Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/80 AGENDA WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1980 4:00 P.M. Call meeting to o~deri / r/ge Roll Call - Board Members: Barton, C~airman, Payne, Ratty, Be n, Hoagland~ 1. Approve minutes of regular board meeting of June 25, 1980. 2. Scheduled Public Statements 3. Acquisition agreement with Tenneco Realty Development Corporation  - on an existing well and site within Ashe Water System. - BOARD TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO COU~CIL FOR EXECUTION. 4. Resolution of emergency declaration on well improvements for the development of the well acquired from Tenneco Real%y Development Corporation. - BOARD TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION AND MAKE RECOMMEND- ATION TO COUNCIL FOR ACTION. 5. Mainline Extension Agreements for various Tracts and Parcel Maps within Ashe Water System. - ACCEPTANCE OF EXECUTED AGREEMENTS. 6. Staff Comments 7. Board Comments 9. Adjournment MINUTES WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 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, Ratty, Bergen, Hoagland Absent: None Staff Present: Bogart, Chafin, Hansen, Hatch, Hostmyer, Needham Stetson Others Present: Scott Brooke, La Hacienda, Inc. Tom Clark, La Hacienda, Inc. Owen Goodman, Attorney Olcese Water District Ernie Kartinen, Boyle Engineering George Nickel, Nickel Enterprises Gayle Schontzler, the Bakersfield Californian The minutes from the regular meeting of May 28, 1980, were approved as presented. Correspondence a) Letter from Kern County Water Agency to James J. Barton dated June 7, 1980, re- garding 1980 GRP fund participants was presented to the board. Mr. Payne made a motion that the letter be received and filed. The motion was passed. b) Letter from Board of Directors of Kern- Tulare Water District to James J. Barton in response to the May 28, 1980, letter to Kern-Tulare regarding providing M & I water for oil company use on the west side of the valley was presented to the board. c) Letter from Board of Directors of Kern- Tulare Water District to James J. Barton in response to. the April 9, 1980, letter to Cawelo Water District regarding Kern Delta 1979 Systems Improvement Project was presented to the board. Mr. Bergen made a motion that letters (b) and (c) be ~aiYed and filed, and the staff get together with consultants and prepare an answer to these letters. The motion was passed. Water Manager Chafin presented to the board a Modification of Agreement No. 78-14 W.B. dated October 5, 1980', between the City of Bakersfield and Hatch and Parent, a professiona~ corpor- ation, for a rate increase to become effective July 1, 1980. After discussion between staff and board upon a motion by Mr. Hoagland, which was passed, the Agreement was approved and the Chairman authorized to sign. '~t this time Water Superintendent Bogart presented the following to the board for approval: a) Individual Grant Deed from Local Union No. 460 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry to ~City of Bakersfield. For all that portion of Lots 2 and 3 of Section 21, T.29S., R.27E., M.D.B. & M. After discussion Mr. Bergen made a motion that the board accept the Grant Deed. The motion was passed. b) Individual Quitclaim Deed from City of Bakersfield to Local Union No. 460 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry to City of Bakersfield. For all that portion of Lot 2 of Section 21,'~.29S., R. 27E., M.D.B.~& M. ~Mr.~Hoa~land made a~motion that the Quitclaim be executed. The motion was passed. c) Individual Quitclaim Deed from City of Bakersfield to Alcium B. Kaiser and Patricia L. Kaiser, husband and wife as community property, as to an undivided 1/2 interest; Kenneth L. Mettler and Dixie L. Mettler, husband and wife; as community property, as to an undivided 1/2 interest. For all that portion of Lot 3 in Section 21, T.29S., R.27E., M.D.B. & M. Mr. Ratty made~a motion that the Quitclaim be executed. The motion was passed. Staff Comments At this time Domestic Water Superintendent John Hansen addressed the board regarding the following items: a) He stated that due to recent transfers of the Domestic Water Enterprise from field develop- ment service to Public Works Department, we are requesting that Public Works be authorized to execute Mainline Extension Agreements for the board. After discussion Mr. Bergen made a motion that the Public Works Department be authorized to execute Mainline Extension Agreements. The motion was passed. b) Mr. Hansen stated that the staff and Boyle Engineer- in Corporation representatives have reviewed the comments, on the preliminary Design for the 2 million gallon storage system, by Tenneco, California Water Service Company, and S~etson Engineers, Inc. We feel~that the best alternate is the 100'X34' high welded steel reservoir, with natural gas engine driven well. Mr. Hansen illustrated for the board the location of the system. Mr. Bergen made a motion that the n~cessary Plans and Specifications to proceed with the pumping design be prepared. ~The motion was passed. c) For board information Mr. Hansen stated that in order to meet the increasing demands within the Ashe Water System the staff has been negotiating with Tenneco to acquire an abandoned agricultural well. This is located on the west ~side of Gosford Road 1/2 mile south of Ming Avenue. The cost of acquiring this well will be approximately $85,000.00, the 1980-81 budget~ has $90,000.00 for an additional well. -2- At this time Consulting Attorney Stanley C. Hatch outlined the current status of the negotitations between the Olcese Water District and representatives ofGeorge W. Nickel, Jr., regarding the transfer of Lower River water rights to the Olcese Water District. A fifth draft of a document entitled "Contract For Purchase And Sale Of Kern River Water And Storage Rights" dated July 24, 1980, along with a document entitled "Contract Among· Hacienda Water District, Olcese Water District, La Hacienda, Inc., George W. Nickel, Jr., and Adele R. Nickel Relating to Kern River Water And Storage Rights" was distributed to the board. As worded, the new contract ~identifies the certain "Hacienda Water Rights" owned, administered and represented by George W. Nickel, Jr., and Adele R. Nickel, his wife, and by La Hacienda, Inc. a California corporation, the majority of the stock of which is owned by Mr. Nickel and his wife. The persians and entities are referred to as "La Hacienda" in the contract. These Hacienda Water Rights are identified by reference to various contracts, chief among which is the 1962 "Kern River Water Rights Storage Agreement" which identified certain "Downstream Group" rights adminstered by the Hacienda Water District and the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District. The contract provides that the Hacienda Water Rights transferred are 100 percent of the "Down- stream Group's rights as described in the 1962 Agreement. Mr. Hatch at this time outlined the various sections of the Agreement for the board. It was recommended by Mr. Hatch and Mr. Stetson that the Water Board take action to urge Olcese and the La Hacienda interests to proceed to execute and implement these various contracts as now drafted. Mr. Hatch feels that from talking with Mr. Kronick and Mr. Goodman, that the governmental agencies involved will be proceeding with environmental analysis, the process of which should take approximately three months. Mr. Nickel addressed the board stating in reference to the desirability of proceeding with the Buena Vista Water Storage District on.the exchange that is so important in making water available to the Olcese Water District. Mr. Nickel spoke with the Buena Vista Water Storage District people this morning and he be~i~ves~ they are prepared to work out a reasonable exchange program that will satisfy everyone. Mr. Bergen made a motion at this time that the board send a letter to LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) suggesting a four-month extension with a copy of the letter to Olcese Water District. The motion was passed. At this time Mr. Hoagland made a motion that the La Hacienda interests and the Olcese District proceed to take whatever action is necessary to execute and implement these various contracts at the earliest possible date, looking for completion of execution of the contracts within a period of four-months. The motion was passed. At 5:00 P.M. the meeting was recessed to Executive Session for the purpose of discussing possible litigation. The meeting was reconvened at 5:19 P.M. There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 P.M. James J. Barton, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Linda Hostmyer, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board -3- MAINLINE EXTENSION AGREEMENTS TENNECO REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TENNECO CONTRACT TRACT REFUND NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER BY D.W.E. OF SERVICES 78-7 ~PM2162 $14,672 83 ~';.-~Casa Linda Inc .... ~'3827UnitC~/ Est. ~ 35,392.00 205 C a s a--~--L-t-~7~-a--ITrc~. ~. ~- 3827 Unit D / Est. ~ 32,760.00 60 ~asa Linda Inc.-~ ~3827 Unit E// Est. ~ 32,809.00 60 ~.~ 78-21 3898 54,218.66 90 78-22 ~ 3899 43,883.25 42 78-07 u/ 4050 61,720.96 56 D~. 79-1 ~- 4080 95,437.51 87 ~ 79-2 ~ 4081 84,618.34 103 ~79-3 ~ 4082 84,909.57 93 o~ 79-04 al 4083 90,689.54 21 /~79-!4 ~-~ 4140 61,368.43 47 ;~/,~,~.?.80-01 ~ 4141~ 16,935.10 37 ~?W. Watson Co.. 41~0 31,502.54 54 79-20 ~' 4t95 39,263.76 46 ~ 80-06 /4245/ 40,476.91 45 ~"~1 80-05 4251 62,373.86 23 -- .~!~ 79-12 Phase 1 PM4898 5,542.63 1 ~, -8-0~02 ~PM5197 / 22,742.62 2 ~"~-~' 60,020.76 3 ~.~., 80-03 ~/PM5700v/ TOTAL $1,109,560.26 CQNT)~ACT . OF ~ENNECO R~ALT¥~,~,..n¥~"z~'~.,,,_,~'"~"~:'~',;~,,,. CORPO~A]'LO~, a De].aw~re corporation, herein called "Seller," ,~grees to sell to the City of Bakersfield, a municipal corporation, herein called "Buyer,~ and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller the real property, herein called "said property," in the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California, to be more particularly described in an exhibit to b.~_ prepared and attached hereto as Exhibit A after completion of a survey (to be performed pursuant to Section 3.02 below), and roughly described as follows: Approximately 4/10 acres of land and al.]. fixtures and water rights appurtenant thereto excepting therefrom all oil, gas and other minerals contained ~.zithin said rea]. property, together with other rights, as excepted and reserved of record by the predecessors in title of Seller and subject to all existing covenants, conditions and restrictions and to all existing easements, servitudes, and rights of way and easements for public roads, pipelines, telephone and electrical povzer li6es and other such purposes, if any, which land is generally situated in Section 8 of Township 30 South, Range 27 East., M.D.M. on the West side of and abutting Gosford Road near Laurelglen Boulevard. BUYER AND SELLER AGREE THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SAID PROPERTY' SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TE~MS AND CONDITIONS. ARTICLE 1. PURCHASE PRICE Amount of Purchase Price Section 1.01. The purchase price for said property shall be the sum of $~8~,~.00, payable by Buyer to Seller as follows: (a) The sum of $1~000 on execution of this Contract, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Seller. (b) The further sum of $$-?~ on close of escrow as herein provided. ARTICLE 2. ESCROW Opening of Escrow Section 2.01. An escrow shall be opened to consummate the sale of said property pursuant to this Contract at the Bakersfield Office of the Trans- america Title Insurance Company at 1100 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California, within five (5) days from the date hereof. Conditions of Escrow Section 2.02. The close of such escrow and Seller's obligation to sell and Buyer's obligation to purchase said property pursuant to this Contract are conditioned on: (a) The conveyance to Buyer or his nominee of good and marketable title to said property by grant deed. (b) Final and conclusive approval by the City of Bakersfield of a Final Parcel Map, to be submitted to the City of Bakersfield within twenty (20) days after the opening of escrow, depicting the subdivision of said property. (c) Delivery of possession of said property to Buyer on close of escrow free and clear of all uses and occupancies except as Buyer maySwaive in writing. (d) Execution of a Certificate of Acceptance of said property by the City of Bakersfield. -2- Failure of Condit!ons Section 2.03~ Should any of the condit~ions specified in Section 2.02 of this Contract fail to occur within ~i~ ~) days after the opening of escro~ as provided in Section 2.01 of this Contract, Buyer or Seller shall have the power, exercisable by the giving by him of written notice to the escrow holder and to the other party, to cancel such escrow and to terminate this Contract, an~ Buyer shall have the right to recover any amounts paid by him to Seller or to the escrow holder on account of the purchase price of said property except that Buyer shall not be entitled to recover the $1,000 paid to Seller pursuant to Section 1.01(a) of Article 1 hereinabove. Prorations Section 2°04. There shall be prorated between Seller and Buyer on the basis of thirty (30)-day months as of 12:00 midnight Pacific Standard Time on the date of the close of escrows, all real property~,_~''=xe~o levied or assess~d· against said property (including any water tax or water rate levied against said property for the furnishing of water thereto) as shown on the latest available tax bills. Bonds and Assessments Section 2.05. Any bonds or improvement assessments which are a lien on said property shall, on close of escrow, be paid by or assumed by Buyer. Expenses of Escrow 9 Section 2.06. The expenses of the escrow described in this Article shall be paid in the following manner: -3- (a) The cost of preparing, executing, and ackncwiedging any deeds or other instruments required to convey title to Buyer or his nominees in the manner described in Section 2.02(a) of this Contract shall be paid, by Seller. (b) Any cost of obtaining approval for and filing of a parcel map required as a condition of the close of escrow pursuant to Section 2.02(b) shall be paid by Buyer. (c) The cost of recording a grant deed required to convey title to said property to Buyer or his nominees as described in Section 2.02(a) of this Contract shall be paid by Buyer. (d) Any tax imposed on the conveyance of title to said property to Buyer or his nominee under the Documentary Transfer Tax Act shall be paid by Buyer. (e) Any escrow fee charged by the escrow holder shall be paid by the Seller and Buyer in equal proportions. ARTICLE 3. MISCELLANEOUS Default by Buyer Section 3~01. Should Buyer default in the perfoz~ance of this Contract, in addition to its other rights and remedies against Buyer, Seller shall be entitled to retain the $1,000 paid to it by ~uyer upon execution of this Contract pursuant to Section 1.0](a) as compensation for obtaining the survey of and marking said property pursuant to Section 3.02 below° Section 3.02. For the sum of $1,000 payable upon execution of this COntract as is set forth in Section 1.01(a) above, Seller shall survey and mark for identification said property prior to the close of escrow and shall prepare such parcel maps as may be necessary and shall prepare a legal description of said property for annexation to this agreement as Exhibit A. Section 3.036 It is conterap!ated that in the near future the land surrounding said property shall be subdivided amd '~eveloped into residential neighbor- hoods; Buyer hereby ~grees that no later than three (3) months after the close of escrow it shall landscape the entire north, south, east and west boundaries of said property so as to beautify said property and to effectively screen from view any equipment, structures, or other items to be situated on said property. Section 3.04. Within three months after the close of escrow Seller shall remove from said property a standpipe, two irrigation valves and such other visible surface structures as are affixed to said property as of the close of escrow, except that Seller shall not remove utility poles or lines from said property. Section 3.05. Seller shall construct sidewalks, curbs and gutters, including therewith a driveway approach to said property, ali. to Seller's specifica- tions, along the easterly edge abutting Gosford Road of said property at-such time in the future as Seller shall construct similar improvements on parcels contiguous to said property along the east side of Gosford Road. Notices~ Section 3.06. Any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Contract or by law to be served on or 'given to either party hereto, Buyer or Seller, by the other party hereto or by~ the escrow holder shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given when personally delivered to any of the parties, Buyer or Seller, to whom it is directed, or in lleu of such personal service when deposited in the United States mail, -'5-- first-class postage prepaid, to Buyer actdressed and marked to the attention of the Director of Public Works, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301, or addressed and marked to Seller to the attention of S. H. Anderson at 201 New Stine Road, Bakersfield, California, 93309. Either party, Buyer or Seller, may change his address for the purposes of this section by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this section. Entire Agreement Section 3.07. ~is instrument contains the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller respecting said propeCty, and any agreement or representation respecting said property or the duties of either Buyer or Seller in relation thereto not expressly set forth in this instrument is null and void. EXECUTED on , 1980, at County, California. TENb~CO REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SELLER By: and by: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, BUYER By: -6- CONTRACT OF SALE TENNECO REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, h~rein called "Seller," agrees to sell to the City of Bakersfield, a municipal corporation, herein called "Buyer," and Buyer agrees to 'purchase from Seller the real property, herein called "said property," in the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California, to be more particularly described in an exhibit to be prepared and attached hereto as Exhibit A after completion of a survey (to be performed pursuant to Section 3.02 below), and roughly described as follows: Approximately 4/10 acres of land and all fixtures and water rights appurtenant thereto excepting therefrom all oil, gas and other minerals contained within said real property, together with other rights, as excepted and reserved of record by the predecessors in title of Seller and subject to all existing covenants, conditions and restrictions and to all existing easements, servitudes, and rights of way and easements for public roads, pipelines, telephone and electrical power lines and other such purposes, if any, which land is generally situated in Section 8 of Township'30 South, Range 27 East, M.D.M. on the West side of and abutting Gosford Road near Laurelglen Boulevard. BUYER AND SELLER AGREE THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SAID PROPERTY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS. ARTICLE~I. PURCHASE PRICE Amount of Purchase Price Section 1.01. The purchase price for said property shall be the sum of $37,250.00, payable by Buyer to ~Seller as follows: (a) The sum of $1,000 on execution of this Contract, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Seller. (b) The further sum of $36,250.00 on close of escrow as herein provided. ARTICLE 2. ESCROW Opening of Escrow Section 2.01. An escrow shall be opened to consummate the sale of said property pursuant to this Contract at the Bakersfield Office of the Trans- america Title Insurance .Company at 1100 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California, within five (5) days from the date hereof. Conditions of Escrow Section 2.02. The close of such escrow and Seller's obligation to sell and Buyer's obligation to purchase said property pursuant to this Contract are conditioned on: (a) The conveyance to Buyer or his nominee of.good and marketable title to Said property by grant deed. (b) Final ~nd conclusive approval by the City of Bakersfield of a Final Parcel Map, to be submitted to the City of Bakersfield within twenty (20) days after the opening of escrow, depicting the subdivision of said property~ (c) Delivery of possession of said property to Buyer on close of escrow free and clear of all uses and occupancies except as Buyer may Waive in writing. (d) Execution of a Certificate of Acceptance of said property by the City of Bakersfield. -2- Failure of Conditions Section 2.03. Should any of the conditions specified in Section 2.02 of this Contract fail to occur winhin thirty (30) days after the opening of escrow as provided in Section 2.01 of this Contract, Buyer or Seller shall have the power, exercisable by the giving by him of written notice to the escrow holder and to the other party, to cancel such escrow and to teznninate this Contract, and Buyer shall have the right to recover any amounts paid by him to Seller or to the escrow holder on account ~of the purchase price of said property except that Buyer shall not be entitled to recover the $1,000 paid to Seller pu~'suant to Section 1.Ol(a) of Article 1 hereinabove. Prorations Section 2.04. There shall be prorated between Seller and Buyer on the basis of thirty (30)-day months as of 12:00 midnight Pacific Standard Time on the date of the close of escrow, all real property taxes levied or assessed against said property (including any water tax or water rate levied against said property for the furnishing of water thereto) as shown on the latest available tax bills. Bonds and Assessments Section 2.05. Any bonds or improvement assessments which are a lien on said property shall~ on close of escrow, be paid by or assumed by Buyer. Expenses of Escrow ~ Section 2.06. The expenses of the escrow described in this Article shall be paid in the following manner: -3- (a) The cost of preparing, executing, and acknowledging any deeds or other instruments required~ to convey ti~Ie to Buyer or bis nominees in the~ manner described~in Section 2o02(a) of this Contract shall be paid by Seller. (b) Any cost of obtaining approval for and filing of a parcel map required as a condition of the close of escrow pursuant to Section 2.02(b) shall be paid by Buyer. (c) The cost of recording a grant deed required to convey title to said property to Buyer or his nominees ~s described in Section 2.02(a) of this Contract shall be paid by Buyer. (d) Any tax imposed on the conveyance of' title to said property to Buyer or his nominee under the Documentary Transfe~ Tax Act shall be paid by Buyer. (e) Any escrow fee charged by the escrow holder shall be paid by the Seller and Buyer in equal proportions. ARTICLE 3~ MISCELLANEOUS Default by Buyer Section 3.~01. Should Buyer default in the performance of this Contract, in addition to its other rights and remedies against Buyer, Seller shall be entitled to retain the $1,000 paid to it by Buyer upon execution of this Contract pursuant to Section 1.Ol(a) as compensation for obtaining the survey of and marking said property pursuant to Section 3.02 below. Section 3.02. For the sum of $1,000 payable upon execution of thisIContract as is set forth in Section 1.Ol(a) above, Seller shall survey and mark for identification said property prior to the close of escrow and shall prepare such parcel maps as may be necessary and shall prepare a legal description of said property for annexation to this agreement as Exhibit A. Section 3.03. It is contemplated that in the near future the land surrounding said property shall be Subdivided and developed into 'residential neighbor- hoods; Buyer hereby agrees that no later than three (3) months after the close of escrow it shall landscape the entire north, south, east and west boundaries of said property so as to beautify said property and to effectively screen from view any equipment, structures, or other items to be situated on said' property. Section 3.04. Within three months after the close of escrow Seller shall remove from said property a standpipe, two irrigation valves and such other visible surface structures as ~re affixed to said property as of the close of escrow, except that Seller shall not remove utility poles or lines from said property. Section 3~05. Seller shall construct sidewalks, curbs and gutters, including therewith a driveway approach to said property, all to Seller's specifica- tions, along the easterly edge of said property ab~tting Gosford Road at such time in the future as Seller shall construct similar improvements on ~parcels contiguous to said property along the west side of Gosford Road. Notices- Section 3.06. Any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Contract or by law to be served on or given to either party hereto, Buyer or Seller, by the other party hereto or by the escrow holder shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served and given when personally delivered to any of the parties, Buyer or Seller, to whom it is directed, or in lieu of such personal service when deposited in the United States mail, -5- first-class postage prepaid, to Buyer addressed and marked to the attention of the Director of Public Works, 150i Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, 93301, or addressed and marked to Seller to the attention of Bob Boyd at 201 New Stine Road, P. O. Box 9380, Bakersfield, California, 93389. Either party, Buyer or Seller, may change his address for the purposes of this section by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this section. Entire Agreement Section 3.07. This instrument contains the entire agreement between Buyer and Seller respecting said property, and any agreement or representation respecting said property or the duties of either Buyer or Seller in relation thereto not expressly set forth in this instrument is null ~nd void. EXECUTED on , 1980, at County, California. Approved as to Form: TENNECO REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION By: City Attorney and by: f Countersigned: SELLER CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Assistance City Manager-Finance ~ By: Ma~or ~ - By: City Clerk BUYER --6-- . u ,"'HI ,TH[,Y 74 , 1980 TO CITY OF BAKERSF.T. ELD WATER BOARD ............................................................................................................................................................................ FROM DALE HAWLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ..................................................................................................................................................................... SLI[3,JECT EMERGENCY PROCEDURES FOR ADDITIONAL SUPP'r.~Y WITHIN ASHE WATER SYSTEM. The Ashe Water System's peak summer demands will ex- ceed the capacity of the system to supply water at normal operating pressure. During peak demand (an hour or two), water pressure will drop below normal and the customer will not be able to get all the water that they want. However, if a well goes out of service during the summer months there will be no reserves to make up the lost supply. Therefore it is desirable that an additional well be developed immedi- ately to insure public safety. There is an existing agriculture well owned by Tenneco, a half mile south of Ming Avenue and 200' West of Gosford Road centerline. The acquisition of this well site will cost $33,250 and will provide the needed source of supply. This well will require pump equipment, control panels and connection to the water distribution system. California Water Service Company has estimated this cost to be $39,000. The to~al cost of acquiring and outfitting this well is estimated to be $80,000; the normal cost of developing a new well site is about $125,000. The 1980-81 budget has money allocated for this project. California Water Service Company and Stetson Engineers has ad- vised us that due to the urgency of the s~ tuation immediate action is necessary. The staff is therefore requesting that a state of emergency be declared and that provision of para- graph 7(g) of the' operation agreement used to allow California Water Service Company to dispense with the normal purchasing procedures in performing the necessary improvements. JHH:ag BoLII~ Encllnee-rlncl CorI.Joration P.O, 6ox ~70 .~r. ~ohn Hansen June 24, -]980 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ]50] Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 9330] 'Ashe Water System Two Million Gallon Domestic Water Storage System_. We have reviewed the comments on our Design Report dated March, 1980, for the subject project which you received from Tenneco, California Water Service Company and Stetson Engineers. Most of their comments concern the cost and potential noise problems of the gas engine drive proposed for use on the water well. I will first make some general statements concerning the cost and noise factors and then respond to specific comments of Tenneco, Cal Water and Stetson. There is no question that the capital cost .of the gas engine driver proposed for use on the water well is more than for an electric motor, if the water well is considered as a separate project. In this case, however, the water well is part of a larger project including a two million gallon reservoir and a booster pump station. As discussed in the Design Report, the master plan prepared by Stetson Engineers suggests the installation of an electric motor driven water well, four electric motor driven booster pumps~ and a gas engine driven stand- by pump; a total of six pumps. The water well was to discharge into the two million gallon reservoir. The booster pumps were to draw from the reservoir and discharge into the distribution system. Normally, the electric motor driven pumps would operate. In the event of a power failure, the gas engine driven pump would come on. As an alternative to this concept, we suggested a gas engine drive on the water well and four electric booster pumps; a total of five pumps. Normally, the water well would discharge into the reservoir and the booster pumps would draw from the reservoir and discharge into the distribution system. In the event of a pqwer failure, the gas engine driven well would discharge directly into the dis- tribution system, bypassing the reservoir and the electric motor driven booster pumps. In this particular case, this is feasible without overloading the engine because of the significantly lower well discharge required during the power failure. Under normal operating conditions the well is expected to dis- charge 2500 gallons per minute into the reservoir. Under the emergency operating 'conditions the well will discharge at a variable'rate not to exceed about 1500 City of Bakersfield -2- June 24, 1980 gallons per minute. This can be accomplished by apprOpriate selection of the gas engine driver and deep Well turbine pump as described in the Design Report. Figure 2 in the report illustrates the two different operating conditions that are expected to be experienced by the gas engine driven water well. Considering the whole project, even though a gas engine driveon the water well is more expensive than a comparable electric motor drive, the overall project capital cost comes out to be essentially the same for either alternative..This is true in this particular instance, because by using the gas engine driver on the water well the gas engine'driven standby pump; required with.the electric motor driven booster pump alternative,.can be eliminated. ~ Concerning operation and maintenance cost of an electric motor drive versus a gas engine drive, it is our experience, and that of a number of other agencies in and around this area, that a properly designed and operated gas engine .- driver is more economical than an electric motor drive. Operation and main- tenance cost were considered in the ~Design' Report. As stated'in Section'5, the estimated savings~ by Using a gas engine On the water well pump instead of an electric motor, is about $85,000 over the next 20 years. This estimated cost savings is based on present power and gas rates, and~.these, of course, are expected to escalate with time. We discussed several other reasons for going to the gas engine drive in the report, including immunity from the rolling brownouts or blackouts which may occur over the next few years, particularly in the summer months, if power demand exceeds supply. There is also the distinct possibility of "time of use" rates being applied to this pump station. If this does occur, then the cost advantage of the gas engine drive over the electric motor drive will increase. Another consideration in selection of the gas engine driver is that the well will normally discharge directly into the reservoir. If this were not the case, I would be reluctant to suggest the use of a gas engine drive on a water well discharging directly into the distribution system because of the probability of the water well starting and stopping frequently to meet changing water demands. In the case at hand, however, the well will normally discharge into a two million gallon reservoir. The well will operate depending upon the water level fluctuations in the reservoir. For example, if the 100' diameter by 34' high reservoir is constructed, one foot of tank height is. equivalent to about 59,000 gallons of water. At a 2500 gpm water well raie, 59,000 gallons is equivalent to about 24 minutes of pumping time. If the tank water level is allowed to fluctuate 5 or 6 feet, then the water well will operate for several hours at a t~me. This type of operation is ideal for a gas engine drive. City of Bakersfield -3- June 24, 1980 Concerning the noise factor, I agree-that this-is a problem to 'be 'considered. However, with the use'of super-critical residential or hospital zone mufflers and with proper design of the pump station and sound insulation, then noise outside of the engine enclosure will be held to a minimum. A number of these types of installations have been constructed, in other.areas'in residential neighborhoods and noise has not been a problem. As'a point of interest, the master plan prepared by Stetson Engineers suggested the construction of several gas engine driven .water wells in the new areas to be~developed around Cal State Bakersfield. These areas will also be primarily residential and if noise is a problem, then no gas engine driven well should be constructed in the Ashe Water System, as was proposed in the master plan, except in industrial areas. As to other comments raised by Tenneco, California Water Service Company and Stetson Engineers, I will first discuss some of the points mentioned in Tenneco's letter of April 17.- Tenneco comments on their experience that the capital and maintenance costs of gas engines, as compared to electric motors.when ~sed on water wells, is higher. As'stated above, there is no question that on an individual well the capital cost of a gas engine driver, as .compared.to an electric motor driver, is generally more expensive. As to Tenneco's comment about the gas engine being more expensive to operate and maintain than an electric motor, this may be true in their case. However, for the project being considered here, I do not. think this is true. I do not have any specific data on the 380 deep wells Tenneco refers to in their letter. However, these may be higher speed gas engines, operating at 1800 rpm or more, whereas the gas engine proposed for use in your project will operate, normally, at 900 rpm. This slower rpm will have a very significant effect upon the life and maintenance of the engine. Proper design and operation of anything, including gas engines, has a significant effect on their operation and maintenance costs and their life. Without specific information on the gas engines mentioned by Tenneco, I cannot identify what problems they may be having or the reason for these problems. However, I can mention a couple of facts; for example, the West Kern County Water District has gas engines which have operated for about 100,000 hours without a major overhaul or breakdown. Tehachapi Cummings County Water District also has gas engines which have operated for very many hours without problems. As far as the energy cost goes, data from the North of the River Municipal Water District in Oildale provides a specific example of the less expensive cost using gas engines as cOmpared to electric motors. In that DistriCt's case, Water'from' the ID #4 Treatment Plant is lifted to the District's 600 Reservoir using electric motor driven pumps. Gas engine driven pumps lift the water from the 600 Reservoir to the 750 Reservoir. Costs over a period of three years, begin- ning with the startup of the project, have totaled about 6.9~ per acre-foot per foot of lift using electric motor driven pumps as compared to 4.5~ per acre-foot Cit~ of Bakersfield -4- June 24, 1980 per foot of lift for pumps using gas engine drivers. Tehachapi Cummings County Water District reports an energy cOst savings on the order of 65% by using gas engines as compared to electric motors. Tenneco's letter makes the statement ... "That due to the difficulty of auto- mating controls in the gas engine pump,.we suggest all boosters be electric powered." It is no more difficult to automate controls on a gas engine driven pump than~on an electric motor driven pump. Their statement seems to imply that the gas engine driven standby pump should be manually operated. If this were done, then in the event of a power failure, someone would have to travel out to the pump station to manually start the gas engine driven pump and stand by during the course of the power failure to stop the engine when the power was restored. I do not believe this method of operation is practical or necessary. The third .paragraph on page two of Tenneco's letter refers to Table No. 6 in the Design Report. I believe Tenneco had a misconception about what facilities.were included in the construction cost shown in Table 6. Table 6 includes the cost only for the booster station, not for the water well. The $615,000 figure for the electric motor alternative and $605,000 for the gas engine drive were apparently arrived at by taking the totals noted on Table 6 as "TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST, RESERVOIR PARTIALLY BURIED" and adding to those the water well costs shown in Table 4. The total project costs are contained in Table 7. Tenneco's letter also discusses time of use power rate schedules, and the possibility of a gas shortage or rationing. Time of use power schedules already exist. For example, Souther~ California Edison Company has three rate schedules in effect;'one for facilities exceeding 4,000 KW in demand, another one from 1,O00 to 4,000 KW in demand, and a third one for facilities from 500 to 1,000 KW in demand. PG&E, the serving power utility in the project area, presently'has two time of use power rate schedules in effect; over 4,000 KW and 1,000 to 4,000 KW in demand. They have applied to the California Public Utilities Commission for a time of use schedule for the 500 to 1,000 KW category. This application was reportedly made at the request of the PUC and it is only a matter of time before it takes effect.' If an electric motor driven water well pump were used on this project, it is possible that the total electric load would exceed 500 KW and a time of use power rate schedule would probably increase pumping costs thereby increasing the cost advantage of the gas engine alternative. It is also reported that time of use power rate schedules may be applied to .facilities with · even lower connected loads in the future. With respect to Tenneco's concern over the possibility of a gas shortage or rationing, I do not think that this is probable at this time or in the fore'see- able future. There is presently, and is expected to be for some time, a surplus City of Bakersfield -5- June 24, 1980 of gas. Not only that, but-this facility would have the highest priority gas rating in effect. If a gas shortage or rationing were to occur, then industrial facilities and other large commercial or industrial users would be curtailed long before this project was affected. This project would only be subject to a . gas curtailment.in the event that gas was in such short supply that homes were affected also. I would now like to.discuss some of the points raised in Stetson Engineers' letter dated April 18. The fourth paragraph in Stetson's letter discusses noise and pollution control. I have already addressed the aspect of noise. With proper design I believe we can reduce any noise problems in the area to an acceptable level. As far as emission pollution controls, I have reviewed the Kern County Air Pollution Control District regulations and find that according to their Rule 202.D.3, this installation would be exempt from pollution controls. Their letter states that they had anticipated using a low-cost engine on.their standby pump. i also considered a low-cost engine on the alternative using a electric motor driven water well pump. By low cost engine I assume Stetson means one that operates at a higher rpm. As the rpm of a gas engine increases, the horsepower per cubic inch of displacement increases and,.therefore, the cost per horsepower delivered declines. However, higher rpm engines usually have shorter lives and higher maintenance costs. That is why in the gas engine driven water well alternative I have recommended a slow speed (900 rpm) gas engine. For. the electric motor driven well alternative the standby pump cost is based on an 1800 rpm engine. I certainly agree, as stated in Stetson's letter, that gas engine well pumps are consistently more eXpensive to install than electric power units. However, as stated above, when considering the entire project, I believe the capital costs for either alternative are essentially the same. Stetson mentions using portable generator units to provide energy for the electric driven well pump and boosters. ~As you may recall, we had discussed this several months ago and had intended to incorporate in the final design'of the booster pump station a manual transfer switch and electrical connection for a portable generator unit as we .did. at the Fairehaven industrial Fire Protection District Pump Station. The problems with this ideaj of course, are avail- ability of a portable generator unit and it would take some time after the power failure occurred before the portable generator unit could be taken to the site and connected. In the mean time, the water supply would be solely dependent upon the gas engine driven standby pump. Stetson Engineers also questioned the suggestion of using a hydropneumatic tank in the proposed project. They state that the ideal application for a hydro- pneumatic tank normally will be in a small, isolated water system with relatively Ci~ of Bakersfield -6- June 24, 1980 low water demands when the continuous operation of pump units is not practical. My opinion is that the continuous operation of pump units is not practical un- less necessary to meet demands. With the cost of power as high as it is, and expected to increase even more, the continuous operation of even a small pump soon becomes quite uneconomical. If the hydropneumatic tank is used as suggested, then the pumps will cycle on and off and operate more efficiently and power costs will be reduced. With respect to the memorandum from California Water Service Company to you dated May 2, 1980, I will make the following comments. From the memorandum it seems that Cal Water prefers the construction of a number of water wells discharging directly into the water distribution system rather than several larger wells discharging into water storage tanks from which the water is boosted by several booster pumps. However, Cal Water, in that same memorandum, does mention some of the advantages of having water stored in ground-based reservoirs, such as, the advantage of being able to connect a portable gasoline- powered pump, such as fire engine, to the reservoir to discharge directly into the distribution system in time of a power failure and other emergencies. As you will recall, this concept was used in the design of the Fairhaven Industrial Fire Protection District Reservoir and can be used in the subject project if you wish. I disagree with some of their statements on page three of their memorandum. They contend that "the cost of energy from the natural gas system is twice the cost of energy from the electrical system." As stated above, I disagree with this and our figures indicate that a substantial energy cost savings can be realized by using gas rather than electricity. Cal Water raises the point as Tenneco did about the difficulty of obtaining natural gas services for pumping units and as stated above, this is not a problem. Gas is in plentiful supply and is expected to remain so for a number of years. Cal Water also discusses the advantages of a diesel engine as an emergency power source. They maintain that diesel units are reliable and their maintenance costs are reasonable. However, our information indicates that the operation' and maintenance costs of diesel engines are about twice the operation and maintenance costs of gas engines. Diesel is a dirtier fuel than natural gas. In addition, long-term storage of diesel fuel is difficult. With time, diesel fuel degrades due to bacterial action and needs to be replaced or it can lead to problems if used to operate an engine. Cal Water states that they are de- signing their systems for normal use with. electric motors and providing diesel equipment for~standby power. The diesel engine is used to operate either a power generator or is connected directly to the pumps by a right-angle drive. Cit~ of Bakersfield -7- June 24, 1980 In my opinion this is an expensive way to provide standby power as you are paying for both an electric'motor and a diesel engine and the controls' and appurtenances necessary to either manually, or probably automatically, switch from one power source to the other. I appreciate the time and effort taken by Cal Water, Tenneco and Stetson Engineers to review and con~nent on the Design Report. However, I still feel that in this particular case the gas engine alternative is better than the electric motor alternative. If you have any questions, please c~liq BOYLE~ENG~ltEERIN~ION ~'~<~? / ~rnest Oi~ Kartinbn, Jr., PE '.~?~ Project Manager \ sja D-BlO-lO0-O0 · ~" Tenneco Realty Development Corp. MEMORANDUM i?! To: Gerald Jones- Date: June 18, 1980 Located: Copies to: Mel Jans F~om: Bob Boyd ~ Subiect: Irrigation Well No. 6F8-2 To be sold to City of Bakersfield and to be converted to domestic well AFE 73-161 Location of well - Laurelglen and Gosford Ro~'d Cost Estimate 1. Convert Ag well to domestic well $ 2,500.00 2. Tie'well into main system 16" line into 16" line 6,000.00 3. Survey crew well site 1,000.00 4. Dry well 2,000.00 5. Furnish & install complete pump to deliver 1,500 gallons per minute 24,000.00 Total 35,500.00 10% Contingency 3,550.00 To be paid by City of Bakersfield - Domestic Water Department $39,050.00 Note: Well & Well Site Negotiations are in effect in selling 150' X 150' well site - land @ $1.50 = $33,750.00 and an irrigation well for $10,000.00 for a total of $43,750.00. This amount added to the above is to be paid on a contract basis and I'am working with our attorney, Suellen, with this matter. BB/df ,~-~.--~.-~s ' ESTIMATE ~o30 ~ Improvement Est. No. 0104 !O~TE ,7.3=-80 ~. Oistrict CBK 1453 ~] Maintenance Est. No. ascription: Equip well Tract Approval Date / / Location: Sra. 10-01 UTILITY ESTIMATE BUDGET BUDGET ~ ACCT ~ QTY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT REFERENCE YEAR AMOUNT O1 3210 Structures 1,200 30B 80[ 02 3240 PumpinR Equipment 37,800 30B 80 · . TOTAL 39,000 ~ !Estimate Description: Stao 10-01 Equip existing agricultural well on Gosford Rd., south of Ming Ave. Include 4' x 4' pump shelter ,, Drawing Nos. SIGNATURES OATE -CBK 155' CW 274 Submitted by J.P. Prendergast 7-3-80__: CBK 156 ,, 353_Rll Checked by ' CBK ~'57 " 561-R2 " 623-R6 Local Office " 624-R4 Dist. Mgr. Engineering b'ement Estimates Exec. Vice Pres. New Bus. Secretary President Treasurer Controller Accounting i~nation The City plans to convert an agricultural well to domestic use and connect it to the Ashe system. This capital addition is considered an emergency as described in paragraph 7(g) of the Agreement and the City will be billed for actual cost.