HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 76-71RESOLUTION NO. -76-71
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD CONSENTING TO THE INCLUSION
OF THE LANDS WITHIN THE CITY IN THE PROPOSED
URBAN BAKERSFIELD AREA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the Kern County Water Agency is authorized to
establish an improvement district for providing supplemental
water to the Urban Bakersfield Area, and
WHEREAS, the Kern County Water Agency adopted a resolution
on December 10, 1970, declaring its intent to form an improvement
district for the purpose of bringing supplemental water to the
Urban Bakersfield Area, and
WHEREAS, by letter dated May 24, 1971, the City of
Bakersfield approved a'plan for delivery of imported water to the
U.rban Bakersfield Area by way of a Cross-Valley Canal subject to
more detailed plans for the construction of the canal and partici-
pation thereof, and
WHEREAS, plans have been drawn, cost figures presented
on a joint participation basis, and other data prepared by the
Kern County Water Agency in the implementation of the proposed
Urban Bakersfield Improvement District, and
WHEREAS, Section 99-14.9 of the Kern County Water Agency
Act as amended by Statutes 1968 Chapter 369 provides that the
legislative body of the City of Bakersfield must file a resolution
adopted by a majority vote of the City Council consenting to the
inclusion of lands within the improvement district.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of B~kersfi~l~ ~s fQ!iQ~;
1. That the report entitled
"Second Supplemental Report
Plan for Delivery of Water
to and a Financial Plan for
an Urban Bakersfield Area
Improvement District
by Walter G. Schulz, Consultant
October, 1971"
is hereby made a part of this Resolution as if fully set forth
herein.
2. That the costs, alternative plans, proposals contained
therein, conditions, delivery schedules, revenues, capital con-
struction and joint participation as contained in said report be
substantially complied with as a condition of consent to the
inclusion of the lands within the City of Bakersfield within the
proposed improvement district.
3. The City of Bakersfield consents to the inclusion of
the lands within the City of Bakersfield in the proposed improvement
district subject to paragraphs 1 and 2 above·
o0o
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at
a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of November, 1971,
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN BLEECKER, HEISEY, MEDDERS, REES, RUCKER, THOMAS, WHITTEMORE
.ABSENT COUNCILMEN
ABSTAINING COUNCILMEN:
APPRO~y~R~
MAY
C j rk of the
LE a 1
[~%~-t ~d o~ Nove 9
~~C~Bakersfield
APPROVED:
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
Paler or Delivery of Water to
and a Financial Plan for an
Urban Bakersfield Area Improvement District
by
Walter G. Schulz, Consultant
October 1971
The Board of Directors of Kern County Water Agency
adopted a resolution on December 10, 1970, declaring its
intent to form an improvement district for the purpose of
bringing supplemental water to the urban Bakersfield area.
Hearings were held on February 17, April 1 and
July 22 to consider evidence with respect to the plan of
physical works and financing of the improvement district.
Two reports have been prepared in which such a plan was
detailed. The included features are designated as the Cross-
Valley Canal, the Cross-Valley Canal Extension, groundwater
recharge facilities, a water treatment plant, and, pipelines
and apDurtenant pumping plants. The reports also included
a description of the method and degree of participation of
other member units of the Agency in the Cross-Valley Canal
and its extension. Cost allocation procedures and repayment
schedules were also presented.
Subsequent to the July 22 hearing, further analysis
was made of the special problems inherent in delivery of
supplemental water to East Niles Community Services District,
North of the River Municipal Water District and the City of
Bakersfield. The "George Nickel Plan" as presented at the
hearings was explored including the elements of an exchange
of State Water Pro.~ect water for a portion of the Kern River
entitlement of Buena Vista Water Storage District.
As a result of these negotiations, further refinements
were made in the Cross-Valley program and these are described
in this second supplemental report. Only the changes and
alternatives are discussed herein. For other details refer-
ence is made to the two prior reports.
Cross-Valley Canal
At the July 22 session of the hearing, Pond-Poso
Improvement District of Semitropic Water Storage District
stated that it no longer desired to be included in the
-1-
Cross-Valley Canal. It is considered to be in the best
interests of the urban area to have Pond-Poso Improvement
District withdraw in view of the complications involved
in exchanging water with Arvin-Edison Water Storage District
and arranging for use of the Friant-Kern Canal.
Also at the July 22 session of the hearing, Kern
Delta Water District stated it desired to participate on a
somewhat different basis than previously proposed. This
request has been recognized and there is presented herein
a plan for Kern Delta Water District to take one-half its
allocation through the Cross-Valley Canal for groundwater
recharge or interim sale to Rag Gulch Water District, and
the other one-half from Kern River into the canal system
serving the eastern part of its district in an exchange with
Buena Vista Water Storage District. The district is urged
to vigorously pursue the necessary'exchange and sale arrange-
ments.
In presenting his plan, Mr. George Nickel took
exception to the alignment of the Cross-Valley Canal. He
urged very strongly that a routing along the south side
of the r~.ver was preferable and also that an exchange be
entered into with Buena Vista Water Storage District. Both
recommendations have been considered. First, the routing
of the Cross-Valley Canal is not dependent on an exchange,
but rather would revolve about selecting the most feasible
route from. both engineering and economic considerations
during the final design stage. Thus, the various alternative
alignments that could be considered in addition to that
presented in prior reports would include at least the following:
(a) Use of the Buena Vista main canal
from near the California Aqueduct to the
crossing of Interstate Highway No. 5 in
either a concrete-lined or unlined state.
In the latter case a portion of West Kern
County Water District entitlement would be
carried to the extent of the seepage losses
which would be credited to its groundwater
recharge program.
(b) Continuation in the Buena Vista
main canal from Interstate Highway No. 5
across the Kern River and thence parallel
to the Kern River Canal to a point near
Pioneer Weir where facilities would divide
to service the participants in the program.
°2-
(c) Use of Buena Vista main canal as in
, thence northeasterly to an alignment
~ miles south of Stockdale Highway and
thence generally along the route originally
proposed.
These are possible alternatives, but the route set
forth for analysis herein has not been changed in order
that cost comparisons may be realistic and on the same
basis.
In the reopening of discussions of an exchanKe with
Buena Vista Water Storage District a firm indication of
the cost was requested. The district offered to exchange
from forty to forty-five thousand acre-feet of firm,
regulated water for a payment of $7.00 per acre-foot. It
was determined that costs to the urban area for the plan
proposed by the prior reports to the Agency would be
reduced by an amount equal to cost of the exchange offered
by the district, but in making this savinK there would be
a transfer of $800,000 in capital costs to agricultural
member units. Thus, there would be a net loss to the agri-
cultural participants. If a more economical routing is
available as has been contended then the savings to the
urban area would be proportionately less since the area s
financial obligation would be expressed by a percentage of
a smaller amount.
Exchanges with Kern River interests are not pre-
cluded by a Cross-Valley program either on an interim or
permanent basis. This is particularly the case if all
member units are considered as with Kern Delta Water
District.
The adjusted allocation ratios for the participants
in the Cross-V~lley Canal program, computed in the same
manner as previously, are set forth in Table 1 and the
capital and annual equivalent costs to each participant
are shown tn Table 2, both attached.
Cross-Valley Canal Extension
Reach I of the Cross-Valley Canal Extension ham not
been changed from tha~ presented in the ,July 1071 report for
the case in which it would be used jointly by the urban
serv{.ce area and Cawelo Water District. The capital, annual
and allocated costs areas set forth in Tables 7 and 8 of the
July 1971 report.
-3-
Reach II of the Cross-V~lley Canal Extension has been
materially revised once again in this supplemental report by
virtue of a change in location of the proposed treatment plant.
Thus, Reach II. as set forth in the July 1971 report, or some
modification thereof. would become the sole responsibility of
the Cawelo Water District to construct and operate. It is
estimated that the capital cost to convey the entitlement of
that district from the treatment plant site near Calloway
Weir to the BeardsIcy Canal at Airport Drive would be about
eight percent more than the ~oint use facility described in
the July 1971 report,.
Treatment and D~livery Facilities
The resolution of the Agency Board that announced its
intent to form an improvement district included among the
facilities for the project a treatment plant and pipelines
and pumping plants to dellNet treated water. The features
were considered in the February 1971 report as separable
facilities in connection with the then proposed exchange
with First Point interests on Kern River. In the July 1971
report there was no detailed discussion of these facilities
other than suggesting a deferment in time. It was also
considered in that report that the supply for East Niles Com-
munity Services District would be delivered through the Arvin-
Edison Canal.
There are certain uncertainties with respect to a
large scale groundwater recharge program and there is no
question that the greatest benefit to the Kroundwater basin'
can be achieved by a substantial and immediate reduction
in draft. This can be accomplished in the desired manner by
direct delivery of State Project water into the systems of the
major purveyors within the urban area with a corresponding-
positive reduction in draft. Furthermore, losses by evapo-
transpiration of the imported supply would be reduced by such
an operation. Thus, it is now considered that a treatment
plant should be an initial facility of the urban area plan
and that the appropriate location for the plant would be near
the end of Reach I of the Cross-Valley Canal Extension and in
the general vicinity of Calloway Weir.
Additionally, pipellnes would extend northward and
eastward from the treatment plant to those portions of the
service area most in need of direct service. These are:
East Niles Community Services District, since it would not
be permitted to take State Pro~ect water in any quantit or
dilution into its existing DE ~reatment plant as would Kave
-4-
occurred if the plan to use the Arvin-Edison Canal had been
followed, and North of the River Municipal Water DiStrict
for replacement of the water of unsatisfactory quality now
served in a portion of its service area. These areas will be
able to receive their supplemental supply as soon as the
treatment plant and biDelines are in operation.
Pro~ect Costs
The recomputation of the project costs of the Cross-
Valley Canal from those ~et forth in Table 13 of the July
1971 report, based on the revised participation by agri-
cultural member units, is set forth in Table 3 attached.
This tabulation atso contains costs of State Project water
and of the Cross-Valley Canal Extension which are unchanged
from those shown in Table 13 of the July 1971 report. Only
the values based on continuously escalated costs for operation
and maintenance are shown. There is an increase in cost for
the urban area's share of the participation in the Cross-
Valley Canal between this report and the last one that averages
about 15 percent. The explanation for this increase was pre-
sented in the comparison of five assumptions of degrees of
participation in the Cross-Valley Canal as described on pages
12 to 14 of the July 1971 report.
A further inclusion in this tabulation, one which
was contained only in the February 1971 report, is the cost
of the treatment plant and conveyance facilities.
It may be noted that no general water charge or
demand unit cost computations are shown in Table 3 as in
its counterpart previously. Later in this report there is
a reanalysis of the water demand in the urban area from
that shown in Column 2 of Table 13 of the July 1971 report,
which indicates a higher use throughout the buildup period
based on current knowledge of the urban demand for the new
population projections within the urban area and the agri-
cultural demands which were not previously included.
The treatment and delivery system would comprise the
following works and have the followinR capital costs at
1972 price levels:
-5-
Facility
Treatment Plant: First stage
22.5 MGD Nominal Capacity
Pipelines & Booster Pumping ,P, lants )
North of River: 24" and 18 pipeline )
aggregating 16,000 feet plus 2
Booster Pumping Plants- 470 HP
Bakersfield-East Niles: 15" to 36"
pipeline aggregating 34,000 feet
plus 3 Booster Pumping Plants
aggregating 1800 HP
)
)
)
)
)
)
Capital Cost
$5,570,000
$3,715,000
The annual costs for debt service of these facilities
and the operating costs of the treatment plant are also set
forth in Table 3 and their general location is shown on the
attached map.
Annual operating costs, including power costs~ for
conveyance facilities are to be borne by the respective water
purveyors.
Population Projection and Water Demand
A question has been raised during discussions of the
improvement district plan concerning the reliability of the
estimates of water demand in view of the reduced rate of
growth in California as shown by the 1970 census.
The water demand schedule used throughout the prior
studies were those set forth in the report entitled "Alternate
Sources of Water Supply for Bakersfield Urban Area" by Thomas
M. Stetson, dated 1 July 1966,
An earlier report issued in August 1963 by Boyle
Engineering to the City of Bakersfield entitled "Imported
Water Supply for Urban Bakersfield" also contained population
and water demand schedules.
However, both those reports were directed only toward
an estimation of the municipal and industrial water require-
ments of an area that was essentially the same as proposed
for the Urban Bakersfield Area Improvement District. The
Stetson report indicates a minimum supplemental demand in
1990 for such purposes of 66,000 acre-feet and the Boyle
-6-
report predicted 100,000 acre-feet for the same date.
Neither took cognizance of the current or continuing demands
for agricultural water. A comparison of the population
projections in those two reports and that developed for this
report, based on the latest census data, are as follows:
This
Boyle Stetson Report
1960 155,000
1965 186,000
1970 217,000 201,000 185,000'
1975 255,000 235,000 205,000
1980 300,000 270,000 220,000
1985 348,000 304,000 235,000
1990 404,000 336,000 250,000
2000 280,000
2010 310,000
2020 340,000
*Census data
The differences are due to the marked decrease in
growth as a result of a lesser migration to California and
reduced family size. For example, the population of Kern
County increased by 28 percent in the decade of the lq50's
and only 12 percent in the past census demand. The urban
Bakersfield area's rate of growth has been somewhat greater
than the entire County.
A survey made by the Department of Water Resources
in 1969 showed that the pattern of land use in the urban
service area was as follows:
Urbanized 24,200 acre~
Agricultural 21,100 acres
Idle 21,600 acres
Total 66,900 acres
Records of the California Water Service Company and
the studies of the Department of Water Resources indicate a
per capita demand over the 1958-1970 period of slightly more
than 325 gDcd. The average rate of applied water for agri-
culture in the area is at least 3.5 acre-feet Per acre.
Table 13 of the July 1971 report shows a demand for
urban service in 1969 of 76,000 acre-feet as compared to
-7-
68,000 acre-feet by computation from the land use survey.
However, the inclusion of the agricultural demand more than
offsets the decrease due to a lesser population.
It is also unquestioned that future urban growth will
encroach on both the agricultural and presently idle lands.
For purposes of estimation, it is asstuned that there would be
a more rapid decline in agricultural land use than an increase
in urban use. On this basis, the future water demand may be
somewhat as follows:
Urban ASricuI~ural Use
Demand Area Water Total
(Ac.ft.) (a__c.__) (ac.ft.) (ac.ft.)
1970 68 000 21,000 74,000 142,000
1980 80r000 17.000 60,000 140,000
1990 91,000 14,000 4q,000 140,000
2000 102,000 12,000 42,000 144,000
2010 113,000 11,000 38.000 151,000
2020 124,000 10,000 35,000 159,000
The total supply available to the urban service area
is in the probable range of the following:
State Project Entitlement
Safe yield from groundwater
Agricultural return flows
M&I return flows
Range
77,000 - 77,000 acre-feet
10,000 - 30,000 acre-feet
(11,000 - 23,000)acre-feet
(38,000 - 20,000)acre-feet
136,000 to 150,000 acre-feet
Based on the foregoing assumptions. it appears that
there is a demand for imported water in the urban service
area in the amount allocated to it and that this quantity
is required to develop a balanced supply for the area.
Furthermore. the allocated amount plus an allowance for an
entitlement to the safe yield of the groundwater basin and
credit for return flows will serve the urban area until after
the turn of the century, considering that the return flows
add to the basinwide balance.
Costs and Revenues
The project construction costs have been developed
on the basis of lq70 prices and then escalated at five
percent annually to the year of construction. Capital funds
for construction are pr~sun~a to be obtai~d through ~uance
-8-
of general obligation bonds with a 30-year term and bearing
seven percent interest.
Operation, maintenance and replacement costs of the
Cross-Valley facilities were estimated at current prices and
escalated at 2-1/2 percent annually throughout the period of
project repayment analysis. The State facilities operation
and maintenance costs were escalated in the same manner. State
project capital costs for Delta facilities, as yet not con-
structed, and for additional storage facilities to maintain
the total pro~ect yield are included in the total as is
escalation thereon. Pumping costs were based on Pacific Gas
and Electric Company schedules.
The annual values for each of the foregoing items
of cost are set forth in Table 3 attached.
The resolution of the Agency Board, in which the intent
to form an improvement district, established a limit on the
roundwater extraction charge of $20,00 per acre-foot and
~0.20 per hundred dollars of assessed valuation on the ad
valorem tax for purposes other than payment of principal and
interest on bonds. Furthermore, the Board may establish
different rates in setrinK the groundwater extraction charges
for different classes of service. There are two classes of
service within the urban area: namely, agricultural and
municipal-industrial for which different rates may be set
provided the ratio does not exceed two. In the ensuing
revenue analysis the permissible maximum rates stated above
and a lower rate of $14 per acre-foot as the cost for agri-
cultural water will be utilized. The latter is considered to
be about comparable to the costs for water service including
S~ate water charges incurred byneighboring agricultural
member units and thus, does not create an economic advantage
for one over the other. Direct delivery for urban use from
the treatment plant will be assigned a cost equal to that of
the groundwater extraction charge. The potential project
revenues under the foregoing conditions, using water demand
estimates developed herein and assessed valuations presented
in previous reports, are set forth in Table 4 attached for
each year from 1973 to 2005, and each 5 years thereafter to
2020.
It must be recognized that any presentation of a
cost and revenue schedule is for illustrative purposes only
and many combinations are possible. The Agency Board must
conduct a public hearing each year on the establishment of
the groundwater extraction charge and the ad valorem tax
rate for costs other than payment of principal and interest
-9-
on the general obligation bonds. The latter will always
have available the full tax base of the improvement district
in the event the other sources of revenue do not meet debt
service requirements. Throughout the financial analysis of
the urban area program, an amortization schedule involving
30 equal annual payments for debt service at 7 percent
interest has been used. Under such a schedule the annual
payment for debt service would be the amount of the interest
due on the then outstanding bonds plus the principal on an
annually increasing number of bonds to be retired. In view
of the flow of revenues, as set forth in Table 4, it would be
appropriate to schedule bond maturities somewhat differently
to achieve the most financially attractive plan. The exact
schedule would be developed by the Agency's financial consul-
tants at the time a bond prospectus is being prepared. However,
by review of the flow of revenues set forth in Table 4, it
would appear that a higher rate of maturities in the first 10
years would be desirable. With a reduction thereafter, the
short term maturities should demand a lower interest rate.
A computation of the flow of revenues as related to
payment obligations under the foregoing assumptions, including
the constraint of uniform annual amortization of the bonded
debt over a 30 year period, is set forth in Table 5 attached.
The annual differences between costs and revenues are shown
for individual years and are also accumulated with 4 percent
interest compounded annually on the unused balance.
The following may be postulated from an examination
of Table 5:
1. The project could generate.revenues in excess of
annual costs starting with the first year of operation and
extending through 1983 that would aggregate $4.0 million,
and if these funds were accumulated in a bond reserve fund
bearing only 4 percent interest compounded annually, they
would have a value at the beginning of 1984 of $5.3 million.
2. There would be a deficiency in revenues as
related to annual costs between 1984 and 2002 that would
aggregate $7.9 million but these deficiencies could be met
by drawing on the bond reserve fund, the balance of which
would continue to draw interest. Thus, after redemption of
the last bond in 2002 there would still be a surplus of
$0.47 million considering only a 4 percent rate of reinvested
capital.
-10 -
3. After 2002 when the capital cost of the Agency
constructed facilities has been repaid, the project could
still produce surplus revenues of about $0.65 million annually
until 2015 and more thereafter when a large portion of the
State Water Project capital costs are repaid.
4. If the Agency Board chooses to reduce groundwater
extraction and direct delivery charges, and ad valorem taxes
for the years prior to 1984, so that no surplus revenues
were collected', it would be necessary to use other means of
financin~ the deficiencies in revenues between 1984 and 2002
which could include:
(a) Levying an ad valorera tax for debt
service in the amount of 1.3¢ per $100 of assessed
valuation in 1984, increasing uniformly more or
less each year to a maximum rate of 14¢ in 1994,
and then reducing to 13¢ in 2002, and nothing there-
after; or
(b) Passing certain operating costs to the
accounts of water purveyors; or
(c) Creating a zone of benefit and establish-
ing assessment rates thereon for the purpose of
making payments to the State of California.
Thus, it may be concluded that the plan as presented
before this hearing for delivery of a supplemental supply of
water from the State Water Project to the proposed Urban
Bakersfield Area Improvement District is physically feasible
and financiall~ sound. The plan has been developed for the mutual
benefit of the proposed urban improvement district and agricult-
ural member units of the Agency. Thus, if participation in the
Cross-Valley Canal by agricultural member units of the Agency
is not realized, an input of additional capital and a rearrange-
ment of the financial plan for the improvement district would
be required.
The'estimates of interest rates for an Agency bond
issue on behalf of the proposed improvement district are
considered to be materially higher than would be obtained under
present market conditions, and the inclusion of cost eScalation
in the operation and maintenance charges places a conservative
aspect on the financial analysis. If construction cost savings
can be achieved as well, the project's posture will be further
enhanced, although the long period through which this hearing
has been continued makes it appear that construction and
-11 -
delivery of water will be delayed one year. Whether 'this will
have any bearing on estimated capital costs in view of the
current governmental action against inflation cannot be pre-
dicted. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to consider the
same values as Dresented as being appropriate to either 1972
or 1973. In any event, the proposed improvement district
could not levy ad valorem taxes prior to the 1973-74 fiscal-
year and a groundwater extraction charge would not, be appro-
priate until a portion of the supplemental supply has been
brought to the urban service area.
It is now imperative that the required resolutions from
public agencies within the boundaries of the proposed improve-
ment district be obtained without further delay and that
negotiations of contracts with Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage
District, Kern Delta Water District and Cawelo Water District
be undertaken immediately to specify the participation of each
in the Cross-Valley facilities. With resDect to any public
entities that are purveyors of municipal and industrial water,
or within which such water is delivered by others, but which
public agencies do not become a part of the proposed improvement
district by resolution of their directors, it will be necessary
for the Agency to establish a zone of benefit under the provisions
of Section 14.2 of the Agency Act. The funds collected therein
would be used in making payments to the State and such payments
should be credited to the account of the Urban Bakersfield Area
Improvement District.
Walter G. Schulz
Leeds, Hill and Jewerr, Inc.
San Francisco, California
October 20, 1971
-12 -
TABLE 1
CROSS-VALLEY CANAL
COST ALLOCATION RATIOS
District
Maximum
Annual Entitle-Maximum
Entitle- ment Capacity
ment Ratio Required
(1000 AF) .CFS
Capacity
Ratio
Average
Ratio
(2)+(4)
2
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Rosedale-Rio
Bravo WSD
Cawelo WD
Kern Delta WD
Urban Bakersfield
Area ID
TOTAL
REACH I
35.0
45.0
15.0
77.0
172.0
0.2035
.2616
.0872
.4477
1.0000
90.0
135.0
45.0
141.0
411.0
0.2190
.3285
.1095
.3430
1.0000
0.2112
.2950
.0984
.3954
1.0000
ROsedale-Rio
Bravo WSD
Cawelo WD
Kern Delta WD
Urban Bakersfield
Area ID
TOTAL
REACH II
23.3
45.0
15.0
77.0
160.3
0.1454
.2807
.0936
.4803
1.0000
60.0
135.0
45.0
'141.0
381.0
0.1575
.3543
.1181
.3701
1.0000
.1515
.3175
.1058
.4252
1.0000
Cawelo WD
Kern Delta WD
Urban Bakersfield
Area ID
TOTAL
REACH III
45.0
15.0
77.0
137.0
0.3285
.1095
.5620
1.0000
135.0
45.0
141.0
321.0
0.4206
0.1402'
.4392
1.0000
.3746
.1248
.5006
1.0000
TABLE 2
CROSS-VALLEY CANAL
ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL COSTS
District
Rosedale-Rio Bravo WSD
Cawelo WD
Kern Delta WD
Urban Bakersfield Area ID
TOTAL
Capital
Cost
$
1,381,200
3,013,000
1,004,300
4,034,500
9,433,000
Annual
Equivalent
cost 1_/
$
111,300
242,900
80,900
325,100
760,200
Percentage.
of Total
Cost
14.64
31.94
10.65
42.77
100.00
1_/ 30 years at 7 percent
t
TABLE 3
PROJECT COSTS
URBAN BAKERSFIELD AREA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
· Thousands of Dollars
Cross Valley
State Canal
Water Captta~ OM&R
Year Cost
I 2
1968 293.0
69 333.0
1970 509.4
1971 502.5
72 622.2
73 683.0
74 755.1
1975 814.3
1976 915.6
77 985.4
78 1073.4
79 1082.6
1980 1135.6
1981 1156.8
82 1224.8
83 1304,3
e4 1357.7
1985 1436.4
1986 1527.3
87 1574.6
88 1612.9
89 1651.4
1990 1734.4
1991 1722.0
92 1732.2
93 1735.6
94 1788.6
1995 1792.1
1996 1799,5
97 1799.1
96 1602.7
99 1806.4
2000 1810.3
2001 1814,2
02 1818.2
03 1822.3
04 1826.5
2009 1830.9
2010 1859.2
2015 1803,0
2020 1S12,2
~0JS 1531,6
2030 1554,9
2035 1582,5
Cost Cost
3 4
C Caplta~~ OX&X Capita OM&R
2+4+6+8 11+12~13
Cost ~et ~st ~st C~t Cost +10
S 6 ? 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14
· 325,l 21,6 103,3 60,5 446,6 224,0 299,3
325,1 44,0 103-3 62,0 448,6 230,0 299,3
325.1 ?J,4 103,3 63.6 448.6 236.0 299.3
325-1 · ?8,9 103.3 65-2 448.6 242.0 299.3
325.1 86,8 103,3 66.8 448.6 248.0 299.3
3~5-1 96,6 103-3 66,5 446,6 254,0 299,3
325.l 105,8 103.3 7002 448.6 260.0 299.3
325-1 115.6 103.3 ?1.9 448.6 266.0 299.3
325,1 119.? 103-3 73-? 448.6 273.0 299.3
325.1 124,1 103,3 ?5,6 448.6 280.0 299.3
3~5,1 130,3 103,3 ??.4 448.6 287.0 299.3
395,1 136.9 103,3 ?9.4 448.6 294.0 299.3
325.1 Idl.S 103,3 61.a 448.6 301.5 299.3
3~6-1 145.5 103.3 83.4 446.6 309.0 299.3
325-1 152,9 103,3 85,5 448.6 317.0 299.3
325-l 159-4 103-3 87-6 446.6 325.0 299,3
365.1 166,3 103,3 89,8 448.6 333.0 299.3
325.1 172.9 103-3 92,1 448.6 341.0 299.3
325.1 111.2 103,3 94.4 448.6 349.0 299.3
305,1 181~ 103,3 96-? 448.6 358.0 299.3
325.J ~ 6-2 103-3 99.1 448.6 367.0 299.3
3~5,1 190,8 103,3 101,6 448.6 376.0 299.3
325,J 195,6 103,3 104.2 448,6 386,0 299,3
325.1 200,5 103,3 106-8 448.6 396.0 299.3
325.1 205.5 103,3 109.4 448.6 406.0 299.3
325,1 210,6 103-3 · 112,2 448,6 416,0 299,3
385,1 215 a 103,3 115,0 446.6 426.0 299,3
326-t 221,3 Io3-3 117,6 448,6 436,0 299,3
305,1 2264 103,3 120,8 448.6 447.0 299.3
325-1 030,5 103,3 123.8' 448.6 458.0 299.3
· 0 e38,3 ,0 186*9 ,0 469.0 00
· 0 244.3 *0 13001 00 481.0 00
-0 e50,a ,0 133,3 ,o 494.0 -0
~ ~303 eO .150,8 eO 560.0
· 0 3ee.s ,o 170,7 ,o 625.0 .o
· 0 360.6 *0 193,1 .O 716.0 *0
· o 41o,8 ,0 tl8,S ,0 810.0 ,O
· 0 46&B .O 261.0 ,0 935.0
· 0 085,e ,0 279.1 ,0 1035.0 00
63.0 1176.3 989.0 2226.3
70.6 1176,3 1091.3 2338.2
76.8 1176.3 1165.2 2440.3
83.9 1176.3 1301.7 2561.9
91.6 1176,3 1387.0 2655.1
97.0 1176.3 1491.0 2764.3
102.2 1176.3 1518.6 2797.1
107.3 1176.3 1569.1 2872.7
113.0 1176.3 1623.2 2912,5
120.6 1176.3 1705.1 3002.0
126.0 1176,3 1799.0 3101,3
133,6 1176,3 1868.0 3177.9
141,5 1176,3 1962,8 3280,6
146.9 1176.3 2065.2 3388.4
154.6 1176.3 2130.0 3461.1
160.2 1176.3 2184.9 3521.4
165.4 1176.3 2240.5 3582.2
* 173.2 1176.3 2340.4 3689.9
173.2 1176.3 2342.6 3692.1
173.2 1176,3 2368.3 3717.8
173.2 1176.3 2387.9 3737.4
173.2 1176.3 2457.0 3806.5
173.2 1176.3 2477.9 3827.4
173.2 1176.3 2498.8 3849,3
173.2 1176.3 2520.0 3969.5
173.2 1176.3 2541.5 3891.0
173.2 1176.3 2563.3 3912,8
173.2 1176,3 2585.4 3934.9
173.2 1176,3 2608.8 3958.3
173,2 1176.3 2632.5 3982.0
173.2
173.2
173.2
173.2
173.2
173.2
173.2
173.2
173,2
· 0 2656.5 2829.7
· 0 2661.9 2655.1
· 0 2708.6 2661.8
00 2853.3 3026.5
· 0. 2919.2 3092.4
· 02782.7 2955.9
· 02970.4 3143.6
· 03181,3 3354.5
00 3422,4 3595,6
Year
19
1968
69
1970
1971
72
73
74
1975
1976
77
78
79
1980
1981
82
83
84
1985
1986
87
88
89
1990
1991
92
93
94
1995
1996
97
98
99
2000
2001
02
03
04
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025~
2030
.2035
Allocated capJill mot (19728) is 84,034,500.
AlXoeatad aepLtel coot (19728) is 11,282,200.
Capital colt (19728) il $5,570,000.
Capital a~et (19121) is $3,115,000,
Power anet is $2.24/sare foot.
711019
TABLE 4'
POTENTIAL PROJECT REVENUES
(Thousands of Dollars}
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
· 1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2010
2015
Hun ic ip al
Industrial
Revenue
1432.0
1456.0
1480.0
1504.0
1528.0
1552.0
1576.0
1600.0
1622.0
1644.0
1666.0
1688.0
1710.0
1732.0
1754.0
1776.0
1798.0
1820.0
1842.0
1864.0
1886.0
1908.0
1930.0
1952.0
1974.0
1996.0
2018.0
2040.0
2062.0
2084.0
2106.0
2128.0
2150.0
2260.0
2370.0
Agricultural
Revenue
977.2
957.6
938.0
918.4
898.8
879.2
859.6
854.0
824.6
809.2
793.8
778.4
763.0
747.6
732.2
716.8
701.4
686.0
676.2
666.4
656.6
646.8
637.0
627.2
617.4
607.6
597.8
588.0
582.4
576.8
571.2
565.6
560.0
532.0
511.0
Ad Valorem
Tax
Revenue
60O.0
606.0
612.0
618.2
624.4
630.6
637.0
643.2
649.8
656.2
662.8
669.4
676.0
682.8
689.6
696.6
703.6
710.6
717.6
724.8
732.2
739.4
746.8
754.2
761.8
769.4
777.2
785.0
792.8
800.8
808.8
816.8
825.0
867.0
911.2
Total
Revenue
3009.2
3019.6
3030.0
3040.6
3051.2
3061.8
3072.6
3097j2
3096.4
3109.4
3122.6
3135.8
3 149.0
3162.4
3175.8
3189.4
3203.0
3216.6
3235.8
3255.2
3274.8
3294.2
3313.8
3333.4
3353.2
3373.0
3393.0
3413.0
3437.2
3461.6
3486.0
3510.4
3535.0
3659.0
3792.2
2020 2480.0 490.0 957.8 3927.8
TABLE 5
PROJECT RE'~AYHENT
(Thousands of Dollars)
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2010
2015
Annual
Surplus
(Deficit)
780.9
681.4
589.7
478.7
396.1
297.5
275.5
224.5
183.9
107.4
21.3
(226.0)
(285.3)
(456.3)
(462.6)
(518.
(519.
(521.9)
(521.1)
(520.4)
656.3
655.3
653.2
632.5
699.8
Balance
Including
In~'erest
780.9
1493.5
2143.0
2707.4
3211.8
3637.8
4058.8
4445.6
4807.4
5107.0
5332.6
5503.8
5592.4
5590.1
5528.4
5417.5
5255.0
4991.9
4735.3
4462.1
4178.0
3832.8
3472.5
3096.5
2704.1
2294.2
1866.2
1419.0
954.6
472.4
2020 971.8 -
0n-