assessment area.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact is associated with this action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No. 1555-SP-037.1 a resolution of the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley approving the City’s Engineer Report as filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, declaring its intent to impose the assessments and setting the public hearing to consider any objections to the imposition of the assessments.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Resolution No. 1555-SP-037.1 Approve Engineers Report-Intent to Levy-PH Time-Place
2. Skypark Assessment District Engineer's Report FY2526
RESOLUTION NO. 1555-SP-037.1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR THE SKYPARK OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026,
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS UNDER
THE SKYPARK OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS IN RELATION THERETO (PUBLIC HEARING: AUGUST 6, 2025) WHEREAS, the City of Scotts Valley, California, previously established the Skypark Open Space Maintenance Assessment District; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2025, the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley adopted Resolution No. 1555-SP-037 directing the City Engineer to prepare and file a report according to the provisions of the “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972” of the State of California Streets and Highways Code, Division 15, Part 2, for assessments to be levied upon and collected through the Skypark Open Space Maintenance Assessment District for fiscal year 2025-2026; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report bearing the date of June 12, 2025, was prepared and was filed in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has presented the Engineer's Report to the City Council, and said Council has examined and considered the Engineer's Report and is satisfied with all the items contained in Engineer's Report; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley proposes to levy and collect annual assessments according to the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" of the State of California Streets and Highways Code, Division 15, Part 2, for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED as follows:
SECTION 1. That the Engineer's Report bearing the date of June 12, 2025, was prepared and filed with the City Clerk in conformity with the provisions of the State of California Streets and Highways Code, Division 15, Part 2, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 2. That the City Council approves the Engineer's Report as filed and sets a public hearing for Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the Scotts Valley City Council Chambers, 1 Civic Center Drive, in the City of Scotts Valley, California, to consider the
levy and collection of the assessment for the Skypark Open Space Maintenance Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk or designee is authorized and directed to give notice of the hearing in time, form, and manner as required by the California Streets and Highways Code, Division 15, Part 2, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 4. That the City Council declares its intention to levy upon and collect assessments at the same rate as previously established through the Skypark Open Space Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
SECTION 5. That the boundaries of the Skypark Open Space Maintenance Assessment District are described in Resolution No. 1555-SP-04.
SECTION 6. That the purposes of the District are those provided for in the Engineer's Report on file with the City Clerk.
SECTION 7. That this resolution shall be effective immediately.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of June 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Approved: ____________________________
Derek Timm, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM 9.
DATE: 6/18/2025
City of Scotts Valley
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/18/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Taylor Bateman, Community Development Director
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 16.142.1 amending Scotts Valley Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) to implement Housing Element Programs
SUMMARY OF ISSUE
On June 4, 2025, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 16.142.1, to amend Scotts Valley Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) to implement the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
FISCAL IMPACT
The action does not create a fiscal impact.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 16.142.1 to amend Scotts Valley Municipal Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) to implement the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Ordinance No. 16.142.1 Amend SV Municipal Code Title 16 and 17 to implement HE
ORDINANCE NO. 16.142.1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SCOTTS VALLEY AMENDING SCOTTS VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 16 (SUBDIVISIONS) AND TITLE 17 (ZONING) TO IMPLEMENT HOUSING ELEMENT
PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element of the General Plan (Housing Element);
WHEREAS, the Housing Element contains programs that call for the City to amend Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Code) to implement Housing Element goals and policies;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a study session on March 13, 2025 to provide preliminary input on an approach to Zoning Code Amendments to implement the Housing Element;
WHEREAS, City staff used Planning Commission input to prepare amendments to the Scotts Valley Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning), Title 16 (Subdivisions) to implement the Housing Element;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 15, 2025 at which time it considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, and at the end of the hearing voted to recommend that the City Council adopt this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this Ordinance on June 4, 2025, at which time it considered all evidence presented, both written and oral.
WHEREAS, at the public hearing on June 4, 2025, before introducing this Ordinance, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1119.37 to approve the Addendum to the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2020070330) for this Ordinance, finding, among other things, that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, and that the proposed General Plan Amendments would not result in any significant impacts not considered under the original EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Section 16.78.030, Permitting process, of Chapter 16.78, Urban lot splits, of Title 16, Subdivisions, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“16.78.030 Permitting process.
A. Parcel Map Required. A parcel map is required for all urban lot splits pursuant to Government Code Section 66411.7.
B. Eligibility. The city shall accept a parcel map application for an urban lot split only if the application complies with all of the following requirements.
1. Zoning District. The existing parcel is located in the R-1 Single-Family Residential, R-R Residential-Rural, or R-MT Residential-Mountain zoning district.
2. Existing Parcel Size. The area of the existing parcel is two thousand four hundred square feet or more.
3. Environmental Resources and Hazards. The parcel satisfies the requirements of Government Code subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4, which prohibits development on sites subject to specified environmental resources and hazards.
4. Affordable and Rental Housing. The proposed urban lot split would not require demolition or alteration of any of the types of housing identified in Government Code paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65852.21.
5. Historic Resources. The parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code.
6. No Prior Urban Lot Split.
a. The parcel was not established through a prior urban lot split. b. Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot.
C. Application Contents. A parcel map application for an urban lot split must be filed with the city on an official city application form. Applications shall be filed with all required fees, information, and materials as specified by the city.
D. Ministerial Approval. The city shall ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the application complies with all requirements of this chapter.
No public hearing or discretionary review is required.
E. Subdivision Map Act Compliance. The city shall approve an urban lot split only if it conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the subdivision map except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
F. Time Period for City Action.
1. The City shall approve or deny the urban lot split application within 60 days from the date the City receives a completed application. If the applicant requests a delay in writing, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay.
2. If the City does not approve or deny the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
G. Basis for Denial.
1. The city shall deny the urban lot split if either of the following is found:
a. The urban lot split fails to comply with any requirement in this chapter.
Any such requirement that is the basis for denial shall be specified by the city in writing.
b. The building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed subdivision would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and
determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, upon public health and safety for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
2. The city shall not deny an urban lot split solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.
3. For purposes of this chapter, "sufficient for separate conveyance" means that each attached or adjacent dwelling unit is constructed in a manner adequate to allow for the separate sale of each unit in a common interest development as defined in Civil Code Section 1351 (including a residential condominium, planned development, stock cooperative, or community apartment project), or into any other ownership type in which the dwelling units may be sold individually.
H. Comments for Denied Application.
1. If the City denies an urban lot split application, the City shall provide written comments to the applicant that list the items that are defective or deficient and describe how the application can be remedied by the applicant.
2. Written comments required by Paragraph 1 above shall be provided to the applicant within the time period described in Subsection F (Time Period for City Action) of this section.
I. Conditions of Approval.
1. Easements. The city shall condition parcel map approval on the dedication of any easements deemed necessary for the provision of public services to the proposed parcels and any easements deemed necessary for access to the public right-of-way.
2. Dedications and Improvements. The city shall not require dedications of rights- of-way or the construction of offsite improvements for the parcels being created as a condition of parcel map approval.
3. Nonconforming Zoning Conditions. The city may not require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions on the parcel a condition of parcel map approval.”
Section 2. The Table of Contents for Chapter 17.41, Housing Element Opportunity Site Combining District, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Chapter 17.41 HOUSING ELEMENT OPPORTUNITY SITE COMBINING DISTRICT
17.41.010 Purpose
17.41.020 Applicability.
17.41.030 Permitting Process
17.41.040 Permitted Uses
17.41.050 Development Standards
17.41.050 Lot Consolidation Incentives
17.41.070 Replacement Units for Non-Vacant Sites
17.41.080 Sunset”
Section 3. The Table of Contents for Chapter 17.44, General and Special Provisions, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Chapter 17.44 – GENERAL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS
17.44.020 - Commercial and industrial performance standards.
17.44.030 - Off-street parking and loading requirements.
17.44.040 - Prezoning of unincorporated territory.
17.44.050 - Underground utilities.
17.44.060 - Condominium conversions and condominiums.
17.44.070 - Mobile home park conversion regulations.
17.44.080 - Tree protection regulations.
17.44.100 - Congregate senior housing facilities.
17.44.110 - Emergency shelters.
17.44.120 - Cultural resource preservation commission.
17.44.130 - Cultural resource preservation.
17.44.140 - Historic landmark preservation.
17.44.150 - External antennae.
17.44.170 - Reserved
17.44.180 - Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards
17.44.190 – Employee Housing
17.44.200 – Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence”
Section 4. The Table of Contents for Chapter 17.55, SB 9 Residential Development, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Chapter 17.55 - SB 9 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
17.55.010 - Purpose and intent.
17.55.020 - Definitions.
17.55.030 - Permitting process.
17.55.040 - General requirements.
17.55.050 - Development standards.
17.55.060 - Objective design standards.
17.55.070 - Deed restrictions.
17.55.080 – SB 9 triplexes.”
Section 5. Section 17.04.070, "D" terms, of Chapter 17.04, Definitions, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code, is hereby amended to add the following definition to read as follows:
““Duplex” means a building that contains two dwelling units, each with its own exterior entrance. Each unit within a duplex provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.”
Section 6. Section 17.04.230, "T" terms, of Chapter 17.04, Definitions, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code, is hereby amended to add the following
definition to read as follows:
““Triplex” means a building that contains three dwelling units, each with its own exterior entrance. Each unit within a triplex provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.”
Section 7. Section 17.14.020, Permitted uses, of Chapter 17.14, R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District Regulations, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Subsection I to read as follows:
“I. Townhouses and condominiums conforming to the density requirements of this chapter located in racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA). See Section 17.44.190 (Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence).” Section 8. Subsection H of Section 17.14.030, Conditional uses, of Chapter 17.14, R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District Regulations, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“H. Townhouses and condominiums conforming to the density requirements of this chapter located outside of racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA).
See Section 17.44.190 (Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence);" Section 9. Subsection E of Section 17.20.040, Development standards, of Chapter
17.20, C-S Service Commercial Zoning District Regulations, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“E. Maximum building coverage: fifty percent;”
Section 10. Subsection E of Section 17.22.040, Development standards, of Chapter
17.22, C-SC Shopping Center Commercial Zoning District Regulations, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Maximum building coverage: fifty percent;”
Section 11. Chapter 17.41, Housing Element Opportunity Site Combining District, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“17.41.010 Purpose
The purpose of the housing element opportunity site (HE) combining district is to facilitate affordable housing production on opportunity sites identified in the General Plan 6th cycle Housing Element.
17.41.020 Applicability.
The HE combining district applies to the following parcels, where located outside of the Town Center Specific Plan area:
A. Non-vacant sites listed in General Plan 6th cycle Housing Element Table F-10:
Scotts Valley 6th cycle Candidate Sites that were Identified in 5th cycle housing elements.
B. Vacant sites listed in General Plan 6th cycle Housing Element Table F-10: Scotts Valley 6th Cycle Candidate Sites that were Identified in the 4th and 5th cycle housing elements.
C. Residential and Mixed-Use Rezone sites as listed in General Plan 6th cycle Housing Element Table F-10 and shown in Figure F-1, except for APN 023-113-31 and 022- 231-18.
17.41.030 Permitting Process
A. Affordable Housing. The following permitting requirements apply to a proposed multiple family residential development project with 20 percent or more of units affordable to lower-income households:
1. The proposed project shall be reviewed by the City through a by-right approval process. As used in this section, by-right approval means that project conformance with objective standards is the sole basis to approve or deny the application. The review authority may not consider project conformance with subjective policies or requirements when acting on the application.
2. The proposed project requires ministerial design review as provided in Section
17.50.045 (Ministerial Design Review).
3. A project that requires a subdivision map must comply with City subdivision requirements and the California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66410 – 66499.40).
B. Other Projects. For proposed development projects not specified in Subsection A (Affordable Housing) above, the permitting requirements are as otherwise required by the zoning ordinance and any applicable state law.
17.41.040 Permitted Uses
A. Residential Uses. Multifamily dwellings are a permitted use in the HE combining district, subject to the following:
1 In the Mixed-Use Rezone sites listed in General Plan 6th cycle Housing Element Table F-10, Residential uses must occupy less than 70 percent of the total gross square feet on the property.
2. On Residential Rezone sites, residential-only development (no commercial on site) is permitted.
B. Other Uses. All other permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses in the HE combining district are as specified by the base zoning.
17.41.050 Development Standards
A. Standards. Table 17.41-1 shows development standards in the HE combining district. For standards not listed in Table 17.41-1, the standards of the base zoning apply. Where a standard in Table 17.41-1 conflicts with the base zoning, Table
17.41-1 governs.
Table 17.41-1: HE Combining District Standards
Rezone Sites [1] All Other Sites [1]
Minimum Density [2] 20 du/ac 20 du/ac
Allowed Units per Site [3] No less than 16 No less than 16 Maximum Density 40 du/ac As specified by base zoning
Building Coverage 60% As specified by base zoning
Height
Stories 3 As specified by base zoning
Top Plate Height Residential only: 35 ft.
Vertical mixed use: 40 ft. [4] As specified by base zoning Roof Height
Additional 6 ft. above max.
top plate height for roof with
min. 5:12 pitch
As specified by base zoning
Notes:
[1] A “rezone site” means a Residential or Mixed Use Rezone site listed in General Plan 6th cycle Housing Element Table F-10. “All other sites” means a site in the HE combining district that is not a rezone site, except for APN 023-113-31 and 022-231-18. [2] Applies only to projects that create one or more new dwelling units. [3] The City shall allow at least 16 dwelling units on each development site regardless of lot size.
[4] Plate height greater than 35 ft. for vertical mixed-use development is permitted only if floor to ceiling height of ground floor commercial space is 12 feet or greater.
B. Deviations
1. If a development standard that applies to a site in the HE combining district physically precludes construction of the housing development at its proposed density, the applicant may request deviation from the limiting standard in accordance with policies established by the community development department.
2. The applicant must submit reasonable documentation that the existing standard physically precludes the construction of the housing development at its proposed density.
3. The deviation from the standard may be no greater than the minimum needed to achieve the proposed density.
4. For projects reviewed by the City through a by-right approval process, the Community Development Director may defer final decision on a requested deviation to the Planning Commission.
17.41.050 Lot Consolidation Incentives
A. Eligibility. The City shall grant lot consolidation incentives for development projects in the HE combining district that meet all of the following criteria:
1. The proposed project merges one or more parcels less than one-half acre in size with an adjacent parcel.
2. All proposed units are deed restricted affordable for no fewer than 55 years. a. Rental units shall be made affordable to households earning no more than 80% of the County's Area Median Income.
b. Ownership units shall be made affordable to households earning no more than 120% of AMI;
3. The proposed project complies with the minimum density standard in Table
17.41-1 (HE Combining District Standards) or any applicable specific plan as applied to the newly created parcel.
4. For mixed-use projects, residential uses occupy at least 85 percent of the project’s gross floor area.
B. Incentives. A proposed project that meets the eligibility criteria in Subsection A above is entitled to one or more of the following incentives:
1. Deviation from applicable physical development and subdivision standards as necessary to allow the proposed 100 percent affordable development project. a. Deviation from subdivision standards may not conflict with any applicable requirement in the California Subdivision Map Act.
b. The applicant must submit reasonable documentation that the existing standard precludes development of the proposed affordable housing project. The deviation from the standard may be no greater than the minimum needed to allow for the proposed project.
2. City funding and financial resources as available, including reduced or waived City fees.
3. Priority application processing and placement on public meeting agendas.
4. City technical assistance to assist with site planning, grant funding, project financing, and subdivision approvals.
17.41.070 Replacement Units for Non-Vacant Sites
A development project that eliminates existing units affordable to lower income households must replace these units with new affordable units as required in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 65915.
17.41.080 Sunset
This section shall remain in effect only until December 15, 2031, and as of that date is repealed.”
Section 12. Parking spaces required for multi-family dwellings, in Subsection F, Schedule of Off-Street Parking Space Requirements, of Section 17.44.030, Off-street parking and loading requirements, of Chapter 17.44, General and Special Provisions, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Multi-family dwellings Studio and 1 bedroom: 1 space
2 bedroom: 1.5 spaces
3+ bedroom: 2 spaces
”
Section 13. Subsection G.2 of Section 17.44.060, Condominium conversions, of Chapter 17.4, General and Special Provisions, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“2. Open space: Each unit within the project shall have an appurtenant private patio, deck, balcony, atrium or solarium with a minimum area of one hundred square feet. Such space shall be designed for the sole enjoyment of the unit owner, shall have at least two weatherproofed electrical convenience outlets and shall have a shape and size that would allow for optimum usable space.
Such space shall be at the same level as and immediately accessible from, a room within the unit. The planning commission may allow variations from the above dimensional standards where it can be shown that the required private open space meets the intent and purpose of this section.” Section 14. Sections O through S of Section 17.44.060, Condominium conversions, of Chapter 17.4, General and Special Provisions, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“O. Tenant’s Right To Purchase.
1. As provided in Government Code Section 66459, each tenant shall receive a nontransferable right of first refusal to purchase the unit.
2. The right of first refusal shall extend for 90 days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report or the beginning of sales, whichever is later.
P. Tenant Relocation Assistance.
1. Relocation and Assistance Plan.
a. The subdivider shall submit a tenant relocation and assistance plan with the Use Permit and Tentative Map or Tentative Parcel Map application for the condominium conversion.
b. The plan shall include the information consistent with the State of California Relocation Assistance Act (Government Code Sections 7260 – 7277) and the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Policies for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs Act (United States Code Title 42, Chapter 61) as well as those additional provisions in Subparagraphs 2 to 5 below.
2. Rent Freeze.
a. Upon notification of intent to convert, the then-current rents shall remain in effect for up to 12 months or until the conversion process has been completed or terminated.
b. If approval of the Tentative Map or Tentative Parcel Map is still pending at the end of 12 months, the freeze shall apply for another 12 months, allowing for an increase based on the rental component of the Consumer Price Index.
c. During such period as any rent freeze is in effect, 30-day eviction notices shall be issued only where a clear breach of the rental agreement exists.
3. Moving Allowance.
a. Persons who are tenants at the time of the initial notice to convert the project shall be offered a minimum moving allowance of two times the monthly rent in effect at the time the tenant elects to move. b. Such allowance shall be payable only after City approval of the Use Permit and Tentative Map or Tentative Parcel Map. Payment to the tenant shall be within 14 days after the tenant vacates the premises.
4. Extended Leases. Tenants who have been displaced from previous conversions of apartments to condominiums in Scotts Valley during the last five years shall be offered a three-year lease from the date of the initial offering of units for sale to the public.
5. Other Tenant Situations. Any non-purchasing tenant who is disabled or has minor children in school or is age 62 or older, living in any unit prior to the time a completed Use Permit and Tentative Map or Tentative Parcel Map application has been accepted as complete by the City shall be given at least six months in which to find suitable replacement housing.
Q. Pest Infestation and Dry Rot Report. The developer shall, prior to approval of the final map, submit to the planning department a copy of the structural pest infestation and dry rot report for all buildings within the proposed project. This report shall be made available to all prospective buyers by the developer.
Any and all actual structural damage shall be repaired or financial provision made for appropriate repair within a specific time period, prior to the approval of final map or properly bonded under the Subdivision Map Act.
R. Effect On Housing Stock. In reviewing requests for conversion of existing apartment buildings to condominiums, the city shall consider the following:
1. Whether the amount and impact of the displacement of tenants would be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community;
2. The role that the apartment structure plays in the existing rental housing market;
3. The effect of the conversion on the need and demand for low-cost housing (both rental and ownership housing).
In no case shall apartment conversions be allowed if the rental vacancy rate is below four percent, as determined by the planning department.
S. Advertising. The developer shall make no advertising use of any city approval of use, subdivision or occupancy for the project.
T. Required Findings. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.1 as it presently exists or may hereafter be amended, approval of the final map of a conversion of residential real property to a condominium project shall be withheld unless the city council makes all findings required by that section and further finds that:
1. The proposed conversion will not have an adverse effect on the diversity of housing types available in the city.
2. The proposed conversion will not displace a significant percentage of tenants and deplete low-income and moderate- income rental units from the city's housing stock at a time when no equivalent condominium housing is readily available in the city.
3. The proposed conversion would not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community and is consistent with the city's General Plan, particularly the housing element.
4. The overall design and construction of the development meets the standards outlined herein.
U. Appeals. Any person who is dissatisfied with any decision made by the planning commission may appeal the same in accordance with the procedures established in Section 17.50.060 of this title.”
Section 15. New Section 17.44.190, Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, is hereby added to Chapter 17.44, General and Special Provisions, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code, to read as follows:
“17.44.190 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence.
A. Purpose. This section implements General Plan 6th cycle Housing Element programs to affirmatively further fair housing by taking actions to overcome patterns of segregation and increase access to opportunities for all residents.
B. Applicability. The provisions in this section apply to racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA) as identified in 6th cycle Housing Element Figure E-4a.
C. Missing Middle Conversions. Within RCAA, an existing single-family dwelling may be converted into a duplex or a triplex subject to the following:
1. The lot must conform to zoning district minimum lot area standard.
2. The lot may contain only one existing dwelling unit.
3. The conversion may only use existing living area in the primary dwelling.
Conversion of accessory structures is not permitted.
4. A minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet is required per unit. 5 A triplex is permitted only on lots with an average slope of less than 25 percent.
6. Conversions are not permitted on lot with an existing accessory dwelling unit.
7. The conversion may not be combined with an SB 9 residential development project or urban lot split (Chapters 17.55 and 16.78).
8. Off-street parking spaces must be provided as follows:
a. One space for a studio or one-bedroom unit.
b. Two spaces for a unit with two bedrooms or more.
9. Parking spaces may not be in the required front yard. The conversion may not add or enlarge an existing driveway curb cut.
10. Dwelling units must be connected to the municipal water and sewer system.
D. SB 9 Triplexes. An existing single-family home in RCAA zoned R-1 may be converted into an SB9 triplex if one or more new units on the site are deed restricted affordable. See Section 17.55.080 (SB 9 triplexes).
E. Condominiums and Townhomes. Within RCAA, townhouses and condominiums in the R-1 zoning district are a permitted use. See Section 17.14.020 (Permitted uses).”
Section 16. Section 17.55.030, Permitting process, of Chapter 17.55, SB 9 Residential Development, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“17.55.030 Permitting process.
A. Building Permit. An SB 9 residential development requires city approval of a building permit.
B. Ministerial Approval. The city shall ministerially approve a building permit for an SB 9 residential development if the application complies with all requirements of this chapter. No public hearing or discretionary review is required.
C. Urban Lot Splits. An SB 9 residential development that includes an urban lot split requires city approval of a parcel map pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 16.78 (Urban Lot Splits).
D. Eligibility. The city shall accept an application for an SB 9 residential development only if the project complies with the following requirements.
1. Zoning District. The development is located in the R-1 Single-Family Residential, R-R Residential-Rural, or R-MT Residential-Mountain zoning district.
2. Compliance with Chapter. The development complies with all applicable requirements of this chapter.
3. Environmental Resources and Hazards. The development satisfies the requirements of Government Code subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4, which prohibits development on sites subject to specified environmental resources and hazards.
4. Affordable and Rental Housing. The development will not require demolition or alteration of any of the types of housing identified in Government Code paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65852.21.
5. Historic Resources. The development is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1.
E. Time Period for City Action.
1. The City shall approve or deny the building permit application within 60 days from the date the City receives a completed application. If the applicant requests a delay in writing, the 60-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay.
2. If the City does not approve or deny the completed application within 60 days, the application shall be deemed approved.
F. Basis for Denial.
1. The city shall deny an application for an SB 9 residential development if either of the following is found:
a. The development fails to comply with any requirement in this chapter. Any such requirement that is the basis for denial shall be specified by the city in writing.
b. The city's building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
2. The city shall not deny an SB 9 residential development solely because it conflicts with the city's density limitations for the applicable zoning district.
G. Comments for Denied Application.
1. If the City denies an application for an SB 9 residential development, the City shall provide written comments to the applicant that list the items that are defective or deficient and describe how the application can be remedied by the applicant.
2. Written comments required by Paragraph 1 above shall be provided to the applicant within the time period described in Subsection B (Time Period for City Action) of this section.”
Section 17. Section 17.55.050, Development standards, of Chapter 17.55, SB 9 Residential Development, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“17.55.050 Development standards.
A. Building Height.
1. For an SB 9 residential development that complies with the minimum yard requirements of the applicable zoning district and combining district, the maximum building height is twenty-five feet.
2. For an SB 9 residential development that does not comply with the minimum yard requirements of the applicable zoning district and combining district, the maximum building height is sixteen feet.
B. Unit Size.
1. For an SB 9 residential development that complies with the minimum yard requirements of the applicable zoning district and combining district, the maximum unit size is one thousand two hundred fifty square feet per unit.
2. For an SB 9 residential development that does not comply with the minimum yard requirements of the applicable zoning district and combining district, the maximum unit size is eight hundred square feet per unit.
C. Yards.
1. Minimum yards for an SB 9 residential development are as follows:
a. Front: As required in the applicable zoning district
b. Side: Four feet, except that no yard is required for a new side lot line shared between two parcels created through an urban lot split. c. Rear: Four feet.
2. As provided in A and B above, an SB 9 residential development that complies with the minimum yard requirement for a single-family dwelling in the applicable zoning district is eligible for greater building height and unit size than is allowed for SB9 residential development that does not comply with the zoning district minimum yard requirement.
3. Notwithstanding Paragraph 1 above, no setback is required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
D. Separation Between Dwelling Units.
1. No minimum separation is required between dwelling units on a parcel if the structures meet building code safety standards.
2. Dwelling units may be connected if the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow a separate conveyance.
3. For purposes of this chapter, "sufficient for separate conveyance" means that each attached or adjacent dwelling unit is constructed in a manner adequate to allow for the separate sale of each unit in a common interest development as defined in Civil Code Section 1351 (including a residential condominium, planned development, stock cooperative, or community apartment project), or into any other ownership type in which the dwelling units may be sold individually.
E. Parking.
1. Required Parking. A minimum of one off-street parking space is required per dwelling unit except as provided in Paragraph 2 below.
2. Exceptions to Required Parking. No off-street parking is required in the following cases:
a. The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a highquality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
b. There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. A car share vehicle means a motor vehicle that is operated as part of a regional fleet by a public or private car sharing company or organization that meet all the following criteria:
(1) Provides hourly or daily service;
(2) Vehicle reservations are processed and paid for using an on-line system;
(3) Vehicles can be accessed where they are parked without having to go to a different physical location to execute a contract and/or pick up the keys; and
(4) Fleet has more than five cars in Scotts Valley and more than twenty cars in Santa Cruz County.
3. Location on Lot. As required by Section 17.44.030(J), driveways and parking spaces shall not proportionately occupy more than three hundred square feet for each ten feet of required front yard setback.
4. Garages. Required parking spaces may be uncovered for an SB 9 project with two or fewer new units, including accessory dwelling units. Required parking shall be in a garage for the third or fourth unit in an SB 9 project. ”
Section 18. Section 17.55.060, Objective design standards, of Chapter 17.55, SB 9 Residential Development, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“17.55.060 Objective design standards.
An SB 9 residential development that creates two or more new primary dwelling units shall comply with the Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards, which are adopted by City Council resolution and may be amended from time to time. ”
Section 19. New Section 17.55.080, SB 9 triplexes, is hereby added to Chapter 17.55, SB 9 Residential Development, of Title 17, Zoning, of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code, to read as follows:
“17.55.080 SB 9 triplexes.
A. When Allowed. Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter, an existing single-family dwelling may be converted into an SB 9 development with three units (SB 9 triplex) if:
1. The existing single-family dwelling is on a parcel in the R-1 zoning district and in racially concentrated area of affluence (see Section 17.44.190); and
2. One or more of the SB9 triplex units are deed restricted affordable to households earning no more than 80% of the County's Area Median Income.
B. Standards. An SB 9 triplex shall comply with the following standards:
1. The floor area of the third unit shall not exceed 800 square feet.
2. The third unit must comply with minimum yard requirements for single-family dwellings in the R-1 zoning district.
3. The third unit is allowed only as a modification to an existing single-family dwelling. The third unit may not be created as a structure detached from the existing single-family dwelling.
4. The third unit may be created by adding new floor area to the existing singlefamily dwelling.
5. An SB 9 triplex is not allowed on a lot created through an SB 9 urban lot split.” Section 20. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY. The Municipal Code amendments are consistent with the General Plan. The Municipal Code amendments are adopted for the specific purpose of implementing programs in the Housing Element and bringing the City’s Municipal Code into conformance with the General Plan. The City has committed in the Housing Element to complete these Municipal Code amendments by the end of 2025.
Section 21. CEQA COMPLIANCE. An Addendum to the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2020070330) (EIR) was prepared for the Municipal Code amendments in accordance with Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The EIR Addendum demonstrates that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, and that the Municipal Code amendments would not result in any significant impacts not considered under the original EIR.
Section 22. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 23. To the extent the provisions of the Scotts Valley Municipal Code as amended by this Ordinance are substantially the same as the provisions of that Code as they read immediately prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, then those provisions shall be construed as continuations of the earlier provisions and not as new enactments.
Section 24. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption.
Section 25. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause a summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of adoption and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.
This Ordinance was introduced on the 4th day of June, 2025, and passed and adopted on the 18th day of June, 2025, at a duly held meeting of the City Council of the City of Scotts Valley by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ______________________________
Derek Timm, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
AGENDA ITEM 10.
DATE: 6/18/2025
City of Scotts Valley
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/18/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approve agreement with Good City Company for Town Center Specific Plan update
SUMMARY OF ISSUE
In 2022, the City entered into a contract with Good City Company for planning and project management-related services to prepare the Town Center for future development. As part of that work, Good City staff met regularly with staff and the Town Center Subcommittee, reviewed and inventoried items that need to be reevaluated in the 2008 Specific Plan, assisted with applying for grant funds for pre-development work which resulted in a $175,000 award from the REAP 2.0 competitive grant program, assisted with the selection of architectural consultants, assisted with interviewing environmental consultants, developed a community outreach plan, coordinated meetings with various stakeholders, and presented updates to the City Council. This agreement is scheduled to end June 30, 2025. A new agreement for the 2025-2026 fiscal year will allow Good City Company to update the Town Center Specific Plan, manage the environmental review process, assist the City in developing and processing an RFP to select a future development partner and other related services.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact associated with this agreement is not to exceed $150,000 and is being funded by the general fund. However, if grant funds become available, the City will leverage grant funds to minimize the impact on the general fund and all general fund expenditures related to the Town Center pre-development activity is being tracked for future cost recovery when the Town Center is developed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve othe Professional Services Agreement between the City of Scotts Valley and Good City Company and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Good City Prof Services Agreement 6-18-2025
ProfServicesAgmTemplate2025
1 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement for Professional Services (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of July 1, 2025, by and between the City of Scotts Valley, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Good City Company, hereinafter referred to as “CONSULTANT”.
RECITALS
A. CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT for certain professional services as set forth in this Agreement.
B. CONSULTANT is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement.
C. CONSULTANT possesses the skill, ability, background, certification, and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual promises contained herein, CITY and CONSULTANT agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Employment of CONSULTANT: CITY agrees to, and hereby does, retain and employ CONSULTANT to perform the professional services as outlined in the Scope of Work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”. CONSULTANT’S work product shall be performed pursuant to generally accepted standards of practice in effect at the time of performance.
2. Responsible Personnel: CITY has relied upon the professional training and ability of CONSULTANT to perform the services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Primary personnel responsible for the completion of the work described in this Agreement shall be: Aaron Aknin, AICP Principal, Good City Company, whose address is 601 Allerton Street, Suite 110, Redwood City, CA 94063; telephone (415) 845-8344; email: [email protected].
3. Scope of Work: CONSULTANT shall perform the services as specified in Exhibit
ProfServicesAgmTemplate2025
2 A in a professional manner. To the extent there is a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the terms of this Agreement shall control.
4. Time of Performance: The services of CONSULTANT are to commence upon execution of this Agreement and shall continue until all authorized work is approved by the CITY. All such work shall be completed no later than June 30, 2026. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. No waiver by either party hereto of the nonperformance or any breach of any term, provision, or condition of this Agreement, or any default hereunder shall be considered to be or operate as a waiver of any subsequent nonperformance, breach, or default.
5. Compensation: CONSULTANT shall accept compensation for services performed as set forth in Section 3 in an amount not to exceed $150,000. Periodic payments to CONSULTANT shall be made upon submittal of invoices by CONSULTANT to CITY for review and approval by the City Manager. Invoices will be paid by CITY within a reasonable time after the invoices are received and approved.
6. Insurance: CONSULTANT agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the Agreement, the following minimum insurance requirements. Prior to the execution of the Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide proof of insurance required. Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall furnish the CITY with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive CONSULTANT’s obligation to provide them.
The CITY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit
ProfServicesAgmTemplate2025
3 applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 05 09 or 25 04 05 09) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, covering hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits.
4. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions): As appropriate to CONSULTANT’s services, and not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence.
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
The City of Scotts Valley, its Council Members, elected and appointed officers, agents and employees shall be named as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Independent Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Independent Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
For any claims related to this Agreement, CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage (at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13) with respect to the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or selfinsurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
CONSULTANT hereby grants to CITY a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said CONSULTANT may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. CONSULTANT agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the CITY has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
ProfServicesAgmTemplate2025
4 CONSULTANT shall require the insurer to provide CITY with 30-day prior notice of termination or material change in coverage and ten (10) days prior notice of cancellation for non-payment.
7. Indemnity: CONSULTANT shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend CITY, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, servants, volunteers, and employees from and against any and all claims, costs, damages, liability, losses, or suits (including court costs and attorney fees) for personal injury (including death), property damage and any other damages of any sort whatsoever, arising out of, or alleged to have arisen out of, the willful or negligent acts, errors, or omissions of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT'S contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in the performance of this Agreement. This indemnity shall not apply to any claims brought by CONSULTANT for default of this Agreement, or for claims brought by CITY or any third party where the underlying injury or damage is finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to arise solely from the negligent or willful misconduct of CITY.
For design professionals (as that term is defined by statute) acting within the scope of their professional capacity, to the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall, at its own expense, indemnify, protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the CITY) and hold harmless any Indemnified Parties from and against any and all Liability, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, or as may be provided by statute in Civil Code § 2782.8, as may be amended from time to time.
CONSULTANT’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless as set forth in this section shall include the duty to defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the CITY) as set forth in California Civil Code § 2778. The CONSULTANT’s responsibility to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties under this section shall not extend to the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. This section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
8. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by the CITY immediately for cause or by either party without cause upon fifteen days’ written notice of termination.
Upon termination, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for services performed up to the effective date of termination.
CONSULTANT shall accept, for itself, as full payment for services rendered and all work to be done and performed hereunder and in complete satisfaction of all claims
ProfServicesAgmTemplate2025
5 against CITY by reason of voluntary abandonment or suspension of work or termination of the Agreement, the sum determined on an hourly basis in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, or any modification of amendment thereto, plus all direct expenses incurred, including those expenses incurred which are directly attributable to the incomplete portion of the work which could not be canceled.
In the event of termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver as a condition to the payment of the compensation provided for above, or otherwise make available to CITY, all research data, reports, estimates, summaries, and other such information and materials as may have been accumulated by CONSULTANT in performing this Agreement, whether completed or in process in accordance with Section 9 of this Agreement.
9. Documents: Notes, studies, chain, computations, electronic files, and other data and information obtained by CONSULTANT for this project shall, upon receipt of payment for services rendered, be made available to CITY by CONSULTANT at CITY'S request and shall become the property of CITY. In the event CITY alters the document, CITY agrees CONSULTANT shall have no responsibility whatsoever for any claim arising out of, or alleged to have risen out of, use of the altered document.
All plans, studies, documents, charts, computations, and electronic files prepared by and for CONSULTANT, its officers, employees and agents and subcontractors in the course of implementing this Agreement, except working notes and internal documents, shall become the property of the CITY upon payment to CONSULTANT for such work, and the CITY shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to CONSULTANT or to any other party. CONSULTANT shall, at CONSULTANT’S expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents, and other writings to CITY upon written request.
10. Independent Contractor: CONTRACTOR is an independent contractor retained by CITY to perform the work described herein. ALL personnel employed by CONSULTANT are not and shall not be deemed to be employees of CITY.
CONSULTANT shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits that accrue to CITY’S employees, and CONSULTANT hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to such rights. CONSULTANT shall comply with all state and federal laws pertaining to employment and compensation of its employees and its agents, including the provision of Workers' Compensation.
11. Licenses: CONSULTANT represents and warrants to CITY that it has all licenses,
ProfServicesAgmTemplate2025
6 permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required of CONSULTANT to practice its profession. CONSULTANT represents and warrants to CITY that CONSULTANT shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals which are legally required of CONSULTANT to practice its profession.
CONSULTANT shall maintain a City of Scotts Valley business license.
12. CITY Not Obligated to Third Parties; Subcontractors; Oversight. The CITY shall not be obligated or liable for payment hereunder to any party other than the CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall ensure the following requirements are satisfied in the performance of the Agreement with respect to its own employees:
A. Workers’ Compensation. CONSULTANT certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the California Labor Code which require every employee to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and CONSULTANT certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing performance of the Agreement and at all times in the performance of the Agreement.
B. Prevailing Wage. CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT’s subconsultants (if any) shall, to the extent required by the California Labor Code, pay not less than the latest prevailing wage rates to workers and professionals as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California pursuant to California Labor Code, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2. Copies of the applicable wage determination shall be available on file at the CITY’s office of the City Clerk.
C. Injury and Illness Prevention Program. CONSULTANT certifies that it is aware of and has complied with the provisions of California Labor Code § 6401.7, which requires every employer to adopt a written injury and illness prevention program.
D. CONSULTANT shall pay all taxes, assessments and premiums under the federal Social Security Act, any applicable unemployment insurance contributions, Workers Compensation insurance premiums, sales taxes, use taxes, personal property taxes, or other taxes or assessments now or hereafter in effect and payable by reason of or in connection with the services to be performed by CONSULTANT.
The CITY is not responsible or liable for CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with any and all of its requirements under this section and Agreement.
ProfServicesAgmTemplate2025
7 13. Political Reform Act Economic Interests. If CITY determines CONSULTANT comes within the definition of CONSULTANT under the Political Reform Act (Government Code §87100), CONSULTANT shall complete and file and shall require any other person doing work under this Agreement to complete and file a “Statement of Economic Interest” with the Clerk of the City of Scotts Valley disclosing CONSULTANT and/or such other person’s financial interests.
14. Assignment: The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to CITY for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience, and competence of CONSULTANT. Assignments of any or all rights, duties, or obligations of the CONSULTANT under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of the CITY. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the written authorization of the CITY. If the CITY consents to such subcontract, CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between CITY and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of the CITY to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such contractor other than as otherwise required by law.
15. Binding on Successors: This Agreement is binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
16. Amendment: This Agreement may be amended, modified, or changed by the parties, provided that said Agreement, modification or change is in writing and approved by the authorized representative of the parties.
17. Applicable Law and Attorney's Fees: This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of Santa Cruz. Should any legal action be brought by a party for breach of this Agreement or to enforce any provision of the Agreement, the prevailing party of such action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including attorney fees.
18. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no representations, agreements, or understandings. Whether oral or written, between or among the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully expressed herein. The drafting and negotiation of this Agreement have been participated in by each of the parties and/or their counsel, and for all purposes this Agreement shall be deemed to have been
ProfServicesAgmTemplate2025
8 drafted jointly by all parties.
17. Waiver: Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this agreement.
19. Severability: If any term or portion of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement is executed by CITY and by CONSULTANT on this 18th day of June 2025, at Scotts Valley, California.
CONSULTANT: CITY:
GOOD CITY COMPANY CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY
_____________________________ _____________________________ By: Aaron Aknin, AICP Principal Mali LaGoe, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ _____________________________ Kirsten M. Powell, City Attorney Cathie Simonovich, City Clerk
ProfServicesAgmTemplate2025
9 EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF WORK
Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 1
SCOTTS VALLEY TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
Scope of Work – May 28, 2025
TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.1 Project Management/Administration
GCC will provide administration of the project including project management, biweekly meetings with City staff, coordination and management of third-party consultants, etc.
1.2 City Council Subcommittee Meetings
GCC will attend meetings via Zoom with the City Council Town Center Subcommittee, on a time and materials basis.
TASK 2: SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
2.1 Admin Draft of Updated Specific Plan
GCC will provide comprehensive updates and revisions to the existing specific plan to reflect the Preferred Vision as reviewed by the City Council in December 2024. Several needs and opportunities have been identified for updating the Town Center Specific Plan based on Good City’s analysis of the plan’s framework and applicability, impacts of State housing laws, and physical changes in the project area. The revisions will include an update of the Preferred Land Use Plan, Circulation Plan, development standards, objective design standards, architectural guidelines, demographics, market conditions, and community engagement. This task will result in an administrative draft of the revised Specific Plan, which will be provided in Word document format with preliminary Plan figures provided separately.
2.2 Screencheck Draft of Updated Specific Plan
GCC will draft a screencheck draft of the updated Specific Plan, based on one consolidated round of comments from City staff on the administrative draft Plan. This version of the plan will be provided in InDesign and will include figures and photographs.
EXHIBIT A
Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 2
2.3 Public Draft of Updated Specific Plan
GCC will draft a public draft of the updated Specific Plan, based on one consolidated round of comments from City staff on the administrative draft Plan. This task assumes only minor, clerical revisions based on staff comments.
Task 2 assumptions:
» Urban Field Studio (UFS) will provide revised site plans/diagrams and plan graphics » Ben Noble will provide draft and final objective design standards » Demographic data will be drawn from the 2023-2031 Scotts Valley Housing Element » Market conditions will be drawn from Citywide Retail Market Analysis (Gibbs Planning Group), April 2021.
TASK 3: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
3.1 Draft EIR and Technical Report Review
GCC will review the first admin draft, second admin draft, and public Draft EIR provided by David J Powers & Associates (DJP&A) for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). GCC will review the draft and final technical reports for transportation and utilities produced by CEQA subconsultants for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
3.2 EIR Circulation and SB 18 / AB 52 Coordination
GCC will provide assistance in the circulation of DEIR and FEIR documents, as well as assistance with and coordination for consultation conducted by David J Powers and Chronicle Heritage under SB 18 and AB 52.
3.3 Final EIR Comments and Document Review
GCC will review public comments received for the DEIR and review the draft of the Final EIR (FEIR) and MMRP. GCC will assist with response to comments received, as pertains to GCC’s planning expertise.
Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 3
TASK 4: ADOPTION
4.1 Planning Commission Public Hearings (2)
GCC will attend two meetings with the Planning Commission as part of the adoption process. The first Planning Commission hearing on the Town Center Specific Plan will be a study session to introduce the proposed amendments, allowing staff and GCC to present an overview of the revised land use plan, urban form standards, and key regulatory updates. The hearing will focus on how the Preferred Land Use Plan has evolved to reflect changes in market conditions, state housing laws, and community input. There will also be a presentation on proposed updates to architectural design standards, ensuring compliance with state-mandated objective standards to create a more predictable and streamlined development approval process.
The second Planning Commission meeting will review proposed changes suggested during the Council study session, as well as focus on the EIR. DJP&A will present key findings from studies assessing traffic impacts, air quality, noise, biological resources, and infrastructure capacity, ensuring that potential environmental issues are adequately addressed and mitigated. The meeting will conclude with further public testimony and Planning Commission deliberation, leading to a formal recommendation on the Specific Plan Update for City Council consideration.
GCC will prepare the first draft of the staff reports, for staff review and finalization. GCC will prepare the first draft of exhibits, PowerPoint presentations, and public notices related to these meetings.
4.2 City Council Study Session
GCC will attend a study session with the City Council to review the updates to the specific plan and recommendations from the Planning Commission. This meeting will include a comprehensive presentation by GCC and City staff, outlining the changes to the plan suggested from the Planning Commission. In addition, the City Council will discuss the findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), with DJP&A presenting a summary of the technical reports addressing potential impacts on traffic, air quality, noise, and other environmental factors.
In the meeting, the City Council will be asked to provide direction on any changes to the specific plan, so that the plan will be ready to be adopted at the subsequent public hearing.
GCC will prepare the first draft of the staff report, for staff review and finalization. GCC will prepare the draft and final exhibits, PowerPoint presentations, and public notices.
Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 4
4.3 Final Specific Plan Revisions
GCC will prepare minor revisions to the Specific Plan document as directed by staff and the City Council after the study session conducted under Task 4.2.
4.4 City Council Public Adoption Hearings
GCC will attend up to two public hearings where the City Council will consider certification of the EIR and adoption of the plan. Prior to the hearings, all revisions will have been incorporated into the plan. It is assumed that the Zoning Code Update will be adopted by ordinance, and therefore there will be two public hearings: the first for first reading, and the second for adoption.
4.5 Zoning Code Update and General Plan Amendment
GCC will provide assistance in the preparation of resolutions, ordinances, TASK 5 POST-ADOPTION SUPPORT
5.1 RFP Support
GCC will review the draft RFP document prepared by the City and will attend the Cityled interview panel (with one staff member) to evaluate developer responses to the RFP.
5.2 Additional On-Call Assistance
GCC will provide additional planning support after Specific Plan adoption at the City’s discretion.
Proposed Budget
Good City proposes a budget of $150,000 for the work outlined in this scope of work.
Billing will be on a time-and-materials basis, with the total cost not-to-exceed $150,000.
Projected hours for each individual working on the project are outlined in the table below.
Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 5
Good City Company | www.goodcityco.com 6
Proposed Timeline
Good City has prepared a timeline to have the Town Center Specific Plan Update adopted by the end of 2025, consistent with Housing Element Program H-1.1:
2025
Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec Specific Plan Update
Reformat existing specific plan
Plan revisions
Environmental Review (+/- 53 Weeks)
Scoping, Project Description, NOP, Technical Reports
Draft EIR (DEIR) (45-day review period)
Final EIR (FEIR)
Adoption
Planning Commission Scoping Session
Planning Commission Study Session
Planning Commission Public Hearing - Recommendation
City Council Study Session
City Council Public Hearing
David J Powers
Public Hearing
Good City/Urban Field/City Staff
AGENDA ITEM 1.
DATE: 6/18/2025
City of Scotts Valley
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: 6/18/2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
APPROVED: Mali LaGoe, City Manager
SUBJECT: Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Feasibility Analysis Presentation
SUMMARY OF ISSUE
The City of Scotts Valley is evaluating the use of a special purpose financing district such as an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD) to capture value from potential new development (e.g., Town Center) to fund critical infrastructure needs and community investment priorities (without adding or increasing taxes). The City retained consulting firm Kosmont Companies, who has led financing district evaluation and implementation across the State, to assist.
Various alternatives of EIFD boundaries, taxing entity partnerships (e.g., with County and/or Fire District), and revenue allocation levels have been evaluated. EIFD tax increment financing (TIF) capacity is estimated to range up to $65M on a present-value basis. While a City-only financing district strategy would likely achieve favorable “return on investment” for the City, a broader partnership including the County of Santa Cruz and/or the Fire District would further improve financial feasibility. In addition to the EIFD funding capacity, the EIFD would elevate the City’s ability to attract other public funding, particularly state and federal grants.
Subject to feedback from City staff and City Council, immediate next steps could include outreach to the County and Fire District to discuss potential EIFD partnership. If the City Council ultimately decides to proceed with EIFD implementation (at a future date), it is estimated that the EIFD formation process could be completed in the first half of calendar year 2026.
II. EIFD BACKGROUND
As a result of the elimination of Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) in California, cities and counties lost the primary TIF tool to invest in infrastructure and public facilities supporting economic development. In 2014, SB 628 created a new TIF tool called the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), which has since become the predominant form of TIF used by cities and counties in California today (over 30 EIFDs formed in the State).
EIFDs aid cities and counties in funding public facilities and other public investments to
catalyze and support economic development. By capturing a portion of the growth of property values within the EIFD boundary as new development and investment occurs, a portion of future property tax increment revenue is directed from the City and/or County to the EIFD fund.
Importantly, the establishment of an EIFD does not increase property taxes or any other taxes for landowners within or outside the EIFD boundaries.
Benefits of EIFDs are that the commitment alone of future funding has proven to be catalytic for private sector investment, which creates or accelerates development that would not happen otherwise, but for the commitment of future funding. Additionally, EIFD allows cities to attract other funding that would otherwise not be available for City public improvements, such as County matching funds or state grants that award higher scoring for cities that implement tools such as EIFD.
There are over 30 EIFDs formed within the State as of the date of this staff report, and dozens of other EIFDs are in process of formation statewide, including an EIFD currently in the formation process in the City of Santa Cruz.
Potential Scotts Valley Boundaries
Draft EIFD boundaries have been evaluated by City staff and Kosmont based on opportunity sites for new development or rehabilitation, including Housing Element opportunity sites. Two primary boundary alternatives were evaluated:
1. Town Center area only
2. Town Center and other opportunity sites Citywide
The larger boundary alternative evaluation totals approximately 236 acres, or approximately 8% of the City in terms of acreage (approximately 4% of the total existing assessed value
within the City).
The boundaries are not required by law to be contiguous, and the draft boundaries seek to focus on areas with highest potential for future increases in assessed value, while not encumbering other areas, so that the General Fund can continue to receive the vast majority of future property tax.
Very importantly, since there are no new or increased taxes as part of EIFD implementation, landowners, residents, and businesses within the boundary are not negatively financially impacted in any case. Also importantly, funding generated within the EIFD boundaries can be spent flexibly across EIFD areas and also outside of the EIFD.
Projects Eligible for funding by EIFD
Pursuant to State law, EIFDs are authorized to fund infrastructure and public facilities of community significance, with a useful life of 15 years or more, including maintenance costs.
Example types of eligible projects discussed by City staff and Kosmont include the following:
• Town Center blended-use supportive infrastructure
• Water and sewer improvements
• Mount Hermon and Granite Creek roadway interchanges
• Affordable housing gap financing
• City facilities
• Fire facilities
Given that EIFDs are a long-term funding tool, the list of eligible projects included in the ultimate guiding document, the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP), is typically kept broad and flexible.
Funding Capacity and Taxing Entity Partnerships
Kosmont estimates EIFD funding capacity up to approximately $65 million on a present-value basis over a potential EIFD lifetime of approximately 50 years. In the first five years of the EIFD, funding capacity is estimated up to $8.6 million. In the first 10 years, funding capacity is estimated at up to $24 million. EIFD funding is anticipated to be accessed on an ongoing basis as revenues are generated annually and additionally through potential issuance of bonds, once EIFD revenues have grown to a sufficient level to support bond financing.
The figures above reflect an allocation of up to 50% of the City’s share of future property tax increment within the EIFD boundary, and the figures reflect the potential of achieving partnership with either or both the County of Santa Cruz and/or the Fire Protection District for “matching” contributions. While a City-only financing district strategy would likely achieve favorable “return on investment” for the City General Fund (while also encouraging housing production and job creation), another primary purpose of these tools is to attract other funding, such as matching funds from other taxing entities and grant funds (scoring for grants is improved by these financing districts).
Governance
Implementation of an EIFD requires the creation of a new governing entity, known as the EIFD Public Financing Authority, or “PFA”. If the City implements an EIFD without a partnership, the PFA would be comprised of:
• Three (3) members of the City Council
• Two (2) members of the public appointed by the City Council.
In a scenario where the City partners with another taxing entity such as the County or Fire District, the suggested PFA composition based on the EIFD statute and other EIFDs across the State would be five (5) members, including:
• Two (2) members of the City Council
• One (1) member of the County Board of Supervisors or Fire District Board • One (1) member of the public appointed by the City Council • One (1) member of the public appointed by the County Board of Supervisors or Fire District Board.
If both the County and Fire District partner with the City, the City may choose to expand the PFA to include additional members, so long as the majority of PFA members are elected officials from one of the participating entities, and so long as there are at least two members of the public. It is typical for the PFA to adopt Bylaws to govern term limits, Chair/Vice Chair designation, regularity of meetings, and other administrative functions.
The PFA is authorized to carry out the activities of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) approved by the City Council and legislative bodies of other partner entities (e.g., disbursing funding for approved projects). Minor amendments to the IFP (e.g., updates to revenue projections) can be managed by the PFA, while major amendments (e.g., adding new projects to be funded, increasing revenue allocation levels) must separately be approved by the City Council and legislative bodies of other partner entities.
EIFD General Fund Impacts
While implementation of an EIFD would not encumber any existing resources from the City, it would indeed allocate a portion of future property tax generated within the boundaries of the EIFD. It is therefore required as part of the EIFD implementation to prepare a more detailed fiscal impact analysis for each participating taxing entity as part of the potential implementation process. The analysis would consider, at a minimum, whether the general fund can “afford” to make the property tax increment allocation to the EIFD, and more strategically, to what extent the general fund can realize a positive “return on investment” by participating in the EIFD.
Based on Kosmont experience in other jurisdictions, an allocation in the range of 25% to 50% for EIFDs of similar size (less than 10% of the City’s acreage and less than 5% of the City’s existing assessed value) typically supports a positive General Fund fiscal impact and “return on investment”, while also potentially recruiting County and/or Fire District match dollars that would otherwise not be available for public improvement projects within the City. This does not include the additional potential grant funding that could be recruited with the assistance of the EIFD.
Potential Next Steps and Timing
Subject to feedback from City Council members, immediate next steps could include outreach to County and/or Fire District staff and elected officials to discuss potential partnership.
If Council ultimately desired to implement an EIFD, the district formation process pursuant to State EIFD law would require approximately eight (8) to ten (10) months to complete, including five (5) to eight (8) public meetings and hearings of the City Council, newly-formed Public Financing Authority (PFA), and potentially County Board of Supervisors and/or Fire District Board (if the County and/or Fire District is a partner).
Public information is an important part of the EIFD formation process. A web page would be developed that would serve as a resource for interested stakeholders. Landowners and residents within the EIFD boundaries would also receive mailed notifications of public meetings and hearings throughout the formation process, and public hearings would additionally be advertised via local newspaper. In the event of a majority protest by property owners or residents within the boundaries, the formation proceedings would be discontinued.
Target Date Task
Q1-Q3 2025 a) Conduct outreach/discussion among City staff and Council, County staff and Board of Supervisors, Fire District staff and Board, other relevant stakeholders
b) Final determination of EIFD boundaries, targeted projects, governing Public Financing Authority (PFA) Board composition
July – Sept 2025 c) Participating taxing agencies adopt Resolution(s) of Intention (ROI) and formally establish PFA
September 2025 d) PFA directs the drafting of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) October 2025 e) Distribute draft IFP to property owners, affected taxing entities November 2025 f) PFA holds an initial public meeting to present the draft IFP to the public and property owners
December 2025 g) City Council/legislative bodies of other affected taxing entity contributing increment adopt resolution(s) approving IFP
January 2026 h) PFA holds first public hearing to hear additional comments and take action to modify or reject IFP (at least 30 days after “f”) February 2026 i) PFA holds second public hearing to consider oral and written protests and take action to terminate proceedings or adopt IFP and form the district by resolution (at least 30 days after “h”)
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact for receiving this presentation. If ultimately established, the EIFD would create the opportunity to use tax increment financing to fund targeted infrastructure investments in the City. If ultimately implemented, further information regarding
fiscal impacts would be analyzed as part of the development of the EIFD Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP), which would be presented to the City Council in the future prior to approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive the summary presentation of financing district feasibility analysis; and
2. Direct staff to approach the County and Fire District regarding potential partnership in financing district implementation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Financing District Analysis Summary for CC w Appendices - Scotts Valley 6-18-2025
Prepared by:
Kosmont Companies
Infrastructure Financing District
Analysis Summary
June 2025
Background
2 • The City of Scotts Valley is evaluating the use of a special purpose financing district such as an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD) to capture value from potential new development to fund critical infrastructure and community investment priorities • EIFD tax increment financing (TIF) capacity is estimated to range of up to $65M on a presentvalue basis • While a City-only financing district strategy would likely achieve favorable “return on investment” for the City, a broader partnership including the County of Santa Cruz and/or the Fire District would further improve financial feasibility • In addition to the EIFD funding capacity, the EIFD would elevate the City’s ability to attract other public funding, particularly state and federal grants
• Subject to feedback from City staff and City Council, immediate next steps could include outreach to the County and Fire District to discuss potential EIFD partnership
Presentation Outline
Communicating in a Digital World
3 1. Overview of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and EIFD
2. District Boundary Considerations for Scotts Valley
3. Funding and Financing Analysis
4. Potential Next Steps and Timing
4 $0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
$500M
$600M
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Years from District Formation
Note: Illustrative.
What is Tax Increment Financing (TIF) –Not a New Tax
Baseline Property Value at District Formation
All Property Tax Stays with General Fund
New Property Value from
New Development / Rehabilitation
Some Portion of Property Tax Available to TIF District, Remainder Stays with General Fund
Assessed
Property Value
within District
New Total
Value After
TIF District
All Property
Tax Goes to
General Fund
5 Mechanics of TIF / EIFD
Private property
investment or new
development
Increased property
tax revenue from
new property value
Deposited in
separate EIFD
fund
Funds pay for public
improvements
TIF Alternatives in California Today
Communicating in a Digital World
6 Affordable
Housing
Authorities
(AHA)
Community
Revitalization &
Inv. Authority
(CRIA)
Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing
District
(EIFD)
Neighborhood
Infill Finance &
Transit
Improvements
Act
(NIFTI)
NIFTI-2
Coterminous requirement and other
requirements have made NIFTI &
NIFTI-2 infeasible in other communities
Restriction to fund ONLY
affordable housing (and
not infrastructure) has
been deemed to
restrictive to be feasible
in other communities
Infrastructure
& Revitalization
Financing
District
(IRFD)
Most flexible,
most widely
used
More emphasis on
affordable housing
(25% set-aside)
Climate
Resilience
District
(CRD)
NEW, focus on
climate resilience
related infrastructure
Flexible, voter-approval still
required
EIFD Fundamentals
Communicating in a Digital World
7 45 years from first bond issuance Long Term
Districts
Governance Public Financing Authority (PFA) implements Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) Approvals Mandatory public hearings for formation with protest opportunity; no public vote Eligible facilities with useful life of 15+ years & of communitywide significance; purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, rehabilitation, and maintenance Eligible
Projects
Types of Projects EIFD Can Fund
Partial List
8 Roadway / Parking / Transit
Brownfield Remediation
Storm / Flood / Public Facilities Parks / Open Space / Recreation Libraries & Childcare Facilities Affordable Housing
Broadband Small Business /
Nonprofit Facilities
Wildfire Prevention / Other
Climate Change Response Page 204 of 230
9 TIF Today versus Former Redevelopment Agencies
Sample of Differences
Former RDAs EIFDs / CRDs / CRIAs
Eligible Use of Funds • Infrastructure and affordable
housing
• Mixed-income housing
• Land clearing and parcel assembly
• Tax and other private business /
developer subsidies
• Public infrastructure (e.g., roads, flood
control, open space, utilities)
• Public facilities
• Affordable housing
Eminent Domain /
Condemnation
• Allowed • Not allowed
Eligible Areas • Must qualify as “blighted” • No “blight” finding required Governance • City Council or County Board
• School entity participation
• Public Financing Authority including
Public Members (no school entities)
Formation • Vote of governing body • 3 public hearings, majority protest opportunity from landowners and
registered voters within district
Why are Public Agencies Authorizing Financing Districts? Communicating in a Digital World
10 1. Return on Investment: Private sector investment induced by district commitment accelerates growth of net fiscal revenues, job creation, housing production, essential infrastructure improvements
2. Ability to attract additional funds / other public money (“OPM”) – tax increment from other entities (county, special districts), federal / state grants / loans (e.g., for transit-oriented development, water, housing, parks, remediation)
Districts in Progress Statewide
(Partial List of EIFDs/CRDs/CRIAs)
Fully Formed In Formation Process Under Evaluation
Jurisdiction Purpose
Apple Valley Industrial and housing supportive infrastructure Banning (CRIA) Downtown revitalization, industrial infrastructure Barstow Industrial and housing supportive infrastructure Brentwood Housing, employment, and transit-supportive infrastructure Buena Park Mall reimagination, tourism-supportive infrastructure Calipatria (CRD) Economic and climate resilience infrastructure Carson + L.A. County Remediation, affordable housing, recreation Citrus Heights Mall reimagination
Covina Downtown housing and blended use supportive infrastructure Fairfield Downtown, housing, and transit-supportive infrastructure Fresno Downtown, housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Fresno County Industrial and commercial supportive infrastructure Humboldt County Coastal mixed-use and energy supportive infrastructure Inglewood (CRD) Transportation and affordable housing
Imperial County Renewable energy, housing and infrastructure La Verne + L.A. County Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Lakewood + L.A. County Mall reimagination, smart streets, affordable housing Long Beach Economic empowerment and affordable housing
Los Angeles (Downtown, San Pedro, other) Affordable housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Los Angeles County West Carson Housing / bio-science / tech infrastructure Madera County (3 Districts) Water, sewer, roads and other housing infrastructure Modesto + Stanislaus County Downtown, housing, and recreation infrastructure Mount Shasta Rural brownfield mixed-use infrastructure
Napa Downtown, housing, tourism supportive infrastructure Norwalk + L.A. County Affordable housing and infrastructure Ontario Airport-related, blended use, infrastructure
Palmdale + L.A. County Housing, blended use, transit infrastructure Pittsburg Housing, commercial, and tech park infrastructure Placentia + Orange County Housing and TOD infrastructure Rancho Cucamonga Blended use and connectivity infrastructure Redlands Education related blended use, mall reimagination Redondo Beach + L.A. County Parks / open space, recreation infrastructure Riverside County Thousand Palms Housing, hospitality, medical supportive infrastructure Sacramento County (Unincorporated) Industrial / commercial supportive infrastructure San Rafael (EIFD + CRD) Blended-use and climate resilience infrastructure Sanger Commercial, hospitality, supportive infrastructure Santa Cruz (EIFD + CRD) Downtown, blended use, and climate resilience infrastructure Santa Rosa + County of Sonoma Downtown investment, affordable housing, aging infrastructure Selma Water, sewer, and other housing supportive infrastructure Vacaville Housing and business park infrastructure
Yucaipa Housing and commercial infrastructure
Comparison of TIF and Other Tools
Communicating in a Digital World
12 District Type Description Revenue
Source
Approval
Structure
Use of
Funds
TIF (e.g., EIFD, CRIA,
IFD, IRFD)
Incremental property tax
revenues from new
development used to fund
local infrastructure.
Max term is 45 years from
approval to issue debt.
Incremental (new
development) property tax
revenues (incl. VLF) – does not
increase taxes
District formation – No vote,
but majority protest
opportunity by landowners
and registered voters
Bond issuance – None
• Infrastructure of regional or
communitywide significance
• Maintenance
• Affordable housing
Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District (CFD)
and/or Assessment
District
Additional assessment or
“special tax” used to fund
infrastructure / services that
benefit property.
Max term is 40 years from
date of debt issuance.
New property assessment or
tax – appears as separate line
item on tax bill
District formation – 2/3 vote of
landowners or registered
voters in district*
Bond issuance – vote of elected
body (City)
• Infrastructure capital
expenditures of benefit to
landowners
• Maintenance
• Public services (e.g., safety,
programs)
General Obligation Voter-approved debt that is
repaid with “override” to 1%
tax levy; City-wide
Direct property tax levied on
all properties at same millage
rate
2/3 vote of registered voters in
entire City
• In accordance with bond
plebiscite
Lease Revenue / COPs General Fund-supported
borrowing, generally utilizing
City-owned assets to be
leased and leased back
General Fund (or other legally
available revenues as
determined by City)
Vote of elected body (City) • In accordance with bond
authorization
Potential funding strategy can utilize MULTIPLE mechanisms * For CFD formation, a vote of registered voters within the district boundary is required if 12 or more registered voters live therein (otherwise a vote of landowners prorated by acreage). Page 208 of 230 Potential EIFD Boundary
Town Center + Other
Opportunity Sites
13 • Town Center and other economic
development opportunity sites
identified in the Housing Element and
Development Pipeline
• Approx. 236 acres (~8% of City)
• Approx. $145M in existing assessed
value (~4% of City)
Source: Santa Cruz County Auditor-Controller (2025)
(Hous.Element)
14 a) Town Center blended-use supportive infrastructure b) Water and sewer improvements
c) Mount Hernon and Granite Creek roadway interchanges
d) Affordable housing gap financing
e) City facilities
f) Fire facilities
Example Potential Investments to Receive EIFD Funding
15 Development Assumptions with EIFD Study Area
Absorption Assumed over ~20 Years
Note: AV at buildout values in current 2025 dollars
Sources: Scotts Valley General Plan and Housing Element, City Development Pipeline; CoStar (2025) Area # SF or Units Estimated
AV Factor
Estimated
Total AV at Buildout
Residential – Market Rate For-Sale 431units $950K per unit $409 million Residential – Market Rate Rental 850 units $450K per unit $383 million Residential – Affordable 1,064 units property tax exempt $0 Hotel 300 rooms $300K per unit $90 million
Commercial 70,000 SF $350 PSF $25 million
Industrial / Flex 693,400 SF $200 PSF $18 million
Total New Development Assumed within EIFD Study Area $924 million
16 • Primary non-school recipients and potential contributors of property tax are City, County, and Fire District
• City share varies by area and averages ~6.5% each of
every $1 collected in property taxes, including the City’s Tax Equity Allocation (TEA)
City additionally receives equivalent of ~4.1% of property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees (MVLF), also available to EIFD
• County General Fund share averages ~14.0%
County additionally receives property tax in lieu of MVLF, also available to EIFD, but not incorporated into this analysis to be conservative
• Fire District averages ~14.6%
• Water District averages ~4.2% and Library averages ~2.9% • School-related entities cannot participate
As counties tend to rely more heavily on property tax revenue sources generated by new development within incorporated jurisdictions, it is Kosmont’s experience that it is not reasonable to assume allocation of property tax in lieu of MVLF by the County. As cities benefit from additional non-property tax revenue sources (e.g., sales tax, transient occupancy tax) from new development, it is Kosmont’s experience that it is reasonable for cities to consider contributing property tax in lieu of MVLF.
Tax Rate Area (TRA) weighted average distributions for EIFD Study Area shown. Post-ERAF (Education Revenue Augmentation Fund) distribution.
Parcels within former Redevelopment Agency Project Areas are subject to RPTTF revenue flow until expiration of ROPS obligations.
Source: Santa Cruz County Auditor Controller (2025)
Property Tax Revenues Available to EIFD
Property Tax Distribution
Fire
14.6%
County
14.0%
City
6.5%
Water
4.2% Library
2.9%
Other / School
Entities (not eligible)
57.8% + City
MVLF of
4.1% =
10.6%
17 City allocation includes allocation from both AB8 + MVLF in-lieu. County allocation does not include MVLF in-lieu. County dollar match is equivalent to approximately 38% of the County’s share of property tax increment. Fire District dollar match is equivalent to approximately 36% of the Fire District’s share of property tax increment. * Bonding capacity assumes Year 5 is first bond issuance for EIFD. “Year 5 means fifth year of revenue following district formation. Net proceeds shown. Bondable revenue assumes $25,000 admin charge, 150% debt service coverage. 6.0% interest rate; 30-year term. Proceeds net of 2% underwriter's discount, estimated reserve fund (maximum annual debt service), costs of issuance estimated at $350,000.Source: Kosmont Financial Services (KFS), registered municipal advisor.
EIFD Revenue and Bonding Capacity Scenarios
Town Center Only
EIFD Revenue
Allocation Scenario
Year 5
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding
Capacity*
Year 10
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding
Capacity*
50-Year
Present-Value
@ 3%
Discount Rate
50-Year
Nominal
Total
A) City 50% $314,000 $960,000 $3,362,000 $7,778,000
B) City 50% + County $ Match $1,290,000 $2,582,000 $6,724,000 $15,557,000 C) City 50% + County 50% $1,608,000 $3,111,000 $7,819,000 $18,091,000 D) City 50%+ Fire $ Match $1,290,000 $2,582,000 $6,724,000 $15,557,000 E) City 50%+ Fire 50% $1,663,000 $3,203,000 $8,010,000 $18,533,000 F) City 50%+ County + Fire $ Match $2,266,000 $4,204,000 $10,086,000 $23,335,000 G) City + County + Fire @ 50% $2,957,000 $5,353,000 $12,468,000 $28,846,000
18 EIFD Revenue and Bonding Capacity Scenarios
Town Center + Other Opportunity Sites
EIFD Revenue
Allocation Scenario
Year 5
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding
Capacity*
Year 10
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding
Capacity*
50-Year
Present-Value
@ 3%
Discount Rate
50-Year
Nominal
Total
A) City 50% $1,845,000 $5,971,000 $17,509,000 $42,018,000 B) City 50% + County $ Match $4,352,000 $12,604,000 $35,018,000 $84,037,000 C) City 50% + County 50% $5,169,000 $14,766,000 $40,723,000 $97,728,000 D) City 50%+ Fire $ Match $4,352,000 $12,604,000 $35,018,000 $84,037,000 E) City 50%+ Fire 50% $5,311,000 $15,143,000 $41,718,000 $100,116,000 F) City 50%+ County + Fire $ Match $6,859,000 $19,238,000 $52,526,000 $126,055,000 G) City + County + Fire @ 50% $8,635,000 $23,938,000 $64,931,000 $155,825,000 City allocation includes allocation from both AB8 + MVLF in-lieu. County allocation does not include MVLF in-lieu. County dollar match is equivalent to approximately 38% of the County’s share of property tax increment. Fire District dollar match is equivalent to approximately 36% of the Fire District’s share of property tax increment. * Bonding capacity assumes Year 5 is first bond issuance for EIFD. “Year 5 means fifth year of revenue following district formation. Net proceeds shown. Bondable revenue assumes $25,000 admin charge, 150% debt service coverage. 6.0% interest rate; 30-year term. Proceeds net of 2% underwriter's discount, estimated reserve fund (maximum annual debt service), costs of issuance estimated at $350,000.Source: Kosmont Financial Services (KFS), registered municipal advisor. Page 214 of 230 19 Potential Cash Flow / Debt Issuance Approaches
• Kosmont Financial Services is in active discussions with public finance underwriters regarding TIF debt issuances in other jurisdictions
• Underwriters have proposed several approaches for the leverage of tax increment for accelerated debt issuance (e.g., 2-3 years from district formation), for example:
a) Tax increment only
b) Overlapping TIF and CFD (CFD Backstop) – landowners / developers must be willing to pay CFD special taxes in the short term (e.g., 5-10 years) until tax increment reaches a level to cover debt service
c) Tax increment with City or County general fund backstop • There are advantages and disadvantages with each approach (e.g., upfront proceeds available, public agency risk, cost of capital)
• Additional alternatives are available if private sector partners (e.g., landowners / developers are willing to advance infrastructure funding in exchange for reimbursement from TIF proceeds)
20 Financing Districts work better with a Multi-Agency Partnership & Attract Other Funding
Other Public Sources
Cap-and-Trade / HCD grant & loan
programs (AHSC, IIG, TCC,CERF)
Prop 68 parks & open space grants
Prop 1 water/sewer funds
Caltrans ATP / HSIP grants
Federal EDA / DOT / EPA funding
Federal ARPA, Invest Act, IIJ Act
Other Private Sources
Development Agreement / impact fees
Benefit assessments (e.g., contribution from CFD)
Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP)
pooled financing
Private investment
• Ideal strategy includes City and County partnership
• District which involve a City / County joint effort are more likely to win state grant funding sources • Districts explicitly increase scoring for CA state housing grants (e.g., IIG, AHSC, TCC)
Report Card on City/County Financing District Partnerships 21 A growing number of cities are partnering with counties to fund infrastructure through financing districts:
1. Placentia + Orange County
2. La Verne + Los Angeles County
3. Palmdale + Los Angeles County
4. Carson + Los Angeles County
5. Lakewood + Los Angeles County
6. Stockton + Lathrop + Manteca + San Joaquin County
7. Gonzales + Monterey County
Public Agency and Community “Return on Investment”
22 • Housing: 2,300+ units, including 1,000+ affordable units • Economic revitalization, climate resilience, quality of life • Sustainable infrastructure investment
• Job creation and wages
• Acceleration of development and related fiscal revenues for City, County, and Fire District general funds
• Attract other funding not otherwise available for projects within the City
23 Illustrative EIFD Formation Schedule
Tax increment allocation begins fiscal year following district formation Debt issuance, if desired, would occur after a stabilized level of tax increment has been established (may be 3-5 years) Target Date Task
Q1-Q3 2025
a) Conduct outreach/discussion among City staff and Council, County staff and Board of Supervisors, Fire District staff and Board, other relevant stakeholders
b) Final determination of EIFD boundaries, targeted projects, governing Public Financing Authority (PFA) Board composition
July – Sept 2025 c) Participating taxing agencies adopt Resolution(s) of Intention (ROI) and formally establish PFA September 2025 d) PFA directs the drafting of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) October 2025 e) Distribute draft IFP to property owners, affected taxing entities November 2025 f) PFA holds an initial public meeting to present the draft IFP to the public and property owners December 2025 g) City Council/legislative bodies of other affected taxing entity contributing increment adopt resolution(s) approving IFP
January 2026 h) PFA holds first public hearing to hear additional comments and take action to modify or reject IFP (at least 30 days after “f”)
February 2026 i) PFA holds second public hearing to consider oral and written protests and take action to terminate proceedings or adopt IFP and form the district by resolution (at least 30 days after “h”)
24 Potential Next Steps
• Address questions, receive and incorporate feedback from City Council • Consider outreach to County and Fire to discuss potential EIFD partnership • Based on City/County feedback, pursue district formation as soon as feasible (first action would be City Council consideration of a Resolution of Intention as lead agency)
25 THANK YOU
Questions?
Kosmont Companies
1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #382 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Ph: (424) 297-1070 | Fax: (424) 286-4632
www.kosmont.com Page 221 of 230
Disclaimer
26 The high-level analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections only.Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
Discussions or descriptions of potential financial tools that may be available to the Client and public agencies are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to be to be “advice” within the context of this Analysis.
Municipal Advisory activities are conducted through Kosmont Companies’ affiliate, Kosmont Financial Services, which is Registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC and MSRB.
APPENDIX A - Scotts Valley Infrastructure Financing District Analysis - Tax Increment Allocation by Entity by Year DRAFT Incremental
Assessed Value
Property Tax
Increment @
1% General Levy
Average City
Share
Available
Increment
Available
Portion of
Share
Allocated
Increment
Allocated to
EIFD
Avg Equiv.
Share of MVLF
Available
Increment
Available
Portion of
Share
Allocated
Increment
Allocated
Average
County Share
Available
Increment
Available
Portion of
Share
Allocated
Increment
Allocated to
EIFD
Average
County Share
Available
Increment
Available
Portion of
Share
Allocated
Increment
Allocated to
EIFD
Total Taxes
Allocated to
EIFD
0 2025 / 2026 $0 $0 6.5% $0 50% $0 4.1% $0 50% $0 14.0% $0 50% $0 14.6% $0 50% $0 $0 1 2026 / 2027 $66,731,601 $667,316 6.5% $43,376 50% $21,688 4.1% $27,088 50% $13,544 14.0% $93,424 50% $46,712 14.6% $97,428 50% $48,714 $130,658 2 2027 / 2028 $178,551,718 $1,785,517 6.5% $116,059 50% $58,029 4.1% $72,480 50% $36,240 14.0% $249,972 50% $124,986 14.6% $260,686 50% $130,343 $349,598 3 2028 / 2029 $251,430,714 $2,514,307 6.5% $163,430 50% $81,715 4.1% $102,064 50% $51,032 14.0% $352,003 50% $176,001 14.6% $367,089 50% $183,544 $492,293 4 2029 / 2030 $327,094,244 $3,270,942 6.5% $212,611 50% $106,306 4.1% $132,778 50% $66,389 14.0% $457,932 50% $228,966 14.6% $477,558 50% $238,779 $640,439 5 2030 / 2031 $420,816,468 $4,208,165 6.5% $273,531 50% $136,765 4.1% $170,822 50% $85,411 14.0% $589,143 50% $294,572 14.6% $614,392 50% $307,196 $823,944 6 2031 / 2032 $502,601,768 $5,026,018 6.5% $326,691 50% $163,346 4.1% $204,022 50% $102,011 14.0% $703,642 50% $351,821 14.6% $733,799 50% $366,899 $984,077 7 2032 / 2033 $587,430,947 $5,874,309 6.5% $381,830 50% $190,915 4.1% $238,456 50% $119,228 14.0% $822,403 50% $411,202 14.6% $857,649 50% $428,825 $1,150,170 8 2033 / 2034 $739,928,047 $7,399,280 6.5% $480,953 50% $240,477 4.1% $300,360 50% $150,180 14.0% $1,035,899 50% $517,950 14.6% $1,080,295 50% $540,147 $1,448,754 9 2034 / 2035 $832,405,153 $8,324,052 6.5% $541,063 50% $270,532 4.1% $337,899 50% $168,950 14.0% $1,165,367 50% $582,684 14.6% $1,215,312 50% $607,656 $1,629,821 10 2035 / 2036 $928,226,167 $9,282,262 6.5% $603,347 50% $301,674 4.1% $376,796 50% $188,398 14.0% $1,299,517 50% $649,758 14.6% $1,355,210 50% $677,605 $1,817,435 11 2036 / 2037 $975,559,693 $9,755,597 6.5% $634,114 50% $317,057 4.1% $396,010 50% $198,005 14.0% $1,365,784 50% $682,892 14.6% $1,424,317 50% $712,159 $1,910,112 12 2037 / 2038 $1,024,356,065 $10,243,561 6.5% $665,831 50% $332,916 4.1% $415,818 50% $207,909 14.0% $1,434,098 50% $717,049 14.6% $1,495,560 50% $747,780 $2,005,654 13 2038 / 2039 $1,074,654,861 $10,746,549 6.5% $698,526 50% $349,263 4.1% $436,236 50% $218,118 14.0% $1,504,517 50% $752,258 14.6% $1,568,996 50% $784,498 $2,104,137 14 2039 / 2040 $1,126,496,662 $11,264,967 6.5% $732,223 50% $366,111 4.1% $457,280 50% $228,640 14.0% $1,577,095 50% $788,548 14.6% $1,644,685 50% $822,343 $2,205,642 15 2040 / 2041 $1,179,923,067 $11,799,231 6.5% $766,950 50% $383,475 4.1% $478,967 50% $239,484 14.0% $1,651,892 50% $825,946 14.6% $1,722,688 50% $861,344 $2,310,249 16 2041 / 2042 $1,234,976,724 $12,349,767 6.5% $802,735 50% $401,367 4.1% $501,315 50% $250,658 14.0% $1,728,967 50% $864,484 14.6% $1,803,066 50% $901,533 $2,418,042 17 2042 / 2043 $1,291,701,352 $12,917,014 6.5% $839,606 50% $419,803 4.1% $524,342 50% $262,171 14.0% $1,808,382 50% $904,191 14.6% $1,885,884 50% $942,942 $2,529,107 18 2043 / 2044 $1,350,141,769 $13,501,418 6.5% $877,592 50% $438,796 4.1% $548,065 50% $274,032 14.0% $1,890,198 50% $945,099 14.6% $1,971,207 50% $985,603 $2,643,531 19 2044 / 2045 $1,410,343,916 $14,103,439 6.5% $916,724 50% $458,362 4.1% $572,502 50% $286,251 14.0% $1,974,481 50% $987,241 14.6% $2,059,102 50% $1,029,551 $2,761,405 20 2045 / 2046 $1,472,354,887 $14,723,549 6.5% $957,031 50% $478,515 4.1% $597,675 50% $298,837 14.0% $2,061,297 50% $1,030,648 14.6% $2,149,638 50% $1,074,819 $2,882,820 21 2046 / 2047 $1,504,762,267 $15,047,623 6.5% $978,095 50% $489,048 4.1% $610,830 50% $305,415 14.0% $2,106,667 50% $1,053,334 14.6% $2,196,953 50% $1,098,476 $2,946,273 22 2047 / 2048 $1,537,817,795 $15,378,178 6.5% $999,582 50% $499,791 4.1% $624,248 50% $312,124 14.0% $2,152,945 50% $1,076,472 14.6% $2,245,214 50% $1,122,607 $3,010,994 23 2048 / 2049 $1,571,534,434 $15,715,344 6.5% $1,021,497 50% $510,749 4.1% $637,935 50% $318,967 14.0% $2,200,148 50% $1,100,074 14.6% $2,294,440 50% $1,147,220 $3,077,010 24 2049 / 2050 $1,605,925,405 $16,059,254 6.5% $1,043,852 50% $521,926 4.1% $651,895 50% $325,948 14.0% $2,248,296 50% $1,124,148 14.6% $2,344,651 50% $1,172,326 $3,144,347 25 2050 / 2051 $1,641,004,196 $16,410,042 6.5% $1,066,653 50% $533,326 4.1% $666,135 50% $333,067 14.0% $2,297,406 50% $1,148,703 14.6% $2,395,866 50% $1,197,933 $3,213,030 26 2051 / 2052 $1,676,784,562 $16,767,846 6.5% $1,089,910 50% $544,955 4.1% $680,659 50% $340,329 14.0% $2,347,498 50% $1,173,749 14.6% $2,448,105 50% $1,224,053 $3,283,086 27 2052 / 2053 $1,713,280,536 $17,132,805 6.5% $1,113,632 50% $556,816 4.1% $695,474 50% $347,737 14.0% $2,398,593 50% $1,199,296 14.6% $2,501,390 50% $1,250,695 $3,354,544 28 2053 / 2054 $1,750,506,429 $17,505,064 6.5% $1,137,829 50% $568,915 4.1% $710,585 50% $355,292 14.0% $2,450,709 50% $1,225,355 14.6% $2,555,739 50% $1,277,870 $3,427,431 29 2054 / 2055 $1,788,476,841 $17,884,768 6.5% $1,162,510 50% $581,255 4.1% $725,998 50% $362,999 14.0% $2,503,868 50% $1,251,934 14.6% $2,611,176 50% $1,305,588 $3,501,776 30 2055 / 2056 $1,827,206,660 $18,272,067 6.5% $1,187,684 50% $593,842 4.1% $741,720 50% $370,860 14.0% $2,558,089 50% $1,279,045 14.6% $2,667,722 50% $1,333,861 $3,577,608 31 2056 / 2057 $1,866,711,076 $18,667,111 6.5% $1,213,362 50% $606,681 4.1% $757,756 50% $378,878 14.0% $2,613,396 50% $1,306,698 14.6% $2,725,398 50% $1,362,699 $3,654,956 32 2057 / 2058 $1,907,005,580 $19,070,056 6.5% $1,239,554 50% $619,777 4.1% $774,113 50% $387,056 14.0% $2,669,808 50% $1,334,904 14.6% $2,784,228 50% $1,392,114 $3,733,851 33 2058 / 2059 $1,948,105,974 $19,481,060 6.5% $1,266,269 50% $633,134 4.1% $790,797 50% $395,398 14.0% $2,727,348 50% $1,363,674 14.6% $2,844,235 50% $1,422,117 $3,814,324 34 2059 / 2060 $1,990,028,376 $19,900,284 6.5% $1,293,518 50% $646,759 4.1% $807,814 50% $403,907 14.0% $2,786,040 50% $1,393,020 14.6% $2,905,441 50% $1,452,721 $3,896,407 35 2060 / 2061 $2,032,789,226 $20,327,892 6.5% $1,321,313 50% $660,656 4.1% $825,172 50% $412,586 14.0% $2,845,905 50% $1,422,952 14.6% $2,967,872 50% $1,483,936 $3,980,131 36 2061 / 2062 $2,076,405,293 $20,764,053 6.5% $1,349,663 50% $674,832 4.1% $842,877 50% $421,439 14.0% $2,906,967 50% $1,453,484 14.6% $3,031,552 50% $1,515,776 $4,065,530 37 2062 / 2063 $2,120,893,682 $21,208,937 6.5% $1,378,581 50% $689,290 4.1% $860,937 50% $430,468 14.0% $2,969,251 50% $1,484,626 14.6% $3,096,505 50% $1,548,252 $4,152,637 38 2063 / 2064 $2,166,271,838 $21,662,718 6.5% $1,408,077 50% $704,038 4.1% $879,357 50% $439,679 14.0% $3,032,781 50% $1,516,390 14.6% $3,162,757 50% $1,581,378 $4,241,486 39 2064 / 2065 $2,212,557,557 $22,125,576 6.5% $1,438,162 50% $719,081 4.1% $898,146 50% $449,073 14.0% $3,097,581 50% $1,548,790 14.6% $3,230,334 50% $1,615,167 $4,332,111 40 2065 / 2066 $2,259,768,991 $22,597,690 6.5% $1,468,850 50% $734,425 4.1% $917,310 50% $458,655 14.0% $3,163,677 50% $1,581,838 14.6% $3,299,263 50% $1,649,631 $4,424,550 41 2066 / 2067 $2,307,924,653 $23,079,247 6.5% $1,500,151 50% $750,076 4.1% $936,858 50% $468,429 14.0% $3,231,095 50% $1,615,547 14.6% $3,369,570 50% $1,684,785 $4,518,837 42 2067 / 2068 $2,357,043,429 $23,570,434 6.5% $1,532,078 50% $766,039 4.1% $956,797 50% $478,399 14.0% $3,299,861 50% $1,649,930 14.6% $3,441,283 50% $1,720,642 $4,615,010 43 2068 / 2069 $2,407,144,580 $24,071,446 6.5% $1,564,644 50% $782,322 4.1% $977,135 50% $488,567 14.0% $3,370,002 50% $1,685,001 14.6% $3,514,431 50% $1,757,216 $4,713,106 44 2069 / 2070 $2,458,247,754 $24,582,478 6.5% $1,597,861 50% $798,931 4.1% $997,879 50% $498,940 14.0% $3,441,547 50% $1,720,773 14.6% $3,589,042 50% $1,794,521 $4,813,164 45 2070 / 2071 $2,510,372,992 $25,103,730 6.5% $1,631,742 50% $815,871 4.1% $1,019,038 50% $509,519 14.0% $3,514,522 50% $1,757,261 14.6% $3,665,145 50% $1,832,572 $4,915,224 46 2071 / 2072 $2,563,540,734 $25,635,407 6.5% $1,666,301 50% $833,151 4.1% $1,040,621 50% $520,310 14.0% $3,588,957 50% $1,794,479 14.6% $3,742,769 50% $1,871,385 $5,019,324 47 2072 / 2073 $2,617,771,832 $26,177,718 6.5% $1,701,552 50% $850,776 4.1% $1,062,635 50% $531,317 14.0% $3,664,881 50% $1,832,440 14.6% $3,821,947 50% $1,910,973 $5,125,507 48 2073 / 2074 $2,673,087,551 $26,730,876 6.5% $1,737,507 50% $868,753 4.1% $1,085,089 50% $542,545 14.0% $3,742,323 50% $1,871,161 14.6% $3,902,708 50% $1,951,354 $5,233,813 49 2074 / 2075 $2,729,509,585 $27,295,096 6.5% $1,774,181 50% $887,091 4.1% $1,107,993 50% $553,996 14.0% $3,821,313 50% $1,910,657 14.6% $3,985,084 50% $1,992,542 $5,344,286 50 2075 / 2076 $2,787,060,059 $27,870,601 6.5% $1,811,589 50% $905,795 4.1% $1,131,354 50% $565,677 14.0% $3,901,884 50% $1,950,942 14.6% $4,069,108 50% $2,034,554 $5,456,968 $51,730,423 50% $25,865,211 $32,306,134 50% $16,153,067 $111,419,372 50% $55,709,686 $116,194,488 50% $58,097,244 $155,825,208 @ 3.0% $21,555,748 50% $10,777,874 $13,461,767 50% $6,730,883 $46,427,766 50% $23,213,883 $48,417,527 50% $24,208,764 $64,931,404 Total
Present Value
City Allocation of AB8 Property Tax City Allocation of Property Tax in-lieu of MVLF County Allocation Fire District Allocation Fiscal Year
4/28/2025 Page 1 of 1
APPENDIX B - Tax Increment Analysis Detail - Scotts Valley TIF District DRAFT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Total 2025-2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Construction inflator 1.020 1.040 1.061 1.082 1.104 1.126 1.149 1.172 New Development
Residential - Lower Density Market Rate 431 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units $950,000 per unit $466,449,114 $42,599,178 $43,451,162 $44,320,185 $45,206,588 $46,110,720 $47,032,935 $47,973,593 Residential - Higher Density Market Rate 850 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units $450,000 per unit $483,460,560 $19,897,650 $20,295,603 $20,701,515 $21,115,545 $21,537,856 $21,968,613 $22,407,986 Residential - Affordable 1,064 units 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units $0 per unit $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hotel 300 rooms 120 rooms
$300,000 per room $102,738,487 $0 $38,203,488 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Industrial / Flex 87,592 SF 20,142 SF 67,450 SF
$200 PSF $19,466,901 $0 $4,274,970 $0 $0 $15,191,931 $0 $0 Commercial 70,000 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF $350 PSF $30,966,755 $1,274,490 $1,299,980 $1,325,979 $1,352,499 $1,379,549 $1,407,140 $1,435,283 Subtotal Value Add $1,103,081,817 $63,771,318 $107,525,203 $66,347,679 $67,674,633 $84,220,057 $70,408,688 $71,816,862 Total Assessed Value $148,014,129 $214,745,729 $326,565,847 $399,444,843 $475,108,373 $568,830,596 $650,615,896 $735,445,076 Incremental AV $66,731,601 $178,551,718 $251,430,714 $327,094,244 $420,816,468 $502,601,768 $587,430,947 Total tax increment @ 1% $667,316 $1,785,517 $2,514,307 $3,270,942 $4,208,165 $5,026,018 $5,874,309 City Average AB8 Share Available 6.50% $51,730,423 $43,376 $116,059 $163,430 $212,611 $273,531 $326,691 $381,830 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $25,865,211 $21,688 $58,029 $81,715 $106,306 $136,765 $163,346 $190,915 City Equivalent Share of MVLF Property Tax 4.06% $32,306,134 $27,088 $72,480 $102,064 $132,778 $170,822 $204,022 $238,456 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $16,153,067 $13,544 $36,240 $51,032 $66,389 $85,411 $102,011 $119,228 County Average AB8 Share Available 14.00% $111,419,372 $93,424 $249,972 $352,003 $457,932 $589,143 $703,642 $822,403 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $55,709,686 $46,712 $124,986 $176,001 $228,966 $294,572 $351,821 $411,202 Fire District Average AB8 Share Available 14.60% $116,194,488 $97,428 $260,686 $367,089 $477,558 $614,392 $733,799 $857,649 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $58,097,244 $48,714 $130,343 $183,544 $238,779 $307,196 $366,899 $428,825 Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $155,825,208 $130,658 $349,598 $492,293 $640,439 $823,944 $984,077 $1,150,170 4/28/2025 Page 1 of 7
APPENDIX B - Tax Increment Analysis Detail - Scotts Valley TIF District DRAFT Total
Construction inflator
New Development
Residential - Lower Density Market Rate 431 units
$950,000 per unit $466,449,114
Residential - Higher Density Market Rate 850 units
$450,000 per unit $483,460,560
Residential - Affordable 1,064 units
$0 per unit $0
Hotel 300 rooms
$300,000 per room $102,738,487
Industrial / Flex 87,592 SF
$200 PSF $19,466,901
Commercial 70,000 SF
$350 PSF $30,966,755
Subtotal Value Add $1,103,081,817
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average AB8 Share Available 6.50% $51,730,423
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $25,865,211
City Equivalent Share of MVLF Property Tax 4.06% $32,306,134 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $16,153,067
County Average AB8 Share Available 14.00% $111,419,372
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $55,709,686
Fire District Average AB8 Share Available 14.60% $116,194,488 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $58,097,244
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $155,825,208
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041
1.195 1.219 1.243 1.268 1.294 1.319 1.346 1.373
43 units 43 units 43 units
$48,933,065 $49,911,727 $50,909,961 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units $22,856,145 $23,313,268 $23,779,534 $24,255,124 $24,740,227 $25,235,031 $25,739,732 $26,254,527 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
180 rooms
$64,534,999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF $1,463,988 $1,493,268 $1,523,134 $1,553,596 $1,584,668 $1,616,361 $1,648,689 $1,681,662 $137,788,198 $74,718,263 $76,212,628 $25,808,721 $26,324,895 $26,851,393 $27,388,421 $27,936,189 $887,942,175 $980,419,282 $1,076,240,296 $1,123,573,822 $1,172,370,193 $1,222,668,990 $1,274,510,791 $1,327,937,196 $739,928,047 $832,405,153 $928,226,167 $975,559,693 $1,024,356,065 $1,074,654,861 $1,126,496,662 $1,179,923,067 $7,399,280 $8,324,052 $9,282,262 $9,755,597 $10,243,561 $10,746,549 $11,264,967 $11,799,231 $480,953 $541,063 $603,347 $634,114 $665,831 $698,526 $732,223 $766,950 $240,477 $270,532 $301,674 $317,057 $332,916 $349,263 $366,111 $383,475 $300,360 $337,899 $376,796 $396,010 $415,818 $436,236 $457,280 $478,967 $150,180 $168,950 $188,398 $198,005 $207,909 $218,118 $228,640 $239,484 $1,035,899 $1,165,367 $1,299,517 $1,365,784 $1,434,098 $1,504,517 $1,577,095 $1,651,892 $517,950 $582,684 $649,758 $682,892 $717,049 $752,258 $788,548 $825,946 $1,080,295 $1,215,312 $1,355,210 $1,424,317 $1,495,560 $1,568,996 $1,644,685 $1,722,688 $540,147 $607,656 $677,605 $712,159 $747,780 $784,498 $822,343 $861,344 $1,448,754 $1,629,821 $1,817,435 $1,910,112 $2,005,654 $2,104,137 $2,205,642 $2,310,249 4/28/2025 Page 2 of 7
APPENDIX B - Tax Increment Analysis Detail - Scotts Valley TIF District DRAFT Total
Construction inflator
New Development
Residential - Lower Density Market Rate 431 units
$950,000 per unit $466,449,114
Residential - Higher Density Market Rate 850 units
$450,000 per unit $483,460,560
Residential - Affordable 1,064 units
$0 per unit $0
Hotel 300 rooms
$300,000 per room $102,738,487
Industrial / Flex 87,592 SF
$200 PSF $19,466,901
Commercial 70,000 SF
$350 PSF $30,966,755
Subtotal Value Add $1,103,081,817
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average AB8 Share Available 6.50% $51,730,423
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $25,865,211
City Equivalent Share of MVLF Property Tax 4.06% $32,306,134 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $16,153,067
County Average AB8 Share Available 14.00% $111,419,372
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $55,709,686
Fire District Average AB8 Share Available 14.60% $116,194,488 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $58,097,244
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $155,825,208
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049
1.400 1.428 1.457 1.486 1.516 1.546 1.577 1.608
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units
$26,779,617 $27,315,209 $27,861,514 $28,418,744 $28,987,119 $0 $0 $0 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units 53 units
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF
$1,715,296 $1,749,602 $1,784,594 $1,820,286 $1,856,691 $0 $0 $0 $28,494,913 $29,064,811 $29,646,107 $30,239,030 $30,843,810 $0 $0 $0 $1,382,990,852 $1,439,715,481 $1,498,155,898 $1,558,358,045 $1,620,369,016 $1,652,776,396 $1,685,831,924 $1,719,548,563 $1,234,976,724 $1,291,701,352 $1,350,141,769 $1,410,343,916 $1,472,354,887 $1,504,762,267 $1,537,817,795 $1,571,534,434 $12,349,767 $12,917,014 $13,501,418 $14,103,439 $14,723,549 $15,047,623 $15,378,178 $15,715,344 $802,735 $839,606 $877,592 $916,724 $957,031 $978,095 $999,582 $1,021,497 $401,367 $419,803 $438,796 $458,362 $478,515 $489,048 $499,791 $510,749 $501,315 $524,342 $548,065 $572,502 $597,675 $610,830 $624,248 $637,935 $250,658 $262,171 $274,032 $286,251 $298,837 $305,415 $312,124 $318,967 $1,728,967 $1,808,382 $1,890,198 $1,974,481 $2,061,297 $2,106,667 $2,152,945 $2,200,148 $864,484 $904,191 $945,099 $987,241 $1,030,648 $1,053,334 $1,076,472 $1,100,074 $1,803,066 $1,885,884 $1,971,207 $2,059,102 $2,149,638 $2,196,953 $2,245,214 $2,294,440 $901,533 $942,942 $985,603 $1,029,551 $1,074,819 $1,098,476 $1,122,607 $1,147,220 $2,418,042 $2,529,107 $2,643,531 $2,761,405 $2,882,820 $2,946,273 $3,010,994 $3,077,010 4/28/2025 Page 3 of 7
APPENDIX B - Tax Increment Analysis Detail - Scotts Valley TIF District DRAFT Total
Construction inflator
New Development
Residential - Lower Density Market Rate 431 units
$950,000 per unit $466,449,114
Residential - Higher Density Market Rate 850 units
$450,000 per unit $483,460,560
Residential - Affordable 1,064 units
$0 per unit $0
Hotel 300 rooms
$300,000 per room $102,738,487
Industrial / Flex 87,592 SF
$200 PSF $19,466,901
Commercial 70,000 SF
$350 PSF $30,966,755
Subtotal Value Add $1,103,081,817
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average AB8 Share Available 6.50% $51,730,423
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $25,865,211
City Equivalent Share of MVLF Property Tax 4.06% $32,306,134 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $16,153,067
County Average AB8 Share Available 14.00% $111,419,372
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $55,709,686
Fire District Average AB8 Share Available 14.60% $116,194,488 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $58,097,244
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $155,825,208
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057
1.641 1.673 1.707 1.741 1.776 1.811 1.848 1.885
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,753,939,534 $1,789,018,325 $1,824,798,691 $1,861,294,665 $1,898,520,558 $1,936,490,969 $1,975,220,789 $2,014,725,205 $1,605,925,405 $1,641,004,196 $1,676,784,562 $1,713,280,536 $1,750,506,429 $1,788,476,841 $1,827,206,660 $1,866,711,076 $16,059,254 $16,410,042 $16,767,846 $17,132,805 $17,505,064 $17,884,768 $18,272,067 $18,667,111 $1,043,852 $1,066,653 $1,089,910 $1,113,632 $1,137,829 $1,162,510 $1,187,684 $1,213,362 $521,926 $533,326 $544,955 $556,816 $568,915 $581,255 $593,842 $606,681 $651,895 $666,135 $680,659 $695,474 $710,585 $725,998 $741,720 $757,756 $325,948 $333,067 $340,329 $347,737 $355,292 $362,999 $370,860 $378,878 $2,248,296 $2,297,406 $2,347,498 $2,398,593 $2,450,709 $2,503,868 $2,558,089 $2,613,396 $1,124,148 $1,148,703 $1,173,749 $1,199,296 $1,225,355 $1,251,934 $1,279,045 $1,306,698 $2,344,651 $2,395,866 $2,448,105 $2,501,390 $2,555,739 $2,611,176 $2,667,722 $2,725,398 $1,172,326 $1,197,933 $1,224,053 $1,250,695 $1,277,870 $1,305,588 $1,333,861 $1,362,699 $3,144,347 $3,213,030 $3,283,086 $3,354,544 $3,427,431 $3,501,776 $3,577,608 $3,654,956 4/28/2025 Page 4 of 7
APPENDIX B - Tax Increment Analysis Detail - Scotts Valley TIF District DRAFT Total
Construction inflator
New Development
Residential - Lower Density Market Rate 431 units
$950,000 per unit $466,449,114
Residential - Higher Density Market Rate 850 units
$450,000 per unit $483,460,560
Residential - Affordable 1,064 units
$0 per unit $0
Hotel 300 rooms
$300,000 per room $102,738,487
Industrial / Flex 87,592 SF
$200 PSF $19,466,901
Commercial 70,000 SF
$350 PSF $30,966,755
Subtotal Value Add $1,103,081,817
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average AB8 Share Available 6.50% $51,730,423
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $25,865,211
City Equivalent Share of MVLF Property Tax 4.06% $32,306,134 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $16,153,067
County Average AB8 Share Available 14.00% $111,419,372
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $55,709,686
Fire District Average AB8 Share Available 14.60% $116,194,488 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $58,097,244
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $155,825,208
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065
1.922 1.961 2.000 2.040 2.081 2.122 2.165 2.208
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,055,019,709 $2,096,120,103 $2,138,042,505 $2,180,803,355 $2,224,419,422 $2,268,907,811 $2,314,285,967 $2,360,571,686 $1,907,005,580 $1,948,105,974 $1,990,028,376 $2,032,789,226 $2,076,405,293 $2,120,893,682 $2,166,271,838 $2,212,557,557 $19,070,056 $19,481,060 $19,900,284 $20,327,892 $20,764,053 $21,208,937 $21,662,718 $22,125,576 $1,239,554 $1,266,269 $1,293,518 $1,321,313 $1,349,663 $1,378,581 $1,408,077 $1,438,162 $619,777 $633,134 $646,759 $660,656 $674,832 $689,290 $704,038 $719,081 $774,113 $790,797 $807,814 $825,172 $842,877 $860,937 $879,357 $898,146 $387,056 $395,398 $403,907 $412,586 $421,439 $430,468 $439,679 $449,073 $2,669,808 $2,727,348 $2,786,040 $2,845,905 $2,906,967 $2,969,251 $3,032,781 $3,097,581 $1,334,904 $1,363,674 $1,393,020 $1,422,952 $1,453,484 $1,484,626 $1,516,390 $1,548,790 $2,784,228 $2,844,235 $2,905,441 $2,967,872 $3,031,552 $3,096,505 $3,162,757 $3,230,334 $1,392,114 $1,422,117 $1,452,721 $1,483,936 $1,515,776 $1,548,252 $1,581,378 $1,615,167 $3,733,851 $3,814,324 $3,896,407 $3,980,131 $4,065,530 $4,152,637 $4,241,486 $4,332,111 4/28/2025 Page 5 of 7
APPENDIX B - Tax Increment Analysis Detail - Scotts Valley TIF District DRAFT Total
Construction inflator
New Development
Residential - Lower Density Market Rate 431 units
$950,000 per unit $466,449,114
Residential - Higher Density Market Rate 850 units
$450,000 per unit $483,460,560
Residential - Affordable 1,064 units
$0 per unit $0
Hotel 300 rooms
$300,000 per room $102,738,487
Industrial / Flex 87,592 SF
$200 PSF $19,466,901
Commercial 70,000 SF
$350 PSF $30,966,755
Subtotal Value Add $1,103,081,817
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average AB8 Share Available 6.50% $51,730,423
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $25,865,211
City Equivalent Share of MVLF Property Tax 4.06% $32,306,134 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $16,153,067
County Average AB8 Share Available 14.00% $111,419,372
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $55,709,686
Fire District Average AB8 Share Available 14.60% $116,194,488 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $58,097,244
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $155,825,208
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073
2.252 2.297 2.343 2.390 2.438 2.487 2.536 2.587
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,407,783,120 $2,455,938,782 $2,505,057,558 $2,555,158,709 $2,606,261,883 $2,658,387,121 $2,711,554,863 $2,765,785,961 $2,259,768,991 $2,307,924,653 $2,357,043,429 $2,407,144,580 $2,458,247,754 $2,510,372,992 $2,563,540,734 $2,617,771,832 $22,597,690 $23,079,247 $23,570,434 $24,071,446 $24,582,478 $25,103,730 $25,635,407 $26,177,718 $1,468,850 $1,500,151 $1,532,078 $1,564,644 $1,597,861 $1,631,742 $1,666,301 $1,701,552 $734,425 $750,076 $766,039 $782,322 $798,931 $815,871 $833,151 $850,776 $917,310 $936,858 $956,797 $977,135 $997,879 $1,019,038 $1,040,621 $1,062,635 $458,655 $468,429 $478,399 $488,567 $498,940 $509,519 $520,310 $531,317 $3,163,677 $3,231,095 $3,299,861 $3,370,002 $3,441,547 $3,514,522 $3,588,957 $3,664,881 $1,581,838 $1,615,547 $1,649,930 $1,685,001 $1,720,773 $1,757,261 $1,794,479 $1,832,440 $3,299,263 $3,369,570 $3,441,283 $3,514,431 $3,589,042 $3,665,145 $3,742,769 $3,821,947 $1,649,631 $1,684,785 $1,720,642 $1,757,216 $1,794,521 $1,832,572 $1,871,385 $1,910,973 $4,424,550 $4,518,837 $4,615,010 $4,713,106 $4,813,164 $4,915,224 $5,019,324 $5,125,507 4/28/2025 Page 6 of 7
APPENDIX B - Tax Increment Analysis Detail - Scotts Valley TIF District DRAFT Total
Construction inflator
New Development
Residential - Lower Density Market Rate 431 units
$950,000 per unit $466,449,114
Residential - Higher Density Market Rate 850 units
$450,000 per unit $483,460,560
Residential - Affordable 1,064 units
$0 per unit $0
Hotel 300 rooms
$300,000 per room $102,738,487
Industrial / Flex 87,592 SF
$200 PSF $19,466,901
Commercial 70,000 SF
$350 PSF $30,966,755
Subtotal Value Add $1,103,081,817
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Average AB8 Share Available 6.50% $51,730,423
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $25,865,211
City Equivalent Share of MVLF Property Tax 4.06% $32,306,134 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $16,153,067
County Average AB8 Share Available 14.00% $111,419,372
Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $55,709,686
Fire District Average AB8 Share Available 14.60% $116,194,488 Percent Allocated to EIFD 50.0% $58,097,244
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $155,825,208
48 49 50
2074 2075 2076
2.639 2.692 2.745
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$2,821,101,680 $2,877,523,713 $2,935,074,188
$2,673,087,551 $2,729,509,585 $2,787,060,059
$26,730,876 $27,295,096 $27,870,601
$1,737,507 $1,774,181 $1,811,589
$868,753 $887,091 $905,795
$1,085,089 $1,107,993 $1,131,354
$542,545 $553,996 $565,677
$3,742,323 $3,821,313 $3,901,884
$1,871,161 $1,910,657 $1,950,942
$3,902,708 $3,985,084 $4,069,108
$1,951,354 $1,992,542 $2,034,554
$5,233,813 $5,344,286 $5,456,968
4/28/2025 Page 7 of 7