HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/80 AGENDA
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1980
4:00 P.M.
Call meeting to order
Roll Call - Board Members: Barton, Chairman; Payne, Ratty, Bergen,
Hoagland
1. Approve minutes from regular meeting of April 16, 1980.
2. Scheduled public statements.
3. Adjourn regular meeting to Thursday, May 8, 1980, at 8:30 A.M.
in the City Hall Caucus Room.
AGENDA
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1980
8:30 A.M.
Call'meeting to order
Roll Call - Board Members: Barton, Chairman; Payne, Ratty, Bergen,
Hoagland
1. Approve minutes from regular meeting of Wednesday, May 7, 1980.
2. Scheduled public statements.
3. Letter from Water Board to all City contractors Boards requesting
advance notice of all meetings and agendas therefor, also, copies
of minutes of all meetings. - FOR BOARD APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN.
4. City of Bakersfield participation in proposed study for enhancement
and optimization of Kern County Water Supplies. - FOR BOARD
ACTION.
5. Letter from Thomas M. Stetson dated April 28, 1980, regarding
possible water exchanges by City of Bakersfield's Kern River
Contractors. - BOARD TO RECEIVE AND FILE.
6. Letter from Stanley C. Hatch regarding use of City of Bakersfield
water spreading properties by other public entities. - FOR BOARD
CONSIDERATION.
7. Letter from Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District dated April 21,
1980, regarding conjunctive use within City's 2800 acre spreading
basin. - BOARD TO RECEIVE AND File.
8. Letter from Henry C. Garnett dated April 10, 1980, regarding Kern
County Water Agency construction of percolation ponds on City of
Bakersfield properties. - BOARD TO RECEIVE AND FILE.
9. Staff Comments
10. Board Comments
11. Adjournment
MINUTES
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 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: Bo~art, Chafin, Hansen, Hostmyer
The minutes from the regular meeting of Wednesday, April 2, 1980,
and the minutes from the regular adjourned meeting of April 3, 1980,
were approved as presented.
At this time Agricultural Water Superintendent Gene Bogart pre-
sented the Agricultural Water Enterprise Operating Budget and
Proposed Capital Outlay Program for 1980-1981 to the board for
consideration. After a brief discussion by board and staff Mr.
Ratty made a motion that the board approve the budget and refer
it to the City Council for final approval. The motion was passed.
Board Comments
At this time Mr. Bergen suggested that copies of the minutes
for the Water Board meetings of April 2, 1980 and April 3, 1980,
be sent to individuals Directors of the Board of Olcese Water
District and, also, to Mr. George Nickel.
There being no further business to come before the board, Vice-
Chairman Payne adjourned the meeting at 4:06 P.M.
James J. Barton,Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
Linda Hostmyer, Secretary
City of Bakersfield Water Board
,
ROSEDALE RIO BRAVO
i WATER STORAGE DISTRICT
~ %~jj~ ~~r~/~/ 2623"F"St.,SuiteL P.O. aox867 ·Bakersfield, Cali fo rnia93302 · 325-4797
April 21, 1980
City of Bakersfield
Water Board
City Hall
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Gentlemen:
As you will recall, a meeting in regard generally to the
subject of tke Kern River was held by most of the interested
parties on August 2, 1979. As a~ result of that meeting,
it was ~eciced that the parties would submit in writing
proposals and cor~.ents in regard to the proposed Kern River
Conjunctive Lse Program. Eosedale submitted its comment
under date of August 30, 1979. It was our understanding
that a second meeting would be scheduled around the end
of Septeniber, 1979. However, to date that meeting has
not been held.
,Recently the local newspaper quoted city officials as insist-
ing that ~r. George ~[ickel move forward with any agreement
between the City and Mr. Nickel which would call for ~[r.
Nickel to ariil certain water wells on the City's 2800
acre spreading ground, presumably to be used for the exporta-
tion of water to what has con-~only been known as the Rio-
Bravo Annexation to the City.
Rosedale considers that the program reported in the ne%~spaper
woulG violate the spirit expressed at the August 2, 1979
meeting. We would ask and suggest t?~at the meeting proposed
for last Septe~nber be rescheduled with the hope that a
Conjunctive Use Program for the River, satisfactory to
all parties can be agreed upon prior to any physical implemen-
tation of the agreement ketween ~i'~e City and Mr. Nickel.
Very truly yours,
District Manager
MC:ck
~ -~ TETSON ENGINEERS [NC,
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS
3104 East Garvey Avenue 550 Kearny Street - Suite ~:~JE)S 5 0
West Covina, California 91791 Ap r il 2 8 ~ "] 9 8 0 San Francisco, California 94108
(213) 967-6202 (415) 781-4297
REPLYTO: San Francisco
Mr. John Chafin, Hanager
Water Department
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Proposed Study for Enhancement and Optimization of
Kern County Water Supplies.
Dear John:
As you know, the Kern County Water Districts Advisory
Committee has sought and received a proposal for the conduct of
an engineering study to determine the feasibility of enhancement
and optimization of the use of water supplies available to the
San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County. It is now contem-
plated that a consortium of four firms, known as Associated En-
gineering Consultants, will perform that study and render a draft
report and final report thereon within 13 months of the.date of
receipt of written notice to procee~ at a total cost of $225,000.
The four firms comprising Associated Engineering Consultants are:
Bookman-Edomonston Engineering, Inc.,
Boyle Engineering Corporation,
Stetson Engineers Inc., and
Walter G. Schulz, Consulting Engineer.
In my opinion it is very important that the City of
Bakersfield participate in this study. The City has an on-going
water spreading and recovery program in the Kern River Fan area
with local water districts now participating and with the objec-
tive of including other water districts in the program in the
future. The City's water spreading properties are the largest in
the County and will undoubtedly be important to any program for
enhancement of water supplies in Kern County.
Some of the objectives of the proposed study are the
same as, or similar to, those which the City has set out to
achieve--namely, the enhancement of water supplies through greater
use of the groundwater basin to store supplemental water when
~TETSON'ENGINEERS I~C,
Mr. Cha fin
April 28, 1980
Page Two
availabe. In my view, this makes it important that the City
participate and furnish its input to the Kern County Water Dis-
tricts Advisory Committee. That Committee will meet monthly to
receive and discuss progress reports on the study.
It is proposed to finance the study as follows:
1. The Kern County Water Agency will finance 2S
percent of the cost--$56,250.00.
2. The remaining 75 percent will be financed by
the participating water districts at a rate of $Q.35
per irrigated acre, or an equivalent for H&I parti-
cipants.
There is almost 4,000 acres of City-owned land in the
Kern Delta Water District, but Kern Delta is listed as a parti-
cipant in the study so it is not necessary for the City to con-
sider that area. Host of the City is within Improvement District
No. 4. Since Improvement District No. 4 of the Kern County Water
Agency is listed as a participant, and since Olcese Water Dis-
trict should participate to cover its portion of the Rio Bravo
Annexation Area, the City should finance $1,000.00 based on its
water spreading areas outside of Improvement District No. 4.
Such areas comprise something less than 3,000. acres and at $0.35
per acre this would approximate $1,000.00.
I recommend that the City of Bakersfield Water Board
take favorable action on this program.
Sincerely,
ThOmas M. Stetson
TMS'bw
cc' Stanley C. Hatch
Kern County Water Districts
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
April 25, 1980
Mr. James J. Barton
City of Bakersfield
1501Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Curly,
"OPTIMIZATION AND ENHANCEMENT STUDY"
Enclosed is.a copy of the proposed contract between the financial
participants and the engineering consortium on the "Optimization
Study".
We would appreciate your early review and comments as soon as
possible.
Very truly yours,
KERN COUNTY WATER DISTRICTS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Secretary
Enclosure
cc - Mr. John Chafin
4-29-80
cc: T. Payne
D. Ratty
H. Bergen
K. Hoagland
DRAFT 4/18/80
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE WATER DISTRICTS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF KERN COUNTY
AND THE ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
This contract made this day of , 1980, by
and between the Water Districts Advisory Committee of Kern County, hereinafter
referred to as "COMMITTEE" and the Associated Engineering Consultants (Bookman-
Edmonstron Engineering, Inc., Boyle Engineering Corporation, Stetson Engineers,
Inc. and Walter G. Schulz, Consulting Engineer), hereinafter referred to
collectively as "CONSULTANT."
WI TNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the firms of Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc.,
Boyle Engineering Corporation, Stetson Engineers, Inc. and Walter G. Schulz,
Consulting Engineer, have associated themselves as CONSULTANTS to perform the
services specified in this Contract;
WHEREAS, there has been prepared a scope of an engineering investi-
gation entitled "A PROGRAM TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF ENHANCEMENT AND
OPTIMIZATION OF THE USE OF WATER SUPPLIES AVAILABLE TO THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
PORTION OF KERN COUNTY," dated February 25, 1980, hereinafter referred to as
"INVESTIGATION";
WHEREAS, COMMITTEE, consisting of representatives acting on behalf
of their respective districts in the San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County
has reviewed the INVESTIGATION and desire to employ CONSULTANT to perform the
required services for said INVESTIGATION;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by the parties as follows:
I. EMPLOYMENT
COMMITTEE hereby employs CONSULTANT as an independent contractor
to furnish the services covered by this Contract upon the terms and conditions
specified herein, and CONSULTANT accepts such employment.
II. SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of Work to be performed by CONSULTANT is set forth in
Appendix A. The Scope of Work may be modified to cover additional phases of
investigation through the mutual consent of the parties hereto.
To perform the Scope of Work specified herein, CONSULTANT will
require the cooperation of Districts within the San Joaquin Valley portion of
Kern County to provide existing data relative to each District. Representatives
of Distr~cts on COMMITTEE will assist CONSULTANT in securing such cooperation
from their respective Districts.
III. TIME SCHEDULE
CONSULTANT agrees to deliver for review and comment the draft report
specified in Item 16 of Appendix A within 300 days from the date of receipt of
written notice to proceed with the services specified herein by COMMITTEE.
Comments on the draft report will be submitted to CONSULTANT within 45 days
after submission of draft report and the final report specified in Item 17 of
Appendix A will be delivered by CONSULTANT within 45 days after receipt of
Comments.
IV. COMPENSATION
CONSULTANT agrees to perform the services specified in the Scope of
Work for the Lump Sum of $225,000, payable in monthly progress payments of
$20,000 per month on presentation of invoices by the CONSULTANT; tb~ balance
of $25,000 will be payable upon presentation of the final report specified in
-2-
· bhe Scope of Work. CONSULTANT will submit to COMMITTEE monthly invoices
which will be accompanied by a written progress report setting forth work
accomplished to date, and work planned for the ensuring months. CONSULTANT's
compensation may be modified by mutual agreement of the parties in the event
the Scope of Work is modified as provided in Paragraph II of this Contract.
V. ASSIGNMENT
CONSULTANT will not make assignment of this Contract to a third
party.
VI. TERMINATION
COMMITTEE may terminate this Contract at any time upon 30 days
written notice to CONSULTANT. In the event of termination, the CONSULTNAT shall
be compensated for all work performed to the date of termination.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
A. CONSULTANT shall designate a Project Director who at all times
shall represent CONSULTANT before the COMMITTEE on all matters relating to this
Contract. Burt A. Babcock shall be the Project Director unless he is removed
or replaced at the discretion of CONSULTANT or at the request of COMMITTEE.
B. CONSULTANT shall operate as an independent contractor and not
as an agent or employee of COMMITTEE or any of the respective water districts
participating in this Contract and nothing in this Contract shall be con-
strued to be inconsistent with this relationship or status.
C. Notices provided for in this Contract shall be mailed or de-
livered to the parties at the following addresses:
1. COMMITTEE
c/o Kern County Water Agency
P. O. Box 58
4114 Arrow Street
Bakersfield, CA 93302
-3-
2. CONSULTANT
c/o Associated Engineering Consultants
Bert A. Babcock, Project Director
P. O. Box 1961
345 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, th~ parties hereto have executed this Contract
as of the date first hereinabove written.
COMMITTEE: Arvin-Edison Water Storage District
Belridge Water Storage District
Berrenda Mesa Water District
Buena Vista Water Storage District
Cawelo Water District
Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District
Henry Miller Water District
Kern Delta Water District
Kern-Tulare Water District
Lost Hills Water District
North Kern Water Storage District
Rag Gulch Water District
Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage Dist.
Semi-Tropic Water Storage District
Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District
So. San Joaquin Municipal Utility Dist.
Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage Dt.
Kern County Water Agency
City of Bakersfield
Tehanchapi-Cummings County Water Dist.
Tejon-Castac Water District
Improvement District No.' 4 of Kern County Water Agency
West Kern County Water District
-4-
CONSULTANT: Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc.
Boyle Engineering Corporation
Stetson Engineers, Inc.
Walter G. Schulz, Consulting Engineer
-5-
TABLE 1
IRRIGATED ACREAGE
(And Equivalents)
IRRIGATED ACRES
DISTRICT (1,,000,)
Arvin-Edison Water Storage District 110
Belridge Water Storage District 46
Berrenda Mesa Water District 44
Buena Vista Water Storage District 41
Cawelo Water District 38
Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District 8
Henry Miller Water District 22
~Kern Delta Water District 108
Kern-Tulare Water District 15
Lost Hills Water District 54
North Kern Water Storage District 90
Rag Gulch Water District 3
Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District 35
Semi-Tropic Water Storage District 123
Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District 33
So. San Joaquin Municipal Utility District 48
Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District 109
Tehachapi-Cun~nings County Water District 30
Tejon-Castac Water District 2
Improvement District No. 4 65
West Kern County Water District 57
City of Bakersfield --
TOTAL 1,081
APPENDIX A
SCOPE OF WORK
FOR
PROGRAM TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF
ENHANCEMENT AND OPTIMIZATION OF THE USE OF
WATER SUPPLIES AVAIEABLE TO THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
PORTION OF KERN COUNTY
It is agreed that this initial evaluation and development of a
program would be done without regard to any institutional or political con-
straints. During the course of the investigation, input from the water
community will be solicited. Nothing is to be proposed that would impair an
existing water supply or that would raise costs of existing water supplies
without commensurate benefits. If the program, as developed or parts thereof,
were to exhibit sufficient merit, then a second phase may be undertaken.
This second phase may be conducted by affected districts either individually
or collectively and would address itself to developing necessary solutions
to institutional problems and matters of financial equity required for
implementation of the program.
Specific items of work to be accomplished would include the
following:
1. Determination of present and future requirements for water.
2. Determination of the water supplies available to the
County under present conditions from state, federal and
local sources.
3. Preparation of estimates of the present and probable future
deficiencies in water supply, both for lands outside of
the ground water basin and those overlying the basin, which
deficiency in the latter instance would be manifested in
overdraft and lowering of ground water levels.
4. Evaluation of the possibility of diverting additional
supplies of water from the Delta through the California
Aqueduct.
5. Evaluation of the possibility of increasing the supply
of federal water delivered to the County.
6. Evaluation of the feasibility of retaining additional
Kern River water which escapes from the County in wet
years.
7. The identification of existing facilities required for
utilization of the increased supply and their adequacy
for this purpose.
8. The identification of any new facilities that would be
required.
9. Determination of the location and amount of dewatered
storage capacity available for storage of additional
waters.
10. Identification of the location and area of absorptive
lands suitable for ground water recharge and rates of
percolation that might be expected.
ll. Consideration of the problems of integrating additional
water into the present "Kern County Water Supply System",
and evaluation of the possibility of energy savings through
a redistribution of available supplies through exchange.
12. Identification of drainage and waste water problems and
possibilities for utilization thereof.
13. Identification of present institutional constraints.
-2-
14. Development of possible criteria for distribution of program
costs in accordance with benefits.
15. Estimates of capital and annual costs of the program.
16. Preparation and delivery of 25 copies of a draft report
summarizing investigations and proposed programs for review
and comment by the COMMITTEE.
17. Preparation of a final report and delivery of 25 copies
thereof along with duplicate originals of manuscript and
maps.
18. CONSULTANT will attend and make program reports at monthly
meetings of COMMITTEE.
; ~ ETSON ENGINEERS INC,
CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS
3104 East Garvey Avenue 550 Kearny Street - Suite ~ 5 5 0
West Covina, California 91791 Apr i i 2 8, 1 9 8 0 San Francisco, California 94108
(213) 967-6202 (415) 781-4297
REPLYTO: San Francisco
Mr. John Chafin, Manager
Water Department ~
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Possible Water Exchanges by City of
Bakersfield's Kern River Contractors
Dear John:
I had previously furnished you with a copy of a mem-
orandum to files, dated March 31, 1980, regarding subject. You
have re~estedthat I put that memorandum~in letter form and I do
so herein.
In each of the City's Kern River water delivery con-
tracts, entered into in 1976, there are provisions relating to
the place of use of such Kern River water and in some of the
contracts there are provisions for possible exchanges of water.
The exchange provisions were put into the contracts solely for
the purpose of enabling those contractors who did not have faci-
lities for actual physical delivery of the Kern River water to
their service areas to enter into exchanges to facilitate such
deliveries.
Contract 76-89 with the North Kern Water Storage Dis-
trict provides, in Section 8.1 thereof, that: "Excepting for
short-term transactions as the District determines are benefi-
cial for its-adopted Project purposes, District shall utilize
the water delivered hereunder subject to the following condi-
tions:
"a. The water shall be used only for irrigation,
spreading, stock-water and incidental agricultural
purposes within the boundaries of the district; and
"b. District shall not sell said water for use
other'than within the existing boundaries of District
without prior written notice to and approval of City,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld."
STETS~)N EN(SINEERS~INC,
Mr. Chafin
April 28, 1980
Page Two
In agreement number 76-62 with the Cawelo ITater Dis-
trict, Section 7.1, Use of Water, provides in part as follows:
"District shall utilize the water delivered here-
under subject to the following conditions:
"a. The water shall be used only for irrigation,
spreading, stock-water and incidental agricultural
purposes within the boundaries of District.
"b. District shall not sell said water for use
other than within the existing Kern County portions
of the boundaries of District without prior written
notice to and approval of City, which approval shall
not be unreasonably withheld.
"c. Water sold by City and purchased by District
hereunder may be freely exchanged with other such
long-term firm water contractors of City or with Friant-
Kern Canal contractors within Kern County, with Arvin-
Edison Water Storage District, with Shaftor-Wasco Irri-
gation District or with the Kern County Water Agency
or any Improvement District thereof. District shall
not sell such water to or exchange the same with any
other person or entity without prior written approval
of City. All said water or that exchanged therefore
shall be used only on lands within Kern County and
within the boundaries of District."
Agreement Number 76-61 with Kern Tulare Water District
contains exactly the same language in Section 7.1, Use of Water,
as set forth above for the Cawelo Water District.
Agreement Number 76-63 with Rag Gulch Water District,
in Section 7.1, Use of Water, contains exactly the same language
as set forth above for Cawelo Water District.
Agreement Number 76-89 with Rosedale Rio-Bravo Water
Storage District states in article II, Section 2.1(i)(8), Use
of Water, as follows:
"District shall utilize the Hiscellaneous Water
delivered hereunder subject to the following conditions:
"(aa) The water shall be used only for ground
water replenishment within the boundaries of District.
STETSO~ ENGINEERS I~C.
Hr. Chafin
April 28, 1980
Page Three
"(bb) District shall not sell such water to or
exchange the same with any other person or entity with-
out prior written approval of City."
In addition to the specific language in those agree-
ments, it should be pointed out that ~e only purpose of provid-
ing conditions for an exchange of the City's Kern River water
was to accomodate those districts which did not have their own
facilities or access to the Kern River to make direct diversions
to their districts of such Kern River water. The exchange pro-
visions were included in order that such districts could exchange
Kern River wmter, primarily for Friant-Kern Canal water, with
such districts as the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District so that
District and the City's contracting districts could take a like
amount of water from the Friant-Kern Canal for direct delivery
into those district's service areas.
There is no question in my mind that throughout the
negotiations leading to the execution of these agreements
the sole intent of the exchange provisions was to accomodate the
City's contractors in being able to use the contracted for Kern
River water, directly or indirectly, within their districts.
There was certainly no intent that those districts would be able,
through exchanges, to supply the City's Kern River water in-
directly for use in far distant parts of the County and make a
profit on such exchanges.
As I understand the situation now, certain of the City's
contractors have been discussing with the Kern County Water Agency
'possibilities of exchanging the City's Kern River contractural
water with the Kern County Water Agency, probably Improvement
District No. 4, and thus enabling State Project Water to be di-
verted from the Calfiornia Aqueduct for use by the oil industry
in the west side of the valley. This is not really an exchange
of Kern River water supplied by the City for a water supply for
use within the City's contracting district. It would be a sale
of the City's Kern River water whereby such districts could make
a profit and the districts would not supply the water they con-
tracted for to the users within their districts.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Stetson
TMS: bw
cc: Stanley C. Hatch, Esq.
RIO BRAVO
2623 F St., Suite P.O. Box 867 · Bakersfield, California 93302 * 325-4797
April 21, 1980
City of Bakersfield
Water Board
City Hall
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Gentlemen:
As you will recall, a meeting in regard generally to the
subject of the Kern River was held by most of the interested
parties on August 2, 1979. As a result of that meeting,
it was aeciced that the parties would submit in writing
proposals and cor~ents in regard to the proposed Kern River
Conjunctive Use Program. Eosedale submitted its comment
under date of August 30, 1979. It was our understanding
that a second meeting woulc be scheduled around the end
of September, 1979. However, to date that meeting has
not been held.
Recently the local newspaper quoted city officials as insist-
ing that Mr. George Nickel move forward with any agreement
between the City and Mr. Nickel which would call for Mr.
Nickel to ariil certain water wells on the City's 2~00
acre spreading ground, presumably to be used for the exporta-
tion of water to what has con-~only been known as the Rio-
Bravo Annexation to the City.
Rosedale considers that the program reported zn the newspaper
woul~ violate the spirit expressed at the August 2, 1979
meeting. We would ask and suggest that the meeting proposed
for last September be rescheduled with the hope that a
Conjunctive Use Program for the River, satisfactory to
all parties can be agreed upon prior to any physical implemen-
tation of the agreement between ti%e City and Mr. Nickel.
Very truly yours,
Mary O611up
District ~ianager
MC:ck
KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY
' ,, 4114 Arrow Street, P O, Box 58
Bakersfield, California 93302
Dwectors' ;~ Telephone: 393-6200
;~- ~ Stuart r. Pyle
J. Elhott Fox D~vision 2
Jack G. Thomson Division 3 :~; Engineer-Manager
Floyd S Cooley Diwsion 4
· ~,, .~ George E. R~bble
Robert E McCarthy Divis~on 5
"' ' '.i ASSistant Engineer-Manager
Henry C, Ga'herr Division 6
President %~ [~/ Linde Kildebeck
Gene A. Lundquist Division 7 :'~"-~'~';:'"''~.~¥~' Secretary
April 10, 1980
Mr. James Barton, Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Barton:
We have duly noted your letter of April 8, expressing concern
and objections regarding Agency construction of percolation ponds
on City of Bakersfield properties.
The Agency entered into the program to spread and percolate
Kern .River water to the maximum extent possible following a meeting
with water district and water user representatives on March 6.
Our objective was to assist in these efforts using the Cross Valley
Canal and other facilities available to the Agency to prevent
any more water than necessary from leaving the area via the Kern
River-California Aqueduct Intertie or from becoming a flood hazard
in agricultural areas. In our opinion the potential for emergency
conditions required direct actionl From the management point of
view, we believed that adequate communication and coordination was
being achieved at the departmental level. Obviously, the construc-
tion efforts moved more rapidly than the coordination effort. In
retrospect, we can see that an explanation of the activity and a
request for Water Board approval of the actions should have been
scheduled. We regret that this was not done.
We agree that the City has full jurisdiction over use of its
properties and that our March 21, 1980 letter to advise of these
actions, to indemnify the City and to offer to restore the property
to its original condition if so desired was somewhat after-the-fact.
Funds for these activities are from the Agency's supplemental water
fund derived from sales of surplus State Project water and from joint
funding supplied by cooperating water districts.
Mr. James Barton
Page Two
April 10, 1980
As there are otherropportunities to expand spreading areas
along the Cross Valley Canal and the Kern River, we plan to prepare
and present information on these to the Water Board. Hopefully,
this will serve to clarify the current situation and establish
procedures for coordination of this type of work. You can be
sure that such clearances will receive top priority in the future.
Very truly yours,
· ' '~-~enry ~. Garnett
President
xc: Mr. Tom Stetson
Mr. Stan Hutch
Mr. Roy Gargano
Mr. Bill Balch
Mr. Robert K. Bellue
North Kern Water Storage District
Kern Delta Water District
Buena Vista Water Storage District
Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District
Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee
OLCESE WATER DISTRICT
· 1415- 18th Street, Room 302
Bakersfield, California 93301 ['~'~/ g1980
805/325-9031
C~TY ~,',~:INAGEE'S
May 1, 1980
City of Bakersfield
Water Board
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Gentlemen:
At your April 3, ].980, Board Meeting, you requested that
Olcese Water District provide, pursuant to Agreement No. 77-
07 W.B., a schedule of development and plan of improvement
for City approval within thirty (30) days. This letter is in
response to that request.
Under Agreement No. 77-07 W.B., as amended, provision is
made for improvements for both spreading and recovery of water.
Spreading and recovery of water are distinctly separate oper-
ations and are therefore treated as such in the following
summaries of existing and proposed improvements to your 2,800
acre spreading area.
Spreading Improvements
During calendar year 1978, improvements were made and
actions taken to percolate 24,328af at the 2,800 acre spreading
area. These activities included:
1) Construction and maintenance of diversion works by
Olcese to spread and percolate water.
2) Joint City-Olcese measurement of Kern River flows
into the 2,800 acre spreading area.
3) Taking of aerial photos during the spreading oper-
ation to evaluate the program and determine need
for possible modification of diversion works for
future spreading operations.
City of Bakersfield Water Board
Page 2 May !, 1980
4) Records of water spread were maintained by the City's
staff.
We feel the cooperative effort of the City and Olcese to
spread water during 1978 was very successful and recommend
that future.spreading operations follow a similar procedure.
For calendar year 1980, we anticipate having some 30,000af
to 60,000af of Kern River water available to us for percolation
in the 2,800 acre spreading area. Similar to our operation in
1978, we propose in 1980 that immediately following closure of
the Intertie and after the City's spreading requirements have
been met, the 2,800 acre spreading area be dried up so that we
may improve upon the existing diversion works. At the earliest
date possible we would like an indication from the City as to
its ~equirements for use of the spreading area so'that we may
coordinate our 1980 operations.
Recovery ..Improvements
As you are aware, the water supply program for Olcese
Water District provides for regulation of Kern River flows
through percolation of water in the 2,800 acre spreading area
during years of high flow and recovery in subsequent years.
Transportation of water recovered to Olcese is most efficiently
accomplished through water exchanges rather than direct delivery
by pipeline.
At the request of the City we have been negotiating fo~
some time with the Buena Vista Water Storage District for the
exchange of Olcese water recovered from the spreading area
and delivered to Buena Vista via the Kern River Canal
for Kern River water to be made available by Buena Vista to
Olcese in the Kern River channel.
The proposed exchange will require that recovery facilities
at the 2,800 acre spreading area be constructed by Olcese to
meet the irrigation requirements of Buena Vista. Buena Vista
has indicated that as a condition of the exchange, Olcese con-
struct sufficient well capacity to deliver 2,000af per month,
up to 10,000af per year from the 2,800 acre spreading area.
Therefore, meeting the indicated requirements of Buena Vista
will require some 33cfs of installed well capacity, which, based
on existing well production in the area, will require install-
ation of approximately six wells.
Enclosed for your reference is a map depicting the 2,800
acre spreading area, spring 1979 depths to groundwater and
Cit~ of Bakersfield Water Board
Page 3 May 1, 1980
locations of water wells on lands adjacent to the spreading area.
Shaded in blue is the general area in which we propose to con-
struct wells, and appurtenant facilities for connection to the
Kern River Canal assuming the Buena Vista exchange is success-
fully negotiated.
At your April 3, 1978, meeting, your consulting water
attorney, Stanley C. Hatch, stated that further transfer of
water rights is a prerequisite to any future exchange agreement
with the Buena Vista Water Storage District. Recognizing that
design and construction of recovery facilities will ultimately
depend upon the method of transporting water to Olcese, we
propose that actual construction of facilities be delayed
until the method of transportation has been established.
,Your Board has indicated a desire that all aspects of the
water supply program for the Rio Bravo Annexation be concluded
at the earliest date possible. With this objective in mind, we
request that you now consider participating in all further nego-
tiations with Buena Vista Water Storage District. It is our
understanding that Buena Vista is now in a position to meet
with the City and ourselves to discuss the exchange and Buena
Vista's participation in the spreading and recovery program.
This letter was considered and approved by minute order
by the Olcese Water District Board of Directors at its
April 28, 1980, adjourned regular meeting. Should you have
any questions or comments, the Board has authorized me to
respond. ~
Owen F. Goodman v Secretary
Olcese Water District
OFG/pr
.. OLCESE WATER DISTRICT
'- 1415-: 18{h Street, Room 302
· Bakersfield, California 93301 t~./'~.¥ ~ ~980
805/325-9031
C.~TY ~:~ANAGEE'$ O~F,~CE
May l, 1980
City of Bakersfield Water Board ....
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Gentlemen:
This letter is in response to your request of April 3,
1980, that Olcese Water District (Olcese) respond in detail
to Mr. Hatch's letter to Mr. Nickel dated October31, 1979,
within 30 days from April 3, 1980.
We understand that you request response from Olcese
to item 2 of said letter which reads as follows:
"In our July 17, 1979, letter we requested
you to consider having the Olcese district modify
Agreement No. 77-07-WB as follows:
'a. To limit its effect to water used within
the boundaries of~the City of Bakersfield. We
would propose to provide for Olcese water spread for
use outside the City boundaries in a separate arrange-
ment, which would also involve other entities similarly
situated;
'b. To amend to provide for a spreading fee of
$3.00 per acre foot rather than the extraction charge
and
'c. To delete the City's first priority use of
any well which you construct and to permit the City
to use only unused capacity in that well, in which
event it would pay its proportionate share of oper-
ation, maintenance and power costs.'"
'City'of Bakersfield Water Board
Page 2 May 1, 1980
Response to..~tem a
Agreement No. 77-07 W.B. relates only to the sPreading
of Kern River water. The Kern River water right which
Olcese will acquire is a lower river water right which
generates water only in years of high flow, approximately
one year out of four. Such a water right can be used as a
source for a dependable domestic supply from Olcese only
through-use of storage facilities. The other entities which
Mr. Hatch proposes be permitted to use the City's spreading '
area have first and second point rights which generate water
.each year regardless of the total flow of the river.
When Olcese spreads water, such water will be spread
only for use within Olcese. It is only after water has
been,spread and has been found to be surplus to the .present
and future requirements of Olcese that such water will be-
come available for USe outside district boundaries.
Olcese cann°t Surrender its-priority .position for a
parity position with respect to the other districts and
· agencies listed in Mr. Hatch's "Spreading and Extraction
Program Conceptual Outline" inasmuch as O!cese's spreading
operations must necessarily be more infrequent than the
operations which can be taken by such other entities and
Olcese's right to spread is essential to its provision of
an~adequate ~water supply for Olcese as it now exists and
for the area proposed for annexation.
~es~ons'e tp Item b
Even prior to the adoption of ArtiCle XIII A of the
State Constitution, Olcese by reason of the provisions of
Chapter 3 of Part 4 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code (commencing with Section 2201) had no effective power to
levy ad valorem taxes for general district purposes. The
only sources of revenue available to Olcese are tolls and
charges which may be levied for water service. While certain
standby charges may be levied, whether or'not water is actually
used, the principal source of revenue to Olcese is and will in
the future be a toll or charge for water delivered. A spreading
fee must be paid in advance. An extraction charge is paid when
water is removed from storage for actual use at which time
Olcese would have revenue available to pay the extraction charge.
Additionally, the proposal to substitute a spreading fee
for the presently provided for extraction charge with, we
presume, elimination of the credit feature of Article IV of
~ .'City' of Bakersfield Water Board
· Page 3 May 1, 1980
Agreement 77-07 W.B. will impair the ability of Olcese to
finance its obligations under said agreement. It is contem-
plated that Olcese will convert the credits provided in said
Article IV to cash for repayment of funds advanced by La
Hacienda to enable Olcese to meet its obligations under said
agreement. This financing procedure is set forth in Section
11 of the contract proposal discussed April 21.
In.the absence of Olcese's ability to generate a cash flow
which could accomodate payment of a spreading fee and financing
of its obligations under Agreement 77-07 W.B. it must take the
position that it cannot agree to the substitution of a spreading
fee for the presently contemplated ext'raction charge.
Response to Item c
'Olcese Water District cannot at this time respond'fully
to item c.
Following the April 3, 1980, meeting of the Water Board,
an all day meeting was held in San Francisco on April 21 in
the offices of Tom Stetson at which representatives of La
Hacienda, Inc., representatives of the City and a representative
of Olcese Water District were present. The principal item of
discussion at said meeting was a proposed contract to implement~
further and more complete transfer of Kern River water rights
to Olcese. We believe considerable progress was made. La
Hacienda, Inc., has expressed and demonstrated willingness to
cooperate.
Transfer of such rights to Olcese without continued pro-
vision for use by Olcese of the existing storage rights in
the City's spreading area under the provisions of Agreement
77-07 W.B. will not provide a firm supply of water to the
district.. The district's only feasible means of utilizing
storage in the spreading area is through an exchange agree-
ment with Buena Vista Water Storage District or some other
entity to which water may be physically transported from the
spreading area. An exchange agreement is presently being
negotiated with Buena Vista Water Storage District. Until the
terms of such an agreement are settled and until the obliga-
tions and rights of Olcese to 'and from La Hacienda, Inc., are
definately determined, it is difficult , if not impossible, for
Olcese to make any commitment which would change the nature
of the existing rights of Olcese to the use of facilities in
the spreading area.
.The foregoing is as complete a response as can be given
to your letter of October 31, 1979, until.the full rights of
'Cit~ of Bakersfield Water Board
Page 4 May 1, 1980
Olcese with respect %o river water and to exchanges of stored
river water for river water to. be delivered directly to the
district have been fully determined. The City'will, of course,
exercise a voice in determining the final nature of those rights.
This letter was considered and approved by minute order
at an adjourned regular Olcese Water District board meeting of
April 28, 1980. It is our understanding that further negoti-
ations for transf'er of the lower river rights to Olcese Water
District will take place May 1, 1980. Considering the progress'
made 'at the April 21, 1980, meeting, we are hopeful that the
necessary agreements for further and more complete transfer of
water rights will be negotiated within the 60 days set forth
by your board.
,The Olcese Water District Board of Directors has instructed
me to be available should you have any questions or comments
concerning the contents of this letter.
Very truly yours,
and Attorney for Olcese Water
District
?
OFG/pr
MAY 30, 1980
SU BJ ECT ...... --A-~R..E-L~!.E.~.~{-T---°~`-Z~-~c-:~.-!`--L-~-~--R--.N.~---A---jd~-.~.E--R..-~-~[t~-!~-~---~.~-~.~ j~__.~_~.~._.~.___~___JJ___~.~. ......
ASHE WATER
The Ashe Water System has been operated a~d maintained by
the California Water Service [:ompany for the City of Bakersfield
since the system was acquired from 'Tenneco in December of ]976.
This agreement will renew this contract for another ~hree
(3) years, The only major change in the original agreement
occured in the Management Fee .(paragraph 3, page 3). The fee
will be based on 2.25% of the gross revenues generated by the
domestic water sales, rather than ]/2 of !% of the gross capital
plant. This Change will simplify the accounting p.rocedure§' and
provide a more equitable base for the fee,
Staff has negotiated this agreement with CalifOrnia Wbter
Service Company and the City Water Board has approved this ag,ree-
ment and recommends it to the Counc i for the Mayor's execution.
JHH:ag ~
.A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEmeNT, dated , 1980,
by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a California municipal
corporation ("City"), and CALIFO~I~ ~;ATER SERVICE CO~ANY, a
California public utility water corporation ("Company"),
W I T N E S S E T H:
~{EREAS, Company furnishes public utility water
service throughout the State of California, including service
to customers in the City of Bakersfield and surrounding
unincorporated areas; and
WHEREAS, City owns a domestic water enterprise whose
facilities furnish service to approximately 6,300 customers in
an area in the County of Kern contiguous to the west to
Company's Bakersfield district as more particularly shown on ~
the service area map attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, City desires that Company, on City's behalf
and as agent for City, continue to operate the facilities now
so operated by Company within the Bakersfield Municipal Water
System, Ashe Division (said facilities being hereinafter referred
to as the "System"), and Company is willing to continue such
operation not as a public utility service but as agent~ for City
and under the supervision of City, all in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement hereinafter set forth:
NOW, 'THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as
follows:,
1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for
three years commencing Jan. uary 1, 1980, providedt however, that
such term shall be renewed for successive periods of one year
each unless either party hereto shall notify the other on or
before JulY 1, 1982, or on any July 1 thereafter, of its
election to terminate this Agreement on the next succeeding
December 31. In the event of such notice, this Agreement shall
terminate on such next succeeding December 31.
2. Operation of System. During the term hereof
Company agrees, on City's behalf and as agent for and under the
supervision of City, to operate the ~System and to do all acts
reasonably necessary to furnish domestic water service to cus-
tomers within the area 'shown on Exhibit A hereto. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing and subject to the
provisions of this Agreement, Company agrees to continue the
daily operation of the System, to perform maintenance and
repairs thereon as needed from time to time, to render monthly
bills on behalf of City to all customers receiving water from
the System, to use reasonable efforts to collect all such bills
on behalf of City, to pay all "O & M Expenses", hereinafter
defined, to compute the amounts of refunds on behalf of City
where City is obligated to make refunds under extension agree-
ments heretofore or hereafter entered into by City relating to
the System, and in general to do such acts and perform such services
as would City if'it were operating the System. In this connection,
Company agrees to operate and maintain the System in a manner
similar to that in which it operates its Bakersfield district,
subject, however, in all respects to the provisions of this
Agreement.
3. Management Fee. In consideration of the services
to be performed by Company as City's agent in operating the
System~ and as Company's sole fee for perforraing such services,
City agrees to pay to Company each year during the term of this
Agreement an amount equal to 2 1/4% of the gross revenues
billed by company for service rendered and water delivered
during such year. City agrees that it will pay such amount
to Company by paying to Company on or before the fifteenth
day of each month during the term of this Agreement an amount
equal to 1/12 of 2 1/4% of the estimated gross revenues to
be billed by Company for service to-be rendered and water to
be delivered to customers served by.the System during the then
current calerdar year. Company estimates such gross revenues
for the calendar year 1980 to be $1,306,667. On or before
December 15 of each year during the term of this Agreement,
Company shall notify city in writing of its estimate, subject
to City's approval, of such gross revenues for the calendar
year next following. Within 90 days after the end of each
such calendar year, Company shall account to City for the actual
3.
revenues so billed by Company during the preceding calendar
year. If the aggregate of such management fees paid by City
to Company applicable to any such ca'lendar year shall exceed
or be less than'the aggregate of such management fees owing
by City to Company based on such accounting by Company, Company
shall remit the excess to City with such accounting or City
within 30 days after receipt of such accounting shall pay the
difference to Company, as the case may be.
4. Transmitting Revenues. Company shall'transmit on
each business day to such depositary as City may designate all
monies collected by or otherwise paid 'to Company for service
'rendered and water delivered under and during the term of this
Agreement. Clty shall promptly inform Company of the amounts
and sources of all monies collected by or paid to City on
account of service rendered to customers of the System during
the term of this Agreement.
5. Payment of Expenses.
(a) Company shall upon receipt send to City
all bills for (i) real property taxes and assessments, if any,
levied or assessed against the system or any part thereof,
.............. (ii.) franchise and business taxes, if any, imposed upon or
measured by revenues from the System, (iii) electric power
charges incurred in operating the System, (iv) pump taxes
levied upon extraction of water from wells serving the System,
and (v) water purchased for delivery to the System.
(b) Company, in accordance with the following
provisions of this subparagraph 5(b), shall be entitled to
reimbursement for all expenses, other than those set forth in
the preceding subparagraph 5(a), incurred by Company in
operating and maintaining the System ("O & M Expenses"). Within
30 days after the commencement of each calendar year during
the term hereof, Company shall furnish City with an estimate
of the operation and maintenance expenses for that year on
a per metered customer basis in Company's Bakersfield district,
including in such estimate for such purposes the estimate of
operation and maintenance expenses of the Sysfem, the estimated
average number of metered customers to be served by the System
during such year, and a proration of Company's San Jose General
Office expenses in accordance with Company's accounting procedures
authorized by the Public Utilities Commission. In order to
aid Company ~n estimating such O & M Expenses, City shall furnish
Company on or before December 15 of each year during the term
hereof, the dollar amount as of the'preceding June 30 of the
gross utility plant of the System, including all ~lant installed
under extension agreements. City shall reimburse Company for
O & M Expenses on or before the fifteenth day of each month
during the term hereof in an amount equal to one-twelfth of
the aggregate amount of such estimate (the number of System
metered customers used in such estimate multiplied by the
estimated operat%on and maintenance expenses per metered customer)
until Company shall furnish City with a new estimate for 0 & M
Expenses pursuant to the provisions of the second sentence
of this subparagraph 5(b), at which time City's monthly payment
shall equal one-twelfth of the aggregate amount of such new
estimate. Within 90 days after the end of each such calendar
year, Company shall, account to City for the actual 0 & M Expenses
based on the average number of customers served by the System
during such year. There shall be excluded from the estimate
of or accounting for such O & M Expenses: all expenses set
forth ih subparagraph 5(a) hereof, as well as any allowance for
depreciation on the System and any income tax payable by the
Company.
(c) If the aggregate of such O & M Expenses
shall exceed the total of such monthly reimbursements from City
to Company, City within 30 days after receipt of such accounting
shall pay such excess to Company; if the aggregate of such
expenses shall be less than such mon'thly reimbursements, Company
shall remit the difference to.City with such accounting.
(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of
this paragraph 5, if Company shall determine that the estimated
cost of any required work of repair or maintenance will be
$2,000 or more in the case of main leaks or $1,000 or more in
the case of any other such work ("Extraordinary Maintenance"), it
shall notify City thereof in writing. Company shall not
accomplish such Extraordinary Maintenance unless it shall be
directed to do so.by City by written purchase order or other
appropriate written instrument. Upon receipt of such purchase
order or other instrument, Company will cause such work to be
accomplished in accordance with plans and specifications
theretofore furnished to City by Company and, upon completion,
will bill City for the actual total installed cost of such
work. Nothing herein contained shall, however, be deemed to limit
~ity's right to cause such Extraordinary Maintenance to be
accomplished by a person other than Company, in which event
Company shall bill City for Company's direct charges (including
inspection and connection charges) and construction overhead
charges at the rate of 8% of the amount billed to City as the
total cost of such Extraordinary Maintenance item. City agrees to
pay Company'any amount so billed to City pursuant to the provisions
of this paragraph 5(d) within 30 days after receipt of such
bill. Upon completion of such work, the Company shall have the
sole responsibility for making any required connection to the
System. The provisions of this paragraph 5(d) shall in no way
be deemed to limit Company's right to accomplish any Extraordinary
Maintenance of an emergency nature in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 7(g) hereof.
6. Rates. During the term hereof City shall establish
and maintain such rate schedules applicable to the area shown on
Exhibit A hereto as City shall deem appropriate from time to time.
Except for private fire protection rate schedules, City agrees
that all rate schedules applicable to service rendered by the
System shall be metered.
7. Additions and Improvements.
(a) During the term hereof Company will make
available to City the services of its Chief Engineer ("Engineer").
City, in consultation with Engineer, has caused to be prepared
a master plan of the Bakersfield Water System - Ashe Division,
by Stetson Engineers, Inc. The parties agree that said
document shall provide th~ basic plan of construction for the
System. Engineer, in consultation and cooperation with City's
staff, will review operating records and statistics of the System
and submit tO City prior to January 31 of each year during the
term hereof an itemized schedule of capital additions and improve-
ments to the System proposed for construction during the following
fiscal year. In preparing such proposed budget, Engineer and
City's staff shall attempt to determine (i) where growth in
customers to be served by the System may be expected and (ii) such
other factors as m~y affect the nature, location and amount of such
additions and improvements. Whenever practicable, such budget
shall specify the .approximate location and contain a preliminary
estimate of the cost of each item therein. If, in the judgment
of Engineer and City's staff, it is more important to the operation
of the System that certain'items on the budget be installed prior
to certain other items, Engineer shall so indicate such relative
priorities. In preparing such budget, Engineer and City's staff
shall bear in mind the goal of providing adequate service to all
customers of the System.
(b) The budget so submitted.shall, after final
review and approval by City's staff be presented to City's ~ater
Board which may recommend such amendments thereto or revisions
thereo~ as it deems appropriate in the exercise of its
judgment. After approval by the Water Board, the budget shall
then be submitted to the City Council of City in the manner
required by law for adoption and notification. The budget
finally approved by the ~ouncil shall be the Approved Budget
for the particular year in question. City shall notify Company
of'the Approved Budget. Company will then proceed with the
construction of capital items on the Approved Budget in
accordance with the procedures hereinafter set f~rth in this
paragraph 7.
(c) Company will proceed promptly to arrange for
installation of all items estimated to cost less than $2,500
contained in the Approved Budget. Upon request by City, Company
will prepare a work order for acceptance by City covering each
item and, following acceptance, proceed with the %;ork of
installation, including the preparation of plans.and specifications
as required. Upon completion of'installation, which' need not
require competitive bid procedures, Company shall bill City for
the actual total installed cost of such work~ includJ, ng Company's
construction overhead charges (computed at the'rate of 8% ~of
the total installed cost of such work), and City agrees to pay
Company the amount so billed within 30 days thereafter.
(d) All items on the Approved Budget whose
estimated reasonable total installed cost shall exceed $2,500
shall be designated "Major Items". Major Items shall be _
constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared
in the manner specified~in this paragraph 7; construction shall
be completed by contractors selected by City pursuant to City's
applicable competitive bidding procedures. To the extent feasible~
all construction work on Major Items shall be completed within a
reasonable time following delivery of such plans and specifications
to City unless City by appropriate action shall instruct its
Water Board to reject such plans and specifications° Engineer
shall prepare plans and specifications for all Major Items
consisting of main installations'in easements.or dedicated
streets and highways. Company shall bill City for Company's
overhead charges computed at the rate of 8% of the total estimated
cost of said main installation within 30 days~of the awarding of
10.
a contract for such main installation and City agrees to pay
Company the amount so billed within 30 days thereafter.
(e) All Major Items other than main installations
in easements or dedicated streets and highways shall be constructed
as follows: City or Company and City shall retain the services
of an independent consulting engineer to prepare plans and
specifications to meet City's bid procedure requirements for such
Major Items. Engineer, with the consultation of City's staff
including representatives from its legal, fire and public works
departments, will supervise the preparation of and approve such
plans.and specifications. Company, within 30 days of the awarding
of a contract for each such Major-Item, shall bill City 3% of the
estimated total installed cost of each such Major Item for the
work of supervising preparation of such plans and specifications;
City agrees to pay Company the amount so billed within 30 days
thereafter'. Expenses of outside consulting engineers so retained
by City or Company and City shall be paid directly by City
without other addition.
(f) Company shall furnish qualified inspectors
at the site of all construction work on Major Items. Such
inspectors may be Company employees, consulting engineer
employees or such other qualified inspectors as may be required.
City'agrees to pay the expenses of such qualified inspectors
directly as a separate item, including all wages and overhead
benefits, transportation and out-of-pocket expenses.
11.
(g) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of
paragraph 5(d) hereof or of this paragraph 7, in the event of
an emergency involving any part of the System which in Company's
judgment threatens the public health or safety, and if in the
Company's judgment immediate action is required, Company shall
have the right to perform, or cause to be performed, any work on
the-System (whether repairs, maintenance or capital additions)
regardless of the estimated cost thereof, free from any provision
of said paragraph 5(d) or from any requirement that the contract
therefor be let by competitive bid. Company shall notify City
as-soon as possible as to the work done and proposed to be done
as a result of such emergency threatening the public health
and safety and of Company's estimate of the cost thereof.
Company shall bill City for the actual total installed cost
of such work, including Company's construction overhead charges
computed aG the rate of 8% of the total cost of such work.
City agrees to pay Company the amount so billed within 30 days
after billing.
(h) City shall have access to Company's books
and records applicable to the System during normal business hours
throughout the term of this Agreement and, in this connection,
may require the production from Company's records of such state-
ments, invoices and other documents as may be reasonably necessary
to support any charge or bill submitted by Company pursuant to
the provisions of,this Agreement.
12.
8. Extension Contracts.
'(a) Ail extensions of the System to furnish
service to individuals or subdivisions shall be made pursuant
to contract between City and the individual customer or
developer, as the case may be. The form of such contract shall
be as approved by City from time to time. City shall provide
in each such contract for the payment to Company of Company's
direct charges and overhead charges in consideration for the
work to be performed by Company in connection with such contract.
Company shall not be obligated to install any such extension,
but shall prepare and furnish to the individual customer or
developer, as the case may be, and to City the plans and
specifications therefor, and the estimated total installed cost
thereof. In consideration therefor City agrees to pay Company
at the time of delivery by Company of such plans and ~
specifications to such individual customer or developer, an
amount for Company's overhead charges computed at the rate of
8% of such estimated total installed cost of such extension.
(b) In the event Company and City shall agree
in writing to permit a developer to prepare plans for a main
extension in accordance with City's specifications and to
prepare cost estimates of such extension,~ Engineer shall (i) review
and supervise the preparation of such plans and the application
thereto of City's specifications, and, when appropriate, approve
such plans, (ii) review and, when appropriate, approve the estimate
~13.
of the cost of ~uch main extension prepared by such developer in
order to determine the fairness of said estimate in evaluating
the maximum refund liability of City for such main extension, and
(iii) supervise the installation thereof. In consideration
therefor City agrees to pay Company, upon approval by Engineer
of such plans and such cost estimate, an amount for Company's
overhead charges at the rate of 4% of the cost estimate for
such extension so approved by Engineer.
(c) In addition to the responsibilities set forth'
in the preceding subparagraphs 8(a) and (b), Company shall also
be'responsible for the inspection of all work performed under each
such contract 'and for connecting the facilities installed
thereunder to the System. In consideration therefor City agrees
to pay Company within 30 days after billing by Company therefqr
all. Company's actual costs in connection therewith, including
overhead benefits, transportation and out-of-pocket expenses.
(d) Upon completion of construction, Company
shall furnish City a statement of ~he actual total installed cost
of each such extension.
(e) City shall furnish Company with a copy of
each extension contract relating to the System executed by City
subsequent to t~e date hereof. Company shall compute the
refunds due thereunder from time to time and notify City thereof.
City shall be responsible for payment of such refunds to the
persons entitled thereto.
14.
9. Insurance. DUring the term of this Agreement,
Company shall cause City to be included as a named insured in
Company's policy of comprehensive liability insurance maintained
by Company from time to time covering the System and CompanY's
operation thereof. Company shall deliver to City a certificate
or duplicate copy of each such policy. In the event any claim
is made which is covered by such policy, Company shall be respon-
sible for payment or satisfaction of such claim up to, but not
exceeding, the so-called deductible portion of such policy.
10. Disputed Bills. If City shall dispute or queStion
any portion of any bill or statement submitted to it by Company
or any amount purportedly, owing by it to Company hereunder, it
shall promptly notify Company of the amount thereof so disputed
or questioned, which amount City shall not be obligated to pay ~
until such dispute or question shall be finally resolved. ~
However, City agrees in each such instance to pay Company, when
due, the portion of such bill, statement or amount not so
disputed or questioned.
11. Payment of Bills. City agrees to take all necessary
steps procedurally so that payments due from it to Company pursuant
to the provisions of this Agreement will be made on or before the
applicable day specified herein.
12. Agreement Conforms to Charter. City represents
and warrants to company that this Agreement and the provisions
15.
hereof conform to City's Charter as currently in effect. If any
subsequent amendment to or revision of said Charter shall in any
way affect this Agreement or ~e validity of any provision
hereof, City agrees to give prompt notice thereof to Company.
In such event the parties hereto agree to make such amendments to
or .revisions of this Agreement as they may deem necessary or
appropriate under the circumstances.
13. Title. Company shall have no title to, or owner-
ship interest in, the System or any part thereof.
14. Notices. Any notice which it is herein
pro'vided may or shall be given by either party to the other
shall be deemed to have been duly given when deposited in the
United States mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid,
and addressed to the party to whom such notice is given at the~
following respective address:
To City: City Hall~
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, Ca 93301
To Company: P.O. Box 1150
San Jose, Ca 95108
15. Paragraph Headings. Paragraph headings in this
Agreement are for convenience only and are not a part of this
Agreement and do not in any way limit or amplify the terms and
provisions of this Agreement.
16. Nature of Service. It is specifically recognized
and intended by the parties hereto that in performing its
obligations under this Agreement company shall not offer or
perforTM any public utility service but shall act solely as
agent for City. Company specifically does not dedicate itself
to render a public utility water service to customers within the
area shown on Exhibit A hereto, but rather agrees to furnish
a nonutility service therein in accordance with the provisions
of this Agreement.
IN ~;ITNESS WHEREOF, the parties thereto have executed
this Agreement dated as aforesaid.
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
By
Director-Fire and Development Mayor ~
Services
APPROVED AS TO FO~4: By
City Clerk
City At~Urney J CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO~.~ANY
COUNTERSIGNED: ~y ~~~ ~~
...................... ~~sident .
Assistant City Manager-Finance
' "'- '" ~" ASiIE DIVISIO"',,; "
12 - 1,1.- 79
GER. SERVICE AREA ~."t A P
I I 23 24 ' 19 2°- ' . ' 21 '22' 23
4, 26 ~0! 25 ~ ' 30 I 29 28 / ::'? I 26
I
I
II 12 II
'~:~' FRASER .... [ ,-
.!
Z
b...i ,4 ~ ,3
.... .~ ~c.~.
24 19 20 21 23
............ 'PANAMA LANE __
25 ~ :50 ~: 29 28 27 26
Mc CUTCHEN RO,b,D ]
33 ' 34 35
ISSUED BY
................................. ' WATER BOARD
DATE · ·
'~ OF THE CITY OF EFFECTIVE I - 30 - 80
' EX=rIf EiT ' S & "
, RESOLUTION NO. 80-I WR_
BAKERSFIELD