Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/82 - . -, . -~._.o;..- 'i'- ¡,- I AGENDA ------ WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD I . ! WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1982 12:00 P.M. Call meeting to order Roll Call - Board Members: Barton, Chairman; Payne, Ratty, Kelmar, Oberholzer 1. Approve minutes of regular meeting of August 18,1982. 2. Scheduled Public Statements. 3. Correspondence 4. Review of the Ashe Water Rate Schedule. - RECOMMEND COUNCIL TO CONTINUE CURRENT RATE SCHEDULE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAYS, WITH STAFF TO RE-EVALUATE AT THAT TIME. 5. Establishment of Availability Fee for water service within the Ashe and Fairhaven Service Areas, as provided by Muncipal Code Section 14.04.120 B. - RECOMMEND COUNCIL TO ADOPT FEE SCHEDULE~ 6 . Proposed Kern River property exchange between Tenneco Realty Development and City of Bakersfield. - FOR BOARD ACTION. 7. City of Bakersfield- California Regional Water Quality Control Board contract for groundwater quality investigation of City's f800 Acre recharge area; Fourth and Fifth Quarterly Reports. - FOR BOARD INFORMATION. 8. Staff Comments 9. Board Comments 10. Adjournment - - I 'í' 1 I M I NUT E S ------- WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1982 12:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Barton in the Department of Water Conference Room. - The secretary called the roll as follows: Present: Barton, Kelmar, Oberholzer Absent: Payne, Ratty The minutes from the Special Meeting of July 30,1982, were approved as presented. Agreement with Western Host Bakersfield 'Partners for water service from the City's Fairhaven Water System to the Hilton Inn was presented to the board. At this time Mr. Hawley, Public Works Director gave a detailed map outline of the area involved. After discussion, Mr. Kelmar made a motion that the Agreement be accepted and recommended to the City Council for approval. The motion was passed. A proposed property exchange between Tenneco Realty Develop- ment Corporation and City of Bakersfield was brought before the board. Mr. Bogart, Assistant Water Manager explained the proposal involving 31.60 acres of Tenneco land located between Chester Avenue and Manor Street in exchange for 1/6 acre of City land located at the North East corner of 24th Street and the Kern River. After disucssion between' board and staff Mr. Kelmar made a motion that an appraisal of the 31.60 acres now held by Tenneco in the Kern River ¡ Channel between Chester Avenue and Manor Street be made to ¡ determine its market value, and this information then be brought back to the board. The motion was passed. Staff Comments Mr. Bogart presented a letter for information to the board from La Hacienda, Inc. requesting that the engineers and \ I appropriate staff of ID-4 (Improvement District No.4) of the Kern County Water Agency and the City of Bakersfield meet and determine the scope of a metropolitan water plan involving a connection between Olcese Water District western mainline and ID-4's eastern pipeline and sto~age facilities. After discussion it' was determined that the staff and con- sultants should meet and review the project plan at this time. At this time Mr. Bogart brought the board up-to-date on the status of the preliminary permits for Low-Head hydro genera- . t;on at Beardsl eu """'~ p,""...l,~. P-. ~ '-,-L. -.-.~ "-e"-- .w' -e~ rs il proposed ~ . '---.I' -..\.-, .""'-'-'..1 ""....... ...~\(... -4- . .. "Application For Exemption For Small Conduit Hydroelectric Facility" would be filed jointly with Kern Delta Water District I and North Kern Water Storage District in order to extend the I time period for construction by five (5) years. After dis- cussion Mr . Kelmar made a motion that thE~ board approve the I filing of the exemption. The motion was passed. I - There being no further business to come before the board, Chairman Barton adjourned the meeting at 12:26 P.M. I i James J. Barton, Chairman \ City of Bakersfield Water Board j , I Linda Hostmyer, Secretary ! Cit: of Bak_erSfield~~terBo~~d_- ---- --- ""--______n______-j ...: -', CITY OF BAKERSFIELD - .' ¡ DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE ASHE DIVISION ESTIMATED REVENUES AND EXPENSES ", -, . FISCAL YEAR 1982-83 Estimated June '1982 a Estima,ted Oct. 1982 FY 1982-83 FY 1982-83 REvENUES Domestic Water Sales $1,954,000 $ì,738,500 Construction Water Sales 16,000 67,600 Interest Income 75,000 33,600 TOTAL REVENUES $2,045,OOOb $1,839,700c OPERATING EXPENSES: Field Expense: . 0 & M Charges from California Water $ 437,000 $ 395,900 'Power for Pumping 365,000 422,100 Other Maintenance '120,000 70,000 TOTAL FIELD EXPENSES $ 922,000 $ 888,000 Administrative Expenses: Salaries and Fringe Benefits $ 72 , 000 $ 61,000 Charges from Other City Departments 24,000 24,000 Management Fee from r'~lifornia Water 35,000 40,600 Consultant Charge (Engineer, Attorney, etc.) 55,000 48,400 Insurance Expenses 17,000 17,000 Property and Pumping Taxes 175,500 161,600 Misc. General Expenses' 16,500 16,500 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES $ 394,000 $ 369,100 NET OPERATING INCOME: Before Depreciation $ 729,000 $ 582,600' Depreciation (219,000) (219,000) TOTAL $' 510,000 $ 363,600 NON-OPERATING EXPENSE: Main1irieExtension Refunds $ (83,000) $ (65,400) Net Operating Income Before Capital Outlay Program 427,000 298,200 BOND PAYMENT $ (178,500) $ (178,500) TRANSFER TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET $ 248,000 $ 119, 700d NET INCOME (LOSS) -0- -0- NOTES: a. Estimate based on 90 days of operation. 1. includes 10% rate incre~se effective 7-1-82. u. c. iÜt1¡out Tate incre<i.sc. d. 1982-83 Capital Improvement Program requires $101,500. I --------- INFORn'" ATsON t!~ j\~l Y ~--è;- ,",< ,-, - '\ÌI'~- . - ø\~"~""'. - Jl ,,~.) .. " . - .. ., /J" . "\!;,.;.- ~ ~ , NO ACTION REQU I RED .~ ~~INLINE EXTENSION AGREEMENTS Agreement Agreement Number Water Tract or Refund Refund of Board Developer Parcel Map Estimate Actual- Services Number Tenneco TR 4469 N/A $ 44,636.56 72 " TR 4472 $108,152.75 87,187.16 91 It TR 4481 N/A 29,717.62 44 " TR 4489 162,610.12 139,025.94 107 " PM 5715 49,708.61 42,178.37 3. 80-50 II PM 6170 140,477.84 12 7 ,042.04 34 " . PM 6367 N/A 17,827.23 2 II PM 6368 N/A 105,041.62 15 II PM 6547 161,382.49 143,217.11 7 TOTAL $735,873.65 375 ----- CO . WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ITEMS FOR AGENDA Agenda Section NEW BUSINESS Requesting Department PUBLIC WORKS Date for Water Board Action October 27, 1982 1. Description of Item: Review of the Ashe Water Rate Schedule. 2. Comments: In July, 1982 the City Council deferred the adopted 10% rate increase for the Ashe Water System for 90 days. Staff has reviewed revenues & maintenance and operating expenses during this period and recommends continuing the current rate for the remainder of 1982. The rate should be re-evaluated at the end of December, 1982. 3. Suggested Action: Recommend Council to continue current rate schedule for an additional 90 days, with staff to re-evaluate at that time. 4. Attachments: Es-timat'Qd RQ':eRtleS ~ ¡::;vpp.nc:."i r9S2-~ per- fAIl. ~/mql'-- , ~ of Pwlic Works f¡¿'? - ~ ¿'L/i#i - / -1t/L-£~-- Approved, Ci y Manager NOTE: Items for Water Board Agenda are to be submitted prior to 10 a.m. Friday for the Wednesday meeting of the following week. . '~ GALIFOHNIA VVATER SERVICE CO~IPANY H2O NOl<TH FUtST STREET' P. O. Box 1150 . SAN JOSE, CA 95108 . (~08) 298-141-4 March 24, 1982 ,- '~~, ,-, .'~' r~t '- ~, n ---- ~.-- -. /""""-"""--"'\"1-"-'.\'\ I rt;j~~R!;~ ~!~2;!-Uj env ,;TT()P-J::'ý"-' O':':I'~" ~ "'."'.,:-.v ¡I",-,C; Richard ,1. Oberholzer, Esq. City 1\ttorney Ci ty I-JaIl 1501 'I'ruxtun Avenue Pi',\:ersfieJd, California 93301 J)t-.;ar 1-1:('. Obc~rholzer: I enclose herewith four copies of the agreement for operdt:ion of the F<.:::.cha'fen ~lJater System of the City of Bakersfield \vhich have been exi;~cut-ed for the Company" You will note that: thÜ, OÐf; be ell al'~E)nc1eJ frarr t.Ì'Je earlier draft ;:',"':nished you in Sections 2, 6, i'1.nd H to aCC')T[!El(}(1 iJ te the suggestions made by Hr. Stetson. As to Uìf;: sug~¡('.sti on con;;:eJ:nir:c.j paragraph " I am ellclc,sing a letter to you from ]lir. GrCE-'l\e :;, \,;h ich é,dr; ~:l'jsses that _"_ssue. i\l~;o enclosed are two copies of D~ed dnd Bill of Sctle which 11"l'Je heen ~~ecuted and notarized coverinq the facilities being transfe:cü:;(( 'l:C tire Ci¡~y of BaLers:,'ielc1 under Agreement No. 81-109 dat~ed ,July 29, 1')[;~.. 'i'his c1é:;l ivery should be effective on tbe date the City au,tho:'~ize~,; (;':)1:;r,('::, n(:(:,(,\>::)1 t of ope:cation of the Fairhaven system éJ,;~ set fort-.h in P?: ca~l:caph one of the herein transmitted a9reem~nt. I- lc'a.~;e fU'-'di-trd 1.:110 Cit,y 's check for the necessary consider,:¡,tion in t:he ;;.mOU;¡l: of ~;)20,OOO. If YOl~ find ever/thl nc! now in order, plea~.e complete tJle e;,:>?cu tion of the a:: :'ef~men l: and -cet\11r11 o¡~,e copy to complete our files, and furni3h r¡s a ":;C\P'" of the resolut:ion of acceptance of the deed and bill of l:;ale. Very truly you:.::::;, C",'Z,OHNIA ""j'ER SERV.:;E Co,"P;,NY j --¿' " -,,'" /'l ':)'-.- ,: ~?'u"'" t- 14.."'-1_x... k---- (¡!eptha 1\. wade', LTr. Vice Pr,-"sident. ¿¡nd Chief EnCJine~;)' .n,v]: vip Enclos',tre (;c: r,~r. 'A. Cr:lT¡.¡ford GreQnt,~ f Jr. t1r. B. D. Le,"¡l;:; Mr: - C. I-I. S'tump 1'11.-. H. C. UL:ic:h ---- ----- ----~--~ .: (,' ." ;; ". '. f '~ ," :~, ~, ... CALIFORNIA 'VATER SERVICE {', 'uO,MPANY 1'Z20 NORTl1 FIRST STREET April 12, 1978 SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA AREA 408 . 298#1414 City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxton Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Attention: D. L. Haynes Dear Mr. Enclosed it and credit customer accounts pertaining to \\7ater system. The net balance of these accounts These are accounts which have been ~.itten off... file as uncollectible or unrefundable. The debi .plance ccounts which have been written off as uncollectible have been urn over to our collection ag~ncv ror furt~J collect~n attempt" If any of the accounts hanaled by the collection agency are -~ collecteci in the future, these collections will be forwarded to the C1,ty. The credit balance accounts are accounts which are unrefundable because we have been unable to locate the customer. If you have any questions, please contact me. , Very truly yours, (i \ r, \ I"-LQ,'-Á~ \-. J-Ó Gerald F. Feeney Controller ' GFF:s " encs. 1t ~ xc: L. George, BK w. Keilholtz ,.; \ -- - - - , "" , .-- -- -- , - -," , --" " ,..- "., .. - WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ITEMS FOR AGENDA Agenda Section NEW BUSINESS Requesting Department PUBLIC WORKS Date for Water Board Action October 27, 1982 1. Description of Item: Establishment of Availability Fee for water service within the Ashe & Fairhaven Service Areas, as provided by Munic~pal Code Section 14.04.120 B. 2. Comments: The fees will provide the necessary capital to construct water supply facilities (wells, storage reservoirs, and booster stations) for the City's water system outside the original service areas and will be applied at the time of development or subdivision approval. The proposed fees are $2,000 per acre for the first 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of required fire flow plus $0.50 per gpm per acre for required fire flows over 2,000 gpm. Stetson Engineers recommends these fees for adoption by the City. 3. Suggested Action: ~ecommend Council to adopt fee schedule. 4. Attachments: Memorandum. , ~f Public Worts R~ A /( . .- - - 'J(2, '/ ~/Z.L~,,- Approved, Ci y Mana:ger NOTE: Items for Water Board Agenda are to be submitted prior to 10 a.m. Friday for the Wednesday meeting of the following week. ------- u_--- .' ?' . , ,,1,"';1 f'~,^ .. /.~'\f;~1:'~~ M IE M 0 RAN D U ~4 .í(\::i:~:~,~':,1~ Ill. <" "#') \(¡.;>~~ )'" '!\f'";7'-¡,, , \,>' ~ ~ """;""~';"tJ October 1, 1982 '~~}J/ """ ..... ....... .... ........................, ....<......... TO... .... ... ..~ :... ~~~~..!:~~~.~~r..'.. ,~? :~~.~.~::!!.. ~?X..?~:~.~.~.<;-.. .\Y.C?,~~.~.... ....... ........ .... """""'" ...................................,............, F R Ol..i\... ... .J?~.~,...~:.. .~~~T.: ~.~.~.!.. .??~~? ::~.~.~,.. ~~ ~~.~. T... ~ ~~P.~:r-:~!!- ~ .~~~:~~~~................... ......,. ........ ....."........ .... .......,. ...........' . ro ' AVAILABILITY FEES FOR SPECIAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM Sd;:d ECl , ,. ..,.., ............ ........ .... ..... ....,.. ........ ....... .."............,. ......... ....... """"""""""'" ........................,........................ Availabili ty fees referred to in City Ordinance No. 2660, Section 1. 46. 120A, will provide the necessary capital for constructing water supply facilities to growth areas outside of original service area purchased from Tenneco (C-1 area). The formula for establishing this fee is based upon two million gallons of water storage and five domestic water wells for every two (2) square miles. Attached are cost estimates for water storage and well fad Ii ties based on current costs within the Ashe and Fairhaven Water Systems. Therefore, the available fee :;hould be set at $2,000 per acre for all developments (outside C-l area) with a fire flow requirement of 2,000 gallon per minute (GPM) or .less. Developments that require more than 2,000 GPM fire flow should pay $.50 per/GPM/Acre of additional fire flow requirement. Stetson Engineers have reviewed and recommend this fee concept. JHH:dh Encl. ------ - ------------ -- "i" 'fi ~ ~"~ ~ p < \Çi ceo; ,y~ - .- STEïSON ENGINEERS! NC 1\( ì ,\-' -- ~ \\j'è'j¿. - '\)\J ~ <-...:> þ.: - ~~1{~"'~\ ->.- U¡'? ~~~ CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~-~ri~\~G .-"', "-. i r.. . 3104 East Garvey Avenue . ~~4"" 550 Keamy Street. Suite 650 West Covina. California 91791 San Francisco, California 94108 (213) 967-6202 July 30, 1982 (415) 781-4297 REPLY TO: Mr. John H. Hansen Domestic Water Superintendent City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA. 93301 Re: Your letter of July 13, 1982; Availability Fees Dear John: We have reviewed your memorandum regarding availability fees for special facilities to be located outside the C-l area. The $2,000 per acre fee suggested in your letter is reasonable for establishing an availability fee schedulé. As you know, the cost of special facilities is contingent on the total potential water demand of the area being developed. The higher the regular system demand and fire flow requirement the greater is the capital cost requirement for the water system facilities needed to serve the area. At ,the present time the City's fire flow requirements range from 1,200 gpm to 5,000 gpm. We suggest a minimum availability fee of $2,000 per acre to be applicable to all development area having a fire flow requirement of 2,000 gpm or less. In addition, the availability fee should be increased for any fire flow requirement exceeding the first 2,000 gpm, at a rate of $0.50/GPM/Acre of additional fire flow requirement. As an example, assume 35 acres are going to be developed and that 30 acres has a fire flow requirement of 2,000 gpm, and the remaining 5~ acres with a fire flow requirement of 5,000 gpm. The availability fee would be calculated as follows: 35 acres x $2,000/Acre (Basic Availability Fee) = $70.000 5 acres x 3,000 gpm x $0.50/gpm (Additional Availability Fee) = 7,500 Total Availability Fee $77,500 ,', ¡. 'i i I " Once a fee schedule is established the City should then periodically review it to ensure that an adequate, yet not excessive amount of funds are being collected, which will be readily available : at the time the facilities are to be constructed. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call. Very truly yours, i ~ì (;'_.-- \ Donald R. Howard Stetson Engineers Inc. cc: J. Dale Hawley, Director of Public Works 0 . . \ \ I ---- --- ------- . - '-" .. I . AVAILABILITY FEES COST PER ACRE FOR SPECIAL FACILITIES Storage (1 Million gallons (Mg)/section $ 719,000 ~alf the cost of 2 Mg.) Wells 2 wells per section $ 460,000 (@ $229,000 ea.) $1,179,000 + 10% inflation 118,000 $I, 297,000' 0;. 640 Acres $ 2,026/AcTcs USE $2,000/Acre --------- ------ ---~ '< , "4 AVAILABILI'PY FEES --- SPECIAL FACILITY Cost Analysis for 2 Million Gallon Water Storage & Water Well Facility. Schedule 1 Pump Sta. Fac. $ 704 ,CIOO Schedule 2 Well 86,000 Schedule 3 Tank 318,000 $1,108,000 Land 80,000 $1,188,000 Engineering 10% 119,000 $1,307,000 Contingencies 10% 131, 000 $1,438,000 . . ,'. 'j... ¡ ," .- AVAILABILITY FEES SPECIAL FACILITY Cost Analysis for Well Facility. 1. Well Drilled a. Drill 8" Dia. Pilot Hole 600 Ft. $ 8,000 b. 30" Conductor 50 Ft. 5,000 c. Ream Pilot Hole to 8" Dia. 550 Ft. 23,000 d. Blank 16" Casing 300 Ft. 15,000 I e. 16" Well Screen 300 Ft. 17,000 f. Develop Well LS 6,000 g. Test Pump L5 2,000 h. Misc. Items L5 4,000 i. Pump & Motor w/300' of Col. 27,000 j. Eq & Tidalwave Ins. 1,000 WELL SUBTOTAL $108,000 2. Earthwork & Site Cleanup 5,000 3. Fencing 18,000 4. Electrical, Mech., Control, Telemetry, etc. 46,000 5. Land 13 ,000 $190,000 Engineering fee (10%) 19,000 $209,000 Contingencies (10%) 21,000 TOTAL $230,000 ' . ,,-, ';. ,óo ~-C::", 1-' '\. \ ',-" .. - r'~'-~';:;:-'~'~~:i:):, - . i: ; ')' \, ,,': " NO/7TH OF TIfE Ù / ' L;:::,//:: I' ¡ , ' " , , '" t.,..,-:, ,'" " j:" ',.:" ./ ,. , ,,\ ->. RlVER MU¡,/¡ClPAL ~""'l' - ; "E1"~l ""':':(,;:;:: ji i ¡i / \ ' ,.r~(ER. DlSTRlCT BOUNDARY( h: tr:¡, '\: i \: ", \V""':I'C'I,,-,:NMI"':" """'" , l1J; :kr.:.: ~.-._.. .t-.. ' I' " , , 0 ." . ¡ l ' ,- r0- o " I : ; i ¡ ,'j ", -,,' fl/(-ïlA~Z';I~,p',~,,: ! '\': ,;, ,:,,', '¿ /:';;//",;'::["",: "" i '. 'Iii ,-. -, ,,-', f,VD"" ! 2 ' : I ' '~'" ':-. ¡ " - , " ',' - ,,' ; - :", ' ~:" < (1 \ ,: '<, ""';"-' AlRPOHTÚUT//AI. 1"j '\ ' ,( f"' rC' r.O' I '" :, .~;;;.,~;JH~",U'¡,,-) "" ,-, ! :~"OW ""'~r..J'(' ".,.,.' , ,0' '",t,"-"', '~ ' '- I" ç...:.'t ~"~""' -', , """" '"', ;::':"~';; .- /;"..:.", . F'-"~"~ ,~~, ""-;'" !"",\~.. ,." .. nO" '",""" eo' . ,0' 1:",..." "'i'" '0 " "" "'"' L~NCHØ VERDUGO- WT!l co 'C": ,"'" 'i'é"',>r-"'" "\) ,,', ,': ' I?~NCHO MUTU4L WATER CO FA/Hí~;~~::~»)L: ,;', 2Z ",'" '" ,,1,"-",',',',' ! '.' - ~ WATER -""',"¡' . ~ :,' ':; <,+h". j'~~:.'; u ~~,,";' , ;~; ,O/,~:S/ON tt::.i<L.,.,;/ , d~o ," .¡=J " 0" 0 ,', '1k:J 0 "~~%,ì 0 - 0" ' 0 ~ "--- VAUGHN WATER CO 0 0 0: :::: ,ity , 0 ,0 ~ ë _/ r :, ',' "," . ,'- . .': .___--,.-.---~r~::( ',' , . . ,/ 1'1"1"""'."'-"""';'."':-' ,,~mm¡ , ,./', ' ",' ",::"":.;:":",:,,,_C~'l:'L,;:-<~';,,,~] '" -..,' I -'-, ~'~ ',." / , rmÅ“'l~ " :-", '" ,---"'f:;; "'", ,',;.;;. ",""'" ,"""'" ". \. -..." ,", 'iJ""'n"'/~ ' ',,' ~ . ;~~, "~:,: ~:~. ~1~i;~':i;,;ti!~f¡fur~~""."'~1}iii;;:~:;;( '.~ ",. ," =,-- = ",'.'."""""".","",""'."""".".""',' ""'~""',"","=' - -"~- .':::- -," -'-'-- -- :,I~" " ,,' .Blam..,.,.ql_- T,)OS,-R,~CE. T30SR26E -',: " ." ,." " " ,,""'" " :",,~: \':!¡¡!i~J¡;,¡¡!~::¡hL..~_ù C/4REA- :::::"". I. '<Ll/ i -.< I. -"", ,,-,' ,;:-:.;'",: "-- ~ . ! ,PANAMA .. .. " ,. /- » I, ¡ .: W1R CO '::" "" . r " Ii "~: '; , ' 1 I i I I '.- , I I p ;¡' ,:1 " ..' ;" ,< ~;i ';: I I ¡ -' '¡; I V> / . 'I I I \ / L_."__,_._-~,........ -." ,-------- '. FOf'¡~ PO.A ' ,..~~~').. Wi et~O rtA ~~ [j) U J\<"\ tV'~~ ~""" :.,':J "{. "{ ('~ J7;) . '!. \.:,.., ,II. ~;,~ October 1 1982 ~ ...... ..... ........." )...... ........ .... ..... ...... ......., TO... .... .....!:...~~~::.. ~~:~ ~~r..'.. .~:~ !~.~~~!.. ~!...F!-!-~ L~.<:.. .\'!.C?~'~.~....... .",.. ...............,....... ...........................................,..... FROM... ....!.?I.l?:. J~:. ..~~~:.~.1!.!...J??~:?~.~.~.~. ..~v~~.~.!... ~~p~!. ~~ ~~~.~.~~~. ....,...... ... ..........., ....................--............"............ AVAILABILITY FEES FOR SPECIAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM SU3~ ECT... ...... ............. ....... """"""""" .... ""'"."..., ......,".. """" ..,.. ....,... ..............., ....... ........., ..........................,............ Availabi Ii ty fees referred to in City Ordinance ,'10. 2660, Section 1. 46 . 120A, wi 11 provide the necessary capital for constructing water supply fad Ii ti(js to growth areas outside of original service area purchased from Tenneco (C-1 area). The formula for establishing this fee is based upon two million gallons of water storage and five domestic water wells for every two (2) square miles. Attached are cost estimates for water storage and well facilities based on current costs within the Ashe and Fairhaven Water Systems. Therefore, the available fee should be set at $2,000 per a~re for all developments (outside C-1 area) with a fire flow requirement of 2,000 gallon per minute (GPM) or less. Developments that require more than 2,000 GPM fire flow should pay $.50 per/GPM/Acre of additional fire flow requirement. Stetson Engineers have reviewed and recommend this fee concept. JHH:dh Encl. un u- -~--- -- ~ ~~~~~ \V) ". ~ ~~ ',v., <. ~ STETSON ENG I NEERS ÌÑC ~\I\ )! \-'" -~, . r¿ "{;~¿ ~~ ~ ~\JG ~~"'~Î R1~ .... {.? .\. O' G U CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS --..-':"'"~";(i~\~ 3104 Eðst Gðrvey Avenue . i. ~ (:.. i!' 550 Keðmy Street. Suite 650 West Covin/!, CðlHornið 91791 Slin Frllncisco, CðIHornið 94108 (213) 967.6202 July 30, 1982 (415) 781.4297 REPLY TO: Mr. John H. Hansen Domestic Water Superintendent City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA. 93301 Re: Your letter of July 13, 1982; Availability Fees Dear John: We have reviewed your memorandum regarding availability fees for special facilities to be located outside the C-l area. The $2,000 per acre fee suggested in your letter is reasonable for establishing an availability fee schedule. As you know, the cost of special facilities is contingent on the total potential water demand of the area being developed. The higher the regular sys~em demand and fire flow requirement the greater is the capital cost requirement for the wat"er system facilities needed to serve the area. At the present time the City's fire flow requirements range from 1,200 gpm to 5,000 gpm. We suggest a minimum availability fee of $2,000 per acre to be applicable to all development area having a fire flow requirement of 2,000 gpm or less. In addition, the availability fee should be increased for any fire flow requirement exceeding the first 2,000 gpm, at a rate of $0.50/GPM/Acre of additional fire flow requirement. As an example, assume 35 acres are going to be developed and that 30 acres has a fire flow requirement of 2,000 gpm, and the remaining"5~ acres with a fire flow requirement of 5,000 gpm. The availability fee would be calculated as follows: 35 acres x $2,000/Acre (Basic Availability Fee) = $70.000 5 acres x 3,000 gpm x $0.50/gpm (Additional Availability Fee) = 7,500 Total Availability Fee $77,500 - - ~-~_u ----- I < Once a fee schedule is established the City should then periodically review it to ensure that an adequate, yet not excessive amount of funds are being collected, which will be readily available at the time the facilities are to be constructed. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call. Very truly yours, ./-. , C ,,/ (.-"-..-..-- -' v Donald R. Howard Stetson Engineers Inc. cc: J. Dale Hawley, Director of Public Works . : -"/----- --c---- u. AVAIlABILITY FEES . COST PER ACRE FOR SPECIAL FACILITIES Storage (1 Million gallons (Mg)/section $ 719,000 {half the cost of 2 Mg.) Wells 2 wells per section $ 460,000 (@ $229,000 ea.) - $1,179,000 + 10% inflation 118,000 $1,297,000 f 640 Acres $ 2,O26/AcJ:cs USE $2,000/Acre -- -- -------- -- . 0-' -" -- ~"._- I I - I I .~ , I AVAILABILITY FEES SPECIAL FACILITY. Cost Analysis for 2 Million Gallon Water Storage & Water Well Facility. Schedule 1 Pump Sta. Fac. $ 704,000 Schedule 2 Well 86,000 Schedule 3 Tank 318,000 $1,108,000 Land 80,000 $1,188,000 Engineering 10% 119,000 $1,307,000 Contingencies 10% 131,000 $1,438,000 I I -,¡; I AVAILABILITY FEES I - SPECIAL FACI~ITY Cost Analysis for Well Facility. 1. Well Drilled a. Drill 8" Dia. Pilot Hole 600 Ft. $ 8,000 b. 30" Conductor 50 Ft. 5,000 c. Ream Pilot Hole to 8" Dia. 550 Ft. 23,000 d. Blank 16" Casing 300 Ft. 15,000 e. 16" Well Screen 300 Ft. 17,000 f. Develop Well LS 6.,000 g. Test Pump LS 2,000 h. Misc. Items LS 4,000 i. Pump & Motorw/300' of .Co1. 27,000 j. Eq & Tidalwave Ins. 1,000 WELL SUBTOTAL $108,000 2. Earthwork & Site Cleanup 5,000 3. Fencing 18,000 4. Electrical, Mech., Control, Telemetry, etc. 46,000 5. Land 13,000 $190,000 Engineering fee (10%) 19,000 $209,000 Contingencies (10 %) 21,000 TOTAL $230,000 - \i ~--':-'. \ ~ " 1~-::':::::=:;:";'~"""";~~-::;;:- -;;. \ ' \, {, 7 ¡,,':""" i :' :.< '. NOf?TfI or THE Y¡ '/' t?/~(" r 17 Ii}' ',',,'" " i, ,,\ ,> 'RIVER MUNICIPAL ~'='¡':;~J"', "ólHOL t~.:.:..;::~:<, .-!: I~! / I ' ' ' M'A(fN DISTRICT 8CVNDARY\,'ë' k:{j' I, I. ' , . " , 'j I 'f"" , " Ii ',\ ' .' . "', , : :0::;, ~~~L.__..",-,~.,--,_. '" '. CFV("ril ~lM,~""n "0 ' '"-'" ~ 1 I::"", , " " ('" ""H'r--- "~-' I : !, I Ii ",¡ , ' ,,' f/.'(iIlIAr\n'l ~v...' , ',\ ':" .' ',' -; 1"'/",;"",."1, ",' Y' I ,'". ' - , P-liI;., i : I " ',.', ' ': , "" " ::", 1 I (,¡ \ OISTrÚCT, :: ~i~~:, "~'" Ai~POl1T¡;~VTl.¡'Ú. f"'.¡ """"" ",,; BOUNDARY " ", 1I WATEr? co. . .; , ! ( "" ,.. '.~ '>, :5"OW:f,~ " ~ . ".~_J"if., "'-,..., , ,,' ,i ,'-; '\ ' 'f' \,,' /" '""1 ' h... . '... " \ ,,'-\. ".;..:', f"~""~¡ ',1 '~~¡'~"'~fj~E~Z?~J "f{?1;i.:~ " '", , [ .1.,......... '"".",', ".."1.,, ,.! "'" ","c .' t,,¡rHO VEmJUN)' WTR co "",",n . ,,' [,,::::::r" , ,. ~ ::-.;~ "';;, " ' ':' ",I' ,::::::::::>::( ,,"'"' , '~ RANCHO MUTUAL WATER co. FAIR;; -vA::O::!/ , ", .J ,--,:; E'.' ",' WAT£RI-I ./<::;::)::>1, ,.' "' ,'" ',"" _.~" ..,' O'WfOVr::-:-IÎ' ¡ , ',"':~," ,,'~'" í ' ' ,,;:' '"," '::h,,/ " ct I", "" 0 ',',',',',',"'.1;',,[.,,' . :;" ," ',_':-"" ' ::>~~{;/" 0 . , l. J VAUGHN WATER CQ ,H,%",/",;, ¡ '", ~ // -~:', "<::"""L>7--=-~~- , ' ( ".", I" [j ,,', I fH~fI ~~ ,,"', 1] . ;,', , 'o! .::':!;;'i~: <~i"~;:~,.:"i~:~:?Jd:>~h!¡/::~l 'O" ~".,I+", JJ.I."",.,., """"""",MUTUAL,#"','," ,}"","""""'[1 '- ,,'" -.r" ., ,i:.I'~~::i";:;'" "'.r .emIlL.llBm... " "O' '""~, ¡"C"Õ~, -~/ -- ,.' : ."...~.' '<;¡:~[il~!i,!¡:ij¡:1iL~,..~il C/4REA """,". ¡::iLiL/- ':,' - ' .,"," ..." ""-' ..f, ';;,1:,,;,:,:", ~ ! .. - , ;, PAtìAM-:¡-- ..', '0 " J.," I .: WTR. co. ,,' , ,./ r' ':: ,. f \ , ¡ I I I / I I i> ',\ . / I ,/ " ,. ; " ,. ,~; w í / ¡ / i v, I ,t j / I L.__. / ~ '---- -"" ,- ---- 11, ALLIANCE APPRAISAL COMPANY r- 'v/ / GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS & LOAN BUILDING 1415 EIGHTEENTH STREET. SUITE 620 BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNiA oJ. H. MACNAIR. PRESIDENT. PHONE (80S) 325-8655 M.A.I.. S,R.P.A.. A.R.A. MAILING ADDRESS P. D. BOX 632 THARRELL D. MING.. VICE-PRESIDENT. October 5, 1982 BAKERSFIELD. CALIF"ORNIA 93302 S.R.A., A.R.A. Mr. Gene W. Bogart Assistant Water Manager City of Bakersfield 4101 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Bogart: In response to your request, I have inspected the real property herein- after described in the attached appraisal report for the purpose of estimating the fair market value, as of October 5, 1982. Fair market value as herein used is defined as the estimated price in terms of money which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all condition~ requisite to a fair sale with the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably and presuming the price is not affected by undue influence. As a result of my investigation, it is my opinion that the fair market value of the subj ect property, as of October 5,' 1982, is the su.u of TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS, ($23,730). Your attention is invited to the attached appraisal report from which, in part, the above value conclusion was derived.' Very truly yours, ~LlAACE APPAAISAL C~~. S.R.A., A.R.A. TDM:mn Attachment . ,"\0 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Letter of Transmittal Title Page DESCRIPTION, ANALYSIS ~~ CONCLUSION PAGE - Purpose 1 Definition of Fair Market Value 1 Date of Valuation 1 Area Map Property Rights to be Appraised 2 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 2 City and County Data 4 Parcel Map Description of the Property 6 Improvements 6 Flood Hazard 6 Zoning 6 Assessed Value and Taxes 6 Present Use 7 Highest and Best Use 7 Method of Valuation 7 Valuation 8 Conclusion 9 ADDENDA Legal Description of the Subject Property Market Data and Map Certificate of Appraisal Qualificatio~s of Tharrell D. Ming, S.R.A., A.R.A. . . I ,. -;:- APPRAISAL Portion of Section 18, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, M.D.B.&M., Kern County, California. MADE AT THE REQUEST OF Mr. Gene W. Bogart Assistant Water Manager City of Bakersfield 4101 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. 93301 October 5, 1982 ~ Bakersfield, California . ~ : I , I . . \ I I . DESCRIPTION, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - - ,8 ., I ., . PURPOSE . It is the intention of this appraisal to estimate the fair market value \. of the real property hereinafter described. . DEFINITION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE . Fair market value as herein used is defined as the estimated price in terms of money which a property should bring in a competitive and open market . under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each . acting prudently and 'knowledgeably and presuming the price is not affected by undue influence. . Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a speci- . fie date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties are well-informed . or well-advised and acting in his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is . allowed for exposure of the property in the open market; (4) equity payment is made in cash or its equivalent; (5) financing, if any, is on terms generally ,I available in the community at the specified date and typical for the property . type in its locale; and (6) the price represents a normal consideration for the . property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in the transaction. . DATE OF VALUATION The date to which the estimate of value applies is October 5, 1982. I -1- . i n","-',',7':71 AREA MAP C " " ,:, I ' . oM 0 ",~..' ,""" c ",."', ",-c, u ", ',""'" Rood '.~ ~ .:: ;¡, 1 ~ I ' i .. : :=; I I I R"on". ------ ~ "' ~ . IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY . The subject property is located within the Kern River Channel between I the Chester Avenue Bridge and the Manor Street Bridge and is legally described, . in part, as a portion of Section 18, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, M.D.B.& . M., Kern County, California. (See complete legal description in the Addenda of this report.) . . PROPERTY RIGHTS TO BE APPRAISED The property rights to be appraised are the fee simple interest in the . subject property, exclusive of all mineral rights, including sand, rock, and . gravel, and subject to reservations and restrictions of record. . ASS~æTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ~ Identification of the Property: The legal description given to the appraiser is presumed to be correct, but has not been confirmed by a survey. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for such a sur- vey, or for encroachments or overlappings that might be revealed thereby. , The appraiser renders no opinion of a legal nature, such as to ownership of the'prope~ty or condition of title. The appraiser assumes the title to the property to be marketable; that the property is unencumbered; and that the property does not exist in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other governmental regulations. ~ -2- ----- ., ... Unapparent Conditions: The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unap- parent conditîons of the property, subsoil, or struc- tures which would render them more or less valuable than otherwise comparable property. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions or for engineering which might be required to discover such things. Information and Data: The information and data supplied to the appraiser by others, and which have been considered in the valuation, are from sources believed to be reliable, but no further responsibility is as- sumed for their accuracy. The appraiser assumes no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring at some date after the date of the letter transmitting this report that may affect the opinions herein stated. Adjustments: The appraiser reserves the right to make such adjustments to the valuation herein reported as may be required by consideration of additional data or more rel¡able data that may become available. Use of the Appraisal: Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, or copy thereof, shall be used for any purpose by any I but the client without the previous written consent of the appraiser and/or the client'; nor shall it be conveyed by any including the client to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the written consent and approval of the author, particularly as to value conclu- sions, the identity of the appraiser or a firm with which he is connected, or any reference to any professional society or institute or any initialed desig- nations conferred upon the appraiser as stated in his qualifications attached hereto. -3- ... ---., Sketches and Maps: The sketches included in the report are only for the pur- pose of aiding the reader in visualizing the property and are not based on survey. Sizes and dimensions not shown should not be scaled from the sketches. Court Testimony: Testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal report will require additional arrangements. CITY AND COUNTY DATA The City of Bakersfield, incorporated in 1898, is the county seat and economic hub of the county, strategically located between the Cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco. In mid-1980, the U.S. Census Bureau declared Bakersfield 12th of the 13 fastest-growing cities in the nation. The California State Department of Fi- nance estimated the increase in Bakersfield's population from 108,779 on Janu- ary 1,1981 to 113,190 on J~nuary 1, 1982, a 3.38% increase. The State study also reported Kern County's annual growth rate at 3.4% since the 1980 census and pred~cted the population should increase approximate- ly 34% by 1990, if this growth rate continues. . The population within the incorporated city limits of the City of Bakers- field increased approximately 5l.9%'over the ten-year period 1970-1980, resulting primarily from expansion of residential, commercial, and industrial developments and annexation. . I -4- . -, '~ The County of Kern is located in the south-central portion of the State of California and is the largest in area of the 58 counties in the State. The San Joaquin Valley portion of the county is partially surrounded by a horseshoe- . shaped rim of mountains with the open side to the northwest. Kern County con- tains extensive areas of mountains, desert, and agricultural valley lands. The topography contributes to the large climatic variations within relatively short distances in the County, but the overall climate is warm and semi-arid. . Kern County is rich in natural resources and ranks first in mineral pro- duction in the State of California. Four Kern County oil fields are among the top five producing oil fields in California and among the top ten oil fields in the country. In fact, if Kern County were an independent country, its oil pro- duction would be ranked 17th of all oil producing nations. In 1980, Kern oil fields produced 203f million barrels of oil valued at $4.8 billion, and the value of the 1981 oil production is estimated at $5.6 billion. The county produces a wide variety of field, vegetable, and tree crops. In 1981, approximately 75 crops were grown which gros.sed in excess of $1,000,000 each. Cotton, the leading cash. crop in Kern C9u~ty, had gross sales in excess of $316,000,000, followed by grapes at $181,000,000, potatoes at $100,000,000, and citrus at $91,600,000. The total value of Kern County farm productio~ in 1981 was $1,199,623,130, a 5.75% decline from 1980 production. The combination of agricultural and mineral production provides Kern County with a diversified economic base, stable employment, and consistent population growth: . I -5- . -, ~ PARC E L MAP SEC 18 T. 29 S.R. 28E. ..- .- ..- -- .. ., fA::. ~ HJAc. I.f/A' "'~' 2J.7fJA<: ..'- ,,0.' lOAf:. "--- I Û4.tc , IOIZ;fC - 6:,.' $(UOAC ~ . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY . The s~bject property comprises a 31.64-acre irregular shaped parcel of land located within the low-water channel of the Kern River between the Chester Avenue and Manor Street Bridges. Improvements: There are no improvements located on the subject property. Flood Hazard: The property lies primarily in the low-water channel of the river and is subject to constant flooding. Only during years of low runoff or extreme drought would the subject land not b~ inundated with water. Zoning: According to the Bakersfield Zoning Maps, the subject property is zoned FP-P, floodplain primary zone. The purpose of the zone is the preven- tion of the loss of life, minimization of property damage, and maintenance of the satisfactory conveyance capacity of waterways through the prevention of ob- structions in the floodp1àin which diminish the ability of the floodplain to .' carry overloads during periods of flooding, and to permit the economic recovery of oil, gas; and other hydrocarbon substances. In essence, this zoning ordinance prohibits the construction of any build- , ing or obstruction within the flow of the Kern River. Assessed Value and Taxes: The subject property comprises. portions of a larger parcel, and the exact tax liability cannot be deter- mined. Should the property be sold, taxes would then be based on approximately 1% of the fair market value of the property. -6- - ~ -. ~ Present Use: As of the date of appraisal, the subject property was used for the conveyance of river water to the southwest portions of the county to be used fór the irrigation of farmlands. HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and best use of the land is defined as that use which may reason- ably be expected to produce the greatest net return to the. land over a given period of time, or that legal use which will yield to the land its highest pres- ent value. The term highest present use does not refer only to monetary return. Open space, recreational, and other uses may be interpreted as highest and best use of land even though such uses have no monetary consideration. Due to the present lack of public access and the Jike1ihood that the sub- ject property will be inundated yearly by waters from the Kern River, it is my opinion that the highest and best use of the subject land is for the conveyance of water. ' METHOD OF V ALUATlON Market, cost, and income data are three recognized approaches,to the val- uation of real property, however, some properties do not lend themselves to all three approaches. Due to the physical characteristics of the subject property, only the market data approach has been used to estimate that value of the land. This . -7- . ~~-~ ~--~ -, . approach compares the subject with properties of the same type which have sold or are currently offered for sale in the same or a competing area. The process utilized in determing the degree of comparability between two properties involves the appraiser's judgment as to their similarity with respect to many valuation factors such as time, location, size, age, quality and condition of improvements, availability of utilities, zoning, and probable future uses. VALUATION A study of the Official Records of the County of Kern revealed three sales of properties with some portions located within the Kern River Channel. These sales are summarized as follows: Market Data Summary MARKET DATA GRANTOR- DEED AREA SALES NUMBER GRANTEE DATE (ACS.) PRICE REMARKS 1. Plaza Realty In- 5/ 5/77 16.160 $ 25,000 l~ Mi. south vestors/F. L. and west of Jones, et ux subject. 2. One Market Street ,5/23/77 33.179 75,000 1/2 Mi. south Properties, Inc./ and west of Davies Properties, subject. Inc. 3. Tenneco Realty 4/ 9/79 120.844 185,000 Immediately Dev. Co./Mobile- adjé1cent and town Dev. Co. southeast of subject. Market Data No. 1 represents the purchase of a 16.16-acre parcel located southwesterly of the subject and adjacent to the Kern River. Approximately 5.33 acres were river-bottom land and 10.83 acres were usable. -8- !. I -, . I The allocation of the purchase price, in August of 1977, was $300 per acre for the river-bottom land and $2,160 per acre for the usable land. . Market D'ata No. 2 represents the purchase in May 1977 of a 33.l79-acre . area of land with 8.617 acres located in the Carrier Canal given a nominal value, 10.358 usable acres in the Kern River flood- plain with no access were valued at $386 per acre, and 14.204 usable M-l zoned acres with public road access were valued at $5,000 per acre. Market Data No. 3 represents the 1979 purchase of a 120.844-acre parcel of land, 38 acres of which were located within the Kern Riv- er Primary Floodplain (as is the subject), 70 acres were in the Secondary Floodplain zone, and 12 acres were zoned "A," an exclusive agricultural zone. The allocation at that time was 38 acres at $210 per acre, 70 acres at $2,100 per acre, and 12 acres at $2,500 per acre. From the above available data and after adjusting for such factors as lo- cation, time of sale, and size of property, the value of the subject is indicat- ed at $23,730, or approximately $750 per acre. CONCLUSION ~s a result of my investigation and in consideration of the abòve and other indicators of value, it is my opinion that the fair market value of the subject property, as of October 5, 1982, is the sum of TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS, ($23,730). -9- - ------ . .... I .. 18 . . . . . . . ADDENDA I .. ~ -.. ) 8' , Il . . . . . . LEGAL DESCRIPTION . OF SUBJECT PROPERTY . . . ;.- ~~ - -..." ------- ~~ - ~ ., LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY That portion of Section 18, Township 29 South, Range 28 East, M.D~M., Kern County, California, described as follows: . Beginning at the southeast corner of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 3083, as per Map I thereof filed February 26, 1976 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder in .1 Book 15 of Parcel.Maps at page 83; thence along the southerly line of said Par- I \I ce13 (1) South 67° 041 38" West, 306.685 feet; thence (2) South 70° 32' 38" West, 393.590 feet; thence (3) South 55° 41' 38" West, 350.375 feet; thence (4) North ! 82° 14' 32" West, 117.651 feet to a point on the east line of Parcel 2 of said . Parcel Map No. 3083; thence along the south line of said Parcel 2, South 58° 25' 15" West, 309.224 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner of said Parcel 2, said point being the southeast corner of a parcel of land conveyed to William E. . Hines, a single man, in deed recorded June 7, 1971 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder in Bcok 4533 of Official Records at page 576; thence along the southerly line of said parcel conveyed to Hines South 58° 47' 40" West, 362.860 feet (record distance 362.60 feet) to.a point on the east line of Hart Street,' . County Road No. 1713; thence along the easterly line of said Hart Street South 00° 54' 52" East, 65.86 feet; thence South 89° 52' 39" West, 30.00 feet; thence .. along the southerly line of a parcel conveyed to Chester Mortgage & Investment Co., a California corporation, by deed recorded April 11, 1979 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder in Book 5189 of Official Records at page 5, South 61° 57' 57" West, 584.02 feet, more or less, to a point on the easterly boundary of . Chester Avenue, said point being the beginning of a curve concave northeasterly of radius of 859.00 feet; thence southeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 00° 17' 23", an arc distance of 4.34 feet; thence along the easterly boundary of said Chester Avenue South 26° 56' 26" East, 223.55 feet; thence South . 63° 03' 34" West, 11.00 feet; thence continuing along the easterly boundary of said Chester Avenue South 26° 56' 26" East, 333.09 feet, more or less, to the point of intersection of th~ easterly boundary line of Chester Avenue with the northerly line of parcel conveyed to Mobiletown Development Company, a general partnership, by deed recorded April 12,1979 in the Office of the Kern County Re- corder in Book 5189 of Official Records at page 1477, which deed was rerecorded May 30, 1979 in the Office of the Kern County Recorder in Book 5201 of Official Records at page 1006; thence along the northerly line of said parcel conveyed to Mobiletown Development Company; (1) North 37° 33' 00" East, 407.85 feet (record bearing and distance North 38° 07' 40" East, 407.854 feet); thence (2) North 51° 41' 27" East, 397.43 feet, (record bearing anq distance North 52° 16' 07" East, 397.434 feet); thence (3) North 75° 00' 02" East, 353.83 feet, (record bearing and distance North 75° 34' 42" East, 353.827 feet); thence (4) North 60° 51' 25" East, 285.67 feet (record bearing and distance North 61° 26' 05" East, 285.670 feet); thence (5) North 48~ 39' 53" East, 262.61 feet (record bearing and dis- ance North 49° l4'~ 33" East, 262.610 feet); thence (6) North 67° 11' 15" East, 655.22 feet (record bearing and distance North 67° 45' 55" East, 655.223 feet); thence (7) North 54° 17' 28" East, 401. 20 feet (record bearing and distance North 54° 52' 08" East, 401.197 feet); thence (8) South 81° 33' 40" East, 335.83 feet (record bearing and distance South 80° 59' 00" East, 335.834 feet); thence (9) North 82° 40' 30" East, 433.39 feet (record bearing and distance.North 83° 15' 10" East, 433.390 feet), said point being the point of intersection of the north- easterly boundary of the said parcel conveyed to Mobiletown Development Company with the westerly boundary line of Manor Street; thence along the westerly boundary -- mm~ . '. line of said Manor Street, North 36° 55' 16" West, 561. 31 feet; th~nce continu- ing along said westerly boundary, North 39° 18' 25" West, 111.34 feet, more or less, to the point of intersection of said westerly line of Manor Street with the southerly line of the parcel conveyed to William C. Robertson, a single man, by deed recorded March 26, 1971, in the Office of the Kern County Recorder in Book 4506 of Official Records at page 478; thence along the southerly boundary of said parcel conveyed to Robertson, South 58° 38' 38" West, 817.41 feet; thence North 01° 40' 22" West, 50.00 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. . EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to Stockdale Development Corporation, a California corporation, predecessor of Grantee, in Quitclaim Deed dated and recorded March 13, 1969, in the Office of the Kern County Recorder in Book 4256 of Official Records at page 762, and rerecorded March 28, 1969 in Book 4261 of Official Records at page 402. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion thereof lying within Beardsley Avenue. EXCEPTING AND RESERVING to Grantor, its successors and assigns forever, all oil, gas and other minerals contained within the property hereinabove described, whether now known to exist or hereafter discovered; all oil, gas and other miner- al rights belonging or appertaining to said property; the exclusive right to prospect for, drill for, produce, mine, extract and remove oil, gas and other minerals upon, from and through said property; the exclusive right to inject in, store under and thereafter withdraw from said property oil, gas and other miner- als and products thereof whether produced from said property or elsewhere; the exclusive right to drill and operate whatever wells, construct, install, operate, maintain and remove whatever other facilities and do whatever else may be reason- ably necessary on and in said property for the full enjoyment and exercise of the rights so excepted and reserved; and the unrestricted right of ingress to and egress from said property for all such purposes; but Grantor and its successors and assigns shall compensate Grantee and its successors and assigns, upon demand, for any and all damages caused to improvements and growing crops upon said prop- erty by the enjoyment or exercise of the rights so excepted and reserved. SUBJECT TO the lien of general and special county taxes and other governmental charges and assessments, if any. I SUBJECT ALSO TO all existing easements, servitudes and rights-of-way for public . roads and highways, canals, railroads, pipelines, telephone and electric power lines pnd other purposes, if any. SUBJECT ALSO TO the contract of settlement of water rights between Henry Miller and others and James B. Haggin and others dated July 28, 1888, and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of said Kern County in Book 2 of Agreements at page 40, and all amendments thereof and supplements thereto. . mn --- - -. . ,~ . . , . . . I I MARKET DATA & MAP . I I I I , , . -. , MARKET DATA NO.1 I I III Kern County Records Book 5045, Page 672 III GRANTOR Plaza Realty Investors III GRANTEE Fred L. Jones, et ux III LEGAL DESCRIPTION Ptns. of Sec. 26, T. 29 S., R. 27 E., M.D.B.&M., Kern County, California (See Market Data Map), III EXCEPT all oil, gas and minerals. 118 DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $27.50 III AREA 16.16 acres III DATE OF DEED May 5, 1977 III RECORDING DATE August 3,1977 . I~IC~ED PRICE $25,000 INDICATED PRICE PER ACRE $1,547 . REMARKS Land consisted of 5.33 acres river bottom, 10.83 acres usable. Value is allocated as follows: 5.33 Ac. @ $ 300/Ac. = $ 1,600 10.83 Ac. @ $2,160/Ac. = 23,400 16.16 Ac. $25,000 . -,;. I . MARKET DATA NO.2 . . Kern County Records Book 5042, Page 1492 . GRANTOR One Market Street Properties, Inc., a California corporation . GRANTEE Davies Properties, Inc., a corpora- tion I LEGAL DESCRIPTION Ptns. of Sec. 24, T. 29 S., R. 27 E., I M.D.B.&M., Kern County, California (See Market Data Map), . EXCEPT all oil, gas and minerals. DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $82.50 . AREA 33.179 acres (24.562 acres usable) . DATE OF DEED May 23, 1977 . RECORDING DATE July 22, 1977 .. INDICATED PRICE , $75,000 II INDICATED PRICE PER ACRE See Remarks I REMARKS Undeveloped land along the Kern River. Distribution of value: 8.62 Ac. in Carrier Canal Nominal 10.36 Ac. in Kern River Flood Plain @ $400/Ac. $ 4,000 14.20 Ac. undeveloped industrial land @ $5,OOO/Ac. 71 , 000 " Total $75,000 I I -;. ; HARKET DATA NO. 3 Kern County Records Eook 5189, Page 1477 . GRANTOR Tenneco Realty Development Corporation . GRANTEE Mobiletown Deve~opment Company . LEGAL DESCRIPTION Portion of Section 18, T.29S., R.28E., M.D.B.&M., Kern County, California, I (see Market Data Map), .- SUBJECT TO reservations, restrictions, conditions and easements of record. I ,. DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX Not Shown . AREA 120.844 acres . DATE OF DEED April 9,1979 . RECORDING DATE May 30, 1979 . I I INDICATED PRICE $185,000 . INDICATED PRICE PER ACRE $1,530 . REMARKS 38 Ac. in Kern River zoned FP-P, 70 Ac. . in floodplain zoned FP-S, and 12 Ac. zoned "A." Public access is designated , on a ramp and opening to Manor Street. . Values allocated as follows: I 38 Ac. @ $ 210/Ac. $ 8,000 18 70 Ac. @ $2,100/Ac. 147,000 12 Ac. @ $2,500/Ac. 30,000 100 Ac. $185,000 . . "l- . . .::.. 1: MARKET DATA MAP 0 IJD 0 , 0 . :~. SUBJECT PROPERTY .0. . MARKET DATA 0 ( . " ~. ..'.-~ I ,. . CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL . ; . I . . . . ~ .~ ¡ CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL . I Tharrell D. Ming do hereby certify that: I have inspected the property. ~ I have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal report. . I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this I appraisal report or the parties involved. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analyses, opinions and conclusions ex- pressed herein are based, are true and correct. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by . the terms of my assignment or by the undersigned) affecting the analyses, opin~ ions and conclusions contained herein. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions and opin- ions concerning real estate which are set forth in this appraisal report. As a result of my investigation, it is my opinion that the fair market value of the subject property, as of October 5, 1982, is .the sum of TWENTY-THREE THOU- SAND SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS, ($23,730). ~s£!~ Date:. October 5, 1982 I ~ .; , .- ~ ~ . Q~lFIC~IONS . of . THARRELL D. MING, S.R.A., A.R.A. . . . . ' . . I . I I '. ~ . .. .. QUALIFICATIONS OF THARRELL D. MING Graduate of San Jose State College, 1960, B.A., Major in Real Estate Vice-President, Alliance Appraisal Company, June 1961 to present Approved as Appraiser No. 4 by the Division of Savings & Loan, State of California Approved as Qualified Appraiser by State of California Division of Corporations, July 30, 1963 Qualified as Expert Witness in Municipal and Superior Courts of the County of Kern Accredited Rural Appraiser by American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers Associate Member of American Society of Appraisers Senior Residential Appraiser, Designation by Society of Real Estate Appraisers Se~ed as One of Three Assessment Commissioners for Belridge Water Storage District in 1967. Purpose was to allocate cost of Unit of Construction 1 and 2, totaling $10,346,572. Hare than 87,000 acres on a benefit apportionment. State Inheritance Tax Appraiser, April 1967 through June 1975. Teacher at Bakersfield Community College Evening Division Class, "Real Estate Appraisal I" . Instructor for American Society of Farm Nanagers and Rural Appraisers I 1975 - Rural Appraisal I at University of California . at San Luis Obispo 1976 - Eminent Domain School at Salt Lake City, Utah . I .. . 4 MAJOR APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENTS Belridge Water Storage District - Feasibility study on 87,000 acres unimproved land in western Kern County Buttes Gas & Oil - Appraisal of 4,980 acres in Kern and Tulare Counties, tree crops and irrigated row crop farmland City of Bakersfield - 27 Parcels of proposed downtown shopping center site Flavy Davis - 10-Year income & expense analysis, 14,500 acres to be developed to permanent tree crops and row crops Lost Hills Water District - Feasibility study on 74,347 acres unimproved ~and in western Kern County M & R Sheep Company - Appraisal of 5,936 acres in Mojave Desert and 3,893 acres in Famoso Foothill area of Kern County M. U. Ranch - 71,685.74 Acres grazing land in Kern and San Luis Obispo Counties Midhurst Corporation - 23,475 Acres of vineyards and or- chards in western Kern County Mobil Oil Corporation - Appraisal of 2,540 acres in Berrenda Mesa Water Storage District, Kern County Occidental Land & Development - Appraisal of 14,554 acres of unim- proved land in western Kern County Porter Land Company - Appraisal of 2,624 acres agricultural land in Kern and Kings Counties with office building and packing shed U. S. Department of the Navy - Appraisal of 8,OOOÏ acres, including single family residences, commercial sites, industrial sites, and unim- proved land near Ridgecrest and Inyo- kern, Ke rn Coun ty . ~ . ¡¡ ATTORNEYS Anderspn & Anton, Bakersfield William A. Anderson James G. Bailey, Fresno Bianco, Means, McBurnie & McAtee, Bakersfield Richard McBurnie Borton, Petrini & Conron, Bakersfield George Brown, Judge - Fifth District Appellate Court Warren C. Wetteroth Byrum, Kimball & Lanier, Bakersfield Kenneth W. Byrum Chain, Younger, Jameson, Lemucchi & Noriega, Bakersfield Morris B. Chain Dustin Jameson Timothy Lemucchi Cosgrove, Michelizzi, Schwabacher, Ward & Jackson, Lancaster . Leonard Cosgrove Darling, Haclin & Day, Bakersfield , \ Curtis Darling ! ! Bruce Maclin Deadrich, Bates & Tutton, Bakersfield DiGiorgio, Davis & Klein, Bakersfield Ted R. Frame, Coalinga . Goldberg, Fisher, Randal~ & Quirk, Bakersfield David F.Goldberg 'Granger & Gianquinto, Bakersfield George W. Granger Griswold, Bissig, LaSalle, Cobb & David, Hanford Lyman D. Griswold Palmer & Palmer, Bakersfield Oran W. Palmer Robert D. Patterson, Jr., Bakersfield Rudnick & Arrache, Bakersfield Juan E. Arrache, Jr. - "(8 -.. I .. . ATTORNEYS '. (continued) ,III Kenneth Smith, Ridgecrest Thomas, Snell, Jamison, Russell, Williamson & Asperger, Fresno Pa~l Asperger i. Roger E. Fipps Vizzard, Baker, Sullivan & McFarland, Bakersfield I. Lawrence Baker Jere Sullivan '. Wagy, Bunker, Hislop & Lewis, Bakersfield Earle Gibbons, Judge - Kern County Municipal Court Bruce Bunker I Jack Hislop . '. Wall & Wall, Bakersfield Stephen Wall . Werdel & Werdel, Bakersfield Thomas H. Werdel, Jr. -- Roland S. Woodruff, Bakersfield Yinger, Blanton & Sullivan, Bakersfield '. Ray Yinger Young, Wooldridge, ~aulden, Self, Farr & Hugie, Bakersfield .. Eldon Hugie Joseph Wooldridge ¡.- FIRMS, CORPORATIONS &'OTHERS Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company Bakersfield Pump Company Bakersfield Veterinary Hospital Bartlett-Snow-Pacific Bear Valley Community Services District Bernard & Sons, Inc. Blackwell Land Company Bureau of Reclamation C;R.S.Ginning CoMpany Calafia Groves Company Calcot, Ltd. S. A. Camp Company I I .. . FIRHS, CORPORATIONS & OTHERS (continued) County.of Kern Flavy E. Davis Deak & Company John Deeter, Developer Dorado Pacific Corporation East Niles Community Services District Economics Land Research Empire Square First Mennonite Church, Wasco General Appraisal Company Giumarra Vineyards Corporation Greater Bakersfield Memorial Hospital Richard Henderson Kettleman North Dome Association Knudsen Agricultural Management Company Lazard Freres & Company M & R Sheep Company Mazzie Farms Joe Mendiburu Mil-Bar Golf Course Mobil Foundations, Inc. Montara/Nord Petroleum Company Robert Montgomery Mueller-Osborn Ranch . North Kern-South Tulare Hospital District John Ohanneson Hollis B. Roberts Farms, Inc. Rosamond Community Services District Rosedale School District St. Mary's Diocese of Monterey Servco Company Shafter-Wasco Ginning Company Stans Foundation State Division of Highways Stockdale Development Corporation Superior Farming Company Tenneco West, Inc. Title Insurance & Trust Company Toyo Cotton Company Treegrove Management Corporation U. S. Borax & Chemical Corporation Marko B. Zaninovich, Inc. --- ------- ~ ... :\ LENDING INSTITUTIONS Bank of America, N.T.&S.A. Coldwell, Banker & Company Community First Bank Crocker National Bank First National City Bank of New York Fresno Guarantee Savings & Loan Association Heritage Savings & Loan Association Morgan Guarantee Trust Company New York Life Insurance Company Reynolds Aluminum Acceptance Corporation Santa Barbara Savings & Loan Association Security Pacific National Bank Trans-Western Equities, Inc. OIL COHPANIES Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Energy Exchange Company Exxon Company U.S.A. Getty Oil Company Gulf Oil Corporation Howard Oil Company James Petroleum Corporation Mobil Oil Corporation Mohawk Petroleum Corporation Murray Petroleum Company, Inc. Navy Oil Company Shell Oil Company Signal Properties Superior Oil Company Texaco, Inc. WATER DISTRICTS & WATER STORAGE DISTRICTS Arvin-Edison Water Storage District Belridge Water Storage District Berrenda Mesa Water District California Water Service Company Kern Delta Water District Lost Hills Water District Semitropic Water Storage District Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District - ~-~ --, ;:0 '¡ ì -:- FOURTH QUARTER PROGRESS REPORT City of Baker5field~ California Regional Water Quality-Control Board. Groundwater Quality Improve~ent Project Standard Agreement No. 0-142-158-0 . May 15,1982 " . , . ) .' 2800 ACRE RECHARGE FACILITY CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA Standard Agreement No. 0-142-158-0 Groundwater is the primary source of water supply for all users in the Bakersfield area of Kern County. The aquifers have been subjected to intensive use over the past one hundred years and as a result, areas of bad water quality have developed. The over~all basin supply has also shown signs of quality degrada- tion during this time peridd. Since ßearly all water entering the groundwater basin area stays there until it is used consump- tively, the original salt load becom¿.s concentrated as the total water volume is reduced. Natural soil salts are alsó leached, from the soil into the groundwater supply as a result of irri- gated agriculture, recharge operations and point source disposal activities. Additional basin-wide salt concentration results from the continued over-draft of the basin supply. E.P.A. has approved the Regional Board's Phase IV workplan for Water Quality Management Planning for the Central Valley Region, pursuant to Section 208 of Public Law 92-500 (The Clean Water Act). The Phase IV workplan contains the Tulare Basin Ground- water Quality Improvement element which names the City of Bakers- field as Contraètor for the Bakersfield Recharge Study. , On May 15, 1981 S.W.R.C.B.Contract 0-142-158-0 was officially recognized and the work plan was initiated by City of Bakersfield personnel. , :õ \ \ 1 . . SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES The objective of this contract is to improve local groundwater quality by investigating the feasibility of recharging low. salinity surface water into the aquifer which will provide Bakersfield with an underground r~servoir of good quality water for domestic use. The 2800 acre recharge site is currently located within a highly developed agricultural. area which contributes significantly to groundwater degradation due to the deep per- colation of applied irrigation water. I Continued and optimizèd artificial recharge of low salinity surface water from the site, located adjacent to the Kern River channel, will tend to improve the quality of deep percolating waters in this area thereby reducing the rate of degradation normally associated with farming. WORK TO BE PERFORMED 1. Define surface and subsurface conditions which influence the flow of recharge water at this time, establish a plan for monitoring future flows 6f groundwater and a basis for planning structures to manage surface water flows more efficiently. 2. Plan,for a móst efficient use of recharge property under various stages of water availability and various manage- ment options. -2- ~- : \ ~ .' .' 3. Identify management options available to the City of Bakersfield in acquiring, storing and extracting water; determine the institutional and legal arrangements that might have an effect on how recharge can be used to develop the conjuctive use of the site by others. , , -3- - ~ . '\ i-' FOURTH .QUARTER PROGRESS REPORT "CITY OF BAKERSFIELD GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT" A continuing program of data gathering was carried on through- out this quarter of the project. Recent groundwater quality data from water wells in the immediate area of the project study site were aquired from private landowners and the Kern County Water Agency. Appropriate adjustments were ,made on the base maps that depict the existing groundwater quality conditions. Water quality samples were obtained by C~ty personnel and laboratory analyses performed by local accredited labs on imported surface waters used for groundwater recharge on the project site. Kern River and other waters diverted from the . Kaweah, Kings and San Joaquin Rivers were used for recharge at the project site during this quarter of the project. These were floodwaters introduced to this basin for direct ground- water recharge to ease flood damages that would have occurred outside this area. Samples were taken biweekly and laboratory analyses performed for chemical composition and total suspended solids. This information will be used in the calcùlation for salt loads and groundwater quality changes that might occur I during the duration of the study. City personnel keep records of quantities of flows introduced to the recharge site area, and these figures will be used.in those salt load calculations. - - --------~ ------ ~ ì , , I ~J Specifications for drilling and compieting observation wells on the "2800 Acres" project site were advertised and distributed I to prospective bidders. Thirty-seven (37) sets of specification documents were distributed and, four (4) formal bids were received by the City. Layne-Western Company, Inc, was low bidder and ha's been awarded the contract. Drilling is to commence June 14, 1982. The specifications call for seven (7) boreholes with electric logs on each hole and soil samples of the upper formation in each hole analyzed for Nitrates, T.D.S. and E.C. I Water quality samples will be taken by City personnel and analyses performed by an accredited lab. The development of a contract or agreement for use of the spreading facility by other entities is proceeding. Several public agencies have expres~ed a desire for use of the site and draft copies of an agreement for use have been distributed to those inquiring. Consideration for use of the facility include the type of water (irrigation or municipal), quality of the water to be spread, possibilities of extraction for future use, and costs incurred for spreading and use of facility. , ---- --------- - - --- ì ) :; .þ~ ",; FIFTH QUARTER PROGRESS REPORT City-of Bake~sfield- California Regional Water Quality-Control Board t Groundwater Quality Improvement Project Standard Agreement No. 0-142-158-0 AUGUST 20, 1982 I . I ----------- I ì \ I ,," ,{ FIFTH QUARTER PROGRESS REPORT "CITY OF BAKERSFIELD GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT" Seven observation/monitoring wells were drilled and com- pleted on the '2800 Acres' project site during this quarter. I Each well was drilled to 250' depth, electric logged, and heavy P.V.C. casing installed with a rugged cap and concrete seal incorporated with the base. Soi~ samples were obtained at 10' intervals down the borehole and were analysed for nitrates, electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. Water samples were taken after the wells were completed and regular irrigation analyses performed. These wells will be measured for depth to water on a monthly basis for the next few months and this information will be used to update existing groundwater level base maps. Water quality samples are scheduled to be taken again next spring to check for quality changes that might occur since the beginning of the project. The electric logs will be used to revise the preliminary cross-sections for use in recognition of subsurface strat- ifications and hydrological conditions. The logs show Spontaneous Potential, Point Resistivity, and 6' lateral log information. These cross-sections are currently being constructed. - - - - --- - - /' ì ) ~ A ì-L13 '::.er Spreading Agreement was drdfted and conce'ptually ~,.- . accepted by the City of Bakersfield Water Board during this quarter of the project. This sets terms and conditions for use of the '2800 Acres' project site and spells out specifically that, subject to consent of City, based on considerations of water quality of the spreading water, imported water may be used on the project site for groundwater recharge. This agreement also specifies that spreader shall be responsible for compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations and restrictions. Work is continuing on preliminary plans for construction of a diversion weir and headworks for. the control and distribution of water through the ?roject site. The preliminary plans and cost estimates should be available sometime during the next quarter of this project. Project money will not be used to pay for all of the engineering on this work. Currently Kern River water and imported California Aqueduct water are being used for groundwater recharge at the '2800 Acres' project site. These supplies are being monitored for quality on a weekly basis. As mentioned in a previous report, records of quantities and qualities of the various waters used for recharge at the project site are being kept to determine effects of salt load and dilutions of groundwater and the total effect on groundwater quality.