HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/80 ~.~--'__ ~ CITY MGR.
- $ CITY ATTNY.
~' ,~ CiTY CLERK
BUILDING
COMM DEV.
FINANCE
PERSOHNEL
PLANNING
PUB. WORKS
A C- E ~T D A WATE;~
REDEV. AGY.
FILE
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD D ~ R ~ C?."
FIRE & DEV~LO~AI? ~,~- )_,:, ;C..~
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1980 APR 15 1980
4: 00 P .M.
Call meeting to order
Roll Call - Board Members: Barton, Chairman; Payne, Ratty, Bergen,
Hoagland
1. Aprove minutes from regular meeting of Wednesday, April 2, 1980,
and Adjourned Regular Meeting of Thursday, April 3, 1980.
2. Scheduled Public Statements.
3. Agricultural Water Enterprise Operating Budget and Proposed Capital
Outlay Program for 1980-1981. - FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION.
4. Staff Comments
5. Board Comments
6. Adjournment
MINUTES
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 1980
4:00 P.M.
The regular meeting of the City Of Bakersfield Water Board of
April 2, 1980, was adjourned to be reconvened at this time.
Chairman Barton called the meeting to order Thursday, April 3,
1980, at 4:15 P.M. in the CitY Hall Caucus Room.
The secretary called the roll as follows:
Present: Barton, Ratty, Bergen
Absent: Payne, Hoagland
Staff Present: Bogart, Chafin, Hansen, Hatch, Hostmyer, Needham,
Stetson, Tooker
Others Present: Scott Brook, La Hacienda, Inc. Tom Clark, La Hacienda, Inc.
Dean Gay, Board of Directors Olcese Water
District
Owen Goodman, Attorney Olcese Water District
Gayle Scholtzer, The Bakersfield Californian
Stephen E. Wall, Attorney
C.H. Williams, Engineer-Manager North Kern
Water Storage District
At this time Stanley C. Hatch, Consulting Attorney for the City
of Bakersfield presented the Agricultural Water Consultant's
Report~to the board. Mr. Hatch stated that there were two things
that should be discussed with the board: 1) Consultants responses
to questions which have been asked relating to the Olcese annexa-
tion, and various aspects of the Olcese spreading Contract, in-
cluding the status of the promised transfer of water rights; and
2) The recent action and pending project of the Kern Delta Water
District which has become enough of a problem that it needs Water
Board attention.
At this time Thomas M. Stetson, Consulting Engineer for the City
Of Bakersfield outlined the status of the Olcese problem that re-
sulted in the letter that was sent by the Water Board to Mr. Nickel
dated March 31, 1980. Mr. Stetson stated that Mr. Nickel approach-
ed the City in late 1976 regarding the Rio Bravo Annexation and
the possibility of developing a water supply for the area. A
number of sources were mentioned at that time including Mr. Nickel's
"Lower River Water Rights". Subsequently, in 1977, the City entered
into an agreement with the Olcese Water District permitting the
District to spread water on the City's 2800 acre spreading ground,
and to subsequently recover that water, either for exchange and
indirect delivery to the Rio Bravo area, or in the extreme, to
actually convey it to the Rio Bravo area. This was done on the
expressed basis that Olcese would acquire from La Hacienda, Inc.
or the Nickel family, the Lower River Water Rights including the
Isabella storage rights. The City's consultants have been nego-
tiating with Mr. Nickel for some time now to get that transfer
made. Mr. Stetson stated he was instructed to develop a study
and report that would be furnished to LAFCO (Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission) in connection with the analysis of various sources
of water available to the Rio Bravo annexation area. He f~rhi'shed
and submitted that report in mid 1979, and included some conditions
under which water rights should be transferred to the Olcese Water
District by La Hacienda, Inc., or other Nickel interests. Those
included any overlying groundwater rights owned or controlled
by them, certain Kern River riparian water rights owned or con-
trolled by them in the Olcese area, and the Lower River Rights
and its attendant Lake Isabella storage rights. The City has
had many meetings with Mr. Nickel and his people over the past
two years regarding these sources of supply and their transfer
to the City. Recently documents were submitted to us, the most
recent in about February of this year,purporting to sell water
to Olcese under certain conditions, which were not acceptable.
There was a December document regarding the transfer of ripar-
ian water rights about which we have questions. There has
been water spread at the 2800 acres but it was spread by La
Hacienda, Inc. It was not spread by Olcese Water District and
that leaves a serious question in. connection with our agreement
with the Olcese Water District and its right to spread its water
at the 2800 acres. All of these issues are intertwined and this
is what we are now trying to straighten out. Mr. Stetson felt
that this summarizes where we have been for the past three and
a half years and where we are now.
Mr. Hatch stated on October 31, 1979, the City sent a letter to
Mr. Nickel outlining a seri~s: of concerns and questions the
City had. We asked for responses and answers so we could proceed
from there. That letter dealt with trying to establish the status,
the nature and, the current ownership of the water rights, plans
for transfer and so forth. Subsequently, very shortly thereafter,
there was an indication that Olcese had attorneys working on this'
particular point and that they would be in touch with us. We did
receive, without comment, the' two (2) documents to which Mr.
Stetson referred: the water agreement which is a sale of stored
water apparently entered into between Mr. Nickel's Corporation
and the Olcese Water District back in August of 1979. The City
was not provided with a copy at that time. This Agreement has now
been superseded by yet another agreement dated February 11, 1980.
Another agreement dealing with riparian rights is actually an
arrangement in which Mr. Nickel has the option to transfer some
of his riparian rights, or the right to pump riparian water to
the Olcese District. In return the Olcese District would have
to do certain things about which we have some questions. We
are not sure what the status of that agreement is.
At this point, Mr. Hatch stated we have identified a number of
issues which require resolution and we have, established the
chronology for the resolution of those issues. First of all
we still need the responses to the October 31, 1979, letter to
Mr. Nickel. The Olcese Water District should respond directly
to the City regarding matters affecting them. The first issue
that has to be dealt with before anything else is the nature,
the status, and the ownership of the Lower River, and Isabella
storage rights. Mr. Hatch has been contacted since his letter
has been sent by the Kronick, M~oskovitz, Tiedmann & Girard law
firm in Sacramento. Mr. Kronick has indicated that he has been
directed by Mr. Nickel to get involved in this aspect of the
case, and to assist in expediting and working out some kind of
an agreement. In that regard he informed Mr. Hatch that his
firm has prepared an opinion relating to these issues which is
in the mail. This is a positive step. We will now have some
documentation. The next step is to accomplish the transfer
and warranty of the rights from whomever owns them, presumably,
La Hacienda, Inc., to the Olcese District. There are three
different kinds of rights to be transferred: 1) the Lower
River and Isabella Storage rights, 2) certain upper river
riparian rights, that is, riparian rights in the Olcese area
which might be used by Olcese to serve the riparian land, and
3) certain overlying rights to pump groundwater and use it on
overlying lands within the Olcese District.
Our basis interest is in avoiding having the City become the
backup water supplier for this area. The area, is now in the
City. If the Olcese Distridt does not provide an adequate water
supply, that burden could, in the future, fall on the City of
Bakersfield. It was understood at the time of the annexation,
as we read the documentation that the annexation area had to
stand on its own feet and provide its own water. To make the
annexation happen, Mr. Nickel indicated that he would provide
these Lower River Rights making development feasible. On this
point we have been given an August 1, 1979, agreement which
purports to be executed by the Olcese Water District and the
Nickel interests, which we are now told has now been superseded
by a February 11, 1980, agreement. Again, both of these agree-
ments are for the sale of stored water only, The original commit-
ments in this case were for the transfer of the water rights as
distinguished from actual water ifself. The agreements would not
appear to be consistent with Mr. Nickel's prior commitments and
we have no explanation as to why it is that they have been put
together in this particular form. Hopefully, in any future
discussions with the law firm who prepared this, we will be
better able to understand this approach and will be in a posi-
tion to respond more intelligently. One of the problems with
both of those documents is tha_t the City had no_ prior opportunity
to review them. It makes it very difficult to be handed a document
that has already been executed and asked to comment. It would be
more constructive in the long run to have documents which affect
the City, be submitted to the City as part of the negotiations,
prior to execution, so that the City can comment, and be assured
that they are satisfactory before they become effective.
As to the upper riparian rights, an agreement between the Olcese
Water District and the Nickel interests has been given to us.
Its status as to execution is unclear. The document does not
actually transfer any riparian rights. It is an option on the
part of the riparian landowners to do so, but in exchange for
various obligations on the part of the Olcese Water District
with which we have a number of problems. We raised those pro-
blems in the March 31 letter. These will be discussed in any
furthernegotiations.
As to the assignment of the overlying rights, to the best of Mr.
Hatch's knowledge no action of any kind has been taken. Mr.
Hatch provided Mr. Tiedmann with a copy of a proposed assign-
ment of overlying rights which have been used in other cases.
Apparently that letter has been lost, and another copy has been
requested.
The package of transfers is basically the set of conditions which
Mr. Stetson wrote into his report on the Olcese ~]o. 2 Annexation,
currently pending in LAFCO. The transfers are a prerequisite to
LAFCO approval or to the extent that the approval is given, it
would be subject to complying with~these conditions. That pro-
cedure would cause the transfers to be completed before the
annexation can be formalized. This seems to be necessary by
reason of the fact that the rights are designed to provide the
water supply and water resources to serve future development
in the area under Olcese jurisdiction.
This brings us to the status of the 77-07 W.B. spreading contract
between Olcese and the City. The transfer of water rights is a
prerequisite to determining the status of that agreement. It
includes a "whereas clause".which explicitly assumes tha~ Olcese
owns ~o~' will own the water rights relating to the water which
is to be spread. What has happened is that a significant amount
of water has been spread by La Hacienda, Inc, but not by Olcese.
La Hacienda does not have a contract with the City of Bakersfield.
This creates some problems, maybe technical problems, but problems
none the less. The failure to transfer the water rights has created
an inability on the part of Olcese to perform under the existing
contract. This must be straightened out.
There are other problems relating to 77-07 W.B. which have been
identified and which presumably ne~d some resolution. One of
th~se isthat the contract provides and requires Olcese to furnish
a schedule of development, and plans for improvement, including
the construction of wells within a reasonable time. I think it
uses the words "due diligence". Twenty-one months later nothing
apparently has been done in that regard. It would seem appropriate
for Olcese to provide the schedule of development so everyone will
know what they intend to do. The schedule is subject to approval
by the City. There is, also, th~ requirement that they construct
certain wells on the property, and again no wells have been con-
structed.
There is an additional, fundamental problem which is raised in
our letter. During this period of time, most of the contact
with the Olcese District regarding these negotiations has been
through Mr. Nickel. This has created a very definite p~oblem.
The Olcese District is an independent governmental entity with
its own board and it can only act through its Board of Directors.
It is not clear as to how well the Olcese Board has been kept
informed by Mr. Nickel or what authority Mr. Nickel has had
to represent the Board. Mr. Hatch thinks that in any further
negotiations its obvious the Olcese Board should be directly
involved. They have ~cpendent functions and interests to
be served which are not necessarily those of the City or those
of Mr. Nickel.
The City has requested (last summer) and subsequently spelled
out in a letter dated October 31, 1979, the desire to modify
the existing 77-07 W.B. Agreement. These modifications regard
the place of use and the nature of the fee to be charged, (whether
or not it is going to be a spreading fee, or an extraction fee).
To date we have had no response to the question of the willingness
of Olcese to modify the contract. We feel it is important that
they respond to that issue.
The transfers of water rights'and the clarification of the 77-07 W.B.
contract status is a prerequisite to any future exchange agreement
with the Buena Vista Water Storage District. Mr. Nickel has in-
dicated that he has been negotiating with Buena Vista in this re-
gard, but the preconditions for such an agreement have not yet
occured. There is a necessity for environmental review if addi-
tional spreading is proposed for exchange purposes. There is,
also, the necessity to establish an overall, master plan for
the spreading grounds. Whatever is done regarding an exchange
agreement must be consistent with the City's overall plan of
operation. You do not want to take one action, and then find
that something has been done making it impossible for you to
do something that you really want to do later. In any such
exchange arrangement we think it is important that representa-
tives of Olcese, the City and Mr. Nickel, all jointly participate
in these negotiations so we will not be in a situation where one
of the parties provides executed documents for approval after
the fact. The right way to go about it is to work it out prior
to execution, and within the appropriate time sequence. It is
necessary to accomplish the water rights trans£er first, and
make sure the spreading contract with Olcese is viable.
Our October 31, 1979, letter requested information regarding
another item that came up as part of these negotiations in midr
summer, and that was an indication that the so called "Carmel
Right" is being used in the Rio Bravo area. As we understand
it the Carmel Right is a Second Point right which, if it is
being used above First Point, should at least be accounted for.
There is no indication that there had been any notice of this to
the Watermaster, or to the City as record keeper on the river.
This creates a possibility that Carmel Right wa~er could be
delivered to Second Point at the same time it is being delivered
under the Carmel Right, above First Point causing a double delivery
of Second Point water. The City has asked for an indication as
to the status of that right, its nature and its ownership and,
whether it has been transferred to the Olcese Water District,
who purports to be using it. We, need an indication of what
the purposed method of operation will be to make sure, if it
is going to be so used, that it will not cause serious problems
for other water users on the stream, or adversley affect any
other interveining water users.
These basically are the issues we have identified today. We have
some recommendations based on our contacts with Mr. Kronick.
-4-
At this point maybe we should find out what anyone else might
have to say.
At this time Owen Goodman, Attorney for Olcese Water District,
informed the board that he had an appointment next Monday, April 7,
1980, at 2:00 P.M. with Mr. Kronick to get into the matters that
have been mentioned here today. He said he had actually seen, for
the first time today, some of these letters that Mr. Hatch and
Mr. Stetson have referred to here. He indicated .that he was
attending the meeting as an observer, and he hopes to be getting
into some of these problems to try and get a resolution to them.
Chairman Barton asked Mr. Goodman if there were any documents he
did not have at this time, if so the City would supply him with
those copies. Mr. Goodman indicated if he should need further
'documentation he would contact Mr. Chafin. Mr. Bergen suggested
that Mr. Goodman be given copies of Mr. Stetson's Report. Mr.
Hatch stated that he had talked briefly with Mr. Goodman prior
to the meeting, and he indicated that after he has an opportunity
to talk further with Mr. Kronick he would be happy to brief Mr.
Goodman on the information developed as to the City's concerns
regarding Olcese provision of an adequate water supply for the
area.
Dr. Ratty at this time stated that he was concerned with the
length of time that has been spent since 1976 with nothing being
resolved. He feels we should bring everyone to the task of solving
the problem as rapidly as possible, by possibly establishing a
time frame for these objectives.
Mr. Goodman stated that Mr. Nickel and the Olcese interests real-
ize something has to be done and resolved, also, we do have repre-
sentatives here today. Mr. Goodman indicated that he was speaking
solely for Olcese, the March 31, 1980, letter was actually the
first thing delivered to him as a representative of the Olcese
Board and they have held a meeting since then and realize this
thing must come to a head. Mr. Goodman stated he, also, now
had a copy of the October 31, 1979, letter. He indicated they
had a board majority who were not beholden to George Nickel.
Mr. Stetson asked if Olcese had a copy of the reDort he filed
with LAFCO last summer, if not the expanded version should be
given to him. Mr. Goodman stated that he would like to see
this matter formalized within not more than sixty (60) days.
Mr. Hatch asked Tom Clark if he had any information for the
board. Mr. Clark informed the board that he was representing
La Hacienda, Inc., and stated that everything he had been hear-
ing was constructive so he is very optimistic that things will
be resolved soon.
Mr. Hatch suggested that the City set a goal for draft documents,
satisfactory 'to. the City and the other parties and ready for
execution within sixty (60) days, regarding the water rights
transfers. All parties should periodically keep their' boards
informed as we go along as to the status of the negotiations.
Mr. Clark stated that (60) days was a reasonable length of time
to accomplish the transfer of water rights.
In regard to the October 31, 1979, letter Mr. Hatch suggested
that a time limit of thirty (30) days be set for complete re-
s}'~onses on all questions asked in that letter, including those
regarding modification of the contract. Mr. Bergen suggested
that if Mr. Kronick or Mr. Goodman have any questions they
should feel free to call Mr. Hatch or Mr. Stetson directly.
Mr. Hatch indicated that he had a meeting scheduled with Mr.
Kronick and Mr. Stetson in San Francisco on Monday, April 21,
1980. He suggested the Mr. Goodman, also, attend that meeting.
The following recommendations were made by Mr. Hatch:
1) That counsel for Mr. George Nickel and the Olcese
Water District be requested to respond in detail
-5-
to Mr. Hatch's letter ~o Mr. Nickel dated October
31, 1979, within thirty (30) days.
2) That counsel for the City, Olcese water District,
Mr. George Nickel and/or La Hacienda, Inc. draft
documents relating to the various water rights
transfers spelled out in the proposed LAFCO con-
dition to Olcese annexation No. 2, and present
such documents to the City in a form ready for
execution and satisfactory to the City and other
parties within sixty (60) days.
3) That the Olcese District be requested, pursuant
to 77-07 W.B., as modified, to submit a detailed
schedule of developments and plan of improvement
for City approval within thirty (30) days.
Mr. Ratty at this time made a motion that the above be accom-
plished. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Bergen sug-
gested that copies of the minutes of the Water Board today be
provided to the Olcese Board.
'At this time Dean Gay introduced himself and Mr. Fish of the
Board of Directors of Olcese Water District. He indicated
that he was very familiar with the area that had been discussed
here today. He stated he did not want the City to get the wrong
Smpression of the members of the Olcese Board. He feels there
might be a lack of communication between the City and the Olcese
Board itself. We had felt the City and Mr. Nickel were doing
the negotiations, and we now feel that assumption was wrong.
We are prepared to do the things necessary to accomplish these
things, and we feel this is an excellent program for the City of
Bakersfield.
The next issue on which Mr. Hatch thinks the board should be
brought up to date is the problem associated with Kern Delta
Water District's 1979 Systems Improvement Project. The pro-
ject is currently in the environmental review stage. On
April 17, 1980, the Kern Delta Board will be meeting to certify
the EIR on the project, and to make a decision as to whether
or not they will go~ahead with it. The project involves the
improvement of certain canals, to increase capacity and, also,
it involves increasing or creating new spreading areas and
reservoir capacity. The apparent purpose of these actions is
to increase the amount of Kern River Water that can be used in
the Kern Delta District. This upsets the status quo on the river.
First Point rights have been divided between the Kern Delta
District, the North Kern District and the City. They are being
fully used by these entities. Any increased diversion above
historic levels of use by Kern Delta will result in the decreased
diversion of that same water by North Kern and the City. A
First Point Committee has been set up to discuss potential
future problems between the three entities. The Committee is
attempting to identify various issues and come up with solutions
to them so that litigation might be avoided. As of this moment,
however, the Kern Delta action creates a very difficult problem.
If they proceed with construction and build facilities to use~
water under rights which are subject to question, it puts them
in the position of attempting to justify the use of those facil-
ities by insisting on those rights in the negotiations. This
would make it virtually impossible to work anything out with
them. Secondly, once these facilities have been built, the
policing on their diversions becomes exceedingly difficult.
As a consequence, Mr. Chafin filed comments on the Kern Delta
Project Environmental Impact Report. His March 14 letter to
the Kern Delta Board indicated the problems that were involved
in going forward with the construction at this time. Whether
or not this will have any effect is not clear. North Kern
has written a similar letter to th~ Kern Delta Board urging
them not to take this action at this time. We are told there
-6-
ar~ planned meetings between the North Kern and Kern Delta
Districts, and there is some indication that they may want
the City to become involved in those discussions. Mr. Hatch
thinks the City may wish to r~iterate, their position prior
to the April 17, 19'80, meeting should that become necessary
and alert the City's contractors. His recommendation in this
regard.was that the board declare its position by ratifying
the Chafin letter of March 14, 1980. He also suggested that.
the staff be authorized to take further action consistent with
that letter, and, if necessary to forcefully reiterate the
City's position that such construction, upsetting the status
quo on the River, is not acceptable and will not be permitted
by the City. Mr. Bergen made a motion that the board ratify
the Chafin letter of March 14, 1980, and authorize staff action
as recommended by Mr. Hatch. The motion was passed.
There being no further business to come before the board, Chair-
man Barton adjourned the meeting at 5:16 P.M.
James J. Barton, Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
Linda Hostmyer, Secretary
City of Bakersfield Water Board
-7-
MINUTES
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1980
4:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by .Vice-Chairman Payne in the City
Hall Caucus Room..
The secretary called the roll as follows:
Present: Payne, Ratty, Bergen, Hoagland
Absent: Barton
Staff Present: Bidwell, Chafin, Hansen, Hostmyer,-Needham
Others Present: Dean Gay, Board of Director Olcese Water District
Owen Goodman, Attorney Olcese Water District
Gail Scholtzler, The Bakersfield Californian
At this time Domestic Water Superintendent John Hansen brought
the board up to date on the Fairhaven Industrial Fire Protection
District stating that their assessments have been spread and are
being mailed out to the individual property owners. The average
assessment is running $5,925.00 an acre. The Domestic Water
Department has, also, been in touch with E.D.A. (Economic Devel-
opment Administration) and they are reviewing our Grant which
should be completed by April 15, 1980, with a recommmendation
then made to Washington, D. C.
Mr. Hansen presented copies to each board member of the Design
Report for Ashe Water System Two Million Gallon Domestic Water
Storage System which was prepared by Boyle Engineering Corpora-
tion, and the Master Plan Of The Bakersfield Ashe Water System
prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc.
Item number four (4) Agricultural Water Consu.ltants Report was
deleted from the Agenda because the City Consultants were unable
to attend the meeting.
At this time Water Manager Chafin informed the board that the
Kern County Water Agency/Improvement District No. 4 has built
a water spreading facility on City property in Sections 33 and
34 opposite of Park Stockdale for a total of approximately 25
acres. They have moved a considerable amount of earth and built
levees in the area indicated. Mr. Chafin checked with the City
Attorney's office and learned that the property is owned by
the City of Bakersfield but it is located in the County. Mr.
Chafin recommended that a letter be sent to the Kern County Water
Agency regarding this matter.
Mr. Bergen ma~e a moti'on that the board send a letter to the Kern
County Water Agency/Improvement District No. 4 regarding the
above matter and, also, ask Thomas M. Stetson to evaluate the
work that has been done and what effect it may have on the City.
The motion was passed.
There being no further business to come before the board, Vice-
Chairman Payne adjourned the meeting at 4:15 P.M., to be con-
tinued to 4:00 P.M., Thursday, April 3, 1980, in the City Hall
Caucus Room for the purpose of hearing the Agricultural Water
Consultants Report.
Thomas A. Payne, ViCe-Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
Linda Hostmyer, Secretary
City of Bakersfield Water Board
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
AGRICULTURAL WATER ENTERPRISE
Estimated Revenues and Expenses
For The Period 07-01-80 to 06-30-81
Estimated
Actual Current
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET 1979-1980 1980-1981
Revenues From Operations ................. $2,386,425 $2,718,350
Operating Expenses
Field Expenses:
Wages and Employee Benefits ............... $ 331,730 $ 371,500
U.S. Corps of Engineers 0 & M - Lake Isabella ....... 30,260 30,260
Maintenance Expense .................... 66,620 70,000
Weed Control 28,220 30,000
Charges From Vehicle Pool ................. 135,250 155,600
.Charges From General Services Department ......... 1,600 2,500
Expenses Reimbursed Clearing Accounts (Joint Facilities).. (93,500) (95,000)
TOTAL Field Expenses ............... $ 500,180 $ 564,860
Administrative Expenses:
Consultants - Engineering and Attorney .......... $ 108,500 $ 125,000
Department of WaterResources - Snow Survey ........ 3,750 4,000
U.S.B.R. - Contract Administration ............ 500 500
Self Insurance - Liability & Property Damage Reserve . 47,960 65,000
Charges From Administrative Departments .......... 7,500 10,250
Field Office - Rents & Related Expenses .......... 29,750 32,000
Property, Possessory Interest & In Lieu Taxes ....... 33,480 33,500
Cloud Seeding Participation. . lO,O00 25,000
Repayment of Organizational Ac~uisitio~ ~o~t'(i) ........ . . . . ¢ 90,000
Misc. General Expense (Assoc. Dues, Security, etc.) .... 22,500 28,000
TOTAL Administrative Expenses ........... $ 263,940 $ 413,250
Net Operating Income Before Depreciation ' $1,622,305 $1,740,240
Depreciation - (160,000) (166,000)
Net Operatin9 .Income (Loss) ............... $1,462,305 $1,574,240
Non-Operating Ex'penses
.1976 Water Bonds - Interest ................. $ 816,590 $ 802,790
1976 Water Bonds - Principal ............... 225,000 235,000
1965' NKWSD-Isabella Bonds - Interest & Fees ........ 31,000 29,600
1965 NKWSD-Isabella Bonds - Principal ........... 35,000 36,250
Less: Amortization of Bond Premium ............ (1,100) (1,100)
Less: Rental of Isabella Storage Space .......... .. (46,980) (50,000)
TOTAL Non-Operating Expenses ........... $1,059,510 $1,052,540
Net Income Before Capital Outlay Program ........... $ 402,795 $ 521,700
Transfer to Capital Improvement Budget ............ (402,795) (521,700)
Net income (Loss~ ........... . .......... $ ~ $
(1) Funding is predicated upon receipt of estimated revenues received
during lg80/81 fiscal year.
Page 2
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
AGRICULTURAL WATER ENTERPRISE
Estimated Revenue's
For The Period 07-01-80 to 06-30-81
Estimated
Actual Current
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
1979-1980 1980-1981
Sales to Five (5) Major Districts ...... $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Kern River Canal & Irrigation Sales ..... 145,500 155,000
Lake Ming Agreement (County of Kern) .... 4,700 4,700
Oilfield Discharge ............. 11,875 12,600
Annual Pumping Agreements .......... 3,600 3,800
Temporary Pumping Agreements ........ 2,000 2,250
Borrow-Payback Exchange Fee ......... 114,500 125,000
Miscellaneous Irrigation Water Sales .... 404,900 725,000
Sand Sales ................. 39,350 30,000
Inter,est Income ............... 160,000 160,000
TOTAL Estimated Revenues $2,386,425 $2,718,350
Page 3
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
AGRICULTURAL WATER ENTERPRISE
Capital Outlay Program
For The Period 07-01-80 to 06-30-81
Fiscal Year
1980-1981
Source of Funds
Capital Improvement and Replacement Reserve' . .......... $190,300
Net Operating Revenues ............... ' ...... 521,700
TOTAL Source of Funds ................... $712,000
Proposed Application of Funds
1) Replacement of Carrier, Calloway & River Canal Weirs ...... $300,000
a) Weir 18-0-503 (Carrier @ 4 Weirs)
b) Weir 18-0-506 (F.S.A. and Box Culvert)'
c) Weir 18-0-51-8 (River Canal Turnout to 150 acre basin)
d) Calloway River Weir replacement.
2) Improvements to Kern River Canal & Irrigating Co. Laterals 35,000
3) New & Replacement Fencing of Canal facilities .......... 116,000
4) Furniture, files and fixtures for Water Dept. building ..... 30,000
5) 1/2 ton pick-up - field operations and supervision ....... 6,000
6) City'2800 acre'basin and River bed properties improvement & . 225,000
acquisitions.
TOTAL 1980/81 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE $712,000