Agenda — Scotts Valley City Council, August 17, 2022

A G E N D A
Meeting of the
Scotts Valley City Council
Remote Access Only
Date: August 17, 2022
Time: 6:00 PM

CONTACT

INFORMATION

MEETING LOCATION POSTING
City of Scotts Valley
1 Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA
95066
(831) 440-5600
Zoom Videoconference
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86840689632
See information below for how to
participate.

The agenda was posted
8/12/2022 at City Hall and
on the Internet at
www.scottsvalley.org.

PUBLIC ADVISORY REGARDING COVID-19 AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361”), an urgency measure effective upon adoption, amending the Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to continue teleconferencing during a proclaimed State of Emergency, and either state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or the legislative body determines that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. In accordance with AB 361, the Scotts Valley City Council adopted Resolution No. 2007.10 on July 26, 2022, authorizing the continued use of teleconferenced meetings pursuant to AB 361. Elected Officials and City Staff Members will be participating remotely via videoconference.

Public Participation:

The meeting will be available on Zoom and broadcast through Community Television of Santa Cruz on Channel 25 and via their website at the following link: https://communitytv.org/watch/ (be sure to click on Channel 25). For those wishing to participate via Zoom you can join the following ways:
• Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:

Please click this URL to join. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86840689632 • Or One tap mobile:

US: +16694449171,,86840689632#
+16699009128,,86840689632#
• Or Telephone:

Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 669 444 9171 or +1 669 900 9128 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 Webinar ID: 868 4068 9632
City Council Meeting Agenda Page 2
Date: August 17, 2022
You will be given opportunities to provide public comment at the appropriate times throughout the meeting via Zoom. If you are participating via dial-up only, use *9 to raise your hand at the requested time.

How to comment via Zoom:

1. At the appropriate times during the meeting for public comment, on items not on the agenda, and on specific agenda items, the Mayor will announce that public comment will be accepted. Our usual time limits of 3 minutes per individual, or 5 minutes for an individual who is representing a group of three or more, will apply. Please note that per our standard practice, this is not a question and answer time, but simply a time for you to provide your comments to the Council.

2. There is an option on Zoom to raise your hand. Please click on this option when the Mayor announces that public comment will be taken. Zoom places people in line automatically. If you are participating via dial-up, you can raise your hand at the appropriate time by pressing *9. When it is your turn, the City Clerk will unmute you, and you will be able to make your comments based on the above time frames. Once your time is up, you will once again be muted and the next person in line will be given their opportunity to speak.

How to comment via email:

1. Members of the public may provide public comment by sending comments to the City Clerk via email at [email protected].

2. Additional materials and emails must be received by 5:30 PM the day of the meeting and will be distributed to agenda recipients prior to the meeting.

3. Emails received after 5:30 PM the day of the meeting will not be included in the record.

ELECTED OFFICIALS CITY STAFF MEMBERS
Donna Lind, Mayor
Jim Reed, Vice Mayor
Jack Dilles, Council Member
Randy Johnson, Council Member
Derek Timm, Council Member
Mali LaGoe, City Manager
Casey Estorga, Administrative Services Director
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
Steve Walpole, Chief of Police
Taylor Bateman, Community Development Director
Chris Lamm, Public Works Director
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA PACKET MATERIALS
Notice regarding City Council Meetings:

The City Council meets regularly on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of each month at 6:00 PM.

Agenda and Agenda Packet Materials:

The City Council agenda and the complete agenda packet are available for review by 5:00 PM the Friday before the Wednesday meeting on the Internet at the City’s website:
http://scottsvalley.org/AgendaCenter. Due to COVID-19, City Hall is closed to the public therefore, the agenda is only available for viewing online.

Televised Meetings:

City Council meetings are cablecast “Live” on Community Television of Santa Cruz County on Comcast Channel 25 and are also available livestream on the Community TV website at the following link: https://communitytv.org/watch/
City Council Meeting Agenda Page 3
Date: August 17, 2022
Zoom Meetings/Webinars:

For those wishing to participate via Zoom you can join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device by entering or clicking on the following URL:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86840689632
CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM

MOMENT OF SILENCE

ROLL CALL

COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council members are appointed to committees which are either City committees or committees dealing with other jurisdictions. This portion of the agenda allows the committee member to present oral or written reports to the Council regarding their committee assignments. It also allows the Council to make comments and give the committee member direction, as required.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

PUBLIC COMMENT TIME
This is the opportunity for individuals to make and/or submit written or oral comments to the Council on any items within the purview of the Council, which are NOT part of the Agenda. No action on the item may be taken, but the Council may request the matter be placed on a future agenda.

ALTERATIONS TO CONSENT AGENDA
Council can remove or add items to the Consent Agenda.

CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda is comprised of items which appear to be non-controversial. Persons wishing to speak on any items may do so raising their hand to be recognized by the Mayor.

A. Approve City Council minutes of 08-03-2022
B. Approve check registers dated 08-02-2022, 08-03-2022, and 08-11-2022 C. Ratify the appointment of Heidi Denger to serve on the Parks and Recreation Commission, with an effective date of August 17, 2022
D. Adopt Vision Zero Safety Policy
E. Proposed staffing changes to the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget Position Summary

ALTERATIONS TO REGULAR AGENDA
Council can remove or add items to the Regular Agenda.

REGULAR AGENDA
City Council Meeting Agenda Page 4
Date: August 17, 2022
Persons wishing to speak on any item may do so by raising their hand to be recognized by the Mayor.

1. CalPERS unfunded pension liability cost management strategies

2. Wastewater Reclamation Facility options study

3. Future Council agenda items
(This portion of the Regular Agenda allows the Council to determine items to be placed on a future agenda and to choose a date, if so desired.)

CONVENE TO CLOSED SESSION

CLOSED SESSION SUBJECT

1. Conference with legal counsel regarding real property negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Location: APN 022-721-07, 022-721-08, and 022-721-09
City Negotiator: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
Staff Present: City Manager, City Attorney

RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION

REPORT ON ACTION TAKE DURING CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

ADA NOTICE
The City of Scotts Valley does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. The City Council Chambers is an accessible facility. If you wish to attend a City Council meeting and require assistance such as sign language, a translator, or other special assistance or devices in order to attend and participate at the meeting, please call the City Clerk's office at (831) 440-5602 five to seven days in advance of the meeting to make arrangements for assistance. If you require the agenda of a City Council meeting be available in an alternative format consistent with a specific disability, please call the City Clerk’s Office. The California State Relay Service (TTY/VCO/HCO to Voice: English 1-800-735-2929, Spanish 1-800-855-3000; or, Voice to TTY/VCO/HCO: English 1- 800-735-2922, Spanish 1-800-855-3000), provides Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf and Disabled and will provide a link between the TDD caller and users of telephone equipment.

City Council Meeting Agenda Page 5
Date: August 17, 2022

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC

THE FOLLOWING IS THE PROCEDURE COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE IN
APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION:

1. Move the Resolution number for approval.

2. Second the motion.

3. Vote by body, a roll call vote is not required.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE PROCEDURE COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE IN
INTRODUCTION/ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE:

1. Move the Ordinance number for introduction (or adoption).

2. Move the Ordinance be introduced by title only and waive the reading of the text.

3. Read the Ordinance title.

4. Second the motion.

5. Vote by body, a roll call vote is not required.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE PROCEDURE COUNCIL SHOULD TAKE IN
PUBLIC COMMENT/PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Unless otherwise determined by the presiding officer of the meeting:

1. Three minutes allowed per individual to speak.

2. Five minutes allowed per individual representing a group of three or more. ❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖
The City of Scotts Valley does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. The City Council Chambers is an accessible facility. If you wish to attend a City Council meeting and require assistance such as sign language, a translator, or other special assistance or devices in order to attend and participate at the meeting, please call the City Clerk's office at (831) 440-5602 five to seven days in advance of the meeting to make arrangements for assistance. If you require the agenda of a City Council meeting be available in an alternative format consistent with a specific disability, please call the City Clerk’s Office. The California State Relay Service (TTY/VCO/HCO to Voice: English 1-800-735- 2929, Spanish 1-800-855-3000; Voice to TTY/VCO/HCO: English 1-800-735-2922, Spanish 1-800-855- 3000; or, from or to Speech-to-Speech, English & Spanish 1-800-854-7787), provides Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf and Disabled and will provide a link between the TDD caller and users of telephone equipment.

AGENDA ITEM: A
DATE: 08-17-2022

M I N U T E S
Meeting of the
Scotts Valley City Council
Date: August 3, 2022
Time: 6:00 PM

CONTACT INFORMATION MEETING LOCATION POSTING
City of Scotts Valley
1 Civic Center Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
(831) 440-5600
Zoom Video Conference The agenda was posted
at City Hall, SV Senior Center, SV
Library and on the Internet at
www.scottsvalley.org.

CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM
The City Council meeting was called to order at 6:15 pm.

MOMENT OF SILENCE

ROLL CALL
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT:

Donna Lind, Mayor
Jim Reed, Vice Mayor (absent for
Roll Call - arrived at 6:23 PM)
Jack Dilles, Council Member
Randy Johnson, Council Member
Derek Timm, Council Member
CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mali LaGoe, City Manager
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
Steve Walpole, Chief of Police
Taylor Bateman, Community Development Director
Casey Estorga, Administrative Services Director
Chris Lamm, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

COMMITTEE REPORTS
CM Dilles attended a meeting of the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency where they reviewed and discussed responses to the Grand Jury report. They also discussed sharing excess water and other projects that could put more water into the ground.

CM Timm attended the Town Center subcommittee meeting, and this was the first meeting with Dara Sanders from Good City. She is helping to organize the strategy going forward, not only for how we are going to consolidate the land, but also helping to finalize the remediation strategy.

City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2
Date: August 3, 2022
CM Timm reported that the work the Library Subcommittee has done over the last few years, using the Measure S funds, will be on display at the grand re-opening ceremony on Saturday. The Scotts Valley Library grand re-opening festivities are scheduled for Saturday, August 6th from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Members of Council and Staff are scheduled to speak at the event.

CM Johnson clarified that the City Manager and the Town Center Subcommittee will bring the Town Center project to the Council at a later date to share ideas and proposals.

Mayor Lind attended the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) meeting where they discussed an annexation, and they approved a countywide water service and sphere influence review.

Mayor Lind attended the Criminal Justice Council Executive meeting and they worked on a behavioral health study. Law enforcement agencies will begin collecting data to support the study.

Mayor Lind attended a Youth Action Network (YAN) meeting where they discussed goals and partnerships. She noted that the City of Scotts Valley is one of two agencies with an internship program.

Mayor Lind attended a Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (METRO) board meeting, and they approved the fiscal year 2023-24 budget, they adopted an updated Conflict of Interest Code, and discussed other budget related issues. They noted a CalPERS bond savings of $1.8 million.

Mayor Lind, along with Captain Rutherford, attended a meeting of the Scotts Valley Historical Society to recognize Julie and Chuck Fetter for their many years serving the Historical Society.

Mayor Lind noted that the Art, Wine & Beer Festival will be on August 20-21, and they are looking for volunteers.

Mayor Lind and City Manager LaGoe met with Senator Laird where they discussed the recycled water project, funding for housing, and the organic waste disposal challenges.

Mayor Lind attended the National Night Out event at Macdorsa Park. She thanked Chief Walpole and his staff for coordinating it. She also thanked Togo’s for providing sandwiches.

Mayor Lind thanked everyone for their hard work on the Independence Day festivities.

She was able to present the ribbons to all the parade winners, and she attended the check presentation at the Moose Lodge. The Moose Lodge members raised money by operating the BBQ booth at the fireworks, and they were able to present checks to the Scotts Valley Boys & Girls Club, Camp Ross, and the Scout Troop 614.

City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3
Date: August 3, 2022

CITY MANAGER REPORT
New Staff Members: City Manager LaGoe introduced two new staff members: Corie Stocker, Assistant to the City Manager; and Ali Robinson, Recreation Division Manager.

Both Ms. Stocker and Ms. Robinson also said a few words to introduce themselves. The new Senior Civil Engineer will start on August 8
th
.

School Starts on August 11
th: A change for this year is that the high school students will all start at 8:30 AM, which means that there will be an increase in traffic on Scotts Valley Drive. City Manager LaGoe and Chief Walpole met with school administration to discuss the traffic issues, as well as the relationship between the Police Department and the School District, specifically how the City supports the schools with the School Resource Officer (SRO) and other training opportunities that the Police Department can provide for the School District. The School District is appreciative of the SRO and his relationship with the community.

Library Re-opening: As Councilmember Timm mentioned, the grand re-opening festivities are Saturday, August 6
th starting at 10:00 AM.

FlashVote Text Campaign: Community members will be receiving texts from FlashVote soon. We are looking forward to people signing up to answer short surveys to provide valuable community input.

Website Redesign: Staff recently kicked off a website redesign project and are looking forward to developing the website into a robust tool to serve the community.

Scotts Valley’s Birthday: Happy Birthday (Incorporation) Day to the City of Scotts Valley, August 2, 1966!
Technology Improvements: Efforts continue to move forward on technology improvements throughout the City’s buildings.

PUBLIC COMMENT TIME
No one from the public came forward to speak.

CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL WITH NO ALTERATIONS
M/S: Dilles/Johnson
To approve the Consent Agenda.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Dilles, Johnson, Lind, Reed, Timm)
A. Approve City Council minutes of 6-15-2022 and 7-26-2022 B. Approve check registers dated 6-17-2022, 6-23-2022, 6-30-2022, 7-07-2022, City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4
Date: August 3, 2022
7-14-2022, 7-21-2022 and 7-28-2022
C. Approve designation of voting delegate and alternate for 2022 League of California Cities Annual Conference
D. Approve Resolution No. 514.18 amending the Conflict of Interest Code for designated positions and incorporating by reference the Fair Political Practices Commission’s standard model Conflict of Interest Code
E. Approve cancellation of September 7, 2022 City Council meeting F. Ratify the appointment of Rebecca Sorci-Murray to serve on Parks and Recreation Commission, with an effective date of August 3, 2022 G. Approve Professional Services Agreement with Environmental Innovations for environmental compliance services
H. Approve budget expenditure and purchase order with Municipal Maintenance Equipment for Vactor Truck
I. Approve term amendment for Measure D Direct Allocation Master Funding Agreement
J. Approve Resolution No. 2016 Determining Industrial Disability Retirement K. Approve Resolution No. 1596.46 authorizing the levy of annual special tax roll for Scotts Valley Drive for Community Facilities District 97.1 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 L. Approve revised section 7.06 of the Lease Agreement for 251B Kings Village Road with the Scotts Valley Community Theater Guild

REGULAR AGENDA APPROVAL WITH NO ALTERATIONS
M/S: Reed/Dilles
To approve the Regular Agenda.

Carried 5/0 (AYES: Dilles, Johnson, Lind, Reed, Timm)

1. Fiscal Year 2022-23 Community Grant Program
City Manager LaGoe shared a presentation on the program and responded to comments from Council.

The following members of the community spoke in favor of the grant proposal process:

Leah Samuels, Executive Director of the Human Care Alliance; Clay Kempf, Executive City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5
Date: August 3, 2022
Director of the Area Agency on Aging; and Serg Kagno, Executive Director of the Recovery Café.

2. Future Council Agenda Items

Councilmember Timm requested the creation of a City Council Code of Conduct, and both Mayor Lind and Councilmember Dilles agreed.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM.

Approved: _____________________________
Donna Lind, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/02/2022 18:56:19 Check Register GL050S-V08.17 COVERPAGE GL540R
Report Selection:

RUN GROUP... 8222 COMMENT... 06/30/2022 A/P #5

DATA-JE-ID DATA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
W-08022022-047 06/30/2022 A/P #5
Run Instructions:

Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI CP SP RT L 01 Y S 6 066 10
Agenda Item B
Date: 08-17-2022
001

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/02/2022 18:56:19 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 1
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT

BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT
003894 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENS 124656 08/02/22 25,321.16 001566 BUSINESS WITH PLEASURE 124657 08/02/22 31.98
001633 CAL-WEST LIGHTING & SIGN 124658 08/02/22 8,013.26 003974 CHRISTOPHER S CRAIG 124659 08/02/22 730.20
000778 DEPT OF JUSTICE 124660 08/02/22 64.00
001243 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 124661 08/02/22 2,992.00 000111 S V CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 124662 08/02/22 10,000.00 000134 S.V. WATER DISTRICT 124663 08/02/22 8,510.24
003658 SANTA CRUZ OCCUPATIONAL 124664 08/02/22 130.00
000153 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST 124665 08/02/22 355.92
003971 WIZIX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, 124666 08/02/22 365.14
GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT 56,513.90 ***
002

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/02/2022 18:56:19 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 2
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT
REPORT TOTALS: 56,513.90
RECORDS PRINTED - 000025
003

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/02/2022 18:56:19 Check Register
GL060S-V08.17 RECAPPAGE

GL540R
FUND RECAP:

FUND DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
001 GENERAL 50,448.50
004 RECREATION 197.30
010 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS 1,149.07
028 SENIOR CENTER 111.26
077 SKYPARK MAINT ASSESS DIST 4,264.93
123 COMMUNITY FACILITY CENTER 342.84
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 56,513.90
BANK RECAP:

BANK NAME DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT 56,513.90
TOTAL ALL BANKS 56,513.90
004

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/02/2022 18:06:52 Check Register GL050S-V08.17 COVERPAGE GL540R
Report Selection:

RUN GROUP... 080222 COMMENT... 08/02/2022 A/P

DATA-JE-ID DATA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
W-08022022-045 08/02/2022 A/P
Run Instructions:

Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI CP SP RT L 01 Y S 6 066 10
005

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/02/2022 18:06:52 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 1
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT

BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT
001405 AFLAC-FLEX ONE 124586 08/02/22 1,112.38
004057 ANDREWS/SELINA 124587 08/02/22 50.00
004029 ARMSTRONG/AMANDA 124588 08/02/22 50.00
000097 AT&T 124589 08/02/22 880.71
003746 AVENU HOLDINGS, LLC 124590 08/02/22 2,029.09
000565 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON/ 124591 08/02/22 5,850.00 001928 BATEMAN/TAYLOR 124592 08/02/22 50.00
000614 BATTERIES + BULBS #314 124593 08/02/22 120.42
001373 BAY TREE, LLC 124594 08/02/22 3,620.38
004067 BEERS/OLIVIA 124595 08/02/22 50.00
001066 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE I 124596 08/02/22 118.00
000437 BRASS KEY LOCKSMITH 124597 08/02/22 18.64
004060 BURGEON GROUP LLC 124598 08/02/22 10,173.82
000773 CENTRAL COAST LANDSCAPE 124599 08/02/22 361.50
015008 CENTRAL HOME SUPPLY 124600 08/02/22 526.32
003887 CHEUNG/ATHENA 124601 08/02/22 50.00
002091 COMCAST 124602 08/02/22 148.31
005006 CORTEZ/DYLAN 124603 08/02/22 50.00
000975 DEAN/MICHAEL R. 124604 08/02/22 50.00
004005 ESTORGA/CASEY 124605 08/02/22 50.00
.15886 EXPEDITE THE DIEHL LLC 124606 08/02/22 164.84
000202 FEDERAL EXPRESS 124607 08/02/22 312.37
000202 FEDERAL EXPRESS 124608 08/02/22 371.90
004039 GARNER/SCOTT 124609 08/02/22 149.00
004093 GERA/BEAUJO 124610 08/02/22 50.00
001881 GRAINGER 124611 08/02/22 525.72
003706 GRANADOS/JUSTIN 124612 08/02/22 50.00
000057 HACH COMPANY 124613 08/02/22 298.69
004059 HAROS/JOANNA 124614 08/02/22 50.00
003944 HEBARD/TYLER 124615 08/02/22 50.00
001903 JONES/KIMARIE 124616 08/02/22 265.20
001660 KING/KATI 124617 08/02/22 50.00
005005 KRUSEE/RANDALL 124618 08/02/22 50.00
004018 LAMBERT/LAUREN 124619 08/02/22 50.00
004046 LAMM/CHRIS 124620 08/02/22 50.00
003761 LEDGER/CHASE 124621 08/02/22 50.00
001673 LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP 124622 08/02/22 1,442.77 003389 LOCKE/CERINA 124623 08/02/22 50.00
003913 LONG/AMANDA 124624 08/02/22 50.00
001591 MARKELL/ROD 124625 08/02/22 1,974.00
001815 MC GRATH/TRISH 124626 08/02/22 50.00
005007 METOYER/ARTHUR 124627 08/02/22 50.00
001787 MICHAEL WADE PETRINI 124628 08/02/22 125.00
003685 MONTEREY BAY ANALYTICAL 124629 08/02/22 675.00
001872 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORI 124630 08/02/22 1,316.27 001615 OLIN CORP-CHLOR ALKALI 124631 08/02/22 2,749.12
003766 ORMONDE/ROBERT 124632 08/02/22 50.00
000098 PALACE BUSINESS SOLUTION 124633 08/02/22 1,613.82 006

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/02/2022 18:06:52 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 2
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT

BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT
004045 PHILLIP D NEUMAN 124634 08/02/22 26,794.99
001097 PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP 124635 08/02/22 3,523.52 004065 REBUILD-IT SERVICES GROU 124636 08/02/22 2,813.40 003516 RICE LAKE WEIGHING SYSTE 124637 08/02/22 1,739.87 002074 ROSS MCDONALD CO INC 124638 08/02/22 41,144.59
001118 RUTHERFORD/JAYSON 124639 08/02/22 50.00
000135 SAN LORENZO VALLEY WATER 124640 08/02/22 45.01
001823 SANTA CRUZ CO ENVIRONMEN 124641 08/02/22 1,283.00 003367 SANTA CRUZ LIVE SCAN, IN 124642 08/02/22 60.00
000128 SCARBOROUGH LUMBER 124643 08/02/22 1,794.67
000133 SCOTTS VALLEY SPRINKLER 124644 08/02/22 57.59
004092 SIMONOVICH/CATHIE 124645 08/02/22 50.00
003196 SONSRAY MACHINERY 124646 08/02/22 2,404.87
002065 SOTO/ART 124647 08/02/22 50.00
005019 STOCKER/CORIE 124648 08/02/22 50.00
003973 THOMAS/TYLER 124649 08/02/22 50.00
003548 TORO PETROLEUM CORP 124650 08/02/22 4,461.95
000151 VISION SERVICE PLAN 124651 08/02/22 1,137.15
005018 WATSONVILLE DIESEL 124652 08/02/22 190.00
004043 WATTS REGULATOR CO 124653 08/02/22 387.02
005022 WELSH/ELISA 124654 08/02/22 50.00
000154 WINCHESTER AUTO STORES 124655 08/02/22 199.33
GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT 126,380.23 ***
007

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/02/2022 18:06:52 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 3
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT
REPORT TOTALS: 126,380.23
RECORDS PRINTED - 000161
008

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/02/2022 18:06:52 Check Register
GL060S-V08.17 RECAPPAGE

GL540R
FUND RECAP:

FUND DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
001 GENERAL 43,255.61
004 RECREATION 202.33
010 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS 12,543.90
011 TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT 6,967.88
019 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1,974.00
023 SVRDA SUCCESSOR AGENCY 7,143.90
028 SENIOR CENTER 38.57
050 PINEWOOD EST LNDSCP MAINT DT 361.50
088 LIBRARY FACILITIES-MEAS "S" 51,318.41
090 SV DRIVE A REDEMPTION 2,250.00
112 DENTAL INS INTERNAL SERV 314.20
123 COMMUNITY FACILITY CENTER 9.93
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 126,380.23
BANK RECAP:

BANK NAME DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT 126,380.23
TOTAL ALL BANKS 126,380.23
009

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/03/2022 14:38:47 Check Register GL050S-V08.17 COVERPAGE GL540R
Report Selection:

RUN GROUP... 080322 COMMENT... 08/03/22 A/P

DATA-JE-ID DATA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
W-08032022-049 08/03/22 A/P
Run Instructions:

Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI CP SP RT L 01 Y S 6 066 10
010

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/03/2022 14:38:47 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 1
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT

BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT
001818 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVIC 124667 08/03/22 9,066.00 GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT 9,066.00 ***
011

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/03/2022 14:38:47 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 2
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT
REPORT TOTALS: 9,066.00
RECORDS PRINTED - 000001
012

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/03/2022 14:38:47 Check Register
GL060S-V08.17 RECAPPAGE

GL540R
FUND RECAP:

FUND DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
001 GENERAL 9,066.00
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 9,066.00
BANK RECAP:

BANK NAME DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT 9,066.00
TOTAL ALL BANKS 9,066.00
013

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/11/2022 19:13:06 Check Register GL050S-V08.17 COVERPAGE GL540R
Report Selection:

RUN GROUP... 81122 COMMENT... 06/30/2022 A/P #6

DATA-JE-ID DATA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
W-08112022-054 06/30/2022 A/P #6
Run Instructions:

Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI CP SP RT L 01 Y S 6 066 10
014

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/11/2022 19:13:06 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 1
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT

BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT
000652 ANDERSON PACIFIC ENG INC 124784 08/11/22 38,659.08 003736 CA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATIO 124785 08/11/22 2,145.89 003043 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC 124786 08/11/22 25,780.50
001817 GROUP 4 124787 08/11/22 6,015.00
004041 INTERWEST CONSULTING GRO 124788 08/11/22 6,502.50 004079 KARNO/JENNIFER 124789 08/11/22 9,848.03
003292 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES 124790 08/11/22 7,478.95 003756 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIO 124791 08/11/22 3,988.40 002082 ONE WORK PLACE 124792 08/11/22 15,229.03
005023 PROACTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS 124793 08/11/22 1,425.00 003572 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERV 124794 08/11/22 1,180.00 000196 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMEN 124795 08/11/22 4,387.76 001544 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CONFER 124796 08/11/22 22,035.32 003745 SCOTTS VALLEY HOTEL LP 124797 08/11/22 24,501.80 003581 SUEZ TREATMENT SOLUTIONS 124798 08/11/22 1,075.66 000646 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALER 124799 08/11/22 4,098.50 000443 WALPOLE/STEVE 124800 08/11/22 235.20
001625 YOSHIDA DDS/NOREEN 124801 08/11/22 780.00
GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT 175,366.62 ***
015

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/11/2022 19:13:06 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 2
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT
REPORT TOTALS: 175,366.62
RECORDS PRINTED - 000022
016

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/11/2022 19:13:06 Check Register
GL060S-V08.17 RECAPPAGE

GL540R
FUND RECAP:

FUND DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
001 GENERAL 101,795.20
010 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS 43,295.41
011 TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT 537.83
025 GENERAL TRUST 7,478.95
088 LIBRARY FACILITIES-MEAS "S" 21,244.03
112 DENTAL INS INTERNAL SERV 1,015.20
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 175,366.62
BANK RECAP:

BANK NAME DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT 175,366.62
TOTAL ALL BANKS 175,366.62
017

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/11/2022 18:07:17 Check Register GL050S-V08.17 COVERPAGE GL540R
Report Selection:

RUN GROUP... 081122 COMMENT... 08/11/2022 A/P

DATA-JE-ID DATA COMMENT
-------------- ------------------------
W-08112022-052 08/11/2022 A/P
Run Instructions:

Jobq Banner Copies Form Printer Hold Space LPI Lines CPI CP SP RT L 01 Y S 6 066 10
018

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/11/2022 18:07:17 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 1
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT

BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT
000182 A SIGN ASAP 124726 08/11/22 371.75
003919 ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 124727 08/11/22 3,539.25 003534 ADOBE ANIMAL HOSPITAL SO 124728 08/11/22 114.19
001219 ALHAMBRA 124729 08/11/22 146.34
001219 ALHAMBRA 124730 08/11/22 130.85
003497 ALVAREZ INDUSTRIES, INC 124731 08/11/22 871.00
004057 ANDREWS/SELINA 124732 08/11/22 280.00
001670 AT &T 124733 08/11/22 3,751.77
000097 AT&T 124734 08/11/22 9.53
000437 BRASS KEY LOCKSMITH 124735 08/11/22 120.00
.15889 BRENDA'S FACE PAINTING 124736 08/11/22 360.00
001566 BUSINESS WITH PLEASURE 124737 08/11/22 430.54
003714 CAPITOLA/CITY OF 124738 08/11/22 9,061.01
003596 COPWARE,INC 124739 08/11/22 705.00
004068 CORDICO INC. 124740 08/11/22 5,200.00
000037 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO 124741 08/11/22 8.00
001896 D & G SANITATION 124742 08/11/22 984.90
001257 EBRAHIMIAN DDS/MARK 124743 08/11/22 204.00
001597 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION 124744 08/11/22 7,883.88 000202 FEDERAL EXPRESS 124745 08/11/22 58.20
004037 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LL 124746 08/11/22 57.31
000375 FIRST ALARM SECURITY & P 124747 08/11/22 4,125.00 004023 HOUSEKEYS, INC. 124748 08/11/22 5,000.00
001903 JONES/KIMARIE 124749 08/11/22 33.11
004024 K & D LANDSCAPING, INC. 124750 08/11/22 10,518.95 .15890 KYLE TROY BRANON 124751 08/11/22 250.00
002026 LEHR AUTO 124752 08/11/22 14,601.18
000078 LLOYD'S TIRE SERVICE INC 124753 08/11/22 954.67
000284 LOGAN & POWELL, LLP 124754 08/11/22 22,671.00
.15888 MARQUEZ JUMPERS 124755 08/11/22 300.00
003171 MICHALAK/GENE 124756 08/11/22 125.00
000218 MID VALLEY SUPPLY 124757 08/11/22 514.81
000083 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 124758 08/11/22 1,020.43 000494 MONTEREY BAY AIR 124759 08/11/22 3,932.00
001418 MONTEREY REGIONAL 124760 08/11/22 5,078.00
000939 NATIONAL COMTEL NETWORK 124761 08/11/22 16.19
001872 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORI 124762 08/11/22 40.97
000101 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C 124763 08/11/22 53,452.05 000723 PIED PIPER INC./THE 124764 08/11/22 2,516.50
.15887 PILAR GRAY 124765 08/11/22 500.00
005008 RDO EQUIPMENT CO. 124766 08/11/22 1,142.74
002074 ROSS MCDONALD CO INC 124767 08/11/22 38,986.91
001823 SANTA CRUZ CO ENVIRONMEN 124768 08/11/22 1,110.00 .15891 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY 124769 08/11/22 89.00
003367 SANTA CRUZ LIVE SCAN, IN 124770 08/11/22 60.00
003306 SCOTTS VALLEY COMMUNITY 124771 08/11/22 95,000.00 004092 SIMONOVICH/CATHIE 124772 08/11/22 124.80
000143 SUMMIT UNIFORMS 124773 08/11/22 3,450.78
019

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/11/2022 18:07:17 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 2
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT

BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT
004087 TIRECHOICE AUTO SERVICE 124774 08/11/22 963.98
001366 U.S. BANCORP OFFICE 124775 08/11/22 1,300.62
004030 U.S. BANK CORPORATE 124776 08/11/22 19,751.82
000646 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALER 124777 08/11/22 1,584.65 003924 VIRTUAL PROJECT MANAGER 124778 08/11/22 1,000.00 003145 WAGE WORKS 124779 08/11/22 2,985.86
000443 WALPOLE/STEVE 124780 08/11/22 638.40
000443 WALPOLE/STEVE 124781 08/11/22 212.80
000443 WALPOLE/STEVE 124782 08/11/22 100.80
005018 WATSONVILLE DIESEL 124783 08/11/22 1,101.32
GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT 329,541.86 ***
020

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/11/2022 18:07:17 Check Register
GL540R-V08.17 PAGE 3
BANK VENDOR CHECK# DATE AMOUNT
REPORT TOTALS: 329,541.86
RECORDS PRINTED - 000171
021

SCOTTS VALLEY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
08/11/2022 18:07:17 Check Register
GL060S-V08.17 RECAPPAGE

GL540R
FUND RECAP:

FUND DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
001 GENERAL 112,372.99
002 RECYCLING/ENVIRONMENTAL 7,883.88
004 RECREATION 1,175.05
010 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS 54,895.05
019 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 5,000.00
024 LENNAR TRUST FUNDS 95,000.00
028 SENIOR CENTER 3,921.86
050 PINEWOOD EST LNDSCP MAINT DT 645.29
077 SKYPARK MAINT ASSESS DIST 2,073.79
088 LIBRARY FACILITIES-MEAS "S" 38,986.91
112 DENTAL INS INTERNAL SERV 1,560.80
123 COMMUNITY FACILITY CENTER 4,269.11
150 GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 315.29
312 POLICE - BUDGET ACT OF 2016 1,441.84
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 329,541.86
BANK RECAP:

BANK NAME DISBURSEMENTS
---- ----------------------------
BA GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT 329,541.86
TOTAL ALL BANKS 329,541.86
022

AGENDA ITEM C
DATE: 08-17-2022

City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 17, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
As vacancies occur, or due to an election or re-election of a Council Member, a member of the Council may nominate a new individual to serve on a City Commission, Committee, and/or Board. All appointments must be approved by the City Council.

There is a vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission due to the resignation of Cathie Simonovich and an application has been submitted by Heidi Denger. Council Member Jim Reed has nominated Ms. Denger to serve on the Parks and Recreation Commission and upon Council approval, Ms. Denger will fill the vacancy.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council ratify the appointment of Heidi Denger to serve on Parks and Recreation Commission, with an effective date of August 17, 2022.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Application for Parks and Recreation Commission………………………………………2 001

Page 1 of 2 ends

City of Scotts Valley
Application for Appointment to Serve on a City Advisory Body

Advisory Body you are applying for:

Planning Commission Arts Commission Senior Center Board Parks & Recreation Commission Board of Appeals Code Enforcement Appeals Board ADA Accessibility Committee Parks & Recreation Advocates Mobile Home Park Rent Review Contact Information
Name
Street Address
City / ST/ ZIP Code
Phone – Primary □ Cell □ Work □ Home
Phone – Secondary □ Cell □ Work □ Home
E-Mail Address
Background Information*
Years residing in Scotts Valley
Employer
Occupation/Profession
Education
*If you are appointed to a city commission or board, you may be required to file a Statement of Economic Interests (FPPC Form 700). The Form 700 is a State-mandated public document disclosing certain business, property and investment holdings which might conflict with the member’s decisions. The City Clerk’s Office will supply the Form 700 upon appointment.

Summarize your interests, education, and/or experience as they relate to this position. ✔
Heidi Denger Scotts Valley, CA 95066
■
[email protected] 8
Glassdoor
Marketing/Sales BA Communication
I have a strong belief that if you have an opinion and idea of the community you want to live in, you have to raise your hand and be willing to step up and help make that a reality. I have held multiple community positions since I have moved to Scotts Valley, including developing and leading the Daughter & Me Fundraiser for SVEF, and multiple years of service and leadership on different parent organizations, with the school district. I also built and act as the admin for the Scotts Valley Moms Facebook group, which currently has over 3,400 members. This role helps me really have an understanding of the important issues that are being discussed within our community, in real time.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 402D1515-21CB-4FF5-A83C-B3A46F2B3DFE 002

AGENDA ITEM D
DATE: 08-17-2022
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 17, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Lamm, Public Works Director/City Engineer
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: VISION ZERO SAFETY POLICY

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Vision Zero is a world-wide traffic safety policy that supports the elimination of all traffic fatalities and severe injuries and supports increasing safe, healthy and equitable mobility for all. This is done by acknowledging that traffic deaths and severe injuries are preventable and setting the goal of eliminating both in a set time frame, with clear, measurable strategies. To address this complex problem, Vision Zero uses a multidisciplinary Safe System approach as outlined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

The climate and built environment of Scotts Valley, Capitola and Santa Cruz County has encouraged more bicycling and walking than in other California communities. Vision Zero would build upon the City’s commitment to improve the alternative modes of transportation as adopted in the City’s Active Transportation Plan. The City has the opportunity to continue improving mobility for all roadway users and make its roadway system safe and efficient for its diverse users of all types of transportation modes through a partnership with the County of Santa Cruz, City of Capitola, and Regional Transportation Commission in the adoption of Vision Zero goals and development of a Vision Zero Action Plan.

Funding for the development of the Action Plan is available through the United State Department of Transportation (USDOT) Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over the next 5 years. In fiscal year 2022 (FY22), up to $1 billion is available. The SS4A program funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.

Staff has prepared a resolution that outlines how the City can draw upon existing and partner resources to successfully implement Vision Zero. The resolution calls for the following:
• Partner with the County of Santa Cruz as the lead agency and in coordination with the 001

AGENDA ITEM D
DATE: 08-17-2022
City of Capitola on the pursuit of a Safe Streets for All Grant application for the development of a Vision Zero Action plan.
• Adopt the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries on City roadways by 2035.
• Assemble representatives of various City departments, other public agencies and community members to develop an Action Plan and present it to the Council for approval within two years.
• Focus on changing behavior through policies and strategies guided by a safe system approach.
• Gather, analyze, utilize and share reliable data to understand traffic safety issues, to prioritize resources based on evidence of the greatest need and impact, and to track and evaluate the success of these efforts.
• Prioritize the development of safe roadways and the highest level of safety for all road users through new policies, systems and infrastructure improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.
• Create the Action Plan in a manner that promotes equity, community engagement and transparency by presenting it to the Council or acceptance and approval and providing the Council with regular updates on its development and implementation.

Staff anticipates that the Vision Zero Task Force will launch in late 2022 with the first efforts focused on developing a draft action plan for public review and input before bringing the report to the Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adopting a Vision Zero Traffic Safety Policy will use existing resources and not require additional funding. If the partner Task Force is successful in securing a grant for the development of a Vision Zero Action Plan it is estimated that the City of Scotts Valley matching share of the grant award would be $10k-$15k and could be funded through Public Works Operation budget (General Fund).

Adopting a Vision Zero Action Plan would enable the City to be eligible for other grant funds through the USDOT Safe Streets for All program.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 2018 Adopting the Vision Zero policies to eliminate traffic related fatalities in the City of Scotts Valley and the submission of a grant application for the development of a Vision Zero Action Plan.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Resolution No. 2018…………………………………………………………………………3
002
RESOLUTION NO. 2018

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY

ADOPTING VISION ZERO POLICIES TO ELIMINATE TRAFFIC RELATED

FATALITIES IN THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
WHEREAS, the life and health of City residents is the utmost priority; and WHEREAS, Vision Zero is the concept that there is no acceptable number of traffic deaths and serious injuries on City roadways; and
WHEREAS, the City of Scotts Valley recognizes that no one should die or be seriously injured while traveling on streets within the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley, California, as follows:

1. That the City of Scotts Valley adopts the goal of Vision Zero – to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries on streets within the City by 2035.

2. That the City Manager or designee is authorized to enter into any agreements with partner agencies and to submit grant applications in the effort of adopting Vision Zero goals.

3. That the City shall develop a Vision Zero Action Plan within two years of adoption of this resolution.

4. That the Action Plan shall be developed in a collaborative manner, with input from the community, by a Vision Zero Task Force that includes, but is not limited to, representatives from the:
• City of Scotts Valley
• Santa Cruz County Department of Community Development & Infrastructure, Health Services Agency, Office of Education, and Administrative Office • County Fire
• California Highway Patrol
• County of Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Department
• State Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
• Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
• City of Capitola
003

5. That the Action Plan focus on changing behavior through policies and strategies guided by a Safe System approach.

6. That the Action Plan gathers, analyzes, utilizes and shares reliable data to understand traffic safety issues, to prioritize resources based on evidence of the greatest need and impact, and to track and evaluate the success of these efforts.

7. That the Action Plan prioritizes the development of safe roadways and the highest level of safety for all road users through new policies, systems and infrastructure improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.

8. That creation of the Action Plan is done in a manner that promotes equity, community engagement and transparency by presenting it to the Council for acceptance and approval and providing the Council with regular updates on its development and implementation.

The above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of August 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved:

Donna Lind, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich City Clerk
004

AGENDA ITEM E
DATE: 08-17-2022

City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 17, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Casey Estorga, Administrative Services Director
APPROVED BY: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: PROPOSED STAFFING CHANGES TO THE APPROVED FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 ADOPTED BUDGET POSITION SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
The City of Scotts Valley continuously evaluates its operation to analyze optimal staffing levels and to fully understand how to provide the best level of service to the community.

Through this evaluation, staff considers current and future operational needs, service complexities, the need for highly skilled staff, and how these variables relate to regional labor markets, especially in comparable agencies.

Public Works has identified a need for analyst support to fulfill reporting requirements, manage contracts and support the department’s various complex budgets. Adding an Administrative Analyst I/II to the City’s staffing compliment will provide the needed analytical support to Public Works and could be useful to other departments in the future.

Administrative Analyst I/II Series
The Administrative Analyst I/II position will be represented by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and will serve as a generalist with a skillset that can meet the needs of any City department. This position will report to a Department Head, Division Manager, or their designee. An Administrative Analyst I/II is not a management position and will not supervise staff. Instead, examples of duties include the following activities:
• BUDGET: Providing support to Departments with the annual budget development and budget monitoring processes (including for topics related to staff planning, operating budgets, Capital Improvement Projects, etc.); and • GRANTS: Independently preparing grant documents, including preparing grant applications and other deliverables related to the scope of work, budget, reporting, and audits; and
• ANALYSIS: Researching information, gathering and analyzing data to support decision making processes.
• REPORTING: Developing reports for both financial and non-financial data as required by regulatory agencies and to communicate internally and externally. • POLICY: Supporting Department Heads and City Manager to implement federal or state regulations and/or develop and implement City policies. 001

AGENDA ITEM E
DATE: 08-17-2022

Staff conducted a comprehensive compensations study based on scope of work of the proposed Administrative Analyst I/II job classification. This effort was used to evaluate how total compensation for the position would compare with commensurate agencies and internally with positions at similar levels, including by comparing positions above and below the classification within the City. Based on information gathered from the compensation study, and to help ensure the City remains competitive to retain and/or recruit highly skilled employees, staff is recommending the City Council approves a Salary Schedule for the Administrative Analyst I/II position as follows:

ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST I
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
Existing - - - - - - -
Recommended $5,713 $6,018 $6,319 $6,635 $6,967 $7,315 $7,681

ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST II
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
Existing - - - - - - -
Recommended $6,516 $6,841 $7,183 $7,543 $7,920 $8,316 $8,732 Public Works Department: Wastewater Treatment and Administration Budgets Add 1.00 Administrative Analyst I/II FTE (.50 Wastewater and .50 PW Administration) Delete 1.00 Wastewater Lab Compliance Manager FTE
The Wastewater division requires significant reporting to state regulatory agencies to ensure the plant meets state requirements. Additional analyst support is needed to ensure these reports are submitted timely and completely. In addition, in the last year, the Lab Manager position was underfilled with a technician level position, which is currently vacant. The division has identified an outside testing agency that is capable of conducting most of the required lab testing work, reducing the need for the Lab Manager position. This staffing change proposes to replace the Lab Manager position with a new classification, Administrative Analyst I/II to support the analytical and reporting needs of the division as well as managing budget revenues and expenditures for the enterprise fund.

The Administrative Analyst position will be 50% dedicated to Wastewater Treatment and funded by the City’s Wastewater Enterprise Fund and 50% dedicated to Public Works Administration to similar duties for the Engineering and Maintenance Divisions, funded by the General Fund.

Public Works Department: Engineering Division Budget
Add 1.00 Associate Civil Engineer FTE
Delete 1.00 Engineering Associate FTE
002

AGENDA ITEM E
DATE: 08-17-2022

The Engineering Division is responsible for implementing the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), development review, public right of way management, and environmental functions, such as stormwater and solid waste reporting and compliance.

The FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget includes two FTEs in the Engineering Technician/Engineering Associate job classification. The proposed change would result in the Engineering Division instead having one Engineering Associate and one Associate Civil Engineer. The Associate Civil Engineer is licensed (PE) position with a higher skill set as compared to the Engineering Associate. A pending retirement in of one of the City's Engineering Associate positions provides a natural opportunity to make this adjustment to the staffing compliment and provide a broader range of skillset amongst the division.

The City’s total FTE count remains unchanged at 66.00.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact associated with replacing the Wastewater Lab / Environmental Compliance Manager position with an Administrative Analyst I/II position will result in approximately four thousand three hundred dollars ($4,300.00) in total savings during FY 2022-23. As described above, funding for the Administrative Analyst I/II position will be split between the Wastewater Enterprise Fund and the General Fund.

The fiscal impact associated with replacing the Engineering Associate position with an Associate Civil Engineer position will result in approximately twenty-four thousand three hundred dollars ($24,300) in additional costs during FY 2022-23.

Funding for these costs is included in the FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget and will be incorporated in future budgets, subject to City Council approval, during the City’s annual budget process.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed staffing changes described above.
• Adopt a resolution approving the Salary Schedule for the Administrative Analyst I/II flexibly staffed job classification; and
• Approve an amendment to the FY 2022-23 FTE Position Summary to include the deletion of one (1.00) Wastewater Lab / Environmental Compliance Manager FTE and the addition of one (1.00) Administrative Analyst I/II FTE; and • Approve an amendment to the FY 2022-23 FTE Position Summary to include the deletion of one (1.00) Engineering Associate FTE and the addition of one (1.00) Associate Civil Engineer FTE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Resolution No. 1955.23…………………………………………………… ........................... 4 003
RESOLUTION NO. 1955.23

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY

APPROVING THE SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE

ANALYST I/II FLEXIBLY STAFFED JOB CLASSIFICATION
WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the operation to analyze optimal staffing levels and to fully understand how to provide the best level of service to the community; WHEREAS, through this analysis staff have identified the Administrative Analyst I/II job classification as a key position to perform duties that include budget development and monitoring, grant administration, data collection and analysis, reporting of financial and non-financial data, and the development and implementation of City policies and procedures; and
WHEREAS, approving the salary schedule for this position will provide the City Manager with appropriate and necessary positions to respond to the community’s needs; and WHEREAS, approving the salary schedule for this position is in the best interest of the City to recruit and retain top-tier talent; and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is needed to amend a Salary Schedule.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley that the Salary Schedule for the Administrative Analyst I/II flexibly staffed job classification is hereby approved as follows:

ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST I
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
Existing - - - - - - -
Recommended $5,713 $6,018 $6,319 $6,635 $6,967 $7,315 $7,681

ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST II
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7
Existing - - - - - - -
Recommended $6,516 $6,841 $7,183 $7,543 $7,920 $8,316 $8,732 004
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley at a meeting held on the 17th day of August, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved:

Donna Lind,
Mayor
Attest:

Cathie Simonovich,
City Clerk
005
AGENDA ITEM 1
DATE: 08-17-2022
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 17, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: CalPERS Unfunded Pension Liability Cost Management Strategies

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Since FY 2013-14, the City’s Unfunded Accrued Liability (“UAL”) for its CalPERS Miscellaneous and Safety Plans has grown 99.7%, from $10.8 million to $21.5 million (CalPERS 6/30/2020 valuation). This UAL represents the shortfall/gap between what is needed to pay retiree benefits versus how much in current assets the City actually has in its accounts with CalPERS.

In FY 2020-21, CalPERS generated strong investment returns of 21.3%, which is projected to lower the City’s UAL to approximately $16.4 million. This reduction in UAL will be reflected in the CalPERS 6/30/2021 valuation, which will be available to the City in the next few weeks. However, this temporary reduction will be offset in the future by CalPERS FY 2021-22 investment returns, which were recently reported to be -6.1%.

Based on the FY 2021-22 returns, the City’s UAL is projected to grow to $23.8M. This increase in UAL will be recorded in CalPERS’ 6/30/2022 valuation, which will be released in summer 2023.

The City’s UAL is not required to be repaid all at once but is amortized over a longer period (with different components amortized over different time periods, most between 2 and 28 years) at a discount rate (equivalent to an interest rate on bonded debt) of 6.8% (recently decreased by CalPERS from 7.0%). The discount rate is set by CalPERS and is completely outside the control of the City and other local agencies in the state.

The chart below shows the City’s historical UAL payments (grey bars) and projected UAL payments (blue bars). The projected UAL payments take into account the -6.1% investment returns generated by CalPERS in FY 2021-22.
001
AGENDA ITEM 1
DATE: 08-17-2022

Annual payments made to amortize the existing CalPERS UAL have grown rapidly from about $0.5 million in FY 2015-16 to $1.7 million in FY 2022-23 and are projected to grow to $2.7 million by FY 2031-32. This has been, and will continue to be, a significant impact to the City’s budget.

Pension cost increases and payment volatility are key financial challenges facing most cities and other local agencies throughout the state and are primarily due to factors outside of their control. While the City may not have control over CalPERS’ assumption changes and investment returns, there are several potential cost management strategies that the City can consider to better manage rising pension costs and create resiliency to handle future volatility.

At this meeting, NHA Advisors, the City’s municipal advisor, will deliver a presentation discussing recent CalPERS cost trends and introduce several cost management strategies. These strategies will include the following:
1) Annual UAL Prepayment: CalPERS gives member agencies the option to pay the full annual UAL payment upfront at the beginning of the fiscal year, instead of making monthly payments. Agencies that pay the full amount upfront achieve a discount of approximately 3.3%.
2) Cost Sharing Negotiation with Employees (if applicable) 3) CalPERS Fresh Start Amortization: CalPERS member agencies can amortize their UAL over a shorter period (e.g., 15 years), which smooths out UAL payments and reduces the overall interest paid on the UAL. However, this new structure typically results in higher near-term payments and reduced flexibility. 4) Utilize Cash Reserves to Pay Extra: The City can leverage current reserves and/or future surplus in one or both of the following ways:
002
AGENDA ITEM 1
DATE: 08-17-2022

a. Section 115 Trust: A Section 115 Trust is dedicated to the City’s pension or OPEB costs and is managed by a third party. The trust has the potential for increased investment returns versus current General Fund reserves, as well as offers enhanced liquidity and budgetary flexibility. b. CalPERS Additional Discretionary Payment (ADP): The City can pay a lump sum directly to CalPERS to reduce its UAL balance. This will reduce the City’s UAL and payments associated with that portion of the UAL. Unlike the Section 115 Trust, the City cannot access the money once it is sent to CalPERS.
5) UAL Restructuring: Similar to what it did in 2012, the City can restructure all or a portion of its UAL at a lower bond interest rate and smooth out payments for budget predictability and generate potential savings. Savings are dependent on future CalPERS returns. While this was an extremely popular option in 2020 and 2021, it is currently not recommended by staff or NHA Advisors given the massive rise in interest rates over the past 6 months. If interest rates were to be reduced in the future, this concept could be re-evaluated if desired, along with a comprehensive risk assessment given the complexity of this strategy.

During and after the presentation by NHA Advisors, City Council will be encouraged to ask questions and share input regarding how the City should further its strategy to address its unfunded pension liability. While this initial presentation is meant to be informative and high level, staff recommend the creation of an adhoc sub-committee consisting of Councilmembers Dilles and Timm to continue these pension cost management discussions in more depth with NHA and staff and to bring back a formal policy for the full Council’s consideration to memorialize a long-term pension cost management plan.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2017 establishing a temporary project specific CalPERS Pension Cost Management Committee.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Resolution No. 2017 .....................................................................................................4 003
RESOLUTION NO. 2017

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY

PROJECT SPECIFIC CALPERS PENSION COST MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Council may establish project specific Council subcommittees to address an explicit purpose or need; and
WHEREAS, project specific Council subcommittees are of a limited duration and should be active for no more than one year; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to establish a Project Specific CalPERS Pension Cost Management Committee effective August 17, 2022 through December 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, the CalPERS Pension Cost Management Committee will by comprised of Councilmember Timm and Councilmember Dilles; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the CalPERS Pension Cost Management Committee is to engage the City’s financial advisor, NHA Advisors and City staff to develop a CalPERS Unfunded Pension Liability Cost Management Plan for City Council consideration and action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley hereby establishes a Temporary Project Specific CalPERS Pension Cost Management Committee.

The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley at a regular meeting held on the 17 th day of August, 2022 by
the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved:_____________________________
Donna Lind, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
004
AGENDA ITEM 2
DATE: 08-17-2021

City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 17, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Lamm, Public Works Director/City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FACILITY OPTIONS STUDY

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Background
The City of Scotts Valley (City) operates a Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) consisting of an activated sludge treatment plant providing a capacity of 1.5 MGD (average dry weather flow) up to 5.0 MGD (peak wet weather flow), plus a 1 MGD capacity tertiary treatment facility. The tertiary treatment plant, operated in conjunction with the Scotts Valley Water District, provides recycled tertiary water to the Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD) and secondary effluent to Pasatiempo Golf Course for non-potable uses.

The main treatment plant and tertiary plant were completed in 1997. Since the major capital investment to construct the WRF 25 years ago, the City has conducted necessary replacement and repair but no major rebuilds or capital upgrades. Essential projects to ensure plant operability have been programmed in the City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and incorporated into the City’s FY 2022/23 Budget.

With the plant’s aging condition and requirements for more and increasingly expensive capital investment, and in light of the changing legal and environmental context with communities’ discharge and reuse of wastewater in California, the City initiated a process to evaluate its options for a major capital upgrade to the utility and entered into an agreement with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Inc, in 2021 to perform an Options Study (Study).

Analysis
The Study was conducted under the following outline over ~9months.

1. Overview
Identifying the study purpose, reviewing prior WRF studies, identifying regional agencies, and recognizing regional studies that could impact the long-term decision-making process
001
AGENDA ITEM 2
DATE: 08-17-2021

2. Scotts Valley WRF Analysis
The Study reviewed the existing conditions of the WRF and identified the various regulations and requirements that any successful Option would need to adhere to.

This includes recognition of existing and upcoming regulatory permitting requirements and existing agreements the City has entered into over the years.

The WRF analysis also included a Business Risk and Vulnerability Analysis (BRVA)
The BRVA was conducted over the course of a full day workshop with City staff most familiar with the WRF Operations identify the criticality of each WRF unit process from a business importance perspective by strategically creating system failure scenarios and discussing the consequential impacts relative to safety, environmental/regulatory, financial, service reliability, and public image.

3. Options Identification
This section described a list of potential solutions to address the WRF operational challenges, including assumptions applied and costs developed to evaluate each option. In total 8 options were reviewed at a conceptual level including conceptual level costs. Table 3-4 Summary of WRF Options (Attachment A) on page 3-16 of the Study describes each in an easy to read format.

4. Screening Options
Following the identification of WRF Options, a two-step screening approach was applied to identify fatal flaws and compare the options based on a set of defined decision criteria.
• STEP 1: Initial Concept-level Screening to vet a broad set of options and provide the City with a high-level view of WRF options and potential local and regional partnerships.
• STEP 2: Options Evaluation and Comparison to evaluate a short list of options based on cost, benefits, limitations, and other decision criteria.

Based on the two-step screening process, 4 options were removed from further consideration due to fatal flaws identified and 4 were recommended for further consideration. Table 4-2 Fatal Flaws Screening Outcomes (Attachment B) describes initial screening criteria and each option’s ability to meet required needs.

Removed from further consideration
• Option 1 – Decommission WRF
• Option 3b – 0.2 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment) • Option 4a – 0.6 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) • Option 4b – 0.9 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment) Remaining for further consideration
• Discontinue Recycle Water Production
002
AGENDA ITEM 2
DATE: 08-17-2021

• Option 3a – Plant Optimization
• Option 3c – 0.4 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) • Option 4c – 1.5 MGD Custom Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR)

5. Options Evaluation and Comparison
Following the initial concept screening, a more in-depth options evaluation and comparison was performed to rank the WRF options. This sections further identifies upgrades and new facilities for each of the 4 options identified for further consideration; including process upgrades, pipelines, pump stations and other infrastructure to treat and deliver water. Capital costs, presented in Section 3.3, are annualized and combined with annual O&M costs, presented in this section, to identify the added annual investment needed to implement each option. Table 5- 5 Summary of Anticipated Annual Life Cycle Costs (Attachment C) presents comparative ranges of the fiscal impact associated with the 4 options.

Finally, using a weighting criteria and scoring, including fiscal impacts, the 4 options were scored and presented in Table 5-6 Raw Scoring for WRF Options (Attachment D).

6. Next Steps
A preferred project was not identified based solely on the project ranking due to the need for additional studies, institutional considerations, or other uncertainties including ongoing discussions with regional partners.

Option 2 – Phase out of Tertiary Treatment (recycled water) The City would no longer produce tertiary treated recycled water, which would breach the agreement with SVWD, and current recycled water customers (including City parks) would lose their local, sustainable supply. The City would be able to continue to meet its agreement with Pasatiempo Golf Course. Because nitrogen removal would no longer be required, the WRF would recover the treatment capacity to its original

1.5 MGD
Option 3a – Plant Optimization can also be view as a short-term solution if regional decision making is anticipated to continue for 5 to 10 years or longer. This option, even if implemented, is anticipated to continue to pose operational challenges that are experienced at today’s facility due to changes inflow and strength conditions, a result of lower water usage by the public. It would be recommended that the City perform a series of activities that lead to the creation of a WRF Strategic Capital Asset Management Plan to more thoroughly understand and justify future plant upgrades to existing systems through risk-based prioritization.

Option 3c – 0.4 MGD Packaged Plant would add a 0.4 MGD packaged MBR system with integrated UV to replace the existing tertiary treatment facilities.

Nitrogen removal would no longer be necessary and the WRF would recover the treatment capacity to its original 1.5 MGD. The WRF would reduce tertiary treatment capacity, but retain capacity to meet current operation agreements and needs. Future expansion through additional MBR packaged units could be 003
AGENDA ITEM 2
DATE: 08-17-2021

considered, but were not budgeted in the conceptual estimates.

Option 4c – 1.5 MGD Custom MBR would repurpose existing infrastructure by retrofitting the WRF as an MBR facility. The objective of retrofitting the WRF with MBR technology is to resolve recurring secondary process upsets, improve recycled water production capacity and reliability, and accommodate increasing loading due to population growth within the WRF’s service area while continuing to provide for nitrogen removal
This option would require the largest capital investment but would reduce operational complexity by moving to a single plant system. It would allow contracted recycled water deliveries to be consistently met while maximizing the production of a local sustainable supply for beneficial reuse, effectively treating all flow to recycled water standards
It is recommended that the City continue to meet with the Santa Margarita Groundwater Agencies and specifically the SVWD to discuss the potential to modify existing agreements and/or enter into future cost sharing agreements, and to further understand their recycled water objectives and likely projects for the future (as described in Section 5.4)

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact at this time. The Study analyzed both annualized capital, and operating and maintenance costs associated with the 4 options selected for further consideration. Further analysis is budgeted in FY2022/23 ($100k) and 2023/24 ($50k) in the Wastewater 5-year Capital Improvement program.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the continued evaluation of Options 3c, and 4c as they relate to the regional solutions towards water cycle resiliency and pursue advancement Option 3a should the anticipated timeline for such regional decision-making efforts appear to exceed 5 years.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Attachment A – Table 3-4 Summary of WRF Options..................................................... 5 Attachment B – Table 4-2 Fatal Flaws Screening Outcomes .......................................... 6 Attachment C – Table 5-5 Summary of Anticipated Annual Life Cycle Costs.................. 7 Attachment D – Table 5-6 Raw Scoring for WRF Options............................................... 8 Attachment E – Scotts Valley WRF Options Study ......................................................... 9 004
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-16
Table 3-4 Summary of WRF Options
Scenario City Advantages or
Benefits
City Disadvantages or
Limitations
Est
Capital
Costs
Relative Operational
Complexity
Option 1 -
Decommission
WRF
Removes operating costs;
potential to repurpose
portion of WRF site
Breaches SVWD and
Pasatiempo agreements;
loss of local, sustainable
supply; requires
agreement with City of
Santa Cruz to accept and
treat effluent
$13.2 mil1 Minimal: maintenance of
collections system and
new lift station
Option 2 -
Discontinue
Recycled Water
Production
Minimizes operating and
future CIP costs; restores
operational capacity to
secondary level only1
Breaches SVWD
agreement; changes in
effluent quality; loss of
local, sustainable supply
$2.3 mil2 Low: simply secondary
process operation for BOD
and TSS removal only;
tertiary treatment facility
is abandoned;
Option 3 - Improvements to Meet Current Agreements
Option 3a - Plant
Optimization
Low capital investment;
improves system
performance1
Limits consistent RW
production; limited cost
sharing opportunities
$4.3 mil2 Very complex: achieving
TN and NOx limits may
require seasonal process
adjustments
Option 3b - 0.2
MGD Package
Improves system
performance; potential to
expand in the future
Requires large capital
investment; reliability of
system is limited
$10.8 mil Complex: operation of
three plants
simultaneously with
seasonal adjustments to
conventional plant.

Option 3c - 0.4
MGD Package
Improves system
performance; reduces
risks/vulnerabilities
Requires large capital
investment; reliability of
system is limited
$11.4 mil Moderate: two plants
operated in parallel;
tertiary treatment plant is
removed
Option 4 - Improved Tertiary to Maximize Beneficial Reuse Option 4a - 0.62
MGD Package
Allows contracted RW
deliveries to be
consistently met; creates
sustainable supply
Requires significant
capital investment;
jurisdictional
challenges; space
challenges
$16.0 mil Moderate: two plants
operated in parallel;
tertiary treatment plant is
removed
Option 4b - 0.9
MGD Package
Allows contracted RW
deliveries to be
consistently met; creates
sustainable supply
Requires significant
capital investment;
jurisdictional
challenges; space
challenges
$20.0 mil Complex: operation of
three plants
simultaneously.

Option 4c - 1.5
MGD Custom
MBR
Allows contracted RW
deliveries to be
consistently met; creates
sustainable supply
Requires significant
capital investment;
jurisdictional challenges
$35.0 mil Moderate: operation of
single MBR system with
UV and chlorine
disinfection 1 Option 1 includes the cost of purchasing capacity in the Santa Cruz WWTF (estimated at $7.0 mil), but does not include ongoing capital costs for the proportional share of the Santa Cruz WWTF annual CIP (estimated at $300,000 per year), improvements to the outfall pipeline to convey raw effluent (unknown) nor a capital payout to Pasatiempo for some portion of their stranded treatment assets. 2 Need modeling to confirm the viability and costs of assumed process improvements in Options 2 and 3a. 005
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 4-2
Table 4-2 Fatal Flaw Screening Outcomes
Fatal Flaw Category Screening Criteria
Opt 1 Opt 2 Opt 3a Opt 3b Opt 3c Opt 4a Opt 4b Opt 4c
Decommission Phase out
BNR/tertiary
Plant
Optimization

0.2 mgd
package

0.4 mgd
package

0.62 mgd
package

0.9 mgd
package

1.5 MGD
Custom MBR
Engineering
Fatal Flaws
Space Available space for upgrades and new
facilities        
Plant Capacity Ability to perform at design capacity         Construction Construction challenges        
Implementat
ion Fatal
Flaws
Relative Capital
Costs
Relative capital costs to build the project
(incl. demolition)        
Relative
Operational Costs
Relative annual costs to treat or dispose
of effluent        
Regulatory Regulatory challenges        
Environmental Environmental impediments to
construction        
Operational Operational challenges        
Institutional
Fatal Flaws
Agreements Adheres to existing binding agreements         Partnerships Potential for cost-sharing partnerships         Does not
Meet City
Mission and
Vision
City Goals
Meet current customers’ demands        
Meet WRF Future Vision        

Legend:
 exceeds criteria / good / low risk
 meets criteria / acceptable risk
 does not meet criteria / poor / high risk
006
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Table 5-5 Summary of Estimated Annual Life Cycle Costs
Unit Opt 2 Phase Out
BNR/Tertiary
Opt 3a
Plant
Optimization
Opt 3c

0.4 MGD
Package Plant
Opt 4c

0.4 MGD
packaged plant,
abandon
tertiary
3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 25
4 Improved Tertiary to Maximize Beneficial Reuse
4c

1.5 MGD
custom MBR,
abandon
tertiary
1 1 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 27
Note: Green cells indicate the top scoring option (4), and red cells indicate the bottom scoring option (1) for a given screening criteria.

Score Scoring Legend: Scoring
Legend:
4 Fully Meets Criteria BEST
3 Mostly Meets Criteria GOOD
2 Somewhat Meets Criteria FAIR
1 Does Not Meets Criteria WORST
008
2350 Mission College Blvd., Suite 700
Santa Clara, CA 95054
650-852-2800
FINAL
City of Scott Valley
Wastewater Reclamation Facility
Options Study
10 August 2022
Prepared for
City of Scotts Valley
K/J Project No. 2168015*00
009
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study - DRAFT | Page i
https://scottsvalleyca-my.sharepoint.com/personal/clamm_scottsvalley_org/documents/aug 17 srs/ww - feasibility study/scotts valley wrf options study final 7.25.2022.docx Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................

Section 1: Overview ..........................................................................................................................1-1 Study Purpose................................................................................................................... 1-1 Study Area and Regional Agencies ........................................................................... 1-1 Prior WRF Studies........................................................................................................... 1-3 Regional Studies............................................................................................................... 1-4 Section 2: Scotts Valley WRF..........................................................................................................2-1 Scotts Valley WRF Facility............................................................................................ 2-1 Summary of Regulations and Requirement.......................................................... 2-3 Summary of Agreements.............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2.1 The City and SVWD .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 The City and Pasatiempo ............................................................................................... 2-1 WRF Site Visit.................................................................................................................... 2-1 Business Risk and Vulnerability Analysis (BRVA)............................................. 2-1 Section 3: Options Identification..................................................................................................3-1 Design Criteria and Assumptions ............................................................................. 3-1 WRF Options...................................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Option 1 – Decommission WRF .................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.2 Option 2 – Produce Secondary Disinfected Effluent (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary) ................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.3 Option 3 – Improve to Meet Current Agreements ............................................. 3-4

3.2.4 Option 3a – Plant Optimization .................................................................................. 3-4

3.2.5 Option 3b – 0.2 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment) ......................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.6 Option 3c –0.4 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) ......................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.7 Option 4 – Improved Tertiary to Maximize Beneficial Reuse ....................... 3-8

3.2.8 Option 4a – 0.62 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) ......................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.2.9 Option 4b – 0.9 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment) ......................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.2.10 Option 4c – 1.5 MGD Custom MBR ......................................................................... 3-10 Concept-Level Capital Costs......................................................................................3-12 Summary of WRF Options..........................................................................................3-15 010
Table of Contents (cont’d)
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – DRAFT | Page ii
Section 4: Screening Options .........................................................................................................4-1 Screening Approach ....................................................................................................... 4-1 Initial Concept-Level Screening................................................................................. 4-1 Options Removed from Further Consideration.................................................. 4-1 Options Remaining for Further Consideration ................................................... 4-1 Section 5: Options Evaluation and Comparison......................................................................5-1 Options Scoring, Weighting and Ranking Approach......................................... 5-1 Options Evaluation.......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2.1 Relative O&M Costs ......................................................................................................... 5-3

5.2.2 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis ................................................................................................. 5-3 Ranking Outcomes .......................................................................................................... 5-1 SVWD Regional Recycled Water Alternatives Evaluation.............................. 5-2

5.4.1 SVWD RW Alternative 1 – Baseline Project. ......................................................... 5-2

5.4.2 SVWD RW Alternative 2 – Local Projects .............................................................. 5-2

5.4.3 SVWD RW Alternative 3 – Regional Projects ....................................................... 5-3

5.4.4 Recycled Water Alternatives Costs ........................................................................... 5-5 Section 6: Next Steps.........................................................................................................................6-1 References
Appendices
011
Table of Contents (cont’d)
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – DRAFT | Page iii
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of Regulations .............................................................................................................................. 2-1 Table 3-1 Recylced Water Historical Flows.............................................................................................................. 3-1 Table 3-2 Design Parameters for Treatment Options with Scalping Plant................................................. 3-2 Table 3-3 Summary of Improvements for All WRF Options............................................................................ 3-13 Table 3-4 Summary of WRF Options ......................................................................................................................... 3-16 Table 4-1 Fatal Flaw Screening Criteria..................................................................................................................... 4-1 Table 4-2 Fatal Flaw Screening Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 4-2 Table 5-1 Decision Criteria and Guidance for Scoring ......................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2 Weighting Themes.......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-3 Recommended Improvements for Selected Alternatives............................................................... 5-1 Table 5-4 Relative O&M Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 5-1 Table 5-5 Summary of Estimated Annual Life Cycle Costs................................................................................. 5-1 Table 5-6 Raw Scoring for WRF Options ................................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-7 WRF Ranking and Sensitivity Analysis................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-8 Summary of SVWD Recycled Water Alternatives and Costs ......................................................... 5-1 List of Figures
Figure 1-1 City of Scotts Valley Service Area ........................................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2-1 Plant Flows and Rainfall (2006 to 2021) ............................................................................................ 2-1 Figure 2-2 Plant Flow and Recycled Water Production (2021) ..................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-3 Current WRF Facilities................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-4 Current WRF Process flow Diagram...................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-5 Scotts Valley WRF BRVA Results Provide a Line of Sight for System Importance............. 2-1 Figure 3-1 Decommission WRF ..................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Produce Secondary Disinfected Effluent (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary)...................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3 Plant Optimization........................................................................................................................................ 3-5 Figure 3-4 0.2 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment)................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-5 Typical Packaged MBR-UV System (Cloacina).................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-6 0.4 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment)............................................................ 3-8 Figure 3-7 0.62 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment).......................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-8 0.9 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment).......................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-9 Overview of MBR Retrofit Concept...................................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-10 1.5 MGD Custom MBR............................................................................................................................. 3-12 012
Table of Contents (cont’d)
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – DRAFT | Page iv
List of Appendices
Appendix A: BRVA Detailed Breakdown
Appendix B: Capital Costs for WRF Options
013
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – DRAFT | Page v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow
AF Acre-feet
AFY Acre-feet per year
AWTF Advanced Water Treatment Facility
BNR Biological Nutrient Removal
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
BRVA Business Risk Vulnerability Analysis
CBOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
FES Flow Equalization Structure
Ft Feet
gpd Gallons per day
gpm Gallons per minute
GRRP Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GW Groundwater
IPR Indirect potable reuse
LF Lineal feet
M million
Max Maximum
MBR Membrane bioreactor
MCL Maximum contaminant limit
MG Million gallons
mgd Million gallons per day
mg/L Milligrams per liter
Min Minimum
ML Mixed liquor
ML Mixed Liquor Reactor
MPN Most Probable Number
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPR Non-Potable Reuse
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
O&M Operations and maintenance
PWS Pure Water Soquel
PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow
014
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – DRAFT | Page vi
RW Recycled water
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SMGA Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency
SqWD Soquel Creek Water District
SVWD Scotts Valley Water District
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total dissolved solids
TN Total Nitrogen
TM Technical memorandum
TOC Total organic carbon
TSS Total suspended solids
ug/L Micrograms per liter
uS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WAS Waste Activated Sludge
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
015
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study - DRAFT | Page 1
Executive Summary
The City of Scotts Valley (City) operates its Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) to treat local wastewater, produce recycled water for the Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD) and provide secondary effluent to Pasatiempo Golf Club (Pasatiempo) for non-potable uses. The WRF experiences recurring treatment process upsets, which have hindered the City’s ability to produce recycled water. This WRF Options Study (Study) evaluated the following options to improve the City’s WRF:

Option 1 - Decommission WRF
Option 1 would decommission the WRF and allowing the plant to age, as other options are pursued. The City would continue to collect raw wastewater, but instead of secondary and tertiary treatment at the WRF, raw wastewater would be pumped to the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF).

Option 2 - Discontinue Recycled Water Production (Phase Out Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)/Tertiary)
Option 2 would improve primary and secondary treatment processes, while phasing out tertiary treatment. This would discontinue nitrogen removal year-round and shift the focus to meet BOD and TSS removal year-round.

Option 3 - Improvements to Meet Current Agreements
Option 3a – Plant Optimization - would improve primary and secondary treatment improvements, while maintaining the existing tertiary treatment process. These improvements would allow the WRF to continue partial nitrogen removal and meet current recycled water agreements.

Option 3b - 0.2 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment) - Option 3b would add a 0.2 MGD packaged membrane bioreactor (MBR) with ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system to avoid upsets, continue partial nitrogen removal and tertiary treatment to meet current recycled water agreements.

Option 3c - 0.4 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) - Option 3c would add a 0.4 MGD packaged MBR+UV system and abandon the tertiary treatment system. The packaged system would allow for partial nitrogen removal to meet current recycled water agreements.

Option 4 - Improvements to Maximize Beneficial Reuse
Option 4a - 0.6 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) - Option 4a would add a 0.62 MGD packaged MBR+UV system to achieve full nitrogen removal for 700 AFY production year-round and decommission the tertiary treatment. Current recycled water agreements would be met with an opportunity for additional beneficial reuse. 016
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study - DRAFT | Page 2
Option 4b - 0.9 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment) - Option 4b would add a 0.9 MGD packaged MBR+UV system, while keeping tertiary treatment. This would allow for full nitrogen removal for 1,150 AFY production year-round. Current recycled water agreements would be met with an opportunity for additional beneficial reuse.

Option 4c – 1.5 MGD Custom MBR - Option 4c would add a new custom MBR + UV system for full nitrogen removal and 1.5 MGD treatment capacity. Current recycled water agreements would be met with an opportunity for additional beneficial reuse.

Given the short timeline for this effort, and the wide range of options considered, a two-step approach was applied to vet the options above:
• STEP 1: Initial Concept-level Screening to vet a broad set of options and provide the City with a high-level view of WRF options and potential local and regionalpartnerships. • STEP 2: Options Evaluation and Comparison to evaluate a short list ofoptions based on cost, benefits, limitations, and other decision criteria.

After the STEP 1 screening approach, the following options were identified for further consideration
• Option 2 - Discontinue Recycled Water Production (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary):

Minimizes operating and future CIP costs; restores operational capacity to secondary level for BOD and TSS removal only. This option is only viable if SVWD is interested in decommissioning their non-potable recycled water system in favor of using the existing purple pipe for conveyance of purified water for groundwater replenishment. Would result in a loss of local, sustainable supply for the City.
• Option 3a – Plant Optimization: This option is a low capital investment option with the potential to improve system performance; however additional modeling is required to confirm that the proposed optimization and improvement processes can consistently produce recycled water to meet requirements set forth in permits and agreements. There is a higher risk associated with implementing this approach as it is operationally complex to achieve the desired nutrient limits and may require seasonal process adjustments. • Option 3c – 0.4 MGD Package Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment): The addition of a new package plant would improve system performance, reduce risks and vulnerabilities.

However, this option would require a large capital investment and increase operational complexity as two plants would essentially be operated in parallel, even though the tertiary plant is removed.
• Option 4c – 1.5 MGD Custom MBR: Meets future vision through simplified and consistent operation of a one-plant system that can consistently meet recycled water requirements.

Production of a larger and consistent quantity of tertiary recycled water offers an opportunity to support a local groundwater replenishment project, which could offer a cost sharing opportunity through partnerships with SVWD.
017
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study - DRAFT | Page 3
In STEP 2 options evaluation, the four options were ranked by applying both qualitative and quantitative information to a high-level screening economic, environmental, social, engineering and operational criteria to score, weight and rank the projects based on different weighting themes, as presented in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1 Outcomes of WRF Ranking and Sensitivity Analysis WRF Options SENSITIVITY RANKING
Option Description Baseline
(Balanced)
Minimize
Costs
Maximize
Beneficial
Reuse
Minimize
Operational
complexity
Option 2 Phase out BNR/tertiary 4 1 4 2
Option 3a
Plant Optimization -
Improvements to meet
current agreements
2 2 2 4
Option 3c 0.4 MGD packaged plant,
abandon tertiary 3 3 3 3
Option 4c 1.5 MGD custom MBR,
abandon tertiary treatment 1 4 1 1
Note: Green cells indicate the top ranked (1st) option and red cells indicate the bottom ranked (4th) option for a given weighting theme.

The sensitivity analysis found that:
 Option 2 ranked highest when minimizing costs were prioritized, however this option ranked lowest overall and in terms of maximizing beneficial reuse because of the future regulatory risks and lack of regional benefits should the City stop producing tertiary water.  Option 4c ranked at the top for all themes except minimizing costs, indicating that a new custom MBR with 1.5 mgd capacity would resolve many of the City’s WRF issues, however at a very high cost.
 Options 3c ranked consistently in the bottom half due to the combination of high costs and high operational complexity.
 Option 3a ranked slightly better than Option 3c due to the lower costs and reduced operational complexity that could be realized if the plant improvements and upgrades to existing facilities can successfully address current upset issues.

Additional studies would be needed to further evaluate Options 2 and 3a to determine if the process improvements would be sufficient to meet the City’s WRF goals. The City may benefit from implementing a risk-based condition assessment to confirm current process-related assets and developing a process and capacity model to vet improvement concepts at a desktop level. This information could be further transformed into a more comprehensive WRF Facility Plan to identify short-, mid-, long-term WRF upgrades, and finally to develop a financial strategic plan to prioritize and optimize capital expenditures for critical WRF upgrades. The City may elect to execute these activities in a phased approach to identify triggers and off-ramps to meet their needs and budget. It is also recommended that the City meet with SVWD to discuss the potential to modify existing agreements and/or enter into future cost sharing agreements. 018
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study - FINAL | Page 1-1
Section 1: Overview
The City of Scotts Valley (the City) manages the wastewater of approximately 12,000 residents and has a long history of being a self-reliant community in Santa Cruz County. The City operates its Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) to treat local wastewater, produce recycled water for the Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD), and provide secondary effluent to Pasatiempo Golf Club (Pasatiempo) for non-potable uses. The WRF experiences recurring treatment process upsets, which have hindered the City’s ability to consistently produce recycled water.

Given the aging condition of the WRF, high costs of upgrades and the changing regulatory, legal, and environmental context for discharge and reuse in California, the City initiated this WRF Options Study (Study) to evaluate its options for a major capital investment in the utility.

Study Purpose
The purpose of the Study is to identify and evaluate long-term options for replacement or refurbishment of the City’s WRF, or other improvements to achieve the City’s wastewater treatment, recycle water and sustainability goals for use of wastewater.

This Study supports the City’s Mission:

The mission of the City of Scotts Valley Wastewater Reclamation Facility is to provide safe and reliable wastewater collection, treatment and disposal, and production of recycled water that meets or exceeds local, state and federal standards for public health and environmental quality.1
Study Area and Regional Agencies
City of Scotts Valley
The Scotts Valley WRF was constructed in 1964 to provide secondary wastewater treatment with a capacity of 30,000 gallons per day. An activated sludge treatment system was added in 1972 and the capacity was upgraded to 120,000 gallons per day. The plant has expanded many times since then to meet the needs of the community, with a current permitted capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) for average dry weather flow (ADWF). The City of Scotts Valley is responsible for treating and disposing all the wastewater generated within the City Limits and extended to include the entire SVWD service area (SVWD, 2021). The City’s service area and overlapping boundary of SVWD’s service area are depicted in Figure 1-1.

During dry weather months, the recycled water is used for irrigation at local schools, parks, roadway medians, and newer developments. The recycled water undergoes tertiary treatment at the facility prior to reuse. Secondary treated effluent that is not reused is pumped to Santa Cruz and

1 Prop 218 Notice for Proposed Wastewater Rates (Apr 2021) https://www.scottsvalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/2697/Prop-218-Notice?bidId= 019
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study - FINAL | Page 1-2
mixed with the effluent from the City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). The combined effluents are then discharged to Monterey Bay (City of Scotts Valley, 2021.). Secondary treated effluent is also provided to the Pasatiempo Golf Course, via the Scotts Valley Outfall force main, where additional treatment is provided on site for irrigation.

Figure 1-1 City of Scotts Valley Service Area
Source: Adapted from 2020 UWMP (SVWD, 2021)
020
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study - FINAL | Page 1-3
Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD)
SVWD provides potable drinking water from the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin and distributes recycled water generated at the Scotts Valley WRF for non-potable uses. SVWD service area boundaries include most of the City of Scotts Valley as well as some unincorporated areas north of the City (Figure 1-1). Sewer service within the SVWD’s service area is provided by the City, and the City produces recycled water for SVWD to be distributed primarily for irrigation use. In 1999, SVWD partnered with the City to construct a 1 MGD recycled water project to produce tertiary treated effluent at the City’s WRF and distribute it to SVWD’s customers for non-potable reuse (SVWD, 2021).

Santa Cruz
The City of Santa Cruz provides water service to an area approximately 20 square miles in size, including the entire City of Santa Cruz, adjoining unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County, a small part of the City of Capitola, and coastal agricultural lands north of the city. The City of Santa Cruz owns and operates a City-wide wastewater collection and regional wastewater treatment and disposal facility providing service to a total urban population of approximately 130,000 people in an area extending from Santa Cruz out to the communities of Seascape and Aptos in unincorporated Santa Cruz County.

Santa Cruz’s WWTF can accommodate up to 81 MGD of flow during peak wet weather. The effluent is carefully monitored for quality prior to discharge at Monterey Bay/Pacific Ocean Bay Outfall, which is a deep-water outfall. The City of Scotts Valley treats its wastewater separately and transmits secondary -treated effluent to Santa Cruz for combined disposal through the City of Santa Cruz’s ocean outfall. Although Santa Cruz does not currently produce or use recycled water, various studies have been conducted to understand its feasibility (City of Santa Cruz, 2021).

Prior WRF Studies
The following two studies were recently performed by Kennedy Jenks to evaluate the WRF process:
 In 2016, a Secondary Process Evaluation of the WRF was performed, which concluded that the treatment upsets being experienced at the WRF at the time may be contributable to the fact that when the WRF is being operated year-round to remove nitrogen it reaches its treatment capacity and cannot accommodate additional waste loading effectively reducing the dry-weather plant capacity from 1.5 MGD to 1.0 MGD or lower. (Kennedy Jenks, 2016)
 In 2018, a follow up study, Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Analysis for Secondary Process Upgrade, was conducted, which developed a concept for retrofitting the WRF with MBR technology to resolve recurring secondary process upsets, improve recycled water production capacity and reliability, and accommodate increasing loading due to population and/or commercial growth within the WRF’s service area while continuing to 021
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study - FINAL | Page 1-4
provide for nitrogen removal. Though viable, the cost for an MBR facility, estimated at $23M in 2023 dollars, would require a high capital investment along with other improvements at the plant. (Kennedy Jenks, 2018)
These studies confirmed that improvements were needed at the WRF to meet operational and service objectives.

Regional Studies
Over the last decade, water and wastewater purveyors in the Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley regions have been exploring reuse opportunities to create multi-beneficial projects to develop local, sustainable water supplies and increase resiliency in the region for the long term. • SVWD has evaluated options for a groundwater replenishment reuse project (GRRP) with purified recycled water.
• The Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGA) is exploring the need for a larger scale groundwater recharge project in support of their Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). • Soquel Creek Water District (SqCWD) is moving forward with their own GRRP, Pure Water Soquel (PWS), to replenish the Mid-County Groundwater Basin and prevent seawater intrusion. • The City of Santa Cruz is currently conducting a Phase 2 Recycled Water Feasibility Study to assess beneficial reuse of wastewater from a resource recovery perspective, meet or reduce the water supply gap and evaluate local and regional recycled water projects, in parallel with broader water supply implementation efforts.

Manyof these projects represent longer-term efforts that will require collaboration between regional partners and offer opportunities for cost sharing to maximize beneficial reuse of wastewater in the region.

SVWD recently explored the potential for implementing a groundwater replenishment reuse program if the treatment capabilities at the Scotts Valley WRF were to be limited/reduced (Kennedy Jenks, 2021b). The alternative concepts and costs from this study are summarized in Section 5.4 to provide the City an overview of options being considered by SVWD and their relative costs.
022
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 2-1
Section 2: Scotts Valley WRF
This section describes the Scotts Valley WRF, applicable regulations and requirements that drive operations, existing agreements and issues identified through a site visit and Business Risk Vulnerability Analysis (BRVA) workshop with City staff.

Scotts Valley WRF Facility
The WRF facility was constructed in 1964 for secondary wastewater treatment. In 1972, activated sludge treatment was added. To accommodate growth in the community, several other upgrades were completed at the facility. These upgrades provided for an Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) design capacity of 1.5 MGD and Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) design capacity of 5.0 MGD. In 1999, a 1-MGD-capacity tertiary treatment facility for recycled water production was completed.

Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 present historical and recent plant flows and recycled water production.

Figure 2-1 Plant Flows and Rainfall (2006 to 2021)
Source: City of Scotts Valley WRF Annual Report 2021
023
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 2-2
Figure 2-2 Plant Flow and Recycled Water Production (2021) Month
Total Effluent Effluent Recycled
Plant Flow Daily Flow Inst. Max. Total Flow Rainfall
Eff.+Rec.MG MG MG MG Inches
Mo. Total Mo. Total (peak) Mo. Total (Total)
January 23.8 22.1 1.4 1.7 10.05
February 19.6 18.1 1.1 1.5 1.27
March 21.9 19.0 1.1 2.9 2.26
April 19.6 14.3 1.1 5.3 0.01
May 19.7 12.4 1.1 7.3 0.00
June 18.3 10.7 0.9 7.6 0.00
July 20.3 9.5 0.9 10.8 0.00
August 18.7 8.1 0.8 10.5 0.00
September 18.0 8.8 0.7 9.2 0.00
October 20.4 14.9 1.0 5.5 7.43
November 19.5 18.2 1.1 1.3 2.59
December 29.4 28.9 1.8 0.5 28.08
Total1 249.3 185.2 64.1 51.7
Average 20.8 15.4 1.1 5.3 4.3
Maximum 29.4 28.9 1.8 10.8 28.1
Minimum 18.0 8.1 0.7 0.5 0.0 1 Average Annual Plant Flow (0.68 mgd) = Secondary Effluent Flow (0.51 mgd) + Recycled Water Flow (0.18 mgd) Source: City of Scotts Valley WRF Annual Report 2021
024
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 2-3
Figure 2-3 provides an ariel view of the current WRF and Figure 2-4 illustrates the existing process flow diagram.

Figure 2-3 Current WRF Facilities
Figure 2-4 Current WRF Process flow Diagram
Summary of Regulations and Requirement
Table 2-1 summarizes the regulations and requirements that drive WRF operations by setting effluent concentration and discharge flow limitations.
025
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 2-1
Table 2-1 Summary of Regulations
Permit Discharge
Location
Discharge
Flow
Limitations
Effluent
Type
Effluent BOD
and TSS Limits
Effluent
Nitrate as
N Limits
Percent
Removal
Total Coliform Turbidity
NPDES R3-
2013-0001
Pacific
Ocean1
Average
Month Dry
Weather: 1.5
MGD
Secondary
Disinfected
Effluent
- 30mg/L av. mo
- 45 mg/L av.wk
- 90 mg/L
max.day

BOD, TSS,
CBOD: 85%
- 100,000
MPN/100mL
inst.max
- 75 NTU av. Mo
- 100 NTU av.wk
- 225 NTU inst.max
Master Water
Recycling
Requirements
– Order No.
01-067
SVWD –
Tertiary
treated
recycled
water
system
Average
Month Dry
Weather: 1.0
MGD
Disinfected
Tertiary
Recycled
Water
- 20mg/L max
day
- 10mg/L 30-day
mean
- 10mg/l
daily max
- 9mg/L
30-day
mean
TN: 50% on
annual
basis
- 2.2 MPN/100mL
7-day mean
- 23 MPN/100mL
30-day max
- 240
MPN/100mL max
- 2 NTY daily av.
- 5 NTU <5% in day
-10 NTU inst.max
Pasatiempo
Agreement
Pasatiempo
Golf Club
Maximum
Day: 0.17
MGD
Av. Annual:
35 Mgal/yr
Secondary
Disinfected
Effluent
- 30mg/L av. Mo
- 45 mg/L av.wk
- 90 mg/L
max.day

BOD, TSS,
CBOD: 85%
- 100,000
MPN/100mL
inst.max
- 75 NTU av. Mo
- 100 NTU av.wk
- 225 NTU inst.max
1 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
026
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 2-1
Summary of Agreements

2.3.1 The City and SVWD
The City and SVWD entered an agreement in April 1996 concerning recycled water. This agreement provided for the design, construction, and operation of a 1 MGD tertiary treatment plant, which was constructed at the City’s WRF. In June 1997, the City and SVWD entered the First Amendment to the 1996 Agreement, which dealt with cost sharing pertaining to the extension of a water main. In May 2004, the City and SVWD entered the Second Amendment to the 1996 Agreement. This amendment dealt with changes to payments. After multiple discussions, both parties agreed to terminate the previous agreements and amendments. In 2013, the City and SVWD entered a Maintenance Agreement to address the use and operation of recycled water. The Maintenance Agreement was amended twice in 2016. The first amendment focuses on diversion of wastewater, which allowed the City to sell a portion of its wastewater to the Pasatiempo Golf Club (see Section 2.2.2) and payments from the City to SVWD to reduce its entitlement. The second amendment discusses distribution of recycled water to customers outside of city limits and bulk recycled water rates. The current agreement is effective through August, 2046.

2.3.2 The City and Pasatiempo
Due to ongoing droughts, the Pasatiempo Golf Club began looking for alternative water supplies for its golf course. An agreement was reached where up to 35 million gallons of secondary-treated wastewater would be diverted to the golf course from the Scotts Valley Outfall force main over the course of 30 years (in effect through August, 2046). Pasatiempo agreed to pay the City for the use of the City’s pipe and wastewater. As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the City also committed to pay SVWD for the relinquishment of its rights to the recycled water.

WRF Site Visit
On September 10, 2021, a site visited was conducted as a part of the Study. Representatives from the City of Scotts Valley and Kennedy Jenks toured the existing WRF facility and discussed current operations, ongoing challenges, and issues with the WRF processes. The outcomes from the discussion were captured in the Business Risk and Vulnerability Analysis (BRVA) described in Section 2.4 and were used to support the evaluation of options to improve the WRF.

Business Risk and Vulnerability Analysis (BRVA)
The BRVA workshop was conducted with key City staff on September 10, 2021, subsequent to the WRF site visit. It included interviewing the City staff present to better understand the issues associated with the WRF’s performance as they relate to unit processes and related assets. The WRF has issues that appear to be stemming from current system inadequacies and normal wear and tear. These issues can impact both treatment and asset performance and introduce additional stress to operations, maintenance, and management personnel. The City has a strong desire to adopt a process that allows them to make justifiable capital improvement investment decisions. 027
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 2-2
The WRF has equipment undergoing wear and tear and shortcomings that are in need of process control and operability improvements. Sustainable solutions to these problems are most appropriately found by looking into the future and anticipating plant needs. The BRVA workshop allowed the team to collaboratively identify the criticality of each WRF unit process from a business importance perspective by strategically creating system failure scenarios and discussing the consequential impacts relative to safety, environmental/regulatory, financial, service reliability, and public image. The team decided to use a scale to transform the subjective conclusions to objective results. Each system was rated, or scored, 1 through 5, with 1 being the best rating and 5 being the worst. The rating criteria are as follows:

1. No consequential impact

2. Low consequential impact

3. Medium consequential impact

4. High consequential impact

5. Very high consequential impact
In terms of vulnerabilities of the City’s WRF from a business perspective, the team agreed to focus on Asset Performance Conditions and Asset Safety Conditions. Identifying vulnerabilities provides the City with a sense of the level of weakness that may be inherent to the WRF business processes that may promote threats to the WRF’s ability to meet the expected performance objectives and service levels. Each business process vulnerability was rated 1 through 5, with 1 being the best rating, i.e., least vulnerable process, and 5 being the worst rating, or most vulnerable process. The rating criteria are as follows:

1. No business vulnerability

2. Low business vulnerability

3. Medium business vulnerability

4. High business vulnerability

5. Very high business vulnerability
The results of the BRVA are shown in Figure 2-5. Systems with higher ratings are more vulnerable and have a higher potential consequential impact to the WRF operations, while systems with lower ratings are less vulnerable and have a lower potential to impact WRF operations. These results allow the City to better visualize which systems need greater maintenance, operations, and, possibly, engineering resources for maintenance repair/overhaul, capital repair/rehabilitation, capital replacement/redesign. A detailed breakdown of the BRVA outcomes is provided in Appendix A.
028
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 2-1
Figure 2-5 Scotts Valley WRF BRVA Results Provide a Line of Sight for System Importance 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Electrical
Distribution
Flow
Equalization
Structure
Aeration Tanks Influent Station
Headwords
Solids
dewatering
Disinfected
Plant Effluent
Outfall
Secondary
Clarifiers
WAS Pump
Station
RAS Pump
Station, stop
gap us ras tubes
and bypass to
IPS
Tertiary
Treatment
Facility
SCADA Chlorine
Contact
Consequential Criticality (Business Importance)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Asset Performance Condition
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Asset Safety Condition
WRF Systems that are consequential
critical if they experience failure
WRF Systems that are need
immediate improvements
WRF Systems that are needing
attention to improve safety
conditions and protect staff
029
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-1
Section 3: Options Identification
This section describes the options identified as potential solutions to address the WRF operational issues, including the assumptions applied and costs developed to evaluate each option.

Design Criteria and Assumptions
Table 3-1 presents data, from 2014-2016 and 2018-2020, used to define recycled water production goals for the evaluation of WRF options.

Table 3-1 Recylced Water Historical Flows
Winter Flows Unit Quantity Notes
Winter Max Day Flow MGD 0.37 2014 to 2016 data, excluded one extremely high number
Average Day Max Month Flow MGD 0.21 2018 to 2020 data (winter months) Winter Average Daily Flow MGD 0.06 2019 to 2020 data
Influent Temperature deg C 17 2014 to 2016 data
Summer Flows: Unit Quantity Notes
Summer Maximum Daily Flow: MGD 0.43 2014 to 2016 data
Average Day Max Month Flow MGD 0.38 2014 to 2016 data (all months) Influent Temperature deg C 19 2014 to 2016 data, most restrictive in April
Flow Targets: Unit Quantity
Meet Historical RW Flows MGD 0.40 Based on summer demands SVWD GW Recharge Target MGD 0.62 Assume 700 AFY to maintain/restore groundwater levels over the long term1
1 Based on prior discussion with SVWD (Kennedy Jenks, 2021a).

Based on the recycled water flow targets, range of design parameters was developed to size treatment options. Table 3-2 lists the design criteria and assumptions to evaluate the WRF options for a range of treatment capacities.
030
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-2
Table 3-2 Design Parameters for Treatment Options with Scalping Plant Parameter Small
System
Agreement
Target
Reuse
Target
Large System
Design Flows
ADMMF, MGD 0.2 0.4 0.62 0.9
Peak Day Peaking Factor 1 1 1 1
PDF, MGD 0.2 0.4 0.62 0.9
Design Loads - Max Month concentration
BOD, mg/L 300 300 300 300
TSS, mg/l 300 300 300 300
TKN, mg/L 90 90 90 90
NH3, mg/L 60 60 60 60
WRF Options
Four WRF options, with sub-options, were analyzed as part of this Study. • Option 1 - Decommission WRF
• Option 2 - Discontinue Recycled Water Production (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary) • Option 3 - Improvements to Meet Current Agreements
o Option 3a – Plant Optimization
o Option 3b - 0.2 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment) o Option 3c - 0.4 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) • Option 4 – Improvements to Maximize Beneficial Reuse
o Option 4a - 0.6 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) o Option 4b - 0.9 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment) o Option 4c – 1.5 MGD Custom MBR
The following sections describe the improvements, new facilities, abandoned facilities and provide an updated process flow diagram each WRF option.

3.2.1 Option 1 – Decommission WRF
Option 1 would decommission the WRF. Under this option, the City would continue to collect raw wastewater, but instead of secondary and recycled water treatment at the WRF, raw wastewater would be pumped to Santa Cruz WWTF. The City would continue to operate sewer lift stations, and a new lift station would be located at the current Scott’s Valley WRF site. The new lift station and effluent piping would be constructed to convey raw wastewater from the existing flow equalization structure to the Scotts Valley Outfall. A process flow schematic for Option 1 is shown on Figure 3-1. 031
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-3
Figure 3-1 Option 1 – Decommission WRF
Some highlights from Option 1 include minimal maintenance and the ability to allow the plant to age over time, as new regional disposal solutions are pursued.

3.2.2 Option 2 – Discontinue Recycled Water Production (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary)
Option 2 would maintain and improve the preliminary and secondary treatment facilities and chlorine contact basin and abandon the tertiary treatment facilities. Effluent produced by Option 2 would meet NPDS permit requirements for disinfected secondary effluent suitable for discharge into Monterey Bay. The City would no longer produce tertiary treated recycled water, which would breach the agreement with SVWD, and current recycled water customers would lose their local, sustainable supply. The City would be able to continue to meet its agreement with Pasatiempo Golf Course. Because nitrogen removal would no longer be required, the City could discontinue BNR.

Discontinuation of BNR would recover the treatment capacity to its original 1.5 MGD ADWF, which was lost when the WRF was converted from BOD / TSS removal to also perform BNR. A process flow schematic for Option 2 is shown in Figure 3-2.
032
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-4
Figure 3-2 Option 2 - Discontinue Recycled Water Production (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary) Option 2 would reduce the operational complexity of the WRF but could be negatively perceived by the public for loss of a local, sustainable supply and stranding those assets. However, should the SVWD embark on their own potable reuse program there may be a benefit of utilizing the nonpotable recycled water conveyance system to convey purified water for groundwater recharge.

Section 5.4 summarizes some of the alternatives the SVWD is considering to maximize beneficial use in Scotts Valley if the treatment capabilities WRF were to be limited or reduced.

3.2.3 Option 3 – Improvements to Meet Current Agreements All sub-options evaluated under Option 3 aim to meet the current agreements and discharge requirements, summarized in Table 2-1.

3.2.4 Option 3a – Plant Optimization
Option 3a includes improvements and upgrades to the existing facilities, with the goal of maximizing plant performance to reliably meet discharge nitrogen requirements. The proposed improvements may include combination of the following: addition of primary/secondary clarifier or primary filtration, dedicated mixed liquor (ML) recycle pumps, classifying selector, clarifier splitter box, bioaugmentation, seasonal operation adjustments to the secondary treatment process, and a new waste activated sludge (WAS) storage tank. The process flow schematic for Option 3a is shown in Figure 3-3.
033
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-5
Figure 3-3 Option 3a - Plant Optimization
Option 3a could be achieved with a lower capital investment than some of the other options, however, even with the improvements to system performance, consistent RW production may still be challenging and the full rated capacity of the plant may not be recovered. Additionally, achieving TN and NOx limits may require seasonal process adjustments and operations at the WRF would become more complex.

3.2.5 Option 3b – 0.2 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment)
Option 3b would add a 0.2 MGD packaged MBR system with UV designed for full nitrification/denitrification to produce disinfected tertiary treated recycled effluent suitable for unrestricted non-potable reuse. The existing tertiary treatment facility would remain in service and would be used in summer months to meet recycled water requirements in excess of 0.2 MGD. This option assumes that the existing secondary treatment process would be still operated in BNR mode during the summer months. A process flow schematic for Option 3b is shown in Figure 3-4. 034
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-6
Figure 3-4 Option 3b - 0.2 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment) Option 3b offers a new, value sized packaged treatment process that would complement the existing WRF and tertiary treatment system, improving system performance and providing an opportunity to expand in the future. However, the introduction of this new system would add operational complexity, requiring the WRF to essentially run three plants simultaneously with seasonal adjustments to conventional plant. This option would require larger capital investment than the Option 2, but it is less expensive compared to complete plant upgrade or larger packaged system.

Figure 3-5 shows a typical self-contained MBR package plant, which provides screening, nutrient removal, filtration and disinfection all in one skid. This compact treatment system is capable of meeting recycled water requirements and is modular to allow for expansion. 035
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-7
Figure 3-5 Typical Packaged MBR-UV System (Cloacina)
Source: Cloacina

3.2.6 Option 3c –0.4 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment)
Option 3c would add a 0.4 MGD packaged MBR system with integrated UV to replace the existing tertiary treatment facilities. With this option, the existing secondary treatment process would be operated as conventional BOD/TSS removal system whereas all the recycled water needs would be supplied by the new packaged plant. A process flow schematic for Option 3c is shown in Figure 3-6. 036
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-8
Figure 3-6 Option 3c - 0.4 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) With Option 3c larger packaged plant, the existing processes for nitrogen removal and tertiary treatment would no longer be needed. Operation of the aeration basins could revert to BOD/TSS removal only and the WRF could recover its biological treatment capacity. This is expected to improve system performance and reduce risks and vulnerabilities. This option would require a capital investment with moderate operational complexity to operate the two-plant system in parallel.

3.2.7 Option 4 – Improved Tertiary to Maximize Beneficial Reuse All sub-options evaluated under Option 4 achieve full nitrogen removal for different production capacities to meet the current agreements and discharge requirements, summarized in Table 2-1 while producing additional recycled water that could be utilized by SVWD to maximize beneficial reuse. These options would also take a step towards the City being able to attain zero discharge in the future, in anticipation of future regulatory requirements or ocean discharge bans that may require expensive treatment or limit future outfall flows.

3.2.8 Option 4a – 0.62 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment)
Option 4a would add a 0.62 MGD packaged MBR system with UV and abandon the existing tertiary treatment facilities. The existing secondary treatment process would be operated as conventional BOD/TSS removal system. The proposed option would allow Scotts Valley to reliably produce target 0.62 MGD (700 AFY) of tertiary recycled effluent year-round in anticipation of SVWD implementing a groundwater recharge project. Option 4a would not only recover the original 037
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-9
design capacity of 1.5 MGD, but also add additional 0.62 MGD of treatment capacity (0.62 MGD of tertiary treated recycled water by packaged MBR + 1.5 MGD secondary effluent by existing conventional treatment plant for total of 2.12 MGD). A process flow schematic for Option 4a is shown in Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-7 Option 4a - 0.62 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) Option 4a allows contracted RW deliveries to be consistently met while creating an additional sustainable supply. It would require significant capital investments and has both jurisdictional and space challenges.

3.2.9 Option 4b – 0.9 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment)
Option 4b would keep the existing tertiary treatment facilities and add a 0.9 MGD packaged MBR system with UV. The existing secondary treatment process would continue to be operated in BNR mode which, in conjunction with the existing tertiary treatment facilities, would enable Scotts Valley WRF to produce 1.5 MGD of tertiary treated recycled water year-round. The aeriation basins would be operated in nitrification-denitrifcation mode, but at a lower flow through since package is carrying a portion of the load. A process flow schematic for Option 4b is shown in Figure 3-8. 038
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-10
Figure 3-8 Option 4b - 0.9 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) The goal of Option 4b is produce 100% tertiary effluent with a combination of packaged treatment plant and existing tertiary facilities. Since most packaged plants are at or below 0.5 mgd capacity, this would push the limits of the benefits of a packaged plant. Similar to Option 4a, it would require significant capital investments and has both jurisdictional and space challenges. Additionally, the operations would be more complex due to the need to operate three plants simultaneously.

3.2.10 Option 4c – 1.5 MGD Custom MBR
Option 4c would repurpose existing infrastructure by retrofitting the WRF as an MBR facility. The objective of retrofitting the WRF with MBR technology is to resolve recurring secondary process upsets, improve recycled water production capacity and reliability, and accommodate increasing loading due to population growth within the WRF’s service area while continuing to provide for nitrogen removal (Kennedy Jenks, 2018)
The MBR retrofit concept, as illustrated in Figure 3-9, includes:
• Installing new fine screens and a new fine screen pump station between the existing • Influent Pump Station and Flow Equalization Structure (FES) • Upgrading the existing process aeration system
• Installing new Mixed Liquor Recirculation (MLR) and WAS • pump stations to convey effluent from the process aeration system to the new MBR and • existing sludge conditioning and dewatering facilities • Installing new membrane cassettes in the radial tanks of the FES • Converting the existing clarifiers to new permeate storage basins 039
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-11
• Replacing and adding yard piping, valves, and accessories • Adding electrical, controls, instrumentation, and standby power upgrades.

Figure 3-9 Overview of MBR Retrofit Concept
With this option, the new MBR facilities would be located in the portion of FES, the existing secondary clarifiers would be converted into permeate storage tanks, and the existing tertiary filters would be abandoned. The upgraded facility would continue to use the existing UV and chlorine contact basin. This option would allow City to produce high quality effluent suitable for reclamation or other beneficial reuse. The new system would be designed to meet current permitted flows of 1.5 MGD ADWF. A process flow schematic for Option 4c is shown Figure 3-10.

This option would require the largest capital investment but would reduce operational complexity by moving to a single plant system. It would allow contracted recycled water deliveries to be consistently met while maximizing the production of a local sustainable supply for beneficial reuse. 040
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-12
Figure 3-10 Option 4c - 1.5 MGD Custom MBR
Concept-Level Capital Costs
Conceptual level capital costs (AACE Class V) associated with each WRF options were developed based on site observations, discussions during the BRVA workshop with City staff, and professional judgement and experience with wastewater treatment facilities of similar size, condition, and complexity. Capital costs include process and/or facilities additions and upgrades to meet Option treatment objectives (such as addition of the packaged MBR) and improvements to the existing facilities, which were identified as critical with respect safety, consequence of failure, and asset performance. A list of facility improvements, upgrades, and repairs was identified during the BRVA workshop, which are detailed in Appendix A. Table 3-3 summarizes the improvements assumed for each WRF option to estimate capital costs.

The assumptions for each cost item are listed in the cost table in Appendix B, which includes a range of costs for items that would typically require a more comprehensive condition assessment to accurately identify the repairs and accurately develop the costs. Facility costs for each option only include assets with consequential criticality scores of 4 and 5 (refer to Appendix A and Table 3-3), improvements and upgrades for assets and processes identified by the city staff during the site visit and BRVA workshop, and new facilities which are needed to meet the option objective. The costs for options with packaged MBR system were developed based on quotes from Cloacina, a packaged MBR system manufacturer. Cost for Option 4c was based on capital costs previously developed as part of the 2018 MBR Retrofit TM and escalated to current CCI. The facility capital costs for all options were developed for current CCI (January 2022 and CCI of 12,556) and were escalated by 25% to include allowance for general conditions, profit, insurance, bonds. The subtotal construction cost was further escalated by 25% to account for engineering, bid services, engineering services during construction, construction management, and inspection. The total project cost was 041
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-13
expressed and range to account for Class V contingency of +50% to –30%. The estimate of capital costs for improvements and new facilities for each WRF option is shown at the bottom of the table in Appendix B.

Table 3-3 Summary of Improvements for All WRF Options
Unit Process Description of Improvements Criticality
(1)
WRF Options
1 2 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C
Electrical
Distribution
develop P&IDs and record drawings
for entire electrical system 5       
conduct arc flesh study 5       
develop electrical safety protocols 5       
condition assessment of electrical
systems 5       
electrical replacements and upgrades
based on condition assessment 5       
Influent Pump
Station and
Headwords
safety audit and safety compliance
improvements 4       
add grit removal system 4       
condition assessment and repairs as
needed 4       
add primary clarifier or primary
filtration: BOD reduction in the
secondary influent
5 
Flow
Equalization
Structure
upgrade cleaning / flushing
mechanism for removal of settled
materials out of side compartments
4      
develop SOPs for various failure
events 4      
condition assessment and repairs as
needed 4      
automation for flow control and
aeration, related to use of FES as
anoxic basin
5    
Aeration
Tanks
develop SOPs for various failure
events
4       
condition assessment and repairs as
needed 4       
add one additional blower for
redundancy 4     
aeration control upgrade 4      
add internal recirculation pump and
piping 5 
add classifying selector for surface
wasting to AB effluent box 5  
042
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-14
Unit Process Description of Improvements Criticality
(1)
WRF Options
1 2 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C
bio augment sec treatment process
with low SRT nitrifying organisms,
annual cost
5  
Secondary
Clarifiers
develop SOPs for various failure
events 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation condition assessment and repairs as
needed 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation add clarifier splitter box 5  
Chlorine
Contact
develop SOPs for various failure
events
1 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation
condition assessment and repairs as
needed 1 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation Tertiary
Treatment
Facility
develop SOPs for various failure
events
2 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation
condition assessment and repairs as
needed 2 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation replace backwash pumps 5   
refurbish air and wasting valves 5   
Disinfected
Plant Effluent
Outfall
develop SOPs for various failure
events 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation condition assessment and repairs as
needed 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation Solids
dewatering
develop SOPs for various failure event 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation condition assessment and repairs as
needed 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation replace cake conveyor 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation upgrade controls for solids
dewatering system (BFP and polymer
feed)
3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation
add WAS storage tank 5       
WAS Pump
Station
develop SOPs for various failure
events 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation condition assessment and repairs as
needed 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation upgrade WAS controls 5    
add TSS meter 5    
RAS Pump
Station
develop SOPs for various failure
events 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation condition assessment and repairs as
needed 3 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation SCADA
no improvements identified as the
plant is currently in process of
upgrading the SCADA system and
process control
1 If criticality < 4, not included in evaluation
043
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-15
Unit Process Description of Improvements Criticality
(1)
WRF Options
1 2 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C
Tertiary Plant
Decommission
Decommission and Demolition of
Tertiary Treatment Plant 5    
New Facilities
New packaged plant 5    
Plant upgrade to MBR 
Packaged
treatment
plant
integration
addition of piping 5    
electrical and SCADA upgrades 5    
site paving and grading 5    
Misc. demolition 5    
Lift Station New screened sewage lift station 5 
Effluent Pipe Add pipe to Santa Cruz WWTP 5 
Demolition Demolition of the treatment facility 5 
The estimated capital cost breakdown for each of the WRF options is provided in Appendix B and the summary of capital costs is presented in Table 3-4.

Summary of WRF Options
The benefits, limitations, estimated capital investment and relative operational complexity of each of the identified WRF Options are presented in Table 3-4. 044
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 3-16
Table 3-4 Summary of WRF Options
Scenario City Advantages or
Benefits
City Disadvantages or
Limitations
Est
Capital
Costs
Relative Operational
Complexity
Option 1 -
Decommission
WRF
Removes operating costs;
potential to repurpose
portion of WRF site
Breaches SVWD and
Pasatiempo agreements;
loss of local, sustainable
supply; requires
agreement with City of
Santa Cruz to accept and
treat effluent
$13.2 mil1 Minimal: maintenance of
collections system and
new lift station
Option 2 -
Discontinue
Recycled Water
Production
Minimizes operating and
future CIP costs; restores
operational capacity to
secondary level only1
Breaches SVWD
agreement; changes in
effluent quality; loss of
local, sustainable supply
$2.3 mil2 Low: simply secondary
process operation for BOD
and TSS removal only;
tertiary treatment facility
is abandoned;
Option 3 - Improvements to Meet Current Agreements
Option 3a - Plant
Optimization
Low capital investment;
improves system
performance1
Limits consistent RW
production; limited cost
sharing opportunities
$4.3 mil2 Very complex: achieving
TN and NOx limits may
require seasonal process
adjustments
Option 3b - 0.2
MGD Package
Improves system
performance; potential to
expand in the future
Requires large capital
investment; reliability of
system is limited
$10.8 mil Complex: operation of
three plants
simultaneously with
seasonal adjustments to
conventional plant.

Option 4c - 1.5
MGD Custom
MBR
Allows contracted RW
deliveries to be
consistently met; creates
sustainable supply
Requires significant
capital investment;
jurisdictional challenges
$35.0 mil Moderate: operation of
single MBR system with
UV and chlorine
disinfection 1 Option 1 includes the cost of purchasing capacity in the Santa Cruz WWTF (estimated at $7.0 mil), but does not include ongoing capital costs for the proportional share of the Santa Cruz WWTF annual CIP (estimated at $300,000 per year), improvements to the outfall pipeline to convey raw effluent (unknown) nor a capital payout to Pasatiempo for some portion of their stranded treatment assets. 2 Need modeling to confirm the viability and costs of assumed process improvements in Options 2 and 3a. 045
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 4-1
Section 4: Screening Options
Following the identification of WRF Options, a two-step screening approach was applied to identify fatal flaws and compare the options based on a set of defined decision criteria. This section describes the screening process and the outcomes from STEP 1: Initial Concept-Level Screening.

Section 5 includes an additional evaluation of projects that remained for further consideration and describes the outcomes from STEP 2: Options Evaluation and Comparison.

Screening Approach
A two-step screening approach was applied as follows:
• STEP 1: Initial Concept-level Screening to vet a broad set of options and provide the City with a high-level view of WRF options and potential local and regional partnerships. • STEP 2: Options Evaluation and Comparison to evaluate a short list ofoptions based on cost, benefits, limitations, and other decision criteria.

This section describes the initial concept-level screening criteria and outcomes, identifying options removed further consideration and those that remain for the second step evaluation and comparison, described in section 5.

Initial Concept-Level Screening
Initial Concept-level Screening applied a fatal flaw evaluation to identify institutional, engineering and implementation challenges that the City found to be insurmountable and options that would have limited benefit for the City. Options that were found to have more than two of the following fatal flaws or limitations were eliminated from further consideration:
• Engineering Fatal Flaws – include space and capacity constraints and construction challenges that would be very difficult and/or expensive toovercome. • Implementation Fatal Flaws – address financial, regulatory, environmental and operational issues that would impede project construction or WRF operations. • Institutional Fatal Flaws –include jurisdictional limitations, bindingagreements and the potential for partnerships
• Does Not Meet City Mission and Vision – assesses whether the project would meet current City Goals related to meeting customer demands and the future vision for the WRF.

Table 4-1 lists the fatal flaw screening criteria categories and qualitative approach used to assess each option. Within each fatal flaw category, different levels of risk/acceptable criteria were listed and assigned a symbol and color as defined in the legend. Table 4-2 presents the outcomes of applying the fatal flaw screening to Options 1 through 4 presented in Section 3. Options that were found to have more than two of fatal flaws or limitations were eliminated from further consideration.
046
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 4-1
Table 4-1 Fatal Flaw Screening Criteria
Fatal Flaw Category Screening Criteria
  
exceeds criteria / good / low risk meets criteria / acceptable risk does not meet criteria / poor / high risk
Engineering Fatal
Flaws
Space Available space for upgrades and
new facilities
adequate available City owned space at
WRF potentially available non-City owned space inadequate available space Plant Capacity Ability to perform at design
capacity Exceeds 1.5 mgd design capacity Meets 1.5 mgd design capacity Sustain current operational capacity (< 1.5 mgd) Construction Construction challenges few construction challenges some construction challenges many construction challenges Implementation Fatal
Flaws
Relative Capital
Costs
Relative capital costs to build the
project (incl. demolition)
LOW capital cost
(<$10M)
MID-RANGE capital costs
($10M to $20M)
HIGH capital cost
(>$20M)
Relative
Operational Costs
Relative annual costs to treat or
dispose of effluent LOW relative O&M costs MID-RANGE of relative O&M costs HIGH relative O&M costs Regulatory Regulatory challenges
consistent adherence to existing permit
requirements, no need for new contract for
discharge
meets existing permit requirements with
limited upsets, or new contract needed for
discharge
cannot meet existing or anticipated future
permit requirements due to frequent
upsets.

Environmental Environmental impediments to
construction
few environmental impediments to
construction
some environmental impediments to
construction significant environmental impediments to
Operational Operational challenges few changes to current operations some complexity added to current operations
significant complexity added to current
operations
Institutional Fatal
Flaws
Agreements Adheres to existing binding
agreements meets all binding agreements unable to consistently meet all existing binding agreements failure to meet existing binding agreements.

Partnerships Potential for cost-sharing
partnerships potential to bring in cost-sharing partners some potential to bring in cost-sharing partners no potential to bring in cost-sharing
partners
Does not Meet City
Mission and Vision City Goals
Meet current customers’
demands meets all current customer demands meets some current customer demands does not meet current customer demands Meet WRF Future Vision
prepares City to meet future regulations,
prioritize reuse and implement cleaner new
filtration technologies
somewhat prepares City to meet future
regulations, prioritize reuse OR implement
cleaner new filtration technologies
does not prepare City to meet future
regulations, prioritize reuse and implement
cleaner new filtration technologies
Legend:
 exceeds criteria / good / low risk
 meets criteria / acceptable risk
 does not meet criteria / poor / high risk
047
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 4-2
Table 4-2 Fatal Flaw Screening Outcomes
Fatal Flaw Category Screening Criteria
Opt 1 Opt 2 Opt 3a Opt 3b Opt 3c Opt 4a Opt 4b Opt 4c
Decommission Phase out
BNR/tertiary
Plant
Optimization

0.2 mgd
package

0.4 mgd
package

0.62 mgd
package

0.9 mgd
package

Legend:
 exceeds criteria / good / low risk
 meets criteria / acceptable risk
 does not meet criteria / poor / high risk
048
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 4-1
Options Removed from Further Consideration
Based on the outcomes of the fatal flaw screening, the following options were removed from further consideration.
• Option 1 - Decommission WRF. This option had multiple implementation and institutional fatal flaws. This option has high capital costs associated with new infrastructure, buying into capacity of the Santa Cruz WWTF, ongoing capital costs for the proportional share of the Santa Cruz WWTF annual CIP, potential improvements to the Scotts Valley outfall pipeline to convey raw effluent (unknown), and a potential capital payout to Pasatiempo for some portion of their stranded treatment assets (unknown). In addition, the City would incur annual costs pay the City of Santa Cruz to treat raw wastewater, to SVWD to purchase potable water for City parks, and possibly to Pasatiempo for annual costs incurred due to breach of contract. The City’s transition away from secondary and recycled water production would bring additional risks associated with relinquishing control of wastewater treatment to the City of Santa Cruz, loss of reliability of water supply during droughts and breaching the contract with Pasatiempo Golf Course. Though regional projects could potentially offset demands with a new source of non-potable or potable recycled water, the timeline for those projects are uncertain at this time. Lastly, this option did not meet the City Mission and Vision.
• Option 3b – 0.2 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment). This option has engineering and implementation fatal flaws. Having three plant seasonal operations would be very complex, with relatively high annual costs. • Option 4a – 0.6 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment). This option had implementation and institutional fatal flaws, which removed it from further consideration. • Option 4b – 0.9 MGD Packaged Plant (Keep Existing Tertiary Treatment). This option had implementation and institutional fatal flaws, which removed it from further consideration.

Options Remaining for Further Consideration
The following options remain for further consideration following the fatal flaw screening. • Option 2 – Discontinue Recycled Water Production (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary). This option has some implementation and institutional fatal flaws. Moreover, this option does not meet the City Mission and Vision.
• Option 3a – Plant Optimization. This option needs more modeling to confirm its feasibility. Moreover, there is a higher risk of implementation and institutional fatal flaws. • Option 3c – 0.4 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment), This option is limited to 0.4 MGD of tertiary production.
• Option 4c – 1.5 MGD Custom MBR. This option meets the future vision through simplified and consistent operation. However, cost sharing partnerships would be needed to justify higher capital investments.
049
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Section 5: Options Evaluation and Comparison
Following the initial concept screening, a more in-depth options evaluation and comparison was performed to rank the WRF options. This sections further identifies upgrades and new facilities for each of the 4 options identified by the City for further consideration; including process upgrades, pipelines, pump stations and other infrastructure to treat and deliver water. Capital costs, presented in Section 3.3, are annualized and combined with annual O&M costs, presented in this section, to identify the added annual investment needed to implement each option.

Options Scoring, Weighting and Ranking Approach
A “scorecard” approach was used to compare the options using qualitative and quantitative information applied to a set of decision criteria related to economic, environmental, social, engineering and operational considerations. The option evaluation included a scoring, weighting and ranking process as described below:
• Scoring: The decision criteria included guidance for scoring (Table 5-1) on a scale of 1 to 4, where 4 is the highest score, representing fully meeting criteria and 1 is the lowest scoring, being unable to meet criteria.
• Weighting: Within themes were developed for comparing options (Table 5-2), addressing variation in different priorities by artificially increasing weighting for certain categories or criteria.
• Ranking: raw scores were multiplied by the percentages from the weighting themes to get a weighted score to rank projects. The use of multiple weighting themes provides a sensitivity analysis to identify projects that rise to the top irrespective of weighting distributions.
050
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Table 5-1 Decision Criteria and Guidance for Scoring
Categories WRF Options
Screening Criteria
Considerations for Assessing WRF
Option based on Criteria
Guidance for Scoring
Fully Meets Criteria
(Highest Scoring) Generally Meets Criteria Unable to Meet Criteria (Lowest Scoring) 4 2 to 3 1

ECONOMIC
Cost Effectiveness - Relative life cycle costs LOWEST relative life cycle cost MID-RANGE relative life cycle costs HIGHEST relative life cycle cost Financial
Implementability - Relative capital investment LOWEST relative capital cost MID-RANGE of relative capital costs HIGHEST relative capital cost

ENVIRONMENTAL
CEQA Considerations - Relative environmental impacts and mitigation requirements
Potential for Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) with few impacts
and minimal mitigation
Range of potential impacts and
mitigation requirements
Complex CEQA requirements with
potential for significant impacts and
substantial mitigation required
Future Regulatory
Risk
- Relative risk of City to meet future
regulatory requirements (e.g. ocean
discharge, nutrient removal)
Minimal Risk Some Risk High Risk
SOCIAL
Regional Benefits
- Relative regional community benefits
through cooperation and coordination of
other agencies
Partnerships with multiple entities
results more regional benefits
Some partnerships results in some
regional benefits
Partnerships with few entities results
more fewer regional benefits
Public Perception - Perceived public acceptance and
comfort with project
Public comfort level is high with
majority acceptance
Range of public comfort level and
acceptance
Public comfort level is low with little
acceptance

ENGINEERING &

OPERATIONAL

CONSIDERATIONS
Maximize Beneficial
Reuse - Maximizes reuse of wastewater effluent Potential to increase reuse volume in the future Maintain current reuse volumes Decrease in current reuse volume Ease of
Implementation
- Potential construction challenges for
new facilities and upgrades at the WRF
Few new facilities on already disturbed
areas with minimal construction
complexities
Some new facilities located in relatively
disturbed areas with a range of
construction complexities
Facilities located in undisturbed areas
with higher degree of construction
complexity
- Potential institutional challenges
Meets current reuse agreements with
potential to increase reuse in the
future.

Meets current reuse agreements Does not meet current reuse agreements
Operational
Complexity
- Relative impact to current wastewater
operations and responsibilities
Minimal potential impacts related to
wastewater treatment, RW production
and outfall disposal
Range of potential impacts related to
wastewater treatment, RW production
and outfall disposal
Significant potential impacts related to
wastewater treatment, RW production
and outfall disposal
- Relative impact to current recycled
water operations and responsibilities
Minimal potential impacts related to
RW customer service
Range of potential impacts related to
RW customer service
Significant potential impacts related to
RW customer service
051
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Table 5-2 Weighting Themes
Potential Weighting Themes
Categories Alternatives Screening
Criteria
Balanced
Across
TBL+
Minimize
Costs
Maximize
Beneficial
Reuse
Minimize
Operational
Complexity

ECONOMIC
Cost Effectiveness 15% 30% 10% 10%
Financial Implementability 10% 30% 10% 10%

ENVIRONMENTAL
CEQA Considerations 10% 5% 5% 5%
Future Regulatory Risk 15% 5% 5% 5%
SOCIAL
Regional Benefits 15% 5% 5% 5%
Public Perception 10% 5% 5% 5%

ENGINEERING &

OPERATIONAL

CONSIDERATIONS
Maximize Beneficial Reuse 5% 5% 30% 5%
Ease of Implementation 10% 5% 15% 25%
Operational Complexity 10% 10% 15% 30%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
052
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Options Evaluation
Additional effort was performed for the four options identified to identify relative O&M costs and life-cycle costs, as described in this section. Table 5-3 summarizes the recommended improvements for the four WRF options remaining for further considerations:
• Option 2 – Discontinue Recycled Water Production (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary) • Option 3a – Plant Optimization, Improvements to Meet Current Agreements • Option 3c – 0.4 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) • Option 4c – 1.5 MGD Custom MBR to Improvements to Maximize Beneficial Reuse Table 5-3 Recommended Improvements for Selected Alternatives Unit Process
WRF Selected Options
Description of Improvements Criticality
(1) 2 3A 3C 4C
Electrical
Distribution
develop P&IDs and record drawings for entire
electrical system 5    
conduct arc flesh study 5    
develop electrical safety protocols 5    
condition assessment of electrical systems 5    
electrical replacements and upgrades based on
condition assessment 5    
Influent
Pump
Station and
Headwords
safety audit and safety compliance improvements 4     add grit removal system 4    
condition assessment and repairs as needed 4    
add primary clarifier or primary filtration: BOD
reduction in the secondary influent 5(1)
Flow
Equalization
Structure
upgrade cleaning / flushing mechanism for removal of
settled materials out of side compartments 4   
develop SOPs for various failure events 4   
condition assessment and repairs as needed 4   
automation for flow control and aeration, related to use of FES as anoxic basin 5(2)  
Aeration
Tanks
develop SOPs for various failure events 4    
condition assessment and repairs as needed 4    
add one additional blower for redundancy 4   
aeration control upgrade 5(4)   
add internal recirculation pump and piping 5(2) 
add classifying selector for surface wasting to AB
effluent box 5(2)  
bio augment sec treatment process with low SRT
nitrifying organisms, annual cost 5(2)  
develop SOPs for various failure events 3
053
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-2
Unit Process
WRF Selected Options
Description of Improvements Criticality
(1) 2 3A 3C 4C
Secondary
Clarifiers
condition assessment and repairs as needed 3
add clarifier splitter box 5(2) 
CCB develop SOPs for various failure events 1
condition assessment and repairs as needed 1
Tertiary
Treatment
Facility
develop SOPs for various failure events 2
condition assessment and repairs as needed 2
replace backwash pumps 5(3)  
refurbish air and wasting valves 5(3)  
Effluent
Outfall
develop SOPs for various failure events 3
condition assessment and repairs as needed 3
Solids
dewatering
develop SOPs for various failure event 3
condition assessment and repairs as needed 3
replace cake conveyor 3
upgrade controls for solids dewatering system (BFP
and polymer feed) 3
add WAS storage tank 5   
WAS Pump
Station
develop SOPs for various failure events 3
condition assessment and repairs as needed 3
upgrade WAS controls 5  
add TSS meter 5  
RAS Pump
Station
develop SOPs for various failure events 3
condition assessment and repairs as needed 3
SCADA
no improvements identified as the plant is currently in process of upgrading the SCADA system and process
control
1 New
Facilities
Decommission Tertiary Treatment Plant 5(5)   
New packaged plant 5 
Plant upgrade to MBR 5 
Packaged plant integration – addition of piping 5 
Packaged plant integration – electrical and SCADA
upgrades 5 
Packaged plant integration – site paving and grading 5  Packaged plant integration – Misc. demolition 5 
Notes:
(1) Addition of primary clarifier is not critical for plant functioning; however, it is included in Option 3A. The benefit of adding primary clarifier should be further evaluated.
(2) Criticality 5 for this improvement only applies to selected options as part of plant optimization. (3) Criticality 5 for these improvements apply to options which include existing Tertiary Facilities (4) Aeration control upgrade is included in Option 4C plant upgrade project (5) Decommission of the tertiary plant would take place after 10 years 054
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-3

5.2.1 Relative O&M Costs
The O&M cost exercise was performed to reflect the relative increase or decrease from current operations, using the projected 2020/21 budget as reported in 2021 Rate Study. General assumptions applicable to all the alternatives are:
• Power cost: 25 ¢/kWh
• Labor cost: $85/man-hour which corresponds to one part-time employee to operate existing tertiary treatment facility.

Estimate of relative O&M costs for each alternative including cost breakdown and assumptions are presented in Table 5-4.

5.2.2 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
Life-cycle costs for each of four selected options was estimated by annualizing the concept level capital costs estimated as part of the initial concept-level screening (Section 3.3) and by adding or subtracting relative O&M costs. Capital costs were annualized based on an interest rate of three (3) percent and a facility life of 50 years.

A summary of the estimated annualized life-cycle costs and flows for each WRF option is presented in Table 5-5.
055
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Table 5-4 Relative O&M Costs
Relative O&M costs
Current
Annual Cost ∆ Cost with Improvements Total with Improvements ∆ from
Current
$/year Added $/year Reduced
$/year
∆
$/year $/year %
Option 2 – Discontinue Recycled Water Production (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary) Other includes insurance and bonds $5,000
Power cost reduction was estimated based on values reported 2020/21 Rate Study for Tertiary treatment facilities, assumes reduction will take place after 10 years $62,000 Chemicals no methanol addition to sec. treatment after 10 years $18,000 Maintenance maintenance costs reduction was estimated based on 2020/21 Rate Study budget for tertiary treatment facility $25,300
Labor reduced labor costs, cost to operate tertiary treatment facility was obtained from 2020/21 Rate Study $94,955 TOTAL Option 2 $3,172,000 $0 $205,000 -$205,000 $2,967,000 -6% Option 3A – Plant Optimization
Other includes insurance and bonds
Power added primary clarifier or filtration and/or secondary clarifier, 2.5Hp for clarifier + 5 Hp for sludge / scum pump + (5Hp ML pump)*2, assume 25c/kWh $28,512
Chemicals assume bioaugmentation, $25,000/year $25,000
Maintenance assume $5,000 equipment maintenance costs per year for clarifier / filter, ML recirculation pumps $5,000 Labor add part time employee $94,955
TOTAL Option 3A $3,172,000 $153,000 $0 $153,000 $3,325,000 5% Option 3C – 0.4 MGD Packaged Plant (Abandon Tertiary Treatment) Other includes insurance and bonds $5,000 $5,000
Power added power costs based on Cloacina quote, reduced power calculated assuming similar power usage for aeration as current operation (no double power counting) $40,150 $62,000 -$21,850 Chemicals added costs based on Cloacina quote, reduction assumes no methane $14,136 $18,000 -$3,864 Maintenance based on Cloacina quote, maintenance costs reduction was estimated based on 2020/21 Rate Study budget for tertiary treatment facility $8,125 $25,300 -$17,175 Labor no change in labor costs, similar systems $94,955 $94,955 $0 TOTAL Option 3C $3,172,000 $162,000 $205,000 -$43,000 $3,129,000 -1% Option 4C – 1.5 MGD Custom MBR
Other includes insurance and bonds $5,000 $5,000
Power assumes similar power usage for aeration current compared to option 3C $120,450 $110,878 $9,572 Chemicals reduced for methane $42,408 $18,000 $24,408
Maintenance maintenance costs reduction was estimated based on 2020/21 Rate Study budget for tertiary treatment facility, maintenance cost increase was estimated based on Cloacina quote extrapolated to larger system $24,375 $25,300 -$925 Labor no change in labor costs, similar systems $94,955 $94,955 $0 TOTAL Option 4C $3,172,000 $287,000 $254,000 $33,000 $3,205,000 1% 056
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Table 5-5 Summary of Estimated Annual Life Cycle Costs
Unit Opt 2 Phase Out
BNR/Tertiary
Opt 3a
Plant
Optimization
Opt 3c

0.4 MGD
Package Plant
Opt 4c

1.5 MGD
Custom MBR
WRF Treatment
Capacity
(mgd) 1.5 0.8 – 1.5 1.5 1.5
(AFY) 1680 900 – 1680 1680 1680
WRF RW
Production
(mgd) 0 > 0.2 0.4 1.5
(AFY) 0 > 200 448 1680
RANGE of
Additional Capital
Investment 1
($mill) $3.9 to $8.4 $9.4 to $20 $8.6 to $19 $16 to $34 RANGE of
Annualized Capital
Cost for Additional
Facilities 2
($/year) $120,000 to $260,000 $290,000 to $630,000 $270,000 to $570,000 $490,000 to $1,040,000 Anticipated ∆ in
O&M Costs 3 ($/year) -$205,000 $153,000 -$43,000 $33,000 Additional Annual
Life-Cycle Cost 4 ($/year) -$85,000 to $55,000 $443,000 to $783,000 $227,000 to $527,000 $523,000 to $1,073,000 1 Range reflects AACE Class V Cost Estimate, Upper and Lower Contingencies 2 Based on interest rate of 3% and facility life of 50 years. 3 See relative O&M costs presented in Table 5-4 4 Reflects the relative change to current operational costs. 057
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Ranking Outcomes
The outcomes of the scoring, weighting and ranking approach, described in Section 5.1, for the four options is presented herein. Table 5-6 presents the raw scoring for the WRF options based on the guidance presented in Table 5-1. Some notable considerations are presented below:
• Economic considerations were based on the quantitative cost data developed in Sections 3.3 and 5.2.
• Environmental/CEQA considerations were the same for all options since the process improvements, new facilities and abandoned facilities would all occur on the existing, or disturbed, WRF site.
• Social considerations were qualitative in nature.
o Regional benefits were based on the potential for partnerships, which was assumed to be more likely to occur if the WRF could reliably produce more recycled water, creating an opportunity to increase non-potable reuse or implement a groundwater replenishment project in Scotts Valley.
o Public perception was based on the anticipated response from the community, for example the likelihood of low public acceptance should the City cease production of tertiary effluent for non-potable use, resulting in City parks no longer being able to rely on locally produced recycled water.
• Engineering and operational considerations were based on both quantitative and qualitative criteria.
o The ability of a project to maximize beneficial reuse was based on the amount of effluent to be used. Option 2 received a score of two because it would still provide secondary effluent for the Pasatiempo Golf satellite treatment plant. Options 3a and 3c would produce a similar amount of recycled water and Option 4c would produce the greatest amount of recycled water.
o All projects were deemed to have a similar degree of ease for implementation, based on a combination of construction and institutional challenges. o The scores for operational complexity were based on the relative considerations for each option as presented in Table 3-4
The raw scores in Table 5-6 were multiplied by the weighting theme percentages presented in Table 5-2 to perform the sensitivity analysis presented in Table 5-7. 058
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Table 5-6 Raw Scoring for WRF Options
Alternatives Economic Considerations Environmental Social Engineering and Operational Considerations TOTAL
Raw
Score
(Max 36)
Option Description Cost
Effectiveness
Financial
Implementability
CEQA
Considerations
Future
Regulatory
Risk
Regional
Benefits
Public
Perception
Maximize
Beneficial
Reuse
Ease of
Implementation
Operational
Complexity
2 Produce Secondary Disinfected Effluent (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary) 2 Phase out
BRN/tertiary 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 3 3 23
3 Continue Producing Recycled Water to Meet Current Agreements 3a Plant
optimization 2 2 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 26
3c

0.4 MGD
packaged plant,
abandon
tertiary
3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 25
4 Improved Tertiary to Maximize Beneficial Reuse
4c

1.5 MGD
custom MBR,
abandon
tertiary
1 1 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 27
Note: Green cells indicate the top scoring option (4), and red cells indicate the bottom scoring option (1) for a given screening criteria.

Score Scoring Legend: Scoring
Legend:
4 Fully Meets Criteria BEST
3 Mostly Meets Criteria GOOD
2 Somewhat Meets Criteria FAIR
1 Does Not Meets Criteria WORST
059
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Table 5-7 WRF Ranking and Sensitivity Analysis
WRF Options SENSITIVITY RANKING
Option Description Baseline
(Balanced)
Minimize
Costs
Maximize
Beneficial
Reuse
Minimize
Operational
complexity
Option 2 Phase out BNR/tertiary 4 1 4 2
Option 3a
Plant Optimization –
Improvements to meet
current agreements
2 2 2 4
Option 3c 0.4 MGD packaged plant,
abandon tertiary
3 3 3 3
Option 4c 1.5 MGD custom MBR,
abandon tertiary treatment 1 4 1 1
Note: Green cells indicate the top ranked (1st) option and red cells indicate the bottom ranked (4th) option for a given weighting theme.

The sensitivity analysis found that:
• Option 2 – Discontinue Recycled Water Production (Phase Out BNR/Tertiary):

Production of a larger and consistent quantity of tertiary recycled water offers an opportunity to support a local groundwater replenishment project, which could offer a cost sharing opportunity through partnerships with SVWD.
060
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-2
SVWD Regional Recycled Water Alternatives Evaluation
An evaluation was performed for SVWD (Kennedy Jenks, 2021b) to explore the potential for implementing a groundwater replenishment reuse program if:
• The treatment capabilities at the Scotts Valley Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) were to be limited/reduced, and/or
• The Santa Margarita Groundwater Agency (SMGWA) determined a need for larger scale groundwater recharge projects in support of their Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).

The alternatives evaluated would recharge advanced treated purified water into the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin (SMGB) through existing and new injection wells in the Scotts Valley area. The alternatives are summarized in the following sections in terms of their assumptions about the City’s WRF. A summary of costs from the 2021 evaluation is included herein to provide the City an overview of options being considered by SVWD and their relative costs.

5.4.1 SVWD RW Alternative 1 – Baseline Project.

This alternative includes the improvements required at the WRF to reliably produce tertiary effluent to supply the new AWTF and adding a brine line from the AWTF in Scotts Valley to just south of Pasatiempo turnout to allow for the AWTF to operate year-round. The proposed AWTF would have an influent design flow of 0.77 MGD, which is based upon the estimated tertiary effluent that could be produced by the City (with treatment losses) in the wet season when the secondary effluent available is 0.85 MGD.

In the summer season, there is less secondary effluent available and SVWD needs to supply the district customers with recycled water for irrigation, which further reduces the effluent available to produce purified water for groundwater injection. Based on the seasonal limitations, it is estimated that this alternative would allow for the production and recharge of 340 AFY of purified water to the SMGB.

5.4.2 SVWD RW Alternative 2 – Local Projects
SVWD RW Alt 2a – Dual Plant Solution. This alternative considered operating two treatment systems simultaneously at the WRF, by implementing the improvements required at the WRF to continue to supply recycled water to district customers and installing a new scalping MBR to treat a portion of the raw wastewater to tertiary treated recycled water and supply a new AWTF at El Pueblo site.

This alternative was not further evaluated due to the operational difficulties of having two treatment facilities at the WRF with the limited benefits of producing a small amount of purified water.

SVWD RW Alt 2b – One Plant Solution. This project alternative proposed continuing secondary treatment at the WRF by implementing partial improvements and developing a new tertiary 061
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-3
treatment and AWTF facility at the El Pueblo Site. Secondary effluent from the WRF would be supplied to this new facility where it would be treated to produce recycled water to meet district customer irrigation demands in the summer and supply the AWTF with reliable tertiary effluent to produce purified water year-round and inject it to the SMGB via three groundwater injection wells.

The brine generated at the AWTF would be discharged via a new pipeline that would connect downstream of the Pasatiempo intake on the existing pipeline that conveys secondary effluent from the WRF to the Santa Cruz outfall. With this designated brine line connection secondary effluent supplied to Pasatiempo would not be impacted. The tertiary facility would have an influent flow of

0.85 MGD and would produce 0.77 MGD of tertiary effluent to supply the AWTF in the wet season.

In the summer season, there is less secondary effluent available to produce tertiary effluent, supply the district customers with recycled water for irrigation, and feed the AWTF. Based on the seasonal limitations, is estimated that this alternative would allow for recharge of 340 AFY to the SMGB.

SVWD RW Alt 2c – One Plant Solution (MBR). This project alternative proposed continuing secondary treatment at the WRF by implementing partial improvements and installing a new MBR to treat a portion of the secondary effluent available to produce tertiary effluent. The MBR would produce recycled water to meet district customer irrigation demands in the summer and supply the AWTF with reliable tertiary effluent to produce purified water year-round and inject it to the SMGB via three groundwater injection wells.

The brine generated at the AWTF would be discharged to sewer and ultimately to the WRF. The proposed MBR would have a treatment capacity of 0.51 MGD, based on the assumption that 60% of the secondary effluent from the WRF could be used to supply the MBR. The MBR would supply the AWTF that could treat up to 0.49 MGD in the winter season. In the summer season, the MBR would produce recycled water to meet SVWD irrigation needs, reducing the effluent available to supply the AWTF. Based on the seasonal limitations, this alternative would only be able to produce 250 AFY for recharge of the SMGB

5.4.3 SVWD RW Alternative 3 – Regional Projects
SVWD RW Alt 3a – Treatment at Santa Cruz WWTF. This alternative would require multiagency collaboration and agreements as it evaluates the potential to utilize a portion of the secondary filtered effluent that would be produced at the SC-WWTF and conveyed to the Chanticleer AWTF for the PWS project. The intent would be to connect to the pipeline proposed to convey the effluent from SC-WWTF to Chanticleer and direct a portion of this flow to a new AWTF at the El Pueblo Site.

During the summer season, a portion of the secondary filtered effluent from SC-WWTF could be supplied to Pasatiempo on the way to the El Pueblo Site to meet the agreements with the golf course, and a portion of the effluent would be disinfected at the El Pueblo site to supply SVWD customers with recycled water.

The proposed AWTF would have a treatment capacity of 1.01 MGD, based on the assumed available capacity of the pipeline to Chanticleer, producing 0.81 MGD of purified water in the winter season.

With the supply to Pasatiempo and SVWD recycled water customers in the summer, the effluent 062
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-4
available to produce purified water would be reduced. Based on the seasonal conditions, is estimated that this alternative would allow for recharge of 620 AFY to the SMGB. Since SVWD recycled water customers and Pasatiempo would now be supplied with effluent from SC-WWTF, the improvements needed for the WRF are no longer a consideration and the brine that would be generated at El Pueblo AWTF could be discharged to the sewer system and eventually to the pipeline that conveys the effluent from the WRF to the outfall at Santa Cruz.

SVWD RW Alt 3b – Purified Water from Chanticleer AWTF. This alternative is similar to Alternative 3.A, by proposing that SVWD buys into a portion of the expansion capacity planned for the Chanticleer AWTF under the PWS project. For this alternative, since the advanced treatment would occur at the Chanticleer Site, the brine produced would be conveyed to the outfall in Santa Cruz. The WRF would continue to supply secondary effluent to Pasatiempo, or potable or purified water could be used to supply Pasatiempo and the SVWD customers irrigation demands.

This alternative assumes that half of the remaining purified water production capacity (or a quarter of the total capacity, 0.81 MGD) could be supplied to El Pueblo site for groundwater injection at the SMGB. This alternative is not impacted by seasonal demands and the purified water can be injected to the SMGB year-round, for a recharge of 910 AFY.

SVWD RW Alt 3.C. Maximize Reuse – This alternative would require multiagency collaboration and agreements as it evaluates the potential to maximize water reuse in the region by utilizing all the secondary effluent available at the SC-WWTF, after supplying the PWS project, to produce purified water. This alternative would require a new tertiary treatment plant near the SC-WWTF to treat all the available secondary effluent to tertiary level, then convey tertiary effluent to a new AWTF at Scotts Valley to produce purified water and inject it to the SMGB. The new AWTF could not be constructed at El Pueblo site due to space constraints for a larger facility. Pasatiempo could be served with the tertiary effluent supplied to the new AWTF, and the SVWD recycled water customers would be served with tertiary effluent after disinfection, to meet Title 22 requirements.

The proposed AWTF would have a treatment capacity of 3.55 MGD, producing 2.53 MGD of purified water in the winter season. With the supply to Pasatiempo and SVWD recycled water customers in the summer, the effluent available to produce purified water would be reduced. Based on the seasonal conditions, is estimated that this alternative would allow for recharge of 2,600 AFY to the SMGB.

Since SVWD recycled water customers and Pasatiempo would now be supplied with effluent from SC-WWTF, the improvements needed for the WRF are no longer a consideration and the brine that would be generated at El Pueblo AWTF could be discharged to the sewer system and eventually to the pipeline that conveys the effluent from the WRF to the outfall at Santa Cruz. 063
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-5

5.4.4 Recycled Water Alternatives Costs
For each of the alternatives, a conceptual capital cost was estimated that included:
• Treatment to produce recycled water to supply SVWD customers and a new AWTF, • Treatment for water purification for groundwater injection, • Groundwater injection infrastructure,
• Conveyance pipelines, pump stations, and storage,
• Other site development costs, including yard piping, electrical, instrumentation and controls.

A summary of the flows, capital, annual O&M and unit costs are presented in Table 5-8. Of note is that alternatives considered by SVWD as part of the 2021 study had capital costs between $22 million and $161 million, which is near or above the cost for the most expensive WRF option. Thus, there may be an incentive for cost-sharing between the City and SVWD to realize the benefits of shared assets and centralized treatment.
064
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 5-1
Table 5-8 Summary of SVWD Recycled Water Alternatives and Costs Alternative Description
Reuse Volume SVWD Study Estimated Costs1
Purified
Water
Recharge
(AFY)
NPR in
Scotts
Valley
(AFY)
Pasatiempo
GC Reuse
(AFY)
Total
Reuse
(AFY)
Total
Capital
($ M)
Annual
O&M
($M/yr)
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
($/AF)
Baseline 1 Baseline 340 210 110 660 $34 $1.2 $8,600
Local
Project
2B One Plant Solution 340 210 110 660 $32 $1.3 $8,700
2C One Plant Solution
(MBR) 250 210 110 570 $22 $1.0 $8,500
Regional
Project
3A Treatment at SCWWTF 620 210 110 940 $53 $2.0 $7,600 3B
Purified Water
from Chanticleer
AWTF
910 0 0 910 $58 $2.6 $6,100
3C Maximized Reuse 2,600 210 110 2920 $161 $5.8 $5,400
1 The Capital, Annual O&M Cost, and Annualized Unit Cost is estimated based on the cost of tertiary treatment to supply the AWTF and the cost of producing purified water. These costs do not include the cost of treatment required to produce RW for SVWD customers. The annualized cost is based on the AFY of purifed water produced, not considering AF produced to supply SVWD RW customers or Pasatiempo (Kennedy Jenks, 2021b) 065
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 6-1
Section 6: Next Steps
A preferred project was not identified based solely on the project ranking due to the need for additional studies, institutional considerations, or other uncertainties. This section lists some additional activities to further evaluate Option 3a to determine if the process improvements would be sufficient to meet the City’s WRF goals as well as some longer-term actions that would facilitate implementation of the preferred option.

1. The BRVA exercise (described in Section 2.5) provided a high-level understanding of the systems “as-is” and the associated consequential importance to overall plant performance.

However, we suggest that the City consider performing risk-based inspections and condition assessment study on the most vulnerable plant unit process and obtain a more accurate view of the condition of critical assets relative to treatment process and electrical.

If there are observed asset performance deficiencies, the study would identify repair, rehabilitation, and full replacement mitigation alternatives. Ultimately, the City could use the study to estimate a scope and cost of the improvements to get the assets back to the intended performance expectation. The City could also use the condition assessment information to calibrate a plant process and capacity model.

2. Once the calibrated process and capacity model is functional and accurately depicts the “asis” state, the City could leverage this “digital twin” of its plant to evaluate “future-state” scenarios and the benefits to WRF improvements. The City could use the process model to conduct a capacity assessment for the WRF with addition of the facilities identified under Option 3A (add one primary or secondary clarifier, clarifier splitter box, WAS storage basin, SRT control, sludge selector, dedicated ML recycle pumps, etc). This desktop study would further vet the improvement concepts but may be insufficient to validate performance without a more comprehensive facilities plan.

3. A WRF Facilities Plan could build on the outcomes of the process model and capacity assessment to explore a more in-depth alternatives evaluation of how to upgrade the plant overall, as well as detailed process-by-process analyses. The WRF Facilities Plan could serve as a mechanism to justify rate increases by identifying areas of underinvestment in the plant and funding needed restore plant capacity and meet operational goals.

4. Once selected plant upgrades and improvements are identified, the City may consider performing a rate analysis and financial plan to evaluate future rate setting to support the investments identified in the WRF Facilities Plan.

5. Meeting with SVWD to discuss the potential to modify existing agreements and/or enter into future cost sharing agreements could be done at any stage, to further understand their recycled water objectives and likely projects for the future (as described in Section 5.4). 066
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page 6-2
Activities 1 through 4 could lead to the creation of a WRF Strategic Capital Asset Management Plan, which leverages the principles of asset management to justify future plant upgrades to improve system performance and capital repair, rehabilitation, and replacement through risk prioritization. The City may elect to execute these activities in a phased approach to identify triggers and off-ramps to meet their needs and budget.
067
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page i
Section 7: References
City of Santa Cruz, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. City of Santa Cruz. Retrieved January 20, 2022, from
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/87122/637739611535 800000
City of Scotts Valley. Treatment Process. City of Scotts Valley. Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://www.scottsvalley.org/175/Treatment-Process
City of Scotts Valley, 2021. City of Scotts Valley Wastewater Reclamation Facility Annual Report 2021. Prepared by Wastewater Division Staff
Kenney/Jenks Consultants (Kennedy Jenks), 2021a. TM – Santa Cruz Phase 2 Recycled Water Facilities Study | Santa Cruz County Regional Recycled Water Alternatives Evaluation.

Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz. 15 June 2021.

Kennedy Jenks, 2021b. TM – Recycled Water Alternatives Evaluation. Prepared for Scotts Valley Water District. 8 June 2021.

Kennedy Jenks, 2018. TM – Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Analysis for Secondary Process Upgrade.

Prepared for City of Scotts Valley. 12 April 2018.

Kennedy Jenks, 2016. TM – Secondary Process Evaluation of the WRF. Prepared for City of Scotts Valley. 12 September 2016.

Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Scotts Valley Water District. Retrieved January 20, 2022, from
https://www.svwd.org/sites/default/files/documents/reports/UWMP_2020.pdf Scotts Valley Water District. Recycled Water. Scotts Valley Water District. Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://www.svwd.org/Recycled-Water 068
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page i
Appendix A: BRVA Detailed Breakdown
069
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page i
070
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page ii
071
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page i
Appendix B: Capital Costs for WRF Options
072
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page B - 1
Capital Costs for WRF Options
Unit Process Description of
Improvements
Consequential
Criticality 1,2
Options
Included Cost Range Capital Cost Notes
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C Existing Facilities
Electrical
Distribution
develop P&IDs
and record
drawings for
entire electrical
system
5 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $229,000 $25,000 for site work
(instrument and
equipment inventory)
and 17 P&ID drawings at
$12,000
conduct arc flesh
study 5 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 typical cost to develop
arc flash study of similar
plant size
develop electrical
safety protocols 5 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C - $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 typical cost for safety study condition
assessment of
electrical systems
5 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $30,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 includes condition
assessment for electrical
system only
electrical
replacements and
upgrades based
on condition
assessment
5 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C
$200,000 to
$750,000 - $250,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 assumes relatively good
condition for all
electrical equipment, for
option 2 assumes no
electrical upgrades for
tertiary treatment
facility (use until it fails)
Influent Pump
Station and
Headwords
safety audit and
safety compliance
improvements
4 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 includes cost for safety
audit and minor
improvements such as
site lighting, slip/and fall
protection, monitoring
and alarms
add grit removal
system
4 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 condition
assessment and
repairs as needed
4 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 minimal repairs,
assumes structure is in
good condition
add primary
clarifier or
primary filtration:

BOD reduction in
the secondary
influent
5 3A
$2,000,000
to
$3,000,000
- - $2,500,000 - - - - -
assumes primary
clarifier would be added
as part of option 3A
Flow
Equalization
Structure
upgrade cleaning
/ flushing
mechanism for
removal of settled
materials out of
side
compartments
4 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B - $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 - 073
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page B - 2
Unit Process Description of
Improvements
Consequential
Criticality 1,2
Options
Included Cost Range Capital Cost Notes
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C Flow
Equalization
Structure
develop SOPs for
various failure
events
4 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B - $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 - condition
assessment and
repairs as needed
4 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B
$100,000 to
$1,000,000 - $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 - assumes medium level of
repairs are needed
including equipment and
piping
automation for
flow control and
aeration, related
to use of FES as
anoxic basin
5 2, 3A, 3B, 4B - $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 - - $75,000 - assumes that these
improvements will be
done for option 2 also
since tertiary treatment
would be phased out
over next 10 years
Aeration
Tanks
develop SOPs for
various failure
events
4 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 condition
assessment and
repairs as needed
4 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C
$100,000 to
$2,000,000 - $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 assumes structure and
piping is in good
condition, minimal
repairs to miscellaneous
equipment
add one
additional blower
for redundancy
4 2, 3A, 3B, 4B - $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 aeration control
upgrade 4 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B - $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $0 new blower controls and instrumentation add internal
recirculation
pump and piping
5 3A - $0 $750,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
assumes that these
improvements will be
done for option 2 also
since tertiary treatment
would be phased out
over next 10 years
add classifying
selector for
surface wasting to
AB effluent box
5 2, 3A - $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
assumes telescoping
valve, the improvements
will be done for option 2
also since tertiary
treatment would be
phased out over next 10
years
bio augment sec
treatment
process with low
SRT nitrifying
organisms,
annual cost
5 2, 3A - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
included in annual cost,
assumes that these
operational
improvements will be
done for option 2 also
since tertiary treatment
would be phased out
over next 10 years
074
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page B - 3
Unit Process Description of
Improvements
Consequential
Criticality 1,2
Options
Included Cost Range Capital Cost Notes
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C Secondary
Clarifiers
develop SOPs for
various failure
events
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B - $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 condition
assessment and
repairs as needed
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B - $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 add clarifier
splitter box 5 3A, 3B, - $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 priority 5 for Option 3A, other Options: Priority 3 Chlorine
Contact
develop SOPs for
various failure
events
1 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C $150,000 - $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 condition
assessment and
repairs as needed
1 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C
$50,000 to
$500,000 - $100,000 $100,001 $100,002 $100,003 $100,004 $100,005 $100,006 minimal repairs,
structure in good
condition
Tertiary
Treatment
Facility
develop SOPs for
various failure
events
2 2, 3A, 3B, 4B - $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 - - $20,000 - condition
assessment and
repairs as needed
2 2, 3A, 3B, 4B - $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 - - $150,000 - assumes tertiary
facilities are in good
condition, UV lamps
replacement
replace
backwash pumps 5 3A, 3B, 4B - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 - - $100,000 - assumes that these
improvements will be
done for option 2 also
since tertiary treatment
would be phased out
over next 10 years
refurbish air and
wasting valves 5 3A, 3B, 4B - $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 - - $30,000 - assumes that these
improvements will be
done for option 2 also
since tertiary treatment
would be phased out
over next 10 years
Disinfected
Plant Effluent
Outfall
develop SOPs for
various failure
events
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 condition
assessment and
repairs as needed
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $150,000 $150,001 $150,002 $150,003 $150,004 $150,005 $150,006 assumes moderate
repairs to outfall
structure and minimal
repairs to the effluent
pipe
Solids
dewatering
develop SOPs for
various failure
event
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 condition
assessment and
repairs as needed
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 assumes minimal repairs
075
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page B - 4
Unit Process Description of
Improvements
Consequential
Criticality 1,2
Options
Included Cost Range Capital Cost Notes
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C replace cake
conveyor
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 upgrade controls
for solids
dewatering
system (BFP and
polymer feed)
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 add WAS storage
tank 5 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - - $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 assumes new 20,000 gal
above grade, open top,
metal storage tank with
inlet pipe, overflow,
mixer, and drain line.

WAS Pump
Station
develop SOPs for
various failure
events
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 condition
assessment and
repairs as needed
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 assumes minimal, basic repairs upgrade WAS
controls 5 2, 3A, 3B, 4B - $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 - - $50,000 - add TSS meter 5 2, 3A, 3B, 4B - $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 - - $75,000 - RAS Pump
Station
develop SOPs for
various failure
events
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B - $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 - condition
assessment and
repairs as needed
3 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 - assumes minimal, basic repairs SCADA
no improvements
identified as the
plant is currently
in process of
upgrading the
SCADA system
and process
control
1 2, 3A, 3B, 3C,
4A, 4B, 4C - - - - - - - -
New Facilities
SCWWTF3 Buy into capacity
of the SCWWTP 5 1 $7,000,000 - - - - - - -
Estimate provided by
Steve Wolfman

7.18.2022. Does not
include annual
contributions to the

WWTP CIP
Lift Station New screened
sewage lift station 5 1 $2,500,000 - - - - - - -
Effluent Pipe Add pipe to Santa
Cruz WWTP 5 1 $1,056,000 - - - - - - - assumes 1 mi of pipe, $200/lft Demolition Demolition of the
treatment facility 5 1 $1,500,000 - - - - - - -
076
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page B - 5
Unit Process Description of
Improvements
Consequential
Criticality 1,2
Options
Included Cost Range Capital Cost Notes
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C Tertiary Plant
Decommission
Demolition of
Tertiary
Treatment Plant
5 2, 3C, 4A, 4C - $500,000 - - $500,000 $500,000 - $500,000 Packaged Plant New packaged
plant 5 3B - - - $2,450,000 $3,088,000 $5,700,000 $8,550,000 - Costs based on Cloacinaquote.

MBR
Improvements
- Option 4c
Plant upgrade to
MBR 5 4C - - - - - - $0 $10,600,000
Packaged Plant
Integration
addition of piping 5 3B, 3C, 4A,
4B - - $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
electrical and
SCADA upgrades 5 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B - - $100,000 $100,001 $100,002 $100,003 site paving and
grading 5 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B - - $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Misc. demolition 5 3B, 3C, 4A,
4B - - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Estimated Facility Costs $12,056,000 $3,629,000 $8,639,000 $8,289,000 $7,847,001 $10,459,002 $13,389,003 $14,399,000 Consequence criticality 4 and 5 items only
Subtotal of Additional Project Costs $3,000,000 $900,000 $2,200,000 $2,100,000 $2,000,000 $2,600,000 $3,300,000 $3,600,000 25% of facility cost;
includes overhead,
profit, mob/demob.
insurance
Construction Cost SUBTOTAL $15,056,000 $4,529,000 $10,839,000 $10,389,000 $9,847,001 $13,059,002 $16,689,003 $17,999,000 Engineering design, bid services, services during construction, construction management, and inspection $3,800,000 $1,100,000 $2,700,000 $2,600,000 $2,500,000 $3,300,000 $4,200,000 $4,500,000 25% of construction costs
TOTAL Project Cost without Contingency $18,856,000 $5,629,000 $13,539,000 $12,989,000 $12,347,001 $16,359,002 $20,889,003 $22,499,000 Rounded to nearest $100k
AACE Class V Cost Estimate, Upper Contingency $9,400,000 $2,800,000 $6,800,000 $6,500,000 $6,200,000 $8,200,000 $10,400,000 $11,200,000 +50% of Project Cost AACE Class V Cost Estimate, Lower Contingency -$5,700,000 -$1,700,000 -$4,100,000 -$3,900,000 -$3,700,000 -$4,900,000 -$6,300,000 -$6,700,000 -30% of Project Cost TOTAL Project Cost, Upper Range $28,300,000 $8,400,000 $20,300,000 $19,500,000 $18,500,000 $24,600,000 $31,300,000 $33,700,000 TOTAL Project Cost, Lower Range $13,200,000 $3,900,000 $9,400,000 $9,100,000 $8,600,000 $11,500,000 $14,600,000 $15,800,000

1. Costs for facilities with consequential criticality of 4 and 5 were included in the evaluation.

2. Facilities with criticality of 1 to 3 (highlighted in orange) were identified, but costs were not included in the facility cost estimates.

3. The City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department (Steve Wolfman, 2022) indicated that the cost to buy into the Santa Cruz WWTP would be $7 mil, plus a proportional contribution of 1:17 (based on flow) for any future capital costs (estaimted at $300,000 per year). Capital costs for improvements to the outfall pipeline to convey raw effluent (lining or replacement) and a capital payout to Pasatiempo for some portion of their stranded treatment assets are unknown at this time but could be significant. Additionally, the Santa Cruz WWTP would charge an O&M cost of $1.2 mil/year (based on 0.7 mgd of raw water flow treatment) and the City of Scotts Valley would need to purchase potable water from SVWD to serve City parks, which could incur an additional $350,000/year or more. Additional annual costs associated with a breach in contract with Pasatiempo could include costs to purchase potable water to replace the recycled water supply or compensation for loss of greens or vegetation during drought due to mandatory cutbacks. 077
Scotts Valley WRF Options Study – FINAL | Page C - 1
078

Scotts Valley City CouncilAugust 17, 2022

Scotts Valley City Council
August 17, 2022