Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/78 AGENDA WATER BOARD ,- CITY OF B~ERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, .Ai~RIL 12, 1978 4: 00 P.M. Call Meeting to order Roll Call - Board Members: 'Rogers, Chairman; Barton, Bergen, Hoagland, Ratty ~ 1. Approve minutes of regular board meeting of April 5, 1978. 2. Presentation of Domestic Water Revenue Study by. Mr. Tom Stetson. BOARD TO DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON A GENERAL RATE INCREASE. 3. Staff Comments 4. Board Comments Adjournment M I'N U T~E S WATER BOARD ~ CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1978 4:00 P.M, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rogers in'the City Hail'Caucus Room. The secretary called the roll as follows: Present~ Rogers, Bergen, Hoagland, Ratty Absent: Barton Chuck Williams, Manager~Engineer for North Kern Water Storage District, George Nickel, President Nickel Enterprises, and Mel McColloch, Ranch Manager Nickel Enterprises, also, attended the meeting. The minutes from the regular meeting of April 5, 1978, were approved as presented. A report entitled "City of Bakersfield Ashe Water System Water Revenue Study" prepared by Thomas M. Stetson, Consulting Engineer for the City of Bakersfield was furnished to the board on Monday, April 10, 1978. Mr. Stetson stated the system'is presently oper- ating at a deficit. He has reviewed what the City's projected expenditures would be for the next three years and then project- ed the required revenue to meet those expenditures. It will require a general rate increase of 35 percent plus a 50 percent surcharge to those services outside of the City to meet these costs. Also, included in this recommendation is dropping the life-line rate structure and increasing the service charge. The life,line rate is not generally accepted by municipal water systems. The reason for the increase in the service charge is to recover more of the fixed expenses incurred by the City. Mr. Ratty questioned dropping the life-line rate. Mr. Stetson said, "keeping in the life-line rates would only s~ those persons who use minimum amounts of water, approximately 45 cents per month. Mr. Bergen requested an explanation to the Board as to why the rate would be more than California Water Service Company's. Mr. Stetson answered.that one reason is that the citY has purchased this system and we are paying principal and interest on bonds and that this is a substantial annual amount of expense that now has to be met, which did not have to be met under the pre- vious ownership. The other substantial item of cost is that the area is growing rapidly and there are alot of capital improve- ments to go in and these capital improvements have been projected in this report. Mr. Nickel wanted to know if the subsidy of treated water did not enter into %he cost comparison since a large part of California Water Service water is sold at a subsidized price from the Water Treatment Plant. In answer to his question Mr. Stetson stated that California Water is getting water from the treatment plant at a cost of less than what it is costing Ashe to pump it because present costs are running about $29.00 per acre foot for power, plus the present $15.00 per acre foot pump tax which is going to go to $20.00 per acre foot in July. It is costing $25.00 per acre foot for treated water. Mr. Hoagland made a motion that the board accept the rage schedule as set forth on Tables 14, 15, and 16 of the Ashe Water System Revenue Study. The motion was carried. The above rates are to become effective on May 1,..197~8~· Mr. Bergen made a motion that the Department of Water staff make a study of the following items listed on page V~4 of the study: Item No. 2. The City should authorize a study to determine the cause of the unaccounted for water. 3. The City should initiate a study to determine if better efficiencty of power can be achieved. 4. The City should begin a master plan of its water system which would include at least the following. a. Required improvements b. Potential financing methods c. Possible availability of low cost loans or grants. Board Comments Mr. Hoagland informed the board that the unaccounted for water costs the system approximately $40,000.00 a year this amounts to about $15,600.00 in pump tax alone. The staff should confirm this figure and attempt to get~ an adjustment on our pump tax charge. Mr. George Nickel addressed the board relative to the Rio Bravo Annexation area. The Olcese Water District has'applied to LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) for annexation of the area betwee~ ID-4-and the Olcese Water District that is now in the City. Olcese has been meeting with Tom Stetson on this matter and they want to cooperate fully. Mr. Nickel feels one of the simplest ways to handle this is through a bond issure procedure in the Olcese Water District for the main lines. Mr. Stetson stated that he is in the process of s~udying the area for the City and will probably have the study completed in the latter part of June. In answer to Mr, Bergen's question as to whether of not the Intertie was scheduled to handle the runoff for this year, Mr. Chafin stated tha~ so far as his personal feelings were con- cerned he was worried about this. Mr. Chafin, "asked Chuck Williams, Kern River Watermaster if he would like to comment on the matter, and he declined." There is a question as to whether of not the Isabella outflow to date has been adequate to meet the flood control criteria. There being no further business to come before the board, Chair- man Rogers adjourned the meeting, at 4:58 P.M. ~.inda Hos'tmye~r~, S'e¢~etarY City of Bakersfield Water Board