The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/11/01WATER BOARD Mark C. Salvaggio, Chair David Couch, Vice Chair Harold Hanson CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2001 - 4:30pm Water Resources Building Conference Room 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA "i). CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2). ROLL CALL 3). APPROVAL OF MAY 9, 2001 MEETING MINUTES 4). SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5). KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT A. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - For Board Review 6). KERN RIVER OPERATIONS REPORT 7). OLD BUSINESS - None 8). NEW BUSINESS A. ELECTRICAL DEMAND RELIEF PROGRAM PARTICIPATION - For Board Review and Approval B. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT No. 92-250 WITH CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY - For Board Review C. REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT OF WASTEWATER PLANT #2 MUNICIPAL FARM LEASE AGREEMENT N°. 95-310 - For Board Review and Recommendation to City Council D. 1976 WATER BOND RETIREMENT REFERRAL FROM COUNCILMEMBER COUCH - For Board Information 9). WATER BOARD STATEMENTS Gweant~ ~i~gesa~tu r~es ~ a n a ge r POSTED: July 6. 2001 S:\2001WBMIN\WBJLI I 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD ' BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 , (805) 326-3715 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Wednesday, May 9, 2001, Water Resources Conference Room, 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311. 1. The meeting was called to. order by Board Chair Salvaggio at 4:38 p.m. 2. Present: Mark Salvaggio, Chair David Couch, Vice-Chair Harold Hanson 3. Boardmember Couch made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special Water Board meeting held April 23,2001. Motion carried. 4. Public statements. Mr. Core introduced Mr. Tim Treloar the Assistant General Manager of California Water Service Company in Bakersfield. Mr. Treloar gave a slide presentation on the progress of the Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project. Mr. Bogart stated that the project is on a five- --- year plan and the program will be completed in early 2003. Boardmember Salvaggio asked that the Water Board members be supplied with a copy of the presentation. Boardmember Salvaggio requested, with Board consent, that item 8A of the agenda be moved up to after item 6 on the agenda. 5B. Mr. Randall, Water Resources Business Manager, presented the Kern River Levee District 2001-2002 budget review. This is the first budget since the merger of the Levee District with the City which took place in June of 2000 and will be included in the City's overall budget within the Water Resources Department Ag Water section of the budget. For Board information, no action required. 6. An update on the Kern River operations was given by Hydrographic Supervisor Steve Lafond. Additional storm systems in the Kern basin during the month of April substantially increased the forecast ofsnowmelt yield on the Kern River for 2001. The forecast is for 55% of normal for the season. Lake Isabella storage levels are expected to reach over the 220,000 acre-foot level by the second week of June, 2001. City does not expect any shortages in the annual deliveries to the four basic contractors. The City in conjunction with the Kern County Water Agency is working toward a five to seven day flow period with July 4th for a weekend to weekend this year. For Board information, no action required. Item 8A under New Business moved up per request and consent of Water Board members. SA. The Water Service Agreement with Kern Recreation Camp was presented before the Board by Mr. Bogart. The agreement provides for replacement of water in the amount of 11 acre- feet per year due to evaporation loss from the restoration and management of wetlands on the Kern Recreation Camp property. Mr. John Wilson and Mr. Larry Moxley, representing homeowners in the immediate area, spoke in opposition to this agreement. After much discussion it was recommended by Boardmember Couch that the agreement be contingent upon approval by the other government agencies involved. Boardmember Coueh made a motion to approve with the conditions discussed and recommended agreement not become final until the City Council approves. Motion carried. 7. Old Business. 7A. Mr. Bogart gave the Board an update on the City Council referral concerning municipal electrical power. Mr Hauptman attended the Kern Power Plant forum on May8th, asthis was "' an information meeting, no final determinations were made. Mr. Whitten, Engineer 1, gave a brief report on his research from several California cities on forming municipal utility districts, he will continue to gather more information and report back at a later date. Mr. Stinson, Assistant City Manager, attended the Electrical Energy Task Force meeting held May 8th and gave a summary of ideas and information to assist in possibly lowering electrical costs. Boardmember Salvaggio said the Electrical Energy Task Force will be giving an update to the full City Council on May 16th and requested that the questions asked by the Water Board ' members be brought up in that presentation. For Board information, no action required. 7B. Participation in the Southern California Water Committee was recommended by staff for one year at a cost of $750. Motion to approve was made by Boardmember Couch. Motion carried. New Business. BB. Mr. Core presented to the Board the water exchange and sale agreement with California Water Service Company for supply to its Kernville system. The groundwater is inadequate to meet the basic needs of the area and this water exchange would allow those demands to be met. Staff is asking Board approval and recommend approval by City Council. Motion to this effect as made by Boardmember Couch. Motion carried. 8C. The Agricultural Water Division 2001 water price schedule was addressed by Mr. Bogart. The Water Price and Sand Sale schedule is brought to the Board annually for recommendation under the normal budget process. The major change this year is the effect of a 55% of normal year with the miscellaneous Kern River water sold for irrigation is up by $10 to a recommended price of $32 per acre-foot. Staff recommends approval. Motion made by Boardmember Couch to approve and recommend approval by City Council. Motion carried. SD. The Domestic Water Division water rate schedule was brought to the Board by Mr. Core. This would be the first rate adjustment since October, 1999. Due to an increase in our O&M contract and electrical energy costs, a rate increase in necessary. Staff recommends a two- :i ~ step increase for fiscal year 2001-02 with one in October, 2001 and the second adjustment in April, 2002. Motion to approve Domestic Water rate adjustment and recommend adoption of a resolution by City Council made by Boardmember Couch. Motion carried. SE. Mr. Core presented a letter to the Kern County Water Agency requesting discussions be opened on the feasibility of water supply and the construction of a treated water pipeline from the Agency's Improvement District No. 4 Treatment Plant to the Fairhaven and northwest area of the City of Bakersfield. Staff requests approval from the Board to send the letter to KCWA to initiate investigating moving treated water to the northwest area. Motion to approve made by Boardmember Hanson. Motion carried. 8F. Six Mainline Extension Contracts were reassigned. This will not change the obligation the City has to pay these contracts nor increase the City's cost, it changes the recipient of the refunds. For Board information, no action required. 9. Tour of western bike path extension route along Kern River. 10. Water Board statements. Boardmember Salvaggio asked that the 1981 Statement of Thomas M. Stetson's be included in the Water Board information binder. Staff and Boardmembers left on tour at 6:52 p.m. and returned at 8:17 p.m. 11. The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Mark Salvaggio, Chair City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board · snow. " G10balWarming could ga aa, the~pps fion of Oc~o~hy ~d ~e U.S. ~Io~ force state to store more . ' water in. reSeW°irs. ,. . re~emen~ ~e ~o~k over a ~e By ANDR~ BRIDGES p~ o~e Sie~'wo~d eff~ve~.be AP ~ience Writer ~moved,' he ~d. ~S ~GE~S -- S~ w~r o~- A j~p of 2 ~ 4 de~ Ceki~, ci~, f~ ~ pm~cfio~ ~ ~e w~dt ~ien~ gene~ be~eve ~ Sie~ ~o~k co~d s~ ~- '~ely over ~e next h~cen~, co~d ~y ~ co~ d~, ~ Co~ider leave ove~ pr~ipi~on leve~ ~clu~ ~ c~e ~ C~or- ~c~g~ ~ C~o~ But how ~ ~'slo~-~ew~rfo~ p~cipi~on f&, ~cc~y d~g 'Itwo~dbe~e~c~meff~ ~r, wo~d ch~ge ~~, of~ob~w~wo~db~omep~ ske~g ~e de~ b~ce of Ore of ~e C~o~ W~r P~ O~c~ s~b hy~lo~ ~m. wor~g on ~ upd~ ~ ~e d~ent M~e~g done by ~fipps sden~ ~ ~ ~e ~e We~day M shows ~ wo~d become ate ~ ~s~el~. fo~of~rpr<ipi~onM~eSier- ~ ~u~on of ~e ~r ~ow- p~k-- wM~ now covem on ave~e ~e ~ew~r d~pedbya~r 13,~ ~ ~ ~ e~h ~ ~ ~ ~ off comp~vely -- wo~d wei~ h~y on C~o~ q~ckly, snow p~es up, o~y ~ melt wM~ depen~ on it for ~e w~r much ~r M ~e se~on when ~mper- ~ for ~~, Md~M ~ ~d ~te s~'s ~ for w~r ~d ~iden~ ~e. ~ ~mpe~ c0Md remove "It's ap~cM~ly~ce~ok, tim · e ~o~k ~m ~~ of ~e Sie~ Ncv~a ~, be~ it <~u- Sie~Ne~do~er~orC~or- ~ w~r M ~e fo~ of snow ~d ~ mo~ ~g~ by 2~, ~d ~xen slowly rel~s it ~u~ ~e ~c~l De~ger, a re~h hy~ol~ Hea~ turn to $fl0~/~' Pre ctions could be included state's water ~n~ll level ~ f~ ~ ~ee de~e~, w~r, ~ one ~ch proj~ ~o~r:.' ye~,'~dJo~n~depu~ec- you've~ditl,~fecq'~dMa~ce propo~ ~ for ~g w~r mrofC~o~a'sDep~entofW~r ' R~s, ~m s~b c~ef hy&olo~ ~em below ~e Mojave De~ for R~c~. "For a 1,~ feet movement of ~e ~e~ye~.~o~eq~ep~po~ . Sho~dmore~f~,itwo~db~ snow~e, you wo~d lose on~ of Aub~D~ong~e~efi~ver...' · es~'sw~rsupply~a~e when ~e Ap~ ~ J~y ~off, even ~ ~e e~of~en~,~beenmet~ de~d ~ lowe~ but ~e ~k of flo~- ~e ~o~t of. pr~ipi~o~, ~e opposiUo~ ~g ~ ~e~ ~ wo~d force C~- D~i~ ~ch ~e fore~, how hd~d, ~ of~elo~ ~o~ for fo~ ~ ~ow more ~off ~ flow ~ob~w~g~ectC~o~a~ ~&eMy~vebeen~en~C~- ~ecfly ~ ~e P~c Oc~ ~ i~ not a ~ven, ~d W~ P~e~ a fo~ ;vhch ~y ~ rese~o~ co~d ~co~o~ ~y res~ch~o~her~e N~on: le~ w~r ~ it ~i~y n~ h a. s~e from hcre~ed ~ '~r. ~ Aero~ufi~ ~d Sp~e A~- ye~, R~s~ "It's a double w~ You're le~ fion's Jet~op~ion~o~. h con~ ~e Colo~o ~ver ~'~ nee~g more ~ok ~e ~ ~e ~'s one ~e~o, but be ~e~ ~m ~d i~ ne~ork of huge ~ ~ · ~r ~ ~e ~e ~cre~ed ~pply, you don't ~y mo~ ~ you ~o%' ~ fo~ y~' wo~ of dem~d. · butyou~vel~off~e~- ~d P~e~ "Mo~er N~e, j~ ~m~eneed~p~fora" son ~ r~e ~em,' ~d No~ when you~you've got her~ed po~n~y ~er ~e ev~ mo~. ~owles, apo~r~e~cher~ ouL ~ come b~k '~d bi~ yom" pr~gforC~o~De~nger~]] ~pps. W~r e~e~ ~y one ~er ~ "R's pre~ ~ ~ put off ~g ' S~o~ci~ve~enno~of~e ~ylo~of~e~'s~o~kwo~d ~outsome~gwe~out~g"' pre~cfio~ ~d ~ely ~ ~clude be ~ compe~hcr~~- p~e ~ y~ from now," he ~ ~It's · em~e 2~3 C~o~W~rP~ c~ ~e. ~d ~ ~e ~, it's ~ ~ ~-.,. a doc~ent up~d eve~ five y~. . D~ond V~ey ~e, a recently ~e ~ but ~ ~obM c~ge, yoq · "My~~foreVe~de~eeCel_ comple~drese~ok~u~emC~- co~d see ~me pre~ dr~c" 2i~c~'m ~e ~ow .fo~ ~ s~r~ Colombo ~ver ~es: ~' ~... KERN RIVER BASIN Drainage Basin Above Bakersfield = 2,407 Square Miles Fresno ...~q~,,,/ 3er~ 'x \ '246 MT. ~ITNEY RIVER LAKE ~WEAH B A$1N 2440 BA 8IN KERN RIVER REMOTE SNOW SENSOR CAUF ~ ~EVATION UPPER ~NDA~ CREEK 516 11,~0 ft CRABTREE MEA~W 2~ 10,700 ft ~KE CHAG~PA P~TEAU 514 10,~0 ft PAS~E 569 9,1~ ft WET M~W (W) 518 8,9~ ft STATION (W) 8~ 8,9~ ft TUNNEL GUARD CASA ~A MEA~WS ~) 2~ 8,4~ ft BEACH MEADOWS 860 7,6~ ft 0 1~ 20 S~le in Miles STATE OF CAUFORN~ THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES DIVISION OF FLOOD MANAGEMENT CAUFORNIA COOPERATIVE SNOW SURVEYS 0 SNOW COURSE ~ AERIAL SNOW DEPTH '~RKER ~ SNOW SENSOR ISABELLA RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS REPORT (All readings are for date of report (WEDNESDAY) as of 00Ol, except as noted.., cfs in italics) Date of Report: July 11,2001 ISABELLA RESERVOIR 1 2563.60 Lake Elevation (ft.) 189695 Storage (AcFt) -963 Change (AcFt) 614 Inflowto Isabella (cfs) 2 568075 Storage Capacity 33% % of Capacity 297322 Normal Storage 64% % of Normal Storage For this Date 3 6416 Average Lake Area (Acres) 11155 Inflow (Month) 25430 Outflow (Month) 4 602 North Fork Mean 531 North Fork @ 0600 Hours 338474 Accumulative Inflow(00-01 WY) 5 1007 Mean Outflow 560 Borel Canal 447 Main Dam Outlet 270408 Accum. Outflow(WY) 6 957 Outflow @ 0600 560 Borel Canal @ 0600 Hours 397 Main Dam Outlet @ 0600 Hours Hours 7 93 Lake Evap. (cfs) 0.45 Inches Evap. for 24 Hours 1823 Lake Evap. (Month to Date) 8 0 Spillway Discharge for 24 Hours PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE 9 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for 24 Hours 0.42 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for Month 10 8.75 Seasonal Precip. Isabella 9.71 Normal for 90% Isabella Precip. (Season: Oct 1 through Sep 30) this Date % of Normal 11 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for 24 Hours 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for Month 12 29.80 Seasonal Precip. Pascoe 34.64 Normal for 86% Pascoe Precip. this Date % of Normal 13 0.0 Upper Tyndall Creek 0.0 Pascoe 0.0 Wet Meadow 14 94 Isabella Maximum Temperature 15 69 Isabella Minimum Temperature 40 24 HourWind Movement (Miles) NATURAL RIVER FLOW 16 622 Natural Flow (cfs) 11532 Natural Flow (Month to Date) 235991 2001 April-July Runoff 17 1365 Mean Flow 46% Natural Flow 898 Median Flow 69% Natural Flow For this Date in % of Mean For this Date in % of Median 18 7176 Max. on Record 146 Min. on Record 345736 Accum. Natural Flow(Water Year) For this Date For this Date 19 972 First Point Flow 25807 First Point (Month to Date) 276487 Accum. First Point (Water Year) KERN RIVER FACTS & FIGURES: ~ · Rainfall events in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains during the month of July are extremely rare. During the period of July 13-16, 1984, 1.78 inches of precipitation was measured at Isabella Dam headquarters. This unusual rainfall episode culminated on Produced by City of Bakersfield July 16, 1984, with .88 inches, the maximum daily amount on record for July. Water Resources (Note: Rainfall records at Isabella Dam began in October of 1949) (661) 326-3715 ISABELLA RESERVOIR DALLY OPERATIONS REPORT (All readings are for. date of report (THURSDAY) as of 0001, except as noted.., cfs in italics) Date of Report: July 5, 2001 ISABELLA RESERVOIR I 2564.81 Lake Elevation (ft.) 197544 Storage (AcFt) -1845 Change (AcFt) 501 Inflowto Isabella (cfs) 2 568075 Storage Capacity 35% % of Capacity 303677 Normal Storage 65% % of Normal Storage For this Date 3 6586 Average LakeArea (Acres) 3201 Inflow(Month) 10554 Outflow(Month) 4 432 North Fork Mean 387 North Fork @ 0600 Hours 330520 Accumulative Inflow(00-01 WY) 5 1325 Mean Outflow 558 Borel Canal 767 Main Dam Outlet 255532 Accum. Outflow(WY) 6 1304 Outflow@ 0600 558 Borel Canal @ 0600 Hours 746 Main Dam Outlet @ 0600 Hours Hours 7 106 Lake Evap. (cfs) 0.50 Inches Evap. for 24 Hours 895 Lake Evap. (Month to Date) 8 0 Spillway Discharge for 24 Hours PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE 9 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for 24 Hours 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for Month 10 8.33 Seasonal Precip. Isabella 9.69 Normal for 86% Isabella Precip. (Season: Oct 1 through Sep 30) this Date % of Normal 11 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for 24 Hours 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for Month 12 29.80 Seasonal Precip. Pascoe 34.58 Normal for 86% Pascoe Precip. this Date % of Normal 13 0.0 Upper Tyndall Creek 0.0 Pascoe 0.0 Wet Meadow 14 103 Isabella Maximum Temperature 15 77 Isabella Minimum Temperature 35 24 HourWind Movement (Miles) NATURAL RIVER FLOW 16 513 Natural Flow (cfs) 3386 Natural Flow (Month to Date) 227845 2001 April-July Runoff 17 1648 Mean Flow 31% Natural Flow 1188 Median Flow 43% Natural Flow For this Date in % of Mean For this Date in % of Median 18 8246 Max. on Record 156 Min. on Record 337590 Accum. Natural Flow (Water Year) For this Date For this Date 19 1331 First Point Flow 10739 First Point (Month to Date) 261419 Accum. First Point (Water Year) KERN RIVER FACTS & FIGURES: Between the measuring station at Kernville and that at First Point, there are only four tributaries B ^ K E [~ s F ] E L "'D Of any moment entering the Kern River. They are - (1) The South Fork; (2) Erskine Creek; (3) Bodfish Creek; (4) Clear Creek. By far the most important one is the South Fork, which, above the Produced by City of Bakersfield measuring station at Onyx, drains an area of 530 square miles. Erskine, Bodfish and Clear Creeks Water Resources combined drain an area of about 30 square miles. (From Report on Monache Power Project, circa 1925) (661) 326-3715 KERN RIVER NATURAL FLOW, REGULATED FLOW, & ISABELLA RESERVOIR STOP. AGE 2000- 2001 WATER YEAR 5000 - 600,000 - - 550,000 4500 - Normal - Isabella Storage ~00 '- 3~0 - Natural Flow 2500 ~500 ........................................... I~b~ll~ 8tom~ ~ R~flul~t~d Flow ~00 0 DEMAND RELIEF PROGRAM AGREEMENT (DRP) THIS AGREEMENT is dated this 29th day of May , 2001 and is entered into, by and between: City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, CA 93311 And Ancillary Services Coalition, LLC (ASC) 26041 Cape Drive, Suite 270 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1258 In consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, THE PARTIES AGREE as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION Terms, when used with initial capitalization in this Agreement and the attached Schedules shall have the meanings set out below. The singular shall include the plural and vice versa. "Includes" or "including" shall mean" including without limitation." References to a Section, Article or Schedule shall mean a Section, Article or Schedule of this Agreement, unless another agreement or instrument is specified. Unless the context otherwise requires, references to any law shall be deemed referenced to such law as amended, replaced or restated from time to time. Unless the context otherwise requires, any reference to a "person" includes any individual, partnership firm, company, corporation, joint venture, trust, association, organization or other entity, in each case whether or not having separate legal identity. References to "Client" or "ASC" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Client and ASC respectively and their permitted assigns and successors. "Business Day" means any Monday through Friday, excluding any day, which is a federal bank holiday. May 29, 2001 City of Bakersfield DRP Agreement I "Client" means the party entering into this Agreement, other than ASC, and for purposes of individual loads aggregate to form a Client, references to the Client in this Agreement shall include individual Load. "Committed Capacity" means the Load Reduction in Demand expressed in kW's set forth in Schedule 1, which must be at least two-hundred (200) KW that the Client agrees to Deliver in accordance with Dispatch Notices in a manner that reduces loadings on the ISO Controlled Grid, "Deliver" means to reduce Demand by an amount of Committed Capacity on the ISO Controlled Grid pursuant to a Dispatch Notice and the terms Delivered and Delivering shall be construed accordingly. "Dispatch Notice" means a notice issued for Peak Hours by ASC to the Client requesting the Client to provide the Requested KW of Committed Capacity under this Agreement. "Fixed Price Amount" means the price at which Client has agreed to provide Committed Capacity during the Peak Period, expressed in S/KW-Month. The Fixed Price Amount is set forth on Schedule 1. "Load Reduction" means the provision of Committed Capacity through the reduction of Demand of at least the. amount of KW specified in Schedule 1, such amount to remain applicable throughout the term of this Agreement. "MDAS" means a Meter Data Acquisition Server. "Month" or "Monthly" means a calendar month. "Monthly Capacity Payment" means S/kw June 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001 pursuant to Schedule 1. "Non-Performance Payment Offset" means the capacity payment will be offset based on performance. (See Article 5.2 ) May 29, 2001 City of Bakersfield DRP Agreement 2 "Party" means either ASC or the Client and Parties means ASC and the Client. "Peak Hour" means an hour within Peak Hours. "Peak Hours" means each of the hours from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on any given Business Day during the Peak Period. "Peak Period" means the period from June I to September 30 of calendar year 2001. "Requested KW" means the KW of Committed Capacity ASC requests the Client to Deliver pursuant to a Dispatch Notice. "Requested Operation Period(s)" means the consecutive Peak Hours specified in a Dispatch Notice during which ASC requests Delivery of Committed Capacity from the Client. A Requested Operation Period(s) shall commence with the Peak Hour specified by ASC in the Dispatch Notice and shall have a duration as so specified, provided that such duration shall not be more than four (4) hours. ARTICLE 2 TERM AND TERMINATION 2.1 Term. This Agreement shall become effective as of the date it is executed by the Parties and shall continue in full force and effect until terminated in accordance w i t h t h e provisions of Section 2.2 of this Agreement, or September 30, 2001, whichever is earlier. 2.2 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated: (a) By ASC in the event of default by the Client. (b) By the Client in the event of default by ASC. (c) By ASC in the event of ISO or UDC cancellation. 2.3 Effect of Expiration or Termination. Expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not affect the accrued rights and obligations of either Party, including either Party's obligations to make all payments to the other Party pursuant to this Agreement. May 29, 2001 City of Bakersfield DRP Agreement 3 2.4 Termination Process. If either Party shall fail to perform any material obligation imposed on it by this Agreement or an ASC audit of the Client confirms that Client would have been unable to Deliver the Committed Capacity in all Peak Hours in any Month that the ASC did not issue a Dispatch Instruction, at its option, the party not in default may terminate this Agreement by giving the Party in default notice setting out specifically the circumstances constituting the default and declaring its intention to terminate this Agreement. If the Party receiving the notice disputes the notice, it shall notify the other Party within seven (7) days after receipt of the notice setting out specifically the grounds of such dispute. Time is of the essence in remedying a default. If the Party receiving the notice does not respond, within ten (10) days after receiving the notice, the Party not in default shall be entitled by a further notice to terminate this Agreement. The Party not in default shall have a duty to mitigate damages. Termination of this ^greement shall be without prejudice to the right of the Client or ISO to collect any amounts due to it prior to the time of termination. ARTICLE 3 DISPATCH OF PROJECT 3.1 Right To Dispatch. Subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement, ASC shall have the right to direct the dispatch of Committed Capacity from the Client up to twenty-four (24) hours per Month bY issuing Dispatch Notices to Client. Each Requested Operation Period(s) under a Dispatch Notice issued under this Section 3.1 shall be of duration of a four (4) consecutive hour duration and shall automatically terminate four (4) hours after the time specified in the Dispatch Notice for commencement of such Demand Reduction, unless the time so specified is less than four (4) hours prior to 7:00 p.m., in which case May 29, 2001 City of Bakersfield DRP Agreement 4 the Dispatch Notice will automatically terminate at 7:00 p.m.. Further, ASC may not issue a Dispatch Notice after 5: p.m.. 3.2 Timing of Dispatch Notices. ASC may issue a Dispatch Notice at any time consistent with ASC's right to dispatch as set forth in section 3.1, and ASC will endeavor to issue Dispatch Notices for Demand Reduction only after declaration by ISO of a Stage 2 Emergency in the ISO control area and the ISO has called for UDC interruptible customers to curtail. ASC will only issue Dispatch Notices for Demand Reduction at the top of a Peak Hour, unless system conditions on the ISO control grid and in the ISO control area require otherwise. Client agrees to be available to receive paged dispatch notices for Delivery of Contracted Load, It is the Clients responsibility to insure the operational status of the ASC's Da~er(s). ARTICLE 4 DELIVERY OF COMMITTED CAPACITY 4.1 Client's Delivery of Committed Capacity. (a) Subject to the limits in this Agreement the Client shall provide Committed Capacity in the amount of the Requested KW and for the full Requested Operating Period(s) specified in each Dispatch Notice within thirty (30) minutes of receipt of each Dispatch Notice. (b) The Client shall comply with the metering and related arrangements set forth in this Agreement. 4.2 Delivery Calculation. The amount of Committed Capacity delivered By the Client pursuant to any given Dispatch Notice shall be determined as follows: May 29, 2001 City of Bakersfield DRP Agreement 5 The Average Demand ("AD") of the Client in any given hour "i" is calculated by taking the average of the kWh consumed during that particular hour for 10 previous Business Days, excluding those days for which a Dispatch Notice was issued, or ADI = (~l = ~..~0 kWh;)l'l 0' Delivery or demand reduced ("DR") during a given hour "i" under the Dispatch Notice is calculated by taking the difference between the Averaqe Demand for that hour and the Total kWh consumed by the Client during that hour on the Business Day for which the Dispatch Notice was issued, or DR~ = AD~ - Total kWh~ ARTICLE 5 BILLING AND SETTLEMENT 5.1 Payment. Commencing as of June 1, 2001 ASC shall pay the Client for each Month during the term of the Agreement a Monthly Capacity Payment equal to the Fixed Priced Amount less the Non-Performance Payment Offset for the corresponding Month calculated in accordance with Section 5.2. The Client shall not receive payment for Delivery of capacity in excess of Committed Capacity or Requested kW. 5.2 Non-Performance Payment Offset. Client shall be assessed a Non- Performance Payment Offset for any Month during the term of this Agreement in which it fails to Deliver on average one hundred percent (100%) of the Requested kW for all Dispatch Notices issued for that month. The Non-Performance Payment Offset will be calculated as follows: (a) If the Client delivers on average equal to or greater than the Requested kW for all Dispatch Notices issued in any Month during the Peak Period, there will be no Non- Performance Payment Offset for that Month. (Participant paid 100% of capacity and 100% of energy without deduction for non-performance) May 29, 2001 City of Bakersfield DRP Agreement 6 (b) If the Client delivers on average between fifty percent (50%) and less than one hundred percent (100%) of the requested kW for all Dispatch Notices issued in any Month during the peak period, the Non-Performance Payment Offset for that Month will be equal to the Committed Capacity not delivered for that Month. (Capacity and energy payment reduced by load not delivered/non performance amount) (c) If the Client delivers on average between zero percent (0%) and fifty percent (50%) of the Requested kW for all Dispatch Notices issued in any Month during the Peak Period, the Non-Performance Payment Offset for that Month will be equal to one- hundred percent (100%) of the Monthly Capacity Payment for that Month. (No Compensation for capacity or energy in any month where participation is 50% or less ) ARTICLE 6 COSTS 6.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs. Client shall be responsible for all its costs incurred in meeting its obligations under this Agreement for the Committed Capacity identified and set forth in Schedule 1. ARTICLE 7 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 7.1 Representations and Warranties of the Parties. Each Party represents and warrants that the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by it have been duly authorized by all necessary actions, to the extent authorized by law. 7.2 Additional Representations and Warranties of the Client. The Client additionally represents and warrants to ASC as follows: (a) The Client is not a participant in any of the UDC interruptible and/or curtailable load programs or any other demand responsiveness or curtailable program, and May 29, 2001 City of Bakersfield DRP Agreement 7 was not on a UDC interruptible rate schedule during the calendar year 2000 for any of the Committed Capacity under this Agreement. (b) The Client is not a participant in the ISO Summer 2001 Market Participating Load Trial Program for the Committed Capacity under this Agreement. (c) The Client does not have a Participating Load Agreement for the Committed Capacity under this Agreement. (d) The Client does not have a Generating Unit on-site that has a Participating Generator Agreement with ISO or is operating in parallel with the ISO Controlled Grid. (e) The Client has an interval meter approved by the Local Regulatory Authority. (f) The Client will under no circumstance Deliver Committed Capacity pursuant to this Agreement and, at the same time, increase Demand at another meter to compensate for Delivery for the Committed Capacity. (g) The Client has all necessary leases, approvals, permits, licenses, easements, rights of way or access to install, own and/or operate its Load or will obtain them prior to the effective date of this Agreement ARTICLE 8 MISCELLANEOUS 8.1. Confidentiality. Each party shall hold this Agreement, all documents, data and information provided by the Parties to one another pursuant to this Agreement in strictest confidence, to the extent permitted by law. 8.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding between the parties, and all prior oral and written Agreements have been merged herein. May 29, 2001 City of Bakersfield DRP Agreement 8 8.3 Beneficiary of A.qreement. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the heirs, successors, transferees, and assignees of both parties. 8.4 Amendment of A,qreement. This Agreement may not be altered or amended except by an instrument in writing signed by both Parties. 8.5 Resolution of Controversy or Claim. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. These parties hereby agree that the only appropriate court for the resolution of any controVersy that may arise over the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement is the Superior Court of the State of California. 8.6 Attorney Fees If any action is brought by either Party to enforce or seek damages for breach of any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party in such action, shall be entitled to recover, reasonable attorneys' costs and expenses incurred by the prevailing Party. 8.7 Authorized to Execute A.qreement. The individual executing this Agreement hereby represents that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the Party for whom he or she executes it and that this Agreement is binding upon that party in accordance with its terms. May 29, 2001 City of Bakersfield DRP Agreement 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as of the date first above written. '~Resourc~s Dept. By: _. Name: FLORN CORE Title: WATER RESOURCES DIRECTOR Name: Title: _~--...,~"~ ~-.4J"~, ,~-. SCHEDULE 1 COMMITTED CAPACITY AND FIXED PRICE AMOUNT CLIENT/UDC ACCOUNT NUMBER: COMMITTED CAPACITY: 1.8 MW FIXED PRICE AMOUNT: ..~?~'~'/~:~.,,~ ~'~,,~ ,/'~'/J¢-/,~'~~--~ May 29, 2001 City of Bakemfielcl DRP Agreement SCHEDULE 2 NOTICES Name of Primary: City of Bakersfield Name of Alternative: Buena Vista Water Storage District Representative: Flora Core Representative: Dan Bartel Address: 1000 Buena Vista Rd Address: 525 N. Main St. City/State/Zip Code: Bakersfield, CA 93311 City/State/Zip Code: Buttonwillow, CA 93206 Email Address: fcore@ci.bakersfield.ca.usEmail Address: dbartel@bak.rr Phone Number: 661-326-3715 Phone: 661-324-1101 Fax Number: 661-852-2127 Fax Number: May 29, 2001 City of Bakersfield DRP Agreement 11 ADDENDUM TO DEMAND. RELIEF PROGRAM AGREEMENT This Addendum when signed and returned with a ¢ompleted and signed DRP Agreement becomes the complete Agreement. This Addendum does not negate any of the requirements oontainod within the DRP Agreement. it's intent iS to offer clients an opportunity to receive additional compensation through curtailed energy payments and performance in addition*to the DRP Agreement parametem. 1. The capacity payment for the contract period (June 1 through September 30,2001) will be $15,000.00 per MW, for reserved demand (m~ervation), per month for participating in the ASC DRP Summer 2001 program. 2. In addition tO the reserved demand (reservation) payment as stated in section 5.1 of the DRP agreement, clients will be paid a curtailed energy payment for periods when dispatch notices are issued. The compensation is $375.00 per MWh. 3. Clients witl also receive ~ompensation for energy in excess of the reserved demand (resen~ation) amount identlf~d in the ASC agreement. Clients can provide energy up to a maximum of an additional 50% of the resented demand amount identified in the ASC agreement. Client shall not receive additional paymentS for energy reduotions in excess of the 150% of the reserved demand identified in the ASC agreement. I, e, A client with 1MW of reserved demand could reduce up to 1.5MW and receive energy compensation at $375.00 per MWh for the additional 500kWh of reduced usage over there reserved demand commitment of 1MW. This additional compensation over the reserved demand Is for energy only; capacity payments arc based solely on the reserve demand identified in the ASC agreement. Clients shall not receive payment for delivery of capacity in excess of their reserved demand. All conditions identified in the ASC agreement must also be fulfilled to receive this additionai compensation. 4. Clients will be placed Into one of two separate shedding aggregation groups referred to as DRP load blocks. Should a participant elect to voluntarily curtail its energy in response to a curtailment order for another DRP load block, the DRP prOvided in each hour of the voluntary curtailment will be limited to between 0% and 100% of the reserved demand. Energy reductions in excess of 100% of the reserved demand (reservation) amount will not receive additional compensation when participating outside of their assi§ned block for load in excess of 100% of their reserved demand. Participation in two blocks 'may" require the purchase of an additional pager notification device. 5. The individual executing this ADDENDUM hereby represents that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Addendum on behalf of the Party for whom he or she executes if: and that this Addendum is binding upon that party in accordanCe with its terms. The addendum must specify the change, addition or deletions and must be signed and dated by both parties pdor to becoming permanent addition to this agreement. All conditions contained within the ASC Agreement must also be fulfilled for additional compensation to be achieved. Agreed to and accepted this_ ,~ e- day of ~2001. By: By: ~,_~?~.-,.~v- ~ Jatmary 29*, 2001 City of Bakersfield Addendum to DRP Load Agr~ra~t.doc GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2800 ACRES INTERVAL METERS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SB 5x GRANT PROGRAM INNOVATIVE EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES PROGRAM ELEMENT June 14,2001 Submitted to AGRICULTURAL PEAK LOAD REDUCTION PROGRAM IRRIGATION TRAINING and RESEARCH CENTER California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California 93407 Attention: SB 5X Agricultural Peak Load Reduction Program SUbmitted by CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1000 Buena Vista RD Bakersfield, California 93311 Florn Core, Water Resources Director (661) 326-3715 with assistance from PROVOST & PRITCHARD ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 1801 21st Street, Suite 6 Bakersfield, California 93301-3930 Michael J. Day, P.E. AGRICULTURAL PEAK LOAD REDUCTION PROGRAM APPLICATION FORM Program Management: California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 654-4381 If you are a water agency send this completed application and supporting documentation to: Agricultural Peak Load Reduction Program Irrigation Training and Research Center California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 (805) 756-2434 All others send this completed application and supporting documentation to: Agricultural Peak Load Reduction Program Center for Irrigation Technology California State University, Fresno 5370 North Chestnut Avenue, M/S OF 18 Fresno, CA 93740-8021 (866) 297-3029 _~_~.'-~Z:.-.~: IRRIGATION TRAINING AND ~ RESEARCH CENTER ~ California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA CENTER FOR IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY California State University Fresno Agricultural Peak Load Reduction Program Project Summary Project name~esignation: City of Bakersfield-2800 Acres Interval Meters Individual/Organization/Company/Water Agency Name: City of Bakersfield A~icultural & Domestic Water Resource Division Business Type: City Agricultural & I Phone: I Fax: Domestic Water Division (661) 326-3715 (661) 852-2127 I I Street/Mailing Address: 1000 Buena Vista Road City: Bakersfield ]State: CA [ Zip Code: 93311 Contact Name: Florn Core Street Address: 1000 Buena Vista Road City: Bakersfield State: CA I Zip Code: 93313 Phone: I Fax: I E-mail: (661) 326-3715 (661) 852-2127 fcore@ci.bakersfield.ca.us Estimated Reduction in Electricity Usage in kW's (attach copy of project proposal worksheet) Select one or more appropriate project descriptions [ ] Category 1. Efficient Electrical Equipment / Other Conservation Effort [ ] Category 2. Pump Efficiency Testing/Retrofit/Repair [X] Category 3. Advanced Metering/Telemetry [ ] Category 4; Natural Gas-powered Engine Retrofit I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that all information provided in this application and in any attachments is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. IPrinted Name of Responsible Party: Title: Florn Core Water Resources Director Signa Responsible y: Date: For Grant Administrator Use Only: APLRP Appl #: Administrator: Date/Time Received: By: Postnmrked: Delivered by: Project Evaluation by: Project Verification by: Project Accepted by: Date: Estimated Grant Payment: $ Actual First Payment: $ Date: Actual seCond Payment: $ Date: Verified kW Load Reduction: Agricultural Peak Load Reduction Program Project Proposal Work Sheet (Fill out one for each Project within ~he Application - Attach extra sheets as needed) 1. Project Name: City of Bakersfield-2800 Acres Interval Meters 2. Description Proposed New Equipment: Interval meters for nine (9) deep well pumps. Proposed Modifications: Replace PG&E TOU meters with ISO approved interval meters to allow for participation in I$O Demand Response Program (DRP). Equipment/Hardware to be Replaced or Modified: PG&E electric meters. Software to be Replaced or Modified: None. Provide a written description of the project including how the project will reduce kW demand during the peak period of from 12 PM to 6 PM Monday through Friday, excluding holidays (include additional pages as needed). Include a sketch layout/floor plan showing the location of all equipment to be replaced or modified. The interval meters are required by the ISO as part of the DRP program. The nine (9) wells will be curtailed by the City when ISO dispatches are sent for load reduction during critical electric supply conditions on the ISO controlled grid. 3. kW. Load Reduction Calculations : Attach documentation as needed to support/explain the Baseline and Post-Project kW demand- refer to section Supporting Documentation Requirements Baseline kW demand: 1737 kW How established: Taken from most recent PG&E bills in which wells ran. Post Project kW demand: 0 How estimated: Assumes full curtailment of all wells during ISO dispatched curtailments. 4. Measurement and Verification Plan 10. Describe how kW reductions will be measured and verified. If the modified equipment is not the only load on the service meter, describe how reductions due to the project will be identified: Interval metering will be used to record kW demand on 15 minute intervals before and during curtailments. 5. Summary of Project Proposed kW reduction during peak period 1737 kW Total project cost $40,193.19 S/kW project cost $23.14/kW Estimated Construction Start Date 6/1/01 Estimated Construction Finish Date 6115/01 6. Incentive Payment Calculator For Category 1 and 3 projects: a. 65% of the project cost: $26,120 b. kW reduction * S/kW(see schedule): $607,950 Grant schedule for Category 1 and 3 projects: $350/kW by July 31, 2001 $300/kW by Sept. 20, 2001 $250/kW by March 31,2003 Lessor of line a or line b. = CEC Grant: $26,120 For Category 2 projects: (attach copies of pump tests) Pre-project overall operating plant efficiency % / 100 (PreOPE/100): N/A. Post-project overall operating plant efficiency % / 100 (PostOPE/100): N//~ Annual kWh usage (kWh): N/A .08 * (kWh - (kWh * PreOPE ! PostOPE)) = CEC Grant: $ N/A For Category 4 projects: a. 65% of the project cost: SN/A Lessor of line a or $300,000 = CEC Grant: SN/A 7. Retroactive Payment The purchase of Category 1 high-efficiency electrical agricultural equipment qualifying under 'the conditions of this grant may be retroactive to January 1, 2001. If YES, you must provide documentation showing that no purchase of equipment or services occurred before January 1, 2001 Does this project plan to submit for retroactive payment? Yes _ No 8. Environmental What potential environmental impact will the project have? None X Low __ Medium __ High __ Explain: Installation of interval meters would have no negative environmental impact. Design/engineering and Permitting What are the design/engineering and permitting requirements for the project? Design needed: Yes __ No _X. Permit required: Yes __ No X If YES, which permits and from what agency? At what stage is the project design and permit approval at? Not Applicable Have not started~ Started but not completed ~ (estimated completion date) Completed 9. Construction/installation complexity Will this project be constructed with in-house personnel or with outside contractors? Outside contractors. How many sub-contractors are required to complete the work? 2 10. Counterpart Funding If the applicant is a public agency, has funding for the project been approved by the district directors? Yes X No ~ If not, when is approval anticipated or scheduled? 11. Experience and History of Applicant Do you have experience with similar projects in the past? Yes _X. No __ What internal/external resources will be used for the management of the project (i.e. in-house engineering and/or outside consulting support)? Florn Core will oversee the contractors (PG&E and ASC) to assure equipment is furnished installed, and tested. Supporting Documentation Requirements All applications must contain a project budget and a clear description of how peak electricity demand savings will be:achieved. For projects estimated to save 100 kW or more, the analysis of demand savings must be signed by a licensed engineer in the state of California. Provide supporting documents used to estimate the baseline and post-project peak period demand. Supporting documents include, but are not limited to: · Utility billing records. · Equipment description, including manufacturers power (such as horsepower) ratings, etc. · Pump efficiency tests. · Operation records, other than utility billing records, if available. IRRIGATION TRA1NING AND RESEARCH CENTER California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Phone: (805) 756-7408 FAX: (805) 756-2433 www. itrc.org CEC Agricultural Peak Load Reduction Program Date: June 21, 2001 City of Bakersfield Water Resources Division Attn: Mr. Flora Core 1000 Buena Vista Rd. Bakersfield, California 93313 Dear Mr. Core, Enclosed are two copies of the contract for your application for the Agricultural Peak Load Reduction Program. Please complete and sign both copies and return them to ITRCi When the returned copies are signed by the appropriate parties here a Copy will be returned to you. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call us. Vej3~'uly yours, Daniel Howes Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 (805) 756-2347 DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION STUDY OF INTERNAL / IN-HOUSE OPERATIONS CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES JUNE 1, 2001 Report update from previous studies dated 12/30/85, 05/15/88, 03/27/92, and 07/12/95 This Report prepared by: City Of Bakersfield Water Resources Staff 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 1995 report concluded that it would cost the City $96.97 per year per service connection (customer) to operate and maintain the system at the level of service customers were accustomed to. This compared to the California Water Service (CWS) contract cost of $97.33 (which includes City expenses) per customer per year. The 1995 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 $883,000. If this cost were treated as a capital investment and payout benefits were to be calculated at present rates of return for 1995 (6%), the additional start-up costs would have represented an annual cost of approximately $123,000. 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 $1,982,662 or $103.19 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 tbr 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 I/4% management fee was calculated on the gross metered revenue of the City system. The contract was re-negotiated in 1989, and instituted in January of 1990. The cost to 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 COST (January) CONNECTIONS SERVICE CONNECTION 1990 14,488 $5.50 $ 986,271 1991 15,348 $5.77 $1,089,474 1992 16,306 $6.03 $1,196,153 1993 17,022 $6.33 $1,323,678 1994 17,926 $6.58 $1,457,467 1995 18,898 $6.85 $1,601,779 1996 19,947 $7.18 $1,758,058 1997 20,801 $7.40 $1,886,681 1998 21,779 $7.62 $2,048,629 1999 23,137 $7.85 $2,235,719 2000 24,335 $8.01 $2,406,564 2001 26,226 (estimate) $8.34 (estimate) $2,628,788 (estimate) I Page 2 of 9 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. 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 expenditures. TABLE NO. 1 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS CONTRACTOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 1988 - 2001 (Calendar Year) Expense I Fee I Sub Total City Admin. Inspection TotaIcostAnnual CustomerofJune)(End Ann.Cost/Gust 1988 $1,009,539 $86,713 $1,096,252 $186,313 $42,000 $1,324,565 13,144 $100.77 1989 $1,143,513 $91,901 $1,235,414 $192,687 $29,980 $1,458,081 14,073 $103.61 1990 $986,271 N/A $986,271 $196,180 $15,824 $1,198,275 14,994 $79.92 1991 $1,088,354 N/A $1,088,354 $215,416 $68,001 $1,371,771 15,787 $86.89 1992 $1,195,182 N/A $1,195,182 $220,801 $101,540 $1,517,523 16,487 $92.04 1993 $1,324,945 N/Al $1,324,945 $226,321 $129,804 $1,681,070 17,520 $95.95 1994 $1,455,684 N/A $1,455,684 $231,979 $44,200 $1,731,863 18,560 $93.31 1995 $1,569,074 N/A $1,569,074 $238,939 $44,192 $1,852,205 19,997 $92.62 1996 $2,082,723 N/A $2,082,723 $204,719 $36,609 $2,324,051 20,495 $113.40 1997 $2,042,255 N/A $2,042,255 $231,199 $32,843 $2,306,297 21,318 $108.19 1998 $2,194,869 N/A $2,194,869 $284,520 $62,311 $2,541,700 22,499 $112.97 1999 $2,721,405 Nih $2,721,405 $274,493 $84,937 $3,080,835 23,810 $129.39 2000 $2,976,170 N/g $2,976,170 $293,943 $60,990 $3,331,103 25,074 $132.85 2001 $3,405,497 N//~ $3,405,497 $306,111 $70,000 $3,781,608 26,305 $143.76 Table No. I will be used to set a target value in cost comparisons of different methods of operating the City system. The $142.10 figure for the 2001 estimated cost shall be the target cost estimate for comparison. CITY IN-HOUSE OPERATIONS: The goal of the water system is to provide the highest possible 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, warehousing and shop, vehicles, power tools, small hand tools and mobile radio communications capability. 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. Page 3 of 9 PROPOSED WATER DIVISION PROPOS[O OR[ANIZATION C~RT Water Manager Department Business Mgr Water Resources DirectorI I Domestic Water Supt. I Distributi°n/MaintenancelAsst. Super ntendentmi BusinessBUSineSSManagerOffice I IOontract,a,otena,ce I, Meter Read~,R Sectio, I, Bn'~ng/Col)eotion Production Maintenance Developer Installations! Heter Reader(4) m Accounting Supervisor Water Supervisor II Mech/Elect' MaintainerI Inspect°rI Water Service W°rker11/2 Time / Temp, Secretary III Pump Operator I (3) Account Clerk II I Cashier/Receptionist (2) ~ater Service ~orker O~sRatcher,~arehousemanl (~) I Page 4 of 9 r *~ TABLE NO. 2 .~ DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION · ~ EQUIVALENT PROPOSED POSITIONS TO EXISTING CITY POSITIONS ESTIMATED SALARY AND BENEFITS COSTS New Domestic ~-Existing Bi-wk Benefits Estimated Number Total Bi- Water title City Salary ( 1 ) Salary of Wk Cost Position (step #5) Position s Water Mgr Same $ 4,300 $1,634 $5,934 50% of $1,958 Dept Bus Mgr Same $2,431 $924 $3,355 50% of $335 Domestic Wtr CE IV $3,515 $1,336 $4,851 50% of $4,851 Domestic Wtr Same $2,974 $1,130 $4,104 1 $4,104 Asst Supt Same $2,432 $924 $3,356 1 $3,356 Business Mgr Same $2,432 $924 $3,356 I $3,356 Dom Wtr Superviso $2,204 $771 $2,975 t $2,975 Account Supvr Same $2,431 $924 $3,355 I $3,355 Mech/Elect Elect $1,892 $719 $2,611 I $2,611 Inspector Con Insp $1,897 $721 $2,618 1.5 $3,927 Pump Operator Elect ' $1,681 $639 $2,320 3 $6,959 Disp/Ware/Rec PropMgr/ $1,934 $735 $2,669 I $2,669 Secretary II Same $1,342 $510 $1,852 1 $1,852 Data Entry Same $1,106 $420 $1,526 1 $1,526 Trades Asst Same $1,365 $519 $1,884 1.5 $2,826 Meter Reader Crft Wkr I $1,650 $627 $2,277 4 $9, ! 08 Account Asst Acct Clrk $1,222 $464 $1,686 I $1,686 Water Service Fleet Svc $1,498 $569 $2,067 4.5 $9,303 Cashier/Recept Same $500 $190 $690 2 $1,380 TOTALS 0 25 $68,138 Ann. Bi- 26 wk Total Annual $1,771,582 payroll (I) Note:Fringe benefit rate lbr all non-public safety personnel is 38%. Page 5 of 9 TABLE NO. 3 DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT NEEDS AND COSTS VEHICLE/EQUIP RENTAL RATE PER NUMBER MONTHLY RENTAL ANNUAL ASSIGNED DESCRIPTION UNIT/MONTH OF UNITS RATE RENTAL TO: ~uto Allowance $435 50% $144 $ 1,723 Water Mgr Sedan $500 50% $165 $ 1,980 Water Director MultiPass Utility $521 I $521 $6,252 Dom Water Supt. Mid-Size Pick-up $1,071 4 $4,284 $51,408 Supt,Sups,lnspcct M id-size Pick-up $1,071 7 $7,497 $89,964 Field Pc~3onncl HD Trk w/Sty Bd $1,500 I $ 1,500 $18,000 Mcch/Elcct Maint Dump/Flat Bed Trk* $1,532 2 $3,064 $36,768 Field Backhoe w/tnfiler* $ 1,400 I $ 1,400 $16,800 Field Trash Pump* $100 I $100 $1,200 Field Air Compressor* $200 I $200 $2,400 Field Misc. Sampling tools $250 I $250 $3,000 Field Misc. Power Tools $340 I $340 $4,080 Field Two-way radios $15 16 $240 $2,880 Assigned Vehicles TOTALS $~ 0,705 $236,455 *50%/50% cost share with Agricultural water division TABLE NO. 4 DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION CITY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ADDITIONAL TO EXISTING ADMIN OFFICE (5000 s.t'.) ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST Electricity $ I 0,000 Gas (heating) $10,000 Custodial $8,736 Telephone $9,000 Duplication-Internal $4,000 Office supplies $2,000 Duplication-Outside Services $25,000 Computer/Office Machine Maint $3,000 Slationm¥/envelopes $12,000 Postage $ I 10,000 Liability Insurance (Risk Management) $8,500 TOTAL $192,236 Page 6 of 9 I TABLE NO. 5 DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION GENERAL FIELD ESTIMATED EXPENSES FIELD WAREHOUSING AND SHOP (3000 ESTIMATED s.t:) ANNUAL COST Electricity $2,000 Gas (heating) $ 1,500 Telephone $750 Computer & software replacement $4,000 Water sampling equipment & supplies $5,(100 Tool replacements $ 1,500 Disinfection supplies (chlorine) SI10,000 Laboralory Analysis $260,000 Meter test & repair $35,000 TOTALS $415,500 TABLE NO. 6 DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION SUMMARY TABLE OF ANNUAL COSTS DOMESTIC WATER/CITY IN-HOUSE ESTIMATED ITEMS ANNUAL COST City Salm3' & Benefits (lix~m table #2) $1,771,582 Vehicles & Equipment (fi'om table #3) $236,455 Administrative (fi'om table #4) $192,236 Field Operations (frorn table #5) $415,500 TOTAL $2,615,773 No. of customens (Mid-year Ibr average) 26,226 Annual cost per customer $99.74 Worksheet #1 Domestic Water Division Construction Cost Estimate Land $ 0 Admin/Business Office $460,000 Field wm'ehousc/storc $92,000 Upgrade parking $35,000 TOTAL $587,000 Page 7 of 9 Worksheet #2 Domestic Water Division Office Equipment Computer Hardware/Meter reading & Billing $58,000 Admin/Bus furniture &cquipmcnt $55,000 Computer Workstations $25,000 TOTAL $138,000 Worksheet #3 Domestic Water Division Warehouse & Field Supplies Warehouse supplies, pipes, wflvcs, fittings, etc. $ 126,000 Tools, vises, test bench, small hand tools, misc $16,000 o TOTAL 142,000.00 Worksheet #4 Domestic Water Division Training Expenses Data Processing, meter reading, billings, $7,200 & collections Pumping, mechanical maint, service $27,500 workc~, general operations CWS contract overlap - I mo. overlap $219,000 TOTAL $253,700 TABLE NO. 7 DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION WORKSItEET SUMMARY Construction Cost $587,000 (worksheet I ) Off icc Equipment $138,000 (worksheet 2) Warehouse & Tools $142,000 (wm'ksheet 3) Training $253,7.00 (worksheet 4) TOTAL $1,120,700 Page 8 of 9 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS: The estimated cost to operate the City of Bakersfield system after 2001, under the present contract arrangements is $2,628,788. This represents an annual cost per service connection (customer) of $100.24. 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 $2,615,773 for 2001 (see table//6). This is based on estimated worker, equipment and other operations costs, using 2001 wage and benefit costs and equipment rental rates. The annual cost per service connection would equate to $99.74. 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 $1,120,700. If this cost were treated as a 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 $149,000. This cost would be added to the cost proposal for in- house operations mentioned in the previous paragraph. With the start-up costs included, the annual cost to operate in-house would be $2,764,773 or $ 105.42 per customer per year. 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. Page 9 of 9 June 13, 2001 Gene Bogart City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, CA 9331:1 Dear Mr. Bogart: As you know, we have entered into a municipal farm lease with the City of Bakersfield, the term of which extends to December 31, 2005. In accordance with Article VIII of the agreement, we are writing to give notice of the assignment of the lease. Subject to the lessor's approval, we propose to assign the lease to Donald Collins. In accordance with Article VIII, Section B of the lease agreement, we have enclosed information concerning the farming history and financial condition of the proposed assignee. Mr. Collins has extensive experience in the crops available for farming under the lease,, and has the equipment and manpower necessary to succeed in this endeavor. He has thoroughly reviewed the lease agreement and understands that as the lease assignee, he expressly assumes all the covenants and conditions of the lease, including responsibilities such as spreading the efflUent water, maintaining good working relationships with those neighboring the leased property, etc. We have long enjoyed our relationship with you .and the City of Bakersfield. We appreciate the time you made available to us recently to discuss' the proposed assignment of the lease. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Should you require additional information, please contact me or our accountant, Jim Wren (661-325-5115). Very truly yours, ,.. -.'. . : .. ...~] t" ¥.er0mca ~arone :..:.: ... - .~ ..)...~ .. · .; - . . ,.. . · Enclosures BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM June 5,2001 E.E FROM: DARNELL W. HAYNES, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER ('/~~ THROUGH: JOHN W. STINSO~.~SISTANT CITY MANAGER ~J~× SUBJECT: FY 2001/02 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS/RESPONSES The following questions raised by the City Council during budget workshop sessions require a response from your department and that of the City Manager. Responses are to be in memo form and forwarded to the City Manager no later than 12:00 noon, Thursday, June 7th. Responses will be forwarded to the Council as soon as possible. If you have any questions or need clarification, do not hesitate to ask. Responses to budget inquires must be immediate! Workshop - Monday, June 4, 2001 Gene Bogart 1. A request for a staff presentation to the Water Board regarding alternative uses of funding once the 1976 water bond debt has been paid off. (Couch) cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager S:\02 Budpro\O2Questions\waterO1JuneO4.wpd l~_~ JUN 0 ? Z001 CI I'Y OF: 5AKEF~SFiELD WATER RESOURCES CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Debt Service Requirements to Maturity Water Bonds Fts ca 1 _ , . Total _Year Prlnci pal "Im nteres t '. Requirements 1977-78 ._ $ 1,253,910.00 $ 1,253,g10.00 1978-79 ' $ 210,000.00 829,640.00 1,039,640.00 1979-80 225,000. O0 816,590. O0 1,041.590. O0 1980-81 235,000.00 802,790, O0 1,037,790.00 1981-82 250,000.00 788,240.00 1,038,240. O0 1982-83 265,000.00 772,790.00 1,037,790. O0 1983-84 280,000. O0 756,440.00 1,036,440. O0 1984-85 300,000. O0 739,040. O0 1,039.040. O0 1985- 86 315,000.00 720,590.00 1,035,590. O0 1986-87 335,000. O0 701,090.00 1,036,090.00 1987-88 355,000. O0 682,608.75 1,037,608.75 1988-89 375,000.00 665,177.50 1,040,177.50 1989-90 400,000.00 646,677.50 1,046,677.50 1990-91 425,000. O0 626,977.50 1,051,9 77.50 1991-92 450,000.00 605,752.50 1,055,752.50 1992-93 475,000.00 582,852.50 1,057,852.50 1993-94 505,000.00 558,100.00 1,063,100.00 1994'-S 5 535,000. O0 531,312.50 1,066,312.50 1995-96 565,000. O0 502,571.25 1,067,571.25 1996-97 600,000.00 471,840. O0 1,071,840. O0 1997-98 ~ 635,000.00 439,112.50 1,074,112.50 1998-99 675,000. O0 404,060.00 1,079,060. O0 1999-2000 715,000.00 366,5 30.00 1,081,530.00 2000-2001 760,000.00 326,325.00 1,086,325.00 2001-2002 805,000.00 · · 283,287.50 1,088,287.50 2002-2003 855,000. O0 237,637.50 1,092,637.50' 2003-2004 905,000.00 189,237.50 1,094,237.50 2004-2005 960,000. O0 137,470.00 1,097,470. O0 2005-2006 1,015,000. O0 82,170. O0 1,097,170. O0 2006-2007 1 ~075,000. O0 26,875.00 ..... 1 ,lO1,875.00 $15,500,000. O0 $16,547,695. O0 $32,047,695 ~ 00 cI'A~TMFNT OF W&~[.j KERN RIVER PARKWAY FLOW RESTORATION PROGRAM "WATER SUPPLY" 40,000 . · . . . · . . · I'--' 30,000.' · . .... .__~20,000 ..... ~ 10,000 0 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% % of NORMAL