Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/95 Mark Salvaggio, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith NOTICE OF A SPECIAL WATER BOARD MEETING OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995 AT 4:30P.M. WATER RESOURCF~ 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 14, 1994. 4). PUBLIC STATEMENTS. 5). DEFERRED BUSINESS. A. NORTHEAST WATER SUPPLY - PRESENTATION OF PHASE H REPORT. B. SOUTHWEST WILIX)WFLYCATCHER UPDATE. C. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT UPDATE. D. KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY / IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #4 - REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD CHARGES. 6). ~ BUS.SS. A. CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION . FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLY/DRAFT LEGISLATION BY CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY. B. WATER BOARD APPOINTMENT/SELECTION OF VICE.CHAIR. C. 1995 WATER BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE. D. KERN RIVER RUNOFF YIELD FORECAST. 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 · (805) 326-3715 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD NOTICE AND AGENDA MEETING OF MARCH 14, 1995 PAGE - 2 - AGENDA - SECTION 6. NEW BUSINESS. (CONTINUED) E. AGRICULTURAL WATER DIVISION 1995 WATER PRICE AND SAND SALE SCHEDULE. F. AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH HATCH & PARENT. G. DOMESTIC WATER MAINLINE EXTENSION CONTRACT AND RE- ASSIGNMENTS. 7). CLOSED SESSION A. GOVERNMENT CODE S49S6.9(b)(1); CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (b) OF SECTION $4956.9 (TWO CASES). 8.) CLOSED SESSION ACTION. 9). ADJOURNMENT. ~G~ B~-G~dtT, MANAGER POSTED: March 10, 1995 S:WBMA1495 FC:f~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Wednesday, September 14, 1994, 4:30p.m., Water Resources Conference Room, 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311. 1. The meeting was called to order by Boardmember Salvaggio at 4:44 p.m. 2. Present: Mark Salvaggio, Chair; Conni Brunni, Vice-Chair Randy Rowles Absent: None 3. A motion was made by Boardmember Brunni to approve the minutes of the water Board meeting held July 6, 1994. Motion carried. 4. There was a Public Statement by Mark Mulkay, Engineer/Manager of Kern Delta Water District. Mr. Mulkay met with Florn Core, City Water Resources and Jack Hardisty, City Planning Department to discuss future water use within Kern Delta and the City and gain direction toward long-term resolutions of water supply as the City limits extends into Kern Delta agricultural areas. There is groundwater overdraft within Kern Delta and there is a I · need to work with City staff to plan and protect the groundwater basin. Another issue to ~"'~: resolve is how to handle the difference in the size of developments and their water usage due '- · to a single large land holding (such as the "Pacificana" plan group) and a small 5 or 10 acre sub-division. Boardmember Brunni referred this item to staff and asked them to report back to the Water Board at a future date. SA. Boardmember Rowles and Mr. Core attended a Urban Purveyor Working Group Facilitated Meeting on July 12, 1994. Mr. Core reported that all major urban purveyors in Bakersfield were in attendance with both staff and boardmembers. Discussions among the purveyors and operators in Bakersfield on the future direction of the water supply and operations were to gain understanding of each players interests and the assurance of a stable long-term water supply. Further discussions on the functions of the Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee (UBAC), which is advisory to the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) Board of Directors and the perceived problem with the lack of true urban representation on the KCWA board was also reviewed. An Action Plan was put forward by the group to set in motion some changes that may help alleviate problems in the operations and distribution of water in the Bakersfield area. The plan is to: 1) Change the existing Finance Sub-Committee of the UBAC to the Management Committee; 2) create sub-committees of Finance and Budget, Project and Engineering, Contract & Water Supply Negotiations and Acquisitions; 3) continue audit of KCWA expenses charged to ID#4 operations; 4) form a regional organization that will address the interests of urban water users; 5) look at separation of the Urban Bakersfield Municipal & Industrial water supply operations from the KCWA, if action plan items do not result in more responsiveness from KCWA on urban water issues. tli Boardmember Rowles commented that although much is heard about water issues in the area, little is said of the impacts to urban users and it appears there are some conflicts involving the different water supply interests. Boardmember Brunni questioned staff of the ID#4 overhead audit and whether it had been completed. Mr. Core replied that it would be ready about Nov. 1, 1994. Boardmember Salvaggio asked of the progress of the ID#4 Governance committee that had been meeting on some of these issues. Mr. Core said that committee has not met for the last two years and had apparently come to an impasse. Boardmember Salvaggio also asked if all purveyors were together on these matters. Mr. Core responded that while it was true that all purveyors were united in this effort, one district had its board's full support and has been coordinating the activities of this group. Boardmember Salvaggio asked which district this was and Mr. Core replied North of the River Municipal Water District. This item was for Board information. No action required or taken. 6A. This item was referred to the Water Board by the City Council. In a letter dated May 11, 1994, North Kern Water Storage District and the other City Basic Contractor's were notified that the City may fully utilize its Kern River water that will be available at the end of the contract periods in 2012. The City urged that North Kern and the other contractors begin to plan for replacement or seek supplemental supplies for the City Kern River water. Boardmember Rowles questioned the comments in the North Kern reply letter, dated August 3, 1994, and their concern that the City consider and mitigate as required by law, any such decision, as well as examine the economic and environmental impacts of such a decision to terminate the agreement. Mr. Core said that the contract gives the City first right to its the Kern River water within the City limits and/or on City property. Ms. Judy Skousen, City Attorney, said the City will be required to show the need for the Kern River water and that the proper environmental documentation should be performed under the laws the exist at the time. For Board information, no action required or taken. 6B. Due to the absence of Mr. Bogart at this time, Mr. Core asked that this item be delayed for i consideration until his arrival. Board approved to move this item to the end of the agenda. ~'~ 6C. Mr. Core presented 4 Domestic Water Mainline Extension reassignments for Board information. No action taken or required. ** Boardmember Brunni commented regarding serious water pressure problems throughout the summer in the Vaughn Mutual Water Company service area because of a shut-down of 3 of their 5 wells due to contamination. Boardmember Brunni had a concern about continued development, in the City or in unincorporated areas, in that purveyor's service area without appropriate water availability and requested City staff investigate this and the appropriateness of the %viii serve" letters issued by the purveyor. 6B Mr. Bogart brought before the Board a Resolution concerning an application to LAFCO for authority to consolidate the Kern River Levee District into the City of Bakersfield. Mr. Bogart reported that several months ago the City received a request from the Kern River Levee District if we would be interested in consolidating their operation with the City's. The first step in accomplishing this is would be the adoption of this Resolution. Boardmember Brunni motioned to approve resolution and recommend approval to City Council. Motion carried. Boardmember Rowles left the meeting at the conclusion of item 6B due to a conflict of interest with next agenda item. I: ....'. 7A. At 5:35p.m. the Board adjourned to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code ..... 54956.9(b)(1); conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 54956.9 (two cases). 2 8. Board Chair Salvaggio reconvened the meeting at 6:15p.m. Mr. Salvaggio stated that during I the Closed Session the Board was updated on litigation activities and no Board action was taken. 9. Board Chair Salvaggio adjourned the meeting at 6:16p.m. Mark Salvaggio, Chair City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board ITEM 5A THE DRAFT NORTHEAST WATER SUPPLY PHASE 2 REPORT IS ATTACHED FOLLOWING WATER BOARD PACKET. ! I C O N S U L T I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R S March 8, 1995 To all participants in the Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project. Mr Florn Core, Ashe Water District Mr Melvin Bird, California Water Service Mr Gene Bogart, City of Bakersfield; Dept. of Water & Sanitation Mr Roland W. Stevens, East Niles Community Services District Mr Tom Clark, Kern County Water Agency Mr William R. Miller, North of The River Municipal Water District Mr Douglas Nunneley, Oildale Mutual Water Company Mr Donald Wahl, Olcese Water District Mr Michael L. Huhn, Vaughn Water Company Subject: Submittal of Draft Project Definition Report for the proposed Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project. Gentlemen; Submitted herewith is the draft copy of the Project Definition RePort for the proposed Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project. The report is being submitted by Ricks, Taylor & Associates Inc. and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for review by board members and staff of the nine sponsoring water agencies. Authorized scope of work included the following tasks: 1. Prepare a conceptual design of treatment, piping, and storage systems 2. Prepare a program-level cost estimate for recommended improvements 3. Estimate and explain project benefits, beneficiaries, and operating constriants 4. Prepare a development schedule for the sytem 5. Describe the probable requirements for environmental documentation 6. Prepare a draft "Project Definition Report" for Participant review and concurrence 7. Prepare a draft "Project Definition Report" and "Report Summary" for general circulation :". 1326 H STREET, SUITE 21, BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 PHONE (805) 323-3 3-4331 Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project March 8, 1995 Page 2 After review of the First Phase Technical Report dated October 1993, the capacity of the facilities was increased to 85 million gallons per day and a peak flow of 130 cubic feet per second. A meeting with all the participants was held in June 1994 to discuss the economic issues and the proposed facilities that would be further studied in this report. The study was to be limited to three potential diversion points from the river and two storage-treatment plant sites. Diversion locations included the PG&E Tunnel at elevation 920, the Rio Bravo Hydro at elevation 675 and the Kern River westerly of Lake Ming at an elevation of 490 feet. The PG&E Tunnel and Rio Bravo Hydro Diversions would deliver water to a storage reservoir and treatment plant in Section 22, easterly of Comanche Road and Southerly of Highway 178. The Lake Ming Diversion would deliver water to a storage reservoir and treatment plant in Section 9, Southerly of Alfred Harrell Highway. Potential benefits to each of the participating agencies were reviewed and a list was made of the benefits that each agency could receive from the construction of this project. All participants would benefit from the project either through direct water deliveries or indirectly by reallocation of deliveries. The three dive~sion locations and conveyance facilities and the two storage reservoir and treatment plant sites were evaluated to determine the location that would provide the best quality water and service, at the lowest overall cost and that would be the least offensive to adjacent landowners, and to ~recreational and environmental uses. Cost estimates were made of the three alternatives to determine the lowest construction cost. In each alternative water would be diverted from the Kern River source, be treated to domestic quality standards and would be delivered to a common terminus at or near the East Niles Storage Reservoir in Section 19, adjacent to State Highway 178. Three main project costs were evaluated to determine the alternative that would have the lowest overall economic costs. This included the initial construction cost, the total cost of pumping water from the Kern River through the storage reservoir and treatment plant, and avoided energy fees that would have to be paid to PG&E and Rio Bravo Hydro for loss of revenue and use of their facilities. Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project March 1995 8, Page 3 The Lake Ming~alternative would have the lowest construction cost at $74,442,000 with the Rio Bravo alternative second at $81,010,000 and the PG&E Tunnel alternative being highest at $87,832,000. Total present worth costs of pumping for 30 years results in cost to the Lake Ming $50,726,000, alternative of to the Rio Bravo alternative of $31,015,000 and to the PG&E alternative of $9,529,000. The Lake Ming alternative would have zero avoided energy costs, since its diversion location does not affect upstream power generation. The Rio Bravo alternative diverts from the Rio Bravo Flume, upstream from their powerplant so that the Rio Bravo Hydro Powerplant would have a decrease in energy generated. The present worth of this avoided cost is $3,289,000. The PG&E Tunnel alternative would divert water from both the PG&E Powerplant and the Rio Bravo Hydro Powerplant and would require avoided cost payments to both agencies. The present worth of this avoided cost is $10,828,000. After combining all of these costs, the PG&E Tunnel alternative has the lowest overall cost at $107,739,000, followed by the Rio Bravo Hydro alternative at $115,314,000 and the Lake Ming alternative at $125,168,000. We recommend that the PG&E Tunnel alternative be given first priority for future studies, however negotiations with both PG&E and Rio Bravo Hydro for avoided costs and use of facilities could have effect the final which alternative an decision, on as to should be used. In either case the Comanche storage reservoir and treatment plant site should be used for determining future structural, feasibility and financial studies. Please review the contents of this report and return your comments to Morris Taylor at Ricks, Taylor & Associates or to Susan Rankin at Kennedy/Jenks Consultants by' Friday April 14, 1995. A meeting will be scheduled the following week for all participants to review the comments and discuss the report. Yours Truly, RICKS, TAYL~R--&.~SSOCIATES INC. KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS Morris. W. ~a~6r, P.E. lick Principal~'' ~ Project Engineer Kern River Research Cki ll te 94 NORTH KERN Research for Conservation of Biologica t ftPe ^G£ DIST. December 19, 1994 C. H. Williams Watermaster North Kern Water Storage District 1415 18th Street, Suite 705 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Chuck, Enclosed you will find our proposal to the Kern Water Interests for the Willow Flycatcher/Brown-headed Cowbird project for 1995. We are requesting $13,000 support from your group during the coming year. We feel that the cowbird control program has been very successful and has kept the Willow Flycatcher population on the South Fork Kern River from further decline. The financial support of the Kern Water Interests was vital to the success of the project during 1994. We hope that you also were satisfied with last year's project and will consider to help fund the study again next year. Please give us a call if you have any questions or comments on this proposal. I will be contacting you early in 1995 to answer any questions or concerns that you might have. Sincerely, Stephen A. Laymon Research Director, KRRC P.O. Box 990, 7872 Fay Ranch Road, Weldon, California 93283 Tele: (619)378-3345 Fax: (619)378-3881 I BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD CONTROL PROGRAM FOR SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER ON THE SOUTH FORK KERN RIVER: 1995. Prepared by: Mary J. Whitfield, Research Associate, Kern River Research Center, P.O. Box 990, Wcldon, CA 93283, (619) 378-3345 INTRODUCTION: The Kern River Research Center (KRRC) is a private non-profit organization that was established in 1991 to conduct and facilitate research in conservation biology, emphasizing long-term and interdisciplinary studies. In particular, KRRC conducts objective scientific research on species and ecological processes that will provide critical data for informed land management decisions. KRRC works with public and private wildlife and land management agencies by providing scientific information necessary to preserve biological diversity and enhance populations on threatened animals and plants. Much of the Center's research focuses on management of sensitive species in riparian habitats. In 1989, Mary Whitfield, now a Research Associate of KRRC, initiated a study on the effects of Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism on the Willow Flycatcher at the South Fork Kern River. The study has now lasted for six years, with the last four under the direction of the Kern River Research Center. KRRC currently has a Scientific Collectors Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for collecting cowbirds. The permit is a joint CDFG and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit. The permit will expire June 1995, but we will obtain a new permit before the current permit expires. Dr. Stephen A. Laymon, Research Director, has a Master Banding Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which authorizes the use of trap and mist nets to capture and band birds. Ms. Whitfield has a subpermit under Dr. Laymon's permit which allows her to capture and band birds. PROBLEM STATEMENT: The Southwestern subspecies of Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) was once found commonly in riparian willow thickets in southern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, southwest Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. Today it no longer breeds in most of its former range; it has probably been extirpated from Nevada and Utah, and there are less than 400 pairs left in the rest of its range. Due to this dramatic decline in distribution and abundance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to list the southwestern Willow Flycatcher as endangered. The decline of the Willow Flycatcher is largely attributed to the widespread destruction of riparian habitat essemial for nesting and breeding. Many authorities feel that the Brown-headed Cowbird is also a major factor responsible for the decline of the subspecies. Brown-headed Cowbirds are nest parasites; they lay their eggs in other birds' nests instead of building their own. This parasitism is a threat to many species of native California songbirds because they did not evolve with cowbirds which are not native to the state. Cowbirds invaded the state after suitable habitat was created through the clearing of land by settlers and increased livestock grazing. The majority of Willow Flycatcher nests (approximately 90%) will fail if they are parasitized by a cowbird because the cowbird young hatch sooner, are larger, and thus are able to out compete Willow Flycatcher young in the nest. Willow Flycatcher studies conducted by Mary Whitfield from 1989 to 1992 indicated that the nesting success (production of young) was not adequate to sustain the South Fork Kern River population of Willow Flycatchers. The data showed that Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism was the major cause of low nesting success of this population. In 1993, KRRC started a small-scale cowbird trapping program in order to decrease the rate of cowbird parasitism of Willow Flycatcher nests. We used four cowbird traps which were operated from early May to late August. We removed 350 female and 250 juvenile cowbirds from the trap area. This trapping program reduced cowbird parasitism rates of Willow Flycatchers and increased the flyeatcher's reproductive success. The parasitism rate of the Willow Flycatchers dropped to 37.5% which was the lowest rate recorded in five years. In 1994, with increased funding from California Department of Fish and Game and the Kern River Water Interests, we expanded the trapping program to eight traps. The traps were open from May 1 until July 31. We removed 152 female and 67 juvenile cowbirds from the trap area. Despite using more traps, we caught fewer cowbirds in 1994 because the cowbird population had started at 40% lower than in 1993 due to trapping the previous year. This trapping program was effective in reducing the cowbird population by 75% from pre-1993 cowbird population levels, decreasing cowbird parasitism to an all-time low of 12% and increasing Willow Flycatcher productivity to 42 successfully fledged young. This is the largest number of young produced since the study began in 1989. Overall, the trapping program of 1993 and 1994 was successful in meeting the goals of significantly lowering parasitism rates and increasing Willow Flycatcher productivity (Table I). Table 1. Comparison of factors in the trap area before cowbird control (1989-1991) and after cowbird trapping (1993 & 1994). Years Parasitism Nest # Fledged # Young Number Rate Success Young per year per Pair of Nests 1989-1991 60.2% 26.1% 18 1.00 88 1993 & 1994 17.4% 41.6% 30 1.87 48 2 This project needs to be continued in order to maintain the higher nesting success and lower parasitism rates. Furthermore, continued trapping is needed to determine whether the recent increased productivity will lead to an increased nesting population of Willow Flycatchers. In addition to helping Willow Flycatchers, the trapping program will help other species whose numbers have been significantly reduced, such as Yellow Warbler, Yellow-breasted Chat, and Common Yellowthroat. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: The overall goal of this project is to develop management strategies that will lead to a viable, healthy population of Southwestern Willow Flycatchers and a delisting of the subspecies. The local goal of this project is to develop management strategies that are compatible with recreational, agricultural, and flood control uses of Isabella Reservoir and maintain a viable and healthy Willow Flycatcher sub-population on the South Fork Kern River. Objectives: 1. Decrease Brown-headed Cowbird Population -- Reduce the Brown-headed Cowbird population in the trap area by 85% from the pre-1993 cowbird levels. 2. Decrease cowbird parasitism of Willow Flycatchers. -- Reduce the cowbird parasitism rate of Willow Flycatchers to below 10%. 3. Increase Willow Flycatcher production -- The Willow Flycatcher population must be reproducing in excess of replacement. This would require an average yearly production rate of at least 1.8 young per pair. 4. Increase Willow Flycatcher Population -- Determine whether the cowbird trapping program will help increase the population of Willow Flycatchers. METHODS: To maintain or increase the production of young Willow Flycatchers, the Kern River Research Center will continue the cowbird trapping program with eight to ten traps. The traps would be placed from Prince pond to the east end of The Nature Conservancy's property. The traps would be checked one to two times daily to release non-target birds. In addition, we will shoot female cowbirds found near Willow Flycatcher nesting areas twice a week. This will make the cowbird control program more effective by removing some of the few female cowbirds that are not attracted to the traps. 3 Population levels of Brown-headed Cowbirds will be monitored using point-count surveys spaced one month apart. We will also survey for Willow Flycatchers, locate territories, and search for nests. The nests will be checked daily to determine when or if they are parasitized and/or depredated and to determine nest outcome. Timing: We will begin operating the traps on May 1, 1995 and will close the traps on July 31, 1995. Brown-headed Cowbird surveys will began April 28 and end by July 10. Willow Flycatcher monitoring will began during the last week in May when they began nesting and will end during the last week in August. Data analysis and report writing will last from September to November 1994. EVALUATION: The success of the project will be determined by how well it meets the stated objectives. Although a failure to meet one specific objective does not necessarily mcan that the project was not a success because year to year variation in weather, water availability, abundance of predators, etc. can affect the reproductive success of birds. Therefore, it will take several years of cowbird trapping and monitoring thc Willow Flycatcher population to determine the true impact the trapping program is having in reducing parasitism and increasing the Willow Flycatcher population. 4 BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD 1995 TRAPPING PROGRAM BUDGET EXPECTED REVENUE Cash Required In-Kind Total Donation Grants Government Agencies $18,000 Corporations $13,000 Donations In-Kind $1,000 TOTAL REVENUE $32,000 EXPECTED EXPENSES Personnel Project Leader $16,000 Research Director $ 1,500 Research Assistant $ 5,000 Research Intern $ 2,100 Housing $ 1,600 Subtotal $26,2OO Payroll & Administrative Expenses (15%) $ 3,930 TOTAL PERSONNEL $30,130 Non-personnel Bird Seed $ 500 Trap Maintenance $ 100 Equipment $ 500 Mileage $ 750 TOTAL NON-PERSONNEL $ 1,850 TOTAL EXPENSES $31,980 NOTE: The Kern River Research Center has recently obtained a $25,000 cost share grant from the Fish and Wildlife Foundation to study the riparian bird community dynamics including the effects of Brown-headed Cowbird removal on host populations. This study overlaps with the Willow Flycatcher/Brown-headed Cowbird research. As a result, money we obtain from non-federal sources such as this project can be used as matching funds for this grant (matched on a 2 to 1 basis). Therefore, for every two dollars (non-federal funds) we receive for the cowbird trapping program, we will receive one dollar from the grant for the riparian bird community study. 5 ; :. .......... ; ~X' ' · ~ ~ ...... : .......... i. . ~ ' ...... DISTRIC~~ ............ LE~E BOUND~Y ~ -. ~, ~ MAP CITY OF BA~RSFIE~ N° 1 ~. CALiFORniA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TRUSTEES WANDA ANAGNOSTOPOULOS e~'~8 ~ .Z'.Z'.Z' DISTRICT MANAGER GERALD M. HAY RALPH H. HADLOCK KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT DISTRICT OFFICE P.O. BOX 9428 PHONE (805) 589-2744 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93389 DATE: February 4, 1994 TO: Gcnc Bogart - Manager Water And Sanitation Department City of Bakersfield Bakersfield California FROM: Wanda Anagnostopoulos ~ Attached arc thc following exhibits in regard to our conversation to examine thc possibility of the City of Bakersfield assuming the rcspons~ility of maint_aining thc levee, so that the Kern River Levee District could be dissolved. 1] AUGUST 25, 1977; Copy of a letter to the Kern County Grand Jury from LAFCO - Kern River Levee District dissolution. 2] JUNE ~, 1984; Copy of a letter to the Levee District from LAFCO - City appeared to be willing to assume the respons~ility of maintaininE the levee. 31 Ip ,rE 8, 984; Copy of a letter to LAFCO from the Kern River Levee District - discussing the City and levee maintenance. 4] IULY n, 1984; Copy of a letter from LAFCO tO the Kern River Levee District. Paul Dow did not want to change the relationship between the City and Levee District. 5] AUGUST 6. 1986: Copy of thc completed questionnaire to LAFCO. Kern River Leve~ District/ Gene Bogart City of Bakersfield February 4, 1994 MAP OF THE DISTRICT 7] COPY OF THE PROTECTION DISTRICT ACT OF 1880 8] COPY OF THE 1993//1994 BUDGET PACKAGE 9] COPY OF SCHEDULE 16 - 1993/1994 BUDGET 10] COPY OF LETTER FROM THE KERN COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE IN REGARD TO 1993/1994 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE ESTIMATE. $24,778.00 11] COPY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT: This statement aho show~ Janua~, 1993. 12] JANUARY 1994 BUDGET, EXPENDITURES TO-DATE AND BUDGET BALANCE. 13] 'MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS SHOWING CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS, OFFICERS, TERMS, ETC. WA ENCLOSURES Ref/5.0/D:Gbga TRUS'~EES WANDA ANAGNOSTOPOULOS Sa'hies Curran III DISTRICT MANAGER GERALDM. HAY RALPH H. HADLOCK KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT DISTRICT OFFICE P.O. BOX 9428 PHONE (805) 589-2744 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93389 .' F-':'- ~, .... C/Tv .. , DATE, ~ril 15, 1994 WATER ~;~FiE,- TQ: Gene Bogart Water and Sanitation Manager City of Bakersfield ,, FROM: Wanda Anagnostopoulos SUBJECT: Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Attached is a copy of the · JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT · by and between the Kern River Levee District and Kern Mosquito Abatement District. There has been a lot of changes without the agreement being amended. When Harmon Clement became Manager of the Kern Mosquito District, the Board felt that he had enough to do without taking on the Levee District. Since that time I have taken care of all the duties and was then appointed manager. WA Enclosure: Ref/l.5/D:lvcty BERNARD C. BARMANN, SR. OFFIC~ OF THE DEF"JT~ES oou, co..sE, COUNTY COUNSEL CLOW STEPHEN D. SCHUETT COUNTY OF KERN JOHN R IRBY PATRICIA RANDOLPH AS~STANT COUNTY COUNSEL ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER HOLLY N GALLAGHER 1115 TRUXTUN AVENUE MARK L NATIONS CHIEF DEPUTIES BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 DONNA S wEtSMAN MARVIN R COSTON BRUCE DIVELBISS KIRK B PERKINS LAND USE & ENVIRONMENT TELEPHONE (805) 861-2326 MARCO A RAISON FAX (805) 322-8653 JOHN M GALLAGHER STEVEN L SANDERS GENERAL GOVERNMENT FAX (805) 324-0546 CHARLES F- COLLINS MARTIN R LEE JAMES H THEBEAU HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES SUSAN M G~LL ARTHUR H CURRAN ROBERT O WOODS LYNOA TAYLOR LiTiGATION November 1, 1994 Gene Bogart Water and Sanitation Manager City of Bakersfield 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, CA 93311 Re: Proposed Consolidation of the Kern River Levee District Dear Mr. Bogart: At the October 28, 1994 meeting of the Kern River Levee District, the District Board of Trustees voted not to accept the proposal by the City of Bakersfield to assume the duties of the District for the maintenance of the Kern River Levee. Your efforts at preparing and presenting the City's proposal are appreciated and the District looks forward to continuing to work with the City on issues of mutual concern. Very truly yours, B.C. BARMANN, County Counsel Stephen D. Schuett Assistant County Counsel SDS:gm/sds.i levee. Itt 2000.22 ije~ ~ ~ ~ [J ~ ~ ~) cc: Wanda Anagnostopoulos, District Manager N0q'0 4 1994 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES A REPORT ON THE ~RN COUNTY WATER AGENCY'S ALLOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD TO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #4 PREPARED BY: ...... URBAN BAKERSFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE: MEMORANDUM February 7, 1995 To: Thomas N. Clark, General Manager, Kern County Water Agency From: Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee/Finance Sub-Committee Re: Kern County Water Agency Overhead Allocation To ID#4; Supplemental Report BACKGROUND Around September 27, 1994, a report entitled "Kern County Water Agency's Allocation of Administrative Overhead to Improvement District #4" was delivered to Kern County Water Agency staff and the UBAC Committee representatives. Since that time, there have been several meetings with Tom Clark and some of his staffon this subject. The last meeting was held on October 20, 1994 with John Parnell, Steve Ruetgers, and Alan Hambleton from the Agency Administrative staff; and Douglas Nunneley, Dale Piner, and William Miller, all of ID#4. At that time, several spreadsheets which described some alternative methods for calculating and allocating administrative overhead were handed out by the Agency representatives, with the caveat that these documents contained what were in essence unofficial ideas at the time, and that Tom Clark had not reviewed them. The meeting concluded with everyone exchanging ideas and comments, both on the hand-out materials and the subject as a whole. The above referenced Agency documents are included at the end of the technical appendix. The UBAC was willing to temporarily suspend pursuit of a final answer to the overhead allocation problem, due to Mr. Clark's intense involvement in the Article 18 negotiations, which subsequently resulted in the December 1, 1994, Monterey Agreement. The Agreement having been reached, it is the opinion of the committee that it is now time to restart its pursuit of a resolution to this matter. 1 KCIFA Overhead Allocation To I1~4: Supplernental Report t ,i DISCUSSION [ . The Agency's draf~ altematives presented at the October meeting, attempted to calculate the administrative overhead using 4 basic components. They were: 1. Finance, Accounting, and Purchasing: This component consists of the related salary and benefits, the costs of which were dis~buted amongst the various departments, using the ratio of each department's purchase orders to all purchase orders for the Agency. 2. Personnel, Receptionist, and Printer: This component is comprised of the related salary and benefits, the costs of which were allocated amongst the various departments by the ratio of the number of employees in each department v.s. the total of all Agency employees. 3. Building Costs: These costs include heating, air-conditioning, maintenance staff salaries and benefits, tools, equipment, telephone, etc; divided amongst the various departments in proportion to each department's percentage employee load on the headquarters building. 4. General and Administrative Overhead: This component consists of Agency employee's salaries and benefits not directly allocated to other departments, as well as membership fees, legal costs, consulting, Worker's Compensation, Directors fees, etc. In our opinion, the method for calculating and allocating the Finance, Accounting & Purchasing component, as well as the PersonnelfRecepfion/Priater component, are in a basic sense, fairly reasonable and acceptable. As is, the general concept of arriving at a cost for the operations and maintenance of the headquarters building by the person/year load applicable to each. department. None of these aforementioned methods are perfect or absolute, particularly the Finance, Accounting & Purchasing method (the effort involved in a purchase order for a box of pencils v.s. the effort for a P.O. of thousands of dollars containing many items). However, in the spirit of cooperation, we are willing to consider their use in these calculations. KCI~,~ Overhead /~llocation To IDg4: Supplemental Report The manner in which the chargeable Agency departments are divided on the charts submitted to us is hard to follow. It was difficult to compare from one component to another, and in some cases the charts were also incomplete or inconsistent. For instance, the State Water Contract Administration "deparmaent" was at times included in the General Fund as opposed to standing alone; as well as in some cases the CVC was not appropriately allocated its share of the costs. Therefore, we have created our own set of schedules that were based on the Agency's most recent submittal to us, clarifying and expanding on them as needed. Doing this, the same "chargeable" deparm~ents were used throughout. We will attempt to explain the basis for each of the schedules as follows: 1. Schedule A-l: Labor Allocations, 1993, For Employees In Administration Building The purpose of these calculations was to come up with a personnel building load factor for each department, using a percentage based on the number of person/years v.s. total building usage, applied to the costs of the operations and maintenance of the headquarters building. As it also costs money to house the employees who were listed as indirect charges in the original Agency document, we have also included them in the calculations here under General Fund (which was not done in the original document). For consistency's sake, we have also combined lDO3 and the Data Program time allocations into the General Fund for the calculations in this and all the following schedules. Making these adjusm~ents results in Schedule A- 1, which then gives each department an initial percentage share of the building. 2. Schedule B: Finance, Accounting & Purchasing Allocation This schedule also uses the Agency's basic proposal that the number of purchase orders for each department v.s. the total of all purchase orders, be used to arrive at the allocation of the salaries and benefits for the employees that perform these functions. : It should be emphasized that the initial flaw with the accuracy of this method is the assumption that a purchase order containing one ten dollar item has the same impact as one containing many items worth tens of thousands of dollars. To be fair, the amount of the headquarters building applicable to those persons serving this department should also be taken into consideration, as well. This is done in Schedule A-2, by proportionally allocating the time of these employees, as derived through Schedule B, to all appropriate departments. 3 KCWA Overhead Allocation To [D~4: Supplemental Report 3. Schedule A-2: Labor Allocations, 1993, For Employees In Administration Building In this schedule, the Finance, Accounting & Purchasing employee's time (Combs, McMasters, Murphy, Risi, Blackwell, and 40% Hambleton) is redistributed to each department in accordance with the Schedule B percentages. 4. Schedule C: Personnel, Receptionist, Printer Allocation The employee ratio from each department v.s. the total of all employees, was used to allocate the salaries and benefits costs for these functions. And, as was done previously, these percentage allocations were also applied to Schedule A-3 to reflect the building load of these employees for each department. 5. Schedule A-3: Labor Allocations, 1993, For Employees in Administration Building This is the final iteration of arriving at the total employee load for each department. In this case, the employee time for the Personnel etc., functions for each department was allocated, resulting in a total number of employees per department. The then derived percentages reflecting each department's total share of the use of the headquarters building are used to allocate the building costs, as shown in Schedule D. 6. Schedule D: Building Costs This schedule demonstrates how the building costs were allocated, and the subsequent totals for each department. 7. Schedule E: General and Administrative Overhead This table shows the General Administrative Overhead line items, and their total. This table also includes an adjustment for the 40% of Alan Hambleton's salary and benefits already taken into account within the Finance etc., department component calculations, which we were informed at our last meeting with Agency staff, of their not being so deducted. Finally, the associated General Fund Personnel, 4 KCff'A Overhead,~llocation To IDg4: Supplemental Report ere; Finance, etc; and Building costs were also added as part of this component. These machinations then result in a total cost for the Agency's Overhead. 8.' Schedule F: General and Administrative Overhead: Basis of Allocation-June 30, 1993 This is a slight re-working of the appended original Agency spreadsheet, which has added to it the State Water Project Administration departmental costs, as well as the CVC costs. Pursuant to information received from the Agency af~er their review of the initial UBAC Overhead report, 3rd Party Revenue Distribution, and Capital Replacement Fund Refunds, have been deducted from the CVC expenses as well. The net expenditures for each department are then used to create individual ratios for each department, resulting in the percentages which can then be applied on behalf of each department to the General Administrative Overhead in a manner consistent with the Agency's past practice in such allocations. It should be noted here, that the inclusion of this component in this report is for illustrative purposes only. The committee does not believe this "charge" appropriate or legal. 9. Schedule G: Ail Allocations This schedule condenses the work performed in the preceding schedules. The Building costs, Financing/Accounting/Purchasing, and Personnel Administration, etc., are added together and sub-totaled. Added to the sub-total, for the purpose of illustration only, are the General Administrative Overhead charges, and then the grand totals for each department. 10. Schedule H-l: ID#4 Management and Support This schedule is part-one of a two-part step designed to perform a "reality check" on the conclusions reached here, after going through the previously described exercises. Here, the IDg4 management and support-person/year allocations of time were further broken-out by function. These functions and their full-time equivalents (FTE) are: KCVr'A Overhead Allocation To I1~4: Su£plemental Report Function -FTE Management ................................. 1.57 Secretarial Support ......................... 75 Finance ......................................... 1.32 Personnel ....................................... 6 Totaling up the various time allocations under each function results in the full- time equivalents for each function. This exercise ends up with a total full-time equivalent of 4.24 people under the direct charge allocation method proposed here, which takes into account virtually all KCWA personnel-time expended on behalf of ~'~' ID#4. The fight-hand section of this schedule compares the above discussed full-time equivalents which are derived from this UBAC alternative, to the FTE's derived .. from the previously referenced Agency submittals. The Agency derived FTE's "' of 7.94 are the sum of the 2.62 FTE's direct charged, and 30.62% (Agency Overhead allocation factor) of the 17.39 FTE's shown under "Indirect", which is consistent with the Agency's current fiscal allocation policy. 11. Schedule H-2: ID#4 Employee Organization Chart Part-two of the "reality check" consists of comparing the management and support FTE's under the existing and alternative scenarios to the entire ID#4 department and seeing what makes sense and what doesn't. The ID#4 organization chart helps to visualize what is involved in its management, and how this contrasts to other districts. It is likely that there would be some efficiencies in the management etc., of ID#4 if there were specific individuals dedicated to each position, in contrast to the fragmented method now in use. In any event, it appears that 4 people could adequately perform the management, personnel etc., and finance etc., functions as outlined in the chart. Review of the management staffing levels of other water districts in Kern County will support this view. This could be done with a manager, assistant manager, secretary, and bookkeeper, which is consistent with this proposal. In contrast, what would the responsibilities of 4 additional people in the management of ID#4 be, which is the case under the Agency's existing method of cost allocation ? This sub- analysis further conf'trms that the Agency's current method of cost allocation is not representative of the costs reasonably born by ID#4. · 6 KCi~'A Overhead Allocation To ID~4: Supplemental Report CONCLUSION Based on the information we have received and digested so far, this is our best attempt at demonstrating how the Agency's costs, less the General and Administrative Overhead, should be properly allocated amongst all appropriate departments. Despite our best efforts to acquire and use the most accurate financial information available, there may be some inadvertent minor discrepancies in some of the figures contained in this report. However, we feel the principles to be consistent in any event. Furthermore, whereas the General Fund has several other sub-funds within it, the principles demonstrated here can be applied to all of those as well, and do not appear to affect our conclusions. The sub-totals for the first three cost components, listed under Schedule G, appear to be legitimate costs to be allocated to all departments. However the collection of these charges is only appropriate if they are collected from any one department, in the same manner as all the rest of the departments. The forgiving of all or a portion of these costs by the Agency for any one department must be done proportionally for all departments. More specifically, as long as the CVC and the State Water Project Administration are not fully charged for these three component's (Building, Finance, Personnel, etc) costs, then 11)//4 should also be exempt from the payment of these charges. It needs to be emphasized however, that the purpose of this report, and past and subsequent UBAC efforts regarding the equitable allocation of Agency Overhead are for just that purpose, equity. UBAC has no interest in raising the costs of operation for any Member Unit or the CVC, for its own sake. The General and Administrative Overhead cost allocation displayed in Schedule G, below the direct costs referenced above, illustrate the effect on all departments if the Agency were allowed to use such a method. And again, only flail departments were so charged. However, we in no way feel that the allocation of any of these Overhead costs to ID#4 is justified. The Agency's property tax and SWP Contract Payment fund interest receipts more than cover all these costs listed here. Perhaps the other Agency programs not part of the Agency's primary functions costed above, should have other revenue sources more closely tied to the beneficiaries of such programs. ASSUPPUBAC.LTR 12/22/94 4: 24875 , .. ." ~. ~',~ ~."'. '~, ,~..~..-:" RN9500674 ~AGE 1 ...... ...... ' ' ' ' : ' ' "' :,: :~..' ":)-3, ":~,i'~:' ~ ' LEGISLATIVE~ COUNSEL' S DIGEST .. ..~ B~i~ No. as intro~uc~, gDeier. ~j · .. General Su ec~: Drinking waeer: fluoriaation. ~ ~ Existing-law, co,only, refe::ed~to ~as ~he California Safe Drinking Water~ Act, is administered.by ~he State Department of Health Services and, among other thin~s, it requires 'the department to establish..~ reco~.ended.'p'~b!ic health levels for. contaminants_in drinking water and~requires operators ~of.,public.water systems~'to obtain a permit. Existing law also.rgquires the"department to, at the request of;any_~public.~water system, grant ~a~variance from ..the .primary ~rinki~g water certain co~ditio~.are:sati~fie~..~, ,. ;::5 :,,,-~:.;~. ": ~:"~,'t This'bil. l: would =~qui~e the~ dega~.t~en=. regul:~%'ions~: tha ~-.-r e.qu.i ~, ~the. fluor ida=ion....o~..th~.~ ........ . .... , ~,... ...~ ~Z %'~. ~,~ .... any:~publ'ic'.'wa.~e= system that'~ has .a~ leas=..30,000, service connections. ~ong o~he= things, it',woul~ requir~ =he 2/22/9 ' · 1 4 ~..26 ?M ' 24875 ~ RN9500674 .=AG=_ 2 ~ regulations to establish the minimum and maximum permissible concentrations of fluoride. The bill would require the owners and~opera'tO~s,,.'of public water systems with at least 30,000 service connections to comply with these regulations, would require the department co enforce them, and would pr0~'id~'it'hat'"t'6e'~'regulatiOns~would take effec: January 1, 1999. The bill would also require the Attorney Gene:al to) upon request by the department, institute mandamus or o:her appropriate proceedings in cases where the owne~' or'Operator of a public water system fa.ils to cozply"with a regulation adopted pursuant to its ~y requiring the'addition of fluorides public water systems, this'bill would impose.additional duties'6~local'public'entities that Operate public water syste~h~reby'timPosing~a~'state-mandated loca~.%program ~'~The CalifOrnia'constitution requires~'-the-:state~ to r~'%~6rse iocal agencies and-school districts,~for certain costs"mandated~by the'~state. Statutory.provi.sions~ establish procedures for making"~that'reimburseme~t.,.~ incI~ding' the' cre'~'6ib~'of 'a'State Mandates'C!'aims ~und to pay the ~st~'! of 'mandates that': do~ not exceed ,$1,000,.000.. sta~ewide and':'~t'her;prOcedures for claims whose..statewide · 12/22/94 4:26 PM 24875 "' RN9500674 PAGE 2 THE PEopL?E OF TFiE STATE OF' CAL'-IFORNiA'-"DO ~.NACT.'AS; ~,OLLOWS:-- .SECTION 1. Section 4026.7 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 4026.7. (a) In order to promo:e the public heal~.h, .through. the p~otec=ion and maintenance of den=al health, ~he depa=~men= shall aaom~ =egula~ions pu=suan= to Cha9:er 3.,5.(co~encing with Sec=ion 11340) of Division 3 of T!:;e 2:.of =he Gp~rnmen= Code, =equi=~ng =he $!uo=ida:ion of gu~lic wa=e= sys=ems, The =epula:ions adop=ep.by?~he deoar:men= shall ~ake effec= on January ~, 1999. ,..; ~:: (b). The =egu~a:ions shall include, bu: no~ be (1) ~!n~mum and maximum De=m~ssible concen==a=ions of fluoride ~o be maintained by f!uorida~ion of public wa=e= sys=ems. ~.~..:.. (2). The =e~ui=emen~s and 9=ocedu=es fo~ main.=~ning~ope= concen~=a~ions Of fluo=ide, including' e~uiomen= %.teAring, ~recordkeepin9, a~d reporting · ,~(,3)~ Requi~emen=s fo= ~he addition' f fluorides =o:pu~i.¢ .war%= ~sy~.~em~ in which ~he ~a=ural level o~ uo= aes.is ~ess ~haa ~he m~n~mum level es=ablished ~ the ~. ~egulations. (4) A schedule fo= the fluoridation of public wa=er systems, to be based on =he size of the public wa=er ~ - · · ' ' ': 12/22/94 4:26 PM ' 24875 " ,',' :;'.- RN9500674 PAGE 3 system, the. population~.served by the public wa.:er..sys:em, or both. water sys=ems that have at least 3'0,000' service connections. ~' ':: ' SEC. 2. Section 4026.8 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 4026.8. (a) No later than January 1, 1999, owners and .opera:ors cf' public water systems with a: leas: 30,000 service connections shall comply with 'ail regula:ions adopted by =he department pursuant to sec:ion 4026.7. (b) The departmen~ shall enfo~ce"~Sect'~on 4026.7 and this sec:ion, and all regulations adopt'~d ': "' pursuant to these sections. (c) If the owner or operator of any public water system with a~ least 30,.000 service 'connection's · fails, or refuses, to .comply with any regulati0ns~ adop=ed pursuant to Section 4026.7, or any order of the department implem, entin, g these regulations, the Attorney General ' shall, UDOn the reqUes't of 'the' depar=men=, ~nstitute mandamus proceedings, or t o proc s, ~n order to compel compliance with h order, r. uIe,'?'Sr regulation. This remedy shall be in addit'ion to all other auehorlzed remedies or sancti° ; · " 24875 , RN9500674: PAGE 3 This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated, by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. · -, : ~,~? ... ~2/22/94 4:26 · , RN9500674 PAGE 24875 ~&%~ ~ ~-', .... '.: ,' . An act to add Sections 4026.7 and 4026.8 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to drinking water. · 12/22/94 4:26 PM · 24875 RN9500674 PAGE 4 (d) Neither this section nor Section 4026.7 shall supersede subdivision (b) of Section 4027.6. SEC. 3. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Governmen= Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Par= 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the GoveTnment Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Not%~ithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution. - 0 ~ ITEM 6B THE APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR OF THE WATER BOARD IS AT THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 1995 The Water Board has set the day and time for regular meetings to Wednesdays at 4:30pm to be held at the Water Resources Conference Room, 1000 Buena Vista Road. Below is a list of tentative regular meeting dates for 1995 to consider and adopt at the March 14, 1995 Special Meeting. March 14, 1995 (Tuesday) May 10, 1995 July 12, 1995 September 20, 1995 November 15, 1995 If emergency business or action is required there will be Special Meetings called. SCHEDULED MEETINGS JANUARY 1995 THROUGH DECEMBER 1995 BAKERSFIELD CI'I'~ COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING (7:00 PM) (~ BUDGET HEARINGS (6/14/95 & 6/28/95) AT ?:00 PM WORKSHOP/CLOSED SESSION (5:15 PM) ~ DEPARTMENT BUDGET PRESENTATION8 MONDAY'S BEGIN AT NOON WEDNESDAY'S BEGIN AT 5:15 PM JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH $ M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F $ I 2 :3 4 5 6 7 ! 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 29 30 31 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 APRIL MAY JUNE S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F $ S M T W TH F $ 1 i 2[-~'I 4 5 6 1 2 3 ~ ~0 ~ ~2 ~= ~4 ~5 ~4 ~5 ~61(~731 18 19 ~ 11 ~2 ~31(lal ~5 ~6 ~ 24 25 ~ 27 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 27 ~ {~ ~ v JULY AUGUST SEFTEMBER 8 M T W TH F $ S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F $ 1 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8191 10 11 12 :3 4 5 6 7 8 9 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26127I 28 29 ;30 30 31 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 8 M T W TH F S $ M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S I 2:34567 1234 12 8 9 101 11I~ 12 13 14' 5 6 71. 8l- 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 29 30 31 25 27 28 I 291 30 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 31 PROPOSED 01/11/95 ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 6-95 ORiGtNAL CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE SNOW SURVEYS MARCH 1, 1995 FORECASTS APRIL-JULY UNIMPAIRED RUNOFF CENTRAL VALLEY STREAMS Unimpaired Runoff in 1,000 Acre-Feet HYDROLOGIC REGION and Watershed Apr-Jul Pct 80 % Forecasts of Probability Avg Range SACRAMENTO RIVER Total Inflow to Shasta Lake 1,700 93 1,100-2,500 Sacramento River above Bend Bridge 2,350 94 1,500-3,500 Feather River Inflow to Oroville 2,250 121 1,780-3,100 Yuba River at Smartville 1,300 124 970-1,800 American River Inflow to Folsom 1,500 117 1,050-2,150 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER Cosumnes River at Michigan Bar 130 101 80-200 Mokelumne River Inflow to Pardee 550 118 410-740 Stanislaus River Inflow to New Melones 840 118 640-1130 Tuolumne River Inflow to New Don Pedro 1,430 119 1,150-1,850 Merced River Inflow to Lake McClure 760 123 620-1,010 San Joaquin River Inflow to Millerton 1,480 121 1,140-1,930 TULARE LAKE Kings River Inflow to Pine Flat 1,400 116 1,050-1800 Kaweah River at Terminus Reservoir 330 116 250-440 Tule River at Success Reservoir 70 111 50-1 O0 Kern River Inflow to Isabella 490 106 370-710 ci~, of B./~,~ez,~ KERN RIVER BASIN SNOWPACK ACCUMULATION ~l~'~ WaterRe~om~e~ EIGHT SENSOR INDEX ' March 9, ~995 - i i 100% of April ~ Average ,." ....... 1993-1994 '"",, November December January February March April Snowpack Accumulation Season KERN RIVER BASIN SNOW SENSOR FORECAST MODEL Readings of Water Content DATE: 09-Mar 1995 are in Inches ..... Previous Year April-July Runoff -- 41 % 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 22.6 16.9 24.8 41.9 31.8 17.9 22.3 12.2 23.4 Normal Water Content This Date 25.6 18.3 20.2 23.0 28.0 14.4 20.5 10.7 20.2 % of Normal Water Content This Date 88% 92~ 123% 182~ 114% 124% 109~ 114% 1169/o April 1 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 82~ 65% 114% 168% 105% 115% 107% 111% 108% 1) 3-Gage Precipitation Index For this Date -- 65.31 inches 3-Gage Precipitation Index Normal For this Date -- 46.71 inches 3-Gage Precipitation Index in % of Normal = 140~ Percentage Into Snowpack Accumulation Season = 94% 2) Estimated April-July Runoff into Isabella Reservoir = 565,067 acre-feet 3) Estimated April-July Runoff in % of Average = 123% 1) 3-Gage precipitation index = October I 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 Note: Upper Tyndall Creek and Wet Meadow sensors are currently inoperable. Readings of water content and precipitation for these stations are estimates only. ?~ ~,.~ LEGEND " EXISTING SNOW COURSE 249 ABANOONEO SNOW COURSE AERIAL SNOW DEPTH MARKER "~ ~ AERIAL SNOW DEPTH MARKER ON SNOW COURSE RIVER BASIN ~.~[. { . .. ~t~ AEEA: KERN Rt~ER ~e [5~EL~ 2~o74 =~=. .. = ~,s~,~ Ac~ ~ [ Ave. ~ecoTd SensoT ~ocat[on Elevation WateT Content ~e~an Upper Tyndall Crk. 11,450 27.7 1970 DEPARTMENT OF' WATER RESOURCES Crabtree Meadow 10,700 19.8 1983 DIVISION OF RE~OURC£S OEVELOPHENT Chagoopa Plateau 10,300 21.8 1987 CAUFORNIA COOPERATIVE SNOW SURVEYS SNOW COURSE LOCATIONS Pascoe 9,150 24.9 1970 KAWEAH RIVER BASIN Wet Meadow 8,950 30.3 1970 TULE RIVER BASIN Tunnel Guard 8,950 15.6 1984 KERN RIVER BASIN Casa Vieja Meadow 8,400 20.9 1988 $C&L£ OF ¥1L£S' Beach Meadow 7,650 11.0 1983 o s ,o 1995 WATER PRICE AND SAND SALE SCHEDULE The following recommended water prices reflect the current, above-normal water supply conditions o~eurring throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Of the ten (10) water price categories shown below, items 1 and 2 are established by existing contracts. The water rates for items 3 through 10 are dependent upon supply and would become effective May 1, 1995. These water rates would remain in effect until conditions warranted changes or adjustments to these prices. For information and reference, the 1993 and 1994 schedule for surface water rates are shown for comparison (price per acre-foot). Actual 1993 Actual 1994 Effective May 1, 1995 (126% of Normal (41% of Normal (119% of Normal Type of Water Water Year) Water Year) Water Year) 1) Basic Contract Water .......... $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 2) City "Borrow/Paybaek" Contract Water ..................... $19.70 $19.87 $20.47 *3) Miscellaneous Kern River Water sold for Domestic use .......... $26.00 $62.00 $32.00 *4) Miscellaneous Kern River Water sold for surface irrigation ................................. $20.00 $26.00 $22.00 *5) Miscellaneous Water that would otherwise be used for groundwater banking ..... $11.27 $11.37 $11.71 *6) City non-Kern River Water sales (oilfield discharge, etc.) ......................................... $18.00 $20.80 $20.80 7) 2800 Acre "banked" groundwater sold for surface irrigation (downstream of 2800 Acres) ...................... $47.00 $52.00 $52.00 8) 2800 Acre "banked" groundwater sold for surface irrigation (upstream of 2800 Acres) ...................... $52.00 $57.00 $57.00 9) 2800 Acre "banked" groundwater sold for Domestic use (upstream of 2800 Acres) ....... $58.00 $62.00 $62.00 10) Kern River Canal & Irrigating Co .......................... $18.48 $19.15 $19.15 * To encourage maximum use within the Kern River groundwater basin, water prices in categories numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6 are reduced 50% during periods of mandatory flood control release and/or encroachment into the flood control storage space at Isabella Reservoir. For annual and/or temporary pumping agreements from canal and river facilities, and for sand sales from City-owned river channel properties, the following rates would remain in effect until conditions warranted changes: ITEM PRICE 1) Temporary Pumping Agreements .................................. $ 45.00 per day 2) Annual Pumping Agreements 5 Truck units or less ......................................................... $400.00 (minimum charge) 6 Truck units or more ...................................................... $600.00 (or greater proportionately, depending upon volume) 3) Sand Removal Sales .......................................................... $ 0.50 per cubicyard (plus sales taxwhen applicable) HATCH AND PARENT AGREEMENT FOR ~ PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, dated ,1995, sets forth the terms under which the City of Bakersfield ("you") employ(s) Hatch and Parent; a Professional Corporation ("we"), to represent you regarding matters related to water issues concerning the City. 1. Scope of Services , We will provide those legal services reasonably required to represent you regarding the matter described above. Our services will not include litigation of any kind, unless you and we enter into a separate agreement for the provision of litigation-related legal services. 2. Fees We will charge by the hour at our prevailing rates for time which our legal personnel spend on your matter. Our current prevailing hourly rates for legal personnel are set forth on Schedule 1, attached. Those rates are subject to periodic change as provided in paragraph 7 of this agreement. You agree to pay for our legal services at the prevailing rates. Schedule 1 also lists the legal personnel initially assigned to your matter and their current prevailing hourly rates. We will assign personnel to your matter as needed in our judgment. 3. Costs and Other Charges a. In general We will incur various costs and expenses in performing legal services under this contract. You agree to pay for those costs and expenses in addition to the hourly charges for services rendered by legal personnel. The costs and expenses commonly include long distance telephone calls, electronic mail, messenger and other delivery fees, postage, charges for computer research and outside assisted legal research, investigation expenses, consultants' fees, mileage and parking photocopying and other reproduction, word processing charges, charges for computer time, and other similar items. Except for the items listed on Schedule 2, we will charge all of the foregoing to you at our cost. Schedule 2 lists those items that will be billed other than at cost and the current rates. The rates on Schedule 2 are subject to change as provided in paragraph 6 of this contract. b. Travel If out of town travel is required in our representation of your i~n_t_erests, you agree to pay all costs of such travel, in addition to the hourly rates for travel time. c. Consultants and Investigators To aid in presentatiOn of your case, it may become necessary to hire a consultant or investigator. We will select any consultant or investigator to be hired, but we will not hire such a person without your consent. Once you have consented, you will be responsible for such person's fees and charges. d. Payment of Costs and Other Charges You agree to pay all costs and other charges promptly upon our submission of invoices therefor. If for some reason we advance any of, these costs, we will bill you for the same, and you agree to promptly reimburse us. 4. Billing Practices We bill our time in minimum units of 0.10 hours (6 minutes) for any task. We will charge for all telephone calls relating to your case, including, but not limited to, calls with you and with opposing counsel. The legal personnel assigned to your case will confer among themselves about the case, as required. When they do confer, each person will charge for the time expended. Likewise, if more than one of our legal personnel attends a meeting or other proceeding, each will charge for his or her time. We will charge for waiting time and for travel time, both local and out of town. All of the charges referred to in this paragraph will be at the rates prevailing when the time is expended. 5. Insurance We maintain errors and omissions insurance coverage applicable to the services to be rendered by us under the terms of this Agreement. 6. Periodic Changes in Rates and Charges We shall have the right to change the rates and charges on Schedules 1 and 2 not more than once each calendar year. We will give you thirty (30) days' notice of any changes. You will be presumed to have agreed to the new rates if you do not discharge us within the thirty (30) day period. 7. Billing Statements Each month, you will be sent a statement of your account setting forth the fees, costs and expenses you have incurred. Your payment of this statement is to be received by our office by the last day of the month following the cut-offdate of the statement. For example, in June, you will receive a statement for May's fees, costs and expenses; and your payment is to be receded by us by June 30. Should your payment not be timely made, we reserve the fight to discontinue our legal services. Further, by entering into this Agreement, you are agreeing that it would be 2 impractical or extremely difficult to determine the losses and damages we would experience by your failure to timely pay our statement, as our organization is not set up to monitor late payments or engage in collection activity. Thus, if your payment of any statement is not timely received by us, a service charge ofl.25% per month, or 15.% per annum will be charged upon the balance due. Should you have any concerns or questions regarding your statement, you should immediately discuss these with the primary attorney handling your legal matters or our Comptroller. In the absence of any written objection, you will, within 30 days of your receipt of our statement, be deemed to have accepted and acknowledged the statement as correct. In addition to our monthly statement, you/nay request additional statements of your account.. If requested, we will provide you with such additional statements within ten days of our receipt of your request. Such spedal requests by you, however, may not be made at intervals of less than thirty (30) days. 8. Notices Any notices permitted or required under this contract shall be delivered or mailed to the party in question at the address shown on the cover letter accompanying this contract. Notices shall be deemed received upon delivery if hand-delivered or on the third business day after mailing, if mailed. Any party may change its address by giving notice to the other in accordance with this paragraph. 9. Duties of Attorneys and Client We shall provide those legal Services reasonably required to represent you in the matter described in this agreement. We shall also take reasonable steps to keep you informed of significant developments in your case and to respond to your inquiries. You shall be truthful with us, cooperate with us, keep us informed of developments in your case, perform the obligations you have agreed to perform under this agreement, pay our bills in a timely manner, and keep us apprised of your address, telephone number and whereabouts. 10. Discharge and Withdrawal You may discharge us at any time. We may withdraw only for good cause. Among the facts constituting good cause would be your breach of this contract, your refusal to cooperate with us or to follow our advice on a material matter, or any fact or circumstance that would render our continuing representation of you unlawful or unethical. Each party agrees to sign any documents reasonably necessary to effect or complete our discharge or withdrawal. 3 11. Termination or Conclusion Upon the termination or conclusion of our services, all unpaid charges for services rendered and costs incurred or advanced through the termination or conclusion date shall become immediately due and payable. If you should replace us with another attorney or attorneys, we will transfer your file to the new attorney promptly upon payment of the cost of copying and transferring the file. 12. Disclaimer of Guarantee We have made no promises or guarantees to you about the outcome of your matter, and nothing in this agreement shall be construed as such a promise or guarantee. 13. Written Contract Required by Law This document constitutes the written fee agreement between Attorneys and Client required by California Business and Professions Code section 6148. You shall be presumed to have agreed to all of the provisions set forth in this contract unless you notify us in writing of your objections within fifteen (15) days of the date of this agreement. 14. Severance Should any part of this agreement be stricken in an arbitration or court proceeding, the remainder shall constitute the agreement. ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY HATCH & PARENT, A Profes~onal Corporation By: 1~52.1 4 SCHEDULE 1 'Prevailing hourly rates for legal personnel of Hatch and Parent are as follows: PARTNERS $185.00/hour AsSocIATES , $ 90.00/hour to $175.00/hour PARALEGALS $ 75,00/hour LAW CLERKS $ 75.00/hour to $ 85.00/hour The following attorney has been assigned initially to your matter. SCott S. Slater (Partner) $185/Hour Kevin J. Neese (Associate) $120/Hour Rob Saperstein (Associate) $ 90/Hour All of the above rates are subject to change as set forth in the contract to which this Schedule is attached. SCHEDULE 2 The expense or cost items listed below will be charged to you initially at the indicated rates. Photocopying $. 15/page Mileage IRS Rate Computer Research Cost + 60% variable rates to cover fixed costs. ElectrOnic Mail $1.50/page Long DistanceTelephone Cost plus 35% surcharge to recoup operating costs. 16452.1 DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE MAINLINE EXTENSION CONTRACT Special Water Board Meeting - City of Bakersfield Tuesday, March 14th, 1995 Yearly Water Board Original Refund Owner No. Amount Amount The DeWalt Group, Inc. 94-04 W.B. $90,067.00 $2,251.68' *Paid over a 40 year period at 2V2% of original amount. DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE MAINLINE EXTENSION REASSIGNMENTS Special Water Board Meeting - City of Bakersfield Tuesday, March 14th, 1995 Tract/ Water Board Parcel Remaining Reassigned to No. Map Balance MLE's at 2~A%: Scott Byers, David & 84-27 W.B. TR 4601 $ 24,298.70 Gayle Byers Custodians for Scott Byers under the CUTMA 6580 Broadacres Drive San JgS.~, ~alifornia 95120 Total 2~A% Contracts $ 24,298.70 MLE's at 22%: Nerguisian-McKenney 79-11 W.B.* TR 3940 $ 6,946.44 Profit Sharing Trust #1 25150 No. Windy Walk Dr., #50 80-06 W.B.* TR 4080 46,948.17 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 80-12 W.B.* TR 4180 36,089.02 *The three 22% MLE Contracts were reassigned again, see below. Dean Witter Reynolds Custodian 79-11 W.B. TR 3940 $ 6,946.44 F.O.B. George F. McKenney I.R.A. Rollover Account 80-06 W.B. TR 4080 46,948.17 25150 North Windy Walk Dr., #50 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 80-12 W.B. TR 4180 33,961.45 Total 22% Contracts $ 87,856.06 ITEM 7A GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9(b)(1); CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (b) OF SECTION 54956.9 (TWO CASES).