Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/80 AGENDA WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1980 4: 00 P .M. Call meeting to order ~ t~on p~ ~ ~ Roll Call - Board Members: ~ , Chairman; , Ratty, B Ho ag la~/ 1./Approve minutes of the regular meeting of Wednesday, May 7, 1980, and the recessed meeting of Thursday, May 8, 1980.~.~~/' 2/Scheduled Public Statements 3. / 81 Domestic Water Enterprise Operating and ~ ToCapitalCouNcILOUtlay .... Program.4 ~7~- M_.OTION6Doj~'TO A~PROVE BUDGET ~D 7UBMIT /5. Board Co~entsd~ /'~ Ad' ur /~. Adjou nment ~.,~ WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY,MAY 7, 1980 4:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Barton in the City Hall Caucus Room. The secretary called the roll as follows: Present: Barton, Payne, Bergen, Hoagland Absent: Ratty Staff Present: Chafin, Hansen, Hostmyer Others Present: Tom Clark, La Macienda, Inc. Gail Schontzler, The Bakersfield Californian The minutes from the meeting of April 16, 1980, were approved as presented. A letter from the Water Board to all City Contractors Boards requesting advance notice of all meetings and agendas therefor, also, copies of minutes of all meetings was presented to the board. Mr. Payne made a motion that the letter be approved and the Chairman authorized to sign. The motion was passed. omestic Water Su e/rintendent John Hanson l~formed the board t he had_r~_~r~ly attended the American Water Works Asso- ciation Seminar in Los Angeles. There being no further business to come before the board, Chairman Barton recessed the meeting to be reconvened Thursday, May 8, 1980, at 8:30 A.M. in the City Hall Caucus Room when City consultants will be able to attend. James J. Barton, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Linda Hostmyer, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board MINUTES WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1980 8:30 A.M. The regular meeting of the City of Bakersfield Water Board of May 7, 1980, was recessed to be reconvened at this time. Chair- man Barton called the meeting to order Thursday, May 8, 1980, at 8:30 A.M. The secretary called the roll as follows: Present: Barton, Payne, Ratty, Bergen, Hoagland Absent: None Staff Present: Bogart, Chafin, Hatch, Ho~tmyer, Needham Others Present: Bob Bellue, Kern County Water Agency Scott Brooke, La Hacienda, Inc. Tom Clark, La Hacienda, Inc. Dean Gay, Nickel Enterprises George Nickel, Nickel Enterprises At this time .Water Manager Chafin recommended that the City of Bakersfield contribute $1,000.00 for participation in the pro- posed study for enchancement and optimization of Kern water supplies. Mr. Ratty made a motion that the contribution of $1,000.00 be made. The motion was passed. The contract between the Water District Advisory Committee of Kern County and The Associated Engineering Consultants was presented to the board. Mr. Hoagland made a motion that the contract be submitted to the City Council for approval on the recommendation of the Water Board. The motion was passed.- Letter from Thomas M. Stetson dated April 28, 1980, regarding possible water exchanges by City of Bakersfield's Kern River Contractors was presented to the board. Mr. Hatch at this time outlined the aspects of these exchanges in detail. After discussion between staff and board Mr. Hoagland made a motion that Mr. Hatch and Mr. Stetson draft a letter setting forth the boards position on this matter and bring back to the board, at this time the letter was received and placed on file. The motion was passed. At this time a License And ~ndemnification Agreement drafted by Mr. Hatch regarding the use of the City of Bakersfield water spreading properties by other entities was presented to the board. Mr. Hatch explained that this agreement would be used as a master plan to be used when this issue arises. Mr. Hoagland made a motion that the agreement be adopted and the Water Manager be authorized to enter into these agreements as appropriate. The motion was passed. Letter from Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District dated April 21, 1980, regarding conjuctive use within City's 2800 acre spreading basin was presented to the board. Mr. Hatch stated that Rosedale-Rio Bravo has some concern about the arrangements with Olcese. The City met with Rosedale-Rio Bravo about six months ago to explain all of the contracts involved. Mr. Hatch recommended that the letter be received! ~ and filed and at the appropriate time a meeting be organized I . with the staff and the Rosedale-Rio Bravo staff to communicate: the results of the Olcese negotiations. Mr. Hoagland made a ~ motion that the letter 5'~received and filed. The motion was passed. Letter from Henry C. Garnett dated April 10, 1980, regarding Kern County Water Agency construction of percolation ponds on City of Bakersfield properties Was presented to the board. Mr. Hoagland made a motion that the letter from Mr. Garnett be received and filed. The motion was passed. Staff Comments Water Manager Chafin presented two (2) letters to the board from Olcese Water District both dated May 1, 1980. Consulting Attorney Stanley C. Hatch at this time addressed the board regarding the letters for Olcese Water District. He stated the first letter was in response to the City's request of April 3, 1980, that Olcese Water District respond in detail to Mr. Hatch's letter. to Mr. Nickel dated October 31, 1979, within thirty (30) days from April 3, 1980. Mr. Hatch stated that the first letter related to the City's request to the Olcese District to consider modifications of 77-07 W.B.~ The primary point that was raised at that time by the City was the possibility of limiting that contract to spreading of water for use within the City and then to have Olcese join with other water users in a master spreading plan for water which might be used outside the City. As it turns out Olcese is making the point that given the arrangements which are being negotiated between the Olcese District and the lower river interests, Mr. Nickel, that its virtually impossible to be able to tell when Olcese spreads water whether or not it is Olcese water for use within the City or whether it is execess Olcese water which may be optioned for use outside the City. As a consequence the proposed limita- tion which we have on spreading conceptually becomes almost physically impossible to enforce given the way this is now being constructed. Mr. Hatch thinks Olcese's point is well taken as long as their agreement is going to b~ structured this way and the City will have to re-review that aspect of it after the Olcese lower river arrangements have been made. The second point had to do with the possibility of applying a spreading charge instead of an extraction charge. Olcese's problem in that regard is that since Proposition 13 they have no funds to be able to pay a spreading charge. What they need to be able to pay is an extraction charge which comes at the same time they are able to market the water and receive money for it. This is a cash flow problem and an understandable one, although it is possible to charge rates which would allow Olcese to create a sinking funds to be able to pay as they spread. This is a problem that the City can take into consideration. What Olcese is saying, in effect, is that they would rather not change the contract for the reasons stated at this time pending the further resolution of the other problems that we have had relating to the Olcese lower river issues. Upon Mr. Hatch's recommendation Mr. Bergen made a motion that the letter from Olcese be received and placed on file. The motion was passed. The second letter is a response which the City requested having to do with compliance with Agreement Number 77-07 W.B. relating to the submission of a schedule of improvements for spreading and recovering water. The letter basically sets forth what has been done up to this time and delays coming up with any specifics having to do with future well construction until such time as an exchange agreement is worked out with Buena Vista Water Storage District. The terms of an exchange agreement will dictate the number of wells and where they are going to be located,Mr. Hatch has discussed this with Mr. Stetson and he concurs that this factor does create some uncertainty at this time. He thinks it might be worthwhile from the stand- point of the record if Mr. Bogart could clarify who has done what in regard to the spreading improvements listed on the first page of the Olcese letter. Mr. Bogart explained that the operation in 1978 as was started with a large rain/flood in early 1978 and the City got into the 2800 acres and started doing restoration work on some of the levees. Nickel Enterprises began work early in the spring -2- o~ 978 and the records we have show there was approximately three (3) pieces of equipment that was utilized to construct sand plugs, and reinforce levees. The total time involved was about three weeks with two bulldozers and one scrapper. We have not seen any formal financial statements, the total estimate would be that ~from $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 was spent at that time. Item number two (the joint City Olcese measurement of the Kern River flows) to the best of his recollection there were about three times when joint measurements could be made with Nickel personnel one with Mr. Clark and two with Mr. Teagarden. Item number three (the aerial photographs) Nickel Enterprises d~i. pa~i~i~ate with the City in May 1978 and October 1978. The cost of the photographs was approximately $600.00. Mr. Hatch stated that in the Olcese letter on page two (2) it reads, that "At the request of the City we have been negotiating for some time with Buena Vista Water Storage District for the exchange of Olcese Water," ect. There is something of a dis- pute between the City and Mr. Clark, as to whether or not the City did request that procedure regarding the Buena Vista Water Storage District exchange. The City's representatives are of: the view that had they indicated that such negotiations shouldl ~ be held up pending resolution of the water rights arrangement!.i ~ Mr. Hatch says the issue is now of little importance and.he points this out merely for Clarification of the record. ~Mr. Hatch stated that on his and Mr. Stetson's recommendation he' feels this letter should, also, be filed at this time and should be re-reviewed at that point when the Olcese/Lower River~ transfers are resolved and the Buena Vista exchange contract is brought before the board for approval. Mr. Bergen made a i motion that the letter be received and filed. The motion was passed. Mr. Hatch at this time brought the board up to date on the negotiations between Olcese the City and Mr. Nickel, regarding the lower river water rights. Two meetings have been held since the Water Board last met. Both were held in San Francisco on April 21 and again on May 1. Yet another meeting has been scheduled for May 29. He stated he had received excellent cooperation from all involved. Mr. Hatch stated they now have reviewed two drafts and are working on a third. Most of the issues appear to be resolved or resolvable. ~ Mr. Bergen made a motion that the board send a letter to obtain /information from the Kern County Water Agency regarding the ~$100,000.00 expended for percolation areas and, also, where ~he funds were obtained from. The motion was passed. At 9:30 A.M. Mr. Hoagland made a motion that the board recess to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing possible litigation. The motion was passed. The meeting was reconvened at 10:20 A.M. Mr. Hatch stated that there had been some discussion in Execu- tive Session regarding a potential letter to be sent to the Board of Directors of Kern Delta Water District and the North Kern Water Storage District relating to the restructuring of the First Point Committee in the hopes of providing an accept- able form to avoid potential litigation. Mr. Payne made a motion to send such a letter to the two boards. The motion was passed. Mr. Hoagland made a motion that if the negotiations between North Kern Water Storage District, Kern Delta Water District and the City regarding First Point relationships and, in particular, the resolution of the issues raised by the Kern Delta Water District's 1979 Improvement Project Implementation Plan, do not bear fruit and litigation is imminent, that the City of Bakersfield join in whatever action or litigation -3- may'be necessary either as plantiff or intervenor to protect the City's water rights. The motion was passed. Mr. Nickel stated at this time he appreciated the cooperation he has received from all those involved regarding the Olcese/ Lower River Rights negotiations. There being no further business to come before the board, Chair- man Barton adjourned the meeting at 10:25 A.M. James J. Barton, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Linda Hostmyer, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ITEMS FOR AGENDA Agenda Section NEW BUSINESS Requesting Department DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE Date for WaTer Board Action MAY 7, 1980 .." 1. Description of Item: AOOPTION OF 1980-81 DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE OPERA- TING AND CAPITAL OUTLAY PROGRAM. 2. Comments: 3. Suggested Action: MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AND SUBMIT TO COUNCIL. ~. Attachments: · i~rector of~F Services NOTE: Items for Water Board Agenda are to be submitted prior .o 10 a.m. Friday for the Wednesday meeting of the following week. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DOMESTIC WATER'ENTERPRISE ESTIMATED REVENUES AND EXPENSES BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 1980-81 Est. Actual Proposed FY 1979-80 FY 1980-81 REVENUES: Domestic Water Sales $1,233,4OO $1,406,1OO Construction Water' Sales 44,600 50,800 Interest Income 63,100 53,600 Total Revenues $1,341,100 $1,510,500 OPERATING EXPENSES: Field Expenses: O & M Charges from Cai-Water $ 282,400 $ 375,000 Power for Pumping 133,500 200,300 bther Maintenance 70,000 84,000 $ 485,900 659,300 Administrative Expenses: Salaries and Fringe Benefits $ 35,600 $ 78,300 Charges from Other City Depts. 50,500 49,400 Management fee from Cai-Water 23,100 32,800 Consultant Charges (Engineer, ~ Attorney, etc.) 34,800 41,8OO Insura'nce Expenses 17,800 17,8OO Property and Pumping Taxes 125,1OO 142,200 Misc. General Expehses 8,000 25,0~_ $ 294,900 $ 387,300 Net Operating Income Before Depreciation $ 560,3~_~O $ 463~90~ Depreciation 114,0OO 141,O00 Net Operating Income $ 446,300 $ 322,900 NON-OPERATING EXPENSES: Mainline Extension Refunds $ 40,000 $ 50,000 Net Operating Income Before Capital Outlay Program $ 406,300 $ 272~9OO Transfer to Capital Improvement Budget 406,300 '_~72,9OO NET INCOME (LOSS) -0- -0- CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE PROPOSED CAPITAL OUTLAY PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 1980-81 AND 1981-82 Proposed Projected FY 1980-81 FY 1981-82 Source of Funds Capital Improvement Reserves $141,000 $172,000 Net Operating Income 272,900 249,000 Loan Repayment from Fairhaven Division -0- 40,000 Refund from Tenneco 120,000 -O- Totql Source of Funds $533,900 $461,000 Proposed Application of Funds Storage Site (Additional Funds to Complete) $195,000 Additional Well and Pumping Plant 90,000 $231,000 Additional Water Mains 154,200 135,000 Water Meters 70,000 95,000 Pumping Station Improvements 24,700 -O- Total Capitai Improvments $533-,90~ $461,O00 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE OPERATION SUMMARY Estimated. 12/22/76 Actual Actual Actual Proposed Projected 6/30/77 FY 1977-78 FY 1978-79 FY 1979-80 FY 1980-81 FY 1981-82 Revenues $170,838 $676,548 $1,098,519 $1,341,100 $1,510,500 $1,725,000 Operating and Non-Operating Expenses 303,355 663,346 692,321 820,800 1,096,600 !,304,000 Net Operating Income (Loss) Before Captial Outlay (129,772) 13,202 311,486 406,300 272,900 249,000 Depreciation 38,763 81,776 94,712 114,000 141,O00 !72,000 Total Active Accounts in system on June 30 * 3,831 4,580 5,128 6,400 8,000 9,200 Inspection Fees ** *City acquired system on December 22, 1976 with 3,368 total active accounts.