Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/91C I T Y 0 F ~ ....~.~¢~ ~ ~-- CALl FORNIA ..... ~~ ~--' WATER AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT ~;~' ~ -=~' PAUL DOW, Manager -~' GENE BOGART, Director of Water Resources FLORN CORE, Assistant Director of Water Resources MIKE SIDES, Sanitation Superintenclent, 326-3114 MEETING NOTICE Special Meeti~ag of the City of Bakersfield Water Board will be held on Tuesday, July 16, 1991 at 5:15p.m., in the Water Resources Conference Room, 4101 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield. Call meeting to order. Roll Call - Board Members: Salvaggi°, Chairman; Peterson; Brunni The following items will be discussed: 1. Approve minutes of April 23, 1991. 2. Closed session pursuant to Government Code' 54956.9(b)(1). 3. Bakersfield Urban Water Supply, Preliminary Financing Plan - Action to be determined by Board. 4. SB 959, Water Utility Surcharge Bill - For Board Discussion and Action. 5. Paladino Water Service Area - For Board Information. 6. Kern River Property Acquisition - For Board Information. 7. Water Resources Building Progress Report - For Board Information. 8. Water Supply Update - For Board Information. 9. Water Board meeting dates - For Board Discussion and Possible Action. 10. Adjournment. Paul Dow, Water and Sanitation Manager POSTED: July 15, 1991 4101 TRUXTUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309 · (805) 326-3715 SPECIAL MEETING WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1991 5:15p.m. The meeting was called to order at 5:25p.m. by Chairman Salvaggio in the Water Resources Conference Room. The roll was called as follows: Present: Salvaggio (Chairman); Peterson, Brunni Cseated at 5:30p.m.) A motion was made by Boardmember Peterson to approve minutes of the Special Meeting held April 5, 1991. Motion passed. Mr. Core presented the.Water Price and Sand Sale Schedule before the Board. Boardmember Peterson made a motion for approval. Motion passed. The meeting adjourned from 5:30p.m. to 5:35p.m. for a break. For discussion before the Board Mr. Dow, City staff and Mr. Tom Stetson, Consulting Engineer, presented an update on the development of a City Water Policy. It was suggested at the last Board meeting that staff develop a Water Policy for the areas within the City's sphere of influence. Some of the main items to be considered in the Water Policy are surface water, sto~age in Lake Isabella, groundwater and it's spreading operation, groundwater storage, miscellaneous water that is sold on a year to year basis, City's municipal and industrial water system, 2800 Acre water spreading facility and re-claimed wastewater. To protect the City's water rights, staff and Mr. Stetson will recommend ~he City be the lead agency for control and distribution of water in the "Greater Bakersfield" area. Boardmember Peterson suggested there be a "Water Posse" created to look after City's water rights and interests. This Water Posse would consist of the City Manager, City Attorney, Tom Stetson, a member of the City Water staff and 'a Council member; and would be referred to in the Water Policy. Mr. Stetson believes it will probably take 6 months to a year to fully ~evelop the City Water Policy. ' A motion was made by Boardmember Brunni to adjourn to Closed Session regarding potential litigation of water matters (per Government Code No. 54956.9(b) (1)). Meeting re-opened to public. The meeting adjourned at 6:27p.m. Mark Salvaggio, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison City of Bakersfield Water Board WATER AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT PAUL DOW, Manager GENE BOGART, Director of Water Resources FLORN CORE, Assistant'Director of Water Resources MIKE SIDES, Sanitation Superintendent, 326-3114 July 16, 1991 Mr. Michael Radon, President Kern County Water Agency P. O. Box 58 Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058 RE: BAKERSFIELD URBAN WATER FINANCING PLAN - JULY 1991 Dear Mr. Radon: Upon review of the latest draft "Bakersfield Urban Water Supply - Preliminary Financing Plan" presented by Battle Wells Associates, we agree that a plan for the future should provide for coordination among local water purveyors that will prevent duplication of costs and facilities when developing municipal water resources. However, we strongly disagree with several major points of the proposed' plan. As originally stated in Mr. Tom Stetson's letter dated March 23, 1990 (copy attached), we view the plan as a major' expansion of the boundaries of I. D. No. 4 of the Kern County Water Agency. This proposed expansion of territory would create no new water nor would it reduce the cost of water to existing residents. The plan appears to create major new subsidized areas at the expense of existing water users. As proposed, a very large number of City residents located south of the Kern River in central and southwest Bakersfield would receive no water benefit but would be expected · to subSidize undeveloped lands and isolated areas currently experiencing water quality problems. Those utilities and purveyors that have worked hard to develop dependable, good quality water sources through "User Pay" policies would be penalized or forced to unfairly subsidize other agencies. Undeveloped lands should bear the full cost of.providing water and facilities necessary to service that land. Formation of a huge new I. D.-2010 water assessment district would only create another layer of government with tremendous new taxing authority. As most of the land located in the proposed I.D.-2010 assessment district is currently agricultural land, it would 4101 TRUXTUN AVENUE ., BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309 · (806) 326-3715 further complicate the existing I.D. No.4/Agricultural water supply question in regard to representation and costs. For instance, why should urbanized land continue to subsidize the agricultural land in this new assessment district? Should agricultural interests continue to represent a majority of the land in this new Urban District? We strongly feel that the control and representation of the Urban water supply should remain vested with the residents who live in and pay taxes to the Urban District. State water supplies paid for by residents within 'I.D. No.4 should be preserved and protected for use within I.D. No.4. Likewise, Kern River water rights bought and secured by taxpayers of the City of Bakersfield will continue to be preserved and protected for the present and future citizens of Bakersfield. As additional water conveyance facilities and/or enlargement of treatment plant facilities are needed in the future, the potential beneficiaries of those new facilities should provide the financing and investigative work. Improvement District No.4 should only be required to provide coordination of the effort and to see that it does not interfere with or duplicate the City's or any other water purveyor's planned expansion. The Bartle Wells report, indicates that groundwater charges levied by the Improvement District would remain at $10 per acre-foot for agricultural water but would be increased for municipal water from $20 per acre-foot to $44 (+120%) per acre-foot inside I.D. No.4 and would ultimately be established at $59 per acre-foot outside of I.D. No.4. Also under the proposed plan, development fees for new housing would increase over 300%. These are huge rate increases and would directly impact the taxpayers of the City of Bakersfield. The plan calls for the utilization of the City's Kern River water supplies, up to 40,000 acre-feet per year from 1993 to 2012 and' then 75,000 to 97,500 acre-feet per year from 2012 through 2020 and thereafter. (Table 4.1.1, Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton, February 1990). Why should the City's water be committed for use under this plan anywhere outside of the City or outside of City-owned property? The plan calls for the establishment of a Contract Board of Control administered by a five-member Board, three of which supposedly represent the City. But the City now has · its own very satisfactory arrangements for the administration of its water supplies and water facilities. Under the proposed Joint Operating Contract the City would be required to provide for development of water supply on a uniform basis for each purveyor area in accordance with its growth patterns; the City could not require annexation of existing developed properties as a condition of water supply delivery; and the City may require annexation of new development "within its own retail water service area." Why should the City be subject to such obligations and constraints? 2 The objective of the Joint Operating Contract is stated to be for the centralization of all urban water supply management functions. But it appears that the real objective is to make City-owned Kern River water available to other water purveyors which have problems with their own water supplies. The proposed plan offers nothing to the City except increased costs and yet it obligates the City to commit its own water resources to benefit areas outside of the City. More than 20 years ago, the City of Bakersfield set forth on a program to acquire an assured supply of high quality water to meet its current and future needs. After many years of expensive litigation and effort it accomplished that goal. It appears that those who 'did not have that foresight now want to share in the City's acquired resources through the guise of an urban water supply management plan and a joint operating contract. The City made certain commitments to its basic contractors, including what on reflection were generous terms, at the time it acquired its Kern River'water supplies and facilities. The City should not now further commit those resources to a project which offers little, if anything, to the City. and its residents and taxpayers. Sincerely, MARK SALVAGGIO Water Board Chairman KEN PETERSON Water Board Member CONNI BRUNNI Water Board Member MS/KP/CB:sr cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dale Hawley, City Manager Larry Lunardini, City Attorney Attachment 3 1113 ISTETSON ENGINEERS INC, 1 CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3104 East Gorvey Awenue 224 Avenick~ Del .t,~r " 2171-K E. Francisco BIv~l. West Covina, California 91791 Suite D Son Rafoel. Colitornio 94901 t'818) 967-6202 Son Clemente, California 9267:2 1415) 457-0701 Fox 1818) 331-7065 (714) 492-27'77 Fox ~415) 457-1638 Fax ~14) 492-16.58 San C, Jemente March 23, 1990 ,~L¥ To: Mr. Stuart Pyle, General Manager Kern County Water Agency P. O. Box 58 Bakersfield, CA. 93302-0058 Dear Mr. Pyle: As consultant to the City of Bakerfield Water Department, I have reviewed the draft report entitled "Urban Bakersfield Water Supply Plan for Improvement District No. 4, Kern County Water Agency," February 1990. Although I agree with the objective of planning ahead to assure that municipal and domestic water supplies will be available for the urban Bakersfield area in the future, it should be kept in mind that the City of Bakersfield took the lead some 25 years ago in planning for future water supplies for the urban Bakersfield area. The City not only supported obtaining the municipal and industrial allocation of State Project water to the urban Bakersfield area, but it expended a great deal of effort and money to obtain a separate Kern River water supply through the acquisition of the water rights, and water properties of Tenneco West, Inc. The City of Bakersfield over the years has cooperated with other public agencies and water purveyors in the urban Bakersfield area in making its water facilities' and water supplies available in and around the urban Bakersfield area. The City's water sources represent more than one-half of the total projected water supply available for the Metropolitan Priority Area of the Urban Bakersfield water Supply Plan, as shown in Table 4.1.1 of the report. I see no reason to designate a single wholesale water operation agency, as suggested at page two of the report. I also see no reason to expand the boundaries of Improvement District No. 4 of the Kern County Water Agency. Neither of these suggestions creates additional w~Jter or reduces the cost of water. The urban Bakersfield area should not be used as a vehicle tc supply additional surface water to agriculture to lessen economic impacts on' agriculture, as recommended at page 5 of the report. The overall water management plan for the urban area should be one that provides the necessary quantity and quality of water for future urban needs. Urban and agricultural water supplies and water requirements should stand on their own and neither should be used to subsidize the other. In the Environmental Impact Report Re: Use and Disposition of Property and Water Rights Acquired by the City of Bakersfield from Tenneco West, Inc., in Settlement of Litigation, September 29, 1975, page I-4, it stated 'q-he City of Bakersfield has long recognized the need to assure a long-term, high quality source of Supplem. ental water to meet the 'increasing needs of the urban Bakersfield area." The City of Bakersfield, through its long-range planning initiated some 25 years ago, has acquired and developed water supplies and facilities to meet the needs of the City and areas to be annexed to 'the City. The Urban Bakersfield Water Supply Plan should not duplicate nor interfere with the City's plans. It should supplement the City's plans and each of the entities proposing to participate in the Water Supply Plan should retain the ownership and control of its own water rights and water facilities. This is not to say that there should not be joint participation in major facilities which can be cbmmonly used by those wishing to participate in them. There is no reason to expand Improvement District No. 4 or to create a new water supply agency to assume wholesale water supply responsibilities and assets of agencies such as the City of Bakersfield, Olcese Water District and East Niles Community Services District, as suggested at page 6 of the report. Another layer of government is not needed nor is it desirable. Wholesale water supply agencies are formed to supply imported water: the Kern County Water agency is a wholesale agency and has committed its imported supplies to its member agencies and Improvement District No. 4. The supplying of local surface water is the logical responsibility of eac~ of those who own rights to local surface water supplies. Creation of an Action Committee, as described at pages 6 and 7 of the report, appears to be unnecessary. It suggests that all urban water suppliers pool their water supplies and turn them over to a water supply agency to operate some type of a community wholesale water supply system. This seems totally unnecessary in that the urban water purveyors have acquired their own water supplies, have been operating their own systems, have been meeting their water supply requirements and have been cooperating to assist one another as the need arises. In lieu of establishing an Action Committee and having such committee consider the establishment of a wholesale Water Supply Agency or the expansion of Improvement District No. 4 as a wholesale water supply agency, the Urban Bakersfield water Advisory Committee could address the need for the facilities which are described in chapter 5 of the report. As some of those facilities may be needed in the future, the potential beneficiaries of the facilities can determine what is needed,- what it will cost, how it will be funded and operated and how the cost sharing will be achieved. . Sincerely, cc: Water Board Members ~ City Councilmembers ~ Thomas M. Stetson HAND-DELIVERED TO KCWA APRIL 3, 1990 o BAKE FIEI.D URBAN WATER SUPPLY PREI.1MINARY FINANCING PLAN Prepared for: Kern County Water Agency Improvement District No. 4 Urban Bakersfield Advisory Co~n~ July 1991 BAKERSFIELD URBAN WATER SUPPLY PRELIMINARY FINANCING PLAN Kern County Water 'Agency Improvement District No. 4 Board of Directors Fred Starrh, Division 1 Terry Rogers, Division 2 John L. Willis, Division 3 Michael Radon,* Division 4, President Adrienne Mathews,* Division 5 Henry C. Gamett,* Division 6 Gene Lundquist, Division 7 Pam Hyles, Secretary *Urban Bakersfield Committee Thomas N. Clark, General Manager Robert K. Bellue, Chief Engineer Fernando Clsneros, Engineer John F. Stovall, General Counsel. Joseph G. Gillick, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee Purveyor Contract Representatives: City of Bakersfield - Florn Core, Delegate - Gene Bogart, Alternate California Water Service Company - Bob Lewis, Delegate ~ Donald Houck, Alternate East Niles Community Services District - Hodge Black, Delegate, UBAC Chairman - Roland Stephens, Alternate, UBAC Secretary North of the River Municipal Water District -Ralph Gilford, Delegate - Don Gage, Alternate Kern County Water Agency Board Appointees: Urban representative - Doug Nunneley, Delegate, UBAC Vice Chairman - Don Wattenbarger, Alternate Industrial representative - Norm A. Baldinger, Delegate. - Roger D. Brown, Alternate Agricultural representative - Hugh Williams, Delegate - Ruben Bartell, Alternate Susan Stafford, Engineering Secretary July 1991 BARTLE WELI.S ASSOCIATES Independent Public Finance Advisors 1636 Bush Street San Francisco CA 94109 Tel. 415/775-3113 CONTENTS Introduction ............................... 1 Year 2010 Planning Area ....................... 2 City of Bakersfield/County of Kern 2010 Plan ............... 2 Water Supply and Planning Areas ' 2 City of Bakersfield .................................. 4 County of Kern ~ Sewerage ............................ 5 Water Agencies ............................. 6 Improvement District No. 4 ............................ 6 Urban Water Purveyors ........ · ....................... 7 Agricultural Water Districts ............................ 9 Retail Service Areas ................................. 10 Water Supply . ........... .. 11 Water Treatment Plants ............................... 11 Source of Supply ................................... 11 Groundwater ........................................ 11 State Water project .................................. 13 Kern River Supply .................................. 13 City of Bakersfield Kern River Water Rights ................. 13 Federal CVP Water ' 14 Urban Water Purveyors Sources of Supply .................. 14 Banking and Groundwater Replenishment .................. 14 Kern Water Bank ................................... 16 Exchanges · 16 Urban Water Supply Management ................ 17 Existing ..... ..................................... 17 Options .......................................... 17 Joint Operating Contract ..... ~ ....... ~ ................. 17 Contract Board of Control ............................. 18 Functions of Existing Purveyors 19 Revenue Sources ............................ 20 Types of Regional Revenues ............................ 20 ID4 Revenues ...................................... 20 Development Fees · 20 Proposed Regional Fees ' 21 Demonstration Project Financing Plan :.. ............. 24 Objectives ................ , ....................... 24 Project Gosts ............... · ........................ 24 Bond Service Gosts ................................... 24 Revenue and Expense Projections ........................ 24 Appendix A: Glossary and Definitions Appendix B: Acknowledgments LIST OF TABI.ES 1. Population Growth Trends ....................... 2 2.' 2010 Area Water Agencies .............. : ........ 6 3. Improvement District No. 4 Water Supply, Dry-Year Cycle .. 12 4. Urban Water Purveyor Sources .................. ... 15 5. Demonstration Project Capital Costs ................ 26 6. ' Estimated Annual Bond.Service per $1 Million Project Cost 27 7. Demonstration Project Annual Capital. Costs ........... 28 LIST OF FIGURES 1. The 2010 Planning Area ......................... 3 2. Purveyor Service Area Map ....................... 8 3. Demonstration Project Service Areas ...... ' 23 INTRODUCTION This report is to serve as the basis for discussion of a financing plan for im- provements to the Bakersfield urban water supply facilities. It will be followed by purveyor workshops and a recommended financing plan. ' The preliminary financing plan presented here is intended only to demonstrate how a financing plan might work. It uses a creative project designed by Ken- nedy/Jenks Consultants* to provide alternate sources of supply, multiple use of the groundwater basin, and exchange of high-quality Kern River water for im- ported supplies. The project will be refined as the financing plan is developed. The urbanizing area of Bakersfield is encompassed by a city/county 2010 plan- ning area which covers 408 square miles. 'This includes all of the City of Bak- ersfield and a total of more than a dozen other public agencies directly in- volved in t~rban and agricultural water supply for the area. The central area now receives treated surface water from Improvement District No. 4 of the Kern County Water Agency. 2010 AREA WATER AGENCIES Kern County Water Agency La Hacienda, Inc. Kern County Water Agency, ID 4 North Kern Water Storage District City of Bakersfield North of the River Municipal Water Arvin-Edison Water Storage District District California Water Service Company Oildale MutUal Water Company Cawelo Water District Olcese Water District East Niles Community Services District Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District Kern Delta Water District Vauglm Water Co., Inc. (mutual) This report addresses six basic elements as a foundation for the suggested financing plan: 2010 Urban Service Area Organizational Control Retail Purveyor Service Areas Revenue Sources Water Supply Project Funding *Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Urban BakersfieM Water Supply Plan for Improve- ment Distdct No. 4 (February 1990). BWA 7/2/9~ YEaR 2010 Pl_~NNING AREA City of Bakersfield/County of Kern 2010 Plan In March 1990, the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern presented the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. This comprehensive docu- ment covers major elements of' this rapidly expanding area. Table 1 shows the population growth trends forecast for the 2010 area and for the expanding area incorporated within the City of Bakersfield. An addi- tional 200,000 people are expected within the area in the next 20 years. In 2010 the' Bakersfield urban area population will be more than 500,000. About 60 percent will reside inside the city. TABLE'I [] Bakersfield Urban Water Supply Population Growth Trends Dwel l ing City of 2010 City Uni ts Year Bakersfield Urban Area Percent Per Year* 1960 56,848 157,850 36~o -- 197~) 69,515 185,124 38 1,800 1980 105,735 227,968 46 2,800 1985 138,549 269,691 51 2,800 1990 · 169,501 325,582 52 2,800 1995 199,945 369,582 54 2,900 2000 231,791 414,085 56 3,000 2005 268,709 463,946 58 3,300 2010 311,507. 519,811 60 3,300 *At 3.0 per dwelling unit. Source: City of Bakersfield Figure 1 shows the 2010 area .boundary and the city areas' (shaded). It also shows the boundaries of ID4 and the location of the current sphere of influ- ence line adopted for the city. Water Supply and Planning Areas Within the 2010 planning area of 408 square miles are several water supply subareas listed below. About 312 square miles overlie the natUral ground- water basin. Upland foothill areas must obtain water pumped from the basin or from purchased or imported supplies. " 2 BWA 717./91 2010 AREA WATER SUPPLY AREAS (SQ.MI.) Total 2010 area ' 408 Groundwater area ...................................... 312 Upland foothill area ' 94 ID4 area .................................. , ........... 102 City of Bakersfield area (total city) ........................... 96 City/ID4 overlap ' 65 City of Bakersfield SO[ ................................... 188 City SOI/ID4 overlap · 92 As the primary unit of general government in the 2010 area, the City of Bak- ersfield and its sphere of influence are important because the city must plan for many municipal functions for its service area, in addition to water supply. The city overlaps ID4, which has a central role in providing alternate supplies for the urbanizing area, both inside and outside the city. The 2010 area is now served principally by seven retail water purveyors, which , are mostly inside ID4, and portions of five major agricultural water districts. Within the ID4 area only the Oildale area (about 10 square miles) is outside the city's sphere of influence. Other water purveyors, including the City of Lamont, provide domestic water serviCe in the 2010 area. City of BakerSfield The City of Bakersfield is a charter city with the broad powers of general gov- ernment. The Water and Sanitation Department is governed by a three-person council committee named the Water Board. The Domestic Water Division now provides urban water service to about one-third of. the city. The Agricultural Water Division owns and manages important surface water rights and water banking area, discussed later~ The incorporated area of the city has been expanding and now totals about 95 square miles as shown below. Annexations are occurring at a rapid rate both inside and outside of ID4. CITY AREA GROWTH (SQUARE MILES) 1984 ..... ~... 77.82 1985 ' · .......... 79.64 1986 .............................................. 84.85 1987 ' ' .............................................. 85.93 1988 .............................................. 89.57 1989 ........ · ...................................... 93.09 1990 .............................................. 95.52 Source: City of Bakersfield planning department. 4 BWA 7/2/91 County of Kern - Sewerage The county does not operate water facilities in the 2010 area. As a .~eneral govemment, it is directly involved in new development outside the C~ty of Bak- ersfield in many public service areas. Both the county and the city furnish sewerage to the.expanding Bakersfield urban areas. They have' established a service area boundary between County Service Area No. 71 and the city's sewerage area. It provides for joint use of facilities by users inside and outside of the city. 5 BWA 7/2/91 WATER AGENCIES Table 2 lists the principal urban and agricultural water agencies in the 2010 area with the approximate size of the service areas inside the 2010 boundary and the ID4 boundary and the number of services for each of the urban Water purveyors. TABLE 2 · Bakersfield Urban Water Supply 2010 Area Water Agencies Areas (sq.mt .) 2010 "3-Mi le" ID4 Total Agency Total (408.0) Irrig (102.2) Svc$ Urban Water Purveyors '~ California Water Service Co.1 47.2 47.2 -- 42.5 51,290 City of Bakersfielde 31.I 31.1 -- 26.0 15,400 East Niles CmSD~ 8.8 8.8 -- 4.3 6,000 North of the River MWD4 12.0 12.0 -- 11.5 3,000 Oildale Mutual Water Company~ 15.0 15.0 -- 12.0 6,370 , · Vaughn Water Co. Inc. ~{mutua~)s 30.2 30.2 -- 3.1 2,360 ~i Olcese Water District° 15.0 13.3 .... 280 .i! Water Oistricts/.Other i Arvin-Edison WSD' 175.1 29.1 2.0 .... Kern Delta Water District~ 195.3 108.5 30.0 .... Rosedale-Rio Bravo WSD? 67.2 27.1 4.0 .... ) North Kern WSD7 98.4 22.1 5.3 .... Cawelo Water Districts 70.3 5.7 4.9 .... Kern Fan ' -- 10.7 ...... COB 2,800 acres -- 4.5 ...... Other - section area -- 79.5 7.6 -.- -- Total (not incl mutuals' overlap)s 405.6 53.8 .87.4 84,700 I - Investor-owned California corporation, under jurisdiction of Cali- fornia PUC. 2 - Charter city, Domestic Water Division, Water & Sanitation Department. 3 - Community services district. ' . 4 Muni c! pal water di stri ct. 5 Mutual water company not subject to California PUC or LAFCO. ..~ 6 - California water district. 7 - Water storage district. 8 - Estimated. Improvement District No. 4 Zone of Benefit No. 7, coterminous with Improvement District No. 4, was formed initially to pay for.the municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply from the State Water Project, discussed later. Beginning in 1965, costs of the state water entitlement and related state project costs are being paid from ad valorem p, roperty taxes on all property in ID4. Approximately $207,350,000 remains to be paid. 6 BWA 7/2/91 In 1972, voters in ID4.approved $17,500,000 in bonds to finance the Garnett treatment plant and a portion of the cross valley canal. Ad valorem property taxes for-this project began in 1975. Approximately $18,500,000 remains to be paid. The table below compares the ID4 debt for state costs and local costs on two bases, actual cost and net present value. Net present value is calculated 'on a 5 percent interest basis. ID4 MAJOR FACIUTIES INVESTMENT INVESTMENT FUTURE TO DATE PAYMENTS TOTAL Actual Cost State Water Project ......... $ S7,6~9,000 $207,355'000 $264,983,000 ID4 facilities ............. 20,584,000 18,542,000 39,126,000 Total .................. $ 78,213,000 $225,897,000 $304,109,000 Present Value at 5% ii! State Water Project ......... $ 85,225,000 $ 87,020,000 $172,244,000 ID4 facilities ............... . 31,000,000 12,836,000 43,837,000 Total .................. $116,225,000 $ 99,856,000 $216,018,000 ID4 has contracts to deliver treated water fi:om the State Water Project and the Kern River to three purveyors, which reduces dependence upon the groundwater basin. ID4 has used its state water to recharge the basin and in exchanges for better-quality Kern River water. The treatment facilities of ID4 have reached capacity.. The demonstration proj- ect discussed later incorporat, es these facilities into a larger regional plan. Urban Water Purveyors Table 2 lists seven purveyors in the 2010 planning area and shows the approx- imate size of the current service area and the number of services. There are other smaller water purveyors which were not considered further in develop- ment of the preliminary financing plan. Figure 2 shows the general areas cov- ered by urban water purveyors. See further discussion under RETAIL SERVICE ARE. AS. Residential services are of two types, metered and unmetered. Customers are charged metered and flat rates as shown in the table below. While most of the residential services are currently unmetered, new state law will require meters for all future water services. 7 BWA 7/2/91 RESIDENTIAL WATER RATES (MONTHLY) METERED FLAT (5/8" x 3/4") 10,000 AGENCy 15 HCF SQ.FT. California Water Serv/~e Co ............... $12.82 $22.57 City of Bakersfield ................... East Niles CmSD ..................... ' 9.40~ none North of the River MWD ...... ~ ........ Oildale Mutual Water Company ........... 10.40 8.00 + $7/unit Vaughn Water Co. Inc. (mutual) ' 22.71~ 16.27 Olcese Water District .................. 8.402 none I - 1" meter (smallest size). 2 - Weighted average, plus assessments. These purveyors have not instituted development fees for new water connec- tions on the level of many other purveyors throughout the state. The table below sUmmarizes local purveyors' current charges for a single-family dwelling. · SINGLE-FAMILY DWEI.,LING WATER DEVELOPMENT FEES AGENCY AMOUNT NOTES Ca]ffOl-nia Water Sez~Jce Co. $ -- PUC/federal tax lindts use City of Bakersfield 500 Except/n original gshe area · East Niles Community Services District -?- Has connection charge North of the River MWD -- Judge deemed special assessment Ofldale Mutual Water Company 580~ Water stock purchase Vaughn Water Company Inc. (mutual) S80~ ,water stock purchase Olcese Water District 600a Paid before connecting I - Per acre. 2 - 3/4" meter. Double for 1" meter. In most areas of the state, a development fee is charged to raise revenue for facilities needed to serve new growth. This' is an established practice, which,. now must conform to the requirements of state law. Agricultural Water Districts Five well-established agricultural water districts have territory within the 2010 planning area. Urbanization is taking place within each of these districts and in other areas outside ID4. The amount of area of the agricultural districts inside the 2010 boundary is generally relatively small compared to the overall 9 BWA 7/2/91 size of each district. As shown in Table 2, over 50 square miles of irrigated cropland lie within three miles of the western and southern boundaries of ID4. These areas would generally benefit from the outflow of gro. undwater from ID4. The agricultural districts have statutory powers to provide potable water sup- ply under their enabling acts as shown in Table 2. The preliminary financing plan assumes that these five districts will not become urban water purveyors. Retail Service Areas Figure 2 shows suggested retail service area boundaries.. The purveyors have not discussed precise boundaries. The service area map, prepared by KCWA based on information from the purveyors, shows some of the overlap that has occurred. The financing plan will propose that California Water Service Company, the city's Domestic Water Division, East Niles Community Services District, North of the River Municipal Water District, and Olcese Water District set such ser- vice boundaries for two basic reasons: 1. The joint operations contract will require that an adequate water' supply be provided to each purveyor for its area on an equal-service basis under a water supply management plan. 2. Recommended development fees proposed under the financing plan will be uniform, and purveyors will b.e encouraged t.o. adopf their.own develop- ment fees for local facilities w~thout competatmn from other purveyors. Special service areas are not proposed for Oildale Mutual or for Vaughn Water Gompany, also 'a mutual. 10 OWA WATER SUPPLY Water Treatment Plants Water for the Bakersfield area is now obtained from both surface water and groundwater sources. The sources of surface water are the State Water Project (SWP), the Kern River, and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP). Surface water is treated at purification plants operated by ID4, and by smaller plants operated by the Olcese Water District, and the East Niles Community Services District. The ID4 Gamett plant, has nominal capacities of 25 million gallons per day (mgd) average day and 38 mgd peak day. In 1989 the plant treated 27,437 acre-feet, less than the 29,311 acre-feet treated in 1988. ID4's purification plant is served by the Cross Valley Canal (CVC) which is tied to the California Aqueduct. The plant is adjacent 'to the Kern River and takes water directly from that source. Federal CVP water is delivered'via the Friant-Kem Canal to Arvin-Edison Water Storage District. The East Niles CSD water purification plant treats the CVP water supplied by Arvin-EdiSon Water Storage District. Olcese Water District's purification plant treats Kern River water. Source of Supply Table 3 shows the ID4 water balance of supply and use for 1987, 1988, and 1989. Supply sources include surface water, precipitation, and local imports. Water uses include consumption by domestic and agricultural users, evapora- tion, and export. Each year recentlY, water uses have exceeded supply, i.e.,. the change in underground storage is negative. Most of the supply percolates into the basin. The subsurface outflow equals direct recharge plus deep percolation plus loss in storage, less groundwate.r. extraction. Kern River water in wet years or additional imported water will be used to refill the basin. Groundwater ' The groundwater basin underlying the urban area is recharged naturally by Kern River water. In addition, the basin is being recharged through the re- 'plenishment and banking programs developed by the City of Bakersfield, KCWA, the Department of Water Resources, and others. The recharge and banking programs are described in a later section. Groundwater is of good quantity generally but is subject to contamination for several reasons. Because there are no permanent streams that drain the Kern County groundwater basin, all of the wastewater generated within ID4 is treated and recycled for use as irrigation water or groundwater recharge, both within and outside ID4. Continued recycling of wastewater and irrigation water will, over time, result in increase in total dissolved solids in the uncon- fined aquifer. Also, agricultural practices and industrial activities are causing adverse impacts on groundwater quality. 1 1 BWA 7/2/91 I TABLE 3 · Bakersfield Urban Water SuPply Improvement D/slx/ct No. 4 Water Supply, Dry-Year Cyde (acre-feet) 1987 1988 1989 1. WA'lr:RBALANC£ Water Supply Surface water: State Water Project 16,400 13,200 18,800 Kern River from exchanges 59,900 51,200 29.600 Subtotal, state water 76,300 64,400 48,488 Kern River .7,200 6,600 8,800 Friant-Kern 500 .... Effective precipitation 4,200 2,200 800 Local import: Groundwater pumping '5,000 5,000 5,000 Subsurface inflow ...... Total water supply 93,200 78,200 63,000. Water Use Consumptive uses: Domestic 20,400 16,600 21,300 Agricultural '26,000 23,000 ' 20,400 Evaporation 2,300 2,300 2,300 Local export:' Groundwater pumping 2,000 2,000 2,000 Wastewater effluent 10,400 10,600 '10,600 i Subsurface outflow 35,300 45,700 61,300 Total water use 96,400 100,200 116,900 Water Ba]ance (change in storage) -3,200 -22,000 -53,900 ~ KERN RiVER RUNOFI= (percent of mean). 44~ -34~. 50~ ~ GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT Kern River 18,200 29,850 14,040 " State Water Project (Friant-Kern 1987) 14,540 5,210 6,990 Total 32,740 35,060 21,030 :i! . 4. REPORTED GROUNDWATERPRODUCTION :~ Municipal & industrial 72,330 67,500 69,100. Agricultural 4,595 4,555 4,730 Total 76,925 72,055 73,830 ~ STATEWATERPROJECTACTUALDEUVERIE~ 72,130 74,774 99,968 Source: Kern County Water Agency, Report on Water Conditions (1988, 1989, and'1990). State Water Project Currently, the SWP entitlement assigned by' KCWA to ID4 consists of 77,000 acre-feet of firm municipal and industrial (M&I) water, 10,276 acre-feet of firm agricultural water, and 1,554 acre-feet of surplus agricultural water. In addi- tion, ID4 participates in the long-term M&I pool, which provides an additional 5,490 acre-feet of SWP water. The entitlement is subject to reduction during drought conditions and as demand increases in the Tehachapi area. Due to the long drought, not all of the entitled SWP water has been delivered to ID4. Item 5 of Table 3 shows the SWP actual deliveries for 1987, 1988, and 1989, which were less than the annual entitlements in those years. The quality of SWP water is highly variable. When possible, SWP water is ex- changed for Kern River water, which is of better quality. The proposed re- gional project will facilitate this type of exchange. Kern'River Supply Kern River flows vary greatly from year to year. Item 2 of Table 3 shows the Kern River runoff (percent of mean) for 1987, 1988, and 1989. It varied from 34 percent to 50 percent. From 1975 to 1989 it varied from 20 percent to 230 percent. The flow of the Kern River depends on rainfall and snoWPack accumulation in the river's watershed. Since 1954, Isabella Dam has regulated river flows. Entitlements to Kern River water are determined according to formulae estab- lished in the Miller-Haggin Agreement of 1888 and the Shaw Decree of 1900. Later amendments to these agreements have also been adopted. These agree- ments establish diversion rights to the Kern River based on unimpaired flows at the First Point of Measurement, which is defined in the Mi!ler-Haggin Agree- ment. Most of these diversion fights are held by the agricultural water districts. For example, in 1988, 338,500 acre-feet of Kern River Water was diverted by 12 public entities, including ID4, City of Bakersfield and Olcese WD. ID4 used 26,400 acre-feet, mostly for its purification plant. The City of Bakersfield used 26,600' acre-feet for irrigation and spreading. Olcese WD took 2,200 acre-feet, which was diverted above the First Point. City of Bakersfield Kern River Water Rights The City of Bakersfield obtained diversion rights to the Kern River water when it acquired the Ashe water system from Tenneco West in December 1976. The city's rights on the Kern River yield an annual average of 140,000 acre-feet of water. The city's fiver .supply is extremely variable, ranging from a low of 25,000 acre-feet to a high of 200,000 acre-feet. The median supPly is 110,000 acre-feet per year. The city's Kern River supply is committed to the following four uses. 1. 70,000 acre-feet is delivered for irrigation by agricultural dis°tricts. Contracts with these water districts terminate in 2012. 1 3 BWA 7/2/91 2. 10,000 acre-feet is assigned to losses. 3. 10,000 acre-feet is delivered to Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District and is recharged in a system of channels. 4. The remaining water is called "miscellaneoUs water" and is contracted to various users that are located over the groundWater basin when water in excess of city's needs is available. In the draft Urban Bakersfield Water Supply Plan, Kennedy/Jenks ConsUltants projected that 40,000 acre-feet of miscellaneous water could be available in the future for the urban Bakersfield area. Federal CVP Water Federal CVP water enters ID4 via the Friant-Kern Canal fOr use by Arvin-Edison Water Storage District and East Niles Community Services District. ID4 does not currently use CVP.water, but the potential exists. An intertie between the Friant-Kem Canal and the CVC is being investigated. Under the state permit, the Garnett purification plant can treat CVP water. Urban Water Purveyors Sources of Supply ID4 Wholesales treated surface water to three retail suppliers: California Water Service, East Niles CSD, and North of the River MWD. North of the River MWD in turn wholesales some of its treated water to Oildale MutUal Water Company. Table 4 identifies the sources of water for the seven purveyors for 1987, 1988, and 1989. The table indicates that groundwater is the primary source, account- ing for almost two-thirds of the water used by the seven retailers. Kern River water is the second major source. Banking and Groundwater Replenishment Several entities in Kern County provide groundwater replenishment. Kern River water is recharged by a 'combination of deliberate spreading in recharge zones, by losses through unlined canals, and by percolation in the Kern River channel. CVP water is recharged in spreading works operated by Arvin-Edison Water Storage District or in the Kern River and Poso Creek channels." SWP water is recharged by the KCWA and several water districts in the Kern River channel via the Cross Valley Canal, unlined irrigation canals, and in district- operated recharge sites. Within all of Kern County, for example about 263,000 acre-feet of water was recharged in 1988, deliberately and incidentally. 'The approximate breakdown among water sources was: Kern River ................................ 141,000 SWP · 74, 600 CVP : 21,600 Wastewater ................................ 3,500 M/nor streams .............................. 21,700' Total 263,000 14 eWA TABLE 4 w Bakersfield Urban Water Supply Urban Water Purveyor Sources (acre-feet) State Water Kern Arvin- Ground- Water Purveyor Project River Edison water Total 1989 City of Bakersfield ...... 17,619 17,619 California Water Service 6,022 7,927 -- 48,444 62,393 East Niles CSD 1,944 2,560 1,395 1,395 2,947 North of the River MUD 3,826. 5,038 -- 78 8,942 Oildale MWD 2,920 3,845 -- 60 6,825 Olcese Water District -- 624 .... 624 Vaughn Water Company ...... 4,468 4,468 Total 14,712 19,994 1,395 72,064 108,165 1988 City of Bakersfield ...... ·9,292 9,292 California Water Service 3,868 10,365 -- 47,049 61,282 East Niles CSD 1,054 2,824 1,866 1,866 7,610 North of the River MUD 2,480 6,647 -- 257 9,384 Oildale MWD 1,744 4,673 -- 181 6,598 Olcese Water District -- 1,042 .... 1,042 Vau§hn Water Company ...... _4,419 4,419 To[al 9,146 25,551 1,866 63,064 99,627 1987 City of Bakersfield ...... 11,194 11,194 California Water Service 1,354 16,147 -- 57,853 75,354 East Niles CSD 498 5,931 3,093 3,093 12,615 North of the River MUD 697 8,306 -- 254 9,257 Oildale MWD. . 482 5,750 -- 176. 6,408 Olcese Water District -- 1,379 .... 1,379 Vaughn Water Company .... ,- 1,565 1,565 Total 3,031 37,513 3,093 74,135 117,772 Source: Total - Kern County Water Agency, Water Supply Reports, 1987, 1988, and'1989. Based on information provided by purveyors to Bartle Wells Associates and various publications by Kern County Water Agency. The City of Bakersfield Operates a 2800-acre recharge facility. Since 1977 the city has spread Kern River water into the area. La Hacienda, Inc. contracts with Olcese WD to bank Kern River water in the city's facilities. Buena Vista Water Storage District and KGWA also bank water at the city's spreading area. These four entities last banked water in the spreading facilities in 1987. Since 1977, ~vhen spreading began, 793,384 acre-feet of water has been banked. The City of Bakersfield banked most of the water, 412,529 acre-feet. However, during 1977-!990 groundwater has been extracted from the spread- ing area. A total of 266,705 acre~feet has been extracted, with the city ex- tracting 148,961 acre-feet. The total groundwater storage at the end of 1990 is 450,288 acre-feet. The city's portion of groundwater storage is 263,668 acre-feet. Since 1971, ID4 has replenished 703,909 acre-feet of groundwater. Three sources of surface water have been used in the groundwater recharge: 270,373 acre-feet of SWP water, 414,696 acre-feet of Kern River water, 'and 18,840 acre-feet of Friant-Kern water. Recharge is made possible by use of ID4's SWP entitlement and water exchanges with other water districts. Kern Water Bank To increase the yield of the SWP, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has been working with KGWA, Gity of Bakersfield, and othei' water districts in Kern County to establish the Kern Water Bank, an underground depository designed to hold a million acre-feet of water. The program is to use the Kern County groundwater basin jUst west'of the 2010 area to store SWP water in wet years for later withdrawal in dry years by SWP contractors. The prSgram's first component, the Kern Fan Element, which is being devel- oped by the DWR with KCWA, is targeted to operate partially by the winter 1991/92 and to be fully operational by early ·1995. Exchanges Exchanges of state water for Kem River water occur in order to improve the quality of raw water delivered to ID4's purification plant and water to spread for replenishment. Also, there are savings in pumping costs associated with the Cross Valley Canal, when the exchanger can take ID4 water from the Cali- fornia Aqueduct. Exchange activity within ID4 for the period from 1977 through 1990 is summarized in KCWA reports. 16 ~WA 7/2/'91 l URBAN WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Urban water supply management now depends on the separate actions of, KCWA (ID4,'), the city, and the urban purveyors to the extent discussed under WATER SUPPLY. Many othe~ agencies and organizations are involved in.long-range planning and operation of the urban water supply. The principals, however, are the Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee (ID4) and the Urban Bakersfield Com- mittee of I~CWA, and the Water Board of the City of Bakersfield. The actions of each are subject to their respective governing bodies. No single e'xisting level of government now is empowered to plan, finance, construct, and operate the facilities and the water supply envisioned for long- range urban water supply. And probably, under present policies and relation- ships, none of the existing agencies' would be permitted to proceed freely with I 'ili such a plan,' by other water agencies. ~:~ Options . ' The governmental options for a regional water supply program fall into two I · broad conceptual categories:. · · New thority: This can be created from use of a statutory agency under state la~w or from creation of a new government agency (JP^) through the joint exercise of powers section of the Government Code. The established .I agencies would have to delegate revenue and other powers, to the new agencg. ^cttons of a new, independent authority would be very difficult to confrol, it would have higher overhead costs, and it might become very difficult for existing agencies to work with. ':~' · Joint .Operating Contract: Under the Government Code, the existing agen- cies cai~ formulate a.joint powers contract to pool resources, delegate funcuons and centralize management. Within the lnmts of the contract (JOC) ~ertain functions are self guiding. Expansion of these functions can not occur without approval of the agencies. No new level of government , I is created, overhead costs are minimized, and existing agencies have strong protect,mn under the .JOG. 1 Jo.i~.t Opelrating Contract A 3oint operating contract is proposed to centralize all urban water su. pply. managemer/ functions. Its purpose is to provide a strong working relationship among five existing purveyors, the ci, ty (as general government) and KCWA (ID4). · KC'WA would provide its existing ID4 facilities and State Water Project supply. It would form a new improvement district, ID2010, to provide revenue to finance the overall program, through legislative changes in the district act and public hearings to set new rates and charges. · The cit~ would provide additional surface water supply, use of its water bank area, and other regional facilities. i 17 eWA [] The operating contract would provide for compensation for the use of existing and future water supplies and those major facilities which serve the regional program. [] Construction Of new regional facilities would be carefully specified. Both ~ the long-range program and water supply operations would be sufficiently detailed so as to reassure each entity of the availability of reasonable sup- ply to meet their needs. [] Services would be obtained from the city and KCWA to avoid creation of a separate new staff. Assuredly such a contract would have provisions to protect the interests oi~ each ol~ the sponsoring agencies. All of the activities would be limited by the provisions of the joint operating contract. Contrac~ Board of Control (CBC) The joint operating contract would set up a separate group to implement and coordinate joint urban water management activities. [] The board would consist of five members with technical experience. three appointed by the city (consults.with CWS and OWD), one appointed by KCWA, and one appointed by EN and NOI~.. The board may create corn- mi'trees and use advisory groups. [] The board may select a director of joint operations but its direct staff otherwise would be limited to secretarial services. [] Services would be obtained from existing agencies. The city, for example. would provide land use forecasts, water bank accounting and operations, and legal services. [] KCWA would provide water plant operations, construction management, and general accounting. [] The board would set an annual capital and operations budget, and would set annual rates (except agricultural groundwater charges) in conformance with the ratios authorized in the joint operating contract and subject to implementation by KCWA as required under the contract. Under the contract, the city will have a majority control of the CBC and it may exercise its control to manage the overall urban water supply Program within fair, reasonable, and practical limits. [] The city would be required to provide for development of water supply on a uniform basis for each purveyor area in accordance with its growth ' patterns. [] The city could not require annexation of existing, developed properties as a condition of water supply delivery. [] The city may require annexation of new development within its own retail water service area. 1 8 BWA 7/2J91 Functions of' Existing Purveyors · Each of the existing purveyors will plan and operate facilitie, s in coordination with the surface and groundwater supply conjunctive-use program developed and administered by the CBC and as provided in the JOG. Each may adopt policies and charges to piovide service to its designated service area. 'EaCh will communicate its needs for supply and participate in development of new facil- ities to assure itself that its reasonable needs are being met. ,~ ! 0 ~WA 7/2/m REVENUE SOURCES Types of Regional Revenues Typical regional revenues for urban water supplies come from many sources. The ability to achieve revenue support for specific projects is a combination of statutory powers, voter approvals, policy decisions, and cost allocations. Some typical regional revenue sources include: [] Ad valorem property taxes ($/100 AX,9 - assessed valuation [] Ad valorem bond service taxes ($/100 AV) - assessed valuation [] Bulk water charges ($/AF) - acre-feet' ,, Groundwater replenishment charges ($/AF) - acre-feet · Devdlopment fees ($/EDU) - equivalent dwelling unit [] Benefit charges ($/EDU) - equivalent dwelling unit [] Availability charges (S/acre) -acre None of the existing levels of govenunent in the 2010 area currently has the power to implement uniform regional charges for the urban water supply program. ID4 Revenues ID4 and Zone 7 provide revenues fo~: operation of the existing ID4 urban water facilities from three sources. [] ID4 and Zone 7 Property Taxes Based on Voter Authorized Bond Issues: These tax revenues will cOntinue as discussed previously. Authorization of a new ad valorem tax would require designation of another taxing area. [] Groundwater .Charge Revenues: These are derived from a $20/AF nonag- ricultural charge and a $10/AF agricultural charge. This charge has not been increased for many years. KCWA's act provides that the agricultural rate cannot be less than 50 percent of the nonagriculttffal rate. · Bulk Water Revenues: These are obtained at a rate of $25/AF for treated water to each of the three contracting agencies. This amount was set initially in the 1974 contract and is limited to not more than $5/AF above .the highest groundwater charge. Operation costs now range from $35/AF to $60/AF, substantially more than the bulk water charge. Under this charge structure, (a) treated water has become heavily subsidized, and (b) total revenues are inadequate for ID4 Purposes. The KCWA act and the treated water delivery contracts must be amended to provide additional revenues for the urban program because of the existing interlocldng provisiOns. Development Fees Beginning in 1989, Government Code §66000 (formerly AB 1600)'has been amended to regulate the use of development fees for water, sewer, and many other such services. The development fee is a s/ngle charge pa/d by new development for sexvice. These rules are specifically applicable to cities and county charges which have. the power to impose such charges as a condition of development. 20 8w^ There is general opinion that water districts may not be bound by this legisla- tion, but most accept the language as a guideline. The KCWA Act (Water Code Appendix 99), is a special district, with its own (one-of-a-kind) legislative act. It does not provide for the levy of a development fee aspera. 'tted under the most widely used statutory special district acts for water districts. Other "Appendix" water agencies have now obtained legislative approval to levy development fees. They may collect such fees through other agencies. These amendments also provide for conformance with Government Code §66000. Government Code §66000 requires "identification of the purpose and ttS e of the fee" and "a determination of the relationship between the treed for tire public facil- ity and the type of development on which the fee is imposed." The public facility is the "urban water supply," capable of serving existing and future consumers. The public facility is essential for new development, and fees are used only for water supply expenses. Establishment of a development fee for a regional water supply will involve a cost allocation and policy process which will include consideration of: [] Allocation of new pr4ject costs [] Interest costs on long term debt to finance facilities · Current value of existing facilities and resources [] Carrying cost of excess capacity available for growth · Unreimbursed general administration and planning [] Location in existing property tax areas [] Use of groundwater storage and supply Proposed Regional Fees The revenues to finance the construction and water supply operations of the program are .planned from the sources listed below. Note that, in the financ- ing plan projections, these charges will escalate from present ID4 levels to ' those needed to meet project funding and water supply costs. These are the anticipated charges in the fifth year. Treated Water Sales (acre-fee0: Treated water sales will be increased to a level of about $30/AF inside Ii34, and $40 outside I134, plus operating expenses. Nonagricultural Groundwater Charge:. The pump charge would be increased to $30/AF inside ID4 and $40 outside ID4. There would be no ~roundwater charge for water purchased and banked for later use Agricultural Groundwater Charge: There would be no change in the ground- water charge inside ID4. Based on findings of the KCWA board, the area of benefit of the recharge program to adjacent agriculture would be expanded by at least three miles to the west and south. The charge in these areas would the same as within ID4. · ,21 BWA 7/2J9~ Development Fees: The fee for new development would be $2,000/EDU inside and $2,500 outside ID4. Other land uses would pay a proportional charge based on relative benefit. Upland Foothill Surcharge: Areas without native groundwater will be subject to an additional surcharge for the development of the conjunctive use facilities. The geological limit of these areas is identified as the foothill line. The sur- charge on new development in these areas would be set at'20 percent above other charges for development fees and for treated water deliveries. New Ad Valorem Property Taxes: None. BWA 7/2/9 ~1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FINANCING PLAN Objectives The basic objectives of the financing plan are centered around completion of a major portion of the demonstration project in a relatively short period. Under the proposed financing plan the initial program would be completed in six years, in roughly three stages as follows: 1992-1994 ............. WesterrffBemard feeder Section 19 tank and supply Land acquisition/Garnett upgrade- Wells/western grid 1994-1996 .............. Coffee feeder/Garnett expansion 1996-1998 ............. Olcese plaht/intake/storage Section 19/Olcese feeders/pumps Reservoir started Project Costs Table 5 shows each of the major project components, the year of construction and the costs in current dollars. The location of these facilities is shown in Figure 3 and discussed further in the Kennedy/Jenks report. Some small changes have been made in the demonstration project subsequent to its publication in February 1990. The project costs have been updated and include normal allowances for engi- neering, land acquisition, and incidentals. The financing plan will add inflation allowances and costs of finani:ing where used.. The intent is to use the demon- stration project to illustrate how revenues would be obtained to fund the con- struction program and to support the water supply program. Bond Service Costs This report uses revenue-supported bonds for construction of the initial major facilities. The amount of debt will be significantly reduced by the use of reve- nues on a cash basis. Table 6 shows estimated annual bond service costs for each $1,000,000 of project costs in the year of construction. The bond issue size is reduced by paying engineering and other preconstruction costs and interest during con- struction (one year) from current revenues (cash). Arbitraging such long-range projects by maximizing debt is not recommended. The technique used in this report reduces both the size of the bond issue and I. total bond service payments by 15 percent. The first bond service payments would be made in the second year after start of construction, and the debt would be amortized over 18 payments. Revenue and ,Expense Projections The demonstration project financing plan is illustrated in Table 7. = Project costs from Table 5 have been escalated to the year of construction in five annual project groups, which are also shown on Table 5. BWA 7/2/91 · Each project group.is divided into cash and bonded amounts based on the technique shown in Table 6. n Capital revenue requirements are shown for cash and for bond funded expenditures. · A substantial annual allowance is added to the direct project construction costs for administrati6n of the pro,am, legal services for contracts and water rights, for purchase of additional water, water bank lease payments, and costs other than general O&M and administration.. · Basic charges for regional revenUes are shown in lines 12-19. These charges are escalated each year to provide revenues as needed. Outside ID4 rates are 25 percent higher for development fees and 33 percent higher for nonagricultural pump charges and treated water. A surcharge for upland foothill areas of 20 percent is suggested but not included in Table 7. · The basic charges are stated in inflated dollars. Without inflation, 'the fifth-year charges would be about 20 percent lower, · Under the plan, revenue flow does exceed expenditures over the 12-year period shown. · This may permit more work to be done on a cash basis with a reduction in total revenue requirements Implementation of financing plan will be based on suggestions of the purveyors and others, and will be discussed in the recommended financing plan report. 0 25 BWA 7/2/91 TABI~ S *" Bake~ela ~J-rba~ Water S~pply I~mom~on Projec~ Capital Costs (ENR--4680) 1 2 3 4 5 6 4/91 I~amtration Project 1991 Cost Size 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Balance 1 Coffee Feeder Pipeline 7,566,000 30,195'-36/48" 4,500,000 ***." 3,066,000 *** 0 2 Bernard Feeder Pipeline 5,478,000 16,925-45" 5,478,000 ***' 0 3 6arnett Palp Station 2,385,000 3,000 lip - 2,385~000 *** 0 Gamett Storage Tank 2,503,000 5 ~iG - 2,503,000 ***- 0 4 ~stern Feeder 8,934,000 35,900'-48" 6,200,000 *** .... 2,734,000 ~ellfield Interties 491,000 7,600'-14/18" 491,000 *** 0 ~estern Grid 3,897,000 33,500'-18/24" - 1,997,000 .... 1,900,000 5 Western Ptmp Station 1,697,000 2,500 RP - 1,697,000 *** 0 6 l~rn River Intake 700,000 2,000'-54" - - - '- 700,000 *** 0 Olcese Feeder 6,745,000 32,000'-42/48" .... 6,745,000 *** 0 Olcese Treat. Plant 30,015,000 60 M~D - - - 5,000,000 5,015,000 *** 20,000,000 Section 19 Tank 2,732,000 9 MG - ~.,732,000 *** 0 Intake Pm~s/Telemeter 1,671,000 .... 1,671,000 *** 0 Oloese Pt~p Station 2,122,000 .... 2,122,000 *** 0 Right of Way 2,250,000 1;125,000 1,125,000 *** 0 7 Kem River Reservoir 6,555,000 1,000 AF .... 6,555,000 *** 0 Property 2,240,000 1,280 Acres 1,120,000 - 1,120,000 *** .0 Permits/Dam Safety 1,063,000 563,000 - 500,000 *** 0 Outlet Pipeline 1,050,000 3,000'-54" .... 1,050,000 *** 0 8 Garnett Plant-Phase I 5,016,000 - 5,016,000 *** 0 -Phase II 7,124,000 - - - 7,124,000 *** 0 -Fnase III 983,000 .... 983,000 *** 0 9 Section 19 Pipeline 8,373,000 25,000'-48" - 4,300,000 4,073,000 *** 0 Section 19 Pu~p Station · 2,583,000 4,000 }fl> - 2,583,000 *** - 0 10 ~elliield l~ells 2,643,000 10 l~ells - 1,343,000 .... 1,300,000 116,816,000 19,477,000 20,256;000 10,111,000 16,197,000 24,841,000 0 25,934,000 116,817,000 90,882,000 116,$16,000 TABLE 6 · Bakersfield Urban Water Supply Estimated Annual Bond.Service per $1 Million Project Cost Report ENR . Use Conventional Bond Issue Sizing 1989/90 construction cost 4680 '$ 668,000 $ 668,000 Plus: Engineering, incidentals, contingency (354) 234,000 234,000 1989/90 project cost $ 902,000 $ 902,000 Plus inflation (5190/4680) .. . 98,000 98,000 1993/94 project cost 5190 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Less: Prepaid costs [cash] . 66,700 -- Project cost to bond $ 933,000 $1,000,000 Plus:.Reserve fund '102,000 120,000 Interest (1 year) [cash] [77,000] 90,000 Expenses 25,000 30,000 Less: Interest earnings (35,300) ~38,000) Total bond issue size $1,025,000 $1,200,000 Financing factor per $1M project cost 1.025 1.200 Annual Costs Preconstruction year [cash] $66,700 $ -- BONDS SOLD CONSTRUCTION BEGINS Construction - Year I [cash] 77,000 -- Bond service - Year 2 84,700 99,000 Bond service - Year 3 89,900 105,000 Bond service - Year 4 95,000 111,000 Bond service - Year 5 97,100 113,400 Bond service - Year 6 to 18 99,100 115,800 2 7 ' BWA 7/2/91 · TABLE 7 t Bakersfield Urban Water Supply Demonstration Project Annual Capital Costs Table 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 [2 Project C~mt Cost Yr Project. Debt ]992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 t9!'9/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 h'~]{ Index 4,680 Cos~ Financed 5,010 5,190 5,370 5,560 5,750 5,950 6,160 6~, 380 6,600 6,830 7,070 7,320 1 Western/Section 19 19,477,000 '93~0, ~ 850,000 ~Cash 1,391,000 1,605,000 i 21,405,000 1,766,000 1,874,000 1,981,000 2,025,000 2,066,000 2,06~,000 2,066,000 2,066,000 2,066,000 2,066,000 ~ 19 Tank/Ptm~ps/Plant ~ ~ ~ ~0,~6,000 '94 22,463,000 **Cash 1,498,000 1,730,000 23,061,000 1,903,000 2,0]9,000 2,134,000 2,181,000 2,~'~ ,000 ~:. .... 6,000 ~, ~b,000 ~ ~ ~ ~=6,000 .... 6,000 ........ 3 Land/Coffee 10,111,000 '95 11,602,000 *,*Cash 774,000 893,000 - 11,911~000 983,000 1,043,000 1,102,000 1,12],.000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,0~0 1,150,000 4 Reservoir/C~nt Plant 16,197,000 '96 19,243,000 ~*Cash 1,284,000 1,482,000 19,755,000 1,630,000 1,730,O00 1,828,000 1,868,000 1,907,000 1,907,000 1,907,000 50lcese Plant/Feeders 24,841,000 '97 30,520,000 **Cash ~,036,000 2,350,000 i/ 31,332,000 2,585,(XX) 2,7~,000 2,899,000 2,963,000 3,025,000 3,025,000 6 TOTAL 90,882,000 104,678,000 107,464,000 ............... ~ ..... 7 Debt Service 0 0 1,766,000 3,777,000 4,983,000 6,832,000 9,664,000 9,99[,000 10,209,000 10,312,000 10,374,000 10,374,000 8 -. Revenue 1,391,000 3,103,000 2,504,000 2,177,000 3,518,000 2,350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Project Revenues Required 1,391,000 3,103,000 4,270,000 5,954,000 8,501,000 9,182,000 9,664,000 9,99[,000 10,~,000 10,312~000 10,374,000 10,374,000 10 Other/Adr~]/Legal/Water 800,000 850,000 900,000 950,000 1,000,000 1,050,000 1,100,000 1,15],000 1,209,000 1,250,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 11 AN.%~JAL REV~TrE .~ 2,191,000 3,953,000 5,170,000 6,904,000 9,501,000 10,232,000 10,764,000 11,1~i,000 11,4(Y~,000 11,562,000 11,674,000 11,774,000 12 Develo~ent Fees (EDU): Inside ]3)4 BASIC CH,~OE ],600 1~700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 ~,~00 2,300 2,400 2,500 600 2,700 13 Outside 2,000 2,130 2,250 2,380 2,500 2,630 2,750 2,880 3,000 3,130 3,250 3,380 [~25%] 14 Pump Charge (AF) M&I Inside ID4 20 20 20- 25 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 15 Outside 27 27 27 33 40 43 45 48 51 53 56 59 [+33%] 16 Agr Inside ID4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 17 Outside (3 ~le) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 .10 10 10 10 18 Treated Water (AF) Inside ID4 10 10 15 20 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 [~5%/Yr] 19 (Plus O~) Outside 13 13 20 27 40 43 45 48 51 53 56 .. 59 [+33%] 20 Development Fees (EDU): Inside l-D4 ~.1~ 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 ~,000 21 Outside 250 500 ~ 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 22 Pump Charge (.IF) M&I Inside /D4 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 ~0,0(X) 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 23 Outside 0 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 i 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 24 tgr Inside 1754 5,000 5,000 5,000: 5.000 5,000 5,000 5,000 I 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25 Outside (3 Mile) 0 50,000 50,000 50~0(~) 50,000 50,000 50,000 i50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 26 7l~eated Water (AF) Inside ]I)4 30,000 30,000 35,000 35,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 ,(40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 27 (Plus O~) Outside 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 ; 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 28 Develou~ent Fees (EDU): Inside ID4 REVtN~ 1,600,000 3,400,000 3,600,000 3,800,000 4,000,000 4,200,000 4,400,000 4,(00,000 4,8C0,000 5,000,000 5,200,000 5,400,000 29 Outside 500,000 1,065,000 1,125,000 1,190,000 1,250,000 1,315,000' 1,375,000 1,440,000 1,500,000 1,565,0OO 1,625,000 1,690,000 30 ~r,[) Charge (AF) M&I Inside ]])4 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,750,000 2,100,000 o ~ ~,~40,000 2,380,000 2, 20,000 2,6.aD,000 2,800,000 2,940,000 3,080,000 ]1 Outside 0 54,000 81,000 132,000 200,000 215,000 225,000 40,000 255,000 265,000 280,000 295,000 ]2 Agr Inside ID4 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 ~,000 . 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 ]3 Outside (3 Mile) 0 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 00,000 5C, O,000 ~_R)0,000 500,000 500,000 34 Treated Water (AF) Inside 1I)4 300,000 300,000 525,000 700,000 1,2CO,000 1,280,000 1,360,000 1, 40,000'],520,000 1,600,000 1,680,000 1,760,000 ]5 (P]~g O&:xD Outside 0 0 20,000 54,000 ~i:0,000 172,000 ~5,000 140,OLD 255,000 265,000 q80,000 295,000 TOT.iL.REln~%~,) 3,8.50,000 6,769,000 7,301,000 8,176~000 9,4_~0,000 9,972,000 10,515,000 11,~30,000 11,~'%40,000 12,045,000 12,555,000 13,070,000 ~IULtL F1A7) BAIANCE 1,659,000 4,475,000 6,606,000 7,878,000 7,797,000 7,537,000 7,288,000 7,?7,000 7,.~08,000 7,791,000 ~,672,000 9,968,000 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY AND DEFINITIONS GloSsary of Agency Names Kern County Water Agency .................... ; ........ Agency Improvement District No. 4 ............................ ID4 Zone of Benefit No. 7 (SWP, M&I tax) .................... ZOB 7 Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee .................... UBAC Contract Board of Control (proposed) ...................... CBC 0 City/CoUnty 2010 Planning Area ......................... 2010 area Inside ID4 ID4 area City of Bakersfield (general governmen0 ................... City Bakersfield Water Board .............................. Water board City water service area ..... ' .......................... City service area California Water Service Company ........ ................ CWS Bakersfield district service area ......................... CWS service area East Niles Community Services District ..................... ENCSD North of the River Municipal Water District ................. NORMWD Olcese Water District . ... .............................. OWD Oildale Mutual Water Company .......... '. ............... OM Vaughn Water Company (mutual) .. ..... ; ..... ............ Vaugtm APPENDIX B: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AFIVlN-EDISON WA~ STOFt~GE DIb~FRIOT OLCESE WATER DIS'I~IICT C. E. Trotter, Engineer-Manager Donald L. Wahl, Manager CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD ROSEDAEE-RIO BRAVO WATER STORAGE DISTRICT Paul Dow, community Services Manager Mary E. Collup, Manager Flora Core, Assistant Director of Water Resources VAUGHN WA~.R CO., INC. Gene Bogart, Director of Water.Resources Michael L. Huhn, General Manager J. Dale Hawley, City Manager. Kelly tL Ulrich, Operations Supervisor' CAUFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY KERN COUHTY WATER AGENCY Bob D. Lewis, District Manager Thomas N. Clark, General Manager Robert R. GUzzetta, Chief Engineer Robert K. Bellue, Chief Engineer Michael J. Rossi, Assistant Chief Engineer John F. Stovall, General Counsel Femando Cisneros, Engineer Allan F. Hambleton, Administrative Officer CAWELO WATER DISTRICT Para Hyles, Executive Secretary John L. Jones, Manager Paul T. Macht, Assistant Treasurer Susan Stafford, Engineering Secretary HAROLD F- BERGEN EAST NILES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Roland W. Stephens, Manager nOVLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION J. Hodge i31ack, Director Emest.O. Kartinen Jr., Managing Engineer Dan Schmidt, Principal Engineer KERN DELTA WA~.R DIS~:IICT Ben Horn, Consulting Engineer Gilbert M. Castle Jr., General Manager CHEVRON LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT Dennis J. Trip]itt, Project Manager Charles H. Williams, Engineer-Manager Norm A. Baldinger NORTH OF THE RIVER MUNICIPAL KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS WATER DISTRICT Joseph G. Gilllck Ralph L. Gifford, Manager Laura O. Meadors, Project Engineer Donald C. Gage, Administrative Assistant/Treasurer MCCARTI~ STEEL INC. Robert McCarthy, President OILDALE MUTUAL WATER COMPANY Douglas Nunneley, Manager NICKEL ENIERPRISES Gene R. McMurtrey, Attomey George W. Nickel, Jr. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 10, 1977 RE: RIO BRAVO ANNEXATION "City Manager Bergen read the following statement into the record: The following statements are intended to put the Rio Bravo annexation in .a proper perspective as it relates to both service levels and cost. I would preface all of my remarks by stating that the general philosophy followed is that the service level provided to the Rio Bravo annexation be predicated upon their ability to pay. It has been our specific intention that the services to be provided will not place a burden upon the taxpayers now presently residing in the City. As the Rio Bravo area develops, service levels will keep pace with that development. Any service levels which exceed the. area's ability to pay must be accompanied by a special revenue assessment.. The City's concern should be that non-contiguous development does not result in costs for provision of necessary services which cannot be offset by anticipated revenues. I would re-emphasize that the statements made in the section entitled "Urban Growth and Fiscal Management" on Page 41 be reaffirmed. In November, 1976, the staff prepared a General Development Plan for the ' Rio Bravo annexation. That plan was amended in FebrUary, 1977, and provided a basis upon which all future decisions regarding Rio Bravo would be developed. It included a general development plan, an overview of existing conditions, assumptions about the future, and. specific planning elements. With the continuation of the annexation 'proceedings, further updates of the General Development Plan are necessary." Ordinance No. 2363 New Series approving Rio Bravo annexation was adopted. draws proteSts ~ve fo~t off a wa~r ~ct p~ ~ey ~ ~e ~ ~o~ b~ K~ ~' w~ d~ for su~de~..' - Olde Wa~ D~ct ~m m ~ ~r W ~ w~ a~ve ~ fiv~ .by pip~ tt Money W ~ude 4,~ a~. ~m a p~j~ W ~ o~et at ~e ~yon mou~ ~e p~J~ :. B~vo. ~do~e~ ~ a sparely se~ ~ ~~, but ~e ~ct woEd ~ve ~dy of ~e p~ject. "We need the water," said ~ Jones, {.'. -.'~.It's.~,-e~rate ~d~t of ~e P~or~ E~on ~~ ~ · ~e~ ~a~on, "but ~ere's no way we ~ j:.." '.L: ~e ~ now buys at 1~ ~ m~ of ~ ~r a~, aeeo~g w ~~on ~ ~dential asses~en~. "'That's.based .on a Obj~o~ pm~bly set ~ck ~e p~je~ by me .-';~e l~ndo~ ~dd ~ve ~d w b~d · mon~, M~~ ~d.. ~ o~ ~, up W a q~r-m~le 1o~, ~ get :.Olde ~ ~n~ue W ~e~e a wa~r' ~~r, he~d. Mc~~~e' m~ ~ta se~ pro}ect.W se~e ~e ~' c~d~ ~ve ~ r~ i~ for water now; ~ey woEd ~y now. d~p ~ ~ ~ ~,~, he ~. dev~o~, he ~ .~do~em d~er ~ s~k '. pmbl~ ~ ~ a project ~ ~e ar~. IIII A :llll / ;;1111 / ~,,,I.-- Le 0 a ue of Cahforn[a Cities Cities Work To~emer ~ 1400 K Street · Sacramento 95814 · (916) 444-5?90 [~ V~ ~ 1~ ~ W ~ [~ #26-1991 · JUt. 8 199~ July 5, 1991 .. CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES, 2. OPPOSE Water Utilities, Surcharge on Urban Water Users, SB 959 (Presley). No ,Vote Taken in Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee. Bill Amended to Require Approval by the Voters. SB .959 would impose a surcharge on urban water retailers to fund safe drinkin~ water grants, groundwater clean-up and fish and wildlife enhancement. Estimates are that the surcharge would average about $50 per acre foot. As amended recently, SB 959 would only go into effect if a proposed constitutional amendment is approved by the voters to enact the surcharge and its uses. Supporters of the measure, the Planning and Conservation League and various wildlife organizations, contend that the current general obligation bond process is not working and that the surcharge proposed in SB 959. would provide a more st,ble, long-term funding source. At the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee hearing this week, ~)?ponents of the measure voiced strong concern about how the surcharge is applied, its inequitable uses, the fact that agriCultural water users are not included and the difficulty locai governments will face in raising fees for local needs, given the continued fee increases to reflect state mandates and fund state programs. After a lengthy hearing, SB 959 was not put to a vote. Thus, the bill remains with the Committee for now. However, since the author may decide to take it up for a vote any time in the future, all cities that have not already done so should write members of the Committee and their Legislators and ask that they oppose SB 95.9.. Letters should cite how the proposed surcharge will impact local water fees. Members of the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee are: Cortese (Chair), Campbell, Costa, Filante, I4arvey, Hauser, Isenberg, Jones, Katz, Kelley, Peace, Speier, and Wyman. (Referred to previously in 5 July 5, 1991 C IT Y 0 F C A L I F O R N I A "~"~-'~-~::~'"'~'~'"' '~--'~-~" .. WATER AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT ~ -~' _~.~2_ PAUL DOW, Manager GENE BOGART, Director of Water Resources FLORN CORE, Assistant Director of Water Resources ,' MIKE SIDES, Sanitation Superintendent, 326-3114 .July 5, Phil wyman, State Assemblyman 34rd District . State Capital Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Wyman: · SB ~5~, the urban water user tax authored by Senator Robert ?rcslcY (D-Riverside), is of great concern to the City of Bakersfield and we urge you to oppose this legislation. The $100.00 tax proposed on each acre-foot of water delivered by the City of Bakersfield's water system would require a 50% increase in water rates to our customers. This additional tax, on top of pending drinking water quality requirements, will place an ever increasing financial responsibilty upon all utilities and their customers. The tax would be highly regressive and the burden of paying would fall most heavily on lower income customers who would pay a disproportionately high percentage of their disposable income toward this tax levy. The proposed bill would establish a precedent to the water utilities in that tax morley on specific activities. would be used for unrelated purposes. There is also an inherent inequity in the fact that all water agencies will benefit from programs funded by ihe proposed tax, but only urban water agencies 'and utilities are required to pay. Those utilities and agencies that have worked hard to develop dependable water sources and maintain good water quality through self funding programs would be penalized or forced to unfairly subsidize other agencies. Although the tax has bccn approved by the Senate, State Senator Don Rogers voted n_po. Again, we urge you to also oppose this prop0scd legislation. We understand the latest amendments introduccxl by the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee call for having thc final tax p/aced on thc ballot, it's preferable that the bill die in the Assembly. Very, truly yours, PAUL DOW Water & Sanitation Manager cc: City of Bakersfield Water Board .. Councilmember Mark Salvaggio, Chair Councilmember Conni Brunni . Councilmember Ken Peterson J. Dale Hawley, City Manager 4101 TRUXTUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309 * (805) 326-3715 WATER AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT PAUL DOW, Manager GENE BOGART, Direclor o~ Water Resoumes FLORN CORE, Assistanl Director of Water Resources MIKE SIDES, Sanitalion Superintendent, 326-3~ 14 July 5, i991 Trice Harvey, State Assemblyman 33rd District State Capital Building, Room 4015 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Harvey: SB 959, the urban water user tax authored by Senator Robert Presley (D-Riverside), is of, great concern to the City of Bakersfield and we urge you to (oppose this legislation. The $100.00 tax proposed on each acre-foot of water delivered by the City of Bakcrsfield's water system would require a 50% increase in water rates to our customers. This additional tax, on top of pending drinking water quality requirements, will place an ever increasing financial responsibilty upon all utilities and their customers. The tax would be highly regressive and the burden of paying would fall most heavily on lower income customers who would pay a disproportionately high percentage of their disposable income loward this tax levy. The proposed bill would establish a precedent to the water utilities in that tax money on specific activities would be used for unrelated purposes. There is also an inherent inequity in the fact that all water agencies' will benefit from programs funded by thc proposed tax, but only urban water agencies and utilities are required to pay. Those utilities and agencies that have worked hard to develop dependable water sources and maintain good water quality through self funding programs would be penalized or forced to unfairly subsidize other, agencies. Although the tax has been approved by thc Senate, State Senator Don Rogers voted n_qo. Again, we urge you to also oppose this proposed legislation. We understand the latest amendments introduced by the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee call for having the final tax placed on the ballot, Ws preferable thai thc bill dic in the Assembly. Very truly yours, PAUL DOW Water & Sanitation Manager cc: City of Bakersfield Water Board Councilmember Mark Salvaggio, Chair Councilmember Conni Brunni Councilmember Ken Pclerson J. Dale Hawley, City Manager 4101 TRUXTUN AVENUE ', BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309 · (805) 326-3715 ~' ~"'i' " : ". 'compiled by:! Jamie Jacks .,i . "' .... ' ' ' ' ' The 'mother efta re~ ea's:./ndu§trial developmenU arid '' Contract talks 'continued between Kern expected to 'attend will be FloYd E~ Dominy of 1~l'l~'~s tarded man found" ,~rowth,.Kern. C6untyW, ater;Agency ]. ~ ~oA~s County and the' largest public employe~ ~: Washington, D.C., U S' Commissioner of Reclamation.. -~- v AGO _ V .~G0 . Union, a week after the ~xpiration of the i?(:.: :~; A LOS ANGELES Consulting engineeh Thomas M. ::ii~!i dead in ~ Kern Merit-ii'director,. ROland, .CurrGn sa~,s of~ a old,l~bor contract. Meanwhile the executive director of,' Stetson, says Bakersfield should acqUire Kern River"',~ Ca! C~hter S~curity room accepted ~cent' eriginee?ing 'repor,t ....... ' . . ,', · · - . - ~' ~ a~ out,f-court settlement of $50,000. !' Bakersfield City Council. ".' ~'i .... ' the Kern County TaXpayers Association urged superw-.' water to offset ils overdraft of underground supplies .~t i~. .... ' ' ' sots to "set a non-inflationary' ekample'' by giving, and to avoid the Kern County Wate~ ~gency's zone of .;'~i The ~igreement ended her'attempt; employees a toP salai-y and fringe benefit Of 8 percent, ;i : benefits tax. Stetson Was retained by th~ City Council '? to luse the civil suit as an investiga-'.. THE PADRE. HOTEL met its Supervisors are e~cted to reject that advice this' earlier this year to study City and Greater Bakersfield "~ tion ir/to~ which attendant, beat the midnight deadline to have tenants afternoon bY granl/in~ a salary increase of 16.6 percent "water needs to halt the overdraft and to recommend ':~ · 20/year.-old man to death during his . incarceration in KMC's psychiatric abiding by a court order that gave for flrefighters.and 19.07 percent for sheriff's deputies.:ilhlternative sources of imported .water. ... ":' ~! w~rd. The Kern County Sheriff's ' 'hotel trustee Milton Miller seven ~ KERN COUNTY REFINERY Inc. and Gibson Oil?? ' ~' '. '. ': ' . ' ' '. ~,..: ~ f" !'-'~,~' .,~ .'~ ' ', . ~', '~;~ & Refining Co.. of Bakei'sfield Strongly denied U.S. Reportedly inspecting [~0ssible sites for .i D~partment, the district attorney's days to evacuate. Most of the per- Energy. Department allegations they violated a federal I~ ~ ~as location of the new West coast headquar- ' ~. office and the' Kern CoUnty grand · manent guests who had occupied entitlements program. Th~ program,, halted last Janu- ' ~ ~--- ~Go ·ters of the Army Air Corps basic training: ~:. il ju/'y all investigated the 1979 death rooms" on. the upper floors had ary ~vith 0il price decontrol, Was an iattempt to share program, Col. Edwin Bean Lyon, acting commanding'::.' !! bu~ came to no conclusion. · . moved to the Second floor where all amongU.S, refineries the benefits of low-cost domestic general of the west coast Air Corps training center at ?i ~ "?' ' ' 27.rooms are now occupied. '-- ,, , oil and the penalty of high-Priced imported crude~ ' . Moffet Field, arrived in Kern County. He .spent the" ~ speaking students in Bakersfield · ,, r~V;wa~t sas MERCY HOSPITAL will at'gue its case for adding morning at Taft and later was to meet With county .. .',' City 'School District will receive ~?~"~'; .... :.' · , .. '... 32 beds to the hospital before a regional health agency, officials in Bakersfield.. .i, Engli~l~ instruction ,while. attending.' ~heerlSot~Use~a°~e~eogarr~iU~nt~'S~le~ panel in Bakersfield. It is the second of six steps the . ~ ,,uaoe-' The district's new Blithe, ual celenra~e ns anmversary In ~s new hospital must take tO win state approval for the lJeds. MISS FLORENCE MONAItAN, suPerintendent of ~ classes taught in their native lan- ,. _ " the California Institution for Women at Tehachapi, !. ~- ~ ", ...... ~' n' ' store, handing out brochures for a V:Cluca~lon ~aster l-'larl was prose ' ' comes~ wnn a uiamono ring, color ~ ~ L ~.. Kern County will be the water capital of announced that she had t~esigned effective immediately. ~ ed ~.ta.the board of education, i ' television, blue fox stole and free ~ ~ g~"'~.' the west When citizens and .water indus- Her tenure had long been the subject of dispute among ~ ~: ..... . .. · ... · ,~ ~ .~Go '~ry leaders gather, to commemorate de-' directors of the women's prison. A temporary successor ~ helicopter rides by the Airlife Hell- livery of the first Central Valley .Project ~kater to the will be chose at a meeting of the board of directors .at !~ THE UNION representing' 30 po- ' 'coPter' Service of Bakersfield. At'vin-Edis(~ii Water Storage District's $46 million ' Tehachapi July 9,. according tO M.G. Briflan,. Bakers- ~ lic~ officers will file. two lawsuits system. Heading tlhe delegation of water o~[ficials field member of.the board.'~; , ~;.. ag/~inst Delano in'an effort',~o re .... Every consider- .... ' ~. , ' sol~'e, two issues in stalled Contract~ S0~r~s.~Go · ation" will be given ,.(f:~Jl°~R~) " i' negotiations, A, ' Oodson Bennett,. Kern County in an Air "~') ~-~)~ -~ ex~utive director Of the Western. Corps study of a Site for relocation Coaference of Teamsters Locai 911,. of headquarters of'the West Coast : ::said. The suits would be filed if the ~. air training Center at Moffett Field, · cit~' rejects r.equests to select an ?: the 'Board of Supervisor~ was in- arbitrator and to join the Public formed by a letter from MaJ~ D.M. Eni,o!o~'ees R,et!remen~' SYstem. $¢hlatter of the Army Air Corps. · "'.. '~"' '. Condemnation" pro- . THE NORTH-of-the-river district ~S ~' ceedings ;t:o .acquire will not get its sewer ~ystem Until : : Kern River water to after the' national defense emergen- Se~'~'-~akersfield W0uld involve~,,, cY is over, the board of directors of cos~,,~, litig~iti0/i' anc~urtail, the ar'- ' the sanitary,., district decided.. A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE AREAS. WHEREAS, from time to time it becomes necessary to change the boundaries of the service areas of the Bakersfield Municipal Water System because of growth in the area, annexations and development; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that such boundaries be a matter of record; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: Pursuant to the authority of Sections 14.04.011 and 14.06.010 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, the boundaries of the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water Service Area are established and are hereby amended. The established and amended boundary is real property so identified on the map attached hereto and marked Exhibit A and which real property is described in the legal descriptions attached hereto and marked Exhibit B. o0o I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on APR 2 ~ 19g~ , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBI:RS: EDWARDS. DeMOI~D, SMITH, BRUNNI. PETERSON, McDERMOTT, SALVAGGIO NOES; COUNCILMEMSERS: . /~/O/,J~ ABSENT COUNCILMSMBERS: '/IV',2/'-/~' ABSTAIN: COUNCIL.MEMBERS /9[',,~,/iF CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED APR Q 4 lg_ql MAYOR o~ the C~t5 o~ Bakersf APPROVED as to form: CITY ~T~ORNEY 'of the City of Bakersfield -2- ./ i CITY OF BAKERSFIELD j~,../ DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION · x-'xw L' ....... SERVICE AREA MAP / . ~a~h 15. ~982 t9. ~986 EXHIBIT A CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land situated in the incorporated and unincorporated area of the County of Kern, State of California, being all or a portion of Sections 29, 35, and 36 of Township 29 South, Range 26 East, M.D.B. & M., Sections 1, 2, 12, and 25 of Township 30 South, Range 26 East, M.D.B. & M., Sections 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34 of Township 29 South, Range 27 East, M.D.B. & M., Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, and 27 and 34 of Township 30 South, Range 27 East, M.D.B. & M. more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast quarter corner of Section 2, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, M.D.B. & M., said point also being on the North right of way line of Stockdale Highway; Thence (1) East along said North right of way line to a point on the northerly prolongation of the West right .of way line of McDonald Way; Thence (2) South along said northerly prolongation line and said West right of way line of McDonald Way to a point On the easterly prolongation of the North boundary line of Tract No. 1610, filed April 3, 1952, in Book 8 of maps at page 1 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (3) West along said prOlongation line and North line of said Tract No. 1610 to the northwest corner thereof; Thence (4) Southwesterly along said Tract No. 1610 to the northwest comer of Tract No. 1645 filed December 18, 1952 in Book 8 of maps at page 38 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (5) Southwesterly along' said Tract 1645 boundary line to a point on the East line of Section 3, T. 30 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (6) South along said East Section line to the East quarter corner of said Section 3; Thence (7) West along the SOuth line of the North half of said Section 3 to the northerly prolongation of the east right of way line of New Stine Road; Thence (8) Southerly along said prolongation line and East right of way line to a point on the south line of said Section 3; Thence (9) East along said South section line to 'the southeast corner of said Section 3; , Thence (10) South along the East lines of Sections 10 and 15, T.30S., R.27E. to a point on the northeasterly right of way line of the Farmer's Canal; D:\WP-FILECvn SC~EGALDES.WP _., (Revision date - April 15, 1991) -' EXHIBIT B City of Bakersfield - Domestic Water System Legal Description (continued) Page 2 , Thence (11) Southeasterly along said right of way line to point on the South right of way line of White Lane; Thence (12) Easterly along said South right of way line to point on thc east line 'of the West half of the southwest quarter of Section 14, T. 30 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (13) South along said East line to a point on the North right of way line of the Southern Pacific Railroad-Asphalto Branch; Thence (14) West along said North right of way line to the West line of said Section 14; Thence (15) South along the West lines of Sections 14 and 23, T. 30S., R. 27 E. to thc South line of the North half of the northwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence (16) East along said South line to a point on the westerly right of way line of the Farmer's Canal; Thence (17) Southwesterly along said right of way line to a point on the West line of said Section 23; Thence (18) Sou(h along said West section line to the West quarter of said Section 23, being the center line of Harris Road; Thence (19) East along the South line of the North half of said Section 23 to a point on the East line of the West. half southwest quarter of said Section 23; Thence (20) South along said East line and continuing South along the East line of the West 'half of the Northwest quarter of Section 26 to a point on the North right of way line of the Arvin-Edison Canal; Thence (21) Westerly along said canal right of way line to a point on the centerline of Stine Road; Thence (22) Southerly along said centerline of Stine Road to the half section line of Section 27, T. 30 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (23) Westerly along said half section line a distance of 2640 feet, said point also being the center of section 34, T. 30 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (23a) North along half section line of section 34, R. 30 S., R. 27 E. 2640 feet to a point on the south line of section 27, T. 30 S., R. 27 E.; D:\WP -FILEhMISC~ALDES.WP -" (Revision date - April 15, 1991) City of Bakersfield - Domestic Water System Legal Description (continued) Page 3 Thence (23b) West 2640 feet along said south line of section 27, T~ 30 S., R. 27 E. to the East line of section 28, T. 30 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (23c) North along said East line of section 28, T. 30 S., R. 27 E. to a point at the Southeast section corner of Section 21, T. 30 S., R. 27 E. Thence (24) N.00° 35'E. along a line parallel to the centerline of Stine Road to a point on the South line of Section 22, T. 30 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (25) West along the South lines of Sections 21, 20, and 19 of T. 30 S., R. 27 E., to the point also being the Northeast quarter corner of Section 25, T. 30 S., R, 26 E.; Thence (26) S.00° 35'W. along the easterly boundary of said Section 25 a distance of 1320 feet; Thence (27) N.89° 50'W. along a line 1320 feet South and Parallel to the North line of said Section 25 a distance of 1320 feet; · Thence (28) N.00° 35'E. along a line 1320 feet West and parallel to the Easterly boundary of said Section 25 a distance of 1320 feet; Thence (29) S.89° 50'E. along the'North boundary line of said Section 25 a distance of 1320 feet to a point also being the Northeast quarter corner of said Section 25; Thence (30) North along the West line of Sections 19 and 18, T. 30 S., R. 27 E. to the Southwest quarter corner of Section 7, T. 30 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (31) West along the South line of Section 12, T. 30 S., R. 26 E. a distance of 2640 feet to a point being the West line of the East half of said Section 12; Thence (32) Northerly along said West line of the East half of said Section 12 to a point being on the South line of Section 1, T. 30 S., R. 26 E.; Thence (33) West along said South line of Section 1 to the Southwest quarter corner of said Section 1; Thence (34) North along the West line of said Section 1 to a p°int on the South line of the North half of Section 2, T. 30 S., R. 26 E.; Thence (35) West along said South line to the West quarter corner of said Section 2; Thence (36) North along West line of said Section 2 to the Northwest comer thereof; D:\WP-FILE~I I SC'5LEGALDES.WP (Revision date - April 15, 1991) City of Bakersfield - Domestic Water System Legal Description (continued) Page 4 Thence (37) North along West line of Section 35, T. 29 S., R. 26 E. to the North line of the South half of the North half of the Southwest quarter of said Section 35; Thence (38) East along said North line of the South half of the North half of the Southwest quarter of said Section 35 to the East line of the West half of said Section 35; Thence (39) South along said East line of the West half of said Section 35 to the North line of the South half of the Southeast quarter of said Section 35i Thence (40) East along said North line of the South half of the Southeast quarter of said Section 35 to the East line of the West half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter; Thence (41) South along said East line of the West half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter to the North line of Section 1, T. 30 S., R. 26 E.; Thence (42) East along said North line of Section 1 to the Northeast'quarter corner of said Section 1; Thence (43) North along the West line of Section 36 and 25, T. 29 S., R. 26 E. to the North line of the South half of the South half of said Section 25: · Thence (44) East along said North line of the South half of the South half of said Section 25 to the West line of the East half of the East half of said Section 25; Thence (45) South along said West line of the East half of the East half of said Section 25 to the north line of said Section 36; Thence (46) East along said North line of said Section 36 and Section 31, T. 29 S., R. 27 E. to the Southwest quarter corner of Section 29, T. 29 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (47) East along North right of way line 10.00 feet to a point on the West right of way line of Calloway Road (Co. Rd. No. 360); Thence' (48) A~ong said West right of way line of Calloway Road, N.00° 14' 43" W., 1072.20 feet to a point on the Westerly prolongation of the South line of parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3582 recorded in Book 16 of Parcel Maps at Page 70 in'the Office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (49) S. 89°.46' 49" E., 1322.58 feet to the Southeast corner of parcel 2 of said Parcel Map D:\WP-FILELMISC'&EGALDES.WP ' (Revision dat~ -Aprtl 15, 1991) ·. .City of Bakersfield - Domestic Water System Legal Description (continued) Page 5 Therice (50) N.00° 14'01"E., 220.36 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 22 of the Sales Map of Lands of Kern County Land Company filed August 20, 1890, in the Office of the Kern Cbunty Recorder; Thence (51) N.00° 12'49" E., 646.33 feet along West line of said lot '22; Thence (52) S.89° 48' 11" E., 661.06 feet' to a point on the East line of said lot 22; Thence (53) N.00° 12' 29" E., 711.23 feet to a point on the South right of way line of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad; Thence (54) S.89° 47' 39" E., along said South' railroad right of way line, 660.98 feet to a point on the North-South midsection line of said Section 29; Thence (55) N.00° 13' 20" E., along said midsection line, 2579.11 feet to the South right of way line of Rosedale Highway (State route VI KER 58); Thence (56) N.89° 08'14" W., along a line parallel with and 30.00 feet distant as meaSured at right angles from the North line of said Section 29, 1808.41 feet; Thence (57) N.00° 29'05" E., 260.00 feet; Thence (58) N.89° 08'14" W., 150.00 feet to a point on the West line of parcel 1 of Parcel Map 6521 recorded in Book 30 of Parcel Maps at Page 6 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (59) N.00° 29'05" E., along said West line, 1134.35 feet; Thence (60) N.89° 08'14" W., 720.77 feet to the West right of way line of Calloway Drive (Co. Rd. No. 522); Thence (61) on and along said West right of way the following courses: N.00° 29'05" E., 1307.35 feet; Thence (61a) N.00° 28'15" E., 2670.32 feet; Thence (61b) N.00° 35'09" E., to a point on the Easterly 'right of way to the 'Friant Kern Canal; Thence (62) Northwesterly along said Easterly right of way to the North line of Section 7, T. 29 S., R. 27 E.; D:\WP-FILEVvlISC~LEGALDES.WP (Revision da~e - April 15, 1991) City of Bakersfield - Domestic Water System Legal Description (continued) Page 6 Thence (63) East along said North line of Section 7 to the Northeast quarter corner of said Section 7; Thence (64) South along the East line of said Section 7 to the Intersection of West right of way of Calloway Drive and the Westerly prolongation of the North line of parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 3249 as filed in Parcel Map Book 16 at Page 7 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (65) S.88° 54'39" E. on and along said Northerly line and said Westerly prolongation thereof, a distance of 1351.50 feet to the West line of the East half of the Southwest quarter of Section 8, T. 29 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (66) N.00° 36'12" E., on and along said West line, a distance of 629.75 feet to the South right of way of Norris Road; Thence (67) S.88° 54'40" E., on and along said South right of way line a distance of 360.69 feet to the West line of East 300 feet of the West half of the East': half of the Southwest quarter of said Section 8; Thence (68) South along said West line, to a point on the South line of the North 145.00 feet of the Southwest quarter of said Section 8; Thence (69) East along said South line 300.00 feet to a point on the East line of the West half of the East half of the Southwest quarter of said Section 8; Thence (70) North along said East line to the South line of the NOrth 45.00 feet of the Southwest quarter of said Section 8, also being the South right of way line of Norris Road. Thence '(71) S.88° 54'40" E. along said right of way line 660.69 feet to the East line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 8; Thence (72) North along said East line, 15.00 feet .to a point on the South right Of way line of Norris Road (Co. Rd. No. 30); Thence (73) S.88° 54'40" E., on and along said South right of way and the Easterly prolongation thereof, a distance of 2672.51 feet to the East right of way of Coffee Road (Co. Rd.' No. 401); Thence (74) S.00° 32'12" W., on and along said East right of way of Coffee Road, a distance of 1298.27 feet to the North boundary of the Tract No. 3806, as filed in Map .Book 27 at Page 42 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder;' D:\WP -FILEBM I S~ALDES3~,rP (Revision date. April 15, 1991) "' City of Bakersfield - Domestic Water System Legal Description (continued) Page 7 Thence (75) S.89° 12'53" E., on and along said North line a distance of 25.00 feet to the East right of way of said Coffee Road (Co. Rd. No. 401); Thence (76) S.00° 32'12" W., on and along said East right of way a distance of 1320.64 feet; Thence (77) continuing on and along said East right of way S.00° 37'57" W., 2645.30 feet to the North line of the South half of Section 16, T. 29 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (78) N.89° 09'10" W., a distance of 55.00 feet to the West quarter corner of said Section 16; Thence (79) S.00° 38'16" W., on and along West section line of said Section 16 a distance of 2644.43 feet to the Southwest quarter corner of said Section 16; Thence (80) S.89° 05'31" E., a distance of 30.00 feet to a point on the North line of Section 21, T. 29 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (81) S.00° 25'39" 'on and along said East line 2660.94 feet to the East-West midsection line of said Section 21; Thence (82) N.89° 44'05" W., along said East-West line 30.00 feet to the West quarter comer of said Section 21; Thence (83) along West line of said Section 21, S.00° 26' 12" W., 2549.22 feet, more or less~ to the North right of way line of Rosedale Highway (State Route VI-KER-58) as shown on State Highway Map No. 7-1, filed in 'book 4, Pages 96 and 97 in the Office of the Kern County Surveyor; Thence (84) along said North right of way line of Rosedale Highway Easterly through said Section 21 and Section 22, T. 29 S., R. 27 E. to the West line of the East half of said Section 22; Thence (85) Northerly along the last named West line of Section 22 and Section 15, T. 29 S., R. 27 E. to the center of said Section 15; Thence (86) Easterly along the North line of the South half of said Section 15 and the North line of the South half of Section 14, T. 29 S., R. 27 E. to a'point on the Northerly right of way line of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad; Thence (87) Northeasterly along the last named railroad right of way to a' point on the Westerly right of way line of State Route VI-KER-99; D:\WP-FILE'XMI SC~LEGALDES.W'P (Revision date. April 15, 1991) City of Bakersfield - Domestic Water System Legal Description (continued) Page 8 ' Thence (88) Southerly along the last named westerly, right of way line tO a point on the said right of way described from the following: Commencing at the center of said Section 14; thence S.00° 21' 15" W. a distance of 26.30 feet to a point on the Westerly right of way line of State Route VI-KER-99, said point on the Easterly boundary line of the Fairhaven Water District; thence S. 23° 25'51" E. a distance of 360.75 feet; thence S.37°18'26'' E. a distance of 183.65 feet to a point on a nontangent cui-ve concave to the Northeast which bears S.44° 42'45" W. a radial distance of 1085 feet from the center of said curve; thence Southerly along the last named curve through a central angle of. 18° 00'49" and arc distance of 341.12 feet; Thence (89) departing said Westerly right of way line along a direct line to the Northeast cOrner of the land described in the deed to the State of California, recorded October 1, 1964, in Book 3771, page 374 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (90) S.80° 57'12" E. a distance of 463.98 feet; Thence (91) S.56° 05'11" E. a distance of 71.99 feet; Thence (92) S.14° 39'38" E. a distance of 75.31 feet; Thence (93) Southerly along a direct line to the Northerly terminus of Course No. 2 of parcel 1 of that certain Grant Deed'from R. S. Haberkern to Reed Properties recorded October 9, 1979, in Official Records Book 5235 at page 137 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder; Thence (94) S.04° 51'31" W. a distance of 48.61 feet; Thence (95) S.49° 51'15" W. a distance of 195.44 feet; Thence (96) S.52° 41'03" W. a distance of 46.80 feet; Thence (97) N.43° 37'02" W. a distance of 218.37 feet to a point on a nontangent curve concave to the Southeast which bears N.79° 42'02" W. a radial distance of 115 feet from the center of said curve; 'Thence (98) Southerly along the last named curve through a central 12027'20'' an arc length of 25 feet; Thence (99) S.02° 09'24" E. a distance of 44.62 feet; D:\WP .FILELMI SC~LEGALDES.WP (Revision date - April 15, 1991) City of Bakersfield - Domestic Water SYStem Legal Description (continued) Page 9 Thence (100) N.89° 44'32" W. a distance of 233.95 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly right of way line of State Route VI-KER-99; Thence (101) SOutherly along the last.named Westerly right of way line to a point on the Northerly right of way line of State Route VI-KER-58 (Rosedale Highway); Thence (102) Easterly along the last named Northerly right of way linc and the Northerly right of way line of State Route VI-KER-178 (24th Street) to a point on the South levee of the Kern River; Thence (103) Southwesterly along the last named South levee to a point on the West line of Section 26, T. 29 S., R. 27 E.; Thence (104) South along said West line of Sections 26 and 35 to the Northeast quarter corner of Section 2, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, M.D.B. & M., said point also being on the North right of way line of Stockdale Highway to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion lying within thc following described parcel: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of East line of Section 4, T. 30 S., R. 27 E., M.D.B. & M., with the South right of way line of Stockdale HighWay; Thence (1) South along said East line of said Section 4 to a point on the ex~sting corporate boundary line of the City of Bakersfield; · Thence (2)Westerly, Northerly, Easterly and Northeasterly along the various courses of said Corporate Boundary to a point on the South right of way line of St0ckdale Highway; Thence (3) East along said South right of way line to the Point of Beginning. D:\W'P-FI Ll~M I SC\LEGALDES.WP " (Revision date - April 15, 1991)