Agenda packet — Bishop City Council, April 8, 2024

CITY OF BISHOP

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
City Council Chambers - 301 West Line Street - Bishop, California MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2024 - 6:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER - 6:00 P.M. Monday, April 8, 2024

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE - As we begin tonight's meeting, please join me in a moment of silence for self-meditation, prayer, or reflection.

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Please be advised this meeting is accessible to the public in person, on the City of Bishop website, or on the local government cable channel 12. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 760-873-5863 Extension 124. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR

35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

The public is encouraged to participate or observe this meeting by:

1. Attending this meeting in person at the City of Bishop City Council Chambers located at 301 West Line Street in Bishop, California.

2. Observing this meeting live from the City of Bishop website at:
https://www.cityofbishop.com/government/city_council/index.php

3. Observe this meeting live from the local government cable channel 12.

Public comments may be made:

1. In person: Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Mayor for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Council consideration (or complete a speaker card prior to the meeting). Comments for all agenda items are limited to a speaking time of three minutes unless modified by the Mayor.

2. In writing: Go to http://bishop-ca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=8 to submit an "eComment" for the corresponding meeting. Please note that eComment submissions closes at 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. You may also hand deliver public comments to the City drop/payment box located at the Church Street entrance to City Hall on or before the deadline noted above. Written public comments received after the deadline will be provided to the Council at the earliest possibility. Please note written public comments received will not be read aloud at the meeting.

Any writing that is a public record that relates to an agenda item for open session distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection at City Hall, 377 West Line Street, Bishop, California during normal business hours.

Government Code 54957.5(b)(1). Copies will also be provided at the appropriate meeting.
1 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Ellis will lead the pledge of allegiance.

4. ROLL CALL

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

6. DEPARTMENT REPORTS
A. Fire Department - Fire Chief Bret Russell
B. Police Department - Police Chief Nate Derr
C. Public Works Department - Public Works Director Nora Gamino D. Community Services Department - Community Services Manager Dan McElroy E. Planning Department - Assistant Planner Ana Budnyk
F. Administration - City Administrator Deston Dishion

7. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation - Declaring April 2024 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month and Child Abuse Prevention Month in Bishop - Requested by Wild Iris Executive Director Vanessa Hays.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. City Council Meeting Minutes
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: This time is set aside to receive public comment on matters not calendared on the agenda. When recognized by the Mayor, please state your name and address for the record and please limit your comments to three minutes. Under California law the City Council is prohibited from generally discussing or taking action on items not included in the agenda; however, the City Council will listen to all public comment but will not generally discuss the matter or take action on it.

Updates on department activities will be given by the Department Heads and/or their staff.

Fire Department Report - March 2024
Police Department Report - March 2024
Public Works Department Report - March 2024
Community Services Department Report - March 2024
Planning Department Report - March 2024
City Administrator Report - March 2024
Proclamation Wild Iris SAAM CAPM 2024 04 08
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: All matters under the Consent Calendar are considered routine by the City and will be acted on by one motion.

Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for January 8, 2024, January 11, 2024, January 22, 2024, February 12, 2024, and February 26, 2024.

Minutes 2024 01 08
Minutes 2024 01 11 Special Meeting
Minutes 2024 01 22
Minutes 2024 02 12
2 B. Monthly Budget Report for the Month of February 2024 C. Financial Reports for the Month of February 2024
D. C.O.P.S Fund Budget Adjustment
E. Sewer Fund Budget Adjustment
F. Sewer Fund Expense Reclassification
G. Outdated Computers and Expired Computer Warranties
H. Declaration of City-Owned Vehicle as Surplus
I. Permanent Sewer Flow Meter Installation at Clarke Street Minutes 2024 02 26
Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the Monthly Budget Report for February 2024.

Monthly Budget Report for the Month of February 2024
Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the Financial Reports for February 2024.

Bank Reconciliation Report for February 2024
Combined Cash Report for February 2024
Investment Portfolio Report for February 2024
Warrant Register Report for February 2024
Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the proposed C.O.P.S Fund budget adjustment as follows:

Recruitment, 033-033-52006, decreased by $10,000;
Special Department Supplies, 033-033-52018, increased by $2,935; and Capital Equipment Replacement, 033-033-56029, increased by $7,065.

Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the Sewer Fund budget adjustment as follows:

Increase the Sewer Fund expense account 002-051-56025, Depreciation, from $132,000 to $150,908.

Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the proposed expense reclassification and budget adjustment as follows:

Increase the budget amount of 002-051-56028, Capital Equipment by $8,265.00; and
Decrease the budget amount of 002-051-52018, Special Department Supplies by $8,265.00.

Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the proposed budget adjustments to allow for the purchase of 10 extended warranties and 9 replacement computer units.
23-24 Computer and Warranty Replacement
List of Expired Warranties
List of Computer Units Over 5 Years Old
Laptops Quote (Model #1)
Laptops Quote (Model #2)
Desktops Quote
Recommended Action: Council consideration to declare the Ford Ranger, VIN #1FTYR44UX2PA21185, as surplus equipment.
3 J. Propane Services Letter of Extension
K. A Resolution Updating the City Council Standards and Procedures Manual to Add Additional Provisions Regarding Disruptive Behavior at Council Meetings L. Planning Commission Meeting Cancellation Notice
M. Planning Commission Meeting Agendas
N. Building Permits Issued Report

9. NEW BUSINESS
A. State Funded Water System Consolidation Projects: Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company and Sierra Highlands Community Services District B. Active Transportation Program Grant Funding Support Task Order with Eastern Sierra Engineering
C. A Resolution Opposing Initiative #21-0042A1, a November 2024 Statewide Ballot Proposition.

Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve and authorize the Public Works Director to execute Amendment 1 to the SCADA Upgrade Professional Services Agreement with Control Point Engineering in the amount of $60,724.

Amendment 1
Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve and accept the letter of extension for Propane Services by Hunt Propane Inc. for a one-year term, with the new term ending on May 31, 2025.

Propane Letter of Extension from Hunt Propane Inc.

Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the proposed resolution updating the City Council Standards and Procedures Manual to add additional provisions regarding disruptive behavior at Council meetings.

Proposed Resolution 2024 04 08
Updated City Council Standards and Procedures Manual 2024 04 08 Recommended Action: Council is requested to receive and file.

March 24, 2024 - Meeting Cancellation Notice
Recommended Action: Council is requested to receive and file.

April 9, 2024 - Special Meeting Agenda
Recommended Action: Council is requested to receive and file.

Building Permits Issued Report - March 2024
Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the Letter of Intent to allow Sierra Highlands Community Services District to consolidate their water system with the City of Bishop.

Letter of Intent to Support Sierra Highlands
Brookside Consolidation Feasibility Study (8-17-23).pdf Recommended Action: Council consideration to:

1. Ratify the approved task order with Eastern Sierra Engineering for professional engineering services in support of the City’s Cycle 7 Active Transportation Program grant in the not-to-exceed amount of $52,578.00.

2. Approve an additional not-to-exceed 10% contingency amount of $5,257.80.

ESE Task Order 2 for ATP Cycle 7 Support
4 10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

11. COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

12. ADJOURNMENT
Recommended Action: Council consideration to approve the proposed resolution opposing Initiative #21-0042A1, a November 2024 statewide ballot proposition.

Resolution - Opposing Initiative #21-0042A1, a November 2024 Statewide Ballot Proposition
Monday, April 22, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. Regular Meeting in the City Council Chambers 5 BISHOP FIRE
REPORT
March 2024
6 March
Incidents
MAJOR INCIDENT TYPE # INCIDENTS % of TOTAL
Fires4 14.29%
Overpressure rupture, explosion, overheat - no fire1 3.57% Rescue & Emergency Medical Service8 28.57%
Hazardous Condition (No Fire)1 3.57%
Service Call3 10.71%
Good Intent Call8 28.57%
False Alarm & False Call3 10.71%
TOTAL 28 100%
Detailed Breakdown by Incident Type
INCIDENT TYPE#

INCIDENTS
% of
TOTAL
100- Fire, other
1 3.57%
111- Building fire
1 3.57%
131- Passenger vehicle fire
1 3.57%
152- Garbage dump or sanitary
landfill fire
1 3.57%
251- Excessive heat, scorch
burns with no ignition
1 3.57%
311- Medical assist, assist EMS
crew
3 10.71%
322- Motor vehicle accident with
injuries
2 7.14%
324- Motor vehicle accident with
no injuries.
2 7.14%
352- Extrication of victim(s) from
vehicle
1 3.57%
444- Power line down
1 3.57%
551- Assist police or other
governmental agency
2 7.14%
561- Unauthorized burning
1 3.57%
600- Good intent call, other
6 21.43%
611- Dispatched & cancelled en
route
1 3.57%
651- Smoke scare, odor of
smoke
1 3.57%
743- Smoke detector activation,
no fire- unintentional
1 3.57%
745- Alarm system activation, no
fire- unintentional
1 3.57%
746- Carbon monoxide detector
activation, no CO
1 3.57%
TOTAL INCIDENTS: 28 100%
7 Single Vehicle Rollover
W. Line Street
• 3 BFD Engines
• Sierra Life Flight
• Inyo Sherriff and Bishop PD
One Patient was extricated and transported to
Northern Inyo Hospital
8 9
Sunland Incident
10 11
• 5 BFD Apparatus • 10 BFD Personnel • Mutual Aid From
Cal Fire and US
Forest Service Inyo
12 LINE ST.

INCIDENT
March 12, 2024 • 9 BFD Apparatus • 21 Fire Personnel • Mutual Aid from Big Pine & Cal Fire
• Inyo Sherriff &
Bishop PD
Cause: Under
Investigation
13 Bishop Police Department
End of month report March 2024

JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
TOTAL INCIDENTS 1106 985 1057
CALLS FOR SERVICE 625 583 612

OFFICER INITIATED

INCIDENTS
481 402 445

TRAFFIC
STOPS
78 60 72

OTHER OIA
INC.
403 342 373

BUS/BUILDING
CHECKS
2 10 4

VEH/PED
CHECKS
42 33 24
TOTAL OFFICER REPORTS 87 74 88
ACCIDENT 3 0 1
CRIMINAL ACCIDENT 3 2 6
FELONY 22 18 14
INFORMATION 23 28 31
INFRACTION 0 0 0
MISDEMEANOR 31 26 36
TC WITH INJURIES 1 1 0
TC NO INJURIES 5 1 7

TOTAL MISDEMEANOR &

FELONY ARRESTS
21 15 26
MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS 13 7 18
ADULT 13 7 18
JUVENILE 0 0 0
FELONY ARRESTS 8 8 8
ADULT 8 8 8

JUVENILE 0 0 0
CITATIONS 73 48 68
MOVING 21 7 17
NON-MOVING 42 17 33
CRIMINAL 10 24 18
14 JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

DISPATCH PHONE

ACTIVITY
911 CALLS 180 167 193
INBOUND 169 161 186
ABANDONED 11 6 7
ADMINISTRATIVE CALLS 1107 923 1060
INBOUND 776 656 743
OUTBOUND 325 260 317
ABANDONED 5 7 0

15 Small Town with a
Big Backyard!

CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
Post Office Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
760-873-8458 [email protected]
www.cityofbishop.com
March 2024 Page 1 of 2
Public Works Report
March 2024
Water

1. Water consumption for the month was down 26% compared to March 2013.

2. Took monthly bacteria samples.

3. Checked static water levels at Wells #1, #2 and #4.

4. Clean inside of well facilities.

5. Sprayed Weeds at Wells #2 & #4.

6. Performed annual flushing of dead-end water mains in the water distribution system.

7. Repair fire hydrant bollard at the intersection of S. Warren and Lagoon.

8. Continued to work with Wood Rodgers on the design for the W. Line water main replacement project.

Sewer

1. Continue cleaning problem sewers within the city, continue systematic cleaning of sewer mains in the collection system.

2. Took monthly Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) samples.

3. Continue to inspect sewer manholes for water infiltration.

4. Video sewer mains in various locations to investigate for root problems and ground water infiltration.

5. Perform maintenance on irrigation ditches and culverts at the 40 acres and continued with irrigation.

6. Collected quarterly monitoring well samples and recorded ground water depths.

7. Replaced damaged section of 6” clay sewer main on Schley Street.

8. Performed cleaning of problem sewers for the community of Aspendale.

9. Clean out sludge and grit drying beds at the WWTP. Pulled sludge from Digesters into drying beds.

10.Continued to serve as the Administrator for the Bishop Area Wastewater Authority and submitted an application for financial assistance to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
16 Small Town with a
Big Backyard!

CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
Post Office Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
760-873-8458 [email protected]
www.cityofbishop.com
March 2024 Page 2 of 2
Streets

1. Routinely checked the Sierra Bike Path for trash and debris.

2. Clean up tree branches along City streets after storm events.

3. Work on repairing dirt shoulders along City streets damaged by rainstorms.

4. Patched potholes along City streets.

5. Repair and replace street signs at various locations within the City.

6. Pull weeds along various locations within the City.

7. Issued a task order to Eastern Sierra Engineering to prepare preliminary engineering reports for the City’s Cycle 7 Active Transportation Grant application.

Miscellaneous

1. Provide weekly safety meetings for PW crew.

2. Marked city utilities for Dig Alert tickets.

3. Performed routine maintenance on Public Works fleet.

4. Repair damaged bollard within the Police Dept. parking area.

5. Hauled debris from Fowler Pit to the Sunland Landfill.

6. Attended the California Cities Annual Public Works Institute.

7. Assisted Inyo County with interviews for their Deputy Director of Public Works position.
17 Small Town with a
Big Backyard!

CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
Post Office Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
760-873-8458
www.cityofbishop.com
Community Services Report
March 2024
Programs

1. After School Stay and Play program is operating at the Elm Street School, Monday through Friday. As we move into spring, we will be attending BUHS sports games and creating spring holiday crafts. Preparations for upcoming school year, registration set to open in Mid-April.

2. Adult fitness classes with Ashley McLaughlin at the City Auditorium has ended the Winter Session. Adult Fitness will resume in the future based on the availability of the Instructor.

3. The Bishop Park Pool is closed for the season. Began review of seasonal staff for opening in April. Swim Team will take the water on April 22nd.Hired a new Aquatics Coordinator, and facility preparations are ongoing.

4. Kids Night Out will have a break in January and start back up in April. We will host this program at the City Hall Auditorium and will have a Spring theme.

5. Gymnastics Winter session is winding down. March will be the last month of this session. Preparations for Spring Session are complete and will open in April. Hired a new Gymnastics instructor for the Spring session.

6. Developed first draft After School Program Operation Manual. Operations Manuals for Gymnastics, Kids Night Out, Stay and Play, and City Park Pool are complete. A draft Manual is out for review.

7. Coed Volleyball League play has begun. We will be hosted at the East Gym at BUHS. League play will be on Tuesday and Thursday nights from 6pm to 9:30 pm.

Playoffs will begin April 9th through 18th.

8. Summer camps preparations have begun and will continue through January and February. All camps have dates for registration and payments uploaded into Sportsites. Registration will open in April.

9. Added new Senior Yoga class hosted at the City Auditorium on Mondays and Wednesdays at 10am.
18 10.Preparation for Fish Camp will take place in the month of March. This camp will be hosted at the City Park on April 27th and 28th. Registration will open in April.

11.Preparation for City League Softball League has begun. Registration is open. We will accept 24 co-ed teams and 10 in the men’s division.

Parks and Facilities

1. Baseball/Softball field preparations have begun. Includes: tilling, leveling, and edging of all four sports fields.

2. Field Preparation for High School games. Fields 2, 3, and 4.

3. Little League opening Ceremonies will be April 6th.

4. Fertilizer application on all Sprot Fields.

5. Clean up and painting of City Park Rear Restrooms due to graffiti.

6. Seasonal routine maintenance of all mowing and landscape equipment.

7. Meet with Community Gardeners to address flood concerns.

8. Daily maintenance of the City Park Pool. Preparations for upcoming season.

9. Daily routine of trash and cleaning of restrooms.

10.Cleaned debris from the creek, pond, and fountain.

11. Use of blower on Main Street Mondays and Fridays.

12.Seasonal adjustments made to all City irrigation and City Park. As we move into Spring, Irrigation systems will be Audited for function and set for operation.

13.Completed work on the pump house at the Park pool. Items to address are routine pump maintenance, filtration, heating units, and leaks in the pump inlet.

14.Work to address painting and interior issues in the Pool House has begun.

15.Field 1, 2 and 4 use: Bishop Union High School Softball and Baseball.

16.Field 1 use: by Eastern Sierra Girl’s Softball.

17. Fields 2,3,4 and 5 use: by Bishop Little League.

18.Field 6 use: by Spring AYSO soccer.
19 19.Spring tree trimming at the City Park is ongoing.

20.Worked with Bike Park Group on moving old materials for the Bike Park Area, to facilitate track construction. Phase one pump track in complete and work has begun on the skills area.

21.Contacted potential vendors for carpet replacement in the Court Rooms as there are multiple tripping hazards. Created schedule with Inyo Courts to facilitate the carpet replacement. Carpet Replacement will take place in the first week in April.

22.Worked with Little League organization for Field Lighting Project.

Sunrise

1. Daily routine of trash, debris, and inspections.

2. Collected rents and payments for utilities.

3. Weekly routine maintenance of all lawns, landscapes, and common areas.

4. Began planning process of street and sidewalk replacement. Consultant has begun general design. Design is complete. We are seeking funding to complete this project.

5. Irrigation of common areas and the front of all units has begun.

6. Repair of City owned unit for broken waterline.

Budget/Administrative

1. Held weekly staff meetings Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

2. Attended by-weekly City Council meetings.

3. Attended weekly Department Head Meetings.

4. Held individual budget meeting with Parks, Pool, and Programs to prepare for 2024- 2025 fiscal budget.

5. Organized all Youth Sports Organizations on the use of Sportsites for schedules and games.

6. Communication with Bishop Area Bike Organization for the installation and maintenance of the Bike Park. Phase one Pump Track is complete, and the group has begun work on the Skills Track.
20 7. Conducted interviews with potential new staff members for Gymnastics and Summer Camps.

8. California Urban Greening Grant has been awarded to the City of Bishop, coordination with the Friends of the Eastern Sierra Community Gardens. Began solicitation with Eastern Sierra Engineering to draft plans for bidding documents.

Facilitated meeting with Community Gardeners to address funding allocated in the grant.

9. Received the approval from City Council for the Front Playground Replacement Project. PlayCore Gametime will be installing the new play structure in the coming weeks, depending on the weather.

10.Developed Services Agreement for Playhouse 395. This agreement is under review.

11.Worked with Little League Organization and DWP for the Field Lighting project. This Project will allow for lights on fields 2, 3, and 4. Little League, DWP and Southern California Edison will work together to provide lights, starting with field 3. Plan for the Electrical are being developed and will be submitted for inspections.

12.Participated in the City Strategic Planning meetings.

13.Meet with Bishop Schools Superintendent to discuss After School Programs, training for staff, Reciprocity Agreement/MOU, and facility use for sports programs.

14.Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. Update to be given on Field Lights.

Events

1. Preparation for the first annual Foodie Fiesta. Plan to host a food vendor event on Church Street on April 27th.

2. Earth Day, April 20th. Located at the City Park.

3. Participated in preparation meeting for the 4th in Bishop. Located at the City Park. 21 Small Town with a
Big Backyard!

CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
Post Office Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
760-873-8458 [email protected]
www.cityofbishop.com
August 2023 Page 1 of 2
Planning Department Report
March 2024

1. Met with Wood Rogers to review the first round of the Parking Study data, second round of data will be collected April 25-27.

2. Met with Steven Frisch regarding housing implementation projects in the Tahoe/Truckee area.

3. Submitted Annual General Plan and Housing Element report to HCD.

4. Reviewed proposals for RFQ for Environmental Consulting Services.

5. Approved Mixed-Use development at 144 S Main Street.

6. Met with Sierra Business Council regarding the updates for CERF and California Jobs First.

7. Downtown Bishop Parkways Project (Whitney Alley):
• Worked with Stantec Engineers on 60% of construction documentation.

8. Zone Change:
• Worked with the developer and city attorney to rezone the parcel at 711 Hammond Street, Planning Commission Hearing is scheduled for April 9th. • Worked on Mixed-Use Overlay Zone ordinance updates.

9. Submitted Proposing Designation (through HCD).
22 Small Town with a
Big Backyard!

CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
Post Office Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
760-873-8458 [email protected]
www.cityofbishop.com
August 2023 Page 2 of 2

10.Worked on ATP Plan Grant:
• Attended Public Workshops with Caltrans
• Public outreach are scheduled on April 11th, April 20 at City Park, May 15th

11.Worked with City Staff on updating the Strategic Plan OKRs report.

12.Worked with a property owner and City Attorney on the requirements for SB-9 subdivision.
23 Small Town with a
Big Backyard!

CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
Post Office Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
www.cityofbishop.com
March 2024 City Administrator Report Page 1 of 2
City Administrators Report
March 2024

1. Continue to work with Chief Russell and our Human Resources legal firm to initiate a new onboarding program for volunteer firefighters. We will be incorporating releases, liability waivers and physical agility testing.

2. Hosted the quarterly City/County Liaison meeting. The agenda included property, housing, parks improvements and EMS.

3. Met with Steve Frisch of the Sierra Business Council to discuss how to best move the California Jobs First planning effort.

4. Participated in multiple meetings with Federal and State representatives to bolster our chances to receive Earmark funds. Met with Senator Padilla’s office, Senator Butler’s office via Zoom and in person with Senator Alvarado-Gil.

5. Continued the effort to develop a strategic plan for City owned properties and a citywide parking study with Wood Rogers.

6. Continue to work with LADWP and the Bishop Chamber on acquiring a new site for the Bishop Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has acquired the services of Eastern Sierra Engineering for architecture and civil improvements.

7. Continued the process of working with a developer to develop a parcel of land within the city limits for multi-family housing. This project will involve rezoning and will be heard at the March 26th Planning Commission meeting.

8. Met with Patricia Robertson of Mammoth Lakes Housing to develop a plan to move the housing project known as Silver Peaks forward.

9. Continue to routinely meet with Adam Perez to discuss LADWP land that can be made available for housing.

10.Continue to meet with Assistant City Attorney Russel Hildebrand and a development group out of Pasadena to develop a plan to move properties acquired from LADWP forward as soon as possible when sale is completed.
24 March 2024 City Administrator Report Page 2 of 2

11.Participated in the Joint City Council / Bishop Tribal Council meeting to discuss items relevant to both parties.

12.Continued meeting with each department within the city to discuss strategies to manage their department more efficiently and effectively.

13.Continued to work closely with the Personnel Department, Risk Management and California Joint Powers Authority to manage claims within the city.

14.Attended the ESCOG meeting in Mammoth.

15.Met individually with City Council members on a weekly basis.

16.Facilitated weekly Department Heads meetings.

17.Worked closely with Personnel to navigate several personnel issues. 25 26

CITY OF BISHOP

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2024
1) CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garcia called the special meeting of the Bishop City Council to order at 6:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 301 West Line Street, Bishop, California. 2) MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Garcia announced a moment of silence.
3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Ellis. 4) ROLL CALL
PRESENT:

Councilmember Ellis
Councilmember Schwartz
Councilmember Muchovej
Mayor Pro Tem Kong
Mayor Garcia
ABSENT:

None.

OTHERS PRESENT: Deston Dishion, City Administrator; Robin Picken, City Clerk; Dean J. Pucci, City Attorney; Bret Russell, Fire Chief; Nate Derr, Police Chief; Nora Gamino, Public Works Director; Dan McElroy, Community Services Manager; and Jessica Ortiz, Administrative/Accounting Assistant
5) PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comments were made by:

Pastor Tim Homan, a member of the Bishop Ministerial Association, recited a prayer.

No further public comments were made.

Pastor Tim Homan, a local resident, gave a prayer.

6.A) Fire Department - Fire Chief Bret Russell
Fire Department Report - December 2023 - Call Breakdown Fire Department Report - December 2023 - Rapid Intervention Team RIT Fire Department Report - December 2023 - Policy - Conduct and Behavior Fire Department Report - December 2023 - Drug and Alcohol-Free Workplace

6.B) Police Department - Police Chief Nate Derr
Police Department Report - December 2023

6.C) Public Works Department - Public Works Director Nora Gamino Public Works Department Report - December 2023

6.D) Community Services Department - Community Services Manager Dan McElroy
Community Services Department Report - December 2023

6.E) Planning Department - Assistant Planner Ana Budnyk Planning Department Report - December 2023

6.F) Administration - City Administrator Deston Dishion City Administrator Report - December 2023
7) COUNTY OF INYO UPDATE - Presented by Second District Supervisor Jeff Griffiths
Second District Supervisor Griffiths provided an update on Inyo County business and activities.
8) PRESENTATIONS

8.A) Inyo Mono Broadband Consortium (IMBC) Update - Presented by Regional Broadband Coordinator Scott Armstrong
Inyo Mono Broadband Consortium Update 1.8.2024
An Inyo Broadband Consortium Update was presented to Council by Regional Broadband Coordinator Scott Armstrong.

After addressing Council's questions and recommendations, Council thanked Scott Armstrong for his presentation.
9) CONSENT CALENDAR
January 8, 2024 Page 2
28 10) CONSENT CALENDAR FOR APPROVAL/FILING

10.A) Monthly Budget Report for the Month of November 2023 Monthly Budget Report for the Month of November 2023

10.B) Financial Reports for the Month of November 2023
Bank Reconciliation Report - November 2023
Combined Cash Report - November 2023
Investment Portfolio Report - November 2023
Warrant Register Report - November 2023

10.C) A Resolution Renewing the City of Bishop’s Military Equipment Policy; AB 481-Military Equipment Annual Inventory and Report
AB 481 - Written Report
AB 481 - Military Equipment Annual Inventory Report
Resolution - Renewing AB 481 Military Equipment Policy 2024 01 08

10.D) Proposed Deputy Fire Chief Job Description
Cover Page
FT- Deputy Fire Chief. DRAFT Job description.
11) CONSENT CALENDAR FOR INFORMATION/FILING

11.A) Planning Commission Meeting Agendas and Minutes
December 14, 2023 - Special Agenda
December 27, 2023 - Agenda
November 29, 2022 - Minutes

11.B) Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Cancellation Notices

11.22.23 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Cancellation Notice

12.27.23 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Cancellation Notice

11.C) Alcoholic Beverage License Application for 725 N. Main Street, Bishop, California 93514 (Owner: Dovetail Group LLC)
ABC Application - 725 N. Main St. received 2023 12 18
No public comments were made.

January 8, 2024 Page 3
29 Motion/Councilmember Muchovej Seconded/Councilmember Ellis Motion/Councilmember Schwartz Seconded/Councilmember Ellis Councilmember Muchovej made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.

Motion passed 5-0
Ayes: Councilmember Ellis, Councilmember Schwartz, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
12) NEW BUSINESS

12.A) RESOLUTION - Approve a Proposed Resolution Relating to Revisions to Job Descriptions and Salary Increases
Cover Page
RESOLUTION Approving Salary and Job Description Changes FT City Administrator. DRAFT Job description
FT Finance Director. DRAFT Job description
FT Public Works Director DRAFT Job description.

City Administrator Dishion reviewed this item with Council.

No public comments were made.

Councilmember Schwartz made a motion to approve the proposed resolution relating to revised job descriptions and salary increases by title only.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BISHOP, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SALARY INCREASES AND REVISIONS TO JOB

DESCRIPTIONS
Motion passed 5-0
Ayes: Councilmember Ellis, Councilmember Schwartz, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
13) FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
No requests for future agenda items were made by Council. 14) COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Members reported on meetings and community events that they attended.

January 8, 2024 Page 4
30 15) ADJOURNMENT
The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. to the City Council Meeting scheduled for Monday, January 22, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. _______________________________________
Jose Garcia, Mayor
Attest: ______________________________
Robin Picken, City Clerk
January 8, 2024 Page 5
31 January 11, 2024 – Special Meeting Page 1

CITY OF BISHOP

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING
THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 2024

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garcia called the special joint meeting of the Bishop City Council and the Bishop Rural Fire Protection District Board of Commissioners to order at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 301 West Line Street, Bishop, California.

2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:

Councilmember Ellis
Councilmember Schwartz
Mayor Pro Tem Kong
Mayor Garcia
Commissioner Steinwand
Commissioner Kunze
Vice Char Butler
Chair Holland
ABSENT:

Councilmember Muchovej
Commissioner Anderson
OTHERS PRESENT:

Deston Dishion, City Administrator
Robin Picken, City Clerk
Bret Russell, Fire Chief
Mandi Grisham, Fire Department Administrative Assistant

3. PUBLIC COMMENT – NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: This time is set aside to receive public comment on matters not calendared on the agenda. When recognized by the Mayor, please state your name, and address for the record and please limit your comments to three minutes. Under California law the City Council is prohibited from generally discussing or taking action on items not included in the agenda; however, the City Council may briefly respond to comments or questions from members of the public. Therefore, the City Council will listen to all public comment but will not generally discuss the matter or take action on it.

No public comments were made.

4. NEW BUSINESS
A. DISCUSS PRIORITIES AND GOALS OF BISHOP FIRE
32 January 11, 2024 – Special Meeting Page 2
City Administrator Dishion and Fire Chief Russell reviewed this item with the Council and the Board. No public comments were made.

B. DISCUSS THE FUTURE JOINT MEETINGS AND POSSIBLE DATES GOING FORWARD (MONTHLY, QUARTERLY)
City Administrator Dishion and Fire Chief Russell reviewed this item with the Council and the Board. The Council and the Board came to a consensus to meet on March 7, 2024 at 4:00 PM for their next joint meeting and jointly again on May 16, 2024 at 4:00 PM to review the Fire Department budget with Finance Director Aukee prior to each agency adopting their budget in June. No public comments were made.

5. FIRE CHIEF REPORT
Fire Chief Russell presented his report to both the Council and the Board.

6. ADJOURNMENT
The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 6:21 p.m.
______________________________________
Jose Garcia, Mayor
Attest: ______________________________
Robin Picken, City Clerk
33 CITY OF BISHOP

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 22, 2024
1) CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garcia called the special meeting of the Bishop City Council to order at 6:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 301 West Line Street, Bishop, California. 2) MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Garcia announced a moment of silence.
3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Schwartz will lead the pledge of allegiance.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Schwartz. 4) ROLL CALL
PRESENT:

Councilmember Schwartz
Councilmember Muchovej
Mayor Pro Tem Kong
Mayor Garcia
ABSENT:

Councilmember Ellis
OTHERS PRESENT: Deston Dishion, City Administrator; Robin Picken, City Clerk; Dean J. Pucci, City Attorney; Bret Russell, Fire Chief; Nate Derr, Police Chief; Nora Gamino, Public Works Director; Dan McElroy, Community Services Manager; and Jessica Ortiz, Administrative/Accounting Assistant
5) PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comments were made by:

Edward Davis made comments related to prayer at the U.S. Congressional level and recited a prayer.

No further public comments were made.
6) DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Reports from the Fire, Police, Public Works, Community Services, Planning, and Administration Departments were given on each department’s activities including upcoming and ongoing projects.
7) BISHOP AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INFORMATION CENTER UPDATE
January 22, 2024 Page 1
34 Prepared by Bishop Area Chamber of Commerce and Information Center Executive Director Tawni Thomson and presented by Guest Host Supervisor Joe Pollini.

7.A) Bishop Area Chamber of Commerce and Information Center Update Report
BACC&IC Report - January 22 2024
Guest Host Supervisor Joe Pollini reviewed the Bishop Area Chamber of Commerce and Information Center update report submitted to Council. Council thanked Joe Pollini for attending and for reviewing the submitted report with them.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are considered routine matters which may be enacted by one motion and roll call vote. Any item may be removed from the consent calendar and considered separately by City Council.
8) CONSENT CALENDAR FOR APPROVAL/FILING

8.A) Monthly Budget Report for the Month of December 2023 Monthly Budget Report for the Month of December 2023

8.B) Financial Reports for the Month of December 2023
Bank Reconciliation Report for December 2023
Combined Cash Report for December 2023
Investment Portfolio Report for December 2023
Warrant Register Report for December 2023

8.C) City Council Meeting Minutes
Minutes 2023 11 13
Minutes 2023 11 27
Minutes 2023 12 11
9) CONSENT CALENDAR FOR INFORMATION/FILING

9.A) Building Permits Issued Report
December 2023

9.B) Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Cancellation Notice 20240123
No public comments were made.

January 22, 2024 Page 2
35 Motion/Councilmember Muchovej Seconded/Mayor Pro Tem Kong Councilmember Muchovej made a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented. Motion passed 4-0.

Ayes: Councilmember Schwartz, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Councilmember Ellis
10) NEW BUSINESS

10.A) PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - Appoint one commissioner to fill a scheduled vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission with a term ending on March 25th, 2024.

Cover Page
Patty Cummings Request for Reappointment on the Parks and Recreation Commission
A-3 Commission Appointments - Council Policy Manual
Community Services Manager McElroy reviewed this item with Council.

No public comments were made.

Motion/Councilmember Schwartz Seconded/Mayor Pro Tem Kong Councilmember Schwartz made a motion to reappoint Patty Cummings to!the Parks and Recreation Commission with a term ending on March 25, 2028. Motion passed 4-0 Ayes: Councilmember Schwartz, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Councilmember Ellis
11)! FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Pro Tem Kong requested, with consensus from Council, to hear from our local dispensaries and per their contract with the City would like to learn where they are going to give their funds to in January. No further requests for future agenda items were made.
12)! COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Members reported on meetings and community events that they attended. 13)! ADJOURNMENT
January 22, 2024 Page 3
36 The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m. to the City Council Meeting scheduled for Monday, February 12, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ______________________________________
Jose Garcia, Mayor
Attest: ______________________________
Robin Picken, City Clerk
January 22, 2024 Page 4
37 CITY OF BISHOP

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12, 2024
1) CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garcia called the meeting of the Bishop City Council to order at 6:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 301 West Line Street, Bishop, California. 2) MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Garcia announced a moment of silence.
3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Muchovej. 4) ROLL CALL
PRESENT:

Councilmember Ellis
Councilmember Muchovej
Mayor Pro Tem Kong
Mayor Garcia
ABSENT:

Councilmember Schwartz
OTHERS PRESENT: Deston Dishion, City Administrator; Ryan R. Jones, Assistant City Attorney; Ethan Aukee, Assistant Finance Director; Bret Russell, Fire Chief; Nate Derr, Police Chief; Nora Gamino, Public Works Director; Dan McElroy, Community Services Manager; and Michele Rhew, Public Works Secretary 5) PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comments were made.
6) DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Reports from the Fire, Police, Public Works, Community Services, Planning, and Administration Departments were given on each department’s activities including upcoming and ongoing projects.

6.A) Fire Department - Fire Chief Bret Russell
Fire Department Report - January 2024 - First 90 Days
Public comment was made by:

Mike Patterson, Sierra Lifeflight Program Director, who made comments related to the current progress being made at the County level for future EMS services. He stated February 12, 2024 Page 1
38 that based on the most recent Emergency Medical Care Committee meeting the County is working with consultants ESCI in preparing more accurate reports for submission. No further public comments were made.

6.B) Police Department - Police Chief Nate Derr
Police Department Report - January 2024

6.C) Public Works Department - Public Works Director Nora Gamino Public Works Department Report - January 2024

6.D) Community Services Department - Community Services Manager Dan McElroy
Community Services Department Report - January 2024

6.E) Planning Department - Assistant Planner Ana Budnyk Planning Department Report - January 2024

6.F) Administration - City Administrator Deston Dishion City Administrator Report - January 2024
7) EASTERN SIERRA TRI-COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS QUARTERLY UPDATE

7.A) Eastern Sierra Tri-County Fairgrounds Quarterly Update Report ESTF Quarterly Update Report - February 12, 2024
Eastern Sierra Tri-County Fairgrounds Chief Executive Officer Jen McGuire reviewed her report submitted to Council. Council thanked Jen McGuire for her report.

8.A) Certificate of Acceptance for Seibu to School Path Right of Way Purchase
Cover Page
Certificate of Acceptance
Agreement for Purchase and Escrow Instructions
Deed - Seibu to School

8.B) Vendor Agreement between the City of Bishop and Challenger Sports February 12, 2024 Page 2
39 Motion/Councilmember Muchovej Seconded/Councilmember Ellis Cover Page
Vendor Agreement Between the City of Bishop and Challenger Sports

8.C) Real Estate Services for City of Bishop Owned Units in Sunrise Mobile Home Park - Letter of Extension.

Cover Page
Real Estate Extension 2024-2025

8.D) Full-Time Monthly Salary Schedule - July 1, 2023 - June 30, 2024 2023-2024 Full Time Monthly Salary Schedule

8.E) Adopt Proposed Resolution of Determination of Industrial Disability Retirement of an Employee.

Cover Page
Proposed Resolution for IDR
9) CONSENT CALENDAR FOR INFORMATION/FILING

9.A) Building Permits Issued Report
January 2024

9.B) Notice of Exemption for Bishop City Park Athletic Fields Lighting Project Cover Page
Bishop City Park Athletic Fields Lighting Project
Notice of Exemption for Bishop City Park Athletic Fields Lighting Project

9.C) Alcoholic Beverage License Application for 1320 N. Main Street, Bishop, California 93514 (Owner: GROCERY OUTLET INC.)
ABC Application - 1320 N. Main St received 2024 01 25
No public comments were made.

Councilmember Muchovej made a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented.

Motion passed 4-0
Ayes: Councilmember Ellis, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Councilmember Schwartz
February 12, 2024 Page 3
40 10) NEW BUSINESS

10.A) Mid-Year Budget Adjustments
Cover Page
Sewer Fund Budget Adjustment Report
General Fund Budget Adjustment Report
Gas Tax Fund Budget Adjustment Report
Water Fund Budget Adjustment Report
Sunrise Mobile Home Park Fund Budget Adjustment Report
C.O.P.S. Fund Budget Adjustment Report
Miscellaneous Budget Adjustment Report
Finance Director Aukee and City Administrator Dishion reviewed this item with Council.

No public comments were made.

Motion/Councilmember Muchovej Seconded/Mayor Pro Tem Kong Councilmember Muchovej made a motion to accept the mid-year budget adjustments as presented in the attached mid-year budget reports.

Motion passed 4-0
Ayes: Councilmember Ellis, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Councilmember Schwartz
11) FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Muchovej, with consensus by Council, asked to bring back a discussion relating to composting and municipal trash services.

Mayor Pro Tem Kong asked if City staff could follow up on her past request to invite the owners of the cannabis dispensaries in Bishop to report to Council on what they plan to do with their public donations.

No further requests were made for future agendas items. 12) COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Members reported on meetings and community events that they attended. 13) ADJOURNMENT
February 12, 2024 Page 4
41 The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 7:26 p.m. to the City Council Meeting scheduled for Monday, February 26, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ______________________________________
Jose Garcia, Mayor
Attest: ______________________________
Robin Picken, City Clerk
February 12, 2024 Page 5
42 CITY OF BISHOP

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2024
1) CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garcia called the meeting of the Bishop City Council to order at 6:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 301 West Line Street, Bishop, California. 2) MOMENT OF SILENCE
Mayor Garcia announced a moment of silence.
3) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tem Kong. 4) ROLL CALL
PRESENT:

Councilmember Ellis
Councilmember Schwartz
Councilmember Muchovej
Mayor Pro Tem Kong
Mayor Garcia
ABSENT:

None.

OTHERS PRESENT: Deston Dishion, City Administrator; Robin Picken, City Clerk; Dean J. Pucci, City Attorney; Nate Derr, Police Chief; Nora Gamino, Public Works Director; Anastasiia Budnyk, Assistant Planner; and Dan McElroy, Community Services Manager
5) PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comments:

John Camphouse, a local resident and a Board Member of the Sierra Highlands Community Services District, made public comments related to the District wanting to pursue proceedings for consolidating their water district with the Bishop City water and will be working with the contracted consulting engineers for the State of California.

Rick Klug, recited a prayer.

No further public comments were made.
6) DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Reports from the Police, Public Works, Community Services, Planning, and Administration Departments were given on each department’s activities including February 26, 2024 Page 1
43 upcoming and ongoing projects.
7) COUNTY OF INYO UPDATE
Second District Supervisor Griffiths provided an update on Inyo County business and activities.
8) BISHOP AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INFORMATION CENTER UPDATE

8.A) Bishop Area Chamber of Commerce and Information Center Update Report - February 26, 2024
Bishop Chamber of Commerce Report for 022624
Bishop Chamber of Commerce and Information Center Executive Director Tawni Thomson reviewed her report submitted to Council and updated Council with their recent activites.
9) NORTHERN INYO HOSPITAL QUARTERLY UPDATE

9.A) Northern Inyo Hospital Quarterly Update Report – February 26, 2024 Bishop City Council Update from NIHD 2024 02 26
A report of Northern Inyo Healthcare District’s current programs, finances, and activities was presented to Council by Northern Inyo Hospital Chief Executive Officer Stephen DelRossi.
10) PRESENTATIONS

10.A) Food Recycling Program / Bishop Community Composting at the Community Garden - Presented by Community Garden Assistant Manager Laura Mogg and Composting Site Manager Paula Salguero.

Video Presentation Link - Bishop Community Garden & Composting 2024 02 26 Community Garden Assistant Manager Laura Mogg and Composting Site Manager Paula Salguero shared a video with Council on the Community Garden's Composting Program, and reported to Council on their recent activities to engage people to bring their food scraps to their compost program.
11) PUBLIC HEARING

11.A) Public Hearing – City Fees and Charges for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Cover Page
Notice of Public Hearing
Staff Memorandums on Proposed Changes
Proposed Resolution Amending and Restating Certain Fees and Charges February 26, 2024 Page 2
44 Mayor Garcia announced this item and opened the public hearing. No public comments were made. Mayor Garcia closed the public hearing.

After a brief discussion by Council, Council asked staff to clarify all fees as either one time fees or annual fees on Exhibit A of the proposed resolution related to City Fees and Charges for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.

12.A) Monthly Budget Report for the Month of January 2024 Monthly Budget Report for the Month of January 2024

12.B) Financial Reports for the Month of January 2024
Bank Reconciliation Report for January 2024
Combined Cash Report for January 2024
Investment Portfolio Report for January 2024
Warrant Register Report for January 2024

12.C) Approval for Refunding of $388.00 in Erroneously Assessed Business License Tax
Cover Page

12.D) Vendor Agreement between the City of Bishop and Sportsites Inc.

Cover Page
Sportsites Agreement 2024

12.E) Approve Proposed Resolution that Amends the Retirement Medical Benefit for Newly Elected City Councilmembers.

Cover Page
Resolution No. 2024-(xx) Regarding City Council Benefits 2024 02 26.pdf 13) CONSENT CALENDAR FOR INFORMATION/FILING

13.A) Alcoholic Beverage License Application for 621 W. Line Street Ste 101, Bishop, California 93514 (Owner: GRANDMA’S SEASONING

RESTAURANT LLC)
February 26, 2024 Page 3
45 Motion/Councilmember Muchovej Seconded/Councilmember Ellis Motion/Councilmember Schwartz Seconded/Mayor Pro Tem Kong ABC Application - 621 W. Line Street Ste 101 received 2024 02 15

13.B) Alcoholic Beverage License Application for 112 N. Main Street, Bishop, California 93514 (Owner: SCHAT, ERICK FRANKLIN)
ABC Application - 112 N. Main St. received 2024 02 15

13.C) Planning Commission Meeting Cancellation Notice - February 27, 2024 2024-02-27 Cancellation Notice
No public comments were made.

Councilmember Muchovej made a motion to approve the consent calendar as presented.

Motion passed 5-0
Ayes: Councilmember Ellis, Councilmember Schwartz, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
14) NEW BUSINESS

14.A) A Resolution Relating to Designating an Authorized Representative for a Financial Assistance Application with the State Water Resources Control Board
Cover Page
No. 2024-(xx) Authorizing Resolution for CWSRF
Public Works Director Gamino reviewed this item with Council.

No public comments were made.

Councilmember Schwartz made a motion to approve a resolution relating to designating an authorized representative for a financial assistance application with the State Water Resources Control Board by title only.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BISHOP, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF

BISHOP AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE FINANCIAL

ASSISTANCE APPLICATION WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR THE BISHOP AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT.

Motion passed 5-0
Ayes: Councilmember Ellis, Councilmember Schwartz, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None
February 26, 2024 Page 4
46 Absent: None
City Attorney Pucci requested that the Council reopen Item 11 - Public Hearing. Not for the public hearing which was already held but to address the resolution relating to the fees.

Motion/Councilmember Muchovej Seconded/Mayor Garcia
Councilmember Muchovej made a motion to reopen Item 11.

Motion passed 5-0.

Ayes: Councilmember Ellis, Councilmember Schwartz, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Item 11. Public Hearing

11.A) Public Hearing - City Fees and Charges for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 - Reopened for Council discussion.

City Attorney Pucci reported that Item 11 Public Hearing was conducted and as a procedural correction, asked that Council consider making a motion to approve the direction given to staff.

Motion/Councilmember Muchovej Seconded/Councilmember Ellis Councilmember Muchovej made a motion to pass the fee structure with the comments Council made earlier.

Motion passed 5-0.

Ayes: Councilmember Ellis, Councilmember Schwartz, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None

14.B) A Resolution Authorizing Application to and Participation in the Prohousing Designation Program
Cover Page
City of Bishop Preliminary Prohousing Score Sheet Project ProposaL Resolution Prohousing Designation Program
Assistant Planner Budnyk reviewed this item with Council.

Public comments were made by:

Tony Perkins, a Bishop resident, spoke in support of the Prohousing Designation.

However, he asked that if the City were to be awarded this designation or anything in relation to this issue, he encouraged the City Council not to use Additional Dwelling Units (ADU) for Short Term Rentals (STR); Instead ADUs should be used for personal February 26, 2024 Page 5
47 Motion/Councilmember Muchovej Seconded/Councilmember Schwartz reasons and long-term rentals not for STRs in order to not exacerbate the housing problem we already have.

No further public comments were made.

Council and staff spoke in support of Tony Perkin's comments.

Councilmember Muchovej made a motion to adopt the Resolution, by title only, authorizing the Planning Departments to submit a Prohousing Designation Program application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and if the application is approved by HCD, to execute all documents deemed necessary or appropriate to participate in the Prohousing Designation Program.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BISHOP, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO AND PARTICIPATION IN THE

PROHOUSING DESIGNATION PROGRAM
Motion passed 5-0
Ayes: Councilmember Ellis, Councilmember Schwartz, Councilmember Muchovej, Mayor Pro Tem Kong, Mayor Garcia
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
15) FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Muchovej, with consensus from Council, asked for a presentation on water districts in order to educate the public on what they are responsible for and to look at the feasibility of consolidations in favor of our rate payers such as the Brookside consolidation.

Councilmember Schwartz, with consensus from Council, asked that staff bring back a discussion on ballfield use fees and field access.

No further requests were made for future agendas items. 16) COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council Members reported on meetings and community events that they attended. 17) ADJOURNMENT
The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m. to the City Council Meeting scheduled for Monday, March 11, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ______________________________________
Jose Garcia, Mayor
Attest: ______________________________
Robin Picken, City Clerk
February 26, 2024 Page 6
48 Monthly Budget Report for the
Month of February 2024
49 2/29/2024 11/30/2021
General FundRevenue
2/29/2024 Revenue Actual Approved Budget Percent Received 00100031010 PROPERTY TAXES SECURED 352,105.45 540,000.00 65% 00100031020 PROPERTY TAXES UNSECURED 52,565.59 45,000.00 117% 00100031030 PROPERTY TAXES PRIOR YR. 4,204.02 6,000.00 70% 00100031050 PROPERTY TAX HOMEOWNERS 2,200.00 0%
00100031060 PROP TAX MISC 21,000.00 0%
00100031065 VLF SWAP/PROP TX IN LIEU 350,000.00 0%
00100031066 VEHICLE LIC FEE IN EXCESS 4,782.92 3,700.00 129% 00100031120 SALES TAX 2,629,798.23 5,000,000.00 53%
00100031126 DWP WTR AGREEMENT PAYMNT 232,799.00 232,799.00 100% 00100031128 SALES TX 1/2%PUBLIC SAF 6,475.85 15,000.00 43% 00100031130 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 1,893,481.38 3,100,000.00 61% 00100031131 TOT PENALTIES 536.43 0%
00100031132 TOT PRIOR YR 173,411.86 200,000.00 87%
00100031150 REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER 10,026.11 10,000.00 100% 00100032010 BUSINESS LICENSES 66,764.30 62,000.00 108% 00100032011 BL PENALTIES 0%
00100032015 SHORTTERM RENTALS 2,414.60 2,250.00 107% 00100032020 SB 1186/ADA 0%
00100032030 PARKING PERMITS 4,050.00 5,000.00 81%
00100032035 TENTATIVE MAP PERMITS 0%
00100032040 USE PERMITS 1,620.00 3,000.00 54%
00100032041 ENVIRONMENTAL APP FEE 120.00 1,000.00 12% 00100032050 BUILDING PERMITS 87,089.36 110,000.00 79% 00100032051 PLAN CHECK FEE 1,900.00 500.00 380%
00100032080 ELECTRICAL FRANCHISE 32,000.00 0%
00100032081 CELL TOWER FRANCHISE 24,500.00 42,000.00 58% 00100032090 TV FRANCHISE 4,968.69 10,000.00 50%
00100033010 INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS 182,062.69 220,000.00 83% 00100033020 RENTAL OF REAL PROPERTY 76,259.92 100,000.00 76% 00100034010 MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU 0%
00100034015 MTR VEH LIC FEE 11005.7 0%
00100034040 REIMB. HIGHWAY SWEEPING 26,499.96 53,000.00 50% 00100034041 HWY 6 TRASH 22,500.00 45,000.00 50%
00100034045 RSTP 0%
00100034046 DOC/RECYCLING GRANT 0%
00100034047 REIMB FROM BUSD 0%
00100034049 DWP TREE SPONSORSHIP 0%
00100034050 MISC REVENUE CAPITAL REPLACE 31,331.00 31,331.00 100% 00100034079 FIRE EMS FUNDING 12,500.00 12,500.00 100% 00100034080 REIMB. RFD W/COMP. 0%
00100034081 SALARY REIMB FRM RF DIST 0%
00100034082 MISC REIM FROM RF DIST 0%
00100034083 FIRE INSPECTION FEES 1,287.17 2,000.00 64% 00100034094 LOCAL RESPONSE_STANDBY 1,000.00 0%
50 00100034095 STRIKE TEAM 95,720.98 82,320.00 116%
00100034110 COURT RESTITUTIONS 0%
00100034111 ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT 0%
00100034116 DOJBULLET PRF VEST GRNT 0%
00100034120 PEACE OFFICERS TRAINING 6,648.69 9,500.00 70% 00100034121 RAN REIMB 1,052.61 6,000.00 18%
00100034122 DVROSSTATE 0%
00100034124 BUDGET ACT 2013/LAW ENF 0%
00100034125 PARKING CITATIONS 5,527.34 6,000.00 92%
00100034126 TOW FEE 2,750.00 2,630.00 105%
00100034140 DISPATCH CONTRACTS 6,000.00 0%
00100034141 PD Grants 121,460.95 121,460.95 100%
00100034145 4850 PAY REIMB 5,223.61 0%
00100034160 911 REIMSTATE 0%
00100035020 STRONG MOTION INST. PROG 176.64 500.00 35% 00100035060 CBSC/BLDG PERMIT 62.40 200.00 31%
00100036010 SALE OF PERSONAL PROP. 666.00 0%
00100036020 INS. REFUNDS & DIVIDENDS 0%
00100036025 FORFEITURE OF DEPOSITS 0%
00100036020 INS. REFUNDS & DIVIDENDS 0%
00100036030 MISCELLANEOUS 8,980.12 15,000.00 60%
00100036031 RETIREE MED COPAY 2,832.00 3,500.00 81%
00100036040 FINGERPRINTING & REPORTS 18,664.00 23,500.00 79% 00100036041 SUBPOENAS 0%
00100036042 AB109/REALIGNMENT 50,000.00 0%
00100036070 CIVIC ARTS 0%
00100036074 SUMMER PROGRAM TUITION 21,340.00 40,000.00 53% 00100036075 KIND ACTIVITY FEE 0%
00100036076 KIND TUITION 0%
00100036077 ASP ACTIVITY FEE 0%
00100036078 AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM 63,951.00 92,000.00 70% 00100036079 GYMNASTICS CLUB 0%
00100036089 CHILDRENS DAY OF ARTS 0%
00100037010 SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE 0%
00100039240 TENNIS 0%
00100039250 SOFTBALL 552.31 16,000.00 3%
00100039251 SOCCER 4,375.00 4,375.00 100%
00100039255 VOLLEYBALL 2,200.00 0%
00100039260 BASKETBALL 0%
00100039270 AEROBIC,DANCE,ZUMBA 640.00 640.00 100%
00100039275 FACILITY RENTAL FEE 1,305.00 2,000.00 65% 00100039278 TREE DEDICATION (90.24) 0%
00100039280 YOUTH PROGRAM 2,010.00 2,800.00 72%
00100039281 GYMNASTICS 16,803.00 21,000.00 80%
00100039283 PAGEANT 0%
00100039289 POOLLIFEGRD RECERT 0%
00100039290 POOLPUBLIC SWIM 16,095.00 23,500.00 68%
00100039291 POOL RENTALS 4,132.00 15,000.00 28%
51 00100039292 POOLSWIM LESSONS 832.00 24,000.00 3%
00100039293 POOLCONCESSIONS 1,380.00 2,400.00 58%
00100039294 POOLWATER FITNESS 3,355.00 7,900.00 42%
00100039297 YOUTH ATHLETICS (25.00) 500.00 5%
00100039710 FINES & FOREFEITURES 296.04 300.00 99%
00100039722 TUT MEASURE A 0%
00100039925 CITY COST PLAN 0%
00100039990 OTHER FINANCE SOURCES 0%
00100039995 CITY COST PLAN 0%
00100039999 REVENUETRANS IN 500,000.00 500,000.00 100% 00100040000 Caltrans Sustainable Grant 0%
00100040001 SB2 Housing & Community 0%
00100040002 PROP 68 Green 32,567.85 100,000.00 33%
00100040003 Playground Grant 0%
00100040004 COVID19 Funding 0%
00100040005 LEAP GRANT 0%
00100040006 REAP GRANT 0%
Total Revenue 6,847,538.83 11,437,305.95 60%
52 2/29/2024 Department 2/29/2024 Actual Approved Budget Percent Used 001010_____ City Council 129,044.81 188,615.10 68%001011_____ Administration 525,958.33 903,167.93 58%001012_____ Finance 211,020.20 315,933.42 67%001013_____ Treasurer 1,183.80 1,904.76 62%001014_____ Legal 93,599.50 199,996.89 47%001015_____ Insurance 302,571.50 304,429.50 99%001016_____ Building & Grounds 135,841.31 228,325.73 59%001018_____ Elections 1,416.92 1,700.00 83%001019_____ Community Promotion 12,500.00 172,100.00 7%001020_____ Police Department 3,093,959.47 4,564,602.71 68%001021_____ Fire Department 276,444.52 753,629.22 37%001022_____ Building 50,696.97 152,130.00 33%001023_____ Street Maintenance 669,673.89 1,686,739.17 40%001031_____ Parks & Rec 752,313.07 1,382,432.98 54%001034_____ Planning 285,695.02 442,726.44 65%001035_____ After School Program 45,980.87 78,850.00 58%001037_____ Pool 87,276.75 178,490.00 49%001038_____ Summer Camps 19,032.96 48,420.00 39% Total General Fund 6,694,209.89 11,604,193.85 58%
General FundExpenses
53 2/29/2024 Department 2/29/2024 Actual Approved Budget Percent Used SEWERREVENUE
00200033010 INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS 54,548.27 60,000.00 91% 00200033020 RENTAL OF REAL PROPERTY 0%
00200039017 SEWER MISCELLANEOUS 26,343.09 30,000.00 88% 00200039020 SEWER SERVICE COLLECTION 929,497.65 1,330,000.00 70% 00200039023 PENALTIESSEWER SERVICE 981.17 1,250.00 78% 00200039035 SOLAR REBATES 2,932.40 2,932.40 100%
00200039075 REIMB FROM ESCSD 6,294.32 176,050.00 4%
Total: 1,020,596.90 1,600,232.40 64%
002051_____ Sewer Expense 888,348.31 1,772,375.67 50% 2/29/2024 Department 2/29/2024 Actual Approved Budget Percent Used WATERREVENUE
00400033010 INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS 52,357.29 60,000.00 87% 00400033020 RENTAL OF REAL PROPERTY 0%
00400039012 WATER SERVICE COLLECTION 734,823.67 1,111,000.00 66% 00400039013 PENALTIESWATER SERVICE 774.96 1,200.00 65% 00400039017 WATER MISCELLANEOUS 29,951.88 30,000.00 100% 00400039019 BACKFLOW FEE 0%
00400039035 SOLAR REBATES 0%
Total: 817,907.80 1,202,200.00 68%
004050_____ Water Expense 913,792.19 1,602,207.36 57% 2/29/2024 Department 2/29/2024 Actual Approved Budget Percent Used SMHPREVENUE
01200033010 INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS 7,444.66 9,000.00 83% 01200039735 UTILITY CLEARING ACCOUNT 24,990.00 38,400.00 65% 01200039750 RENTSASSISTED UNITS 4,499.00 6,600.00 68% 01200039760 RENTSUNASSISTED UNITS 67,970.00 100,000.00 68% 01200039811 MISC 25.00 0%
01200039812 GAIN ON SALE 0%
Total: 104,928.66 154,000.00 68%
012095_____ SMPH Expense 142,476.80 172,274.85 83%
Enterprise Funds
54 2/29/2024 Department 2/29/2024 Actual Approved Budget Percent Used

REVENUE COPS
03300033010 INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS 3,600.11 6,400.00 56% 03300039967 COPS/AB 1913 51,900.68 100,000.00 52%
Total: 55,500.79 106,400.00 52%

EXPENSE
033033_____ COPS EXPENSE 62,694.04 152,800.00 41%
2/29/2024 Department 2/29/2024 Actual Approved Budget Percent Used

REVENUE TRAFFIC
00300033010 INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS 0%
00300039100 SECTION 2105 13,646.63 22,500.00 61%
00300039110 SECTION 21075 1,000.00 1,000.00 100%
00300039120 SECTION 2107 18,950.90 30,300.00 63%
00300039130 SECTION 2106 11,618.68 19,500.00 60%
00300039135 MISC/PROP 42 21,952.79 34,200.00 64%
00300039137 TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF 0%
00300039139 SB1 56,009.57 84,100.00 67%
Total: 123,178.57 191,600.00 64%

EXPENSE
003030_____ GAS TAX 69,253.90 224,729.74 31%
Special Funds
55 shop Bank Reconciliation Report - by Bank NumberCity of Bi Page: 1 Mar 07, 2024 9:35AM
Report Criteria:

Print Outstanding Checks and Deposits and Bank and Book adjustments Eastern Sierra Checking (Eastern Sierra Checking) (1)
February 29, 2024
Account: 99900010110
Bank Account Number: 006107370
Bank Statement Balance: 2,164,228.24 Book Balance Previous Month: 1,829,595.13 Outstanding Deposits: 42,861.41 Total Receipts: 1,382,668.03 Outstanding Checks: 651,253.93 Total Disbursements: 1,654,736.75 Bank Adjustments: 1,690.69 Book Adjustments: .00
Bank Balance: 1,557,526.41 Book Balance: 1,557,526.41
Proof (Bank balance less book balance): .00
Outstanding Deposits Section
Deposit
Number
Deposit
Amount
Deposit
Number
Deposit
Amount
Deposit
Number
Deposit
Amount
Deposit
Number
Deposit
Amount
19 280.00 1057 101.00 1108 88.29- 1110 565.46
1132 1,472.00- 1137 370.00- 1145 359.00 1159 64.00-
1202 2,015.10 1213 185.00- 1213 35,002.83 1214 258.75
1215 291.70 1224 707.98 1225 1,754.23 1226 746.25
1234 558.40 1256 2,400.00
Grand Totals:
42,861.41
Deposits cleared: 76 items Deposits Outstanding: 18 items Outstanding Checks Section
Check
Number
Check
Amount
Check
Number
Check
Amount
Check
Number
Check
Amount
Check
Number
Check
Amount
1092 19.83 1639 38.00 1644 38.00 2443 165.48
3849 74.99 4696 1,623.97 4738 250.29 4877 6,920.00
5119 457.64 5546 119.89 6366 313.36 6412 100.00
6693 48.03 6777 164.50 6810 442.73 6948 668.91
7108 4,602.50 7258 144.96 7412 18.58 7420 18.58
7859 1,076.50 8324 66.50 8752 110.82 9412 203.50
9804 51.80 9861 .11 9872 7,100.00 9903 77.57
9920 51.80 9923 1,701.16 9941 46.25 10032 149.18
10038 108.03 10071 221.64 10075 147.76 10080 269.10
10089 166.23 10093 202.73 10105 1,366.02 10145 2,222.22 10150 2,222.22 10178 105.28 10182 2,029.00 10183 1,560.00 10185 83.25 10186 5,646.73 10187 361.05 10188 1,698.08
10189 56,962.84 10190 14,700.01 10191 1,047.03 10194 47.00 10201 110.00 10234 35.09 10242 1,040.05 10261 456.75
10271 15,258.00 10287 255.00 10293 171.00 10296 45,000.00 10300 543.75 10301 500.00 10313 106.67 10314 234.43
10321 309.34 10322 129.52 10323 125.60 10327 19.62
10328 62.79 10330 2,118.00 10331 1,500.00 10332 369.23
10333 55.50 10334 5,816.15 10335 361.05 10336 1,698.08
10337 58,064.00 10338 14,743.43 10339 937.12 10340 543.55 10344 447.35 10348 1,858.22 10349 716.83 10350 3,671.44 10354 2,697.43 10355 21.55 10356 401.68 10361 60.88
10362 149.59 10363 11.96 10366 249.42 10367 1,422.00
10368 62.31 10369 265.51 10371 4,050.00 10372 298.19
56 shop Bank Reconciliation Report - by Bank NumberCity of Bi Page: 2 Mar 07, 2024 9:35AM
Check
Number
Check
Amount
Check
Number
Check
Amount
Check
Number
Check
Amount
Check
Number
Check
Amount
10373 7,966.80 10374 164,395.47 10375 540.54 10376 839.26 10377 258.75 10378 1,396.61 10379 3,396.91 10380 4,520.58 10381 500.00 10382 536.86 10383 600.00 10384 2,108.83
10385 626.12 10386 5,876.34 10387 1,099.00 10388 194.00 10389 180.00 10390 351.50 10391 259.12 10392 76.11
10393 400.00 10394 897.55 10395 540.85 10396 1,574.68
10397 797.44 10398 581.35 10399 49.09 75403 8.00
11224301 2,818.04 12623202 2,639.54 20924201 2,639.54 20924203 32,237.05 22324200 88,640.59 22324202 2,639.54 22324204 32,219.39 22324205 1,868.75 Grand Totals:
651,253.93
Checks cleared: 219 items Checks Oustanding: 132 items
Bank Adjustments Section
Description Amount Description Amount
J Scida Wages Incorrectly Paid and Owed 1,690.71 Carrying Prior Month Bank Adjustment .02- Grand Totals: 1,690.69
Book Adjustments Section
57 CITY OF BISHOP

COMBINED CASH
FEBRUARY 29, 2024
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 67 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/07/2024 09:51AM PAGE: 1

COMBINED CASH ACCOUNTS
999-000-10110 CASH IN BANK 1,552,905.93
999-000-10111 LAIF INVESTMENT 18,659,424.35
999-000-10112 CASH EASTERN SIERRA BANK .00
999-000-10113 CASH IN COUNTY TREASURY .00
999-000-10115 CASH IN BANK XPRESS BILLPAY 32,533.42
999-000-10175 CASH CLEARING UTILITIES 17,863.91
999-000-10176 BUSINESS CASH CLEARING 426.10
TOTAL COMBINED CASH 20,263,153.71
999-000-10100 CASH ALLOCATED TO FUNDS ( 20,263,153.71)
TOTAL UNALLOCATED CASH .00

CASH ALLOCATION RECONCILIATION
1 ALLOCATION TO GENERAL FUND 10,228,164.70
2 ALLOCATION TO SEWER FUND 2,571,256.35
3 ALLOCATION TO GAS TAX 411,445.29
4 ALLOCATION TO WATER FUND 2,382,384.97
5 ALLOCATION TO RFPD 1,160,668.44
6 ALLOCATION TO IMBC FIDUCIARY .00
7 ALLOCATION TO LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 89,758.82
8 ALLOCATION TO BOND AND TRUST FUND 17,529.32
9 ALLOCATION TO TRAFFIC SAFETY 8,141.29
10 ALLOCATION TO TUT MEASURE A 1,124,712.76
11 ALLOCATION TO ASSET FORFEITURE 5,300.63
12 ALLOCATION TO SUNRISE MHP 355,232.28
13 ALLOCATION TO GENERAL FIXED ASSETS .00
15 ALLOCATION TO WATER IMPROVEMENT .00
18 ALLOCATION TO FUND 018 .00
19 ALLOCATION TO STREETS-SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT 750,000.00 21 ALLOCATION TO CANINE DONATION 8,012.54
22 ALLOCATION TO HEAVY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 300,000.00 23 ALLOCATION TO PROPERTY/HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 139,457.50 29 ALLOCATION TO FUND 029 .00
33 ALLOCATION TO C.O.P.S. 197,491.07
37 ALLOCATION TO HOME FUNDS/WILLOW ST 100,302.76
54 ALLOCATION TO STIP E. LINE ST. BRIDGE REPL. 267,073.51 55 ALLOCATION TO S WARREN ST. IMPROVEMENT .00
57 ALLOCATION TO SEIBU TO SCHL BIKE PATH .00
58 ALLOCATION TO PINE TO PARK/STIP .00
59 ALLOCATION TO WEST JAY STREET .00
60 ALLOCATION TO STIP-SPRUCE/YANEY/HANBY .00
61 ALLOCATION TO E. LINE ST. IMPROVEMENTS .00
62 ALLOCATION TO PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT PROJECT .00
70 ALLOCATION TO HOME OWNER ASSIST PRGM 128,100.00
71 ALLOCATION TO SILVER PEAK/IMACA .00
72 ALLOCATION TO VALLEY APTS/13 CDBG 8972 18,121.48
58 CITY OF BISHOP

COMBINED CASH
FEBRUARY 29, 2024
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 67 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/07/2024 09:51AM PAGE: 2 TOTAL ALLOCATIONS TO OTHER FUNDS 20,263,153.71
ALLOCATION FROM COMBINED CASH FUND - 999-000-10100 ( 20,263,153.71) ZERO PROOF IF ALLOCATIONS BALANCE .00
59

60 !"#$%#&' ()*++
,-./-01 23456
7898:;80 <3=6=
>?@8:;80 <3A2<
B9C?;80 <3DE4
F8GC8:;80 <3H<2
IJKL'L@80-M8'NOP8Q5RS 6<4
'NLKT'T-O0'U-V/8'T-9C?0Q5RS 43==<H2<5<5
IJKL'7-OV1Q5RS <3=D
IJKL'W/-0C80'C?'7-C8Q5RS <3A5
NLKT'LGG?0CO?.:8.C'X-C8Q6RS 2344
'NLKT'Y-0.O.MZ'X-CO?Q6RS 4344454=<62EDAD<HA=
'NLKT'L[:O.OZC0-CO@8'\?ZCQ5R]S 436=
^08-Z/0O8Z
HA3AA_
LM8.9O8Z
663H<_
\80COPO9-C8Z'?P'
78G?ZOC`a-.b'>?C8Z
A3=A_
^O:8'
78G?ZOCZ
<35<_
\?::809O-V
I-G80
H3=5_
\?0G?0-C8'
a?.[Z
43<E_
N?-.Z
4364_
cdefgh'ijf'klldmendopfoe'mkef'noqrstfg'noefmfge'fkmoft'do'ejf'ukrvwxy'ysllrfpfoekr'vfogndo'vkzpfoe'lsmgskoe'ed{d|fmopfoe'udtf'}~}' q'kot'noefmfge'fkmoft'do'ejf'nrt
nmf'sot'rdko'lsmgskoe'ed'vsrnq'enrnez'udtf'}'k' ijf'lfmqfoekf'd
'ktpnongemken|f'qdge'fskrg'ejf'edekr'ktpnongemken|f'qdge'tn|ntft'z'ejf'skmefmrz'noefmfge'fkmonog'ijf'rk'lmd|ntfg'ejke' ktpnongemken|f'qdgeg'kmf'ode'ed'fqfft''d
'skmefmrz'wxcc{y'd
'ejf'
sot'df|fm'n
'ejf'ff'knrz'imfkgsmz'nrr'xkef'doejf'rkge'tkz'd
'
ejf'
ngqkr'zfkm'ng'frd''ejfo'ktpnongemken|f'qdgeg'gjkrr'ode'fqfft''d 'skmefmrz'wxcc{y'd
'ejf'
sot'
dm'ejf'gsgfsfoe'
ngqkr'zfkm'
F?/098S
Q5R'FC-C8'?P'\-VOP?0.O-'BPPO98'?P'C8'^08-Z/080
Q6R'FC-C8'?P'\-VPO?0.O-'BPPO98'?P'C8'\?.C0?VV80
'!#% !'¡¢£¤¥&'
¦§§!¨£©!'ª©!¥«¬*®
¯° '!#§¡#±%¢¨!'²!³¡#£
%¬'¡§'´¯µ¶¯+(
·%©¥&'#%£!¬'%#!'¢¡¸'%%©¥%"¥!¤!#!)''¹©!¸'·%©¥&'²%£!¬ º$%#£!#¥&'!#§¡#±%¢¨!
º$%#£!#'¦¢«!«'*+¯´*¯+´
\-0C'[?8Z'.?C'O.9V/[8'»6556444344'O.':?0CM-M8Z'¼O9'8½/-C8ZC?'43445_3I8098.C-M8Z':-1'.?C'C?C-V'544_'[/8'C?'0?/.[O.M3 ¡¡¥!«'¡¢!&'¢!¬£±!¢£'¨¨¡$¢£
¡¢£¤¥&'¡#£§¡¥©¡'¾¡±³¡¬©£©¡¢'*®
*¯´*¯+(
¿*¶À)Á'"©¥¥©¡¢
61 !"#$% &'()#* +),(-./(). 01)2
3454 6"7 89:;<8
=$#>$/()."? @& 89:<8A<<<B
C8BDE DFGAG<<B
H$>#I <J? :<:9
!&+0 K"/(
3H+& &,(>$'( H").I%*
LM(%2-
@+NL 50 6+=K53
@+NL &OH+P+=NQ&N5Q
3454 65R B:GD
6+=K53? @& 8GFB9
STTUVWX YVZ[\]^ 8;AB9A<;D
0(_>1$>* :<:9 =.$.(/().

N>$) N*`( O(aM)M.M")-
bcc\TXde\
fgX\
h]gWigTXdUW
fgX\
h]gW
hjk\lUWcd]Z
YVZ[\]
m\[
lUWcd]Z
YVZ[\] SVXnU]do\p lgqq\] SZUVWX
:r:Jr:<:9 :r:Jr:<:9 QO BJ9;9;J BJ<;8<8 sNK&P &tuss F<<?<<<4<< STTUVWX vVZZg]j
N".$% O(`"-M.w F<<?<<<4<< 6('M))M)' 6$%$)#(w B;?BF8?9:94:8 N".$% xM.I2>$y$%w <4<< s)2M)' 6$%$)#(w B;?DF8?9:94:8
62 !"# !$%& '(!)"#)*"+* !"# ,-#)!.#*/!"()$"&
01203245 5640 5607 440
01208245 5640 5607 449
01205245 569: 560; 441
01201245 569: 560; 448
01204245 569: 560; 448
01209245 569: 560; 448
0424:245 5644 560; 497
04247245 5698 5603 40:
0424;245 5698 5603 40:
04243245 569; 5603 40;
04248245 5697 5603 407
04245245 5697 5603 407
04241245 5697 5608 407
04244245 569; 5608 408
04249245 5693 5608 408
04240245 5698 5605 40;
0429:245 5698 5605 490
04297245 5698 5605 490
0429;245 5698 5605 490
04293245 5698 5605 490
04298245 5695 5605 490
04295245 560: 5601 403
04291245 560: 5601 403
04294245 560; 5601 403
04299245 560; 5601 407
04290245 560; 5601 407
0420:245 560; 5601 407
04207245 5607 5601 40:
0420;245 5607 5604 40:
04203245 5607 5604 40:
04208245 5607 5604 490
04205245 560; 5604 495
04201245 560; 5604 495
04204245 560; 5604 495
04209245 560; 5609 495
<,=>?@AB>,*CD,DE*DAE,CFAEA
?>@B,/,G*<H,
H/>,* !$%&*EII#J"$-#*K$#%L
MNOPQR*RPSQT*TUSV*WUX*YSZQS[X*[O\PXOQ*]OPWV*UY*QUVVSV ^\TOXST_*1232404563

!"#$ %% &
'(
)'
'*

(

+,-./
-0//
-/
.
001

00
0 00-230
/
0

/302

022302-- 4. -
0-05

+6
7

(
40
1 1 15/0

8 40
.1
/2.5/1
64

"
!
#!

$
!

"
!
#!

%& '

'

(&)* +)&
' ,
+-
-),*&

!
!

. /
' '

+-
-),*&

!
!

//.
' 0+-
-),*&

!
!

/./
'
&+-
-),*&

!
!

1
.

' 2)
+-
-),*&

!
!

1 #/.#1
'

+-

-),*&

!
#!

/.#
' +34
5
406
444'6+37+'%%+(

63,4

4.
!
#!

/ 1/
.

' +34
547+'%
!
1!
!/!

!
#!

#.#/
' +34
547+'%!!

!
!

!
#!

/
.#

' )
,
!
#!

1
.
' )
,
!
#!

1/.

' 8
,
!
#!

.

' )*9
,*!

!
#!

.
' :
3+6,0
!
#!

1
.
' +
-

-),*&

!
#!

'
4+
-

-),*&

!
#!

/.
' ;

64 0+<3:

!
!

# / #.

' ;

64 0+<3:

!
!

#//
#.1

'+ (:
094
(6(<:94+309+
4'650
60
!#!

#/

.
'+ -=>7)
!
!

.
'0 +4
6+(,6'4360<
!!

#
.
'+ ?
-

!
!

# .
'+ +6
4'+
4(40@:
=
!
!

/.
'+ +36(4+6(0:,659:
!
!

#1
.
'+ +> -4A&
5A

6

!
!

# .
'+ 659:3:=5609
!
!

#/ .#
'+
:@(B55;3<
!
!

#

.

'+ 5(5:
056(.
!
!

/.1
'+ :;(60<
6(06(2
!
!

1.
'+ '4+(B53;6(2794+06(26(.
!
!

.
'+ '40:,%;5064
!
!

.
'+ '40:,@+04
+(':@4

!
!

1.#
'+ 43:<4(0'4?43:4(0
!
!

#.
'+ ,
:(064

!
!

1 / . 1
'+ 2
+6(24

!
!

/.
#
'+ 9;(0
:+(4
6(.
!
!

/ #./
'+ 6(<:
426504

!
!

/.
1 '+ %643365
!
!

#
./

'+ %:542+
6+
!
!

#
./

'+ 3.(&
75
!
!

#
./
'+ 34+2;4:,+60645
!
!

.
'+ 36,4+55650
6(.
!
!

.1/
'+ 3;:5+('+55:6+045
6(.
!
!

#.
'+ :
+345
::04

!
!

1
.
'+
.=.+;0::06?454
?646(.
!
!

#
.
'+ (40,634
!
!

/
1.
'+ 4
4CD;+360<06
45
!
!

.
'+ D;633:

!
!

#
/.
1 '+
:6(6=4(
!
!

#
./

'+ 5:;094
(+36,:
(6+4'65:(
!
!

'+ ;5,-
6
.
!
!

/.
#
'+ ?4
6C:(@6
43455
!
!

1#.

'+
!
!

1 . #
' 43365
%+45?.
!#!

1 .

' %+=5:(
+?653.
!#!

#.

' ;('4
9633
94
<33.
!#!

/
./
' 5+(0+(+
,
+(65:
!#!

/
.
' +(;4360:
365+
!#!

#
./
65

"
!
#!

$
!

"
!
#!

%& '

'

(&)* +)&
' 2
659+
++('+

!#!

/
/.

' 3+;2936(
+5934<
!#!

# .

' (+?+345

<+(
!#!

.
' %+=5:(
09:+54.
!#!

.1
' ::3

450:(
!#!

1.#
' +'4
+
%:43<(
!#!

1 .
' 0;
+(
<344
!#!

#
.

' 4((65
%4

<
!#!

/ //.

' 4((65
=+
4(
!#!

/1./
'
;55433

40
!#!

#
1 .#

' +;=44
409+(
!#!

/ .#/
'0 +36,:
(6+50+04'65;
544(0;(60
!!

'0 ;5+(=0
;50@4504
(
426:(
!!

.1
'+ +36(4+6(0:,659:
!!

1 .

'+ +)-9

!!

./
'+ +0=6(5:(
+('435:(
3:<+

;;'+('
::
!!

1 .
1 '+ 7=

!!

.

'+
6+(565:(
!!

/ .1
'+
:@(B55;3<
!!

.#
'+ +
69+43;56(455049.
!!

# .
'+ +
40,:
<:;
9:4
!!

1 /
.
'+ +54334
6(.
!!

1
#/.
'+ :;(60<
6(06(2
!!

1 .
1 '+ 4(04

654
!!

1
.

'+ 45:5:3;06:(5
6(
!!

1 1##.1
'+ 9629:;(0
<3;4

!!

11 #/.
'+ 9:43;4
:+(<
!!

1 #1.

'+ 9;(0
:+(4
6(.
!!

1
.
'+ 6(<::;(0<3+((6(2'40
!!

1 1
.
'+ 6(<::;(0<
4<36(27@+504+(+244(0
!!

1# /.1
'+ +(:
0
;4?+3;49+
'@+
4
!!

./
'+ +
06(4C@43'6(2
!!

1 ./1
'+ 6556:(36(4(7;(6,:

!!

#./

'+ +
59+54665<5045
!!

#/.

'+ 63:009:+53:265065
!!

/.
'+ :50+504

!!

1 .
'+
4,4

4'5406
!!

'+ D;633:

!!

/
./

'+ 5:;094
(+36,:
(6+4'65:(
!!

1 .#
'+ 50+(04:(5;306(254
?.
!!

#
.
'+ 504?4B5+;0:70
;=+
0
!!

/ 1

1./
'+ 5;(
6'245<5045
6(.
!!

/ 1

1.
'+ 094,4';50:
4
!!

/
/.#
'+ ;('4
2 :;('54
?64+34
0
!!

/
.1
'+ @
-4

!!

/

11 .1
'+ 659:23+55
6(.
!1!

11.
'+ 659:+6;040
6+3
!1!

.
'+
@'

!1!

#
# ./
'+
:@(B55;3<
!1!

.#
'+ 5=+

!1!

.1
'+ +(:(,6(+(6+354
?645
!1!

.#
'+ +
69+43;56(455049.
!1!

# /.
'+
4

!1!

#

.
'+ '40:,@+04
+(':@4

!1!

#1
/
.

'+ '40:,@+04
+(':@4

!1!

#
1 .
'+ 9;(0
:+(4
6(.
!1!

#./
'+ 6(<::;(0<4(?6
:(4(0+3
!1!

.
'+ % .5 *.'%.'6
.
!1!

1.
66

$% &

&

'%() *(%
&* *
+,'-./-0&,'1
23

2 3
453
&* *
67*0-'+,
4&4
23

22 34
&* *&,
-+
23

"43
&*
484*9+::+,7-;-
7,-,'4
23

2
54
&* %
;<

23

34
&* ':
+=-
','6:=-*0+=*
-&,;+
,+
23

23
54
&* ':
+=-
','6:=-*0+=*
-&,;+
,+
23

2 354
&* :+,9
23

25 2
2 "435
&* -++6*;=*
8;&-+4
23

4
&* >9,00:

23

2" 2
4
&*
,1=+/*6::0?;*
23

22 22
343
&* +=-;=--+
23

222
43
&* 9;*'8+
9;+/-;+-
'
-1,:'
23

22
5 "2
4
& :0,'1
/*

-'$

22 245
& -00,;
$*-;74

4
& $*8;:'
*7,;04

223
4 & ;*'+*'*
@
*',;:

22 34
& 1
,;=*
**'&*

225 2
5 54
2 & 0*91=0,'
*;=0-6

22
4
& '*7*0-;

6*'

22" 4
& $*8;:'
+=:*;-4

2
5
4"5
& 9

,-
+*60:

2
2 "4

& 9

,-
+*60:

2 "43

& +9
*'
60--

2
2
34
& -'',;
$-

"2
4 2
& -'',;
8*
-'

2
3 524
&
9;;-00

-+

2

3 4"

& :'&
*1:'
&:':7*'

2
5 2"4

& 1,&'-6
*
0-6

2

45"
&+ *-
,*'@,&-0,+6

224
&+ :*

22 2
34
&+ *0,@:
',*;+*+-&,;9
;--'+9',+

2
"4

&+ :-*

2 3343
&+ ;*&-'+*0::0

2
3 2423
&+ +-A*;0,@-,';9
*'-:*'6

23 243
&+ +=-=*
+@:
&

2 2
"4
&+ 94;
*
;*

%B5
32

25 3

4
&+ 9;*'8+
9;+/-;+-
'
-1,:'

2 2

5 4

&+ 9;*'8+
9;+/-;+-
'
-1,:'

2" "542

&+ 7,;,:';-
7,-0*'

2
3
433
&* *+?+)

00

2
2 554

&* *+8,';:'
*'&-0;:'
0:6*

99&*'&
::

4 3
&*
,*'=:=-';+-,'

2

3453
&* ;';:
+;,'4

543
&* *0,@:
',*
:*&*'&

2
3 24
&* *
-

2
534
&* &-+:@$9;+,-

2
5 2

24
&* &-+:@/*+-
*'&:/-

2
2
34

&* @
:'+,-

2
" 524
&* 1
*',9;
,'4

23
524

&* =:-09-
:*'6

232 224"3
&* =9'+
:*'-
,'4

23
3 2
42
&* ,C;%4

45
&* ,'6::9'+6*&,',;+
*+,:'

"54

&* ,'6:
-1,;+-

233
2433
&* $,-00,;

23
24
&* $:'-;?*6-
0*/:@@,-

235 23

4
&* 04'%
?;

23 554
5 67

$% &

&

'%() *(%
&* 0*'&;*-;:09+,:';

23"

4
&* *
;=*;-,,;6;+-;

2 2

"54

&* *+:D'-,0

22 4
&* -

6:+:
;
,'4

2
2 "43"
&* ,'+*,0,*1,'1

2 224"
&* +;

2
34
&* ;*@

23 4
&* ;:9+=-
'*0,@:
',*-&,;:'

&* +%=

25 2

4
&* 7-
,.:'9;,'-;;

2
42
&* /-;+-
''-7*&*;906:4

2"
3432
&* /C
C,

453
&* *
%

(%
00

252

34
&* *0,'-*,'+:@,;=:

"42"
&* *A:'-'+-

,;-
,'4

25 5
"4
&* ,;=:=*-
:@:-
-

25
2 "34
5 &* 0*8:,'+004

253 3
43

&*
%

25 "4

&*
,*'=:=-';+-,'

255
3453
&* *0,@:
',*
:*&*'&

25 2
"42
&* *
,=*-09;,'-;;+-=4

25"
"4"2
&* &-+:@/*+-
*'&:/-

3 43
&* &-+:@/*+-
*'&:/-

22 34
&* @
:'+,-

2
34
&* =*';:'
,&1-++00

2 4
&* =9'+
:*'-
,'4

24
&* ,C;%4,

23
42 &* 04'%
?;

2 3
54

&* 0,--
+*;;,&6/=,+:
-

25 2
""4
&* 0
(

2 2"
4
&* :
*0-;
::+-

2" 24
&* '
&

2" 3243
&* :+,9

2"2
3"42

&* >9,00:

2"
5422
&* ;,-

**'*06+,*00*;,'4

2"
4
&* ;:9+=-
'*0,@:
',*-&,;:'

2"
"5433
&* +=-=*
+@:
&

2"3 3
43
&* 9;@C
,
4

2" 2
35 4
&* 7-
,.:'/,
-0-;;

2"5 5"54

&* /-;+-
'*9&,:7,;9*0

2" 3243
&* /-;+-
''-7*&*;906:4

2""
"4"
& &,
-+&-:;,++:+*0
"

2 2

24
& &,
-+&-:;,++:+*0

2 45
&+ -0:6-'+&-74&-+4

3

4
&+ 1
-*+/-;+0,@-?*''9,+6

"43

&+ ,
;

2
4"

&+ -
;

543
&+ -
;&-@-

-&:

2 453
&+ *0-
;-&,*0

43"
&+ -0:6-'+&-74&-+4

2 3
34
&+ 1
-*+/-;+0,@-?*''9,+6

"43

&+ ,
;

2
"45
&+ -
;

2"4"
&+ -
;&-@-

-&:

3 2
453
1C+ 2
3 5453
68 Agenda Item: 8.D
Date of Meeting: April 8, 2024
Department: Finance
To: City Council
From: Ethan Aukee
Subject: C.O.P.S Fund Budget Adjustment
Prepared On: March 14, 2024

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

Based on current and anticipated FY 23-24 Police Department expenses, the department has determined that the C.O.P.S. Fund approved spending can be utilized more effectively.

Analysis/Discussion:
$10,000 is currently approved within the C.O.P.S. Fund for recruitment, however, this approved spending will not be utilized in FY 23-24. Staff is requesting to reallocate the approved $10,000 to Special Department Supplies in the amount of $2,935 and Capital Equipment Replacement in the amount of $7,065. The reallocated spending would be used for special department supplies costs in excess of the General Fund approved budget amount and for the final costs of the evidence room remodel.

Economic Impacts:

No economic impacts.

Budget Impacts:

The proposed adjustment is budget neutral and no additional spending is being requested.

Recruitment, 033-033-52006, decreased by $10,000.

Special Department Supplies, 033-033-52018, increased by $2,935.

Capital Equipment Replacement, 033-033-56029, increased by $7,065.

Legal Review:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

Recommended Action:

Council consideration to approve the proposed C.O.P.S Fund budget adjustment as follows:

Recruitment, 033-033-52006, decreased by $10,000;
69 Special Department Supplies, 033-033-52018, increased by $2,935; and Capital Equipment Replacement, 033-033-56029, increased by $7,065.

Approved By: Ethan Aukee 3/14/2024
Approved By: Robin Picken 3/18/2024
Approved By: Deston Dishion 3/18/2024
Approved By:
70 Agenda Item: 8.E
Date of Meeting: April 8, 2024
Department: Finance
To: City Council
From: Ethan Aukee
Subject: Sewer Fund Budget Adjustment
Prepared On: March 29, 2024

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

The Sewer Fund budget as currently constituted does not account for the depreciation of the Sewer Trunk Line and the Trailer Mounted Chipper assets that were both capitalized in FY 22-

23. Analysis/Discussion:

While working on construction of the FY 24-25 budget, it was noticed that the FY 23-24 depreciation expense budget for the Sewer Fund did not account for new assets being depreciated. In order to account for the depreciation of new assets, the budget for 002-051- 56025, Depreciation, needs to be increased from $132,000 to $150,908. City staff are requesting council approval to increase the budget figure for the Sewer Fund depreciation expense account.

Economic Impacts:

No economic impacts.

Budget Impacts:

Sewer Fund expense account 002-051-56025, Depreciation, would be increased from $132,000 to $150,908.

Legal Review:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

Recommended Action:

Council consideration to approve the Sewer Fund budget adjustment as follows:

Increase the Sewer Fund expense account 002-051-56025, Depreciation, from $132,000 to $150,908.

Approved By: Ethan Aukee 3/29/2024
Approved By: Robin Picken 3/29/2024
71 Approved By: Deston Dishion 3/29/2024
Approved By:
72 Agenda Item: 8.F
Date of Meeting: April 8, 2024
Department: Finance
To: City Council
From: Ethan Aukee
Subject: Sewer Fund Expense Reclassification
Prepared On: March 21, 2024

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

The FY 23-24 budget for the Sewer Fund includes $8,265 within 002-051-52018, Special Department Supplies, for the purchase of a chain cutter. During the purchase order approval process, City staff determined that this purchase should be classified as a capital expense rather than an operating expense, as the purchase price is greater than $2,500 and the useful life of the equipment is greater than one year.

Analysis/Discussion:

City staff is requesting to decrease 002-051-52018, Special Department Supplies, by $8,265 and increase 002-051-56028, Capital Equipment by $8,265. This request is budget neutral, and no additional spending approval is being requested. The purpose of the request is to reclassify an expense and ensure that the City's budget allows for the purchase of capital equipment.

Economic Impacts:

No economic impacts.

Budget Impacts:

Increase the budget amount of 002-051-56028, Capital Equipment by $8,265.00.

Decrease the budget amount of 002-051-52018, Special Department Supplies by $8,265.00.

Legal Review:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

Recommended Action:

Council consideration to approve the proposed expense reclassification and budget adjustment as follows:

Increase the budget amount of 002-051-56028, Capital Equipment by $8,265.00; and Decrease the budget amount of 002-051-52018, Special Department Supplies by $8,265.00. 73 Approved By: Ethan Aukee 3/21/2024
Approved By: Robin Picken 3/21/2024
Approved By: Deston Dishion 4/4/2024
Approved By:
74 Agenda Item: 8.G
Date of Meeting: April 8, 2024
Department: Finance
To: City Council
From: Ethan Aukee
Subject: Outdated Computers and Expired Computer Warranties Prepared On: March 14, 2024
Attachments: 23-24 Computer and Warranty Replacement
List of Expired Warranties
List of Computer Units Over 5 Years Old
Laptops Quote (Model #1)
Laptops Quote (Model #2)
Desktops Quote

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

City of Bishop's computer inventory is tracked by Carmichael Business Technology, and during a recent discussion, City staff were informed that 13 computer units were not covered under warranty and 11 computer units were greater than five years old. The computer units greater than five years old are more difficult to update and certify as fully secured and protected.

Once this information was shared with City staff, City staff conducted analysis on each computer unit to determine whether extended warranties are needed and whether older computer units needed to be replaced.

Following analysis, City staff determined that 10 extended warranties should be purchased on the basis of the computer units being used on a daily basis and computer unit malfunction would be detrimental to City business and staff productivity. An extended warranty would ensure immediate computer unit repair/replacement upon malfunction. The extended warranties would be 1- or 2-year terms. Extended warranty terms would be purchased to only cover computer units up to 5 years of lifespan, as it's recommended to replace computer units following 5 years of use.

With regard to replacement of older computer units, City staff determined that 9 of the 11 computer units needed to be replaced. This decision was made on the basis of whether the computer unit is actively used and/or needed. It should be noted that the quote for the replacement of 9 computer units includes a 38% discount. Once computer units are replaced, the replaced computer units will be managed in accordance with the City's purchasing policy. 75 Analysis/Discussion:

City staff analysis is summarized in the attachment titled, "23-24 Computer and Warranty Replacement". The cost of 10 extended warranties would total $2,271.68. The cost of 9 replacement computer units would total $16,827.24, discounted by $7,269.96, for an actual cost of $9,557.28. The replacement computers would consist of two different models of laptops, as well as desktops.

The total invoiced cost for the 10 extended warranties and 9 replacement computer units would be $11,828.96. The cost of the computer units would be capitalized and expensed over the useful life of the equipment.

Economic Impacts:

No economic impacts.

Budget Impacts:

The FY 23-24 budget would need to be increased to allow for the purchase of 10 extended warranties and 9 replacement computer units. The budget adjustments are as follows:

Extended Warranties
Police Department - IT
001-020-52045, increase of $775.82
Pool - IT
001-037-52045, increase of $249.31
Administration - IT
001-011-52045, increase of $373.97
Public Works - IT
001-023-52045, increase of $74.79
002-051-52045, increase of $74.79
004-050-52045, increase of $99.73
Parks & Recreation - IT
001-031-52045, increase of $498.62
Finance
001-012-52045, increase of $124.65
Computer Replacement
Police Department - Capital
001-020-56029, increase of $5,701.17
Council - Capital
001-010-56028, increase of $1,936.83
Parks & Recreation - Capital
001-031-56029, increase of $1,919.28
76 Legal Review:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

Recommended Action:

Council consideration to approve the proposed budget adjustments to allow for the purchase of 10 extended warranties and 9 replacement computer units.

Approved By: Ethan Aukee 3/14/2024
Approved By: Robin Picken 3/14/2024
Approved By: Dean Pucci 4/4/2024
Approved By: Deston Dishion 4/4/2024
77 Expired Warranty
Machine User Assigned Decision Cost Discount Invoiced Cost GL Account Description BOOKING NEW Karla Jimenez Purchase 1-year warranty 138.60 - 138.60 001-020-52045 Extended Warranty SGTOFFICE Brian Hohenstein Purchase 1-year warranty 138.60 - 138.60 001-020-52045 Extended Warranty TRAINING1-LT Josh Ellsworth Purchase 2-year warranty 249.31 - 249.31 001-020-52045 Extended Warranty COB-POOL-LTW10 Pool Purchase 2-year warranty 249.31 - 249.31 001-037-52045 Extended Warranty MRHEW-LT Michele Rhew Purchase 2-year warranty 249.31 - 249.31 Multiple Extended Warranty JCURRIE-LT Jana Currie Purchase 2-year warranty 249.31 - 249.31 001-011-52045 Extended Warranty EKABALA-LT Elaine Kabala No purchase. Not being used. Remove from active in-service list. - - - N/A N/A NDERR-LT Nate Derr Purchase 2-year warranty 249.31 - 249.31 001-020-52045 Extended Warranty DMCELROY-LT Dan McElroy Purchase 2-year warranty 249.31 - 249.31 001-031-52045 Extended Warranty JORTIZ-LT Jessica Ortiz Purchase 2-year warranty 249.31 - 249.31 Multiple Extended Warranty HMARTINEZ-LT-MA Hector Martinez No purchase. No concern with turnaround time if a replacement needs to be ordered. - - - N/A N/A KPOOLE-LT Karey Poole Purchase 2-year warranty 249.31 - 249.31 001-031-52045 Extended Warranty Fire Queen MacBook Air Kristina Justice No purchase. City will repurpose. - - - N/A N/A SUBTOTAL 2,271.68 - 2,271.68 Operating expense
Five Years or Older
Machine User Assigned Decision Cost Discount Invoiced Cost GL Account Description RECORDS-SOUTH Josh Ellsworth Purchase replacement 1,744.80 (785.16) 959.64 001-020-56029 DesktopADM-CHAMBER2 Robin Picken Purchase replacement 1,744.80 (785.16) 959.64 001-010-56028 Desktop SQUAD-EAST-2 Josh Ellsworth Purchase replacement 1,744.80 (785.16) 959.64 001-020-56029 Desktop ROBIN-LT Robin Picken No purchase. Not being used. Remove from active in-service list. - - - - N/A SQUAD-WESTTEMP Josh Ellsworth No purchase. Not being used. Remove from active in-service list. - - - - N/A COMSVS-RECSUP Waylon Cleland Purchase replacement 1,744.80 (785.16) 959.64 001-031-56029 Desktop COMSVS-PARKSUP Willis Dondero Purchase replacement 1,744.80 (785.16) 959.64 001-031-56029 Desktop GRANICUS Robin Picken Purchase replacement 1,714.37 (737.18) 977.19 001-010-56028 Laptop LT-BPD-TRAINING Josh Ellsworth Purchase replacement 1,714.37 (737.18) 977.19 001-020-56029 Laptop BISHOPLT-LAPTOP Josh Ellsworth Purchase replacement 2,337.25 (934.90) 1,402.35 001-020-56029 Laptop BP-EVIDENCE Alena Dondero Purchase replacement 2,337.25 (934.90) 1,402.35 001-020-56029 Laptop SUBTOTAL 16,827.24 (7,269.96) 9,557.28
Purchasing as a computer
fleet and capitalizing the
cost
TOTAL Warranties Purchased Cost per Warranty Cost Discount Invoiced Cost 10 227.17 19,098.92 (7,269.96) 11,828.96
Machines Purchased Cost per Machine
9 1,061.92
78

! " #
$% &%
' (%
)*
%+ ,-

.% /

-
% /+%' (
-
%+ )*%0%
1 23% 45#6#27 89:9;<= 4
'
$%
%> 8
'' 7?

@%'' ('%3A!;! !<BC< C<" "D< ! C< C<9 &6.EE52 89:";<=

8%
%
8
'' 7?

@%'' ('%3A!;! !<BC< C<" "D< ! C< C<9 .F)5#5#6<C,. BF6#!!=

2''G 8
'' 7?

@%'' ,

+%=9<! ! !C!AC H =D9 ! =C!AC=! C(,C,.7<! ;#<!= (' 8 '' 7?

@%'' ,

+%=9<! ! !C!AC B =D9 ! =C!AC=< /F827C,. <<(,;= /-%'%F%G 8 '' 7?

@%'' ,

+%B9<! ! !C!BC<A =D" ! =C!BC<H IFF52C,. E 6,;=

% 8
'' 7?

@%'' ,

+%B9<! ! !C!BC<A =D" ! =C!BC<H 24)),)C,. ;(HE,;= 2'

%4
J
'
8
'' 7?

@%'' ,

+%B9<! ! !C!BC<A =D" ! =C!BC<H #@2FFC,. "#E,;= #
%@% 8
'' 7?

@%'' ,

+%B9<! ! !C!BC<A =D" ! =C!BC<H @/2,FKC,. E/HE,;= @

/-2' 8
'' 7?

@%'' ,

+%B9<! ! !C!BC<A =D" ! =C!BC<H F.5LC,. @HE,;= %- > 8
'' 7?

@%'' ,

+%B9<! ! !C!BC<A =D" ! =C!BC<H 8/)F.5#2LC,.C/) @9"E,;= 8%-/
%> 8
'' 7?

@%'' ,

+%B9<! ! !C!BC<A =D" ! =C!BC<H 4(,2C,. ".E,;= 4
%('% 8
'' 7?

@%'' ,

+%B9<! ! !C!BC<A =D" ! =C!BC<H E%M
%%
/
-?) E:EM!I!/;46 4

-% 8
'' 7?

)'% /
-?)0F%

N<=C
-N ! !1 ! !C!BC=! =D= <BA!C!<C!<
79

! " #
$% &%
' (%
)*
%+ ,-

.% /

-
% /+%' (
-
%+ )*%0%
1 23% 4245&6&7.8 9:;<=>?

2''@ 8
'' AB

5%'' ('%3CD!0,
% !!E1 !??6!96!< ? F< !?"6!96!9 )5/68)/24 :8;G=>? 4H (-B%
8
'' AB

5%'' ('%3EE!02
' !??1 !??6!96?D ? FI !?"6!96?E &>7)562)&.6 C!!/=G?

2''@ 8
'' AB

5%'' ('%3CE! !? 6?!6 9 ??FC !?<6?!6 D 4J#6,. :CKA4A? 4H (-B%
8
'' AB

5%'' ,

+%2<IC!0/+ !? 1 !?C6! 6?E ?!FE !?<6! 6 ! &>7)56A2&..2/( I8:/!

2''@ 8
'' AB

5%'' ('%3C!?! !?"6!C6 ! EFE !?96!C6 ? /&G&642&7( 8:"C:" A '
'%'

+ 8
'' AB

5%'' ('%3C! ! !?I6!I6 < DF9 !?D6!I6 9 /&G&6()4K&7( 8:"G5" A''5 +% 8
'' AB

5%'' ('%3C! ! !?I6!I6 < DF9 !?D6!I6 9 L4)#J7& #5< ?"9: 4H (-B%
8
'' AB

8(J
- 8(#%HB6?I6
!?C
02#24LM&.)41 !?<6!96 < 9FI !?E6!?6!D ,.6(56.4)J#J#L ,9/":

2''@ 8
'' AB

5%'' ,

+%?CCC9E 6
6? !?96!"6?! <FD ! !6!"6? J&8(,.6,)(.( L?(?L

2''@ 8
'' AB

5%'' ,

+%2II9!,
!?96!<6!? <F9 ! !6!<6!C (62GJ52#2 4>M8 )'%

5
+% 8
'' AB

5%'' ('%3C!I! !?96!<6! <F9 ! !6!<6!C
80 eQuote
Savings $1,474.36
Subtotal (2) $1,954.38
Estimated Shipping $0.00
Total $1,954.38
Details
COB Granicus and BPD Training L
aptop Replacements
Quote number # 3000173459042
Created March 11, 2024
Expires April 10, 2024
Created by
[email protected]
Billing
Partner Contact
Sarah Carmichael
Phone number: (760) 934-4392
Additional::
[email protected]
Billing information

CHRIS CARMICHAEL CBT
1629 MAJESTIC PINES DR,
MAMMOTH LAKES, CA, 93546-
6068
Customer number: 2187587
Phone number: (760) 934-4382
Additional::

[email protected]
Tax exemption
I am tax exempt
Shipping
Shipping information
Sarah Carmichael CBT
272 Sierra Manor Rd. Ste. A,
Mammoth Lakes, CA, 93546
Phone number: (760) 934-4382
Additional::
[email protected]
Delivery method
no charge delivery
Trade compliance
No, I will not be exporting
Payment method
Items Quantity Unit Price Item total
Latitude 3540
Discounted unit price: $977.19
Estimated Ship Date
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
2 $1,714.37 $3,428.74
Catalog Number: 8 / s011l3540usrvp
Category Description Code SKU ID
Base Dell Latitude 3540, BTX G0S7MRQ [210-BGDW] 1
Processor 13th Gen Intel® Core™ i5-1335U (12 M
B cache, 10 cores, 12 threads, up to 4.6
0 GHz Turbo)
GHYCWN9 [379-BFBK] 146
Operating System Windows 11 Pro, English, Brazilian Port uguese, French, Spanish
G01OVWE [619-ARSB] 11
Microsoft Office No Microsoft Office Licence Included - 30 day Trial Offer Only
GC7OFJV [658-BCSB] 1002
Base Options Integrated Intel® Iris® Xe or UHD Grap
hics for i5-1335U Processor
GWEK1CT [338-CHPY] 149
Hard Drive Software Intel Rapid Storage Technology Driver G7LTKH5 [409-BCWT] 707 Systems Management Intel vPro Management Disabled GW7C1Y2 [631-BBBB] 49 Memory 16 GB: 2 x 8 GB, DDR4, 3200 MT/s G0TQ6S9 [370-AHMT] 3 Storage 256 GB, M.2 2230, PCIe NVMe, SSD, Cl
ass 35
G7F2US0 [400-BOSX] 8
Display 15.6", FHD 1920x1080, 60Hz, WVA/IPS,
Non-Touch, Anti-Glare, 250 nit, NTSC 4
5%, FHD Camera, WLAN
GUIJS58 [391-BHIW] 760
81 Category Description Code SKU ID
Keyboard English US backlit keyboard with nume
ric keypad, 99-key
GA6KDNO [583-BHBG] 4
Mouse No Mouse G8043UZ [570-AADK] 12
Driver Intel AX201/AX211 WLAN Driver GND6KFR [555-BJDV] 7 Wireless Intel® Wi-Fi 6E AX211, 2x2, 802.11ax,
Bluetooth® wireless card
GL03PXW [555-BHHU] 19
Mobile Broadband No Mobile Broadband Card GR957IY [556-BBCD] 114 Primary Battery 3 Cell, 54 Wh, ExpressCharge™, Expres
sCharge™ Boost capable
GI0K6ED [451-BDBR] 112
Power Supply 65W AC rugged adapter, USB Type-C, T
CO Gen9 compliant
G1UK8BZ [492-BDIF] 1015
PalmRest Palmrest, No Fingerprint Reader, No SI
M slot
G5KJCDN [346-BJBD] 55
Security Software and PC
Protection
No anti-virus software GD4K19S [650-AAAM] 1014
Operating System Recovery
Options
OS-Windows Media Not Included GLA9OQ1 [620-AALW] 200013 Cable E4 Power Cord 1M for US GR0IV8D [450-AMEI] 20
Placemat Quick Start Guide for 3540 G87OVCG [340-DDPB] 60 Documentation/Disks Safety/Environment and Regulatory Gu ide (English/French Multi-language)
G7RB0GY [340-AGIK] 21
E-Star ENERGY STAR Qualified G6J34SM [387-BBLW] 122
FGA Module 3540_1HFY24_011/US/BTS FG0019 [998-GFBW] 572 Non-Microsoft Application
Software
Dell Additional Software GX3QS7G [658-BFQB] 1003
Packaging Min Package GK0A3FM [340-DGMC] 465
Processor Branding Intel® Core™ i5 non-vPro Processor La bel
G7PMQZT [389-DXDU] 749
Transportation from ODM to
region
Smart Selection Shipment (VS) G1U8Y59 [800-BBQH] 200080 EAN POD label POD Label, 100% tie to L10 BTS & BTP GAEI3BU [389-EFCN] 292 Chassis Options Latitude 3540 Bottom Door, Integrated
graphics
GATXYW9 [321-BJPW] 116
Windows AutoPilot No AutoPilot GYEO2AP [340-CKSZ] 291
EPEAT 2018 EPEAT 2018 Registered (Gold) GBU8CHM [379-BDZB] 200331 Camera FHD Camera, Temporal Noise Reductio
n, No ExpressSign-In, Camera Shutter,
Mic
G02Q8CR [319-BBIW] 379
Dell Services: Hardware
Support
Mail In Service, 12 Month(s) GCLIK9P [709-BBRC] 29
Dell Services: Extended
Service
ProSupport Plus with ProSupport and
AD and KYHD and Service Account Mg
r, 36 Month(s)
G6BRAZC [127-BBHF] [199-
BIQM] [199-BIQN]
[711-BCJQ]
30 82
Premier discount -$1,474.36
Item total: $1,954.38
Savings: $1,474.36
Subtotal (2): $1,954.38
Savings $1,474.36
Subtotal (2) $1,954.38
Estimated Shipping $0.00
Total $1,954.38
Support Support
Order Status
Drivers & Downloads
Product Support
Support by Topic
Warranty Information
Order Support
Account Account
Your Profile
Dell Contacts
Address Book
Your Products Your Products
Quotes
Sales Quotes
Systems
Peripherals
Legal & Regulatory Terms of Sale Privacy Statement Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Accessibility Anti-Slavery & Human Trafficking
Ultrabook, Celeron, Celeron Inside, Core Inside, Intel, Intel Logo, Intel Atom, Intel Atom Inside, Intel Core, Intel Inside, Intel Inside Logo, Intel vPro, Itanium, Itanium Inside, Pentium, Pentium Inside, vPro Inside, Xeon, Xeon Phi, Xeon Inside, and Intel Optane are trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the U.S. and/or other countries.

Same day shipment subject to order size limitations, Dell standard shipping methods and payment via credit card, gift card or Dell Business Credit.^ Notification will be provided if there are payment delays which could impact shipping date. Electronics and accessories may ship separately.

Smart Selection. Limited quantities. Only available for orders placed by 5:59 p.m. CT Mon.–Thurs. Systems shipped the next business day after an order is placed. Subject to order approval. Software and accessories not part of the configuration will be shipped separately and may arrive after your system. Please note that Smart Selection Configuration pricing cannot be combined with other pricing offers or discounts provided or agreed to by Dell. Orders with Custom Factory Integration might require additional processing time.

Onsite Service After Remote Diagnosis and Other Important Information: *On-site Service or Advanced Exchange Service after remote diagnosis: (a) On-site Service after remote diagnosis is determined by the online or phone technician, and may involve customer access to the inside of the system and multiple extended sessions. If the issue is covered by the Limited Hardware Warranty and cannot be resolved remotely, the technician and/or replacement part will be dispatched, usually in 1 or 2 business days, following the completion of the remote diagnosis. The customer must return the original hardware to Dell according to the rules specified. On-site service is provided by Dell Marketing L.P; Availability varies. Other conditions apply. (b) Advanced Exchange Service replaces hardware after remote diagnosis. The customer must return the original hardware to Dell according to the rules specified. Advanced Exchange Service is subject to country availability. (c) For complete details about On-site Service or Advanced Exchange Service, see dell.com/servicecontracts ^DELL BUSINESS CREDIT (DBC): Offered to business customers by WebBank, who determines qualifications for and terms of credit. Taxes, shipping and other charges are extra and vary. The Total Minimum Payment Due is the greater of either $20 or 3% of the New Balance shown on the statement rounded up to the next dollar, plus all past due amounts. Dell and the Dell logo are trademarks of Dell Inc. **Payment solutions provided and serviced by Dell Financial Services L.L.C. or its affiliate or designee (“DFS”) for qualified customers. Offers may not be available or may vary in certain countries. Where available offers may be changed without notice and are subject to product availability, applicable law, credit approval, documentation provided by and acceptable to DFS and may be subject to minimum transaction size. Offers not available for personal, family or 83 household use. Dell Technologies and the Dell Technologies logo are trademarks of Dell Inc. Restrictions and additional requirements may apply to transactions with governmental or public entities.
¹Subject to applicable law and regulations. ALL ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE BY DELL. Pricing, availability and other terms of offer may be withdrawn or changed without notice. Dell cannot be held responsible for errors in typography or photography. *Based on Dell analysis of storage software deployable on AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, May 2023. 90-day evaluation: Applies to Dell licenses only for APEX Block Storage for AWS and APEX Navigator for Multicloud Storage. Subject to availability. Terms and conditions apply: For Dell APEX Navigator for Multicloud Storage view the Dell Cloud Service Offering Agreement or Dell APEX Navigator for Multicloud Service Offering Description.

For Dell APEX Block Storage for AWS, view Dell's Software Evaluation Agreement.

ALL ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE BY DELL. Pricing, availability and other terms of offer may be withdrawn or changed without notice. Dell cannot be held responsible for errors in typography or photography. 84 eQuote
Savings $1,869.80
Subtotal (2) $2,804.70
Estimated Shipping $0.00
Total $2,804.70
Details
Bishop PD LT and Evidence Lapto
ps
Quote number # 3000173459364
Created March 11, 2024
Expires April 10, 2024
Created by
[email protected]
Billing
Partner Contact
Sarah Carmichael
Phone number: (760) 934-4392
Additional::
[email protected]
Billing information

CHRIS CARMICHAEL CBT
1629 MAJESTIC PINES DR,
MAMMOTH LAKES, CA, 93546-
6068
Customer number: 2187587
Phone number: (760) 934-4382
Additional::

[email protected]
Tax exemption
I am tax exempt
Shipping
Shipping information
Sarah Carmichael CBT
272 Sierra Manor Rd. Ste. A,
Mammoth Lakes, CA, 93546
Phone number: (760) 934-4382
Additional::
[email protected]
Delivery method
no charge delivery
Trade compliance
No, I will not be exporting
Payment method
Items Quantity Unit Price Item total
Latitude 5540
Discounted unit price: $1,402.35
Estimated Ship Date
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
2 $2,337.25 $4,674.50
Catalog Number: 8 / s115l5540usrvp
Category Description Code SKU ID
Base Dell Latitude 5540 BTX Base GJKB31H [210-BGBJ] 1
Processor 13th Gen Intel® Core™ i7-1355U (12 M
B cache, 10 cores, 12 threads, up to 5.0
GHz Turbo)
GX5W8V6 [379-BFBS] 146
Operating System Windows 11 Pro, English, Brazilian Port uguese, French, Spanish
G01OVWE [619-ARSB] 11
Office Productivity Software No Microsoft Office Licence Included - 30 day Trial Offer Only
GC7OFJV [658-BCSB] 1002
Intel Responsiveness
Technologies
Intel® Rapid Storage Technology Driver GYXD2VA [409-BCWS] 707 Systems Management Intel vPro Management Disabled GYUD7M3 [631-ADPS] 49 Memory 16 GB, 2 x 8 GB, DDR4, 3200 MT/s, Non
-ECC, dual-channel
G4TUP9C [370-AFVQ] 3
Storage 512 GB, M.2 2230, PCIe NVMe, SSD, Cl
ass 35
GXVZO8K [400-BOVY] 8
Additional Storage No Additional Hard Drive GNTOSJ7 [401-AADF] 637 85 Category Description Code SKU ID
Display 15.6" FHD (1920x1080) Non-Touch, A
G, IPS, 250 nits, FHD IR Cam, WLAN/W
WAN(4G)
GAI9G1J [391-BHEM] 760
Keyboard English US backlit keyboard with nume
ric keypad, 99-key
GA6KDNO [583-BHBG] 4
Mouse No Mouse G8043UZ [570-AADK] 12
Wireless Driver Intel® AX211, 2x2, 802.11ax, MU-MIM
O Driver, Bluetooth
GJMHPT7 [555-BJDC] 7
Wireless Intel® Wi-Fi 6E AX211, 2x2, 802.11ax,
Bluetooth® wireless card
GL03PXW [555-BHHU] 19
Mobile Broadband No Mobile Broadband Card GR957IY [556-BBCD] 114 Primary Battery 3 Cell, 54 Wh, ExpressCharge™, Expres
sCharge™ Boost capable
GFB63PN [451-BDBL] 112
AC Adapter 65W AC adapter, USB Type-C, TCO Gen
9 compliant
GI417VR [492-BDHS] 1015
PalmRest Single Pointing, Smart Card Reader, Fin
ger Print Reader (w/ControlVault 3)
GLA0G37 [346-BINO] 55
Security Software No anti-virus software GD4K19S [650-AAAM] 1014 Operating System Recovery
Options
OS-Windows Media Not Included GLA9OQ1 [620-AALW] 200013 Power Cord E4 Power Cord 1M for US GC90V4B [537-BBDO] 20 Setup and Features Guides Latitude 5540 Quick Start Guide G4DLOCA [340-DDHL] 60 Resource Media No Resource USB Media G5KFAU6 [430-XXYG] 50 Documentation Safety/Environment and Regulatory Gu
ide (English/French Multi-language)
G7RB0GY [340-AGIK] 21
ENERGY STAR ENERGY STAR Qualified GFSJ2Q8 [387-BBPC] 122 FGA Module 5540_1HFY23_021/US/BTS FG0030 [998-GDKK] 572 Non-Microsoft Application
Software
Dell Additional Software GX3QS7G [658-BFQB] 1003
Packaging Packaging BTS 65W Adapter (WHN) GGITE9Z [340-DJVJ] 465 Processor Label Intel® Core™ i7 non-vPro Processor La
bel
GS7J6TG [389-DXDV] 749
Transportation from ODM to
region
BTS/BTP Shipment GR1YQZE [800-BBGW] 200080
EAN POD Label POD Label GAX83SM [389-EDJB] 292
Base Options Intel 13th Generation i7-1355U Trans., I
ntel Integrated Graphics, TBT4
GGLQN57 [338-CHGG] [338-
CHGM]
149
Chassis Options Latitude 5540 Bottom Door, Intel 13th
Gen U-Series CPU, Intel Integrated Grap
hics
GJ4GOVD [321-BJTL] 116
Windows AutoPilot No AutoPilot GYEO2AP [340-CKSZ] 291
Camera FHD/IR Camera, Temporal Noise Redu
ction, Camera Shutter, Mic
GFPAL0Z [319-BBIE] 379
86 Category Description Code SKU ID
Additional Opticals No Removable CD/DVD Drive GDCPVR0 [429-AATO] 105 EPEAT 2018 EPEAT 2018 Registered (Gold) GBU8CHM [379-BDZB] 200331 Service Mail In Service, 12 Month(s) GCLIK9P [709-BBRC] 29 Extended Service ProSupport Plus with ProSupport and
AD and KYHD and Service Account Mg
r, 12 Month(s)
G6BRAZC [127-BBHF] [199-
BIQN] [711-BCJQ]
30 Premier discount -$1,869.80
Item total: $2,804.70
Savings: $1,869.80
Subtotal (2): $2,804.70
Savings $1,869.80
Subtotal (2) $2,804.70
Estimated Shipping $0.00
Total $2,804.70
Support Support
Order Status
Drivers & Downloads
Product Support
Support by Topic
Warranty Information
Order Support
Account Account
Your Profile
Dell Contacts
Address Book
Your Products Your Products
Quotes
Sales Quotes
Systems
Peripherals
Legal & Regulatory Terms of Sale Privacy Statement Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Accessibility Anti-Slavery & Human Trafficking
Ultrabook, Celeron, Celeron Inside, Core Inside, Intel, Intel Logo, Intel Atom, Intel Atom Inside, Intel Core, Intel Inside, Intel Inside Logo, Intel vPro, Itanium, Itanium Inside, Pentium, Pentium Inside, vPro Inside, Xeon, Xeon Phi, Xeon Inside, and Intel Optane are trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the U.S. and/or other countries.

Onsite Service After Remote Diagnosis and Other Important Information: *On-site Service or Advanced Exchange Service after remote diagnosis: (a) On-site Service after remote diagnosis is determined by the online or phone technician, and may involve customer access to the inside of the system and multiple extended sessions. If the issue is covered by the Limited Hardware Warranty and cannot be resolved remotely, the technician and/or replacement part will be dispatched, usually in 1 or 2 business days, following the completion of the remote diagnosis. The customer must return the original hardware to Dell according 87 to the rules specified. On-site service is provided by Dell Marketing L.P; Availability varies. Other conditions apply. (b) Advanced Exchange Service replaces hardware after remote diagnosis. The customer must return the original hardware to Dell according to the rules specified. Advanced Exchange Service is subject to country availability. (c) For complete details about On-site Service or Advanced Exchange Service, see dell.com/servicecontracts ^DELL BUSINESS CREDIT (DBC): Offered to business customers by WebBank, who determines qualifications for and terms of credit. Taxes, shipping and other charges are extra and vary. The Total Minimum Payment Due is the greater of either $20 or 3% of the New Balance shown on the statement rounded up to the next dollar, plus all past due amounts. Dell and the Dell logo are trademarks of Dell Inc. **Payment solutions provided and serviced by Dell Financial Services L.L.C. or its affiliate or designee (“DFS”) for qualified customers. Offers may not be available or may vary in certain countries. Where available offers may be changed without notice and are subject to product availability, applicable law, credit approval, documentation provided by and acceptable to DFS and may be subject to minimum transaction size. Offers not available for personal, family or household use. Dell Technologies and the Dell Technologies logo are trademarks of Dell Inc. Restrictions and additional requirements may apply to transactions with governmental or public entities.
¹Subject to applicable law and regulations. ALL ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE BY DELL. Pricing, availability and other terms of offer may be withdrawn or changed without notice. Dell cannot be held responsible for errors in typography or photography. *Based on Dell analysis of storage software deployable on AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, May 2023. 90-day evaluation: Applies to Dell licenses only for APEX Block Storage for AWS and APEX Navigator for Multicloud Storage. Subject to availability. Terms and conditions apply: For Dell APEX Navigator for Multicloud Storage view the Dell Cloud Service Offering Agreement or Dell APEX Navigator for Multicloud Service Offering Description.

For Dell APEX Block Storage for AWS, view Dell's Software Evaluation Agreement.

ALL ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE BY DELL. Pricing, availability and other terms of offer may be withdrawn or changed without notice. Dell cannot be held responsible for errors in typography or photography. 88 eQuote
Savings $3,925.80
Subtotal (5) $4,798.20
Estimated Shipping $0.00
Total $4,798.20
Details
COB New Desktops
Quote number # 3000173458427
Created March 11, 2024
Expires April 10, 2024
Created by
[email protected]
Billing
Partner Contact
Sarah Carmichael
Phone number: (760) 934-4392
Additional::
[email protected]
Billing information

CHRIS CARMICHAEL CBT
1629 MAJESTIC PINES DR,
MAMMOTH LAKES, CA, 93546-
6068
Customer number: 2187587
Phone number: (760) 934-4382
Additional::

[email protected]
Tax exemption
I am tax exempt
Shipping
Shipping information
Sarah Carmichael CBT
272 Sierra Manor Rd. Ste. A,
Mammoth Lakes, CA, 93546
Phone number: (760) 934-4382
Additional::
[email protected]
Delivery method
no charge delivery
Trade compliance
No, I will not be exporting
Payment method
Items Quantity Unit Price Item total
OptiPlex Small Form Factor
Discounted unit price: $959.64
Estimated Ship Date
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
5 $1,744.80 $8,724.00
Catalog Number: 8 / s015dosffusrvp
Category Description Code SKU ID
OptiPlex Small Form Factor
(7010)
OptiPlex Small Form Factor (7010) GDAUB5Y [210-BFXF] 1
Processor 13th Gen Intel® Core™ i5-13500 (24 M
B cache, 14 cores, 20 threads, 2.50 GH
z to 4.80 GHz Turbo, 65 W)
G63CSUH [338-CHBS] 146
Operating System Windows 11 Pro, English, Brazilian Port uguese, French, Spanish
G01OVWE [619-ARSB] 11
Microsoft Office No Microsoft Office Licence Included - 30 day Trial Offer Only
GC7OFJV [658-BCSB] 1002
Memory 16 GB: 1 x 16 GB, DDR4 GI7YEX2 [370-AGFR] 3
Storage 512 GB, M.2 2230, PCIe NVMe, SSD, Cl
ass 35
GWE6Q5J [400-BOQM] [412-
AAQT] [773-BBBC]
8 Additional Storage No Additional Hard Drive G780XKR [401-AANH] 637 Graphics Intel® Graphics GZQDA24 [490-BBFG] 6
Chassis Options OptiPlex SFF with 180W Bronze Power
Supply
GEPA2UZ [329-BHPU] 116
Power Cord System Power Cord (US) GA5894N [450-AAOJ] 20 Optical Drive No Optical Drive G69A5CJ [429-ABKF] 16
89 Category Description Code SKU ID
Optical Software PowerDVD Software not included GI5LS2C [632-BBBJ] 597 Wireless No Wireless LAN Card (no WiFi enable
ment)
GE7Y41P [555-BBFO] 19
Wireless Driver None GQMKF4C [340-AFMQ] 7
Serial Port Adapter No PCIe add-in-card GVEYOQ7 [492-BBFF] 698 Additional Video Ports No Additional Video Ports GWFXAL0 [492-BCKH] 495 Keyboard Dell Pro Wireless Keyboard and Mouse
- KM5221W Black - US English
GX0V4JP [580-AJJG] 4
Mouse Mouse included with Keyboard GU54MYP [570-AADI] 12 Cable Cover No Cable Cover GDT2C7Z [325-BCZQ] 376
External Speakers No External Speaker GTNM7E2 [817-BBBC] 200095 Non-Microsoft Application
Software
Dell Additional Software GJAR81X [658-BFPY] 1003
Operating System Recovery
Options
OS-Windows Media Not Included GLA9OQ1 [620-AALW] 200013 ENERGY STAR ENERGY STAR Qualified G6J34SM [387-BBLW] 122 Documentation Safety/Environment and Regulatory Gu
ide (English/French Multi-language)
G7RB0GY [340-AGIK] 21
System Monitoring Options Dell Watchdog Timer GW4YJIC [379-BEZG] 39 Placemat Quick Start Guide, OptiPlex Small Form GJ7NCE0 [340-DDFL] 60 EAN/UPC Labels Print on Demand Label GLBM3TR [389-BDQH] 292 TPM Security Trusted Platform Module (Discrete TP
M Enabled)
GJMDKT6 [329-BBJL] 297
Shipping Material Shipping Material GDKRO4V [340-CQYR] [389- BBUU]
465
Label Regulatory Label for OptiPlex SFF 180
W, FSJ
GYMH4UB [389-FBFX] 676
Hard Drive Cables and
Brackets
M.2 Caddy GGPQ1ML [575-BBKX] 705
Intel Responsiveness
Technologies
SW Driver, Intel Rapid Storage Technol
ogy, OptiPlex Small Form
G1523VT [658-BFQF] 707
Processor Label Intel Core i5 vPro Enterprise Processor Label
GYMP5L4 [389-EDDQ] 749
Transportation from ODM to
region
DT BTS/BTP Shipment GL09IMP [800-BBIP] 200080
Security Software and PC
Protection
No anti-virus software GD4K19S [650-AAAM] 1014
Chassis intrusion switch Chassis Intrusion Switch GWR6EM9 [461-AAJL] 289 Add-in Cards No Additional Add In Cards GNV4J7Q [382-BBHX] 583 Speakers Internal Speaker GR068XC [520-AARD] 18
Systems Management Intel vPro Enterprise GFCZ8Q2 [631-BBKK] 49 90 Category Description Code SKU ID
Stands and Mounts No Stand or Mount GJO5ZSE [575-BBBI] 558 Adapter No Additional Cable GIX0L8M [379-BBCY] 592
Windows AutoPilot No AutoPilot GYEO2AP [340-CKSZ] 291
FGA Module SFF_1H24_015D/US/BTS FG0028 [998-FZXB] 572
EPEAT 2018 EPEAT 2018 Registered (Silver) GTZOE2H [379-BDTO] 200331 Service Basic Onsite Service after remote diag
nosis with Hardware-Only Support, 12
Month(s)
G09NLMP [709-BCXO] 29
Extended Service ProSupport Plus with ProSupport and
AD and KYHD and Service Account Mg
r, 36 Month(s)
GSCFPI7 [127-BBGK] [199-
BIKZ] [199-BILB]
[711-BCJC]
30 Premier discount -$3,925.80
Item total: $4,798.20
Savings: $3,925.80
Subtotal (5): $4,798.20
Savings $3,925.80
Subtotal (5) $4,798.20
Estimated Shipping $0.00
Total $4,798.20
Support Support
Order Status
Drivers & Downloads
Product Support
Support by Topic
Warranty Information
Order Support
Account Account
Your Profile
Dell Contacts
Address Book
Your Products Your Products
Quotes
Sales Quotes
Systems
Peripherals
Legal & Regulatory Terms of Sale Privacy Statement Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information Accessibility Anti-Slavery & Human Trafficking
Ultrabook, Celeron, Celeron Inside, Core Inside, Intel, Intel Logo, Intel Atom, Intel Atom Inside, Intel Core, Intel Inside, Intel Inside Logo, Intel vPro, Itanium, Itanium Inside, Pentium, Pentium Inside, vPro Inside, Xeon, Xeon Phi, Xeon Inside, and Intel Optane are trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the U.S. and/or other countries.

Smart Selection. Limited quantities. Only available for orders placed by 5:59 p.m. CT Mon.–Thurs. Systems shipped the next business day after an order is 91 placed. Subject to order approval. Software and accessories not part of the configuration will be shipped separately and may arrive after your system. Please note that Smart Selection Configuration pricing cannot be combined with other pricing offers or discounts provided or agreed to by Dell. Orders with Custom Factory Integration might require additional processing time.

Onsite Service After Remote Diagnosis and Other Important Information: *On-site Service or Advanced Exchange Service after remote diagnosis: (a) On-site Service after remote diagnosis is determined by the online or phone technician, and may involve customer access to the inside of the system and multiple extended sessions. If the issue is covered by the Limited Hardware Warranty and cannot be resolved remotely, the technician and/or replacement part will be dispatched, usually in 1 or 2 business days, following the completion of the remote diagnosis. The customer must return the original hardware to Dell according to the rules specified. On-site service is provided by Dell Marketing L.P; Availability varies. Other conditions apply. (b) Advanced Exchange Service replaces hardware after remote diagnosis. The customer must return the original hardware to Dell according to the rules specified. Advanced Exchange Service is subject to country availability. (c) For complete details about On-site Service or Advanced Exchange Service, see dell.com/servicecontracts ^DELL BUSINESS CREDIT (DBC): Offered to business customers by WebBank, who determines qualifications for and terms of credit. Taxes, shipping and other charges are extra and vary. The Total Minimum Payment Due is the greater of either $20 or 3% of the New Balance shown on the statement rounded up to the next dollar, plus all past due amounts. Dell and the Dell logo are trademarks of Dell Inc. **Payment solutions provided and serviced by Dell Financial Services L.L.C. or its affiliate or designee (“DFS”) for qualified customers. Offers may not be available or may vary in certain countries. Where available offers may be changed without notice and are subject to product availability, applicable law, credit approval, documentation provided by and acceptable to DFS and may be subject to minimum transaction size. Offers not available for personal, family or household use. Dell Technologies and the Dell Technologies logo are trademarks of Dell Inc. Restrictions and additional requirements may apply to transactions with governmental or public entities.
¹Subject to applicable law and regulations. ALL ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE BY DELL. Pricing, availability and other terms of offer may be withdrawn or changed without notice. Dell cannot be held responsible for errors in typography or photography. *Based on Dell analysis of storage software deployable on AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, May 2023. 90-day evaluation: Applies to Dell licenses only for APEX Block Storage for AWS and APEX Navigator for Multicloud Storage. Subject to availability. Terms and conditions apply: For Dell APEX Navigator for Multicloud Storage view the Dell Cloud Service Offering Agreement or Dell APEX Navigator for Multicloud Service Offering Description.

For Dell APEX Block Storage for AWS, view Dell's Software Evaluation Agreement.

ALL ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE BY DELL. Pricing, availability and other terms of offer may be withdrawn or changed without notice. Dell cannot be held responsible for errors in typography or photography. 92 Agenda Item: 8.H
Date of Meeting: April 8, 2024
Department: Finance
To: City Council
From: Ethan Aukee
Subject: Declaration of City-Owned Vehicle as Surplus
Prepared On: March 18, 2024

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

The City of Bishop Public Works Department has a 2002 Ford Ranger in its inventory that is no longer being used by department staff. The vehicle is in fair condition and City staff recommends the declaration of the vehicle as surplus and subsequent inclusion of the vehicle in a public auction.

Analysis/Discussion:

If City Council declares the 2002 Ford Ranger as surplus equipment, City staff intends to hold an auction for purchase of the vehicle on www.publicsurplus.com. This vendor offers its services free of charge to interested sellers. Additionally, this vendor has been vetted by City staff and City Attorney Pucci has reviewed the framework of the relationship between vendor and prospective sellers.

Economic Impacts:

No economic impacts.

Budget Impacts:

If City Council declares the vehicle as surplus, the budget would be affected based on the increased revenue resulting from the subsequent sale of the vehicle. The vehicle was initially purchased as a 50/50 split between the General Fund and the Water Fund, therefore, proceeds of any sale will be equally split between the two funds that initially purchased the vehicle.

Legal Review:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

Recommended Action:

Council consideration to declare the Ford Ranger, VIN #1FTYR44UX2PA21185, as surplus equipment.
93 Approved By: Ethan Aukee 3/18/2024
Approved By: Nora Gamino 3/20/2024
Approved By: Robin Picken 3/20/2024
Approved By: Dean Pucci 4/4/2024 and Deston Dishion 4/4/2024 94 Agenda Item: 8.I
Date of Meeting: April 8, 2024
Department: Public Works
To: City Council
From: Nora Gamino
Subject: Permanent Sewer Flow Meter Installation at Clarke Street Prepared On: April 2, 2024
Attachments: Amendment 1

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

The Sewer Trunk Line Replacement Project, completed in 2023, included a diversion structure where the City’s sewer line and the Eastern Sierra Community Service District’s sewer line connected. A gate to control flow was installed on the District’s sewer line. Fully opening this gate would cause the diversion structure (a 4-way cross) to allow the flows to split with some going to the City’s plant and some going to the District’s plant. Conversely, fully closing the gate would divert all flows from the City’s line and District’s line to the City’s treatment plant.

The original intention of this gate was to operate in either a full-open or full-closed position.

There is a draft Diversion Structure Agreement, prepared by the District, that was to be signed upon the completion of the Trunk Line project. This agreement was never finalized because a pricing structure could not be determined without some understanding of how the flows were splitting. The completion of the Trunk Line project was closely followed by unprecedented precipitation events in early 2023. These events caused over capacity issues at both treatment plants and since then the gate has operated in a mostly closed position, diverting substantial flows from the District’s line to the City. Having the gate in this operating position for over a year, combined with lack of trust in the Districts new meters, has made it impossible to determine what an appropriate pricing structure should be.

Analysis/Discussion:

With the City and District’s wastewater systems being interconnected by the new diversion structure, there is currently no way to quantify how the flow is splitting. To quantify this split, flow in three of the four legs of the diversion must be measured. Those legs could be measured as follows:

North – as part of the Trunk Line project, a new manhole was installed for the District on their line north of the diversion, however it has not been outfitted with a meter.

East – the City has a meter at the treatment plant that records total flow, and that number minus the calculate flow of Johnston Drive, yields the east leg of the diversion.

South – there is not a reasonably close manhole to the diversion structure that is well 95 suited for a permanent meter installation. West – the vast majority of the City’s sewer flow crosses the Bishop Creek Canal through the main line that was replaced during the Trunk Line project. The closest reasonable point to the diversion to install a permanent meter would be in an existing manhole on this line at the end of Clarke Street.

The total City sewer flow could also be calculated based on a meter at Clarke Street and a calculation of the Johnston Drive flow. With this data, a methodology can then be created to determine the Diversion Structure Agreement pricing structure.

Control Point Engineering is currently under contract to upgrade the City’s SCADA system. When a new flow meter is installed, it will need to be integrated into SCADA. To ensure seamless integration, the new meter will be built along with the system upgrade and necessary parts ordered through the upgrade project. Therefore, it is most effective to have Control Point perform the design work and procure the necessary equipment and parts as part of the SCADA upgrade project.

Economic Impacts:

There are no significant economic impacts.

Budget Impacts:

This item is partially included in the Fiscal Year 2023 – 2024 Budget. Upon execution of Amendment 1, the Sewer Fund budget will be adjusted to increase spending in Capital Improvement, 002-051-56027, from $194,500 to $239,500.

Additionally, by finalizing the Diversion Structure Agreement, the City will begin the process of recuperating the costs associated with treating a significant amount of the District’s wastewater since early 2023.

Legal Review:

Not required.

Recommended Action:

Council consideration to approve and authorize the Public Works Director to execute Amendment 1 to the SCADA Upgrade Professional Services Agreement with Control Point Engineering in the amount of $60,724.

Approved By: Ethan Aukee 4/3/2024
Approved By: Robin Picken 4/3/2024
Approved By: Deston Dishion 4/3/2024
Approved By:
96 CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
P. O. Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
City Hall 760-873-5863 Public Works 760-873-8458
Fax 760-873-4873

Page 1 of 1 ends

SCADA Upgrade
Professional Services Agreement
Amendment 1

1. This is the first amendment to the contract between Control Point Engineering and the City of Bishop executed July 3, 2023.

2. The scope of the work covered by this amendment is for the procurement of a Teledyne Signature Flow Meter and radio equipment including all necessary parts, fittings, and wiring to install the meter, system configuration, system commissioning, SCADA application development, PLC programming, hardware configuration, SCADA architecture diagrams, project management, and travel costs.

3. The fee schedule covered by this amendment is shown on the attached "City-Wide SCADA Upgrade Fee Summary Flow Meter Change Order_rev.1" document dated March 18, 2024.

4. The not-to-exceed cost for the work covered by this amendment is $60,724 bringing the total not-to-exceed amount for the contract to $379,291.

5. All other terms and conditions of the SCADA Upgrade Professional Services Agreement remain unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AMENDMENT to be executed the day and year of the last signature below.

CONTROL POINT ENGINEERING, INC.
_____________________________ _________________
Jeremy Pollet, P.E., President Date

CITY OF BISHOP
_____________________________ _________________
Nora Gamino, Public Works Director Date
97 $190 $190 $150 $190
Task 1 2 2 0 9 $2,470

1.1 1 1 1 $570

1.2 1 1 8 $1,900
Task 2 1 0 0 $190

2.1 1 $190
Task 3 0 2 1 $530

3.1 2 1 $530
Task 4 0 3 0 $570

4.7 3 $570
Task 5 0 3 4 $1,170

5.1 1 $150

5.2 1 $150

5.3 1 $150

5.4 1 $150

5.5 2 $380
Task 6 0 3 8 58 $12,790

6.1 2 2 $760

6.2 1 $190

6.3 8 32 $7,280

6.3 16 $3,040

6.3 8 $1,520
Direct $500
DC.1 $500
Materials Quantity Unit Cost Tax Markup $42,504
(8.50%) (10%)
M.1 1 $30,775 $2,616 $3,339 $36,730
M.2 1 $1,903 $162 $206 $2,271
M.3 1 $260 $22 $28 $310
M.4 2 $166 $28 $19 $380
M.5 2 $200 $34 $23 $457
M.6 1 $200 $17 $22 $239
M.7 2 $195 $33 $23 $446
M.8 1 $1,400 $119 $152 $1,671
3 Hours 13 Hours 13 Hours 67 Hours $60,724
City of Bishop
City-Wide SCADA Upgrade Fee Summary Flow Meter Change Order_rev.1 Description

PM, EE,
SCADA
Developer
Lead
SCADA
Developer
SCADA
Developer
Field
Engineer Cost
Project Management
Project Update Meetings
Project Correspondence and Coordination
SCADA Architecture Diagrams
SCADA Architecture Diagrams
Hardware Configuration
Lift Station PLC
Ethernet Radio configuration
PLC Programming
SCADA Application Development
PLC Communucations, Configuration, and Statistics Screen Alarm Configuration, Summary, and History Pages
Historical Trends
Flow Meter site
Install Panel at site
Build Panel and CAD work
System Commissioning (Install, Loopcheck, Function Test) new connection to LS radio network
Materials
Clipper Controls Quote
Install equipment at LS
Direct Costs
Total
Reports
Post-commissioning Punchlist
(2) 105Ah lead acid batteries
Miscellaneous Materials (Control Panel build components) Control Panel (SCE Quote) include shipping of $330
communications gateway
SS louver kit for Control Panel 1481L3R66SS
Ethernet radios
Ethernet switch (for installation at the lift station)
Travel Expenses

98 Signature®
Flowmeter
Applications:
•Industrial pretreatment compliance
•Shallow flow measurement in large
and small pipes
•Permit enforcement
•Wastewater treatment plants
•Outfall
•Stormwater monitoring
•Hazardous Location Monitoring
Standard Features • Multiple parameter data logging
• Program and summary reports
• Triggering, sampler enabling
• Compatibility with Flowlink® software
• Load calculation
• Add, subtract average multiple inputs
The Signature flowmeter is designed for open channel flow monitoring applications. It supports flow measurement technologies including bubbler, non-contact laser area velocity, submerged Doppler ultrasonic area velocity, and ultrasonic.

The meter can calculate flow using standard open channel level-to-flow and area velocity conversions, as well as user defined equations, level to area data points, or level to flow data points, depending on the application needed.

The Signature flowmeter has unique features to verify data integrity. It logs key events such as changes in calibration and power outages to validate data accuracy. Data can be easily reviewed to detect any type of data alteration.

With multiple smart interface options and multi-parameter logging (such as pH), the Signature flowmeter provides a common platform for control, action, reporting, and communication.

A highly flexible monitoring platform,
adapting right along with your current
need and any future changes in your
monitoring requirements.

Ultrasonic
Level Sensor
Internet Accessible Data
Alerts
DCS Modeling
Software
Ethernet
Network

SCADA/RTC
LaserFlow
Velocity
Sensor Area Velocity
Sensor
SDI-12
Device
Analog
Device
Rain
Gauge
Modbus
Device
Bubbler
Level Sensor
Sampler
Interface
pH Sensor
Interface
Network
Expansion
Box
99 L-2151 Rev 4.0
03/22
Teledyne ISCO
P.O. Box 82531, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68501 USA
Toll-free: (800) 228-4373 • Phone: (402) 464-0231 • Fax: (402) 465-3091

teledyneisco.com
Teledyne ISCO is continually improving its products and reserves the right to change product specifications, replacement parts, schematics, and instructions without notice.

Signature Flow Meter
Size (HxWxD): 8.88 x 12.22 x 8.22 in (with mounting bracket)

16.74 x 13.58 x 10.48 in (with stand)
Materials: PPO Polyphenylene Oxide
Enclosure: IP66 (self-certified)
Power Required: 100 to 240 VAC 50/60 Hz
10-28.5 VDC nominal, 36 VDC max
(current consumption varies depending
upon configuration)
Cable Entry: Standard: ¾” NPT conduit Optional: ¾” NPT cord grips Flow Measurement Ultrasonic (TIENet 310 Ex) Bubbler (TIENet 330) Technologies: Area Velocity (TIENet 350 Ex, 360, 360 Ex) Inputs: Two SDI-12, Two MODBUS ASCII/RTU, pH Measurement (TIENet 301) Analog In (TIENet 307), Rain In
Setup: Front Panel Keypad-Flowlink Software with serial USB, remote cellular, or Ethernet
Flow Conversions: Area Velocity, Weir, Flume, British Flume, Metering Insert, Manning Formula, Equation, Level to Flow Data, Points,
Level to Area Data Points
Data Storage: Non-volatile flash; retains stored data during program updates. Capacity: 8M
Interval: 15 or 30 seconds; 1, 2, 5, 15, or 30 minutes; or 1, 2, 4, 12, or 24 hours Capacity: 180 days with 5
parameters logged at 1 minute intervals, reports once
per day
Data Retrieval: USB drive, Flowlink Software–with serial USB, remote cellular, or Ethernet
Outputs: MODBUS ASCII/RTU, Analog (TIENet 308), Contact Output (TIENet 304), SMS Alarm
Sampler Interface: TIENet 306
Input Options
• Multiple simultaneous flow technologies
• pH and temperature
• SDI-12
• RS-485 Modbus
• Rain gauge
• Analog (optional TIENet® 307 card)
Output Options
• RS-485 Modbus
• Analog (optional TIENet® 308 card)
• Contact (optional TIENet® 304 card)
Available Measurement
Technologies
• Bubbler and Ultrasonic
• Non-Contact Laser Velocity
• Continuous Wave Area Velocity
Hazardous Location Technologies
• TIENet Barrier
• TIENet 310 Ex Ultrasonic Sensor
• TIENet 350 Ex Area Velocity Sensor
• TIENet 360 LaserFlow Ex Sensor
Flowlink® Data Analysis
Teledyne ISCO Flowlink® software is a powerful tool for analyzing flow and water quality data. It provides site setup and data retrieval/analysis, as well as advanced reporting and graphing. Flowlink software also gives you the ability to generate site data graphing and reports.

Remote Communication
Remote communication options allow meter configuration
and data/report retrieval from remote locations. They also enable the transfer of data to a dedicated server running Flowlink Pro software.

USB Connectivity
With a USB flash drive attached, you can quickly update firmware in the Signature flowmeter and connected TIENet® devices, and download data files for use with Flowlink software. In addition, the USB port provides direct serial connection with a computer running Flowlink software.

Data Integrity
Data Integrity is ensured by logging event data types that can be verified, thereby producing confidence with verifiable data including; Summary, Diagnostic, Program, History and Verify Report files.

Data Collection
100
Agenda Item: 8.J
Date of Meeting: April 8, 2024
Department: Community Services
To: City Council
From: Dan McElroy
Subject: Propane Services Letter of Extension
Prepared On: March 28, 2024
Attachments: Propane Letter of Extension from Hunt Propane Inc.

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

On June 1, 2021, The City of Bishop Community Services Department entered into a Services Agreement with Hunt Propane Inc. The initial term of this agreement is set to expire on May 31, 2024. The Services Agreement with Hunt Propane Inc. allows for two one-year extensions.

Analysis/Discussion:

Hunt Propane Inc. provides propane services for all City of Bishop facilities. The City of Bishop has received a letter form Hunt Propane Inc. requesting a one-year extension of this agreement. The letter was received on March 18, 2024. This letter will extend the current Propane Services Agreement for a one-year term and will have the new term ending on May 31, 2025.

Economic Impacts:

None
Budget Impacts:

The Community Services 2023-2024 budget accounts for this expenditure and will be accounted for in the 2024-2025 budget.

Legal Review:

City Attorney Dean Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

Recommended Action:

Council consideration to approve and accept the letter of extension for Propane Services by Hunt Propane Inc. for a one-year term, with the new term ending on May 31, 2025.

Approved By: Deston Dishion 3/28/2024
Approved By: Dean Pucci 4/4/2024
101
Approved By:

Approved By:
102
103
City of Bishop Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BISHOP, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, UPDATING THE CITY COUNCIL STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES

MANUAL TO ADD ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING DISRUPTIVE

BEHAVIOR AT COUNCIL MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an updated City of Bishop Council Standards and Procedures Manual (“Manual”) in July, 2023; and WHEREAS, among other things the Manual provides for smooth running of City Council meetings; and
WHEREAS, in 2022 the State Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1100, codified at California Government Code §54957.95, to provide for actions that cities may take to address disruptive behavior at Council meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide in the Manual for language that further addresses procedures the Council should follow to address disruptive behavior at Council meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BISHOP DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: The City of Bishop City Council Standards and Procedures Manual (Updated July 2023) is hereby amended as indicated in The City of Bishop City Council Standards and Procedures Manual (Updated April 8, 2024).

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8
th day of April 2024.
__________________________________
Jose Garcia, Mayor
ATTEST: ____________________
Robin Picken, City Clerk
104
1 CITY OF BISHOP

CITY COUNCIL STANDARDS AND

PROCEDURES MANUAL
Updated July 2023
Updated April 2024
105
2 COUNCIL STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: GENERAL

1.1 Council Governance

1.2 Purpose

1.3 Values

1.4 Overview of Council Responsibilities

1.5 Administrative Relationships

1.6 Limitations Imposed

1.7 Review

1.8 Ralph M. Brown Act
SECTION 2: MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM SELECTION PROCESS

2.1 Reorganization

2.2 Filling of Vacancies
SECTION 3: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

3.1 Attendance

3.2 Regional Boards

3.3 Distribution of Information

3.4 Reimbursement

3.5 Ethics and Workplace Harassment Prevention

3.6 City Mission and City Seal

3.7 Use of Social Media and Electronic Communication Systems SECTION 4: COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP WITH STAFF

4.1 City Administrator

4.2 Agenda Item Questions

4.3 Interaction of City Council with Staff

4.4 Individual Council Member’s Requests
SECTION 5: PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO

BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES

5.1 Definitions

5.2 Recruitment Process

5.3 Procedure for Filling Vacancies on the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission

5.4 Council Notification

5.5 Incumbents

5.6 Application

5.7 Rules Applicable to Planning Commission Members

5.8 Standards and Procedures and Conflicts of Interest

5.9 Conflicts with Federal, State or Local Law
SECTION 6: MEETINGS

6.1 Open to Public
106
3 6.2 Broadcasting of City Council Meetings

6.3 Regular Meetings

6.4 Cancelling Meetings

6.5 Special Meetings

6.6 Closed Sessions

6.7 Quorum

6.8 Minutes

6.9 Adjourned Meetings
SECTION 7: AGENDA CONTENTS

7.1 Mayor’s Responsibility

7.2 Description of Matters

7.3 Availability to the Public

7.4 Limitation to Act Only on Items on the Agenda

7.5 “Timing” of Agenda

7.6 Change in Order of Business

7.7 Agenda Request Policy
SECTION 8: PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

8.1 Role of Mayor

8.2 Rules of Order

8.3 Public Comment

8.4 Motions

8.5 Reconsideration

8.6 Discussion

8.7 Council Member Respect

8.8 Announcements
SECTION 9: CLOSED SESSIONS

9.1 Purpose

9.2 Rule of Confidentiality

9.3 Breach of Rule of Confidentiality

9.4 Agenda

9.5 Permissible Topics

9.6 Rules of Decorum

9.7 Public Disclosure After Final Action
SECTION 10: DECORUM

10.1 Council Members

10.2 City Employees

10.3 Public

10.4 Noise in the Chambers

10.5 Removal

10.6 Dangerous Instruments

10.7 Prosecution
107
4 SECTION 11: ENFORCEMENT OF DECORUM
SECTION 12: VIOLATIONS OF PROCEDURES
108
5 CITY OF BISHOP CITY COUNCIL STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
SECTION 1. GENERAL

1.1 Council Governance. Governance is the act of transforming the needs and desires of the community into policies that direct the organization. The City Council serves as a team dedicated to the act of responsible governance, and the way in which each team member performs his or her role is critical. Whether in Council Chambers, out in the community or at home, Council members are always stewards and the public face of the City.

The integrity of the City’s reputation is dependent upon the responsible and professional manner in which each Council member, and the Council collectively, fulfills governance roles and responsibilities. The demeanor of the governance team members sends an important message to employees and the public. In all relationships, dealings and transactions, Council members should act with integrity, openness, respect and honesty.

Through these values, the governance team strives to earn and convey trust. The team retains public trust through efficient and cost- effective stewardship of resources.

Utilizing effective governance practices, private citizens, once elected to the City Council, work with the City Administrator to keep the organization’s efforts focused on its mission, values and strategic goals. The community elects Council members to set and monitor the direction of the City with the City Administrator, who translates this direction into action. It is therefore vital that the Council and City Administrator maintain a respectful and productive working relationship based on trust and open communication.

When the governance team performs their duties effectively, the opportunity to create a climate for excellence increases dramatically.

1.2 Purpose. The purpose of these Standards and Procedures is to promote communication, understanding, fairness, and trust among the members of the City Council and staff concerning their roles, responsibilities, and expectations for management of the business of the City of Bishop.

1.3 Values. Respect for each Council Member’s interpersonal style will be a standard of operation. Courtesy and respect for individual points of view will be practiced at all times. All Council Members shall respect each other’s right to disagree. All Council Members shall practice a high degree of decorum and courtesy. When addressing the public in any way, all Council Members shall make certain their opinions are expressed solely as their own, and do not in any way necessarily reflect the opinions of any other Council Member or the City.

1.4 Overview of Council responsibilities. The City of Bishop is a General Law city of the 109
6 State of California operating under the Council/City Administrator form of government. The City Council and City Administrator shall interact and perform their respective duties and responsibilities as specified herein and in other pertinent documents. The City Council has the following duties and responsibilities:
(a) Appointment and overall supervision of the City Administrator. Appointment of all Department Heads based, in part, upon recommendations of the City Administrator, with the selection process to be determined by the City Council. There should be an annual review of the City Administrator and each Department Head.
(b) Establishment of boards and appointment of members. The Council may appoint or establish Boards, Commissions, and Committees, and by majority vote make appointments of members of all Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
(c) Legislative decisions. The Council is the legislative body; its members are the community’s decision makers. Power is centralized in the elected City Council collectively and not in individual members of the Council. The City Council approves the budget and determines the public services. It focuses on the community’s goals, major projects and such long term considerations as community growth, financing and strategic planning. The City Council hires a professional team consisting of a City Administrator and Department Heads to carry out the work of the City and its administrative responsibilities, and supervises their overall performance.

1.5 Administrative Relationships. The Council and its members shall deal with the administrative services of the City only through the City Administrator, except for the purpose of inquiry, and neither the Council, nor any member thereof shall give orders to any officer or employee of the City under the supervision of the City Administrator, or conversing with any employee with grievance prior to subject employee having followed procedures as outlined in the employee manual. The City Administrator shall take his/her orders and instructions from the Council as a body. Any subordinate officer or employee receiving orders or instructions contrary to the provisions of this section shall report the same in writing immediately thereafter to the City Administrator and the City Administrator shall promptly forward a copy or summary of such report to each member of the Council. He/she shall likewise promptly advise each member of the Council of any orders or instructions received by him/her contrary to the provisions of this section. It is not intended by the provisions of this section to restrict unduly the privileges of a member of the Council to request the City Administrator, but not any other officer or employee under his/her supervision to prepare a report dealing with any matter of City business, or municipal affairs generally, if such report can be compiled without the undue dislocation of City activities and without the expenditure of considerable quantities of time by City personnel.

1.6 Limitations Imposed. The City Administrator shall not attempt to establish general policy which is the province of the Council to determine, nor shall he/she attempt to commit or bind the Council, or any member thereof, to any action, plan or program requiring official Council action.

It is not intended by provisions of this chapter to grant any authority to, or impose any duty upon, the City Administrator which is now or hereafter may be vested in or imposed by general state law on any other City commission, department, officer or employee.

1.7 Review. The City Council shall conduct a review of this document biennially, or whenever 110
7 a new Council Member has been seated or Council deems necessary, to assist Council Members in being more productive in management of the business of the City. A new Council will consider the document within three months of its first regular meeting.

1.8 Ralph M. Brown Act. All conduct of the City Council, Commissions, Committees and Subcommittees shall be in full compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

SECTION 2. MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM SELECTION PROCESS

2.1 Reorganization. In December of each year, the office of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem (also known as Vice Mayor) shall rotate as follows:
(a) The Mayor shall be the senior member who has not previously served in that capacity and the term of office shall be one year, without succession, beginning at the first regularly scheduled City Council meeting each December or the first meeting following certification of a City Council election.
(b) The Mayor Pro Tem shall be the next senior member who has not previously served as Mayor and the term of office shall run concurrent with that of the Mayor as described above. (c) When two or more members have equal seniority and have not yet served as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, the order of succession shall be determined by the number of votes each member received at the time of their election.
(d) The Mayor Pro Tem shall automatically succeed the Mayor each year, excepting that the Mayor Pro Tem may decline such succession. If the Mayor Pro Tem declines the position of Mayor, such office shall be extended to the next senior member in order, or by majority vote of the Council if all other members have served at least one year as Mayor. (e) Once all seated members have served as Mayor, succession shall be based on a majority vote of the Council, recognizing that the term of office for each position shall be one year. Members of the City Council who first took their seats on the Council more than twenty-three (23) months prior to the meeting at which the Mayor is being selected are eligible for Mayorship.

2.2 Filling of Vacancies. In the event of a vacancy on the City Council, the Council may fill the vacancy either by appointment or special election as set forth in Section 2.04.040 of the Bishop Code of Ordinances and Government Code section 36512.

SECTION 3. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

3.1 Attendance. City Council Members acknowledge that attendance at lawful meetings of the City Council is part of their official duty. Council Members shall make a good faith effort to attend all such meetings unless unable. Council Members will notify the City Administrator or the City Clerk, and, if possible, the Mayor as a courtesy, if they will be absent from a meeting.

Failure to attend regular City Council meetings for sixty (60) consecutive days from the last regular meeting can result in your seat becoming vacant and filled accordingly. (Gov’t Code § 36513.)

3.2 Regional Boards. The role of the Council on regional boards will vary depending on the 111
8 nature of the appointment. Representing the interests of Bishop is appropriate on some boards; this is generally the case when other local governments have their own representation. The positions taken by the appointed representatives are to be in alignment with the positions that the Council has taken on issues that directly impact the City of Bishop. If an issue should arise that is specific to Bishop and the Council has not taken a position, the issue should be discussed by the Council prior to taking a formal position at a regional board meeting, to assure that it is in alignment with a majority of the Council’s position. Council representatives to such various boards shall keep the Council informed of ongoing business through brief oral or written reports to the Council during properly posted Council meetings. Council Members shall make a good faith effort to attend all regional meetings that require a quorum of the appointed members to convene a meeting. Attendance should not be less than 75% of all scheduled meetings. If a Council Member is unable to attend, he/she should notify his/her alternate as far in advance of the meeting as possible so as to allow the alternate to attend.

3.3 Distribution of Information. It is essential that every member of the City Council have the same information from which to form decisions and actions. Any information distributed to one Council Member shall also be distributed to all Council Members.

3.4 Reimbursement. Every effort shall be made to limit the need to reimburse Council Members for expenses. City Council Members may be reimbursed for personal expenses for travel to and lodging at conferences or meetings related to their role as a Council Member in accordance with the City of Bishop Travel Policy. Any request for reimbursement of expenses shall be accompanied by an expense form and receipts to document the expenditure. These documents are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

Council members in official travel status on official business, shall be reimbursed, in addition to their regular compensation, for travel expenses incurred at the rates provided in the City of Bishop Travel Policy.

In addition to meal expenses, Council Members using their private automobiles while on official business for the City shall be reimbursed at the standard Internal Revenue Service mileage rate set forth in the City of Bishop Travel Policy.

Council Members may submit receipts for lodging to the City Administrator and if approved by him/her as being reasonable, the City will reimburse the individual such lodging.

3.5 Ethics and Workplace Harassment Prevention. Any member of the City Council and commissions, or advisory committees formed by the City Council, shall receive at least two hours of ethics training in general ethics principles and ethics laws (as mandated by AB 1234), two hours of workplace harassment prevention (as mandated by AB 1825 and AB 2053) all relevant to his/her public service every two years. New members must receive this training within their first year of serviceand file a certificate of completion with the City Clerk. Members shall attend training sessions that are offered locally in the immediate vicinity of Inyo County or by completing online a state-approved public service ethics education program.

An individual who serves on multiple legislative bodies need only receive two hours of each of 112
9 these trainings every two years to satisfy this requirement for all applicable public service positions. The City will use and recognize training courses that have been reviewed and approved by the Fair Political Practices Commission and the California Secretary of State. The City Clerk is required to keep ethics training records for five years to document and prove that these continuing education requirements have been satisfied. These documents are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

3.6 City Mission and City Seal. The Mission of the City of Bishop is a strategic document that reflects the values of our residents. The City Seal is an important symbol of the City of Bishop. No change to the City Mission and/or City Seal shall be made without Council approval.

Pursuant to Government Code 40811, the City Clerk is the custodian of the City Seal. Individual councilmembers shall not issue correspondence on City Letterhead or use the City Seal without authorization from the City Council or City Administrator. .

3.7 Use of Social Media and Electronic Communications Systems. See City of Bishop’s general social media and Use of Electronic Communication Systems policies.

SECTION 4. COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP WITH STAFF

4.1 City Administrator. City Council Members are always free to go to the City Administrator to discuss City business. Issues concerning the performance of a department head or any employee should be directed to the City Administrator. Direction to City employees outside of a Council Meeting, other than the City Administrator or City Attorney, should be communicated through the City Administrator. In passing along critical information, the City Administrator will be responsible for contacting all Council Members. The City Administrator may delegate this responsibility to Department Heads.

4.2 Agenda Item Questions. If a Council Member has a question on a subject, the Council Member is encouraged to contact the City Administrator or City Attorney prior to any meeting at which the subject may be discussed. This does not restrict Council Members from asking questions during a Council meeting.

4.3 Interaction of City Council with Staff. The Council shall treat staff with respect and shall not abuse staff, nor embarrass staff in public. The City Council Members should work through the Administrator on all issues, concerns and questions. This is to allow the senior professional staff, with the proper education, training, experience and knowledge of issues, laws and City Council’s policies to coordinate a full and complete response and reduce error or misunderstanding by staff members not necessarily knowledgeable on all issues. This can provide a better overall response, allow any new issues to properly be considered and avoid unintended redirection of staff efforts. Council Members may ask Department Heads for information. This informal system of direct communication should not to be abused. City Council Members shall not meet with groups of management employees for the purpose of discussing terms of employment or establishing employee policy. City Councilmembers shall not meet with individual employees except as otherwise detailed in this manual. 113
10 4.4 Individual Council Member’s Requests. Council Members should make their reasonable requests for information to the City Administrator. The amount of total staff time to be allotted to any reasonable request shall be determined by the City Administrator at his/her discretion.

SECTION 5. PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO

BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES

5.1 Definitions.
(a) Task Force: A temporary grouping of individuals and resources for the accomplishment of a specific objective.
(b) Committee: A group of people officially delegated to perform a function, such as investigating, considering reporting, or acting on a matter. (c) Ad Hoc: Committees established for a specific purpose. Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose (e.g. ad hoc parking committee); for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application; formed or used for specific or immediate problems or needs; often improvised or impromptu; contrived purely for the purpose in hand rather than carefully planned in advance.
(d) Commission: A group of people officially authorized to perform certain duties or functions with certain powers or authority granted; the act of granting certain powers or the authority to carry out a particular task or duty; the rank and powers so conferred.

5.2 Recruitment Process.
(a) On or before December 31st of each year, the City Clerk shall prepare and post a list of all Council-appointed board, commission and committee terms that expire during the next calendar year in compliance with the state law (Government Code Sections 54970 et. seq.). (b) The City Clerk shall annually advertise on the City’s website for applicants wishing to be considered for appointment to boards, commissions and committees when vacancies become available.
(c) All interested prospective applicants for appointment to any Commission shall submit, in writing, their request containing pertinent information as to their qualifications. Applications are available in the City Clerk’s Office.

A screening committee, composed of two Councilmembers, appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council; two Commissioners (from the Commission where the vacancy exists), appointed by the Chairman and approved by the Commission; and the City Administrator shall review the applications for each commission vacancy, interview applicants if deemed appropriate and check such reference as they may deem expedient, then make a nomination to the City Council for filling the commission vacancy.

5.3 Procedure for Filling Vacancies on the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission.
(a) Except as otherwise determined by the City Council, approximately two months before the expiration of an existing term, the City shall advertise and seek applicants for the upcoming vacancy. Notice of the advertisement is to be provided to the Council Members. Incumbents, as well as new applicants, are encouraged to apply.
(b) When an unexpected vacancy occurs, advertising should begin as soon as possible. In 114
11 all cases of expiring terms and vacancies, the position should be advertised for a minimum of three weeks with a firm deadline being set.
(c) Applicants residing within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Bishop should be encouraged to make application.
(d) All persons appointed to City boards, commissions and committees should complete and submit an application form to the City Clerk as set forth in Section 5.6. (e) Except as provided by state or local statute, the appointee shall not be a current City employee or currently appointed to another City board, committee or commission. (f) At a joint meeting of the City Council and City Planning Commission on July 26, 2011 discussion was held on term limits for City Commissions. It was determined that decisions should be based on which candidate is the most qualified for appointment. It was also determined that the interview committee should consider the past attendance record of the incumbent and the availability and willingness of a new candidate to make the commitment to attend regular and special meetings.

5.4 Council Notification. On or before December 31st of each year, the City Clerk will notify the Council of expiring terms for members of those City boards, commissions, and committees appointed by the full Council.

5.5 Incumbents.

Any incumbent interested in re-appointment must apply for re-appointment as set forth in Section 5.6.

5.6 Application. All persons considered for appointment or re-appointment shall complete an application form. This application form must be received by the City Clerk by the required deadline.

5.7 Rules Applicable to Planning Commission Members. This portion of the policy sets forth rules applicable to Planning Commission Members consistent with Chapter 2.24 of the Bishop Code of Ordinances.
(a) The Commission shall consist of seven (7) members who are appointed by the City Council on the basis of nominations submitted pursuant to the policy manual of the City. In making appointments to the commission, the City Council shall endeavor to appoint the best members to the commission whether or not such persons are residents and citizens of the City. (b) Planning Commissioners must regularly attend meetings of the Commission. Any member of the Planning Commission who fails to attend two consecutive, or a total of four, regular meetings in any 12-month period, without a prior leave of absence having been sought and granted by the chairperson or chairperson pro tem, shall be deemed to have resigned from the Commission and the vacancy thereby created. Any appointee member of such Commission may be removed by the Mayor with the approval of a majority vote of the City Council. (c) The normal term of each Planning Commissioner shall be four years. If a vacancy occurs otherwise than by expiration of term, it shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council for the unexpired portion of the term.

5.8 Standards and Procedures and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Board, committee and commission members shall be expected to adhere to the Council 115
12 Standards and Procedures.
(b) Board, committee and commission members shall comply with all state and local laws with respect to ethics and conflicts of interests to the extent that such laws apply to their position, including state and local requirements to timely file Statements of Economic Disclosure if the member is designated as a filer by state law or by the City’s Conflict of Interest Code. Boards, committees and commissions are generally subject to the Brown Act except for certain narrow circumstances outlined in Government Code 54952(b). The City Attorney should be consulted whenever there is a question on the transparency rules applicable to a particular board, committee or commission.
(c) Members of City boards, commissions or committees may not use their board, commission or committee position title for political endorsements.

5.9 Conflicts with Federal, State or Local Law. In case of a conflict between this section of the Standards and Procedure policy with federal, state or local law, such federal, state or local law shall be the controlling factor.

SECTION 6. MEETINGS

6.1 Open to Public. All meetings of the City Council whether regular, special, or study sessions, shall be open to the public, unless a closed session is held as authorized by law. All meetings shall be noticed as required to allow action to be taken by the Council.

6.2 Broadcasting of City Council Meetings. All regular Council meetings shall be scheduled in the Council Chambers to allow for web streaming and simulcast on the Public Education Government Access Channel, unless alternative arrangements to hold meetings in another location are made in compliance with the Brown Act.

6.3 Regular Meetings. The City Council shall convene its regular City Council meetings at 6:00 p.m. on the second and fourth Monday of each month. The City Council may, as the Council deems necessary, cancel regular meetings provided that the City Council shall hold a regular meeting at least once each month pursuant to Government Code Section 56803. The regular 6:00 p.m. starting time of a council meeting can be varied by the Administrator with the concurrence of the Mayor.

6.4 Cancelling Meetings. Any meeting of the City Council may be cancelled in advance by majority vote of the Council. The Mayor may cancel a meeting in the case of an emergency, when a majority of members have confirmed their unavailability to attend a meeting, or at the request of the City Administrator. A Council meeting may be canceled if the meeting has no New Business and the Administrator and Mayor agree.

6.5 Special Meetings. A special meeting may be called at any time by a majority of the City Council or the City Administrator in accordance with the Brown Act. Written notice of any such meeting must specify the purpose of the meeting. Notice of the meeting must be given in accordance with law. Public comments at special meetings shall be limited to only those items described on the special meeting notice/agenda.
116
13 6.6 Closed Sessions. The City Council may hold closed sessions at any time authorized by law (and in consultation with the City Administrator and/or the City Attorney), to consider or hear any matter, which is authorized by law. The City Administrator, City Attorney or any three Council Members may call for closed session meetings at any time.

6.7 Quorum. Three (3) members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum and shall be sufficient to transact business. If fewer than three Council Members appear at a regular meeting, the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem in the absence of the Mayor, any Council Member in the absence of the
Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, or in the absence of all Council Members, the City Administrator or City Clerk, shall adjourn the meeting to a stated day and hour.

Business of the City Council may be conducted with a minimum of three members being present; however, pursuant to the California Government Code, matters requiring the expenditure of City funds and all resolutions and non-urgency ordinances must receive three affirmative votes for approval.

6.8 Minutes. The City Clerk shall prepare action minutes of all public meetings of the City Council. Copies shall be distributed to each Council Member as part of the regular meeting agenda packet.

6.9 Adjourned Meetings. The City Council may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special, or closed session meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment and permitted by law.

SECTION 7. AGENDA CONTENTS

7.1 Mayor’s Responsibility. The Mayor is responsible for running a timely and orderly meeting. If the Mayor is unavailable to run a Council meeting, the Mayor Pro Tem shall run the meeting. If the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem are both unavailable to run a Council meeting, the Mayor shall designate another councilmember to run the meeting. If the Mayor is unavailable to make this designation, the Mayor Pro Tem shall do so.

7.2 Description of Matters. All items of business to be discussed at a meeting of the City Council shall be briefly described on the agenda. The description should set forth the proposed action to be considered so that members of the public will know the nature of the action under review and consideration. As stated in Section 4.2, if a Council Member has a question on a subject, the Council Member should contact the City Administrator prior to any meeting at which the subject may be discussed.

7.3 Availability to the Public. The agenda for any regular or special meeting shall be made available to the public as required by law.

7.4 Limitation to Act Only on Items on the Agenda. No action shall be taken by the City Council on any item not on the posted agenda, subject only to the exceptions listed below:
117
14 (a) Upon a majority determination that an “emergency situation” (as defined by State Law) exists; or
(b) Upon determination by a 4/5 vote of the full City Council, or a unanimous vote if less than a full Council, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need to take the action came to the attention of the City Council subsequent to posting of the agenda.

7.5 "Timing" of Agenda. Staff and/or the Mayor may "time" the agenda as a way for the Council to maintain a sense of how much time can be committed to any one item without going past an established ending time for the meeting, if an ending time has been established.

7.6 Change in Order of Business. The City Administrator, Mayor, or the majority of the Council, may decide to take matters listed on the agenda out of the prescribed order or to pull an item from the Consent agenda for individual consideration. Council Members shall be given the opportunity to ask brief questions about Consent Items for clarification without having them removed.

7.7 Agenda Request Policy. The City Administrator creates the agenda and places items on it.

A Council Member may request an item be considered on a future agenda; provided, however, that any item needing staff research or reporting shall be agendized after receiving direction from a majority of a quorum of Council Members.

SECTION 8. PROCEDURES FOR THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

8.1 Role of Mayor.
(a) The Mayor shall be responsible for maintaining the order and decorum of meetings. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the Mayor to ensure that the rules of operation and decorum contained herein are observed. The Mayor shall maintain control of communication between Council Members and among Council, staff and public. The Mayor shall intervene when a Council Member, staff or other meeting participant is being verbally or otherwise attacked by a member of the public.
(b) Communication with Council Members:

1. Council Members shall request the floor from the Mayor before speaking.

2. When one member of the Council has the floor and is speaking, other Council Members shall not interrupt or otherwise disturb the speaker.
(c) Communication with members of the public addressing the Council on agendized items:

1. The Mayor shall open the floor for public comment as appropriate.

2. Council Members may question a person addressing the Council at the conclusion of the person’s comments or upon expiration of the person’s time to speak.

3. Any staff member with an item on the agenda will be available to the City Council to answer questions arising during discussions between Council Members and among Council Members and members of the public.

4. Members of the public shall direct their questions and comments to the Council. 118
15 8.2 Rules of Order. The City Council shall refer to ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER NEWLY REVISED, 12TH EDITION, as a guide for the conduct of meetings, with the following modifications:
(a) A motion is not required prior to a general discussion on an agenda item. A pre-motion discussion allows the members to share their thoughts on the agendized item so that a motion can more easily be made that takes into account what appears to be the majority position. (b) All motions require a second.
(c) A motion may be amended at the request of the maker and the consent of the person who seconded the motion. Such a procedure is often used to accommodate concerns expressed by other members.
(d) A motion to amend may still be used.

The Mayor has the discretion to impose reasonable rules at any particular meeting based upon facts and circumstances found at any particular meeting. These latter rules will be followed unless objected to by a majority of the City Council Members present.

8.3 Public Comment.
(a) The limit for speakers will be up to 3 minutes, depending on the number of speakers.

Speakers are not allowed to delegate their time to another speaker without permission from the Mayor. The Mayor may limit the time to be spent on an item and may continue the item, with the approval of the majority of the Council, to a future meeting at his/her discretion. (b) Upon addressing the Council, each speaker is requested, but not required, to first state his/her name, whom they represent and/or city or place (e.g. West Bishop, Wilkerson, etc.) of residence. (d) After the speaker has completed their remarks, the Mayor may direct the City Administrator or City Attorney to briefly address the issues brought forth by the speaker. Council Members shall be respectful of the speakers and shall not enter into a debate with any member of the public nor discuss amongst themselves.
(e) All Council Members should make the public feel welcome and listen courteously and attentively to all public discussion without partiality, prejudice or disrespect. Individual Council Members should remain open-minded to informational comments made by the public. Council Members should make no promises to the public on behalf of the city council and avoid debating issues with members of the public.
(f) The Mayor has the right to ask a member of the public to step down if over the allotted time or if the speaker’s comments are not within the city’s jurisdiction.

8.4 Motions. It will be the practice of the City Council for the Mayor to provide Council Members an opportunity to ask questions of staff, comment on, and discuss any agendized item in order to help form a consensus before a motion is offered. After such discussion, the Mayor or any Council Member may make a motion. Before the motion can be considered or discussed, it must be seconded. Once a motion has been properly made and seconded, the Mayor shall open the matter to full discussion offering the first opportunity to speak to the moving party, and thereafter, to any Council Member recognized by the Mayor. Customarily, the Mayor will take the floor after all other Council Members have been given the opportunity to speak. 119
16 If a motion clearly contains divisible parts, any Council Member may request the Mayor or moving party divide the motion into separate motions to provide Council Members an opportunity for more specific consideration.

Tie Votes: Tie votes shall be lost motions. When all Council Members are present, a tie vote on whether to grant an appeal from official action shall be considered a denial of such appeal, unless the Council takes other action to further consider the matter. If a tie vote results at a time when fewer than all members of the Council who may legally participate in the matter are present, the matter shall be automatically continued to the agenda of the next regular meeting of the Council, unless otherwise ordered by the Council.

8.5 Reconsideration.
(a) Request for reconsideration.

1. Request by a member of the City Council.

Only a member of the City Council who voted on the prevailing side may request reconsideration. The request may be made at the same meeting or at the next regular meeting of the City Council or at any intervening special meeting of the City Council.

2. The member of the City Council making the request should state orally or in writing the reason for the request, without dwelling on the specific details or setting forth various arguments. (b) Motion to reconsider any Council action.

1. Reconsideration at the same meeting.

A motion to reconsider an action taken by the City Council may be made at the same meeting at which the action was taken (including an adjourned or continued meeting). A motion to reconsider an action taken by the City Council may be made only by a Council Member who voted on the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any Council Member and is debatable. The motion must be approved by a majority of the entire City Council.

2. Reconsideration at a subsequent meeting.

If an intent to request a motion for reconsideration is communicated to the City Council prior to the deadline for posting the City Council meeting agenda, then the request for reconsideration may be agendized if support for said action exists in accordance with this section. Otherwise, no City Council discussion or action on a possible reconsideration may occur unless the item is appropriately added to the agenda pursuant to Government Code section 54954.2(b), which addresses adding items that are not listed on a posted agenda (urgency agenda item). At the time such motion for reconsideration is heard, testimony shall be limited to the facts giving rise to the motion.
(c) Effect of approval of motion.

Upon approval of a motion to reconsider, and at such time as the matter is heard, the City Council shall only consider any new evidence or facts not presented previously with regard to the item or a claim of error in applying the facts.

If the motion to reconsider is made and approved at the same meeting at which the initial action was taken and all interested persons (including applicants, owners, supporters and opponents) are still present, the matter may be reconsidered at that meeting or at the next regular meeting or intervening special meeting (subject to the discretion of the maker of the motion) and no further public notice is required.
120
17 If the motion to reconsider is made and approved at the same meeting at which the initial action was taken but all interested persons are not still present, or if the motion is made and approved at the next regular meeting or intervening special meeting, the item shall be scheduled for consideration at the earliest feasible City Council meeting and shall be re-noticed in accordance with the Government Code and the City Code of Ordinances. The City Administrator shall provide notice to all interested parties as soon as possible when a matter becomes the subject of a motion to reconsider.

8.6 Discussion.
(a) The discussion and deliberations at meetings of the City Council are to secure the mature judgment of Council Members on proposals submitted for decision. This purpose is best served by the exchange of thought through discussion and debate.

To the extent possible, Council Members should disclose any ex parte communication prior to discussion on an item. Ex parte communications are those made in private between an interested party and an official in a decision-making process.

Discussion and deliberation are regulated by these rules in order to assure every member a reasonable and equal opportunity to be heard.
(b) Obtaining the floor for discussion.

After the Council has commented on an issue, and a motion has been stated to the Council and seconded, any member of the Council has a right to discuss it after obtaining the floor. The member obtains the floor by seeking recognition from the Mayor. A member who has been recognized should make their comments clear, brief and concise. (c) Speaking more than once.

To encourage the full participation of all members of the Council, no member or members shall be permitted to monopolize the discussion of the question. If a Council Member has already spoken, other Council Members wishing to speak shall then be recognized. No Council Member shall be allowed to speak a second time until after all other Council Members have had an opportunity to speak.
(d) Relevancy of discussion.

All discussion must be relevant to the issue before the City Council. A Council Member is given the floor only for the purpose of discussing the pending question; discussion which departs is out of order. Council Members shall avoid repetition and strive to move the discussion along.

A motion, its nature, or consequences, may be attacked vigorously. It is never permissible to attack the motives, character, or personality of a member either directly or by innuendo or implication. It is the duty of the Mayor to instantly rule out of order any Council Member who engages in personal attacks. It is the motion, not its proposer, that is subject to debate.

Arguments for or against a measure should be stated as concisely as possible. It is the responsibility of each Council Member to maintain an open mind on all issues during discussion and deliberation.

It is not necessary for all City Council Members to speak or give their viewpoints if another 121
18 Council Member has already addressed their concerns; provided, however, that issues with potential to be litigated or otherwise appealed should have comments by each Council Member on the record.
(e) Mayor’s duties during discussion.

The Mayor has the responsibility of controlling and expediting the discussion. A Council Member who has been recognized to speak on a question has a right to the undivided attention of the Council.

It is the duty of the Mayor to keep the subject clearly before the members, to rule out irrelevant discussion, and to restate the question whenever necessary.

8.7 Council Member Respect. At all times, Council Members in the minority on an issue shall respect the decision and authority of the majority.

8.8 Announcements. Council reports at the end of Council meetings shall be limited to announcing Mayor/Council related activities in which Council Members are involved, City and City-sponsored activities and items which directly affect the City. Community groups may announce their activities during Public Comments at the beginning of Council meetings. Council Members should refrain from making personal comments, stating personal activities, or items that do not impact their role as a Council Member.

SECTION 9. CLOSED SESSIONS

9.1 Purpose. It is the policy of the City Council to conduct its business in public to the greatest extent possible. However, state law recognizes that, in certain circumstances, public discussion could potentially jeopardize the public interest, compromise the City’s position, and could cost the taxpayers of Bishop financially. Therefore, closed sessions shall be held from time to time as allowed by law. The procedures for the conduct of these meetings shall be the same as for public meetings, except that the public will be excluded.

Prior to convening the closed session meeting, the Mayor shall publicly announce the closed session items and ask for public input regarding any items on the closed session agenda.

Council Members are to keep all information obtained during closed session in complete confidence. All written materials provided to councilmembers during closed session shall be returned to the City Administrator at the conclusion of each closed session.

If the City Council in closed session has provided direction to City staff on proposed terms and conditions for any type of negotiations, whether it be related to property acquisitions or disposal, a proposed or pending claim or litigation, or employee negotiations, all contact with the other party will be through the designated City person(s) representing the City in the handling of the matter. A Council Member, not so designated by the Council, will not under any circumstances have any contact or discussion with the other party or its representative concerning the matter which was discussed in the closed session, and will not communicate any discussions conducted in closed session to such party.
122
19 9.2 Rule of Confidentiality. The City Council recognizes that breaches in confidentiality can severely prejudice the City’s position in litigation, labor relations and real estate negotiations.

Further, breaches of confidentiality can create a climate of distrust among Council Members and can harm the Council’s ability to communicate openly in closed sessions, thereby impairing the Council’s ability to perform its official duties.

The City Council further recognizes that confidentiality of discussions and documents are at the core of a closed session. Confidentiality is essential if the closed session is to serve its purpose.

Therefore, the City Council will adhere to a strict policy of confidentiality for closed sessions.

9.3 Breach of Rule of Confidentiality. No person who attends a closed session may disclose any statements, discussions, or documents used in a closed session except where specifically authorized by State law. Any authorized disclosure shall be in strict compliance with these rules and the Ralph M. Brown Act.

9.4 Agenda. The City Council agenda will contain a brief general description of the items to be discussed at the closed session, as required by law.

9.5 Permissible Topics. All closed sessions will be held in strict compliance with the Ralph M.

Brown Act. The City Attorney, or his/her designee, will advise in advance on topics that may be discussed in a closed session.

9.6 Rules of Decorum.
(a) The same high standards of respect and decorum as apply to public meetings shall apply to closed sessions. There shall be courtesy, respect and tolerance for all viewpoints and for the right of Council Members to disagree. Council Members shall strive to make each other feel comfortable and safe to express their points of view. All Council Members have the right to insist upon strict adherence to this rule.
(b) Prior to a vote, the Mayor shall ensure that the motion is clearly stated and clearly understood by all Council Members.
(c) The Mayor shall keep the discussion moving forward so that debate and a vote can occur in the time allotted for the closed session. The Mayor will determine the order of debate in a fair manner.

9.7 Public Disclosure After Final Action.
(a) The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that, as a body, the City Council make certain public disclosure of closed session decisions when those actions have become final. Accordingly, the City Council shall publicly report any final action taken in closed session, and the vote, including abstentions, at a publicly noticed meeting as follows:
* Real Estate negotiations: After the agreement is final and accepted by the other party; * Litigation: After approval to defend or appeal a lawsuit or to initiate a lawsuit; * Settlement: After final settlement of litigation or claims; * Employees: Action taken to appoint or dismiss a Council-appointed employee; * Labor relations: After the Memorandum of Understanding is final and has been accepted by both parties.
(b) The report may be oral or written. The report will state only the action taken and the 123
20 vote. Unless authorized by the majority of the City Council, the report will not state the debate or discussion that occurred. Except for the action taken and the vote, all closed session discussions will remain confidential.

SECTION 10. DECORUM

10.1 Council Members. Members of the City Council value and recognize the importance of the trust invested in them by the public to accomplish the business of the City. Council Members shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, City employees, and the public appearing before the City Council. Council Members shall at all times follow the rules for conduct of meetings in Section 8, above. In addition, Council Members shall:
(a) Strive to act for the common good of the entire community; (b) Strive to assure respectful, fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions in their positions as Councilmembers;
(c) Represent the official policies or positions of the Council when designated as a delegate for this purpose;
(d) When representing an individual opinion of position, state explicitly that they do not represent the City Council or the City, and allow no inference that they do; (e) Attempt to reach consensus on issues;
(f) Act consistently with the requirements of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, and make no attempt to use their influence about matters in which they have a conflict of interest;
(g) Adhere to laws and guidelines regarding ethical use of public resources, and to transparency, disclosure and reporting requirements.

10.2 City Employees. Members of the City staff shall observe the same rules of order and decorum applicable to the City Council. City staff shall act at all times in a businesslike and professional manner towards Council Members and members of the public.

10.3 Public. Members of the public attending City Council meetings shall observe the same rules of order and decorum applicable to the City Council. These Standards and Procedures shall apply to all City Council Meetings. In addition to rules stated elsewhere in this Manual, members of the public:
(a) Shall limit comment time to that listed on the agenda; (b) May criticize City policies, procedures, programs and/or services or the acts or omissions of Council Members in carrying out their responsibilities as public officials, but shall refrain from disruptive behavior;
(c) Shall speak only from the podium when recognized by the Mayor, and shall address comments to the Mayor and not to staff or members of the audience; (d) Shall not approach individual Council Members while a meeting is in progress; (e) May provide written materials (10 copies recommended) to the Council during a meeting by giving the materials directly to the City Clerk.

10.4 Noise in the Chambers. Noise emanating from the audience, whether expressing opposition or support within the Council Chambers or lobby area, which disrupts City Council meetings, shall not be permitted. All cell phones and other electronic devices shall be muted 124
21 while in the chambers. Refusal is grounds for removal.

10.5 Removal of Individuals or Groups Engaging in Disruptive Behavior. (a) Definition. Disruptive behavior is any action that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting. Verbal conduct is disruptive when it meets the standards described below.
(b) Disruptive verbal conduct based on identity. Continued use of loud, threatening, profane, or abusive language or verbal conduct that denigrates an individual because of race, color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, national origin, disability, or other protected category after a verbal warning from the presiding officer impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting. It interferes with the Council’s ability to accomplish its functions in a reasonably efficient matter by causing a distraction from City business, chilling other members of the public’s participation, interfering with the ability of those present to listen and understand the business and proceedings of the City or Council, and may constitute or contribute to employment or other types of discrimination.
(c) Removal procedure (general). The Mayor or presiding member of the Council has the authority to remove, or designate a person to remove, an individual or group for disrupting the Council meeting. Before taking this action, the Mayor/presiding member shall warn the individual or group that their behavior is disruptive and that failure to cease this behavior may result in their removal. If the behavior does not promptly cease, the individual may be removed.

Disruptive behavior is any action that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting.

No warning is required to precede removal if an individual or group engages in behavior that is a true threat of force. A true threat of force has sufficient indicia of intent and seriousness so that a reasonable observer would perceive it to be an actual threat to use force by the person who makes the threat.
(d) Removal procedure (disruptive verbal conduct based on identity), When a person engages in verbal conduct that denigrates an individual because of their race, color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, national origin, disability, or other protected category, the Mayor or presiding member of the Council shall take the following actions:

1. The Mayor/presiding member shall stop the speaker and read the relevant portions of the City’s Harassment-Free Workplace Policy. The Mayor/presiding member shall state that the City does not condone comments in violation of the City’s Policy and that the speaker’s harassment is unwanted and unwelcome and impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting by interfering with the Council’s ability to accomplish its functions in a reasonably efficient matter by causing a distraction from City business, chilling participation from other members of the public, interfering with the ability of those present to listen and understand the business and proceedings of the City, and may constitute or contribute to employment or other forms of discrimination.

2. The Mayor/presiding member shall state that any City employee present may be excused from attendance at the meeting during the speaker’s remarks.

3. The Mayor/presiding member shall hold the speaker’s time and the speaker may resume speaking after the Mayor/presiding member’s statement, unless the speaker’s comments continue to disrupt, disturb, or impede the orderly conduct of the meeting. If the speaker continues to disrupt, disturb, or impede the orderly conduct of the meeting, the Mayor/presiding member may 125
22 prohibit the speaker from further commenting or may order the speaker to be removed from the meeting.

4. After the end of the speaker’s comments, any Councilmember may make a brief response to such comments, if desired.
(e) Removal procedure (disruptive group). If a meeting is willfully disrupted by a group of people so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting unfeasible, the Mayor/presiding member shall first attempt to maintain order. If unsuccessful, the Mayor/presiding member may call a recess, adjourn the meeting to another date, or order the removal of the people disrupting the meeting. If order is not restored by removing the people disrupting the meeting, the Mayor/presiding member may order the meeting room cleared and continue holding the meeting. Representatives of the media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to continue attending the meeting.

10.6 Dangerous Instruments. No person may enter the chambers of a legislative body as defined in Section 54852 of the Government Code of the State of California or any place were such legislative body is in session, with any firearm, weapon, or explosive device of any nature.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to authorized peace officers or to those persons authorized by the Penal Code of the State to carry such weapons.

10.7 Prosecution. Aggravated cases shall be prosecuted on appropriate complaint to the City Attorney/Prosecutor.

SECTION 11. ENFORCEMENT OF DECORUM
In extreme cases, such as when a meeting is willfully interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals as provided for in this Policy, the Mayor/Presiding Officer may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Duly accredited representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this Section. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City Council from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.

SECTION 12. VIOLATIONS OF PROCEDURES
Nothing in these Standards and Procedures shall invalidate a properly noticed and acted upon action of the City Council in accordance with State Law.

This document shall remain in effect until modified by the City Council.

ADOPTED AT A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JULY 24, 2023 UPDATED: 4/8/2024
126
City of Bishop
Planning Commission
There will be no Planning Commission Meeting
March 26, 2024
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be
April 23, 2024

Bishop City Council Chambers
301 West Line Street
Bishop, CA 93514
760-873-8458
127

CITY OF BISHOP

PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
City Council Chambers - 301 West Line Street - Bishop, California TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2024 - 6:00 PM
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Please be advised this meeting is accessible to the public in person or on the City of Bishop website. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 760-873-5863 Extension 124. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

The public is encouraged to participate or observe this meeting by:

1. Attending this meeting in person at the City of Bishop City Council Chambers located at 301 West Line Street in Bishop, California.

2. Observing this meeting live from the City of Bishop website at: https://www.cityofbishop.com/government/ planning_commission/index.php Public comments may be made:

1. In person: Live at the meeting. Members of the public desiring to speak on a matter appearing on the agenda should ask the Chair for the opportunity to be heard when the item comes up for Commission consideration. Comments for all agenda items are limited to a speaking time of three minutes.

2. In writing: Please email [email protected] and write “Public Comment” in the subject line. In the body of the email, include the item number and/or title of the item as well as your comments. All comments received by 2:00 p.m. will be emailed to the Planning Commissioners and included as an attachment under the Agenda’s Item Number as “Public Comment” prior to the meeting. You may also hand deliver public comments to the City drop/payment box located at the Church Street entrance to City Hall on or before the deadline noted above.

Government Code § 54957.5(b)(1). Copies will also be provided at the appropriate meeting.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 760-873-5863 Extension 24. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR

35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].
1 128

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

4. PUBLIC COMMENT: NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: This time is set aside to receive public comment on matters not calendared on the agenda. When recognized by the Chairman, it is requested that you please state your name and address for the record and please limit your comments to three minutes. Under California law the Planning Commission is prohibited from generally discussing or taking action on items not included in the agenda; however, the Planning Commission may briefly respond to comments or questions from members of the public. Therefore, the Planning Commission will listen to all public comment but will not generally discuss the matter or take action on it.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: All matters under the Consent Calendar are considered routine by the Authority and will be acted on by one motion.

A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Reorganization

7. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Rezone Parcels 001-020-15-00, and 001-240-04-00 to Mixed Use Downtown Overlay Zone
B. Amend Chapter 17.46. MUO_DT Mixed Use Downtown Overlay Zone Section

17.46.120. Building Placement
September 27, 2022 - Meeting Minutes
October 18, 2022 - Special Meeting Minutes
December 14, 2023 - Special Meeting Minutes
Election of Officers
Recommended Action:

The Planning Commission to approve the resolution and recommend the City Council approval of an ordinance for a change of zoning designation for two parcels in substantially the form shown in Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

Alternatives: The Planning Commission to approve the rezoning of one parcel 001- 020-15-00, 711 North Hammond Street.

PC RESOLUTION_REZONE PARCELS TO MUO_DT

PUBLIC COMMENT
Recommended Action:

The Planning Commission to approve the Resolution and recommend City Council approval of an ordinance for a change to the Chapter 17.46. MUO-DT Mixed Use Downtown Overlay Zone, Section 17.46.120. Building Placement in substantially the form shown on 2 129

8. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS

9. ADJOURNMENT: The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission will be
April 23, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. in the Bishop City Council Chambers, 301 West Line Street, Bishop.

Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

PC RESOLUTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 17.46. MUO_DT
3 130
Department of Public Works
Building Permits Issued
3/2024
Small Town with a
Big Backyard!

CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
Post Office Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
760-873-8458 [email protected]
www.cityofbishop.com
Date Value Owner/Location/Contractor Short Description SMIP Rev Fund Commercial
3/18/2024 Noe Gadea
307 South Main Street
Lopez Roofing
Reroof $3,200.00 $2.80 $1.00
3/1/2024 VP Custom Investments
298 North Main Street
Mammoth Signs
Sign $4,500.00 $1.26 $1.00
3/11/2024 Los Angeles DWP
768 Spruce Street - Field 3
Rollins Electric
Light Poles $5,000.00 $1.40 $1.00
3/5/2024 Waylon Louis
210 South Warren Street
Wall Murals $38,000.00 $0.84 $1.00
3/1/2024 Mohan - bishop Partnership
1025 North Main Street
Aris Electric LLC
Exterior Light Fixtures $1,500.00 $0.50 $1.00
3/26/2024 Terry Wagoner
197 North Main Street
Lopez Roofing
Reroof $10,800.00 $3.02 $1.00
3/1/2024 Jose & Carlos Jimenez
276 South Warren Street
Remodel $250,000.00 $70.00 $10.00
Commercial Totals $313,000.00 $79.82 $16.00
Residential
3/8/2024 Shelma Jun
769A West Elm Street
High Country Lumber
Wood Stove $4,544.42 $0.72 $1.00

Page 1 of 2 ends

Permit Fees Received:
$10,020.91
131
Date Value Owner/Location/Contractor Short Description SMIP Rev Fund 3/1/2024 George Mellon
175B Johnston Drive
Home Improvements $25,000.00 $3.25 $1.00
3/1/2024 Curtis Amundson
325 Willow Street
Aris Electric LLC
Electrical Panel $3,500.00 $0.72 $1.00
3/1/2024 Linda Nikolaus Trust
462 Schley Street
Lopez Roofing
Reroof $5,400.00 $1.30 $1.00
3/7/2024 Joann Tsokos
430 East Line Street, #9
Aris Electric LLC
Electrical Panel $2,000.00 $0.72 $1.00
3/8/2024 Llewellyn Kurtz
350 Academy Street
High Country Lumber
Wood Stove $5,967.94 $0.72 $1.00
3/11/2024 Steve Elia
458 Short Street
David Whiting
Electrical Panel $3,000.00 $0.72 $1.00
3/12/2024 Tyson Sparrow
437 Clarke Street
Reroof $10,000.00 $1.30 $1.00
3/15/2024 Heather Stone
359 Clarke Street
Chris Freeman Roofing
Reroof $16,875.00 $1.30 $1.00
3/18/2024 Pat O'Neil
648 Maple Avenue
Lopez Roofing
Reroof $10,600.00 $1.30 $1.00
3/1/2024 Martin Oliver
412 Willow Street
Roberts Roofing
Reroof $10,000.00 $1.30 $1.00
Residential Totals $96,887.36 $13.35 $11.00

Page 2 of 2 ends

Permit Fees Received:
$10,020.91
132
Agenda Item: 9.A
Date of Meeting: April 8, 2024
Department: Public Works
To: City Council
From: Nora Gamino
Subject: State Funded Water System Consolidation Projects: Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company and Sierra Highlands Community Services District
Prepared On: April 3, 2024
Attachments: Letter of Intent to Support Sierra Highlands Brookside Consolidation Feasibility Study (8-17-23).pdf

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

There has been a push by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to consolidate water systems, with a specific emphasis on encouraging small water systems to consolidate with larger, more resourced systems. This initiative stems from a recognition of the significant challenges many small water systems face, including limited financial resources, difficulty complying with increasingly stringent water quality standards, and the lack of capacity to manage emergency situations. The SWRCB’s Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) Program was established in 2019 to “address funding gaps and provide solutions to water systems, especially those serving disadvantaged communities, to address both their short- and long-term drinking water needs.” (waterboards.ca.gov) Consolidation is seen as a viable solution to these issues, offering smaller communities access to safer and more reliable drinking water of larger water systems.

In the greater Bishop area, there are 23 designated water systems. The City’s water system is by far the largest system with 1,293 connections, while the smallest systems have fewer than 5 connections. These systems are classified differently depending on the number of connections, seasonality, and type of use. These classifications are: State Small, Transient Non-Community, Non-Transient Non-Community, and Community. While there are differences in the way each classification is regulated, the standards for the smaller systems are becoming increasingly similar to the more complex system standards.

Several years ago, Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company (Brookside) approached the City regarding issues it was experiencing with its water system. They were directed to look into the SAFER program for assistance to study the feasibility of capital improvements and/or consolidation of their water system with another system. California Rural Water Association (CRWA), a non-profit organization, was then hired by the State to develop a feasibility study 133
looking at multiple consolidation options in West Bishop (report attached). Upon completion of the feasibility study, the State recommended that Brookside apply for a SAFER Technical Assistance (TA) grant. To be considered for TA, both Brookside and the City needed to supply written letters stating the intent of the two systems to consolidate. In September 2023, City Council approved a letter of intent to allow Brookside to consolidate with the City’s water system.

Since then, Brookside’s TA request has been funded and the SWRCB issued a work order to Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (P&P) to complete the work, which kicked off in October 2023. The purpose of the TA “is to assist the community with the preparation and submission of planning and engineering documents that are required for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Financial Assistance Application for Construction Funding” (TA Work Plan).

Analysis/Discussion:

In January 2024, P&P conducted a site visit to gather information on the City’s system and Brookside’s system. Previously when CRWA developed the feasibility report for Brookside, outreach had been conducted with other nearby water systems. That outreach however was not very successful and therefore P&P decided to reach out to systems again and two systems were interested in discussing the project. P&P subsequently met with Indian Creek Community Services District (CSD) and Sierra Highlands CSD in which they were able to provide an overview of the TA program, State Revolving Fund programs, and consolidation goals of the project.

During the February 26, 2024 City Council meeting, a representative from Sierra Highlands CSD gave a public comment asking that the City consider including their water system in the consolidation project with Brookside. Indian Creek CSD has not reached out to the City with a request to consolidate.

Funding for construction through the State Revolving Funds is based on the number of connections served, with a cost per connection limit of $60,000 per connection. For this project, funding would be limited to the number of connections consolidating into the City’s system. Brookside has 22 service connections, Sierra Highlands has 215 service connections, and Indian Creek CSD has 289 service connections. Per State requirements, the current consolidation project of Brookside would be limited to approximately $1,320,000. With Sierra Highlands included, the project funding cap is raised significantly to approximately $14,220,000. Because of this funding calculation method, the more service connections that are included in the project, the more funding is available for system improvements. There are also several other water systems in the immediate vicinity of this project that could be included if interested.

If the consolidation efforts are successful and small systems in West Bishop are consolidated into the City’s system, there will be impacts to the City’s infrastructure and operations. The consolidation of Brookside and Sierra Highlands would add approximately 18% more service connections to the City’s system and the impacts of this are being studied through the work that P&P is currently doing. Anticipated impacts could include but are not limited to:
infrastructure improvements at the Well #4 and storage tank sites, new and/or upsized underground waterlines and booster pumps to carry water west of the tank site to these uphill neighborhoods, and possible staffing increases to cover the new service area.

The construction phase of the consolidation project will commence once approval is obtained 134
and necessary funding is secured through the State Revolving Fund. Although the City of Bishop will be the official applicant for construction funding and the direct recipient of these funds, P&P will provide extensive support by preparing all required planning and construction documents for the funding application. This assistance ensures that the technical and administrative burden of grant preparation is efficiently managed by P&P. However, the processes of procurement and contracting with the selected construction firm will be directly overseen by the City, in line with state and City regulations. P&P's role is outlined in a detailed work plan with the State and will continue through to the funding application's submission.

Throughout this period, P&P will ensure ongoing coordination with the City, Sierra Highlands CSD, Brookside, and state representatives.

Economic Impacts:

None.

Budget Impacts:

None.

Legal Review:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

Recommended Action:

Council consideration to approve the Letter of Intent to allow Sierra Highlands Community Services District to consolidate their water system with the City of Bishop.

Approved By: Deston Dishion 4/4/2024
Approved By:

Approved By:

Approved By:
135

CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
P. O. Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
City Hall 760-873-5863 Public Works 760-873-8458
Fax 760-873-4873

Page 1 of 1 ends

April 8, 2024
Sierra Highlands Community Services District
Water System No. CA1400007
P.O. Box 782
Bishop, CA 93515
Subject: Letter of Intent to Allow Sierra Highlands Community Services District to Consolidate with City of Bishop
Mr. Beischel,
This letter serves as recognition that the City of Bishop will voluntarily agree to allow the Sierra Highlands Community Services District to consolidate into the City’s water system. Once construction is complete, the main services lines will be incorporated into the City’s water system, each property will have a metered service connection, and each will become a service account with the City.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the City’s Public Works Director, Nora Gamino at 760-873-8459.

Regards,
Jose Garcia
Mayor
cc: Deston Dishion, City Administrator
Nora Gamino, Director Public Works
136
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study
Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience
August 2023
Prepared by:

California Rural Water Association
137
i
CONTENTS:

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ - 1 -

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ - 1 -

1.2 Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................................. - 2 -

1.3 Scope of Consolidation Feasibility Study ............................................................................... - 3 -

2.0 Potential Consolidation Partners .................................................................................................. - 3 -

2.1 City of Bishop ................................................................................................................................... - 5 -

2.2 Ranch Road Estates Mutual Water Company ....................................................................... - 5 -

2.3 Desiderata Estates Mutual Water Company ......................................................................... - 6 -

2.4 Indian Creek Community Services District ............................................................................ - 6 -

2.5 Tooley’s Mobile Home Park....................................................................................................... - 6 -

2.6 Sierra Highland Community Services District ........................................................................- 7 -

2.7 Park West Mutual Water Company ...........................................................................................- 7 -

2.8 Brookside Mobile Home Park ....................................................................................................- 7 -

2.9 Steed Water Company ................................................................................................................ - 8 -

2.10 Individual Household Wells ...................................................................................................... - 8 -

3.0 Consolidation ...................................................................................................................................... - 9 -

3.1 Process Description ....................................................................................................................... - 9 -

3.2 Conceptual Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... - 10 -

3.3 Consolidation Alternatives ......................................................................................................... - 12 -

4.0 Evaluation of Alternatives .............................................................................................................. - 21 -

4.1 Net Present Value ........................................................................................................................- 22 -

4.2 Water Rates ................................................................................................................................... - 23 -

4.3 Grant and Other Funding ..........................................................................................................- 25 -

5.0 Consolidation Study Findings ......................................................................................................- 26 - 138
ii
TABLES:

Table 1: Brookside, Bishop, and Potential Consolidation Partners Elevations ...................... - 4 - Table 2: Alternative 1 Project Cost Estimate .................................................................................... - 13 - Table 3: Alternative 2 Project Cost Estimate ................................................................................... - 15 - Table 4: Alternative 2.1 Project Cost Estimate ................................................................................ - 17 - Table 5: Alternative 3 Project Cost Estimate ................................................................................... - 18 - Table 6: Alternative 3.1 Project Cost Estimate .............................................................................. - 20 - Table 7: Summary of Alternatives’ Connections and Demand .................................................. - 21 - Table 8: 30 Year NPV Results ............................................................................................................- 22 - Table 9: Allocation Per Service of Selected Project Components ......................................... - 23 - Table 10: Existing Monthly Water Rates for Consolidating Systems ....................................... - 23 - Table 11: Estimated Monthly Surcharge for Consolidating Systems........................................ - 24 - Table 12: Estimated Monthly Water Rates per Customer, including IHW .............................. - 24 - FIGURES:

Figure 1: Project Location Map ............................................................................................................... - 1 - Figure 2: Brookside System Map ......................................................................................................... - 2 - Figure 3: Brookside, Bishop, and Potential Consolidation Partners ......................................... - 4 - Figure 4: Location of Individual Household Wells .......................................................................... - 9 - Figure 5: Alternative 1 Configuration .................................................................................................. - 13 - Figure 6: Alternative 2 Configuration ................................................................................................ - 14 - Figure 7: Alternative 2.1 Configuration .............................................................................................. - 16 - Figure 8: Alternative 3 Configuration ................................................................................................. - 18 - Figure 9: Alternative 3.1 Configuration ............................................................................................ - 20 - APPENDICES:

Appendix A City of Bishop Water Master Plan (Excerpt)
Appendix B Bishop Specifications (Excerpt)
Appendix C Select Bishop Standard Details for Public Works Construction Appendix D California Fire Code (CFC) 2019, Appendix B
Appendix E Alternative Project NPVs
Appendix F DFA Responses to Funding Questions

139
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 1 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION
California Rural Water Association (CRWA) is providing technical assistance to the Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company (Brookside) under the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) Program. This Feasibility Study (Study) will complete the work plan agreed upon with the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB).

The Study explores potential consolidation options that exist between Brookside and City of Bishop (Bishop) ranging from an individual agreement to a regional merger involving multiple systems in the area. This Study consists of a description of Brookside existing water demands, source, treatment, storage tanks, and distribution system. The Study analyzes potential consolidation partners nearby and evaluates three alternative consolidation projects. A conceptual level design and engineering cost estimate for each project is presented. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for each alternative project are estimated as well. Findings in the evaluation of these alternatives are presented with recommended next steps.

1.1 Background
Brookside serves a population of 59 people through 21 residential connections. It is located approximately two miles west of the Bishop (Figure 1), north of California State Highway 168. The service area includes the properties located on Brookside Drive. Brookside operates under Figure 1: Project Location Map
140
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 2 -
permit number CA1400056 and falls under the jurisdiction of SWRCB, Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The highest elevation in Brookside is approximately 4,351 feet and the lowest is approximately 4,331 feet.

1.2 Existing Facilities
Brookside has two wells and a 1,000 gallon hydropneumatic tank located at the same site along Brookside Drive (blue line in Figure 2). Well 1 is the main producer with Well 2 typically only used for high demand periods. The latest Sanitary Survey completed by DDW in 2022 reports the capacity of each well to be 250 gallons per minute (gpm), with a combined capacity of 500 gpm or 0.72 million gallons per day (MGD). There is no pump test on record. The wells are estimated to be at least 50 years old but there are no records of installation. The water produced from the wells is not treated. The average day demand (ADD) is 0.035 MGD, based on 2020 records reported in the Sanitary Survey. Maximum day demand (MDD) is 0.12 MGD.

Figure 2: Brookside System Map
The distribution system is approximately 60 years old and is constructed primarily of asbestos cement pipe. There are no record drawings or maps available for the distribution system.

Service connections are not currently metered. A resident in the district is a licensed water system operator and performs the operator duties for the system. The revenue for the water system has been able to keep the water system safe and reliable but funds have not been set aside to replace major system components.
141
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 3 -
The Sanitary Survey noted that there are no records showing the depth of the sanitary seal of each well. Since Brookside has been unable to provide proof that the sanitary seals extend to the required depth of 50 feet, DDW is requiring Brookside to continuously disinfect both wells beginning 5/22/2023.

1.3 Scope of Consolidation Feasibility Study
Water system consolidations are a type of business merger involving two or more water systems.

Consolidation is usually completed to take advantage of the reliability and operational efficiencies afforded by being part of a larger organization. An agreement to consolidate takes time, trust, and cooperation between all parties involved. The timeline may be one or more years to complete.

This Study is a conceptual level consolidation feasibility study to provide Brookside and Bishop insight into potential consolidation opportunities. Brookside is voluntarily seeking to consolidate with Bishop, which presents an opportunity for regional consolidation. There are a number of systems within a reasonable distance of the proposed project. There are also properties with separate water systems (wells) in the area which could possibly be included. A preliminary evaluation of all potential partners was conducted. Three alternative consolidation projects are identified for consideration. Conceptual level engineering was used to size the proposed transmission mains, pumping, supply, and storage requirements. A net present value analysis to compare the cost of each alternative over a 30 year period was compiled. Estimated customer rates are also presented for each alternative.

The alternatives and costs presented here are conceptual and do not represent the intent of Brookside or any of the systems identified as potential consolidation partners. Costs presented here are presumptive and cannot be determined until formal accounting takes place and consolidation agreement(s) are formulated. Furthermore, capital costs presented below may be paid by Brookside, other systems, grants, or other funding sources, as available. Actual costs of consolidation to water systems and their customers can vary greatly depending on the funding strategies selected and the logistics of connecting the water systems’ distribution mains.

2.0 POTENTIAL CONSOLIDATION PARTNERS
The potential consolidation of Brookside may also benefit other water systems in the same region. CRWA identified seven additional water systems in the region that were considered as part of this Study (Figure 3): Ranch Road Estates Mutual Water Company (Ranch Road), Desiderata Estates Mutual Water Company (Desiderata), Indian Creek Community Services District (Indian Creek), Park West Mutual Water Company (Park West), Sierra Highland Community Services District (Sierra Highland), Brookside Mobile Home Park (BMHP), Tooleys Mobile Home Park (TMHP), and Steed Water Company (Steed).
142
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 4 -
Figure 3: Brookside, Bishop, and Potential Consolidation Partners The regional terrain is gently sloping from the west to the east. Brookside and Ranch Road are at similar elevations as the Bishop Well 4 and Tank 1 site. Tank 1 is at a higher elevation than the Bishop service area which allows the tank to gravity feed the Bishop distribution system with sufficient pressure (see Table 1). The potential consolidation partner systems to the southeast of Tank 1 are at a lower elevation than the tank but are not low enough to be fed by gravity.

Table 1: Brookside, Bishop, and Potential Consolidation Partners Elevations System/
Component
Highest
Elevation (ft)
Lowest
Elevation (ft)
Range of
Area (ft (psi))
Brookside 4,351 4,331
Ranch Road 4,322 4,310 74 (32)
Northern Residences on Wells 4,384 4,316
Sierra Highland 4,315 4,245
108 (47)
Park West 4,250 4,207
BMHP 4,243 4,219
Southern Residences on Wells 4,265 4,209
Well 4 4,367 N/A N/A
Tank 1 (1 MG) 4,338 4,322 16 (7)
143
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 5 -

2.1 City of Bishop
Bishop serves a population of 3,879 people through 814 residential connections and 347 commercial connections, a total of 1,161 connections. Bishop contains two active wells, and a third well is only used for emergency purposes due to high fluoride levels. The majority of Bishop water supply comes from Well 4, which is located just southeast of Brookside off of W Line Street.

The well has a capacity of 1,880 gpm, which is sufficient to meet the demand of the system for most of the year. Well 2 also has a capacity of 1,880 gpm and is typically used during the summer months when demand increases. Well 1 is the Standby Well and has a rated capacity of 1,800 gpm. Bishop has one pressure zone supplied by a single 1 MG tank, Tank 1, located at elevation of 4,322 feet and an average water surface elevation of 4,338 feet. The tank is located east of Well 4, outside of the Bishop service area, and feeds the distribution system by gravity. The distribution system consists of over 21 miles of pipeline ranging from 2 to 20 inches in diameter.

The ADD of Bishop is 1.4 MGD from daily data since 2013 and the MDD is 2.9 MGD recorded August 11, 2020. Bishop has a combined source capacity of 8.0 MGD (5,600 gpm). California Code of Regulations Title 22, § 64554 (CCR 64554) states that community systems using only groundwater sources shall be capable of meeting MDD with the highest capacity source offline.

Bishop source capacity with the highest capacity source offline is 5.3 MGD, which gives a reserve capacity of 2.7 MGD. In addition, CCR 64554 requires a system with over 1,000 connections meet Peak Hour Demand (PHD) for 4 hours using storage and / or source capacity. Bishop PHD is estimated at 180,000 gallons (3,000 gpm) which results in a reserve of 2,600 gpm compared to source capacity.

Bishop has sufficient source capacity such that additional storage is not required; however, additional storage is part of Bishop capital planning. The City of Bishop Water Master Plan dated February 2008 (Master Plan) indicates that Bishop is below industry standards for storage capacity by a variety of metrics. The Master Plan uses MDD plus Fire Flow, San Diego Water Agencies Standards from 2008, and a California Department of Public Health method based on number of connections to evaluate storage needs. Relevant sections of the Master Plan are included as Appendix A. Bishop current storage is equal to 34 percent of MDD.

Bishop chlorinates the water produced from Well 4 and has had no compliance issues in the previous two years. Residential service connections are not metered. Water rates are a flat rate structure of $33 per month for a single family residence.

CRWA had conversations with Deston Dishion, City Administrator, and Nora Gamino, Public Works Director, at Bishop. Bishop is willing to consider consolidating with these smaller water systems but has not committed to any consolidation yet.

2.2 Ranch Road Estates Mutual Water Company
Ranch Road serves a population of 65 people through 27 residential connections based on their 2022 Sanitary Survey. Ranch Road is located north of Brookside. The ADD for the system is 144
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 6 -
calculated to be 0.022 MGD based on monthly production data from November 2019 to October 2021. MDD is calculated to be 0.071 MGD based on production data from September 2021.

Ranch Road has two wells with capacities of 180 gpm and 170 gpm, for a total capacity of 350 gpm, or 0.50 MGD. Ranch Road source capacity with the highest source offline is 0.24 MGD.

This leaves Ranch Road with a reserve capacity of 0.17 MGD. There were nitrate and 1,2,3- trichloropropane (TCP) monitoring violations in 2018. There is a 2019 primary MCL violation for total coliform. The wells are not equipped with a sample tap or a flush to waste drain line.

The distribution system is composed of 4 inch asbestos cement and galvanized pipes. Asbestos monitoring was not conducted on the distribution system. The highest elevation of the service area is approximately 4,322 feet and the lowest is approximately 4,310 feet. The residential service connections are not metered. Water rates are a flat rate structure of $700 per year ($58.33 per month) for a single family residence. Ranch Road does not treat the water; emergency disinfection equipment is present. Ranch Road has no major system deficiencies.

CRWA had conversations with Joan Lewis, secretary / treasurer for Ranch Road, and she expressed that Ranch Road was not interested in consolidating with Bishop but would provide information necessary to be included in the Study.

2.3 Desiderata Estates Mutual Water Company
Desiderata is located approximately 0.5 miles east of Brookside. CRWA reached out to the system multiple times but did not receive a response to the request for information. Due to difficulty in contacting and lack of information about the system in general, Desiderata was not considered in any of the alternative projects.

2.4 Indian Creek Community Services District
Indian Creek serves a population of 1,030 through 289 unmetered residential connections, 8 unmetered commercial connections and 8 metered commercial connections. Indian Creek is located on the south side of Highway 168 and east of Brookside. Indian Creek has five wells with a combined capacity of 1,500 gpm, or 2.2 MGD. The ADD of Indian Creek is 0.35 MG and the MDD is approximately 0.78 MG based on the most recent Sanitary Survey available dated 2017.

The system does not treat its water supply. No maximum contaminant level (MCL) violations were identified presently in the system.

CRWA had conversations with General Manager Tye T. but was notified on 10/27/22 that Indian Creek did not want to consolidate and would not provide any additional information for the Study.

For this reason, Indian Creek was not considered in any of the alternatives in this Study.

2.5 Tooley’s Mobile Home Park
TMHP is located approximately 1 mile southeast of Brookside. CRWA reached out to the system multiple times but did not get a response to the request for information. Due to difficulty in 145
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 7 -
contacting and lack of information about the system in general, TMHP was not considered in any of the alternative projects.

2.6 Sierra Highland Community Services District
Sierra Highland serves a population of 600 people through 216 residential connections as reported in the 2017 Sanitary Survey. Sierra Highland is located just southeast of Indian Creek, approximately two miles from Brookside. Sierra Highland has three wells with a combined capacity of 1,000 gpm, or 1.5 MGD. The ADD of Sierra Highland is estimated to be 0.25 MGD from the total 2016 production. The MDD is 1.1 MGD based on data in the Sanitary Survey. Nitrate was detected in all wells and has increased in the past decade but levels have remained below the MCL. The Sierra Highland system does not have any major deficiencies.

The distribution system mains are made up of pipe ranging from 6 to 8 inches in diameter.

Approximately 90 percent of mains are made from asbestos cement and 10 percent are made from PVC. The highest point of the service area is approximately 4,315 feet and the lowest is approximately 4,245 feet. There are no treatment or disinfection facilities.

CRWA had conversations with Fred Finkbeiner, general manager of Sierra Highland. Mr.

Finkbeiner expressed that Sierra Highland was not interested in consolidating with Bishop but provided enough information to be included as part of the Study.

2.7 Park West Mutual Water Company
Park West serves a population of 200 people through 67 unmetered connections. Park West is located east of Sierra Highland, and approximately two miles from Brookside. Park West has three active wells. The ADD of Park West is estimated to be 0.078 MGD. MDD is estimated to be

0.029 MGD. These estimates are based on the average use per connection of the comparable systems in this Study that had data available. The highest elevation of the service area is approximately 4,250 feet and the lowest is approximately 4,207 feet.

CRWA contacted the water company numerous times. A board member, Seth Carr, responded to CRWA’s calls but stated their time on the board was coming to an end. The request for information was passed along to other board members but CRWA did not receive a response.

The water company did not state whether there was interest in consolidation but enough information was available in the latest sanitary survey to include Park West in the Study.

2.8 Brookside Mobile Home Park
BMHP serves a population of 126 people through 45 unmetered connections as reported in the 2022 Sanitary Survey. BMHP is located south of Park West and east of Sierra Highland, approximately two and a half miles from Brookside. BMHP has two wells, both of which operate through pressure switches. The wells have a total capacity of 0.12 MGD. The 2018 ADD is 0.023 MGD. The MDD is 0.062 MGD from 2018 data in the 2022 Sanitary Survey. The system cannot meet MDD with the larger source offline and does not have storage for MDD. The per capita 146
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 8 -
daily demand (183 gallons per day (gpd)) is less than half the other systems in this Study that provided data (424 gpd) because of the much smaller irrigable area of the mobile home park compared to the local single family residences.

There are 4 bladder hydropneumatic tanks that provide pressure to the distribution system. The storage consists of a 4,000 gallon plastic storage tank. The storage tank is operated only during summer months as piping connected to the tank is prone to freezing during winter months.

Water quality is monitored, but there is no treatment. The highest point of the service area is approximately 4,243 feet and the lowest is approximately 4,219 feet. Water rates are a flat rate structure of $50 per month per connection.

CRWA had conversations with Gary Womack, General Manager of BMHP. The system is need of infrastructure improvements such as new or rehabilitated water sources and BMHP was open to discuss consolidation and wished to participate in the Study.

2.9 Steed Water Company
The Division of Drinking Water asked CRWA to include Steed, a state small water system located just west of Brookside, in the feasibility study. However, CRWA attempted to contact the system through phone and email and did not receive a response. Due to difficulty in contacting and lack of information about the system in general, Steed was not considered in any of the alternative projects for this Study.

2.10 Individual Household Wells
It is expected that houses outside of the analyzed water systems operate on individual household wells (IHW). There are an estimated 163 households on private wells in the area outside of Brookside and Ranch Road, and 100 households to the east of Sierra Highland and south of Park West. This count was based on parcels which are classified as single family residences by Inyo County and do not fall under the known public water system service areas using a public geographical information system (GIS) dataset. Most of the other surrounding area is agriculture land owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

The properties with IHWs may be able to consolidate with Bishop if the nearby water systems were to consolidate. The distribution mains necessary to consolidate the public water systems will allow for more efficient connection to the properties with IHW. The consolidation alternatives focus on consolidation of the public water systems but properties with IHWs are analyzed as secondary alternatives. Figure 4, below, shows the locations of IHW properties. For the purposes of this Study, each IHW parcel was allocated a demand of 1.25X the average demand per parcel from the three similar systems that provided demand data, Brookside, Ranch Road, and Sierra Highlands. The demands were increased by 25 percent because the IHW parcels appear to be approximately twice the size on average of the parcels in the three systems above.

It is assumed that this would result in somewhat higher demand. For the alternatives analysis the IHW parcels were segregated into groups, northern and southern, based on their proximity to the 147
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 9 -
consolidating systems nearby. The northern IHW parcels have similar elevation range of Brookside and Ranch Road, 4,316 to 4,384 feet above sea level. The southern IHW parcels have an elevation range of 4,209 to 4,265 feet which is within the range of the other consolidation candidate systems.

Figure 4: Location of Individual Household Wells

3.0 CONSOLIDATION

3.1 Process Description
There are three general types of water system consolidation defined by the SWRCB: managerial, physical, and regional. Cooperation agreements between systems known as local resource sharing involve sharing resources such as operation staff, equipment, and accounting between two or more water systems. Local resource sharing can help systems improve operations while reducing customer costs but is not consolidation nor the focus of this Study. Managerial consolidation is more formal than local resource sharing and entails one system being acquired by another (a merger). The subsumed system ceases to exist and the receiving system (acquirer) manages the existing facilities of the formerly independent (subsumed) system. Physical consolidation involves merging two or more systems completely including merging distribution systems and management operations and forming a single water system facility. Typically, a larger district absorbs a smaller district, and physically connects their water supply, distribution, treatment, and storage systems as applicable. The third type of consolidation is regionalization, 148
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 10 -
the merger of three or more water systems physically and organizationally, resulting in the formation of a single larger public water supply entity.

In every type of consolidation the costs of deferred maintenance, source water (rights), the value of existing facilities that meet current standards, real estate owned by the acquired system, et cetera must be negotiated to allocate expenses to the beneficiaries of the process. It is not permitted in California for rate payers to subsidize growth or development that will benefit others.

State loans and grant funding may be involved in the valuation consideration for any consolidation agreement. The alternatives presented here are based on physical consolidations and regionalization. In this Study costs are estimated without consideration of State funding sources or the value of water rights and existing infrastructure.

3.2 Conceptual Design Criteria
The systems included in the selected alternatives were responsive to CRWA’s requests for information. The information used for the conceptual designs was provided by systems, the latest Sanitary Surveys provided by DDW, and the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) database. The demand for Park West and the parcels with IHWs was calculated by using comparable demands from the nearby systems. Source and storage capacity of the alternatives exceed requirements of CCR 64554. As Bishop is a community water system serving more than 1,000 connections, the consolidated systems proposed are able to meet four hours of PHD with source and storage capacity. These proposed amounts of increased storage and source capacity: allow for the acquired service areas to contribute approximately equivalent capacity to the consolidated system based on acquired system needs, prevents new service area infrastructure costs from be borne by existing Bishop customers, and slightly improves the status quo of Bishop general facilities by maintaining or marginally increasing storage and source capacity per connection systemwide. This incremental improvement also protects consolidation stakeholders by not saddling new service areas with excessive capacity requirements by being overly conservative.

3.2.1 Source Capacity
The source capacity increases recommended for each alternative will ensure that incorporating the new service areas will not degrade the existing source capacity available to Bishop. The source capacity required for new development is not stipulated in the Water System Design Criteria from Bishop Specifications for Domestic Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems 1991 (Bishop Specifications), attached as Appendix B. For the purpose of this Study new source capacity of PHD plus 10 percent is recommended for each additional service area where MDD is more than 10 percent of existing Bishop source capacity reserves. New wells are assumed to be located at the existing Well 4 or Tank 1 sites but more detailed design may place them at other locations throughout the Bishop sphere of influence. New wells are assumed to be 500 feet deep, sized according to capacity, steel cased with stainless steel louvered screen, outfitted with submersible motors, and have backup power.
149
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 11 -

3.2.2 Storage
The quantity of additional storage capacity for each proposed alternative is based on making a marginal increase in operational storage. For the purpose of this Study, additional storage will be assumed for every consolidation alternative to properly account for the storage needs of the new connections being added. The amount of storage used for the new service areas will be based the San Diego method in the Master Plan because it takes into account fire flow storage and is less conservative than other methods. Considering how the Bishop system is currently operated, other storage calculation methods typically used in the industry would result in overallocation of storage being associated with the alternatives. The storage capacity recommended for each consolidation option is equal to 50 percent of MDD for the new service area, to account for operational and emergency storage, plus fire flow storage for 2 hours at 1,500 gpm. The location of new storage is assumed to be at the location of the existing Bishop Tank 1 site. It may be desirable to install new storage elsewhere but that design work is beyond the scope of this Study.

3.2.3 Distribution
Distribution mains are based on the Bishop Standard Details for Public Works Construction (Standard Details), (Appendix C). Mains are proposed to be constructed of C900 and C905 PVC pipe with mortar lined and coated ductile iron fittings with restrained mechanical joints. Mains are proposed to be placed in the local street right of ways with 42 inches of cover and repaved with 4 inches of asphaltic concrete. The Master Plan states that maximum velocity in water mains under fire flow conditions is 10 feet per second (ft/s). Mains were sized for fire flow plus MDD per Bishop Specifications. Booster pumps stations are designed for PHD flow plus 25 percent. Each station will have three or four pumps with VFDs in lead, lag, standby configuration. A hydropneumatic tank or group of small pressure tanks is included to prevent short cycling the pumps. Booster pump stations are assumed to have backup power generators and be located on the Tank 1 site.

3.2.4 Fire Flow
The fire flow rates for the alternatives, 1,500 gpm for 2 hour duration (180,000 gal), are based on California Fire Code (CFC) 2019, Title 24, Part 9, Appendix B (included as Appendix D) and the Bishop Specifications. Booster pump stations in the alternatives are assumed to have fire flow pumps in addition to the stated flow capacities. Fire hydrants are proposed to be installed one per every 1,000 feet of main.

3.2.5 Environmental Considerations
No major environmental impact is expected from any of the alternatives as the project elements will be located in previously disturbed land. The alternatives proposed are expected to use existing land and easements of Bishop and the respective systems, or County road right of ways. 150
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 12 -
CEQA categorical exemptions are expected to be used for all projects. A Caltrans encroachment permit will be needed for the portions of pipeline crossing and along Highway 168.

3.3 Consolidation Alternatives
The following sections briefly describe the selected alternative projects identified for evaluation in this Study. The alternatives progress from the singular consolidation of Brookside and Bishop to the most complex regional consolidation considered incorporating all participating candidate systems. Each alternative has a description of minimum required facility improvements assuming full replacement of the subsumed system’s infrastructure. The alternative service area MDD and ADD are summed and facilities to provide that quantity are proposed and priced conceptually to evaluate the option compared to the other alternatives and status quo.

The conceptual design cost estimates are for complete capital project planning, design, and implementation and include contingency to cover unknowns at this level of design. The 40% contingency includes allowance for unforeseen costs, allowance for costs that will emerge during more detailed design, and various costs arising during bidding and construction. Typically contingency costs decrease as design becomes more advanced and cost estimates become more accurate.

Project schedules were not estimated. Each consolidation project is contingent on negotiations between the parties whose outcome is unknown and at a conceptual level of design it is premature to estimate project schedules.

3.3.1 Alternative 1: Consolidation of Brookside with Bishop Alternative 1 consists of consolidating Brookside with Bishop. Brookside is considering voluntary consolidation with Bishop. Brookside has provided safe and reliable water to customers for years but needs repairs and maintenance. Due to the level of deferred maintenance, the amount of work required would have a significant financial cost to each customer. Consolidation would shift the responsibility for operation and maintenance to Bishop, who can more efficiently conduct operations due to their size. However, Bishop customers would not pay for deferred maintenance or new facilities meant to serve Brookside customers.

If Brookside were to consolidate with Bishop, the Brookside system would be required to be updated to Bishop standards. The existing distribution system is approximately 50 years old and there are no records of replacements or repairs. Approximately 1,200 feet of 8 inch distribution lines would be replaced and installed under Alternative 1. See Figure 5.

The pressure output of Well 4, the closest Bishop system well to Brookside, is too low to adequately supply Brookside. Tank 1 is also not capable of supplying Brookside with sufficient pressure by gravity. A 160 gpm booster pump station will be required to supply Brookside with sufficient pressure and cover the 125 gpm PHD with a factor of safety of 1.25. This booster pump station can be installed at the Tank 1 site and the Bishop system has enough reserve source capacity to supply Brookside services. An additional storage tank with a capacity of 240,000 151
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 13 -
gallons is recommended to cover fire and operational storage. Jack and bore installation will be used to install a 12 inch main across California State Highway 168 (this is included in all alternatives). The 12 inch main from the booster pump station to Brookside is estimated to be 2,400 feet in length. The total estimate of pipeline for the Alternative 1 is 3,600 feet, including the 8 inch distribution mains to be replaced. No new well is included in Alternative 1 because the MDD is less than 4.0 percent of existing Bishop source capacity reserves.

Figure 5: Alternative 1 Configuration
The MDD for Alternative 1 is 0.12 MG (83 gpm) with an ADD of 0.035 MG (24 gpm). Capital cost of construction is expected to be $3,519,000. A breakdown of the estimated cost is seen in Table

2. Project administrative costs are included in engineering services during construction.

Inspection and project management, as well as a labor compliance program, are expected on these capital projects.

Table 2: Alternative 1 Project Cost Estimate
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Mobilization / Demobilization 8% LS - $151,000
8 inch Pipeline 1,200 LF $100 $120,000
12 inch Pipeline 2,400 LF $150 $360,000
Directional Drilled Hwy Crossing 90 LF $1,990 $179,100
Service Connections 21 EA $2,800 $58,800
152
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 14 -
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Fire Hydrants 4 EA 18,000 $72,000
160 gpm Booster Pump Station 1 LS $296,000 $296,000
240,000 gal Bolted Steel Tank 1 LS $799,200 $799,200

Design and Survey 1 LS $255,000 $255,000
Project Administration 1 LS $221,000 $221,000
Sub-Total Estimated Cost = $2,513,000
Contingency @ 40% = $1,006,000
Estimated Project Cost = $3,519,000

3.3.1.a Alternative 1 with Individual Household Wells
Alternative 1 does not include connection of IHWs to the Bishop system.

3.3.2 Alternative 2: Consolidation of Brookside and Ranch Road with Bishop The second alternative includes consolidation of Brookside and Ranch Road with Bishop. This alternative would require 7,300 feet of pipeline be installed. The distribution systems of Brookside and Ranch Road would have to be replaced due to age and be constructed to Bishop standards. The Ranch Road distribution mains contribute 1,500 feet of new 8 inch pipe in this Alternative (Figure 6). A total of 48 connections from Brookside and Ranch Road would be Figure 6: Alternative 2 Configuration
153
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 15 -
consolidated under Alternative 2. Water usage data for Brookside and Ranch Road indicates combined MDD of the systems is 0.19 MG, or 130 gpm. The combined ADD is expected to be

0.058 MG, 40 gpm, additional demand on the Bishop system. The maximum height difference between the lowest and highest points of these systems is approximately 50 feet, which is acceptable for a single pressure zone.

Bishop owns the lot on which the tank is located and has sufficient space to install other infrastructure. A 250 gpm booster pump station will be installed to pump water from the tank to the consolidated systems. The booster pump station capacity is based on PHD of 200 gpm and a 1.25 factor of safety. A storage tank with a capacity of 280,000 is recommended for this Alternative. A new 4,600 foot, 12 inch transmission main will be installed along W Line Street, Mountain View Road and the first part of Ranch Road. Within the existing service areas 2,700 feet of 8 inch mains would be replaced. No new well was included in Alternative 2 because the MDD is only 7.0 percent of existing reserve source capacity.

The cost of design and construction for Alternative 2 is estimated to be $4,977,000 and detailed in Table 3.

Table 3: Alternative 2 Project Cost Estimate
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Mobilization / Demobilization 8% LS - $214,000
8 inch Pipeline 2,700 LF $100 $270,000
12 inch Pipeline 4,600 LF $150 $690,000
Directional Drilled Hwy Crossing 90 LF $1,990 $179,100
Service Connections 48 EA $2,800 $134,400
Fire Hydrants 8 EA 18,000 $144,000
250 gpm Booster Pump Station 1 LS $322,200 $322,200
280,000 gal Bolted Steel Tank 1 LS $932,400 $932,400
Design and Survey 1 LS $218,000 $363,000
Project Administration 1 LS $305,000 $305,000
Sub-Total Estimated Cost = $3,555,000
Contingency @ 40% = $1,422,000
Estimated Project Cost = $4,977,000

3.3.2.a Alternative 2.1
There are approximately 163 homes with IHWs near Brookside and Ranch Road that could be consolidated in Alternative 2.1. Approximately 20 of them could be consolidated using the mains 154
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 16 -
that will be installed in Alternative 2 to connect Brookside and Ranch Road to Bishop.

Approximately 447 additional people outside of the Alternative 2 systems could be served in the proposed Alternative 2.1 system. An average of 2.7 people per parcel was estimated (based on average of Brookside, Ranch Road and Sierra Highlands). With the added services, the difference between maximum and minimum elevations will increase to approximately 80 feet, which is serviceable by a single pressure zone. The total number of services in Alternative 2.1 is 211. The ADD of the Alternative 2.1 is estimated at 0.29 MGD. The MDD of Alternative 2.1 is estimated at 1.1 MGD (740 gpm), an increase of 610 gpm compared to Alternative 2.

Figure 7: Alternative 2.1 Configuration
An additional 10,350 feet of pipeline is needed to connect the IHW parcels. Incorporation of individual well owners on Shepard Lane, Mt Tom Lane, and Vista Road will require the proposed pipeline layout shown in Figure 7. In addition to the mains of Alternative 2, Alternative 2.1 would require 3,950 feet of 12 inch main and 6,400 feet of 8 inch main. The Alternative 2.1 booster pump station would have a capacity of 1,400 gpm based a PHD of 1,100 gpm. A new 720,000 welded steel storage tank is recommended for Alternative 2.1. A 1,200 gpm well is recommended for Alternative 2.1 to cover PHD and maintain a similar capacity reserve ratio to the existing Bishop system in the new service areas.
155
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 17 -
The estimated construction cost of consolidating Brookside and Ranch Road with the nearby IHW parcels is $10,848,000. See Table 4 for more details.

Table 4: Alternative 2.1 Project Cost Estimate
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Mobilization / Demobilization 8% LS - $524,000
8 inch Pipeline 9,100 LF $100 $910,000
12 inch Pipeline 8,550 LF $150 $1,282,500
Directional Drilled Hwy Crossing 90 LF $1,990 $179,100
Service Connections 211 EA $2,800 $590,800
Fire Hydrants 18 EA 18,000 $324,000
1,400 gpm Booster Pump Station 1 LS $716,200 $716,200
720,000 gal Welded Steel Tank 1 LS $1,224,000 $1,224,000 1,200 gpm Municipal Well 1 LS $1,323,300 $1,323,300

Design and Survey 1 LS $218,000 $744,000
Project Administration 1 LS $305,000 $674,000
Sub-Total Estimated Cost = $7,748,000
Contingency @ 40% = $3,100,000
Estimated Project Cost = $10,848,000

3.3.3 Alternative 3: Regional Consolidation with Bishop Alternative 3 is the regional consolidation of Brookside, Ranch Road, Sierra Highland, Park West and BMHP. Desiderata, Indian Creek, TMHP, and Steed were excluded as they either declined to participate in the Study, or they were unresponsive to outreach efforts. There will be a total of 376 services under Alternative 3. The combined ADD of systems being considered for consolidation under Alternative 3 is 0.41 MG (290 gpm). The combined MDD of systems being considered for consolidation is estimated to be 1.6 MG (1,100 gpm). A new well with 1,900 gpm capacity is recommended to provide water for the customers of Alternative 3.

Alternative 3 will require two separate pressure zones (Figure 8). Brookside and Ranch Road (Alternative 2) will be the upper pressure zone supplied by a new booster pump station capable of supplying 250 gpm. The elevations of this zone fall between 4,351 and 4,310 feet. A second new booster pump station, at the same site, will supply Sierra Highland, Park West, and BMHP.

This booster pump station must be able to supply 1,800 gpm to meet PHD with a factor of safety equal to 1.25. The difference in elevation between the highest and lowest point of this second pressure zone is 108 feet (4,315 to 4,207 feet), which is serviceable as a single pressure zone. A 156
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 18 -
new 1.0 MG storage tank is recommended for Alternative 3 storage. This tank will be installed at the existing tank site and feed the booster pump stations.

It is estimated that this alternative would require approximately 44,300 feet of new mains. This includes replacing all transmission and distribution mains for all systems involved and installing mains in public right of way. The actual amount may vary as there may be alternative pipeline configurations or some existing infrastructure may be utilized. A 10,100 foot, 16 inch, transmission main will run along W Line Street and S Barlow Lane to the intersection of Underwood Lane and supply the second pressure zone. All distribution lines within the systems will be replaced with 8 or 12 inch pipelines as applicable based on fire flow velocities. In addition to the mains needed for Alternative 2, Alternative 3 will require 15,350 feet of 12 inch pipeline and 11,550 feet of 8 inch pipeline.

Figure 8: Alternative 3 Configuration
The estimated construction cost for regional consolidation under Alternative 2 is $21,572,000.

Table 5: Alternative 3 Project Cost Estimate
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Mobilization / Demobilization 8% LS - $1,052,000
8 inch Pipeline 14,250 LF $100 $1,425,000
12 inch Pipeline 19,950 LF $150 $2,992,500
157
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 19 -
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
16 inch Pipeline 10,100 LF $190 $1,919,000
Directional Drilled Hwy Crossing 90 LF $1,990 $179,100
Service Connections 376 EA $2,800 $1,052,800
Fire Hydrants 45 EA 18,000 $810,000
250 gpm Booster Pump Station 1 LS $322,200 $322,200
1,800 gpm Booster Pump Station 1 LS $895,250 $895,250

1.0 MG Welded Steel Tank 1 LS $1,700,000 $1,700,000
1,900 gpm Municipal Well 1 LS $1,851,300 $1,851,300
Design and Survey 1 LS $1,314,000 $1,314,000
Project Administration 1 LS $1,208,000 $1,208,000
Sub-Total Estimated Cost = $15,408,000
Contingency @ 40% = $6,164,000
Estimated Project Cost = $21,572,000

3.3.4 Alternative #3.1
There are a large number of individual households, approximately 100, near Sierra Highland and Park West systems. Assuming these households use the same gallons per connection as the northern IHW parcels, the MDD for these additional connections would be approximately 0.54 MG. In order for these households to connect to the system, approximately 5,450 additional feet of pipeline will be needed. These pipelines will connect to the transmission line supplying Sierra Highland and BMHP along South Barlow Lane. The properties with IHW are of similar elevation of Park West and will be served by the proposed Alternative 3 pressures zone in the area. There are approximately 639 services in the potential consolidation areas.

The combined MDD for Alternative 3.1 is estimated at 3.0 MGD (2,100 gpm), nearly the same as the current Bishop MDD. This alternative will require a new source capacity larger than that in Alternative 3. Two new wells capable of producing 1,600 gpm each will sufficiently supply the combined consolidated IHWs and systems. A new 1.7 MG storage tank is recommended to meet the needs of the consolidated systems and households. This tank will be installed at the existing tank site. Each pressure zone would have a new BPS. The northern pressure zone would have the same 1,400 gpm BPS as Alternatove 2.1. The southern pressure zone would require a 2,600 gpm BPS to cover PHD x 1.25. Fire flow pumps would also be required for both pressure zones. 158
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 20 -
Figure 9: Alternative 3.1 Configuration
The estimated construction cost for this regional consolidation alternative with IHWs is $31,661,000.

Table 6: Alternative 3.1 Project Cost Estimate
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Mobilization / Demobilization 8% LS - $1,544,000
8 inch Pipeline 14,250 LF $100 $2,295,000
12 inch Pipeline 19,950 LF $150 $4,057,500
16 inch Pipeline 10,100 LF $190 $1,919,000
Directional Drilled Hwy Crossing 90 LF $1,990 $179,100
Service Connections 639 EA $2,800 $1,789,200
Fire Hydrants 61 EA 18,000 $1,098,000
1,400 gpm Booster Pump Station 1 LS $716,200 $716,200
2,600 gpm Booster Pump Station 1 LS $1,040,200 $1,040,200

1.7 MG Welded Steel Tank 1 LS $2,890,000 $2,890,000
1,600 gpm Municipal Well 2 LS $1,656,300 $3,312,600

Design and Survey 1 LS $1,878,000 $1,878,000
159
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 21 -
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
Project Administration 1 LS $1,774,000 $1,774,000
Sub-Total Estimated Cost = $22,615,000
Contingency @ 40% = $9,046,000
Estimated Project Cost = $31,661,000

4.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
All of the alternatives presented are feasible in regards to physically connecting the systems and having Bishop manage the facilities. Bishop has existing infrastructure near the potential consolidation partners and has the land available for the required infrastructure projects. Water supply and quality is not an issue in the area and additional water source capacity to supply the larger alternatives is feasible because the systems are currently using the same aquifer.

Although Bishop may be best served by locating new tanks and wells on different sites, in this Study it is assumed that additional storage and wells will be located at the same site as the existing tank for the sake of comparing the potential consolidation scenarios presented.

There are other hurdles that would need to be addressed for any given alternative to proceed.

Most of the potential consolidation candidates included in this Study stated they would participate in the dialog but were not willing to consolidate at this time. Any consolidation would also be required to go through the Inyo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for approval to expand the service area of Bishop. For these reasons consolidation would need to be approached through a cooperative process between all stakeholders. It may be advisable to break the consolidation process into phases based on geography, interest, or other relevant criteria. To help visualize the scale and wide variance between alternatives, Table 7 lists the number of connections and demand estimates associated with each.

Table 7: Summary of Alternatives’ Connections and Demand Alternative # # of Connections ADD
(gpm)
MDD
(gpm)
Alternative 1 21 24 83
Alternative 2 48 40 133
Alternative 2.1 211 201 739
Alternative 3 376 285 1,140
Alternative 3.1 639 549 2,120

160
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 22 -

4.1 Net Present Value
A net present value (NPV) for 30 years of water service was calculated for the three main alternatives (excluding the IHW options). An NPV is typically used to financially evaluate multiple choices by estimating the cost of each over a selected time horizon to select the best option for a given situation. NPVs take planning, capital, operations, and maintenance costs into consideration while discounting future expenses based on an assumed rate of inflation.

The NPVs for the three alternatives used the conceptual capital project costs from the preceding sections and the assumed operation and maintenance costs that would occur during a 30 year period. The project costs for each alternative include updating each consolidated system’s infrastructure to Bishop standards via complete replacement. The operation and maintenance costs for the consolidating systems are modelled using the current service charge of Bishop. The consolidated systems will be incorporated into the Bishop scheduled maintenance plan and no additional cost would be placed on the existing Bishop customers. The consolidated systems would pay for operations and maintenance at the same rate as the rest of Bishop’s customers.

NPV calculations are attached as Appendix E.

Table 8: 30 Year NPV Results
Initial Cost Adj. 30 Year O&M 30 Year NPV
Alternative 1 $3,519,000 $144,000 $3,663,000
Alternative 2 $4,977,000 $329,000 $5,306,000
Alternative 3 $21,572,000 $2,575,000 $24,147,000

Actual operation and maintenance costs of the new service area(s) to Bishop may vary somewhat from the existing customer service fee. Newer facilities and distribution mains may reduce costs per customer. However, the new customers will use comparatively more water per connection.

This may result in higher electrical use per customer by Bishop. In addition, metering the services may reduce water use (and costs to Bishop) while at the same time reading and maintaining meters will increase costs to Bishop. All in all from the vantage point of this Study costs are difficult to determine more precisely than the current flat fee. It is expected that once Bishop is metered per State law there will be a per volume use fee in the billing structure and the costs will be allocated evenly to the consumers by use then. Metering generally has the effect of reducing use and potentially reducing some operation costs, e.g. electricity.

Typically NPVs are used to compare choices for investment focused on a singular goal or issue.

For example a well project versus an interconnection project to solve the same source capacity need. In this case the alternatives are not choices between solutions to the same problem but alternatives that are unique to themselves. The NPVs indicate that capital project costs dominate every consolidation option. The results also show that projects have costs per service that are significantly greater for the alternatives with fewer services. It is notable that the cost per service 161
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 23 -
varies so widely considering the costs were developed using the same methodology for each project. The estimates incorporate some accounting for economies of scale solely in the planning and administration line items. The costs for mains and storage are scaled evenly across the alternatives. There are inherent economies of scale from sharing common infrastructure, such as fire flow storage volume, across more services as the alternatives move from singular to regional consolidation. Additional cost efficiency is realized in other shared infrastructure like transmission mains and booster pump stations which do not scale linearly with capacity. It is notable that the additional wells needed for Alternative 3 do not keep the costs per service closer to Alternatives 1 and 2. Table 9 includes some statistics to better see these variances across alternatives by number of services affected. For more on costs per service see the Water Rates estimate section below.

Table 9: Allocation Per Service of Selected Project Components Alternative
(# of services)
Project ($) /
Service
Main (ft) /
Service
Storage (gal) /
Service
Well (gpm) /
Service
Alternative 1 (21) $167,600 176 11,429 0
Alternative 2 (48) $103,700 154 5,833 0
Alternative 3 (376) $57,400 118 2,660 5.1

4.2 Water Rates
The current Bishop service charge is $33 per month for a single family residence, which is lower than the other water systems included in the Study. Brookside has a flat rate of $50 per month which is similar to the other systems (within 20 percent). None of the systems have metered service connections, therefore the water rate is a flat rate structure. A consolidation project will not impact on Bishop’s service charge for existing customers. The consolidated systems may have an increase monthly payment to cover the capital costs of the project not funded by grants.

Table 10: Existing Monthly Water Rates for Consolidating Systems Existing Water Rate
Bishop $33.00
Brookside $50.00
Ranch Road $58.33
Sierra Highland $40.83
Park West $50.00
BMHP1 $50.00
162
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 24 -
The estimated surcharge rates presented below assume a subsidized 30 year loan to cover the capital project with a 2.0 percent interest rate. The surcharge would be added to the Bishop service charge for the total expected monthly charge for each consolidated system’s customers, in the absence of alternative sources of funding such as grants. The surcharge payments are distributed evenly over a 30 year timeline like a mortgage. The surcharge would then be removed from the monthly bills once the capital costs have been paid off. If partial grant funding is available the surcharge would be reduced by the amount of the grant. Higher interest loans to fund capital projects would result in comparably higher surcharge amounts than shown.

Table 11: Estimated Monthly Surcharge for Consolidating Systems Surcharge -
Alternative 1
Surcharge -
Alternative 2
Surcharge –
Alternative 3
Brookside $619.38 $383.25 $212.06
Ranch Road - $383.25 $212.06
Sierra Highland - - $212.06
Park West - - $212.06
BMHP1 - - $212.06
1 – due to distributing costs based on number of services, the mobile home park customers rates are skewed higher per gallon used

4.2.1 Water Rates for Properties with Individual Household Wells Water rates for single residences would be the same $33 from Bishop as other ratepayers. A conceptual level estimate for surcharges expected of the properties with IHWs was calculated.

The repayment rates were calculated for Alternative 2.1 and 3.1 using the same method described above. These estimates are based on the systems from the alternatives consolidating, every property owner agreeing to consolidation, and the cost split between all customers equally. The loan costs for Alternative 2.1 and 3.1 are distributed across 211 and 639 customers, respectively.

The cost for each customer can be found in the table below. The costs with the additional services are in the same range as Alternative 3.

Table 12: Estimated Monthly Water Rates per Customer, including IHW Alternative 2.1 Alternative 3.1
Monthly Surcharge per Connection $190.03 $183.14

It appears that consolidating greater numbers of services will substantially reduce per service costs of consolidation. However, increasing the number of systems and IHW parcels increases consolidation complexity and likely would result in delays to projects that could run into years.

Finally, it is evident that ‘no project’ may be more viable from a cost perspective than any of the alternatives presented. It should not be assumed that water rates will be the same going forward 163
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 25 -
for the candidate systems because deferred maintenance will need to be addressed in each case. None the less, water rates under the alternatives presented in this Study appear higher than the cost of maintaining the current systems.

4.2.2 Connection Fees
Connection fees are often included in the costs of the capital projects associated with consolidation. In many cases this entails charging every consolidated service the full connection fee to join the surviving provider. These fees can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars or more and are more or less justified because the new service area will be reliant on the existing infrastructure of the surviving provider. Funding is typically available to pay for the connection fees from the same sources as the capital project funding. Bishop charges a Water Development Impact Fee of $2,000 per EDU to all new connections in addition to the actual cost to connect to the system. In the alternatives described in this Study the entire consolidation candidate’s system is replaced with new construction including source and storage facilities. This would generally exceed the cost to connect so it is hard to justify charging full connection fees for what is essentially a complete new system ready for operation. These fees may be negotiated to match the reliance of the consolidated areas on existing infrastructure or waived during negotiations depending on what capital projects are ultimately deemed necessary. Adding the Water Development Impact Fee to each residence would amount to less than $8 added to the monthly surcharge.

4.3 Grant and Other Funding
Funding available through grants or other sources may greatly alter the evaluations presented above. The cost for the customers of Brookside increases by over 400 percent under every alternative. This cost may not be feasible without financial assistance (grants) to make consolidation more affordable. The SWRCB has grants available for consolidation projects but the amount available varies and there is an application process. Information on grants that may apply to Brookside and Bishop can be found in Appendix F. Consolidation candidate systems may also look into partial grants or low cost loans to help cover the capital costs. Obtaining grants as opposed to loans will greatly affect customer costs. After the capital costs are paid off the water rates for each consolidated customer would be the same as all other Bishop customers.

Bishop water rates are currently lower than all consolidation candidate rates.

The value of land for facilities siting, water rights, and other existing assets may be purchased by the surviving system and the proceeds used to fund capital projects needed during consolidation rather than being distributed to shareholders. This type of arrangement is worked out through negotiation during the consolidation process. There is not a singular solution for how to fund the deferred maintenance that is often involved in a consolidation, but each situation must be resolved individually. Grant funding can tip the scales substantially toward consolidation being a viable path for customers.
164
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study

- 26 -

5.0 CONSOLIDATION STUDY FINDINGS
The most cost effective option per service is Alternative 3, the regional consolidation of Brookside and all other candidate systems. Costs are slightly lower if all IHW parcels are included. On an absolute basis, the smaller projects are lower cost. They are more likely to succeed in a timely fashion because of the reduced number of stakeholders involved. The largest projects appear strategically infeasible considering the complexity of the negotiations typically involved even in a bilateral consolidation at this scale.

Alternative 1, Brookside consolidating with Bishop, is the more costly option to Brookside. The cost difference is approximately 50 to 250 percent higher compared to the other alternatives.

However, this alternative is the most politically feasible as it only requires an agreement between Brookside and Bishop. Alternative 1 may also be more appealing to Bishop as it will require minimal change to existing operations and maintenance. Having one or more smaller projects turn out successfully may make other possibly larger projects more palatable to the communities represented by the candidate systems and even the IHW parcels.

Alternative 3 is the most cost effective if the costs are split evenly between all customers included in the alternative. However, this alternative is likely the least feasible alternative as it would require all five systems to agree to consolidation simultaneously. Although these systems were willing to participate in the feasibility study, most stated they were not interested in consolidation at this time.

The overall recommendation is to explore funding opportunities and split regional consolidation planning into phases based on geography and interest. In spite of the project costs appearing to be prohibitively expensive, there is a way forward for Brookside consolidation with Bishop and regional consolidation generally. Brookside should determine funding options and try to better evaluate which if any of their existing facilities are useful for continued service. Meanwhile, Bishop and Brookside can continue in dialog with Ranch Road and the local IHW parcels being kept in the loop for a potential Alternative 2.1 or similar outcome. Alternative 2.1 has significant economy of scale compared to Alternative 1 and is a viable project with a good chance of success if the communities support it. Going forward, the southeastern consolidation candidates that comprise the difference of Alternative 3.1 would be considered separately as a second phase regional consolidation based on interest from Sierra Highlands, Park West, BMHP, and the southern IHW parcels. Pursuing funding for Alternative 1 with planning consideration for an outcome similar to Alternative 2.1 is recommended.
165
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company
Consolidation Feasibility Study
Appendix A
166

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN

3.0 Investigation of Existing Water Facilities
The first step in determining the necessary improvements is to inventory the existing water facilities.

The City of Bishop currently provides water to all of the residents and businesses (customers) inside the city limits and to four customers outside the city limits, and will probably serve more in the future. The City owns, operates, and maintains three wells, one steel water storage tank, 21.3 miles of pipelines, fire hydrants, and a disinfection facility.

Nolte obtained information from various sources principally GIS water maps, well production records, water quality information, and regulatory violations. This information was examined and is presented in this study. Figure 3.1 was prepared to better illustrate the locations of the wells, sampling stations and the storage tanks. Figure 3.2 illustrates the layout of the existing water distribution system, pipelines and fire hydrants.

3.1 Existing Water Sources
The City owns and operates three wells. Figure 3.1 depicts the location of each of these water sources.

Well 1
The new depth of Well 1 is 380 feet deep (after a 225 feet of sealing) and is equipped with a combination drive, 1800 revolutions per minute (rpm), 125-horsepower (HP) electric motor. The design point for the well pump is 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) at 189 total dynamic head (TDH).

It is located on North Warren Street, behind the Bishop Police Department. An auxiliary diesel motor is kept on site. Well 1 currently serves as a stand-by well. In October of 2006, the Well 1 Rehabilitation project was completed. The project included electrical panel updates including a variable speed drive, sealing out the lower 225 feet of the well with concrete, and replacement of 110 feet of column pipe. The controls to the well are working properly including the variable speed drive and the ability to control the well based on system pressure.

The well pump discharges through a 10-inch pipe into a 100-pound per square inch (psi), 1,750 gpm rated pressure desander. After flowing through the desander, the water travels through a 12-inch line into a 100-psi rated, 9500-gallon tank. The water is discharged into the Citys distribution system through a 14-inch line.

Well 2
Well 2 is the Citys second source of water. Well 2 is located on the northwest corner of the intersection between Sierra and Main Streets, 300 to 500 feet from each. In 2005, it produced 87 million gallons (MG) of water. The City runs Well 2 when Well 4 is unable to keep up with higher water demands, which occurs primarily in the summer months. In 2005, the City upgraded the controls to increase the wells efficiency.

Well 2 is 493 feet deep. It is equipped with an 1800 rpm, 125-HP electric motor manufactured by U.S. Electrical Motors. The design point for the well pump is 2,000 gpm at 189 TDH. The well has connection for a portable generator. The well used to use a pressure reducing valve (PRV), however in 2005 the controls of the well were improved to remove the valve and installed a variable speed drive and related controls.

The well is equipped with an alarm system that dials programmed emergency phone numbers to report an alarm condition. Currently, the alarm is non operational. 15 167

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
Well 3
Well 3 is planned for construction of the two acre property the City owns for the purpose on Sunland Drive near Mandich Street. The City has plans to incorporate it into its water system.

Well 4
The Citys primary source of water is Well 4. The well is located on West Line Street approximately three miles west of Main Street. In 2005, the well produced 452 MG of water. Well 4 is able to accommodate the Citys water needs most of the year. During the summer months, when there is an increased demand, the City also runs Well 2.

The well is 400 feet deep. It is powered by a 100-HP, 1800-rpm electric motor. The well is equipped with an alarm system that dials programmed emergency phone numbers to report an alarm condition.

Total Well Production
Southern California Edison recently performed pump tests to determine the volume of water the City of Bishops wells are able to produce. Based on those pump tests, Well 2 can produce 1880 gpm at a discharge pressure of 60 psi. Well 4 discharges at 1880 gpm and does not discharge into the system; it discharges directly into the tank. Although it can produce 1800 gpm, Well 1 is not currently being used because of the high fluoride levels found in the water. A summary of well production data is listed in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Total Well Production
Well Well Pump Production
Capacity (GPM)
Discharge
Pressure (psi)
Production in 2005
(MG)
Well 1 1800 Stand-by
Well 2 1880 65 87
Well 4 1880 <4 452
Well 2 is the variable speed drive so it discharges what pressure the system needs to maintain 65 psi.

Well 4 has a very low discharge pressure because once it reaches the surface that line simply flows by gravity to the 1 million gallon storage tank.

3.2 Water Disinfection System
Water from Well 4 is chlorinated as it exits the well, with a ClorTec On-Site Sodium Hypochlorite Generation System. The ClorTec system generates a 0.8% sodium hypochlorite solution using three common consumables: salt, water, and electricity (NaCI + H2O +2e = NaOCI +H2).

Solution is injected into the discharge pipe that fills the 1 MG steel tank fill line as it exits the site.

From discussions with the operators, the chlorine concentration in town is maintained at approximately 0.1 parts per million (ppm).

The City has recently learned from DPH that they are not required to chlorinate their system. They are considering stopping chlorination. The well discharges into the 1 million gallon tank on West Line Street.
16 168
169

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
Figure 3.2: Clor-Tec onsite Sodium Hypochlorite Generation System

3.3 Existing Storage Facility
1 Million Gallon Storage Tank
The City stores all of its water in a one million gallon (MG) steel water storage tank. The steel tank was constructed in 1991 and is 23 feet high, 93 feet in diameter, maintains a water level of 18 to 22 feet, and has a footprint of 6,789 square (sq.) feet. The tank is located on West Line Street approximately two-thirds of a mile east of Well 4.

The tank was inspected and cleaned by Liquivision Technology Diving Services (LTDS) on September 27, 2005. In October of 2005, following the inspection, LTDS performed repairs to the inside of the tank. They removed rust stains and patched the exposed surfaces with epoxy. The City is mandated by the State to clean and inspect the tank every two years.

3.4 Existing Distribution System
The City of Bishop has approximately 112,700 feet (21.3 miles) of water distribution pipe, which is shown on Figure 3.2. The system consists of 2-inch to 20-inch diameter pipe. The pipelines are of different sizes, material, ages, and configurations.

A 12-inch pipeline extends from Well 4 along West Line Street (Highway 168) to Home Street.

There is a short stretch of 20-inch pipe coming out of the storage tank. Another 12-inch pipe extends from Well 1 south along Warren Street to Lagoon Street.

A 14-inch diameter pipe extends from Well 1 along Warren Street north to Elm Street. Another 14- inch pipe extends from Well 2 to Main Street where it connects to a 12-inch pipe that runs in the south-north direction along Main Street.

The City of Bishop water distribution system supplies water through 2-inch to 14-inch pipelines. The City of Bishop Wastewater Treatment Plant receives water via a 10-inch pipe that connects to a 6- inch x 6-inch x 10-inch reducing tee at the intersection of First Street and West Line Street 18 170
171

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN

3.5 Fire Suppression System
All new hydrants are installed per the Citys specifications. All hydrants have the same size port and the City has been upgrading them systematically to Mueller Super Centurion 250 hydrants. The City installed 156 hydrants throughout the City and two at the wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). The locations of the hydrants are depicted in Figure 3.2.

3.6 Sampling Locations
Currently the City samples water at four different dedicated sampling stations located throughout the City. Each dedicated sample station has an upstream (U/S) and a downstream (D/S) repeat sample location which is used in case there is a positive sample. The repeat sample sites are typically hose bibs and residences. The U/S repeat sample site for the WWTF is on East Line Street. The sample locations are shown in Figure 3.1.

Sampling Station location:

1. 151 South Warren Street (Public Works compound)
U/S repeat location: 206 West Line St
D/S repeat location: 251 South Warren St

2. 800 West Pine Street
U/S repeat location: 786 West Elm St.

D/S repeat location: 786 Grove St.

3. Well 2 Compound
U/S repeat location: 273 Sierra St.

D/S repeat location: 1005 North Main St.

4. City of Bishop Wastewater Treatment Plant
U/S repeat location: 606 East Line St.

D/S repeat location: Eastern Sierra Community Services District The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) requires that sampling be performed on a monthly basis (4 samples per month).

3.7 Water Quality
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the CDPH set limits on the amounts of certain contaminants in the water provided by public water systems. The CDPH requires the City to monitor for certain contaminants on a quarterly and yearly basis. Water quality parameters have consistently met regulatory requirements, and many customers believe that the Citys water taste is superb.

3.8 Water Demands
Bishops water demands vary considerably during the year. The following demands have been estimated for municipal water use: Average Day demand, Maximum Day demand, Peak Hour Demand, and Fire Flow.
20 172

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
Table 3.2: Water Demand Formulas

1. Average Day Demand (ADD):
days
year
total gallons
Avg
365

2. Maximum Day Demand (MDD):

Max 2.5* Avg

3. Peak Hour Demand (PHD):

Peak 3.5* Avg
Based on these formulas and the information obtained from the City of Bishop Water Quality Report, Bishops average daily water usage in 2004 was 1.6 million gallons per day (MGD). The Maximum Day demand was 4.0 MGD and the Peak Hour demand was 5.6 MGD.

Approximately 50% of the years total water use occurs between the months of June through September; July being the highest usage of water (13.9% of yearly amount) and January the lowest (4.9%).

Table 3.3: Average Daily Water Use, Maximum Day Demand, and Peak Hour Demand Year ADD
(mgd)
MDD
(mgd)
PHD
(mgd)
ADD/Capita*day
(gallons)
1997 1.51 3.78 5.29 431
1998 1.39 3.48 4.87 397
1999 1.38 3.45 4.83 394
2000 1.66 4.15 5.81 474
2001 1.67 4.18 5.85 477
2002 1.71 4.28 5.99 489
2003 1.6 4.00 5.60 457
2004 1.59 3.98 5.57 454
2005 1.48 3.70 5.18 423
2006 1.6 4.00 5.60 449

3.9 Fire Flows
The design criteria for fire flows are divided into two main categories: residential areas and nonresidential areas. In residential areas, pipeline sizing should be based on the maximum day demand plus a fire flow demand of 1,500 GPM at a minimum residual main pressure of 20 psi for a 2-hour minimum duration.

Based on conversation with the Citys Fire Chief, Ray Seguine, the fire flow requirement for the existing buildings is obtained from the 2001 California Fire Code, Appendix III-A and Appendix IIIAA. The fire flow requirements are based on the square footage of each building and the type of construction.
21 173

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
Figure 3.4: Average Daily Water Use, Maximum Day Demand, and Peak Hour Demand City of Bishop Water Demands
Figure 3.5: Organization Chart

3.10 Existing Facility Operation City of Bishop
City Council City Administrator Public Works Director Chief Operator Public Works Staff Water and Sewer Commission The Publics Works personnel operate the water facilities.

Figure 3.3 displays the organization of the Citys Public Works Department is organized for the purposes of water supply.

Figure 3.3: Organization Chart

3.11 Design Criteria
The City has established criteria upon which all new water facilities should be designed. The criteria were developed to assess the capabilities of the water infrastructure to meet current and future service demands. It is also used to determine the recommended facilities/infrastructure for resolving identified deficiencies.

Nolte complemented the Citys design requirements with additional design requirements. The requirements are listed in Table 3.4. All of the requirements are in accordance with industry standards.

Table 3.4: Water System Design Criteria
System Element/Condition Design Requirement
Pipe Material Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) for all new pipe Pipe Material Class 350 ductile iron cement lined pipe
Hazen-Williams Coefficient (C) 130 for PVC
Peak Factor 3.5 and approved by the City
Minimum Pipe Diameter 8 inch
22 174

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
Table 3.4: Water System Design Criteria (cont.)
System Element/Condition Design Requirement
Maximum Intermediate Valve Spacing Are required so that no more than 600 feet of line will have to be shut off at any one time.

Isolation Valves There should be three valves on tees and four valves on crosses
Isolation Valves Valves should be flanged to fittings
Isolation Valves
When water mains are in easements outside
traveled streets, a valve shall be located at each
end of easement
Air release-valves Shall be installed at all high points in line as directed by the City.

Blow-offs Blow-offs shall be installed at ends of mains and low points where sediment may settle in the line
Water pipelines in streets are normally located 15 feet from and parallel to centerline.

There should be a minimum of 10.0 feet separation
from sanitary sewers (edge of pipe to edge of pipe)
Minimum Water Storage Capacity 1 day of Maximum Day Demand flow plus fire flow
Maximum Day plus Fire Flow velocity 10 feet per second
Peak Hour Maximum Velocity 8 feet per second
Minimum pressure w/ Maximum Day plus fire flow 20 psi @ active fire hydrant Minimum pressure w/Peak hour flow 35 psi
Minimum pipe cover 3 feet

3.12 Budget Information
The City of Bishop provided Nolte Associates with its preliminary budget for the fiscal year 2007-08.

On July 1st of 2006, the water fund had a beginning balance of $746, 067, and the ending balance as of July 1st, 2007 was $935,174. Revenues from the water fund for 2006-07 totaled $1,161,432, and came primarily form the water service collection. Other sources of revenues are interest on bank deposits, water service penalties, and water permits.

The major expenditures of the water fund include: salaries and benefits, supplies and services, and capital improvements. These expenditures added up to $972,325. The Citys debt service ($43,000) is approximately 5% of their annual expenditures.

The approved budget by the Council for the fiscal year 2007-08 for the water fund was $1,087,410.

The proposed capital improvement, equipment, and replacement budget for fiscal year 2007-08 is $347,000.
23 175

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN

3.13 Water Rates and Billing Structure
The City of Bishop collects fees for the water services provided to its residents. The water rates are based on the Single Family Residential User Equivalency (SFRUE), which is $32.00 per month as of July 1, 2007. Water connections are put into categories and are billed on a monthly basis in accordance with their water rate category, as listed in Table 3.5 below. The billing rate is a flat fee, regardless of the amount of water used.

Table 3.5: Water Rate Categories and Monthly Rates
Water Rate Category SFRUE PER
Single Family Residence 1 SFRUE unit
Multiple Family Residence 0.80 SFRUE unit
Church 1 SFRUE plus 1 SFRUE each recreation hall
Hospital 1/3 SFRUE maximum licensed patient bed
capacity
Lodge and Meeting Hall 1 SFRUE plus 1 SFRUE each bar with alcoholic beverage license
Elementary School 0.04 SFRUE ADA
High School 0.04 SFRUE ADA
Other School 0.32 SFRUE ADA
Fairgrounds 7 SFRUE
Service Station 0.40 SFRUE island
Car Wash 3 SFRUE rack
Beauty or Barber Shop 1 SFRUE shop
Bar 0.08 SFRUE unit of seating capacity
Hotel or motel 1 SFRUE Managers quarters plus 0.25
SFRUE per rental unit
Laundries, Commercial 3 SFRUE washing unit
Laundromat with automatic
washers 0.80 SFRUE automatic washer
Restaurant 0.10 SFRUE unit of seating capacity
Trailer Dump Station 2 SFRUE
All Others 1 SFRUE per water closet or per equivalent
fixture unit
Revenues from these charges are used to pay for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and capital expenses. Capital improvements on the water system are necessary to provide satisfactory service to the citizens of Bishop and to meet regulatory agency requirements.

The City ordinance that sets water service charges was last amended in 2004. In 2004, the joint efforts of a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) appointed by the City Council, the City Engineer and a consultant produced new water service charges to fund the increasing O&M and capital improvements costs. These new monthly rates that became effective in 2004 were established based on historical income information gathered by the City. The rates that went into effect in July 2004 included four annual increases through July 2007.

The new monthly rate was divided by the Single Family Residential Unit Equivalent (SFRUE) rate (set by the City) in order to obtain the Citys current number of SFRUEs. The average monthly rate per SFRUE was $30.00 effective as of July 1st, 2006. Proposition 218 activities lead to the last rate increase effective July 1, 2007. The rate was increased to $32.00 per SFRUE. Beyond the last rate 24 176

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
increase in July of 2007, rates will need to increase to offset inflation for the following years. An additional review of rates is planned after the July 2007 increase.

Based on the new rates and the formula below, the City of Bishops approximate annual operating revenue is estimated to be $1.2 million (M). The City offers discounts to low income seniors, collects penalties in others and receives revenue from investments of water funds on hand. The Citys 2004 Rate Study projected operating and maintenance expenses to remain constant from 2006 through 2025 ($1.2M). It will be important to adjust the rates on a yearly basis to account for inflation.

Approx. Annual Operating Revenue = Monthly Service Rate x Number of Equivalent Units x 12 25 177

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN

4.0 Evaluation of Existing Water Facilities
The evaluation section of the Water Master Plan phase intends to identify the deficiencies in the existing water system regarding water sources and water quality, distribution facilities, fire suppression system, potable storage facilities, operations and regulatory requirements.

For purposes of the evaluation, Nolte divided the water system into the main components and assigned each component a letter code. Every deficiency that was identified in the evaluation phase was numbered following the letter code. A solution or comment for every item listed in this chapter is cross referenced in the following chapter (Chapter 5, Development of Alternatives).

Table 4.1: Water Distribution System Components
Component Letter Code
Water Supply and Quality WSQ
Water Distribution WD
Fire Suppression System FR
Water Storage WT
General G
Water Regulatory Requirements RR

4.1 Water Sources and Water Quality
WSQ-1: The City of Bishop currently draws water from Well 4 and Well 2 to supply to its customers. Chlorination takes place at Well 4 and only when Well 4 is operating.

There is no chlorination capacity at Well 2 or at the tank site. If Well 4 is not operating, chlorination does not occur.

The City is considering ceasing chlorination of the potable water system following notification from DPH that chlorination is no longer required.

WSQ-2: Water quality (Cl2) is not automatically monitored at any location throughout the system or at the tank. Sampling is performed manually at four different stations, on a quarterly and monthly basis.

By automatically monitoring chlorine in the system, operators can be notified more rapidly if chlorine levels drop in different parts of the City and address the situation much faster.

Should the City cease chlorination, the installation of such facilities will no longer be required.

WSQ-3: Fluoride levels at Well 1 exceed its respective MCL. The Arsenic concentration in Well 1 is considerable higher than in the other wells. For this reason Well 1 has historically been operated as a stand-by well by California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The bottom 220 feet of the well was recently capped with 26 178

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
concrete to plug zones suspected of supplying water containing significant Fluoride and Arsenic. The capping was not successful at bringing the wells water quality into compliance. This condition leaves the Citys productive wells to Well 2 and Well 4. If either one of the producing wells fails (2 or 4), the remaining well will not be able to supply the required maximum day demand by itself. Well 1 cannot be used for more than 5 consecutive days and/or more than 15 days in a year per CDPH.

WSQ-4: Southern California Edison (SCE), the electric utility, performed Hydraulic test results on Well 4 in March of 2000, April of 2003, June of 2004, and November of 2006. The results of these tests show that the well system has been operating inefficiently for the last six years (< 60%). This inefficiency is most likely caused by pump wear, the failure of the pump design to meet existing conditions or a combination of both.

Table 4.2: SCE Hydraulic Test Results
Parameter 2000 2003 2004 2006
Discharge Pressure (psi) 2 2 2.2 3.7
Standing Water Level, (ft) 75 86.6 100.4 87.9
Discharge Head, (ft) 4.6 4.6 5.1 8.5
Pumping Water Level, (ft) 112.1 117.9 127.6 119.1
Total Head, (ft) 116.7 122.5 132.7 127.6
Capacity, (gpm) 1762 1838 1662 1670
kW Input to Motor 70.8 69.3 69.7 68
HP Input to Motor 94.9 92.9 93.5 91.2
Motor Load (%) 89.3 87.4 88 85.8
Measured Speed of Pump, (rpm) 1787 1785 NA 1784
Overall Eff. (%) 54.7 61.2 59.6 59
The following analysis is an estimate based on the conditions present during the SCE pump test performed in November 7, 2006, billing history of the last 12 months, and the current rate schedule of PA-1 (Agricultural and Pumping Rate with a flat energy charge, based on connected load).

Table 4.3: SCE Estimated Annual Savings
Plant Efficiency
Existing Improved Annual Savings
Total kWh 333,324 273,192 60,132
kW Input 68 55.7 12.3
kWh per Acre Ft 221 181 40
Acre Ft. per Year 1507
Avg. Cost per kWh $0.15
Avg. Cost per Acre Ft. $33.36 $27.34 $6.02
Overall Plant Eff. (%) 59 72
Total Annual Cost $50,285.26 $41,213.78 $9,071.48
27 179

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN

4.2 Water Distribution System
WD-1: Not used.

WD-2: A hydraulic test was performed on Well 2 on November of 2006. The results of this test were inconclusive due to the inability to perform the test in the appropriate location. The test location did not meet industry standards (8-10 diameters of uninterrupted pipe lengths for the ideal test location per SCE).

WD-3: The existing 12 inch transmission main that runs east from the 1 MG storage tank along Highway 168 into the City is undersized. Friction losses through this line are high and significantly reduce system pressure prior to reaching distribution branches in the network during high demand periods. This pressure drop is exacerbated by the small diameter pipes and insufficient number of pipelines within in the City.

This deficiency is further described in WD-5 and WD-6.

Pressure drops can be diminished by feeding the water system from existing and/or proposed wells. Alternatives to address distribution system limitations are described in Section 5.

Table 4.4 shows the results of the fire hydrant tests performed in October of 2003 by the City of Bishop Fire Department:

Table 4.4: Fire Hydrant Test Results (2003)
Hydrant
ID Location Static Pressure (psi) GPM 20 psi
I FAC 2 1180 N Main/HW 395
Southeast of Smart and Final 55 862
I SPR 15 Spruce Street east of Mac Iver
Street 65 1056
I SPR 16 Spruce Street/South East of
Caltrans Yard 65 957
I SPR 17 Spruce Street and Wye Road 65 957
I WYE 4 Wye Road north of K-mart 60 1007
*Required fire flow for sprinklered buildings is 1,500 gpm The model demonstrated that significant pressure drop occur during high demands between the tank and the City.

WD-4: The fill line to the 1 MG storage tank from Well 4 empties when Well 4 is not running and operates at low and possibly negative pressures when the pump is running. These conditions leave the system more susceptible to groundwater contamination.

WD-5: There are several dead end pipelines within the water system which cause water to stagnate at different locations. Looping of these pipelines would eliminate stagnant water and improve conveyance capacity. The multiple pipe sizes include 2-inch, 4- inch, and 6-inch diameters which reduce fire suppression capacity, require storage of additional material and sizes in the event of pipe failure, and contains materials that area more susceptible to corrosion and leaks.
28 180

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
WD-6: Pressure drops within the system are considerable between the location of the tank (Highway 168) and Well 2. Localized drops cannot be detected. The main reasons for these pressure drops to occur can be attributed to the differences in elevation between the tank and Well 2, long runs of small diameter pipes (2, 4 and 6 inches), and the long run of the 12 inch pipe between the tank and the town.

Many existing water mains in the City of Bishop are too small to provide adequate fire flows. Many water mains are in poor condition, are old, and of out-of-date materials. Many of these lines require frequent repair and could cause water quality concerns. It can be difficult to stock the variety of materials necessary to repair older and small diameter parts of the system.

In and of itself, multiple pipe sizes and materials do not constitute a need for replacement. Uniformity of sizes and materials should be a goal that is achieved through pipe replacement brought on by hydraulic, structural, or water quality deficiencies.

WD-7: System valves need to be replaced on a regular program. This will help ensure that valves will be operational when required. Given the amount of 2-inch, 4-inch, and 6-inch lines to be replaced, the valve replacement program can concentrate in these areas for the next several years.

WD-8: Not used.

WD-9: Distances between sewer laterals and water services are often small and could allow contamination.

4.3 Fire Suppression System
FR-1: Pressures and flows at Vons and K-mart do not meet fire suppression requirements during simulated fire demands. Required fire flows are derived from the California Fire Code, based on the square footage of the building/structure in which the fire event is taking place. The Bishop Fire Department tested the fire hydrants at Vons and K-mart in October of 2003. The minimum fire flow requirement is 1,500 gpm if the structure is sprinklered. However, the shopping center area where the K-mart and Vons are located can only achieve low flows below 1,000 gpm at 20 psi..

Based on conversations with the City of Bishop Fire Chief, Ray Seguine, some hydrants are connected to small branches which cannot convey the required flows to combat a fire. As a result, pressures drop below required minimum levels, even at flows less than the minimum requirements. A specific concern of the Fire is Willow Street east of Whitney Alley. There are 1,910 LF of 4-in pipe along Willow Street and there are two fire hydrants connected to this line. This creates a localized and significant pressure drop when these hydrants are activated. This situation also happens at other locations within the City.

FR-2: Existing fire hydrants are of multiple types. They should be of one standard configuration to standardize hose fittings, facilitate hook up, increase system uniformity, and reduce reserve inventory requirements. The City is replacing nonuniform hydrants on a planned basis and when they break. 29 181

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN

4.4 Water Storage Facilities
WT-1: An inspection of the tank was performed in September of 2005 by Liquivison Technology Diving Services. It was determined that the components of the tank were in good condition. Problems were mostly cosmetic and repairs were optional.

Rust and corrosion was evident in random and isolated locations on the interior floor and on the interior inlet and outlet pipe.

Some paint peeling was evident adjacent to the wall to ceiling weld seam near the upper interior ladder and entry hatch.

WT-2: Currently the City of Bishop owns and operates only one storage tank. This tank set the static pressure for the entire City (one pressure zone). There is no back up or secondary storage facility.

A secondary storage tank can help mitigate unforeseen events that might sever the 12-inch pipe between the tank and the City (earthquake, accident along Highway 168, etc).

If new connections were to be established to the water system (population growth, new businesses, etc), the additional number of connections will require that the City install a second storage facility. The City currently has 1,170 connections. If the Indian Creek service area is added, 211 new connections will be incorporated, bringing the total to 1,381. The existing tank has just enough capacity to supply water for the existing and future Indian Creek CSD users. Adding the new customers to the system will increase the maximum day demand. A secondary storage tank will be required.

The volume deficiency could be significantly lowered if usage were brought down to a more typical level for a community of this make up.

Based on current production records, the maximum day demand for the City of Bishop is (MDD) is 4 million gallons. The required water storage can be estimated using San Diego Water Agencies Standards, or CDPH procedures for determining needed storage volume. Table 4.5 shows the recommended storage volume for each methodology.

Table 4.5: Recommended Storage Volume
San Diego Water Agencies' Standards
Existing Storage
(gallons)
Operational Storage
(gallons)
Fire Storage
(gallons)
Emergency
Storage (gallons) Deficit (gallons)

0.3xMDD 4000 gpm x 2 hours 0.2xMDD (OS+FS+ES)-ExS
1,000,000 1,200,000 480,000 800,000 1,480,000
California Department of Public Health
Existing Storage
(gallons)
Needed Storage
(gallons) Deficit (gallons)
1170 Connections (NS-ExS)
1,000,000 1,850,000 850,000
30 182

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
WT-3: The City operates the water distribution system utilizing legacy telemetry hardware.

The storage tank and Well 4 use dedicated lease lines for communications. All other facilities are stand alone systems. There are no provisions for the automatic gathering and reporting of system data or operator access to operate the entire system from one location.

A communications system between water system facilities (tanks, wells, flow meters, sensors, etc.) needs to be installed to in order to track the behavior of the system and the operating conditions (i.e. water level at tank, pumping demands, etc.) and to allow operators to remotely control the system. This improvement will increase the systems reliability, reduce labor costs and reduce response time to system alarms.

4.5 General Water System Evaluation
G-1: Billing System: The City does not have an automated payment system to bill its water customers. Bills are sent by mail and payment is received in the mail. This process is inefficient and time consuming: cashing checks, sending out bills, postage, etc. Several automated paying options are described below. Some of the financial benefits of automating payments are: obtain deposits faster, improve cash flow, accrue interest sooner and reduce labor costs.

G-2: Public Works Yard: This property could be better utilized by another City facility or by a private entity. This could increase the Citys revenue by selling the property, increased sales tax and increased property tax. The Department of Public Works yard is located in downtown Bishop next to City Hall. It is utilized for the storage of pipes, valves, backhoes & other equipment, and used to accommodate employee parking, offices, and the maintenance shop.

G-3: Energy Efficiency: Currently, well pumps and motors do not operate under an energy savings schedule; hence energy costs for well operations are not optimized.

Operations costs could be reduced if operations were modified. SCE performs periodical rate schedule analyses based on the billing of the last 12 months.

G-4: Emergency Interconnections: There is a potential for impact to service if the power goes out or there is a major water system shut down. The City has the 1 MG storage tank but no emergency interconnections have been established with nearby agencies. An emergency interconnection should be established to ensure a more reliable system.

The Indian Creek Community Services District water system has 770 customers (people) and 210 service connections. The Indian Creek CSD has the excess capacity that the City of Bishop could perhaps benefit from.

The Bishop Paiute Tribe has shown interest in establishing and emergency interconnection with the City of Bishop.

G-5: Water Conservations and Time of Use Plan: Based on the Consumer Confidence Report of 2005 and the City of Bishops water consumption records, the average per capita water demand has exceeded 400 gallons per capita per day for the last seven years. These amounts are almost doubled during hot summer months.
31 183

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
Keeping in mind that the City receives many tourists all year round, especially during summer, this number does not represent the real per capita water demand of Bishops residents. Nevertheless, this average is considerably high for a population of less than 4,000.

Reducing water consumption and decreasing peak consumption will improve system performances and reduce operating costs.

Estimating the amount of water that is consumed by restaurants and lodging establishments is complex due to the fact that no meters are utilized to record water consumption. An approximation can be obtained by calculating the number of Single Family Residential Unit Equivalents (SFRUE) that these establishments make up for. Based on the water and sewer accounts provided by the City, lodging and food establishments are the equivalent of 15% of the average daily demand in the City. This corresponds to 240,000 gallons per day.

G-6: The current City of Bishop Water and Sewer Standard Specifications were prepared in 1991 and have not been revised or amended since then to include up to date construction and materials provisions.

4.6 Regulatory Requirements
Nolte contacted Eric Zuñiga from CDPH and discussed foreseeable regulations that the City of Bishop should consider when implementing improvements to the existing water distribution system.

Also, Nolte obtained recent tests results from the COBs wells from SCE. This information facilitated the assessment and adequacy of COB existing drinking water supply.

RR-1: Required Storage Capacity: Based on SCEs Hydraulic Test Results performed in November of 2007 on Bishops water system, it was determined that two of their operating wells were active (Well 2 and Well 4). The combined capacity of these two wells is 4.45 MGD (3,092 gpm). Based on the number of service connections (1170) for a flat rate water system, the required storage capacity is 1,850,000 gallons (per Title 22 California Code of Regulations).

RR-2: The status of Well 1 was set as stand-by; due to the concentrations of Fluoride this well is inactive. It is only used for emergency/fire suppression purposes by the City of Bishop. It cannot be used for more than 5 consecutive days and/or more than 15 days in a year per CDPH. The production capacity of Well 1 is not included in the calculation of the total capacity of the wells. There are no backup sources of water; if either Well 4 or Well 2 goes down, the maximum day demand cannot be met by only one of the active wells.

RR-3: Federal Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR):

The federal disinfection/disinfection by-products rule became effective June 17, 2006 for groundwater systems and all systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.

The Stage 2 DBP rule builds upon earlier rules that addressed disinfection byproducts to improve drinking water quality and provide additional public health protection from disinfection byproducts. This rule strengthens public health protection for customers by tightening compliance monitoring requirements for two groups of DBPs, trihalomethanes (TTHM) and five halo acetic acids (HAA5).

These halogenated compounds form when chlorine is used in drinking waters for disinfection and chlorine oxidizes organic material. According to the EPA, these are 32 184

CITY OF BISHOP

WATER MASTER PLAN
believed to be carcinogenic compounds. The rule targets systems water systems that add and /or deliver water that is treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than UV light.

Because of the low concentration of organic material in the Citys water, the potential for Disinfection by Products formation is consistently low. Therefore, the City should comply with the testing requirements of the Federal Stage 2 DBP Rule. 33 185
Appendix B
Bishop Specifications (Excerpt)
186
187
188
Appendix C
Select Bishop Standard Details for Public Works Construction 189
190
191
192
Appendix D
California Fire Code (CFC) 2019, Appendix B
193
194
195
196
197
198
Appendix E
Alternative Project NPVs
199
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company 30 Year Net Present Value Calculation Alternative 1
Consolidation of Brookside and Bishop
Initial cost: Adj. 30 yr O&M: Net Present Value:
$3,519,000 + $144,000 = $3,663,000
Operations and Maintenance Quantity Unit Period Cost/Unit Annual Cost Overhaul Cost Notes General Labor hour Week $0.00 Included in service fee
Electricity kW-hr Day $0.00 Included in service fee
Chemicals LS Year $0.00 Included in service fee
Water Service Fee 21 services Month $33.00 $8,316.00 Bishop monthly fee for water service Years
Full Overhaul Materials LS 10 $0.00 Included in service fee Overhaul Labor hour 10 $0.00 Included in service fee
Equipment Replacement LS 7 $0.00 Included in service fee Totals: $8,316.00 $0.00
Calculations of Annual Costs:

Assumed Discount Rate: 4% Year NPV Ann. Cost NPV O/H Cost:
1 $7,996.15
2 $7,688.61
3 $7,392.89
4 $7,108.55
5 $6,835.15
6 $6,572.26
7 $6,319.48
8 $6,076.42
9 $5,842.71
10 $5,617.99 $0.00
11 $5,401.92
12 $5,194.15
13 $4,994.37
14 $4,802.28
15 $4,617.58
16 $4,439.98
17 $4,269.21
18 $4,105.01
19 $3,947.13
20 $3,795.31 $0.00
21 $3,649.34
22 $3,508.98
23 $3,374.02
24 $3,244.25
25 $3,119.47
26 $2,999.49
27 $2,884.13
28 $2,773.20
29 $2,666.54
30 $2,563.98 $0.00
Total: $143,800.55 $0.00
200
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company 30 Year Net Present Value Calculation Alternative 2
Consolidation of Brookside, Ranch Road, and Bishop
Initial cost: Adj. 30 yr O&M: Net Present Value:
$4,977,000 + $329,000 = $5,306,000
Operations and Maintenance Quantity Unit Period Cost/Unit Annual Cost Overhaul Cost Notes General Labor hour Week $0.00 Included in service fee
Electricity kW-hr Day $0.00 Included in service fee
Chemicals LS Year $0.00 Included in service fee
Water Service Fee 48 services Month $33.00 $19,008.00 Bishop monthly fee for water service Years
Full Overhaul Materials LS 10 $0.00 Included in service fee Overhaul Labor hour 10 $0.00 Included in service fee
Equipment Replacement LS 7 $0.00 Included in service fee Totals: $19,008.00 $0.00
Calculations of Annual Costs:

Assumed Discount Rate: 4% Year NPV Ann. Cost NPV O/H Cost:
1 $18,276.92
2 $17,573.96
3 $16,898.04
4 $16,248.12
5 $15,623.19
6 $15,022.30
7 $14,444.52
8 $13,888.96
9 $13,354.77
10 $12,841.12 $0.00
11 $12,347.23
12 $11,872.34
13 $11,415.71
14 $10,976.65
15 $10,554.47
16 $10,148.53
17 $9,758.20
18 $9,382.88
19 $9,022.00
20 $8,675.00 $0.00
21 $8,341.35
22 $8,020.53
23 $7,712.05
24 $7,415.43
25 $7,130.22
26 $6,855.98
27 $6,592.29
28 $6,338.74
29 $6,094.94
30 $5,860.52 $0.00
Total: $328,686.97 $0.00
201
Brookside Estates Mutual Water Company 30 Year Net Present Value Calculation Alternative 3
Consolidation of Brookside, Ranch Road, Sierra Highlands, Park West, BMHP, and Bishop Initial cost: Adj. 30 yr O&M: Net Present Value:
$21,572,000 + $2,575,000 = $24,147,000
Operations and Maintenance Quantity Unit Period Cost/Unit Annual Cost Overhaul Cost Notes General Labor hour Week $0.00 Included in service fee
Electricity kW-hr Day $0.00 Included in service fee
Chemicals LS Year $0.00 Included in service fee
Water Service Fee 376 services Month $33.00 $148,896.00 Bishop monthly fee for water service Years
Full Overhaul Materials LS 10 $0.00 Included in service fee Overhaul Labor hour 10 $0.00 Included in service fee
Equipment Replacement LS 7 $0.00 Included in service fee Totals: $148,896.00 $0.00
Calculations of Annual Costs:

Assumed Discount Rate: 4% Year NPV Ann. Cost NPV O/H Cost:
1 $143,169.23
2 $137,662.72
3 $132,368.00
4 $127,276.92
5 $122,381.66
6 $117,674.67
7 $113,148.72
8 $108,796.85
9 $104,612.35
10 $100,588.80 $0.00
11 $96,720.00
12 $93,000.00
13 $89,423.08
14 $85,983.73
15 $82,676.66
16 $79,496.79
17 $76,439.22
18 $73,499.25
19 $70,672.36
20 $67,954.19 $0.00
21 $65,340.57
22 $62,827.47
23 $60,411.03
24 $58,087.53
25 $55,853.39
26 $53,705.18
27 $51,639.60
28 $49,653.46
29 $47,743.71
30 $45,907.42 $0.00
Total: $2,574,714.59 $0.00
202
Appendix F
DFA Responses to Funding Questions
203
DFA Responses to Brookside Funding QuesƟons
From our understanding, funding is not available in any way directly to Brookside Estates, including DWSRF because they are not a DAC. Is this true for planning? Is this the case for construcƟon? Answer: Does Brookside Estates think they are not DAC? Or is this based on DFA's MHI DeterminaƟon? If it is strictly based on DFA’s MHI DeterminaƟon, we can check current ACS data to update the MHI DeterminaƟon.

If the system has an MHI < 150% of statewide MHI, they can receive DWSRF construcƟon grant funding if the project is a Category A-D project or a consolidaƟon project. Refer to our 2023-2024 DWSRF Intended Use Plan (IUP) in Appendix D and Appendix E for current planning and construcƟon grant eligibility. If help is needed, TA can be requested to assist with planning.

Individual well owners in the report are not classified as disadvantaged, based on the “DAC Mapping Tool”. Therefore, they would not be eligible for any grant funding. Is that correct? Answer: As stated in our DWRSF Fact Sheet, projects that consist of consolidaƟon of homes not currently served by a PWS, work on private property associated with the residences, including items such as laterals, well destrucƟon, or backflow prevenƟon, can qualify for grant/PF if the community being consolidated is a DAC. If the MHI data for the community doesn’t appear representaƟve for some or all the households served by the consolidaƟon project, household income verificaƟon may be required.

Also, wanted to note that DFA would need to do an MHI DeterminaƟon to officially determine if the individual well owners are indeed not disadvantaged.

Comments from Division of Drinking Water indicate that connecƟon fees are eligible for grant funding.

What sort of funding is available? Who is eligible for the funding? Answer: The maximum amount per connecƟon is to $60,000 per connecƟon and up to $80,000 per connecƟon with Deputy Director approval. The Deputy Director of DFA may also approve financing for construcƟon projects with a total eligible project cost up to $6,000,000 regardless of the amount per connecƟon.

The following enƟƟes are eligible - Small DAC; Eligible Non-Transient Non-Community (NTNC) That Serves a Small DAC; Expanded Small DAC, Medium DAC; or Small Non-DAC with MHI < 150% of Statewide MHI.

All this informaƟon can be found in Appendix E of our IUP.

What type of consolidaƟon project would the City of Bishop be able to implement if the nearby systems are not DAC?
Answer: The City of Bishop can consolidate Small Non-DACs with MHI < 150% of Statewide MHI. If the systems are above the 150% of the state-wide MHI, then they would only be eligible for loans. Please refer to Appendix E of our IUP for types of communiƟes that are grant eligible. 204
IncenƟve Project Related QuesƟons:

Could Brookside Estates be included in an incenƟve project for the City of Bishop? Could any other consolidaƟon project be considered an incenƟve project? Answer: An incenƟve project is a drinking water construcƟon project, oŌen separate from a consolidaƟon project, that solely benefits a Receiving Water System. ConsolidaƟon is what allows the receiving water system to be eligible for an incenƟve project. More informaƟon on how the City of Bishop can apply for an incenƟve project can be found in our IUP on pages 22/23.

Does the incenƟve project need to benefit a DAC to qualify for the grant funding? Answer: No, it does not need to benefit a DAC but grant funding is dependent on the DAC status of the subsumed system. Refer to the IUP for more informaƟon on grant and 0% loans for incenƟve projects.

What consolidaƟon project capital costs are eligible for grant funding without an incenƟve project? Answer: 100% of all project capital costs are eligible for grant funding within the grant limits. This is separate from an incenƟve project.
205
Agenda Item: 9.B
Date of Meeting: April 8, 2024
Department: Public Works
To: City Council
From: Nora Gamino
Subject: Active Transportation Program Grant Funding Support Task Order with Eastern Sierra Engineering
Prepared On: March 21, 2024
Attachments: ESE Task Order 2 for ATP Cycle 7 Support

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

The City of Bishop is applying for grant funding under the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 7 Programming. In this Cycle, the ATP is requiring Infrastructure Projects to include a Project Study Report (PSR) or PSR equivalent as part of the application.

The Project Study Report is an engineering document, written to provide stakeholders, decision-makers and project team members with a broad understanding of the proposed project. The PSR informs the reader of key assumptions and issues regarding the commitments on the scope, schedule, and estimated cost of the ATP Grant Funding being proposed.

Analysis/Discussion:

The Project Study Report is a mandatory attachment for all infrastructure ATP grant applications. City staff does not have the capacity to complete this work in-house and therefore the existing On-Call Engineering Services agreement will be utilized. If the PSR is not completed, the City will be unable to apply for ATP funds and possibly other funding sources should the ATP application be unsuccessful.

The scope of this task order has been developed such that there are six segments that will be studied. Each segment will be its own stand-alone PSR chapter so that the project can be broken down into smaller projects if necessary. If the Cycle 7 ATP grant application does not receive funding, then these six smaller PSRs could individually be used to pursue smaller grants or combined in other ways for future grant funding applications. PSRs are also a requirement to receive State Transportation Improvement Program funding.

The scope of work, as described in the task order is $52,578.00. An additional 10% contingency should also be made available to cover unforeseen additional scope if necessary. 206
Economic Impacts:

If the grant application is successful, the City will implement a transformative project aimed at cultivating a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly environment citywide. This initiative will encourage social interaction by providing a safe route for residents and school students. The project will also contribute to sustainable urban development by promoting compactness, congestion and emissions reductions, and green spaces.

Budget Impacts:

This item is included in the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year Budget in the General Fund under Street Maintenance, Capital Improvement, budget line item 001-023-56027. Additionally, it is expected that some of this cost will be reimbursed by the Local Transportation Commission, although the exact amount is currently unknown.

Legal Review:

Not required
Recommended Action:

Council consideration to:

2. Approve an additional not-to-exceed 10% contingency amount of $5,257.80.

Approved By: Ethan Aukee 4/2/2024
Approved By: Robin Picken 4/2/2024
Approved By: Deston Dishion 4/3/2024
Approved By:
207

CITY OF BISHOP
377 West Line Street - Bishop, California 93514
P. O. Box 1236 - Bishop, California 93515
City Hall 760-873-5863 Public Works 760-873-8458
Fax 760-873-4873
ESE-TO-2
ATP Grant Funding Support Page 1 of 4
Eastern Sierra Engineering Task Order 2
for As Needed, On-Call Engineering and Surveying Services Date: March 15, 2024
Consultant: Eastern Sierra Engineering (ESE)
Contract No: ESE-TO-2
Project Title: Active Transportation Program Grant Funding Support Not to Exceed Fee: $52,578
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of Bishop is actively applying for grant funding under the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 7 Programming. In this Cycle, the ATP is requiring Infrastructure Projects to include a Project Study Report (PSR) or PSR equivalent as part of the application.

B. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following items are included in the scope of services:

1. Project Study Report Equivalent (PSRE) for inclusion into the ATP Grant Application:
a. Project Narratives for each active transportation segment b. Plans & Cross-Sections of each proposed active transportation segment
c. Cost Estimate of each proposed active transportation segment. d. Project Schedule (all phases of the project)

2. Attachment A of the ATP Grant Application: Project Location Map & Proposed Improvements
208
ESE-TO-2
ATP Grant Funding Support Page 2 of 4

3. Attachment B of the ATP Grant Application: ATP Engineer’s Checklist

4. Attachment for the ATP Grant Application: State Highways Project Impact Assessment Form

5. Attachment for the ATP Grant Application: Crash Safety Data & Collision Maps and Countermeasures

6. Attachment for the ATP Grant Funding Application: Project Schedule and Funding (PPR).

7. Attachment for the ATP Grant Funding Application: Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report:
a. Discussion of environmental resources and a description of potential project impacts
b. Description of studies that are needed to complete an environmental evaluation (noting as necessary any seasonal constraints for the studies).
c. A recommended environmental determination/documentation and a tentative schedule for its completion.
d. Identified permits or approvals
C. ASSUMPTIONS AND PROVIDED DOCUMENTS

1. No permits are required for this scope of work.

2. No Geotechnical report or test borings are required.

3. City will provide GIS data for existing infrastructure in the vicinity of the project, including storm drain, water, and sewer.

D. PROPOSED PROJECT SCHDULE & DELIVERABLES
The City shall own all deliverables. All design products shall be delivered as AutoCAD, including all external references and attachments, and PDF formats.

Documents shall be in Word format and cost estimates shall be in Excel format.

Deliverables include:

1. Project Study Report Equivalent that includes:
a. Project Location Map
b. Map of Bishop with proposed improvements
209
ESE-TO-2
ATP Grant Funding Support Page 3 of 4
c. Plans/Cross-Sections of each segment of work along with a narrative of improvements for each segment.
d. Cost Estimate, Project Schedule (overall project and per segment) e. Crash, Safety Data & Collision Maps and Countermeasures f. Attachment B - ATP Engineering Checklist: sealed & stamped by a Professional Engineer
g. Preliminary Environmental Assessment
h. Structural Assessment

2. Public Outreach
a. The provision of visual materials and additional support. It is assumed that there will be 3 Public Outreach engagements for this Task Order.

Dates listed below are for reference and outreaches can be scheduled within a week of dates listed.

Task
Number Task Name Anticipated Delivery Date
1 Project Study Report Equivalent – Final Document June 10, 2024 Preliminary Drawings & Presentation Materials April 10, 2024 Draft 60% PSRE (benchmark) May 16, 2024
Draft 90% PSRE (benchmark) May 30, 2024
2 Public Outreach 1 April 11, 2024
2 Public Outreach 2 April 18, 2024
2 Public Outreach 3 April 25, 2024
E. FEES
The total cost to complete the work included in the Scope of Services shall not exceed $52,578 without written authorization. This work and any additional work outside the Scope of Services will be billed on a time and materials basis based on the fee schedule attached as EXHIBIT A.

F. CONTACT PERSON
City of Bishop Consultant
Nora Gamino Bryan Elkins
Public Works Director Senior Engineer
760-873-8459 (760) 920-4948
[email protected] [email protected]
210
ESE-TO-2
ATP Grant Funding Support Page 4 of 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Task Order has been executed under the provisions of the As Needed, On-Call Civil Engineering Service Agreement between the City of Bishop and Eastern Sierra Engineering that was executed on July 1, 2023. By the signatures below, the parties hereto agree that all terms and conditions of this Task Order and previously agreed upon On-Call Service Agreement shall be in full force and effect.
________________________________
Nora Gamino
Public Works Director
City of Bishop
________________________________
Jennifer Roman, P.E.

California PE No. C054137
Senior Engineer
Eastern Sierra Engineering
______________
Date
______________
Date
03/22/2024
211

EXHIBIT A
Fee Schedule
Eastern Sierra Engineering
Proposal Dated: March 15, 2024
212
Personnel
Description
Principal Engineer
Senior Engineer
Staff Engineer
Senior Drafter
Non-Labor Costs
Project Lead
Planning Director
Operations Director
Lead Biologist
CEQA Counsel
Sub-Consultant
Cost
Sub-Consultant
Costs
Project Hours
Project Cost
Hourly
Rate $260 $190 $130 $120 - $220 $210 $190 $180 $320
Meetings w/ City 8Vicinity Map 46Map of Bishop w/ proposed improvements (7 segements) 4 6Maps of SRTS & Disadvange communities 4 6Attachment: State Hwys Project Impact Assessment Form 2Site Visit (Photographs & Measurements) 9Project Layout/Plans (Preliminary & Proposed) 20 48Cross Sections (Existing & Proposed) 27 50Cost Estimate 18Vicinity Map each proposed Segment 12 12Segment Design/Narrative/Engineering 18Structural Analysis 4,500 Preliminary Environmental Assessement $3,080Attachment B: ATP Engineers Checklist 2 0 128 0 128 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 256
Task 1 Eastern Sierra Subtotal Cost $0 $24,320 $0 $15,360 $0 ----------------- $39,680 Task 1 Subconsultant Cost - - - - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,080 $0 $0 $0 $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,580 Attendance and support for Public Outreach 24
0 24 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 24
Task 2 Eastern Sierra Subtotal Cost $0 $4,560 $0 $0 $0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $4,560 Task 2 Subconsultant Cost - - - - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Hours 280
Total Eastern Sierra Costs $44,240
Total Sub-Consultant Labor Costs $7,580
Subconsultant Markup 10% $758
Project Total $52,578
As Needed, On-Call Engineering and Surveying Services
City of Bishop
Eastern Sierra Engineering Task Order #2: Active Transportation Program Grant Funding Support Scope & Cost Proposal
Eastern Sierra Engineering Geode Environmental Ashley & Vance Task Description
Task 1: Project Study Report Equivalent
Task 1 Subtotal Hours
Task 2: Public Outreach
Task 2 Subtotal Hours
213
Agenda Item: 9.C
Date of Meeting: April 8, 2024
Department: Administration
To: City Council
From: Robin Picken
Subject: A Resolution Opposing Initiative #21-0042A1, a November 2024 Statewide Ballot Proposition.

Prepared On: March 19, 2024
Attachments: Resolution - Opposing Initiative #21-0042A1, a November 2024 Statewide Ballot Proposition

STAFF REPORT
Background/History:

Initiative #21-0042A1 is a November 2024 statewide ballot proposition. The measure is a significant threat to local control and voters’ rights that could jeopardize funding for vital services.

Analysis/Discussion:

This measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, which could force residents and taxpayers to pay more to maintain services.

The measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk, and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, services to support parks, and much more.

The measure is also an attack on voters’ rights, containing undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures to fund local services, provisions that retroactively cancel measures recently passed by voters, and provisions that prevent voters from passing advisory measures that provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent.

Furthermore, the measure contains intentionally vague and restrictive language that will encourage hundreds of frivolous lawsuits against cities and local governments - costing taxpayers millions and blocking investments, development and long-term planning.

Economic Impacts:

Unknown at this time. However, the passing of this measure has the potential to limit the City’s ability to earn revenue in the future which can have a direct economic effect in reducing 214
the amount of services provided by the City.

Budget Impacts:

Unknown at this time. However, the passing of this measure has the potential to significantly limit the City’s ability to earn revenue in the future.

Legal Review:

City Attorney Pucci has reviewed this item and finds that the recommended action complies with the law.

Recommended Action:

Council consideration to approve the proposed resolution opposing Initiative #21-0042A1, a November 2024 statewide ballot proposition.

Approved By: Ethan Aukee 3/20/2024
Approved By:

Approved By:

Approved By:
215
City of Bishop Resolution No. 2024-___ Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BISHOP, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING INITIATIVE #21-0042A1 “THE

TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT” STATE BALLOT MEASURE RESTRICTING VOTERS’ INPUT AND

LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is spending tens of millions of dollars to promote a deceptive ballot measure currently eligible for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure creates constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, which could force residents and taxpayers to pay more to maintain services; and WHEREAS, the measure threatens billions of dollars every year in local government funding for services like fire and emergency response, law enforcement, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and WHEREAS, the measure is an attack on voters’ rights, containing undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures to fund services, provisions that retroactively cancel measures recently passed by voters, and provisions that prevent voters from passing advisory measures that provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS, the measure contains intentionally restrictive language that will encourage hundreds of frivolous lawsuits against cities and local governments – costing taxpayers many millions and stopping investments in vital local services; and WHEREAS, the measure would make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure is opposed by hundreds of local governments, teachers, firefighters, working families and local elected officials.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bishop, California opposes Initiative #21-0042A1;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Bishop, California will join the “Stop the Corporate Tax Trick” coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups throughout the state. 216
City of Bishop Resolution No. 2024-___ Page 2
We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8
th day of April 2024.
__________________________________
Jose Garcia, Mayor
ATTEST: ____________________
Robin Picken, City Clerk
217

Bishop City CouncilApril 8, 2024

Bishop City Council
April 8, 2024