, including without limitation, VWD Resolution No. 22-007, are hereby superseded, but only to the extent of such inconsistency.

SECTION 5. The District Board finds that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Sections 15061 and 15273 of the State CEQA Guidelines because: (1) to the extent that any of the Water System Capacity Charges set forth in the attached Exhibit A are actually imposed and collected, such fees or charges will be for the purposes of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain the current levels of service within existing service areas to serve new development; and (2) to the extent that any of the Water System Capacity Charges set forth in the attached Exhibit A are actually imposed and collected and used to f und new facilities, the construction of those facilities will not take place until there has been CEQA review of the development projects which will pay the fees, and the construction of each public facility will be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this Resolution establishing these fees will not have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. However, the updated Water System Capacity Charges in Exhibit A shall go into effect as of March 1, 2026, subject to the a pplicable provisions of City Council Policy No. CP-25-01 attached hereto as Exhibit B.

SECTION 7. 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.

Exhibit A

Master Fee Schedule –
Development Impact Fees

Non-Residential Development Unit Fire Protection Police Public Buildings Road ImprovementsAdmin. Fee
(.2% of total)
Retail/Service Commercial KSF 544.10$ 116.97$ 480.62$ 9,625.39$ 21.53$ Professional Office KSF 744.98$ 93.57$ 384.50$ 8,953.86$ 20.36$ Lodging Room 276.23$ 52.10$ 214.10$ 4,135.02$ 9.35$ Industrial/Business Park KSF 58.59$ 30.83$ 126.70$ 4,476.92$ 9.39$ High-Cube Warehouse KSF 8.37$ 21.27$ 87.39$ 1,088.16$ 2.41$ Self-Service Storage KSF 25.12$ 1.06$ 4.37$ 1,849.88$ 3.76$ Gasoline/Service Station [5] Pump 703.14$ 13.81$ 56.80$ 53,319.87$ 108.18$ Institutional KSF 75.34$ 25.52$ 104.85$ 7,073.04$ 14.55$ Public Facilities KSF 753.36$ 93.57$ 384.50$ 10,228.71$ 22.88$ Non-Residential Development Unit Sewer Admin. Fee
(.2% of total)
Non-Residential
Development
Water System
Capacity Charge
Admin. Fee
(.2% of total)
Retail/Service Commercial EDU 3,208.84$ 6.42$ 3/4" Meter 6,364.62$ 12.73$ Professional Office EDU 3,208.84$ 6.42$ 1" Meter 10,628.92$ 21.26$ Lodging EDU 3,208.84$ 6.42$ 1-1/2" Meter 21,194.15$ 42.39$ Industrial/Business Park EDU 3,208.84 $ 6.42 $ 2" Meter 33,923.38 $ 67.85 $ High-Cube Warehouse EDU 3,208.84$ 6.42$ 3" Meter 63,646.11$ 127.29$ Self-Service Storage EDU 3,208.84$ 6.42$ 4" Meter 106,098.09$ 212.19$ Gasoline/Service Station [5] EDU 3,208.84$ 6.42$ 6" Meter 212,132.52$ 424.27$ Institutional EDU 3,208.84$ 6.42$ 8" Meter 339,424.76$ 678.85$ Public Facilities EDU 3,208.84$ 6.42$
Non-Residential Development Unit Regional DrainageAdmin. Fee (.2% of total)
Retail/Service Commercial Acre 24,886.11$ 49.77$ Professional Office Acre 24,886.11$ 49.77$
Lodging Acre 24,886.11$ 49.77$
Industrial/Business Park Acre 24,886.11$ 49.77$ High-Cube Warehouse Acre 24,886.11$ 49.77$
Self-Service Storage Acre 24,886.11$ 49.77$
Gasoline/Service Station [5] Acre 24,886.11$ 49.77$ Institutional Acre 24,886.11$ 49.77$
Public Facilities Acre 24,886.11$ 49.77$
[5] Canopy only; Convenience store, carwash, etc. calculated separately at Retail/Service Commercial rates.

CITY OF VICTORVILLE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Adopted 12/16/2025
Non-Residential
Effective 3/1/2026
Non-Residential

Exhibit B

City Council Policy
No. CP-25-01

City of Victorville
Council Policy

SUBJECT: Policy No. CP-25-01
(Superseding Policy No. CP-24-05)
Development Impact Fees and Capacity
Charges
Adopted: December 16, 2025
Effective Date: January 1, 2026

I. Purpose; Definitions

A. Purpose.

The purpose of this Policy is to establish guidelines for the implementation of the new and updated Develo pment Impact Fees ( DIF) for Parks and Recreation; Libraries; Fire Protecti on; Police; Public Buildings; Roads, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projec ts; Regional Drainage Facilities; Capacity Charges for Sewer and Water Improvements ( Capacity Charges); and the associated Administra tive Fees as adopted by the Victorville City Council and Board of Directors for the Victorville Water District (VWD) on June 7, 2022 (DIF Program). This Policy does not govern the collection of fees by the City on behalf of outside agencies, such as the VVWRA or any of the local school districts.

B. Definitions.

BNI Costbook: The Building News Industry (BNI) Public Works Costbook, latest edition.

Developer: The legal owner(s) of real pr operty in the City upon which a Development Project is proposed, or their authorized representative(s).

However, Fee Credits may only be issued to Developers who own the real property associated with the Fee Credits issued.

Development Impact Fees or DIF: The fees imposed on Development Projects pursuant to Victorville M unicipal Code Sectio n 16-5.01.080. For purposes of this Policy, DIF includes Capacity Charges.

Development Project : Any project undertaken for the purpose of development. "Development Project" includes, without limitation, projects involving the issuance of permit(s) for construction or reconstruction of single- and multi-family residential units, commercial or industrial buildings, but does not include a permit to operate. The term also includes additions to the size of nonresidential buildings and construction of additional dwelling units on existing developments and permits for the erection of manufactured

Page 2 of 10 ends

housing or structures, modular and/or mobile homes as defined by California State law and any other structure moved into the City.

DIF Master Fee Schedule: The schedule of Development Impact Fees and Capacity Charges applicable to Development Projects in the City most recently adopted by the Victorville City Council/VWD Board.

DIF Capital Improvement Plan : The plan most recently adopted by the Victorville City Council indicating the approximat e location, size, time schedule, and estimates of the cost of Improvement Projects to be financed in whole or in part by the City’s Development Impact Fees and/or Capacity Charges.

Fee Credit : The means by which the City and/or VWD offsets/credits a Developer for the corresponding DIF/Capacity Charges due when a Developer constructs an eligible Improvement Project, dedicates land for a planned City park, or demolishes buildings or fixtures in connection with a Development Project.

Fee Credit Agreement : City and/or VWD’s written agreement with a Developer memorializing the construction of eligible Improvement Project(s) or dedication of park land by Developer and the Fee Credits to be provided in connection with a Deve lopment Project. Such agreements may also be utilized in connecti on with the transfer of Fee Credits associated with demolished fuel pumps.

Improvement Project : Any and/or all of t he public facilities and infrastructure improvements listed in the City’s DIF Capital Improvement Plan.

VWD Board: The Board of Directors of the Victorville Water District (VWD), a subsidiary district of the City of Victorville.

II. DIF Master Fee Schedule; Annual Cost Adjustment

The DIF Master Fee Schedule contains the DIF and Capacity Charges currently in effect. The DIF Master Fee Schedule is available on the City’s website and can also be obtained by visiting the Building Depa rtment or the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall.

The DIF and Capacity Charges listed in the DIF Master Fee Schedule shall be adjusted annually in December of each year by utilizing the percentage change in the California Construction Cost Index, published by the St ate Department of General Services ( CCCI),
1 July over July comparison, with an effective date of March 1st.

1 The CCCI is based on Engineering News Record Building Cost Index data specific to California.

Page 3 of 10 ends

For Single Family Residential Tracts and Multi-Family Development Projects which were subject to phased implementation as stated in the DIF schedules adopted by Resolution Nos. 22-050 and VWD 22-007, the annual cost adjustment shall be applied starting on March 1st of the first year after the final phase is implemented and shall be based on a single year adjustm ent (not a cumulative adjustment covering multiple years).

III. Fee Collection

The collection of DIF and Capacity Charges shall be required prior to, but not later than, the time of final inspection fo r each individual unit/building within the Development Project. If a Developer is requesting full release of all utilities prior to final inspection, including gas and electric service, DIF and Capacity Charges may be required to be paid at that time.

IV. Determination of Applicable DIF and Capacity Charges

Except as otherwise required by law, the amount and category of DIF and Capacity Charges to be paid by Developers wi ll be determined based on the date of submittal of an application for a permit to the Building D epartment and the DIF Master Fee Scheule. The permit application must be for the specific Development Project (or portion thereof) for which t he DIF or Capacity Charges are being charged. For example, for a Development Project consisting of a tract of homes, the permit application would have to be for a specific home (or homes) on a specific lot (or lots); separate grading permits or permits for other types of improvements would not have the effect of establishing the amount of DIF and/or and Capacity Charges due. The amounts se t at the time of permit application will remain effective while the plan check for that application remains active. If the plan check expires, the Developer will have to submit a new application and will be subject to any then-applicable DIF or Capacity Charges amounts or other updates to the DIF Master Fee Schedule and/or the DIF Program that may have become effective between the date the initia l submittal expired and the date a new application submittal is made.

V. Exemptions

The following types of Development Projects shall be exempt from the requirement for payment of DIF and Capacity Charges:

A. Old Town. Projects located within t he Old Town Specific Plan geographical area.

B. City-owned Property. Development of facilities on land owned by the City or any of its subsidiary agencies, prov ided it is developed for public use or benefits the health, safety and welfare of the community at large.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) less than 750 sq. ft.

Page 4 of 10 ends

VI. Credits Toward Applicable Fees; DIF Categories

Developers may be eligible to receive credits against DIF and Capacity Charges (collectively, “Fee Credits ”) if they construct an eligible Improvement Project, demolish certain buildings or fixtures, or dedicate to the City land for a planned City park, whether done voluntarily or as required by applicable law or a condition of Development Project approval. Fee Credi ts are specific to the DIF/Capacity Charges category for which an eligible Improvement Project is constructed or land is dedicated ( i.e., Fee Credits issued to a Develo per for construction of a public park cannot be applied to Regional Drain age Facilities DIF or Water System Capacity Charges). Fee Credits cannot be transferred from one DIF/Capacity Charge category to another.

The maximum Fee Credits available to be applied to DIF/Capacity Charges due for specific permit(s) associated with Deve lopment Projects shall be the total per category DIF/Capacity Charges due and payable for the issuance of the corresponding building permit(s), unless specifically stated otherwise in this Policy.

Any excess Fee Credits may either be carried over to a subsequent Development Project owned by the same Developer or sold to a third party property owner as specified in Section IX of this Policy. In no case shall the City issue cash reimbursement for Fee Credits, unless the Developer has already paid the DIF/Capacity Charges to which the Fee Credi t is to apply. Fee Credits will not apply to the Administrative Fee portion of DIF and Capacity Charges.

Criteria establishing the eligibility for Fee Credits are specific to each DIF/Capacity Charge category and the Impr ovement Projects noted t herein as described in Subsections A through F below.

A. Park Land and Park Improvements

1. Land dedicated to the City by a Develo per, for the use of a planned City park, may be eligible for Fee Credits if it is determined that the land will support the development of a park t hat will benefit the community in a manner consistent with the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. An appraisal report prepared by a qualified appraiser shall be submitted to the City for review. The dollar amount of the Fee Credit will be based on the appraisal report or an equivalent valuation method found to be acceptable to the City. The dedication in fee, the amount of Fee Credit Developer is to receive, and other details of the tr ansaction will be memorialized in a Dedication and Park Impact Fee Credit Agreement to be executed by Developer and City.

2. Park Improvement Projects constr ucted by a Developer for use in a planned City park may be eligible for Fee Credits if it is determined that the park improvements will benefit the community in a manner consistent with the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The dollar

Page 5 of 10 ends

amount of the Fee Credit will be calculated based on the actual costs to acquire, construct, or install the Park Improvements (including any City- approved equipment) as determined by the City Engineer in accordance with the provisions of Section VII.F of this Policy.

B. Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects

1. The Improvement Project must be on one of the lists contained in the Roads, Traffic Signals, and Intersecti on Projects section of the City’s most recently adopted DIF Capital Improvement Plan.

a. Only the center portion of a road ( i.e., travel lanes and not median improvements) is eligible for cr edit, because only the center portion extending equally outward from the street centerline was included in the cost estimate for the DIF Roadway Project list. The eligible center width, excluding the median area, is as follows by street classification:

(1) Arterial 26 feet
(2) Major Arterial 38 feet
(3) Super Arterial 60 feet

b. Utility relocation costs associat ed with constructing Roads, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Improvement Projects are not eligible for Fee Credits. Culvert crossings for dr ainage are eligible if they are required as part of an approved Im provement Project in this category, but non-regional longitudinal storm drain facilities are not eligible.

c. Projects on the State Highways System are not eligible for Fee Credits because arterial road proj ects on the DIF Roadway Project list are only City roads. Interchanges on I-15 will not be constructed by a Developer.

d. Road portions outside of the Cit y limits (located in an adjacent City or County unincorporated area) are not eligible for Fee Credits.

e. Traffic Signals may receive Fee Credits for the full cost of constructing/installing such impr ovements, including curb ramps, traffic signal poles, cabinets, an d other equipment necessary for a fully functioning traffic signal, minus the percentage of a Development Project’s generated trip counts that count towards a traffic signal warrant. For example, if the project’s generated trip count accounts for 25% of the wa rrant, then the maximum credit would be 75% of the construction costs.

Page 6 of 10 ends

2. After taking into account any limitat ions specified in this Section VI.B, the dollar amount of the Fee Credit will be calculated based on the actual costs to construct or insta ll eligible Road, Traffic Signal, or Intersection Project, as determined by the City Engineer in accordance with the provisions of Section VII.F of this Policy.

C. Regional Drainage Facilities

1. To be eligible for Fee Credits, these types of Improvement Projects must be on the Regional Drainage Facilities Project list contained in the City’s most recently adopted DIF Capital Improvement Plan.

2. Only regional drainage facilities are eligible, which in general, are the larger facilities identified as regi onal in a Master Plan of Drainage approved by the City of Victorvill e or San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Typically, these facilities convey at least 750 cubic feet per second for the peak 100-year storm frequency.

3. For the Southern Califo rnia Logistics Airport ( SCLA), eligible drainage facilities are also identified in the Regional Drainage Facilities Project list in the City’s most recently adopted DIF Capital Improvement Plan.

D. Sewer Capacity Projects

1. To be eligible for Fee Credits, these types of Improvement Projects must appear on the Sewer Capacity Projects list contained in the City’s most recently adopted DIF Capital Improvement Plan.

2. The Improvement Project must incr ease the capacity of the City’s sewer system.

3. Improvement Projects can include replacing an existing sewer main with a main of increased diameter or constructing a new sewer main. Sewer mains must be larger than 8 inches in diameter to be eligible for Fee Credits.

E. Water System Improvements

1. To be eligible for Fee Credits, these types of Improvement Projects must appear in the Water System Improvement Projects list contained in the City’s most recently adopted DIF Capital Improvement Plan.

2. The Improvement Project must in crease the capacity of the City/Water District water system.

3. Improvement Projects can include replacing an existing water main with

Page 7 of 10 ends

an increased diameter main or cons tructing a new water main. Water mains must be larger than 8 inches in diameter to be eligible for Fee Credits.

F. Demolished Buildings and Fixtures

1. Fee Credits for demolished buildings or removed plumbing fixtures may be assigned to new permits on the same property on a like-for-like basis at the discretion of the Building Offi cial, without the execution of a Fee Credit Agreement. To qualify for these credits, detailed demolition plans must be submitted with plans for the new Development Project indicating which structures or plumbing fixtures are being removed as part of the project.

2. Fee Credits for fuel pump system s may be granted, but only when all fuel pump systems and associated underground storage facilities on a site are permanently removed and demolished. Partial removal does not qualify. Upon verification of complete removal by the Building Official, the Fee Credits may be applied to the same property without the execution of a Fee Credit Agreement. With City approval and a Fee Credit Agreement or transfer lette r, fuel pump Fee Credits may be transferred to another property within the City where new development involving fuel pump systems is proposed. This provision is intended to support the elimination of obsolete or underutilized fueling infrastructure and/or encourage the repurposing and redevelopment of older commercial sites.

VII. General Requirements for Fee Credits

If a Development Project is determined to be eligible for Fee Credits, the following general requirements shall apply:

A. An application filing fee shall be paid along with the submittal of a letter to the City Engineer by t he Developer requesting t he Fee Credit prior to building permit issuance for the eligible Improvement Project to which the Fee Credit is tied.

B. The City Engineer wil l determine the Fee Credit amount for the DIF/Capacity Charges categories list ed in Subsections C through E of Section VI, in accordance with Sections VII.F and VIII of this Policy.

C. The City’s standard Fee Credit Agreem ent must be used, unless use of another agreement or modificati ons to the standard agreement are approved by the City Attorney. The standard Fee Credit Agreement has a term of fifteen (15) years, after which said agreement and any unused Fee Credits issued thereunder become void. The Victorville City Council (and/or

Page 8 of 10 ends

the VWD Board of Directors in the ca se of Fee Credits for Water System Improvements) must approve the agreement.

D. The Fee Credit Agreement may be tr ansferred by the Developer to the purchaser of the real property associated with the Fee Credits with a written document approved in form and acknowledged by the City.

E. Fee Credits may be transferred by th e Developer to a different Development Project owned by the same Developer as described in Section IX, below.

F. For Construction of Eligible Improvement Projects:

1. The competitive biddi ng procedures specified in the City’s standard Fee Credit Agreement must be followed.

2. The Improvement Projects shall be installed only by contractors and subcontractors appropriately licensed in the State of California for the type of improvements being constr ucted. The names and license numbers of the general contractor and all subcontractors, as well as a copy of the prime contract for the work, shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to commencement of any work on the Improvement Project.

3. Compliance with the provisions of the California Labor Code mandating payment of pr evailing wages to all persons performing construction work on the Improv ement Projects and other related requirements, as set forth in Labor Code Sections 1720 through 1810 and in the California Code. of Regulations Section 16000 et seq. is required.

4. Improvement Projects shall be designed to City standards in accordance with improvement plans approved by the City Engineer.

5. After construction of the Improv ement Project is completed, the following must be submitted to the City Engineer:

a. Documentation supporting the actual cost of the work as specified in the City’s standard Fee Credit Agreement.
b. Lien releases for all contractors and subcontractors associated with the work.
c. Certified payrolls substantiating that State prevailing wages were paid.

6. The maximum Fee Credit amount cannot exceed a Developer’s actual cost to construct the eligible Impr ovements Project(s), as determined

Page 9 of 10 ends

by the City Engineer based on the documentation submitted by the Developer.

7. The Fee Credit amount is subtra cted from the DIF/ Capacity Charge required to be paid by the Deve loper. The Building Department administers the Fee Credits afte r the Fee Credit Agreement is approved. The Building Department will not issue credits until after the eligible Improvement Project has been completed and the actual cost verified by the City Engineer.

VIII. Calculation of Fee Credits for Certain Improvement Projects

A. For an Improvement Project descri bed in Subsections C through E of Section VI of this Policy, the City Engineer will determine the estimated dollar amount of Fee Credits to be i ssued, based upon the estimated cost of the Improvement Projects(s) s hown on the approved plans, minus the estimated cost of a minimum sized, non-regional improvement that would have been needed to serve the subject Development Project ( e.g., 18” Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP), 8” sewer line, 8” water line, etc.). The estimated cost will be obtained from the BNI Costbook, unless the amount of the lowest responsible and responsive bid resulting from the competitive bidding process for the Improvement Project is higher, or the City Engineer determines otherwise. An example of the calculation process follows:

1. The drainage Improvement Project ( Drainage Improvement ) proposed for a Development Project (Project X) appears on the City’s Regional Drainage Facilities Project list in the City’s most recently adopted DIF Capital Improvement Plan.

2. The Drainage Improvem ent plans for Project X approved by the City Engineer require 1,500 linear feet (LF) of 54” RCP. The BNI Costbook unit cost is $300 per LF, for a total estimated cost of $450,000.

However, since the Developer will be required to competitively bid the Drainage Improvement, should the lowest responsible and responsive bid resulting from said competit ive bidding process exceed the BNI Costbook estimate, the higher amount may be utilized as the estimated cost, unless the City Engineer determines otherwise.

3. The minimum size drainage pipe required of development is 18” RCP, at a unit cost of $59 per LF, fo r a baseline estimated Drainage Improvement cost of $88,500.

4. Consequently, the estimated ma ximum amount of Fee Credits for Regional Drainage DIF available for Project X is $361,500.

5. If Project X is a residential develop ment comprised of 100 single family

Page 10 of 10 ends

homes, and if the per lot amount of Regional Drainage DIF at the time the building permits for the lots are applied for is $2,471 per lot, 2 the total Regional Drainage DIF owed for Project X would be $247,100.

6. Therefore, provided the Developer’s actual cost to construct the Drainage Improvement for Projec t X was $450,000, the Developer would accrue $114,400 of excess Regional Drainage DIF Fee Credits that could be used to offset R egional Drainage DIF on a future Development Project.

B. Once the Developer’s constructi on of the Drainage Improvement is complete, the City Engineer will revi ew the documents listed in Section VII.F.5 of this Policy, and assuming all other requirements in the Fee Credit Agreement have been satisfied, the ma ximum estimated dollar amount of Fee Credit due would be subject to adjustment, based on the demonstrated actual costs of constructing t he Drainage Improvement, minus the estimated costs of the minimum, non-regional drainage facility described above. If the adjusted Fee Credit dollar amount exceeds the estimated Fee Credit amount by more than 25%, City Council approval of the final Fee Credit amount will be required before the Fee Credits are issued/applied.

IX. Transfer of Fee Credits

1. Excess Fee Credits, upon completion of both the Development Project and the associated Improvement Project for which the Fee Credits were issued, may be transferred or sold by the Developers to whom they were originally issued to the owners of real property located in the City of Victorville, provided that the Victorville City Council, or VWD Board of Directors in the case of Fee Credits Fee for Water System Improvements, first approves such transfer in the form of an amended Fee Credit Agreement.

2. Absent extenuating circumstances, all terms and conditions of the original Fee Credit Agreement and any prior amendments thereto will apply to any transferee.

P:\APPS\WPDATA\VVCA\0001-50 DIF FEE STUDY & RELATED ISSUES\DOC\996.22-DIF POLICY AMENDMENT - DRAFT CLEAN POST 12.03.25 CONV T LT.DOCX

2 Per the DIF Master Fee Schedule defined in Section I of this Policy, less the Administrative Fee portion.

Exhibit C

Capital Improvement Plan

Development Impact Fee &
Capacity Charge
Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2026
Page #
Summary …......................................................... 2 Park Land and Park Improvements
Parks & Recreation …......................................................... 3-4 Library, Public Buildings, Police Facility, and Fire Protection Library …......................................................... 5 Public Buildings …......................................................... 5 Police Facility …......................................................... 6 Fire Protection …......................................................... 6 Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects
Roadway Projects …......................................................... 7-10 Under Power Line …......................................................... 11 Bridge Projects …......................................................... 12 SCLA Roadway Projects …......................................................... 13 Citywide Traffic Signals …......................................................... 14-16 SCLA Intersection Improvements …......................................................... 17 Water System Improvement Projects
Pipelines …......................................................... 18-21 New Water Resources …......................................................... 22 New Wells & Storage …......................................................... 22 Water Rights …......................................................... 22 Sewer Capacity Projects
Sewer …......................................................... 23 Regional Drainage Facilities
Regional Drainage Facilities …......................................................... 24 SCLA - Storm Drain …......................................................... 25-26 SCLA - Channel Improvements …......................................................... 27 SCLA - Access Roads …......................................................... 27 SCLA - Fencing …......................................................... 28 SCLA - Basin Excavation …......................................................... 28 SCLA - Asphalt Paving - Access Road …......................................................... 28 SCLA - Aggregate Base - Access Road …......................................................... 29 SCLA - Basin Fencing …......................................................... 29 SCLA - Box Culverts …......................................................... 29 Table of Contents
City of Victorville
Capital Improvement Plan FY 2026 Table of Contents

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:

Description Timeframe to Complete
Short-Term Estimated within 1-3 years
Mid-Term Estimated within 4-7 years
Long-Term Estimated withing 8-10 years

Page 2 of 29 ends

Park Land and Park Improvements
Facility Name Facility Cost Site Acres Estimated Site
Value Project Total
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Impact Fee Cost
Basis
Timeframe to
Complete Justification
Sports Complex $ 17,300,000 15 $ 850,000 $ 18,150,000 50% Measure P; General Fund;
Existing Fund
Balance;
State & Federal
Grants
50% Estimated
based on
current
construction
costs for
projects of a
similar nature
and current
commercial land
prices.

Mid-Term The City's 2020- Park &
Rec Master Plan on page
89 established a need of
5-8 additional
multipurpose rectangular
fields for the City's
existing population.

Civic Plaza Park &
Police Station
$ 19,917,081 0 $ 2,500,000 $ 101,879,957 50% Measure P; General Fund;
Existing Fund
Balance;
State & Federal
Grants
50% Design &
Construction per
LPA conceptual
design.

Short-Term Park amenities outlined
in the LPA Conceptual
Design
Rectangular Field $ 350,000 0 $ - $ 350,000 0% Existing DIF Fund Balance
100% Estimate based
on current
construction
costs for similar
projects
Short-Term Park and Rec Master
Plan Recommendation.

Westside Dog Park $ 100,000 0 $ - $ 100,000 50% Measure P; General Fund;
Existing Fund
Balance;
State & Federal
Grants
50% Estimate based
on current
construction
costs for similar
projects
Mid-Term The Park & Rec Master
Plan established the
need for (3) dog parks
located within the City.

Sunset Ridge
Splash Pad
$ 795,785.92 2.75 $ 1,692,632.70 $ 2,488,418.62 50% Measure P; General Fund;
Existing Fund
Balance;
State & Federal
Grants
50% Estimated
based on
current
construction
costs for
projects of a
similar nature
and current
commercial land
prices.

Mid-Term The Park & Rec Master
Plan established the
need for (2) Pools/Water
elements located within
the City.

Westside Pool
Complex
$ 11,000,000 0 $ - $ 11,000,000.00 50% Measure P; General Fund;
Existing Fund
Balance;
State & Federal
Grants
50% Estimate based
on current
construction
costs for similar
projects
Long-Term The Park & Rec Master
Plan established the
need for (2) Pools/Water
elements located within
the City.

Parks & Recreation

Page 3 of 29 ends

Park Land and Park Improvements
Westside Skatepark $ 1,400,000 0 $ - $ 4,000,000.00 50% Measure P; General Fund;
Existing Fund
Balance;
State & Federal
Grants
50% Estimate based
on current
construction
costs for similar
projects
Mid-Term The Park & Rec Master
Plan established the
need for (6) Skate Parks
located within the City.

Eagle Ranch Park
Restrooms
$ 280,000 0 $ - $ 350,000.00 0% Existing DIF Fund Balance
100% Estimate from
2007 DIF
Project List
Short-Term Existing Project;
deficiency notated in
Park & Rec Master Plan.

Eva Dell Dog Park $ 150,000 0 $ - $ 300,000.00 0% Existing Fund Balance;
Measure P
100% Quote based on
similar project.

Short-Term Park & Rec Master Plan
Recommendation
Trails Master Plan $ 50,000 0 $ - $ 50,000.00 0% Existing DIF Fund Balance
100% Quote based on
similar project.

Short-Term Park & Rec Master Plan
Recommendation
New Walking Loop $ 150,000 0 $ - $ 150,000.00 0% Existing DIF Fund Balance
100% Quote based on
similar project.

Short-Term Park & Rec Master Plan
Recommendation
Old Town Walking
Loop
$ 135,000 0 $ - $ 135,000.00 0% Existing DIF Fund Balance
100% Quote based on
similar project.

Mid-Term Park & Rec Master Plan
Recommendation
Park Lighting
Enhancements
$ 200,000 0 $ - $ 200,000.00 50% Existing DIF Fund Balance
50% Estimate based
on current
construction
costs for similar
projects
Short-Term Lighting enhancements
will improve safety,
accessibility and hours of
access for
programming/use at
various City parks.
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.

Page 4 of 29 ends

Library, Public Buildings, Police Facility, and Fire Protection Facility Name Facility Cost Site Acres Estimated Site
Value Project Total
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Impact Fee Cost
Basis
Timeframe to
Complete Justification
Victorville City
Library
$ 43,534,968 5 $ 3,077,514 $ 46,612,482 9% Measure P; General Fund;
State & Federal
Grants
91% Based upon the
cost estimation
provided in the
Library Master
Plan.

Long-Term The City's Library Master
Plan estimates a 72,300
Sq. Ft. for the City's
projected population by
2040.

Facility Name Facility Cost Site Acres Estimated Site
Value Project Total
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Impact Fee Cost
Basis
Timeframe to
Complete Justification
Central Facilities
Yard
$ 1,569,600 2 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,569,600 50% General Fund 50% Estimated based on
current
commercial land
prices.

Long-Term The City's Facilities staff
is currently only supplied
with an aging, re-
purposed single family
home to utilize as a shop
and has a need for a
larger space that will
allow for larger amounts
of storage and a larger
area for fabrication when
working on projects of a
larger scope.

Central Household
Hazardous
Waste/Consolidated
Recycling Facility
$ 2,040,000 5 $ 2,000,000 $ 4,040,000 50% Solid Waste Fund; Landfill Mitigation
Fund
50% Estimated
based on
current
commercial land
prices.

Long-Term This property would allow
the City to consolidate it's
recycling efforts in one
location and add some of
the necessary equipment
to sort and divert specific
material types all at one
location.

City Hall - Capacity
Improvements
$ 400,000 4.14 $ - $ 400,000 100% 0% Based on estimated cost
from existing
quote.

Short-Term The acquisition of new
cublices and/or building
of new offices will
support the City's
ongoing operatinal
growth and provide
working areas for the
increase in required
staffing. This is required
to ensure the City is
equipped to sustain
growth.

Library
Public Buildings

Page 5 of 29 ends

Library, Public Buildings, Police Facility, and Fire Protection Facility Name Facility Cost Site Acres Estimated Site
Value Project Total
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Impact Fee Cost
Basis
Timeframe to
Complete Justification
Civic Plaza Park &
Police Station
$ 79,462,876 9.18 $ 2,500,000 $ 101,879,957 50% General Fund State & Federal
Grants
Parks DIF
Measure P
50% Design &
Construction per
LPA conceptual
design.

Short-Term Currently the Victorville
Police Station does not
have the capability of
housing additional
personnel and the
construction of a new
Police Department
building on City owned
land would allow the City
to provide and sustain
the current level of public
safety services for the
long-term benefits of the
Victorville residents.

Facility Name Facility Cost Site Acres Estimated Site
Value Project Total
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Impact Fee Cost
Basis
Timeframe to
Complete Justification
Fire Station 316 $ 10,000,000 0.98 $ 275,000 $ 10,275,000 50% Measure P; General Fund
50% Estimated
based on
current land
prices.

Long-Term The construction of Fire
Station 316 would allow
for the growth and
expansion of the western
part of the City. These
costs are based from the
current DIF Study.

Fire Station -
Capacity
Improvements
$ 4,265,885 6.02 $ - $ 4,265,885 50% Measure P; General Fund
50% Based on the
estimated cost
from an existing
quote.

Short-Term These capacity
improvements will
provide additional
bedrooms, restrooms,
and offices to sustain the
growth of the City and
increased medical and
fire calls.

Fire Department
Standard of Cover
$ 67,000 0 $ - $ 67,000 50% General Fund 50% Based on actual costs from the
agreement with
AP Triton.

Short-Term The Standard of Cover is
a document that
assesses community
risks, defines baseline
and benchmark
emergency response
performance objectives,
and identifies future
station locations.

Police Facility
Fire Protection

Page 6 of 29 ends

Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects
Road Name From To Estimated Cost Future Customer Costs
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative
Funding Source Timeframe to Complete Impact Fee Cost Basis Justification Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
National Trails Highway At Mojave River Bridge
21,053,775$ 15,790,331$ 75% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.

Circulation Element of the
General Plan. SCLA Specific Plan
Update. SBCTA Nexus Study
25%
Mojave Dr. At I-15 4 to 6 lanes
15,647,665$ 15,647,665$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Mojave Dr. Condor Rd. 7th Street
8,800,000$ 4,400,000$ 50%
Surface Block
Transportation
Grant, SB-1,
Measure I
As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.

Traffic congestion relief and
increase road with to current
Super Arterial classification
50%
Air Expressway Phantom East National Trails Hwy
11,111,206$ 11,111,206$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Air Expressway At National Trails Hwy
2,102,962$ 2,102,962$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Amargosa Rd. Rancho Rd. Village Dr.
3,596,680$ 3,596,680$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Amethyst Rd. Rancho Rd. Hopland Rd.
944,453$ 472,227$ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
Amethyst Rd. Hopland Rd. Mojave Dr.
944,453$ 944,453$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Amethyst Rd. Seneca Rd. Palmdale Rd.
1,789,514$ 1,789,514$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Amethyst Rd. Sycamore St.

Eucalyptus St.
7,000,961$ 7,000,961$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Baldy Mesa Rd. Palmdale Rd. La Mesa Rd.
3,579,028$ 1,789,514$ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
Baldy Mesa Rd. La Mesa Rd. Olivine Rd.
1,193,009$ 1,193,009$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Bear Valley Rd. Pacoima Rd Dunia Rd.
3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Bear Valley Rd. US-395 Monte Vista Rd.
4,584,044$ 4,584,044$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Bellflower Rd. Palmdale Rd. Sycamore St.
8,426,840$ 8,426,840$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Cactus Rd. US-395 0.25 mi. E. of US-395
236,113$ 236,113$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Cantina Dr. La Mesa Rd. Palmdale Rd.
1,416,680$ 1,416,680$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Roadway Projects

Page 7 of 29 ends

Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects
Cantina Dr. Palmdale Rd. 0.25 mi. N. of Palmdale Rd.
236,113$ 236,113 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Civic Dr. Mojave Dr. Roy Rogers Dr.
3,500,000$ 3,500,000 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
El Evado Rd. Hopland St. Air Expressway
10,448,383$ 10,448,383 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Eucalyptus St. Bellflower Rd. Mesa View Dr.
1,146,011$ 573,005 $ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
Eucalyptus St. Mesa View Dr. US-395
1,146,011$ 1,146,011 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Eucalyptus St. US-395 Mesa Linda St.
1,193,009$ 1,193,009 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Eucalyptus St. Mesa Linda St. Cataba Rd.
362,000$ 362,000 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Eucalyptus St. W. of Cobalt Rd. Amargosa Rd.
2,292,022$ 2,292,022 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Green Tree Blvd. 7th St. Hesperia Rd.
2,554,307$ 2,554,307 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Green Tree Blvd. Coad Rd. Ridgecrest Rd.
1,500,000$ 1,500,000 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Holly Rd. (Hopland Rd.) US-395 Cobalt Rd.
1,416,680$ 708,340 $ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
Hook Blvd. US-395

0.4 mi. W. of Amethyst Rd.
1,482,792$ 1,482,792$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
La Mesa Rd. White Rd. Baldy Mesa Rd.
2,292,022$ 1,146,011$ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
La Mesa Rd. Baldy Mesa Rd. Pena Rd.
6,417,661$ 6,417,661$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
La Mesa Rd. Pena Rd. Cantina Dr.
691,945$ 691,945$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
La Paz Dr. At I-15 Northbound ramps
679,313$ 679,313$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%

Page 8 of 29 ends

Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects
Mojave Dr. Village Dr. Condor Rd.
1,623,555$ 1,623,555 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Mojave Dr. Condor Rd. Amargosa Rd.
1,553,324$ 1,553,324 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Monte Vista Rd. Bear Valley Rd. Sycamore St.
472,227$ 236,114 $ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
National Trails Highway 200 ft. S. of Turner Rd.
800 ft. S. of Mojave River
Bridge
418,423$ 418,423 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
National Trails Highway
N. end of Mojave River
Bridge 1st St. at City Limit
2,248,422$ 2,248,422 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Olivine Rd. Cantina Rd. Peña Rd.
283,336$ 283,336 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Ottawa St. Mariposa Rd. Third Ave.
3,500,000$ 3,500,000 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Ottawa St. Hesperia Rd. 0.43 mi. E. of Hesperia Rd.
406,115$ 406,115 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Pahute Ave Locust Ave. Balsam Rd.
236,113$ 236,113 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Petaluma Rd. Bear Valley Rd.

0.16 mi. NE of Bear Valley
Rd.
151,113$ 151,113 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Rancho Rd. Cobalt Rd. Amethyst Rd.
538,338$ 269,169 $ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
Rancho Rd. Amethyst Rd.

El Evado Rd.
1,855,829$ 1,855,829$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Rancho Rd. Amargosa Rd. National Trails Highway
1,086,121$ 1,086,121$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Seneca Rd. Hesperia Rd. GreenTree Blvd.
1,822,795$ 1,822,795$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Seneca Rd. US-395 Topaz Rd.
944,453$ 944,453$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Seneca Rd. Topaz Rd. Amethyst Rd.
944,453$ 472,227$ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
Seventh Ave. Talpa St. Yates Rd
1,750,000$ 1,750,000$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Smoke Tree Rd. Topaz Rd. Amargosa Rd.
6,031,391$ 6,031,391$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%

Page 9 of 29 ends

Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects
Smoke Tree Rd. Mesa Linda St. Topaz Rd.
321,114$ 321,114 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Spring Valley Parkway Bear Valley Rd. 0.06 mi. N. of Lindero Rd. 2,832,859$ 2,832,859 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Sycamore US-395 Pena Rd.
132,223$ 132,223 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Tamarisk Bear Valley Rd. 414 ft. N. of Lindero St.
725,462$ 725,462 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Third Ave. GreenTree Blvd. Nisqualli Rd.
9,981,140$ 4,990,570 $ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
Third Ave. 575 ft. S. of Nisqualli Rd. Silica Rd.
358,892$ 358,892 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Third Ave. 600 ft. N. of Bear Valley Rd. Bear Valley Rd. 122,779$ 122,779 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Topaz Rd. Hopland St. Luna Rd.
3,305,586$ 3,305,586 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Topaz Rd. Bear Valley Rd. Sycamore St.
481,671$ 481,671 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
Topaz Rd. Eucalyptus St. Smoke Tree Rd.
982,231$ 982,231 $ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
White Rd. La Mesa Rd. Olivine Rd.
472,227$ 236,113 $ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
Bear Valley Rd. At I-15
26,950,000$
4,470,736$ 17% Measure I;
General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
83%
Eucalyptus St. At I-15
65,758,000$ 17,664,703$ 27% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
73%
La Mesa Rd. / Nisqualli Rd. At I-15
74,683,501$ 37,341,751$ 50% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
50%
Monte Vista Rd. Palmdale Rd. Bear Valley Rd.
5,156,000$ 5,156,000$ 100% As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
0%
National Trails Highway I-15 0.1 mi. N. of Air Expressway 14,213,000$ 6,964,370$ 49% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
51%
Nisqualli Rd. Balsam Rd. Hesperia Rd.
22,757,000$ 11,150,930$ 49% Measure I; General Fund As project area is developed. Unit costs from similar projects. Special cost estimates for interchanges, bridges
and Nexus Study projects.
51%
1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed.

Page 10 of 29 ends

Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects
Road Name From To Estimated Cost Future Customer Costs
New
Development
Cost Share
Amargosa Rd. Village Dr. 0.12 mi. N. of Village Dr. 305,359$ 305,359 $ 100% Amargosa Rd. 0.12 mi. N. of Village Dr. 0.40 mi. N. of Village Dr. 897,082$ 897,082 $ 100% Amargosa Rd. Air Expressway

0.12 mi. S. of Air
Expressway 384,464$ 384,464 $ 100% Amethyst Rd. Hopland St. 0.20 mi. N. of Hopland St. 640,773$ 640,773 $ 100% Dos Palmas Rd 0.1 m. E. of Del Cerro St Amethyst Rd. 275,000$ 275,000 $ 100% Dos Palmas Rd Mayflower St. Polaris Ln 125,000$ 125,000 $ 100% Eucalyptus St. Richmond Ave 0.1 mi. W. of Richmond Ave 385,000$ 385,000 $ 100% Hook Blvd. 0.2 mi. E. of US-395 0.4 mi. E. of US-395 608,734$ 608,734 $ 100% Hook Blvd. Diamond Rd. Flamenco Pl. 256,308$ 256,308 $ 100% Hopland St. Amethyst Rd. 0.1 mi. W. of Amethyst Rd. 248,972$ 124,486 $ 50% Hopland St. Amethyst Rd. 0.1 mi. E. of Amethyst Rd. 248,972$ 248,972 $ 100% Rancho Rd. 0.10 mi. E. of El Evado Rd. 0.12 mi. W. of El Evado Rd. 704,850$ 704,850 $ 100% Rancho Rd. Village Dr. 0.09 mi. W. of Village Dr. 224,075$ 224,075 $ 100% Rancho Rd. 0.33 mi. E. of Boh Ln. 0.78 mi. E. of Boh Ln. 1,074,442$ 1,074,442 $ 100% Seneca Rd. 0.46 mi. E. of US-395 0.52 mi. E. of US-395 320,386$ 320,386 $ 100% Seneca Rd. Topaz Rd. 0.08 mi. W. of Topaz Rd. 256,309$ 256,309 $ 100% Seneca Rd. 0.1 mi. W. of Gateside Way. South Trail 545,000$ 545,000 $ 100% Sycamore St. Cobalt Rd. 0.05 mi. W. Birchwood Ave. 755,000$ 755,000 $ 100% Topaz Rd. Seneca Rd. 0.15 mi. N. of Seneca Rd. 455,859$ 455,859 $ 100% Village Dr. 0.08 mi. W. of Amargosa Rd. 0.30 mi. W. of Amargosa Rd. 101,199$ 101,199$ 100% Village Dr. Rancho Rd. 0.07 mi. N. of Rancho Rd. 83,914$ 83,914$ 100% Village Dr.

0.10 mi. S. of Air
Expressway

0.27 mi. S. of Air
Expressway 203,791$ 203,791$ 100% Air Expressway 0.32 mi. W. of Village Rd. 0.38 mi. W. of Village Rd. 108,167$ 108,167$ 100% El Evado Rd. 0.1 mi. N. of Hook Bl. 0.37 mi. N. of Hook Bl. 543,831$ 543,831$ 100% Bear Valley Rd. 0.09 mi. W. of Cobalt Rd. 0.19 mi. W. of Cobalt Rd. 229,025$ 229,025$ 100% Bear Valley Rd. 0.2 mi. W. of Topaz Rd. 0.3 mi. W. of Topaz Rd. 229,025$ 229,025$ 100% Mojave Dr. 0.09 mi. E. of El Evado Rd. 0.25 mi. E. of El Evado Rd. 963,000$ 963,000$ 100% Mojave Dr. 0.02 mi. E. of Cobalt Rd. 0.03 mi. W. of Cobalt Rd. 121,128$ 121,128$ 100% Mojave Dr. 0.22 mi. E. of US-395 0.24 mi. E. of US-395 48,451$ 48,451$ 100% Under Power Line

Page 11 of 29 ends

Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects
Estimated Cost Future Customer Costs
New
Development
Cost Share
550,000$ 550,000 $ 100%
1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed.

AV Bear Valley Road Bridge Widening project
Project Name
Bridge Projects

Page 12 of 29 ends

Road, 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% 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 Nevada Ave. Phantom East $5,353,494.00 $5,353,494.00 100% Phantom East Air 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% 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. 250,000.00 250,000 100% Nevada Ave. George Blvd. Phantom West 1,269,664.00 1,269,664 100% 1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed.

SCLA Roadway Projects

Page 13 of 29 ends

Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects
Road 1 Road 2 Estimated Cost Future Customer Costs
New
Development
Cost Share
Alternative
Funding Source
Alternative
Funding Cost
Share
Air Expressway National Trails Highway 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Amethyst Rd. Seneca Rd. 900,000$ 450,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Bear Valley Rd. Monte Vista Rd. 900,000$ 450,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Bear Valley Rd. Cobalt Rd. 900,000$ 450,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Bear Valley Rd. Bellflower Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Bear Valley Rd. Mesa View Dr. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Bear Valley Rd. Spring Valley Pkwy (Realigned) 750,000$ 375,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Eucalyptus St. Topaz Rd. 900,000$ 450,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Eucalyptus St. Amethyst Rd. 900,000$ 450,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Eucalyptus St. Amargosa Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Hesperia Rd. Verde St. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Hook Blvd. US-395 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Hook Blvd. Topaz Rd. 900,000$ 675,000$ 75% Measure I; General Fund 25%
Hopland Rd. Topaz Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Hopland Rd. Amethyst Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Hopland Rd. El Evado Rd. 900,000$ 675,000$ 75% Measure I; General Fund 25%
La Mesa Rd. White Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
La Mesa Rd. Baldy Mesa Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
La Mesa Rd. Monte Vista Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Citywide Traffic Signals

Page 14 of 29 ends

Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects
La Mesa Rd. Bellflower Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
La Mesa Rd. Topaz Rd. 900,000$ 225,000$ 25% Measure I; General Fund 75%
La Mesa Rd. Cantina Rd. 900,000$ 450,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Mojave Dr. Topaz Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Mojave Dr. Civic Dr. 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Mojave Dr. Mesa Linda Ave. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Mojave Dr. 6th Street 900,000$ 450,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Nisqualli Road 9th Avenue 900,000$ 225,000$ 25% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Olivine Rd. US-395 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Ottawa St. Mariposa Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Ottawa St. Third Ave. 900,000$ 225,000$ 25% Measure I; General Fund 75%
Ottawa St. Hesperia Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Palmdale Rd. Baldy Mesa Rd. 2,000,000$ 500,000$ 25% Measure I; General Fund 75%
Palmdale Rd. Bellflower Rd. 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Palmdale Rd. Topaz Rd. 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Rancho Rd.

Amethyst Rd. 900,000$ 675,000$ 75% Measure I; General Fund 25%
Rancho Rd. El Evado Rd. 900,000$ 675,000$ 75% Measure I; General Fund 25%
Rancho Rd. Village Dr. 900,000$ 675,000$ 75% Measure I; General Fund 25%
Rancho Rd. Boh Ln. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Rancho Rd. National Trails Highway 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Ridgecrest Rd. Bluff Crest St./Vista Point Dr. 1,200,000$ 200,000$ 17% Measure I;
SLAD; SBC
County
83%
Seneca Rd. Rodeo Dr. 900,000$ - $ 0% Measure I; General Fund 100%

Page 15 of 29 ends

Road, Traffic Signals, and Intersection Projects
Seneca Rd. Topaz Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Seventh Ave. Silica Dr. 900,000$ 300,000$ 33% Measure I; General Fund 67%
Smoke Tree Rd. Topaz Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Smoke Tree Rd. Amargosa Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Sycamore St. US-395 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Stoddard Wells Rd. Abbey Lane 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Third Ave. Silica Dr. 900,000$ 225,000$ 25% Measure I; General Fund 75%
Topaz Rd. Red Rock Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Village Dr. Clovis St. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Village Dr. Eta Camino Rd. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
Village Dr. Oceanside Dr. 900,000$ 450,000$ 50% Measure I; General Fund 50%
Village Dr. Llanada Ave. 900,000$ 900,000$ 100% Measure I; General Fund 0%
1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed.

Page 16 of 29 ends

SCLA Intersection Improvements

Page 17 of 29 ends

Water System Improvement Projects
Street From To Length New Development
Total Cost
New Development
Cost Share
Vinton Rd Palmdale Rd Olivine Rd 9,240 2,131,852.80$ 100% Wagon Wheel Rd Palmdale Rd La Mesa Rd 7,920 1,827,302.40$ 100% Wagon Wheel Rd La Mesa Rd Lindero Rd 5,280 1,218,201.60$ 100% Braceo St Palmdale Rd Dos Palmas Rd 2,640 609,100.80$ 100% Braceo St Luna Rd Olivine Rd 5,280 1,218,201.60$ 100% Verbena Rd Palmdale Rd Dos Palmas Rd 2,640 609,100.80$ 100% Verbena Rd Luna Rd Sycamore St 10,560 2,436,403.20$ 100% Bellflower St Sierra Rd Sycamore St 660 152,275.20$ 100% Mesa Linda Ave Hopland St Mojave Dr 5,280 1,218,201.60$ 100% Mesa Linda Ave Hook Blvd Palmdale Rd 5,280 1,218,201.60$ 100% Topaz Rd Hopland St Mojave Dr 5,280 1,218,201.60$ 100% Topaz Rd Hook Blvd Seneca Rd 2,640 609,100.80$ 100% Topaz Rd Palmdale Rd Arvila St 1,980 456,825.60$ 100% cobalt Rd Hook Blvd Seneca Rd 2,640 609,100.80$ 100% Cordova Rd Rancho Rd Clovis St 2,640 609,100.80$ 100% Pipelines

Page 18 of 29 ends

Water System Improvement Projects
Pacoima Rd Seneca Rd Palmdale Rd 2,640 609,100.80$ 100% Cahuenga Rd Hopland St Tawney Ridge Ln 4,224 974,561.28$ 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 1,320 304,550.40$ 100% Cataba Rd Mesa St .25 mile south 1,320 304,550.40$ 100% .5 mile E of Cataba Rd Mesa St .25 mile south 1,848 426,370.56$ 100% Dos Palmas Rd Caughlin Rd Braceo St 12,144 2,801,863.68$ 100% Dos Palmas Rd Verbena Rd Fuchsia Ln 4,620 1,065,926.40$ 100% Luna Rd Caughlin Rd White Rd 5,280 1,218,202.06$ 100% Luna Rd Caughlin Rd Braceo St 12,144 2,801,863.68$ 100% Luna Rd Monte Vista Rd Daisy Rd 1,320 304,550.40$ 100% Luna Rd Bellflower St Fremontia Rd 1,320 304,550.40$ 100% La Mesa Rd Caughlin Rd Baldy Mesa Rd 10,560 2,436,403.20$ 100% La Mesa Rd Pena Rd Hwy 395 792 182,730.24$ 100% Olivine Rd Caughlin Rd Braceo St 12,144 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 2,640 609,100.80$ 100%

Page 19 of 29 ends

Water System Improvement Projects
Sycamore St Joshua Rd Monte Vista Rd 1,320 304,550.40$ 100% Mesa St Hwy 395 .25 mile east 1,320 304,550.40$ 100% Hopland St Topaz Rd Cobalt Rd 2,640 609,100.80$ 100% Cactus St Hwy 395 Cobalt Rd 7,480.18 1,725,826.21$ 100% Mojave Dr Topaz Rd Cobalt Rd 2,640 609,100.80$ 100% Seneca Rd Hwy 395 Amethyst Rd 10,560 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 5,164,420.80$ 100% Vinton Rd Bear Valley Rd Goss Rd 3,960 1,106,661.60$ 100% White Rd Palmdale Rd Bear Valley Rd 13,200 3,688,872.00$ 100% Baldy Mesa Rd La Mesa Rd Olivine Rd 2,640 737,774.40$ 100% Monte Vista Rd Palmdale Rd Dos Palmas Rd 2,640 737,774.40$ 100% Monte Vista Rd Olivine Rd Sierra Rd 3,960 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 1,475,548.80$ 100% Baldy Mesa Rd Palmdale Rd La Mesa Rd 7,920 3,543,091.20$ 100% Bellflower St Palmdale Rd Luna Rd 5,280 2,362,060.80$ 100%

Page 20 of 29 ends

Water System Improvement Projects
La Mesa Rd White Rd Bellflower St 14,784 6,613,770.24$ 100% Bear Valley Rd Pena Rd Hwy 394 792 405,781.20$ 100%

Page 21 of 29 ends

Water System Improvement Projects
Project From To Length New Development
Total Cost
New Development
Cost Share
Area 28 - Turnout #5 Mesa St Sycamore St 5,730 6,210,000$ 100% New Development
Total Cost
New Development
Cost Share
3,000,000$ 100%
Acre-Feet (AF) Needed Cost per AF New Development
Total Cost
New Development
Cost Share
11,644 5,200.00$ 60,546,217.90$ 100% Project
Permanent Water Rights
1 Project availability will vary and align with the time the associated project area is developed.

New Water Resources
New Wells & Storage
Water Rights
Project
1 Million Gallon Water Tank

Page 22 of 29 ends

Sewer Capacity Projects
Master Plan Project From To Estimated Cost New Development Cost Share
Alternative Funding
Source
Alternative Funding
Cost Share
C2 Burning
Tree/Arrowhead
Hughes/Pebble
Beach $ 1,774,568.00 77% Sewer Fund;
Sewer Capacity 23%
C3 Hughes Seneca $ 7,497,424.00 77% Sewer Fund; Sewer Capacity 23%
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.

Sewer

Page 23 of 29 ends

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% 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.

Page 24 of 29 ends

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% 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% SCLA - Storm Drain

Page 25 of 29 ends

Regional Drainage Facilities
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.

Page 26 of 29 ends

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

Page 27 of 29 ends

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

Page 28 of 29 ends

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.

SCLA - Box Culverts
SCLA - Basin Fencing
SCLA - Aggregate Base - Access Road

Page 29 of 29 ends

Victorville City CouncilDecember 16, 2025

Victorville City Council
December 16, 2025