Scotts Valley City Council
June 12, 2024

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-082-14 024-082-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-082-15 024-082-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-083-01 024-083-01 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-083-02 024-083-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-083-05 024-083-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-091-04 024-091-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-091-06 024-091-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-091-07 024-091-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-091-08 024-091-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-093-01 024-093-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-093-02 024-093-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-01 024-094-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-02 024-094-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-08 024-094-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-09 024-094-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-11 024-094-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-12 024-094-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-15 024-094-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-21 024-094-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-22 024-094-22 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-23 024-094-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-094-25 024-094-25 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-03 024-101-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-04 024-101-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-05 024-101-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-06 024-101-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-07 024-101-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-08 024-101-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-09 024-101-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-10 024-101-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-11 024-101-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-12 024-101-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-13 024-101-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-101-14 024-101-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-02 024-102-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-03 024-102-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-04 024-102-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-05 024-102-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-06 024-102-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-08 024-102-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 82 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-102-10 024-102-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-14 024-102-14 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-102-15 024-102-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-17 024-102-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-19 024-102-19 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-20 024-102-20 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-21 024-102-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-26 024-102-26 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-27 024-102-27 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-28 024-102-28 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-29 024-102-29 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-31 024-102-31 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-32 024-102-32 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-34 024-102-34 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-35 024-102-35 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-37 024-102-37 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-38 024-102-38 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-40 024-102-40 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-41 024-102-41 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-42 024-102-42 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-43 024-102-43 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-44 024-102-44 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-45 024-102-45 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-46 024-102-46 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-48 024-102-48 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-49 024-102-49 29.59 (0.01) 29.58
024-102-52 024-102-52 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-54 024-102-54 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-55 024-102-55 59.18 0.00 59.18
024-102-57 024-102-57 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-102-58 024-102-58 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-103-01 024-103-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-103-02 024-103-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-103-04 024-103-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-103-05 024-103-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-103-06 024-103-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-103-07 024-103-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-103-08 024-103-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-01 024-111-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-02 024-111-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 83 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-111-03 024-111-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-04 024-111-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-05 024-111-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-06 024-111-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-07 024-111-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-08 024-111-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-09 024-111-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-14 024-111-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-16 024-111-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-17 024-111-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-19 024-111-19 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-20 024-111-20 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-21 024-111-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-22 024-111-22 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-23 024-111-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-24 024-111-24 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-27 024-111-27 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-28 024-111-28 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-30 024-111-30 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-31 024-111-31 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-32 024-111-32 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-34 024-111-34 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-37 024-111-37 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-39 024-111-39 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-111-40 024-111-40 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-122-04 024-122-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-122-09 024-122-09 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-122-10 024-122-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-122-13 024-122-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-122-14 024-122-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-122-15 024-122-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-122-16 024-122-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-122-17 024-122-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-14 024-123-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-17 024-123-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-21 024-123-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-22 024-123-22 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-23 024-123-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-24 024-123-24 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-27 024-123-27 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 84 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-123-29 024-123-29 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-34 024-123-34 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-37 024-123-37 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-39 024-123-39 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-42 024-123-42 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-43 024-123-43 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-123-44 024-123-44 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-01 024-131-01 59.18 0.00 59.18
024-131-02 024-131-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-03 024-131-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-04 024-131-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-06 024-131-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-07 024-131-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-08 024-131-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-09 024-131-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-11 024-131-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-12 024-131-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-13 024-131-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-15 024-131-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-16 024-131-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-17 024-131-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-18 024-131-18 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-21 024-131-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-22 024-131-22 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-23 024-131-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-131-24 024-131-24 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-141-02 024-141-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-03 024-141-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-04 024-141-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-08 024-141-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-09 024-141-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-10 024-141-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-12 024-141-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-13 024-141-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-14 024-141-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-17 024-141-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-18 024-141-18 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-20 024-141-20 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-21 024-141-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-23 024-141-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 85 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-141-26 024-141-26 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-27 024-141-27 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-28 024-141-28 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-29 024-141-29 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-141-30 024-141-30 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-142-01 024-142-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-142-02 024-142-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-142-03 024-142-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-142-04 024-142-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-142-05 024-142-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-151-01 024-151-01 118.36 0.00 118.36
024-151-02 024-151-02 88.77 (0.01) 88.76
024-151-03 024-151-03 88.77 (0.01) 88.76
024-151-04 024-151-04 118.36 0.00 118.36
024-151-05 024-151-05 118.36 0.00 118.36
024-151-06 024-151-06 59.18 0.00 59.18
024-151-07 024-151-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-151-12 024-151-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-151-16 024-151-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-151-17 024-151-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-151-22 024-151-22 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-151-23 024-151-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-151-24 024-151-24 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-151-25 024-151-25 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-01 024-152-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-02 024-152-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-05 024-152-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-07 024-152-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-08 024-152-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-10 024-152-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-11 024-152-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-12 024-152-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-13 024-152-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-14 024-152-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-15 024-152-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-16 024-152-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-17 024-152-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-20 024-152-20 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-21 024-152-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-22 024-152-22 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 86 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-152-23 024-152-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-25 024-152-25 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-26 024-152-26 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-152-27 024-152-27 24.07 (0.01) 24.06
024-152-28 024-152-28 24.14 0.00 24.14
024-152-29 024-152-29 27.73 (0.01) 27.72
024-152-30 024-152-30 25.61 (0.01) 25.60
024-161-02 024-161-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-04 024-161-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-06 024-161-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-07 024-161-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-08 024-161-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-10 024-161-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-11 024-161-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-12 024-161-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-13 024-161-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-14 024-161-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-15 024-161-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-161-17 024-161-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-171-03 024-171-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-171-04 024-171-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-171-05 024-171-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-171-06 024-171-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-171-07 024-171-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-171-08 024-171-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-171-09 024-171-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-171-10 024-171-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-171-11 024-171-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-01 024-172-01 59.18 0.00 59.18
024-172-02 024-172-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-06 024-172-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-07 024-172-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-17 024-172-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-18 024-172-18 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-19 024-172-19 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-20 024-172-20 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-23 024-172-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-24 024-172-24 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-25 024-172-25 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-26 024-172-26 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 87 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-172-28 024-172-28 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-30 024-172-30 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-33 024-172-33 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-34 024-172-34 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-172-35 024-172-35 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-173-02 024-173-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-173-03 024-173-03 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-173-04 024-173-04 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-173-06 024-173-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-174-01 024-174-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-174-02 024-174-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-174-03 024-174-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-02 024-181-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-03 024-181-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-06 024-181-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-07 024-181-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-08 024-181-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-12 024-181-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-15 024-181-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-16 024-181-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-17 024-181-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-18 024-181-18 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-181-19 024-181-19 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-182-01 024-182-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-182-04 024-182-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-182-05 024-182-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-182-06 024-182-06 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-182-07 024-182-07 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-182-08 024-182-08 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-182-10 024-182-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-182-11 024-182-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-182-12 024-182-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-182-13 024-182-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-183-01 024-183-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-183-02 024-183-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-183-03 024-183-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-183-04 024-183-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-183-05 024-183-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-183-06 024-183-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-183-08 024-183-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 88 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-183-10 024-183-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-02 024-191-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-06 024-191-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-07 024-191-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-09 024-191-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-11 024-191-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-12 024-191-12 59.18 0.00 59.18
024-191-13 024-191-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-16 024-191-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-17 024-191-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-18 024-191-18 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-21 024-191-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-22 024-191-22 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-23 024-191-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-24 024-191-24 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-27 024-191-27 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-28 024-191-28 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-191-30 024-191-30 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-31 024-191-31 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-32 024-191-32 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-191-33 024-191-33 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-02 024-202-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-03 024-202-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-04 024-202-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-05 024-202-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-09 024-202-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-10 024-202-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-11 024-202-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-12 024-202-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-14 024-202-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-15 024-202-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-16 024-202-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-17 024-202-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-18 024-202-18 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-20 024-202-20 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-21 024-202-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-28 024-202-28 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-31 024-202-31 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-33 024-202-33 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-34 024-202-34 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 89 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-202-35 024-202-35 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-36 024-202-36 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-202-37 024-202-37 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-38 024-202-38 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-202-43 024-202-43 59.18 0.00 59.18
024-202-44 024-202-44 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-211-05 024-211-05 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-211-06 024-211-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-211-12 024-211-12 236.72 0.00 236.72
024-211-15 024-211-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-211-18 024-211-18 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-211-19 024-211-19 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-211-20 024-211-20 35.34 0.00 35.34
024-211-22 024-211-22 564.49 (0.01) 564.48
024-222-01 024-222-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-222-02 024-222-02 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-222-03 024-222-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-222-07 024-222-07 576.62 0.00 576.62
024-222-08 024-222-08 263.91 (0.01) 263.90
024-231-03 024-231-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-05 024-231-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-06 024-231-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-07 024-231-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-08 024-231-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-09 024-231-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-10 024-231-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-11 024-231-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-12 024-231-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-13 024-231-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-14 024-231-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-19 024-231-19 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-20 024-231-20 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-21 024-231-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-22 024-231-22 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-23 024-231-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-26 024-231-26 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-27 024-231-27 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-28 024-231-28 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-29 024-231-29 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-30 024-231-30 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 90 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-231-31 024-231-31 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-32 024-231-32 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-33 024-231-33 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-34 024-231-34 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-35 024-231-35 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-36 024-231-36 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-39 024-231-39 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-40 024-231-40 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-41 024-231-41 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-42 024-231-42 27.99 (0.01) 27.98
024-231-43 024-231-43 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-44 024-231-44 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-45 024-231-45 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-49 024-231-49 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-50 024-231-50 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-51 024-231-51 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-52 024-231-52 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-53 024-231-53 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-54 024-231-54 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-55 024-231-55 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-56 024-231-56 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-59 024-231-59 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-231-60 024-231-60 59.18 0.00 59.18
024-241-02 024-241-02 59.18 0.00 59.18
024-241-03 024-241-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-241-04 024-241-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-242-06 024-242-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-242-07 024-242-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-242-08 024-242-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-04 024-251-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-05 024-251-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-07 024-251-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-08 024-251-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-09 024-251-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-10 024-251-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-11 024-251-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-15 024-251-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-16 024-251-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-18 024-251-18 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-251-19 024-251-19 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 91 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-261-06 024-261-06 3,378.45 (0.01) 3,378.44
024-261-09 024-261-09 2,564.20 0.00 2,564.20
024-261-10 024-261-10 3,523.90 0.00 3,523.90
024-271-06 024-271-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-07 024-271-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-08 024-271-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-09 024-271-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-10 024-271-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-11 024-271-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-12 024-271-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-13 024-271-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-14 024-271-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-15 024-271-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-16 024-271-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-17 024-271-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-18 024-271-18 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-19 024-271-19 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-20 024-271-20 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-21 024-271-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-22 024-271-22 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-23 024-271-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-24 024-271-24 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-25 024-271-25 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-26 024-271-26 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-27 024-271-27 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-28 024-271-28 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-29 024-271-29 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-30 024-271-30 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-31 024-271-31 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-32 024-271-32 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-33 024-271-33 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-34 024-271-34 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-35 024-271-35 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-36 024-271-36 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-37 024-271-37 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-38 024-271-38 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-39 024-271-39 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-40 024-271-40 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-41 024-271-41 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-42 024-271-42 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 92 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-271-43 024-271-43 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-44 024-271-44 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-45 024-271-45 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-46 024-271-46 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-47 024-271-47 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-49 024-271-49 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-50 024-271-50 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-51 024-271-51 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-52 024-271-52 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-53 024-271-53 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-54 024-271-54 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-271-55 024-271-55 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-281-01 024-281-01 632.88 0.00 632.88
024-281-03 024-281-03 1,807.84 0.00 1,807.84
024-281-05 024-281-05 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-281-06 024-281-06 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-281-07 024-281-07 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-291-01 024-291-01 173.94 0.00 173.94
024-291-02 024-291-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-291-03 024-291-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-291-04 024-291-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-291-05 024-291-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-291-06 024-291-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-291-07 024-291-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-291-08 024-291-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-291-09 024-291-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-291-10 024-291-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-291-12 024-291-12 18.02 0.00 18.02
024-291-13 024-291-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-01 024-311-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-02 024-311-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-03 024-311-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-04 024-311-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-05 024-311-05 59.18 0.00 59.18
024-311-06 024-311-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-07 024-311-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-08 024-311-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-09 024-311-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-10 024-311-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-11 024-311-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 93 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-311-12 024-311-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-13 024-311-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-14 024-311-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-15 024-311-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-311-16 024-311-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-321-01 024-321-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-321-03 024-321-03 59.18 0.00 59.18
024-321-04 024-321-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-321-06 024-321-06 13.37 (0.01) 13.36
024-321-07 024-321-07 13.99 (0.01) 13.98
024-321-10 024-321-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-321-11 024-321-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-321-12 024-321-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-321-13 024-321-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-321-15 024-321-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-321-16 024-321-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-331-01 024-331-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-331-02 024-331-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-331-03 024-331-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-331-04 024-331-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-331-06 024-331-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-331-07 024-331-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-341-01 024-341-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-341-02 024-341-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-341-03 024-341-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-341-04 024-341-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-341-05 024-341-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-01 024-351-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-02 024-351-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-03 024-351-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-05 024-351-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-06 024-351-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-07 024-351-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-08 024-351-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-09 024-351-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-10 024-351-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-11 024-351-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-12 024-351-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-13 024-351-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-351-14 024-351-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 94 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-351-15 024-351-15 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-351-16 024-351-16 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-351-17 024-351-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-361-01 024-361-01 18.49 (0.01) 18.48
024-361-02 024-361-02 24.99 (0.01) 24.98
024-361-03 024-361-03 23.99 (0.01) 23.98
024-361-04 024-361-04 19.99 (0.01) 19.98
024-361-05 024-361-05 19.99 (0.01) 19.98
024-361-06 024-361-06 19.99 (0.01) 19.98
024-361-07 024-361-07 19.99 (0.01) 19.98
024-361-08 024-361-08 20.49 (0.01) 20.48
024-361-09 024-361-09 19.99 (0.01) 19.98
024-361-10 024-361-10 17.51 (0.01) 17.50
024-371-01 024-371-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-381-01 024-381-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-01 024-391-01 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-02 024-391-02 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-03 024-391-03 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-04 024-391-04 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-05 024-391-05 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-06 024-391-06 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-07 024-391-07 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-08 024-391-08 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-09 024-391-09 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-10 024-391-10 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-11 024-391-11 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-12 024-391-12 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-13 024-391-13 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-14 024-391-14 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-15 024-391-15 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-16 024-391-16 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-17 024-391-17 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-18 024-391-18 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-19 024-391-19 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-20 024-391-20 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-21 024-391-21 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-22 024-391-22 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-23 024-391-23 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-24 024-391-24 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-25 024-391-25 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 95 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Billing Detail Report for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Account ID Property ID DB Levy Other Total
024-391-26 024-391-26 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-27 024-391-27 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-28 024-391-28 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-29 024-391-29 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-30 024-391-30 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-31 024-391-31 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-32 024-391-32 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-33 024-391-33 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-34 024-391-34 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-35 024-391-35 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-36 024-391-36 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-37 024-391-37 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-38 024-391-38 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-39 024-391-39 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-40 024-391-40 31.19 (0.01) 31.18
024-391-41 024-391-41 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-391-42 024-391-42 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-391-43 024-391-43 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-391-44 024-391-44 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-391-45 024-391-45 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-391-46 024-391-46 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-391-47 024-391-47 0.00 0.00 0.00
024-391-48 024-391-48 0.00 0.00 0.00
3823 Accounts $410,766.26 ($34.14) $410,732.12
Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 96 of 96 05/21/2024 09:08:08AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Category/Item FY 2024/25 FY 2023/24 Increase / (Decrease) Debt Service
Principal Series A $320,000.00 $325,000.00 ($5,000.00)
Principal Series B 0.00 0.00 0.00
Interest Series A 65,770.00 83,815.00 (18,045.00)
Interest Series B 0.00 0.00 0.00
Subtotal: $385,770.00 $408,815.00 ($23,045.00)
Admin. Expenses
Agency administrative costs $8,683.52 $8,349.72 $333.80 Trustee/Paying Agent costs Series A 2,250.00 2,250.00 0.00 County collection fees 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arbitrage calculation costs 0.00 0.00 0.00
Continuing disclosure costs 1,181.10 1,724.13 (543.03)
Dissemination costs 25.00 25.00 0.00
Consultant fee 9,933.19 9,776.49 156.70
Consultant expenses 207.00 216.29 (9.29)
DFAST Online Fees 2,720.19 2,658.37 61.82
Subtotal: $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00
Miscellaneous
DM charges - District-wide $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Special Tax Fund Credit 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manual Adjustments 0.00 0.00 0.00
Installment rounding (37.88) (57.60) 19.72
Subtotal: ($37.88) ($57.60) $19.72
Grand Total: $410,732.12 $433,757.40 ($23,025.28)
Total Accounts: 3,823 3,817 6
Footnotes:

Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 1 of 2 05/21/2024 09:08:01AM

City of Scotts Valley
Community Facilities District No. 97-1
Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2024/25
Fund Balances
FY 2024/25 FY 2023/24
Fund Amount Date Status Amount Date Status Increase / (Decrease) Copyright © 2013 by NBS Page 2 of 2 05/21/2024 09:08:01AM

AGENDA ITEM 8.

DATE: 6/12/2024
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

APPROVED:

SUBJECT:
6/12/2024
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Stephanie Hill, Administrative Services Director
Mali LaGoe, City Manager
Approve the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Budget Items

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Annual Adoption of the FY 24-25 Budget
The FY 2024-25 Final Proposed Budget support is attached for the City Council’s consideration. This budget includes a long-range financial forecast, with detailed analysis on the City’s General Fund.

The budget has been developed and presented through the OpenGov platform. This platform allows residents, elected officials, and other stakeholders to explore the City’s budgets online.

It provides instant online access to the budget, interactively displays, current and historical revenue and expenses down to the fund, department and object level. This financial transparency platform has been deployed as a resource for stakeholders as part of the City’s ongoing initiative to promote and enhance public transparency in local government.

The FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget incorporates analysis on the overall financial health of the City, with great emphasis on the performance and future needs of the General Fund as the City’s largest funding source. The FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget incorporates Council priorities, including pursuing additional revenue sources, investing in operational enhancements, development activities for the Town Center, and more.

The long-range financial analysis concludes by highlighting that voter-adopted Measure Z is infusing necessary stability in the budget, while still showing the need for additional revenue sources to continue to meet the expectations of the community.

The total FY24-25 Proposed Budget includes Revenues of $30.4 million with Expenses of $40 million, inclusive of fund transfers in/out of $2.9 million, and inclusive of Capital Improvement Projects of $9.9 million. The Proposed Budget includes a planned use of fund balance in the General Fund of $3.9 million, with a year-end projected fund balance of $3.7 million, or 18% of ongoing operational expenses. The Proposed Budget also includes a planned use of fund balance in Special Revenue and General CIP Funds as well as a need to finance up to $4 million for wastewater capital projects. While not all minimum reserve balances are being met, the General Operating Reserve is above the minimum level and could supplement some

additional reserves if needed. Overall reserve balances and future financing needs will be further evaluated at the Mid-Year review once final FY 23-24 actuals have been reported.

The full Online Budget Book can be accessed through the City’s website.

Adoption of the FY24-25 Classification and Salary Schedules As part of the annual budget review process, all salary schedules have been reviewed and updated in accordance with the recently completed employment group agreements.

Annual Adoption of the Utility Users Tax
Ordinance No. 109.3 (SVMC §3.35.180) requires, concurrent with budget adoption, that the Council also approve the continued collection of the utility users’ tax placed upon gas and electric service providers serving Scotts Valley properties. The FY24-25 Proposed Budget assumes the continued collection of the Utility Users’ Tax.

FISCAL IMPACT
The FY24-25 Proposed Budget includes revenues of $30.4 million and expenditures totaling $40 million; inclusive of fund transfers in/out of $2.9 million, and inclusive of Capital Improvement Projects of $9.9 million. The Proposed Budget includes a planned use of fund balance in the General Fund of $3.9 million.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council adopt the following resolutions:

1. Resolution No. 630.44 approving the FY 2024-25 Annual Budget and making related appropriations.

2. Resolution No. 1955.29 approving the FY 2024-25 Classification and Salary Schedules.

3. Resolution No. 1501.31 approving the continued collection of the Utility Users Tax for FY 2024-25.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Resolution No. 630.44 Approving FY 2024-25 Annual Budget

2. Exhibit A FY2425 Budget

3. Resolution No. 1955.29 Salary Schedule and Classification FY2425

4. Exhibit B Salary Schedule for FY2425

5. Resolution No. 1501.31 UUT

RESOLUTION NO. 630.44

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY APPROVING THE CITY’S ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE AMOUNTS BUDGETED
WHEREAS, the City Manager is responsible for preparing and submitting a City budget for the operation and improvements of the community for City Council approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and evaluated the proposed budget submitted by the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the community has had an opportunity to review and make additional suggestions regarding the proposed annual budget to the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED as follows:

1. The City of Scotts Valley’s FY 2024-25 Annual Budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 is hereby approved as set forth in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

2. The City Manager is hereby delegated responsibility for the administration of the budget and is authorized to transfer appropriations as necessary between departments, except that any transfers between funds must be approved by the City Council.

3. The City Manager is authorized to establish encumbrances from unexpended budget appropriations for operating and/or capital expenditures from the prior and current fiscal year, and shall not certify any encumbrance nor execute any payment in excess of approved department budget appropriations.

4. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish an operating reserve to accumulate receipts in excess of the estimated revenues as set forth in the budget document. Said reserve is established for the purpose of funding the budget of subsequent years and the receipts in this reserve are hereby appropriated for said purpose.

The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley at a special meeting held on the 12th day of June 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved: ____________________________
Randy Johnson, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

The City’s budget is done through the OpenGov online platform to allow for online access to the budget, interactive displays, current and historical revenue and expenses down to the fund, department and object level. This financial transparency platform has been deployed as a resource for stakeholders as part of the City’s ongoing initiative to promote and enhance public transparency in local government. Shortly after the Council adopts the budget, this platform will go live with the FY 2024-25 budget.

City Manager Budget Message
June 5, 2024
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

With appreciation for the tremendous collective effort dedicated to its development, the FY 2024-25 City of Scotts Valley Preliminary Budget is presented to the City Council for your consideration. The last year continued with economic uncertainty with sustained inflationary pressure and high interest rates. The Scotts Valley economy remained relatively steady with sales tax flat and modest growth in hotel taxes as tourism on the California coast, and particularly in Santa Cruz County exceeded pre-pandemic levels for the first time. The economic outlook remains cautious, with sales tax projections remaining flat into the next year.

The state budget shortfall will impact the City’s opportunity to leverage grant funding and as the City repairs the roads from the previous winter’s atmospheric rainstorms, delays in federal reimbursements for this emergency work will impinge the City’s cashflow for the next few years.

Despite the challenges and economic uncertainty, our organization has been rebuilding, thanks to the passage of Measure Z in March 2020. In the current year, Measure Z accounted for $4.6 million of the City’s revenue, and allowed us to hire key staff across the City, and especially to shore up the Police Department which is now 96% staffed. In the Preliminary Budget for FY 2024-25, Measure Z is expected to remain flat.

Our efforts to rebuild the City’s infrastructure and organizational capacity were mostly successful this year.

We completed our two-year effort to update the City’s technology ensuring cyber security and technological efficiencies to enhance our workforce performance. Despite staffing instability in our Public Works Engineering division, we completed 14 Capital projects this year and have another 26 active projects with 14 of those expected to be completed next year. This demonstrates success in addressing the backlog of Capital projects that plagued the City during and following the pandemic years.

In calendar year 2023, we onboarded 20 new employees. Our staffing situation has become more stable across most departments, but with over 50% of our staff with a tenure of less than 2 years, the City’s workforce is traversing a steep learning curve. Our success in hiring and retaining staff has resulted in the city’s vacancy rate at its lowest level since before the COVID pandemic, at 6%.

The Council established the following priorities for the coming fiscal year:

1. Pursue additional revenue sources to support a thriving City.

2. Invest in operational enhancements to improve the efficiency of day-to-day operations.

3. Complete pre-development activities to prepare the Town Center for development.

4. Develop a strategy to maximize recreation program cost recovery while continuing to build out the complement of recreation programs offered to support the diverse interests of our community.

5. Complete 80% design and funding plan to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant to next generation technology for recycled water and to comply with emerging water treatment regulations.

6. Improve roadway conditions with a focus on collector streets as identified in the City’s Pavement Management Program.

7. Advance active transportation planning including redesign of Scotts Valley Drive and Mount Hermon Road.

8. Explore options for City offices to meet the future needs of the City.

9. Boost communication and collaboration with residents and businesses to foster relationships and civic engagement.

10. Celebrate Scotts Valley by supporting cultural events, developing Scotts Valley’s brand, and investing in brand recognition.

These goals have been used to inform the proposed budget and will be supported by strategies and tactics developed by staff.

Budget Overview
The proposed FY 2024-25 annual budget includes cautious revenue assumptions as the City and the region continue to face high inflation and economic uncertainty. Overall revenue of $27 million is included with $14 million of that revenue generated from taxes, including Measure Z. The budget includes $26 million in operating expenditures and an ambitious $10 million in capital projects for a total budget of $36 million.

This budget includes a planned use of fund balance of $4 million from the General Fund, which includes funding for CIP projects and supplementing recreation programs. In all likelihood, we will not complete every project on the CIP or maintain full staffing, resulting in budget savings as we progress through the year, as has been the trend the last 2 years.

Highlights from the proposed FY 2024-25 budget are as follows:
 The Economic Development budget focuses on investments to prepare the Town Center for development.
 The City’s CIP focuses on completing 14 projects including the new public works building, roadway improvements and critical wastewater treatment plant infrastructure upgrades per Council directed goals.
 Increases in labor costs as agreed in new 3-year labor contracts reflect fair market compensation packages for all city staff. Certain programs and personnel have been restructured to improve organizational efficiency. One new FTE on the maintenance team is added at no additional cost to the City by offsetting supplemental contracts and reorganizing maintenance staffing. One vacant FTE was eliminated from the budget in the City Manager’s office despite the need for additional capacity to deliver projects. Vacancies will be reviewed and assessed throughout the year for efficiency and necessity before refilling.
 The Proposition 56 Tobacco Prevention Act grant ended last year, leaving the cost of the Police School Resources Officer and related programs entirely on the City’s General Fund.  $50,000 in General Fund is allocated to support the City’s Community Grant Program and $5,000 has been allocated as a contribution to the County’s Housing for Health program.  A $1 million community grant will assist with the purchase of the Town Center land.

Fiscal Reserves
The City Council establishes target reserve policies
for its operating and capital funds. Nonetheless, the
General Fund is expected to draw down reserves
totaling $4 million in FY 2025 as expenses outpace
revenues to provide core services and deliver capital
improvement projects leaving a projected ending
fund balance of $3.7 million or 19% of operating
expenses. However, in the next 2 years, reserves will
be depleted if additional action is not taken.

Long Range Planning
To understand the City’s long-range forecast, it is
important to understand the City’s past. This chart
shows the City’s key tax revenue sources from 2009
to present.

The loss of redevelopment revenue was not
addressed for almost a decade, leaving the City in a
dire financial situation until Measure Z was adopted
in 2020. Compared to 2% inflation, the cumulative
loss over that period is over $30 million.

Property taxes still only provide $1.8M per year, or
7% of the City’s overall revenue, while Measure Z
provides $4.6M or 18%.

The City’s long-range forecast predicts a structural
budget deficit fueled by rising operating and capital
costs.

A decade of deferred maintenance on the City’s
streets, parks and buildings has left the City in a
difficult and costly game of catch up. The City will
need additional revenue sources if it is going to be
able to meet the expectations of the community in
the areas of street conditions, park amenities,
recreation programming, and modernization of our
facilities.

To help us understand the extent of these needs, Public Works has completed several assessments including:
 The Parks Master Plan that tells us what park amenities and programs the community wants to see in the coming years.
 A Pavement Condition Assessment identified the condition of every city-maintained street and an estimated cost of $10M above the City’s current budget for street repairs over the next 10 years to improve the City’s streets to the pavement index rating goal set by the City Council of 70;  A Facility Assessment identified the extent of deferred maintenance in all of our City facilities and estimate repair costs for the next decade.

None of these added expenses are funded in this budget or accounted for in the long-term forecast. With the cumulative information these reports provide, the City will need to decide where to invest its limited funds and how to raise additional revenue to support a thriving city for generations to come.

In Closing
Scotts Valley is not alone in facing financial challenges however our challenges are unique. Historic circumstances related to property tax apportionment and redevelopment were addressed by cutting city services and deferring maintenance. A decade later, catching up is going to cost the city more than the revenue generated by Measure Z in 2020. The City is on a path of modernization and renewal but it’s a long road ahead to bring back our streets, parks and services to a level that our staff and community can be proud of. I believe the team at the City is up to this task, but the community will need to meet us with a willingness to fund this important work for current and future generations.

Thank you to the City Council for your ongoing support and commitment to the Scotts Valley community.

Thank you to Mayor Johnson and Vice Mayor Timm, as the budget subcommittee, for your guidance and feedback as we prepared this budget, and a huge thank you to the finance team and executive team for your incredibly hard work to help move our City forward.

Mali LaGoe
City Manager

Fund Description
Projected
Beginning Fund
Balance
07/01/2024
Estimated
Revenues
FY25
Transfers
In
Estimated
Total Funds
Available
Proposed
Budget
Expenditures
FY25
Transfers
Out
Projected
Ending Fund
Balance
06/30/2025
General Funds
1 General Fund 7,538,204 18,550,875 109,397 26,198,476 20,169,448 2,357,605 3,671,423 6 Equipment Replacement Reserve 834,265 83,000 917,265 291,400 625,865 Subtotal General Funds 8,372,469 18,633,875 109,397 27,115,741 20,460,848 2,357,605 4,297,288 General Capital Improvement Fund
150 General Capital Improvements 680,373 200,000 1,387,578 2,267,951 2,267,951 0 Special Revenue Funds - Development Impact Fees
7 Drainage Construction Impact Fees 81,743 5,000 86,743 - 86,743 8 Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees 1,201,289 98,000 1,299,289 849,396 449,893 9 Park & Recreation Facilities Impact Fees 1,740,588 120,000 1,860,588 563,950 1,296,638 21 General Facility Impact Fees 1,199 500 1,699 - 1,699 27 Police Facility Building Impact Fees 169,415 8,000 177,415 - 177,415 51 Mt. Hermon Traffic Mitigation 199,444 9,000 208,444 - 208,444 86 Library Impact Fees 210,215 10,000 220,215 - 220,215 315 Police Development Fees 70,443 3,000 73,443 5,000 68,443 Subtotal Special Revenue Funds - Development Im 3,674,337 253,500 - 3,927,837 1,418,346 - 2,509,491 Special Revenue Funds - Other
2 Recycling/Environment 72,261 250,000 322,261 225,000 97,261 3 Gas Tax 1,269,493 570,100 1,839,593 1,448,877 390,716 4 Recreation (266) 112,000 747,261 858,995 845,056 13,939 0 5 SMIP Fees 6,093 4,350 10,443 5,000 5,443
19 Affordable Housing 3,439,716 1,159,000 4,598,716 1,250,000 3,348,716 24 Lennar Funds 725,350 25,000 750,350 184,950 565,400
28 Senior Center Operations 178,163 30,000 208,163 96,731 111,432 (0) 31 STP Exchange Projects 435,177 916,000 1,351,177 400,000 951,177 33 Tree Replacement 46,236 6,500 52,736 - 52,736
35 Green Building Funding 639,220 50,000 689,220 5,000 684,220 36 Disability Compliance 21,094 6,000 27,094 1,000 26,094 50 Pinewood Estates Maint. Dist. 1,011 5,000 6,011 6,000 11 77 Skypark Landscape Maint. Dist. 2,250 40,500 42,750 100,000 (57,250) 78 Skypark Landscape Maint. Dist. Insurance 586,549 34,000 620,549 - 620,549 88 Library Improvements (Measure S) (192,261) 30,000 (162,261) - (162,261) 89 Library - Cty MOE Excess Distribution 622,870 25,000 647,870 - 647,870 115 Section 115 Set Aside - Pension 2,020,000 80,000 2,100,000 - 2,100,000 123 Commmunity Facility Center Operations (106,891) 125,000 37,291 55,400 53,450 1,950 (0) 155 Measure D Sales Tax for Transportation 426,578 395,000 821,578 723,000 98,578 178 CalTRANS - Get Everyone Moving Grant (12) - (12) - (12) 268 Prop 68 Parks/Water Bond Act (194,828) - (194,828) - (194,828) 306 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services 220,425 108,000 328,425 254,160 74,265 309 Police Prop 56 Tobacco Prevention 83,055 - 83,055 - 83,055 0 312 Police Budget Act 2016 (7,741) - (7,741) - (7,741)
316 Homeland Security Grant 2,398 - 2,398 - 2,398
317 EDG Revolving Loan 772,147 30,000 802,147 - 74,000 728,147 Subtotal Special Revenue Funds - Other 11,068,087 4,001,450 784,552 15,854,089 5,598,224 284,376 9,971,489 Debt Service Funds
26 Pension Obligation Bond 4,997 - 439,463 444,460 444,460 - 66 COP Debt Service Reserve 1,049,751 45,000 1,094,751 - 1,094,751 Subtotal Debt Service Funds 1,054,748 45,000 439,463 1,539,211 444,460 - 1,094,751 Internal Service Fund
112 Dental Insurance 26,342 26,342 - 26,342 0
Total Governmental Funds 24,876,357 23,133,825 2,720,990 50,731,172 30,189,829 2,668,323 17,873,020 Wastewater Enterprise Funds (funds are presented with working capital (current assets, less current liabilities) 10 Wastewater Operations 2,369,360 3,913,800 6,283,160 3,471,388 244,279 2,567,493 11 Tertiary Operating (13,483) 190,000 191,612 368,129 368,129 (0) 12 Wastewater Capital Reserve (597,349) 135,000 (462,349) 3,004,908 (3,467,257) 14 Wastewater Equipment Replacement 150,339 68,000 218,339 - 218,339 15 TTP District Reserve 12,908 500 13,408 - 13,408
Subtotal Wastewater Enterprise Funds 1,921,775 4,307,300 191,612 6,420,687 6,844,425 244,279 (668,017) Total All Funds 26,798,132 27,441,125 2,912,602 57,151,859 37,034,254 2,912,602 17,205,003 30,353,727 Total revenues with transfers 39,946,856 Total expenses with transfers

FY2023

ACTUALS
FY2024

ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY2024

AMENDED
BUDGET
FY2025

PROPOSED
BUDGET

DIFF TO
PY
BUDGET

REVENUE - GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Debt Service Revenues 22,997 30,554 30,554 45,000 14,446 General Capital Improvement Fund Revenues 18,475 2,853,877 2,853,877 200,000 (2,653,877) General Fund Revenues 20,609,755 16,685,195 17,265,195 18,550,875 1,285,680 Internal Service Fund Revenues 45,779 65,752 65,752 - (65,752) Other Revenues 474,871 72,937 72,937 83,000 10,063
Recreation Revenues 88,000 71,122 71,122 112,000 40,878 Special Revenues (DIF) 479,709 558,104 558,104 253,500 (304,604) Special Revenues (Other) 1,791,116 3,117,509 3,117,509 3,889,450 771,941 REVENUE TOTAL 23,530,701 23,455,050 24,035,050 23,133,825 (901,225)

WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND
Wastewater Revenues 3,511,367 4,039,036 4,039,036 4,307,300 268,264

EXPENSES - GENERAL FUND

LEGISLATIVE
Salaries & Benefits 195,174 117,011 117,011 90,563 (26,448) Services & Supplies 30,029 55,360 55,360 129,903 74,543 Capital Outlay - - - - -
LEGISLATIVE TOTAL 225,203 172,371 172,371 220,466 48,095 LEGAL
Salaries & Benefits 280,058 - - - -
Services & Supplies 19,512 305,000 305,000 305,000 -
Capital Outlay - - - - -
LEGAL TOTAL 299,570 305,000 305,000 305,000 -

CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Salaries & Benefits 696,264 833,440 833,440 749,679 (83,761) Services & Supplies 18,278 657,300 657,300 581,900 (75,400) Capital Outlay - - - - -
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TOTAL 714,542 1,490,740 1,490,740 1,331,579 (159,161)

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Salaries & Benefits 819,735 1,604,887 1,604,887 1,628,002 23,115 Services & Supplies 2,126,932 2,018,868 2,218,868 1,924,659 (294,209) Debt Payments 764,759 802,000 802,000 828,000 26,000
Capital Outlay 708,121 - - 109,025 109,025
ADMINISTRATION TOTAL 4,419,547 4,425,755 4,625,755 4,489,686 (136,069) POLICE
Salaries & Benefits 5,993,446 5,878,912 6,003,912 6,879,422 875,510 Services & Supplies 624,157 774,000 774,000 813,048 39,048 Capital Outlay - - - - -
POLICE TOTAL 6,617,603 6,652,912 6,777,912 7,692,470 914,558

FY2023

ACTUALS
FY2024

ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY2024

AMENDED
BUDGET
FY2025

PROPOSED
BUDGET

DIFF TO
PY
BUDGET

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Salaries & Benefits 656,149 933,818 933,818 1,052,020 118,202 Services & Supplies 758,850 927,600 927,600 846,000 (81,600) Capital Outlay - - - - -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL 1,414,998 1,861,418 1,861, 418 1,898, 020 36,602

PUBLIC WORKS
Salaries & Benefits 1,600,847 1,936,469 1,936,469 1,830,427 (106,042) Services & Supplies 1,275,754 1,968,630 1,968,630 2,396,800 428,170 Capital Outlay - - - 5,000 5,000
PUBLIC WORKS TOTAL 2,876,601 3,905,099 3,905, 099 4,232, 227 327,128 GENERAL FUND EXPENSE TOTAL 16,568,064 18,813,295 19,138,295 20,169, 448 1,031, 153 RECREATION - FUND 004
Salaries & Benefits 82,113 499,380 499,380 529,853 30,473 Services & Supplies 216,074 336,664 336,664 319,890 (16,774) Capital Outlay - - - - -
RECREATION TOTAL 298,187 836,044 836,044 849,743 13,699

WASTE WATER FUNDS
Salaries & Benefits 788,434 1,437,907 1,437,907 1,497,098 59,191 Services & Supplies 2,000,292 2,109,510 2,109,510 2,366,420 256,910 Capital Outlay - - - - -
WASTE WATER TOTAL 2,788,726 3,547,417 3,547, 417 3,863, 518 316,101

Five-Year Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Summary
FY 2024-25 through FY 2028-29
CIP # Priority Description Funding Source Full FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 STATUS Wastewater
1 A Wastewater Recovery Master Plan WWTP-C $ - $ 135,973 $ - $ - $ - Not Started 2 A PLC/SCADA Upgrades WWTP-C $ 562,243 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active - const. 3 A Clarifier Superstructure & Walkways WWTP-C $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ - Not Started 5 B Upgrade Recycled Water Pumps TTF/SVWD $ - $ 410,000 $ - $ - $ - Not Started 6 A Aeration Basin System Upgrade WWTP-C $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active 10 A Effluent Pump Replacement WWTP-C $ 142,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 200,000 Active - Purchase 13 A Collection System Lift Stations WWTP-C $ 175,000 $ 360,000 $ 510,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Not Started 14 A Collection System Pipeline Upgrades WWTP-C $ 430,000 $ 260,000 $ 490,000 $ 330,000 $ 360,000 Not Started 15 A Collection System Inspection & Monitoring WWTP-C $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - Active 23-01 A New Technology - Identified in Wastewater Options Study WWTP-C $ 145,665 $ 200,000 $ - $ 6,000,000 $ 6,000,000 Active - Design 24-01 A Flow Equalization Stucture Pipeline Repairs WWTP-C $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - Not Started 24-02 A Generator Transfer Switch and UPS upgrades WWTP-C $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active - Purchased 24-03 B IPS Wash Compactor WWTP-C $ - $ - $ 240,000 $ - $ - Not Started Wastewater TOTAL $ 3,004,908 $ 1,915,973 $ 1,490,000 $ 6,730,000 $ 6,860,000 Transportation
16 A Annual Street Maintenance/Resurfacing GT/SB1/Meas D $ 1,125,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 850,000 $ 950,000 Active - Bidding 19 A Mt. Hermon Road Cooridor Improvements - Signal TDIF $ 349,396 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active - Study 20 B Janis Way Digout, Overlay, Sidewalk, Bike Lanes Measure D $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 Not Started 23 A Mount Hermon Road Improvements Measure D/ RTC Grant $ 723,000 $ - $ - $ - Active - Design 24 A Bean Creek Road Pavement Rehab - Phase 2 Measure D $ - $ - $ 300,000 $ - $ - Not Started 25 B Lockwood Lane Street Improvements Measure D $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - Not Started 53 A Annual Citywide Street Striping1 CIP $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Active - Const. 54 A Granite Creek Overcrossing Paving1 RSTPX/SB-1 $ 723,877 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active - Design 23-02 A Utility Undergrounding Rule 20A (PG&E) $ - $ - $ - $ 1,261,345 $ - Not Started 25-01 A Scotts Valley Drive Corridor Improvements RTC/SB1/Measure D $ 500,000 $ 578,000 Active - Design Transportation TOTAL $ 3,471,273 $ 1,278,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,261,345 $ 1,250,000 Storm Drains
27 A Storm Drain Trash Capture System CIP $ - $ 343,800 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ - Not Started 28 B Storm Drain Master Plan Update SD DIF $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - Not Started 29 B Pinecone Drive Draining Improvements CIP $ 50,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - Ready for Bidding 24-06 A * Scotts Valley Drive - Culvert Repair CIP $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active - Bidding 24-07 A *Granite Creek - Culvert Repair CIP $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active - Design 25-02 A Hacienda Road Storm drain extension CIP $ 75,000 Not Started Storm Drains TOTAL $ 375,000 $ 593,800 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ - Parks
31 A Parks ADA Improvements - Phase 1 Lennar $ - $ 116,300 $ - $ - $ - Not Started 32 B Parks ADA Improvements - Phase 2 Lennar $ - $ - $ - $ 105,000 $ - Not Started

Five-Year Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Summary
FY 2024-25 through FY 2028-29
CIP # Priority Description Funding Source Full FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 FY 2028-29 STATUS 33 A Senior Center ADA Improvements - Phase 2 CDBG $ 74,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active - const. 40 C Skypark Tennis/Pickleball Resurfacing DIF/Lennar $ 127,900 $ - $ - $ - $ - Not Started 55 A Siltanen Park Irrigation System Replacement CIP $ - $ 226,713 $ - $ - $ - Active - Design 23-04 B Basketball Court Resurfacing (HP &SP) Lennar $ 31,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active - Const. 23-05 B Skatepark - Fence Replacement Lennar $ 90,000 $ - $ - $ - Ready for Bid 23-06 B MacDorsa Park - Irrigation System Replacement CIP $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ - Not Started 23-07 B MacDorsa Park - Play Structure Replacement CIP $ 100,000 23-09 B Siltanen Park - Bleacher Upgrades / Replacements CIP $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - Not Started 24-08 A Skypark Play Structure Replacement HUD $ 200,000 $ 557,000 $ - $ - Active - Planning 25-03 A Shugart Park Buildout Parks DIF $ 500,000 $ 2,154,863 Active - Planning Parks TOTAL $ 1,022,900 $ 3,054,876 $ 150,000 $ 185,000 $ - General Facilities
42 A HVAC Replacement at City Hall CIP $ - $ - $ 251,191 $ - $ - Hold 43 A City Facility ADA Improvements - Phase 1 CIP $ 73,400 $ - $ - $ - Hold 44 A City Facility ADA Improvements - Phase 2 CIP $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - Hold 46 A Public Works Facility Improvements CIP $ 1,568,951 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active - Design 47 C Public Works Quonset Hut/Equip Storage Replacement CIP $ - $ 550,000 $ - $ - Not Started 49 A Police Department Locker Room Police Build.DIF $ - $ 233,648 $ - $ - $ - Hold 50 C Police Department Armory Police Build.DIF $ - $ 70,000 $ - $ - $ - Hold 58 A Police Department Fitness Facility Upgrades CIP $ - $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - Hold 59 A Universal Power Supply PDIF $ 5,000 $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - Hold 23-11 A City Hall Roof Replacement CIP $ - $ - $ 75,000 $ 200,000 $ - Hold 23-13 A City Hall / Police Department Generator Replacement CIP $ - $ 175,000 $ - $ - $ - Hold 24-09 B Community Center/Senior Center - Generator Installation CIP $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Hold 24-10 B City Facility Security Upgrades CIP $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - Hold General Facilities TOTAL $ 1,573,951 $ 807,048 $ 976,191 $ 200,000 $ - Equipment
B New Tractor for Roads/Parks Equip Repacement $ 24,000 $ 11,250 $ 11,250 $ 11,250 $ - B Parks Mower Equip Repacement $ 18,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - B Police Patrol Vehicles Police SLES $ 180,000
Equipment TOTAL $ 222,000 $ 11,250 $ 11,250 $ 11,250 $ - Information Technology
23-15 A Computerized Maintenance Mgmt Software CIP $ 249,400 $ - $ - $ - $ - Active -RFP Information Technology TOTAL $ 249,400 $ - $ - $ - $ -
GRAND TOTAL $ 9,919,432 $ 7,660,947 $ 3,752,441 $ 9,512,595 $ 8,110,000

Fund # 4 150 11 26 123 1
Fund # Fund Title Recreation
General
CIP
TTP
Operating
Pension
Obligatio
n Bond
Community
Center
General
Fund Total
1 General Fund B 675,070 D 1,313,578 A 368,957 2,357,605 4 Recreation Fund A 13,939 13,939
10 Wastewater Operations C 191,612 A 52,667 244,279
28 Senior Center Operations B 72,191 A 1,950 B 37,291 111,432 123 Community Facility Center Operations A 1,950 1,950
112 Dental Internal Service Fund D 26,342 26,342
309 Police Prop 68 Tobacco Prevention E 83,055 83,055
317 EDG Revolving Loan F 74,000 74,000
Totals 747,261 1,387,578 191,612 439,463 37,291 109,397 2,912,602 Notes:

F - CDBG funding for the Senior Center ADA capital project. These are estimates based on the budget, actual results at year end will dictate the transfer amounts.

Transfers In
Transfers out
A - Transfer from operating department budgets to fund allocation of costs associated with Pension Obligation Bond debt service and administrative costs.

This transfer occurs annually and is booked based on actuals.

B - Transfer to Recreation and Community Center. Recreation, Community Center, and Senior Center share workforce expenses and supplement each other. The remaining subsidy comes from the General Fund. These are estimates based on the budget, actual results at year end will dictate the transfer amounts.

C - Transfers for Waste Water activities to fund the Tertiary Treatment Plant operations. These are estimates based on the budget, actual results at year end will dictate the transfer amounts.

D - The City is migrating to a third party dental insurance provider. Any remaining amounts in the fund will be transferred back to the General Fund and this fund will be closed.

E - The Prop 68 funding will no longer be available for current City uses. The remaining balance is remanence of reimbursed expenditures the City incurred from the General Fund and will be reimbursed based on actual balance remaining.

RESOLUTION NO. 1955.29

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY

APPROVING THE SALARY SCHEDULE AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
WHEREAS, City staff continues to analyze the organization’s evolving needs; and WHEREAS, staff have updated the salary schedules to be reflective of salary escalations per the respective agreements; 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 Fiscal Year 2024-25 is hereby approved as attached as Exhibit B.

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 12th day of June 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved:

Randy Johnson,
Mayor
Attest:

Cathie Simonovich,
City Clerk

Classification Bargaining Unit Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 ACCOUNTANT I SEIU 5,053 5,306 5,571 5,850 6,143 6,450 6,772 ACCOUNTANT II Mid-Mgmt 6,281 6,595 6,925 7,271 7,635 8,017 8,418 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT SEIU 4,168 4,376 4,595 4,825 5,066 5,319 5,585 ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST I SEIU 6,141 6,448 6,770 7,108 7,463 7,836 8,228 ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST II SEIU 6,980 7,329 7,695 8,080 8,484 8,908 9,353 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I SEIU 4,168 4,376 4,595 4,825 5,066 5,319 5,585 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II SEIU 4,458 4,681 4,915 5,161 5,419 5,690 5,974 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III SEIU 4,847 5,089 5,343 5,610 5,890 6,185 6,494 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY /ANALYST SEIU 5,036 5,288 5,552 5,830 6,122 6,428 6,749 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY/ANALYST Mgmt & Conf 5,134 5,391 5,661 5,944 6,241 6,553 6,881 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR Mgmt & Conf 12,814 13,455 14,128 14,834 15,576 16,355 17,173 ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEER SEIU 6,611 6,942 7,289 7,653 8,036 8,438 8,860 ASSISTANT PLANNER SEIU 6,180 6,489 6,813 7,154 7,512 7,888 8,282 ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER Mgmt & Conf 8,693 9,128 9,584 10,063 10,566 11,094 11,649 ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Mgmt 8,930 9,377 9,846 10,338 10,855 11,398 11,968 ASSOCIATE PLANNER SEIU 7,199 7,559 7,937 8,334 8,751 9,189 9,648 BUILDING INSPECTOR SEIU 5,750 6,038 6,340 6,657 6,990 7,339 7,706 BUILDING OFFICIAL Mid-Mgmt 10,119 10,625 11,156 11,714 12,300 12,915 13,561 BUILDING PERMIT TECHNICIAN SEIU 4,501 4,726 4,962 5,210 5,470 5,744 6,031 CITY CLERK Mgmt & Conf 8,693 9,128 9,584 10,063 10,566 11,094 11,649 CITY ENGINEER Mid-Mgmt 10,319 10,835 11,377 11,946 12,543 13,170 13,829 CITY MANAGER Contract 17,320 18,186 19,095 20,050 21,053 22,106 23,211 CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Mgmt 8,347 8,764 9,202 9,662 10,145 10,652 11,185 CODE ENFOREMENT OFFICER SEIU 5,299 5,564 5,842 6,134 6,441 6,763 7,101 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Mgmt & Conf 12,814 13,455 14,128 14,834 15,576 16,355 17,173 DEPUTY CITY CLERK Mgmt & Conf 6,030 6,331 6,648 6,980 7,329 7,695 8,080 EMERGENCY DISPATCH CLERK I PBU 5,001 5,251 5,514 5,790 6,079 6,383 6,702 EMERGENCY DISPATCH CLERK II PBU 5,542 5,819 6,110 6,416 6,737 7,074 7,428 EMERGENCY DISPATCH CLERK III PBU 5,651 5,934 6,231 6,543 6,870 7,214 7,575 ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE SEIU 5,705 5,990 6,290 6,604 6,934 7,281 7,645 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN SEIU 4,967 5,215 5,476 5,750 6,037 6,339 6,656 FINANCE MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 9,287 9,751 10,239 10,751 11,289 11,853 12,446 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 9,287 9,751 10,239 10,751 11,289 11,853 12,446 LABORER SEIU 3,507 3,682 3,866 4,059 4,262 4,475 4,699
MAINTENANCE DIVISION MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 8,695 9,130 9,586 10,065 10,568 11,096 11,651 MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR SEIU 5,416 5,687 5,971 6,270 6,584 6,913 7,259 CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY SALARY SCHEDULE: 07/01/2024 - 12/31/2024

Classification Bargaining Unit Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY SALARY SCHEDULE: 07/01/2024 - 12/31/2024 MAINTENANCE WORKER I SEIU 3,723 3,909 4,104 4,309 4,524 4,750 4,987 MAINTENANCE WORKER II SEIU 4,188 4,397 4,617 4,848 5,090 5,345 5,612 MAINTENANCE WORKER III SEIU 4,699 4,934 5,181 5,440 5,712 5,998 6,298 POLICE CAPTAIN Mgmt & Conf 12,443 13,065 13,718 14,404 15,124 15,880 16,674 POLICE CHIEF Mgmt & Conf 15,261 16,024 16,825 17,666 18,549 19,476 20,450 POLICE LIEUTENANT PSA 10,962 11,510 12,086 12,690 13,324 13,990 14,690 POLICE OFFICER PBU 7,352 7,720 8,106 8,511 8,937 9,384 9,853 POLICE OFFICER (2184) PBU 7,719 8,105 8,510 8,936 9,383 9,852 10,345 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE PBU 7,352 7,720 8,106 8,511 8,937 9,384 9,853 POLICE SERGEANT PSA 8,982 9,431 9,903 10,398 10,918 11,464 12,037 PRINICPAL PLANNER Mid-Mgmt 8,684 9,118 9,574 10,053 10,556 11,084 11,638 PROJECT MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 7,894 8,289 8,703 9,138 9,595 10,075 10,579 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Mgmt & Conf 12,814 13,455 14,128 14,834 15,576 16,355 17,173 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENG Mgmt & Conf 13,455 14,128 14,834 15,576 16,355 17,173 18,032 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR SEIU 5,361 5,629 5,910 6,206 6,516 6,842 7,184 RECREATION COORDINATOR SEIU 5,210 5,470 5,744 6,031 6,333 6,650 6,982 RECREATION DIVISION MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 8,526 8,952 9,400 9,870 10,364 10,882 11,426 RECREATION LEADER SEIU 3,302 3,467 3,640 3,822 4,013 4,214 4,425 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT Mid-Mgmt 8,278 8,692 9,127 9,583 10,062 10,565 11,093 SENIOR ADMIN ANALYST Mid-Mgmt 8,726 9,162 9,620 10,101 10,606 11,136 11,693 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR SEIU 6,403 6,723 7,059 7,412 7,783 8,172 8,581 SENIOR BUILDING PERMIT TECHNICIAN SEIU 4,925 5,171 5,430 5,701 5,986 6,285 6,599 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Mgmt 10,852 11,395 11,965 12,563 13,191 13,851 14,544 SENIOR PLANNER Mid-Mgmt 8,693 9,128 9,584 10,063 10,566 11,094 11,649 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR SEIU 6,061 6,364 6,682 7,016 7,367 7,735 8,122 SENIOR RECREATION LEADER SEIU 3,776 3,965 4,163 4,371 4,590 4,820 5,061 SENIOR WASTEWATER LAB ANALYST SEIU 5,363 5,631 5,913 6,209 6,519 6,845 7,187 SENIOR WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR SEIU 6,536 6,863 7,206 7,566 7,944 8,341 8,758 SERVICES SUPERVISOR PSA 6,667 7,000 7,350 7,717 8,103 8,508 8,933 WASTEWATER DIVISION MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 10,853 11,396 11,966 12,564 13,192 13,852 14,545 WASTEWATER LAB/ ENVIRO COMPLIANCE MGR Mid-Mgmt 7,632 8,014 8,415 8,836 9,278 9,742 10,229 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR I SEIU 5,179 5,438 5,710 5,996 6,296 6,611 6,942 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR II SEIU 5,690 5,975 6,274 6,588 6,917 7,263 7,626 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR IN TRAINING SEIU 4,519 4,745 4,982 5,231 5,493 5,768 6,056

Classification Bargaining Unit Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 ACCOUNTANT I SEIU 5,053 5,306 5,571 5,850 6,143 6,450 6,772 ACCOUNTANT II Mid-Mgmt 6,281 6,595 6,925 7,271 7,635 8,017 8,418 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT SEIU 4,168 4,376 4,595 4,825 5,066 5,319 5,585 ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST I SEIU 6,141 6,448 6,770 7,108 7,463 7,836 8,228 ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST II SEIU 6,980 7,329 7,695 8,080 8,484 8,908 9,353 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I SEIU 4,168 4,376 4,595 4,825 5,066 5,319 5,585 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II SEIU 4,458 4,681 4,915 5,161 5,419 5,690 5,974 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III SEIU 4,847 5,089 5,343 5,610 5,890 6,185 6,494 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY /ANALYST SEIU 5,036 5,288 5,552 5,830 6,122 6,428 6,749 ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY/ANALYST Mgmt & Conf 5,134 5,391 5,661 5,944 6,241 6,553 6,881 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR Mgmt & Conf 12,814 13,455 14,128 14,834 15,576 16,355 17,173 ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEER SEIU 6,611 6,942 7,289 7,653 8,036 8,438 8,860 ASSISTANT PLANNER SEIU 6,180 6,489 6,813 7,154 7,512 7,888 8,282 ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER Mgmt & Conf 8,693 9,128 9,584 10,063 10,566 11,094 11,649 ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Mgmt 8,930 9,377 9,846 10,338 10,855 11,398 11,968 ASSOCIATE PLANNER SEIU 7,199 7,559 7,937 8,334 8,751 9,189 9,648 BUILDING INSPECTOR SEIU 5,750 6,038 6,340 6,657 6,990 7,339 7,706 BUILDING OFFICIAL Mid-Mgmt 10,119 10,625 11,156 11,714 12,300 12,915 13,561 BUILDING PERMIT TECHNICIAN SEIU 4,501 4,726 4,962 5,210 5,470 5,744 6,031 CITY CLERK Mgmt & Conf 8,693 9,128 9,584 10,063 10,566 11,094 11,649 CITY ENGINEER Mid-Mgmt 10,319 10,835 11,377 11,946 12,543 13,170 13,829 CITY MANAGER Contract 17,320 18,186 19,095 20,050 21,053 22,106 23,211 CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Mgmt 8,347 8,764 9,202 9,662 10,145 10,652 11,185 CODE ENFOREMENT OFFICER SEIU 5,299 5,564 5,842 6,134 6,441 6,763 7,101 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Mgmt & Conf 12,814 13,455 14,128 14,834 15,576 16,355 17,173 DEPUTY CITY CLERK Mgmt & Conf 6,030 6,331 6,648 6,980 7,329 7,695 8,080 EMERGENCY DISPATCH CLERK I PBU 5,101 5,356 5,624 5,905 6,200 6,510 6,836 EMERGENCY DISPATCH CLERK II PBU 5,653 5,936 6,233 6,545 6,872 7,216 7,577 EMERGENCY DISPATCH CLERK III PBU 5,766 6,054 6,357 6,675 7,009 7,359 7,727 ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE SEIU 5,705 5,990 6,290 6,604 6,934 7,281 7,645 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN SEIU 4,967 5,215 5,476 5,750 6,037 6,339 6,656 FINANCE MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 9,287 9,751 10,239 10,751 11,289 11,853 12,446 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 9,287 9,751 10,239 10,751 11,289 11,853 12,446 LABORER SEIU 3,507 3,682 3,866 4,059 4,262 4,475 4,699
MAINTENANCE DIVISION MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 8,695 9,130 9,586 10,065 10,568 11,096 11,651 MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR SEIU 5,416 5,687 5,971 6,270 6,584 6,913 7,259 CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY SALARY SCHEDULE: 01/01/2025 - 06/30/25 (Police Dept Update)

Classification Bargaining Unit Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY SALARY SCHEDULE: 01/01/2025 - 06/30/25 (Police Dept Update) MAINTENANCE WORKER I SEIU 3,723 3,909 4,104 4,309 4,524 4,750 4,987 MAINTENANCE WORKER II SEIU 4,188 4,397 4,617 4,848 5,090 5,345 5,612 MAINTENANCE WORKER III SEIU 4,699 4,934 5,181 5,440 5,712 5,998 6,298 POLICE CAPTAIN Mgmt & Conf 12,443 13,065 13,718 14,404 15,124 15,880 16,674 POLICE CHIEF Mgmt & Conf 15,261 16,024 16,825 17,666 18,549 19,476 20,450 POLICE LIEUTENANT PSA 11,181 11,740 12,327 12,943 13,590 14,270 14,984 POLICE OFFICER PBU 7,499 7,874 8,268 8,681 9,115 9,571 10,050 POLICE OFFICER (2184) PBU 7,874 8,268 8,681 9,115 9,571 10,050 10,552 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE PBU 7,499 7,874 8,268 8,681 9,115 9,571 10,050 POLICE SERGEANT PSA 9,162 9,620 10,101 10,606 11,136 11,693 12,278 PRINICPAL PLANNER Mid-Mgmt 8,684 9,118 9,574 10,053 10,556 11,084 11,638 PROJECT MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 7,894 8,289 8,703 9,138 9,595 10,075 10,579 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Mgmt & Conf 12,814 13,455 14,128 14,834 15,576 16,355 17,173 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENG Mgmt & Conf 13,455 14,128 14,834 15,576 16,355 17,173 18,032 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR SEIU 5,361 5,629 5,910 6,206 6,516 6,842 7,184 RECREATION COORDINATOR SEIU 5,210 5,470 5,744 6,031 6,333 6,650 6,982 RECREATION DIVISION MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 8,526 8,952 9,400 9,870 10,364 10,882 11,426 RECREATION LEADER SEIU 3,302 3,467 3,640 3,822 4,013 4,214 4,425 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT Mid-Mgmt 8,278 8,692 9,127 9,583 10,062 10,565 11,093 SENIOR ADMIN ANALYST Mid-Mgmt 8,726 9,162 9,620 10,101 10,606 11,136 11,693 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR SEIU 6,403 6,723 7,059 7,412 7,783 8,172 8,581 SENIOR BUILDING PERMIT TECHNICIAN SEIU 4,925 5,171 5,430 5,701 5,986 6,285 6,599 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Mgmt 10,852 11,395 11,965 12,563 13,191 13,851 14,544 SENIOR PLANNER Mid-Mgmt 8,693 9,128 9,584 10,063 10,566 11,094 11,649 SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR SEIU 6,061 6,364 6,682 7,016 7,367 7,735 8,122 SENIOR RECREATION LEADER SEIU 3,776 3,965 4,163 4,371 4,590 4,820 5,061 SENIOR WASTEWATER LAB ANALYST SEIU 5,363 5,631 5,913 6,209 6,519 6,845 7,187 SENIOR WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR SEIU 6,536 6,863 7,206 7,566 7,944 8,341 8,758 SERVICES SUPERVISOR PSA 6,799 7,139 7,496 7,871 8,265 8,678 9,112 WASTEWATER DIVISION MANAGER Mid-Mgmt 10,853 11,396 11,966 12,564 13,192 13,852 14,545 WASTEWATER LAB/ ENVIRO COMPLIANCE MGR Mid-Mgmt 7,632 8,014 8,415 8,836 9,278 9,742 10,229 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR I SEIU 5,179 5,438 5,710 5,996 6,296 6,611 6,942 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR II SEIU 5,690 5,975 6,274 6,588 6,917 7,263 7,626 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR IN TRAINING SEIU 4,519 4,745 4,982 5,231 5,493 5,768 6,056

RESOLUTION NO. 1501.31

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY APPROVING THE CONTINUED COLLECTION OF THE UTILITY USERS’ TAX FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 109.3 in July 1992 imposing a utility users’ tax subject to voter approval (Measure R); and
WHEREAS, Measure R was approved by the voters on November 5, 2002; and WHEREAS, the utility users’ tax is solely for the purpose of providing revenue for the usual current expenditures of the City; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 109.3 requires that the City Council review this tax on an annual basis at the same time as it reviews its proposed annual budget; and WHEREAS, the proposed FY 2024-25 Annual Budget requires the continuation of the collection of the utilities users’ tax.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the City Council hereby approves the continued collection of the utility users’ tax through June 30, 2025.

The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley at a special meeting held on the 12th day of June, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved:___________________________
Randy Johnson, Mayor
Attest:___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

AGENDA ITEM 9.

DATE: 6/12/2024
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

APPROVED:

SUBJECT:
6/12/2024
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Stephanie Hill, Administrative Services Director
Mali LaGoe, City Manager
Approve the ratified terms for the FY 2024/25 – 2026/27 Memoranda of Understandings between the City and PBU, PSA, MidManagement, SEIU, and approve the Management and Confidential Summary of Compensation, and to authorize the City Manager and Administrative Services Director to implement the terms July 1, 2024.

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
During the past several months, the City of Scotts Valley (City) has been actively negotiating with all bargaining units. The City has reached tentative agreements with all groups regarding their respective Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The existing agreements for these bargaining groups will expire on June 30, 2024. The terms of the new MOU's and Summary of Compensation commencing July 1, 2024 are outlined in the respective tentative agreement summaries attached. The full new MOU's are being finalized for verbiage clean up and consistency and will be presented at an August 2024 Council meeting.

Consistent with the direction of the City Council and City Manager, the City conducted a compensation study to review the overall compensation package of the City compared to other jurisdictions. This is part of the overall goal to help ensure we can attract and retain qualified staff in the City. The compensation packages consisted of a general wage increase, as well as equity increases for positions shown to be below the market in the compensation study.

Medical benefits have changed from previous agreements to where medical benefits will be based on the average cost of plans with a shared contribution for employee plans that are above the average. All agreements will get to a 90% City / 10% employee dependent cost share by the end of the agreement term. The City will also begin to offer dental insurance, which will give employees greater coverage and eliminate the internal service program employees currently have for dental care.

The City evaluated longevity and deferred compensation matching programs to encourage staff retention and financial planning options and made modifications to those programs as indicated in the ratified terms.

FISCAL IMPACT
It is estimated that the fiscal impact for the first year of the agreements will be $400,000, which has been factored into the Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget. The annual costs for future years will be encompassed in the respective future year budgets.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Approve the ratified terms for the FY 2024/25-2026/27 Memoranda of Understanding between the City and the respective labor groups and direct staff to implement the terms starting July 1, 2024.

2. Approve the Summary of Compensation for Management and Confidential employees and direct staff to implement the terms starting July 1, 2024.

3. Direct staff to prepare the final Memoranda of Understanding and Summary of Compensation documents for all groups for Council approval at a future Council meeting.

4. Authorize the City Manager and the Administrative Services Director to take any administrative actions necessary to implement the terms and conditions of the agreements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SEIU TA Summary

2. PBU TA Summary

3. PSA TA Summary

4. Mid Mng TA Summary

5. M&C Benefit Package Summary

1 TENTATIVE AGREEMENT

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
&
SEIU 521 MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE BARGAINING UNIT
MAY 30, 2024
Term:

Three year term – July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027
Wages:

GENERAL WAGE INCREASES – ALL PERSONNEL
Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2024: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2025: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2026: 3% EQUITY / MARKET INCREASES –
1st pay full period after July 1,
2024 or first full pay period after
Council approval (whichever is
later)
July 1,
2025
July 1,
2026
ACCOUNTANT I 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR 10.0% 7.0% 3.0%
BUILDING INSPECTOR 10.0% 7.0% 3.0%
CODE ENFOREMENT OFFICER 10.0% 7.0% 3.0%
ASSOCIATE PLANNER 1.0% 0.5% 0.5%
ASSISTANT PLANNER 2.0% 2.0% 1.0%
SENIOR BUILDING PERMIT TECHNICIAN 8.0% 4.0% 4.0%
BUILDING PERMIT TECHNICIAN 8.0% 4.0% 4.0%
MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
MAINTENANCE WORKER III 4.0% 2.0% 2.0%

2 MAINTENANCE WORKER II 5.0% 4.0% 2.0%
MAINTENANCE WORKER I 5.0% 4.0% 3.0%
LABORER 4.0% 2.0% 2.0%
ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEER 6.0% 5.0% 5.0%
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE 3.0% 2.0% 2.0%
ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 5.0% 4.0% 3.0%
SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
SENIOR WASTEWATER LAB ANALYST 3.0% 2.0% 2.0%
SENIOR WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR II 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR I 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR IN TRAINING 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
SENIOR RECREATION LEADER 26.0% 7.0% 7.0%
RECREATION LEADER 32.0% 8.0% 8.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY /ANALYST 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III 3.0% 3.0% 2.0%
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II 2.0% 2.0% 1.0%
RECREATION COORDINATOR 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Longevity
Effective July 1, 2024: 2.5% @ 5 years, 5% @ 10 years. These numbers do not stack, meaning at 10 years longevity becomes 5%.

Medical
2025, 2026
Cash in lieu of medical insurance at $300 per month
City contribution to medical = 100% of calculated average – all levels 2027
City contribution is 90% of calculated average for employee plus dependents

3 Deferred Compensation
Effective January 1, 2025, City provides up to $100 per month matching contribution to deferred compensation account
Dental / Vision
Dental is 100% city paid. City will pay up to $20 for vision premium. New dental plan begins 7/1/24.

Late Night Work/Standby Sick leave
Double time for employees required to perform emergency work (i.e. during a non-regular shift) between the hours of midnight and 6 AM.

If an employee is called-in to work four or more hours between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, employee may request leave for the Employees’ regular shift the next day and such requested leave will be honored, unless there is an emergency.

Employees on Standby Duty assignment may utilize sick leave.

Stay Well / Wellness
Stay Well Program ends December 31, 2024.

Vacation Buy Back
Remove years of service requirement, add constructive receipt language to comply with IRS rules.

Retiree Medical
Limit retiree medical benefit for employees hired on or after January 1, 2025 to PEMHCA minimum.

Temporary Employees

4 Add language explaining which provisions of MOU apply to temporary employees holding positions that correspond to permanent SEIU 521 bargaining unit positions. Add clarifying language that these temporary employees are at-will.

Add language that the City will interview a temporary employee should they apply for an open position that corresponds to the temporary position currently held by the employee.

Add language that temporary employees hired into corresponding permanent positions may receive a credit for temporary time worked towards their probationary period (up to 90% of the normal probationary period).

Add language that temporary employees hired after July 1, 2024 who are hired into corresponding temporary positions will receive prorated seniority for time worked in the temporary position.

Clean Up
Clarify holiday pay provision
Incorporate cell phone reimbursement increase side letter into MOU Clarify duplicative part-time employee health provisions.

Applicable work schedules.

Bereavement leave
Other language clean up per mutual agreement

1 TENTATIVE AGREEMENT

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
&

SCOTTS VALLEY POLICE BARGAINING UNIT
JUNE 4, 2024
Term:

Three year term – July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027
Wages:

GENERAL WAGE INCREASES – ALL PERSONNEL
Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2024: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2025: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2026: 3% EQUITY / MARKET INCREASES – POLICE OFFICERS
Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2024: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after January 1, 2025: 2% Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2025: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2026: 3% Effective the first full pay period after January 1, 2027: 2% EQUITY / MARKET INCREASES – EMERG. DISPATCHER/CLERKS

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2024: 2%

2 Effective the first full pay period after January 1, 2025: 2% Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2025: 1%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2026: 2% Effective the first full pay period after January 1, 2027: 2% Longevity
Effective July 2025: 2.5% @ 5 years, 5.0% @ 10 years, 6.0% @ 15 years (no change). Do not stack.

Medical
2025, 2026
Cash in lieu of medical insurance at $300 per month
City contribution to medical = 100% of calculated average – all levels 2027
City contribution is 90% of calculated average for employee plus dependents
Deferred Compensation
Effective January 2025, City provides up to $100 per month matching contribution to deferred compensation account
Dental / Vision
Dental / vision insurance at 100% city paid. New dental plan begins 7/1/24. \\
\\

3 Stay Well / Wellness
Stay Well Program ends December 31, 2024.
$50 per month wellness program begins January 1, 2027.

Vacation Accrual:

Accrual rate will take credit for prior service in law enforcement.

Vacation Buy Back
Remove years of service requirement, add constructive receipt language to comply with IRS rules.

Comp Time Off
Increase maximum accrual amount (“cap”) to 120.

Employer Facilities:

Employees are entitled to a 25% discount for employee rental.

Detective Take Home Vehicle
Effective July 1, 2024, on-call detectives are entitled to take home a City vehicle while on call as long as home is less than sixty miles from City.

Detective Assignment Pay
Effective July 1, 2024, the Detective/SRO differential will decrease to 16% Effective July 1, 2025, the Detective/SRO differential will decrease to 14%.

Effective July 1, 2025, the Detective/SRO differential will decrease to 12%. \\
\\

4 Retiree Medical
Clarify retiree medical benefit for employees hired prior to July 1, 2025.

Limit retiree medical benefit for employees hired on or after July 1, 2025 to PEMHCA minimum.

Clean Up
Clarify holiday pay provision, including amount paid as holiday in lieu to those eligible for holiday in lieu, and the procedure that applies when employees cannot get a paid holiday off for those eligible for paid holidays off.

Applicable work schedules.

Bereavement leave
Other language clean up per mutual agreement

1 12479778.1 SC010-006

TENTATIVE AGREEMENT

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
&

SCOTTS VALLEY POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION
JUNE 4, 2024
Term:

Three year term – July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027
Wages:

GENERAL WAGE INCREASES – ALL PERSONNEL
Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2024: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2025: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2026: 3% EQUITY / MARKET INCREASES – SERGEANTS, LIEUTENANTS
Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2024: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after January 1, 2025: 2% Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2025: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2026: 3% Effective the first full pay period after January 1, 2027: 2% EQUITY / MARKET INCREASES – SERVICES SUPERVISOR

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2024: 2%

2 12479778.1 SC010-006

Effective the first full pay period after January 1, 2025: 2% Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2025: 1%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2026: 2% Effective the first full pay period after January 1, 2027: 2% Longevity
Effective July 2025: 2.5% @ 5 years, 5.0% @ 10 years, 6.0% @ 15 years (no change). Do not stack.

Medical
2025, 2026
Cash in lieu of medical insurance at $300 per month
City contribution to medical = 100% of calculated average – all levels 2027
City contribution is 90% of calculated average for employee plus dependents
Deferred Compensation
Effective January 2025, City provides up to $100 per month matching contribution to deferred compensation account
Dental / Vision
Dental / vision insurance at 100% city paid. New dental plan begins 7/1/24. \\
\\

3 12479778.1 SC010-006
Stay Well / Wellness
Stay Well Program ends December 31, 2024.
$50 per month wellness program begins January 1, 2027.

Vacation Accrual:

Accrual rate will take credit for prior service in law enforcement.

Vacation Buy Back
Remove years of service requirement, add constructive receipt language to comply with IRS rules.

Comp Time Off
Increase maximum accrual amount (“cap”) to 120.

Employer Facilities:

Employees are entitled to a 25% discount for employee rental.

Detective Take Home Vehicle
Effective July 1, 2024, on-call detectives are entitled to take home a City vehicle while on call as long as home is less than sixty miles from City.

Detective Assignment Pay
Effective July 1, 2024, the Detective differential will decrease to 16% Effective July 1, 2025, the Detective differential will decrease to 14%.

Effective July 1, 2025, the Detective differential will decrease to 12%. \\
\\

4 12479778.1 SC010-006
Retiree Medical
Clarify PEMHCA retiree medical benefit for employees hired prior to July 1, 2025.

Limit retiree medical benefit for employees hired on or after July 1, 2025 to PEMHCA minimum.

Clean Up
Clarify holiday pay provision, including amount paid as holiday in lieu to those eligible for holiday in lieu, and the procedure that applies when employees cannot get a paid holiday off for those eligible for paid holidays off.

Applicable work schedules.

Bereavement leave
Other language clean up per mutual agreement

1 TENTATIVE AGREEMENT

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
&

SCOTTS VALLEY MID-MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
JUNE 4, 2024
Term:

Three year term – July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027
Wages:

GENERAL WAGE INCREASES
Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2024: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2025: 3.5%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2026: 3.5%

EQUITY / MARKET INCREASES
1st pay full period
after July 1, 2024 or
first full pay period
after Council
approval (whichever
later) 7/1/2025 7/1/2026
ACCOUNTANT II -10% 0% 0%
BUILDING OFFICIAL 3% 2% 0%
CITY ENGINEER 18% 5% 5%
CIVIL ENGINEER 10% 5% 5%
FINANCE MANAGER 4% 4% 4%
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER 4% 4% 4%
MAINTENANCE DIVISION MANAGER 4% 4% 0%
PRINICPAL PLANNER 5% 4% 0%

2 PROJECT MANAGER 4% 4% 0%
RECREATION DIVISION MANAGER 2% 2% 0%
WASTEWATER LAB/ ENVIRO MGR 5% 3% 3%
Longevity
Effective July 2024: 2.5% @ 5 years, 5% @ 10 years. Do not stack.

Working Out of Class/ Temp Upgrade Pay
Clean up out of class appointment language per CalPERS regulations.

Added language to include Temporary Upgrade Pay (TUP) allowing temporary upgraded assignments pers CalPERS.

Course Reimbursement
With prior approval from the City Manager the city agrees to reimburse employees for the cost of tuition, books and course related materials up to $5000 per FY upon successful completion of each course with a grade B or higher, with a B- not qualifying.

Administrative Leave
64 hours per Fiscal Year. Any remaining hours will be cashed out.

Medical
2025-2027
Cash in lieu of medical insurance at $300 per month
2024
Taxable cash for premiums less than City Contribution
2025
City contribution to medical = 100% of calculated average for Employee Only, 95% for Employee + Dependents

3 2026
City contribution to medical = 100% of calculated average for Employee Only, 90% for Employee + Dependents
Deferred Compensation
Effective January 2025, City provides up to $100 per month matching contribution to deferred compensation account
Stay Well Plan
Removed Stay Well benefit
Dental / Vision
2025-2027
Dental / vision insurance at 100% city paid. New dental plan begins 7/1/24.

Vacation Accrual:

Accrual rate could take credit for prior years of service in an equivalent experience
Vacation Buy Back
Remove years of service requirement, add constructive receipt language to comply with IRS rules.

Holidays
Removed the floating holiday use restrictions. Added language to include holidays declared by City Council

Retiree Medical
Clarify retiree medical benefit for employees hired prior to January 1, 2025.

4 Clean Up
Other language clean up per mutual agreement

1 CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
&

SCOTTS VALLEY MANAGEMENT & CONFIENTIAL BENEFIT

PACKAGE
JUNE 4, 2024
Term:

Three year term – July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027
Wages:

GENERAL WAGE INCREASES
Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2024: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2025: 3%

Effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2026: 3%

EQUITY / MARKET INCREASES
• The following positions will receive equity adjustments effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2024:
o Administrative Services Director: 5%
o Community Development Director: 5%
o Administrative Secretary / Analyst: 4%
o Public Works Director: shall be set at the same rate as the Administrative Services and Community Development Director.
o Public Works Director/City Engineer shall be set 5% above the Public Works Director.
• The following positions will receive equity adjustments effective the first full pay period after July 1, 2025:
o Administrative Services Director: 2%
o Community Development Director: 2%
o Administrative Secretary / Analyst: 4%
• Positions assigned to have Deputy City Manager shall receive a 5% increase.

2 Longevity
Effective July 2024: 2.5% @ 5 years, 5% @ 10 years. Do not stack.

Course Reimbursement
Updated Language with prior approval from the City Manager the city agrees to reimburse employees for the cost of tuition, books and course related materials up to $5000 per FY upon successful completion of each course with a grade B or higher, with a B- not qualifying.

Administrative Leave
80 hours per Fiscal Year. Any remaining hours will be cashed out.

Hourly position are not eligible.

Medical
2025-2027
Cash in lieu of medical insurance at $300 per month
2024
Taxable cash for premiums less than City Contribution
2025
City contribution to medical = 100% of calculated average for Employee Only, 95% for Employee + Dependents
2026
City contribution to medical = 100% of calculated average for Employee Only, 90% for Employee + Dependents
Deferred Compensation

3 Effective January 2025, City provides up to $100 per month matching contribution to deferred compensation account
Dental / Vision
2025-2027
Dental / vision insurance at 100% city paid. New dental plan begins 7/1/24.

Vacation Accrual:
• Accrual rate could take credit for prior years of service in an equivalent experience
• All positions have a max vacation accrual limit of 500 hours Vacation Buy Back
Remove years of service requirement, add constructive receipt language to comply with IRS rules.

Holidays
Removed the floating holiday use restrictions. Added language to include holidays declared by City Council

Retiree Medical
Clarify retiree medical benefit for employees hired prior to January 1, 2025.

CalPERS Contributions
Contributions determined by CalPERS
Clean Up
Other language clean up

AGENDA ITEM 1.

DATE: 6/12/2024
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/12/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark Falgout
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Pinewood Estates Maintenance Assessment District

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
On July 15, 1987, Resolution 1213 was adopted by City Council to form the referenced assessment district pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. The District improvements, which generally consist of ornamental landscaping, irrigation equipment, signs, fences, and storm detention ponds, were dedicated to the City by the developer of Pinewood Estates subdivision. These improvements were planted/constructed in the right-of-way of Lockewood Lane and in landscaping easements from the subdivision. The district participants are the twenty-five Pinewood Estates homeowners, who are being assessed for the cost of maintaining the improvements.

The District special fund is annually depleted and the owners reassessed each year. Attached is the Engineer’s Report establishing the assessments this year at $240 per unit, the same as last year’s, for total revenue of $6,000.

As required, all 25 owners were notified of the June 5, 2024 public meeting and the June 12, 2024 public hearing via mail. The assessor’s role is used to obtain the current name and address of each property owner to be notified of the proceedings. The public meeting was held on June 5, 2024, and there was no public testimony from the affected property owners regarding the assessment.

This public hearing is being held to receive additional testimony from property owners, overrule any protests received, if appropriate, approve the FY 2023-24 Annual Engineer’s Report, and adopt Resolution No. 1213.37.

FISCAL IMPACT
Costs associated with the maintenance and repair of the assessed area are funded through an assessment district. The established assessment amount is $240 per unit/parcel, generating approximately $6,000 annually.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing, overrule any protests received, approve the FY 2024-25 Annual Engineer’s Report, and approve Resolution No. 1213.37 ordering and authorizing the levy and collection of assessments therein pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the Pinewood Estates Landscaping Maintenance District

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 2024-25 Pinewood Resolution 1213.38

2. 2024-25 Pinewood Annual Engineer's Report sh1

RESOLUTION NO. 1213.38

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY

ORDERING AND AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS THEREIN PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972

PINEWOOD ESTATES LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley, California, that:

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1192, a Resolution of Public Interest and Convenience to Form a Landscaping Maintenance District and Ordering Preparation of an Engineer's Report adopted on the 4th day of February, 1987, by the City Council pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, as amended, the Engineer of Work of said City has filed with the City Clerk the written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 1192, which report has been presented by said Engineer of Work to this Council and this Council has preliminarily approved and confirmed said report by its Resolution No. 1213, adopted July 15, 1987, and ordered that the same stand as the report for the purpose of all subsequent proceedings pursuant to said Resolution No. 1213.

WHEREAS, June 5, 2024, at the hour of 6:00 o’clock p.m. and June 12, 2024, at the hour of 6:30 o'clock p.m., in the regular meeting place of said Council, Council Chambers, One Civic Center Drive, Scotts Valley, California, was appointed and fixed as the time and place of public hearings to act upon the Engineer's Report and Resolution No. 1213.38.

WHEREAS, the City Clerk gave notice of said hearings by publication once a week for two weeks in the local newspaper published and circulated in said City, and by mailing or causing to be mailed notice of the adoption of said Resolution and of the filing of said report, postage prepaid, at least ten days before the date set for hearings of said protests, to all persons owning real property to be assessed, whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized assessment roll for County taxes prior thereto or as known to the City Clerk, which notice contained a statement of the time, place and purpose of the hearings and a statement of the total estimated cost of said proposed maintenance and improvements, the amount as shown by said report to be assessed against the particular parcel covered by the notice, together with a statement that any person interested may file a protest in writing as provided in said Act.

WHEREAS, all written protests and other written communications were read by the Council and are on file with the Clerk and all persons desiring to be heard were fully heard.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as follows:

1. That protests against said maintenance of improvements and levy of assessments were not signed by the owners of a majority or more of the area of the lands within the assessment district assessed for the costs and expenses of said work.

2. That said protests be, and each of them are, hereby overruled.

3. That the owners of one-half (1/2) or more of the area to be assessed for the cost of the project did not, at or prior to the time fixed for said hearings, file written protests against the said proposed maintenance and improvements as a whole, or against said district or the extent thereof to be assessed for the costs and expenses of said maintenance and improvements as a whole, or as to the Engineer's estimate of said costs and expenses, or against the maps and descriptions, or against the diagram or assessment to pay for the costs and expenses thereof.

4. That the district benefitted by said maintenance and improvements are to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof are more particularly described in said Resolution Nos. 1192 and 1213 and made a part hereof by reference thereto. That all public streets and highways within said assessment district in use in the performance of a public function as such shall be omitted from said district and from the levy and collection of the special taxes to be hereafter levied and collected to cover the costs and expenses of said maintenance and improvements.

5. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses in connection therewith, contained in said Report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved as the Engineer's total and detailed estimate of the costs and expenses of said maintenance of improvements.

6. That the public interest and convenience require and said Council does hereby order the maintenance of improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Resolution Nos. 1192 and 1213 on file in the office of the Clerk, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said maintenance of improvements, and also for further particular pursuant to the provisions of said Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

7. That the diagram showing the assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 1192 and 1213, and also the boundaries and dimensions of the respective subdivisions having been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally approved and confirmed as the diagram of the properties to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses of said maintenance of improvements.

8. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed maintenance of improvements upon the several subdivisions of land in said district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by said subdivisions,

respectively from said maintenance of improvements, and of the expenses incidental thereto, contained in said report, be, and the same is hereby, finally approved and confirmed as the assessment to pay the costs and expenses of said maintenance of improvements.

9. That said Engineer's Report be, and the same is hereby, finally adopted and approved as a whole.

10. That the Clerk shall forthwith deliver to the Superintendent of Streets said assessment as confirmed by this Council with his/her certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and of the date thereof; and that said Superintendent of Streets shall record said diagram and assessment in his/her office in a suitable book to be kept for that purpose, and append thereto his/her certificate for the date of such recording, and such recordation shall be and constitute the assessment roll herein.

11. Proceedings shall be taken by this Council pursuant to said Act for any fiscal year during which an assessment is to be levied and collected within said district.

12. The Clerk of this City be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Santa Cruz County.

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of June 2024, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved: ____________________________
Randy Johnson, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT
Fiscal Year 2024-2025

PINEWOOD ESTATES

LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
Tract No. 1121
City of Scotts Valley
Santa Cruz County, California
Randy Johnson
Mayor
Derek Timm Jack Dilles
Vice Mayor Council Member
Donna Lind Allan Timms
Council Member Council Member
Mali LaGoe
City Manager
Mark Falgout, RCE 63394
Acting City Engineer

ASSESSMENT
Fiscal Year 2024-2025
WHEREAS, on February 4, 1987, the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted its Resolution No. 1192, determining to undertake proceedings for the establishment of an assessment district to be known as the "Pinewood Estates Landscaping Maintenance District", more particularly therein described; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 1987, the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley, California adopted Resolution No. 1213 primarily approving and confirming the written report by the Engineers of Work called for under said Act, and ordered that the same stand as the report for the purpose of all subsequent proceedings had pursuant to said Resolution No. 1213; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 1988, the City Council of said City of Scotts Valley adopted Resolution No. 1213.1 setting a time and place of hearing protest on levy of assessments pursuant to said Act; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 1988, the City Council of said City of Scotts Valley adopted Resolution No. 1213.2 ordering and authorizing the levy and collection of assessments therein pursuant to the said Act; and
WHEREAS, the proceedings under said Act require an annual engineers report to be prepared and filed in the same way as the report for the formation of the district for each year in which an assessment is to be levied.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mark Falgout, RCE 63394, Acting City Engineer of said City of Scotts Valley, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the maintenance and servicing of the proposed improvements, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the assessment district.

The amount to be paid for said maintenance and servicing of the proposed improvements, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the assessment district for the fiscal year 2023-2024 is as follows:

Engineer's Estimate: $17,058.06
Amount to be Assessed: $ 6,000.00
And I do hereby assess and apportion said portion of said total amount of the costs and expenses of said maintenance and servicing of the proposed improvements, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the several lots, pieces, or parcels or portions of lots of land liable therefore and benefitted thereby, and hereinafter numbered to correspond with the numbers upon the diagram, upon each, severally and respectively,

in proportion to the benefits to be received by such lands respectively, from the maintenance hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

As required by said Act, a diagram is recorded in official records of the County of Santa Cruz showing the assessment district and also the boundaries and dimensions of the respective lots or parcels of land within said assessment district as the same existed at the passage of said Resolution No. 1192.

Said assessment is made upon the several lots or parcels of land within said assessment district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by said lots or parcels respectively, from the maintenance and servicing of the improvements. The diagram and assessment numbers appearing herein are the diagram numbers appearing on said diagram, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description of said property.

I hereby place opposite the number of each lot or parcel of land assessed, the amount assessed thereon and the number of the assessment. Each lot or parcel of land is described in the assessment list by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Santa Cruz for the fiscal year 2022-2023 to the right of the parcel numbers and includes all of such parcels.

Dated: _____________________
_________________________________
Mark Falgout, RCE 63394,
Acting City Engineer

DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1. Maintaining and servicing of landscaping and ornamental vegetation, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty thereof, including cultivation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, and water for the irrigation thereof.

2. Maintaining and servicing of decorative fencing, signage and other ornamental structures and facilities, including the cost of repair, reconstruction, removal, or replacement of all or any part thereof.

3. Repair or replacement, including the installation and construction thereof, of hardscaping, including damaged curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, paving, water, irrigation systems, drainage, lighting, or electric facilities within the landscape maintenance easement.

4. The maintenance, repair or replacement of such other facilities as may be appurtenant to the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof.

ESTIMATE OF COSTS

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS
Fiscal Year 2024-2025
Engineer's Estimate (City Engineer)
Maintenance Expenses
Maintenance and servicing $ 13,847.97
Irrigation and power $ 367.08
Subtotal $ 14,215.05
Incidental Expenses
City administration (20% Overhead) $ 2,843.01
Subtotal $ 2,843.01
Total Estimated Cost $17,0258.06
Net Amount to be Assessed $6,000.00

RULES OF SPREADING ASSESSMENTS

1. District is to be assessed for all costs associated with the maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, hardscaping and appurtenant improvements within the boundaries of the district.

2. Total costs shall be apportioned to all parcels within the district boundaries in accordance with the benefit derived from the landscaping improvements.

3. Because the landscaping enhances an area serving as a drainage detention system for all parcels within the boundaries of the district, the benefit derived has been determined to be equal for all parcels.

Certificates
I, Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk of the City of Scotts Valley, hereby certify that the foregoing assessment, in the amount set forth, was filed with me on ____________________.
_____________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
I, Mark Falgout, Acting City Engineer for the City of Scotts Valley, do hereby certify that the amounts set forth have been re-computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of said City of Scotts Valley, as expressed by Resolution No. 1213.37, duly adopted by said City Council on June 21, 2023.
________________________
Mark Falgout, RCE _____,
Acting City Engineer
I, Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk of the City of Scotts Valley, hereby certify that the foregoing assessment, in the amount set forth was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley on ____________________. ________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
The Assessment was filed in the office of the County Auditor of the County of Santa Cruz, California, on ___________________.
________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report and Assessment was recorded in my office on _________________.

Acting City Engineer
Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz County, California
By:_______________________________
Mark Falgout

City of Scotts Valley

PINEWOOD ESTATES LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT

ASSESSMENT ROLL
2024-2025
Assessment Assessor's Assessment
Number Parcel No. Property Owner Amount
____________________________________________________________________________ 1 021-172-01 BIAN ZHIXI $240
2 021-172-02 MARINO RUSSELL J TRUSTEE $240
3 021-172-03 MARTIN GEOFFREY & SUSAN H/W JT $240
4 021-172-04 KELLER TERRY A & JULIE TRUSTEES $240
5 021-172-05 EDWARDS ANDREA U/W $240
6 021-172-06

WOLF MARSHALL E & KRISTIA BURGESS
TRUSTEES $240
7 021-172-07 HALL EUGENE J & JENNIFER M $240
8 021-172-08

O CONNOR MICHAEL CHARLES & SARAH
WRIGHT H/W CP R $240
9 021-172-09 ROBINSON CARLOS E H/W JT ETAL $240
10 021-172-10 ROBERTS TRACY LEE $240
11 021-172-11 DUNN JOHN & JANINE H/W CP RS $240
12 021-172-12 GONG QI H/W CP RS ETAL $240
13 021-172-13 MC CONNELL MELVIN M & MIRIAM C H/W JT $240 14 021-172-14 MCMULLEN AMY DEANNE & ROBERT WILLIAM $240 15 021-301-01 LINN JOEL M & KARINA H/W CP RS $240
16 021-301-02 SION VINICIO & KRISTY CO-TRUSTEES $240
17 021-301-03 DAVIDSON MARK S & EVE M $240
18 021-301-04 KEITH SETH $240
19 021-301-05 LEMMON CYNTHIA M TRUSTEE $240
20 021-301-07 SUGGS JOHN B & LINDA L TRUSTEES $240
21 021-301-08 NORDSTROM MARK JOHN TRUSTEE ETAL $240
22 021-301-09 SPIEGEL JAMES D TRUSTEES ETAL $240
23 021-301-10 MCELREA SIMON J S & KRISTIN L $240
24 021-301-11 COX CLINT R $240
25 021-301-12 ROSS BRANDON J & KATHY C $240
_____
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS: $ 6,000

AGENDA ITEM 2.

DATE: 6/12/2024
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/12/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark Falgout
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Skypark Open Space Maintenance Assessment District

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
In 1995, the City Council formed the Skypark Open Space Maintenance Assessment District No. 1 and subsequently authorized the levy and collection of an assessment to maintain the open space district. The revenue collected to maintain the district includes linear park, two greenbelt areas, and a self-insurance fund in the event of a slope failure. The assessment district is formed pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and must be renewed annually.

Each year, an Annual Engineer’s Report is filed, which includes an estimate of expenses to be paid by the district, a description of the work to be performed or improvements to be made, and benefit assessment, outlining the proposed budget for the cost of maintaining, repairing, and operating any public improvements. The FY 2023/24 assessment is $219.74 per unit, which is the same as the FY 2022/23 assessment. The total assessment revenue is estimated to be $41,750.60. At the time the assessment was established, an annual inflator was not included; therefore, the per unit assessment has remained the same since 1995.

Revenue generated by the assessment covers expenses related landscape services such as cultivation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating of disease, and removal of trimmings, debris, and other solid waste; repair, reconstruction, removal, and/or replacement of items related to the maintenance of vegetation and open space, including but not limited to:
irrigation systems, lighting, infrastructure (curbs, gutters, sidewalks); and utilities (water and electricity). The assessment also requires that funds be set aside in the event of a slope failure within the assessment area.

The actual cost associated with the maintenance of the Skypark Open Space Linear trail and greenbelts exceed the assessment district revenue in the amount of $62,047.60 to be funded through the Public Works – Park Maintenance operating budget.

As required, all 190 owners were notified of the June 5, 2024 public meeting and the June 12, 2024 public hearing via mail. Tonight, a public hearing will be held to receive additional testimony from property owners and Council will consider approving the annual Engineer’s

Report and adopting Resolution 1555-SP-36.

FISCAL IMPACT
Costs associated with maintaining, repairing, and operating the assessment district are funded through an annual assessment levy, which generates an estimated $41,750.60. Supplemental expenses of $62,047.60 will be funded through the Public Works – Parks Maintenance operating budget.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing, overrule any protests received, approve the FY 2024-25 Annual Engineer’s Report, and approve Resolution No. 1555-SP-36 ordering and authorizing the levy and collection of assessments therein pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the Skypark Landscaping Maintenance District.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 2024-25 Skypark Resolution 1555-SP-36

2. 2024-25 Skypark Open Space Engineer Report

RESOLUTION NO. 1555-SP-036

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY

ORDERING AND AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS THEREIN PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972

SKYPARK OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley, California, that, WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1555-SP-07, ordering formation of territory into an Open Space Maintenance Assessment District and authorizing the levy and collection of assessments, adopted on the 6th day of December 1995 by the City Council pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, as amended, the Engineer of Work of said City has filed with the City Clerk the written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No. 1555-SP-07, which report has been presented by said Engineer of Work to this Council and this Council has preliminarily approved and confirmed said report by its Resolution No. 1555-SP-03, adopted October 18, 1995, and ordered that the same stand as the report for the purpose of all subsequent proceedings pursuant to said Resolution No. 1555-SP-03; and
WHEREAS, June 5, 2024 at the hour of 6:00 o’clock p.m. and June 12, 2024 at the hour of 6:30 o'clock p.m., in the regular meeting place of said Council, Council Chambers, One Civic Center Drive, Scotts Valley, California, was appointed and fixed as the time and place of public hearings to act upon the Engineer's Report and Resolution No. 1555-SP-036; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk gave notice of said hearings by publication once a week for two weeks in the local newspaper published and circulated in said City, and by mailing or causing to be mailed notice of the adoption of said Resolution and of the filing of said report, postage prepaid, at least ten days before the date set for hearings of said protests, to all persons owning real property to be assessed, whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized assessment roll for County taxes prior thereto or as known to the City Clerk, which notice contained a statement of the time, place and purpose of the hearings and a statement of the total estimated cost of said proposed maintenance and improvements, the amount as shown by said report to be assessed against the particular parcel covered by the notice, together with a statement that any person interested may file a protest in writing as provided in said Act; and
WHEREAS, all written protests and other written communications were read by the Council and are on file with the Clerk and all persons desiring to be heard were fully heard.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as follows:

1. That protests against said maintenance of improvements and levy of assessments were not signed by the owners of a majority or more of the area of the lands within the assessment district assessed for the costs and expenses of said work.

2. That said protests be, and each of them are, hereby overruled.

3. That the owners of one-half (1/2) or more of the area to be assessed for the cost of the project did not, at or prior to the time fixed for said hearings, file written protests against the said proposed maintenance and improvements as a whole, or against said district or the extent thereof to be assessed for the costs and expenses of said maintenance and improvements as a whole, or as to the Engineer's estimate of said costs and expenses, or against the maps and descriptions, or against the diagram or assessment to pay for the costs and expenses thereof.

4. That the district benefitted by said maintenance and improvements are to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and the exterior boundaries thereof are more particularly described in said Resolution No. 1555-SP-07 and made a part hereof by reference thereto. That all public streets and highways within said assessment district in use in the performance of a public function as such shall be omitted from said district and from the levy and collection of the special taxes to be hereafter levied and collected to cover the costs and expenses of said maintenance and improvements.

5. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and expenses in connection therewith, contained in said Report, be, and it is hereby, finally adopted and approved as the Engineer's total and detailed estimate of the costs and expenses of said maintenance of improvements.

6. That the public interest and convenience require and said Council does hereby order the maintenance of improvements to be made as described in and in accordance with said Resolution No. 1555-SP-07 on file in the office of the Clerk, reference to which is hereby made for a more particular description of said maintenance of improvements, and also for further particular pursuant to the provisions of said Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

7. That the diagram showing the assessment district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 1555-SP-07, and also the boundaries and dimensions of the respective subdivisions having been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it is hereby, finally approved and confirmed as the diagram of the properties to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses of said maintenance of improvements.

8. That the assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses of the proposed maintenance of improvements upon the several subdivisions of land in said district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by said subdivisions, respectively from said maintenance of improvements, and of the expenses incidental thereto, contained in said report, be, and the same is hereby, finally approved and confirmed as the assessment to pay the costs and expenses of said maintenance of improvements.

9. That said Engineer's Report be, and the same is hereby, finally adopted and approved as a whole.

10. That the Clerk shall forthwith deliver to the Superintendent of Streets said assessment as confirmed by this Council with his/her certificate of such confirmation thereto attached and of the date thereof; and that said Superintendent of Streets shall record said diagram and assessment in his/her office in a suitable book to be kept for that purpose, and append thereto his/her certificate for the date of such recording, and such recordation shall be and constitute the assessment roll herein.

11. Proceedings shall be taken by this Council pursuant to said Act for any fiscal year during which an assessment is to be levied and collected within said district.

12. The Clerk of this City be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Santa Cruz County.

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of June 2024, by the following vote of the members thereof:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Approved: ____________________________
Randy Johnson, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

ENGINEER'S REPORT
Fiscal Year 2024-2025

SKYPARK OPEN SPACE
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
Tract No. 1380

CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
Santa Cruz County, California
Randy Johnson
Mayor
Derek Timm Jack Dilles
Vice Mayor Council Member
Donna Lind Allan Timms
Council Member Council Member
Mali LaGoe
City Manager
Mark Falgout, RCE 63394
Acting City Engineer

Skypark Open Space Maintenance Assessment District No. 1

ASSESSMENT
Fiscal Year 2024-2025
WHEREAS, on October 18, 1995, the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted its Resolution No. 1555-SP-01, determining to initiate proceedings for the establishment of an assessment district to be known as the "Skypark Open Space Maintenance Assessment District No. 1", more particularly therein described; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1555-SP-25 appointed the City Engineer as Engineer of Work and directed the preparation and filing of an Engineer's Report presenting plans of the improvements to be maintained, a diagram for the assessment district, an estimate of cost for maintenance and servicing thereof, and an assessment of the estimated costs upon all assessable lots or parcels within the assessment district, to which resolutions reference is hereby made for further particulars.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mark Falgout, RCE 63394
Acting City Engineer of said City of Scotts Valley, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the maintenance and servicing of the proposed improvements, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the assessment district.

The amount to be paid for said maintenance and servicing of the proposed improvements, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto; to be paid by the assessment district for the fiscal year 2024-2025 is as follows:

Engineer's Estimate: $41,750.60
And I do hereby assess and apportion said portion of said total amount of the costs and expenses of said maintenance and servicing of the proposed improvements, including the costs and expenses incidental thereto, upon the several lots, pieces, or parcels or portions of lots of land liable therefore and benefitted thereby, and hereinafter numbered to correspond with the numbers upon the diagram, upon each, severally and respectively, in proportion to the benefits to be received by such lands respectively, from the maintenance hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

As required by said Act, a diagram is recorded in official records of the County of Santa Cruz showing the assessment district and also boundaries and dimensions of the respective lots or parcels of land within said assessment district generally described as the same existed at passage of said Resolution No. 1555-SP-01.

Said assessment is made upon the several lots or parcels of land within said assessment district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by said lots or parcels respectively, from the maintenance and servicing of the improvements. The diagram and assessment numbers appearing herein are the diagram numbers appearing on said diagram, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description of said property.

I hereby place opposite the number of each lot or parcel of land assessed, the amount assessed thereon and the number of the assessment. Each lot or parcel of land is described in the assessment list by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Santa Cruz for the fiscal year 2024-2025 to the right of the parcel numbers and includes all of such parcels.
_______________________ ________________________________________ Date Mark Falgout, RCE 63394
Acting City Engineer

DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Skypark Open Space Maintenance Assessment District No. 1

1. Maintaining and servicing of landscaping, vegetation and open space, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty thereof, including cultivation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, and water for the irrigation thereof.

2. Maintaining and servicing of decorative fencing, exercise par course and signage thereon, electronically controlled gates, and other ornamental structures and facilities, including the cost of repair, reconstruction, removal, or replacement of all or any part thereof.

3. Repair or replacement, including the installation and construction thereof, of hardscaping, including damaged curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, paving, water, irrigation systems, drainage, lighting, or electric facilities appurtenant to any of the improvements referenced in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing of said improvements.

4. The improvements referenced above are all within the boundaries of parcels 14, 15, 16, 17, as shown on Final Map, Tract No. 1355, Skypark, recorded in the official records of Santa Cruz County in the Book of Maps, Volume 89, Page 14, and within the boundaries of parcels A and B as shown on Final Map, Tract No. 1380, California Skypark, recorded in the official records of Santa Cruz County in the Book of Maps, Volume 89, Page 15 (hereinafter referred to as Final Maps).

5. The cost of slope subsidence/stability insurance or a self-insurance fund for any and all slope failures within the boundaries of parcels 14, 15, 16, 17, A and B as shown on the aforesaid Final Maps.

6. The maintenance, repair or replacement of such other facilities as may be appurtenant to the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof.

SKYPARK OPEN SPACE
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
Engineer's Estimate
Fiscal Year 2024-2025

BENEFIT ASSESSMENT
The budget for the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating any and all of said public improvements for fiscal year 2024-2025 is as follows:

MAINTENANCE

1. Maintenance contract
a. Linear Trail Open Space (K&D Landscaping) $ 71,921.68 b. Greenbelt Maintenance (Brightview Landscaping) $ 7,340.32 b. Water Cost - Greenbelts $ 15,000.00
c. Utilities (PG&E) $ 100.00
Subtotal $ 94,362.00
Total maintenance cost (12-month period)

INSURANCE

1. Self-Insurance Fund for Park Slope/Bluff Area $ 0.00

INCIDENTALS

1. City administration (10% Overhead) $ 9,436.20

Total Costs $ 103,798.20
General Fund Contribution $ (62,047.60)

BALANCE TO ASSESSMENT $ 41,750.60

RULES OF SPREADING ASSESSMENTS

1. District is to be assessed for all costs associated with the maintenance and servicing of the landscaping, hardscaping and appurtenant improvements within parcels 14, 15, 16, 17, as shown on Final Map, Tract No. 1355, Skypark, recorded in the official records of Santa Cruz County in the Book of Maps, Volume 89, Page 14, and within the boundaries of parcels A and B as shown on Final Map, Tract No., 1380, California Skypark, recorded in the official records of Santa Cruz County in the Book of Maps, Volume 89, Page 15.

2. Total costs shall be apportioned to all parcels within the district boundaries in accordance with the benefit derived from the landscaping improvements.

3. The benefit derived has been determined to be equal for all parcels.

Certificates
I, Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk of the City of Scotts Valley, hereby certify that the foregoing assessment roll, in the amount set forth, was filed with me on ___________________.
_______________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
I, Mark Falgout, RCE 63394, Acting City Engineer of the City of Scotts Valley, do hereby certify that the amounts set forth under the Engineer's Estimate on Page 1 of the Assessment, and the individual amounts on the foregoing pages of the Assessment have been computed in accordance with the order of the City Council of said City of Scotts Valley, as expressed by Resolution No. 1555-SP-034, duly adopted by said City Council on June 21, 2023.
________________________________
Mark Falgout, RCE 63394
Acting City Engineer
I, Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk of the City of Scotts Valley, hereby certify that the foregoing assessment, in the amount set forth in the Engineer's Estimate on Page 1 of the Assessment, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley on __________________.
_________________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
The Assessment was filed in the office of the County Auditor of the County of Santa Cruz, California, on __________________.
__________________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report and Assessment was recorded in my office on ___________________.

Acting City Engineer
Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz County, California
By ________________________________
Mark Falgout, RCE 63394

SKYPARK OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1

ASSESSMENT ROLL
Ass. Assessor's Assessment
No. Parcel No. Property Owner Amount
______________________________________________________________________ 1001 22-691-01 Mario Guerrero Magno & Marife Arcinas $ 219.74 1002 22-691-02 Jyri Virkki $ 219.74
1003 22-691-03 Christopher & Dianne Wong $ 219.74
1006 22-691-06 Anna Kesler-Diaz $ 219.74
1007 22-691-07 Upendra Choudhary $ 219.74
1008 22-691-08 Brian D. & Teresa M. Hallin Trustees $ 219.74 1009 22-691-09 Soon K. & Young H. Yuh $ 219.74
1010 22-691-10 Michael Mark Goodwin $ 219.74
1011 22-691-11 Jaime & Emily Rakow $ 219.74
1012 22-691-12 Jeremy & Lori Gentile $ 219.74
1013 22-691-13 Clarence W. Jr. & Maureen A. Mezzell $ 219.74 1014 22-691-14 Robert L Hambelton $ 219.74
1015 22-691-15 Gillian McGlaze $ 219.74
1016 22-691-16 Matthew D & Spring V Babb $ 219.74
1017 22-691-17 Dan Joe Aspromonte Trustee $ 219.74
1018 22-691-18 Willie D. & Lisa J. Lu Trustees $ 219.74 1004 22-691-20 Jose F. & Heather T. Lomba $ 219.74
1005 22-691-21 Christian Life Center First Assembly of $ 219.74 1144 22-692-01 Deandre & Karen James $ 219.74
1145 22-692-02 Jeanette E. Anderson $ 219.74
1146 22-692-03 Jann L. Smart $ 219.74
1147 22-692-04 Carl Gyllenhammer $ 219.74
1148 22-692-05 Mark McWhinney $ 219.74
1149 22-692-06 Hin F. Boen et al $ 219.74
1150 22-692-07 Peter K. Thompson $ 219.74
1151 22-692-08 Edward J. & Karen E. McNamara $ 219.74
1152 22-692-09 Guadalupe & Sarah De Leon $ 219.74
1153 22-692-10 Jeffrey Allen Ott $ 219.74
1154 22-692-11 Owen Ward $ 219.74
1177 22-692-12 Alexandra Michelle-Conway & Michael Lomas $ 219.74 1178 22-692-13 Johnny Mon et al $ 219.74
1179 22-692-14 Yuriko Yamasaki $ 219.74
1180 22-692-15 David R & Melissa Zieper $ 219.74
1181 22-692-16 John C. & Kassi L. Van Lanen $ 219.74
1182 22-692-17 Sarah E. Christensen $ 219.74
1183 22-692-18 Robert Kurt Molholm $ 219.74
1184 22-692-19 Henry J. Kondrat et al $ 219.74
1185 22-692-20 Tuo Chen $ 219.74

1186 22
-692-21 David J. Albano $ 219.74
1187 22-692-22 Anjna & Kamaljit Mann $ 219.74
1188 22-692-23 Charles D Berg $ 219.74
1189 22-692-24 Peter Svensson $ 219.74
1190 22-692-25 Eric P. & Julie A. Miller $ 219.74
1107 22-693-01 Vincent & Samantha Auvray $ 219.74
1108 22-693-02 Catherine Hope & Gregory L. Horvath $ 219.74 1109 22-693-03 Mary Patricia & David Dorsey $ 219.74
1110 22-693-04 Brandon Charles & Nicole Sarah Finstad $ 219.74 1137 22-693-05 Shelley Noh $ 219.74
1138 22-693-06 Scott & Lisa M. MacGowan $ 219.74
1139 22-693-07 Ping Fai Ben Li et al $ 219.74
1140 22-693-08 Hubert Hudson Burroughs $ 219.74
1141 22-693-09 Sylvia P. Morrison $ 219.74
1142 22-693-10 David and Josie Texidor $ 219.74
1143 22-693-11 Jeffrey Kennedy & Jennifer Leigh Wade $ 219.74 1019 22-701-01 Sheryl Ann McEwan $ 219.74
1020 22-701-02 Clark P. & Sarah N. Winn $ 219.74
1021 22-701-03 David R. & Cheryl R. Schneider $ 219.74
1022 22-701-04 Andrew Seppy Bloom et al $ 219.74
1023 22-701-05 Mary Simpson $ 219.74
1024 22-701-06 Christopher S. Thomas $ 219.74
1025 22-701-07 James V. & Lea K. Reed $ 219.74
1026 22-701-08 Andrew Jacob Ringer $ 219.74
1027 22-701-09 Kevin & Julie L. Burnett $ 219.74
1028 22-701-10 Linda Lloyd Fisher Trustee et al $ 219.74 1029 22-701-11 Carolyn A. Nicholson $ 219.74
1030 22-701-12 Jason & Sandra Malone $ 219.74
1031 22-701-13 Roderick A. & Cheryle M. Brownfield $ 219.74 1032 22-701-14 Jessica I. Puccinelli $ 219.74
1033 22-701-15 Kendall Q. & Marisela Maria Sullivan $ 219.74 1176 22-702-01 Sergey Kataev $ 219.74
1175 22-702-02 Francis J. III & Bridget E. Gramkowski $ 219.74 1174 22-702-03 Karl R. & Marsha J. Landgraf $ 219.74
1173 22-702-04 James S. Szabo et al $ 219.74
1172 22-702-05 Roman Efimov $ 219.74
1171 22-702-06 Terrence A. & Megan A. O'Toole $ 219.74
1170 22-702-07 William Scholtz $ 219.74
1169 22-702-08 Janet Elizabeth Barber $ 219.74
1168 22-702-09 Justin J. & Sara R. Kiesby $ 219.74
1167 22-702-10 Debbie P. Dizon $ 219.74
1166 22-702-11 Charles E. Schmuck Trustee $ 219.74
1165 22-702-12 Steven & Kathleen F. Gullickson $ 219.74 1164 22-702-13 Dale R. Henry et al $ 219.74
1163 22-702-14 Brian & Michiyo Johnston $ 219.74
1162 22-702-15 Eric & Beth Seib $ 219.74

1161 22
-702-16 Kimberly M. Clark $ 219.74
1160 22-702-17 Amanda Danner $ 219.74
1159 22-702-18 Brian P. & Stacey G. Costello Trustees $ 219.74 1158 22-702-19 Gayathri Balaji $ 219.74
1157 22-702-20 Barry Young $ 219.74
1156 22-702-21 James Ray Jr. & Heather Lewis Sebring $ 219.74 1155 22-702-22 Nathan & Jodie Fillhardt $ 219.74
1134 22-702-26 Robert D. & Jayne E. Scott $ 219.74
1133 22-702-27 Mark T. & Helen L. Youmans $ 219.74
1132 22-702-28 Maria C. Torchio-Gauthier et al $ 219.74 1131 22-702-29 Sadra Emami $ 219.74
1115 22-702-30 Stephen R. Morairty $ 219.74
1114 22-702-31 The Salvation Army $ 219.74
1113 22-702-32 Stephen P. & Kristina N. Dinwiddie $ 219.74 1112 22-702-33 Jason P. & Amy M. Ivey $ 219.74
1111 22-702-34 Gavin J. & Jane F. Melford Trustees $ 219.74 1135 22-702-36 Cesar & Jacqueline DeSantos $ 219.74
1136 22-702-37 Douglas G. & Susan Diane Morey $ 219.74
1105 22-703-01 Araceli Henley $ 219.74
1106 22-703-02 Fazlul & Rokhsana B. Quader $ 219.74
1073 22-703-03 John Lau et al $ 219.74
1072 22-703-04 James E. & Deborah L. Nieters $ 219.74
1129 22-711-01 Craig W. & Kathleen M Adams Trustees $ 219.74 1128 22-711-02 Jordan & Jessica Boschen $ 219.74
1127 22-711-03 Lisa M Newton $ 219.74
1126 22-711-04 Gregory Allen Rexelle $ 219.74
1125 22-711-05 Peter C. Lombrozo et al $ 219.74
1124 22-711-06 William & Joanne Thompson $ 219.74
1123 22-711-07 Philip W. Crowley $ 219.74
1122 22-711-08 Tavin B & Kristina M. Lanpheir $ 219.74
1121 22-711-09 Thomas M. Carli & Margaret Walsh $ 219.74 1120 22-711-10 Jakko M. Kleijnen et al $ 219.74
1119 22-711-11 John B. & Susan A. Ledingham $ 219.74
1118 22-711-12 Brian J. & Valerie E. Kindell $ 219.74
1117 22-711-13 Kaylon M. & John A. Northington $ 219.74 1100 22-711-14 Kim & John M. Lariviere $ 219.74
1099 22-711-15 Henry R. & Stephanie A. Knight $ 219.74
1098 22-711-16 Donald G. II & Tamera L. Melrose $ 219.74 1097 22-711-17 Sandra Holland et al $ 219.74
1096 22-711-18 Deant A. & Marina P. Earl $ 219.74
1095 22-711-19 Craig Moorhead $ 219.74
1094 22-711-20 Omeed M. & Traci L. Ghaffarian $ 219.74
1093 22-711-21 April N. & Stephen A. Clarke $ 219.74
1092 22-711-22 Steven & Kierstin L. Trefethen $ 219.74
1091 22-711-23 Gareth & Karen S. Egerton $ 219.74
1090 22-711-24 Srinivasan & Hemamalini Sathish $ 219.74

1089 22
-711-25 Clark & Debra Patteson Trustees $ 219.74
1088 22-711-26 Tom Evenson Survivors Trust $ 219.74
1087 22-711-27 Mark R. & Marna S. Scarr Trustees $ 219.74 1086 22-711-28 Ursula T. Christiansen $ 219.74
1085 22-711-29 John D. Gullory & Suzanne Herrera $ 219.74 1084 22-711-30 Kim & Michael Cushing $ 219.74
1083 22-711-31 James D. Neef et al $ 219.74
1082 22-711-32 Alan & Laurie Okamura $ 219.74
1081 22-711-33 Sudesh Shetty Kodialbail et al $ 219.74
1080 22-711-34 Gerald E. Beyke $ 219.74
1079 22-711-35 Matthew & Marina M. Ward $ 219.74
1078 22-711-36 Keith & Jennifer Chomentowski $ 219.74
1130 22-711-38 Kevin Tien $ 219.74
1116 22-711-39 Barry W. Prentiss $ 219.74
1101 22-711-40 Richard P. Des Jardin Trustee et al $ 219.74 1102 22-711-41 Daniel Marhenke Peterson $ 219.74
1103 22-711-42 Kevin J. & Valerie W. Lenahan $ 219.74
1104 22-711-43 Susan Hanlock Chapman $ 219.74
1074 22-711-44 Larry D. & Rebecca C. Mosley $ 219.74
1075 22-711-45 Valerie Trunecek $ 219.74
1076 22-711-46 Todd & Michelle Riddle $ 219.74
1077 22-711-47 Jenny & Jefferson Delacruz $ 219.74
1034 22-712-01 Matthew A. & Gretchen K. Clark$ 219.74
1035 22-712-02 Claude H. & Cynthia M. Lopez $ 219.74
1036 22-712-03 Christopher W. Bensen & Tara Dalton $ 219.74 1037 22-712-04 Jeffrey L. Gee et al $ 219.74
1038 22-712-05 Emir & Denise Gurer $ 219.74
1039 22-712-06 Goran & Susan Domitrovic $ 219.74
1040 22-712-07 Milind Mohan Hirlekar $ 219.74
1041 22-712-08 Shaun Shahram & Habibeh Deyhim $ 219.74
1042 22-712-09 Robert J. Romero et al $ 219.74
1043 22-712-10 Kimberly A Brosseau $ 219.74
1044 22-712-11 Rodney W. & Christine E. Stanton $ 219.74 1045 22-712-12 Clifford & Lily Dong Trustees $ 219.74
1046 22-712-13 Tomas & Tereza Knappek $ 219.74
1047 22-712-14 Donald L. & Paula K. Cardoza Trustees $ 219.74 1048 22-712-15 Lee & Diane D. Basilotta $ 219.74
1049 22-712-16 Alan Van Wambeck Trustee et al $ 219.74
1050 22-712-17 Carlos S & Roberta N Camilo Denilson $ 219.74 1051 22-712-18 The Salvation Army $ 219.74
1052 22-712-19 Andrea Banzi & Amelia Louis e Jensen $ 219.74 1053 22-712-20 Mark Alan Newton et al $ 219.74
1054 22-712-21 Donald J. Hutchison Trustee $ 219.74
1071 22-713-01 Gary D. Thomsen $ 219.74
1070 22-713-02 Sheldon N. Rosell $ 219.74
1069 22-713-03 Jeffrey S. & Susan Leigh Rosell $ 219.74

1068 22-713-04 Daryl & Claire Spitzer $ 219.74
1067 22-713-05 Scott M. & Lailah Mueting $ 219.74
1066 22-713-06 Elsa Marmolejo $ 219.74
1065 22-713-07 Manish N. & Alpa M. Patel $ 219.74
1064 22-713-08 Justin R. Rishoff $ 219.74
1063 22-713-09 John Roman Mueller $ 219.74
1062 22-713-10 Christine & Nicholos Hutton $ 219.74
1061 22-713-11 Thomas M. & Barbara R. Evenson $ 219.74
1060 22-713-12 Mark & Vicki C. Teixeira $ 219.74
1059 22-713-13 William J. Simons $ 219.74
1058 22-713-14 Casey G. & Betty Nicole Peterson $ 219.74 1057 22-713-15 Wilma M. Caldwell $ 219.74
1056 22-713-16 Mallory & Lance Walkup $ 219.74
1055 22-713-17 Matthew R. Hakimi Trustee $ 219.74
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS $ 41,750.60

AGENDA ITEM 3.

DATE: 6/12/2024
City of Scotts Valley

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/12/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Stephanie Hill, Administrative Services Director
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider approval of proposed FY2024/25 User Fees and Charges

SUMMARY OF ISSUE
The City engaged NBS to conduct an independent user fee study analysis of the City’s costbased user fees and charges for planning, building, public works, recreation, police and administrative services. It had been several years since the City had conducted a comprehensive fee study. This study reviewed the current service delivery methods, staffing and costs to determine the appropriate fee structures and costs of services provided for each service.

NBS prepared a cost allocation plan that allocates the costs associated with the provision of administrative support services such as City Council, City Attorney, City Manager, City Clerk, Finance, Human Resources, Risk Management and Information Technology. The proposed cost allocation plan forms one of the elements in determining the citywide overhead costs attributable to each department and, thus, to the costs of services provided in the fee study.

NBS will present the results of the user fee study during the Council meeting. They will present an overview of fee setting requirements for local agencies in California, the methodology used in completing the fee study, and a cost recovery analysis of the fees for services within the scope of the study. At the end of the presentation, and subject to any questions that the City Council may have, staff will then provide an analysis and recommendations regarding the level of cost recovery that Council may wish to consider for the various fees and charges, and the timing in which that level of cost recovery might reasonably be achieved.

In general, fees related to building, police, public works and administrative services are typically set by agencies at or near full cost recovery. Planning fee cost recovery levels are set based on several considerations such as economic development initiatives, the level and extent of undeveloped or potentially redeveloped property, and the development marketplace relative to other communities within the region. Recreation fees are typically set at a lower cost of recovery to encourage and make affordable use to the community. The majority of Recreation fees are not set by the NBS cost-based user fee study, so there are limited fees herein for consideration. Other Recreation fees are being evaluated based on the new recreation model and master plan updates and are anticipated to come to the Council at in time for implementation in 2025. Current Recreation facility rental fees will remain in place for

the remainder of the calendar year.

The result of the fee study indicates that the City is currently recovering 88% of the costs associated with the provision of services included in the study. If the fees and charges were increased to the levels included in staff’s preliminary recommendations, the cost recovery would be 94%, with an anticipated increase in annual revenues totaling approximately $99,000 when the increases go into full effect.

The User Fee Schedule is subject to a public hearing prior to adoption. At the conclusion of the public hearing this evening, and subject to any modifications, the Council could then adopt the User Fee Schedule through approval of the attached resolution. The current proposed user fees can be found in Appendix A of the NBS User Fee Study attached. This includes the proposed user fees associated with the study, as well as the other user fees the City has. Cal GC §66017(a) requires that any fees associated with processing applications and permits relative to development projects (as defined) may not be effective sooner than 60 days after final action is taken on the fees after a public hearing. Other fees could go into effect immediately if the City Council so chose. Instead of implementing fees on mixed dates, staff is recommending that all fees and charges be implemented on August 11, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT
Based on the City's recent budget review, the activities associated with these fees are expected to slightly decline due to the economy and high interest rates. There is anticipated little to no financial impact associated at this time. A review of the proposed User Fees impact will be evaluated at the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Mid-Year Financial Review that is expected to be held in February 2025.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council provide policy direction on setting user fees and charges for FY 2024/25. Based on that policy direction, it is recommended that the Council approve Resolution 1198.75.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Resolution No. 1198.75 Fees and Charges Update FY2425

2. Exhibit A Recommended Fees

3. NBS User Fee Report 2024

RESOLUTION NO. 1198.75

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY APPROVING THE USER FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE FOR FY 2024/25 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1198.10 establishing a schedule of fees and charges (“Fees and Charges Schedule”) for city services was adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley on June 6, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has amended the Fees and Charges Schedule for city service by resolution from time to time since its original adoption; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Fees and Charges schedule to reflect the services provided and updated costs of providing those service to the community; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.40.040(a) of the City’s Municipal Code, rates of fees and charges to be charged and collected in order to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing services shall be set by resolution, and pursuant to Section

3.40.050 and 3.40.060 of the Municipal Code, any new or increased charges are to be set after public hearing and notice as required; and
WHEREAS, notice of time and place of public hearing, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, has been provided in compliance with the provisions of that ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing concerning the adoption of the proposed Fees and Charges Schedule for FY 2024/25 that is proposed to go into effect not earlier than August 11, 2024.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED as follows:

1. The Fees and Charges Schedule for FY 2024/25 is hereby amended as stated in Exhibit A to this Resolution.

2. The resolution shall take effect 60 days following its adoption.

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 12th day of June, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES: DILLES, JOHNSON, LIND, TIMM, TIMMS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Approved: ____________________________
Randy Johnson, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk

City of Scotts Valley
Administrative Services - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities 1 Business License Tax
Application Fee per license [6]
City Processing Fee
Finance Review $ 74
Planning Review $ 130
Building Review $ 70
Vendor Processing Fee per New Account $ 16.19
Subtotal $ 290 $ 45 $ 290
Business License Tax - Base Rate per license [1] $ 50 $ 50 Business License Tax - Per Owner/Employee per license [1] $ 40 $ 40 Certified Access Specialist (CASp) Fee per license [7,2] $ 4 $ 4 1-5 days [8,2] 0% 0%
6-29 days [8,2] 25% 25%
30-89 days [8,2] 38% 38%
90-119 days [8,2] 50% 50%
120 or more [8,2] 100% 100%
2 Duplication
Digital copies per USB drive [2] $ 5
Photocopies each [2] $ 0.12
3 Elections
Petition Filing Fee per filing [2] $ 226 $ 200
4 Entertainment permit (not on City property) - new per permit [4] Finance Review $ 298
Recreation $ 55
Planning Review $ 131
Public Works $ 84
Police Review $ 133
Subtotal $ 701 $ 237 $ 701
5 Entertainment permit (not on City property) - renewal per permit [4] Finance Review $ 298
Recreation $ 55
Planning Review $ 66
Public Works $ 84
Police Review $ 133
Subtotal $ 635 $ 163 $ 635
Documents are
available online at
no charge; .10 per
page for public
records; no charge
for e-transfer;
USB charged at
actual cost
Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Fee
No.

Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 ADMIN MISC - COS, Page 1 of 14 Exhibit A - User Fees and Charges

City of Scotts Valley
Administrative Services - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Fee
No.

Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
6 Notary service fee (per signature) per signature [2] $ 15 $ 15 7 Occasional Sales Permit per permit $ 149 $ 60 $ 149
8 Rental of Council chambers each [3] $ 33 $ 33
Non-Profit each [3] No Charge No Charge
9 Returned check charges each
First returned check [2] $ 25 $ 25
Each additional check [2] $ 35 $ 35
10 Subpoena Summons Response per day [2,5] $ 298 $275 per day 11 Solicitor's Permit (per person/day) per permit
Finance Review $ 149
Police Review $ 67
Subtotal $ 216 $ 136 $ 216
12 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division.

Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application. per hour $ 298 $ - $ 298
TOTAL
[Notes]
[1] Fee Set per Business License Ordinance; NBS did not evaluate [2] Fee Set by the State of California; NBS did not evaluate [3] Fee for facility rental; NBS did not evaluate
[4] See Recreation fee schedule for event permits occurring on City property [5]
[6] Non-refundable. Separate fees from Police apply for massage, tobacco, and second hand dealer permits [7] AB1379 (exp 12/31/2023)
[8] % of fee calculation plus application / CASp fees
Should the actual cost of salary compensation plus travel expenses exceed the $ 275 per day threshold, the difference shall be due to the City by the requesting party. If the actual cost is less than $ 275 per day, then the City shall refund the difference.

NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 ADMIN MISC - COS, Page 2 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
Police Department- Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities 1 Alarm Services [1]
Annual Registration per permit/per
year
Police
Finance
Subtotal $ 88 $ 62 $ 88
Third False Alarm In One Month per occurrence
Police
Finance
Subtotal $ 171 $ 168 $ 171
Over three False Alarms in One Month per occurrence
Police
Finance
Subtotal $ 171 $ 250 $ 171
More than Twelve in One Year per occurrence
Police
Finance
Subtotal $ 171 $ 250 $ 171
2 Auto Abatement per request $ 258 $ 322 $ 258
3 Auto Impound - Release of Stored Vehicles
City Processing Fee per request $ 180 $ 289 $ 180
Tow/Storage each [5] Actual Cost Actual Cost
4 Bingo License
New per license [2] $ 88 $ 173 $ 88
Renewal per license [2] $ 44 $ 94 $ 44
5 Body Cam Video Release/Editing per request $ 350 $ 114 $ 350 6 Clearance Letter (charged for Employment, Licensing, and Certification Purposes Only) per request $ 29 $ 75 $ 29 7 Firearms:

CCW Standard Permit (2-year)
New per permit $ 1,241 $ 928 $ 1,241
Renewal per permit $ 1,042 $ 464 $ 1,042
8 Junior Police Academy (JPA) per participant $ 377 $ 65 $ 100 9 Licenses
Secondhand Dealer License per license $ 400 $ 154 $ 400 Tobacco Licensing per license [4] $ 133 No Charge No Charge 10 Massage Permit Fees
Massage Establishment Permit per permit $ 400 $ 387 $ 400 Initial Application Per Therapist per application $ 267 $ 150 $ 267 11 Special security service incurred in responding to loud or unruly gathering following 1st response (per minute)
per officer/ per
minute [3] $ 4 $ 11.07 $ 4.44
12 Taxicab Driver's Permit per permit $ 88 $ 114 $ 88
13 Uniformed Private Security
Minimum 4 hours per request $ 1,067 NEW $ 456
Each 15 minutes thereafter per 15 minutes $ 67 NEW $ 28.50 14 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.

Sworn per hour $ 267 $ 114 $ 114
Non-Sworn per hour $ 175 $ 114 $ 114
TOTAL
[Notes]
[1] The City Ordinance regarding false alarms can be found under SVMC 5.26.080, and is worded as a "fee," established by City Resolution. [2] Fee set 326.5 of the Penal Code
[3] Pursuant to SVMC 9.20.050, the Special Security Service fee is in ADDITION to the fine for violating the SVMC [4] No charge for this service per City Ordinance
[5] Towing / Storage are charged separately at actual cost in addition to staff time; NBS did not evaluate Current Fee
/ Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Type / Unit
Notes
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 POL - COS, Page 3 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
CD - Planning Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities 1 Addressing Fee
Minimum Fee - Up to 7 hours FLAT $ 2,750 $ 1,062 $ 2,750 Hourly Rate - Over 7 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
2 Application Intake & File Maintenance
Minor or Singular Discretionary Permit
Applications (per planning application) FLAT $ 786 $ 707 $ 786 Major Discretionary Permits or Multiple
Applications Filed for One Project (per planning
application)
FLAT $ 1,572 $ 1,414 $ 1,572
3 Annexation Fee
Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours FLAT $ 13,752 $ 12,418 $ 13,752 Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
4 Amendment
Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours FLAT $ 3,929 $ 3,548 $ 3,929 Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
5 Appeal Processing:

City Council FLAT [4]
25% of original
permit fee or
approved
application with
minimum fee of
$355
25% of original
permit fee or
approved
application with
minimum fee of
$393
Board of Appeals FLAT [4]
25% of original
permit fee or
approved
application with
minimum fee of
$355
25% of original
permit fee or
approved
application with
minimum fee of
$393
6 Bee Keeping Permit FLAT $ 2,750 $ 355 $ 393
7 Certificate of Compliance
Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours FLAT $ 3,929 $ 3,548 $ 3,929 Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Researched by City Attorney [5] Actual Cost Actual Cost

CEQA REVIEW
8 Environment Assessment FLAT $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Environmental Impact Report, Administration
Minimum Fee - Up to 74 hours FLAT $ 29,076 $ 26,255 $ 29,076 Hourly Rate - Over 74 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Consultants [3] Actual Cost Actual Cost
Mitigation Monitoring
Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours FLAT $ 3,929 $ 3,548 $ 3,929 Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Minimum Fee - Up to 40 hours FLAT $ 15,716 $ 14,192 $ 15,716 Hourly Rate - Over 40 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Consultants
City Staff Admin FLAT $ 3,929 NEW $ 3,929
Consultants [3] Actual Cost Actual Cost
Negative Declaration
Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours FLAT $ 7,858 $ 7,096 $ 7,858 Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Consultants
City Staff Admin FLAT $ 3,143 NEW $ 3,143
Consultants [3] Actual Cost Actual Cost
Notice of Determination:

City Filing Fee FLAT $ 589 $ 531 $ 589
County Fee FLAT [2] As set by Santa
Cruz County
As set by Santa Cruz
County
Fish & Game Certification:

Filing Fee FLAT $ 786 $ 707 $ 786
F & G Negative Declaration Fee FLAT [2] As set by Fish and Game
As set by Fish and
Game
F & G EIR Fee FLAT [2] As set by Fish and
Game
As set by Fish and
Game
9 Code Compliance (per hour) HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
10 Cultural Resource Alteration
Minimum Fee - Up to 8 hours FLAT $ 3,143 $ 2,828 $ 3,143 Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended Fee
Level / Deposit Fee No. Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 PLNG - COS, Page 4 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
CD - Planning Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended Fee
Level / Deposit Fee No. Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Hourly Rate - Over 8 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
11 Design Review:

Residential with Hillside - Up to 20 hours FLAT $ 7,858 $ 7,096 $ 7,858 Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Residential - Up to 15 hours FLAT $ 5,894 $ 3,548 $ 5,894 Hourly Rate - Over 15 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Commercial / Industrial - Up to 20 hours FLAT $ 7,858 $ 3,548 $ 7,858 Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
12 Sign Programs
Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours FLAT $ 7,858 $ 7,000 $ 7,858 Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
13 Free Standing Signs
Major - Up to 10 hours FLAT $ 3,929 $ 2,127 $ 3,929
Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Minor- Up to 6 hours FLAT $ 2,357 $ 355 $ 2,357
Hourly Rate - Over 6 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
14 Signs with Staff Level Review
Major - Up to 5 hours FLAT $ 1,965 $ 1,062 $ 1,965
Hourly Rate - Over 5 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Minor - Up to 2.5 hours FLAT $ 982 $ 355 $ 982
Hourly Rate - Over 2.5 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
15 Development Agreement
Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours FLAT $ 13,752 $ 12,418 $ 13,752 Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
16 Final Inspection
Minimum Fee - Up to 6 hours FLAT $ 2,357 $ 2,121 $ 2,357 Hourly Rate - Over 6 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
17 General or Specific Plan Amendment
Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours FLAT $ 13,752 $ 12,418 $ 13,752 Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
18 General Plan Maintenance
Applies to all building permits FLAT [4] 0.0055 per $1
building valuation

0.0055 per $1
building valuation
19 Historical Landmark Determination
Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours FLAT $ 7,858 $ 7,070 $ 7,858 Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
20 Home Occupation Review FLAT $ 295 $ 265 $ 295
21 IPHCP Certificate of Inclusion FLAT $ 1,572 $ 707 $ 1,572 LAND DIVISIONS:
22 Land Division/Tentative map Entitlement (5 lots or
more)
Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours FLAT $ 13,752 $ 12,418 $ 13,752 Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
23 Land Division / Final Map Review (5 lots or more)
Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours FLAT $ 7,858 $ 7,096 $ 7,858 Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
24 Minor Land Division / Tentative Map Entitlements (4
lots or less)
Minimum Fee - Up to 30 hours FLAT $ 11,787 $ 12,418 $ 11,787 Hourly Rate - Over 30 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
25 Minor Land Division / Parcel Map Review (4 lots or
less)
Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours FLAT $ 3,929 $ 3,548 $ 3,929 Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
26 Lot Line Adjustment Review
Minimum Fee - Up to 2 hours FLAT $ 786 $ 707 $ 786
Hourly Rate - Over 2 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
27 Planned Development
Minimum Fee - Up to 26 hours FLAT $ 10,216 $ 8,870 $ 10,216 Hourly Rate - Over 26 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
28 Preliminary Review FLAT $ 9,823 $ 8,837 $ 9,823
29 Public Hearing Notice and Radius Noticing: FLAT
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 PLNG - COS, Page 5 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
CD - Planning Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended Fee
Level / Deposit Fee No. Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
City Council Meeting $ 786 $ 531 $ 786
Planning Commission Meeting $ 786 $ 531 $ 786
30 Recordation Fee:

City Filing Fee FLAT $ 589 $ 531 $ 589
County Recorder Fee (subject to change) FLAT [2] As determined by Santa Cruz County
As determined by
Santa Cruz County
31 Road Name Change FLAT $ 2,750 $ 2,474 $ 2,750
32 Time Extension:

Minimum Fee - Up to 12 hours FLAT $ 4,715 $ 3,535 $ 4,715 Hourly Rate - Over 12 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
33 Heritage Tree Designation
Minimum Fee - Up to 15 hours FLAT $ 5,894 NEW $ 5,894
Hourly Rate - Over 15 hours HOURLY $ 393 NEW $ 393
34 Tree Removal Permit -
Heritage Tree
Minimum Fee - Up to 15 hours FLAT $ 5,894 $ 5,301 $ 5,894 Hourly Rate - Over 15 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Protected Tree FLAT $ 1,768 $ 92 $ 131
35 Use Permit:

Major (excluding residential) - up to 20 hours FLAT $ 7,858 $ 7,077 $ 7,858 Hourly Rate - over 20 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Minor - up to 10 hours FLAT $ 3,929 $ 3,538 $ 3,929
Hourly Rate - over 10 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
36 Variance Application
Minimum Fee - Up to 30 hours FLAT $ 11,787 $ 7,096 $ 11,787 Hourly Rate - Over 30 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393

ZONING FEES
37 Zone Change / Ordinance Amendment
Minimum Fee - Up to 26 hours FLAT $ 10,216 $ 9,225 $ 10,216 Hourly Rate - Over 26 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
38 Plan Check:

Hillside FLAT $ 1,965 $ 355 $ 1,965
Major FLAT $ 3,143 $ 355 $ 3,143
Minor FLAT $ 982 $ 355 $ 982
Over the counter FLAT $ 196 $ 355 $ 196
39 Research Letters
Minimum Fee - Up to 1 hours FLAT $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
Hourly Rate - Over 1 hours HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
40 For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or
the City Manager's designee shall determine the
appropriate fee based on the established hourly
rates for this department/division. Additionally, the
City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete
costs incurred from the use of external service
providers if required to process the specific
application.

HOURLY $ 393 $ 355 $ 393
TOTAL
[Notes]
[1] Sourced from "9a - Scotts Valley Master Fee Charges Schedule FY 2017-18 Effective 20170807.pdf" [2] Fee Set by the State of California or County of Santa Cruz; NBS did not evaluate [3] Consultant costs are charged separately at actual cost in addition to staff time; NBS did not evaluate [4] Fee set by City Policy; NBS did not evaluate
[5] Attorney costs are charged separately at actual cost in addition to staff time; NBS did not evaluate NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 PLNG - COS, Page 6 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
CD - Building Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities

NEW CONSTRUCTION, ADDITIONS, REMODELS
1 Building Permits - New Construction, Addition,
Remodels. Includes associated Mechanical, Plumbing,
Electrical
$1 - $5,000 minimum fee $ 1,051 $ 220 $ 1,051
$ 5,001 base fee @
$5,001 $ 1,051 $ 220 $ 1,051
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 33.45 $ 32.55 $ 33.45
$ 25,001 base fee @
25,001 $ 1,720 $ 868 $ 1,720
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 36.55 $ 30.38 $ 36.55
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,001 $ 4,461 $ 3,147 $ 4,461
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 10.00 $ 15.19 $ 10.00
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,001 $ 8,460 $ 9,223 $ 8,460
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 22.46 $ 10.31 $ 22.46
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,001 $ 19,689 $ 14,376 $ 19,689
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 2.39 $ 3.42 $ 2.39
$ 5,000,001 base fee @
$5,000,001 $ 29,246 $ 28,047 $ 29,246
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 5.85 $ 5.64 $ 4.00
2 Building Plan Check and Processing (deposit) - New
Construction, Addition, Remodels. Includes associated
Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical
$1 - $5,000 minimum fee $ 796 $ 220 $ 796
$ 5,001 base fee @
$5,001 $ 796 $ 220 $ 796
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 19.91 $ 36.08 $ 19.91
$ 25,001 base fee @
25,001 $ 1,195 $ 1,085 $ 1,195
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 23.01 $ 36.08 $ 23.01
$ 100,001 base fee @
$100,001 $ 2,920 $ 3,791 $ 2,920
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 7.63 $ 18.07 $ 7.63
$ 500,001 base fee @
$500,001 $ 5,973 $ 11,017 $ 5,973
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 28.41 $ 16.93 $ 28.41
$ 1,000,001 base fee @
$1,000,001 $ 20,177 $ 19,840 $ 20,177
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 0.27 $ 2.28 $ 0.27
$ 5,000,001 base fee @
$5,000,001 $ 21,239 $ 28,594 $ 21,239
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 4.25 $ 5.64 $ 4.25

MINOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS / MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
3 Demolition permit per permit $ 743 $ 852 $ 743
4 Change of Occupancy Permit per permit $ 850 $ 972 $ 850 5 Re-roof permit per permit $ 425 $ 486 $ 425
6 Septic tank inspection per permit $ 1,062 $ 1,216 $ 1,062 7 Sewer Lateral Connection Inspection per permit $ 956 $ 1,095 $ 956 8 Solar / PV Permit [2]
Residential
1-15 kWh per permit $ 743 $ 141 $ 450
Over 15 kWh ea. 1 kWh $ 50 n/a $ 15
Residential - Thermal
1-10 kWth per permit $ 743 $ 140 $ 450
Over 10 kWth ea. 1 kWth $ 74 n/a $ 15
Commercial
1-50 kWh per permit $ 743 $ 1,580 $ 743
Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of Service Per
Activity
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 BLDG - COS, Page 7 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
CD - Building Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of Service Per
Activity
51-250 kWh ea. 1 kWh $ 15 $ 10 $ 7
250 kWh per permit $ 2,124 $ 3,609 $ 1,828
Over 250 kWh ea. 1 kWh $ 8 $ 8 $ 5
Commercial - Thermal
1-30 kWth per permit $ 743 $ 1,580 $ 743
31 - 260 kWth ea. 1 kWth $ 25 $ 10 $ 7
260 kWth per permit $ 2,124 $ 3,609 $ 1,828
Over 260 kWth ea. 1 kWth $ 8 $ 8 $ 5
9 Window Projects under $5,000 BPV (projects >$5,000
BPV use valuation permit scale)
Retrofit per permit $ 743 $ 685 $ 300
Replacement per permit $ 2,230 $ 785 $ 500
MECHANICAL / PLUMBING / ELECTRICAL Stand-alone Permits (i.e. no framing) 10 Standalone Water Heater Permit per permit $ 265 $ 170 $ 170 11 Residential/Simple Standalone MEP Permit (fee includes up to 3 from the list below) per permit $ 265 $ 318 $ 265 Simple Mechanical Items: [7]
HVAC change out - existing dwelling
Ventilation fan connected to a single duct
Duct systems
Miscellaneous mechanical (wall furnace, condensing
units, heat pump, mini-split, gas outlet/gas test, etc.) Other simple mechanical
Simple Electrical Items: [7]
Receptacle, switch, and lighting outlets
Lighting fixtures
Pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures
Residential appliances
Motor or sump pump
Services of 600 volts or less and not over 400 amperes
in rating
Miscellaneous apparatus, conduits, and conductors
Portable generators less than 10,000 W
Temporary power panel/service
Other simple electrical
Simple Plumbing Items: [7]
Plumbing fixtures
Building sewer
Rainwater systems
Water piping and/or water treating equipment
Repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping
Gas test
Gas outlets
Residential remodel/repairs - bathrooms
Solar water systems
Sewer lateral inspection
Other simple plumbing
12 Residential Standalone MEP Permits >3 Items and
Complex/Commercial Standalone MEP Permits per permit [8] Per Valuation Table
Per Valuation
Table

OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES
13 Other misc. inspections & reinspections per inspection $ 212 $ 244 $ 212 14 Plan Review - Additional as required by changes,
additions or revisions to plans
First hour per review $ 248 $ 244 $ 248
Each Additional 30 minutes per 1/2 hour $ 106 $ 122 $ 106 15 Inspections outside of normal business hours
per hour - 4
hour
minimum
$ 228 $ 244 $ 228
16 Planning Application Review per review $ 425 $ 365 $ 425 17 Use of Consultants per project [6] Actual Costs Actual Costs 18 Appeal Processing-Building
City Council Appeals per appeal -
minimum [1] $ 212
25% of original
permit fee or
approved
application subject
to minimum fee of
$244.
25% of original
permit fee or
approved
application subject
o minimum fee of
$206.

NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 BLDG - COS, Page 8 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
CD - Building Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of Service Per
Activity
Board of Appeals appeal per appeal -
minimum [1] $ 212
25% of original
permit fee or
approved
application subject
o minimum fee of
$244.
25% of original
permit fee or
approved
application subject
o minimum fee of
$206.
19 Building Permit Extension of Expired Permit per permit $ 159 $ 244 $ 159 20 Building Permit Reinstatement of Expired Permit
No Changes to Scope of Project per permit $ 159
50% of Current
Building Permit
Fee
$ 159
Changes to Scope of Project Required per permit [3]
50% of Current
Building Permit
Fee
50% of original
permit fee
21 General Plan Maintenance per permit [5]
.0055 per $1
building valuation
(all building
permits)
.0055 per $1
building valuation
(all building
permits)
22 Green Building Education Fund per permit [3]
.0028 per $1
building valuation
(all building
permits)
.0028 per $1
building valuation
(all building
permits)
23 Permit Technology Fee per permit [5]
4% of total value
of permit fees
assessed
4% of total value
of permit fees
assessed
24 State Building Standards Fee (CSBC) per permit [4]
.00004 per $1
building valuation,
$1 min
.00004 per $1
building valuation,
$1 min
25 Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP)
Commercial/Industrial per permit [4]
.00028 per $1
building valuation,
$ .50 min
.00028 per $1
building valuation,
$ .50 min
Residential per permit [4]
.00013 per $1
building valuation,
$ .50 min
.00013 per $1
building valuation,
$ .50 min
26 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee
based on the established hourly rates for this
department/division. Additionally, the City will passthrough to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
per hour $ 212 $ 244 $ 212
TOTAL
[Notes]
[1] Set by City Policy: 25% of original permit fee or approved application subject to minimum fee [2] Fee set by State GC 66015. Recommended fees cannot exceed maximum shown [3] Set by City Policy; NBS did not evaluate
[4] Fee Set by State; NBS did not evaluate
[5] Set by City Policy; NBS did not evaluate
[6] Consultant costs are charged separately at actual cost in addition to staff time; NBS did not evaluate [7] Items in this list are covered by the "Residential/Simple Standalone MEP Permit" fee [8] Fees will be set by building valuation scale above
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 BLDG - COS, Page 9 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
PW - Engineering Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities

ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
1 Non Construction Items per project $ 334 $ 404 $ 334
2 Level A per project $ 669 $ 809 $ 669
• Sidewalk, curb, or gutter repairs up to 20 linear feet on residential streets, collector streets or arterial streets
• Utility service repairs on residential streets
• Utility service repairs on collector streets - trenchless 3 Level B per project $ 2,341 $ 2,841 $ 2,341
• Sidwalk, curb, or gutter repairs over 20 linear feet on collector streets or arterial streets
• Utility service repairs on collector streets
• Utility service repairs on arterial street - trenchless • New facilities and trenchless projects (utility connections, sidewalk, etc.) on residential streets
4 Level C per project $ 3,344 $ 4,083 $ 3,344
• Sidewalk, curb, or gutter repairs on collector streets or arterial streets with lane closures
• Utility service repairs on arterial streets
• New facilities and trenchless projects (utility connections, sidewalk, etc.) on collector streets
• Utility main installation open trench (water, sewer, gas) on residential streets
5 Level D per project $ 8,360 $ 9,942 $ 8,360
• New facilities and trenchless projects (utility connections, sidewalk, etc.) on arterial streets
• Utility main installation open trench (water, sewer, gas) on collector streets
6 Level E per project $ 13,376 $ 15,399 $ 13,376
• Utility main installation open trench (water, sewer, gas) on arterials streets
• Any project with night work
7 Permit Extensions per request $ 167 $ 202 $ 167
8 Utility - Annual Blanket Permit per request [3] $ 1,170 $ 1,415 $ 1,170

LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING FEES
9 Lot Line Adjustment or Merger
Base Fee per project $ 167 $ 1,211 $ 167
Recording Fee per recordation $ 167 $ 202 $ 167
10 Certificate of Correction each $ 1,003 $ 1,211 $ 1,003 11 Certification of Compliance each $ 669 $ 807 $ 669
12 Easement/Abandonment Request per request $ 1,003 $ 1,215 $ 1,003

PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW/ SUPPORT
13 Annexation per project $ 669 $ 807 $ 669
14 Design Review:

Other than Single-Family Residential (covers 3 submittals) per project $ 1,338 $ 807 $ 1,338 Other than Single-Family Residential (each subsequent submittal) per project $ 669 NEW $ 669 Single-Family Residential/ADU (covers 3 submittals) per project $ 502 $ 404 $ 502 Single-Family Residential/ADU (each subsequent submittal) per project $ 334 NEW $ 334 15 Development Agreement per project $ 669 $ 807 $ 669
16 Environmental Assessment per project $ 1,003 $ 1,211 $ 1,003 17 Neg Dec / Mitigated Neg Dec per project $ 669 NEW $ 669 18 Environmental Impact Report, Administration per project $ 1,003 $ 1,211 $ 1,003 19 General Plan Amendment per project $ 334 $ 388 $ 334 20 Land Divisions (Tentative Map Entitlement Review)
Land Division / Tentative Map Entitlement Review (5 lots or more) per project $ 1,338 $ 2,018 $ 1,338 Minor Land Division/ Tentative Map Entitlement Review (4 lots or less) per project $ 1,003 $ 3,431 $ 1,003
21 Planned Development per project $ 1,338 $ 404 $ 1,338 22 Tentative Map Extension / Modification per project $ 669 $ 807 $ 669 23 Use Permit
Major (excluding single family residential) per project $ 1,170 $ 1,413 $ 1,170 Minor per project $ 334 $ 404 $ 334
24 Variance per project $ 334 $ 404 $ 334
25 Zone Change / Zoning Ordinance Amendment per project $ 334 $ 202 $ 334 Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 ENG - COS (2), Page 10 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
PW - Engineering Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
26 Other Planning related reviews per hour $ 334 NEW $ 334

OTHER ENGINEERING FEES
27 Final/Parcel Map or Amending Parcel Map Check
First 4 lots per project $ 2,341 $ 1,042 $ 2,341
Over 4 Lots per lot $ 836 $ 1,042 $ 836
City Surveyor Fee
Deposit for
actual City
Surveyor
[4]
Actual Costs
over $1209
plus $202 per
lot over 4
$ 4,000
28 Improvement Plan Review per page $ 502 $ 605 $ 502
29 Improvement Permit/Inspection
$ 10,000 base fee @
$10,000 $ 2,006 $ 809 $ 2,006
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 117.04 $ 50.78 $ 117.04
$ 50,000 base fee @
$50,000 $ 6,688 $ 2,841 $ 6,688
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 66.88 $ 24.85 $ 66.88
$ 100,000 base fee @
$100,000 $ 10,032 $ 4,083 $ 10,032
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 33.44 $ 14.65 $ 33.44
$ 500,000 base fee @
$500,000 $ 23,408 $ 9,942 $ 23,408
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 20.06 $ 12.48 $ 20.06
$ 1,000,000 base fee @
$1M $ 33,440 $ 15,399 $ 33,440
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l
$1000 $ 33.44 $ 15.84 $ 33.44
30 Agreements per project $ 669 $ 1,614 $ 669
31 Reversion to Acreage per project $ 669 $ 2,018 $ 669 32 Revision to Plan Check for previously approved projects, or for 4th and subsequent submittal on a single project per revision $ 334 $ 404 $ 334 33 Storm Water Compliance Project Plan Review per project Tier 1 $ 334 $ 1,413 $ 334
Tier 2 $ 836 $ 1,413 $ 836
Tier 3 - City Admin Cost (consultant costs are passed through to applicant) - deposit $ 4,347 $ 5,247 $ 4,347
Tier 4 - City Admin Cost (consultant costs are passed through to applicant) - deposit $ 4,347 $ 5,247 $ 4,347
34 Review of Annual Reports of privately maintained post-construction treatment devices per report $ 334 $ 404 $ 334
35 Storm water Inspection per
inspection $ 669 NEW $ 669
36 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per project $ 669 $ 807 $ 669 37 Transportation/Hauling
Permit (per trip) per trip [6] $ 167 $ 16 $ 16
Oversize Load per trip $ 167 $ 79 $ 167
38 Hourly Rates
Engineering Services per hour $ 334 $ 404 $ 334
Inspection Services per hour $ 334 $ 404 $ 334
Miscellaneous Services per hour $ 334 $ 404 $ 334
Peer Review by City consultant per project [5] Actual Cost Actual Cost Records Research - Engineering per request $ 334 $ 404 $ 334

WASTEWATER
39 Permits
Direct Discharge Permit per permit $ 2,675 $ 3,229 $ 2,675 40 Other Wastewater Fees
Wastewater stoppage investigation per instance $ 1,338 $ 1,614 $ 1,338 Discharge report review per report $ 669 $ 807 $ 669
41 Permit Technology Fee - Applies to all permits per permit [2] 4% of total
value of permit
fees assessed
4% of total
value of permit
fees assessed
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 ENG - COS (2), Page 11 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
PW - Engineering Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Type /
Unit
Notes
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
TOTALS
[Notes]
[1] Sourced from "9a - Scotts Valley Master Fee Charges Schedule FY 2017-18 Effective 20170807.pdf" [2] Set by City Policy; NBS did not evaluate
[3] Administrative Processing Fee only. Actual costs to the City are billed to applicant as work is performed. Annual deposit to be determined by [4] Actual costs to the City are billed to applicant as work is performed. [5] For services such as soils, water, traffic, parcel or final map review, etc. Actual costs to the City are billed to applicant as work is performed. [6] Per Vehicle Code section 35795(b)(1)
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 ENG - COS (2), Page 12 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
Parks and Recreation Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities 1 Administrative Fees
Administrative Fee: applies per rental or reservation for any facility and per registration for classes/programs offered by the City Class per reservation $ 18 $ 9 $ 18
Gazebo / Garden Plot per reservation $ 18 $ 9 $ 9
Community/Senior Center per reservation $ 330 $ 9 $ 33
Reservation Change Processing Fee per request $ 37 NEW $ 20 Cleaning Fee per rental [1] $ 125 Actual Cost per
Cleaning Contract
Damage Deposit deposit [2] $ 543 $ 500
2 Facility Rentals - Indoor
Community Center
Hourly - Resident per hour [3] $ 109 Remain same for now Hourly - Non-Resident per hour [3] $ 124 Remain same for now Daily - Resident
Weekday per day [3] $ 1,085 Remain same for now
Weekend per day [3] $ 1,085 Remain same for now
Daily - Non-Resident
Weekday per day [3] $ 1,237 Remain same for now
Weekend per day [3] $ 1,237 Remain same for now
Non-Profit - Resident/Non-Resident hourly/daily [3] 75% of Res/Non Res fee Remain same for now Add Ons -
Kitchen Rental hourly/daily [3] NEW See Staff Report
Parking Lot Rental/closure hourly/daily [3] NEW See Staff Report Patio/Backyard hourly/daily [3] NEW See Staff Report
Skypark Indoor Classroom
Hourly - Resident per hour [3] NEW See Staff Report
Hourly - Non-Resident per hour [3] NEW See Staff Report Daily - Resident
Weekday per day [3] NEW See Staff Report
Weekend per day [3] NEW See Staff Report
Daily - Non-Resident
Weekday per day [3] NEW See Staff Report
Weekend per day [3] NEW See Staff Report
Non-Profit - Resident/Non-Resident hourly/daily [3] NEW See Staff Report Senior Center
Hourly - Resident
Main Hall per hour [3] $ 71 Remain same for now
Library per hour [3] $ 71 Remain same for now
Porch per hour [3] $ 71 Remain same for now
Entire Building per hour [3] $ 71 Remain same for now
Hourly - Non-Resident
Main Hall per hour [3] $ 84 Remain same for now
Library per hour [3] $ 84 Remain same for now
Porch per hour [3] $ 84 Remain same for now
Entire Building per hour [3] $ 84 Remain same for now
Daily - Resident - Weekday
Main Hall per hour [3] $ 705 Remain same for now
Library per hour [3] $ 705 Remain same for now
Porch per hour [3] $ 705 Remain same for now
Entire Building per hour [3] $ 705 Remain same for now
Daily - Resident - Weekend
Main Hall per hour [3] $ 705 Remain same for now
Library per hour [3] $ 705 Remain same for now
Porch per hour [3] $ 705 Remain same for now
Entire Building per hour [3] $ 705 Remain same for now
Daily - Non-Resident - Weekday
Main Hall per hour [3] $ 835 Remain same for now
Library per hour [3] $ 835 Remain same for now
Porch per hour [3] $ 835 Remain same for now
Entire Building per hour [3] $ 835 Remain same for now
Daily - Non-Resident - Weekend
Main Hall per hour [3] $ 835 Remain same for now
Library per hour [3] $ 835 Remain same for now
Porch per hour [3] $ 835 Remain same for now
Entire Building per hour [3] $ 835 Remain same for now
Non-Profit - Resident/Non-Resident hourly/daily [3] 25% Discount Remain same for now 3 Facility Rentals - Outdoor Parks - Sitanen, Skypark, Hocus Pocus, McDorsa, Skypark Outdoor Classroom
Hocus Pocus & Skypark Playground Gazebo
Private Party - Resident per hour/2hr minimum [3] $ 27 Remain same for now Private Party - Non-Resident per hour/2hr minimum [3] $ 37 Remain same for now Commercial/Paid Event per hour/2hr minimum [3] NEW See Staff Report Sitanen, Skypark Large Gazebo, MacDorsa Gazebo
Private Party - Resident per hour/2hr minimum [3] $ 27 Remain same for now Private Party - Non-Resident per hour/2hr minimum [3] $ 37 Remain same for now Commercial/Paid Event per hour/2hr minimum [3] NEW See Staff Report Permitted Use of Outdoor spaces/parks for classes. Teaching in outdoor spaces.
per permit for each
class held $ 73 NEW $ 73
Permitted Use of Inflatables in Outdoor Spaces per permit $ 18 NEW $ 18 4 Facility Rentals/Use - Fields
Skypark
Single Field per field, per hour [3] $ 14 Remain same for now All 3 Fields per field, per hour [3] $ 26 Remain same for now Siltanen
Single Fields #1 - 4 per field, per hour [3] $ 14 Remain same for now All 4 Fields per field, per hour [3] $ 26 Remain same for now Majors Field per field, per hour [3] $ 14 Remain same for now League/Club Field Rentals per field, per hour [3] $ 14 Remain same for now Recommended Fee
Level / Deposit
Fee
No. Fee Name Fee Unit Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Current Fee /
Deposit
helping communities fund tomorrow
www.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516 6/6/2024 REC - COS 13 of 14

City of Scotts Valley
Parks and Recreation Division - Proposed User Fees
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities Recommended Fee
Level / Deposit
Fee
No. Fee Name Fee Unit Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Current Fee /
Deposit
League Fee per league per season $ 7 NEW $ 7
Athletic Field Lights per hour [3] $ 22 Remain same for now Snack Shack Concessions Room per day [3] NEW See Staff Report Outdoor Court Rental
Bocce Ball Court Hourly Use per hour [3] NEW See Staff Report Bocce Ball Court - Tournament Rental per day [3] NEW See Staff Report Tennis/Pickleball Court Hourly Use per hour [3] NEW See Staff Report Tennis/Pickleball Court - Tournament Rental per day [3] NEW See Staff Report League/Club Rental per hour [3] NEW See Staff Report
League/Club Rental per day [3] NEW See Staff Report
Skatepark Rental per hour [3] NEW See Staff Report
Garden Plot Rental - Application Fee
Renewal - Plot Relocation per application $ 18 NEW $ 18 Garden Plot Rental Fee per sqft [3] $ 1 $ 1
5 Entertainment Permit / Special Events In City Parks or Park Facilities:

Events of 50+ attendees or with sound or entertainment
Application Review per application
Parks and Recreation $ 292
Planning Review $ 98
Public Works Review $ 84
Police Department Review $ 133
Subtotal $ 608 NEW $ 275
City Staff Support During Event actual cost [4] Actual Cost per Department
Actual Cost per
Department
Full/Partial Park Rentals for Groups 50+ per rental [3] See rental fees above See rental fees above Use of Equipment: Cones, delineators, barricades, trash cans, Aframes etc per rental [3] NEW See Staff Report Road/Parking Lot Closures per hour [3] NEW See Staff Report Special Permits for Sound, Inflatables, etc. per permit [5] per Finance /
Recreation Fee
Schedules
per Finance /
Recreation Fee
Schedules
Use of Wi-Fi for Large Events per event [3] NEW See Staff Report 6 Senior Center Annual Membership Fee
New Member [6] NEW See Staff Report
Renewal [6] NEW See Staff Report
Lifetime [6] NEW See Staff Report
7 Ad Placement in Activity Guide
Senior Center Small Ad [7] NEW See Staff Report
Senior Center Medium Ad [7] NEW See Staff Report
Senior Center Large Ad [7] NEW See Staff Report
City Activity Guide [7] NEW See Staff Report
8 Recreation Classes and Programs [8] set seasonally by P&R staff
set seasonally by P&R
staff
Fees for recreational classes and programs offered by the City shall be set at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Department Director, not to exceed the cost of individual programs.

The City s full cost of implementing an individual program may be calculated as follows:

Program Cost of Service = [(AxB)+C+D+E+F]
A = Estimated time for City staff to implement the class/program B = Applicable Hourly rates for staff functions involved in the implementation of the class/program
C = Estimated/actual cost incurred by the City for outside service providers involved in the class/program
D = Estimated/actual cost incurred by the City for specific materials acquired for use during the class/program
E = Prevailing facility rental/use fees as reflected in City Master Fee Schedule
F = Estimated/actual costs incurred by the City to rent or use external facilities if needed Fees for recreational classes and programs offered by the City shall be set at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Department Director, not to exceed the cost of individual programs.

The calculated cost of service above represents the maximum fee that could be imposed by the City for an individual recreation program. The City may recover between 0% and 100% of the cost of service. Cost recovery targets may vary by individual program, at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director as determined during the seasonal development of the City's program offerings. The City may also set differential fee for resident and non-resident participants as long as TOTAL
Notes
[1] Cleaning Fees are charged separately at actual cost in addition to staff time; NBS did not evaluate [2] Set by City policy - NBS did not evaluate
[3] Fee for facility rental; NBS did not evaluate
[4] City Staff provided during a special event will be charged at actual cost including labor rates and any equipment required [5] Additional fees may apply for special permits for sound, inflatables etc. [6] Fee set by City policy; NBS did not evaluate
[7] Fee set by City policy not to exceed cost of providing services; NBS did not evaluate [8] Fee set by City staff not to exceed cost of providing services; NBS did not evaluate helping communities fund tomorrow
www.nbsgov.com | 800.676.7516 6/6/2024 REC - COS 14 of 14

nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516
Final Report for:

Citywide User Fee Study
MAY 29, 2023

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Findings ................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Report Format ......................................................................................................... 2 Introduction and Fundamentals ...................................................................................... 3

2.1 Scope of Study ......................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Methods of Analysis ................................................................................................ 4 Administrative Services Department ............................................................................. 10

3.1 Cost of Service Analysis ......................................................................................... 10

3.2 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................. 10

3.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation ...................................................................................... 11 Police Department ........................................................................................................ 12

4.1 Cost of Service Analysis ......................................................................................... 12

4.2 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................. 12

4.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation ...................................................................................... 13 Community Development - Planning Division ................................................................ 14

5.1 Cost of Service Analysis ......................................................................................... 14

5.2 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................. 15

5.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation ...................................................................................... 15 Community Development – Building Division ................................................................ 17

6.1 Cost of Service Analysis ......................................................................................... 17

6.2 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................. 17

6.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation ...................................................................................... 18

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 3
Public Works - Engineering Division .............................................................................. 19

7.1 Cost of Service Analysis ......................................................................................... 19

7.2 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................. 20

7.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation ...................................................................................... 20 Public Works – Parks and Recreation Division ............................................................... 22

8.1 Cost of Service Analysis ......................................................................................... 22

8.2 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................. 23

8.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation ...................................................................................... 24 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 26 Appendices
Cost of Service Analysis (Fee Tables)
Administrative Services Department Appendix A.1
Police Department Appendix A.2
CD – Planning Division Appendix A.3
CD – Building Division Appendix A.4
PW – Engineering Division Appendix A.5
PW – Parks and Recreation Division Appendix A.6
Comparative Fee Surveys
Administrative Services Department Appendix B.1
Police Department Appendix B.2
CD – Planning Division Appendix B.3
CD – Building Division Appendix B.4
PW – Engineering Division Appendix B.5
PW – Parks and Recreation Division Appendix B.6

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NBS performed a Citywide User Fee Study for the City of Scotts Valley (City). The report presents the findings and recommendations of the various fee analyses performed as part of the Study and provides the City with the information needed to update and establish fees for service. Throughout the process, the Study afforded much effort to ensure that not only are the fees and charges reasonable and equitable, but that they also meet industry standards and uphold the statutory requirements of the State of California.

California cities, counties, and special districts may impose user and regulatory fees for services and activities they provide through provisions set forth in the State Constitution, Article XIII C § 1(e). Under this legal framework, a fee may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the activity. For a fee to qualify as such, it must relate to a service or activity performed at the request of an individual or entity upon which the fee is imposed, or their actions specifically cause the local government agency to perform additional activities. In this instance, the service or underlying action causing the local agency to perform the service is either discretionary and/or is subject to regulation. As a discretionary service or regulatory activity, the fees considered in this Study fall outside of the definition and statutory requirement to impose general taxes, special taxes, and fees as a result of property ownership.

The City’s main reason for conducting this Study was twofold: (1) first, to ensure that existing fees do not exceed the costs of service, and (2) second, to provide an opportunity for the City Council to re-align fee amounts with localized cost recovery policies.

1.1 Findings
This Study examined the fee programs managed by the City’s Administrative Services, Police, Community Development, and Public Works departments. The Study identified an estimated $1.6 million in eligible costs for recovery from fees for service compared to approximately $1.4 million the City is currently collecting each year from fees. The following table provides a summary of the Study’s results:

Table 1. Report Summary
Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Annual Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Cost Recovery Fee
Recommended
Cost Recovery
Percentage
Administrative Services 10,167 $ 59,735 $ (49,568) $ 17% 59,735 $ 100% Police Department 41,728 67,547 (25,819) 62% 54,862 81% Planning Division 104,120 243,262 (139,142) 43% 184,326 76% Building Division 1,143,872 1,080,587 63,285 106% 1,058,612 98% Engineering Division 100,253 141,933 (41,680) 71% 141,933 100% Parks and Recreation Division 188,027 1,144,999 (956,972) 16% 188,027 16% Total 1,400,140 $ 1,593,065 $ (192,925) $ 88% 1,499,469 $ 94%

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 2
As shown in Table 1, the City is recovering approximately 88% of the costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee-related services. Should Council adopt fees at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts determined by this Study, an additional $193,000 in costs could be recovered.

However, Section 2.2.3 later explains, there may be other local policy considerations that support adopting fees at less than the calculated full cost recovery amount. Since this element of the Study is subjective, NBS provided the maximum potential of fee amounts at 100% full cost recovery for the City to consider. Once the City Council has reviewed and evaluated the results of the Study, the City can set fees at appropriate cost recovery levels according to local policy goals and considerations.

1.2 Report Format
This report documents the analytical methods and data sources used in the Study, presents findings regarding current levels of cost recovery achieved from user and regulatory fees, discusses recommended fee amounts, and provides a comparative survey of fees to neighboring agencies for similar services. The report is organized into the following sections:
 Section 2 - Outlines the general framework, approach, and methodology of the Fee Study.  Sections 3 through 8 - Discusses the results of the cost of service analysis performed by department, division and/or fee program. The analysis includes: (1) fully burdened hourly rate(s); (2) calculation of the costs of providing service; (3) the cost recovery performance of each fee category; and (4) the staff-recommended fees for providing services.  Section 9 - Presents the conclusions of the analysis provided in the preceding sections.  Appendices to this report - Include additional details of the analysis performed and a comparison of the fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar services.

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 3

INTRODUCTION AND FUNDAMENTALS

2.1 Scope of Study
The following is a summary of the fees evaluated during the Study:
 Administrative Services Department
o Business Licenses
o Copies of Public Documents
o Entertainment Permits
o Solicitor’s Permit
 Police Department
o Alarm Services
o Auto Abatements/Impounds
o Bingo, Secondhand Dealers, and Tobacco Licensing
o Firearms, Massage and Taxicab Driver’s Permits
o Special Security Service, and Uniformed Private Security Requests  Community Development Department – Planning Division
o Administrative Processing Fees
o Special Use Permits and Certificates
o CEQA Review
o Design Review
o Land Division Approvals
o Zoning Review
 Community Development Department - Building Division
o Building Plan Check and Permits for New Construction, Additions, and Remodels o Minor Improvement Projects / Miscellaneous Permits
o Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Standalone Permits o Other Miscellaneous Fees and Charges
 Public Works - Engineering Division
o Encroachment Permits
o Land Development Engineering Fees
o Planning Application Review / Support Fees
o Map Approvals
o Improvement Plan Reviews & Permits
o Stormwater Compliance Fees
o Wastewater Permit Fees
 Public Works – Parks and Recreation Division
o Administrative Fees
o Permitted Use of Outdoor Spaces, and Use of Inflatables o Rental and Permit Application and Review Fees
The fees examined in this report specifically exclude development impact fees, utility rates, and any special tax assessments which fall under a separate set of statutory and procedural requirements from

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 4
the body of user and regulatory fees analyzed in this Study. The Study also excludes facility and equipment rental rates, as well as most fines and penalties imposed by the City for violations of its requirements or codes.

2.2 Methods of Analysis
Three phases of analysis were completed for each City department/division studied:

2.2.1 COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
The cost of service analysis is a quantitative effort that compiles the full cost of providing governmental services and activities. There are two primary types of costs considered: direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are those that specifically relate to an activity or service, including the real-time provision of the service. Indirect costs are those that support the provision of services in general but cannot be directly or easily assigned to a singular activity or service.

Direct Costs:
 Direct personnel costs – Salary, wages and benefits expenses for personnel specifically involved in the provision of services and activities to the public.  Direct non-personnel costs – Discrete expenses attributable to a specific service or activity performed, such as contractor costs, third-party charges, and materials used in the service or activity.

Indirect Costs:
 Indirect personnel costs – Personnel expenses supporting the provision of services and activities. This can include line supervision and departmental management, administrative support within a department, and staff involved in technical support activities related to the direct services provided to the public.
 Indirect non-personnel costs – Expenses other than labor involved in the provision of services. In most cases, these costs are allocated across all services provided by a department, rather than directly assigned to individual fee/rate categories.  Overhead costs – These are expenses, both labor and non-labor, related to agency-wide support services which include general administrative services such as City Manager, Finance, Human Resources, etc. The amount of costs attributable to the departments or divisions included in this Study were sourced from the City’s Cost Allocation Plan.

All cost components in this Study use annual (or annualized) figures, representing a twelve-month cycle of expenses incurred by each Department/Division in the provision of all services and activities City-wide.

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 5
Nearly all the fees reviewed in this Study require specific actions on the part of City staff to provide the service or conduct the activity. Since labor is the primary underlying factor in these activities, the Study expresses the full cost of service as a fully burdened cost per labor hour. NBS calculated a composite, fully burdened, hourly rate for each department, division, program, or activity applicable to the specific organization and needs of each area studied. This rate serves as the basis for further quantifying the average full cost of providing individual services and activities. Determining the fully burdened labor rate for each department, and the various functional divisions within a department, requires two data sets: (1) the full costs of service, and (2) the number of staff hours available to perform those services. NBS derived the hours available based on the complete list of all City employees and/or available service hours of its contracted professionals (where applicable).

The City supplied NBS with the total number of paid labor hours for each employee involved in the delivery of services included in this Study. These available hours represent the amount of productive time available to provide both fee-recoverable and non-fee recoverable services and activities. Available labor hours divided into the annual full costs of service equal the composite, fully burdened, labor rate. Some agencies may also use the resulting rates for purposes other than setting fees, such as calculating the full cost of general services or structuring a cost recovery agreement with another agency or third party.

NBS also assisted the City in estimating the staff time for the services and activities listed in the City’s fee schedule. Time tracking records for the fee programs studied as part of this analysis, when available, proved useful in identifying time spent providing general categories of service (e.g., division administration, plan review, inspection, public information assistance, etc.). However, the City does not systematically track the service time of activities for all departments or all individual fee-level services provided. Therefore, NBS also relied on interviews and questionnaires to develop the necessary data sets of estimated labor time. In many cases, the City provided estimates of the average amount of time (in minutes and hours) it took to complete a typical service or activity considered on a per-occurrence basis.

It should be noted that the development of these time estimates was not a one-step process but required careful review by both NBS and department managers to assess the reasonableness of such estimates.

Based on the results of this review, the City reconsidered its time estimates until all parties were comfortable that the fee models reasonably reflected the average service level provided by the City.

Finally, the fully burdened labor rate(s) calculated in earlier steps were applied at the individual fee level time estimates, yielding an average total cost of providing each fee for service or activity. The graphic on the next page provides a visual representation of the steps discussed in this section.

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 6

2.2.2 FEE ESTABLISHMENT
The fee establishment process includes a range of considerations, including the following:
 Addition to and deletion of fees – The Study provided each department with the opportunity to propose additions and deletions to their current fee schedules, as well as re-name, reorganize, and clarify which fees were to be imposed. Many of these fee revisions allowed for better adherence to current practices, as well as the improvement in the calculation, application, and collection of the fees owed by an individual. Some additions to the fee schedule were simply the identification of existing services or activities performed by City staff for which no fee is currently charged.
 Revision to the structure of fees – In most cases, the focus was to re-align the fee amount to match the costs of service and leave the current structure of fees unchanged. However, in several cases, fee categories and fee names had to be simplified or re-structured to increase the likelihood of full cost recovery or to enhance the fairness of how the fee is applied to the various types of fee payers.
 Documentation of the tools used to calculate special cost recovery – The City’s fee schedule should include the list of fully burdened rates developed by the Study. Documenting these rates in the fee schedule provides an opportunity for the City Council to approve rates for cost recovery under a “time and materials” approach. It also provides clear publication of those rates so that all fee payers can readily reference the basis of any fee amounts. The fee schedule should provide language that supports special forms of cost recovery for activities and services not included in the adopted master fee schedule. In these rare instances, published rates are used to estimate a flat fee or bill on an hourly basis, which is at the department director’s discretion.

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 7

2.2.3 COST RECOVERY EVALUATION
The NBS fee model compares the existing fee for each service or activity to the average total cost of service quantified through this analysis. Here are the possible outcomes of the fee analysis:
 Cost recovery rate of 0% - This signifies that there is currently no current recovery of costs from fee revenues (or insufficient information available for evaluation).  Cost recovery rate of 100% - This means that the fee currently recovers the full cost of service.
 Cost recovery rate between 0% and 100% - This indicates partial recovery of the full cost of service through fees.
 Cost recovery rate greater than 100% - This means that the fee exceeds the full cost of service. User fees and regulatory fees should not exceed the full cost of service.

In all cases, the cost recovery rate achieved by a fee should not be greater than 100%. In most cases, imposing a fee above this threshold could change the definition of the charge from a cost of service based fee to a tax which has other procedural requirements, such as ballot protest or voter approval.

NBS assisted with modeling the “recommended” or “target” level of cost recovery for each fee, established at either 100% or any amount less than the calculated full cost of service. Targets and recommendations reflect discretion on the part of the agency based on a variety of factors, such as existing City policies and agency-wide or departmental revenue objectives, economic goals, community values, market conditions, level of demand, and others.

A general method of selecting an appropriate cost recovery target is to consider the public and private benefits of the service or activity in question, such as:
 To what degree does the public at large benefit from the service?  To what degree does the individual or entity requesting, requiring, or causing the service benefit?
When a service or activity benefits the public at large, there is generally little to no recommended fee amount (i.e., 0% cost recovery), reinforcing the fact that a service which truly benefits the public is best funded by general resources of the City, such as revenues from the General Fund (e.g., taxes). Conversely, when a service or activity wholly benefits an individual or entity, the cost recovery is generally closer to or equal to 100% of cost recovery from fees collected from the individual or entity.

In some cases, a strict public-versus-private benefit judgment may not be sufficient to finalize a cost recovery target. Any of the following factors and considerations may influence or supplement the publicversus-private benefit perception of a service or activity:
 If optimizing revenue potential is an overriding goal, is it feasible to recover the full cost of service?
 Will increasing fees result in non-compliance or public safety problems?  Are there desired behaviors or modifications to behaviors of the service population helped or hindered through the degree of pricing for the activities?

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 8
 Does current demand for services support a fee increase without adverse impact to the community served or current revenue levels? In other words, would fee increases have the unintended consequence of driving away the population served?  Is there a good policy basis for differentiating between the type of user (e.g., residents vs. non-residents, residential vs. commercial, non-profit entities, and business entities)?  Are there broader City objectives that merit a less than full cost recovery target from fees, such as economic development goals and local social values? NBS provided the cost of service calculation based on 100% full cost recovery and the framework for the City’s use to adjust the amount of cost recovery in accordance with its broader goals as they pertain to code compliance, cost recovery, economic development, and social values.

2.2.4 COMPARATIVE FEE SURVEY
Appendix B.1-B.8 present the results of the Comparative Fee Survey for the City. Policy makers often request a comparison of their jurisdictional fees to those of surrounding or similar communities. The purpose of a comparison is to provide a sense of the local market pricing for services, and to use that information to gauge the impact of recommendations for fee adjustments.

In this effort, NBS worked with the City to choose five comparative agencies – City of Santa Cruz, County of Santa Cruz, City of Capitola, City of Watsonville, and the Town of Los Gatos. It is important to keep the following in mind when interpreting the general approach to, and use of, comparative survey data:
 Comparative surveys do not provide information about cost recovery policies or procedures inherent in each comparison agency.
 A “market-based” decision to price services below the full cost of service calculation is the same as deciding to subsidize that service.
 Comparative agencies may or may not base their fee amounts on the estimated and reasonable cost of providing services. NBS did not perform the same level of analysis of the comparative agencies’ fees.
 The results of comparative fee surveys are often non-conclusive for many fee categories.  Comparison agencies typically use varied terminology for the provision of similar services.

NBS made every reasonable attempt to source each comparison agency’s fee schedule from their respective websites and compile a comparison of fee categories and amounts for the most readily comparable fee items that match the City’s existing fee structure.

2.2.5 DATA SOURCES
The following data sources were used to support the cost of service analysis and fee establishment phases of this Study:
 The City’s Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-2024
 A complete list of all City personnel, salary/wage rates, regular hours, paid benefits, and paid leave amounts provided by the Finance Department.
 Various correspondences with City staff supporting the adopted budgets and current fees, including budget notes and expenditure detail not shown in the published document.  Prevailing fee schedules as adopted by City Council

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 9
 Annual workload data provided by each department and/or fee program evaluated in the Study.

The City’s adopted budget serves as an important source of information that affects the cost of service results. NBS did not audit or validate the City’s financial documents and budget practices, nor was the cost information adjusted to reflect different levels of service or any specific, targeted performance benchmarks. This Study accepts the City’s budget as a legislatively adopted directive describing the most appropriate and reasonable level of City spending. NBS consultants accept the City Council’s deliberative process and the City’s budget plan and further assert that through this legislative process, the City has yielded a reasonable and valid expenditure plan to use in setting cost-based fees.

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 10

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The fees listed in the fee study as Administrative and Miscellaneous are supported by the Administrative Services Department and the City Manager’s office. The Administrative Services Department is under the direction of a Deputy City Manager/ Administrative Services Director that encompasses the following five divisions: Finance Division, Human Resources and Administration Division, Information Technology Division, and the Risk Management Division. The City Manager provides administrative and legislative/policy support to the City Council, general oversight all City operations provided through the City’s operating departments. Specific oversight is provided to other administrative departments, including the City Clerk and Administrative Services, which include such functions as legislative records management, financial services, budget, human resources, and risk management.

3.1 Cost of Service Analysis
The list of fees studied mostly includes services provided by the Finance and City Clerk divisions. City Clerk fees are set by the State of California and are listed for placeholder purposes only. For purposes of analysis, NBS focused on development of a composite, fully burdened, hourly rate for the Finance Division as shown in Table below:

Table 2. Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
Section 2.2, Methods of Analysis, further describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs considered in the development of the rate. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assumes a fully burdened hourly rate of $298.

3.2 Fee Establishment
As mentioned, many fee items listed as Administrative and Miscellaneous are set by the State of California and were therefore not evaluated under the method described in Section 2.2.1 of this report.

The following fees, however, were subject to the full course of study: Business License Fee, Entertainment Permits, Solicitor’s Permit, and an hourly service fee for services provided by staff where no current fee exists. The Study’s process provided each fee program the opportunity to propose additions and deletions to their fee schedules, as well as rename, reorganize, and clarify fee names and categories. At this time, Cost Element
Finance Direct
Services
Labor 486,834 $
Recurring Non-Labor 25,745 Citywide Overhead 406,637 Department Administration 571,811 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 1,491,027 $
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 298
Reference: Direct Hours Only 5,006

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 11
no changes to the City's current fee structure have been proposed, and the focus of the analysis was to recalibrate the fee amount to match the costs of services.

3.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.1 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis of fees for the City’s Finance Department. In the Appendix, the “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list.

Currently, the Department is recovering approximately 17% of the total cost of providing services from fees. As Table 3 shows, the City collects approximately $10,000 per year in revenue at the current fee amounts. At full cost recovery and the same demand level for these services, the City would recover approximately $60,000.

Table 3. Cost Recovery Outcomes
NBS provided a full cost of service evaluation and the framework for considering fees, while the City departments determined the appropriate cost recovery levels at or below full cost amounts.

The “Rec'd Fee Level / Deposit” column in Appendix A.1 displays the City staff’s initial recommended fee amounts. Based on this information, the staff recommends that all fees recover 100% of the costs of providing services.

Policy makers often request a comparison of their jurisdictional fees to those of surrounding or similar communities. The results of the comparison are presented in Appendix B.1 to this report Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Annual Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Cost Recovery Fee
Recommended
Cost Recovery
Percentage
Administrative Services 10,167 $ 59,735 $ (49,568) $ 17% 59,735 $ 100%

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 12

POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Police Department provides public safety for the Scotts Valley community through community partnerships, proactive law enforcement and professionalism. Under the Office of the Police Chief, the department is organized into two divisions: Operations and Services. Operations encompass uniformed patrol services, whereas the Services division is comprised of the Investigation Unit and Communications/ Records.

4.1 Cost of Service Analysis
To establish the estimated and total cost of providing these services, NBS first calculated separate fully burdened hourly rates for Sworn and Non-Sworn Personnel within the Police Department. A single composite rate (cost per hour) was calculated for each personnel group, as shown in Table 4:

Table 4. Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
As mentioned earlier, descriptions of the types of expenditures and allocated costs considered in the development of the rate can be found in Section 2.2 of this report. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assumes a fully burdened hourly rate of $267 for Sworn Direct Services and $175 for Non-Sworn Direct Services.

4.2 Fee Establishment
The following is a summary of the overall changes to the Police Department fee schedule:1  Deletion of fees that are no longer used or needed such as, Appeals, Auto Repo Release – Repossession Verification, Firearms – CCW Judge Permit New/Renewal, Firearm Storage, Firearm Decision Filing fee.
 Reorganization of fee categories or clarification of fee names to create a more user-friendly fee structure – expanding Auto Impound – Release of Stored Vehicles. 1 Section 2.2, Methods of Analysis, for additional discussion on the Study’s approach to adding, deleting, and revising fee categories.

Cost Element Sworn Direct
Services
Non-Sworn /
Records Direct
Services
Labor 2,936,520 $ 322,329 $
Recurring Non-Labor 264,597 22,743 Citywide Overhead 940,800 103,268 Department Administration 2,891,471 351,800 DEPARTMENT TOTAL 7,033,388 $ 800,140 $
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 267 $ 175
Reference: Direct Hours Only 26,375 4,568

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 13
 Addition of new fee categories, such as Tobacco Licensing fee, Uniformed Private Security – Minimum 4 hours / Each 15 mins, thereafter, notated as “New” in the “Current Fee/Deposit” column of Appendix A.2

4.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.2 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis of fees for the City’s Police Department. In the Appendix, the “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list.

Currently, the City is recovering at approximately 62% of the total cost of providing services from fees. As Table 5 shows, the City collects approximately $42,000 per year in revenue at the current fee amounts. At full cost recovery and the same demand level for these services, the City would recover approximately $68,000.

Table 5. Cost Recovery Outcomes
NBS provided a full cost of service evaluation and the framework for considering fees, while the City determined the appropriate cost recovery levels at or below full cost amounts.

The “Rec’d Fee Level / Deposit” column in Appendix A.2 displays the City staff’s initial recommended fee amounts. Based on this information, the staff recommends that all fees recover 100% of the costs of providing services except for the Junior Police Academy (JPA), and Uniform Private Security. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts are projected to recover approximately 81% of the total costs of providing fee-related services, assuming the demand for services remains the same.

Policy makers often request a comparison of their jurisdictional fees to those of surrounding or similar communities. The results of the comparison are presented in Appendix B.2 to this report Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Annual Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Cost Recovery Fee
Recommended
Cost Recovery
Percentage
Police Department 41,728 $ 67,547 $ (25,819) $ 62% 54,862 $ 81%

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 14

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
The Planning Division provides policy recommendations to the City Manager, Planning Commission and City Council. The Division develops guiding policies in the City’s General Plan and reviews new construction through zoning, subdivision regulations, community design guidelines and review of building permits and code enforcement issues. Planning involves the complex interaction of individuals, neighborhood groups, business organizations, environmental groups, land developers and contractors.

5.1 Cost of Service Analysis
NBS calculated the total estimated annual cost of services provided by the Planning Division, segregated by those costs that are eligible and/or targeted for recovery in fees for service and those that require another funding source other than fees. The costs recoverable through fees were also translated into a fully burdened hourly rate for the purposes of individual fee calculations. Table 6 summarizes the outcomes of the analysis.

Table 6. Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
As Table 6 above shows, the total cost of providing services is approximately $897,000 per year. However, the results of the cost of service analysis identified $584,000 in cost for recovery from the City’s fees for service with the remaining $314,000 recommended for recovery through other funding sources. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assumes a fully burdened hourly rate of $393.

Based on interviews with Division staff, the analysis segregated the total cost of services into three primary services categories: (1) Public Information/ General Counter; (2) Long Range/ Advanced Planning; and (3) Current Planning Direct Services. In order to clarify the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, here is a summary of the descriptions for each cost category:
 Public Information/ General Counter – Activities associated with responding to phone calls and general information requests that support the development review process. Typically, Cost Element
Public
Information/
General
Counter
Long Range /
Advance
Planning
Current
Planning -
Direct Services
Total
Labor $ 89,214 $ 164,651 109,007 $ 362,871 $
Recurring Non-Labor 7,601 14,028 9,287 30,917 Citywide Overhead 69,508 84,928 128,281 282,717 Allocated Common Activities 54,243 100,109 66,277 220,629 DIVISION TOTAL 220,566 $ 269,499 $ 407,069 $ 897,134 $ Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 80% 0% 100% 65%
Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees 176,453 - 407,069 583,522 Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 269,499 44,113 - 313,613 Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 119 $ - $ 274 $ 393
Reference: Direct Hours Only 1,485

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 15
some portions of costs for provision of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees and are considered a basic function of governmental services to the public. Planning staff estimated that approximately 80% of these costs support land use application review activities, while the remaining costs should not be considered in the calculation of fees for services.
 Long Range/ Advanced Planning – Planning staff support the ongoing maintenance and cyclical update of the City’s General Plan and local zoning ordinances. These costs are not considered for recovery from Planning fees but are commonly recovered as part of a separate “Long Range Planning” or “General Plan Maintenance” surcharge on top of relevant planning and building permits in other California cities. NBS did not evaluate a separate surcharge for recovery of these costs as part of this Study.
 Current Planning Direct Services – Development review and approval comprises the majority of this Division’s work efforts. 100% of these costs apply toward recovery from the Division’s routine types of fees for service.

The fully burdened hourly rate involves significant analytical and policy-related decisions regarding the inclusion of categorized activity costs. The decision to either include or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters set forth by industry standard fee calculation methods and the California State Constitution. State statutes require that any new fee that is levied or any existing fee that is increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied.

5.2 Fee Establishment
The following is a summary of the overall changes to the Planning Division’s fee schedule2:
 Significant reorganization of how fees are collected occurred to create a more user-friendly fee structure. Fees which required a deposit to be collected will now have minimum nonrefundable fees. This decision was made to represent the average level of effort and cost required to complete each project. The City will continue charging hourly beyond the minimum fee if staff efforts exceed the minimum hours threshold.  Addition of new fee categories, notated as “New” in the Current Fee / Deposit column of Appendix A.3 include Heritage Tree Designation, and City Staff administrative Fees for both Mitigated Negative Declaration and Negative Declaration when projects are outsourced to consultants.

5.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.3 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis of fees for the City’s Planning Division. In the Appendix, the “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list.

Currently, the Division is recovering approximately 43% of the total cost of providing services from fees.

As Table 7 shows, the City collects approximately $104,000 per year in revenue at the current fee 2 Section 2.2, Methods of Analysis, provides additional discussion on the Study’s approach to adding, deleting, and revising fee categories

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 16
amounts. At full cost recovery and the same demand level for these services, the City would recover approximately $243,000.

Table 7. Cost Recovery Outcomes
NBS provided a full cost of service evaluation and the framework for considering fees, while the City determined the appropriate cost recovery levels at or below full cost amounts.

The “Rec’d Fee Level / Deposit” column in Appendix A.3 displays the City staff’s initial recommended fee amounts. Based on this information, the staff recommends that all fees recover 100% of the costs of providing services except for the Bee Keeping Permit Fee and the Tree Removal Permit for Protected Tree. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts are projected to recover approximately 76% of the total costs of providing fee-related services, assuming the demand for services remains the same.

Policy makers often request a comparison of their jurisdictional fees to those of surrounding or similar communities. The results of the comparison are presented in Appendix B.3 to this report Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Annual Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Cost Recovery Fee
Recommended
Cost Recovery
Percentage
Planning Division 104,120 $ 243,262 $ (139,142) $ 43% 184,326 $ 76%

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 17
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – BUILDING DIVISION
The Building Division is responsible for overseeing all construction activities including compliance with the Building, Electrical and Plumbing Codes. The Building Division reviews proposed construction plans for conformance to code requirements and monitors construction activities on a continuing basis to ensure structural integrity and safety. The Division identifies violations and necessitates corrections. The Division also provides information, processing, issuance, and administration of all building permits. Generating reports and providing data to various agencies is also an important function of the Building Division.

6.1 Cost of Service Analysis
NBS developed a composite fully burdened hourly rate for the Building Division as shown in. Table 8 below:

Table 8. Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
Section 2.2, Methods of Analysis, further describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs considered in the development of the rate. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assumes a fully burdened hourly rate of $212.

6.2 Fee Establishment
The following is a summary of the overall changes to the Building Division’s fee schedule3:
 Deletion of fee categories that are no longer used or needed such as Electrical / Mechanical / Plumbing Inspection Fees as separate charges in addition to the primary Building permit.

These fees will now be combined with the average cost of each Building Permit fee. Also removed from the fee schedule are separate fee categories for Window Retrofit, and Window Replacements. These services will now be covered by utilizing the building permit value fee scale instead of having separate singular fee categories. 3 Section 2.2, Methods of Analysis, provides additional discussion on the Study’s approach to adding, deleting, and revising fee categories
Cost Element
Building Plan
Check / Permitting
Services
Labor 305,546 $
Recurring Non-Labor (incl. contract PC/INSP services) 367,105 Division and Citywide Overhead 287,108 Allocated Common Activities 149,720
DIVISION TOTAL 1,109,480 $
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 212
Reference: Direct Hours Only 5,224

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 18
 Reorganization of fee categories or clarification of fee names to create a more user-friendly fee structure, such as Solar/PV Permit fees, Standalone Water Heater Permit, Simple and Complex/Commercial Standalone MEP Permits, and Building Permit Reinstatement of Expired Permit.

6.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.4 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis of fees for the City’s Building Division. In the Appendix, the “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list. This Cost of Service per Activity is reflective of the Building Division’s total estimated cost for review of each plan/permit, as well as any supporting department/division review as required by the City’s established development review processes.

Currently, the Division is recovering approximately 106% of the total cost of providing services from fees.

As Table 9 shows, the City collects approximately $1.1 million per year in revenue at the current fee amounts. At full cost recovery and the same demand level for these services, the City would recover approximately $1 million.

Table 9. Cost Recovery Outcomes
NBS provided a full cost of service evaluation and the framework for considering fees, while the City determined the appropriate cost recovery levels at or below full cost amounts.

The “Rec'd Fee Level / Deposit” column in Appendix A.4 displays the City staff’s initial recommended fee amounts. Based on this information, the staff recommends that all fees recover 100% of the costs of providing services, except Solar/PV Permits since these fee amounts are capped by the State, Window Projects for Retrofit and Replacements, and Standalone Water Heater Permits. These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts are projected to recover approximately 98% of the total costs of providing fee-related services assuming the demand for services remains the same.

Policy makers often request a comparison of their jurisdictional fees to those of surrounding or similar communities. The results of the comparison are presented in Appendix B.4 to this report.

Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Annual Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Cost Recovery Fee
Recommended
Cost Recovery
Percentage
Building Division 1,143,872 $ 1,080,587 $ 63,285 $ 106% 1,058,612 $ 98%

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 19

PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING DIVISION
The Engineering Division oversees and supports the planning, design, construction, and inspection of improvements for all public works infrastructure projects including streets, storm facilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, and traffic control systems constructed within the City as part of the capital improvement program (CIP) or new development. The Division also provides ancillary support to other Departments through private development plan review.

7.1 Cost of Service Analysis
NBS calculated the total estimated annual cost of services provided by the Engineering Division, segregated by those costs that are eligible and/or targeted for recovery in fees for service and those that require another funding source other than fees. The costs recoverable through fees were also translated into a fully burdened hourly rate for the purposes of individual fee calculations. Table 10 summarizes the outcomes of the analysis:

Table 10. Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
As Table 10 above shows, the total cost of providing services is approximately $1.4 million per year.

However, the results of the cost of service analysis identified $202,000 in cost for recovery from the City’s fees for service with the remaining $1.2 million recommended for recovery through funding sources other than fees. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assumes a fully burdened hourly rate of $334.

Based on interviews with Division staff, the analysis segregated the total cost of services into four primary services categories: (1) Public information and General Counter; (2) Support to Capital Improvement; (3) Stormwater Compliance / Other Utility Support, and (4) Direct Permitting Services. In order to clarify the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, here is a summary of the descriptions for each cost category:
 Public Information and General Counter – Activities associated with responding to phone calls and general information requests that support the development review process. 80% of these costs are recoverable in Engineering fees for service.

Cost Element
Public
Information/
General Counter
Support to
Capital
Improvement
Stormwater
Compliance/
Other Utility
Support
Direct
Permitting
Services
Total
Labor 56,976 $ 422,037 $ 172,674 $ 56,976 $ 708,662 $
Recurring Non-Labor 4,449 32,952 13,482 4,449 55,332 Citywide Overhead 20,345 150,703 61,659 20,345 253,053 Allocated Common Activities 30,661 227,118 92,924 30,661 381,365 $ 832,810 112,431 $ 340,740 $ 112,431 $ 1,398,412 $ Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 80% 0% 0% 100% 14%
Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees 89,945 - - 112,431 202,376 Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 22,486 832,810 340,740 - 1,196,036 Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 149 $ - $ - $ 186 $ 334 605

DIVISION TOTAL
Reference: Direct Hours Only

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 20
 Support to Capital Improvement – Engineering staff support the review and implementation of various City capital improvement projects (CIP). These costs do not apply toward recovery from Engineering fees.
 Stormwater Compliance / Other Utility Support – Stormwater-Engineering staff support stormwater quality management. These costs do not apply toward recovery from Engineering fees.
 Direct Permitting Services - Work activities associated with an active Engineering permit application. 100% of these costs are recoverable in Engineering fees for service.

The fully burdened hourly rate involves significant analytical and policy-related decisions regarding the inclusion of categorized activity costs. The decision to either include or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters set forth by industry standard fee calculation methods and the California State Constitution. State statutes require that any new fee that is levied or any existing fee that is increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied.

7.2 Fee Establishment
The following is a summary of the overall changes to the Engineering Division’s fee schedule4:
 Deletion of fees that are no longer used or needed such as such as: Application Intake Fee – Final Map, Retrieval of Illegal Signs, and several categories of Transportation/Hauling fees.  Significant reorganization of fee categories and clarification of fee names occurred to create a more user-friendly fee structure. Encroachment Permits will no longer be assessed based on the cost of improvements required. Instead, permit fee categories will be tiered between those permits that involve construction versus those that do not. For permits involving constructions, tiers A through D representing progressive levels of complexity in project criteria will determine the fee amount. Also, fee categories for Engineering’s review of projects in the Planning entitlement/permit phase were restructured and re-titled to match Planning’s fee structure. Fees for on-site civil and public improvements were collapsed into a single fee structure based on project construction value.  Addition of new fee categories, notated as “New” in the Current Fee / Deposit column of Appendix A.5 include several additional categories for support to the Planning process for Design Review – (each subsequent submittal), Negative Declaration / Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Other Planning related reviews. Also, a new fee for Storm water inspection was also added.

7.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.5 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis of fees for the City’s Engineering Division. In the Appendix, the “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list. 4 Section 2.2, Methods of Analysis, provides additional discussion on the Study’s approach to adding, deleting, and revising fee categories

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 21
Currently, the Division is recovering approximately 71% of the total cost of providing services from fees.

As Table 11 below shows, the City collects approximately $100,000 per year in revenue at the current fee amounts. At full cost recovery and the same demand level for these services, the City would recover approximately $142,000.

Table 11. Cost Recovery Outcomes
NBS provided a full cost of service evaluation and the framework for considering fees, while the City determined the appropriate cost recovery levels at or below full cost amounts.

The “Rec'd Fee Level / Deposit” column in Appendix A.5 displays the City staff’s initial recommended fee amounts. Based on this information, the staff recommends that all fees recover 100% of the costs of providing services.

Policy makers often request a comparison of their jurisdictional fees to those of surrounding or similar communities. The results of the comparison are presented in Appendix B.5 to this report.

Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Annual Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Cost Recovery Fee
Recommended
Cost Recovery
Percentage
Engineering Division 100,253 $ 141,933 $ (41,680) $ 71% 141,933 $ 100%

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 22
PUBLIC WORKS – PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
The Parks and Recreation Division works with all residents to be good stewards of the environment, and to provide safe, welcoming opportunities to play, learn, contemplate, and build community awareness.

Division employees work hard to develop partnerships with park neighbors, volunteers, non-profits, local businesses, the Scotts Valley Chamber of Commerce, and the Scotts Valley School District to effectively respond to increasing requests for use of Scotts Valley's parks and recreation facilities. One of the most significant partnerships is with Scotts Valley Unified School.

Unlike other areas of the study, this Division’s analysis has been conducted mostly at the program level (as opposed to the individual fee level) and includes a cost recovery evaluation of the following programs:
 Contract Classes and Rec Programs: The City offers several classes & workshops throughout the year facilitated by contract instructors. The City provides reservation, scheduling, advertising, and administrative services to these programs.  Facility Rentals – The Parks and Recreation Division (PRD) is comprised of five developed parks, featuring eight athletic fields, six children's play areas, and one off-leash area. Other facilities include four outdoor tennis courts, two bocce courts, one outdoor swimming pool, two horseshoe pits, three half basketball courts, a community center, senior center, a onemile paved trail, one hiking trail, and more. Many of the City’s facilities are available for rental for private use.
 Senior Programs and Services: The City offers various senior programs at the senior center.  Special Events (City Sponsored & Private): The City sponsors, facilitates, and permits a number of special community events each year.

The expenses of administering, operating, and maintaining the City’s recreation programs and facilities are primarily funded by resources from the General Fund. However, fees collected from various Recreation programs, including classes, contracts, and specific uses of public spaces can represent a significant source of funding to help cover costs and sustain – if not improve – the level of service provided by the City.

8.1 Cost of Service Analysis
NBS developed a composite, fully burdened, hourly rate for the Parks and Recreation Division as shown on the next page in Table 12:

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 23
Table 12. Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Section 2.2, Methods of Analysis, further describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs considered in the development of the rate. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assumes a fully burdened hourly rate of $220.

8.2 Fee Establishment
The Study performed by NBS provides the estimated annual cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the Division, should consider and recommend a cost recovery policy for the Council’s review, either at or below the total cost of service. It is a common policy directive to subsidize most recreational program fees, given that the nature of recreational services has an inherent benefit to the community at large. The following provides comments about the recommended approach to setting fees, based on the Study’s results, for various types of recreational services:

Fees for Administrative Tasks or Service Requests
For fees associated with the individual service requests, such as facility rental or class reservations, entertainment and/or special events permits, staff support at special events, and league coordination, an evaluation of the cost of service for individual fees was performed. NBS interviewed staff to gather the estimated amount of time associated with all service request fees. Using the time estimates provided by City staff in combination with the fully burdened hourly rates calculated above, NBS estimated the full cost for providing each service.

Fees for Recreational Programs and Classes
The Division does not currently have many classes or program offerings and is working to add more options for the community in the near future. In considering cost recovery targets and recommended fees, the Division may consider the current cost recovery evaluation outcomes established by this Study and recommend revised fees and/or program level cost recovery targets for the Council’s review.

Because of the seasonal and changing nature of recreational services and classes offered by the Division, NBS recommends any new class fees, program fees, and special event fees to be calculated by the Recreation Director using the analytical methods described below:

Expenditure Type Recreation
Services
Labor $ 292,928
Recurring Non-Labor 99,553
Department/Citywide Overhead 163,243
Allocated Common Activities 525,475
DIVISION TOTAL 1,081,199 $
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 220
Reference: Direct Hours Only 4,918

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 24
Program Cost of Service = [(A x B) + C + D + E + F]

 A = Estimated time for City staff to implement the class/program.  B = Applicable Hourly rates for staff functions involved in the implementation of the class/program.
 C = Estimated/actual cost incurred by the City for outside service providers involved in the class/program.
 D = Estimated/actual cost incurred by the City for specific materials acquired for use during the class/program.
 E = Prevailing facility rental/use fees as reflected in City Master Fee Schedule.  F = Estimated/actual costs incurred by the City to rent or use external facilities if needed.

Using the formula provided above, the calculated cost of service above represents the maximum fee that could be imposed by the City for an individual recreation program. The City may recover between 0% and 100% of the cost of services. Cost recovery targets may vary by individual program, at the discretion of the Recreation Director as determined during the seasonal development of the City's program offerings.

The City may also set a differential fee for resident and non-resident participants as long as neither fee exceeds the cost of service.

Fees for Facility Use or Rental
Fees imposed for the use (entrance or rental) of parks and recreation facilities ensure that some revenues are made available to offset the operation, maintenance, and restoration costs of those facilities, so they may continue to be open to all. However, these fee amounts are both limited to the costs of providing service, and generally seek to conform to the “market” price for similarly sized facilities available in the community and/or similar comparative public agencies.

The scope of this study did not include an in-depth analysis of fees for each facility rental. The documentation presented herein provides a high-level annual cost recovery analysis, and the appendix to this report provides a survey of other agencies for the City’s consideration in setting facility rental fees going forward. In general, NBS recommends that a survey be conducted by City staff every three to five years to demonstrate consideration of comparable public and private facility rental options.

8.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation
NBS evaluated each Division program’s estimated annual cost recovery level by matching the most recent fiscal year of revenues collected, to the total program costs established through this study. Table 13 summarizes results of that analysis on the following page:

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 25
Table 13. Programmatic Cost Recovery Summary
Overall, Recreation programs recover approximately 16% of the citywide costs of providing services. The total estimated cost of all Recreation Division programs is approximately $1.1 million per year. Section

2.2, Methods of Analysis, provides further definition and discussion of the elements of the total program cost calculation.

Due to the unique nature of Recreation programs and services, the study performed by NBS provides an annual cost and revenue analysis at the program level. This provides City staff and City Council with current cost recovery data and allows the City to establish, if desired, a cost recovery policy applicable per program. Appendix A.6 also presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis of fees for the City’s Parks and Recreation Division. In the Appendix, the “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list. The “Rec'd Fee Level / Deposit” column displays the City staff’s initial recommended fee amounts.

In the table above, existing revenue for each area of service is shown by the “Total Revenues” line. In all cases, the results of this analysis show that current revenue amounts recover less than the “Total Program Costs” of each program calculated by NBS.

Policy makers often request a comparison of their jurisdictional fees to those of surrounding or similar communities. The results of the comparison are presented in Appendix B.6 to this report Cost Element
Contract Class
and Rec
Programs
Facility Rentals Senior Programs
& Services
Special Events
(City Sponsored
& Private)
Total
Labor 89,953 $ 48,647 $ 96,500 $ 57,827 $ 292,928 $
Recurring Non-Labor 36,371 16,533 32,796 77,653 163,353 Department/Citywide Overhead 50,129 27,110 53,778 32,226 163,243 Division Admin 149,666 78,280 155,282 142,247 525,475 TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS 326,118 $ 170,571 $ 338,356 $ 309,953 $ 1,144,999 $ 004-3890 Other Revenue 18,064 $ 70,883 $ - $ 5,500 $ 94,447 $ 028-Senior Center - - 23,567 - 23,567 123-Community Center - 70,013 - - 70,013 TOTAL REVENUES $ 140,896 18,064 $ 23,567 $ 5,500 $ 188,027 $ Current Cost Recovery % 6% 83% 7% 2% 16%
FY 22/23 Actual Revenue

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 26

CONCLUSION
Based on the outcomes of the Cost of Service Analysis, Fee Establishment, and Cost Recovery Evaluation presented in this Study, the proposed Master Fee Schedule has been prepared by the City for implementation and included in the City’s Staff Report.

As discussed throughout this report, the intent of the proposed fee schedule is to improve the City’s recovery of costs incurred to provide individual services, as well as adjust fees where the fees charged exceed the average costs incurred. Predicting the amount to which any adopted fee increases will affect City revenues is difficult to quantify. For the near-term, the City should not count on increased revenues to meet any specific expenditure plan. Experience with the revised fee amounts should be gained first before revenue projections are revised. However, unless there is some significant, long-term change in activity levels at the City, proposed fee amendments should enhance the City’s cost recovery performance over time, providing it the ability to stretch other resources further for the benefit of the public at-large.

The City’s Master Fee Schedule should become a living document, but handled with care:
 A fundamental purpose of the fee schedule is to provide clarity and transparency to the public and to staff regarding fees imposed by the City. Once adopted by the City Council, the fee schedule is the final word on the amount and method in which fees should be charged and supersedes all previous fee schedules. If it is discovered that the master document is missing certain fees, those fees will eventually need to be added to the master fee schedule and should not exist outside the consolidated, master framework.  The City should consider adjusting these user fees and regulatory fees on an annual basis to keep pace with cost inflation. For all fees and charges, for example, the City could use a Consumer Price Index adjustment that is applied to the new fee schedule. Conducting a comprehensive Fee Study is not an annual requirement, and only becomes worthwhile over time as shifts in organization, local practices, legislative values, or legal requirements result in significant change.

As a final note, it is worth mentioning the path that fees, in general, have taken in the State of California.

In recent years, there is more public demand for the precise and equitable accounting of the basis for governmental fees and a greater say in when and how they are charged. It is likely that in the future, user and regulatory fees will require an even greater level of analysis and supporting data to meet the public’s growing expectations. An agency’s ability to meet these new pressures will depend on the level of technology they invest in their current systems. Continuous improvement and refinement of time tracking abilities will greatly enhance the City’s ability to set fees for service and identify unfunded activities in years to come.

In preparing this report and the opinions and recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on a number of principal assumptions and considerations with regard to financial matters, conditions and events that may occur in the future. This information and assumptions, including the City’s budgets, time estimate data, and workload information from City staff, were provided by sources we believe to be reliable; however, NBS has not independently verified such information and assumptions.

City of Scotts Valley (City)
Citywide User Fee Study 27
While we believe NBS’ use of such information and assumptions is reasonable for the purpose of this report, some assumptions will invariably not materialize as stated herein and may vary significantly due to unanticipated events and circumstances. Therefore, the actual results can be expected to vary from those projected to the extent that actual future conditions differ from those assumed by us or provided to us by others.

Disclaimer: In preparing this report and the opinions and recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on a number of principal assumptions and considerations with regard to financial matters, conditions and events that may occur in the future. This information and assumptions, including the City’s budgets, time estimate data, and workload information from City staff, were provided by sources we believe to be reliable; however, NBS has not independently verified such information and assumptions.

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

Prepared by NBS for the City of Scotts Valley
APPENDIX A.1
Cost of Service Analysis – Administrative & Miscellaneous Fees

City of Scotts Valley
Administrative Services - User Fee Study FY 2023-24
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.1 1 Business License Tax
Application Fee per license [6]
City Processing Fee
Finance Review 0.25 $ 298 $ 74
Planning Review 0.33 $ 393 $ 130
Building Review 0.33 $ 212 $ 70
Vendor Processing Fee per New Account $ 16.19
Subtotal 0.91 $ 290 $ 45 15% $ 290 100% 188 $ 8,460 $ 54,596 $ 54,596 Business License Tax - Base Rate per license [1] $ 50 $ 50 Business License Tax - Per Owner/Employee per license [1] $ 40 $ 40 Certified Access Specialist (CASp) Fee per license [7,2] $ 4 $ 4 1-5 days [8,2] 0% 0%
6-29 days [8,2] 25% 25%
30-89 days [8,2] 38% 38%
90-119 days [8,2] 50% 50%
120 or more [8,2] 100% 100%
2 Duplication
Digital copies per USB drive [2] $ 5
Photocopies each [2] $ 0.12
3 Elections
Petition Filing Fee per filing [2] $ 226 $ 200
4 Entertainment permit (not on City property) - new per permit [4] Finance Review 1.00 $ 298 $ 298
Recreation 0.25 $ 220 $ 55
Planning Review 0.33 $ 393 $ 131
Public Works 0.25 $ 334 $ 84
Police Review 0.50 $ 267 $ 133
Subtotal 2.33 $ 701 $ 237 34% $ 701 100% 5 $ 1,185 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 5 Entertainment permit (not on City property) - renewal per permit [4] Finance Review 1.00 $ 298 $ 298
Recreation 0.25 $ 220 $ 55
Planning Review 0.17 $ 393 $ 66
Public Works 0.25 $ 334 $ 84
Police Review 0.50 $ 267 $ 133
Subtotal 2.17 $ 635 $ 163 26% $ 635 100% 2 $ 326 $ 1,271 $ 1,271 Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Rec'd Fee Level /
Deposit
Rec'd Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Documents are
available online at
no charge; .10 per
page for public
records; no charge
for e-transfer; USB
charged at actual
cost
Annual Estimated Revenues
Current Fee Full Cost
Recovery
Rec'd Fee
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Fee
No.

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit NotesEstimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
FBHR
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 ADMIN MISC - COS, Page 1 of 2

City of Scotts Valley
Administrative Services - User Fee Study FY 2023-24
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.1 Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Rec'd Fee Level /
Deposit
Rec'd Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual Estimated Revenues
Current Fee Full Cost
Recovery
Rec'd Fee
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Fee
No.

Fee Name Fee Type / Unit NotesEstimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
FBHR
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
6 Notary service fee (per signature) per signature [2] $ 15 $ 15 7 Occasional Sales Permit per permit 0.50 $ 298 $ 149 $ 60 40% $ 149 100% 1 $ 60 $ 149 $ 149 8 Rental of Council chambers each [3] $ 33 $ 33
Non-Profit each [3] No Charge No Charge
9 Returned check charges each
First returned check [2] $ 25 $ 25
Each additional check [2] $ 35 $ 35
10 Subpoena Summons Response per day [2,5] $ 298 $275 per day 11 Solicitor's Permit (per person/day) per permit
Finance Review 0.50 $ 298 $ 149
Police Review 0.25 $ 267 $ 67
Subtotal 0.75 $ 216 $ 136 63% $ 216 100% 1 $ 136 $ 216 $ 216 12 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division.

Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application. per hour 1.00 $ 298 $ 298 $ - 0% $ 298 100% - $ - $ - $ TOTAL 10,167 $ 59,735 $ 59,735 $
[Notes]
[1] Fee Set per Business License Ordinance; NBS did not evaluate [2] Fee Set by the State of California; NBS did not evaluate [3] Fee for facility rental; NBS did not evaluate
[4] See Recreation fee schedule for event permits occurring on City property [5]
[6] Non-refundable. Separate fees from Police apply for massage, tobacco, and second hand dealer permits [7] AB1379 (exp 12/31/2023)
[8] % of fee calculation plus application / CASp fees
Should the actual cost of salary compensation plus travel expenses exceed the $ 275 per day threshold, the difference shall be due to the City by the requesting party. If the actual cost is less than $ 275 per day, then the City shall refund the difference.

NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 ADMIN MISC - COS, Page 2 of 2

Prepared by NBS for the City of Scotts Valley
APPENDIX A.2
Cost of Service Analysis – Police Department Fees

City of Scotts Valley
Police Department- User Fee Study Fiscal Year 2024
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.2

SWORN NON-SWORN FINANCE
$ 267 $ 175 $ 298
1 Alarm Services [1]
Annual Registration per permit/per
year
Police 0.00 0.08 0.00
Finance 0.00 0.00 0.25
Subtotal 0.00 0.08 0.25 0.33 $ 88 $ 62 70% $ 88 100% 400 $ 24,800 $ 35,393 $ 35,393 Third False Alarm In One Month per occurrence
Police 0.31 0.08 0.00
Finance 0.00 0.00 0.25
Subtotal 0.31 0.08 0.25 0.64 $ 171 $ 168 98% $ 171 100% $ - $ - $ - Over three False Alarms in One Month per occurrence
Police 0.31 0.08 0.00
Finance 0.00 0.00 0.25
Subtotal 0.31 0.08 0.25 0.64 $ 171 $ 250 147% $ 171 100% $ - $ - $ - More than Twelve in One Year per occurrence
Police 0.31 0.08 0.00
Finance 0.00 0.00 0.25
Subtotal 0.31 0.08 0.25 0.64 $ 171 $ 250 147% $ 171 100% $ - $ - $ - 2 Auto Abatement per request 0.75 0.33 0.00 1.08 $ 258 $ 322 125% $ 258 100% 10 $ 3,151 $ 2,529 $ 2,529 3 Auto Impound - Release of Stored Vehicles
City Processing Fee per request 0.57 0.17 0.00 0.73 $ 180 $ 289 160% $ 180 100% 38 $ 11,027 $ 6,882 $ 6,882 Tow/Storage each [5] Actual Cost Actual Cost
4 Bingo License
New per license [2] 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $ 88 $ 173 198% $ 88 100% $ - $ - $ - Renewal per license [2] 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $ 44 $ 94 215% $ 44 100% $ - $ - $ - 5 Body Cam Video Release/Editing per request 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 $ 350 $ 114 33% $ 350 100% $ - $ - $ - 6 Clearance Letter (charged for Employment, Licensing, and Certification Purposes Only) per request 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 29 $ $ 75 256% $ 29 100% 2 $ 59 150 $ 59 $ 7 Firearms:

CCW Standard Permit (2-year)
New per permit 3.83 1.25 0.00 5.08 $ 1,241 $ 928 75% $ 1,241 100% $ - $ - $ - Renewal per permit 3.25 1.00 0.00 4.25 $ 1,042 $ 464 45% $ 1,042 100% $ - $ - $ - 8 Junior Police Academy (JPA) per participant 1.25 0.25 0.00 1.50 $ 377 $ 65 17% $ 100 27% 40 $ 2,600 $ 15,085 $ 4,000 Existing
Cost
Recovery %
Rec'd Fee
Level / Deposit
Rec'd Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual Estimated Revenues
Current Fee Full Cost
Recovery
Rec'd Fee
Fee No. Fee Name Notes Fee Type / Unit
Total
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Current Fee
/ Deposit
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Estimated Average Labor Time Per
Activity (hours)
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 POL - COS, Page 1 of 2

City of Scotts Valley
Police Department- User Fee Study Fiscal Year 2024
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.2

SWORN NON-SWORN FINANCE
$ 267 $ 175 $ 298
Existing
Cost
Recovery %
Rec'd Fee
Level / Deposit
Rec'd Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual Estimated Revenues
Current Fee Full Cost
Recovery
Rec'd Fee
Fee No. Fee Name Notes Fee Type / Unit
Total
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Current Fee
/ Deposit
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Estimated Average Labor Time Per
Activity (hours)
9 Licenses
Secondhand Dealer License per license 1.50 0.00 0.00 1.50 400 $ $ 154 38% $ 400 100% 5 *City not
charging $ 2,000 2,000 $
Tobacco Licensing per license [4] 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 $ 133 No Charge % No Charge % 12 $ - $ 1,600 $ - 10 Massage Permit Fees
Massage Establishment Permit per permit 1.50 0.00 0.00 1.50 400 $ $ 387 97% $ 400 100% 10 *City not charging $ 4,000 4,000 $
Initial Application Per Therapist per application 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 267 $ 150 56% $ 267 100% $ - $ - $ - 11 Special security service incurred in responding to loud or unruly gathering following 1st response (per minute)
per officer/ per
minute
[3] 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 4 $ $ 11.07 249% $ 4.44 100% - $ - $ - $ 12 Taxicab Driver's Permit per permit 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 88 $ $ 114 130% $ 88 100% - $ - $ - $ 13 Uniformed Private Security
Minimum 4 hours per request 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 $ 1,067 NEW % $ 456 43% $ - $ - $ - Each 15 minutes thereafter per 15 minutes 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.25 $ 67 NEW % $ 28.50 43% $ - $ - $ - 14 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.

Sworn per hour 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 267 $ 114 43% $ 114 43% $ - $ - $ - Non-Sworn per hour 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 $ 175 $ 114 65% $ 114 65% $ - $ - $ - TOTAL $ 67,547 41,728 $ 54,862 $
[Notes]
[1] The City Ordinance regarding false alarms can be found under SVMC 5.26.080, and is worded as a "fee," established by City Resolution. [2] Fee set 326.5 of the Penal Code
[3] Pursuant to SVMC 9.20.050, the Special Security Service fee is in ADDITION to the fine for violating the SVMC [4] No charge for this service per City Ordinance
[5] Towing / Storage are charged separately at actual cost in addition to staff time; NBS did not evaluate NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 POL - COS, Page 2 of 2

Prepared by NBS for the City of Scotts Valley
APPENDIX A.3
Cost of Service Analysis – Community Development - Planning Division Fees

City of Scotts Valley
CD - Planning Division - User Fee Study Fiscal Year 2024 Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.3 1 Addressing Fee
Minimum Fee - Up to 7 hours FLAT 7.00 $ 393 $ 2,750 $ 1,062 39% $ 2,750 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 7 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 2 Application Intake & File Maintenance
Minor or Singular Discretionary Permit
Applications (per planning application) FLAT 2.00 $ 393 $ 786 $ 707 90% $ 786 100% - $ - $ - $ Major Discretionary Permits or Multiple
Applications Filed for One Project (per planning
application)
FLAT 4.00 $ 393 $ 1,572 $ 1,414 90% $ 1,572 100% - $ - $ - $ 3 Annexation Fee
Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours FLAT 35.00 $ 393 $ 13,752 $ 12,418 90% $ 13,752 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 4 Amendment
Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours FLAT 10.00 $ 393 $ 3,929 $ 3,548 90% $ 3,929 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 5 Appeal Processing:

City Council FLAT [4]
25% of original
permit fee or
approved
application with
minimum fee of
$355
25% of original
permit fee or
approved application
with minimum fee of
$393
Board of Appeals FLAT [4]
25% of original
permit fee or
approved
application with
minimum fee of
$355
25% of original
permit fee or
approved application
with minimum fee of
$393
6 Bee Keeping Permit FLAT 7.00 $ 393 $ 2,750 $ 355 13% $ 393 14% - $ - $ - $ 7 Certificate of Compliance
Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours FLAT 10.00 $ 393 $ 3,929 $ 3,548 90% $ 3,929 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ Researched by City Attorney [5] Actual Cost Actual Cost Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Rec'd Fee Level /
Deposit
Rec'd Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual Estimated Revenues
Current Fee
Full Cost
Recovery Rec'd Fee
Fee No.

Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Fee Name Notes
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per Activity
(hours)
FBHR
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Fee Type /
Unit
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 PLNG - COS, Page 1 of 6

City of Scotts Valley
CD - Planning Division - User Fee Study Fiscal Year 2024 Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.3 Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Rec'd Fee Level /
Deposit
Rec'd Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual Estimated Revenues
Current Fee
Full Cost
Recovery Rec'd Fee
Fee No.

Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Fee Name Notes
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per Activity
(hours)
FBHR
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Fee Type /
Unit

CEQA REVIEW
8 Environment Assessment FLAT 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% 9 $ 3,636 3,285 $ 3,636 $ Environmental Impact Report, Administration
Minimum Fee - Up to 74 hours FLAT 74.00 $ 393 $ 29,076 $ 26,255 90% $ 29,076 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 74 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ Consultants [3] Actual Cost Actual Cost
Mitigation Monitoring
Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours FLAT 10.00 $ 393 $ 3,929 $ 3,548 90% $ 3,929 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Minimum Fee - Up to 40 hours FLAT 40.00 $ 393 $ 15,716 $ 14,192 90% $ 15,716 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 40 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ Consultants
City Staff Admin FLAT 10.00 $ 393 $ 3,929 NEW % $ 3,929 100% - $ - $ - $ Consultants [3] Actual Cost Actual Cost
Negative Declaration
Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours FLAT 20.00 $ 393 $ 7,858 $ 7,096 90% $ 7,858 100% 2 $ 15,716 14,192 $ 15,716 $ Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ Consultants
City Staff Admin FLAT 8.00 $ 393 $ 3,143 NEW % $ 3,143 100% - $ - $ - $ Consultants [3] Actual Cost Actual Cost
Notice of Determination:

City Filing Fee FLAT 1.50 $ 393 $ 589 $ 531 90% $ 589 100% - $ - $ - $ County Fee FLAT [2] As set by Santa
Cruz County
As set by Santa Cruz
County
Fish & Game Certification:

Filing Fee FLAT 2.00 $ 393 $ 786 $ 707 90% $ 786 100% - $ - $ - $ F & G Negative Declaration Fee FLAT [2] As set by Fish and Game
As set by Fish and
Game
F & G EIR Fee FLAT [2] As set by Fish and
Game
As set by Fish and
Game
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 PLNG - COS, Page 2 of 6

City of Scotts Valley
CD - Planning Division - User Fee Study Fiscal Year 2024 Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.3 Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Rec'd Fee Level /
Deposit
Rec'd Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual Estimated Revenues
Current Fee
Full Cost
Recovery Rec'd Fee
Fee No.

Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Fee Name Notes
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per Activity
(hours)
FBHR
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Fee Type /
Unit
9 Code Compliance (per hour) HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 10 Cultural Resource Alteration
Minimum Fee - Up to 8 hours FLAT 8.00 $ 393 $ 3,143 $ 2,828 90% $ 3,143 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 8 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 11 Design Review: $ - - $ - $
Residential with Hillside - Up to 20 hours FLAT 20.00 $ 393 $ 7,858 $ 7,096 90% $ 7,858 100% 1 $ 7,858 7,096 $ 7,858 $ Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ Residential - Up to 15 hours FLAT 15.00 $ 393 $ 5,894 $ 3,548 60% $ 5,894 100% 3 $ 17,681 10,644 $ 17,681 $ Hourly Rate - Over 15 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ Commercial / Industrial - Up to 20 hours FLAT 20.00 $ 393 $ 7,858 $ 3,548 45% $ 7,858 100% 2 $ 15,716 7,096 $ 15,716 $ Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% 13 $ 5,082 4,592 $ 5,082 $ 12 Sign Programs
Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours FLAT 20.00 $ 393 $ 7,858 $ 7,000 89% $ 7,858 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 13 Free Standing Signs
Major - Up to 10 hours FLAT 10.00 $ 393 $ 3,929 $ 2,127 54% $ 3,929 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ Minor- Up to 6 hours FLAT 6.00 $ 393 $ 2,357 $ 355 15% $ 2,357 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 6 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 14 Signs with Staff Level Review
Major - Up to 5 hours FLAT 5.00 $ 393 $ 1,965 $ 1,062 54% $ 1,965 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 5 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ Minor - Up to 2.5 hours FLAT 2.50 $ 393 $ 982 $ 355 36% $ 982 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 2.5 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 15 Development Agreement
Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours FLAT 35.00 $ 393 $ 13,752 $ 12,418 90% $ 13,752 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 16 Final Inspection
Minimum Fee - Up to 6 hours FLAT 6.00 $ 393 $ 2,357 $ 2,121 90% $ 2,357 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 6 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 PLNG - COS, Page 3 of 6

City of Scotts Valley
CD - Planning Division - User Fee Study Fiscal Year 2024 Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.3 Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Rec'd Fee Level /
Deposit
Rec'd Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual Estimated Revenues
Current Fee
Full Cost
Recovery Rec'd Fee
Fee No.

Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Fee Name Notes
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per Activity
(hours)
FBHR
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Fee Type /
Unit
17 General or Specific Plan Amendment
Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours FLAT 35.00 $ 393 $ 13,752 $ 12,418 90% $ 13,752 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 18 General Plan Maintenance
Applies to all building permits FLAT [4] 0.0055 per $1
building valuation

0.0055 per $1
building valuation
19 Historical Landmark Determination
Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours FLAT 20.00 $ 393 $ 7,858 $ 7,070 90% $ 7,858 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 20 Home Occupation Review FLAT 0.75 $ 393 $ 295 $ 265 90% $ 295 100% - $ - $ - $ 21 IPHCP Certificate of Inclusion FLAT 4.00 $ 393 $ 1,572 $ 707 45% $ 1,572 100% - $ - $ - $ LAND DIVISIONS:
22 Land Division/Tentative map Entitlement (5 lots or
more)
Minimum Fee - Up to 35 hours FLAT 35.00 $ 393 $ 13,752 $ 12,418 90% $ 13,752 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 35 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 23 Land Division / Final Map Review (5 lots or more)
Minimum Fee - Up to 20 hours FLAT 20.00 $ 393 $ 7,858 $ 7,096 90% $ 7,858 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 20 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 24 Minor Land Division / Tentative Map Entitlements (4
lots or less)
Minimum Fee - Up to 30 hours FLAT 30.00 $ 393 $ 11,787 $ 12,418 105% $ 11,787 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 30 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 25 Minor Land Division / Parcel Map Review (4 lots or
less)
Minimum Fee - Up to 10 hours FLAT 10.00 $ 393 $ 3,929 $ 3,548 90% $ 3,929 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 10 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 26 Lot Line Adjustment Review
Minimum Fee - Up to 2 hours FLAT 2.00 $ 393 $ 786 $ 707 90% $ 786 100% - $ - $ - $ Hourly Rate - Over 2 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ 27 Planned Development
Minimum Fee - Up to 26 hours FLAT 26.00 $ 393 $ 10,216 $ 8,870 87% $ 10,216 100% 1 $ 10,216 8,870 $ 10,216 $ Hourly Rate - Over 26 hours HOURLY 1.00 $ 393 $ 393 $ 355 90% $ 393 100% - $ - $ - $ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 PLNG - COS, Page 4 of 6