The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/15/95 Y 0 F · -'.';~;' WATER BOARD Mark Salvaggio, Chair Randy Rowles, Vice-Chair Patricia M. Smith NOTICE OF WATER BOARD MEETING OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1995 AT 4:30P.M. WATER RESOURCES BUILDING 1000 BUENA VISTA RD, BAKERSFIELD, CA AGENDA 1). CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2). ROLL CALL - BOARD MEMBERS 3). APPROVE MINUTES OF WATER BOARD MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 20, 1995. 4). PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5). DEFERRED BUSINESS A. KERN RIVER OPERATIONS UPDATE. B. NORTHEAST WATER SUPPLY PROJECT - AUTHORIZATION FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR NEXT PHASE OF INVESTIGATION. C. INTERFACE RESERVOIR (10 MILLION GALLON) RESOLUTION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 6). NEW BUSINESS A. CONTINUATION OF DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH AMENDMENT. B. WATER MAINLINE EXTENSION CONTRACT RE-ASSIGNMENTS. C. URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - 5 YEAR REVIEW REQUIREMENT G ATER MANAGER POSTED: November 9, 1995 $:WANO1595 FC:fc I 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 · (805) 326-3715 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD I Held Wednesday, September 20, 1995, 4:30p.m., Water Resources Conference Room, 1000 Buena I Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311. 1. The meeting was called to order by Boardmember Salvaggio at 4:32p.m. I 2. Present: Mark Salvaggio, Chair Patricia M. Smith I Absent: Randy Rowles, Vice-Chair 3. Boardmember Salvaggio made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting held I July 12, 1995. Motion carried. 4. There were no Public Statements. I 5. Deferred Business. I 5A. At the suggestion of Board Chair Salvaggio, item 5A is to be heard later on the agenda to await the arrival of Boardmember Rowles. I 5B. The Kern River operations update was presented before the Board by Mr. Core. Today there is approximately 350,000 acre feet in storage at Lake Isabella, we are targeting a 245,000 acre foot carryover for December 1, 1995 pending approval by the U. S. Corps of I Engineers. Normal carryover operation is 170,000 acre feet. The Kern River Interests will need to evacuate about 170,000 acre feet from Isabella storage before the first of December, indicating flows in 'the river channel in Bakersfield until that date. The City will have its I storage moved down to its allocated share of 170,000 even though the reservoir will be at 245,000. Mr. Bogart stated that for the year there will be 750,000 acre feet of federal, state and local water spread in the City's "2800 Acres," Kern County Water Agency Pioneer and I the Kern Water Bank properties. For Board information, no action taken. 5C. The status of the 10 Million Gallon Interface Reservoir was brought before the Board by Mr. i Randall, Water Resources Business Manager. A letter was received from the State Department of Water Resources indicating approval of a $3,000,000 loan to the City to fund the final phase of the Ag/Domestic Interface Project. The loan will be repaid over 15 years i at a 6.1% annual rate, with an annual payment of approximately $324,000. The payments will be made from savings generated from avoiding groundwater pumping taxes, off-peak power costs, developer water availability fees and the deferral of funding additional water wells. A Resolution and a Notice of Public Hearing will be brought before the Board at its I next meeting approval by City For information, for recommendation and the Council. Board no action taken. l.. 6. New Business. 6A. An Agreement for temporary rental of City Isabella Reservoir storage space to Kern Delta I Water District was presented before the Board by Mr. Core. The Kern Delta Water District has approached the City to rent available storage space in Lake Isabella for their excess Kern River exchanged water supply. The request is for 10,000 acre feet of space that the C. ity I would have available, however, it appears that Kern Delta would be using between 3,000 to 5,000 acre feet. The agreement will allow Kern Delta to use storage space in Isabella for three months, December, 1995 through February, 1996, at their cost and obligation. Staff recommends the Board approve and authorize the Chair to sign this agreement. Boardmember Smith made a motion for approval and authorizing the Chair to sign the agreement. Motion carried. 5A. Mr. Bogart introduced Mr. Morris Taylor of Ricks, Taylor and Associates for an update on responses received from participants to the Project Definition Report of the Northeast Water Supply Project. The draft report was submitted to the participants in March, 1995, requesting review and comments be returned to the Consultants for further evaluation. Comments have been received from East Niles Services North of the Community District, River Municipal Water District (Boyle Engineering) and the City of Bakersfield. Two of the most common questions asked were "Where is the water entitlement coming from?", and "How can it be accomplished?" Mr. Taylor responded that the Kern River water supply has historically been 100% utilized for irrigation purposes, and that no surface entitlement has been available for use as a domestic supply. The existing surface and groundwater supplies can be utilized through agreements and exchanges to better manage the areas total supply and to provide a new treated water source. If the Project were to be approved, it will require multiple agreement and contract arrangements for a continuous Kern River water supply. Mr. Taylor suggested negotiations be initiated with PG&E and the Rio Bravo hydro power partners to determine the cost to divert water from their facilities. Discussions with water rights holders should be held to formalize water available for use in the treatment plant and to determine costs. These items need to be decided before moving ahead. Two meetings were held with the participants to discuss the project, and indications are we will be moving ahead with future investigations. Staff will continue to pursue discussions with involved participants, polling them as to their support on this project. For Board information, no action taken. 7. Closed Session. 7A. Board Chair Salvaggio adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 5:08p.m. Board Chair Salvaggio reconvened the meeting at 5:30p.m. Closed session action. No action taken. 8. The meeting adjourned at 5:31p.m. Mark Salvaggio, Chai~ City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board 2 KERN RIVER NATURAL FLOW, REGULATED FLOW, & ISABELLA RESERVOIR STORAGE 1995 CALENDAR YEAR 8000 600,000 - - (2508.25 Ft.) 7500:_ /--~-~ -550,000 - ,/ ~,,,,,, - (2603.91 Ft.) 7000: / - -- · / '" Isabella Storage - 500,000 / \ - (25~o.28 R.) 6500: /~, ., / ', 6000: /; ',, :450,000 / k - (25~.52 Ft.) 5500: / "" "~. :400,000 - ,// ,,, .0o: ,,, Natural Flow '~,.~ : 350,000 4500-: - (2ss4~t R.) 4000-- ~. - ¢~?&~a Ft.} 3500-- / 1995-96 Requested 2250,000 ,/ Carryover (245,000) ~. o - (as~.~ Ft.) 3000- ~ ~ - -: -~00,000 ~500-- Normal Allo~hl~ - ¢~'~'~ -- ~.~ ~rryov~r {~?0,000}'-~ ' - ~000= ~' - 150,000 1500_-- - 100,000 Z Z (~=45.~3 r~) 1000-- Regulated flow / - : ' -50,000 500-~_- - (253~.55 R.) ~.~~~~~~..~~~~~..~~.~~~~~~......~~~~~~~~.~.~~~~~.~~~.~~~~~~~~~.~~~..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~.~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~"~""~.~..~~~~~~~~.~~~.~~~..~.~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~".~...~~..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~..~~~~~.~~~.~~~.~.~~~~.~~~~...~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~"~~~~~~~~.~..~~.~~.~.~~.~.~.~~.~~~~~~.~~~~~~~.~"~.~~~.~~~.~..~~~~~~"""~.~"~~~~~.~~~~~~~.~~.~~~~~~~~ o Jan-95 Feb-95 Mar-95 Apr-95 May-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 Aug-95 Sep-95 Oct-95 Nov-g5 Dec-95 KERN RIVER BASIN SNOW SENSOR FORECAST MODEL Readings of Water Content DATE: 08-Nov 1995 are in Inches ..... Previous Year April-July Runoff = 199 % of Average SNOW SENSOR SITE Upper Tyndall Crabtree Chagoopa Wet Tunnel Casa Beach Weighted Creek Meadow Plateau Pascoe Meadow Guard Vieja Meadow Average Elevation (feet) 11,450 10,700 10,300 9,150 8,950 8,950 8,400 7,650 -- Actual Water Content This Date 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Normal Water Content This Date 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.8 % of Normal Water Content This Date 10~ 14% 0°,6 22% 9~ 0~ 0~ 0°/6 7~ April I Average Water Content 27.7 19.8 21.8 24.9 30.3 15.6 20.9 11.0 21.6 % of April I Average Water Content 0~ 1% 0~ 1% 0~ 0~ 0% 0~ 0°,6 1) 3-Gage Precipitation Index For this Date = 0.22 inches 3-Gage Precipitation Index Normal For this Date = 4.23 inches 3-Gage Precipitation Index in % of Normal -- 5% Percentage Into Snowpack Accumulation Season = 4% 2) Estimated April-July Runoff into Isabella Reservoir -- 362,797 acre-feet 3) Estimated April-July Runoff in % of Average = 79~ 1) 3-Gage precipitation index = October 1 to date cumulative rainfall totals for Glennville, Pascoe & Isabella Dam 2) Assumes median snowpack accumulation subsequent to date of estimate 3) April-July average inflow to Isabella Reservoir = 461,000 acre-feet STATE OF CALIFORNIA I THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DIVISION I NONGAME BIRD AND MAMMAL SECTION I A BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD CONTROL PROGAM AND MONITORING FOR THE SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER, SOUTH FORK KERN RIVER, CALIFORNIA, 1995 I by I Mary J. Whitfield and Cheryl M. Strong I 1995 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY . DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DIVISION NONGAME BIRD AND MAMMAL SECTION A BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD CONTROL PROGRAM AND MONITORING FOR THE SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER, SOUTH FORK KERN RIVER, CALIFORNIA, 1995.~ Mary J. Whitfield: and Cheryl M. Strong: ABSTRACT We examined the effects of cowbird trapping on the reproductive success of the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Ernpidonax traillii extirnus). At, er trapping cowbirds for three years, the parasitism rate decreased from an average of 63.5%, for the four years prior to cowbird trapping, to only 15.6% in the trap area. As a result, flycatcher nest success in the trap area increased to 48% (averaged over the three trap years); an improvement over the 26% nest success average prior to cowbird control. More importantly, the number of young fledged per year has increased from an average of 24 per year (1.01 young/pair) prior to cowbird control efforts, to 38 per year (1.73 young/pair) with cowbird control. We also found that cowbird parasitism delayed successful Willow Flycatcher nesting by thirteen days. This delay can have a major impact on the survival of the young that fledge fi'om these late nests. We found that only 6.4% of the young that came from late nests were recaptured in our study area as adults, compared to a recapture rate of 21.9% for young that came from early nests. These results show that besides lowered nest success and reduced numbers of young produced, cowbird parasitism has more subtle impacts on the reproductive success of Willow Flycatchers. Even though some parasitized Willow Flycatcher pairs are eventually successful at fledging young, these young are less likely to survive and breed than the young of non-parasitized pairs. In the future, we expect to see an increased number of returning young, because of the decreased number of parasitized nests due to the cowbird trapping program. The decline in numbers of Willow Flycatchers from 1989 to 1992 was reversed and the population has stabilized at 34 pairs since cowbird trapping began in 1993. Despite increased flycatcher reproductive success, however, we have not seen an increase in the number of Willow Flycatchers in the study area. We are concemed about this lack of increase because it indicates that there may be other factors besides cowbird parasitism that are depressing numbers of adult Willow Flycatchers in this population. We believe that problems (e.g. habitat loss and/or pesticide use) on the Willow Flycatcher's wintering grounds and/or at migratory stopover sites may be limiting population growth. It is also possible that chance events (e.g. increased mortality during migration due to storms) have kept the population from increasing. ~Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report (October 1995) Nongame Bird and Mammal Section California Department of Fish and Game 2Kern River Research Center, P.O. Box 990, Weldon, CA Ii SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Reduce or remove spring-summer cattle grazing in the riparian areas that support Willow Flycatchers. 2. Evaluate whether Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism is limiting other populations of Willow Flycatchers. 3. In areas where cowbird parasitism is a problem for Willow Flycatchers, reduce parasitism by trapping cowbirds. 4. Monitor the Willow Flycatcher and Brown-headed Cowbird populations to evaluate the success of the trapping program. 5. Find and monitor Southwestern Willow Flycatcher wintering sites; study the wintering ecology of the Willow Flycatcher an at least one of these sites. 6. Find and monitor possible Southwestern Willow Flycatcher migratory stopover sites. ii MEMORANDUM November 9, 1995 FROM: FLORN CORE, WATER RESOURCES DIRECTOR I SUBJECT: NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD WATER SUPPLY PROJECT There have been discussions on the progress of the Northeast Water Supply Project among the I interested parties that participated in the "Project Definition Report". The Definition report narrowed the locations for a purification plant to three potential sites with cost estimates for construction ranging from $74,000,000 to $87,832,000. Each site has characteristics for long term Icost of energy that would change the relative costs. Subsequent to the report, the participants have informed the City that further analysis would be helpful in determining continued participation in this project. I The comments that were received on the Definition report weighed heavily about the long-term, permanent water Supply for a purification plant and on the costs of a plant of that magnitude shown I in the report. Indications from the participants are that a smaller plant may be in order. In discussions with a majority of the participants, there is interest in moving forward with the Iinvestigation of this project. In order to move ahead, several items need to be investigated: · a determination from the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. as to the availability of the tunnel for i transport and diversion to the purification plant. · Determine final plant location after PG&E results. · commitments from participants in the project. I · Right size the plant based upon realistic water demands. · Finalize trunk line locations · determination and dedication of water for a long-term permanent water supply for the I project. · financial feasibility of the project. I The previous participants in the studies have been the City, California Water Service Co., Oildale Mutual Water Co., North of the River Municipal Water District, East Niles Community Services District, Olcese Water District, Improvement District Na 4 (of the Kern County Water Agency) and I Vaughn Mutal Water Co. i It is requested and recommended that the City Water Board authorize, with the participation of the other interested parties, request for proposals for engineering/consulting services to investigate the and report on the Northeast Water Supply Project. City share not to exceed $20,000 from the i Agricultural Water and Domestic Water funds. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Gene Bogart, Water Resources Manager DEPARTMENT HEA~'~, I DATE: November 16, 1995 CITYATrORNEY I CITY MANAGER i SUBJECT: Hearing on the means of financing the "Agricultural/Domestic Water Interface" project. Resolution approving Contract No. E$4004 for a three million ($3,000,000) loan with the i State of California Department of Water Resources. i RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council hold hearing to receive public testimony and adopt resolution approving contract and all necessary documents. BACKGROUND: State law requires a public hearing before the City can be granted a loan it has applied for from the State of California for the construction of a water storage tank at the City's Water Resources Facility, 1000 Buena Vista Road. The State will loan the City $3,000,000 at 6.1% annual interest rate to help construct the tank when conditions as outlined in the resolution are fulfilled. The City's share of the cost is estimated to be $1,050,000. As required by law, the purpose of the hearing is to allow the rate payers and the general public an opportunity to comment on the financing of the "Agricultural/Domestic Water Interface" project. Staff anticipates construction on the project to begin April, 1996. The State requires the Council adopt a resolution to receive the funding. The Resolution designates the City Manager and Water Resources Manager to sign for loan documents, authorize partial payment estimates, dedicates the sources of revenue for repayment, and authorizes the Mayor to execute the loan con,'act. The Water Board reviewed this item at its November 15, 1995 meeting and recommends Council adoption. I I MR:st S:HF~ARING;ADM;NO29WR1.NB I lqovember 7. 1995. I NOTICE TO CUSTOMERS OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM OF PUBLIC MEETING TO BE HELD Date: November 29, 1995 Location: City Hall - City Council Chambers 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Time: 7:00 P.M. Subject: Water Regulation/Storage Reservoir "Agricultural/Domestic Water Interface" Project Funded under the California Water Conservation Bond Law of 1988 This project is designed to optimize the management of the City's water supplies and enable the City to distribute the stored water from the "2800 Acres" in the City Domestic Water Service area to provide excellent quality water, reduce groundwater overdraft and help stabilize future water rates. The water conservation aspects of the project will result in lower energy and pump tax costs for and reduce the number of additional water wells in future groundwater pumping required years. The total project cost is estimated to be four million fifty thousand dollars. Three million of the estimated cost will come from a construction loan from the State of California and the remaining estimated one million fifty thousand will be funded by the City of Bakersfield. The City is receiving a $3,000,000 local water supply construction loan under the Water Conservation Bond Law of 1988 from the State of California. Debt payments will be due semi-annually with an annual payment amount of approximately $324,000. The loan is to be repaid over a 15 year period at a 6.1% annual interest rate. Public comment regarding the proposed project and loan will be accepted at the above time scheduled for public hearing, or in writing, on or before the hearing date indicated above at the office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. Information on the project is available for review at the City's Water Resources Department at 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311. Any person challenging in court the decision made at the conclusion of such public hearing may be limited to raising only those issues raised at such hearing or in correspondence delivered to the City of Bakersfield prior to the close of such hearing. ! C:PUBLIC-MEETIIqG-NOTICE-LOAN RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CONTRACT NO. E84004 FOR A THREE MILLION DOn?.~R ($3,000,000) LOAN WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, AND DESIGNATING CERTAIN OFFICERS TO ACCOMPLISH CERTAIN DESIGNATED ACTS, AND ESTABLISHING A DEDICATED SOURCE OF REVENUE. WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield has applied for a loan under the Water Conservation Bond Law of 1988 (Proposition 82); and WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Water Resources has reviewed the City's loan application and determined the of Bakersfield is for three million dollar City eligible a ($3,000,000) new local water supply construction loan; and WHEREAS, the total project cost is estimated to be four million fifty thousand dollars ($4,050,000); and WHEREAS, the difference between the construction loan of three million dollars ($3,000,000) and the project cost estimated to be four million fifty thousand dollars ($4,050,000) will be funded by the City of Bakersfield; and WHEREAS, the State requires the City of Bakersfield to accomplish certain acts before it will fund the loan; and WHEREAS, the State requires the City of Bakersfield to adopt a resolution accepting the loan, designating an officer to sign the loan contract, designating a person to approve partial payment estimates, and the City is required to formally establish a dedicated source of revenue to repay said loan; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield is willing to accomplish all these tasks in order to accept the loan under the aforesaid contract number. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The City accepts construction loan Contract No. E84004 (Contract herein) between the City of Bakersfield and the State of California Department of Water Resources concerning a loan not to exceed three million dollars ($3,000,000) for local water supply construction under the Water Conservation Bond Law of 1988 and the City agrees to comply by all the terms of said Contract and hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute and deliver the same to the State of California Department of Water Resources. 2. The City of Bakersfield hereby designates the City Manager as the officer to sign the loan contract. 3. The City of Bakersfield hereby designates the Water Resources Manager as the officer to approve partial payment estimates under the contract. 4. The City of Bakersfield hereby establishes a designated source of revenue, to wit: water user fees collected by the City of Bakersfield, savings as a result of reduced groundwater pumping assessments, savings from water availability fees collected, result of off-peak used for pumping, and annual savings as a power allocations from the capital budget diverted from construction of anticipated additional water wells. The Finance Director for the City of Bakersfield is directed to establish a designated account or fund which will hold amounts sufficient to meet the semi-annual principal and interest payments as they become due under Contract No. E84004. The City's Finance Director is further directed and authorized to follow the requirements of Contract No. E84004 and otherwise comply with the lawful requirements of the State of California Department of Water Resources for the funding and repayment of said loan. 5. It is understood and accepted a 5% administrative fee will be added to the principal. It is ~further understood and accepted the City of Bakersfield will fund the difference between the total project cost and the loan, estimated to be one million fifty thousand dollars ($1,050,000). 6. Contract No. E84004 is attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. 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 , by the following vote: CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN City Attorney '~ ALAN ~ ~sis~- n City ~ ~ Attorney tne~rea 95- l'~c84004.r~s I DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION I i STUDY OF INTERNAL / IN-HOUSE OPERATIONS I I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES 1 I I I I ! JULY 17, 1995 I Report update from previous studies dated 12/30/85, 05/15/88 and 03/27/92 I This Report prepared by: City of Bakersfield Water Resources Staff I I INTRODUCTION: This report is an update to previously prepared staff and consultant reports on estimating the start-up and annual operating costs to run the City's Domestic Water System using in- house employees and may be used as a control or target price to compare the current and proposed operations and maintenance contract. The 1992 report concluded that it would cost the City $90.48 per year per service connection (customer) to and maintain the at the level of service customers were accustomed to. This operate system compared to the California Water Service (CWS) contract cost of $88.16 (which includes City expenses) per customer per year. The 1992 report estimated cost to set-up shop, including additional building space, equipment, inventory, computers and supplies for meter reading and billing, and personnel training would have been approximately $663,000. If this cost were treated as a capital investment and payout benefits were to be calculated at present rates of return for 1992 (8%), the additional start-up costs would have represented an annual cost of approximately $95,000. This cost was be added to the cost proposal for in-house operations. With the start-up costs included, the annual cost to operate in-house would have been $1,579,815 or $96.27 per customer per year. The dollar values and costs discussed in the report are for the field operating and maintaining expenses. They do not include intrinsic costs such as power for pumping, pump & property taxes, in-lieu taxes, outside professional services, bond payments, or outside emergency repairs. The conclusions in this updated report, as to cost and levels of service in the City operating the water system by setting up shop and hiring its own employees, will be used to compare to the present arrangement with CWS. CURRENT CONTRACT OPERATIONS: The contract with CWS for operations and maintenance was revised and changed beginning in 1990. The annual cost per service for 1988 and 1989 was determined using the "shared cost" method by CWS, that is, the total expenses incurred by CWS in operating its own system in Bakersfield and operating the City system was pro-rated based on the respective number of customers. In addition, a 2 1/4% management fee was calculated on the gross metered revenue of the City system, contract was re-negotiated in 1989, and instituted in January of 1990. cost to The The operate the City system was calculated on a flat, per month/per service connection fee. The contract started at a base of $5.50 per month/per service and was increased each year as shown in the following list: , LIST NO. 1 MONTHLY FEE per SERVICE CONNECTION COST WITH CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY YEAR SERVICE MONTHLY FEE per CALENDAR YEAR (January) CONNECTIONS SERVICE CONNECTION COST 1990 14,488 $5.50 $ 986,271 1991 15,348 $5.77 $1,088,354 1992 16,306 $6.03 $1,195,182 1993 17,022 $6.33 $1,324,945 1994 17,926 $6.58 $1,455,684 1995 18,929 $ 6.84 $1,569,074 1996 19,563 (estimate) $7.11 (estimate) $1,697,767 (estimate) Page- 1- I The present CWS contract provides that the City pay additional charges for inspection services provided in new water main construction. This cost is generally recovered through developer fees. I The total City cost to operate and maintain the water system is the contractor costs plus existing City administrative expenses. The City administrative expenses include labor, vehicles, and general office ' I expenditures. TABLE NO. ! I OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS CONTRACTOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 1988- 1995 (Calendar Year) I 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 est I O & M Expense $1,009,539 1,143,513 986,271 1.088,354 1.195.182 1,324,945 1,455,684 1,569,074 Management Fee $ 86,713 91,901 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sub-Total $1,096,252 1,235,414 986,271 1.088,354 1,187,522 1.32,i,945 1,455,684 1,569.074 I City Admin. $ 186,313 192,687 196,I80 215,416 220,801 226,321 231,979 238.939 Inspection $ 42,000 29,980 15.824 68,001 101.540 129,804 61,261 62.000 I Total Annual Cost $1,324.565 1,458,081 1,198,275 1.371,771 1,509,863 1,68L070 1.748,924 1,870.013 Customers (End of June) 13,144 14,073 14,958 15,655 16,433 17,214 18,402 19.214 Ann.Cost/Cust $ 100.77 103.61 80.11 87.63 91.88 97.66 95.04 . Table No. 1 will be used to set a target value in cost comparisons of different methods of operating the City system. The $97.33 figure for the 1995 estimated cost shall be the target cost estimate for I comparison. CITY IN-HOUSE OPERATIONS: The goal of the water system is to provide the highest possible I level of service to customers and residents. Keeping that in mind, the formation of a City operated Domestic Water Division will require an initial investment in personnel training, building structures, equipment & supplies. This would include office facilities, furnishings, computer equipment, I warehousing and shop, vehicles, power tools, small hand tools and mobile radio communications capability. I The following series of tables reflect a proposal to operate in-house and the costs associated with it. The following organizational chart shown on the next page is meant to aid in determining labor needs and does not construe the final line responsibility or management structure. I I I I Page - 2 - I PROPOSED WATEa PROPO$£O OR~AJiI~110M f, IiART l~partnent, Business ligr.} Oolestic Water Supt. Oistribution~aintenanc4 Business Office I Assr' Superintendent I Business ,anager I Production llaintenanceI ( Contra.,,,n,enaoce I I,eter Reading Sec:ion Bil,ing/Coi,ection I WaterSuper'~'°rXSI IOe"~°per'nst'"aU°"'I II~eterl~nder(3)I A~:c°nntingS~rvis°rl Secretar) llech/Elect, ltaintainer I[I I Inspector iii ill i/2 Tfme/ Telp.Ii Water Service Worker Trades Assistantl I Page - 3 - I TABLE NO. 2 DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION I EQUIVALENT PROPOSED POSITIONS TO EXISTING CITY POSITIONS ESTIMATED SALARY AND BENEFITS COSTS I New Domestic =Existing Bi-wk Salary Benefits (1) Estimated Number of Total Bi-Wk Water title City Position (step #5) Salary Positions Cost Water Mgr Same $ 3,450 $1,311 $ 4,761 50% of 1 $ 2,381 I Dept Bus Mgr Same 2,048 758 2,806 50% of I 1,403 Domestic Wtr Dir CE IV 2,945 1,119 4,064 50% of 1 2,032 I Domestic Wtr Same 952 3,458 1 3,458 Supt 2,506 Assr Supt Same 2,048 758 2,806 1 2,806 I Business Mgr Same 2,048 758 2,806 1 2,806 Dom Wtr Supvr II Supervisor II 1,857 687 2,544 1 2,544 I Account Supvr Same 1,857 687 2,544 1 2,544 Mech/Elect Maint Elect Tech II 1,616 727 2,343 1 2,343 Inspector Con Insp II 1,620 632 2,252 1.5 3,378 I Pump Operator Elect Tech I 1,435 502 1,937 2 3,874 Disp/Ware/Records PropMgr/PD 1,629 603 2,232 I 2,232 I Secretary II Same 1,147 447 1,594 1 1,594 Data Proc Oper Same 1,164 454 1,618 I 1,618 I Trades Asst Same 1,166 525 1,691 1.5 2,537 Meter Reader Crft Wkr I 1,375 619 1,994 3 5,982 I Account Asst II Acct Clrk II 1,044 407 1,451 I 1,451 Water Service Wkr AutoSvc Wkr 1,036 466 1,502 4.5 6,759 i Cashier/Reception Same 901 351 1,252 1 1,252 TOTALS 25 $ 52,994 Ann. Bi-wk 26.07 Total Annual · 'i :: payroll :i $1:,381-;554': I Note: benefit rate varies for each of the four units as follows: (1) Fringe Management unit = 38% Supervisory unit = 37% I White collar unit = 39% Blue collar unit = 45% I I ! i Page - 4 - TABLE NO. 3 I DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT NEEDS AND COSTS I VEHICLE/EQUIP RENTAL RATE NUMBER MONTHLY ANNUAL ASSIGNED DESCRIPTION PER UNIT/MONTH OF UNI'I'S RENTAL RATE RENTAL TO: Auto Allowance $ 324 50% $ 162 $ 1,944 Water & San Mgr I MultiPass Utility 766 I 766 9,192 Dom Water Mgr Mid-Size Pick-up 674 4 2,696 32,352 Supt,Sups,lnspect I Mid-size Pick-up 674 7 4,718 56,616 Field Personnel HD Trk w/Sty Bd 848 1 848 10,176 Mech/Elect Maint I Dump/Flat Bed Trk* 632 2 1,264 15,168 Field Backhoe w/trailer* 950 1 950 11,400 Field I Trash Pump* 80 I 80 960 Field Air Compressor* 160 I 160 1,920 Field i Misc. Sampling tools 200 1 200 2,400 Field Misc. Power Tools 300 1 300 3,600 Field Two-way radios 40 16 640 7,680 Assigned Vehicles I *50%/50% cost share with Agricultural water division TABLE NO. 4 DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION I CITY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ADDITIONAL TO EXISTING I ADMIN OFFICE (5000 s.f.) ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST Electricity $ 5,000 I Gas (heating) 2,000 Custodial 8,000 Telephone 5,000 I Duplication-Internal 2,500 Office supplies 1,500 I Duplication-Outside 20,000 Services Computer/Office Machine Maim 3,000 I Stationary/envelopes 12,000 Postage 70,000 I Liability Insurance (Risk Management) 8,500 I Page - 5 - I TABLE NO. $ I DOMESTIC WATER DMSION GENERAL FIELD ESTIMATED EXPENSES I FIELD WAREHOUSING ESTIMATED AND SHOP (3000 s.f.) ANNUAL COST Electricity $ 1,000 I Gas (heating) 1,000 Telephone 500 I Computer & software replacement 1,400 Water sampling equipment & supplies 4,000 I Tool replacements 1,000 Disinfection supplies (chlorine) 48,300 I Laboratory Analysis 100,000 Meter test & repair 30,000 TABLE NO. 6 i DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION SUMMARY TABLE OF ANNUAL COSTS I DOMESTIC WATER/CITY IN-HOUSE ESTIMATED ITEMS ANNUAL COST City Salary & Benefits (from table #2) $1,381,554 I Vehicles & Equipment (from table #3) 153,408 Administrative (from table #4) 137,500 I Field Operations (from table #5) 187;200 I No. of customers (Mid-year for average) 19,214 · : ~:: ':/.: :':i:~i:ii'i :::ii:: Annual cost per customer $ ..::ii::ii:~i.!!!:::.:!:!il ~:i I Worksheet #1 Domestic Water Division i Construction Cost Estimate Land $ 0 I Admin/Business Office 400,000 Field warehouse/store 80,000 I Upgrade parking 30,000 TOTAL $ 510,000 I Page- 6 - I Worksheet #2 I Domestic Water Division Office Equipment I Computer Hardware/Meter reading & Billing $ 50,000 Admin/Bus furniture & equipment 47,500 I Computer Workstations 8,500 TOTAL $ 106,000 I Worksheet #3 Domestic Water Division i Warehouse & Field Supplies Warehouse supplies, I pipes, valves, fittings, etc. $ 100,000 Tools, vises, test bench, small hand tools, raise 12,000 I TOTAL $ 112,000 Worksheet #4 I Domestic Water Division Training Expenses I Data Processing, meter reading, billings, & collections $ 5,000 I Pumpers, mechanical maint, service workers, general operations 20,000 CWS contract overlap - 1 mo. overlap 130,000 I TOTAL $155,000 TABLE NO. 7 I DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION WORKSHEET SUMMARY I Construction Cost $ 510,000 Office Equipment 106,000 I Warehouse & Tools 112,000 Training 155,000 I TOTAL ii~ :ii!883,000'!:.:; 1 I Page - 7 - I ISUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS: The estimated cost to operate the City of Bakersfield system after 1995, under the present contract arrangements is $1,870,013. This represents an annual cost per service connection (customer) of $97.33. I The proposed in-house/internal operation of the system, that would provide the highest possible level of service as presented in this report, will cost an estimated $1,859,662 for 1995 (see table #6). This I is based on estimated worker, equipment and other operations costs, using 1995 wage and benefit costs and equipment rental rates. The annual cost per service connection would equate to $96.79. I As shown in worksheets 1-4 and summarized in table 7, the estimated cost to set-up shop, including additional building space, equipment, inventory, computers and supplies for meter reading and billing, and personnel training would be approximately $883,000. If this cost were treated as a i capital investment and payout benefits were to be calculated at present rates of return (6% for 10 years), the additional start-up costs would represent an annual cost of approximately $123,000. This cost would be added to the cost proposal for in-house operations mentioned in the previous i paragraph. With the start-up costs included, the annual cost to operate in-house would be $1,982,662 or $103.19 per customer per year. i Based on the above calculations, it is recommended that the City of Bakersfield continue similar contract arrangements with the current contractor, California Water Service Company. I I I I I I I ! i Page- 8 - I ! I CONSIDERATIONS FOR I AMENDMENTS TO CITY/CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CONTRACT (#92-250) I 9.b) City shall pay Company upon invoicing by Company for refunds issued by Company, checks returned for insufficient funds and service/meter deposits that are disbursed i by Company in the course of doing business under the terms of this contract. Any service/meter deposit refunds issued by Company are to be in accordance with the City of Bakersfield Municipal Code, Ordinances and policies contained therein. Company shall bill City monthly and City agrees to pay Company within thirty (30) I days after receipt of such bill. I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE MAINLINE EXTENSION REASSIGNMENTS I Water Board Meeting - City of Bakersfield Wednesday, November 15, 1995 I Tract/ Water Board Parcel Remaining I Reassigned to No. Map Balance MLE's at 22%: I Neptune Investment Company 79-27 W.B. TR 3946 $21,478.71 13951 N. Scottsdale Rd., #116 I Scottsdale, AZ 85254 79-28 W.B. TR 4016 12,643.53 INOTE: Neptune Investment Company reassigned the above Contracts to: George F. & Harriet J. McKenney 79-27 W.B. TR 3946 $21,478.71 I Family Trust dated 3/11/91 25150 No. Windy Walk Dr., #50 79-28 W.B. TR 4016 12,643.53 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 I Total of 22% Contracts $34,122.24 I I MLE's at 2~A%: The Leonard Family Revocable 83-40 W.B. TR 4602 $30,330.76 i Living Trust dated 4/20/93 663 Berry Avenue 84-02 W.B. TR 4619 33,850.84 Los Altos, CA 94024-4939 84-28 W.B. Stockdale Center/ I Camino Media, PHI 15,506.80 84-31 W.B. TR 4465 8,765.13 I Total of 2Va% Contracts $88,453.53 I I ISTATE ~ CALIF~NIA--THE RESOURCES AGEN~ P~E ~ON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1416 NINTH STREET, P.O. BOX 9428~ f~;~..~ ISAC~MENTOo CA 94236-~01 ,! OEP 2 i ':"'. ;.,..., OCT u z 1995 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD IWATER RESOURCES To: Urban Water Agencies and Interested Parties ! The California Urban Water Management Planning'Act (copy enclosed), requires water agencies to develop an Urban Water Management Plan if they serve more than 3,000 customers, or supply more than 3,000 acre-feet of water per year. This letter Iserves as a reminder that updated plans must be filed with the California Department of Water Resources by December. 31, 1995. IUpdating previous plans is required, in part, because six legislative amendments enacted since 1990 have changed some requirements for the plans. Generally, the amendments: I o Add water conservation programs for your agency to consider implementing (such as meter retrofitting and eliminating ionce-through cooling systems); o Incorporate water shortage contingency planning into the iUrban Water Management Plan (thus making the contingency plans part of the water management plans); o Allow an agency that is signatory to the Memorandum of I Understanding Regarding w~r Urban Conserva~iQn in California to satisfy some of the Act's requirements by submitting its CUWCC annual report as part of its 1995 Plan; I o Allow utilities to recover in its rates costs incurred in preparing the plan and implementing best management Ipractices; o Require agencies that project a need for additional water to Ievaluate water recycling and other water management alternatives (such as' short-term and long-term water transfers). I To assiSt you in preparing your 1995 plan, we have enclosed the following: I o The current Urban Water Management Planning Act; I U rban Water Agencies and Interested Parties Page Two I o ~Answers To Frequently Asked Ouestions About Urban Wager IManagement Planning;" o 1995 ~Sample' Urban Water Management Plan;" I o A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, as amended March 9, 1994; I of California Urban Conservation Council's o Copies Water 1995 Annual Retailer and Wholesaler Report Forms; Io "Retailer and Wholesaler Reporting Requirements Under the Urban Water Management Planning Act and Portions Satisfied by CUWCC Annual Reports;" I o A recent CUWCC publication "Setting Urban Water Rates for Efficiency and Conservation: A Discussion of IssUes." I DWR will review and offer your agency feedback on your plan and produce a summary report of data assembled statewide. The Isummary report should be available to all agencies next year. Agencies are not 'required to file a plan if they serve fewer Icustomers, or deliver less water than the filing minimum. However, we encourage smaller agencies to review the enclosed materials and develop a plan. I We commend you for your support of conservation and other water management strategies to help use water resources iefficiently, save money, and help balance supply with demand in the future. If you need assistance with your plan, please contact the DWR staff listed in "Frequently Asked Questions" iattached. Sincerely[ ' I Ed Craddock, Chief Water Conservation Office I Division of Local Assistance Attachment/Enclosures I I ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS . ABOUT CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS 1. WHO HAS TO FILE AN URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN? Pursuant to California Water Code Section 10610 et seq., urban water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, must prepare an urban water management plan, update it at least every five years, and file it with the California Department of Water Resources. 2. WHAT IS THE DEADLINE? Plans are due to be filed with DWR by December 31, 1995. Plans must be legally adopted by the agency, and are SUbject to California Government Code pertaining to legal public noticing before adoption. Up to 90-day extensions will be granted; send request letters to the address below. 3. WHERE SHOULD THE PLAN BE 'FILED? California Department of Water Resources Water Conservation Office " Attn: Deborah Braver P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 4. HOW MANY COPIES SHOULD BE FILED? Please submit three (3) copies of the plan and all attachments. 5. WHAT IF MY AGENCY FILED A PREVIOUS PLAN? Starting in 1985, Urban Water Management Plans were due to be submitted to DWR at least every five years (By December 31, 1985 and December 31, 1990); and Water Shortage Contingency Plans were due by January 31, 1992. Whether your agency filed these plans on time or not, the 1995 Urban Water Management Plan Updates are due to be filed with DWR by December 31, 1995. The Water Code has been amended several times subsequent to 1991. New requirements make it necessary to update previous versions, combine water shortage analysis and address water recycling oppommities in the 1995 plan.. 6. WHAT IF MY AGENCY DID NOT FILE A PREVIOUS PLAN? !fyour agency meets the minimum filing requirement (providing water to more thah 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet annually), your agency must now prepare and file an Urban Water Management Plan. I 7. WHAT SHOULD THE PLAN INCLUDE? California Water Code Section 10610 et seq. is quite specific. Please review the current law and 1 the sample urban water management'plan (copies attached). 8. HOW MANY YEARS SHOULD WE USE FOR THE PLANNING HORIZON? Although the current law does not explicitly define this, water planners generally use at least a 20 year period to project growth, water demand, and water supply. It is also valuable to look 1 back 20 years, in order to analyze water use trends (such as urbanization, loss of industrial water users, environmental enhancement, and so on), which will help improve the accuracy of water · projections. 1 9. HOW SHOULD WE USE THE SAMPLE PLAN? I The attached sample water management plan is a guide, not a comprehensive model that discusses every water management alternative. Use it to organize your report, and as an 1 indication of some, but perhaps not all, of what should be in your Plan. This sample plan is not intended to substitute for your agency's plan. The sample plan includes information about a hypothetical agency, the City of New Albion. Pertinent California Code citations, and comments 1 about issues to address are printed in italics at the top of each section. 10. WE USED WATERPLAN TO HELP PREPARE OUR PREVIOUS PLAN -- I SHOULD WE USE IT NOW? In 1989, DWR developed WaterPlan computer software (Version 1.0), to help local agencies I analyze the costs and benefits of water conservation programs. Water conservation and recycling are important components of a community's efficient water management strategy. I Since the creation of the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in Califomia (MOU), dated September 1991, signatory water agencies (now numbering over 115) agree that all Best Management Practices are cost-effective by definition unless shown not I to be on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, if your agency is implementing or plans to implement Best Management Practices, it is not necessary for the purposes of the Urban Water Management Planning Act to conduct economic analysis to justify doing so. If you wish to use WaterPlan to 1 conduct economic analysis, you may do so. If you need assistance, please contact Deborah Braver at (916) 327-1770. I, WaterPlan 2.0, developed by the American Water Works Association and others, is scheduled for release in Spring 1996. Contact the AWWA publications office (303) 795-2449 for further · information. I 11. IS STATE MONEY AVAILABLE TO HELP IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS? Proposition 82, the Water Conservation Bond Law of 1988, made funding available to local public agencies for capital outlay water conservation, ground water, and local water supply projects. As of mid-1995, applications total more than the remaining funds. However, two legislative proposals are pending that could make more funding available: Senate Bill 900 (Costa) and Senate Bill 776 (Rogers). For further information, contact Dan Otis, Loan Program Manager, DWR Division of Local Assistance, (916) 327-1657. For water reclamation projects, funding is available through the California State Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recycling loan program. For further information, contact Mr. Lynn Johnson, Program Manager, SWRCB Office of Water Recycling, (916) 227- 4580, or write for a loan application package: Office of Water Recycling, State Water Resources Control Board PO Box 944212, Sacramento, Ca 94244-2120. 12. WHAT ELSE SHOULD I KNOW? I A reference list of some important publications on water management, conservation, and recycling is attached to the sample plan. I 13. WHERE CAN I GET ASSISTANCE?' i Contact the DWR District Office nearest you: Northern District - Gene Pixley i 2440 Main Street, Red Bluff, CA 96080. Telephone (916) 529-7392 Central District - Holly Sheradin I 3251 S Street, Sacramento, CA 95816-7017. Telephone (916).227-7585 San Joaquin District - Dave Scruggs I 3374 East Shields Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726-9660~ Telephone (209) 445-5262 Southern District - David Inouye I 770 Fairmont Avenue, Glendale, Ca 91203-1035. 1 543-4622 ext. 295 Telephone (8 8) Water Recycling Assistance Section - Steve Kasower I 1020 9th Street, 3rd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. Telephone (916) 327-1666 i California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 705, Sacramento, CA 95814-4408. Telephone (916) 552-5885. I I I RETAILER AND WHOLESALER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING ACT AND PORTIONS SATISFIED CUWCC ANNUAL REPORTS Coordination Upctate Plan Past, Current, Projected Potable and Recyled Water Use by Sec:tom Conserva~on and Recycled for the I~l)~es for the puq~osea Programs (including BMPs) of identifying BMPs of identifying PiMPs actop(ed and being practiced adopted and practiced apop~ed and practiced Consumer Education X partially X partially Metering X partially X partially Fixtures and Appliances X partially X partially Pool Covers X X Lawn/Garden Irrigation X partially X partially Efficient Landscaping - X partially X partially Schedule of Implementation 1-9) Water Sho~age X X Contingency Analysis 4) Mandatory '~lo-Waste" X X X X Provisions (BMP 13) (if prOVisions are attached) (if provisions are attached) ~i~i~[t~[~::~[~[~!~i~iiii[~[~i~ii[~ii~[~i~[~[~=~[~!~i[~[i!~[~[i[~ii[~=~[i[i[~i ~[~:[:~;:/=~=:[[[~i[===::~[~::[~[ii[[i:~i==i:~i!=:=:i[~i[~, i~[?~i~iii!ii[~i~[~:=~[~==~=~[~[~[~i~[~[ii~[iii~[~=~[i:~[~[i~!~?:i~[~[~[~=~[~ ~iii~iii[i~i[i[i~i=:iii[i[i[iii[i[i[i~:=i~==i[i==i[ii[i[i~[iiii[i=:ii[i ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~=~~:~:~:~~=:~=~ ........ =~.==~ Projected Supply Deficiencies Evaluation of consewation (if copy is attached) (if copy is atlached) effectivenss~ Implementation of Plan ~:~i~[ilili!ii![i[![~[~:iiiiiiiiiiiiiii::ii~ii::i[ii[i=:i[i~ii~::~ [i~i[i~i~i[i=:i~i[i~i~i::i~i[i~i[i[i~i~i~i~i::i[i[i~i::i[i[i[i[i=:~ ::?~iii~i:~i[~[i[~[i[~[~:i~i[~:~[i~i~[i~i[i[i=:i::i~[ii[~[i[i[i[~::i~[~[i~[i~:~[~i~i[~[~ii[i[i[~::i::i ~i::i::iiiii~i[i[i!i[i~i~i[i[i~i~i~![i[i[i~[i[i~i~i::i[i[i::i[i[i[i~i[i~iii~i iiii=:i[~[~i~i~:i~i[i[~[~[i~i~:~i~i[~i~[~[i[!!~[~[~i=:i?:~[i~:~[~i[iii[~[?:~!~i~:i[~ (1 ) Audits/Incentives X X X X Single Family X X X X Multi-Family X X X X Commercial X X X X Industrial X X X X Instit/Govt X X X X (2) Distribution System Audit X X X X (3) Leak Detection/Repair X X X X (4) Large Landscape Audits X X X X ~i[~:~i~::i~[iiiiiii[Iiii~[~!~[~[~:~[~[~i[i~=i[?~i[~[i~i::i~i[i[~[~::i[i[iii[i[i[i! =: i [::=:[~:=[~[[ [[[~[[[[::[~i[[[i[i=~ii[i~i:=i[i ! ~ ! [ i~[~!~!!~i[i~[i[![~[~[~!i~=~[~[~[i~i[i[i[i[~[i[i~[~ii[!ii~i[i[~ii!~[~[~[i:~[~[~[~[~!~?~!~::~ i[i[i=:i~i[![i[i[i=:i[i::i[i[i:=i::iii~i~!i!ii~!~i[i~i=:i~i:=i:=~i~::i[ii~i Recirculation of water Entorcement of consen, atlon ....................... :i:~:~:i>]; :[:~.c.~:~ $ i~ ~'.~;~::;i;;:[:i:[:~;i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Water Savings Community participation ........ ~:l~i~ .................. : ............................... i!!ii!5! i~i~i~!ii i!~!!!!i~!!!~!!!~!!!~ ~ (1) Recycled Water X X (2) Transfers X X (3) System pressures/peaks X X (4) Meier reb'of"~ing X X X X (5) InoontJvea X X X X (6) Public info/education X X X X (7) Pdcing, rates, regulations X X X X Cost effectivenas~ Public notme~ pur,suam to Government Code 6066 Implementation of Plan File plan with DWR *Satisfies provisions of the Url~n water Management Planning Act, provided that CUWCC report (1) indicates the BM P is being fully implemented; (2) describes program, budget, anti schedule; and (3) includes savings estimates if available. URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - FIVE YEAR UPDATE Additional requirements for updating the Urban Water Management Plan · Meter retrofitting - The City's Ashe Water system is already 100% metered. Further modification is not necessary. · Water Shortage Contingency Plan - This plan submitted in 1992 will be incorporated in the updated Urban Water Management Plan. · Memorandum of Understanding - The Kern County Water Agency will be signatory to the plan to satisfy the Act's requirements. · Rate recovery for incurred costs of the Plan - Recovery of costs will not be necessary as staff time to update the report will be insignificant. · Additional water supplies - The Plan will explain the City's accomplishments in "water banking" in the City's 2800 Acres and water recycling by using sewage effluent on the City's wastewater farlBs.