Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-03-18 Board Packet
1 OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DISTRICT BOARDROOM 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY January 3, 2018 3:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PRESENTATION OF RECOGNITION PLAQUE TO BOARD PRESIDENT 4. ELECTION OF BOARD PRESIDENT As per Chapter 2, Section 1.03.B, Procedure for Election, of the District’s Code of Ordinances, the General Manager shall chair the proceedings for election of the President. The newly-elected President shall assume office immediately and shall chair the proceedings for the election of the Vice President and Treasurer. 5. ELECTION OF BOARD VICE PRESIDENT 6. ELECTION OF BOARD TREASURER 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 8. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS OF SEP- TEMBER 6, 2017 AND OCTOBER 4, 2017 AND SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA 10. RECESS OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING 11. CONVENE OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION BOARD MEETING 2 12. ROLL CALL 13. ELECTION OF OFFICERS a) PRESIDENT b) VICE-PRESIDENT c) TREASURER 14. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS a) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR b) CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER c) SECRETARY 15. ADJOURN OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION BOARD MEETING 16. CONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD MEET- ING 17. ROLL CALL 18. APPOINT OFFICERS OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AU- THORITY a) PRESIDENT b) VICE-PRESIDENT c) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR d) TREASURER/AUDITOR e) SECRETARY 19. ADJOURN OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD MEET- ING 20. RECONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING CONSENT CALENDAR 21. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PARTICULAR ITEM: a) APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO SUNROAD AUTO LLC DBA KEARNY PEARSON FORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $168,069.10 FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIVE (5) REPLACEMENT HALF- TON TRUCKS 3 b) APPROVE THE JOINT POWERS AGENCY AMENDED AND RESTATED WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN OPERATION AGREEMENT THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023 c) APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT WITH AIRX UTILITY SUR-VEYORS, INC. FOR AS-NEEDED UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $500,000 FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) FISCAL YEARS (FY), FY 2018 THROUGH FY 2020 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2021) ACTION ITEMS 22. ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS a) APPROVE THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT REPORT AND VERI-FICATION DATED NOVEMBER 2017 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DI- EGO OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 14 AND PLANNING AREA 16/19 PRO- JECT, AS REQUIRED BY SENATE BILLS 610 AND 221 (COBURN- BOYD) 23. BOARD a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4341 OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUPPORTING MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS THROUGH THE ELIMINATION OF THE PURCHASE AND USE OF BOT-TLED WATER EXCEPT IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY WHEN MUNICIPAL WATER IS NOT AVAILABLE (PRESIDENT ROBAK) b) DISCUSSION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY 8, DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND GROUP IN-SURANCE BENEFITS c) DISCUSSION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMITTEE APPOINT- MENTS d) DISCUSSION OF THE 2018 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR INFORMATIONAL ITEM 24. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMA-TIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS: a) UPDATE ON THE NON-CONFORMANCE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE 20-INCH RECYCLED WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF 4 THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 EAST, OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 HER- ITAGE ROAD, AND OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 2 NORTH DEVELOPER PROJECTS (MARTIN) b) INFORMATIONAL UPDATE FOR THE ROSARITO DESALINATION PLANT AND THE OTAY MESA CONVEYANCE AND DISINFECTION SYSTEM PROJECTS (KENNEDY) c) PRESENT INFORMATION GATHERED AND PREPARED IN EVALUAT-ING SEISMIC RISK STUDIES AND THE POTENTIAL RISKS FROM A SEISMIC EVENT (KENNEDY) d) FIRST QUARTER UPDATE ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 CAPITAL IM- PROVEMENT PROGRAM (MARTIN) REPORTS 25. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 26. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE 27. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS 28. PRESIDENT’S REPORT/REQUESTS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 29. CLOSED SESSION a) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PERIODIC AND CUSTOMARY REVIEW IN DUE COURSE [GOVERNMENT CODE §54957.6] TITLE: GENERAL COUNSEL b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – PENDING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] MARK COZIAHR, ET AL. vs. OTAY WATER DISTRICT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, ET AL.; CASE NO. 37-2015-00023413 c) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS [GOVERNMENT CODE §54957.6] AGENCY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: BOARD AD HOC COM-MITTEE MEMBERS 5 EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: OTAY WATER DISTRICT EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION AND ALL REPRESENTED AND UNREPRESENTED PERSONNEL INCLUD- ING MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 30. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION 31. ADJOURNMENT All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board. The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the District’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District Secretary by contacting her at (619) 670-2280. If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to participate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at (619) 670-2280 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Certification of Posting I certify that on December 29, 2017, I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at least 72 hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Section §54954.2). Executed at Spring Valley, California on December 29, 2017. /s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT September 6, 2017 1. The meeting was called to order by President Robak at 3:40 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Directors Present: Croucher, Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, Attorney Jeanne Blumenfield, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Administration Adolfo Segura, Chief of Operations Pedro Porras, Asst. Chief of Operations Jose Martinez, Assistant Chief of Finance Kevin Koeppen, District Secretary Susan Cruz and others per attached list. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Director Croucher, and seconded by Director Smith and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the agenda. 5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF MAY 3, 2017 AND JUNE 7, 2017; AND SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF MAY 24, 2017 A motion was made by Director Smith, and seconded by Director Gastelum and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the minutes of the regular meetings of May 3, 2017 and June 7, 2017, and special board meeting of May 24, 2017. 2 6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA Mr. Larry Olds of El Cajon indicated that September is Childhood Cancer Awareness month. He stated that only a small percentage of Federal research dollars is allocated to childhood cancers and, thus, it is important to get the word out to encourage more people to get involved to help our children. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PARTICULAR ITEM: A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Gastelum and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the following consent calendar items: a) AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ORTIZ CORPORATION FOR THE FUERTE DRIVE SEWER RELOCATION PROJECT (CIP S2045) IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $147,650.00 b) AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO T.C. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR THE HILLSDALE ROAD 12-INCH WATERLINE REPLACEMENT (CIP P2573) AND SEWER REPAIRS (CIP S2048) PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $2,396,060.00 ACTION ITEMS 8. BOARD a) DISCUSSION OF 2017 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR Director Croucher indicated that he would be out-of-town on vacation from November 1 to November 20, 2017. There were no changes to the board meeting calendar. 3 INFORMATIONAL ITEM 9. THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM: a) FOURTH QUARTER UPDATE ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Engineering Manager Dan Martin provided an update on the District’s fourth quarter of FY 2017 Capital Improvement Program. He indicated that the FY 2017 budget consists of 90 projects totaling $11.9 million. The overall expenditures through the fourth quarter is $13 million which is approximately 109% of the FY 2017 budget. Please reference the Committee Action notes attached to staff’s report (Attachment A) for the details of Mr. Martin’s report. The board asked questions and staff responded to the board’s inquiries. REPORTS 10. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT General Manager Watton presented information from his report which included an update on the upcoming employee recognition luncheon, the renewal of the District’s health plan, the outsourcing of the payroll function, the Vista Vereda pipeline replacement project, water conservation, and potable and recycled water sales and purchases. The board had a comment concerning the Vista Vereda pipeline replacement project in the General Manager’s report and staff responded to the comments. 11. CWA REPORT Director Croucher indicated at the last board meeting of the San Diego County Water Authority (CWA) there were many questions raised regarding a presentation on the financing of the Delta twin tunnels for the California water fix. CWA, the City of Los Angeles and the City of Santa Monica is requesting that the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) delay their vote on the twin tunnels project until all questions concerning the project can be answered. There was also discussion and questions concerning the agricultural rates and if the twin tunnels project cost is based on the dollar value today or in the future as it is going to be sometime before the project is constructed. He also shared that CWA should know around September 26, 2017 if the California Supreme Court will hear their lawsuit with MWD. Director Croucher lastly announced that CWA will be hosting a tour of the Carlsbad Desalination Plant operations center and MWD will be hosting tours of the State Water Project/Bay Delta (October 28-29, 2017 and 4 March 3-4, 2018) and Colorado River Aqueduct/Hoover Dam (February 2-3, March 17-18 and 24-25, 2018). Director Smith added that CWA’s Water Planning Group has approved a consultant to perform seismic evaluations on CWA’s older structures which may not have been built to seismic standards. He suggested that the Otay WD might consider a seismic study on its critical and older facilities. He also indicated that the Carlsbad Desalination Plant is having production problems due to algae blooms which are clogging filters. 12. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS Director Thompson reported that he had attended a meeting with staff and the Building Industry Association (BIA) to discuss capacity fees. He stated that they have been discussing with the BIA capacity fees and the large cost difference between a ¾” and 1” meter. Staff will be reviewing this issue to see if there are some options that can be suggested to respond to the cost difference. He also shared that he attended, along with Director Gastelum, an ACWA Region 8 meeting in Los Angeles on Water Reliability. At the meeting, MWD presented on the twin water tunnels/California Water Fix and they indicated the cost per unit of the water would not be very expensive. He stated that he feels they based their estimate on the difference between not doing anything (less reliability and water available) versus constructing the twin tunnels and enhancing water reliability, which they indicate makes the water cheaper. He stated he wished to get clarification on this position. Director Croucher indicated that he would forward a link to a site that provides facts and information on the twin water tunnels project to District Secretary Susan Cruz to share with all directors. He stated that the twin tunnels do not create new water. It is just a conveyance system and the concern is that there is no additional storage planned. Director Thompson also shared that the South County Economic Council (SCEDC) board voted against the proposed tax on water. Director Smith reported that he attended the following District meetings in August: District’s Engineering, Operations and Water Resources Committee, the Ad Hoc General Manager’s Evaluation Committee and the Ad Hoc City of San Diego Matters Committee. Director Gastelum indicated he attended a Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce event where they presented on the plans for the Chula Vista Bayfront development. 13. PRESIDENT’S REPORT President Robak reported on the meetings he attended during the month of August 2017 (his report is attached). He shared that he attended a meeting of the Water Conservation Garden (WCG) JPA Board where they have been 5 discussing governance issues. It was noted that they need to work more on communicating that the WCG is a demonstration garden for water conservation. This is different from the demonstration garden in the North County which is a tropical garden with a gardening section. President Robak also inquired about receiving a phone call from a caller who had used a telephone number belonging to the District. He asked if the District’s system could be compromised. It was discussed the caller was using equipment that could send any telephone number as their calling ID which is called “spoofing.” It was indicated that spoofing is legal if the caller’s intent is to make a legitimate living. It becomes a crime if the caller is attempting to steal personal or financial data from the person they are calling. The board asked that this issue be forwarded to legal counsel for review. 14. CLOSED SESSION The board recessed to closed session at 4:45 p.m. to discuss the following matter: a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] OTAY WATER DISTRICT v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; CASE NO. 37-2017- 00019348-CU-WM-CTL b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – PENDING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (2) OR (3) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9 AND INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9: SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY v. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT, CASE NO. S243500 c) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54957.6 TITLE: GENERAL MANAGER The board reconvened from closed session at 7:12 p.m. Attorney Jeanne Blumenfeld reported that the board unanimously voted in closed session to file an Amicus Letter with the Supreme Court of California supporting CWA’s petition for review of their lawsuit with the MWD. She stated the board made no other reportable actions in closed session. 6 15. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Robak adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m. ___________________________________ President ATTEST: District Secretary 7 President’s Report Mark Robak September 6, 2017 Board Meeting # Date Meeting Purpose 1 1-Aug Ad Hoc Salt Creek Development Committee Discussed terms for the purchase, sale and/or lease of the golf course property. 2 1-Aug National Night Out Otay participated in at RSD Towne Center 3 2-Aug Water Conservation JPA Board Meeting Discussed proposed agreement for the operation of the Garden 4 2-Aug OWD Regular Board Meeting Monthly board meeting 5 7-Aug San Diego County Water Authority Legislative Roundtable with Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez 6 12-Aug OWD Employee Picnic Annual Employee Picnic 7 16-Aug Ad Hoc Salt Creek Development Committee Discussed terms for the purchase, sale and/or lease of the golf course property. 8 17-Aug Urban Water Institute will host its Annual Water Conference, Panel discussion, Delta at the Precipice 9 18-Aug Committee Agenda Briefing Reviewed items that will be presented at the August committee meetings. 10 21-Aug Water Conservation Garden Governance Committee Discussed and made recommendation on new governance structure for Garden JPA Board 11 22-Aug San Diego East County Chamber Government Affairs & Infrastructure Land Use 8 12 23-Aug Ad Hoc GM Evaluation Committee Performance review of GM 13 24-Aug San Diego County Water Authority Delta Water Fix Discussion 14 31-Aug SDCWA Pipeline 3 Relining Project Discussed Pipeline 3 Relining Project 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT October 4, 2017 1. The meeting was called to order by President Robak at 3:32 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Directors Present: Croucher, Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, General Counsel Daniel Shinoff, Chief of Engineering Rod Posada, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Administration Adolfo Segura, Chief of Operations Pedro Porras, Asst. Chief of Operations Jose Martinez, Assistant Chief of Finance Kevin Koeppen, District Secretary Susan Cruz and others per attached list. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Director Croucher made a motion to approve the agenda with an amendment to move the Closed Session discussion up on the agenda to follow the Public Hearing on Rates and Charges. Director Gastelum seconded the motion and it carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the agenda as amended above. 5. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS OF JUNE 7, 2017 AND JULY 5, 2017 A motion was made by Director Thompson, and seconded by Director Croucher and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the minutes of the regular board meetings of June 7, 2017 and July 5, 2017. 2 6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA Mr. Larry Olds of El Cajon indicated that the District had a former Communications Officer who would provide training through a program he called a “Water College.” He held evening classes for customers and customers found the classes worthwhile. He stated customers received information on where San Diego County’s water supply comes from, how it is charged, etc. He stated that he felt that this would be a good program to bring back. Director Croucher indicated that he liked that concept and shared that the San Diego County Water Authority (CWA) has a similar program called the “Citizens Academy.” This program reviews the same information. He stated there is another program that is specific to Home Owners’ Associations, the Conservation Action Committee, which was started by the late Ms. Nora Jaeschke. He indicated that he did agree that the District could provide something more local that is specific to the Otay Water District. PUBLIC HEARING 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON RATES AND CHARGES THE BOARD WILL BE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET AND TO AUTHORIZE, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, THE PASS-THROUGH OF COST INCREASES FROM WATER WHOLESALERS AND DISTRICT RATE INCREASES NOT-TO-EXCEED 10 PERCENT ANNUALLY FOR ALL COSTS OTHER THAN PASS-THROUGH COSTS. THE BOARD INVITES THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES. a) APPROVE THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET; ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 566 AMENDING SECTION 25, CONDITIONS FOR WATER SERVICE; SECTION 38, SERVICE FOR FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS, AND APPENDIX A, SCHEDULE OF FEES OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES; AUTHORIZE, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE-YEARS, THE PASS-THROUGH OF COST INCREASES FROM WATER WHOLESALERS; AND AUTHORIZE, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE-YEARS, DISTRICT RATE INCREASES NOT-TO-EXCEED 10 PERCENT ANNUALLY, FOR ALL COSTS OTHER THAN PASS-TROUGH COSTS. Assistant Chief of Finance Kevin Koeppen indicated that he will be presenting on the proposed rate changes. He stated he would be reviewing the changes in the water rate structure and hear public comments. At the close of the public hearing 3 staff is requesting that the board approve Ordinance No. 566 to adopt the rate, fee, and charge increases to water billed beginning January 1, 2018 which could apply to usage as early as the end of December 2017; authorize for a period of five (5) years, all future pass-through increases or decreases to cover changes to water rates, fees and charges from the Districts suppliers; and authorize for a period of five (5) years, overall water rate increases in addition to the pass- through increases, not to exceed 10% per year of all costs other than pass- through costs. Mr. Koeppen reviewed Proposition 218 and its requirements for rate setting and the water rate structures for both potable and recycled (please reference the attached presentation). He noted that the District would have the third lowest potable water rate among the 22 CWA member agencies with an average bill of $76.49 for customers using 12 units of water a month (3/4” meter). In response to an inquiry from Director Thompson, Mr. Tom Gould, HDR Engineering, Inc., who performed the Cost of Service Study (COSS) indicated that there are three components to a rate study: 1. An analysis that determines the total revenue required by the utility to properly operate 2. Cost allocation study (COSS) 3. Rates He stated costs are allocated on a proportional basis to the various customer groups served by the District. He used the three tiers determined for residential customers as an example: Tier 1: 1 to 10 *units $3.05/unit (indoor use) Tier 2: 11-22 units $5.44/unit (outdoor use) Tier 3: 23 + $7.03/unit (other use) *a unit of water is 748 gallons Each tier is made of two types of costs: Total flow of water on the system (75% of cost) Capacity or peak demands on the system (25% of cost) He indicated the peak demand is what drives the cost differences between the tiers. The customers who create greater peak demands on the system should pay a greater proportion of the demand related cost (capacity) of the system. He noted that it was proposed that the first and second tiers of the former four (4) tier residential rate schedule be collapsed into one (1) tier as it was determined there was no significant difference in the peak use characteristics of these customers. Staff confirmed in response to an inquiry from Director Croucher that 12 units is the average monthly water use of the District customers. 4 Director Smith indicated that the District is asking approval for the next five (5) years, rate increases up to 10% for internal expenses. He inquired what is projected for the next five (5) years. Assistant Chief of Finance Koeppen indicated that the estimated increases is 4% for the next four (4) to five (5) years. He stated the average rate increase over the last five (5) years is 5.6% and the District notices its customers each year of the proposed rate increases. The board, each year, needs to vote on the rate increase as part of the budget process as well. Mr. Koeppen noted that over the last four (4) to five (5) years, 96% of the rate increase has been due to water supplier increases. Of the District’s 5.6% proposed rate increase, 5.3% is due to supplier increases. Director Croucher noted that the representatives at CWA are trying to work with the agencies and MWD to keep cost increases to a minimum. General Manager Watton indicated that the District was able to absorb the water supplier increases internally through cost cutting and this is the reason a 0% water rate increase is proposed. In response to President Robak’s inquiry concerning why the District does not have a conservation tier, Mr. Gould indicated that Proposition 218, a voter initiative, requires that rates be based on cost. The District could not justify the cost basis for the current conservation tier that is in place today. Further impacting that tier is the reduced overall consumption over the years due to the drought. He stated, in order for the District to comply with Proposition 218 (rates be cost based), it had to compress the first and second tiers into one tier. The Public Hearing was opened at 3:59 p.m. Ms. Sharon Quinn of Spring Valley indicated that she has recently retired and is on a fixed income. She stated that her bill has tripled over the last 13 years. She indicated that she was concerned as, although users cut their consumption, it would not reduce their rates as reduced consumption would decrease revenues which then would require that rates be increased. She inquired if there are any existing plans for someone on a limited income. The public hearing was closed at 4:03 p.m. Director Croucher stated that Ms. Quinn’s comments represents more than just herself. He indicated this is the same frustration that’s being voiced with regard to cable and electricity costs and new taxes. He stated that this is the reason this board is in place. This board needs to assure the District has safe and reliable water supplies at a reasonable cost for its customers. This is a difficult job and the board has continued to ask the tough questions and to work with CWA, MWD and other areas to assure we are operating as efficiently as possible and representing our constituents.. He stated he does support staffs’ recommendation and acknowledges the frustration, not just by the board, but by the people the board members represent. He stated their concerns are not falling onto deaf ears and the board is taking their comments into consideration. 5 Director Thompson thanked staff and the consultant for their work on the rates. He noted that two-thirds of his constituents would be receiving a rate increase, principally, because it is a large section of the District where many are using close to five (5) units of water per month. He indicated that some rates are going up (small water users) and some are going down, however, customers do not really understand the impact of the rate changes to them until they receive their bill. He stated that he felt this is the reason that many customers are not attending today’s meeting and he expects that he will hear from his constituents after the rate changes are implemented. He indicated he understands the rational of the proposed rate changes, but feels that indoor water use should be more reasonably priced and that there was some room to have less of an impact on conserving customers while still proposing a rate structure that is defensible. He stated he respected the work staff has done, but he was not happy with the outcome. He indicated he would like to see the State legislature provide for a lifeline rate for public agencies similar to private utilities. He noted that he had voted against the rate changes at the last board workshop and likely would be voting against the proposed rate changes today. Director Gastelum stated that he felt that if the conservation rate was eliminated, water use will go up. He indicated because of this, he does feel that water rates should go up based on the savings of the average customer. General Manager Watton indicated that water use is up for the summer, but it is uncertain if this will continue. It is dependent on the weather pattern (rain vs. no rain). Director Croucher indicated that he wished staff to follow-up on Mr. Larry Olds (speaker during public participation portion of meeting) suggestion to possibly produce a video that explains the process of how water rates are developed and the impact when water use/sales goes down. When use decrease, so do revenues and the District has fixed costs and water and sewer facilities to maintain. He suggested the video include information on what happens when the District defers maintenance as well. A motion was made by Director Smith, and seconded by Director Gastelum and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gastelum, Robak and Smith Noes: Director Thompson Abstain: None Absent: None to approve staffs’ recommendation. President Robak closed the public hearing at 4:18 p.m. 8. CLOSED SESSION 6 The board recessed to closed session at 4:18 p.m. to discuss the following matters: a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – PENDING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] BLALOCK vs. OTAY WATER DISTRICT; CASE NO. 37-2016-00013542- CU-OR-CTL b) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS [GOVERNMENT CODE §54957.6] AGENCY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: MARK ROBAK AND TIM SMITH EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: OTAY WATER DISTRICT EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION AND ALL REPRESENTED AND UNREPRESENTED PERSONNEL INCLUDING MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES c) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.8] PROPERTY: SALT CREEK GOLF COURSE 525 HUNTE PARKWAY CHULA VISTA, CA 91914 AGENCY NEGOTIATOR: MARK WATTON, GENERAL MANAGER NEGOTIATING PARTIES: BILL McWETHY, PACIFIC HOSPITALITY GROUP UNDER NEGOTIATIONS: INSTRUCT NEGOTIATOR CONCERNING PRICE, TERMS OF PAYMENT, OR BOTH, FOR THE PURCHASE, SALE AND/OR LEASE OF THE PROPERTY. Director Croucher left at 4:30 p.m. The board reconvened from closed session at 5:53 p.m. General Counsel Dan Shinoff indicated that the board met in closed session and took no reportable actions. CONSENT CALENDAR 7 9. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PARTICULAR ITEM: A motion was made by Director Thompson, seconded by Director Smith and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Croucher to approve the following consent calendar items: a) AWARD TWO (2) PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACTS WITH NV5, INC. AND MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., EACH IN THE AMOUNT NOT-TO- EXCEED $600,000 DURING FISCAL YEARS 2018 AND 2019 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2019) b) AWARD TWO (2) AS-NEEDED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACTS WITH GEOCON, INC. AND NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES CONSULTANTS, INC., EACH IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $175,000. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE TWO (2) CONTRACTS WILL NOT EXCEED $175,000 DURING FISCAL YEARS 2018, 2019, AND 2020 c) AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO SIMPSON SANDBLASTING AND SPECIAL COATINGS, INC. FOR THE 980-2 RESERVOIR INTERIOR/EXTERIOR COATINGS AND UPGRADES PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,146,327 d) ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 565 AMENDING SECTION 31, TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE, OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES ACTION ITEMS 10. BOARD a) DISCUSSION OF 2017 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR There were no changes to the board meeting calendar. INFORMATIONAL ITEM 11. THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM: 8 The Board waived presentations of the following informational items. a) BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 b) LEGISLATIVE UPDATE c) FISCAL YEAR 2017 YEAR-END REPORT FOR THE DISTRICT’S FISCAL YEARS 2015-2018 STRATEGIC PLAN REPORTS The board waived presentation of the following reports: GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT CWA REPORT DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS PRESIDENT’S REPORT 12. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Robak adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m. ___________________________________ President ATTEST: District Secretary 9 President’s Report Mark Robak October 4, 2017 Board Meeting # Date Meeting Purpose 1 1-Sep Board Agenda Briefing Met with General Manager Watton & General Counsel Shinoff to review items that will be presented at September Board Meeting. 2 5-Sep Tour of District Project with Staff Tour with District Staff of the Vista Vereda Pipeline Project 3 6-Sep OWD Regular Board Meeting Monthly board meeting 4 7-Sep Metro JPA Meeting Monthly commission meeting 5 8-Sep SD East County Chamber First Friday Breakfast Meeting Represented the District at the meeting 6 11-Sep WCG JPA Board Meeting Discussed WCG Operating Agreement and Governance 7 13-Sep California Special Districts Association (CSDA) Tour Tour of three key regional water facilities 8 14-Sep Ad Hoc Employee Negotiations Committee Discussed labor negotiations 9 15-Sep South County Economic Development Council (SCEDC) Attended Economic Summit hosted by SCEDC 10 16-Sep Committee Agenda Briefing Met with General Manager Watton to review items that will be presented at the September committee meetings 11 18-Sep Ad Hoc Salt Creek Golf Course Development Committee Discussed terms for the purchase, sale and/or lease of the golf course property 10 12 19-Sep Finance, Administration and Communications Committee Reviewed items that will be presented at the October board meeting. 13 22-Sep OWD Special Board Meeting Discussed General Manager's Performance Review 14 25-Sep Board Agenda Briefing Met with General Manager Watton & Attorney Blumenfeld to review items that will be presented at October Board Meeting. 15 26-Sep East County Chamber Government Affairs & Infrastructure Committee Discussed water issues 16 28-Sep SCEDC SCEDC's 13th Annual South County Elected Officials Reception 17 30-Sep YMCA Branding Event Represented District at the YMCA Community Event 1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OTAY WATER DISTRICT September 22, 2017 1. The meeting was called to order by President Robak at 1:35 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Directors Present: Croucher, Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson Directors Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, General Counsel Daniel Shinoff, District Secretary Susan Cruz and others per attached list. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Thompson and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gastelum, Robak, Smith and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the agenda. 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA No one wished to be heard. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 6. CLOSED SESSION The board convened into closed session at 1:36 p.m. to discuss the following item: a) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54957.6 2 TITLE: GENERAL MANAGER RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 7. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION The board reconvened from closed session at 3:37 p.m. and General Counsel Daniel Shinoff indicated that the board took action to extend General Manager Mark Watton’s contract to June 30, 2019. Additionally, a salary increase, effective July 1, 2017, will be provided using the same formula in Section 6, Part A, Base Salary, of the General Manager’s amended contract. 8. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Robak adjourned the meeting at 3:38 p.m. ___________________________________ President ATTEST: District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 3, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Jose Martinez, Asst. Chief Water Operations Kent Payne, Purchasing and Facilities Manager PROJECT: DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Pedro Porras, Chief Water Operations Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval To Purchase Five (5) Replacement Half-Ton Trucks GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board authorize the General Manager to issue a purchase order to Sunroad Auto LLC DBA Kearny Pearson Ford in the amount of $168,069.10 for the purchase of five (5) replacement half-ton trucks. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment “A.” PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization to purchase five (5) replacement half-ton trucks. ANALYSIS: Included in the approved FY 2018 budget are six (6) replacement half-ton trucks. The purchases are to replace Units 161, 186, 187, 201, 203, and 210 as part of the District’s vehicle replacement program. These units are utilized for the District’s day-to-day maintenance of District facilities and the inspection of Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) throughout the District; however, Unit 186’s replacement was advanced earlier this year via the same competitive solicitation process, therefore, staff is requesting approval to replace the remaining 5 half ton trucks. As part of the District’s continued efforts to evaluate products that would provide the best long-term value, staff reviewed similar vehicles from multiple manufacturers. Based on the review, staff selected the Ford F-150, XL V6 (base model) to meet the District’s long-term work performance needs while also maintaining a low total cost of ownership. Review highlights for the Ford included but were not limited to: best in-class fuel economy; dealer support that picks up and delivers vehicles which reduces staff time and related costs; and good District history of vehicle performance in various conditions. In accordance with District policy, quotes were solicited for the five (5) vehicles. Three bids were received. Prices received include all applicable fees, taxes, and delivery. Funding for this purchase has been included in CIP P2282, Vehicle Capital Purchases Program. Dealer Bid Price Penske Ford – San Diego, CA $181,645.45 Wondries Fleet Group - Alhambra, CA $168,613.25 Sunroad Auto LLC DBA Kearny Pearson Ford - San Diego, CA $168,069.10 FISCAL IMPACT: Projected purchase budget for five (5) trucks is $195,000 based on preliminary research. The purchase of the trucks will cost $168,069.10, which will be charged against the Vehicle Capital Purchases CIP P2282. The total cost in this account will not exceed budgeted funding. The total FY18 project budget for the CIP P2282, Vehicle Capital Purchases is $362,500. Existing expenditures and current encumbrances for the CIP, including the five (5) trucks to be purchased under this request if approved, are $329,399.10. Based on the evaluation by the Assistance Chief of Water Operations, the CIP P2282 budget is sufficient to complete the budgeted purchase. The Finance Department has determined that 100% of the funds are available in the replacement fund. Expenditure Summary: Total CIP 2282 Vehicle Replacements FY18 Budget: $362,500.00 Five (5) Proposed Half Ton Trucks ($168,069.10) One (1) Half Ton Truck Purchase FY 17 ($33,830.00) One (1) Compact Truck ($29,800.00) One (1) Three Quarter Ton Truck ($48,200.00) One (1) One Ton Truck ($49,500.00) Projected CIP 2282 FY18 Under Budget $33,100.90 STRATEGIC GOAL: Operate the system to meet demand twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. LEGAL IMPACT: None. General Manager Attachment “A,” Committee Action ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Approval to Purchase Five (5) Ford F150 Trucks COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance, Administration and Communications Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 12, 2017 and the following comments were made: Staff is requesting that the Board authorize a purchase order to Sunroad Auto LLC DBA Kearny Pearson Ford in the amount of $168,069.10 for the purchase of five (5) replacement half-ton trucks. Staff reviewed the information in the staff report. In response to an inquiry from the Committee with regard to selecting Ford, staff indicated that in addition to the fuel efficiency (Ford trucks are best-in-class with regard to fuel economy) and reliability, one of the tools staff referenced was the Kelly Blue Book which provides the five-year cost of ownership for vehicles. Staff compared similar trucks from Chevrolet, Dodge, Toyota, etc. and found that the five-year ownership cost for Ford trucks was lowest. Also, a benefit with Ford is the local dealer will send their staff to pick-up and deliver trucks to the District during the warrantee period. This is a significant benefit and it allows the District fleet mechanicss to be available to handle more complex tasks and equipment as opposed to picking-up and delivering vehicles. Upon completion of the discussion, the committee accepted staffs’ report and supported presentation to the full board on the consent calendar. STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 3, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Tenille Otero Communications Officer PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Joint Powers Agency Amended and Restated Water Conservation Garden Operation Agreement GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the Amended and Restated Water Conservation Garden Operation Agreement (Amended and Restated Operation Agreement) [Attachment B – Redlined version of the Amended and Restated Operation Agreement]. COMMITTEE ACTION: See Attachment A. PURPOSE: To request that the Board approve the Amended and Restated Water Conservation Garden Operation Agreement through June 30, 2023. ANALYSIS: Members of the JPA, including the Otay Water District and Helix Water District who funded the construction of the Garden, along with San Diego County Water Authority, Sweetwater Authority, and the City of San Diego, continue to fund approximately 50 percent of its operational costs. At its December 2016 Board meeting, the District Board approved the first amendment to the original Operation Agreement, dated October 13, 2010, extending the expiration date to June 30, 2017. At its April 20, 2017 committee meeting, the JPA reviewed a draft of the revised Operation Agreement and concurred that the agreement was moving in a suitable direction, focusing on the operations and maintenance of the Garden and the water conservation goals of the JPA members. However, the JPA members voted not to approve the agreement because the agreement needed more revisions and the JPA needed more time to thoroughly evaluate the agreement, provide feedback, and solicit additional feedback from the JPA’s member agencies’ Boards. JPA members also determined that since a final revised agreement would need to be approved by each of the individual member agencies’ Boards, the deadline of June 30, 2017 could not be met. At its June 7, 2017 Board meeting, the District Board approved a second amendment to extend the JPA Operation Agreement an additional 12 months through June 30, 2018. Two District Board members, Mark Robak as the District representative and Mitch Thompson as the alternate, support the District on the JPA committee. The JPA established a governance subcommittee to evaluate the draft agreement thoroughly, present a framework for a revised agreement, and develop a second draft agreement for the JPA committee by a deadline of December 31, 2017. In September 2017, the JPA voted to authorize the revised agreement framework with a funding schedule that decreases over the next five years to an agreed amount each year beyond the five years. The revised agreement framework also took into consideration the JPA member agencies’ water-use efficiency goals by focusing on conservation-related “Core Exhibits” as part of the Garden’s operating expenses. These include the Irrigation Exhibit, Backyard Retrofit House, Turf Exhibit, Tree Exhibits and Care, Watershed/Water Capture, Soils, Erosion, California Water Story, Seven Steps of Xeriscape, and Water Supply Towers. A revised draft agreement was presented at the JPA’s October 16, 2017 meeting. The JPA members reviewed and discussed the updated draft agreement and suggested revisions to the agreement. These modifications were incorporated and sent via email as a redlined document [Attachment B] on October 23, 2017 to JPA members. JPA members reviewed the Amended and Restated Operation Agreement and have already presented or are in the process of presenting the revised agreement to their respective Boards of Directors. Section 7.3.1. of the Amended and Restated Operation Agreement details the agency contributions will remain at $484,000 in fiscal year 2018-2019. The contributions reduce by five percent in fiscal year 2019-2020, by 10 percent in fiscal year 2020-2021, and by 10 percent in fiscal year 2021-2022. In fiscal year 2022-2023 contributions will decrease by 14 percent to $320,000 and remain at that level. The District currently contributes $96,450 or 20 percent of the JPA member agency contributions. The Helix Water District currently contributes the same amount and percentage as the District. The San Diego County Water Authority contributes $136,780 or 30 percent. Sweetwater Authority and the City of San Diego each contribute $77,160 or 15 percent of the baseline dues. The percentage formula was set based on the agencies proximity to the Water Conservation Garden. Under the Amended and Restated Operation Agreement, the percentages remain unchanged. As a JPA member agency, the District will continue to evaluate its participation in funding and operating the Garden so it continues to provide valuable water conservation programs and utilize the facilities constructed at the Garden as intended by its founders. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The Water Conservation Garden funding of $96,450 is included in the District’s Conservation budget for Fiscal Year 2018. STRATEGIC GOAL: Supports the objective in the District’s Strategic Plan to evaluate and enhance the District's water conservation programs and services. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Redlined version of the Amended and Restated Water Conservation Garden Operation Agreement ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Joint Powers Agency Amended and Restated Water Conservation Garden Operation Agreement COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance, Administration and Communications Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 12, 2017 and the following comments were made: Staff is requesting that the Board approve the amended and restated Water Conservation Garden (WCG) Operation Agreement. If the agreement is approved it will be in effect through June 30, 2023. Staff reviewed the information in the staff report. It was noted that Helix WD, Sweetwater Authority and San Diego County Water Authority approved the WCG Amended and Restated Operation Agreement at their board meetings scheduled in November, October and December 2017 respectively. The Water Conservation Garden JPA is scheduled to vote on the agreement at their January 12, 2018 board meeting. The Committee discussed that member agencies can withdraw from the Water Conservation Garden JPA without penalty. The member agencies, however, must provide one-year notice of their intention to withdraw. Upon completion of the discussion, the committee accepted staffs’ report and supported presentation to the full board on the consent calendar. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 WATER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AMENDED AND RESTATED WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN OPERATION AGREEMENT (Cuyamaca College Water Conservation Garden) THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN OPERATION AGREEMENT (Cuyamaca College Water Conservation Garden) (this “Agreement’’) is dated as of _________, for reference purposes only, and is entered into by and between the WATER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, a Joint Powers Agency (the “Authority”), and FRIENDS OF THE WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (the “Operator”) (collectively the “Parties”), with reference to the following recited facts: RECITALS A.The Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (“GCCCD”), a California community college district and the Authority have entered into that certain License Agreement for Operation of a Water Conservation Garden, dated August 1, 2006 (“License Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, with respect to certain real property specifically described in the License Agreement for operation of a water conservation demonstration garden (“Garden”); and B.The Authority and the Operator entered into that certain Water Conservation Garden Operation Agreement, dated October 13, 2010, to provide for the Operator to assume all responsibility for operation and maintenance of the Garden in accordance with the License Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. C.The Authority and Operator now desire to amend and restate the Agreement to clarify responsibilities and obligations associated with the operation of the Garden including, but not limited to: 1.Committing that the Authority will continue and increase involvement withthe Garden as specified within this Agreement; 2.Authority member dues shall decrease over time to the Base Contributionamount as defined herein; 3.Authority dues shall be based upon the maintenance of Core Exhibits, asthat term is defined herein; and 4.Operator shall increase and improve communication with Authoritymember agencies, including clarifying the lines of communication between the constituent parties. NOW, THEREFORE, FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION AND THE PROMISES OF THE AUTHORITY AND THE OPERATOR SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE AUTHORITY AND THE OPERATOR AGREE, AS FOLLOWS: 1.DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply in this Agreement: 1.1 “Application” means any agreement, application, certificate, document, orsubmission (or amendment of any of the foregoing): (a) necessary or appropriate for any activity Attachment B 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 2 regarding the Garden that this Agreement requires or allows, including any application for any building permit, certificate of occupancy, utility service or connection, easement, covenant, condition, restriction or such other instrument as the Operator may from time to time reasonably request in performing its obligations under this Agreement; (b) to enable the Operator from time to time to seek any Approval or to use or operate the Garden in accordance with this Agreement; or (c) otherwise reasonably necessary and appropriate to permit the Operator to perform its obligations under this Agreement. 1.2 “Approvals” means any and all licenses, permits, approvals, consents, certificates (including certificate(s) of occupancy), rulings, variances, authorizations, or amendments to any of the foregoing as shall be necessary or appropriate under any Law to commence, perform, or complete any use, maintenance, repair or operation of the Garden. 1.3 “Authority” means the Water Conservation Authority, a California joint powers authority. 1.4 “Authority Activity” shall have the meaning ascribed to the term in Section 5.13. 1.5 “Authority Parties” means, collectively, the Authority, its governing board, officers, employees, agents and legal representatives. 1.6 “Authority Party” means, individually, the Authority and each of its officers, employees, agents and legal representatives. 1.7 “Authority Representative” means an employee or agent of the Authority designated, from time to time by the Authority through Notice to the Operator. As of the Effective Date, the Authority Representative is the President of the Authority. 1.8 “Automobile Liability Insurance” means insurance coverage against claims of personal injury (including bodily injury and death) and property damage covering all owned, leased, hired and non-owned vehicles used by the Operator, with minimum limits for bodily injury and property damage of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each occurrence and TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) aggregate. Such insurance shall be provided by a business or commercial vehicle policy. 1.9 “Bankruptcy Law” means Title 11, United States Code, and any other or successor state or federal statute relating to assignment for the benefit of creditors, appointment of a receiver or trustee, bankruptcy, composition, insolvency, moratorium, reorganization, or similar matters. 1.10 “Bankruptcy Proceeding” means any proceeding, whether voluntary or involuntary, under any Bankruptcy Law. 1.11 “Casualty” means any damage or destruction of any kind or nature, ordinary or extraordinary, foreseen or unforeseen, affecting all or any part of the Garden Improvements, whether or not insured or insurable. 1.12 “Casualty Termination” means a termination of this Agreement because of a Substantial Casualty, when and as this Agreement expressly allows such a termination pursuant to Section 13.3. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 3 1.13 “Construction” means any alteration, construction, demolition, development, expansion, reconstruction, redevelopment, repair, restoration, or other work affecting any Garden Improvements, including new construction. 1.14 “County” means the County of San Diego, California. 1.15 “Core Exhibits” means Irrigation Exhibit , Backyard Retrofit House, Turf Exhibit , Tree Exhibits and Care, Watershed/Water Capture, Soils, Erosion , California Water Story, Seven Steps of Xeriscape, and Water Supply Towers. 1.16 “Default” means any Monetary Default or Non-Monetary Default. 1.17 “Deferred Maintenance Projects” shall mean DG pathway stabilizer, irrigation upgrades, electrical upgrades, re-stucco/paint, and mature tree replacement. 1.18 “GCCCD” means the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, a California community college district. 1.19 “Educational Programming” means those certain demonstration and educational programs and activities approved by the Authority to be provided to the public by the Operator at the Garden in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1.20 “Effective Date” means the first date on or after January 1, 2011 on which all of the following events have occurred: (1) the Authority has received three (3) counterpart originals of this Agreement executed by the authorized representative(s) of the Operator; (2) the Authority has received a certified copy of the Operator Official Action executed by the authorized representative(s) of the Operator; (3) this Agreement has been approved by the governing board of the Authority; (4) this Agreement has been signed by the authorized representative(s) of the Authority and a fully signed original of this Agreement has been delivered to the Operator by the Authority. 1.21 “Environmental Law” means any Law regarding any of the following at, in, under, above, or upon the Garden: (a) air, environmental, ground water, or soil conditions; or (b) clean- up, control, disposal, generation, storage, release, transportation, use of, or liability or standards of conduct concerning, Hazardous Substances. 1.22 “Expiration Date” means the date when this Agreement terminates or expires in accordance with its terms, whether on the Scheduled Expiration Date, by the Authority’s exercise of remedies for an Event of Default, termination of the License Agreement, or otherwise, whichever is earlier. 1.23 “FF&E” means all movable furniture, furnishings, equipment, and personal property that may be removed without material damage to the Garden and without adversely affecting: (a) the structural integrity of the Garden Improvements; (b) any electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other system of the Garden; (c) the present or future operation of any such system; (d) the present or future provision of any utility service to the Garden; or (e) the elements of any exhibit within the Garden. FF&E includes items such as furniture, movable equipment, telephone, telecommunications and facsimile transmission equipment, point of sale equipment, televisions, radios, network racks, and computer systems and peripherals. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 4 1.24 “Garden” is defined in Recital A to this Agreement. 1.25 “Garden Endowment Fund” means a non-wasting investment fund held by The San Diego Foundation or its successor with bi-annual payments of interest paid to Operator for maintenance of The Garden. 1.26 “Garden Expenses” means all costs of operating and maintaining the Garden pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement incurred after the Effective Date. 1.27 “Garden Improvements” means those certain improvements in existence at the Garden as of the Effective Date and all improvements to or located at the Garden from time to time after the Effective Date. 1.28 “Garden Maintenance Standards” means the standards, specifications, protocols and conditions for maintenance of the Garden. 1.29 “Government” means each and every governmental agency, authority, bureau, department, quasi-governmental body, or other entity or instrumentality having or claiming jurisdiction over the Garden (or any activity this Agreement requires or allows), including the United States government, the State of California, the County and their subdivisions and Municipalities, including the Authority and all other applicable governmental agencies, authorities, commissions, boards, department and subdivisions thereof. 1.30 “Group Function” means use by a Third Person of the Garden for a private event. 1.31 “Hazardous Substance” includes flammable substances, explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos, asbestos-containing materials, polychlorinated biphenyls, chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, pollutants, contaminants, hazardous wastes, medical wastes, toxic substances or related materials, explosives, petroleum and petroleum products, and any ‘‘hazardous” or “toxic” material, substance or waste that is defined by those or similar terms or is regulated as such under any Law, including any material, substance or waste that is: (i) defined as a “hazardous substance” under Section 311 of the Water Pollution Control Act (33U.S.C. § 1317), as amended; (ii) substances designated as “hazardous substances” pursuant to 3 3.U.S.C. § 1321; (iii) defined as a “hazardous waste” under Section 1004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq., as amended; (iv) defined as a “hazardous substance” or “hazardous waste” under Section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. or any so-called “superfund” or “super lien” law; (v) defined as a “pollutant” or “contaminant” under 42 U.S.C.A. § 960 1(33); (vi) defined as “hazardous waste” under 40 C.F.R. Part 260; (vii) defined as a “hazardous chemical” under 29 C.F.R. Part 1910; any matter within the definition of “hazardous substance” set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1262; (viii) any matter, waste or substance regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA’’) (15 U.S.C. Sections 2601 , et seq.); any matter, waste or substance regulated under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Sections 1801, et seq.; any matter, waste or substance regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901, et seq.; those substances listed in the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) Table (49 CFR 172.101], or designated by the EPA, or any successor authority, as a hazardous substance [40 CFR Part 302]; and those substances defined as “hazardous waste” in Section 25117 of the California Health and Safety Code or, as a “hazardous 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 5 substance” in Section 25316 of the California Health and Safety Code; (ix) subject to any other Law regulating, relating to or imposing obligations, liability or standards of conduct concerning protection of human health, plant life, animal life, natural resources, property or the enjoyment of life or property free from the presence in the environment of any solid, liquid, gas, odor or any form of energy from whatever source; or (x) other substances, materials, and wastes that are, or become, regulated or classified as hazardous or toxic under federal, state, or local laws or regulations and in the regulations adopted pursuant to said laws, and shall also include manure, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl, flammable explosives, radioactive material, petroleum products. 1.32 “Hazardous Substance Discharge” means any deposit, discharge, generation, release, or spill of a Hazardous Substance that occurs at or from the Garden, or into the Garden, or that arises at any time from the use or operation of the Garden or any activities conducted at the Garden or any adjacent or nearby real property, or resulting from seepage, leakage, or other transmission of Hazardous Substances from other real property to the Garden, whether or not caused by a Party to this Agreement and whether occurring before or after the Effective Date. 1.33 “Indemnify” means, where this Agreement states that the Parties shall “indemnify” each other from, against, or for a particular matter, that the Parties shall indemnify the other and defend and hold each other harmless from and against any and all loss, claims, liability, penalties, judgments, damages, and other injury, detriment, or expense that each Party suffers or incurs: (a) from, as a result of, or on account of the particular matter; or (b) in enforcing the other Party’s indemnity obligation. 1.34 “Law” means all laws, ordinances, requirements, orders, proclamations, directives, rules, and regulations of any Government affecting the Garden or this Agreement in any way, including any use, maintenance, taxation, operation, or occupancy of, or environmental conditions affecting the Garden or otherwise relating to this Agreement or any Party’s rights or remedies under this Agreement, or any Transfer of any of the foregoing, whether in force on the Effective Date or passed, enacted, or imposed at some later time, subject in all cases, however, to any applicable waiver, variance, or exemption. 1.35 “Legal Costs” of any Person means all reasonable costs and expenses such Person incurs in any legal proceeding (or other matter for which such Person is entitled to be reimbursed for its Legal Costs), including reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and expenses. 1.36 “Liability Insurance” means commercial general liability insurance against claims for personal injury, death, or property damage occurring upon, in, or about the Garden or adjoining streets or passageways, providing coverage for a combined single limit of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) for any one occurrence. 1.37 “License Agreement” is defined in Recital A to this Agreement. 1.38 “Maintenance and Repair” means all routine and ordinary maintenance and repairs to the Garden required to preserve and operate the Garden in first-class condition during the Term, in accordance with the Garden Maintenance Standards, including any required Renovation. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 6 1.39 “Modification” means any abandonment, amendment, cancellation, discharge, extension, modification, rejection, renewal, replacement, restatement, substitution, supplement, surrender, termination, or waiver of a specified agreement or document, or of any of its terms or provisions, or the acceptance of any cancellation, rejection, surrender, or termination of such agreement, document, or terms. 1.40 “Modify” means agree to, cause, make, or permit any Modification. 1.41 “Monetary Default” means the Operator’s failure to pay or deposit any money (including insurance premiums) when and as this Agreement requires. 1.42 “Non-Monetary Default” means the Operator’s: (a) failure to comply with any affiliate or negative covenant or obligation in this Agreement, except a Monetary Default; or (b) breach of any representation or warranty (as of the date made or deemed made). 1.43 “Notice” means any consent, demand, designation, election, notice, or request relating to this Agreement, including any Notice of Default. 1.44 “Notify” means give a Notice. 1.45 “Notice of Default” means any Notice claiming or giving Notice of a Default or alleged Default. 1.46 “Operating Inventory” means consumable items used or held in storage for use in the operation of the Garden, including bathroom supplies, paper towels, cleaning materials, supplies, gardening supplies and equipment and other similar items. 1.47 “Operator” means the Friends of the Water Conservation Garden, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation. 1.48 “Operator Official Action” means the official action of the Operator’s governing body authorizing the Operator’s entry into and performance of this Agreement, in substantially the form attached to this Agreement as Exhibit “‘B,” signed by the authorized representative(s) of the Operator. 1.49 “Operator Parties” means, collectively, the Operator, its directors, officers, employees, agents and legal representatives. 1.50 “Operator Party” means, individually, the Operator and each of its directors, officers, employees, agents and legal representatives. 1.51 “Parties” means, collectively, the Authority and the Operator. 1.52 “Party” means, individually, either the Authority or the Operator, as applicable. 1.53 “Person” means any association, corporation, Government, individual, joint venture, joint-stock company, limited liability company, partnership, trust, unincorporated organization or other entity of any kind. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 7 1.54 “Prohibited Lien” means any mechanic’s, vendor’s, laborer’s, or material supplier’s statutory lien or other similar lien arising from work, labor, services, equipment, or materials supplied, or claimed to have been supplied, to the Operator (or anyone claiming through the Operator). 1.55 “Property Insurance” means insurance providing coverage against loss, damage, or destruction of the Garden and all Garden Improvements by fire and other hazards encompassed under the broadest form of property insurance coverage then customarily used for like properties in the County (except earthquake or war risk) from time to time during the Term, in an amount equal to 100% of the replacement value (without deduction for depreciation) of all of the Garden Improvements (excluding excavations and foundations) and in any event sufficient to avoid co-insurance, with “ordinance or law” coverage. Such insurance may contain a deductible clause not exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000).To the extent customary for like properties in the County at the time, such insurance shall include coverage for earthquake; coverage for explosion of steam and pressure boilers and similar apparatus located at the Garden; coverage for terrorism; an “increased cost of Construction” endorsement; and an endorsement covering demolition and cost of debris removal. 1.56 “Property Insurance Proceeds” means net proceeds (after reasonable costs of adjustment and collection, including Legal Costs) of Property Insurance, when and as received by the Authority or the Operator. 1.57 “Renovation” means the replacement, major repair, renewal or reconstruction of all or any portion of the Garden Improvements, including building roofs, slabs, foundations or walls; heating, ventilation, air conditioning, plumbing, sewer, utility, irrigation or drainage systems; lighting; paved areas, including circulation walkways; signage, windows, awnings, patio covers and exterior facade components and coverings. 1.58 “Restoration” means, after a Casualty, the alteration, clearing, rebuilding, reconstruction, repair, replacement, restoration and safeguarding of the damaged or remaining Garden Improvements, substantially consistent with their condition before the Casualty, subject to any changes in Law that would limit any such activities. 1.59 “Restoration Funds” means any Property Insurance Proceeds (and deposits by the Operator) to be applied to Restoration. 1.60 “Restore” means accomplish a Restoration. 1.61 “Scheduled Expiration Date” means 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2023. 1.62 “Substantial Casualty” means a Casualty that: (a) renders 40% (forty percent) or more of the Garden not capable of being used or occupied for more than one hundred eighty (180) days; (b) requires Restoration whose cost the Authority reasonably estimates in writing would exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000); or (c) pursuant to Law, prevents the Garden from being Restored to substantially the same bulk, and for the same use(s), as before the Casualty. 1.63 “Term” is defined in Section 4. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 8 1.64 “Third Person” means any Person that is not a Party or an elected official, officer, director, manager, shareholder, member, principal, partner, employee or agent of a Party. 1.65 “Unavoidable Delay” means delay in performing any obligation under this Agreement, except payment of money, arising from or on account of any cause whatsoever beyond the obligor’s reasonable control, despite such obligor’s reasonable diligent efforts, including industry-wide strikes, labor troubles or other union activities, the obligor ‘s inability to obtain required labor or materials after commercially reasonable efforts to do so, litigation (unless caused by the obligor), Casualty, accidents, Laws, governmental preemption, war, or riots. Unavoidable Delay shall exclude delay caused by the obligor’s financial condition, illiquidity, or insolvency. Any Party claiming Unavoidable Delay shall Notify the other Party: (a) within ten (1 0) days after the claiming Party knows of any such Unavoidable Delay; and (b) within ten (10) days after such Unavoidable Delay ceases to exist. To be effective, any such Notice must describe the Unavoidable Delay in reasonable detail. Where this Agreement states that performance of any obligation is subject to Unavoidable Delay(s) or words of similar import, such Unavoidable Delay(s) shall extend the time for such performance only by the number of days by which such Unavoidable Delay(s) actually delayed such performance. 1.66 “Waiver of Subrogation” means a provision in, or endorsement to, any insurance policy, by which the carrier agrees to waive rights of recovery by way of subrogation against either Party to this Agreement for any loss such policy covers. 1.67 “Workers Compensation Insurance” means worker’s compensation insurance complying with the provisions of California law and an employer’s liability insurance endorsement with commercially standard limits covering all employees of the Operator, its contractors and vendors. 2. INCORPORATION OF LICENSE AGREEMENT. This Agreement is expressly subject to all of the terms and conditions of the License Agreement and this Agreement shall automatically terminate on the termination of the License Agreement in its entirety. The Authority shall have the right to modify or amend the License Agreement with the reasonable consent of the Operator. All of the terms and conditions of the License Agreement are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. 3. ASSUMPTION OF LICENSE OBLIGATIONS. The Operator hereby acknowledges and assumes all obligations of the Authority under and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the License Agreement regarding use and operation of the Garden. 4. TERM. The “Term” of this Agreement shall: (a) commence, if at all, on the Effective Date; and (b) continue until the Scheduled Expiration Date, unless terminated sooner. 5. GARDEN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 5.1 Operation and Maintenance Covenant. The Authority hereby contracts with the Operator to maintain and operate the Garden pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, and the Operator covenants and agrees to continuously maintain and operate the Garden pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, throughout the entire Term. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 9 5.2 Operation and Maintenance License. The Authority hereby licenses the Operator to enter the Garden to perform Maintenance and Repair and to operate the Garden as provided in this Agreement, without further consent or approval from the Authority, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 5.3 Permits, Licenses, Etc. The Operator shall, for the full Term, at the Operator’s sole cost and expense, maintain all franchises, permits, contractual arrangements, licenses, and registrations necessary for the Operator to conduct all operations, Maintenance and Repair, Educational Programming and other activities relating to the Garden to be undertaken by the Operator pursuant to this Agreement. 5.4 Abandonment. The Operator shall not abandon or surrender the operation of all or any part of the Garden during the Term, except as otherwise expressly provided in Section 14 or Section 17. 5.5 General Operational Responsibilities. The Operator shall have the following described general responsibilities regarding operation of the Garden, in which the Operator shall perform at Operator’s sole expense: 5.5.1 enter into and pay any costs associated with contracts for the furnishing of utilities, maintenance, telecommunications, repair and other services to the Garden; 5.5.2 incur and pay such expenses as shall be reasonably necessary for the proper operation of the Garden; 5.5.3 maintain a level of Operating Inventory reasonably appropriate for supplying the needs of the Garden and its users; 5.5.4 apply for, obtain and maintain all licenses and permits required of the Operator in connection with the operation of the Garden. The Authority shall reasonably cooperate with the Operator in the application for, obtaining and maintenance of such licenses and permits; provided that such cooperation by the Authority is legally permitted and does not result in any direct or indirect cost to the Authority; 5.5.5 exercise reasonable efforts to do, or cause to be done, all acts in and about the Garden as shall be reasonably necessary to comply with any applicable insurance policies or Law; 5.5.6 maintain FF&E and purchase new FF&E as necessary to perform Maintenance and Repair and operate the Garden, including replacing worn out, damaged, destroyed, lost or stolen FF&E; 5.5.7 in accordance, as applicable, with defense and indemnification rights contained in contracts of insurance procured and maintained by the Operator, defend and settle claims, lawsuits and demands relating to the Garden and retain legal counsel (and pay legal fees and costs) who, under the direction of the Operator or the insurance carrier, will defend any claims or actions brought against the Operator Parties relating to the Garden and will institute and defend any and all legal actions or proceedings as shall be reasonably necessary to collect charges, fees or other income for the Garden, or to cancel or terminate any license, vendor or concession agreement or other contract on the grounds of default. The Operator shall notify the Authority of any 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 10 claims or lawsuits relating to the Garden on a timely basis. Legal counsel to the Operator’s insurance carrier that is providing a defense to the Authority Parties shall be deemed satisfactory to the Authority, subject to any conflict of interest or incompetency of such legal counsel; and 5.5.8 hire, train, and supervise all employees necessary for operation of the Garden, including providing Educational Programming to the public; 5.5.9 make reasonable good faith marketing and outreach efforts to market the Garden and Educational Programming to the public, including maintenance of the current website marketing the Garden; 5.5.10 establish accounting and payroll procedures and functions for the Garden; and 5.5.11 continue to operate the Garden on the days and at hours consistent with the Authority’s practices as of the Effective Date, or greater, subject to closure due to inclement weather, Casualty, or Unavoidable Delay. 5.6 Maintenance and Repair: Except to the extent that this Agreement otherwise expressly provides or allows, the Operator shall, during the Term, keep and maintain the Garden in good order, condition, and repair, at Operator’s sole cost and expense, subject to Casualty, reasonable wear and tear, and any other condition that this Agreement does not require the Operator to repair or Restore. The Operator’s obligation to maintain the Garden includes the obligation to make all repairs and Restorations that the Garden may require (including plumbing, heating, air conditioning, ventilating, electrical, lighting, fixtures, walls, any required Renovation, building systems, ceilings, floors, windows, doors, plate glass, skylights, landscaping, driveways, site improvements, curb cuts, parking lots, fences and signs located in, on or at the Garden, together with any sidewalks and streets adjacent to the Garden) by Law, pursuant to applicable insurance policies or pursuant to the Garden Maintenance Standards, from time to time during the Term, whether structural or nonstructural, foreseen or unforeseen, capital or operating. The Operator shall remove trash, snow, mud, sand and debris from the Garden and the adjoining sidewalks and maintain them in a reasonably clean condition. Notwithstanding the foregoing and as a way of clarification, the Parties agree to assign and share costs as set forth in Exhibit D. 5.7 Contracts and Agreements. All equipment leases, financing agreements, contracts and agreements relating to the Garden (including without limitation contracts for utility services, telecommunications services, Maintenance and Repair, pest control, supplies, landscaping services, and agreements for Group Functions), entered into during the Term shall be entered into by the Operator as the contracting party. The Operator shall not have any authority to enter into any equipment lease, financing agreement, contract or agreement that extends beyond the Term of this Agreement or that is secured by all or any part of the Garden or the Garden Improvements. All contracts entered into by the Operator regarding the Garden shall automatically expire on the Expiration Date. 5.8 No Discrimination or Segregation. Developer covenants by and for itself and all Persons claiming under or through it that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any Person or group of Persons, on account of any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision (m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 11 Government Code, in the use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the Garden nor shall the Operator or any Person claiming under or through the Operator establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy, of users or vendors of the Garden. 5.9 Noise. The Operator shall not use or permit the use of the Garden in any manner that creates or maintains any noise or sound that, when measured at any place along the boundary line of the Garden, exceeds the applicable sound level standard established by any Government for the Garden. 5.10 Nuisance. The Operator shall not itself and shall not allow any other Person to use the Garden for any unlawful purpose and shall not itself and shall not allow any other Person to perform, permit or suffer any act or omission upon or about the Garden that would result in a nuisance or a violation of any Law, as the same may now or hereafter be in force and effect. 5.11 Signage. 5.11.1 All signs on or in the Garden will be maintained by the Operator in good condition during the Term. 5.11.2 At the Authority’s request, the Operator will remove signs identified by the Authority that are installed on or in the Garden by the Operator on or before the Expiration Date, except as otherwise agreed between the Operator and the Authority, and repair and restore any damage caused by installation or removal of such signs. All signs on or in the Garden shall comply with all applicable Laws. 5.11.3 The Operator shall not cause or allow the display of any advertising of alcohol, tobacco products or adult entertainment on, in or about the Garden. 5.12 Group Functions. The Operator shall be responsible for administration of Group Functions at the Garden, including approving applications for Group Functions, entering into Group Function agreements and charging fees for Group Functions. 5.13 Authority Activities. The Authority shall have the right to use the Garden for Authority initiated special events that are scheduled with the prior approval of the Operator, in the Operator’s reasonable discretion (each, an “Authority Activity”).The Garden shall be available for each Authority Activity free of any facility rental or admission charge to the Authority. 5.14 Payment of Prevailing Wages. 5.14.1 When so required by California law, the Operator agrees that not less than “prevailing wages,” as that term is defined in California Labor Code Sections 1770, et seq., shall be paid by the Operator, its contractors, and any sub-contractors to all laborers employed in connection with the Construction or installation of any improvements or Maintenance and Repair related to the Garden. The Operator shall maintain and shall cause each of its contractors to maintain certified payroll records, pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1776, relative to all work performed relating to the Garden. The Authority shall have the right, but not the obligation, to inspect and copy all of the Operator’s payroll records and the payroll records of each of the Operator’s contractors and subcontractors relating to the Garden. The Authority shall also have the right to exercise the remedies provided in the California Labor Code, in addition to all 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 12 other remedies available to the Authority at law, under contract, or in equity, in the event of a breach or Default by the Operator of its obligations under this Section 5.14. 5.14.2 THE OPERATOR, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS, WAIVES AND RELEASES THE AUTHORITY FROM ANY RIGHT OF ACTION THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ANY OF THEM PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTION 1781. THE OPERATOR ACKNOWLEDGES THE PROTECTIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 RELATIVE TO THE WAIVER AND RELEASE CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION 5.14, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. 5.14.3 BY INITIALING BELOW, THE OPERATOR KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 SOLELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE WAIVERS AND RELEASES CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION 5.14. 5.14.4 ADDITIONALLY, THE OPERATOR SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE AUTHORITY, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13, AGAINST ANY CLAIMS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTION L781 ARISING FROM THIS AGREEMENT OR THE CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALLATION OF ANY IMPROVEMENTS OR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR RELATING TO THE GARDEN, UNDERTAKEN BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE OPERATOR. _____________ Initials of Authorized Operator Representative 5.15 Independent Contractor. The Operator shall at all times be an independent contractor under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to be or create a partnership or joint venture between the Authority and the Operator or its successors or assigns. 5.16 Shared Resources. To the extent allowed by and consistent with Authority member agencies rules, regulations, and policies, the Authority, through its member agencies, and Operator shall use their best efforts to share resources and work cooperatively to advance the Garden. No later than June 30, 2018,If necessary the Authority and Operator shall develop a policy designed to increase cooperation in the following areas: 5.16.1 Donation of in kind services and support including donation of surplus furniture, fixtures and equipment; and 5.16.2 Evaluation and census data collection efforts; and 5.16.3 Outreach and membership drives; and 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 13 5.16.4 Marketing development and efforts. 5.17 Naming Rights. The naming or renaming of the Garden, any facilities at the Garden, or Core Exhibits shall be done by mutual consent of the Authority and the Operator. 6. OPERATOR ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITION OF GARDEN. The Operator agrees to accept the Garden on the Effective Date in an “as-is” condition, subject to any and all physical, legal or other faults. The Operator acknowledges that the Operator will be accepting the Garden based upon the Operator’s own investigations of the Garden’s condition. Except as otherwise specifically stated in this Agreement, the Operator also agrees to accept the Garden based on the Operator’s knowledge that neither the Authority nor any agent of the Authority, has made any representation or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, with regard to the physical condition of the Garden or the suitability of the Garden for any particular purpose or use, including, without limitation, any representations or warranties regarding the applicability or non-applicability of any Law, the soil or subsoil, surface or subsurface conditions, topography, possible Hazardous Substance contamination, fill, drainage, access to public roads, availability of utilities, existence of underground storage tanks, applicability of or compliance with any Environmental Laws, environmental impact report requirements or any other matter of any nature whatsoever. 7. GARDEN EXPENSES 7.1 Operator to Pay All Garden Expenses. Except as expressly provided in Section 7.3, the Operator shall pay all Garden Expenses. The Operator shall pay and discharge, as and when due, each and every item of expense, of every kind and nature whatsoever, related to or arising from the Garden, or by reason of or in any manner connected with or arising from the operation, management, maintenance, repair, use or any other matter affecting the Garden and attributable to the Term. The Operator further acknowledges and agrees that the Operator will be solely responsible for operating losses or deficits arising in the operation of the Garden during the Term and that any such losses or deficits shall not abate any obligations of the Operator under this Agreement. 7.2 Acknowledgment of Possessory Interest Tax. The Operator acknowledges that, if and to the extent that this Agreement gives rise to assessment of a possessory interest tax under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 107 or any other tax, the Operator shall be obligated to pay such tax. 7.3 Authority Contribution and Annual Budget Process. 7.3.1 The Authority has and shall continue to make an annual financial contribution (“Authority Contribution”) to the Operator. As of the date of this Agreement, Authority’s Contribution for FY 2018/2019 is $484,000. The Authority’s Contribution shall decrease annualannually, pursuant to the schedule below, until it reaches $320,000 (the “Base Contribution”). Each subsequent fiscal year the Authority Contribution shall be the Base Contribution. (a) FY 2018/2019 Contribution: $484,000 (b) FY 2019/2020 Contribution: $459,800 (5% reduction) 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 14 (c) FY 2020/2021 Contribution $413,820 (10% reduction) (d) FY 2021/2022 Contribution $372,440 (10% reduction (e) FY 2022/2023 and forward annual Contribution $320,000 (14% reduction) 7.3.2 By FY 2022/2023At least $20,000 of the Authority’s Contribution shall be allocated as follows:to Deferred Maintenance annually. (a) $300,000 for operations including maintenance staff, supplies and utilities; and (b) $20,000 for Deferred Maintenance Projects. (c) Any additional funding provided by the Authority shall be allocated by mutual consent of the Parties. (a) (d) Any reallocation of the Base Contribution shall be by mutual consent of the Parties. 7.3.3 On or before each May 15 during the Term, Operator shall prepare and submit to Authority for the Authority’s information an annual operating budget for the Garden for the fiscal year beginning on the immediately following July 1 showing, at a minimum, projected income from Garden operations for such fiscal year (including the specific amounts of fees or charges to be assessed for Garden use during such fiscal year), projected Operator fundraising revenue for Garden Expenses for such calendar year and the projected amount of Garden Expenses for such fiscal year, each on a semi- annual and annual basis. The proposed annual budget shall show assumptions and anticipated significant events during the subject fiscal year. Within thirty (30) calendar days following the Authority’s receipt of the proposed annual budget for the Garden for a particular fiscal year, Authority shall provide any comments on the proposed annual budget for Operator’s consideration. 7.4 Fundraising. The Operator shall at all times during the term maintain its non- profit status with both the federal government of the United States and the government of the State of California. The Operator shall at all times during the Term make good faith fundraising efforts for the collection of charitable donations of funds from Persons other than the Authority to pay Garden Expenses in accordance with the then current annual budget for the Garden approvedreviewed by the Authority in accordance with Section 7.3. 7.5 Utilities. The Operator shall arrange and pay for all fuel, gas, light, power, water, sewage, garbage disposal, telephone and other utility charges, and the expenses of installation, maintenance, use, and service in connection with the foregoing, for the Garden during the Term. The Authority shall have absolutely no liability or responsibility for any utilities or other services for the Garden during the Term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, one half of all utility costs shall be paid from the Authority contribution as set forth in Section 7.3. 7.6 Garden Endowment Contribution. The Parties agree that with the Authority Contribution decreasing annually until reaching the Base Contribution in 2022/2023, the Operator will need to increase fundraising and endowment growth efforts. The Operator shall 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 15 commence in FY 2019/2020 depositing five percent (5%) of revenue received from corporate membership funds, overall sales onsite and online, and unrestricted donations into the Garden Endowment Fund. In FY 2021/2022, the Parties shall conduct a fiscal assessment of the Garden finances to determine if the this annual endowment contribution can be increased to a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the above identified revenues. Any increase shall be at a mutually agreed upon amount. 8. RECORDS, REPORTS AND AUDITS 8.1 Sales Recording and Records. The Operator shall record at the time of sale, in the presence of the customer, receipts from sales or other transactions, whether cash or credit, in a cash register or registers, or a point of sale terminal or terminals, having a tape that accumulates and consecutively numbers all transactions. A receipt from any transaction showing the correct amount of purchase shall be offered to the customer at the time of any transaction, including any cash sale. Transactions not ordinarily recorded in a cash register or point of sale terminal shall be noted on and kept in a ledger format. 8.2 Retention of Books and Records. The Operator shall, for a period of five (5) years following the end of the Term, keep and maintain, safe and intact, all of the records, books and accounts required to be maintained by the Operator regarding the Garden pursuant to this Agreement, and shall from time to time, upon request, make these records available to the Authority, the Authority’s auditor, representative or agent for examination at any reasonable time, on ten (10) calendar days advance Notice. The Authority shall also have the right to make abstracts from the records or make copies of any or all of the records. In addition, on request of the Authority or the Authority’s representative, the Operator shall furnish copies of the Operator’s State of California and local sales and use tax returns. 8.3 Annual Update to Strategic Plan. Annually, Operator will review the Strategic Plan with the Authority. 8.4 Operator and Annual Reports. 8.4.1 Operator shall provide to each Authority member agency Board no later than March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15 of each year, in writing, or in person if requested by the Authority member agency Board, a quarterly report which shall address: (a) Financials: Financial reporting will include summary of fundraising efforts, educational income, grants and earned revenue and expenses. (b) Attendance: Attendance through turnstiles, classes, field trips, assemblies and outreach. (c) Garden Renewal: Update on renewal efforts of Deferred Maintenance Projects and continued maintenance of Core Exhibits. (d) Exhibits: Consultation regarding any new exhibits over $100,000 or major overhaul of Core Exhibits consistent with Section 10 below. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 16 8.4.2 By December 15 each year, Operator shall provide to each Authority member agency Board in writing, or in person if requested by the Authority member agency Board, the Operator’s Annual Report and updates to the Strategic Plan. 8.5 Communication. To facilitate open, effective, and efficient communication the Parties shall utilize the following communication process: 8.5.1 Member agencies shall communicate to and through the Authority Board; 8.5.2 Authority may provide direction to the Executive Director regarding the Core Exhibits and the Section 8.3 Reports. The Authority shall not provide direction to the Executive Director regarding day to day operational issues; 8.5.3 Authority and Operator shall share information regularly, including holding not less than one joint meeting annually. Authority may provide direction to the Operator regarding Core Exhibits and the Section 8.3 Reports; 8.5.4 The Operator and Executive Director shall share information regularly. The Operator Board may provide direction to the Executive Director regarding policy and operational issues; 8.5.5 The Executive Director shall be responsible for all communication with Garden staff. 9. LEGAL COMPLIANCE. The Operator shall during the Term, at the Operator’s sole cost and expense, in all material respects: (a) comply with all Laws; and (b) procure and comply with all Approvals required by Law. 10. ALTERATIONS TO GARDEN. Operator shall not do any of the following without the prior written approval of Authority: (a) construct any new buildings or exhibits within the Garden with a value in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00);(b)remove any exhibits; or (c) construct an exhibit so significant as to change the focus or purpose of the Core Exhibit. Operator may make new plantings, modify existing exhibits or maintain existing buildings and exhibits as reasonably required or desirable in the normal operation of the Garden in accordance with its obligations under this Agreement, without any further consent of Authority. 11. PROHIBITED LIENS 11.1 Operator’s Covenant. If a Prohibited Lien is filed, then the Operator shall, within fifteen (15) days after receiving notice of such filing, cause such Prohibited Lien to be released. If the Authority receives notice of any such filing, then the Authority shall promptly Notify the Operator. 11.2 Protection of the Authority. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE AUTHORITY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY LABOR OR MATERIALS FURNISHED OR TO BE FURNISHED TO THE OPERATOR UPON CREDIT AND THAT NO MECHANIC’S OR OTHER LIEN FOR ANY SUCH LABOR OR MATERIALS SHALL ATTACH TO OR AFFECT THE FEE ESTATE. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED IN ANY WAY TO CONSTITUTE THE AUTHORITY’S CONSENT OR REQUEST, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BY INFERENCE OR OTHERWISE, TO 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 17 ANY CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTOR, LABORER, EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL SUPPLIER FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY LABOR OR THE FURNISHING OF ANY MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, NOR AS GIVING THE OPERATOR ANY RIGHT, POWER OR AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT FOR, OR PERMIT THE RENDERING OF, ANY SERVICES, OR THE FURNISHING OF ANY MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD GIVE RISE TO THE FILING OF ANY LIENS AGAINST THE FEE ESTATE. THE OPERATOR SHALL INDEMNIFY THE AUTHORITY AGAINST ANY ACTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE OPERATOR OR ANYONE CLAIMING THROUGH THE OPERATOR, AND AGAINST ALL PROHIBITED LIENS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 13. 11.3 Garden Not Subject to Mechanic’s Liens. The Garden is owned by the GCCCD, which is a public entity, and as a result, the Garden is not subject to the imposition of mechanic’s liens. The Operator agrees to notify, in writing, each provider of labor, material or services on or to the Garden of such fact and that neither the GCCCD, the Authority nor the Garden shall be responsible for payment of any claims by any such providers of labor, material or services. The Authority shall have the right at all reasonable times to post and keep posted on the Garden any notices that the Authority may deem necessary for the protection of the Authority or the Garden from mechanic’s liens or other claims. The Operator shall give the Authority, at least, ten (10) calendar days prior Notice of the commencement of any work on the Garden with a reasonably anticipated cost exceeding Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) and that could otherwise give rise to a mechanic’s lien or other similar claim or lien, but for the Authority’s ownership of the Garden, to enable the Authority to post any notices that the Authority may deem appropriate. 12. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 12.1 Restrictions. The Operator shall not cause or permit to occur on, under or at the Garden during the Term: (a) any violation of any Environmental Law; or (b) the use, generation, release, manufacture, refining, production, processing, storage, or disposal of any Hazardous Substance, or transportation to or from the Garden of any Hazardous Substance, unless both: (i) reasonably necessary and customary to operate and maintain the Garden for uses this Agreement permits; and (ii) in compliance with all Environmental Law. 12.2 Compliance; Clean-Up. The Operator shall, at the Operator’s sole expense: (a) comply with all Environmental Laws applicable to the Garden and, to the extent Environmental Law requires, clean up any Hazardous Substance Discharge; (b) make all submissions to, deliver all information required by, and otherwise fully comply with all requirements of any Government under Environmental Law; (c) if any Government requires any clean-up plan or clean-up because of a Hazardous Substances Discharge, prepare and submit the required plans and all related bonds and other financial assurances; (d) promptly and diligently carry out all such clean-up plans; and (e) Indemnify the Authority Parties against any Hazardous Substances Discharge or violation of Environmental Law, in accordance with Section 13. 13. INDEMNIFICATION; LIMIT ON LIABILITY OF AUTHORITY 13.1 Operator Indemnification of Authority Parties. The Operator shall Indemnify the Authority Parties against any: (a) wrongful act, wrongful omission, or negligence of the Operator (and anyone claiming by or through the Operator) or its or their shareholders, directors, officers, elected officials, partners, attorneys, agents or employees; (b) breach or Default by the Operator under this Agreement; or (c) breach of any representation or warranty the Operator makes 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 18 in this Agreement; (d) any Application made at the Operator’s request; (e) use, occupancy management or operation of the Garden; (f) any agreements that the Operator (or anyone claiming through the Operator) makes regarding the Garden; (g) the condition of the Garden or any street, curb or sidewalk adjoining the Garden, or of any vaults, tunnels, passageways or space under, adjoining or appurtenant to the Garden; and (h) any accident, injury or damage whatsoever caused to any Person in or on the Garden or upon or under the sidewalks adjoining the Garden. 13.2 Authority Indemnification of Operator. The Authority shall Indemnify the Operator against any: (a) wrongful act, wrongful omission, or negligence of the Authority (and anyone claiming by or through the Authority) or its or their shareholders, directors, officers, elected officials, partners, attorneys, agents or employees; (b) breach or Default by the Authority under this Agreement; or (c) breach of any representation or warranty the Authority makes in this Agreement; (d) any Application made at the Authority’s request; and (e) any agreements that the Authority (or anyone claiming through the Authority) makes regarding the Garden. 13.3 Limitation on Liability of the Authority. During the Term: (a) the Operator is and shall be responsible for operation of the Garden; and (b) the Authority shall not be liable for any injury or damage to any property (of the Operator or any other Person) or to any Person occurring on or about the Garden, except to the extent caused by the Authority’s intentional or negligent act or omission. Provisions of this Agreement or the License Agreement regarding the Authority’s rights or obligations with respect to the Garden shall not impose upon the Authority any liability to Third Persons. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to exculpate, relieve, or Indemnify the Authority from or against any liability of the Authority: (i) to Third Persons existing on or before the Effective Date; or (ii) arising from the Authority’s wrongful intentional act or negligence. 13.4 Strict Liability. The indemnification obligations of the Operator under this Agreement shall apply regardless of whether liability without fault or strict liability is imposed or sought to be imposed on one or more of the Authority Parties. 13.5 Independent of Insurance Obligations. The Operator’s indemnification obligations under this Agreement shall not be construed or interpreted as in any way restricting, limiting, or modifying the Operator’s insurance or other obligations under this Agreement and is independent of the Operator’s insurance and other obligations under this Agreement. The Operator’s compliance with its insurance obligations and other obligations under this Agreement shall not in any way restrict, limit, or modify the Operator’s indemnification obligations under this Agreement and are independent of the Operator’s indemnification and other obligations under this Agreement. 13.6 Survival of Indemnification and Defense Obligations. The indemnification and defense obligations of the Operator under this Agreement shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, until all claims against any of the Authority Parties involving any of the indemnified matters are fully, finally, and absolutely and completely barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. 14. INSURANCE 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 19 14.1 Operator to Insure. The Operator shall, during the Term, maintain the following insurance (or its then reasonably available equivalent): (a) Property Insurance; (b) Liability Insurance; (c) Automobile Liability Insurance; (d) Worker ‘s Compensation Insurance; and (e) Director and Officers Insurance. 14.2 Nature of Insurance Program. All Property Insurance and Liability Insurance policies this Agreement requires will be procured by the Operator through GCCCD or otherwise shall be issued by carriers that: (a) are listed in the then current “Best’s Key Rating Guide- Property/Casualty-United States & Canada” publication (or its equivalent, if such publication ceases to be published) with a minimum financial strength rating and a minimum financial size category equivalent to that of GCCCD; and (b) are admitted to do business in the State by the State Department of Insurance. The Operator may provide any Property Insurance or Liability Insurance coverage under a “blanket” or “umbrella” insurance policy, provided that: (i) such policy specifies the amount(s) of the total insurance allocated to the Garden, which amount(s) shall, when combined with the underlying policy liability limits, equal or exceed the amount(s) required by this Agreement and shall not be reduced for claims made for other properties; and (ii) such policy otherwise complies with this Agreement. 14.3 Policy Requirements and Endorsements. All insurance policies this Agreement requires shall contain (by endorsement or other policy provision) the following provisions: 14.3.1 Insured. Liability Insurance policies shall name both the Authority and the GCCCD as an “additional insured.” Property Insurance policies shall name both the Authority and the GCCCD as loss payee, as their respective interests may appear. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 14.3.1, all Property Insurance Proceeds shall be paid and applied as this Agreement provides. 14.3.2 Primary Coverage. All policies shall be written as primary policies, not contributing to or in excess of any coverage that the Authority may carry. 14.3.3 Contractual Liability. Liability Insurance policies shall contain contractual liability coverage, for the Operator’s indemnity obligations under this Agreement. The Operator’s obtaining or failure to obtain such contractual liability coverage shall not relieve the Operator from nor satisfy any indemnity obligation of the Operator under this Agreement. 14.3.4 Notice to the Authority. Each insurance policy shall require the carrier to give the Authority no less than thirty (30) calendar days’ advance written notice of any cancellation, non-renewal, material change in coverage or available limits of liability under any insurance policy required by this Agreement; provided, however, only ten (10) calendar days’ advance written notice shall be required for cancellation of any insurance policy for non- payment of the premium. 14.4 Deliveries to the Authority. On the Effective Date, and no later than twenty (20) days before any Liability Insurance, Automobile Liability Insurance or Property Insurance expires, is cancelled or its liability limits are materially reduced or exhausted, the Operator shall deliver to the Authority policies of insurance evidencing the Operator ‘s maintenance of all Liability Insurance, Automobile Liability Insurance and Property Insurance this Agreement requires, in each case providing coverage for, at least, twelve (12) months from the date delivered. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 20 14.5 Waiver of Certain Claims. Policies of Liability Insurance or Property Insurance shall include a Waiver of Subrogation, by endorsement or other policy provision. The Parties release each other, and their respective authorized representatives, from any claims for damage to any Person or property that are caused by or result from risks insured against under such insurance policies. 14.6 No Representation. Neither Party makes any representation that the limits, scope, nor are forms of insurance coverage this Agreement requires adequate or sufficient. 15. CASUALTY 15.1 Notice. If either Party becomes aware of any Casualty, such Party shall promptly Notify the other Party. 15.2 Effect of Casualty. If any Casualty occurs, then: (a) this Agreement shall not terminate or be impaired; and (b) the Operator shall Restore with reasonable promptness regardless of cost. If, however, the Casualty is a Substantial Casualty, then the Operator may, by Notice to the Authority, given within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of the Casualty, terminate this Agreement effective sixty (60) days after such Notice, provided that the Operator assigns to the Authority all of the Operator’s right, title and interest in and to any Property Insurance Proceeds (and rights thereto) arising from the Casualty. 15.3 Obligation to Restore. If the Operator does not timely elect to terminate this Agreement or is required to Restore the Garden Improvements pursuant to this Agreement, the Operator shall immediately deposit with the Authority either an amount equal to the deficiency in insurance proceeds actually available for Restoration and the cost of Restoration, or security reasonably satisfactory to the Authority for such deficiency. If the Operator is required or elects to Restore, the Operator shall, as soon as is reasonable under the circumstances, commence and continue thereafter diligently and without interruption, at the Operator’s sole cost and expense (but the Operator may use any insurance proceeds available for such purpose), Restore the Garden Improvements as nearly as possible to the condition they were in immediately prior to the Casualty, or with such changes or alterations as may be approved by the Authority. 15.4 Adjustment of Claims; Use of Property Insurance Proceeds. Unless the Operator has validly elected a Casualty Termination, the Operator shall have the sole right and authority to adjust any insurance claim. Property Insurance Proceeds shall be disbursed to the Operator, to be held in trust for the benefit of the Authority, and released by the Operator in installments based on progress of completion of work of Restoration. 16. ASSIGNMENT. The Operator may not assign this Agreement, without the Authority’s prior written consent, which may be given or withheld in the Authority’s sole and absolute discretion. Any approved assignee of the Operator shall assume all obligations and liabilities of the Operator under this Agreement in a writing reasonably satisfactory to the Authority, on the effective date of any such assignment. After the Operator assigns this Agreement and the assignee assumes the Operator’s obligations under this Agreement, in accordance with this Agreement, the assignor shall have no obligation or liability under this Agreement, except: (a) any obligation to hold and apply Restoration Funds held by the assignor at the date of the assignment (unless transferred to the assignee in a form acceptable to the Authority); and (b) any unperformed obligations that arose before the assignment (unless assumed in writing by the assignee in a form 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 21 acceptable to the Authority).If the Operator assigns this Agreement, then as between the Authority and the Operator, the Operator shall be deemed to have assigned to the assignee all claims against the Authority then existing, and the assignee shall be deemed, by assuming this Agreement, to have assumed all liabilities and obligations of the Operator then existing or thereafter arising under this Agreement (except as this Agreement otherwise expressly states). 17. AUTHORITY AND GCCCD ACCESS TO GARDEN. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the Authority, its agents, representatives or designees may enter the Garden to: (a) ascertain whether the Operator is complying with this Agreement; (b) cure the Operator ‘s Defaults; (c) inspect the Garden; or (d) perform such tests, borings, and other analyses as the Authority determines may be necessary or appropriate relating to (non)compliance with any Law or possible Hazardous Substances Discharge. In addition, the GCCCD shall retain all rights of access to the Garden reserved to it in the License Agreement. In entering the Garden, the Authority or its designees shall not unreasonably interfere with operation of the Garden. 18. NO PROPERTY ESTATE OR INTEREST CONVEYED. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the Parties do not intend to convey any interest or estate in real or personal property between them and nothing in this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as a grant of any interest or estate in any property, except to the extent that Operator agrees to assignment of rights in License Agreement, which provides that property of Authority shall go to Operator in the event of Authority dissolution. If this Agreement or any provision of this Agreement is construed or interpreted by a court of competent jurisdiction as conveying an estate or interest in property between the Parties (excepting FF&E on the Expiration Date), then any Party not then in Default of this Agreement may, in such Party’s sole and absolute discretion, terminate this Agreement, without liability to the other Party or any other person for such termination, by delivering Notice of termination to the other Party within thirty (30) calendar days following notice of such court determination. Without limiting the right of either Party to terminate this Agreement, pursuant to the immediately preceding sentence, if neither Party has exercised its contractual right to terminate this Agreement within thirty (30) calendar days following notice of such court determination, then upon the expiration of such thirty (30) calendar day period, the Parties’ respective rights to terminate this Agreement pursuant to this Section 18 shall be extinguished. 19. EVENTS OF DEFAULT; REMEDIES 19.1 Definition of “Event of Default.” An “Event of Default” means the occurrence of any one or more of the following: 19.1.1 Monetary Default. If a Monetary Default occurs and continues for ten (10) calendar days after Notice from the Authority, specifying in reasonable detail the amount of money not paid and the nature and calculation of each such payment. 19.1.2 Prohibited Liens. If the Operator fails to cause any Prohibited Lien to be released within fifteen (15) calendar days after Notice from the Authority of such lien. 19.1.3 Bankruptcy or Insolvency. If the Operator ceases to do business as a going concern, ceases to pay its debts as they become due or admits in writing that it is unable to pay its debts as they become due, or becomes subject to any Bankruptcy Proceeding (except an involuntary Bankruptcy Proceeding dismissed within sixty (60) calendar days after 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 22 commencement), or a custodian or trustee is appointed to take possession of, or an attachment, execution or other judicial seizure is made with respect to, substantially all of the Operator’s assets or the Operator’s interest in this Agreement (unless such appointment, attachment, execution, or other seizure was involuntary and is contested with diligence and continuity and vacated and discharged within sixty (60) calendar days). 19.1.4 Non-Monetary Default. If any Non-Monetary Default, other than those addressed in Sections 19.1.2 and 19.1.3, occurs and the Operator does not cure such Non- Monetary Default within thirty (30) calendar days after Notice from the Authority describing the Default in reasonable detail, or, in the case of a Non-Monetary Default that cannot with reasonable due diligence be cured within thirty (30) calendar days from such Notice, if the Operator shall not: (i) within thirty (30) calendar days after the Authority’s Notice, advise the Authority of the Operator’s intention to take all reasonable steps to cure such Non-Monetary Default; (ii) duly commence such cure within such period, and then diligently prosecute such cure to completion; and (iii)complete such cure within a reasonable time under the circumstances. 19.2 Remedies. If an Event of Default occurs, then the Authority shall, in the Authority’s sole discretion, have any or all of the following described remedies, all cumulative (so exercise of one remedy shall not preclude exercise of another remedy), in addition to such other remedies as may be available at Law or in equity or under any other terms of this Agreement. The Authority’s remedies shall include: 19.2.1 Termination of Agreement. Either Party may initiate termination of this Agreement if the other party fails to act in good faith under this Agreement and/or breaches any of the terms herein. To initiate termination, either party may provide the other with a Notice of Intent to Terminate or by any other lawful means. Within thirty (30) days of delivery and receipt of such Notice, either party may elect for the parties to proceed to mediation with a mutually agreed upon mediator. The cost of mediation will be equally divided by the parties. If no request for mediation is made by either party within thirty (30) days, the Agreement shall terminate immediately. If the parties participate in mediation and at the completion of such mediation either party still seeks to terminate the Agreement, the Agreement shall terminate immediately. Upon termination of the Agreement, such date of termination shall be the Expiration Date, and the Operator shall immediately vacate the Garden. Additionally, the either Party may bring an action to recover any amount necessary to compensate itself for all detriment proximately caused by the other Party’s failure to perform their obligations under this Agreement. 19.2.2 Receipt of Moneys. No receipt of money by the Authority from the Operator after Notice of Default, the Expiration Date, or the giving of any Notice of termination of this Agreement, shall reinstate, continue, or extend this Agreement or affect any Notice previously given to the Operator, or waive the Authority’s right to enforce payment of any amount payable or later falling due, or the Authority’s right to enter the Garden, except as this Agreement expressly states otherwise, it being agreed that after service of Notice of Default or Notice of termination of this Agreement or the commencement of suit or proceedings, or after final order or judgment, the Authority may demand, receive, and collect any moneys due or thereafter falling due, without in any manner affecting any such Notice, proceeding, order, suit or judgment, all such moneys collected being deemed payments on account of use of the Garden or, at the Authority’s election, on account of the Operator’s liability to the Authority. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 23 19.2.3 No Waiver. No failure by the Authority to insist upon strict performance of any covenant, agreement, term or condition of this Agreement or to exercise any right or remedy upon a Default, and no acceptance of full or partial payment during continuance of any such Default, shall waive any such Default or such covenant, agreement, term or condition. No covenant, agreement, term or condition of this Agreement to be performed or complied with by the Operator, and no Default, shall be Modified, except by a written instrument executed by the Authority. No waiver of any default shall modify this Agreement. Each and every covenant, agreement, term and condition of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect with respect to any other then-existing or subsequent Default of such covenant, agreement, term or condition of this Agreement. 19.2.4 Security Devices. The Authority may change the locks and other security devices providing admittance to the Garden. 19.2.5 Damages. Subject to Section 26.2, the Authority may recover from the Operator all damages the Authority incurs by reason of the Operator ‘s Default, including reasonable costs of removing the Operator’s personnel or property from the Garden, and any and all other damages legally recoverable by the Authority, and reimbursement of the Authority’s reasonable out of pocket costs,. The Authority may recover such damages at any time after the Operator ‘s Default, including after the Expiration Date. 19.2.6 Injunction of Breaches. Whether or not an Event of Default has occurred, the Authority may obtain a court order enjoining the Operator from continuing any Default or from committing any threatened Default. The Operator specifically and expressly acknowledges that damages would not constitute an adequate remedy to the Authority for any Non-Monetary Default. 19.2.7 Continue Agreement. The Authority may, in the Authority’s sole discretion, maintain the Operator’s right to operate the Garden pursuant to this Agreement. In that case, this Agreement shall continue and the Authority may continue to enforce it. 19.2.8 Restoration Funds. Upon any termination of this Agreement, to the extent that the Authority then holds any Restoration Funds, they shall be the sole property of the Authority and may be applied solely as the Authority directs. 19.3 Authority’s Right to Cure. 30 days after a request to Operator by Authority to cure Operator’s Default under this Agreement, the Authority, without waiving or releasing the Operator from any obligation or Default and without waiving the Authority’s right to take such action as this Agreement may permit as a result of such Default, may (but need not) make any payment or take any action on behalf of the Operator to cure any Default of the Operator. The Operator shall reimburse the Authority for an amount equal to all reasonable sums paid, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred, by the Authority in exercising its cure rights under this Section 19.3. Pursuant to paragraph 17, the Authority may enter the Garden to cure said Default. 19.4 Failure to Vacate. If for any reason or no reason the Operator does not vacate the Garden (removal of all of the Operator ‘s personnel and property) on or before the Expiration Date, then the Authority will suffer injury that is substantial, difficult, or impossible to measure accurately. Therefore, if the Operator remains in the Garden after the Expiration Date, either by its personnel or its property or both, for any reason or no reason, then in addition to any other rights or remedies of the Authority, the Operator shall pay to the Authority, as liquidated damages and 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 24 not as a penalty, for each day during which the Operator remains in the Garden after the Expiration Date, a sum equal to One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). 19.5 Survival. No entry into or onto the Garden by the Authority shall relieve the Operator of its liabilities and obligations under this Agreement, all of which shall survive such entry. Termination of this Agreement shall not relieve the Operator of any liabilities or obligations of the Operator arising under this Agreement prior to the date of termination. 20. END OF TERM. Upon any Termination Date: (a) the Operator shall vacate the Garden (removal of all of the Operator’s personnel), in the condition this Agreement requires, subject to any Casualty that this Agreement does not require the Operator to Restore, and all Garden Improvements and FF&E used in the operation of the Garden shall be the sole and exclusive property of the Authority; (b) the Operator shall deliver the Garden free and clear of all claims except claims that the Authority or any of its agents caused; (c) all unspent income or other consideration due or becoming due for use of the Gardenassociated with unused Authority dues or fundraised specifically for maintenance of the Core Exhibits as of the Expiration Date shall be immediately transferred to the Authority; (d) all unspent income associated with educational programming, weddings, third party events or funds raised to support educational program shall remain with the Operator as of the Expiration Date; (e) all intellectual property associated with the educational programming shall remain with the Operator as the exclusive owner thereof, including but not limited to the Ms. Smarty Plants program; and (df) the Parties shall cooperate to achieve an orderly transition of operation of the Garden from the Operator to the Authority or a designee of the Authority, without interruption, including delivery of such books and records (or copies thereof) as the Authority reasonably requires. 21. NO INTENDED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement does not, and shall not be deemed or construed to, confer upon or grant to any Third Person (excepting permitted successors or assigns of the Operator or the Authority pursuant to the terms of this Agreement) any right to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the Authority or the Operator because of any breach of this Agreement or to enforce any term, covenant, condition, restriction, reservation, provision or agreement contained in this Agreement. 22. NOTICES. All Notices shall be in writing and addressed to the Authority or the Operator (and their designated copy recipients) as set forth in Exhibit “A.” Notices (including any required copies) shall be delivered personally or by Federal Express, United Parcel Service or other nationally or regionally recognized overnight (one business day) courier service to the addresses set forth in Exhibit “A,” in which case they shall be deemed delivered on the date of delivery (or when delivery has been attempted twice, as evidenced by the written report of the courier service) to such address(es). Either Party may change its address for delivery of Notices by Notice in compliance with this Agreement. Notice of such a change shall be effective only upon receipt. Any Party giving a Notice may request the recipient to acknowledge receipt of such Notice. The recipient shall promptly comply with any such request, but failure to do so shall not limit the effectiveness of any Notice. Any attorney may give any Notice on behalf of its client. 23. NO BROKER. Each Party: (a) represents and warrants that it did not engage or deal with any broker or finder in connection with this Agreement and no Person is entitled to any commission or finder’s fee on account of any agreement or arrangement made by such Party; and (b) shall indemnify the other Party against any breach of such representation. Commented [1]: .Elyssa’s comment: All unspent income associated with unused Authority dues, or funds raised specifically for maintenance of the core exhibits as of the Expiration Date shall be immediately transferred to the Authority d. All unspent income associated with educational programming, weddings, third party events or funds raised to support the educational programming will remain with the Operator. E. all intellectual property associated with the educational programming will remain with the operator as the exclusive owner including but not limited to Ms. Smarty Plants program. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 25 24. MODIFICATION. Any Modification of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the Party to be bound. 25. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This Agreement shall bind and benefit the Authority and the Operator and their successors and assigns, but this Section 25 shall not limit or supersede any Transfer restrictions contained in this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement confers on any Person (except the Authority and the Operator) any right to insist upon, or to enforce against the Authority or the Operator, the performance or observance by either Party of its rights or obligations under this Agreement. 26. MISCELLANEOUS 26.1 Waiver of Non-Disturbance. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, Operator expressly agrees that this Agreement shall terminate and expire in the event that the License Agreement terminates or expires during the Term. To that end, Operator expressly waives any claim of any right to non-disturbance upon expiration of the License Agreement. 26.2 No Consequential Damages. Whenever either Party may seek or claim damages against the other Party (whether by reason of a breach of this Agreement by such Party, in enforcement of any indemnity obligation, for misrepresentation or breach of warranty, or otherwise), neither the Authority nor the Operator shall seek, nor shall there be awarded or granted by any court, arbitrator, or other adjudicator, any speculative, consequential, collateral, special, punitive, or indirect damages, whether such breach shall be willful, knowing, intentional, deliberate, or otherwise. The Parties intend that any damages awarded to either Party shall be limited to actual, direct damages sustained by the aggrieved Party. Neither Party shall be liable for any loss of profits suffered or claimed to have been suffered by the other. 26.3 No Waiver by Silence. Failure of either Party to complain of any act or omission on the part of the other Party shall not be deemed a waiver by the non-complaining Party of any of its rights under this Agreement. No waiver by either Party at any time, express or implied, of any breach of this Agreement shall waive the same such breach at another time or any other breach. 26.4 Survival. All rights and obligations that by their nature are to be performed after any termination of this Agreement shall survive any such termination. 26.5 Unavoidable Delay. Each Party’s obligation to perform or observe any nonmonetary obligation under this Agreement shall be suspended during such time as such performance or observance is prevented or delayed by Unavoidable Delay. 26.6 Authority Contract Administration. The Authority Representative shall administer this Agreement on behalf of the Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the Authority Representative has the authority to approve or consent to those matters in this Agreement requiring the Authority’s approval or consent and to make all other decisions on behalf of the Authority, subject to the Authority Representative’s retained and reserved sole and absolute discretion to seek approval of the Authority’s governing board of any such matter. The Authority may revoke the authorization provided to the Authority Representative in this Section 26.6, at any time, by Notice of such revocation to the Operator. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 26 27. INTERPRETATION, EXECUTION, AND APPLICATION OF AGREEMENT 27.1 Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and in no way affect this Agreement. 27.2 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterpart originals, each of which shall constitute an original of this Agreement and that, collectively, shall constitute one and the same agreement. 27.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the terms, covenants, conditions and agreements between the Parties regarding the Garden. The Parties have no other understandings or agreements, oral or written, regarding the Garden. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 27.4 Governing Law. This Agreement, its interpretation and performance, the relationship between the Parties, and any disputes arising from or relating to any of the foregoing, shall be governed, construed, interpreted, and regulated under the laws of the State of California, without regard to principles of conflicts or choice of laws. 27.5 Partial Invalidity. If any term or provision of this Agreement or its application to any Person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, then the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to Persons or circumstances, except those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected by such invalidity. All remaining provisions of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent Law allows. 27.6 Principles of Interpretation. No inference in favor of or against any Party shall be drawn from the fact that such Party has drafted any part of this Agreement. The Parties have both participated substantially in the negotiation, drafting, and revision of this Agreement, with advice from counsel and other advisers of their own selection. A term defined in the singular in this Agreement may be used in the plural, and vice versa, all in accordance with ordinary principles of English grammar, which also govern all other language in this Agreement. The words “include” and “including” shall be construed to be followed by the words: “without limitation.” Each collective noun in this Agreement shall be interpreted as if followed by the words “(or any part of it),” except where the context clearly requires otherwise. Every reference to any document, including this Agreement, refers to such document as Modified from time to time (except any Modification that violates this Agreement), and includes all exhibits, schedules, and riders to such document. The word “or” includes the word “and.” 27.7 Reasonableness. Wherever this Agreement states that a Party’s approval shall be “reasonable” or not unreasonably withheld: (a) such approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or conditioned; (b) no withholding of approval shall be deemed reasonable, unless withheld by Notice specifying reasonable grounds, in reasonable detail, for such withholding, and indicating specific reasonable changes in the proposal under consideration that would make it acceptable; and (c) if a Party grants its consent to any matter, this shall not waive its rights to require such consent for any further or similar matter. 27.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to the performance of each term, provision, covenant or agreement contained in this Agreement. 27.9 Exhibits. All of the exhibits attached to this Agreement are as follows and are incorporated into this Agreement by reference: Exhibit “A” =Notice Addresses Exhibit “B” =Form of Operator Official Action Exhibit “C” =License Agreement Exhibit “D” = Operation and Maintenance Obligations [Signatures on next page] 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDED AND RESTATED WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN OPERATION AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Operator have signed this Agreement by and through the signatures of their authorized representatives set forth below: AUTHORITY: WATER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, a California joint powers authority By: Board President ATTEST: By: Board Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Best Best & Krieger LLP By: Authority General Counsel OPERATOR: FRIENDS OF THE WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation By: Name: _________________________ Title: __________________________ By: Name: _________________________ Title: __________________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS UNDER LICENSE AGREEMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges and consents to the assignment of rights and obligations by the Authority to the Operator under the License Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, a California community college district: By: _______________________________ Name: _____________________________ Title: ______________________________ 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 A-1 Discussion Draft No. 3 September 23, 2017 EXHIBIT “A” NOTICE ADDRESSES Party: Notice Address: With a copy to: Authority Water Conservation Authority 12122 Cuyamaca College Drive West El Cajon, CA 92019 Attention: Executive Director Best Best & Krieger LLP 655 West Broadway 15th Floor San Diego, California 92101 Attention: Paula C.P. de Sousa Operator Friends of Water Conservation Garden 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 B-1 Discussion Draft No. September 23, 2017 EXHIBIT “B FORM OF OPERATOR OFFICIAL ACTION [Attached behind this cover page] 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 B-2 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FRIENDS OF THE WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION At a meeting of the board of directors of Friends of the Water Conservation Garden, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (the “Corporation”), duly held on ____________, 20__, at which meeting all of the directors of the Corporation were in attendance, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, the Corporation is about to enter into that certain Amended and Restated Water Conservation Garden Operation Agreement with the Water Conservation Authority, a California joint powers authority (“the Authority”), dated as of ______________, 20___ (the “Agreement”), to maintain and operate certain real property and improvements specifically described in the Agreement (the “Garden”); and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has reviewed the Agreement and all documents executed or to be executed in connection with the Agreement and considers the transaction to be in the best interest of the Corporation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corporation execute the Agreement and all documents previously presented to, reviewed, and approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the following officers of the Corporation acting alone be, and they hereby are, authorized, empowered, and directed on behalf of the Corporation to execute and deliver the Agreement and all other documents to be executed in connection with it, and to take all actions that may be necessary to exercise the Corporation’s rights and perform the Corporation’s obligations under the Agreement and any such other documents: President [Name] Secretary [Name] The authority conferred by this Resolution shall be considered retroactive and any and all acts authorized in this Resolution that were performed before the passage of this Resolution are hereby approved and ratified by the Corporation. The authority conferred by this Resolution shall continue in full force and effect until the Authority shall have received notice in writing, certified by the Secretary of the Corporation, of the revocation of this authority by a separate resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The undersigned, _______________________________, Secretary of the Corporation, certifies that the foregoing is a true copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation at a meeting held on ______________, 20__. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have executed this Resolution and affixed the corporate seal of the Corporation, as of ______________, 20__. Date: Name Secretary [Seal] September 23, 2017 EXHIBIT “C” LICENSE AGREEMENT [Attached behind this cover page] LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION OF A WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this First cfay of August, 2006, by and between the GROSSMONT-CUYMAYACA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, on behalf of CUYAMACA COLLEGE (hereinafter, "the District"), and the WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN AUTHORITY, u Joint Powers Agency formed pursuant to Government Code section 6500 (hereinafter, "the Authority"), with reference to the following facts: A. The parties have previously entered into an Agreement dated April 6, l993, for the establishment of a Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College for public education purposes and to assist in reducing the demand for imported wnter in the San Diego region. Pursuant to that Agreement, the Authority has operated u Water Conservation Gnrden nl Cuyamaca College sinee 1999. 8. The parties desire to extend the term of their agreement and otherwise more clearly set forth the relationship of the parties and the terms of operation of the Water Conservation Garden (hereinafter referred to as "the Garden"}; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: l. LICENSE TO USE LAND. The District hereby grants Lo the Authority the right to use the approximate 4.28-acre portion of the Cuyamaca College campus, commonly known ns the existing Water Conservation Garden and located at 12122 Cuyamaca College Drive West, El Cajon, California (more particularly described in Exhibits A and B attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein), for purposes of operating a water conservation demonstration garden for public educational purposes. 2. LICENSE TO USE ADDITIONAL PARCELS OF LAND. The District hereby grants to the Authority the right to use the approximate .20-acre portion of the Cuyarnaca College campus, commonly known as the Future Parcel "A" located at 12122 Cuyarnaea College Drive West, El Cajon, California (more particularly described in Exhibits A and B attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein), subject to the District and the Authority signing an agreement defining the terms and conditions for the use of the future puree!. Additionally, the District hereby grants to the Authority the right to use the approximate .37-acre portion of the Cuyamaca College campus, commonly known as the Future Parcel "B" located at [2122 Cuyan1aca College Drive West, El Cajon, California (more particularly described in Exhibits A and B attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein), subject lo the District nnd the Authority signing an agreement defining the terms and conditions for the use of the futw:e parcel. 3. TERM. The lean of this Agreement shall be from August l, 2006 to and including July 31, 2033. This Agreement may be renewed for an additional ten-year period by mutual agreement of the parties. This Agreement shall supersede all previous agreements between the parties hereto, provided that it shall not supersede the Joint Powers Agreement Creating the Water Conservation Authority. 4. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. The Authority shall operate the Garden and shall make it accessible for visitation by members of the general public for a reasonable number of hours each week. The Authority will maintain the Garden on a continuing basis at a level consistent with its condition at the time of execution of this License Agreement. In the event that the Authority fails to adequately maintain the Garden at such level, or fails to use and maintain the land for a demonstration garden, the District may give written notice of default of this obligation. If the default is not remedied within sixty (60) days, from the date such notice is delivered, the District may then elect to terminate this Agreement without any further obligation to the Authority. Operation and maintenance of the Garden shall be at no cost to the District, and Authority shall pay for all required utilities. S. INSURANCE. The District shall obtain and keep in force a policy of Commercial General Liability Insurance, Automobile Liability Insurance and Property Insurance in amounts acceptable to Authority insuring the District and naming the Authority as additional insured. The District shall also obtain and keep in force a policy of Workers' Compensation Insurance covering District’s employees. 2 Authority will obtain and keep in force Comprehensive Commercial General Liability and Automobile Insurance, in an amount of S1,000,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate, and additional Property and Casualty Insurance covering the Authority and the Garden naming the District as additional insured. The Authority shall also obtain and keep in force a policy of Workers' Compensation Insurance covering Authority's employees. 6. INDEMNIFICATION. The District agrees to protect, save, defend and hold harmless the Authority and its agents, officers and employees from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses or damages of any nature, including attorneys' fees, for injury or death of any person, or damage to property, or interference with use of property, arising out of or in any way connected with District's use of the Garden, including negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct by the District, District's agents, officers, or employees. The only exception to the District's responsibility to protect, save, defend and hold harmless the Authority is for those claims arising from the sole negligence, willful misconduct or active negligence of the Authority. The Authority agrees to protect, save, defend and hold harmless the District and its Governing Board members, agent,, officers and employees from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses or damages of ,my nature, including attorneys' fees, for injury or death of any person, damage to property, or interference with use of property, arising out of its use of the licensed property. The only exception to the Authority's responsibility to protect, save, defend and hold harmless the District is for those claims arising from the sole neglence, willful misconduct or active negligence of the District. 7. APPLICATION OF HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSES. The hold harmless provisions set forth in Section 5 shall apply to all liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation on the amount of indemnification to be provided by either party. 8. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. Both parties understand that California law generally prohibits the possession or use of alcoholic beverages on a community college campus except under certain specified conditions. The Authority agrees. that it shall not allow alcoholic 3 beverages to be brought into or consumed in the Garden, except under the conditions set forth in Business and Professions Code section 25608. The parties recognize that legislation has been introduced that would allow alcoholic beverages to be served in the Garden; if such legislation is enacted into law, the parties agree to be governed by the law as amended by the legislation. 9. WATER GARDEN EMPLOYEES. The Authority shall be responsible for the hiring, retention, discipline, and termination of the Garden employees. 1 0. DISTRICT'S RJGHT TO USE THE GARDEN. The District shall have the right to utilize the Garden at reasonable times for District and College events and for College classes. Prior arrangements for such use shall be made with the Executive Director of the Garden. 1I. OBLIGATIONS UPON TERMINATION. Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement for any reason, the Authority will leave the Water Conservation Garden in its then- current condition on the date of expiration, and any remaining improvements and equipment shall become the property of the District. 1 2. NOTICES. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: The District: The Authority: Vice Chancellor, Business Services Grossrnont-Cuyamaca Community College District 8800 Grossmont College Drive El Cajon, California 92020 Executive Director Water Conservation Garden 12122 Cuyamaca College Drive West El Cajon, CA 920 \ 9 13. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the party and shall not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 4 14. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement shall be brought in a state or federal court located in the County of San Diego, State of California. 15. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Agreement or the application thereof to any of the parties is for any reason held invalid or unenforceable, the validity of the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and may be enforced by the parties to this Agreement. l6. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may not be amended except by a writing signed by the District and the Authority. 17. INTERPRETATION. In interpreting this Agreement, it shall be deemed that it was prepared jointly by the parties with full access to legal counsel of their own. No ambiguity shall be resolved against any party on the premise that it or its attorneys were solely responsible for drafting this Agreement or any provision thereof. 18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN AUTHORITY GROSSMONT-CVYAMACA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Approved by the Board o f Directors on Approved by the Board of Trustees on July 12, 2006 5 By:______________ EXHIBIT'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION WATER GARDEN PARCEL EXISTING PARCEL Those portions of Tract "E," and Tract “F'' of RANCHO JAMACHA in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Partition Map thereof, filed in the Office of the County Clerk of San Diego County, Case No. 13, Superior Court, Entitled William M. Keighler, Et Al, VS. Mary H Eddy, Et Al, Being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at a 2" pipe with disk stamped WRCE 13782", marking a point on the Northerly line of County of San Diego Tract 4032-4, according to Map thereof No 11285 in the County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder July 11, 1985 as File No. 85-247463 of Official Records, said 2" pipe bears North 58°23'07" East, 928.98 feet (North 57°54'39" East, 928.52) from a 2" pipe with disk stamped "RCE 13782, also marking a point on the Northerly line of said Map No. 11285; thence retracing along said Northerly line South 58°23'07" West, 346.14 feet to a point of intersection with the Northeasterly right-of-way of Cuyamaca College Drive West (60 feet wide), said intersection being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 31°36'10" West, 150.35 feet; thence South 58°23'50" West, 36.89 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve concave Southerly having a radius of240.00 feet and to which a radial bears North 19°50'25" East; thenee Westerly78.97 feet along s.iid curve through a central angle of l 8°5 l' 11"; thence North 40°34'04" West, 5.58 feet; thence South 88°24'57" West, 6.87 feet; thence South 30°4 l'32" West, 6.15 feet; thence South 82°24'56" West, 138.87 feet lo n point herein designated ns Point 'A'; thence North 03°22'30" West, 67.95 feet; thence North 75°27'37" East, 12.38 feet lo the beginning of a curve concave Northwesterly having a radius of 166.50 feet; thence Northeasterly 200.93 feet along said curve through a central angle of69°08'35"; thence North 80°5 l'46" West, 21.57 feet; thence North 05°17'39" East, 15.06 feel; thence South 82°15'22" East, 21.09 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve concave Southwesterly having a radius of 166.50 feet and to which a radial bears South 89°03'30" Ei,st; thence Northwesterly 233.40 feet along said curve through a central angle of 80°18'59"; thence South 58°11'04" West, 11.19 feet; thence North 87°14'33" West, 13.10 feet; thence North 39°29'! l" West, 12.06 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve concave Northeasterly having a radius of90.00 feet and to which a radial bears South 04°12'25" West; thence Northwesterly 67.28 feet along said curve through a central angle of 42°49'54"; thence North 42°57'41" West, 34.59 feet; thence North 47°28'48" East, 122.39 feet; thence South 86°19'44" East, 52.01 feet; thence South 59°25'26" East, 348.57 feet; thence South 23°33'28" East, 84.l\2 feet; thence South 75°02'48" East, 57.59 feet lo a point herein designated as Point 'B'; thence South 41°21'32" East, 92.86 feet; thence South 06°55'30" West, 23.80 feet; thence South 86°54'\9" East, 44.08 feet; thence South 42°24'51" East, 66.14 feet; thence South 03°31'01" West, 87.49 feet lo a point on the Northerly line of said Map No. 11285; thence along said Northerly line South 58°23'07" West, 256.54 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNlNG. Page 1 of)'f 1':\,db016'll2\Doc\LEGALS\LEASE PARCELS.doc EXRIBIT'A' TOGETHER WITH: (PROPOSED PARCEL A") BEGINNING at the hereinabove described Point ‘A'; thence South 72°57'56" West, 30.28 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve concave Northeasterly having a radius of245.00 feet to which a radial bears South 03°36'02" East; thence Westerly 108.59 feet along said curve through a central angle of25°23'38" to the beginning of a compound curve concave Northeasterly having a radius of20.00 feet to which a radial bears South 21°47'36'' West; thence Northwesterly 23.88 feet along said curve through a central angle of 68°24'15"; thence North 00°11'Sl '' East, 19.14 feet to a point herein referenced as Point 'C', said point also being the beginning of a curve concave Southeasterly having a radius of I 0.00 feet; thence Northeasterly 13.58 feet along said curve through a central angle of77°48'05"; thence North 77°59'56" East, 38.33 feet; thence South 63°21'\ l" East, 18.77 feet; thence North 88°18'34" East., 37.29 feet; thence North 75°27'37" East, 45.81 feet; thence South 03°22'30" East, 67.95 fe<:t to the point of BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH: (PROPOSED PARCEL "B") BEGINNING at the hereinabove described Point '8'; thence South 41°2 l'32" East, 92.86 feet; thence South 06°55'30" West, 23.80 feet; thence South 86°54'19" East, 44.08 feet; thence South 42°24'51" East, 66.14 feet; thence North 40"2!'20" East, 94.57 fcer; thence North 61°39'21" West, 65.11 feet; thence North 47°25'43" West, 101.29 feet; thence North 71°24'33" West, 25.56 feet; thence South 84°06'49" West, 19.79 feet; thence South 44°32'14" West, 46.41 feet to the point of BEGINNING. Containing 211,796 or 4.86 Acres. All as shown on map attached herewith and made a part hereof. Prepared By: Nolle Associates, Inc. Paul G. Robotta Date L. s. 5334 Page 2 of 5 NolsdbOI 6412\Doc\LEG,\LSIU!ASE PARCELS.doe EXH/81T 21' CUYAAIACA COUEGE PORTIONS OF i TRACTS E 4 F RAHCJIO JAMACHA MAP NO. 1512 I KEY MAP HO SCAI.£ NOTE: TH[ SUR','[Y FOR TH[ BOUNDARY OF CUYAJJACA COl.1[C£ WAS BASED ON TH[ llTl_[ REPORT PREPARED BY FIRST AMERICAN llTL[ INSURANCE COIIPANY OR()[R NO. NCS-65198-SD, DAT[D DEC£JJB[R 24, 200J. VICINITY MAP WJ SCA!£ PAV!. G. 1/0BOrTA OAT[ LS SJ.14 .-.-.-1,.1.1....--...-a..n.:... ,..-_,. ,u CUYAMACA COLLEGE LEASE PARCELS 1 PREPARED l'OR. CUYAMAC:A. COLl..alf: DATE MAY. IIOOI L!Nl TAB/.£ WI[ BEARING LENGTH l1 NIO'Jl'o,l"W 5.58' a S88'2'1'5nt 6.87 lJ e,n•11'r,"lr 6:15' u N7s7rJn 12,J{J'_ LS Nfl051'16lf ,.sr L6 N0577.J9"r 15.06' L1 S8n5'227: :ll.09' l8 S587l'ol1f 11.19' l9 NBn1•,n, IJ.10' LIO N.19 '111' 12""' UI N()l)71'517: ,ou· U2 S6.J71)f7: 1a.1r l/J NIJ878'.R7: Jl.29' LU SJ1Tl7'55"w ;au· l/5 Sll'J5'1,2"! 16.85' L/6 N71'20Jlf ?<«' l/7 SIU'06 9"W 19.79' LIB "''"Jl'll"/r 16.41' aJ/1',£ f.48.£ QH?JCI RADIUS I ()[!IA lt£H(;TII Ct I iiioo· I 6874'15" I 2188' Cl -i ,aoo· I ln8'D5' I IJ.5/f EXHIBIT 21' ..P .,,<.1'6" ./J'o <:.,..,...,.v.. PORTJONS TRACTS E ,3 .• 0 - RANCHO JAloJACHA ..., MAP NO. 1512 ..., ffi MUS 0- 2t t-RCEL !;I 2.33 ,.c_ EXISTING WATER GARDEN 1116,521 S.F. 4.28 - / / GRAPHIC SCALE o· so' 100' zoo' SCALE 1'= 100' I N I 111091D 1111111.11• CUY AMACA COLLEGE LEASE PARCELS 2 .Kl8"""8El! SOB018412 ,...,.....,.,mi. ........ --.Ollll,A.11 DATE YAY, 20CMI 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 C-1 . EXHIBIT li'' I N I 6' ..,. ...P-t:-,.,.(1' <' o. '?'{."'"is> POfrf(OJ,/8 1RAC7'8 E i! F · 'd 0 • RA#CHD JAl'iACHA MAP J,/O, 1512 MUSEUM PARCEL 101,728 S.F. 2.JJ AC. GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE 1·- 100· :I:-I.T:O=ID.::l=l,t:l.ll.111. 111 ':';... CUY AMACA COLLEGE LEASE PARCELS J------------------------+ - 3 l><E Pl'IEPARED FOR, CUYAIU.CA COi.LEGE DATI. BUIMITTB>. IU.Y, 2000 3 ETS =!.!. 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 2 EXHIBIT D OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS [ATTACHED BEHIND COVER PAGE] 60621.00001\30173836.430173836.6 3 On-going Operations and Maintenance Costs – Operator Responsibility paid from Authority’s Annual Contribution 1. Horticulture staff and benefits 2. Maintenance and supplies a. Irrigation b. Exhibit maintenance c. Plants (includes annuals, perennials, and box trees as necessary) d. Tools 3. Percentage of Utilities Deferred Maintenance Costs – Authority Responsibility: paid from Annual Contribution Deferred Maintenance set aside (see Section 7.3.2) over 5 years 1. Core Exhibit Repair 2. DG pathway stabilizer 3. Fence painting 4. Irrigation upgrade 5. Outside light bulbs (street lamps) 6. Upgrade electrical in plaza and replace GFR throughout Garden 7. Wall re-stucco and painting all buildings Deferred Maintenance Costs – Operator Responsibility: Paid from Annual Contribution and other funds raised by Operator 1. Amphitheater Bench Repair 2. Meeting Room Carpet 3. Parking Lot Asphalt Sealer 4. Path Edging 5. Water Feature Pumps Deferred Maintenance Costs – shared responsibility 1. Mature Tree and Shrub Replacement Summary report: Litéra® Change-Pro 7.5.0.135 Document comparison done on 10/19/2017 2:24:14 PM Style name: Default Style Intelligent Table Comparison: Active Original DMS:iw://iManage/iManage/30173836/4 Modified DMS: iw://iManage/iManage/30173836/6 Changes: Add 28 Delete 30 Move From 0 Move To 0 Table Insert 0 Table Delete 0 Table moves to 0 Table moves from 0 Embedded Graphics (Visio, ChemDraw, Images etc.) 0 Embedded Excel 0 Format changes 0 Total Changes: 58 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 3, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Michael O’Donnell Supervising Land Surveyor Brandon DiPietro Field Services Manager Dan Martin Engineering Manager PROJECT: VARIOUS DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Award of As-Needed Utility Locating Services Contract to AIRX Utility Surveyors, Inc. for Fiscal Years 2018 through 2020 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a professional As-Needed Utility Locating Services contract to AIRX Utility Surveyors, Inc. (AIRX) and to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with AIRX in an amount not-to-exceed $500,000 for a period of three (3) Fiscal Years (FY), FY 2018 through FY 2020 (ending June 30, 2021). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a professional As-Needed Utility Locating Services agreement with AIRX in an amount not-to-exceed $500,000 for FY 2018 through FY 2020 (ending June 30, 2021). 2 ANALYSIS: California Government Code 4216 requires operators of subsurface installations (including water and sewer facilities) to be a member of the DigAlert Regional Notification Center which includes the District’s Underground Service Alert (USA) of Southern California program. As a member, operators are required to locate and field mark their subsurface installations within two days of receiving timely notification. To meet this legal requirement and support the District’s USA program, the District will require the services of a professional utility locating services consultant for three (3) fiscal years, FY 2018 through FY 2020 (ending June 30, 2021). It is more efficient and cost effective to augment District staff by issuing an as-needed contract for utility locating services, which will provide the District with the ability to obtain consulting services in a timely and efficient manner. This concept has also been used in the past with other disciplines such as engineering design, construction management, electrical, and environmental services. The District has used an as-needed contract for utility locating services over the previous six (6) fiscal years. The annual effort of the As-Needed Utility Locating Services, used to support the District’s USA Mark-out program from July 2015 through June 2017, averaged hours that equated to less than a full-time employee (FTE) at a rate of 0.85 FTE per year. An analysis of the USA workload for FY 2018 through FY 2020 indicates a steadily increasing level of effort from prior years will be needed for utility locating services. It is estimated this steadily increasing level of effort will equate to a rate of 1.4 FTE per year. Staff will recommend budgeting for an additional employee during the FY 2019 budget process. The District will issue task orders to the consultant for specific projects during the contract period based on a detailed scope of work. The consultant will then prepare a schedule and fee estimate for each task order assigned under the contract. Upon written task order authorization from the District, the consultant shall then proceed with the project, as described in the scope of work. This As-Needed Utility Locating Services contract does not commit the District to any expenditure until a task order is approved to perform work on a USA project. The District does not guarantee work to the consultant, nor does the District guarantee that it will expend all of the funds authorized by the contract for professional services. 3 The District solicited for utility locating services by placing an advertisement on the Otay Water District’s website on September 5, 2017 and with various other publications including the San Diego Daily Transcript. Seven (7) firms submitted a Letter of Interest and a Statement of Qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for As-Needed Utility Locating Services was sent to the seven (7) firms resulting in three (3) proposals received by September 27, 2017. AIRX Utility Surveyors, Inc., Escondido, CA Cable Pipe and Leak Detection, Inc., El Cajon, CA C Below, Chino, CA The four (4) firms that chose not to propose are Encompass Inspections, Temecula, CA, Kana Subsurface Engineering, Riverside, CA, SPEC Services Inc., Fountain Valley, CA, and Superior Leak Detection, Upland, CA. In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, staff evaluated and scored all written proposals and interviewed the top two (2) firms on October 24, 2017. AIRX received the highest score for their services based on their experience, understanding of the scopes of work, proposed method to accomplish the work, and their composite hourly rate. AIRX was the most qualified consultant with the best overall rating or ranking scores. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in Attachment B. AIRX submitted the Company Background Questionnaire as required by the RFP and staff did not find any outstanding issues. In addition, staff checked their references and performed an internet search on the company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the internet search. AIRX is providing these services to the District under the District’s current As-Needed Utility Locating Services contract, which expires on June 30, 2018. Staff found that AIRX’s performance under the current contract has been exceptional with a 100% accuracy rate of utility locations in support of the District’s USA Mark-out program. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The funds for this contract will be expended from the Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020 budgets for various CIP and developer projects or programs. This contract is for professional As-Needed Utility Locating Services based on the District's need and schedule, and expenditures will not be made until a task order is approved by the District for the consultant's services. 4 Based on a review of the financial budgets, the Project Manager anticipates that the budgets will be sufficient to support the professional as-needed consulting services required for the projects or programs. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, the funds to cover this contract will be available as budgeted for these projects or programs. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the District’s Vision, “A District that is at the forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. MO/BD/DM:jf P:\WORKING\As Needed Services\Utility Locating\FY 2018- 2020\Staff Report\Staff Report As-Needed Utility Locating Services_mdo.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: VARIOUS Award of As-Needed Utility Locating Services Contract to AIRX Utility Surveyors, Inc. for Fiscal Years 2018 through 2020 COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 12, 2017, and the following comments were made: Staff reviewed the staff report with the Committee and recommended that the Board award a professional As-Needed Utility Locating Services contract to AIRX Utility Surveyors, Inc. (AIRX) and to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with AIRX in an amount not-to-exceed $500,000 for a period of three (3) Fiscal Years (FY), FY 2018 through FY 2020 (ending June 30, 2021). As a member of the DigAlert Regional Notification Center, which includes the District’s Underground Service Alert of Southern California, the District is required to locate and field mark their subsurface installations. In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that the District has both a full-time employee and consultant who performs mark-out services. It was noted that the volume of mark-outs have increased and the current District employee may retire soon. Staff will recommend budgeting for an additional employee during the FY 2019 budget process. The Committee inquired about the cost to perform mark-out services. Staff stated that this is a flat rate contract with a set fee for each completed job. The District receives utility location requests from Underground Service Alert of Southern California and distributes those requests to the consultant. The consultant responds to the site within 48 hours and marks out any District facilities in conflict with the job. Upon completion of the discussion, the Committee accepted staffs’ report and supported presentation to the full board as a consent item. Qualifications of Staff Understanding of Scope, Schedule and Resources Soundness and Viability of Proposed Project Plan INDIVIDUAL SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN AVERAGE SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN Proposed Rates* Consultant's Commitment to DBE AVERAGE TOTAL WRITTEN Additional Creativity and Insight Strength of Project Manager Presentation, Communication Skills Quality of Response to Questions INDIVIDUAL TOTAL - ORAL AVERAGE TOTAL ORAL 30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 15 15 10 10 50 50 150 Poor/Good/ Excellent Andrea Carey 28 25 29 82 15 15 8 9 47 Juan Tamayo 29 23 29 81 14 15 8 9 46 Lisa Coburn-Boyd 28 22 25 75 14 15 8 9 46 Brandon DiPietro 28 25 28 81 14 14 8 10 46 Kevin Cameron 28 24 28 80 15 15 8 9 47 Andrea Carey 26 22 24 72 13 13 10 7 43 Juan Tamayo 27 22 27 76 12 12 10 8 42 Lisa Coburn-Boyd 25 23 22 70 12 14 9 7 42 Brandon DiPietro 25 20 24 69 12 13 9 8 42 Kevin Cameron 27 23 26 76 13 14 10 7 44 Andrea Carey 20 15 17 52 Juan Tamayo 21 19 17 57 Lisa Coburn-Boyd 21 15 15 51 Brandon DiPietro 21 18 18 57 Kevin Cameron 22 16 17 55 *The fees were evaluated by comparing rates for four positions. The sum of these 4 rates are noted on the table to the left. Consultant Rate Score Note: The Review Panel does not see or consider rates when scoring other categories. Rates are scored by the PM, who is not on the Review Panel. Airx $1,000 15 CBELOW $1,330 1 CPL $1,120 10 ATTACHMENT B MAXIMUM POINTS CABLE PIPE AND LEAK DETECTION (CPL)Y10 15 54 64 95 Y 64 RATES SCORING CHART AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS Y CBELOW SUBSURFACE IMAGING 73 1 74 REFERENCES 46 141 Excellent WRITTEN TOTAL SCORE SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS As-Needed Utility Locating Services 43 117 ORAL 80 FIRM NOT INTERVIEWED P:\WORKING\As Needed Services\Utility Locating\FY 2018- 2020\Staff Report\Attachment B FINAL.xls STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 3, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager CIP./G.F. NO: D0956- 090248 DIV. NO. 5 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (November 2017) for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) approve the Water Supply Assessment Report and Verification (WSA&V Report) dated November 2017 for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project, as required by Senate Bills 610 and 221 (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board approval of the November 2017 WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project, as required by Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 (SB 610 and SB 221). ANALYSIS: The County of San Diego submitted a request to the District for a WSA&V Report, pursuant to SB 610 and SB 221. SB 610 and SB 221 require that, upon the request of the City or County, a water purveyor, such as the District, prepare a water supply assessment and verification report to be included in the 2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental documentation. SB 610 requires a city or county to evaluate whether water supplies will be sufficient to meet the projected water demand for certain “projects” that are otherwise subject to the requirement of the CEQA. SB 610 provides its own definition of “project” in Water Code Section 10912. SB 221 requires affirmative written verification from the water purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water supplies are planned to be available for certain residential subdivisions of property. The requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are addressed by the November 2017 WSA&V Report for this Project. The WSA&V Report was prepared by the District in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), and the County of San Diego (County). Prior to transmittal to the County, the WSA&V Report must be approved by the Board of Directors. An additional explanation of the intent of SB 610 and SB 221 is provided in Exhibit B, the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 WSA&V Report is provided as Exhibit C. For the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project, the County is the responsible land use agency that requested the SB 610 and SB 221 water supply assessment and verification report from the District. The request for the WSA&V Report, in compliance with SB 610 and SB 221 requirements, was made by the County because the Project meets or exceeds one or both of the following SB 610 and SB 221 criteria: A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the land uses specified in SB 610. A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. 3 The County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project is located within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan along Proctor Valley Road, just east of the City of Chula Vista. Village 14 is planned for 994 homes in three distinct areas (referred to as the South, Central, and North Village 14). The plan includes 878 single-family homes located in gated enclaves and another 116 detached courtyard homes. Twelve neighborhoods are planned with approximate densities ranging from 0.2 to 10.0 dwelling units per acre. Otay Ranch Village 14 is planned around a “Village Core,” centrally located in the heart of the village and will include a 9.7-acre elementary school, a 7.2-acre Village Green (public park), and a 1.7-acre Mixed Use Site with up to 10,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses. There will also be a 2.3-acre public safety site for a fire station and satellite sheriff’s facility. Additional public and private parks, swim clubs, trails, and recreational facilities will be situated throughout South, Central, and North Village 14. Planning Area 19 is planned for 13 one-acre estate lots and Planning Area 16 is planned for 112 lots averaging 3 acres in size. The expected potable water demand for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is 797,970 gallons per day (GPD) or about 893.9 acre-feet per year (AFY). The number of dwelling units and the areas for commercial development, parks, schools, and public safety sites match the total approved units noted on Table C of the District’s Water Facilities Master Plan Update dated March 2016 (WFMP Update). The entire watershed of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is tributary to the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. The use of recycled water within watersheds tributary to surface water storage reservoirs that provide supply for potable domestic water uses must be approved by the owners of the reservoirs in order to protect water quality in these reservoirs. The Applicants for other projects within this watershed have met with and discussed the use of recycled water with the City of San Diego, the operator of the reservoirs. The City of San Diego has requested all projects not use recycled water because they are concerned about the runoff from the project entering the reservoirs and increasing nutrients and salinity. For this reason, the projected water use within the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project has been estimated with the assumption that the use of recycled water within the project will not be allowed. However, prior to the approval of a Sub-area master Plan for this project, the 4 Developer will need to pursue the use of recycled water with the City of San Diego. The request for compliance with SB 221 requirements was made by the County because the Project will exceed the SB 221 criteria of a proposed residential development with more than 500 dwelling units. Pursuant to SB 610 and SB 221, the WSA&V Report incorporates by reference the current Urban Water Management Plans and other water resources planning documents of the District, the Water Authority, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The District prepared the WSA&V Report in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the Water Authority, and the County, which demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be made available over a 20-year planning horizon under normal supply conditions, in single and multiple-dry years to meet the projected demand of the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project and other planned development projects within the District. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The District has been reimbursed $8,000 for all costs associated with the preparation of the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project WSA&V Report. The reimbursement was accomplished via an $8,000 deposit the Project proponents placed with the District. STRATEGIC GOAL: The preparation and approval of the WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, “A District that is at the forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.” LEGAL IMPACT: Approval of a WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project in form and content satisfactory to the Board of Directors would allow the 5 District to comply with the requirements of Senate Bills 610 and 221. LC-B/BK:jf P:\WORKING\WOD0956-090248 Proctor Valley Village 14 and Preserve\Staff Report\BD 01-03-18, Staff Report, County of San Diego Village 14 & PA 16-19 WSA&V Report(LCB-BK).doc Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Explanation of the Intent of SB 610 & SB 221 Exhibit C – County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project WSA&V Report Exhibit D – Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: D0956-090248 Approval of Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (November 2017) for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 12, 2017, and the following comments were made: Staff reviewed a PowerPoint presentation with the Committee and recommended that the Board approve the Water Supply Assessment Report and Verification (WSA&V Report) dated November 2017 for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project, as required by Senate Bills 610 and 221. Staff indicated that the County of San Diego submitted a request to the District for a WSA&V report for the project pursuant to SB 610 & 221. The primary intent of these bills is to improve the link between water supply availability & land use decisions. Staff noted that these bills require the water purveyor to prepare the assessment and verification reports that will be included in the project’s CEQA documentation. Board approval is required for submittal of the WSA&V report to the County of San Diego. Page 2 and 3 of the staff report provides a detailed background of the Project. Staff stated that overall, the total water demand of the project is about 894 AFY of potable water which is the same demand that was used in the latest WFMP update. Staff indicated that at this time recycled water use is not proposed because the project is tributary to the upper and lower Otay Reservoirs. It was noted that the District has requested that the developer enter into discussions with the City of San Diego on the possibility of recycled water use before the District approves the SAMP for the project. The Water Supply Assessment & Verification report discusses the development of sufficient and reliable water supplies to meet the challenge of existing and future water supply demands. The report also documents planned water supply projects and the actions necessary to develop the supplies for a 20 year planning horizon. Based on the findings from the Otay WD’s 2015 UWMP and the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP, staff stated that there are no unanticipated demands for this project. Staff noted that water demand and supply forecasts are included in the planning documents of the Metropolitan Water District, the Water Authority, and the Otay Water District; and the actions necessary to develop the identified water supplies are documented. It was also noted that the state of the current water supply situation is documented in the Village 14 and Planning Areas 16 and 19 WSA&V Report and shows that the District has met the intent of SB 610 and 221. In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that the District would like to discuss recycled water use with the City of San Diego; therefore, the District requested that the developer meet with the City to discuss recycled water use for this project in hopes that an open discussion may occur with all parties (District, City and developer). Currently, the City does not allow recycled water use upstream of its Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. The City is concerned that contaminants, such as total dissolved solids (TDS), may affect the reservoirs. However, staff indicated that the TDS levels in the water that the District receives from CWA have significantly decreased; this is also reflected in the recycled water. Staff also noted that the City of San Diego has a $5 million dollar project that is almost complete. This project is located at the Southbay Reclamation Plant and will be a demineralization facility that will take minerals out of the recycled water; this action should result in a decrease of TDS in recycled water. Once the facility is operating, District staff plans to obtain test results and have an open discussion with City staff to discuss their concerns of recycled water use upstream of the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. It was noted that Legal Counsel is involved with communications between the District and the City of San Diego concerning the cost of recycled water produced from the Southbay Reclamation Plant. The Committee inquired about the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project’s relationship to other water facilities in the area. Staff stated that the project will connect to the 980 and 1296 Pressure Zones which will involve the construction of a reservoir, transmission pipeline, and pump station. Staff noted that they are looking into the necessary size of the transmission pipeline to meet the water demands of both the project site and the District. It was noted that there could be an agreement with the developer to pay the upsize of the transmission pipe, if necessary. Upon completion of the discussion, the Committee accepted staffs’ report and supported presentation to the full board as an action item. EXHIBIT A LOCATION MAP 1 EXHIBIT B Background Information The Otay Water District (District) prepared the November 2017 Water Supply Assessment and Verification (WSA&V) Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project at the request of the County of San Diego (County). The County’s WSA&V request letter dated November 28, 2017 was received by the District on November 28, 2017 so the 90-day deadline for the District to provide the Board an approved WSA&V Report to the County ends February 26, 2018. The County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project is located within the jurisdictions of the District, the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). See Exhibit A for Project location. To obtain permanent imported water supply service, land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of the District, Water Authority, and MWD. The November 2017 WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project has been prepared by the District in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the Water Authority, and the County, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and California Water Code Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 referred to as Senate Bill (SB) 610 and Government Code Sections 65867.5, 66455.3, and 66473.7 referred to as SB 221. SB 610 and SB 221 amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, intending to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires that the water purveyor of the public water system prepare a water supply assessment to be included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental documentation and approval process of certain proposed projects. SB 221 requires affirmative written verification from the water purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water supplies are to be available for certain residential subdivision of property. The requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are addressed in the November 2017 WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project. The expected potable water demands for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project are 797,970 gallons per day (GPD) or about 893.9 acre-feet per year (AFY). Therefore, based on the findings from the Otay WD’s 2015 UWMP and the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP, this Project will result in no unanticipated demands. The District currently depends on the Water Authority and the MWD for all of its potable water supplies and regional water resource planning. The District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) relies heavily on the UWMP’s and Integrated Water Resources Plans (IRPs) of the Water Authority and MWD for documentation of supplies available to meet projected demands. These plans are developed to manage the 2 uncertainties and variability of multiple supply sources and demands over the long-term through preferred water resources strategy adoption and resource development target approvals for implementation. MWD, in January 2016, approved the update of their Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). The 2015 IRP Update describes an adaptive management approach to mitigate against future water supply uncertainty. The new uncertainties that are significantly affecting California’s water resources include: The State Water Project (SWP) supplies which are affected by a changing climate and the operational constraints in the ecologically struggling Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. Periodic extended drought conditions. These uncertainties have rightly caused concern among Southern California water supply agencies regarding the validity of the current water supply documentation. MWD is currently involved in several proceedings concerning Delta operations to evaluate and address environmental concerns. In addition, at the State level, the Delta Vision and Bay-Delta Conservation Plan processes are defining long-term solutions for the Delta. The SWP represents approximately 9% of MWD’s 2025 Dry Resources Mix, with the supply buffer included. A 22% cutback in SWP supply represents an overall 2% (22% of 9% is 2%) cutback in MWD supplies in 2025. Neither the Water Authority nor MWD has stated that there is insufficient water for future planning in Southern California. Each agency is in the process of reassessing and reallocating their water resources. Under preferential rights, MWD can allocate water without regard to historic water purchases or dependence on MWD. Therefore, the Water Authority and its member agencies are taking measures to reduce dependence on MWD through development of additional supplies and a water supply portfolio that would not be jeopardized by a preferential rights allocation. As calculated by MWD, the Water Authority’s current preferential right is 18.27% of MWD’s supply, while the Water Authority accounted for approximately 22% of MWD’s total revenue. So MWD could theoretically cut back the Water Authority’s supply and theoretically, the Water Authority should have alternative water supply sources to make up for the difference. In the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP, they had already planned to reduce reliance on MWD supplies. This reduction is planned to be achieved through diversification of their water supply portfolio. The Water Authority’s Drought Management Plan (May 2006) provides the Water Authority and its member agencies with a series of potential actions to engage when faced with a shortage of imported water supplies due to prolonged drought conditions. 3 Such actions help avoid or minimize impacts of shortages and ensure an equitable allocation of supplies throughout the San Diego County region. The Otay Water District Board of Directors could acknowledge the ever-present challenge of balancing water supply with demand and the inherent need to possess a flexible and adaptable water supply implementation strategy that can be relied upon during normal and dry weather conditions. The responsible regional water supply agencies have and will continue to adapt their resource plans and strategies to meet climatological, environmental, and legal challenges so that they may continue to provide water supplies to their service areas. The regional water suppliers (i.e., the Water Authority and MWD), along with the District, fully intend to maintain sufficient reliable supplies through the 20-year planning horizon under normal, single, and multiple-dry year conditions to meet projected demand of the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project, along with existing and other planned development projects within the District’s service area. If the regional water suppliers determine additional water supplies will be required, or in this case, that water supply portfolios need to be reassessed and redistributed with the intent to serve the existing and future water needs throughout Southern California, the agencies must indicate the status or stage of development of actions identified in the plans they provide. MWD’s 2015 IRP update will then cause the Water Authority to update its IRP, which will then provide the District with the necessary water supply documentation. Identification of a potential future action in such plans does not by itself indicate that a decision to approve or to proceed with the action has been made. The District’s Board approval of the Approval of Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (November 2017) for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project WSA&V Report does not in any way guarantee water supply to the Project. Alternatively, if the WSA&V Report is written to state that water supply is or will be unavailable; the District must include, in the assessment, a plan to acquire additional water supplies. At this time, the District should not state there is insufficient water supply. At the present time, based on the information available, the District is able to clearly describe the current water supply situation clearly, indicating intent to provide supply through reassessment and reallocation by the regional, as well as, the local water suppliers. In doing so, it is believed that the Board has met the intent of the SB 610 statute, that the land use agencies and the water agencies are coordinating their efforts in planning water supplies for new development. With District Board approval of the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project WSA&V Report, the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project proponents can proceed with the draft environmental documentation required for the CEQA review process. The water supply 4 issues will be addressed in these environmental documents, consistent with the WSA&V Report. The District, as well as others, can comment on the draft EIR with recommendations that water conservation measures and actions be employed on the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project. Some recent actions regarding water supply assessments and verification reports by Otay Water District are as follows: The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project on November 6, 2013. The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the Otay Ranch Resort Village Project on May 7, 2014. The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project on April 1, 2015. The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the Otay 250 Sunroad East Otay Mesa Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project on July 6, 2016. The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the City of Chula Vista University Innovation District Project on October 5, 2016. Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary to develop these supplies, have been identified in the water supply planning documents of the District, the Water Authority, and MWD. The WSA&V Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project. The WSA&V Report demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned and are intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon, under normal conditions and in single and multiple-dry years, to meet the projected demand of the proposed and the existing and other planned development projects within the District. Accordingly, after approval of a WSA&V Report for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project by the District's Board of Directors, the WSA&V Report may be used to comply with the requirements of the legislation enacted by Senate Bills 610 and 221 as follows: 5 Senate Bill (SB) 610 Water Supply Assessment: The District's Board of Directors approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance process for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project as a water supply assessment report consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 610. The County of San Diego, as lead agency under the CEQA for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project environmental documentation, may cite the approved WSA&V Report as evidence that a sufficient water supply is planned and intended to be available to serve the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project. Senate Bill (SB) 221 Water Supply Verification: The District's Board of Directors approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project as a water supply verification report, consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 221. The County, within their process of approving the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project, may cite the approved WSA&V Report as verification of intended sufficient water supply to serve the Project. EXHIBIT C OTAY WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND VERIFICATION REPORT for the County of San Diego Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Prepared by: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist and Bob Kennedy, P.E. Engineering Manager Otay Water District In consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. And San Diego County Water Authority November 2017 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report November 2017 Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 Section 1 - Purpose .................................................................................................................... 5 Section 2 - Findings ................................................................................................................... 6 Section 3 - Project Description ................................................................................................ 8 Section 4 – Otay Water District ............................................................................................... 9 Section 5 – Historical and Projected Water Demands ........................................................ 12 5.1 Demand Management (Water Conservation) .. Error! Bookmark not defined. Section 6 - Existing and Projected Supplies ......................................................................... 21 6.1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2015 Urban Water Management Plan ......................................................................................... 21 6.1.2 MWD Capital Investment Plan .......................................................... 23 6.2 San Diego County Water Authority Regional Water Supplies ................ 23 6.2.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies ............................................................................................. 25 6.2.1.2 All-American Canal and Coachella Canal Lining Projects .. 32 6.2.1.3 Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project ............................... 36 6.2.2 Water Authority Capital Improvement Program and Financial Information ........................................................................... 39 6.3 Otay Water District ...................................................................................... 40 6.3.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies ............................................................................................. 41 6.3.1.1 Imported and Regional Supplies ........................................... 42 6.3.1.2 Recycled Water Supplies ...................................................... 44 Section 7 – Conclusion: Availability of Sufficient Supplies ................................................ 52 Source Documents ................................................................................................................... 58 Appendices Appendix A: Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Vicinity Map Appendix B: Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Development Plan Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 1 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report November 2017 Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Executive Summary The Otay Water District (Otay WD) prepared this Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (WSA&V Report) at the request of the County of San Diego (County) for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project. The County is having an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the development of this project. Jackson Pendo Development Company is the project applicant. Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Overview and Water Use The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is located within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). In order to obtain permanent imported water supply service, land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD. The proposed project entitlement includes a Specific Plan entitled “Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Specific Plan”, General Plan Amendments, EIR, Rezone, Tentative Map, and an Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Amendment. The County is having an EIR prepared for development of the 1,283.6 acre site (Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project). The land use plan proposes a transitional village between the City of Chula Vista and community of Jamul with up to 1,119 residential units. The project is located within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan along Proctor Valley Road, just east of the City of Chula Vista. Village 14 is planned for 994 homes in three distinct areas (referred to as the South, Central and North Village 14) with 878 single-family homes located in gated enclaves and 116 will be detached courtyard homes. Twelve neighborhoods are planned with approximate densities ranging from 0.2 to 10.0 dwelling units per acre. Otay Ranch Village 14 is planned around a “Village Core”, centrally located in the heart of the village and will include a 9.7-acre elementary school; a 7.2-acre Village Green (public park); a 1.7-acre Mixed Use Site with up to 10,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses; and a 2.3-acre public safety site for a fire station and satellite sheriff’s facility. Additional public and private parks, swim clubs, trails and recreational facilities will be situated throughout South, Central and North Village 14. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 2 Planning Area 19 is planned for 13 one-acre estate lots and Planning Area 16 is planned for 112 lots averaging 3 acres in size. The expected potable water demand for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is 797,970 gallons per day (gpd) or about 893.9 acre feet per year (AFY). The number of dwelling units and the areas for commercial development, parks, schools and public safety sites match the total approved units noted on Table C of the District’s -Water Facilities Master Plan Update dated March 2016 (WFMP Update). The entire watershed of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is tributary to the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. The use of recycled water within watersheds tributary to surface water storage reservoirs that provide supply for potable domestic water uses must be approved by the owners of the reservoirs in order to protect water quality in these reservoirs. The Applicants for other projects within this watershed have met with and discussed the use of recycled water with the City of San Diego, the operator of the reservoirs. The City of San Diego has requested all projects not use recycled water because they are concerned about the runoff from the project entering the reservoirs and increasing nutrients and salinity. For this reason, the projected water use within the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project has been estimated with the assumption that the use of recycled water within the project will not be allowed. Planned Imported Water Supplies from the Water Authority and MWD The Water Authority and MWD have an established process that ensures supplies are being planned to meet future growth. Any annexations and revisions to established land use plans are captured in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) updated forecasts for land use planning, demographics, and economic projections. SANDAG serves as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast information. The Water Authority and MWD update their demand forecasts and supply needs based on the most recent SANDAG forecast approximately every five years to coincide with preparation of their UWMP’s. Prior to the next forecast update, local jurisdictions with land use authority may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports for proposed land developments that are not within the OTAY WD, Water Authority, or MWD jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed annexations) or that have revised land use plans with either lower or higher development intensities than reflected in the existing growth forecasts. Proposed land areas with pending or proposed annexations, or revised land use plans, typically result in creating higher demand and supply requirements than previously anticipated. The Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD next demand forecast and supply requirements and associated planning documents would then capture any increase or decrease in demands and required supplies as a result of annexations or revised land use planning decisions. An important planning document utilized by MWD, the Water Authority and Otay WD is the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) which describes an agency’s long term water plan. MWD’s Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 3 2015 IRP offers an adaptive management strategy to protect the region from future supply shortages. This adaptive management strategy has five components: achieve additional conservation savings, develop additional local water supplies, maintain Colorado River Aqueduct supplies, stabilize State Water Project supplies, and maximize the effectiveness of storage and transfer. MWD’s 2015 IRP has a plan for identifying and implementing additional resources that expand the ability for MWD to meet future changes and challenges as necessary to ensure future reliability of supplies. The proper management of these resources help to ensure that the southern California region, including San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet long-term future demands. Another important planning document is the UWMP. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act), which is included in the California Water Code, requires all urban water suppliers within the state to prepare an UWMP and update it every five years. The purpose and importance of the UWMP has evolved since it was first required 25 years ago. State agencies and the public frequently use the document to determine if agencies are planning adequately to reliably meet future demands. As such, UWMPs serve as an important element in documenting supply availability for the purpose of compliance with state laws, Senate Bills 610 and 221, linking water supply sufficiency to large land-use development approval. Agencies must also have a UWMP prepared, pursuant to the Act, in order to be eligible for state funding and drought assistance. MWD’s 2015 UWMP Findings state that MWD has supply capabilities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands from 2020 through 2040. MWD has plans for supply implementation and continued development of a diversified resource mix including programs in the Colorado River Aqueduct, State Water Project, Central Valley Transfers, local resource projects, and in-region storage that enables the region to meet its water supply needs. The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority “as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.” As part of preparation of a written water supply assessment report, an agency’s shortage contingency analysis should be considered in determining sufficiency of supply. Section 11 of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP Update contain a detailed shortage contingency analysis that addresses a regional catastrophic shortage situation and drought management. The analysis demonstrates that the Water Authority and its member agencies, through the Integrated Contingency Plan, Emergency Storage Project, and Water Shortage and Drought Response Plan are taking actions to prepare for and appropriately handle an interruption of water supplies. The Water Shortage and Drought Response Plan, provides the Water Authority and its member agencies with a series of potential actions to take when faced with a shortage of imported water supplies from MWD due to prolonged drought or other supply shortfall conditions. The actions will help the region avoid or minimize the impacts of shortages and ensure an equitable allocation of supplies. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 4 Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climate, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court rulings regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues and reoccurring droughts impacting the western states. Even with these ever present challenges, the Water Authority and MWD, along with Otay WD fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands. Otay Water District Water Supply Development Program In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project will be required to participate in the water supply development program being implemented by the Otay WD. This is intended to be achieved through financial participation in several local and/or regional water supply development projects envisioned by the Otay WD. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and MWD UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents, and are in response to the regional water supply issues. These new water supply projects are not currently developed and are in various stages of the planning process. Imported water supplies along with the development of these additional Otay WD water supply development projects supplies are intended to increase water supplies to serve the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project water supply needs and that of other similar development projects. The Otay WD water supply development program includes but is not limited to projects such as the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well project, the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well project, the North District Recycled Water Supply Concept, and the Rosarito Ocean Desalination Facility project. The Water Authority and MWD’s next forecasts and supply planning documents would capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by the Otay WD. Findings The WSA&V Report identifies and describes the processes by which water demand projections for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project will be fully included in the water demand and supply forecasts of the Urban Water Management Plans and other water resources planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed project, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary and status to develop these supplies, have been identified in the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project WSA&V Report and will be included in the future water supply planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. This WSA&V Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, water supply projects, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Otay Ranch Village Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 5 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project. The WSA&V Report demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon, under normal conditions and in single and multiple dry years to meet the projected demand of the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project and the existing and other planned development projects to be served by the Otay WD. Accordingly, after approval of a WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project by the Otay WD Board of Directors (Board), the WSA&V Report may be used to comply with the requirements of the legislation enacted by Senate Bills 610 and 221 as follows: 1. Senate Bill 610 Water Supply Assessment: The Otay WD Board approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) compliance process for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project as a water supply assessment report consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 610. The County, as lead agency under CEQA for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project EIR and Alternatives, may cite the approved WSA&V Report as evidence that a sufficient water supply is planned for and is intended to be made available to serve the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project. 2. Senate Bill 221 Water Supply Verification: The Otay WD Board approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the County’s Tentative Map approval process for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project as a water supply verification report, consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 221. The County, within their process of approving the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project’s Tentative Map, may cite the approved WSA&V Report as verification of intended sufficient water supply to serve the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project. Section 1 - Purpose The County of San Diego is having an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the development of the 1283.6 acre project (Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project). The project is located within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan along Proctor Valley Road between the City of Chula Vista and the community of Jamul. The County requested that the Otay WD prepare a Water Supply Assessment and Verification (WSA&V) Report for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project. The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project description is provided in Section 3 of this WSA&V Report. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 6 This WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project has been prepared by the Otay WD in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the Water Authority, and the County pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and California Water Code Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 referred to as Senate Bill (SB) 610 and Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Government Code Sections 65867.5, 66455.3, and 66473.7 referred to as SB 221. SB 610 and SB 221 amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, is intended to improve the link between the information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires that the water purveyor of the public water system prepare a water supply assessment to be included in the CEQA documentation and approval process of certain proposed projects. SB 221 requires affirmative written verification from the water purveyor of the public water system that sufficient water supplies are to be available for certain residential subdivisions of property prior to approval of a tentative map. The requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are being addressed by this WSA&V Report. The County also requested, since the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 are substantially similar, that Otay WD prepare both the water supply assessment and verification concurrently. This WSA&V Report evaluates water supplies that are planned to be available during normal, single dry year, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year planning horizon to meet existing demands, expected demands of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project, and reasonably foreseeable planned future water demands to be served by Otay WD. The Otay Water District Board of Directors approved WSA&V Report is planned to be used by the County in its evaluation of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project under the CEQA approval process procedures. Section 2 - Findings The Otay WD prepared this WSA&V Report at the request of the County for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project. Jackson Pendo Development Company submitted an entitlement application to the County for the project. The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is located within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, the Water Authority, and MWD. To obtain permanent imported water supply service, land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD to utilize imported water supply. The expected potable water demand for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is 797,970 gallons per day (gpd) or about 893.9 acre feet per year (AFY). The number of dwelling units and the areas for commercial development, parks, schools and public safety sites match the total approved units noted on Table C of the District’s Water Facilities Master Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 7 Plan Update dated March 2016 (WFMP Update). Recycled water is not proposed to be used on the project due to its proximity to Upper Otay Reservoir. The Water Authority and MWD have an established process that ensures supplies are being planned to meet future growth. Any annexations and revisions to established land use plans are captured in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) updated forecasts for land use planning, demographics, and economic projections. SANDAG serves as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast information. The Water Authority and MWD update their demand forecasts and supply needs based on the most recent SANDAG forecast approximately every five years to coincide with preparation of their urban water management plans. Prior to the next forecast update, local jurisdictions may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports for proposed land developments that are not within the Otay WD, Water Authority, or MWD jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed annexations) or that have revised land use plans with lower or higher land use intensities than reflected in the existing growth forecasts. Proposed land areas with pending or proposed annexations, or revised land use plans, typically result in creating higher demand and supply requirements than anticipated. The Otay WD, the Water Authority, and MWD next demand forecast and supply requirements and associated planning documents would then capture any increase or decrease in demands and required supplies as a result of annexations or revised land use planning decisions. This process is utilized by the Water Authority and MWD to document the water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary to develop any required water supplies. Through this process the necessary demand and supply information is thus assured to be identified and incorporated within the water supply planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. This WSA&V Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, proposed water supply projects, and agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project. This WSA&V Report incorporates by reference the current Urban Water Management Plans and other water resources planning documents of the Otay WD, the Water Authority, and MWD. The Otay WD prepared this WSA&V Report to assess and document that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be acquired to meet projected water demands of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project as well as existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned development projects within the Otay WD for a 20-year planning horizon, in normal supply years and in single dry and multiple dry years. The Otay Water District 2015 UWMP includes a water conservation component to comply with Senate Bill 7 of the Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBX 7-7), which became effective February 3, 2010. This new law was the water conservation component to the Delta legislation package, and seeks to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 8 water use in California by December 31, 2020. Specifically, SBX 7-7 from this Extraordinary Session requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20 percent reduction goal by 2020 (20x2020), and an interim water reduction target by 2015. Otay WD adopted Method 1 to set its 2015 interim and 2020 water use targets. Method 1 requires setting the 2020 water use target to 80 percent of baseline per capita water use target as provided in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. The Otay WD 2015 target was 172 gpcd which it met (2015 actual was 124 gpcd) and the 2020 gpcd target (80 percent of baseline) is 153 gpcd. The Otay WD’s recent per capita water use has been declining and current water use already meets the 2020 target as calculated using Method 1. This recent decline in per capita water use is largely due to drought water use restrictions, increased water costs, and economic conditions. However, Otay WD’s effective water use awareness campaign and enhanced conservation mentality of its customers will likely result in some long-term carryover of these reduced consumption rates. Based on a normal water supply year, the five-year increments for a 20-year projection indicate projected potable and recycled water supply is being planned for and is intended to be acquired to meet the estimated water demand targets of the Otay WD (42,720 acre-feet (ac-ft) in 2020 to 57,582 ac-ft in 2040) per the Otay Water District 2015 UWMP. Based on dry year forecasts, the estimated water supply is also being planned for and is intended to be acquired to meet the projected water demand, during single dry and multiple dry year scenarios. On average, the dry-year demands are about 6.64 percent higher than the normal year demands. The Otay WD recycled water supply is assumed to be drought-proof and not subject to reduction during dry periods. Together, these findings assess, demonstrate, and document that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be acquired for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project. In addition, the actions necessary to develop these supplies are and will be further documented, to serve the proposed project and the existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned development projects within the Otay WD in both normal and single and multiple dry year forecasts for a 20-year planning horizon. Section 3 - Project Description The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is located along Proctor Valley Road within the Proctor Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch Development. Refer to Appendix A for a vicinity map of the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project. The project is proposed to be located on 1,283.6 acres within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan. Although the proposed development is located within the County and subject to the County’s land use jurisdiction, the Otay WD is the potable and recycled water Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 9 purveyor. The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, the Water Authority, and MWD. The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is planned to include up to 994 residential homes in the Village 14 core area that includes a school, public use facility, mixed use commercial site, parks, and open space. An additional 125 lower density residential units are proposed in Planning Areas 16/19 for a total of up to 1,119 residential units. Refer to Appendix B for the proposed development plan of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 project. The EIR proposes a land exchange alternative for the project that would designate Planning Areas 16/19 as open space and allow for the development of up to 1,530 residential units in Village 14. This land use alternative includes lands within Village 14 and Planning Area 16 that are owned by the State of California. The State of California is considering, but has not approved, the land exchange alternative. The County has discretionary authority on land use decisions for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project and can establish actions and/or permit approval requirements. The projected potable water demands associated with the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project EIR has considered the anticipated County discretionary actions and/or permit approvals and are incorporated into and used in this WSA&V Report. The water demands for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project are included in the projected water demand estimates provided in Section 5 – Historical and Projected Water Demands. Section 4 – Otay Water District The Otay WD is a municipal water district formed in 1956 pursuant to the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 (Water Code §§ 71000 et seq.). The Otay WD joined the Water Authority as a member agency in 1956 to acquire the right to purchase and distribute imported water throughout its service area. The Water Authority is an agency responsible for the wholesale supply of water to its 24 public agency members in San Diego County. The Otay WD currently meets all its potable demands with imported treated water from the Water Authority. The Water Authority is the agency responsible for the supply of imported water into San Diego County through its membership in MWD. The Water Authority currently obtains about 40% of its imported supply from MWD, but is in the process of further diversifying its available supplies. The Otay WD provides water service to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers, and for environmental and fire protection uses. In addition to providing water throughout its service area, Otay WD also provides sewage collection and treatment services to a portion of its service area known as the Jamacha Basin. The Otay WD also owns and operates the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) which has an Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 10 effective treatment capacity of 1.2 million gallons per day (mgd) or about 1,300 acre feet per year to produce recycled water. On May 18, 2007, an additional source of recycled water supply of up to 6 mgd, or about 6,720 acre feet per year, became available to Otay WD from the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP). The Otay WD jurisdictional area is generally located within the south central portion of San Diego County and includes approximately 125 square miles. The Otay WD serves portions of the unincorporated communities of southern El Cajon, La Mesa, Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley, Bonita, and Otay Mesa, the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista and a portion of the City of San Diego on Otay Mesa. The Otay WD jurisdiction boundaries are roughly bounded on the north by the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, on the northwest by the Helix Water District, and on the west by the South Bay Irrigation District (Sweetwater Authority) and the City of San Diego. The southern boundary of Otay WD is the international border with Mexico. The planning area addressed in the Otay WD WFMP Update and the Otay WD 2015 UWMP includes both the land within the jurisdictional boundary of the Otay WD and those areas outside of the present Otay WD boundaries considered to be in the Area of Influence of the Otay WD. Figure 3-1 contained within the Otay WD 2015 UWMP shows the jurisdictional boundary of the Otay WD and the Area of Influence. The planning area is approximately 143 square miles, of which approximately 125 square miles are within the Otay WD current boundaries and approximately 18 square miles are in the Area of Influence. The area east of Otay WD is rural and currently not within any water purveyor jurisdiction and potentially could be served by the Otay WD in the future if the need for imported water becomes necessary, as is the case for the Area of Influence. The City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego are the three land use planning agencies within the Otay WD jurisdiction. Data on forecasts for land use planning, demographics, economic projections, population, and the future rate of growth within Otay WD were obtained from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). SANDAG serves as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast information through the year 2050. Population growth within the Otay WD service area is expected to increase from the 2015 figure of 217,339 to an estimated 285,340 by 2040. Land use information used to develop water demand projections are based upon Specific or Sectional Planning Areas, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub- regional Plan, East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Area, San Diego County Community Plans, and City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and County of San Diego General Plans. The Otay WD long-term historic growth rate has been approximately 4 percent. The growth rate has significantly slowed due to the current economic conditions and it is expected to slow as the inventory of developable land is diminished. Climatic conditions within the Otay WD service area are characteristically Mediterranean near the coast, with mild temperatures year round. Inland areas are both hotter in summer and Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 11 cooler in winter, with summer temperatures often exceeding 90 degrees and winter temperatures occasionally dipping to below freezing. Most of the region’s rainfall occurs during the months of December through March. Average annual rainfall is approximately 10.08 inches per year. Historic climate data were obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center for Station 042706 (El Cajon). This station was selected because its annual temperature variation is representative of most of the Otay WD service area. While there is a station in the City of Chula Vista, the temperature variation at the City of Chula Vista station is more typical of a coastal environment than the conditions in most of the Otay WD service area. Urban Water Management Plan In accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and recent legislation, the Otay WD Board of Directors adopted an UWMP in June 2016 and subsequently submitted the plan to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). As required by law, the Otay Water District 2015 UWMP includes projected water supplies required to meet future demands through 2040. In accordance with Water Code Section 10910 (c)(2) and Government Code Section 66473.7 (c)(3), information from the Otay WD 2015 UWMP along with supplemental information from the Otay WD WFMP Update have been utilized to prepare this WSA Report and are incorporated herein by reference. The state Legislature passed Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBX 7-7) on November 10, 2009, which became effective February 3, 2010. This new law was the water conservation component to the Delta legislation package and seeks to achieve a 20 percent statewide reduction in urban per capita water use in California by December 31, 2020. Specifically, SBX 7-7 from this Extraordinary Session requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20 percent reduction goal by 2020 (20x2020), and an interim water reduction target by 2015. The SBX 7-7 target setting process includes the following: (1) baseline daily per capita water use; (2) urban water use target; (3) interim water use target; (4) compliance daily per capita water use, including technical bases and supporting data for those determinations. In order for an agency to meet its 2020 water use target, each agency can increase its use of recycled water to offset potable water use and also step up its water conservation measures. The required water use targets for 2020 and an interim target for 2015 are determined using one of four target methods – each method has numerous methodologies. In 2015, urban retail water suppliers were required to report interim compliance followed by actual compliance in 2020. Interim compliance is halfway between the baseline water use and 2020 target. Baseline, target, and compliance-year water use estimates are required to be reported in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 12 Failure to meet adopted targets will result in the ineligibility of a water supplier to receive grants or loans administered by the State unless one (1) of two (2) exceptions is met. Exception one (1) states a water supplier may be eligible if they have submitted a schedule, financing plan, and budget to DWR for approval to achieve the per capita water use reductions. Exception two (2) states a water supplier may be eligible if an entire water service area qualifies as a disadvantaged community. Otay WD adopted Method 1 to set its 2015 interim and 2020 water use targets. Method 1 requires setting the 2020 water use target to 80 percent of baseline per capita water use target as provided in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. The Otay WD was well below its required 2015 target of 172 gpcd, with an actual 2015 gpcd of 124. The 2020 gpcd target which is 80 percent of baseline is 153 gpcd. The Otay WD’s recent per capita water use has been declining to the point where current water use already meets the 2020 target for Method 1. This recent decline in per capita water use is largely due to drought water use restrictions, increased water costs, and poor economic conditions. However, Otay WD’s effective water use awareness campaign and enhanced conservation mentality of its customers will likely result in some long-term carryover of these reduced consumption rates beyond the current drought period. Section 5 – Historical and Projected Water Demands The projected demands for Otay WD are based on Specific or Sectional Planning Areas, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan, the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Area, San Diego County Community Plans, and City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and County of San Diego General Plans. This land use information is also used by SANDAG as the basis for its most recent forecast data. This land use information was utilized for the preparation of the Otay Water District WFMP Update and Otay Water District 2015 UWMP to develop the forecasted demands and supply requirements. In 1994, the Water Authority selected the Institute for Water Resources-Municipal and Industrial Needs (MAIN) computer model to forecast municipal and industrial water use for the San Diego region. The MAIN model uses demographic and economic data to project sector-level water demands (i.e. residential and non-residential demands). This econometric model has over a quarter of a century of practical application and is used by many cities and water agencies throughout the United States. The Water Authority’s version of the MAIN model was modified to reflect the San Diego region’s unique parameters and is known as CWA-MAIN. The foundation of the water demand forecast is the underlying demographic and economic projections. This was a primary reason why, in 1992, the Water Authority and SANDAG entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in which the Water Authority agreed to Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 13 use the SANDAG current regional growth forecast for water supply planning purposes. In addition, the MOA recognizes that water supply reliability must be a component of San Diego County’s regional growth management strategy required by Proposition C, as passed by the San Diego County voters in 1988. The MOA ensures a strong linkage between local general plan land use forecasts and water demand projections and resulting supply needs for the San Diego region. Consistent with the previous CWA-MAIN modeling efforts, on October 15, 2013, the SANDAG Board of Directors accepted the Series 13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. The 2050 Regional Growth Forecast will be used by SANDAG as the foundation for the next Regional Comprehensive Plan update. SANDAG forecasts were used by local governments for planning, including the Water Authority 2015 UWMP update. The municipal and industrial forecast also included an updated accounting of projected conservation savings based on projected regional implementation of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Best Management Practices and SANDAG demographic information for the period 2015 through 2050. These savings estimates were then factored into the baseline municipal and industrial demand forecast. Agricultural demand projections were developed through a cooperative effort between Water Authority staff, Water Authority member agencies, SANDAG, County of San Diego Agricultural Weights and Measures, and the California Avocado Commission. Forecast driver variables include irrigated acreage within the Water Authority’s service area, estimated crop type distribution, and calculated historic water-use factors. SANDAG’s projection of agricultural land conversions to other land use categories provides the long-term trend in acreage used to forecast agricultural water use. The total agricultural forecast is then separated into two categories: (1) projected demands in the Water Authority’s Transitional Special Agricultural Water Rate (TSAWR) program and (2) demands under the Water Authority M&I rate or agricultural demands met through local supplies. The Water Authority and MWD update their water demand and supply projections within their jurisdictions utilizing the SANDAG most recent growth forecast to project future water demands. This provides for the important strong link between demand and supply projections to the land use plans of the cities and the county. This provides for consistency between the retail and wholesale agencies water demand projections, thereby ensuring that adequate supplies are and will be planned for the Otay WD existing and future water users. Existing land use plans, any revisions to land use plans, and annexations are captured in the SANDAG updated forecasts. The Water Authority and MWD update their demand forecasts based on the SANDAG most recent forecast approximately every five years to coincide with preparation of their urban water management plans. Prior to the next forecast update, local jurisdictions may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports consistent with Senate Bills 610 and 221 for proposed land use developments that either have pending or proposed annexations into the Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD or that have revised land use plans than originally anticipated. The Water Authority and MWD’s next forecasts Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 14 and supply planning documents would then capture any increase or decrease in demands caused by annexations or revised land use plans. In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project proponents are required to participate in the development of alternative water supply project(s). This can be achieved through payment of the New Water Supply Fee adopted by the Otay WD Board in May 2010. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and MWD UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents. These new water supply projects are in response to the regional water supply issues related to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current ongoing western states drought conditions. These additional water supply projects are not currently developed and are in various stages of the planning process. A few examples of these alternative water supply projects include the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well project, the Otay WD Desalination project, and the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well project. The Water Authority and MWD next forecast and supply planning documents would capture any increase in water supplies resulting from verifiable new water resources developed by the Otay WD. In addition, MWD’s 2015 UWMP identified potential reserve supplies in the supply capability analysis (Tables 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6), which could be available to meet any unanticipated demands. The Water Authority and MWD’s next forecasts and supply planning documents would capture any increase in necessary supply resources resulting from any new water supply resources. Demand Methodology The Otay WD water demand projection methodology in the WFMP Update utilizes a component land use approach. This is done by applying representative values of water use to the acreage of each land use type and then aggregating these individual land use demand projections into an overall total demand for the Otay WD. This is called the water duty method, and the water duty is the amount of water used in gallons per day per acre per year. This approach is used for all the land use types except residential development where a demand per dwelling unit was applied. In addition, commercial and industrial water use categories are further subdivided by type including separate categories for golf courses, schools, jails, prisons, hospitals, etc. where specific water demands are established. To determine water duties for the various types of land use, the entire water meter database of the Otay WD is utilized and sorted by the appropriate land use types. The metered consumption records are then examined for each of the land uses, and water duties are determined for the various types of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses. For example the water duty factors for commercial and industrial land uses are estimated using 1,785 and 893 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre) respectively. Residential water demand is established based on the same data but computed on a per-dwelling unit basis. The focus is to ensure that for each of the residential land use categories (very low, low, medium, and high densities), the demand criteria Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 15 used is adequately represented based upon actual data. This method is used because residential land uses constitute a substantial percentage of the total developable planning area of the Otay WD. The WFMP Update calculates potable water demand by taking the gross acreage of a site and applying a potable water reduction factor (PWRF), which is intended to represent the percentage of acreage to be served by potable water and that not served by recycled water for irrigation. For industrial land use, as an example, the PWRF is 0.95 (i.e., 95% of the site is assumed to be served by potable water, 5% of the site is assumed to be irrigated with recycled water, if available). The potable net acreage is then multiplied by the unit demand factor corresponding to its respective land use. This approach is used in the WFMP Update for all the land use types except residential development where a demand per dwelling unit is applied. In addition, commercial and industrial water use categories are further subdivided by type including separate categories for golf courses, schools, jails, prisons, hospitals, etc. where specific water demands are allocated. Otay Water District Projected Demand By applying the established water duties to the proposed land uses, the projected water demand for the entire Otay WD planning area at ultimate development is determined. Projected water demands for the intervening years were determined using growth rate projections consistent with data obtained from SANDAG and the experience of the Otay WD. The historical and projected potable water demands for Otay WD are shown in Table 1. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 16 Table 1 Historical and Projected Potable Water Fiscal Year Demands (acre-feet) Water Use Sectors 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single Family Residential 17,165 16,228 17,072 19,806 20,752 20,649 23,224 Multi-Family Residential 3,605 3,460 5,557 6,732 7,342 7,585 8,837 Commercial, Industrial & Institutional 4,110 4,953 6,577 7,949 8,653 8,923 10,378 Landscape 3,732 4,079 4,400 4,600 4,700 4,900 5,200 AFG* - University I. D. 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 AFG – PA 12 46 46 46 46 46 AFG – Otay 250 836 836 836 836 836 Near-term Annexations 2,973 2,973 2,973 2,973 2,973 Other 2,563 1,578 470 470 470 470 470 Totals 31,175 30,298 37,943 43,424 45,784 46,394 51,976 Source: Otay Water District 2015 UWMP. *Accelerated Forecasted Growth Increment Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Projected Water Demand Using the land use demand projection methodology noted above, the projected potable water demand for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is shown in Table 2. The projected potable water demand is 797,970 gpd, or about 893.9 ac-ft/yr. The number of dwelling units and the areas for commercial development, parks, schools and public safety sites match the total approved units noted on Table C of the District’s Water Facilities Master Plan Update dated March 2016 (WFMP Update). Table 2 Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project Projected Potable Water Annual Average Demands Neighborhood Land Use Designation Gross Acres Quantity, Units Water Duty Factor Total Average Water Demand, GPD 980 Zone R-1 SF Residential 18.0 81 435 gpd/unit 35,235 R-2 SF Residential 38.5 82 700 gpd/unit 57,400 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 17 Neighborhood Land Use Designation Gross Acres Quantity, Units Water Duty Factor Total Average Water Demand, GPD R-3 SF Residential 41.1 73 700 gpd/unit 51,100 R-4 Residential 13.8 116 435 gpd/unit 50,460 R-5 (portion) SF Residential 30.0 88 700 gpd/unit 61,600 R-6 (portion) SF Residential 17.4 48 700 gpd/unit 33,600 R-7 (portion) SF Residential 2.6 7 700 gpd/unit 4,900 R-10 (portion) SF Residential 14.4 28 700 gpd/unit 19,600 R-11 (portion) SF Residential 6.1 13 700 gpd/unit 9,100 R-12 SF Residential 18.9 4 1,000 gpd/unit 4,000 MU-C Mixed Use-Com 1.7 --- 1,785 gpd/ac 3,035 P-1 Park 2.9 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 5,510 P-2 Park 7.2 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 13,680 P-3 Park 3.7 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 7,030 PP-1 Private Park 1.0 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 1,900 PP-4 Private Park 1.5 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 2,850 PPP Private Park 2.5 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 4,750 FS-1 Public Safety 2.3 --- 1,785 gpd/ac 4,105 S-1 School 9.7 971 435 gpd/unit 42,195 Subtotal 980 Zone 637 412,050 1296 Zone R-5 (portion) SF Residential 5.1 15 700 gpd/unit 10,500 R-6 (portion) SF Residential 8.3 23 700 gpd/unit 16,100 R-7 (portion) SF Residential 38.1 101 700 gpd/unit 70,700 R-8 SF Residential 28.7 75 700 gpd/unit 52,500 R-9 SF Residential 30.3 74 700 gpd/unit 51,800 R-10 (portion) SF Residential 10.7 21 700 gpd/unit 14,700 R-11 (portion) SF Residential 22.3 48 700 gpd/unit 33,600 R-13 SF Residential 14.3 13 1,000 gpd/unit 13,000 R-14 SF Residential 192.0 71 1,000 gpd/unit 71,000 R-16 (portion) SF Residential 27.1 7 1,000 gpd/unit 7,000 P-4 Park 1.4 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 2,660 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 18 Neighborhood Land Use Designation Gross Acres Quantity, Units Water Duty Factor Total Average Water Demand, GPD PP-2 Private Park 1.2 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 2,280 PP-3 Private Park 0.7 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 1,330 PPP Private Park 2.5 --- 1,900 gpd/ac 4,750 Subtotal 1296 Zone 448 351,920 1460 Zone R-15 SF Residential 41.9 11 1,000 gpd/unit 11,000 R-16 (portion) SF Residential 89.2 23 1,000 gpd/unit 23,000 Subtotal 1460 Zone 34 34,000 TOTAL 1,119 797,970 5.1 Demand Management (Water-Use Efficiency) Demand management, or water-use efficiency is a critical part of the Otay Water District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and its long-term strategy for meeting the water supply needs of its customers. Water conservation is frequently the lowest cost resource available to any water agency. The Otay WD’s water conservation program objectives are to: • Reduce the demand for more expensive, imported water. • Ensure a reliable water supply. The Otay WD was one of the original signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, which created the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) in 1991 in an effort to reduce California's long-term water demands. The Otay WD has been a long-standing supporter of the CUWCC through its implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which required the District to submit biannual reports that detailed the implementation of its conservation programs. As a result of the 2014-2017 drought and the state’s changing regulatory, political, social, economic, and environmental climate, CUWCC members and its Board, in 2017, restructured the organization and renamed it the California Water Efficiency Partnership (CWEP). The new framework allows the organization to better fulfill its members’ needs, quickly adapt to the changing climate, provide resources about water-use efficiency issues in California, and foster collaboration among a wide Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 19 variety of stakeholders. The Otay WD is currently a member of CWEP as part of its effort to continue upholding its long-term commitment in reducing the state’s water demands, diversifying local water supply, and encouraging its customer to make conservation a way of life. In addition to meeting customer demands during a drought, the District consistently advocates for state policies and legislation that include supply development and water-use efficiency. The District continues to work closely with the Water Authority, the Association of California Water Agencies, and other water agencies in the region to ensure that the targets and measures in the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) long-term framework support a balanced approach and reflect local water supply investments and conditions. Water conservation programs are developed and implemented on the premise that water conservation increases the local water supply by reducing the demand on available imported supply, which is vital to the optimal utilization of a region's water supply resources. The Otay WD participates in many water conservation programs designed and typically operated on a shared cost-participation program basis among the Water Authority, MWD, and their member agencies. The demands shown in Tables 1 and 2 take into account implementation of water conservation measures within Otay WD. As part of the preceding CUWCC’s BMPs requirements, the Otay WD implemented water conservation programs and provided services to its customers to promote water-use efficiencies and water savings. It continues to do so today. As a member of the Water Authority, Otay WD also benefits from regional programs performed on behalf of its member agencies. In partnership with the Water Authority, the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and developers, the Otay WD water-use efficiency efforts are expected to grow and expand. The resulting savings directly relate to additional available water in the San Diego County region for beneficial use within the Water Authority service area, including the Otay WD. Additional conservation or water-use efficiency measures or programs practiced by the Otay WD include the following: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System The Otay WD implemented and has operated for many years a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to control, monitor, and collect data regarding the operation of the water system. The major facilities that have SCADA capabilities are the water-flow control supply sources, transmission network, pumping stations, and water storage reservoirs. The SCADA system allows for many and varied useful functions. Some of the functions they provide for operating personnel are the ability to monitor the water supply source flow rates, reservoir levels, tum on or off pumping units, etc. The SCADA system aids in the prevention of water reservoir overflow events and increases energy efficiency. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 20 Water Conservation Ordinance California Water Code Sections 375 et seq. permit public entities, which supply retail water to adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by the customers, resulting in the conservation of water supplies for that public entity. In 1988, the Otay WD Board of Directors established a comprehensive water conservation program pursuant to California Water Code Sections 375 et seq., based upon the need to conserve water supplies and to avoid or minimize the effects of any future shortage. A water shortage could exist based upon the occurrence of one or more of the following conditions: 1. A general water supply shortage due to increased demand or limited supplies. 2. Distribution or storage facilities of the Water Authority or other agencies become inadequate. 3. A major failure of the supply, storage, and distribution facilities of MWD, Water Authority, and/or Otay WD. The Otay WD water conservation ordinance specifies that the conditions prevailing in the San Diego County area require that the available water resources be put to maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use, of water be prevented. In addition, the ordinance encourages the conservation of such water with a view to the maximum reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interests of the people of the Otay WD and for the public welfare. Otay WD continues to promote water-use efficiency and conservation at community and business events, including those involving developers in its service area. In addition, Otay WD, working with the Water Authority and MWD manages a number of programs. Otay WD is currently engaged in a number of conservation and water-use efficiency activities. Listed below are programs that either are current or have been concluded: • Residential Water Surveys • Large Landscape Surveys • Cash for Water Smart Plants Landscape Retrofit Program • Rotating Nozzles Rebates • Residential Weather-Based Irrigation Controller (WBIC) Incentive Program • Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washers • Residential ULFT/HET Rebate Program • Outreach Efforts to Otay WD Customers - the Otay WD promotes its conservation programs through outreach at community and business events, bill inserts, articles in the Otay WD's quarterly customer Pipeline newsletter, direct mailings to Otay WD customers, the Otay WD's webpage and social media platforms, and through the Water Authority's marketing efforts. • School Education Programs - the Otay WD funds school tours of the Water Conservation Garden and school assemblies, co-funds Splash Labs, and maintains Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 21 school-age appropriate water-themed books, DVDs, and videos. • Water efficiency in new construction through Cal Green and the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance • Focus on Commercial/Institutional/Industrial through Promoting MWD's Save a Buck (Commercial) Program in conjunction with the Otay WD's own Commercial Process Improvement Program • Landscape Contest for homeowners in the Otay WD’s service area The county’s residents and businesses also exceeded the SWRCB’s emergency water-use reduction mandates during 2015 and 2016, and they continue to use less water than they did in 2013 even though drought conditions have ended. Since the SWRCB’s conservation mandate began in June 2015, Otay customers have saved an average of 16 to 19 percent more water compared to 2013 water-use totals. Section 6 - Existing and Projected Supplies The Otay WD currently does not have an independent raw or potable water supply source. The Otay WD is a member public agency of the Water Authority and the Water Authority is a member public agency of MWD. The statutory relationships between the Water Authority and its member agencies, and MWD and its member agencies, respectively, establish the scope of the Otay WD entitlement to water from these two agencies. The Water Authority currently supplies the Otay WD with 100 percent of its potable water through two delivery pipelines, referred to as Pipeline No. 4 and the Helix Flume Pipeline. The Water Authority in turn, currently purchases the majority of its water from MWD. Due to the Otay WD reliance on these two agencies, this WSA&V Report includes referenced documents that contain information on the existing and projected supplies, supply programs, and related projects of the Water Authority and MWD. The Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD are actively pursuing programs and projects to further diversify their water supply resources. The description of local recycled water supplies available to the Otay WD is also discussed below. 6.1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2015 Urban Water Management Plan MWD has prepared its 2015 UWMP which was adopted on May 9, 2016. The 2015 UWMP provides MWD’s member agencies, retail water utilities, cities, and counties within its service area with, among other things, a detailed evaluation of the supplies necessary to meet future demands, and an evaluation of reasonable and practical efficient water uses, recycling, and conservation activities. During the preparation of the 2015 UWMP, MWD utilized the Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 22 previous SANDAG regional growth forecast in calculating regional water demands for the Water Authority service area. 6.1.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies MWD is a wholesale supplier of water to its member public agencies and obtains its supplies from two primary sources: the Colorado River, via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), which it owns and operates, and Northern California, via the State Water Project (SWP). The 2015 UWMP documents the availability of these existing supplies and additional supplies necessary to meet future demands. MWD’s IRP identifies a mix of resources (imported and local) that, when implemented, will provide 100 percent reliability for full-service demands through the attainment of regional targets set for conservation, local supplies, State Water Project supplies, Colorado River supplies, groundwater banking, and water transfers. The 2015 update to the IRP (2015 IRP Update) describes an adaptive management strategy to protect the region from future supply shortages. This adaptive management strategy has five components: achieve additional conservation savings, develop additional local water supplies, maintain Colorado River Aqueduct supplies, stabilize State Water Project supplies, and maximize the effectiveness of storage and transfer. MWD’s 2015 IRP Update has a plan for identifying and implementing additional resources that expand the ability for MWD to meet future changes and challenges as necessary to ensure future reliability of supplies. The proper management of these resources help to ensure that the southern California region, including San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet long-term future demands. In May 2016, MWD adopted its 2015 UWMP in accordance with state law. The resource targets included in the preceding 2015 IRP Update serve as the foundation for the planning assumptions used in the 2015 UWMP. MWD’s 2015 UWMP contains a water supply reliability assessment that includes a detailed evaluation of the supplies necessary to meet demands over a 20-year period in average, single dry year, and multiple dry year periods. As part of this process, MWD also uses the current SANDAG regional growth forecast in calculating regional water demands for the Water Authority’s service area. As stated in MWD’s 2015 UWMP, the plan may be used as a source document for meeting the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 until the next scheduled update is completed in 5 years (2020). The 2015 UWMP includes a “Justifications for Supply Projections” in Appendix A.3, that provides detailed documentation of the planning, legal, financial, and regulatory basis for including each source of supply in the plan. A copy of MWD’s 2015 UWMP can be found on the internet at the following site address: http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/2015_UWMP.pdf Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 23 The UWMP updates for both MWD and the Water Authority included the increase in demand projections included in SANDAG’s Series 13 Update and from the projections from Otay Water District WFMP Update. Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climate, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court rulings regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current western states drought conditions. Challenges such as these essentially always will be present. The regional water supply agencies, the Water Authority and MWD, along with Otay WD nevertheless fully intend to have sufficient, reliable supplies to serve demands. 6.1.2 MWD Capital Investment Plan MWD prepares a Capital Investment Plan as part of its annual budget approval process. The cost, purpose, justification, status, progress, etc. of MWD’s infrastructure projects to deliver existing and future supplies are documented in the Capital Investment Plan. The financing of these projects is addressed as part of the annual budget approval process. MWD’s Capital Investment Plan includes a series of projects identified from MWD studies of projected water needs, which, when considered along with operational demands on aging facilities and new water quality regulations, identify the capital projects needed to maintain infrastructure reliability and water quality standards, improve efficiency, and provide future cost savings. All projects within the Capital Investment Plan are evaluated against an objective set of criteria to ensure they are aligned with the MWD’s goals of supply reliability and quality. 6.2 San Diego County Water Authority Regional Water Supplies The Water Authority has adopted plans and is taking specific actions to develop adequate water supplies to help meet existing and future water demands within the San Diego region. This section contains details on the supplies being developed by the Water Authority. A summary of recent actions pertaining to development of these supplies includes: In accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act, the Water Authority adopted their 2015 UWMP in June 2016. The updated Water Authority 2015 UWMP identifies a diverse mix of local and imported water supplies to meet future demands. A copy of the updated Water Authority 2015 UWMP can be found on the internet at: http://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/UWMP2015.pdf Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 24 As part of the October 2003 Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), the Water Authority was assigned MWD’s rights to 77,700 acre feet per year of conserved water from the All-American Canal (AAC) and Coachella Canal (CC) lining projects. Deliveries of this conserved water from the CC reached the region in 2007 and deliveries from the AAC reached the region in 2010. Expected supplies from the canal lining projects are considered verifiable Water Authority supplies. Deliveries of conserved agricultural water from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) to San Diego County have increased annually since 2003, with 70,000 acre feet per year of deliveries in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. The quantities will increase annually to 200,000 acre feet per year by 2021, and then remain fixed for the duration of the transfer agreement. Development of seawater desalination in San Diego County assists the region in diversifying its water resources; reduces dependence on imported supplies; and provides a new drought‐proof, locally treated water supply. The Carlsbad Desalination Project is a fully operational seawater desalination plant and conveyance pipeline developed by Poseidon, a private investor–owned company that develops water and wastewater infrastructure. The Carlsbad Desalination Project, located at the Encina Power Station in Carlsbad, began commercial operation on December 23, 2015, and can provide a highly reliable local supply of up to 56,000 AF/YR for the region. Of the total Carlsbad Desalination Plant production, Vallecitos Water District has a direct connection and a contract to receive 4,083 AFY. Carlsbad MWD has agreed to a take or pay of 2,500 AFY but a direct connection has not been built. Through implementation of the Water Authority and member agency planned supply projects, along with reliable imported water supplies from MWD, the region anticipates having adequate supplies to meet existing and future water demands. To ensure sufficient supplies to meet projected growth in the San Diego region, the Water Authority uses the SANDAG most recent regional growth forecast in calculating regional water demands. The SANDAG regional growth forecast is based on the plans and policies of the land-use jurisdictions with San Diego County. The existing and future demands of the member agencies are included in the Water Authority’s projections. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 25 6.2.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies The Water Authority currently obtains imported supplies from MWD, conserved water from the AAC and CC lining projects, an increasing amount of conserved agricultural water from IID, and desalinated seawater from the Carlsbad desalination plant. Of the twenty-seven member agencies that purchase water supplies from MWD, the Water Authority is MWD’s largest customer. Section 135 of MWD’s Act defines the preferential right to water for each of its member agencies. Currently, the Water Authority pays about 22 percent of MWD's total revenue, but has preferential rights to only 18.27 percent of MWD's water supply. Under preferential rights, MWD could allocate water without regard to historic water purchases or dependence on MWD. The Water Authority and its member agencies are taking measures to reduce dependence on MWD through development of additional supplies and a water supply portfolio that would not be jeopardized by a preferential rights allocation. MWD has stated, consistent with Section 4202 of its Administrative Code that it is prepared to provide the Water Authority’s service area with adequate supplies of water to meet expanding and increasing needs in the years ahead. When and as additional water resources are required to meet increasing needs, MWD stated it will be prepared to deliver such supplies. In Section ES-5 of their 2015 UWMP, MWD states that MWD has supply capacities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands from 2020 through 2040. MWD has plans for supply implementation and continued development of a diversified resource mix including programs in the Colorado River Aqueduct, State Water Project, Central Valley Transfers, local resource projects, and in-region storage that enables the region to meet its water supply needs. The Water Authority has made large investments in MWD’s facilities and will continue to include imported supplies from MWD in the future resource mix. As discussed in the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP, the Water Authority and its member agencies are planning to diversify the San Diego regions supply portfolio and reduce purchases from MWD. As part of the Water Authority’s diversification efforts, the Water Authority is now taking delivery of conserved agricultural water from IID, water saved from the AAC and CC lining projects and desalinated seawater from the Carlsbad desalination plant. Table 3 summarizes the Water Authority’s supply sources with detailed information included in the sections to follow. Deliveries from MWD are also included in Table 3, which is further discussed in Section 6.1 above. The Water Authority’s member agencies provided the verifiable local supply targets for groundwater, recycled water, potable reuse and surface water, which are discussed in more detail in Section 5 of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 26 Table 3 Projected Verifiable Water Supplies – Water Authority Service Area Normal Year (acre feet)1 Water Supply Sources 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Water Authority Supplies MWD Supplies 136,002 181,840 207,413 224,863 248,565 Water Authority/IID Transfer 190,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 AAC and CC Lining Projects 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 Regional Seawater Desalination 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Member Agency Supplies Surface Water 51,580 51,480 51,380 51,280 51,180 Water Recycling 40,459 43,674 45,758 46,118 46,858 Seawater Desalination 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Brackish GW Recovery 12,100 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 Groundwater 17,940 19,130 20,170 20,170 20,170 Potable Reuse 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Total Projected Supplies 587,581 648,124 676,721 694,431 718,773 Source: Water Authority 2015 Urban Water Management Plan – Table 9-1. 1Normal water year demands based on 1960-2013 hydrology. Section 5.6.1 of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP also includes a discussion on the local supply target for seawater desalination. Seawater desalination supplies represent a significant local resource in the Water Authority’s service area. The Carlsbad Desalination Project (Project) is a fully-permitted seawater desalination plant and conveyance pipeline designed to provide a highly reliable local supply of up to 56,000 acre-feet (AF) per year for the region. In 2020, the Project would account for approximately 8% of the total projected regional supply and 30% of all locally generated water in San Diego County. The project became operational in late 2015 and it more than doubles the amount of local supplies developed in the region since 1991. The desalination plant itself was fully financed, built, and is being operated by Poseidon. The Water Authority purchases water from the plant under a water purchase agreement. The new pipeline connecting the desalination plant with the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct is owned and operated by the Water Authority, but Poseidon had the responsibility for design and construction through a separate Design-Build Agreement. The Water Authority was responsible for aqueduct improvements, including the relining and rehabilitation of Pipeline 3 to accept desalinated water under higher operating pressures, modifications to the San Marcos Vent that allows the flow of water between Pipelines 3 and 4, and improvements at the Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant necessary to integrate desalinated water into the Water Authority’s system for optimal distribution to member agencies. The Water Authority’s existing and planned supplies from the IID transfer, canal lining, and desalination projects are considered “drought-proof” supplies and should be available at the Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 27 yields shown in Table 4 in normal water year supply and demand assessment. Single dry year and multiple dry year scenarios are discussed in more detail in Section 9 of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP. As part of preparation of a written water supply assessment and/or verification report, an agency’s shortage contingency analysis should be considered in determining sufficiency of supply. Section 11 of the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP contains a detailed shortage contingency analysis that addresses a regional catastrophic shortage situation and drought management. The analysis demonstrates that the Water Authority and its member agencies, through the Emergency Response Plan, Emergency Storage Project, and Drought Management Plan (DMP) are taking actions to prepare for and appropriately handle an interruption of water supplies. The Water Authority’s Board of Directors approved the Drought Management Plan (DMP) in 2006. The DMP outlined a series of orderly, progressive steps for the Water Authority and its member agencies to take during shortages to minimize impacts to the region’s economy and quality of life. It also included an allocation methodology to equitably allocate water supplies to the member agencies. The DMP was first activated in 2007 in response to MWD drawing water from storage to meet demands, and deactivated in 2011 when supply conditions improved. In 2008, the Water Authority’s Board approved another drought management document, the Model Drought Response Conservation Program Ordinance. The model ordinance focuses on core water use restrictions and is intended to assist the member agencies when updating or drafting local drought response ordinances. The intent of the model ordinance is to provide regional consistency in drought response levels and messaging to the public and media. Also in 2008, the Water Authority’s Board adopted Resolution 2008-11, that established procedures to administer the supply allocation methodology contained in the DMP. In 2012, the DMP’s supply allocation methodology was updated, using lessons from the previous shortage periods, and the DMP was renamed the Water Shortage and Drought Response Plan (WSDRP). In 2014, the WSDRP was activated due to critically dry weather in California and the impact on water supply conditions. It deactivated in 2016 when supply conditions improved. In each instance when the DMP and WSDRP were activated, a smooth transition into and out of water allocations for the member agencies was possible due to the advanced planning of the Water Authority and its member agencies. Those planning efforts also resulted in an approach that allowed for regional consistency in public drought messaging. On August 24, 2017, the Water Authority’s Board approved proposed revisions of the WSDRP and renamed it the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to align the WSCP with the framework outlined in the April 2017 Final Report, Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life, Implementing Executive Order B-37-16 in the areas of water use efficiency and shortage response planning. The WSCP continues a proactive and comprehensive approach to shortage response planning for the region. The plan will be Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 28 reviewed and potentially updated at least every five years in coordination with the preparation of the Water Authority’s Urban Water Management Plan for 2020, which will include any final requirements approved through legislation implementing the state’s framework report. The approval of the WSCP does not require the member agencies to update their planning document or conservation ordinance at this time. 6.2.1.1 Water Authority-Imperial Irrigation District Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement The QSA was signed in October 2003, and resolves long-standing disputes regarding priority and use of Colorado River water and creates a baseline for implementing water transfers. With approval of the QSA, the Water Authority and IID were able to implement their Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement. This agreement not only provides reliability for the San Diego region, but also assists California in reducing its use of Colorado River water to its legal allocation. On April 29, 1998, the Water Authority signed a historic agreement with IID for the long-term transfer of conserved Colorado River water to San Diego County. The Water Authority-IID Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement (Transfer Agreement) is the largest agriculture-to- urban water transfer in United States history. Colorado River water will be conserved by Imperial Valley farmers who voluntarily participate in the program and then transferred to the Water Authority for use in San Diego County. Implementation Status On October 10, 2003, the Water Authority and IID executed an amendment to the original 1998 Transfer Agreement. This amendment modified certain aspects of the Transfer Agreement to be consistent with the terms and conditions of the QSA and related agreements. It also modified other aspects of the agreement to lessen the environmental impacts of the transfer of conserved water. The amendment was expressly contingent on the approval and implementation of the QSA, which was also executed on October 10, 2003. Section 6.2.1, “Colorado River,” contains details on the QSA. On November 5, 2003, IID filed a complaint in Imperial County Superior Court seeking validation of 13 contracts associated with the Transfer Agreement and the QSA. Imperial County and various private parties filed additional suits in Superior Court, alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Water Code, and other laws related to the approval of the QSA, the water transfer, and related agreements. The lawsuits were coordinated for trial. The IID, Coachella Valley Water District, MWD, the Water Authority, and state are defending these suits and coordinating to seek validation of the contracts. In January 2010, a California Superior Court judge ruled that the QSA and 11 related agreements were invalid, because one of the agreements created an open-ended financial obligation for the state, Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 29 in violation of California’s constitution. The QSA parties appealed this decision and on July 2013, a Sacramento Superior Court judge entered a final judgment validating the QSA and rejecting all of the remaining legal challenges. The judge affirmed all of the contested actions, including the adequacy of the environmental documents prepared by the IID. In May 2015, the state Court of Appeal issued a ruling that dismissed all remaining appeals. Expected Supply Deliveries into San Diego County from the transfer began in 2003 with an initial transfer of 10,000 acre feet per year. The Water Authority received increasing amounts of transfer water each year, according to a water delivery schedule contained in the transfer agreement The quantities will increase annually to 200,000 acre feet per year by 2021 then remain fixed for the duration of the transfer agreement. The initial term of the Transfer Agreement is 45 years, with a provision that either agency may extend the agreement for an additional 30-year term. During dry years, when water availability is low, the conserved water will be transferred under IID’s Colorado River rights, which are among the most senior in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Without the protection of these rights, the Water Authority could suffer delivery cutbacks. In recognition for the value of such reliability, the 1998 contract required the Water Authority to pay a premium on transfer water under defined regional shortage circumstances. The shortage premium period duration is the period of consecutive days during which any of the following exist: 1) a Water Authority shortage; 2) a shortage condition for the Lower Colorado River as declared by the Secretary; and 3) a Critical Year. Under terms of the October 2003 amendment, the shortage premium will not be included in the cost formula until Agreement Year 16. Transportation The Water Authority entered into a water exchange agreement with MWD on October 10, 2003, to transport the Water Authority–IID transfer water from the Colorado River to San Diego County. Under the exchange agreement, MWD takes delivery of the transfer water through its Colorado River Aqueduct. In exchange, MWD delivers to the Water Authority a like quantity and quality of water. The Water Authority pays MWD’s applicable wheeling rate for each acre- feet of exchange water delivered. Under the terms of the water exchange agreement, MWD will make delivery of the transfer water for 35 years, unless the Water Authority and MWD elect to extend the agreement another 10 years for a total of 45 years. Cost/Financing The costs associated with the transfer are financed through the Water Authority’s rates and charges. In the agreement between the Water Authority and IID, the price for the transfer water started at $258 per acre-feet and increased by a set amount for the first seven years. In December 2009, the Water Authority and IID executed a fifth amendment to the water transfer agreement Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 30 that sets the price per acre-feet for transfer water for calendar years 2010 through 2015, beginning at $405 per acre-feet in 2010 and increasing to $624 per acre-feet in 2015. For calendar years 2016 through 2034, the unit price will be adjusted using an agreed-upon index. The amendment also required the Water Authority to pay IID $6 million at the end of calendar year 2009 and another $50 million on or before October 1, 2010, provided that a transfer stoppage is not in effect as a result of a court order in the QSA coordinated cases. Beginning in 2035, either the Water Authority or IID can, if certain criteria are met, elect a market rate price through a formula described in the water transfer agreement. The October 2003 exchange agreement between MWD and the Water Authority set the initial cost to transport the conserved water at $253 per acre-feet. Thereafter, the price is set to be equal to the charge or charges set by MWD’s Board of Directors pursuant to applicable laws and regulation, and generally applicable to the conveyance of water by MWD on behalf of its member agencies. The Water Authority is providing $10 million to help offset potential socioeconomic impacts associated with temporary land fallowing. IID will credit the Water Authority for these funds during years 16 through 45. In 2007, the Water Authority prepaid IID an additional $10 million for future deliveries of water. IID will credit the Water Authority for this up-front payment during years 16 through 30. As part of implementation of the QSA and water transfer, the Water Authority also entered into an environmental cost sharing agreement. Under this agreement the Water Authority is contributing a total of $64 million to fund environmental mitigation projects and the Salton Sea Restoration Fund. Written Contracts or Other Proof The supply and costs associated with the transfer are based primarily on the following documents: Agreement for Transfer of Conserved Water by and between IID and the Water Authority (April 29, 1998). This Agreement provides for a market-based transaction in which the Water Authority would pay IID a unit price for agricultural water conserved by IID and transferred to the Water Authority. Revised Fourth Amendment to Agreement between IID and the Water Authority for Transfer of Conserved Water (October 10, 2003). Consistent with the executed Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and related agreements, the amendments restructure the agreement and modify it to minimize the environmental impacts of the transfer of conserved water to the Water Authority. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 31 Amended and Restated Agreement between MWD and Water Authority for the Exchange of Water (October 10, 2003). This agreement was executed pursuant to the QSA and provides for delivery of the transfer water to the Water Authority. Environmental Cost Sharing, Funding, and Habitat Conservation Plan Development Agreement among IID, Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), and Water Authority (October 10, 2003). This Agreement provides for the specified allocation of QSA-related environmental review, mitigation, and litigation costs for the term of the QSA, and for development of a Habitat Conservation Plan. Quantification Settlement Agreement Joint Powers Authority Creation and Funding Agreement (October 10, 2003). The purpose of this agreement is to create and fund the QSA Joint Powers Authority and to establish the limits of the funding obligation of CVWD, IID, and Water Authority for environmental mitigation and Salton Sea restoration pursuant to SB 654 (Machado). Fifth Amendment to Agreement Between Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego County Water Authority for Transfer of Conserved Water (December 21, 2009). This agreement implements a settlement between the Water Authority and IID regarding the base contract price of transferred water. Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals Federal Endangered Species Act Permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a Biological Opinion on January 12, 2001, that provides incidental take authorization and certain measures required to offset species impacts on the Colorado River regarding such actions. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Petition. SWRCB adopted Water Rights Order 2002-0016 concerning IID and Water Authority’s amended joint petition for approval of a long- term transfer of conserved water from IID to the Water Authority and to change the point of diversion, place of use, and purpose of use under Permit 7643. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Conservation and Transfer Agreement. As lead agency, IID certified the Final EIR for the Conservation and Transfer Agreement on June 28, 2002. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement on the Bureau of Reclamation's Voluntary Fish and Wildlife Conservation Measures and Associated Conservation Agreements with the California Water Agencies (12/18/02). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued the biological opinion/incidental take statement for water transfer activities involving the Bureau of Reclamation and associated with IID/other California water agencies' actions on listed species in the Imperial Valley and Salton Sea (per the June 28, 2002 EIR). Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 32 Addendum to EIR for Conservation and Transfer Agreement. IID as lead agency and Water Authority as responsible agency approved addendum to EIR in October 2003. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Conservation and Transfer Agreement. Bureau of Reclamation issued a Record of Decision on the EIS in October 2003. CA Department of Fish and Game California Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit #2081-2003-024-006). The California Department of Fish and Game issued this permit (10/22/04) for potential take effects on state-listed/fully protected species associated with IID/other California water agencies' actions on listed species in the Imperial Valley and Salton Sea (per the June 28, 2002 EIR). California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit. A CESA permit was issued by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) on April 4, 2005, providing incidental take authorization for potential species impacts on the Colorado River. 6.2.1.2 All-American Canal and Coachella Canal Lining Projects As part of the QSA and related contracts, the Water Authority was assigned MWD’s rights to 77,700 acre-feet per year of conserved water from projects that will line the All-American Canal (AAC) and Coachella Canal (CC). The projects will reduce the loss of water that currently occurs through seepage, and the conserved water will be delivered to the Water Authority. This conserved water will provide the San Diego region with an additional 8.5 million acre-feet over the 110-year life of the agreement. Implementation Status The CC lining project began in November 2004 and was completed in 2006. Deliveries of conserved water to the Water Authority began in 2007. The project constructed a 37-mile parallel canal adjacent to the CC. The AAC lining project was begun in 2005 and was completed in 2010. The lining project constructed a concrete-lined canal parallel to 24 miles of the existing AAC from Pilot Knob to Drop 3. In July 2005, a lawsuit (CDEM v United States, Case No. CV-S-05-0870-KJD-PAL) was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of U.S. and Mexican groups challenging the lining of the AAC. The lawsuit, which names the Secretary of the Interior as a defendant, claims that seepage water from the canal belongs to water users in Mexico. California water agencies note that the seepage water is actually part of California's Colorado River allocation and not part of Mexico's allocation. The plaintiffs also allege a failure by the United States to comply with environmental laws. Federal officials have stated that they intend to vigorously defend the case. Expected Supply Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 33 The AAC lining project makes 67,700 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year available for allocation to the Water Authority and San Luis Rey Indian water rights settlement parties. The CC lining project makes 26,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water each year available for allocation. The 2003 Allocation Agreement provides for 16,000 acre-feet per year of conserved canal lining water to be allocated to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Parties. The remaining amount, 77,700 acre-feet per year, is to be available to the Water Authority, with up to an additional 4,850 acre-feet per year available to the Water Authority depending on environmental requirements from the CC lining project. For planning purposes, the Water Authority assumes that 2,500 acre-feet of the 4,850 acre-feet will be available each year for delivery, for a total of 80,200 acre-feet per year of that supply. According to the Allocation Agreement, IID has call rights to a portion (5,000 acre-feet per year) of the conserved water upon termination of the QSA for the remainder of the 110 years of the Allocation Agreement and upon satisfying certain conditions. The term of the QSA is for up to 75 years. Transportation The October 2003 Exchange Agreement between the Water Authority and MWD provides for the delivery of the conserved water from the canal lining projects. The Water Authority pays MWD’s applicable wheeling rate for each acre-foot of exchange water delivered. In the Agreement, MWD will deliver the canal lining water for the term of the Allocation Agreement (110 years). Cost/Financing Under California Water Code Section 12560 et seq., the Water Authority received $200 million in state funds for construction of the canal lining projects. In addition, $20 million was made available from Proposition 50 and $36 million from Proposition 84. The Water Authority was responsible for additional expenses above the funds provided by the state. The rate to be paid to transport the canal lining water will be equal to the charge or charges set by MWD’s Board of Directors pursuant to applicable law and regulation and generally applicable to the conveyance of water by MWD on behalf of its member agencies. In accordance with the Allocation Agreement, the Water Authority is responsible for a portion of the net additional Operation, Maintenance, and Repair (OM&R) costs for the lined canals. Any costs associated with the lining projects as proposed are to be financed through the Water Authority’s rates and charges. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 34 Written Contracts or Other Proof The expected supply and costs associated with the lining projects are based primarily on the following documents: U.S. Public Law 100-675 (1988). Authorized the Department of the Interior to reduce seepage from the existing earthen AAC and CC. The law provides that conserved water will be made available to specified California contracting water agencies according to established priorities. California Department of Water Resources - MWD Funding Agreement (2001). Reimburse MWD for project work necessary to construct the lining of the CC in an amount not to exceed $74 million. Modified by First Amendment (2004) to replace MWD with the Authority. Modified by Second Amendment (2004) to increase funding amount to $83.65 million, with addition of funds from Proposition 50. California Department of Water Resources - IID Funding Agreement (2001). Reimburse IID for project work necessary to construct a lined AAC in an amount not to exceed $126 million. MWD - CVWD Assignment and Delegation of Design Obligations Agreement (2002). Assigns design of the CC lining project to CVWD. MWD - CVWD Financial Arrangements Agreement for Design Obligations (2002). Obligates MWD to advance funds to CVWD to cover costs for CC lining project design and CVWD to invoice MWD to permit the Department of Water Resources to be billed for work completed. Allocation Agreement among the United States of America, The MWD Water District of Southern California, Coachella Valley Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, San Diego County Water Authority, the La Jolla, Pala, Pauma, Rincon, and San Pasqual Bands of Mission Indians, the San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority, the City of Escondido, and Vista Irrigation District (October 10, 2003). This agreement includes assignment of MWD’s rights and interest in delivery of 77,700 acre-feet of Colorado River water previously intended to be delivered to MWD to the Water Authority. Allocates water from the AAC and CC lining projects for at least 110 years to the Water Authority, the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Parties, and IID, if it exercises its call rights. Amended and Restated Agreement between MWD and Water Authority for the Exchange of Water (October 10, 2003). This agreement was executed pursuant to the QSA and provides for delivery of the conserved canal lining water to the Water Authority. Agreement between MWD and Water Authority regarding Assignment of Agreements related to the AAC and CC Lining Projects. This agreement was executed in April 2004 and assigns MWD's rights to the Water Authority for agreements that had been executed to facilitate funding and construction of the AAC and CC lining projects: Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 35 Assignment and Delegation of Construction Obligations for the Coachella Canal Lining Project under the Department of Water Resources Funding Agreement No. 4600001474 from the San Diego County Water Authority to the Coachella Valley Water District, dated September 8, 2004. Agreement Regarding the Financial Arrangements between the San Diego County Water Authority and Coachella Valley Water District for the Construction Obligations for the Coachella Canal Lining Project, dated September 8, 2004. Agreement No. 04-XX-30-W0429 Among the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the San Diego County Water Authority for the Construction of the Coachella Canal Lining Project Pursuant to Title II of Public Law 100-675, dated October 19, 2004. California Water Code Section 12560 et seq. This Water Code Section provides for $200 million to be appropriated to the Department of Water Resources to help fund the canal lining projects in furtherance of implementing California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan. California Water Code Section 79567. This Water Code Section identifies $20 million as available for appropriation by the California Legislature from the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal, and Beach Protection Fund of 2002 (Proposition 50) to DWR for grants for canal lining and related projects necessary to reduce Colorado River water use. According to the Allocation Agreement, it is the intention of the agencies that those funds will be available for use by the Water Authority, IID, or CVWD for the AAC and CC lining projects. California Public Resources Code Section 75050(b) (1). This section identifies up to $36 million as available for water conservation projects that implement the Allocation Agreement as defined in the Quantification Settlement Agreement. Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals AAC Lining Project Final EIS/EIR (March 1994). A final EIR/EIS analyzing the potential impacts of lining the AAC was completed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in March 1994. A Record of Decision was signed by Reclamation in July 1994, implementing the preferred alternative for lining the AAC. A re-examination and analysis of these environmental compliance documents by Reclamation in November 1999 determined that these documents continued to meet the requirements of the NEPA and the CEQA and would be valid in the future. CC Lining Project Final EIS/EIR (April 2001). The final EIR/EIS for the CC lining project was completed in 2001. Reclamation signed the Record of Decision in April 2002. An amended Record of Decision has also been signed to take into account revisions to the project description. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for Coachella Canal Lining Project, SCH #1990020408; prepared by Coachella Valley Water District, May 16, 2001. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 36 Environmental Commitment Plan for the Coachella Canal Lining Project, approved by the US Bureau of Reclamation (Boulder City, NV) on March 4, 2003. Environmental Commitment Plan and Addendum to the All-American Canal Lining Project EIS/EIR California State Clearinghouse Number SCH 90010472 (June 2004, prepared by IID). Addendum to Final EIS/EIR and Amendment to Environmental Commitment Plan for the All-American Canal Lining Project (approved June 27, 2006, by IID Board of Directors). 6.2.1.3 Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project Development of seawater desalination in San Diego County has assisted the region in diversifying its water resources, reduce dependence on imported supplies, and provide a new drought-proof, locally treated water supply. The Carlsbad Desalination Project is a fully- permitted seawater desalination plant and conveyance pipeline developed by Poseidon, a private investor–owned company that develops water and wastewater infrastructure. The project, located at the Encina Power Station in Carlsbad, has been in development since 1998 and was incorporated into the Water Authority’s 2003 Water Facilities Master Plan and the 2015 UWMP. The Carlsbad Desalination Project has obtained all required permits and environmental clearances and starting in late 2015 provides a highly reliable local supply of 48,000 to 56,000 acre-feet per year for the region. Implementation Status The Project has obtained all required permits and environmental clearances, including the following: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Discharge Permit (Regional Water Quality Control Board) Conditional Drinking Water Permit (California Department of Health Services) State Lands Commission Lease (State Lands Commission) Coastal Development Permit (California Coastal Commission) IDE Technologies, a worldwide leader in the design, construction, and operation of desalination plants, is the desalination process contractor for the Project. On July 22, 2010, the Board approved a Term Sheet between the Water Authority and Poseidon Resources that outlined the key terms and conditions that would be detailed and incorporated in a comprehensive Water Purchase Agreement (WPA). Beginning in October 2011 and under the direction of the Board’s Carlsbad Desalination Project Advisory Group, staff began developing and negotiating with Poseidon a WPA consistent with the July 22, Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 37 2010 Board approved Term Sheet. The July 2010 Term Sheet also identified specific conditions precedent to Board consideration of the WPA. On November 29, 2012, the Water Authority Board adopted a resolution approving the Design-Build Agreement between the Water Authority and Poseidon. The Design-Build Agreement established the commercial and technical terms for implementation of the desalination product pipeline improvements. These improvements consisted of an approximate 10-mile long, 54-inch diameter conveyance pipeline connecting the Desalination Plant to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct. The pipeline was generally be constructed within improved streets in commercial and industrial areas in the cities of Carlsbad, Vista, and San Marcos. The Water Authority owns the Project Water Pipeline Improvements and has assumed operational control of all pipeline improvements. This system was placed into service in late 2015. Expected Supply The Project provides a highly reliable local supply of 48,000 to 56,000 acre-feet per year of supply for the region, available in both normal and dry hydrologic conditions. In 2020, the Project would account for approximately 10% of the total projected regional supply and 30% of all locally generated water in San Diego County. The project more than doubles the amount of local supplies developed in the region since 1991. Transportation On November 29, 2012, the Water Authority Board adopted a resolution approving the Design-Build Agreement between the Water Authority and Poseidon. The Design-Build Agreement establishes the commercial and technical terms for implementation of the desalination product pipeline improvements. These improvements consisted of an approximate 10-mile long, 54-inch diameter conveyance pipeline connecting the Desalination Plant to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct. The pipeline was generally constructed within improved streets in commercial and industrial areas in the cities of Carlsbad, Vista, and San Marcos. The Water Authority owns the Project Water Pipeline Improvements and has assumed operational control of all pipeline improvements. The Water Authority was responsible for aqueduct improvements, including the relining and rehabilitation of Pipeline 3 to accept desalinated water under higher operating pressures, modifications to the San Marcos Vent that allows the flow of water between Pipelines 3 and 4, and improvements at the Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant necessary to integrate desalinated water into the Water Authority’s system for optimal distribution to member agencies. Cost/Financing Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 38 The plant and the offsite pipeline is being financed through tax exempt government bonds issued for the Water Authority by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority (CPCFA). On November 29, 2012, the Water Authority Board adopted a resolution approving agreements to accomplish tax exempt project financing through the CPCFA. Based on current electricity cost estimates, the Water Purchase Agreement sets the price of the water from the Carlsbad Desalination Project at $2,131 to $2,367 per acre foot in 2016. The Water Authority’s water purchase costs would be financed through Water Authority rates and charges. Poseidon is financing the capital cost of the Project with a combination of private equity and tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds. Written Contracts or Other Proof The expected supply and costs associated with the Carlsbad Desalination Project are based primarily on the following documents: Development Agreement between City of Carlsbad and Poseidon (October 2009). A Development Agreement between Carlsbad and Poseidon was executed on October 5, 2009 Agreement of Term Sheet between the Water Authority and Poseidon Resources (July 2010). The Water Authority approved the Term Sheet at its July 2010 Board Meeting. The Term Sheet outlines the terms and conditions of a future Water Purchase Agreement with Poseidon and allocates the resources to prepare the draft Water Purchase Agreement. Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals Carlsbad Desalination Project Final EIR The City of Carlsbad, acting as lead agency for Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant and appurtenant facilities proposed by Poseidon (the “Project”) prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), which the City of Carlsbad certified on June 13, 2006. http://www.sdcwa.org/rwfmp-peir Regional Water Facilities Master Plan EIR On November 20, 2003, the Water Authority Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 2003-34 certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2003021052) for the Water Authority’s Regional Water Facilities Master Plan Project (the “Master Plan EIR”), which evaluated, among other things, potential growth inducing impacts associated with new water supplies to the region including, but not limited to, up to 150 million gallons per day (“MGD”) of new supplies from seawater desalination. This certification included a 50 MGD plant located in the City of Carlsbad. The environmental documents and permits are found at the following links: http://www.sdcwa.org/rwfmp-peir Sub regional Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 39 On December 8, 2010, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2010-18 certifying a Final environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the San Diego County Water Authority Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2003121012) (the “Habitat Conservation Plan EIR/EIS”), which Plan was implemented on December 28, 201. The environmental documents and permits are found at the following links: http://www.sdcwa.org/nccp-hcp Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant EIR On September 8, 2005, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2005-31 certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant Project (State Clearinghouse No. 20040071034) (the “Twin Oaks EIR”), which project was constructed as a 100 MGD submerged membrane water treatment facility, including treated water holding tanks and distribution pipelines and other facilities, consistent with the conditions and mitigation measures included in the Twin Oaks EIR. http://www.sdcwa.org/twin-oaks-valley-treatment-plant-final-eir Drinking Water Permit (October 2006). The California Department of Health Services approved the Conditional Drinking Water Permit on October 19, 2006. 6.2.2 Water Authority Capital Improvement Program and Financial Information The Water Authority’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) can trace its beginnings to a report approved by the Board in 1989 entitled, The Water Distribution Plan, and a Capital Improvement Program through the Year 2010. The Water Distribution Plan included ten projects designed to increase the capacity of the aqueduct system, increase the yield from existing water treatment plants, obtain additional supplies from MWD, and increase the reliability and flexibility of the aqueduct system. Since that time the Water Authority has made numerous additions to the list of projects included in its CIP as the region’s infrastructure needs and water supply outlook have changed. The current list of projects included in the CIP is based on the results of planning studies, including the 2015 UWMP and the 2013 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan. These CIP projects, which are most recently described in the Water Authority’s Adopted Multi-Year Budget Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019, include projects valued at $118 million. These CIP projects are designed to meet projected water supply and delivery needs of the member agencies. The projects include a mix of new facilities that will add capacity to existing conveyance, storage, and treatment facilities, as well as repair and replace aging infrastructure: Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 40 Asset Management – The primary components of the asset management projects include relining and replacing existing pipelines and updating and replacing metering facilities. New Facilities – These projects will expand the capacity of the aqueduct system and evaluate new supply opportunities. Emergency Storage Project – Projects remaining to be completed under the ongoing ESP include the San Vicente Dam Raise, the Lake Hodges projects, and a new pump station to extend ESP supplies to the northern reaches of the Water Authority service area. Other Projects – This category includes out-of-region groundwater storage, increased local water treatment plant capacity, and projects that mitigate environmental impacts of the CIP. The Water Authority Board of Directors is provided a semi-annual and annual report on the status of development of the CIP projects. As described in the Water Authority’s biennial budget, a combination of long and short term debt and cash (pay-as-you-go) will provide funding for capital improvements. Additional information is included in the Water Authority’s biennial budget, which also contains selected financial information and summarizes the Water Authority’s investment policy. 6.3 Otay Water District The Otay Water District WFMP Update and the 2015 UWMP contain comparisons of projected supply and demands through the year 2040. Projected potable water resources to meet planned demands as documented were planned to be supplied entirely with imported water received from the Water Authority. Recycled water resources to meet projected demands are planned to be supplied from local wastewater treatment plants. The Otay WD currently has no local supply of raw water, potable water, or groundwater resources. The development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater, recycled water market expansion, and seawater desalination supplies by the Otay WD have evolved and are planned to occur in response to the regional water supply issues. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and MWD UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents. These new additional water supply projects are not currently developed and are in various stages of the planning process. These local and regional water supply projects will allow for less reliance upon imported water and are considered a new water supply resource for the Otay WD. The supply forecasts contained within this WSA Report do consider development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater, recycled water market expansion, and seawater desalination supplies by the Otay WD. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 41 6.3.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies The availability of sufficient potable water supplies and plans for acquiring additional potable water supplies to serve existing and future demands of the Otay WD is founded upon the preceding discussions regarding MWD’s and the Water Authority’s water supply resources and water supplies to be acquired by the Otay WD. Historic imported water deliveries from the Water Authority to Otay WD and recycled water deliveries from the Otay WD Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) are shown in Table 4. Since the year 2000 through mid-May 2007, recycled water demand has exceeded the recycled water supply capability typically in the summer months. The RWCWRF is limited to a maximum production of about 1,300 acre-feet per year. The recycled water supply shortfall had been met by supplementing with potable water into the recycled water storage system as needed by adding potable water supplied by the Water Authority. On May 18, 2007 an additional source of recycled water supply from the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) became available. The supply of recycled water from the SBWRP is a result of completing construction and the operation of the transmission, storage, and pump station systems necessary to link the SBWRP recycled water supply source to the existing Otay WD recycled water system. Table 4 Otay Water District Historic Imported and Local Water Supplies Calendar Year Imported Water (acre-feet) Recycled Water (acre-feet) Total (acre-feet) 1980 12,558 0 12,558 1985 14,529 0 14,529 1990 23,200 0 23,200 1995 20,922 614 21,536 2000 29,901 948 30,849 2005 37,678 1,227 38,905 2010 29,270 4,090 33,270 2015 26,494 3,777 30,271 Source: Otay Water District operational records. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 42 6.3.1.1 Imported and Regional Supplies The availability of sufficient imported and regional potable water supplies to serve existing and planned uses within Otay WD is demonstrated in the above discussion on MWD and the Water Authority’s water supply reliability. The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority “as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.” The Water Authority provides between 75 to 95 percent of the total supplies used by its 24 member agencies, depending on local weather and supply conditions. Potable Water System Facilities The Otay WD continues to pursue diversification of its water supply resources to increase reliability and flexibility. The Otay WD also continues to plan, design, and construct potable water system facilities to obtain these supplies and to distribute potable water to meet customer demands. The Otay WD has successfully negotiated two water supply diversification agreements that enhance reliability and flexibility, which are briefly described as follows. The Otay WD entered into an agreement with the City of San Diego, known as the Otay Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Agreement. The Otay WTP Agreement provides for raw water purchase from the Water Authority and treatment by the City of San Diego at their Otay WTP for delivery to Otay WD. The supply system link to implement the Otay WTP Agreement to access the regions raw water supply system and the local water treatment plant became fully operational in August 2005. This supply link consists of the typical storage, transmission, pumping, flow measurement, and appurtenances to receive and transport the treated water to the Otay WD system. The City of San Diego obligation to supply 10 mgd of treated water under the Otay WTP Agreement is contingent upon there being available 10 mgd of surplus treatment capacity in the Otay WTP until such time as Otay WD pays the City of San Diego to expand the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs. In the event that the City of San Diego’s surplus is projected to be less than 10 mgd the City of San Diego will consider and not unreasonably refuse the expansion of the Otay WTP to meet the Otay WD future needs. The Otay WTP existing rated capacity is 40 mgd with an actual effective capacity of approximately 34 mgd. The City of San Diego’s typical demand for treated water from the Otay WTP is approximately 20 mgd. It is at the City of San Diego’s discretion to utilize either imported raw water delivered by the Water Authority Pipeline No. 3 or local water stored in Lower Otay Reservoir for treatment to supply the Otay WD demand. The Otay WD entered into an agreement with the Water Authority, known as the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program (ECRTWIP Agreement). The ECRTWIP Agreement provides for transmission of raw water to the Helix WD R. M. Levy WTP for treatment and delivery to Otay WD. The supply system link to implement the ECRTWIP Agreement is complete allowing access to the regions raw water supply Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 43 system and the local water treatment plant. This supply link consists of the typical transmission, pumping, storage, flow control, and appurtenances to receive and transport the potable water from the R. M. Levy WTP to Otay WD. The Otay WD is required to take a minimum of 10,000 acre-feet per year of treated water from the R.M. Levy WTP supplied from the regions raw water system. Cost and Financing The capital improvement costs associated with water supply and delivery are financed through the Otay WD water meter capacity fee and user rate structures. The Otay WD potable water sales revenue are used to pay for the wholesale cost of the treated water supply and the operating and maintenance expenses of the potable water system facilities. Written Agreements, Contracts, or Other Proof The supply and cost associated with deliveries of treated water from the Otay WTP and the R.M. Levy WTP is based on the following documents. Agreement for the Purchase of Treated Water from the Otay Water Treatment Plant between the City of San Diego and the Otay Water District. The Otay WD entered into an agreement dated January 11, 1999 with the City of San Diego that provides for 10 mgd of surplus treated water to the Otay WD from the existing Otay WTP capacity. The agreement allows for the purchase of treated water on an as available basis from the Otay WTP. The Otay WD pays the Water Authority at the prevailing raw water rate for raw water and pays the City of San Diego at a rate equal to the actual cost of treatment to potable water standards. Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District Regarding Implementation of the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program. The ECRTWIP Agreement requires the purchase of at least 10,000 acre-feet per year of potable water from the Helix WD R.M. Levy WTP at the prevailing Water Authority treated water rate. The ECRTWIP Agreement is dated April 27, 2006. Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District for Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility Modification. The Otay WD entered into the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility Modification Agreement dated January 24, 2007 with the Water Authority to increase the physical capacity of the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility. The Water Authority and Otay WD shared the capital cost to expand its capacity from 8 mgd to 16 mgd. Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals The Otay WD acquired all the permits for the construction of the pipeline and pump station associated with the Otay WTP supply source and for the 640-1 and 640-2 water storage Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 44 reservoirs project associated with the ECRTWIP Agreement through the typical planning, environmental approval, design, and construction processes. The transmission main project constructed about 26,000 feet of a 36-inch diameter steel pipeline from the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility to the 640-1 and 640-2 Reservoirs project. The Otay 14 Flow Control Facility modification increased the capacity of the existing systems from 8 mgd to 16 mgd. CEQA documentation is complete for both projects. Construction of both of these projects was completed October 2010. The City of San Diego and the Helix Water District are required to meet all applicable federal, state, and local health and water quality requirements for the potable water produced at the Otay WTP and the R.M. Levy WTP respectively. 6.3.1.2 Recycled Water Supplies Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services provided by the Otay WD is limited to a relatively small area within what is known as the Jamacha Basin, located within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin watershed upstream of the Sweetwater Reservoir and downstream of Loveland Reservoir. Water recycling is defined as the treatment and disinfection of municipal wastewater to provide a water supply suitable for non-potable reuse. The Otay WD owns and operates the Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility, which produces recycled water treated to a tertiary level for landscape irrigation purposes. The recycled water market area of the Otay WD is located primarily within the eastern area of the City of Chula Vista. The Otay WD distributes recycled water to a substantial market area that includes but is not limited to the U.S. Olympic Training Center, the Eastlake Golf Course, Otay Ranch, and other development projects. The Otay WD projects that annual average demands for recycled water will increase to 6,500 acre-feet per year by 2050. About 1,300 acre-feet per year of supply is generated by the RWCWRF, with the remainder planned to be supplied to Otay WD by the City of San Diego’s SBWRP. North District Recycled Water Concept The Otay WD is a recognized leader in the use of recycled water for irrigation and other commercial uses. The Otay WD continues to investigate all viable opportunities to expand the successful recycled water program into areas that are not currently served. One of these areas is in the portion of the service area designated as the North District, located within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin watershed upstream of the Sweetwater River. The close proximity of the recycled water markets in the North District to the Otay WD source of recycled water, the RWCWRF, means that the distribution system to serve this area could be constructed relatively cost effectively. This makes the North District a logical location for the expansion of the Otay WD recycled water system and market area. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 45 The purpose of the North District Recycled Water System Development Project, Phase I Concept Study, was to identify the feasibility of using recycled water in the North District and to investigate and assess any limitations or constraints to its use. The Phase I study components of the North District Recycled Water Concept encompassed the preparation of six technical memorandums including the project definition, a discussion of the regulatory process, a discussion of the protection of the watershed that would be affected by recycled water use in the North District, identification of stakeholders, public outreach, and an implementation plan. Several opportunities that could be realized with the implementation of the use of recycled water in the North District were identified. These include a reduction of demand on the potable water system and maximizing recycled water resources which in turn minimizes treated wastewater discharges to the local ocean outfall. Other opportunities are a possible partnership with Sweetwater Authority to monitor any benefits and impacts of increased recycled water use in the watershed and stakeholder outreach to resolve any water quality concerns and to retain consumer confidence. Also identified were two major constraints associated with the North District Recycled Water System Development Project. One constraint is the water quality objectives for the Middle Sweetwater Basin that will affect the effluent limitations for the recycled water produced at the RWCWRF. The effluent limit of concern was total nitrogen. The RWCWRF underwent an upgrade in 2012 to enhance nitrogen removal through the treatment process. The other major constraint is the cost of the infrastructure needed to convey and store recycled water in the North District. These costs are estimated to be in the range of $14 to $15 million dollars. There are two additional phases proposed for the North District Recycled Water System Development Project. Phase II would include further investigation of the issues identified in Phase I as requiring further study. These include stakeholder outreach, regulatory issues, and facility planning. The third phase of the effort would include the facility planning, permitting, environmental compliance, design, and construction of the improvements necessary for delivery of recycled water to the North District markets. The estimated amount of imported water saved at full implementation of the North District Recycled Water System Development Project is 1,200 acre-feet per year. This saved imported water could then be used to offset new potable water demands. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 46 Recycled Water System Facilities The Otay WD has constructed recycled water storage, pumping, transmission, and distribution facilities and will continue to construct these facilities to meet projected recycled water market demands. The Supply Link project consisting of a transmission main, storage reservoir, and a pump station to receive and transport the recycled water from the City of San Diego’s SBWRP was completed in 2007 and recycled water deliveries began on May 18, 2007. Cost and Financing The capital improvement costs associated with the recycled water supply and distribution systems are financed through the Otay WD water meter capacity fee and user rate structures. The Otay WD recycled water sales revenue, along with MWD and the Water Authority’s recycled water sales incentive programs are used to help offset the costs for the wholesale purchase and production of the recycled water supply, the operating and maintenance expenses, and the capital costs of the recycled water system facilities. Written Agreements, Contracts, or Other Proof The supply and cost associated with deliveries of recycled water from the SBWRP is based on the following document. Agreement between the Otay Water District and the City of San Diego for Purchase of Reclaimed Water from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. The agreement provides for the purchase of at least 6,721 acre-feet per year of recycled water from the SBWRP at an initial price of $350 per acre-foot. The Otay Water District Board of Directors approved the final agreement on June 4, 2003 and the San Diego City Council approved the final agreement on October 20, 2003. Effective January 1, 2016, the City of San Diego raised the cost of recycled water 116% to $754 per acre-foot. Federal, State, and Local Permits/Approvals The Otay WD has in place an agreement with MWD for their recycled water sales incentive program for supplies from the RWCWRF and the SBWRP. Also, the Otay WD has in place an agreement with the Water Authority for their recycled water sales incentive program for supplies from the RWCWRF and the SBWRP. The Water Authority sales incentive agreement was approved by Water Authority on July 26, 2007 and by Otay WD on August 1, 2007. All permits for the construction of the recycled water facilities to receive, store, and pump the SBWRP supply have been acquired through the typical planning, environmental approval, design, and construction processes. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (RWQCB) “Master Reclamation Permit for Otay Water District Ralph W. Chapman Reclamation Facility” was adopted on May 9, 2007 (Order No. R9-2007-0038). This order establishes master Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 47 reclamation requirements for the production, distribution, and use of recycled water in the Otay WD service area. The order includes the use of tertiary treated water produced and received from the City of San Diego‘s SBWRP. Recycled water received from and produced by the SBWRP is regulated by Regional Board Order No. 2000-203 and addenda. The City of San Diego is required to meet all applicable federal, state, and local health and water quality requirements for the recycled water produced at the SBWRP and delivered to Otay WD in conformance with Order No. 2000-203. 6.3.1.3 Potential Groundwater Supplies The Otay Water District WFMP Update, 2015 UWMP, and the 2015 Integrated Water Resources Plan Update all contain a description of the development of potential groundwater supplies. Over the past several years, Otay WD has studied numerous potential groundwater supply options that have shown, through groundwater monitoring well activities, poor quality water and/or insufficient yield from the basins at a cost effective level. The Otay WD has developed capital improvement program projects to continue the quest to develop potential groundwater resources. Local Otay WD groundwater supply development is currently considered as a viable water supply resource to meet projected demands. The development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater supply projects by the Otay WD have been on hold in response to the regional water supply issues related to water source supply conditions. Local ground water supply projects will allow for less reliance upon imported water, achieve a level of independence of the regional wholesale water agencies, and diversify the Otay WD water supply portfolio consistent with the Otay Water District 2015 IRP Update. In recognition of the need to develop sufficient alternative water supplies, the Otay WD has taken the appropriate next steps towards development of production groundwater well projects. There are three groundwater well projects that the Otay WD is actively pursuing to develop as new local water supplies. They are known as the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well, the Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well, and the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well projects. Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well The Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well is an additional water supply project that was thoroughly studied and documented in the 1990s. The Middle Sweetwater River Basin is located within the Sweetwater River watershed and that reach of the river extends from Sweetwater Reservoir to the upstream Loveland Reservoir. The next step in development of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well is the implementation of a pilot well project. The ultimate objective of the Otay WD is to develop a groundwater Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 48 well production system within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of producing a sustainable yield of potable water as a local supply. The purpose of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot project is to identify the feasibility of developing a groundwater resource production system and then determine and assess any limitations or constraints that may arise. The Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot Project will accomplish six primary goals: Update project setting Update applicable project alternatives analysis Prepare groundwater well pilot project implementation plan Construct and test pilot monitoring and extraction wells Provide recommendations regarding costs and feasibility to develop a groundwater well production system within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of producing a sustainable yield of potable water Prepare groundwater well production project implementation plan and scope of work The groundwater conjunctive use concept is described as the extraction of the quantity of water from the groundwater basin that was placed there by customers of the Otay Water District, Helix Water District, and Padre Dam Municipal Water District by means of their use of imported treated water that contributed to the overall volume of groundwater within the basin. An estimated quantity was developed to be approximately 12.5 percent of the total consumption of the Otay WD customers within that basin, as measured by water meters. In the 1994-1995 period, the quantity of water that was returned to the groundwater basin by Otay WD customers was estimated to be 810 acre-feet per year. Currently, that 12.5 percent quantity could be on the order of 1,000 acre-feet per year. A future scope of work will need to addresses this concept while considering further development of the groundwater basin as an additional supply resource. If it is deemed that a Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Production Project is viable then the consultant will develop and provide a groundwater well production project implementation plan, cost estimate, and related scope of work. Further development of the groundwater basin to enhance the total groundwater production could be accomplished by the Otay WD by means of additional extraction of water from the basin that is placed there by means of either injection and/or spreading basins using imported untreated water as the resource supply. The existing La Mesa Sweetwater Extension Pipeline, owned by the Water Authority, once converted to an untreated water delivery system, could be the conveyance system to transport untreated water for groundwater recharge in support of this conjunctive use concept. These two distinct water resource supply conjunctive use concepts will be addressed so they may coexist and to allow for their development as separate phases. The scope of work to complete Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot Project consists of many major tasks and is to address the groundwater supply concepts Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 49 outlined above. It is anticipated that the cost for the entire scope of work, will be on the order of $2,000,000, which includes a contingency and may take up to one and a half years to complete. The primary desired outcome of the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Pilot Project is for the engineering consultant to determine and make recommendations if it is financially prudent and physically feasible to develop a Phase I groundwater well production system within the Middle Sweetwater River Basin capable of producing a sustainable yield of up to 1,500 ac-ft/yr of potable water for the Otay WD. If it is deemed that a Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well Production Project is viable then the consultant will develop and provide a groundwater well production project implementation plan and related scope of work. Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well In early 2001 the Otay WD was approached by a landowner representative about possible interest in purchasing an existing well or alternatively, acquiring groundwater supplied from the well located on Otay Mesa. The landowner, National Enterprises, Inc., reportedly stated that the well could produce 3,200 acre-feet per year with little or no treatment required prior to introducing the water into the Otay WD potable water system or alternatively, the recycled water system. In March 2001 authorization to proceed with testing of the Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well was obtained and the Otay WD proceeded with the investigation of this potential groundwater supply opportunity. The May 2001 Geoscience Support Services, Inc. completed for the Otay WD the preparation of a report entitled, “Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well Investigation,” to assess the Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well. The scope of work included a geohydrologic evaluation of the well, analyses of the water quality samples, management and review of the well video log, and documentation of well pump testing. The primary findings, as documented in the report, formed the basis of the following recommendations: For the existing well to be use as a potable water supply resource, a sanitary seal must be installed in accordance with the DDW guidelines. Drawdown in the well must be limited to avoid the possibility of collapsing the casing. Recover from drawdown from pumping is slow and extraction would need to be terminated for up to 2 days to allow for groundwater level recovery. The well water would need to be treated and/or blended with potable water prior to introduction into the potable water distribution system. The existing Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well, based upon the above findings, was determined not to be a reliable municipal supply of potable water and that better water quality and quantity perhaps could be discovered deeper or at an alternative location within the San Diego Formation. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 50 The Otay WD may still continue to pursue the Otay Mesa groundwater well opportunity with due consideration of the recommendations of the existing report. Based on the recommendations of the investigation report, a groundwater well production facility at Otay Mesa Lot 7 could realistically extract approximately 300 acre-feet per year. Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well In 1991, the McMillin Development Company drilled the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well to augment grading water supplies for their Rancho del Rey development projects. Although the well was considered a “good producer,” little was known regarding its water quality and sustainable yield because the water was used solely for earthwork (i.e. dust control and soil compaction). The well was drilled to 865 feet, with a finished depth of 830 feet and produced approximately 400 acre-feet per year of low quality water for four years until its use was discontinued in April 1995 when the well was no longer needed. McMillin notified the Otay WD of its intent to sell off the groundwater well asset. In 1997, the Otay WD purchased an existing 7-inch well and the surrounding property on Rancho del Rey Parkway from the McMillin Company with the intent to develop it as a source of potable water. Treatment was required to remove salts and boron, among other constituents, using reverse osmosis membranes and ion exchange. In 2000, having received proposals for the design and construction of a reverse osmosis treatment facility that far exceeded the allocated budget, the Board of Directors instructed staff to suspend the project until such time as it became economically viable. In January 2010, citing the rising cost of imported water and the Otay WD's interest in securing its own water source for long-term supply reliability, the Board authorized Phase 1 for drilling and development of the Rancho del Rey Well. On March 3, 2010, the Board adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and a Notice of Determination was filed with the County of San Diego on March 5, 2010. In September 2010, a new 12-inch production well was drilled to a depth of 900 feet through the groundwater formation and into fractured bedrock. Testing showed the long-term yield of the new well to be 450 gpm, higher than previous studies had estimated. Separation Processes, Inc. (SPI), a highly qualified membrane treatment firm, was hired to conduct a detailed economic feasibility study to confirm that the annualized unit cost of the new water source was economically competitive with other sources. The economic study estimated the unit cost of water to be $1, 500 to $2,000 per acre-feet for an alternative that utilizes a seawater membrane for treating both salts and boron. When compared with the current imported treated water rate from the Water Authority, and with the knowledge that this rate will continually increase as MWD and the Water Authority raise their rates, the Rancho del Rey Well project appears to be economically viable. The Otay WD is continuing to pursue the Rancho del Rey groundwater well opportunity with due consideration of the recommendations of the existing reports and plans to develop a Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 51 groundwater well production facility to extract approximately 500 acre-feet per year. For water planning purposes, production of groundwater from the Rancho del Rey well is considered “additional planned” for local supplies. 6.3.1.4 Otay Water District Desalination Project The Otay WD is currently investigating the feasibility of purchasing desalinated water from a seawater reverse osmosis plant that is planned to be located in Rosarito, Mexico, known as the Otay Mesa Desalinated Water Conveyance System (Desalination) project. The treatment facility is intended to be designed, constructed, and operated in Mexico by a third party. The Otay WD’s draft Desalination Feasibility Study, prepared in 2008, discusses the likely issues to be considered in terms of water treatment and monitoring, potential conveyance options within the United States from the international border to potential delivery points, and environmental, institutional, and permitting considerations for the Otay WD to import the Desalination project product water as a new local water supply resource. While the treatment facility for the Desalination project will not be designed or operated by the Otay WD , it is important that the Otay WD maintain involvement with the planning, design, and construction of the facility to ensure that the implemented processes provide a product water of acceptable quality for distribution and use within the Otay WD’s system as well as in other regional agencies’ systems that may use the product water, i.e. City of San Diego, the Water Authority, etc. A seawater reverse osmosis treatment plant removes constituents of concern from the seawater, producing a water quality that far exceeds established United States and California drinking water regulations for most parameters, however, a two-pass treatment system may be required to meet acceptable concentrations of boron and chlorides, similar to the levels seen within the existing Otay WD supply sources. The Desalination Feasibility Study addresses product water quality that is considered acceptable for public health and distribution. The Otay WD, or any other potential participating agencies, will be required to get approval from the DDW in order to use the desalinated seawater as a water source. Several alternative approaches are identified for getting this approval. These alternatives vary in their cost and their likelihood of meeting DDW approval. The Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection System Project report addresses two supply targets for the desalinated water (i.e. local and regional). The local alternative assumes that only Otay WD would participate and receive desalinated water, while the regional alternative assumes that other regional and/or local agencies would also participate in the Rosarito project. On November 3, 2010, the Otay WD authorized the General Manager to enter into an agreement with AECOM for the engineering design, environmental documentation, and the permitting for the construction of the conveyance pipeline, pump station, and disinfection Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 52 facility to be constructed within the Otay WD. The supply target is assumed to be 50 mgd while the ultimate capacity of the plant will be 100 mgd. The Otay WD is proceeding with negotiations among the parties. 6.3.2 Otay Water District Capital Improvement Program The Otay WD plans, designs, constructs, and operates water system facilities to acquire sufficient supplies and to meet projected ultimate demands placed upon the potable and recycled water systems. In addition, the Otay WD forecasts needs and plans for water supply requirements to meet projected demands at ultimate build out. The necessary water facilities and water supply projects are implemented and constructed when development activities proceed and require service to achieve timely and adequate cost effective water service. New water facilities that are required to accommodate the forecasted growth within the entire Otay WD service area are defined and described within the Otay Water District WFMP Update. These facilities are incorporated into the annual Otay WD Six Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for implementation when required to support development activities. As major development plans are formulated and proceed through the land use jurisdictional agency approval processes, Otay WD prepares water system requirements specifically for the proposed development project consistent with the Otay WD WFMP Update. These requirements document, define, and describe all the potable water and recycled water system facilities to be constructed to provide an acceptable and adequate level of service to the proposed land uses, as well as the financial responsibility of the facilities required for service. The Otay WD funds the facilities identified as CIP projects. Established water meter capacity fees and user rates are collected to fund the CIP project facilities. The developer funds all other required water system facilities to provide water service to their project. Section 7 – Conclusion: Availability of Sufficient Supplies The Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project is currently located within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD. To obtain permanent imported water supply service, land areas are required to be within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD to utilize imported water supply. The Water Authority and MWD have an established process that ensures supplies are being planned to meet future growth. Any annexations and revisions to established land use plans are captured in the SANDAG updated forecasts for land use planning, demographics, and economic projections. SANDAG serves as the regional, intergovernmental planning agency that develops and provides forecast information. The Water Authority and MWD update their demand forecasts and supply needs based on the most recent SANDAG forecast Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 53 approximately every five years to coincide with preparation of their urban water management plans. Prior to the next forecast update, local jurisdictions with land use authority may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports for proposed land developments that are not within the Otay WD, Water Authority, or MWD jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed annexations) or that have revised land use plans with either lower or higher development intensities than reflected in the existing growth forecasts. Proposed land areas with pending or proposed annexations, or revised land use plans, typically result in creating higher demand and supply requirements than previously anticipated. The Otay WD, Water Authority, and MWD next demand forecast and supply requirements and associated planning documents would then capture any increase or decrease in demands and required supplies as a result of annexations or revised land use planning decisions. MWD’s IRP identifies a mix of resources (imported and local) that, when implemented, will provide 100 percent reliability for full-service demands through the attainment of regional targets set for conservation, local supplies, State Water Project supplies, Colorado River supplies, groundwater banking, and water transfers. The 2015 IRP Update describes an adaptive management strategy to protect the region from future supply shortages. This adaptive management strategy has five components: achieve additional conservation savings, develop additional local water supplies, maintain Colorado River Aqueduct supplies, stabilize State Water Project supplies, and maximize the effectiveness of storage and transfer. MWD’s 2015 IRP has a plan for identifying and implementing additional resources that expand the ability for MWD to meet future changes and challenges as necessary to ensure future reliability of supplies. The proper management of these resources help to ensure that the southern California region, including San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet long-term future demands. MWD adopted its 2015 UWMP, in accordance with state law, on May 9, 2016. The resource targets included in the preceding 2015 IRP Update serve as the foundation for the planning assumptions used in the 2015 UWMP. MWD’s 2015 UWMP contains a water supply reliability assessment that includes a detailed evaluation of the supplies necessary to meet demands over a 20-year period in average, single dry year, and multiple dry year periods. As part of this process, MWD also uses the current SANDAG regional growth forecast in calculating regional water demands for the Water Authority’s service area. As stated in MWD’s 2015 UWMP, the plan may be used as a source document for meeting the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 until the next scheduled update is completed in 5 years (2020). The 2015 UWMP includes a “Justifications for Supply Projections” in Appendix A.3, that provides detailed documentation of the planning, legal, financial, and regulatory basis for including each source of supply in the plan. In the Findings Section of the Executive Summary (Page ES-5) of their 2015 UWMP, MWD states that MWD has supply capacities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands from 2020 through 2040 under the single dry-year and multiple dry-year conditions. MWD has plans for supply implementation and continued development of a diversified resource mix Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 54 including programs in the Colorado River Aqueduct, State Water Project, Central Valley Transfers, local resource projects, and in-region storage that enables the region to meet its water supply needs. MWD’s 2015 UWMP identifies potential reserve supplies in the supply capability analysis (Tables 2-4, 2-5 and 2-6), which could be available to meet the unanticipated demands. The County Water Authority Act, Section 5 subdivision 11, states that the Water Authority “as far as practicable, shall provide each of its member agencies with adequate supplies of water to meet their expanding and increasing needs.” As part of preparation of a written water supply assessment report, an agency’s shortage contingency analysis should be considered in determining sufficiency of supply. Section 11 of the Water Authority’s 2015 Updated UWMP contains a detailed shortage contingency analysis that addresses a regional catastrophic shortage situation and drought management. The analysis demonstrates that the Water Authority and its member agencies, through the Emergency Response Plan, Emergency Storage Project, Carlsbad Desalination Project, and Drought Management Plan (DMP) are taking actions to prepare for and appropriately handle an interruption of water supplies. The DMP, adopted in May 2006, provides the Water Authority and its member agencies with a series of potential actions to take when faced with a shortage of imported water supplies from MWD due to prolonged drought or other supply shortfall conditions. The actions will help the region avoid or minimize the impacts of shortages and ensure an equitable allocation of supplies. The WSA&V Report identifies and describes the processes by which water demand projections for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project will be fully included in the water demand and supply forecasts of the Urban Water Management Plans and other water resources planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary and status to develop these supplies, have been identified in the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project WSA&V Report and will be included in the future water supply planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. This WSA&V Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, water supply projects, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project. This WSA Report assesses, demonstrates, and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be available over a 20-year planning horizon, under normal conditions and in single and multiple dry years to meet the projected demand of the proposed Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project and the existing and other planned development projects to be served by the Otay WD. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 55 Table 5 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and required supplies for the Otay WD service area under average or normal year conditions. The total actual demand for FY 2015 was 30,271 acre feet. The demand for FY 2015 is 2,999 acre feet lower than the demand in FY 2010 of 33,270 acre feet. The drop in demand is a result of the unit price of water, the conservation efforts of users as a result of the prolonged drought, and the economy. Table 5 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and supplies for the Otay WD service area under single dry year conditions. Table 6 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and supplies for the Otay WD service area under multiple dry year conditions for the three year period ending in 2019. The multiple dry year conditions for periods ending in 2025, 2030, and 2035 are provided in the Otay Water District 2015 UWMP. The projected potable demand and supply requirements shown the Tables 5 and 6 are from the Otay WD 2015 UWMP. Hot, dry weather may generate urban water demands that are about 6.4 percent greater than normal. This percentage was utilized to generate the dry year demands shown in Table 6. The recycled water supplies are assumed to experience no reduction in a dry year. Table 5 Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies Normal Year Conditions (acre feet) Description FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030 FY 2035 FY 2040 Demands Otay WD Demands 47,328 54,771 57,965 59,279 65,913 Active Conservation Savings (2,111) (1,844) (1,585) (1,538) (1,587) Accelerated Forecast Growth (AFG) – Planning Area 12 46 46 46 46 46 AFG – Otay Sunroad EOM SPA 836 836 836 836 836 AFG University Innovation District 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 Passive Conservation Savings (2,497) (4,497) (5,489) (6,040) (6,744) Total Demand 43,613.7 49,323.7 51,784.7 52,594.7 58,475.7 Supplies Water Authority Supply 37,943.7 43,423.7 45,784.7 46,394.7 51,975.7 Recycled Water Supply 5,670 5,900 6,000 6,200 6,500 Total Supply 43,613.7 49,323.7 51,784.7 52,594.7 58,475.7 Supply Surplus/(Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 Table 6 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and supplies for the Otay WD service area under single dry year and multiple dry year conditions from the Otay Water District 2015 UWMP. Table 6 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 56 Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies Single Dry and Multiple Dry Year Conditions (acre feet) Normal Year Single Dry Year Multiple Dry Years FY 2011 FY 2017 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Demands Otay WD Demands 37,176 38,749 38,844 40,378 42,430 Total Demand 37,176 38,749 38,844 40,378 42,430 Supplies Water Authority Supply 33,268 33,877 33,972 35,240 37,026 Recycled Water Supply 3,908 4,872 4,872 5,138 5,404 Total Supply 37,176 34,639 38,844 40,378 42,430 Supply Surplus/(Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 District Demand totals with SBX7-7 conservation target achievement plus single dry year increase as shown. The Water Authority could implement its DMP. In this instances, the Water Authority may have to allocate supply shortages based on it equitable allocation methodology in its DMP. Dry year demands assumed to generate a 7% increase in demand over normal conditions for a single dry year. For multiple dry years an 8% increase in demand over normal conditions is projected in the first year, 14% in the second year and 21% increase is projected in the third year in addition to new demand growth. In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project development proponents will be required to participate in the development of alternative water supply project(s). This can be achieved through payment of the New Water Supply Fee adopted by the Otay WD Board in May 2010. These water supply projects are in addition to those identified as sustainable supplies in the current Water Authority and MWD UWMP, IRP, Master Plans, and other planning documents. These new water supply projects are in response to the regional water supply issues related to climatological, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court rulings regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the current ongoing western states drought conditions. These new additional water supply projects are not currently developed and are in various stages of the planning process. The Otay WD water supply development program includes but is not limited to projects such as the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well project, the North District Recycled Water Supply Concept, the Otay WD Desalination project, and the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well project. The Water Authority and MWD’s next forecasts and supply planning documents would capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by the Otay WD. The Otay WD acknowledges the ever-present challenge of balancing water supply with demand and the inherent need to possess a flexible and adaptable water supply implementation strategy that can be relied upon during normal and dry weather conditions. The responsible regional water supply agencies have and will continue to adapt their resource Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 57 plans and strategies to meet climate, environmental, and legal challenges so that they may continue to provide water supplies to their service areas. The regional water suppliers along with Otay WD fully intend to maintain sufficient reliable supplies through the 20-year planning horizon under normal, single, and multiple dry year conditions to meet projected demand of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project, along with existing and other planned development projects within the Otay WD service area. This WSA&V Report assesses, demonstrates, and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be acquired, as well as the actions necessary and status to develop these supplies, to meet projected water demands of the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project as well as existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned development projects within the Otay WD for a 20-year planning horizon, in normal and in single and multiple dry years. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 58 Source Documents Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project SB 610 and SB 221 Compliance request letter received November 28, 2017. CH2M and Otay Water District, “Otay Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update”, May 2016. City of Chula Vista, “Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan, The Otay Ranch Joint Planning Project,” October 1993 amended June 1996. Otay Water District, “2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update,” dated March 2016. Carollo and Otay Water District, 2015 Integrated Water Resources Plan Update, June 2015. San Diego County Water Authority, “Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June, 2016. MWD Water District of Southern California, “2015 Urban Water Management Plan,” June 2016. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., “Rosarito Desalination Facility Conveyance and Disinfection System Project,” June 21, 2010. PBS&J, “Draft Otay Water District North District Recycled Water System Development Project, Phase I Concept Study,” December 2008. NBS Lowry, “Middle Sweetwater River System Study Water Resources Audit,” June 1991. Michael R. Welch, “Middle Sweetwater River System Study Alternatives Evaluation,” May 1993. Michael R. Welch, “Middle Sweetwater River Basin Conjunctive Use Alternatives,” September 1994. Geoscience Support Services, Inc., “Otay Mesa Lot 7 Well Investigation,” May 2001. Boyle Engineering Corporation, “Groundwater Treatment Feasibility Study Ranch del Rey Well Site,” September 1996. Agreement for the Purchase of Treated Water from the Otay Water Treatment Plant between the City of San Diego and the Otay Water District. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 59 Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District regarding Implementation of the East County Regional Treated Water Improvement Program. Agreement between the San Diego County Water Authority and Otay Water District for Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of the Otay 14 Flow Control Facility Modification. Agreement between the Otay Water District and the City of San Diego for Purchase of Reclaimed Water from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 60 Appendix A Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Vicinity Map Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project 61 Appendix B Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Areas 16/19 Project Development Plan Otay Water District Board of Directors Meeting January 3, 2018 Water Supply Assessment & Verification Report for the Otay Ranch Village 14 and Planning Area 16/19 Project SB 610 & SB 221 Compliance EXHIBIT D BACKGROUND •Senate Bills 610 and 221, effective on 1/1/02, with the intent to improve the link between water supply availability and land use decisions. •SB 610 requires a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and SB 221 requires a Water Supply Assessment & Verification (WSA&V) to be included in the CEQA documents for a project. •Board approval required for submittal of the WSA&V Report to the County of San Diego. Otay Ranch Village 14 & Planning Area 16/19 Project Located within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan Village 14 •994 homes in 3 distinct areas. •Planned around a village core which includes a school, a public park, and a mixed use site with commercial/retail uses. Village 16 •13 one-acre estate lots. Village 19 •112 three-acre lots. Potable Water Demand •Expected potable water demand is 893.8 acre- feet per year (797,970 GPD). •Recycled water use is not planned because the project is tributary to the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs. Otay Water District Projected Balance of Supply and Demand Description FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030 FY 2035 FY 2040 Demands Otay WD Demands 47,328 54,771 57,965 59,279 65,913 Active Conservation Savings (2,111)(1,844)(1,585)(1,538)(1,587) Accelerated Forecast Growth (AFG) - Planning Area 12 46 46 46 46 46 AFG –Otay Sunroad EOM SPA 836 836 836 836 836 AFG –University Innovation District 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 Passive Conservation Savings (2,497)(4,497)(5,489)(6,040)(6,744) Total Demand 43,613.7 49,323.7 51,784.7 52,594.7 58,475.7 Supplies Water Authority Supply 37,943.7 43,423.7 45,784.7 46,394.7 51,975.7 Recycled Water Supply 5,670 5,900 6,000 6,200 6,500 Total Supply 43,613.7 49,323.7 51,784.7 52,594.7 58,475.7 Supply Surplus/(Deficit)0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2017 GP C D Fiscal Year Gallons per Capita per Day Fiscal Year 1970 to Present CONCLUSION •Water demand and supply forecasts are included in the planning documents of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County Water Authority, and the Otay Water District. •Actions necessary to develop the identified water supplies are documented. •The SB 610 & SB 221 WSA&V Report documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and available over the next 20 years. •The Board has met the intent of the SB 610 and SB 221 statutes. Questions? Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 4341 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF OTAY WATER DISTRICT SUPPORTING MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS WHEREAS, the United States' municipal water systems are among the finest in the world; and WHEREAS, high quality, safe drinking water is already available at most public locations; and WHEREAS, water districts are responsible for delivering safe and affordable water to our citizens; and WHEREAS, bottled water is regulated by the FDA and municipal tap water is regulated by the EPA and has more stringent requirements for testing, and WHEREAS, local governments invest over $100 billion a year to provide water and sewer services; and WHEREAS, bottled water often costs more than an equivalent volume of gasoline, equivalent to 1,000 to 10,000 times more than tap water; and WHEREAS, up to 40% of bottled water on the market comes from municipal water systems; and WHEREAS, bottled water often travels many miles from the source, resulting in the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels, releasing CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere; and Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, plastic water bottles are one of the fastest growing sources of municipal waste; and WHEREAS, in the U.S. the production of plastic bottles for bottled water currently requires the energy equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil per year – enough to generate fuel for over a million cars for a year – and generates more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide; and WHEREAS, the National City Water Taste Test, which recognizes all of the great work municipal water systems do for its residents on a daily basis, year after year; and WHEREAS, the evidence suggests that banning bottled water from government use highlights the importance of municipal water and decreases the impact of bottled water on municipal waste; and WHEREAS, The Otay Water District recognizes the importance of bottled water in times of emergency and times when municipal water is unavailable; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District that the District will eliminate the purchase and use of bottled water unless a time of emergency when municipal water is unavailable. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby approves and adopts Resolution No. 4341. Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of Otay Water District at a board meeting held this 3rd day of January 2018, by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: ________________________ President ATTEST: ____________________________ District Secretary 11/1/2017 1 Yes to Tap! MISSION To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner. VISION A District that is at the forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service. 11/1/2017 2 Otay Consumer Confidence Report Otay – Pipeline Article Yes to Tap ‐Twitter 11/1/2017 3 What are other Local Agencies doing? Vista Irrigation District What are other Local Agencies doing? Sweetwater Authority Water Trailer at community events Southern California Agencies Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) Eastern Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, San Bernardino Valley Water District, Orange County Water District 11/1/2017 4 Nationally ‐Louisville Pure Tap Nationally – Washington D.C. Other Organizations AWWA National Rural Water Association 11/1/2017 5 U.S. Conference of Mayors Resolution Supporting Municipal Water Systems What can we do? •Take the pledge to not buy bottled water unless used in an emergency. •Educate customers about tap vs. bottled •Install hydration stations in the District •Supply tap water at events we attend •Partner with other agencies like SDCWA to make a regional effort similar to Washington D.C. •Be proud of the product we sell! Yes to Tap! SPECIFICATIONS Elkay EZH2O Bottle Filling Station with Single ADA Cooler Filtered 8 GPH Stainless Model LZS8WSVRSK In keeping with our policy of continuing product improvement, Elkay reserves the right to change product specifications without notice. Please visit elkay.com for the most current version of Elkay product specification sheets. This specification describes an Elkay product with design, quality, and functional benefits to the user. When making a comparison of other producers’ offerings, be certain these features are not overlooked. Elkay REV 03302017 2222 Camden Court © 2017 Page 1 of 3 LZS8WSVRSK Oak Brook, IL 60523 LZS8WSVRSK_spec.pdf PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Elkay EZH2O® Bottle Filling Station with Single ADA Cooler, Filtered 8 GPH Stainless. Chilling Capacity of 8.0 GPH (gallons per hour) of 50 F drinking water, based on 80 F inlet water and 90 F ambient, per ASHRAE 18 testing. Features shall include Hands-Free®, Visual Filter Monitor, Filtered, Green Ticker™, Laminar Flow, Silver Ion Antimicrobial, Real Drain. Furnished with Vandal-Resistant bubbler. Electronic Bottle Filler Sensor With Electronic Front And Side Bubbler Pushbar activation. Product shall be Wall Mount (On-Wall), for Indoor applications, serving 1 station(s). Unit shall be lead-free design which is certified to NSF/ANSI 61 & 372 (lead free) and meets Federal and State low-lead requirements. Special Features: Hands-Free®, Visual Filter Monitor, Filtered, Green Ticker™, Laminar Flow, Silver Ion Antimicrobial, Real Drain Finish: Stainless Steel Power: 115V/60Hz Bubbler Style: Vandal-Resistant Activation by: Electronic Bottle Filler Sensor With Electronic Front And Side Bubbler Pushbar Mounting Type: Wall Mount (On-Wall) Chilling Option*: 8.0 GPH Full Load Amps 6 Rated Watts: 370 Dimensions (L x W x H): 18-3/8" x 19" x 39-1/16" Approx. Shipping Weight: 85 lbs. Installation Location: Indoor No. of Stations Served: 1 *Based on 80° F inlet water & 90° F ambient air temp for 50° F chilled drinking water. Touchless, sensor-activation, designed for easy use Visual Filter Monitor: LED Filter Status Indicator for when filter change is necessary. Filter is certified to NSF 42 and 53 for lead, particulate, chlorine, taste and odor reduction. 3,000 gal. capacity. Green Ticker: Informs user of number of 20 oz. plastic water bottles saved from waste. Laminar flow provides clean fill with minimal splash. Silver Ion Antimicrobial protection on key plastic components to inhibit the growth of mold and mildew. Vandal-resistant, bubblers are one-piece, chrome plated with integral hood guard design to prevent contamination from other users, airborne deposits and tampering. AMERICAN PRIDE. A LIFETIME TRADITION. Like your family, the Elkay family has values and traditions that endure. For almost a century, Elkay has been a family-owned and operated company, providing thousands of jobs that support our families and communities. Included with Product: Water Cooler, Bottle Filler, Filter PRODUCT COMPLIANCE ADA Buy American Act GreenSpec® NSF/ANSI 42, 53, 61, and 372 (lead free) UL 399 Installation Instructions (PDF) 5 Year Limited Warranty on the refrigeration system of the unit. Electrical components and water system are warranted for 12 months from date of installation. Warranty pertains to drinking water applications only. Non-drinking water applications are not covered under warranty. Warranty (PDF) OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES 51300C - WaterSentry® Plus Replacement Filter (Bottle Fillers) LKAPREZL - Accessory - Cane Apron for EZ MLP100 - Accessory - In Wall Carrier (Single) 98568C - WaterSentry® Mounting Cover (Stainless Steel) PART:________________________________QTY: _____________ PROJECT:______________________________________________ CONTACT:______________________________________________ DATE:__________________________________________________ NOTES:_________________________________________________ APPROVAL:_____________________________________________ SPECIFICATIONS Elkay EZH2O Bottle Filling Station with Single ADA Cooler Filtered 8 GPH Stainless Model LZS8WSVRSK In keeping with our policy of continuing product improvement, Elkay reserves the right to change product specifications without notice. Please visit elkay.com for the most current version of Elkay product specification sheets. This specification describes an Elkay product with design, quality, and functional benefits to the user. When making a comparison of other producers’ offerings, be certain these features are not overlooked. Elkay REV 03302017 2222 Camden Court © 2017 Page 2 of 3 LZS8WSVRSK Oak Brook, IL 60523 LZS8WSVRSK_spec.pdf COOLING SYSTEM Compressor: Hermetically-sealed, reciprocating type, single phase. Sealed-in lifetime lubrication. Condenser: Fan cooled, copper tube with aluminum fins. Fan motor is permanently lubricated. Cooling Unit: Combination tube-tank type. Continuous copper tubing with is fully insulated with EPS foam that meets UL requirements for self-extinguishing material. Refrigerant Control: Refrigerant R-134a is controlled by accurately calibrated capillary tube. Temperature Control: Easily accessible enclosed adjustable thermostat is factory preset. Requires no adjustment other than for altitude requirements. SPECIFICATIONS Elkay EZH2O Bottle Filling Station with Single ADA Cooler Filtered 8 GPH Stainless Model LZS8WSVRSK In keeping with our policy of continuing product improvement, Elkay reserves the right to change product specifications without notice. Please visit elkay.com for the most current version of Elkay product specification sheets. This specification describes an Elkay product with design, quality, and functional benefits to the user. When making a comparison of other producers’ offerings, be certain these features are not overlooked. Elkay REV 03302017 2222 Camden Court © 2017 Page 3 of 3 LZS8WSVRSK Oak Brook, IL 60523 LZS8WSVRSK_spec.pdf Grainger.com The U.S. Conference of Mayors 76th Annual Meeting June 20-24, 2008, Miami 2008 ADOPTED RESOLUTION SUPPORTING MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS WHEREAS, the United States' municipal water systems are among the finest in the world; and WHEREAS, high quality, safe drinking water is already available at most public locations; and WHEREAS, mayors are responsible for delivering safe and affordable water to our citizens; and WHEREAS, bottled water is regulated by the FDA and municipal tap water is regulated by the EPA and has more stringent requirements for testing; and WHEREAS, local governments invest approximately $82 billion a year to provide water and sewer services; and WHEREAS, bottled water often costs more than an equivalent volume of gasoline, equivalent to 1,000 to 10,000 times more than tap water; and WHEREAS, up to 40% of bottled water on the market comes from municipal water systems and the bottled water industry generated$15 billion in revenues in 2006 from U.S. consumers; and WHEREAS, bottled water often travels many miles from the source, resulting in the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels, releasing CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere; and WHEREAS, plastic water bottles are one of the fastest growing sources of municipal waste; and WHEREAS, in the U.S. the production of plastic bottles for bottled water currently requires the energy equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil per year – enough to generate fuel for over a million cars for a year – and generates more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide; and WHEREAS, the National City Water Taste Test, which recognizes all of the great work municipal water systems do for its residents on a daily basis, year after year; and WHEREAS, The US Conference of Mayors, per Resolution #90 adopted in June 2007, has compiled much information regarding the importance of municipal water and the impact of bottled water on municipal waste; and WHEREAS, the evidence suggests that banning bottled water from government use highlights the importance of municipal water and decreases the impact of bottled water on municipal waste; and WHEREAS, The Conference of Mayors recognizes the importance of bottled water in times of emergency and times when municipal water is unavailable, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The US Conference of Mayors encourages cities to phase out, where feasible, government use of bottled water and promote the importance of municipal water. OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY Subject Policy Number Date Adopted Date Revised DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS 08 2/20/91 7/2/14 Page 1 of 7 Purpose To provide guidelines for payment of compensation and reimbursement of expenses to Directors in connection with their attendance at meetings or the performance of other authorized business, and for group insurance benefits for Directors. Background Members of the Board of Directors (“Directors”) attend regular, adjourned or special meetings of the Board of Directors (“Board”). In addition, Directors attend other District meetings, committee meetings, association meetings, and educational seminars on behalf of the District. These meetings and seminars are related to District business, water and water related issues, and California special districts. State statutes authorize District payments for meetings, reimbursements of expenses. State law also authorizes the District to provide health and welfare benefits for active Directors and, in limited circumstances, retired Directors if they served 12 years and were first elected prior to January 1, 1995. The District is also authorized to offer health and welfare benefits for retired Directors who commenced office on or after January 1, 1995, if the recipient participates on a self-pay basis. Policy The District will compensate Directors on a per diem basis for attendance at authorized meetings or functions and will reimburse Directors for reasonable expenses incurred while traveling on District business to include, lodging, dining, transportation and related incidentals. A. Directors Per Diem As provided in Section 1.01 C. of the District Code of Ordinances, each Director shall receive a per diem in the amount of $100 for each day of attendance at meetings of the Board or for each day of service rendered as a Director by request or authorization of the Board, not to exceed a total of ten (10) days in any calendar month. Attendance at any meeting shown on Exhibit A to this Policy shall be deemed a meeting requested or authorized by the Board. Attendance of meetings shall be in accordance with Exhibit A. The President of the Board or the Board may authorize a Director to attend meetings not listed in Exhibit A when the President or the Board determine that it is in the interest of the District that a Director attend, and that such attendance be compensated and expenses reimbursed. Director’s claims for per diem amounts shall be made on a “Board of Directors Per Diem and Mileage Claim Form” (Exhibit B). The President of the Board or the Board may approve reimbursement of OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY Subject Policy Number Date Adopted Date Revised DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS 08 2/20/91 7/2/14 Page 2 of 7 expenses outside the per diem limit for a Director, if the Director submits receipts for all of the related District business expenses. Attendance at a meeting that is not authorized by this policy (pre-approved meetings) or pre-approved by the President may be approved by the Board for per diem. Director’s seeking per diem amounts for these meetings shall request that the item be presented to the Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting for consideration. The decision of the Board shall be final. When travel arrangements require a day earlier arrival or a day later departure, Directors will not be eligible for the $100 per diem, however, reasonable expenses associated with the extended stay will be reimbursed as specified below. B. Pre-payment of Otherwise Reimbursable Expenses The Director may request pre-payment of registration, transportation, and lodging, using the “Board of Directors Travel Request Form” (Exhibit C). Pre-payments shall be limited to the Director’s expenses only. No advances shall be made on travel expenses. C. Reimbursement of Expenses Each Director shall be reimbursed for travel expenses to and from the meetings described in Exhibit A or for any other authorized District business as follows: 1. Authorization Travel associated with the attendance of meetings or functions for Directors shall be approved in advance by the Otay Water District Board President. To request approval of travel, the Director should complete a “Board of Directors Travel Request Form” (Exhibit B) in order to be eligible for compensation and/or reimbursement. Travel requests will be reviewed and approved by the Board President or the Board. 2. Transportation a. Air Transportation The District will endeavor to purchase airline tickets in advance taking advantage of discounts and low airfares. b. Automobile 1. Personal Auto: Directors may use their personal vehicle. The District will reimburse Directors at the current rate/mile as established by the OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY Subject Policy Number Date Adopted Date Revised DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS 08 2/20/91 7/2/14 Page 3 of 7 IRS, plus tolls, parking, etc., provided, however, if air transportation is available, the total amount of expense paid shall be limited to the cost of coach air travel between points traveled by personal vehicle. Gasoline, collision and liability insurance, and maintenance will be provided by the Director and is deemed covered in the rate/mileage reimbursement. Directors using personal vehicles on District business must maintain a valid California driver’s license and the automobile insurance coverage required by the State of California, or make arrangements for a driver who meets the above requirements. The General Manager’s Staff will verify that Directors have a valid driver’s license. Directors will also be required to maintain automobile insurance coverage. Proof of such insurance will be submitted two times per year, in January and July, and is required to be eligible for mileage reimbursement. 2. Rental Cars: The District will provide a rental car when needed. Such rental car shall be a compact or mid-size class, unless upgrades are offered at no additional cost to the District. c. Miscellaneous Transportation Whenever practicable, bus, taxi, rail, shuttle, etc. transportation may be used in lieu of, or in conjunction with, modes above. 3. Meals and Lodging a. Meals and Beverages Whenever travel requires meals, the meals, excluding gratuity, shall be reimbursable, provided the Director presents a receipt along with the “Board of Directors Expense Claim Form” (Exhibit D) for all meals. Reimbursements for expense items where a receipt has been lost will not be paid until the President or the Board has reviewed and approved the expense item. Meals are reimbursable based on the Meals and Incidental Expenses (M&IE) as updated by the U.S. General Services Administration: 1. Full Day Reimbursement When a Director is traveling for a full day and no meals are provided for by other sources, such OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY Subject Policy Number Date Adopted Date Revised DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS 08 2/20/91 7/2/14 Page 4 of 7 as pre-paid registration, the Director may be reimbursed for meal expenses at the rate provided by the M&IE per day. This amount is exclusive of any gratuities. 2. Single Meal Reimbursement When a Director requires reimbursement for a single meal while traveling, the maximum meal reimbursement amount shall be at a rate provided by the M&IEfor Breakfast, lunch, and/or dinner, or amounts determined by the President or the Board to be reasonable for the occasion or circumstances. These amounts and any amount approved by the President or Board shall exclude gratuities. 3. Partial Day Reimbursement When a director will be traveling for a partial day or where a single meal is provided for by other sources such as pre-paid registration, the maximum reimbursement amount shall be at the rate provided by the M&IE per meal, or such other amounts as may be determined by the President or the Board to be reasonable for the occasion or circumstances. In any event all amounts to be reimbursed shall exclude any gratuities. 4. Taxes The maximum meal reimbursement amounts are inclusive of and assume expenses for taxes. The maximum meal reimbursements shall exclude any and all gratuities. b. Lodging The District will reimburse Directors or pre-pay accommodations in single rooms at conference facilities or in close proximity when applicable. Or, in the absence of conference accommodations, normal single-room business, government or commercial class accommodation may be obtained. Under normal circumstances, lodging will not be reimbursed for the night before a conference starts and the night after it ends. However, in situations where available travel schedules would require the Director to leave home before 6:00 AM or return to home after 12:00 AM, lodging for the night before or the night after will be reimbursable. OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY Subject Policy Number Date Adopted Date Revised DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS 08 2/20/91 7/2/14 Page 5 of 7 4. Entertainment The District shall not cover any expenses incurred for recreation or entertainment. 5. Incidental Expenses Unavoidable, necessary and reasonable authorized expenses will be fully reimbursed by the District. Some examples of allowable expenses are: a. Telephone Calls (Business): Calls placed by the Director, to the District office, or for the purpose of conducting District business. Business related calls should be itemized on the Director’s “Board of Directors Expense Claim Form” (Exhibit D). b. Telephone Calls (Personal): One (1) brief personal call each day away from home, up to a $10 maximum per day. c. Telephone Calls (Local): Charges for local calls, for meal or transportation reservations, or for area information related to travel. d. Reasonable transportation to local restaurants and to optional functions that are a part of conference events. e. Parking fees. f. The following expenses are not reimbursable: 1. Alcoholic beverages 2. Parking or traffic violations 3. In-room movies or laundry services 6. Director's Responsibility a. Directors must submit a detailed “Board of Directors Expense Claim Form” for reimbursement. Claim forms should be supported by vouchers and itemized receipts of expenditures for which reimbursement is being requested. Receipts must be attached for all expenses. If a receipt is lost, the lost receipt must be noted on the “Board of Directors Expense Claim Form” (Exhibit D) and approved by the President or the Board before any payment can be made. Claim forms shall be submitted within 45 calendar days after the expense was incurred. Expense claims requiring reimbursement to the District, which are not reconciled within 45 calendar days, shall be deducted OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY Subject Policy Number Date Adopted Date Revised DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS 08 2/20/91 7/2/14 Page 6 of 7 from the next month’s reimbursement. b. Expenses will not be reimbursed for meetings that have been pre-paid and not attended. The President or the Board may excuse an absence for a meeting. The absent Director shall provide a verbal or written report at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting stating the reason for the absence and, if appropriate, request that it be excused. Directors will be required to reimburse the district for any pre-paid expenses for any unexcused absence. This reimbursement will be made by deduction from future expenditures. c. When two (2) or more Directors combine an expense on one receipt, the Director requesting reimbursement should indicate, on or attached to the Director’s “Board of Directors Expense Claim Form” the identity of the other persons sharing expenses. This will facilitate appropriate allocation of expenses to each participant. d. Except where the District sponsors a table at an event, expenses incurred by spouses, family members, or guests are the responsibility of the Director. e. The District shall, at least annually, provide a report to disclose any reimbursement paid by the district within the immediately preceding fiscal year of at least $100 for each individual charge for services or product received. “Individual charge” (as defined in California Government Code Section 53065.5) includes, but is not limited to, one meal, lodging for one day, transportation, or a registration fee. D. District Group Insurance Benefits 1. Each Director, while serving as a member of the Board of Directors, shall be entitled to the health and welfare and life insurance benefits set forth in the Schedule of Benefits in the District Group Insurance Plan Booklet, which benefits are furnished by the District at District cost, with applicable contributions, for active District employees and Directors. Each active Director shall also be entitled to a $65,000 term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy (subject to policy requirements and any standard age reduction schedule), a $50,000 travel accidental death and dismemberment policy. In addition to the foregoing, the District will pay premiums for additional individual life insurance coverage in an amount of up to $250,000 for a 20 year term for those OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS POLICY Subject Policy Number Date Adopted Date Revised DIRECTORS COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS 08 2/20/91 7/2/14 Page 7 of 7 active Directors who apply for such coverage with the District’s provider and meet the provider’s standard underwriting guidelines and policy requirements. If coverage at higher amounts or for a longer term is made available by the provider, each Director may purchase such additional coverage on a self-pay basis. 2. Each former member of the Board of Directors, who served in office after January 1, 1981, who was elected to a term of office that began before January 1, 1995, who is at least 60 years of age, and whose total service at the time of termination is not less than 12 years, shall be entitled to the health and welfare and life insurance benefits set forth in the District Group Insurance Plan Booklet, which benefits are furnished by the District, at District cost, for retired Directors. E.Miscellaneous Cell Phone expenses are not considered a reimbuseable expense Attachments Exhibit A: Approved Function List Exhibit B: “Board of Directors Per Diem and Mileage Claim Form” Exhibit C: “Board of Directors Travel Request Form” Exhibit D: “Board of Directors Expense Claim Form” EXHIBIT A Approved Functions List Board Policy for payment of per diems and expenses for Director attendance at District meetings: The Board reviews its authorization and policy for payment of per diems (pre-approved meetings) annually, in January following reorganization of the Board and election of a new President. Below is the current Board policy: 1. The following meetings are pre-approved for all Directors to attend and receive a per diem and expense reimbursement: • Otay Water District Regular and Special Board Meetings • Otay committee meetings for committee members only • Otay business meetings called by the General Manager and authorized by the President of the Board where individual Directors are requested to attend • Except as otherwise specifically excluded in this policy, official District functions that take place during normal business hours where Directors are requested to attend by either the Board President or the Board • Semi-annual conference of the Association of California Water Agencies • Regular quarterly meetings of the Water Agencies Association of San Diego County • Regularly monthly meeting of Council of Water Utilities • Business meetings and conferences of the California Special District Association held in San Diego County All other meetings not listed here require pre-approval by the President or Board. 2. The following meetings are pre-approved for designated Otay Director representatives or designated alternate. The District Secretary will maintain an updated list of designated Director representatives. Any other Director who wishes to attend these meetings and receive a per diem must have approval from the President or Board prior to the event or be designated by the President or Board, as an alternate. The pre-approval shall include the attendance of the Director at the commission, committee, board or meeting and any committee, subcommittee or other official or posted meeting of the agencies, commissions, committees or boards listed below: EXHIBIT A • Planning Group and City Commission meetings that fall within the boundaries of each directors district (when issues impacting OWD are discussed) • Inter-Agency Committee Meeting • METRO (TAC/AFFORD) Commission • ACWA or CSDA meetings/conferences • Water Conservation Garden 3. The Board President or his designee is pre-authorized to attend District business meetings with cities and other agencies to represent Otay Water District, and may claim a per diem and expenses. Any other Director desiring to attend the same meeting of this nature would require approval to attend from the President or the Board in order to receive a per diem and expense reimbursement. 4. When the President or the Board appoints a director(s) to a committee, the meeting(s) shall be considered pre- approved for per diem and expense reimbursement. 5. The following meetings are not eligible for pre-approved per diem claims: a) Attending other Districts’ Board meetings b) Otay employee appreciation breakfast, luncheons or dinners c) Retirement receptions d) Otay picnics or dinner-dances or other purely social events e) CWA meeting attendance (by Otay Water District appointed CWA Board Member(s)) f) Chamber of Commerce events g) First Friday Breakfasts unless presenting Otay official business to the assembly h) Any political campaign event or function 6. In order to submit a per diem/travel reimbursement the member must attend at least 50% of the meeting (per day) and the reimbursement request must be submitted within 45 days of the occurrence, otherwise it may be considered attended without per diem. The President of the Board will make the final determination. 7. All other meetings/conferences/tours/seminars/ workshops/functions not listed in this policy must be pre- approved by the Board President or the Board. EXHIBIT B (Director’s Signature) GM Receipt: Date: FOR OFFICE USE: TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT: $ OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Period Covered: Employee Number: From: To: ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE / ISSUES DISCUSSED MILEAGE HOME to OWD OWD to HOME MILEAGE OTHER LOCATIONS Total Meeting Per Diem: $ ($100 per meeting) Total Mileage Claimed: miles EXHIBIT B INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE EXHIBIT B INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS PER DIEM CLAIM FORM 1. Record the date, and name or purpose/issues discussed of meeting attended on behalf of the District. Note: The District will pay Director's per-diem for one meeting/ function per day and the maximum of 10 meetings/functions per month. If a Director attends more than 10 meetings/functions (10 days), the District will reimburse for the mileage and any reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses incurred for these additional meetings. 2. Record number of miles (round trip) driven to attend meeting/ function. The use of personal vehicles in the conduct of official District business shall be reimbursed at the current Internal Revenue Service rate. The Director's expense claim should indicate the nature of the trip. If a trip begins at home, the District will reimburse the mileage from home to destination and return mileage. District insurance does not cover personal vehicles while they are being driven on District business. The reimbursement rate is inclusive of an allowance for insurance costs. The District will reimburse Directors for the deductible under their personal insurance policy should they be involved in an accident while on District business. To be eligible for reimbursement, each Director shall maintain a current California driver’s license and at least the minimum vehicle liability insurance required by State law or shall arrange for a driver who meets said standards. The District will not reimburse the cost of travel of a personal nature taken in conjunction with travel on official business. Claim forms shall be submitted within 45 calendar days after the meeting date. Expense claims requiring reimbursement to the District which are not reconciled within 45 calendar days, shall be deducted from the next month’s reimbursement. No information on the Per Diem Claim Form may be designated as confidential in nature. All expenses must be fully disclosed on the form. EXHIBIT C OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS TRAVEL REQUEST FORM Director: Date of Request: Name and Location of Function: Date(s) function to be held: - Sponsoring Organization: Request for Prepayment of Fees Related to the Function: Expense Type Not Needed Pre-Payment Requested Registration Airline Auto Rental Mileage N/A Taxi/Shuttle N/A Lodging Meals N/A Other Expenses – Explain Below Lodging Preference: Explanation of Other Expenses: Signature of Director Date of Request For Office Use Only Below This Line Date of Board Approval: Expense Type Description Amount Pre-Paid Registration Airline Auto Rental Mileage N/A Taxi/Shuttle N/A Lodging Meals N/A Other Expenses District Secretary Date Processed EXHIBIT D OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSE CLAIM FORM Pay To: Period Covered: Employee Number: From: To: ITEMIZED REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMED Date Type of Reimbursement Amount TOTAL Reimbursement Claimed: $ Director Signature: Date: GM Receipt: Date: INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE EXHIBIT D INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSE CLAIM FORM The necessary expenses incurred while traveling on District business including common carrier fares (economy class), automobile rental charges, District business telephone calls, one personal telephone call home each day ($10 maximum per day), lodging, baggage handling, parking fees, meals, etc. will be reimbursed when documented on the Director's Per Diem and Expense Claim Forms. Receipts must be attached for all meal expenses. If a receipt is lost, the lost receipt should be noted next to the expense and submitted to the President before any reimbursement can be made. Receipts are required for the reimbursement of all expenses. All receipts must have the nature of the expense and the business purpose noted on the receipt. The District will not reimburse the cost of travel of a personal nature taken in conjunction with travel on official business. Meals shall be reimbursed up to $46 per day, or an amount determined by the President of the Board of Directors to be reasonable for occasion or circumstances, exclusive of any gratuities. Partial days shall be reimbursable at a rate of $8 for breakfast, $13, for lunch and $25 for dinner, or amounts determined by the President of the Board of Directors to be reasonable for the occasion or circumstances, excluding any gratuities. The above amounts may be combined if travel status requires two (2) or more meals. The meal reimbursement amounts are inclusive of and assume expenses for taxes only. Gratuities are not reimbursable and are excluded. Where pre-paid registration includes meals, only meals that are not included in the registration will be reimbursable. Any receipts that include costs of personal travel (e.g., hotel receipt for employee and spouse) should identify what the cost would have been without personal travel (e.g., single room rate as opposed to double room rate). Claim forms shall be submitted within 45 calendar days after the expense was incurred. Expense claims requiring reimbursement to the District which are not reconciled within 45 calendar days, shall be deducted from the next month’s reimbursement. No information on the Expense Claim Form may be designated as confidential in nature. All expenses must be fully disclosed on the form. The following expenses are not reimbursable: a. Alcoholic Beverages d. Laundry service b. Parking or traffic violations e. Entertainment or recreation c. In-room movies f. Expenses incurred by spouses, family members, or guests. ND: 4840-9653-1715, v. 2 AGENDA ITEM 23c Discussion of Board of Directors Committee Appointments THERE IS NO STAFF REPORT FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM AS IT IS ONLY A DISCUSSION ITEM. STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: January 3, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Mark Watton, General Manager W.O./G.F. NO: DIV. NO. APPROVED BY: Susan Cruz, District Secretary Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Board of Directors 2018 Calendar of Meetings GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: At the request of the Board, the attached Board of Director’s meeting calendar for 2018 is being presented for discussion. PURPOSE: This staff report is being presented to provide the Board the opportunity to review the 2018 Board of Director’s meeting calendar and amend the schedule as needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: N/A ANALYSIS: The Board requested that this item be presented at each meeting so they may have an opportunity to review the Board meeting calendar schedule and amend it as needed. STRATEGIC GOAL: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: None. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachment: Calendar of Meetings for 2018 G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting Calendar 1-3-18.doc Board of Directors, Workshops and Committee Meetings 2018 Regular Board Meetings: Special Board or Committee Meetings (3rd Wednesday of Each Month or as Noted) January 3, 2018 February 7, 2018 March 7, 2018 April 4, 2018 May 2, 2018 June 6, 2018 July 11, 2018 August 1, 2018 September 5, 2018 October 3, 2018 November 7, 2018 December 5, 2018 January 17, 2018 February 21, 2018 March 21, 2018 April 18, 2018 May 16, 2018 June 20, 2018 July 18, 2018 August 15, 2018 September 19, 2018 October 17, 2018 November 21, 2018 December 19, 2018 SPECIAL BOARD MEETINGS: BOARD WORKSHOPS: STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 3, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Engineering Manager PROJECT: D0261- 010178 010181 010182 DIV. NO. 1 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Informational Item – Otay Ranch Village 2 East, Otay Ranch Village 2 Heritage Road, and Otay Ranch Village 2 North Projects; 20-Inch Recycled Water Main – Outside Diameter Non- Conformance GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To update the Otay Water District Board (Board) about a non- conformance issue associated with the 20—inch recycled water main constructed as part of the Otay Ranch Village 2 East, Otay Ranch Village 2 Heritage Road, and Otay Ranch Village 2 North developer Projects. ANALYSIS: Between November 2006 and March 2007, the District entered into three construction agreements with Otay Project, L.P. (Developer) to construct both potable and recycled water facilities for Otay Ranch Village 2. Each of the three agreements include the construction of a portion of 20-inch recycled water transmission main. In excess of 2 7,500 linear feet of the 20-inch recycled water main was constructed and placed into service prior to the downturn in the housing economy. The 20-inch recycled water main constructed under the developer construction agreements is located in Heritage Road, Santa Victoria Road, and Santa Venetia Street, as shown in Exhibit A. The construction agreements and associated bonding that includes the 20- inch recycled water main are still active pending completion and acceptance of the work. During the 2017 calendar year, the Developer had requested additional lateral services constructed on the 20-inch recycled water main located in Santa Venetia Street. During the construction of these services, it was discovered by District Inspection staff, that the outside diameter of the 20-inch main exceeded the AWWA C-900-16, C- 905-97, and the pipe manufacturer’s tolerances, raising District concerns regarding the longevity and integrity of the pipe. Saddles with a larger working range were required to perform the additional lateral services. The District brought the concern to the Developer, the Developer’s construction contractor, and the pipe manufacturer (JM Eagle Pipe) and additional potholing along the main for the purposes of measuring the pipe diameter was performed by the Developer. The potholing and pipe diameter measurements by the Developer and manufacturer have verified additional locations where the outside diameter of the 20-inch main exceeds the pipe manufacturer’s tolerances. The pipe diameter measurements also indicated that the 20-inch main was constrained in areas where saddles were installed as part of the original installation. This may be an indication that possible dimensional creep of the pipe has taken place since installation. Staff has sent a letter to the Developer (Exhibit B) to provide notification to the Developer that the non-conforming pipe poses a long-term risk of failure. Staff also notified the Developer that contract acceptance for the projects is pending remediation measures and/or replacement of the pipe by Otay Project, L.P. The District has requested that Otay Project, L.P. develop a plan to resolve this issue. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only. STRATEGIC GOAL: The expansion of the distribution system through the construction developer projects supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District, in a professional, effective, and efficient 3 manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "A District that is at the forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service." LEGAL IMPACT: None. DM/RP:jf P:\Public-s\STAFF REPORTS\2018\BD 01-03-18\Village 2 20 Inch Recycled Main\BD 01-03-18 Village 2_20 Inch Recycled Main Staff Report (DM_RP).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – District Letter to Otay Project, L.P. ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: D0261-010178 -010181 -010182 Informational Item – Otay Ranch Village 2 East, Otay Ranch Village 2 Heritage Road, and Otay Ranch Village 2 North Projects; 20-Inch Recycled Water Main – Outside Diameter Non-Conformance COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this informational item at a Committee Meeting held on December 12, 2017, and the following comments were made: Staff reviewed the staff report with the Committee, which provided an overview of an Outside Diameter Non-Conformance issue associated with the 20-Inch Recycled Water Main constructed as part of the Otay Ranch Village 2 East, Otay Ranch Village 2 Heritage Road, and Otay Ranch Village 2 North Developer Projects. In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that they are unsure why the pipe is exceeding the allowable tolerances. This is a concern because the oversized outside diameter may be exerting additional pressure on the joints and saddles (connection point for the service lateral). It was noted that this project has not been accepted by the District, but the decision to do so will be coming up in the next several months. The District is concerned that there may be a risk of pipeline failure. The issue is currently between the developer and the manufacturer. At this time, the District does not plan on accepting the project until this issue is resolved. Upon completion of the discussion, the Committee accepted staffs’ report and supported presentation to the full board as an informational item. OTAY WATER DISTRICTVILLAGE 2 - 20-INCH RECYCLED WATER MAINLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT AP: \ D R A F T I N G D E P A R T M E N T \ I n f o f o r O t h e r s \ O W D \ D a n M a r t i n \ V I L L A G E 2 - 2 0 - I N R W M A I N . m x d ROW 6443101400 6443120100 64 4 3 1 3 6 4 0 0 6443120400 64207 3 5 0 0 0 64 2 0 7 3 6 1 0 0 6443100600 6420 7 1 2 1 0 0 64431 0 4 7 0 0 64 4 3 1 1 2 2 0 0 6440201000 64256011 0 0 6 4 4 2 8 0 3 9 0 0 6 4 4 3 1 2 0 2 0 0 6443100400 644310 1 2 0 0 6 4 4 3 1 0 5 2 0 0 6400 9 0 2 8 0 0 6420735800 NO A P N 6420 7 2 1 0 0 0 6 4 4 3 1 0 5 3 0 0 644313 2 6 0 0 642080 0 3 0 0 6443106800 6420800600 64207 3 4 9 0 0 6 4 2 5 6 0 1 4 0 0 64 2 5 8 1 4 8 0 0 644313 1 1 0 0 6420804000 6425601900 6443605300 6443102000 6443132 7 0 0 6443100500 6424210500F 0 890445 Feet 20" RW D0261-010182 D0261-010181 D0261-010178 F OLYM P I C P K W Y L A M E D I A R D H E R I T A G E R D 20" RW VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTS DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 !\ ?ò Aä ?Ë ;&s ?p F S A N T A VENE T I A ST SA N T A V I C T O R I A R D ...dedicated to Community Sewice 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD,SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 91978-2004 TELEPHONE:670-2222,AREA CODE 619 WWW.oteywafer.goi/ Sent via Certified Mail Receipt #70151660000083624807 and e-mail to nlee@baidwinsons.comNovember21,2017 Project Nos.:D0261-010178 D0261-010181 D0261-010182 Nick Lee,P.E. Vice President Baldwin &Sons 610 West Ash Street,Suite 1500 San Diego,CA 92101 SUBJECT:Otay Ranch Village 2 East (D0261-010178),Otay Ranch Village 2 Heritage Road (D0261-010181),and Otay Ranch Village 2 North (D0261-010182) Projects;20-Inch Recycled Main -Outside Diameter Non-Conformance Dear Mr.Lee: As you are aware,the Otay Ranch Village 2 development by Otay Project,L.P.has been under construction with the Otay Water District ("District")since 2006.Three projects within Otay Ranch Village 2,which are identified above,include the construction of a 20-inch recycled water main. On February 15,2017,District staff met with representatives of Otay Project L.P.,Cass Construction,and JM Eagle to review locations where the 20-inch recycled water main pipe was found to exceed the allowable outer dimension tolerances listed per AWWA C- 900-16 and C-905-97.The maximum outer diameter for this size and class of pipe is 21.625 inches per AWWA.As presented during the meeting,the outside diameter measurements documented by the District during developer requested wet taps along the 20-inch main performed in January 2017 were found to be in excess of 21.72 inches. As a result of the February 15,2017 meeting,JM Eagle,in cooperation with Cass Construction and Otay Project L.P.,initiated independent in-situ dimensional inspections at fourteen points within five locations along the length of the 20-inch recycled water main constructed under the subject projects.Those inspections were performed during April 2017.Reported findings of those inspections documented outside diameter measurements ranging from 21.625 inches to 21.712 inches.All but two of the in-situ dimensional inspections,conducted under JM Eagle's direction,were found to be in excess of the allowable outer dimension tolerances listed per AWWA. This was documented in the July 7,2017 Project Report produced by PSILab,Inc.In Mr.Nick Lee Otay Ranch Village 2 East (D0261-010178),Otay Ranch Village 2 Heritage Road (D0261- 010181),and Otay Ranch Village 2 North (D0261-010182)Projects;20-Inch Recycled Main - Outside Diameter Non-Conformance November 21,2017 Page 2 of 2. addition,the PSILab,Inc.report documented the observation of audible "creaking" noises coming from the pipeline while being operated within rated operating pressures. The PSILab,Inc.Project Report indicates that eighty-six percent (12 out of 14)of the points exposed and measured as part of the in-situ dimensional inspections are in excess of the allowable outer dimension tolerances listed per AVVWA.This non- conforming pipe poses a long-term risk of failure and may have a shortened life span.It is not clear how this non-conforming pipe will affect the pipeline bells and service saddles that were installed as part of the planned distribution system.As a result, contract acceptance for the subject projects is pending remediation measures and/or replacement of the pipe by Otay Project L.P.The District is requesting that Otay Project L.P.develop a plan to resolve this issue. Please do not hesitate to let me know if there are any questions.I can be reached at (619)670-2243 or via email at dan.martincgotaywater.gov. Sincerely, OTAY WATER DISTRICT Dan Martin,P.E. Engineering Manager DM:jf cc:Rod Posada Brandon DiPietro P:\Otay Ranch Village 2 20-inch RecycledWillage 2-20 inch RecycledWaterMam_11-21-2017.doc STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 3, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager CIP./G.F. NO: P2451- 001101 DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Informational Update for the Rosarito Desalination Plant and the Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Projects GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To update the Otay Water District (District) Desalination Committee (Committee) on the progress of the Rosarito Desalination Plant and the Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Projects (Project)(see Exhibit A for Project location). ANALYSIS: This item was last presented to the Committee as an update at a meeting held on May 23, 2017. The updates or significant milestones that have been reached since the last update to the Committee include: Project Direction Aguas de Rosarito (AdR), a private consortium, signed a 40-year definitive public-private partnership agreement with the State of Baja California (State) on August 25, 2016 to build a 2 desalination plant and conveyance pipeline (Project) and operate it for 37 years. This would be one of the first water projects delivered under the State’s Asociaciones Público Privadas (APP) law. The companies that make up AdR are NuWater of Singapore, Suez Environment of France, and a Mexican company called N.S.C. Agua (NSCA) that is a subsidiary of Cayman-Islands based Consolidated Water (CWCO). The project is stalled at the State of Baja California legislature after several failed attempts to pass a consent decree authorizing the State government to provide financial backup using the pension funds. This is mainly a political issue that AdR hopes to resolve before the end of the legislative session that is scheduled to end mid-December 2017. If the consent decree is not passed during this legislative year, it might have to wait until 2020, after the 2018 presidential elections in Mexico and the 2019 election for Governor for the State of Baja California. The US administration has made several statements about NAFTA, trade, and border wall that has inflamed the situation and provoked a reaction in the Baja California State legislature stalling the consent decree. Rosarito Desalination Project in the News The end of the drought and desalination projects are subjects in the national, state, and local news as well as in Mexico in the State of Baja California. Projects that provide a new supply of water have been mentioned on both sides of the border including the Rosarito Beach Desalination Project. On May 22, 2017, the Water Desalination Report article entitled, “President Approves SWRO Pipeline Permit” about the Presidential Permit granted to the District. The report also noted the permit might signal that the second phase of the project could be accelerated (see Exhibit B). On June 19, 2017, the San Diego Union Tribune published an article entitled, “Could desalinated water from Mexico flow to San Diego?” on the U.S. State Department approval of a cross- border pipeline that could one day carry desalinated water from Mexico to the District (see Exhibit C). The article quotes Cesar Romero Sauceda, head of Tijuana’s Chamber of Construction Industry, “that water has always been a barrier for Tijuana’s growth.” 3 Another article on June 19, 2017 in WaterWorld entitled, “Mexico – U.S. Cross-Border Desal Project Moves Forward” on the U.S. State Department approval of the cross-border pipeline (see Exhibit D). On June 21, 2017, Breitbart published an article entitled, “California May Import Water from Mexico Desalination Plant” about the Project and the State Department’s approval of the permit for the water line on May 16, 2017 (see Exhibit E). On June 23, 2017 an article in NewsDeeply Water Deeply entitled, “Crucial Permit Moves San Diego Closer to Tapping Mexican Desal” about the Project and the District having been granted a Presidential Permit by the U.S. State Department (see Exhibit F). On September 23, 2017, an article in La Jornada Baja California entitled, “Documentos oficiales confirman Proyecto binacional; Kiko Vega lo niega” about official documents confirming that the Rosarito Desal Project is a Binational project. However, B.C. Governor Kiko Vega denies it (see Exhibit G). On September 29, 2017, an article in Fronterra entitled, “Costaran desaladoras de Ensenada y Rosarito mas de 81 mil millones” about the cost for the desal projects in Ensenada and Rosarito, the shortage of water in the region, and the opposition to the PPP (Public-Private Partnership) law (see Exhibit H). On September 29, 2017, an article in ZetaTijuana entitled, “Aprobarán endeudamiento de "Kiko" por 83 mil mdp” about the potential for approval of the use of the pension funds to back up the financing of the project. However, there is opposition from some legislators (see Exhibit I). On November 27, 2017, the San Diego Union Tribune published an article entitled, “Giant Rosarito Beach desalination project faces scrutiny” about the project facing the “scrutiny at a politically sensitive moment. The touchiest public issue is the question of whether some of that water would be sold to the Otay Water District in San Diego County.” The article notes a no vote by the Baja California’s legislature would delay the desalination plant and put on hold eight other public-private- partnership projects (see Exhibit J). 4 Contract with AECOM AECOM continues to finalize their work on the environmental tasks. Staff expects to terminate its contract with AECOM after compiling all of the reports and documents for the federal record with the State Department. All the pending work is expected to be completed by December 2017. Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Permitting (formerly CDPH) On November 15, 2017, the District notified DDW that after three years of source water testing at the power plant intake and outlet structures, AdR will suspend further routine testing and focus on the financial close of Phase 1 of the two phase Project. The results are posted with DDW. Staff and representatives from AdR continue to coordinate on complying with the California Water Resources Control Board Drinking Water Program regulatory requirements related to source water quality testing. Presidential Permit The Department of State issued a Presidential permit to the Otay Water District (the District) on May 16, 2017, authorizing the District to construct, connect, operate, and maintain cross- border water pipeline facilities for the importation of desalinated seawater at the international boundary between the United States and Mexico in San Diego County, California. In making this determination, the Department provided public notice of the proposed permit, offered the opportunity for comment, and consulted with other federal agencies, as required by Executive Order 11423, as amended. This was published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2017 (see Exhibit K). With this approval it is expected Mexico’s federal agencies may need to issue a similar permit to bring symmetry into the approval of a cross border pipeline with the International Boundary and Water Commission, and their counterpart in Mexico, Comisión Internacional de Límites y Agua (IBWC/CILA) as the agencies to administer the transportation of water across the border and to protect the District from local interference in the delivery of desalinated water. IBWC/CILA currently fill this role for the existing pipeline border crossing south of Alta Road that transport Mexico water from Mexico’s allotment from the Colorado River. 5 FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only. See Attachment B - Budget Detail. Although $6,527,561 has been committed as of November 13, 2017, $4,134,837 has been actually spent. Staff has stopped all activities concerning this Project. All expenditures will be suspended until more progress is made in Mexico on the project. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, “A District that is at the forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. BK/RP:jf P:\WORKING\CIP P2451 Desalination Feasibility Study\Staff Reports\Committee Desal Update 2017- 3\Committee 12-06-17, Staff Report, Desal Update, (BK-RP) Rev2.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Project Location Exhibit B – Water Desalination Report, dated May 22, 2017 Exhibit C – Could desalinated water from Mexico flow to San Diego?, San Diego Union Tribune, dated June 19, 2017 Exhibit D – Mexico-U.S. Cross-Border Desal Project Moves Forward, WaterWorld, dated June 19, 2017 Exhibit E - California May Import Water from Mexico Desalination Plant, www.breitbart.com, dated June 21, 2017 Exhibit F – Crucial Permit Moves San Diego Closer to Tapping Mexican Desal, www.newsdeeply.com, dated June 23, 2017 Exhibit G – Documentos oficiales confirman Proyecto binacional; Kiko Vega lo niega, http://jornadabc.mx/, dated September 23, 2017 6 Exhibit H – Costaran desaladoras de Ensenada y Rosarito mas de 81 mil millones, www.frontera.info, dated September 29, 2017 Exhibit I – Aprobarán endeudamiento de "Kiko" por 83 mil mdp, http://zetaTijuana.com, dated September 29, 2017 Exhibit J – Giant Rosarito Beach desalination project faces scrutiny, San Diego Union Tribune, dated November 27, 2017 Exhibit K – Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 107 dated June 6, 2017, Notices 26207 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2451-001101 Informational Update for the Rosarito Desalination Plant and the Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Projects COMMITTEE ACTION: The Desalination Project Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 6, 2017 and the following comments were made: This report is presented to update the Board on the significant milestones that have been reached on the Rosarito Desalination Plant and the Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Projects since the last update to the Committee in May 2017. Staff reviewed the information in the staff report. It was discussed that the staff report stated the project was stalled at the State of Baja California legislature. Since the staff report was written, the State government, after several failed attempts, passed a consent decree last week authorizing the State government to provide financial backup using the pension funds. This was mainly a political issue that Aguas de Rosarito hoped to resolve before the end of the legislative session that was scheduled to end mid-December 2017. The financial closing for the funding of the project is expected to be completed in approximately six (6) months. Until the financial closing, construction of the project cannot commence. Optimistically, construction may begin in late 2018 if everything goes according to plan. The Governor of Baja California’s goal is to have the project underway by the end of his term in 2019. It was discussed that the District will be closing its contract with AECOM because the scope of services has changed substantially since the contract was signed in 2010. The District will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the design of the project should the project move forward. The committee discussed additional aspects of the project in detail including the Presidential Permit, political environment impacting the project, when Phase II of the project would commence (approximately 2023), and the estimated completion date. Upon completion of the discussion, the committee accepted staffs’ report and supported presentation to the full board as an informational item. ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2451-001101 Informational Update for the Rosarito Desalination Plant and the Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Projects Date Updated 11/13/2017 Budget 30,000,000 Phases Planning Consultant Contracts 32,869 22,869 10,000 32,869 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 98,577 98,577 - 98,577 CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC 13,311 13,311 - 13,311 CPM PARTNERS INC 380,200 380,200 - 380,200 HECTOR I MARES-COSSIO 71,531 71,531 - 71,531 MARSTON & MARSTON INC 26,700 26,700 - 26,700 REA & PARKER RESEARCH 4,173 4,173 - 4,173 SALVADOR LOPEZ 225,499 225,499 - 225,499 SILVA-SILVA INTERNATIONAL 11,050 9,300 1,750 11,050 SVPR COMMUNICATIONS Meals and Incidentals 21,944 21,944 - 21,944 STAFF Printing 61 61 - 61 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC Professional Legal Fees 2,516 2,516 - 2,516 ARTIANO SHINOFF 162,041 162,041 - 162,041 GARCIA CALDERON & RUIZ LLP 43,175 43,175 - 43,175 SOLORZANO CARVAJAL GONZALEZ Y 32,612 32,612 - 32,612 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF Regulatory Agency Fees 3,120 3,120 - 3,120 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 2,142 2,142 - 2,142 STATE WATER RESOURCES Service Contracts 500 500 - 500 REBECA SOTURA NICKERSON 875 875 - 875 LEONARD VILLAREAL 32,463 32,463 - 32,463 (W)RIGHT ON COMMUNICATIONS INC 39,500 39,500 - 39,500 BUSTAMANTE & ASSOCIATES LLC 290 290 - 290 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 685 685 - 685 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, THE Standard Salaries 1,203,045 1,203,045 - 1,203,045 Total Planning 2,408,879 2,397,129 11,750 2,408,879 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 3,800,863 1,419,890 2,380,973 3,800,863 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 3,952 3,952 - 3,952 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 ATKINS 8,818 8,818 - 8,818 CPM PARTNERS INC 5,109 5,109 - 5,109 MARSTON+MARSTON INC 35,520 35,520 - 35,520 MICHAEL R WELCH PHD PE Meals, Travel, Incidentals 3,457 3,457 - 3,457 STAFF Professional Legal Fees 7,761 7,761 - 7,761 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF Regulatory Agency Fees 1,127 1,127 - 1,127 STATE WATER RESOURCES Service Contracts 1,084 1,084 - 1,084 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC 114 114 - 114 REPROHAUS CORP Standard Salaries 245,877 245,877 - 245,877 Total Design 4,118,682 1,737,709 2,380,973 4,118,682 Construction Standard Salaries - - - - Total Construction - - - - Grand Total 6,527,561 4,134,837 2,392,723 6,527,561 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District P2451 Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost 571-1 RESERVOIR 870-1RESERVOIR OTAY MESA RD EN R I C O F E R M I D R DONOVA N DONOVANCORRECTIONALFACILITY SIEMPRE VIVA RD G.F. BAILEYDETENTION FACILITY AIRWAY RD AL T A R D PASEO DE LA F U E N T T E STATE PRISON RD ALT A R D MEXICO USA OW D B O U N D A R Y FUTURE FU T U R E ?ò ?Ü ?Ü FUTURE PORT OF ENTRY OTAY WATER DISTRICTOTAY MESA DESALINATION CONVEYANCEAND DISINFECTION SYSTEM PROJECT EXHIBIT A CIP P2451 0 2,0001,000 Feet F P: \ W O R K I N G \ C I P P 2 4 5 1 D e s a l i n a t i o n F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y \ G r a p h i c s \ E x h i b i t s - F i g u r e s \ E x h i b i t A , M a r c h 2 0 1 5 . m x d Legend Pipeline Alternative 1 Pipeline Alternative 2 Pipeline Alternative 3 VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTS DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?ò Aä%&s ?p ?Ë !\ F Water Desalination ReporT Volume 53, Number 19 The international weekly for desalination and advanced water treatment since 1965 22 May 2017 Tom Pankratz, Editor, P.O. Box 75064, Houston, Texas 77234-5064 USA Telephone: +1-281-857-6571, www.desalination.com/wdr, email: tp@globalwaterintel.com © 2017 Media Analytics. Published in cooperation with Global Water Intelligence. Mexico-USAPresident approves swro pipeline permit Despite all the recent talk of constructing an impenetrable wall to separate the US from Mexico, WDR has learned that a Presidential Permit has been granted to Southern California’s Otay Water District (OWD) to import desalinated seawater from Mexico to the US. The permit authorizes the “construction, connection, oper- ation and the importation of desalinated seawater at the International Boundary between the United States and Mexico in San Diego County, California.” The permit is a requirement of a 1968 Executive Order, which mandates federal agencies to determine whether such a project is in the US national interest. OWD applied for the permit in November 2013 and, along with the State Department, published a draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) in May 2014. Following a public comment period, a final EIR/ EIS was issued in September 2016. The District plans to purchase up to 20 MGD (75,700 m3/d) of desalted seawater from the proposed 100 MGD (378,500 m3/d) Rosarito Desalination Plant. The plant will be constructed by Aguas de Rosarito (AdR), a special purpose company comprised of Consolidated Water Company’s (CWCO) NSC Agua subsidiary, Degrémont and NuWater, in the Mexican state of Baja California, across the US-Mexican border; despite its interest in purchasing water, OWD is not a part of the desal project. The cross-border pipeline will convey desalted seawater four miles (6.4km), from Mexico across the US border, via a 54-inch (1.2m) diameter pipeline, with metering and pump stations and a disinfection facility. The first, 50 MGD phase of the Rosarito project is expected to be producing water by the end of 2019, while the pipeline has been envisioned as part of the project’s second phase, which should be operational in 2024. The permit will expire in five years if construction has not yet begun, leading to speculation, unconfirmed by OWD or CWCO, that the permit approval might signal that the second phase of the project could be accelerated. WDR understands that financial closure on the $460+ million project is now expected to take place later this summer, or early fall. TechnologyEnergy-Desal Design Winner picked Last week, a team led by Oak Ridge National Laboratories prevailed in a year-long design effort, winning the US-Israel Integrated Energy and Design Challenge. The Challenge— organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and Israel’s Ministry of National Infrastructure, Energy and Water Resources (MIEW)—was intended to encourage leading US and Israeli engineers to design a novel, integrated energy-desal system that could be suitable for both countries. Challenge specifications were jointly developed by US and Israeli experts, and a parallel competition was conducted for applicants from each country. The Challenge’s goal was to site and design a system that could profitably produce at least 1,000 m3 (0.26 MGD) of potable water from a feedwater with a TDS of 5,000- 20,000 mg/L at a target price of $0.50/m3 ($1.89/kgal), while providing some portfolio of services to the electricity system. A successful system would have a productivity factor of 75 percent and could be sited in the US or Israel. It could achieve the goals by including revenue streams for providing electricity services through on-site energy generation and storage, the utilization of waste heat or cooling or the recovery re-use of waste brines. The US teams were each led by a principal investigator from one of the National Laboratories, and the Challenge was conducted in two separate phases: a three-page concept phase from which three finalists were selected and each provided with $50,000 in funding to develop a full design; and, a full design analysis from which the winning team was selected by a panel of expert judges and awarded $100,000 of funding to further the deveopment of its design. During a two-day event held in Jerusalem last week, the teams presented their final designs and were then interviewed by the judges. The winning design was selected based on its technical merit, creativity and innovation, team and resource Page 2 diversity, commercialization potential and program policy factors. The teams, and a brief description of the designs selected for participation in the finals, were: Winner: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) – An integrated renewable energy-RO design that dynamically controls energy consumption under variable power and salinity conditions, using a feedwater blend consisting of low-salinity wastewater effluent and seawater. The renewable energy components included a hybrid photovoltaic (PV) and an optional modular pumped storage system. Partners: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University, Hazen & Sawyer Principal Investigator: Sujit Das, ORNL Presenter: Adam Atia, Columbia University Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) – An integrated parabolic trough concentrated solar powered (CSP) cogeneration system to produce steam to generate electricity before being used to drive a multiple effect distillation (MED) process to desalt saline groundwater. Partners: Norwich Technologies, Creare LLC Principal Investigator/Presenter: Stephen Obrey, LANL Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) – An integrated concentrating point-focus solar array and direct-coupled energy storage system to produce steam for a non- condensing steam turbine generator and multi-stage flash (MSF) evaporator, with an optional PV system. Partners: Arizona State University, Golden State Energy Principal Investigator: James E. Miller, SNL Presenter: Ellen Stechel, ASU Although Israel’s MIEW conducted a parallel challenge, the two competing Israeli teams started later and were not as far along in the final design process. So, after their presentations and interviews were completed, it was decided that the winner of the competition between ADAN Technologies’ integrated CSP-BWRO-SWRO-MED, and Arava/Rotem’s gasification-MED-RO would be selected in about three months. The US judges were Udi Helman, a consultant with Helman Analytics; Audrey Lee, vice-president of analytics and design for Advanced Microgrid Solutions; James Klausner, professor and chair of Michigan State University’s Mechanical Engineering Department; and, WDR’s Tom Pankratz. The Israeli judges were Jacov Karni, a researcher at Weitzman Institute; Yossi Yaacoby, director of Mekorot’s WATER DESALINATION REPORT – 22 May 2017 WaTech division; and Avi Moshel, an environmental consultant. Participating members of the organizing committee included co-chair Diana Bauer, the DOE’s Director of Energy Systems Integration Analysis; Sam Bockenhauer, a DOE Physical Scientist; Timothy Walters, a DOE International Relations Specialist; and Einat Magal, the Earth and Marine Sciences Research Manager at Israel’s Chief Scientist Office. More information on the Challenge is available at http:// tinyurl.com/mt8yp73. Australia Minimum water order for largest SWRO Despite rainfall and the addition of desalted seawater from the Victorian Desalination Plant (VDP), water storages in the state of Victoria have declined for the past 24 weeks. Melbourne’s storages are now 105 million m3 (27.7 billion g) lower than at the same time two years ago, prompting the government to place a water order for 15 million m3 (3.4 billion g) of water from the VDP for 2017-2018. The water order was made in consultation with area water retailers, and should restore Melbourne’s storage levels while providing an ongoing buffer against drought. The amount also represents the minimum water order set for the next three years for the 450,000 m3/d (119 MGD) SWRO plant, and will guarantee continued water security and better plant management. The government also announced that Melbourne residents would not face additional charges for water purchased from the desal plant, because the purchase will be funded from the sale of surplus Renewable Energy Certificates, which were previously purchased by the plant to offset renewable wind energy, and were not fully utilized because no water orders were made until 2016. The plant was commissioned in December 2012, but was not operated until earlier this year, when an order for 50 million m3 (13.2 billion g) was placed in response to falling storages. California Reuse plant to get new membranes New York-based Scinor Water America has been awarded a contract to supply 2,500 membrane filtration modules for the Phase IV expansion of West Basin’s 14 MGD (53,000 m3/d) Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility in El Segundo (Los Angeles), California. The expansion was completed in 2006 and treats secondary effluent to advanced water 3WATER DESALINATION REPORT – 22 May 2017 quality standards—employing cartridge filters, chemical addition, MF, RO, decarbonation and UV irradiation—for groundwater injection, to serve as a barrier to seawater intrusion, and for industrial process water. When originally installed, the Memcor (now Evoqua) six- cell submerged MF system was a pioneering system for its time. However, after nine years of operation, there had been a growing number of largely age-related operational and reliability issues with the submerged polypropylene membrane modules. In addition to cracking in some of the nylon module blocks, there has been a loss of membrane permeability, resulting in a 50 percent reduction in plant production that necessitated more frequent cleaning. To evaluate its upgrade options, West Basin engaged Separ- ation Processes (SPI) and Suez, the plant’s contract operator, to conduct a pilot study, which was followed by a full-scale test that began in late January 2017 to evaluate alternative replacement membranes. Based on the study results, West Basin awarded Scinor a membrane replacement contract under which it will furnish its TIPS (thermally-induced phase separation) PVDF membranes. The plant will also implement new automation and controls capabilities that are in-line with today’s standards. Tom Poschman, Scinor Water America’s president and CEO, said that the installation of the membranes is expected to be completed in the second half of 2017. It will be Scinor’s largest US installation, and its third largest in the world. Conference NewsEuroMed 2017, one for the books Ambassadors, academics, students, utility and industry specialists and invited co-hosts from China and Italy met in Tel Aviv on 9-12 May for EuroMed 2017, the European Desalination Society’s (EDS) annual conference, under the theme Desalination for Clean Water and Energy: Cooperation around the World. The first of two keynote presentations was given by Izzeldin Abuelaish, the Professor of Public Health from the University of Toronto, whose talk on Water for hope, health and peace served as a perfect prelude to two panel discussions addressing cross-border issues. The discussions involved scientists from Gaza, Israel, the West Bank and international organizations involved in the region. Ora Kedem, Professor Emerita from the Weizmann Institute of Science and Ben Gurion University of the Negev, gave a second keynote, titled, Where can electrodialysis compete? The talk was a fitting lead-in to one of the conference’s two parallel technical sessions, which emphasized electrochemical processes. The program included a highly popular visit to the Sorek plant, the world’s largest SWRO plant, hosted by IDE Technologies. Avshalom Felber, the company’s CEO, arrived directly from the airport to greet participants. Kevin Price, who is associated with the Middle East Desalination Research Center (MEDRC), moderated a closing session during which panelists addressed theoretical solutions to Gaza’s immediate and long-term water concerns, focusing on the technical, rather than political, needs. Outgoing President Ursula Annunziata, of Genesys International, introduced Maria Kennedy, Professor of Water Treatment Technology at UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, as EDS’ new president, and announced that the next EDS biennial conference and exhibition would be held in Athens, Greece, in May 2018. She also continued the well-established EDS tradition of performing specially-written desalination songs at the Gala Dinner, accompanied by EDS pianist Richard Furstenheim. Drawing inspiration from well-known musicals by Andrew Lloyd Weber and Rogers and Hammerstein, Annunziata emotionally sang the tale of her tenure as EDS president and made the members chuckle with her desal-themed tongue- twisters. Genesys’ Ursula Annunziata serenading desalters, including (from left) Professors Ora Kedem and Rafi Semiat Of course, no EDS event could be appropriately summarized without acknowledging Miriam Balaban, the Society’s secretary general, for her tireless work organizing an inter- esting event with such broad, international participation. In brief Shanghai-based SafBon Water Service will purchase Florida-based Doosan Hydro Technologies (DHT) from Korea’s Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction for $7.36 million. The deal comes just two months after Safbon completed the purchase of a 21.6 percent stake in IDE- affiliated AquaSwiss AG. DHT was established in 2005, when Doosan Heavy acquired the US water treatment division of American Engineering Services (AES) for $4.7 million. Until the acquisition, Doosan’s desal capabilities were limited to MSF projects, although it was also develop- ing a position in the MED market. Based on AES’ SWRO references, Doosan was able to immediately engage in the rapidly growing SWRO market. Built in response to a record drought and commissioned in 1992, Santa Barbara’s SWRO plant was soon turned off and eventually mothballed, when rains filled the area’s nearly empty reservoirs. However, the city wisely continued to maintain its permits and waited patiently for the next drought. In September 2015, following a series of studies, the City awarded IDE Technologies a notice to proceed with the design, construction and reactivation of the 3,125 AFY (10,560 m3/d) SWRO plant at a total cost of about $70 million. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the Charles E. Meyer Desalination Facility could become California’s fourth operational seawater desal plant later this week, joining the Carlsbad, Catalina and Sand City SWRO plants. Pre-proposals for its Unsolicited Research Program are being sought by the Water Environment & Reuse Foundation (WE&RF). Funding of research project proposals in relevant wastewater, reuse and other sources of water will be considered. A funding total of approximately $300,000 is expected, with typical awards made in the $25,000 to $150,000 range. A minimum 25% cost-share or in-kind support must be contributed, and the maximum project duration is two years. Pre-proposals are due by 13 July and more information is available at http://www.werf.org/ unsolicitedresearch. Evoqua Water Technologies said it would deliver a 50 gpm (43 m3/h) brackish water desal system employing its Nexed electrochemical technology for demonstration at El Paso Water Utilities’ Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant. The system is expected to be operational next month. The South Central Membrane Association (SCMA) will hold a membrane operator training course titled “MOC-III: Low Pressure Membrane Systems” in Richmond (Houston), Texas, on 6-8 June. For information and registration, visit http://tinyurl.com/mlqpero. The US Bureau of Reclamation has awarded a total of $23.6 million to 19 projects in seven states. The funds are for planning, designing and constructing water recycling and re- use projects, developing feasibility studies, and researching desalination and water recycling projects as a part of the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse program. For a list of projects, visit http://tinyurl.com/mrkuxfd. A 10,000 m3/d (2.6 MGD) containerized SWRO plant furn- ished by RWL Water, has been commissioned at Pelican Island, near Richards Bay, on South Africa’s northeast coast. The Department of Water and Sanitation contracted a partnership of North Coast Water Utility and RWL. The desalted water is reportedly pumped to 20 area reservoirs. Erratum: In the 9 May 2017 issue of WDR, a story on a GE Water ZeeLung MABR project in Italy said that the results were for a full-scale installation. In fact, the results covered the first six months of an ongoing 10-month study. Reminder: The 1 June deadline for submitting applications for AMTA funding opportunities for grants, research fellowships, scholarships and stipends for graduate and undergraduate students is approaching. For details, visit http://tinyurl.com/hjmrzau. Jobs Scinor Water America is seeking an Applications/Service Engineer to provide technical sales and service support for its hollow-fiber membrane filter products in new-build and retrofit applications. The preferred candidate will have an engineering degree and a minimum of three years MF/UF experience. The position will be based in Southern California and requires up to 50% travel. Please send your resume to joe.tardio@scinor.com. Rate for one year: £355 or US$550. Subscribe and renew online at: www.desalination.com/wdr Reproduction or electronic distribution is forbidden. Subscribers may circulate their copy on their immediate premises. To email or create additionalcopies for other office locations, contact Jake Gomme (jg@globalwaterintel.com) to arrange a site license. Page 4WATER DESALINATION REPORT – 22 May 2017 Save the Date: American Water Summit The American Water Summit 2017 will be held on 29-30 November in Austin, Texas, at the JW Marriott hotel. For more information, visit http://www.americanwatersummit.com. EXHIBIT C Could desalinated water from Mexico flow to San Diego? - The San Diego Union-Tribune Author Sandra Dibble The U.S. State Department has approved a cross-border pipeline that could one day carry desalinated water from Mexico to the Otay Water District in San Diego County With Baja California pushing forward on its plan for a massive desalination plant in Rosarito Beach, a ground-breaking proposal to pipe some of that water to the United States has overcome a key We have electric lines, the largest crossing in the world, a gas pipeline, a bridge from the airport,” that cross the border, said Mark Watton, general manager for the Otay Water District, which serves some 220,000 residents of southeastern San Diego County. “It’s only natural that we have a water line. Watton said the presidential permit approval on May 16 marks “a giant leap,” toward making his district the first in the country to import water from Mexico. The district’s $30 million pipeline project “would provide a new drought-proof water supply to its customers,” reads a statement from the district But making the plan a reality will require many more steps — the great majority of those in Mexico. For starters, the Rosarito Beach Desalination Plant has yet to be built, though Baja California authorities said last week that they are on track with their plan to complete the first phase in 2019 and the second phase in 2024. At full build-out, the proposed $463 million reverse-osmosis facility would be the largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere, twice the size of the Poseidon plant in Carlsbad, producing up to 100 million gallons of water daily. Though Watton said he has been in talks with Baja California officials about the possibility of purchasing some of that water, the state’s chief water planner denied the existence of a plan to send any of the desalinated water across the border. “The water is for Baja California, for our municipalities,” said German Lizola, who heads the State Water Commission, in an interview last week. Like San Diego, Tijuana is heavily reliant on the Colorado River, whose water is piped across the state and currently makes up more than 95 percent of the city’s supply. And like San Diego, Baja California has been striving to diversify its water sources in its Pacific coastal regions — from Tijuana to San Quintin. Gov. Francisco Vega de Lamadrid has seen desalination as the solution. EXHIBIT C Later this year, the state is planning the opening of a desalination plant in the port of Ensenada that would produce 5.8 million gallons daily, Lizola said. It is also preparing to launch construction of a similar-sized plant in San Quintin North of the border, the Otay Water District, whose southern boundary abuts the Mexican border, has also been looking for alternative water sources. The district has spent $4.1 million so far studying on the Mexican option, Watton said. “Just like a lot of water projects, you have to invest some money to see if they’ll pan out,” he said. We’ve had an expression by the state (of Baja California) in the past that all things being equal, they would like to have an export market,” Watton said. But there are no commitments at this point, he added. The idea of building a desalination plant in Rosarito Beach has been around for decades. But it became a concrete plan last August, when the state signed a contract with a consortium under a private-public partnership agreement to build the the plant and operate it for 37 years. The private group is comprised of NSC Agua, a Mexican company that is the subsidiary of a Cayman Islands-based Consolidated Water, together with two partners: the French company Degremont, and NuWater of Singapore. To move forward, some conditions still need to be met. A filing last month by Consolidated Water with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stated that these include obtaining rights of way for an aqueduct, Mexican federal approvals for Baja California to receive and distribute seawater; federal permits to discharge residual water from the desalination plant; and financing for the first execution of the project’s first phase. The company also has asked the state of Baja California for an increase in the water tariff “to compensate for significant changes in foreign exchange,” a company statement said, adding that it hopes to launch construction in the third quarter of this year. The project has the backing of the North American Development Bank, a binational institution that evaluates and supports infrastructure projects on the U.S.-Mexico border. “We remain optimistic that the plant will come to fruition,” read a statement sent Friday. “In addition, we remain confident that the Bank will leverage private sector financing for the construction.” In case Baja California agrees to sell some of its water with the completion of the second phase in 2024, the Otay Water District is proposing its own tandem $30 million project. It is called “Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System,” and consists of a pump station at the border, a pipeline to carry the water to its reservoir and an ultra- violet water treatment facility. The recent granting of the U.S. presidential permit has buoyed Watton’s hopes that the project can move forward. The permits are issued by the U.S. State Department for EXHIBIT C cross-border projects found to be in the national interest, and require consultations with federal, state and local agencies and the solicitation of public comment. While most of these permits involve land border crossings, they have also been granted for seven cross-border pipelines carrying petroleum products. Watton said his permit is the first that involves a proposal to import water from Mexico. The permit was opposed by U.S. environmental groups — the Surfrider Foundation’s San Diego Chapter as well as Imperial Beach-based Wildcoast, which cited concerns about the future plant drawing from contaminated water off the Baja California coast. In recent months, Baja California has announced a series of projects that aim to clean up the Tijuana coastline. South of the border, opinions are mixed about the plan for the Rosarito desalination plant. Some question the hurry to complete a project of that magnitude — at full capacity it would supply water for more than 1.7 million people — nearly the size of Tijuana’s current population. They argue the state ought to put more effort into water reuse projects. But others contend that the desalinated water can be a new source that can reduce Tijuana’s vulnerability if an earthquake damages the Colorado River aqueduct. A desalination plant, proponents say, can increase the region’s economic potential.</p></div> Water has always been a barrier for Tijuana’s growth,” said Cesar Romeo Sauceda, head of Tijuana’s Chamber of Construction and Industry. Romeo has heard talk about the possibility of sending some of the water to San Diego, and would not necessarily oppose such a plan. “I think it’s part of being neighbors, of having commercial relations, it’s something natural,” he said. Still, up to now, he said, “nobody that I know has officially spoken of selling some of that water to the United States. sandra.dibble@sduniontribune.com @sandradibble MEXICO-U.S. CROSS- BORDER DESAL PROJECT MOVES FORWARD SAN DIEGO, CA, JUNE 19, 2017 -- On May 16, 2017, the U.S. Department of State granted a presidential permit to allow the Otay Water District to build a nearly four-mile potable water pipeline that begins at the U.S.-Mexico border. This permit authorizes the District to "construct, connect, operate, and maintain cross-border water pipeline facilities for the importation of desalinated seawater at the International Boundary between the United States Page 1 of 3Mexico-U.S. cross-border desal project moves forward - WaterWorld 8/17/2017http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2017/06/mexico-u-s-cross-border-desal-project-move... and Mexico in San Diego County, California." Purchasing and transporting water Aguas de Rosarito's $421 million desalination plant in Rosarito, Baja California, Mexico, is a component of the District's water supply diversification efforts. The Rosarito plant could potentially produce water to meet up to two-thirds of the District's projected water use by 2024. In light of the growing need for new potable water supplies in Mexico and San Diego County, the proposed Rosarito plant and the District's $30 million Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project would provide a new drought-proof water supply to its customers. The District currently provides water service to a population of more than 223,000 people, which is expected to increase to more than 308,000 by 2050. The Rosarito facility would produce up to 100-million gallons of water daily in two phases. The first phase, expected to be operational by late 2019 or early 2020, would make 50-million gallons or more of desalinated water available daily to the Tijuana/Rosarito region. The second phase, expected to be completed by 2024, would deliver up to an additional 50- million gallons daily, with 10 to 30 percent of that water available to the District. The Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project will be the first cross-border project of its kind to import water to the U.S. from Mexico. Otay currently maintains the only two existing presidential permits for water crossings along the U.S.-Mexico Border. The District's other cross-border pipeline allows Mexico to transport and import Mexican Colorado River apportionment water through the U.S. facility to Tijuana. The project has undergone environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental Policy Act and has obtained a U.S. Fish and Wildlife biological permit. The District also applied for a permit from the California Water Resources Control Board's Division of Drinking Water to ensure that water imported from Mexico meets the same water quality drinking standards as water from regional lakes, from the Claude "Bud" Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant, and from the City of San Diego's Pure Water Program. "Although there are still several hurdles to overcome, receiving the presidential permit for this project is a giant leap for the District and its customers so we have more control over our local water supply," said Mark Watton, the District's general manager. "Desal water from Rosarito would be a closer and highly reliable source water." The District continues to diversify its water resources, to reduce its dependence on traditional water supplies from the Colorado River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It also continues to maximize the use of recycled water and succeed in its water conservation efforts. For more details on the Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project and Rosarito Desalination Plant project, click here. Page 2 of 3Mexico-U.S. cross-border desal project moves forward - WaterWorld 8/17/2017http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2017/06/mexico-u-s-cross-border-desal-project-move... Page 3 of 3Mexico-U.S. cross-border desal project moves forward - WaterWorld 8/17/2017http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2017/06/mexico-u-s-cross-border-desal-project-move... EXHIBIT E http://www.breitbart.com/california/ California May Import Water from Mexico Desalination Plant 1 Justin Sullivan/Getty by Michelle Moons20 Jun 2017109 20 Jun, 2017 19 Jun, 2017 EXHIBIT E The U.S. State Department has approved a cross-border pipe that would carry water from a desalination plant in Mexico into San Diego, California’s Otay Water District. “The Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Project will be the first cross- border project of its kind to import water to the U.S. from Mexico,” according to the district’s website. The State Department approved the permit for the water line on May 16. The State Department permit covers the length of pipe from the border to the district. The District has applied to the California Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water for a permit that would ensure the Mexican water pumped in “meets the same water quality drinking standards as water from regional lakes, from the Claude ‘Bud’ Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant, and from the City of San Diego’s Pure Water Program.” Otay Water District General Manager Mark Watton said, “Although there are still several hurdles to overcome, receiving the presidential permit for this project is a giant leap for the District and its customers so we have more control over our local water supply.” EXHIBIT E Watton has pointed out that there are electric lines, a gas pipeline and an airport bridge that span the U.S. southern border, according to the San Diego Union Tribune. He went on to call the installation of a water line “only natural.” He also stated that that would make Otay the first district in the U.S. to import water from Mexico. Water from the proposed desalination plant in Mexico could provide up to two-thirds of the water in the Otay District’s system by 2024, according to the district. By that time, 10 to 30 percent of the 50 million gallons of water produced at the plant could flow to California’s Otay District. The Rosarito Beach Desalination Plant has yet to be built. The Tribune reported the assurance of Baja California authorities that phase 1 of the plant will be completed in 2019 and phase 2 in 2024. At a cost of $463 million, it is planned to be the largest in the Western Hemisphere, and twice the size of San Diego County’s desalination plant in Carlsbad. Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/executive-summaries/2017/06/23 ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de "Kiko"por 83 mil mdp -EXHIBIT I Foto:Cristian Torres Destacados Twittear Isai Lara Bermudez Viernes,29 Septiembre,2017 10:12 AM -Z +z ■ ■ Basta con que dos terceras partes,es decir,17 de 25 diputados de Baja California voten a favor para que el Estado comprometa el presupuesto estatal por mas de 83 mil millones de pesos,durante un periodo de 37 anos,para empresas de familiares de funcionarios panistas Diputados confiaron a ZETA que es el propio gobernador,Francisco Arturo Vega de Lamadrid,quien ha tenido que realizar llamadas telefonicas amenazantes a los diputados de su bancada para que aprueben a como de lugar dos propuestas que envio desde julio para poder financiar negocios bajo el esquema de Asociacion Publico Privadas,principalmente relacionadas con el agua. "No habiamos visto este nivel de presiones,chantes o amenazas para poder pasar algo",conto uno de los diputados,haciendo referencia a la operacion que el Gobierno del Estado ha echado andar en los ultimos dias,para que los diputados aprueben dos dictamenes que comprometeran los recursos de las proximas generaciones de Baja California. El gobierno de "Kiko"Vega tiene un problema:firmaron contratos (autorizados por la anterior legislatura)con empresas bajo el esquema de APP,para estas realicen obras y servicios relacionados con e!agua en la entidad.La mas costosa es la desaladora en Rosarito.Pero no tienen el dinero para pagarlos y mas cuando se trata de costear 82 mil millones de pesos. Tan solo al consorcio Aguas de Rosarito,integrado por las empresas NSC Agua,Nuwater y DegremonU encargados de la desaldora en Rosarito- fi!e:///P|/...Reports/Committee Desal Update 2017-3/Exhibit 1 -ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de "Kiko"por 83 mi!mdp 09-2017 -.html[l 1/29/2017 10:00:25 AM] ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de ''Kiko"por 83 mil mdp - St It IO.\LA Uftf4>B\f Itli HI.H.I NO DH t oV.Bi M> ...T...■* (•U||«UHutlfel 0—<tlUfc!«••*•v (MlwnM d*XL6 *•«J hn>la OSU d»l fllrtr a* TiJuana,el gobiemo pretende pagar 172 millones de pesos 840 mil pesos al afi0'incluyendo el IVA,que representa 2 mil 74 millones de pesos al mum lartM an ■frufr-"'*OihtMhs >nun p^j •"muu F.uIC1'!*■Hvno 11 Umin n»Dvorrwhi Iiimmj HWgMi Ip ■I [!11 . iH»e.B»isc*Pero en este nuevo contrato -aprobado ya por los diputados de laHLftSOiOVUUV*i iw*M fans «.>«**Mn><ttSOM'"0 Iegislatura anterior-tiene un plazo de 37 aflos,es decir,un total de 76 mil «.«,-^»-.,«»,740 millones. En ese consorcio,se ubica Alejandro de la Vega Valladolid,vinculo familiar con el Antonio Valladolid,ex secretario de Fianzas del gobemador. Estos proyectos han sido impulsados desde el Gobiemo del Estado,personalmente por el mandatario,asi como por el secretario de Desarrollo Urbano,Manuel Guevara,y por Antonio Valladolid. Lo grave es que,para poder comprometer los miles de millones de pesos,el Congreso ahora debe aprobar que el Estado financie y garantice el pago a las empresas por las administraciones siguientes. Eso es lo que esta en juego en las proximas horas,en el pleno de la Camara de Diputados,y donde el PAN,PRI,PRD, Movimiento Ciudadano,Partido del Trabajo y Partido de Baja California,tienen la intencion de votar a favor. Otros contratos Ademas del ya mencionado contrato,otro al que "Kiko"Vega le urge asegurar los pagos millonarios durante afios,es el que celebro con Desaladora Kenton S.A.de C.V.,que fue la unica que presento propuesta y que es representada por Patricia Paterson Villalobos y Yolanda Padilla Loza y donde aparece como socio Jesus Octavio Rincon Vargas,hermano de la alcaldesa panista de Rosarito,Mirna Rincon. Esta empresa creada para la APP se encargara del "Sistema Integral Hidrico en San Quintin".Ahi,el gobiemo se compromete a un pago de 11 millones 136 mil pesos al mes,mas IVA;esto es,mas de 133.6 millones al afio,con una duracion de 30 anos,arrojando un total de 4 mil 650 millones de pesos. Uno mas es para la Operadora de Pluviales Mexicali,empresa que realizara obras de tuberias y drenajes en la capital del Estado.Para ello se quieren destinar 2 millones 845 mil pesos mensuales,durante 15 afios,dando un monto total de 512 millones 246 mil pesos,con IVA incluido. Es justamente el Dictamen 95 que se votara este viemes 29 de septiembre el que pretende autorizar al gobiemo del Estado para que todos los ingresos de la Cespt,Cespe y Cespm,por servicio de agua,conformen fideicomisos para el pago a las empresas. Los propios diputados saben que para cumplir con ese compromiso,se tendra que aumentar las tarifas del agua potable, adquirir mas deuda publica y comprometer otros impuestos que generan importantes ingresos. file:///P|/...Reports/Committee Desa!Update 2017-3/Exhibit 1 -ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de "Kiko"por 83 mil mdp 09-2017 -.html[l 1/29/2017 10:00:25 AM] ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de "Kiko"por 83 mil mdp - El dictamen 95 Las presiones son para que aprueben las garantias del pago.El gobernador envio esa propuesta desde julio,pero rue hasta el pasado 9 de septiembre que se dictaminaron en la Comision de Hacienda,encabezada por la panista,Irais Vazquez. En la Comision,ademas de la diputada Vazquez,a favor votaron dos panistas mas:Eva Maria Vasquez y Sergio Tolento. Ademas,las propuestas del gobernador contaron con las "abstenciones"del diputado Jorge Eugenio Nunez,del Partido de Baja California,y de Rocio Lopez Gorosave,del PRD. No hubiera sido posible que salieran los dictamenes en la Comision si los diputados de "oposicion",Catalino Zavala,de Morena;Job Montoya,de Movimiento Ciudadano;y de Benjamin Gomez,del PRI,no hubieran faltado "oportunamente"en esa sesion de Comision. El dictamen 95 pretende dejar en Ley que las Comisiones de Servicios Publicos esten obligadas a pagar las mensualidades millonarias que arriba fueron mencionadas.Es decir,se tendra que aumentar las tarifas del agua para poder incrementar los presupuestos. Pero si eso no Ilegara a concretarse,esto es,que si el dictamen es aprobado por el Congreso,se estara autorizando al Gobierno del Estado "un credito en cuenta corriente irrevocable", es decir,contratar deuda publica para garantizar hasta tres meses de contraprestacion. Esto no es todo,el dictamen 95 contempla una tercera garantia.Si los ingresos de las comisiones de servicios fallan y los creditos no son suficientes,se contempla un fideicomiso para nuevamente garantizar ei pago por medio de los ingresos por consumo de agua. Finalmente,el gobernador quiere que el Congreso autorice otro fideicomiso para poder incautar los ingresos derivados del impuesto sobre las remuneraciones al Trabajo Personal y asegurar los millones contratados con las empresas,durante todos los anos que vienen. file:///P|/...Reports/Committee Desal Update 2017-3/Exhibit I -ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de "Kiko"por 83 mil mdp 09-2017 -.html[l 1/29/2017 10:00:25 AM| ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de "Kiko"por 83 mil mdp - Dktamen 94 Este viernes igualmente se votara por aprobar un contrato relacionado con la Seguridad Publica para construir un C5 (Centro de Control,Comando,Comunicacion,Computo y Calidad en el Estado). El Gobierno del Estado busca pactar un contrato plurianuaf por 750 millones de pesos,mas 1VA,a pagar en 10 afios,lo que representa 800 millones 400 mil pesos en total. Estos dos dictamenes se intentaron votar en la Camara de Diputados el pasado 21 de septiembre,pero grupos opositores de Mexicali tomaron a la fuerza los pasillos del Congreso y tuvo que posponerse. De igual forma,creo division dentro de la fraction panista. El diputado Miguel Osuna Millan declaro publicamente la falta de sustento y la "poca seriedad"en la pretension del gobernador y la de sus companeros diputados. Los cdlculos Los operadores del gobierno y del Partido Action Nacional calculan que los dictamenes se aprobaran con cierta dificultad, pero se sienten confiados con el apoyo del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI),por medio de la "buena disposition"de Alejandro Arregui y coordinador de la bancada, quien ha ofrecido la operation dentro de su grupo parlamentario;asimismo saben de la colaboracion de Benjamin Gomez,presidente de la Mesa Directiva. Igualmente,el PAN-gobierno presume internamente que tienen en la bolsa a Rocio Gorosave,diputada del PRD;a Job fi1e:///P|/...Reports/Committee Desal Update 2017-3/Exhibit I -ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de "lKiko"por 83 mil mdp 09-2017 -.html[l 1/29/2017 10:00:25 AM] ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de '"Kiko"por 83 mil mdp - Montoya,de Movimiento Ciudadano,por instrucciones dei dirigente en el Estado,Alcibiades Garcia Lizardi;y al Partido de Baja California,por medio de Jorge Eugenio Nunez. Las APPs en el pantano Para !a diputada federal y ex dirigente del PRI,Nancy Sanchez,Ios dictamenes no deben de aprobarse:"Somos de Ios estados mas endeudados en todo el pais,sobre todo,por la prisa de atender el tema de las APPs que e!tema de seguridad". Agrega:"Ios asesores del gobierno estatal parece que engafian al gobernador con numeros y cifras que danzan en lo ridiculo, que lo unico que hacen es hacerlo quedar mal.Como legisladora,exijo y pido que sean claros,que digan que destino tendran y tienen Ios recursos". Sanchez dice que la molestia social que existe "es porque es un gobierno incompetente,poco claro,que esta mas preocupado por sus negocios,por sus APPs,que pudieron haber sido muy buenas,pero nacieron en un pantano y no han sabido como salir adelante y decirle a la gente;no han clarificado que nos van a endeudar por 37 anos",senalo. ''Ha platicado con algunos diputados de mi partido,cruzamos informacion al respecto.Creo que la postura debe ser la misma, la nuestra,de la transparencia en el gasto,no enganar al ciudadano,no comprometer a generaciones futuras,la claridad del manejo de las finanzas publicas". La diputada no tiene duda,el dictamen 94 y 95,"Por supuesto que se tienen que votar en contra.Si no ha sido transparente su manejo,tiene que ser en contra.Las APPS siguen empantanadas y mis diputados tienen que ser congruentes con eso". —lE\no hacerlo generaha sospechas? "Por supuesto que generarfa sospechas,espero que no sea asi,pero tambien conozco a Ios del gobierno dei Estado.Son tramposos y son mayoria (PAN),mis diputados han sido muy congruentes,se han fajado en Ios temas importantes,algunos mas y otros menos,pero ahi se va a notar". Panista en contra file:///P|/...Reports/Committee Desai Update 2017-3/Exhibit I -ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de "Kiko"por 83 mil mdp 09-2017 -.html[!1/29/2017 10:00:25 AMI ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de '"Kiko"por 83 mil mdp - Dentro del grupo parlamentario de Accion Nacional,el diputado Miguel Osuna Millan fijo desde un principio su postura en contra de los dictamenes 94 y 95.Con esto,el ex secretario de Salud se convirtio en el unico legislador panista que se opuso a la voluntad del gobernador. Lo hizo por una serie de razones tecnicas que muestran no solo la falta de viabilidad de los proyectos,sino los dafios que causaria una deuda de esta magnitud. "Llamese como se llame,emprestitos,pago de contraprestaciones o deuda;estas obligaciones de pago por mas de 82 mil millones de pesos cuadriplican o quintuplican la deuda publica del Estado de Baja California;por ello mi postura en contra de mayor endeudamiento del estado",declaro respecto al dictamen 95. Explico que la entidad cuenta con la disponibilidad de 89 millones de metros cubicos de agua que alcanzarian para abastecer el servicio hasta 2018,por lo que considero "inaceptable aprobar ahora una inversion de esta naturaleza,no hay prisa",hizo ver Osuna Millan. De igual forma,senalo que las desaladoras requieren la opinion y aprobacion de expertos en el tema del agua,quienes recomiendan la construccion de manera escalonada en modulos de 200 litros por segundo. En cuanto al dictamen 94,considero insuficiente la documentacion tecnica para justiflcar la construccion del C5,por lo que califico de "inviable"a este contrato."La solucion no esta en el uso de la tecnologia,sino en la voluntad politica de los gobiernos Federal,Estatal y Municipal",expreso. Ademas,reconocio la falta de responsabilidad en el abordaje del tema,ya que no se incluyo un dictamen tecnico por parte de un perito especializado e independiente que avale el proyecto y pidio al gobierno del Estado que este se incluyera. file:///Pl/...Reports/Committee Desat Update 2017-3/Exhihit I -ZETA Aprobaran endeudamiento de "Kiko"por 83 mil mdp 09-2017 -.html[11/29/2017 10:00:25 AMI EXHIBIT J Giant Rosarito Beach desalination project faces scrutiny The Presidente Juarez thermoelectric plant in Rosarito Beach is near the site of a planned desalination plant that would be the largest in the Western Hemisphere. (San Diego County Water Authority) Sandra Dibble Contact Reporter November 27, 2017, 7:00 AM With Tijuana and other rapidly growing coastal cities heavily dependent on the Colorado River, Baja California urgently needs to find new water sources. Baja California Gov. Francisco Vega de Lamadrid’s administration has offered a solution: Build the largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere, enough to ensure a supply for decades to come. But plans for the reverse-osmosis facility in Rosarito Beach, a project that at full capacity would desalinate 100 million gallons daily, have come under unprecedented scrutiny at a politically sensitive moment. The touchiest public issue is the question of whether some of that water would be sold to the Otay Water District in San Diego County. EXHIBIT J More than a year after the signing of a public-private-partnership contract between Baja California and an international consortium to design and build the plant and operate it for 37 years, there are growing calls for at least a pause — if not a halt — to the process. Some question whether such a large plant is necessary, and warn of sharp increases in water rates once it is built. Others accuse the state of secretly planning to sell some of the water to the United States. Still others say the state’s greatest need is not the desalination plant — but for a broad and open public discussion about the critical issues of water use and ensuring a supply for future generations. “We’re talking about the future, we’re talking about water, we’re talking about the fact that the coastline of Baja California cannot just depend on the Colorado River,” said Carlos de la Parra, a water expert at the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, a Tijuana-based think tank. “This desalination plant is out of thin air.” Kurt Honold, president of the influential Tijuana business coalition Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, said, “We need to be a better administrator of the water that we already have … we are not using the water efficiently, we have a big bucket and the bucket has holes.” The issue has come to a head as the Baja California legislature prepares for a vote on federally mandated adjustments to the state’s public-private-partnership law. A no vote would at the very least delay the desalination plant, the most ambitious infrastructure project of Vega’s administration. It would also put on hold eight other public-private-partnership projects. “There is no better proposal,” said Manuel Guevara, Baja California’s secretary of infrastructure and the administration’s point-person on the Rosarito desalination project. “In fact, there is no other proposal at all. There has been no proposal from any group, any chamber, any legislator that’s different from ours, except for the size.” Like San Diego County, the state of Baja California is largely reliant on the Colorado River for its major cities, Tijuana and Mexicali, and the Mexicali Valley, its largest agricultural region. EXHIBIT J Baja California Gov. Francisco Vega de Lamadrid in 2016 in San Quintin celebrating a public-private-partnership agreement to build a desalination plant by the Pacific Ocean at La Chorera. (Gobierno de Baja California) Population growth and drought on the river have prompted growing concern, and calls for greater efficiency in managing the existing water supply as well as finding alternative sources. Next month, the state of Baja California plans to launch its first utility-scale ocean desalination plant in the port of Ensenada, a reverse osmosis facility able to produce 5.7 million gallons daily. Another similar-sized plant is being planned in the agricultural community of San Quintin, the first project approved under the state’s public-private-partnership law that was passed in 2014. But the largest by far is the Rosarito Beach facility whose cost is estimated at more than $470 million. At full capacity, it would be twice the size of the Poseidon plant in Carlsbad, enough to supply the needs of 2 million people. Baja California officials today are insisting that their sole aim at this point is ensuring a long-term water supply for residents of the state’s fast-growing Pacific coastal urban areas. “We’re can’t lose sight of the main vision, which is ensuring the water supply not just for three or six years, or even ten,” said Guevara, the Baja California secretary who leading the desalination efforts. “This is a vision for 20 or 40 years.” The project is under review by the North American Development Bank (NADB), a binational institution that evaluates and finances border infrastructure projects. “We believe in the necessity of the project from a water availability perspective,” said Jesse Hereford, a bank spokesman. He said in an email that NADB “is part of the banking syndicate that is looking at financing the project.” EXHIBIT J The idea of a cross-border desalination project predates Gov. Vega’s administration by some two decades. A groundbreaking agreement in 2012 between the United States and Mexico — known as Minute 319 — listed a binational desalination plant in Rosarito Beach as a potential new source of water for the region. But it wasn’t until August 2016, with the public-private-partnership contract that a concrete plan moved forward. The winning bidder, Aguas de Rosarito, joined together NSC Agua, a Mexican company that is the subsidiary of a Cayman Islands-based company, Consolidated Water, with two partners: the French company Degremont and NuWater of Singapore. The agreement committed the consortium to build the plant in two phases and operate it for 37 years before turning it over to the state. As envisioned in the agreement, the first phase was to produce 50 million gallons a day, and launch in late 2019 or early 2020; a second phase in 2024 would double the capacity to 100 million. “We don’t need such a large desalination plant,” said Ruben Garcia Fons, an engineer with expertise in water issues. He belongs to a group, COMICE, made up of planners, academics, builders and suppliers, which has recently gathered close to 1,000 signatures against the project. The selection process has been an “obscure procedure,” he said. “And those who will pay are those citizens who use the water.” The contract states Baja California would be in charge of distributing the water, and much of the current controversy over the plant now revolves on whether the state intends to ship some of that water across the border. Luis Moreno, a state legislator with the opposition Social Encounter Party, has been one of the most vocal critics, offering as proof transcripts of investor calls by Consolidated Water from 2009 to 2013. The state government, “is working behind the back of its citizens,” and “is seeking to benefit Consolidated Water and its partners,” Moreno said in a news release earlier this month. North of the border, the Otay Water District, which serves some 220,000 water users in southeast San Diego County, began discussing the proposal with Consolidated Water years before Gov. Vega took office in 2013. The district has been looking to diversify its water supply, and has spent more than $4 million researching the possibility of importing water from a future desalination plant in Mexico. Last May, the U.S. State Department approved a presidential permit to carry some of that water across the border at Otay Mesa. Mark Watton, the district’s general manager, said he has discussed the plan with Baja California’s secretary of economic development, Carlo Bonfante, but received no guarantees. “It was speculative from the get-go,” Watton said. “It makes sense that Mexico would export water as a finished manufactured product like they do other stuff, but the politics are wrapped around the axle right now.” EXHIBIT J Guevara, the secretary of infrastructure, said Bonfante is not the one to negotiate such deals, and can make no commitments. Guevera said it would be up to water agencies and himself. “I have had no discussions with Otay Water,” he said. To move forward with the Rosarito desalination plant and other public-private partnerships, Gov. Vega’s administration needs to persuade 17 legislators to approve the changes. Guevara remains optimistic that the state government will prevail and the project will move forward. But if the vote is no, “I’d recommend suspending it, until we are at a better economic and political moment,” he said. With time, “we’ll demonstrate that we’re facing a water crisis.” Federal Register/Vol.82,No.107/Tuesday,June 6,2017/NoEXHIBIT^otices &6207 be determined,is in the national interest.I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:For further information,including a list of the imported objects,contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser,U.S. Department of State (telephone:202- 632-6471;email:section2459@ state.gov).The mailing address is U.S. Department of State,L/PD,SA-5,Suite 5H03,Washington,DC 20522-0505. Alyson Grander, Deputy Assistant SecretaryforPolicy,Bureau ofEducational and Cultural Affairs, Department ofState. [FR Doc.2017-11692 Filed 6-5-17;8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice:10020] Issuance of Presidential Permit to the Otay Water District To Construct, Connect,Operate,and Maintain Cross- Border Water Pipeline Facilities for the Importation of Desalinated Seawater at the International Boundary Between the United States and Mexico in San Diego County,California SUMMARY:The Department of State issued a Presidential permit to the Otay Water District (the District)on May 16, 2017,authorizing the District to construct,connect,operate,and maintain cross-border water pipeline facilities for the importation of desalinated seawater at the international boundary between the United States and Mexico in San Diego County,California. In making this determination,the Department provided public notice of the proposed permit,offered the opportunity for comment,and consulted with other federal agencies,as required by Executive Order 11423,as amended. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact the Office of Mexican Affairs' Border Affairs Unit via email at WHABorderAffairs@state.gov,by phone at 202-647-9894,or by mail at Office of Mexican Affairs—Room 3924, Department of State,2201 C St.NW., Washington,DC 20520.Information about Presidential permits is available on the Internet at http://www.state.gov/ p/wha/rt/permit/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The following is the text of the issued permit: Presidential Permit Authorizing the Otay Water District To Construct,Connect,Operate,and Maintain Cross-Border Water Pipeline Facilities for the importation of Desalinated Seawater at the International Boundary Between the United States and Mexico in San Diego Country,California By virtue of the authority vested in me as the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs including those authorities under Executive Order 11423,33 FR 11741 (1968);as amended by Executive Order 12847 of May 17, 1993,58 FR 29511 (1993),and Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004,69 FR 25299 (2004);and Department of State Delegation of Authority 118-2 of January 26,2006 and Delegation 415 of January 18,2017; having considered the environmental effects of the proposed action consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,as amended (83 Stat.852, 42 U.S.C.4321 et seq.),and other statutes relating to environmental concerns;having considered the proposed action consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,as amended (80 Stat.917,16 U.S.C.470f et seq.);and having requested and received the views of various federal departments,state and local officials,and Indian tribes,and other interested persons;I hereby grant permission,subject to the conditions herein set forth,to the Otay Water District (hereinafter referred to as "permittee")to construct,connect, operate,and maintain cross-border water pipeline facilities for the importation of desalinated seawater at the international boundary between the United States and Mexico in San Diego County,California. The term "facilities"as used in this permit means the relevant portion of the pipeline and any land,structures, installations,or equipment appurtenant thereto as described in the permittee's November 2013 application fora Presidential permit (the "Application").The term "U.S.facilities"as used in this permit means those parts of the facilities in the United States,as described in the Application. This permit is subject to the following conditions:Article 1.(1)The U.S.facilities herein described,and all aspects of their operation,shall be subject to all the conditions,provisions,and requirements of this permit and any amendment thereof.This permit may be terminated at the will of the Secretary of State or the Secretary's delegate or may be amended by the Secretary of State or the Secretary's delegate at will or upon proper application therefore. The permittee shall make no substantial change in the location of the U.S. facilities or in the operation authorized by this permit until such changes have been approved by the Secretary of State or the Secretary's delegate. (2)The construction,connection, operation,and maintenance ofthe facilities shall be in all material respects as described in the Application. Article 2.The standards for,and the manner of,the construction,connection, operation,and maintenance of the U.S. facilities shall be subject to inspection and approval by the representatives of appropriate federal,state,and local agencies.The permittee shall allow duly authorized officers and employees of such agencies free and unrestricted access to said facilities in the performance of their official duties.Article 3.The permittee shall comply with all applicable federal,state,and local laws and regulations regarding the connection,construction, operation,and maintenance of the U.S.facilities and with all applicable industrial codes.The permittee shall obtain all requisite permits from the relevant Mexican authorities as well as from the relevant state and local government entities and relevant federal agencies. Article 4.All construction, connection,operation,and maintenance of the U.S.facilities under this permit shall be subject to the limitations,terms, and conditions issued by any competent agency of the U.S.Government, including but not limited to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)and the U.S.Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC).The permittee shall continue the operations hereby authorized and conduct maintenance in accordance with such limitations,terms, and conditions.Such limitations,terms, and conditions could address,for example,environmental protection and mitigation measures,safety requirements,export or import and customs regulations,measurement capabilities and procedures, requirements pertaining to the pipeline's capacity,and other pipeline regulations.This permit shall continue in force and effect only so long as the permittee shall continue the operations hereby authorized by any competent U.S.government agency in exact accordance with such limitations,terms, and conditions. Article 5.Upon the termination, revocation,or surrender of this permit, and unless otherwise agreed by the 26208 Federal Register/Vol.82,No.107/Tuesday,June 6,2017/Notices Secretary of State or the?Secretary's delegate,the U.S.facilities in the immediate vicinity of the international boundary shall be removed by and at the expense of the permittee within such time as the Secretary of State or the Secretary's delegate may specify,and upon failure of the permittee to remove, or to take such other action with respect to,this portion ofthe U.S.facilities as ordered,the Secretary of State or the Secretary's delegate may direct that possession of such facilities be taken and that they be removed or other action taken,at the expense of the permittee; and the permittee shall have no claim for damages by reason of such possession,removal,or action. Article 6.When,in the opinion of the President of the United States,the national security ofthe United States demands it,due notice being given by the Secretary of State or the Secretary's delegate,the United States shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of any of the U.S.facilities or parts thereof;to retain possession, management,or control thereof for such length of time as may appear to the President to be necessary;and thereafter to restore possession and control to the permittee.In the event that the United States shall exercise such right,it shall pay to the permittee just and fair compensation for the use of such U.S. facilities upon the basis of a reasonable profit in normal conditions and the cost of restoring said facilities to as good condition as existed at the time of entering and taking over the same,less the reasonable value of any improvements that may have been made by the United States.Article 7.Any transfer of ownership or control of the U.S.facilities or any part thereof shall be immediately notified in writing to the U.S. Department of State for approval, including identification of the transferee.In the event of such transfer of ownership or control,this permit shall remain in force and the U.S. facilities shall be subject tn all the conditions,permissions,and requirements of this permit and any amendments thereof. Article 8.(1)The permittee is responsible for acquiring such right-of- way grants or easements,permits,and other authorizations as may become necessary and appropriate. (2)The permittee shall save harmless and indemnify the United States from any claimed or adjudged liability arising out of construction,connection, operation,or maintenance of the facilities. (3)The permittee shall maintain the U.S.facilities and every part thereof in a condition of good repair for their safe operation. (4)The permittee shall obtain a license from the USIBWC before commencing construction, (5)The permittee shall obtain an easement from DHS for any portion of the pipeline that crosses over or under property in which the U.S.Customs and Border Protection owns an interest. (6)The permittee shall obtain a permit from the California Environmental Protection Agency,State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, Article 9.The permittee shall take all appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate adverse environmental impacts or disruption of significant archeological resources in connection with the operation and maintenance of the U.S.facilities,including those mitigation measures set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement dated August 2016 and any additional measures that may be required as result of any reevaluation of the foregoing or in the associated terms of the Biological Opinion to be issued by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Article 10.The permittee shall not begin construction until it has been informed that the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico have exchanged diplomatic notes confirming that both governments authorized the commencement of construction. Article 11,The permittee shall provide written notice to the Department of State at such time as the construction authorized by this permit is begun and again at such time as construction is completed,interrupted, or discontinued. Article 12.The permittee shall file with the appropriate agencies of the U.S.government such statements or reports under oath with respect to the U.S.facilities,and/or the permittee's actions in connection therewith,as are now or may hereafter be required under any laws or regulations of the U.S. government or its agencies. Article 13.This permit shall expire five years from the date of issuance in the event that the permittee has not commenced construction of the facilities by that deadline. In witness whereof,I,Judith G. Garber,Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs,have hereunto set my hand this 16th day of May,2017 in the City of Washington,District of Columbia. Judith G.Garber, Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Oceans and International Environmental And Scientific Affairs. [FR Doc.2017-11675 Filed 6-5-17;8:45 am! BILLING CODE 471CK-29-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property at the Colorado Springs Airport,Colorado Springs,Colorado. AGENCY:Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),DOT. ACTION:Notice of Request to Release Airport Property. SUMMARY:The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of land at the Colorado Springs Airport under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H.Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century [AIR 21). DATES:Comments must be received on or before July 6,2017. ADDRESSES:Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address:Mr. John P.Bauer,Manager,Federal Aviation Administration,Northwest Mountain Region,Airports Division, Denver Airports District Office,26805 E. 68th Avenue,Suite 224,Denver, Colorado 80249-6361. In addition,one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr.Troy Stover,Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado Springs,Colorado,at the following address:Mr.Troy Stover, Colorado Springs Airport,7770 Milton E.Proby Parkway,Suite 50,Colorado Springs,Colorado 80916. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Marc Miller,Colorado Engineer/ Compliance Specialist,Federal Aviation Administration,Northwest Mountain Region,Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E.68th Avenue,Suite 224, Denver,Colorado 80249-6361. The request to release property may be reviewed,by appointment,in person at this same location. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Colorado Springs Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C.47107(h)(2)). On May 16,2017,the FAA determined that the request to release STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 3, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager PROJECT: P2304- 001101 DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Informational Item – Seismic Risk Studies GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: No committee action. PURPOSE: To present to the Board of Directors (Board) information gathered and prepared in evaluating seismic risk studies and the potential risks from a seismic event. ANALYSIS: All of the potable water the District receives is imported water supplied by the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) purchased through the Municipal Water District of Southern California (MWD) and San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority). This dependence on imported water poses challenges to meet water demands after an emergency seismic event. At the request of the Board, staff collected seismic risk studies on water facilities to provide an overview of the risks from a seismic event. 2 The attached Memorandum (Attachment B) summarizes the risks to the District’s water supply, the regional infrastructure built to address these risks, and also provides an overview of District facilities and the built in redundancy in its infrastructures that should help the District to continue to operate during an extreme event. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, “A District that is at the forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. BK/RP:jf P:\Bob Kennedy\Seismic Research\Staff Report\BD 01-03-18 Staff Report - Info Item on Seismic Risk (BK-RP).docx Attachments: Attachment A - Committee Action Attachment B – Explanation on Seismic Risk Studies Attachment C - Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2304-001101 Informational Item – Seismic Risk Studies COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this informational item at a Committee Meeting held on December 12, 2017, and the following comments were made: Staff reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment C to the staff report) with the Committee that included information on the following: o Earthquake Threats to Otay Water District Water Supply o Seismic Loading Criteria Report o Earthquake threats to MWD & SDCWA facilities o MWD Seismic Resiliency Strategy o SDCWA Aqueducts Repair Time Estimates o City of San Diego Assessment o County of San Diego Multi-jurisdictional Plan o San Diego – Tijuana Metropolitan Area Planning Scenario o Sweetwater Authority Investigations o Helix Water District Investigations o Padre Dam MWD o Otay Water Facilities o Geohazards within District Boundary o Otay Water District Seismic Risks o District Reservoirs o District Pump Stations o District Sewer Lift Stations Staff noted that the Carlsbad Desalination Project is another example of a water seismic resiliency strategy. Staff stated that the State adopted the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972, and the Seismic Hazards 4 Mapping Act in 1990. These Acts direct the State Geologist to delineate regulatory “Zones of Required Investigation” to reduce the threat to public health and safety. Staff noted that these zones are not within the Otay Water District’s jurisdictional boundary. It was indicated that the District could perform a GIS query that provides data on all of its reservoirs. Staff showed a table that contained information from the District’s GIS system, which highlighted older facilities that were constructed prior to 1988. Staff indicated that the 571-1 & 870-1 Reservoirs will be replaced as part of the 870-2 Reservoir Replacement Project that is currently in construction. Staff stated that sometime in the upcoming year, the Steel Canyon Bridge sewer system will be added to the 6-Year CIP Budget for replacement. In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that the District performed a criticality assessment to determine which facilities have the potential to cause more impacts to the District and its customers. Upon completion of the discussion, the Committee accepted staffs’ report and supported presentation to the full board as an informational item. ATTACHMENT B Overview All of the potable water the District receives is imported water supplied by the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) purchased through the Municipal Water District of Southern California (MWD) and San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority). This dependence on imported water poses challenges to meet water demands after an emergency seismic event. At the request of the Board, staff have collected seismic risk studies on water facilities to provide an overview of the risks from a seismic event. State Water Project The SWP facilities were built in the 1960s, however, over the last fifty years, the design and construction standards have improved in the area of seismic design requirements. Seismic loading on these facilities is considered to have the potential to do the most damage to the SWP facilities, which could interrupt water supplies to California. The September 2012 Seismic Loading Criteria Report, prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), is a guideline in selecting appropriate seismic loading criteria for the design and evaluation for a wide variety of SWP facilities, including dams, canals, pipelines, tunnels, check structures, bridges, buildings, pumping and power plants, and utility overcrossings. This report also offers an initial seismic hazard determination of SWP facilities. In August 2015, DWR. MWD and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power formed the Seismic Resilience Water Supply Task Force (SRWSTF) to improve the seismic resilience of imported water supplies to Southern California and to collaborate on studies and mitigation measures that address the vulnerabilities of aqueducts that cross faults. With this multiagency cooperation, they will be revisiting assumptions regarding potential outages from seismic events, establish a common understanding about individual aqueduct vulnerability assessments and projected damage scenarios. MWD Facilities Portions of the Colorado River Aqueduct are located near earthquake faults including the San Andreas Fault. The five pumping plants on the Colorado River Aqueduct have been buttressed to better withstand seismic events. Other components of the Colorado River Aqueduct are measured for any necessary rehabilitation and repair. Supplies are dispersed throughout MWD’s service area, and a six-month reserve supply of water normally held in local storage provides reasonable assurances of continuing water supplies following seismic events. MWD has developed an emergency plan that calls for specific levels of response appropriate to an earthquake magnitude and location. However, no assurance can be made that a significant seismic event would not cause damage to project structures, which could, thereby, interrupt the supply of water from the Colorado River Aqueduct. 2 MWD has adopted a Seismic Resiliency Strategy and has invested $257 million in this effort over the last 10 years. MWD’s Emergency Response Program includes a dedicated pipe manufacture facility in La Verne with materials and dedicated crew to fabricate pipe up to 20 feet in diameter. They have also prequalified contractors that can mobilize in an emergency. They estimate up to 6 large diameter repairs can be made in one week. Two by MWD’s staff and 4 by hired contractors. Annually MWD’s Board will received a report on this program. Water Authority Vulnerability Report The Water Authority facilities are designed to withstand earthquakes with minimal damage. Earthquake loads have been taken into consideration in the design of project structures such as pumping plants and hydroelectric plants. All known faults are crossed by pipelines at very shallow depths to facilitate repair in case of damage from movement along a fault. To date, no Water Authority facilities have suffered any material earthquake damage. In 1993, the Water Authority issued a vulnerability report entitled, Emergency Storage Project SDCWA Aqueducts Repair Time Estimate (see Attachment A), which estimated the degree of damage to pipelines and the amount of time required to restore services after a natural disaster, particularly earthquakes. The Water Authority has since implemented a number of procedures to respond to emergency events, including the Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) and the Emergency Storage Program (ESP), both of which were developed to protect public health and safety. The Water Authority’s ICP and ESP provide actions to be taken in the event of an earthquake or power outage. The ESP was designed to allow continued water service to its member agencies at a 75 percent level of service or better up to six months, in the event of a complete interruption of water deliveries from MWD. A recommendation of the Water Authority’s 2013 Master Plan Update included a System Vulnerability Assessment focusing on structure integrity of critical facilities. This study will focus on facilities with limited condition assessment data or that are not fully covered by the Asset Management Program. At the August 24, 2017 Board meeting, the Board authorized the General Manager for the Water Authority to award a professional services contract to Kleinfelder, Inc., to complete the seismic vulnerability assessment. The City of San Diego Seismic Assessment The City of San Diego with G&E Engineering Systems prepared an abstract entitled, Seismic Assessment of the San Diego Water System. This report identified faults, landslide, and liquefaction prone areas of the City and estimated the length of pipe in each hazard zone. Their fragility model identified the bulk of damage is due to liquefaction, followed by landslides. They also identified the number of pump stations 3 expected to lose power from SDG&E and recommended portable power is needed where fire threat is high following an earthquake. County of San Diego Multi-jurisdictional Plan The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all local governments to create a disaster plan in order to qualify for hazard mitigation funding. San Diego County Multi- jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was one of the first in the State to tackle this planning effort on a region-wide basis and was last revised in 2010. The plan is currently being reviewed and revised to reflect changes to both the hazards threatening San Diego as well as the programs in place to minimize or eliminate those hazards. This document also includes maps identifying earthquake, liquefaction, and rain induced landslide areas of the county. San Diego – Tijuana Metropolitan Area Planning Scenario An October 1991 study by the State of California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology entitled, “Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake, San Diego- Tijuana Metropolitan Area,” presented a regional perspective on the plausible consequences of credible damage from an earthquake of magnitude 6.8 on the Silver Strand fault south of downtown San Diego. This report notes historic seismic activity within the metropolitan area has been limited: damaging earthquakes occurred only in 1800, 1862, 1983, 1985, and 1986. None of these earthquakes produced serious damage. This report notes it is anticipated that all water systems within the region will suffer some damage. In areas of intense shaking and/or ground failure, two to four main breaks in every residential block will be common where cast iron or asbestos cement pipe is used. There were some reports of broken pipes following the October 28, 1986 earthquake in southeast San Diego (M4.1). The report recommends restoration of water mains begins at the lowest topographic point, progressing uphill so that broken sewers in the same areas do not contaminate still broken water lines. The extent of damage to the distribution system may not be known until water pressure is restored and leaks identified. For this reason, it could take weeks to totally repair damage in the densely populated, heavily damaged areas. Other Water Agencies Sweetwater Authority Several adjacent agencies were contacted to identify seismic studies on infrastructure. In 2006, Sweetwater Authority had GEI Consultants prepare a study on a tank built in 1950. Their study confirmed that this tank would experience significant bottom plate uplift, but suggest that it would be capable of resisting the specified earthquake loading 4 without experiencing global sliding and overturning/overstressing of its shell. However, uplift would be significant enough to potentially shear off the inlet/outlet and bottom drain piping, resulting in probable loss of the contained water. Newer AWWA D 100-96 standards would require a new tank of similar dimensional characteristics to be anchored or alternative procedures to be implemented (e.g., bottom plate thickening). Considering the age of this tank and the performance requirements outlined by Sweetwater Authority, they recommended adding flexibility to the attached piping and relocating the bottom drain outlet, which may provide a cost-effective way to maintain safe storage under earthquake shaking. An update on their current practices was requested, but to date no new information has been received. Helix Water District Helix Water District provided a report dated November 1988 entitled, Seismic Review of Storage Facilities, which provided a conceptual method of repair and an estimate of construction costs for 20 tanks (37 MG total). The fifteen page report used seismic evaluation criteria available at the time from Uniform Building Code and AWWA. Since this report, seven tanks (5.7 MG) have been replaced or retired. The total rudimentary cost for the retrofits for the seven tanks was estimated to be $1,114,900 (an average cost of $196,000/MG). Nine tanks (23 MG) had some seismic modification made that ranged from adding a flexible connection to adding thickening bottom plates and foundation anchors. The total rudimentary cost for the retrofits for the nine tanks was estimated to be $547,700 (an average cost of $23,800/MG). Padre Dam MWD Padre Dam deferred questions about their reservoirs to their consultant, Kleinfelder, Inc., who has not provided any information to date on what they have recommended. Padre Dam does have a CIP referred to as the “Five Reservoirs Retrofit Program.” The plan included the replacement of old wood roofs on their in ground reservoirs with new aluminum covers, extending the life of the reservoirs and bringing them into compliance with current building and seismic codes. Padre Dam has 25 water storage reservoirs with 56 MG of effective storage capacity, the majority of which is located in the Eastern Service Area, with 33 MG of storage (59 percent of total). The remaining 23 MG (41 percent) of storage is located in the Western Service Area. Padre Dam’s storage volume (30.7 MG, 55 percent) is stored in variable area concrete reservoirs that is part of the “Five Reservoirs Retrofit Program.” To date, Kleinfelder, Inc. has not provided any information about their work with Padre Dam. They did share information on the cost of a recently completed study of 24 reservoirs (half steel tanks and half concrete tanks) for the City of San Bernardino of about $10,000 per site. 5 Otay WD Facilities The District is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last 11,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively). Major known active faults in the region consist generally of en-echelon, northwest-striking, right-lateral, strike-slip faults. These include the Rose Canyon, Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente faults located to the west of the District. The location of these faults are shown on Figure 1. Based on published geological data, the Rose Canyon fault is the closest active fault to the District capable of generating a maximum moment magnitude 6.9 earthquake. The La Nacion fault zone is not plotted within the District boundary on this exhibit, but is not considered active. It is located in the southwest portion of the District near the Rancho del Rey community of the City of Chula Vista. No District facilities are located within a State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone for earthquake faults. Similar to the City of San Diego, the highest risk for the District are breaks in the pipelines that make up the District’s transmission and distribution system. The City of San Diego report notes liquefaction as the highest pipeline risk hazard followed by landslides and faults. On Figure 2, areas of liquefaction and landslide prone areas within the District are identified. Any pipeline crossing one of these zones could be affected during a seismic event. Unlike the City of San Diego, the District’s pump stations already have onsite generators to respond where fire threat is high following an earthquake. All reservoirs and pump stations constructed after 1988 are assumed to be resistant to earthquakes due to seismic requirements included in the 1988 Uniform Building Code (1988 UBC). Table-1 identifies District reservoirs and the date of construction. Approximately half (21 out of 40 total) of the District’s potable reservoirs were constructed after that 1988 UBC update. The District’s newer reservoirs would be relied on, following an earthquake, to continue to provide water to their pressure zone(s). The District’s oldest reservoir was constructed in 1957, but will be retired after it reaches the end of its useful life. This reservoir storage is not needed in the north district with the construction of the Jamacha Road 36-Inch pipeline to FCF No. 14 and the construction of the two 640 reservoirs in 2009. The 978-1 reservoir constructed in 1959 is the second oldest reservoir in the District and one of the smallest at 0.53 MG. The 978-2 reservoir was constructed in 1992 to provide an additional 2.5 MG of storage to this pressure zone. The District typically has multiple reservoirs for each pressure zone to provide more storage and add redundancy if one reservoir is taken out of service for maintenance or is damaged. Every time the District rehabilitates a reservoir, the components replaced are designed to meet the latest seismic requirements. Staff also contacted NV5 about their experience on reservoir retrofit recommendations. They noted that they have provided services for six reservoirs with some being roof rafter replacement with new center halo support and others more extensive adding 6 thickening bottom plates and foundation anchors. They noted the costs for the retrofit can approach the cost of replacement of the reservoir. Table-2 identifies District pump stations and the date of construction. Approximately 60% (13 out of 21 total) of the District’s pump stations were constructed after that 1988 UBC update. Many of these can pump to a closed pressure system, if a reservoir is out of service. Multiple pump stations serve the 980 pressure zone, one of the District’s largest service areas. Two trailer mounted portable pumps are also available to be put into service in critical areas of the District on an emergency basis. Table-3 identifies District sewer lift stations. Only one sewer pump station, of the five total, was constructed after the 1988 UBC update. Also, the RWCWRF treatment plant was built prior to the 1988 UBC update. All new and replacement District facilities are built to meet California seismic code requirements. The District has planned for and built in redundancy in its infrastructure that should help the District to continue to operate during an extreme event. The District will continue to monitor studies prepared by the Water Authority and other agencies on their emergency preparations. Attachments: Attachment A – Emergency Storage Project SDCWA Aqueducts Repair Time Estimate Figure 1 – Geohazard from Faults near the District Figure 2 – Geohazard from Liquefaction and Landslides Table 1 – Reservoir Data Table 2 – Pump Station Data Table 3 – Sewer Lift Station Data OTAY WATER DISTRICTGEOHAZARD WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARYVICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 F P: \ D R A F T I N G D E P A R T M E N T \ I n f o f o r O t h e r s \ O W D \ B o b K \ G e o h a z a r d R e s e a r c h \ F i g u r e 1 , G e o h a z a r d V i n i c i t y M a p . m x d §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 ÃÅ52 ÃÅ125 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ67 ÃÅ905ÃÅ905 ÃÅ125 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ52 ÃÅ905 ÃÅ94 0 52.5 Miles Legend GEO_POTENTIAL_LIQUEFACTION_CN LANDSLIDES-Confirmed, known, or highlysuspected LANDSLIDES-possible or conjectured LIQUEFACTION-High Potential-shallowgroundwater major drainages, hydraulic fills LIQUEFACTION-Low Potential-fluctuatinggroundwater minor drainages, hydraulic fills Earthquake_Faults_SD OWD Boundary OTAY WATER DISTRICTGEOHAZARD WITHIN DISTRICT BOUNDARYLOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 F P: \ D R A F T I N G D E P A R T M E N T \ I n f o f o r O t h e r s \ O W D \ B o b K \ G e o h a z a r d R e s e a r c h \ F i g u r e 2 , G e o h a z a r d w i t h i n O W D B o u n d a r y . m x d §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦8 §¨¦5 ÃÅ125 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ52 ÃÅ905 ÃÅ67 ÃÅ905 ÃÅ67 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ125 ÃÅ905ÃÅ905 0 31.5 Miles Legend GEO_POTENTIAL_LIQUEFACTION_CN LANDSLIDES-Confirmed, known, or highlysuspected LANDSLIDES-possible or conjectured LIQUEFACTION-High Potential-shallowgroundwater major drainages, hydraulic fills LIQUEFACTION-Low Potential-fluctuatinggroundwater minor drainages, hydraulic fills Earthquake_Faults_SD OWD Boundary Table-1 Reservoir Data Initial Potable Potable Potable Potable Total Storage Low Water Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Capacity Diameter Elevation ConstructionCount I.D. Name Type (MG) (FT) (FT) Year 1 803-1 Vista Grande Reservoir Steel Ground n/a 68 764 n/a2 546-1 1-3 Reservoir Steel Ground n/a 86 507 n/a3 1004-1 1-4 Reservoir Steel Ground n/a 55 981 n/a4 520-1 Regulatory Reservoir Circular Concrete Ground n/a 117 500 n/a5 613-1 5-1 Reservoir Steel Ground n/a 85 590 n/a6 451-1 1-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 0.98 80 425 1959 1 803-2 20-3 Reservoir Steel Ground 2.00 100 769 19792 803-3 Singing Hills Reservoir Steel Ground 2.15 106 771 19863 803-4 Vista Grande Reservoir Steel Ground 5.76 146 757 20064 978-1 3-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 0.53 54 947 19595 978-2 Filiponi Reservoir Rectangular Concrete Ground 2.50 n/a 950 19926 1200-1 Grant Reservoir Steel Ground 1.00 73 1168 19967 657-1 1-1 Reservoir Steel Ground 1.00 74 626 19578 657-2 1-1A Reservoir Steel Ground 0.84 68 626 1990 9 850-1 1-5 Reservoir Steel Ground 1.12 70 812 1959 10 850-2 20-1 Reservoir Steel Ground 3.10 130 819 1976 11 850-3 20-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 3.02 95 794 1984 12 850-4 20-2A Reservoir Steel Ground 2.20 112 821 2010 13 1004-2 Dictionary Hill Reservoir Steel Ground 1.40 82 972 2004 14 520-2 Regulatory Reservoir Steel Ground 5.10 208 500 1983 15 520-3 Regulatory Reservoir Rectangular Concrete Ground 20.00 n/a 496 1992 16 640-1 Regulatory Reservoir Rectangular Concrete Ground 10.00 268 616 2009 17 640-2 Regulatory Reservoir Rectangular Concrete Ground 10.00 268 616 2009 18 832-1 2-1 Reservoir Circular Concrete Ground 0.87 98 817 1962 19 832-2 2-1A Reservoir Steel Ground 1.96 103 801 1991 20 944-1 9-1 Reservoir Steel Ground 0.31 41 913 1962 21 944-2 9-1A Reservoir Steel Ground 3.08 130 913 1992 22 1090-1 2-2 Reservoir Circular Concrete Ground 0.47 73 1075 196223 1296-1 9-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 1.02 75 1979 196224 1296-2 9-2A Reservoir Steel Ground 2.01 105 1265 199125 1296-3 9-2B Reservoir Steel Ground 2.00 need data need data 201026 1485-1 9-3 Reservoir Steel Ground 0.31 41 1931 196227 1485-2 9-3A Reservoir Steel Ground 1.60 92 1453 200628 458-1 10-1 Reservoir Steel Ground 0.82 67 1975 196429 458-2 10-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 1.75 98 1933 196730 485-1 22-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 1.00 74 454 198331 624-1 Patzig Reservoir ned and Covered Earthen Embankme 12.40 n/a 600 196732 624-2 22-3 Reservoir Steel Ground 8.13 208 592 198833 624-3 EastLake Greens Reserv Rectangular Concrete Ground 30.00 n/a 599 1997 34 711-1 22-1 Reservoir Steel Ground 3.10 130 680 1976 35 711-2 22-1A Reservoir Steel Ground 2.30 112 680 1993 36 711-3 22-1B Reservoir ned and Covered Earthen Embankme 16.00 n/a 689 2002 37 980-1 22-4 Reservoir Steel Ground 5.02 160 946 1985 38 980-2 22-5 Reservoir Steel Ground 5.02 160 946 1989 39 571-1 Roll Reservoir ned and Covered Earthen Embankme 36.72 n/a 543 1967 40 870-1 Upper Reservoir ned and Covered Earthen Embankme 10.98 n/a 847 1963 218.59 Initial Recycled Recycled Recycled Recycled Total Storage Low Water ReservoirReservoirReservoirReservoirReservoirCapacity Diameter Elevation Construction Count I.D. Name Type (MG) (FT) (FT) Year 1 450-1 Land Fill Site Steel Ground 12.00 257 420 20072 680-1 Sunset View Park Circular Concrete Buried 3.40 155 656 20043 927-1 Pond No. 1 ned and Covered Earthen Embankme 12.00 n/a need data 19794 927-2 Pond No. 4 ned and Covered Earthen Embankme 16.30 n/a need data 1979 Demolished Currently in Service Recycled Currently in Service Table-2 Pump Station Data Existing Initial Potable Potable Potable Potable Firm Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Capacity Construction Count I.D. Name Type (GPM) Year 1 1004-1 Buena Vista n/a n/a n/a 2 832-1 2-1 n/a n/a n/a 3 803-1 Hillsdale n/a n/a n/a 4 944-1 9-1 n/a n/a n/a 5 1296-1 9-2 n/a n/a n/a 6 1485-1 9-3 n/a n/a n/a7 711-1 Central Area n/a n/a n/a8 657-1 La Presa 657 No building 600 19899 850-1 La Presa 850 No building 2,400 1989 10 690-1 Dorchester No building 200 1959 1 850-2 Copps Lane Building 6,000 1996 2 1004-2 Buena Vista Building 1,000 2001 3 1050-1 Pointe Building 240 2002 4 803-2 Hillsdale Building 10,400 1996 5 978-1 Vista Grande No building 2,250 1959 6 1200-1 3-2 No building 1,000 19767 860-1 Cottonwood Concrete vault 100 19808 832-2 2-1A Building 5,200 19959 1090-1 2-2 Building 280 1962 10 944-2 9-1A Building 3,540 1988 11 1296-2 9-2A Building 3,300 1993 12 1485-2 9-3A Building 1,000 2010 13 1655-1 Rancho Jamul Building 600 1979 14 1530-1 Vista Diego No building 260 1965 15 711-2 Central Area Building 16,000 1992 16 980-1 EastLake Building 8,000 1988 17 980-2 EastLake Green Building 15,000 2006 18 624-1 Lower Otay Trailer Mounted 14,000 2006 19 1100-1 Rolling Hills Building 816 2006 20 571-1 Low Head No building 13,700 1966 21 870-1 High Head No building 13,400 1961 Initial Recycled Recycled Recycled Recycled Existing Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Capacity Construction Count I.D. Name Type (GPM) Year 1 680-1 Land Fill Site Building 12,000 20072 944-1 Sunset Park Concrete vault 4,920 20043 927-1 Treatment Plant Building 1979 Demolished Currently in Service Recycled Currently in Service Table-3 Sewer Lift Station Data Initial Sewer Sewer Sewer Existing Pump Station Lift Station Lift Station Lift Station Capacity Construction Count Name Type (GPM)Year 1 Calavo Concrete vault 800 2009 2 Cottonwood Fiberglass vault 500 1985 3 Hidden Mountain Fiberglass 30 1978 4 Russell Square Concrete vault 10 1984 5 Steel Bridge Concrete vault 900 1971 6 Rancho SD Building 1990 Seismic Risks Otay Water District Board Presentation January 3, 2018 ATTACHMENT C 2 Earthquake Threats to Otay WD Water Supply Source: LA Times 3 Seismic Loading Criteria Report •Objective –Develop design criteria –Evaluation of SWP facilities –Seismic hazard determination of SWP facilities Source: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/swp/swp_seismic_loading_criteria_report/swp_seismic_loading_criteria_report.pdf 4 Earthquake threats to MWD & SDCWA facilities •Aqueducts –Check structures on fault crossings –Shallow facilities allow quicker repairs •5 Pump Stations on CRA have been buttressed •6 months supply in local storage 5 MWD Seismic Resiliency Strategy •MWD has invested $257 million in seismic resilience project over the last 10 years. •Emergency Response Program –La Verne facility maintains materials and dedicated crews that can fabricate pipe up to 20 feet in diameter –Urgent repair contractors have been prequalified and can quickly mobilize in an emergency –MWD estimates up to 6 large diameter repairs can be made in one week of a major seismic event •A report detailing seismic resiliency program will be presented to MWD’s Board annually. 6 SDCWA Aqueducts Repair Time Estimates •2013 Master Plan Limited Vulnerability Assessment •Emergency Storage Program –75% LOS for 2 months for pipeline repair and 6 months for MWD supply interruption •Complete System Vulnerability Assessment by Kleinfelder, Inc. (SDCWA August 24, 2017) 7 City of San Diego Assessment •Identified faults, landslide and liquefaction zones and length of pipe damaged from each fault •Identified the number of PS that would lose power –Recommend portable power will be needed where fire threat is high •Fragility model identified the bulk of the damage is due to liquefaction followed by landslides Source: http://www.geengineeringsystems.com/ewExternalFiles/SanDiegoWaterRisk.pdf 8 County of San Diego Multi-jurisdictional Plan •Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all local government to create a disaster plan •Region-wide plan last revised in 2010 •Includes maps identifying hazards –Earthquake –Liquefaction –Landslides Source: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitplan.html 9 San Diego –Tijuana Metropolitan Area Planning Scenario •Report notes historic seismic activity within the metropolitan area has been limited. •Damaging earthquakes occurred only in 1800, 1862, 1983, 1985, and 1986. None of these earthquakes produced serious damage. •Anticipates two to four main breaks in every residential block will be common. •Extent of damage may not be known until water pressure restored. Source: https://archive.org/stream/planningscenario100reic/planningscenario100reic_djvu.txt 10 Other Agencies 11 Sweetwater Authority Investigations •1950 tank investigated by GEI in 2006. –Identified potential for uplift would require anchoring and thickening of bottom plate. –SWA considered cost, age, and service performance requirements and opted to add flexible connections and relocate the bottom drain. •An update of their current practices was requested, but no other information received to date. 12 Helix Water District Investigations •Provided a report dated November 1988. –Provided conceptual method of repair and estimate of cost to upgrade 20 tanks (37 MG total). –Fifteen page report used seismic criteria available at the time. –Since this report, 7 tanks (5.7 MG) have been replaced or retired. –Nine tanks had some seismic modifications made (adding flexible connections, thickening bottom plates, and foundation anchors estimated to be $550,000. •An update of their current practices was requested, but no other information received to date. 13 Padre Dam MWD •Deferred questions to their consultant, Kleinfelder, Inc. who has not provided any information to date on what they recommended. •Padre had a CIP known as the “Five Reservoirs Retrofit Program.” –Plan includes the replacement of old wood roofs on in ground reservoirs with seismic retrofits. •An update of their current practices was requested, but no other information received to date. 14 Otay WD Facilities 15 Otay WD Facilities •Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972) and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) direct the State Geologist to delineate regulatory "Zones of Required Investigation" to reduce the threat to public health and safety. Source: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps 16 Geohazards within District Boundary 17 Otay WD Seismic Risks •The District has planned for and built in redundancy in its infrastructure that should help the District to continue to operate during an extreme event. •The District will continue to monitor studies prepared by the Water Authority and other agencies on their emergency preparations. 18 District Reservoirs Table-1 Reservoir Data Potable Potable Potable Potable Total Storage Low Water Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Capacity Diameter Elevation Construction Count I.D.Name Type (MG)(FT)(FT)Year 1 803-2 20-3 Reservoir Steel Ground 2.00 100 769 1979 2 803-3 Singing Hills Reservoir Steel Ground 2.15 106 771 1986 3 803-4 Vista Grande Reservoir Steel Ground 5.76 146 757 2006 4 978-1 3-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 0.53 54 947 1959 5 978-2 Filiponi Reservoir Rectangular Concrete Ground 2.50 n/a 950 1992 6 1200-1 Grant Reservoir Steel Ground 1.00 73 1168 1996 7 657-1 1-1 Reservoir Steel Ground 1.00 74 626 1957 8 657-2 1-1A Reservoir Steel Ground 0.84 68 626 1990 9 850-1 1-5 Reservoir Steel Ground 1.12 70 812 1959 10 850-2 20-1 Reservoir Steel Ground 3.10 130 819 1976 11 850-3 20-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 3.02 95 794 1984 12 850-4 20-2A Reservoir Steel Ground 2.20 112 821 2010 13 1004-2 Dictionary Hill Reservoir Steel Ground 1.40 82 972 2004 14 520-2 Regulatory Reservoir Steel Ground 5.10 208 500 1983 15 520-3 Regulatory Reservoir Rectangular Concrete Ground 20.00 n/a 496 1992 16 640-1 Regulatory Reservoir Rectangular Concrete Ground 10.00 268 616 2009 17 640-2 Regulatory Reservoir Rectangular Concrete Ground 10.00 268 616 2009 18 832-1 2-1 Reservoir Circular Concrete Ground 0.87 98 817 1962 19 832-2 2-1A Reservoir Steel Ground 1.96 103 801 1991 20 944-1 9-1 Reservoir Steel Ground 0.31 41 913 1962 21 944-2 9-1A Reservoir Steel Ground 3.08 130 913 1992 22 1090-1 2-2 Reservoir Circular Concrete Ground 0.47 73 1075 1962 23 1296-1 9-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 1.02 75 1979 1962 24 1296-2 9-2A Reservoir Steel Ground 2.01 105 1265 1991 25 1296-3 9-2B Reservoir Steel Ground 2.00 need data need data 2010 26 1485-1 9-3 Reservoir Steel Ground 0.31 41 1931 1962 27 1485-2 9-3A Reservoir Steel Ground 1.60 92 1453 2006 28 458-1 10-1 Reservoir Steel Ground 0.82 67 1975 1964 29 458-2 10-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 1.75 98 1933 1967 30 485-1 22-2 Reservoir Steel Ground 1.00 74 454 1983 31 624-1 Patzig Reservoir Lined and Covered Earthen Embankment 12.40 n/a 600 1967 32 624-2 22-3 Reservoir Steel Ground 8.13 208 592 1988 33 624-3 EastLake Greens ReservoirRectangular Concrete Ground 30.00 n/a 599 1997 34 711-1 22-1 Reservoir Steel Ground 3.10 130 680 1976 35 711-2 22-1A Reservoir Steel Ground 2.30 112 680 1993 36 711-3 22-1B Reservoir Lined and Covered Earthen Embankment 16.00 n/a 689 2002 37 980-1 22-4 Reservoir Steel Ground 5.02 160 946 1985 38 980-2 22-5 Reservoir Steel Ground 5.02 160 946 1989 39 571-1 Roll Reservoir Lined and Covered Earthen Embankment 36.72 n/a 543 1967 40 870-1 Upper Reservoir Lined and Covered Earthen Embankment 10.98 n/a 847 1963 218.59 19 District Pump Stations Table-2 Pump Station Data Existing Initial Potable Potable Potable Potable Firm Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Pump Station Capacity Construction Count I.D.Name Type (GPM)Year 1 850-2 Copps Lane Building 6,000 1996 2 1004-2 Buena Vista Building 1,000 2001 3 1050-1 Pointe Building 240 2002 4 803-2 Hillsdale Building 10,400 1996 5 978-1 Vista Grande No building 2,250 1959 6 1200-1 3-2 No building 1,000 1976 7 860-1 Cottonwood Concrete vault 100 1980 8 832-2 2-1A Building 5,200 1995 9 1090-1 2-2 Building 280 1962 10 944-2 9-1A Building 3,540 1988 11 1296-2 9-2A Building 3,300 1993 12 1485-2 9-3A Building 1,000 2010 13 1655-1 Rancho Jamul Building 600 1979 14 1530-1 Vista Diego No building 260 1965 15 711-2 Central Area Building 16,000 1992 16 980-1 EastLake Building 8,000 1988 17 980-2 EastLake Greens Building 15,000 2006 18 624-1 Lower Otay Trailer Mounted 14,000 2006 19 1100-1 Rolling Hills Building 816 2006 20 571-1 Low Head No building 13,700 1966 21 870-1 High Head No building 13,400 1961 20 District Sewer Lift Stations Table-3 Sewer Lift Station Data Initial Sewer Sewer Sewer Existing Pump Station Lift Station Lift Station Lift Station Capacity Construction Count Name Type (GPM) Year 1 Calavo Concrete vault 800 2009 2 Cottonwood Fiberglass vault 500 1985 3 Hidden Mountain Fiberglass 30 1978 4 Russell Square Concrete vault 10 1984 5 Steel Bridge Concrete vault 900 1971 6 Rancho SD Building 1990 21 Questions? STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 3, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Dan Martin Engineering Manager PROJECT: VARIOUS DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Informational Item – First Quarter Fiscal Year 2018 Capital Improvement Program Report GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To update the Board about the status of all CIP project expenditures and to highlight significant issues, progress, and milestones on major projects. ANALYSIS: To keep up with growth and to meet our ratepayers' expectations to adequately deliver safe, reliable, cost-effective, and quality water, each year the District staff prepares a Six-Year CIP Plan that identifies the District’s infrastructure needs. The CIP is comprised of four categories consisting of backbone capital facilities, replacement/renewal projects, capital purchases, and developer's reimbursement projects. 2 The First Quarter Fiscal Year 2018 update is intended to provide a detailed analysis of progress in completing these projects within the allotted time and budget of $20.1 million. Expenditures through the First Quarter totaled approximately $1.9 million. Approximately 9% of the Fiscal Year 2018 expenditure budget was spent (see Attachment B). As part of the Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2017 Capital Improvement Program Report, staff was directed to explore the feasibility of providing a fiscal year graph showing a connection between total CIP project completion status vs. total CIP expenditures. In reviewing the feasibility of the requested graph, staff has noted that there are specific challenges with how to represent the different project phases for multi-year projects within a fiscal year and present them in a meaningful way that would add value to the Board’s decision- making process. Staff notes that visibility and transparency regarding an individual project’s progress is communicated within the comments provided in the Expenditure Report (see Attachment B) that is part of this staff report. Progress and CIP project completion is also provided on a project by project basis in the General Manager’s report. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only. STRATEGIC GOAL: The Capital Improvement Program supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner” and the District’s Vision, “A District that is at the forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.” LEGAL IMPACT: None. DM/RP:jf P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2018\Q1\Staff Report\BD 01-03-18 Staff Report First Quarter FY 2018 CIP Report (DM-RP).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B - Fiscal Year 2018 First Quarter CIP Expenditure Report Attachment C – Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: VARIOUS Informational Item – First Quarter Fiscal Year 2018 Capital Improvement Program Report COMMITTEE ACTION: The Committee waived staffs’ report and supported presentation to the full board as an informational item. FISCAL YEAR 2018 1st QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 09/30/2017) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2018 09/30/17 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2018 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Comments CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS - P2040 Res - 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG Cameron 20$ 12$ 8$ 60%3,400$ 514$ 2,886$ 15% Project is in the early planning stages. Construction is scheduled for FY 2020. P2267 36-Inch Main Pumpouts and Air/Vacuum Ventilation Installations Martin 10 3 7 30%700 696 4 99% Construction complete in FY 2017 Q4. Project one year warranty scheduled to complete in FY 2018 Q4. P2382 Safety and Security Improvements Payne 150 78 72 52%3,251 2,885 366 89% On schedule 2018; anticipated completion 2019. P2405 PL - 624/340 PRS, Paseo Ranchero and Otay Valley Road Cameron 5 - 5 0%650 - 650 0% This is tied to P2553 and is driven by the City of Chula Vista. Construction is scheduled for FY 2022. P2451 Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Kennedy 50 18 32 36%4,300 3,783 517 88% EIR/EIS complete and Presidential permit issued. Continue meetings with DDW and AdR. Source water testing is ongoing. P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations Marchioro 50 6 44 12%4,000 1,626 2,374 41% Project accelerated to meet Caltrans current schedule. Design consultant selection for Enrico Fermi and Alta Road crossings completed FY 2018 Q1. Completion of design anticipated March 2018. Completion of construction dependent on Caltrans contractor; however, anticipated FY 2020. P2460 I.D. 7 Trestle and Pipeline Demolition Beppler 5 - 5 0%600 5 595 1% Demolition scheduled for FY 2020, with environmental work to be performed in FY 2019. P2485 SCADA - Infrastructure and Communications Replacement Kerr 181 105 76 58%2,328 1,878 450 81% Expenses on target for remainder of fiscal year. P2494 Multiple Species Conservation Plan Coburn-Boyd 30 1 29 3%950 909 41 96%On track to be completed in FY 2018. P2500 Padre Dam - Otay Interconnection Dehesa Valley Marchioro 60 - 60 0%140 - 140 0% Project is driven by Padre Dam pipeline extension to District boundary. P2504 Regulatory Site Access Road and Pipeline Relocation Cameron 20 - 20 0%462 331 131 72%Project is driven by County Fire. P2516 PL - 12-Inch, 640 Zone, Jamacha Road - Darby/Osage Marchioro - - - 0%900 - 900 0% No project expenditures anticipated in FY 2018. Construction is scheduled for FY 2021. P2520 Motorola Mobile Radio Upgrade Martinez 30 - 30 0%120 82 38 68% Anticipate this project to complete this Fiscal Year. P2521 Large Meter Vault Upgrade Program Carey 25 16 9 64%620 278 342 45%On track. P2547 District Administration Vehicle Charging Stations Cameron 20 13 7 65%125 45 80 36%Construction is complete. Project is in the Warranty period. P2553 Heritage Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 50 2 48 4%1,430 17 1,413 1% Project is in the Planning stage. Project is driven by City of Chula Vista's schedule for replacement. P2568 Technology Business Processes Improvement - Enterprise Content Management System Kerr 36 64 (28) 178%245 210 35 86%Plan on purchasing Psigen Scanning Solution ($36K). P2571 Datacenter Network- Data, Storage, and Infrastructure Enhancements Kerr - - - 0%200 - 200 0%Project on schedule for FY 2019. P2572 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Replacement Kerr - - - 0%500 - 500 0%Project on schedule for FY 2021. P2584 Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions Marchioro - - - 0%35 - 35 0% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2018. These reservoirs are scheduled to be removed at the end of their useful life in FY 2023. P2608 PL - 8-inch, 850 Zone, Coronado Ave, Chestnut/Apple Cameron 10 - 10 0%350 - 350 0% Project is in the early Planning stage. Construction is scheduled for FY 2020. P2611 Quarry Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 5 - 5 0%1,000 - 1,000 0% Project is in the early Planning stage. Project is driven by County's schedule for replacement. P2612 PL - 12-inch, 711 Zone, Pas de Luz/Telegraph Canyon Rd Cameron 5 - 5 0%500 - 500 0% Project is in the early Planning stage. Construction is scheduled for FY 2021. P2613 PL - 12-inch, 520 Zone, Rancho San Diego Towne Center Loop Cameron 10 - 10 0%150 - 150 0% Project is in the early Planning stage. Construction is scheduled for FY 2020. P2614 485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron - - - 0%895 - 895 0%No project expenditures in FY 2018. P2617 Lobby Security Enhancements Payne 75 - 75 0%75 - 75 0%In planning stage. P2619 PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Redundancy Marchioro 20 6 14 30%635 6 629 1% Project on track. District engineering staff commenced concept development/ alternatives analysis in house. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2020. P2620 Radio and Emergency Communication System Kerr 20 - 20 0%20 1 19 5%Project is on schedule. FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/17 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/17 P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2018\Q1\Expenditures\Copy of Copy of FY18 1st qtr exp_djm.xlsx Page 1 of 4 11/28/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2018 1st QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 09/30/2017) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2018 09/30/17 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2018 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/17 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/17 P2623 Central Area to Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipelines Combination Air/Vacuum Valve Replacements Marchioro 20 6 14 30%270 7 263 3% Project accelerated. Purchase order to procure long lead time valves issued October 2017. Award of a construction contract will coincide with valve delivery anticipated in March 2018. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2018. R2077 RecPL - 24-Inch, 860 Zone, Alta Road - Alta Gate/Airway Martin 20 - 20 0%2,920 2,920 - 100% Construction and reimbursement completed in FY 2017 Q4. Project complete. R2079 RecPL - 6-Inch, 450 Zone, Otay Valley Road - Otay Valley/Entertainment Beppler 10 - 10 0%150 - 150 0% Project is driven by City of Chula Vista's schedule for replacement of the Heritage Road Bridge. R2110 RecPS - 944-1 Optimization and Pressure Zone Modifications Marchioro 20 - 20 0%200 130 70 65%Project on track. Pressure reducing station work will be completed FY 2018. R2116 RecPL - 14-Inch, 927 Zone, Force Main Improvements Marchioro 200 21 179 11%2,500 1,891 609 76% Completion of work impacted by heavy rains in FY 2017 Q3. Remaining work scheduled for FY 2018 Q2 per environmental window. R2118 Steele Canyon Sewer PS Large Solids Handling Improvements Beppler 50 1 49 2%75 23 52 31% Advertisement for bids to be performed in FY 2018 Q2, construction in FY 2018 Q3. R2120 RWCWRF Filtered Water Storage Tank Improvements Beppler 25 - 25 0%500 29 471 6%Construction is scheduled for FY 2020. R2123 Repurpose Otay Mesa Recycled Water Lines Beppler 5 - 5 0%350 - 350 0% Initial study this FY with construction scheduled for FY 2021. R2125 RecPRS - 927/680 PRS Improvements, Otay Lakes Road Marchioro 50 - 50 0%200 - 200 0%Construction scheduled for 2019. S2012 San Diego County Sanitation District Outfall and RSD Outfall Replacement Beppler 20 - 20 0%2,540 1,111 1,429 44% This CIP reimburses the County for work on transportation pipeline rehabilitation. On track. S2027 Rancho San Diego Pump Station Rehabilitation Beppler 5 1 4 20%3,500 3,044 456 87% County invoiced in FY 2017, construction to be completed in FY 2018 Q4, final budget adjustment with County to be done in FY 2019. S2033 Sewer System Rehabilitation Martin 10 2 8 20%3,000 2,993 7 100% Construction complete in FY 2017 Q4. Project one year warranty began May 11, 2017. S2043 RWCWRF Sludge Handling System Beppler 30 - 30 0%76 40 36 53% Reassessment of feasibility to be performed upon determination of future Metro increases. Budget set to perform this during current fiscal year. S2047 Asset Management - Info Master Sewer Implementation Zhao 30 - 30 0%58 - 58 0%This program has been delayed until Fiscal Year 2019. S2061 RWCWRF Aeration Controls Consolidation & Optimization Upgrades (S)Beppler 30 - 30 0%190 - 190 0%Construction is scheduled for FY 2020. Total Capital Facility Projects Total:1,412 355 1,057 25%45,110 25,454 19,656 56% REPLACEMENT/RENEWAL PROJECTS P2083 PS - 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Martin 4,000 52 3,948 1%18,750 2,395 16,355 13% Construction contract awarded and Notice to Proceed issued in FY 2018 Q1. Project on track. P2174 PS - 1090-1 Pump Station Replacement (400 gpm)Marchioro 1 - 1 0%2,500 4 2,496 0%Planning phase deferred until FY 2019. P2400 PL - 20-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 711 Zone, Otay Lakes Road - at Santa Paula Marchioro - - - 0%2,280 - 2,280 0%Planning phase deferred until FY 2020. P2493 624-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 35 10 25 29%1,610 1,579 31 98% Warranty work complete. Project is completed. P2507 East Palomar Street Utility Relocation Cameron 5 1 4 20%735 724 11 99%Waiting for reimbursement from Caltrans. P2508 Pipeline Cathodic Protection Replacement Program Marchioro 100 57 43 57%725 510 215 70% Completion of work impacted by heavy rains in FY 2017 Q3. Remaining work scheduled for FY 2018 Q2 per environmental window. P2518 803-3 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%685 661 24 96%Expenditures anticipated in Q4 FY 2018. P2529 711-2 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Martin 5 - 5 0%820 803 17 98% Construction completed FY 2017 Q2. Project is in the 2 year warranty period. P2530 711-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Martin 5 - 5 0%980 954 26 97% Construction completed FY 2017 Q2. Project is in the 2 year warranty period. P2531 944-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Martin 5 - 5 0%345 318 27 92% Construction contract completed FY 2016 Q4. Currently in two year warranty period. P2532 944-2 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Martin 5 - 5 0%960 937 23 98% Construction contract completed FY 2016 Q4. Currently in two year warranty period. P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2018\Q1\Expenditures\Copy of Copy of FY18 1st qtr exp_djm.xlsx Page 2 of 4 11/28/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2018 1st QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 09/30/2017) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2018 09/30/17 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2018 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/17 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/17 P2533 1200-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 10 - 10 0%810 7 803 1%Project is in the Planning stage. P2534 978-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Martin 10 72 (62) 720%650 569 81 88% Project is tied to P2544. Project behind schedule due to unsatisfactory progress by contractor. Reservoir placed back into service during FY 2018 Q1. P2535 458-2 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating & Upgrades Martin 5 - 5 0%810 777 33 96% Construction contract completed FY 2016 Q4. Currently in two year warranty period. P2539 South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Utility Relocations Cameron 5 1 4 20%1,090 889 201 82%Project is driven by SANDAG. P2542 850-3 Reservoir Interior Coating Martin 5 - 5 0%540 527 13 98% Construction contract completed FY 2016 Q2. Currently in two year warranty period. P2543 850-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%875 5 870 1%No expenditures until Q4 FY 2018. P2544 850-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Martin 700 269 431 38%980 356 624 36% Project behind schedule due to unsatisfactory progress by contractor. Reservoir scheduled to be completed and placed into service in FY 2018 Q2. P2545 980-1 Reservoir Interior Exterior Coating Martin 5 - 5 0%1,190 1,188 2 100% Construction completed FY 2017 Q2. Project is in the 2 year warranty period. P2546 980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 1,100 24 1,076 2%1,450 24 1,426 2% Construction contract award scheduled for FY 2018 Q2. P2555 Administration and Operations Parking Lot Improvements Cameron 265 264 1 100%775 384 391 50% Construction on Phase 1 complete. Phase II Design has begun. Construction contract acceptance scheduled for FY 2018 Q2. P2557 520 Res Recirculation Pipeline Chemical Supply and Analyzer Feed Replacement Project Beppler 35 - 35 0%100 33 67 33% Advertisement for bids to be performed in FY 2018 Q2, construction in FY 2018 Q3. P2559 Pressure Vessel Repair and Replacement Program Martin 30 8 22 27%650 259 391 40% RWCWRF surge tank and piping completed in FY 2017 Q3. Currently in one year warranty period. P2561 Res - 711-3 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 1 - 1 0%1,800 8 1,792 0% Replacement deferred until FY 2020 since existing cover/liner materials analyzed by laboratory in FY 2017 suggested sufficient remaining life. P2562 Res - 571-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Martin 2,700 - 2,700 0%2,900 46 2,854 2% Construction contract awarded and Notice to Proceed issued in FY 2018 Q1. Project on track. P2563 Res - 870-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 1 - 1 0%1,000 3 997 0% Replacement deferred until FY 2021 to coincide with completion of new 870-2 Pump Station. Existing cover/liner materials analyzed by laboratory in FY 2017 suggested sufficient remaining life. P2565 803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%940 - 940 0%No expenditures for FY 2018. P2566 520-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%1,500 - 1,500 0%No expenditures for FY 2018. P2567 1004-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%905 - 905 0%No expenditures for FY 2018. P2573 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 Zone, Hillsdale Road Martin 1,600 33 1,567 2%2,450 271 2,179 11% Construction contract awarded in FY 2018 Q1. Notice to Proceed scheduled for early FY 2018 Q2. P2574 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Vista Vereda Beppler 450 59 391 13%2,500 138 2,362 6% Draft PDR prepared in FY 2018 Q1. Finalize PDR in FY 2018 Q2 and complete design in FY 2018 Q4 is scheduled. P2578 PS - 711-2 (PS 711-1 Replacement and Expansion) - 14,000 gpm Marchioro - - - 0%10,000 - 10,000 0% Replacement deferred until FY 2022 to coincide with development of Villages 4, 8, 9 and 3. P2593 458-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%840 - 840 0%No expenditures for FY 2018. P2594 Large Meter Replacement Carey 150 6 144 4%485 259 226 53%Most work will take place in FY 2018 Q3 & Q4. P2604 AMR Change Out Carey 1,510 161 1,349 11%9,605 1,426 8,179 15%Work to begin in FY 2018 Q2. P2605 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1571 Melrose Ave Marchioro 1 - 1 0%250 - 250 0%Design deferred until FY 2019. P2606 803-2 Reservoir Repair/Replacement of Caulking and Tree Removal Marchioro 1 - 1 0%75 - 75 0%Design deferred until FY 2019 P2607 Douglas Ave SWA and OWD Interconnection Upgrade Beppler 10 - 10 0%50 - 50 0%Project is driven by Sweetwater Authority. P2609 PL - 8-inch, 1004 Zone, Eucalyptus St, Coronado/Date/La Mesa Cameron - - - 0%400 - 400 0% No expenditures for FY 2018. Construction scheduled for FY 2021. P2610 Valve Replacement Program - Phase 1 Cameron 30 - 30 0%150 - 150 0%Project is in the early planning stages. P2615 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 PZ, Vista Grande Beppler - - - 0%1,200 - 1,200 0% No expenditures for FY 2018. Construction scheduled for FY 2021. P2616 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Pence Dr/Vista Sierra Dr Marchioro 20 3 17 15%2,500 3 2,497 0% On track. District engineering staff commenced concept development/alternatives analysis in house. Construction scheduled for 2021. P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2018\Q1\Expenditures\Copy of Copy of FY18 1st qtr exp_djm.xlsx Page 3 of 4 11/28/2017 FISCAL YEAR 2018 1st QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 09/30/2017) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2018 09/30/17 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2018 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/17 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/17 R2121 Res - 944-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 1 - 1 0%1,400 19 1,381 1% Replacement deferred until FY 2021 since dive inspection completed FY 2016 suggested five years remaining life. R2139 RWCWRF - Filter Troughs Replacement Beppler 30 - 30 0%30 - 30 0%Replacement to be performed FY 2018. R2143 AMR Change Out Carey 350 8 342 2%525 51 474 10%Work to begin in FY 2018 Q2. S2024 Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement Martin 4,250 398 3,852 9%10,100 1,965 8,135 19% Construction contract Notice to Proceed issued and construction began in FY 2018 Q1. S2044 Trenchless Sewer Rehabilitation Martin 75 33 42 44%550 138 412 25% Construction project scheduled to complete in FY 2018 Q2. S2045 Fuerte Drive Sewer Relocation Martin 100 12 88 12%250 71 179 28% Construction contract awarded in FY 2018 Q1. Field work to begin in FY 2017 Q3 per County to San Diego requirements. S2046 RWCWRF - Aeration Panels Replacement Beppler 50 - 50 0%450 78 372 17% Negotiations with existing aeration panels manufacturer are on-going; replacement options to be considered once completed. S2048 Hillsdale Road Sewer Repairs Martin 400 9 391 2%720 65 655 9% Construction contract awarded in FY 2018 Q1. Notice to Proceed scheduled for FY 2018 Q2. S2049 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 19 - 19 0%1,000 1 999 0% Planning to start in FY 2018; construction anticipated in FY 2020. S2050 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler - - - 0%1,250 - 1,250 0% Planning to start in FY 2020; construction anticipated in FY 2022. S2051 RWCWRF - Headworks Improvements Beppler 50 2 48 4%150 2 148 1% Design to begin in FY 2018 Q2, with construction in FY 2019. S2053 RWCWRF - Sedimentation Basins Weirs Replacement Beppler 60 - 60 0%60 - 60 0%Replacement to be performed FY 2018. S2054 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Beppler - - - 0%1,290 - 1,290 0% Planning to start in FY 2021; construction anticipated in FY 2023. Total Replacement/Renewal Projects Total:18,200 1,482 16,718 8%97,635 18,447 79,188 19% CAPITAL PURCHASE PROJECTS P2282 Vehicle Capital Purchases Rahders 363 - 363 0%5,175 3,863 1,312 75% Purchase of six 1/2 ton pickups will be going to December Committee Meeting for January Board Meeting approval. Going out for bid in late November for January purchase. P2286 Field Equipment Capital Purchases Rahders 72 21 51 29%1,746 1,424 322 82%Items going out for bid in late November for January purchase. Total Capital Purchase Projects Total:435 21 414 5%6,921 5,287 1,634 76% DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS p2430 PL - 20-inch, 980 Zone, Proctor Valley Road – Village 14 Phase 1 Cameron 5 - 5 0%35 - 35 0%Developer driven project. P2595 PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N - Heritage Road, Main St/Energy Way Beppler - - - 0%150 - 150 0% Construction could potentially begin in FY 2018. R2084 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La Media Martin 40 - 40 0%365 1 364 0%Under construction in FY 2018. Total Developer Reimbursement Projects Total:45 - 45 0%550 1 549 0% 103 20,092$ 1,858$ 18,234$ 9%150,216$ 49,189$ 101,027$ 33% GRAND TOTAL 20,092$ 1,858$ 18,234$ 9%150,216$ 49,189$ 101,027$ 33% P:\Forms\D-Construction\CIP Quarterly Reports\CIP Qtr Reports\FY 2018\Q1\Expenditures\Copy of Copy of FY18 1st qtr exp_djm.xlsx Page 4 of 4 11/28/2017 Otay Water District Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2018 First Quarter (through September 30, 2017) ATTACHMENT C Campo Road Sewer –Rancho Towne Center Sewer Construction 09/11/2017 Background The approved CIP Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 consists of 87 projects that total $20.1 million. These projects are broken down into four categories. 1.Capital Facilities $ 1.4 million 2.Replacement/Renewal $18.2 million 3.Capital Purchases $ 0.4 million 4.Developer Reimbursement $ 45.0 thousand Overall expenditures through the First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2018 totaled $1.9 million, which is approximately 9% of the Fiscal Year budget. 2 Fiscal Year 2018 First Quarter Update ($000) CIP CAT Description FY 2018 Budget FY 2018 Expenditures % FY 2018 Budget Spent Total Life-to-Date Budget Total Life-to-Date Expenditures % Life-to-Date Budget Spent 1 Capital Facilities $1,412 $355 25%$45,110 $25,454 56% 2 Replacement/ Renewal $18,200 $1,482 8%$97,635 $18,447 19% 3 Capital Purchases $435 $21 5%$6,921 $5,287 76% 4 Developer Reimbursement $45 $0 0%$550 $1 0% Total: $20,092 $1,858 9%$150,216 $49,189 33% 3 Fiscal Year 2018 First Quarter CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures 4 $20,092,000 $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun FISCAL YEAR PERIOD IN MONTHS Budget Forecast Total Expenditures $1,858,000 55 CIP Projects in Construction Trenchless Sewer Rehabilitation Project (S2044) 3,600 linear feet of 8- inch sewer Cured-In- Place-Pipe lining Re-establishment of 67 sewer laterals 86 lateral liners (Brim and T-Style) $0.65M Budget Start: April 2017 Substantial Completion: August 2017 6 Wind River Road –CIPP Lining 8-inch Pipe Division No. 5 Locations: Spot repairs at 60 locations within the Calavo and Rancho San Diego Sewer Basins. 07/25/2017 CIP Projects in Construction OWD Administration & Operations Parking Lot Improvements, Ph. I – Lighting & Electric Vehicle Charging Station (P2555/P2547) Upgrade existing lighting Install Electric Vehicle charging station $0.63M Budget Start: June 2017 Substantial Completion: September 2017 7 OWD Administration Driveway Entrance – Installed Lighting Division No. 3 Locations: Sweetwater Springs Boulevard, Otay Water District Administration and Operations Building Exteriors and Parking Lots 09/15/2017 CIP Projects in Construction 978-1 & 850-2 Reservoirs Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Project (P2534/P2544) Remove and replace existing interior and exterior coatings. Construct structural upgrades to increase the service life. $1.79M Budget Start: November 2016 Estimated Completion: December 2017 8 850-2 (3.1 MG) –Ceiling Coating Progress Division Nos. 3 and 5 Locations: 978-1 is located on Pence Drive. 850-2 is located on Ledgeside Street. 09/28/2017 CIP Projects in Construction Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project (S2024) Replace existing 10- inch sewer with 7,420 linear feet of new 15- inch sewer. Reconnection of sewer laterals Night Work $10.10M Budget Start: July 2017 Estimated Completion: April 2019 9 Ranch Towne Center –Installation of 15-Inch Sewer Main Division No. 5 Location: Campo Road (SR 94) between Rancho San Diego Village Shopping Center and Rancho Towne Center 09/11/2017 Construction Contract Status 10 PROJECT TOTAL % S2044 Trenchless Sewer Rehabilitation Insituform Technologies, LLC $353,954 $373,954 ($24,120)-6.8%$333,467 $0 -10.8%0.0%August 2017 P2555 P2547 OWD Administration & Operations Parking Lot Improvements Ph. 1 - Lighting and Vehicle Charging Station Ace Electric, Inc.$344,495 $369,495 $1,090 0.3%$345,585 $341,305 -6.5%98.8%September 2017 P2534 P2544 978-1 & 850-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Blastco Inc.$963,280 $1,106,200 $12,430 1.3%$1,092,560 $589,877 -1.2%54.0%December 2017 P2508 R2116 14-Inch Force Main Rehabilitation Project Charles King Company Inc.$1,045,100 $1,101,250 $36,285 3.5%$1,085,385 $877,435 -1.4%80.8%January 2018 S2045 Fuerte Drive Sewer Relocation Ortiz Corporation $131,000 $147,650 $0 0.0%$131,000 $0 -11.3%0.0%May 2018 P2573 S2048 Hillsdale Road 12-inch Waterline Replacement and Sewer Repairs TC Construction Company, Inc.$2,245,060 $2,396,060 $0 0.0%$2,245,060 $0 -6.3%0.0%May 2018 S2024 Campo Road Sewer Replacement Project Wier Construction Corporation $7,623,281 $7,816,781 $0 0.0%$7,630,601 $445,065 -2.4%5.8%April 2019 P2083 P2562 870-2 Pump Station Replacement/ 571-1 Reservoir Liner and Cover Replacement Pacific Hydrotech Corporation $16,500,900 $16,925,900 $0 0.0%$16,500,900 $0 -2.5%0.0%October 2019 TOTALS:$29,207,070 $30,237,290 $25,685 0.1%$29,364,558 $2,253,682 -2.9% FY 2018 CIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT TOTAL EARNED TO DATE **THIS CHANGE ORDER RATE INCLUDES THE CREDIT FOR UNUSED ALLOWANCES *NET CHANGE ORDERS DO NOT INCLUDE ALLOWANCE ITEM CREDITS. IT'S A TRUE CHANGE ORDER PERCENTAGE FOR THE PROJECT CIP NO.PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR BASE BID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT W/ ALLOWANCES % CHANGE ORDERS W/ ALLOWANCE CREDIT** % COMPLETE EST. COMP. DATE NET CHANGE ORDERS LTD* Consultant Contract Status 11 Consultant Contract Status 12 Consultant Contract Status 13 QUESTIONS? 14 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 3, 2018 SUBMITTED BY: Mark Watton General Manager W.O./G.F. NO: N/A DIV. NO. N/A APPROVED BY: Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: General Manager’s Report ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: GIS: Asset Management Program Support - Staff is participating in the vendor and asset management framework evaluation. The selected consultant will be assisting with customization of InfoMaster, the District’s capital project forecasting tool, as well as adoptance of formal asset management framework. Human Resources: Holiday Party - The District’s Holiday Party was held on Saturday, December 2nd, at Stone Brewery in Liberty Station. Employees and guests enjoyed the festive evening. Wellness Program - As a part of our Wellness Program, HR and Safety are working to implement a pilot program for standing workstations in January 2018. 19 participants will be part of this three-month pilot program. An ergonomic specialist will assist in assessing appropriate ergonomic equipment to use for each individual participant. If the program is successful, the District plans to roll out the program to other employees as budget permits. Updating Application and Recruitment Procedures - HR is working to update the District’s employment application and other applicable recruitment policies and procedures related to two new laws that go into effect in 2018: AB 168 (cannot ask compensation questions on 2 employment application) and AB 1008 (cannot ask criminal conviction questions until a conditional job offer has been made). Recruitments/New Hires - The District is recruiting for Facilities Maintenance Technician and Finance Manager and is preparing to recruit for an Accountant. These positions are all related to upcoming retirements and these positions are critical to District operations. IT Operations: Enterprise Cloud-Based Phone System - Staff has completed user training and successfully scheduled the deployment and go-live of the District’s new telecommunications system. Staff trained on user functionality, call-flow testing, and other related features of the new system. The new call center solution will be fully deployed and operational before the end of December. Purchasing & Facilities: Cal-Card Program Quarterly Incentive - The District received the first quarter FY 2018 rebate and incentive payment from US Bank in the amount of $6,580.19 putting the District on a path to surpass FY 2017’s total rebate of $25,471. Annual APCD Fuel Island Inspection and Testing - The District passed its annual Fuel Island APCD (Air Pollution Control District) Vapor Recovery inspection and test conducted by Jenal Engineering Corporation on November 30, 2017, which was confirmed by Karen Wilkins of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District Compliance Division on December 1, 2017. Safety & Security: District’s HAZWOP and Confined Space Emergency Response Team – The District’s team is comprised of 12 staff members from various department sections. The team, in addition to their regular job duties, are responsible for responding to District confined space rescues and chlorine incidental releases at the Treatment Plant. The team uses and operates under the Incident Command System (ICS) and also work with and support incident primary local first responders (fire department, City and County of San Diego HAZMAT teams) during these emergencies. The team requires sufficient training to demonstrate competence in assigned duties. With this in mind and in keeping the team’s skills keen and ready, all 12 members have completed the California Specialized Training Institute (CSTI) HAZMAT Industry Technician training and obtained State certification. CSTI was developed and implemented under California Government Code 8574.19 and it is administered by the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). 3 Update on the Department of Industrial Relations Cal/OSHA Inspection of the Treatment Plant Chlorine Operations and System – The Treatment Plant (TP) was issued one citation with three alleged administrative violations. As part of the employer rights, the District attended an informal conference in Santa Ana, CA on November 29, 2017, with Cal-OSHA’s PSM Manager, MaryAnn Efron. During this conference, information on the District’s position that no violations existed was shared. The PSM Manager did not reach a conclusion and in the absence of the DOSH PSM inspector, Nimal Diunugala (due to his vacation until December 9th), she told us to file the formal appeal with Sacramento. The formal appeal was filed on December 5, 2017 and we are awaiting to hear back on a docket number and hearing date. Monthly WebEOC Exercise – Staff completed November’s monthly WebEOC exercise, which consisted of: Under File & Map Library, navigate to Water Hub Docs, Sample Planning documents, Download & fill out a Critical Facility Power and Fuel Priority Tracking Sheet, Post & attach the tracking sheet to your agency event log, share with the Water Hub, and Include “Nov Test” in Event/Subject Line. The exercise was completed successfully. Treatment Plant Laboratory - The annual Treatment Plant laboratory hood inspections (2) and re-certification were successfully completed. The County of San Diego’s Department of Health Services completed the audit and re-certification process. FINANCE: Pension Program – Finance staff is working on finalizing an agreement for a software subscription that will provide the District with the cost benefit analysis of various scenarios for funding the District’s unfunded pension liability. This software will allow us to calculate how much money we will save through the various funding scenarios we are discussing. FY 2017 CAFR - Finance staff has completed the FY17 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and has submitted it to the Government Finance Officers Association for the Achievement of Excellence in Financial Reporting award. Financial Reporting: o For the four months ending October 31, 2017, there were total revenues of $37,700,863 and total expenses of $34,833,578. The revenues exceeded expenses by $2,867,285. o For the five months ending November 30, 2017, there were total revenues of $46,234,080 and total expenses of $43,739,423. The revenues exceeded expenses by $2,494,657. 4 o The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and in the Investment Portfolio Details as of October 31, 2017 totaled $82,251,440 with an average yield to maturity of 1.162%. The total earnings year-to-date were $305,955. o The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and in the Investment Portfolio Details as of November 30, 2017 totaled $81,853,455 with an average yield to maturity of 1.178%. The total earnings year-to-date were $390,261. ENGINEERING AND WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONS: Engineering: 870-2 Pump Station Replacement: This project consists of a new pump station to replace the existing Low Head 571-1 and High Head 870-1 Pump Stations. The project also includes the replacement of the existing liner and cover for the 571-1 Reservoir (36.7 MG). In late October 2017, staff worked with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and secured the project’s final environmental permit which allowed construction to begin. In early November 2017, the contractor, Pacific Hydrotech, began removal of the 571-1 Reservoir cover. The contractor also began grading and installation of storm water control measures for the site. During December 2017, the contractor began excavation within the 571-1 Reservoir for the planned piping that will be constructed under the reservoir. The project is within budget and scheduled to complete in October 2019. (P2083 & P2562) SR-11 Utility Relocations: This project consists of relocating several District potable water pipelines located in Otay Mesa Road, Sanyo Avenue, Enrico Fermi Drive, Alta Road, and within District easements. The first two rounds of relocations (Caltrans Utility Agreement Numbers 33592 and 33622) were completed in FY 2016. Staff held a kick-off meeting with the District’s water main relocation consultant (NV5) and Caltrans on November 11, 2017 to discuss the relocations from Enrico Fermi Drive to the future Mexico/USA international border crossing. As part of the SR-11 project, Caltrans will need to acquire a portion of the District’s fee-owned right-of-way that is located in the Alta Road alignment south of Otay Mesa Road. Caltrans has submitted an appraisal of the District’s property they intend to acquire, which is currently under review. Caltrans has communicated to the District that their project is scheduled to advertise for construction bid in April 2018 and start construction in April 2019. (P2453) 978-1 & 850-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades: This project consists of removing and replacing the interior and exterior coatings of the 978-1 (0.5 MG) Reservoir and the 850-2 (3.1 MG) 5 Reservoir along with providing structural upgrades to ensure the tanks comply with both state and federal OSHA standards as well as the American Water Works Association and the County Health Department standards. Work at the 978-1 Reservoir is substantially complete and the reservoir was back in service in July 2017. During the month of November 2017, Blastco, Inc., the District’s contractor, completed the installation of the interior floor coating of the 850-2 Reservoir. The contractor also began removal of the exterior coating. The contractor is currently behind schedule due to contractor coordination. As a result, the District has assessed liquidated damages for late delivery of the project for the months of September, October, and November 2017. The work on the 850-2 Reservoir was substantially completed a at the end of December 2017. The project is within budget. (P2534 & P2544) Campo Road Sewer Replacement: The existing sanitary sewer from Avocado Road to Singer Drive is undersized and located in environmentally sensitive areas that are difficult to access. The Campo Road Sewer Replacement project will install approximately 7,420 linear feet of new 15-inch gravity sewer and include abandonment of the existing sewer main. Work in November 2017 included the installation of the new sewer main across Jamacha Road from the Rancho San Diego Towne Center. Work in November 2017 also included excavation for the project’s West Bore Pit and potholing for the planned alignment east of Skyline Church. A majority of the work in Campo Road, within the Caltrans right-of-way, continues to be performed at night under traffic control. Activities near environmentally sensitive areas will be halted during the breeding season of endangered species, between February and September. On December 6, 2017, the General Manager and staff met with Dave Gibson, Executive Officer of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, to solicit his help in supporting the District’s application for State Revolving Funds for this project. The project is within budget and the overall project is scheduled for completion in April 2019. (S2024) 927 Zone, Force Main Assessment and Repair Project: This project consists of inspection, condition assessment, and repair of the existing Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) 1980 era, 16,000 feet long, 14-inch diameter steel force main. Last winter, Charles King, the District’s contractor, completed the construction of the new blow offs, restored the access road to a serviceable condition, aided in placing the force main back into service, and demobilized from the project area. District staff worked with the contractor on a no-cost time extension to allow the remaining contract work to be completed during the subsequent environmental window. During the month of November 2017, Charles King, the District’s contractor, continued with cathodic protection improvements and final access road grading work. Charles King and 6 District in-house forces also completed four (4) spot repairs identified as part of the PICA inspection performed last winter. At the end of December 2017, work on this project is substantially complete. The overall project is within budget. (R2116/P2508) 1004-2 Reservoir Access Easement: The 1004-2 Reservoir is located in the Dictionary Hill area north of Eucalyptus Street. Anza Butterfield Road 34, LLC, the owner of the property that surrounds the 1004-2 Reservoir, is preparing to sell the property to the County of San Diego for mitigation purposes. In preparation to sell the property, the property owner has worked with the District to resolve encroachments and grant slope and access easements to the Otay Water District. District staff worked cooperatively with the property owner and the County of San Diego to prepare the plat and legal documents needed. In exchange, the property owner has granted the easements, perfecting the District’s access rights in this area. Hillsdale Road Potable Water and Sewer Replacement: The existing water line in Hillsdale Road between Jamacha Road and Vista Grande Road has experienced several leaks and is nearing the end of its useful life. This project consists of replacing approximately 4,050 linear feet of steel water line with a 12-inch Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) water line. The project also includes the replacement of approximately 760 linear feet of 8-inch PVC sewer within Hillsdale Road. During November 2017, the T C Construction Company, Inc., the District’s contractor, began installation of the 12-inch water line within Hillsdale between Jalisco Road and Hillsdale Lane. During the month of December 2017, it is anticipated that the contractor will continue water line installation including the portion of the project that fronts Valhalla High School. The work at Valhalla High School is scheduled during the school’s two week winter recess. The project is within budget and on schedule to complete in May 2018. (P2573 & S2048) Fuerte Drive Sewer Relocation: The County of San Diego is realigning Fuerte Drive as part of a safety improvement project. The County has requested that the District relocate the existing sewer within the County’s project. The District’s sewer project consists of relocating approximately 255 linear feet of 8-inch PVC sewer. During October 2017, the District entered into a construction contract with Ortiz Corporation. The District’s work included in this contract is being coordinated by the County of San Diego with relocation work by SDG&E and the Helix Water District. The County has communicated that they anticipate that the District’s work will begin in April 2018. The project is within budget and on schedule to be completed in spring 2018. (S2045) 7 Vista Vereda Water Replacement: The existing 1950’s steel water line along Vista Vereda between Vista Grande Road and Hidden Mesa Trail in the Hillsdale area has experienced leaks and is nearing the end of its useful life. The existing water main is located primarily within easements, many of which have had significant improvements performed over the years since the water line was constructed. Through the District’s As-Needed Engineering Design contract, a Task Order was issued on May 2, 2017 to Rick Engineering to design the project. A preliminary design report (PDR) is in progress, with a draft submitted to the District for review on September 28, 2017 and comments returned on October 31, 2017. The finalization of the PDR is in progress and substantially completed. Several alternatives for the replacement are evaluated in the PDR for consideration, including the changing of the Vista Vereda water line from transmission main to local distribution only and upgrading the water lines in Hidden Mesa Road to become a transmission main. Based upon a preliminary assessment of the challenges of reconstructing a transmission main along the same current alignment, it is evident that the Hidden Mesa Road water line upgrade will be required. New CIP P2625 was established for this pipeline which was approved by the Board at the November 1, 2017 meeting. The initial design budget approved for the Vista Vereda project was based upon replacing the existing water line in place, but an alternative fee was included in Rick Engineering’s proposal for including the design in Hidden Mesa Road. A community meeting in January 2018 is in the process of being planned. The project is on schedule for completion of the design in June 2018, although community outreach efforts may delay it. (P2574) OWD Administration and Operations Parking Lot Improvements, Phase II – Pavement Rehabilitation: Phase I of this project, completed in October 2017, upgraded the parking lot light fixtures in both the Administration and Operations lots. Phase II consists of repairing the AC paving, slurry sealing, and restriping both AC parking lots. In addition to the pavement improvements, a carport will be installed to protect the larger fleet vehicles, and gates will be installed to better secure the Operations parking lot. Phase II is scheduled to be advertised for construction bid in early January 2018. The project is within budget. (P2555) 980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating and Upgrades: This project consists of removing and replacing the interior and exterior coatings of the 980-2 (5.0 MG) Reservoir, along with providing structural upgrades, to ensure the tank complies with both state and federal OSHA standards as well as the American Water Works Association and the County Health Department standards. A Notice to Proceed was issued to Simpson Sandblasting and Special Coatings, Inc. on November 1, 2017. During the month of November 2017, a preconstruction meeting was held and the contractor worked on 8 submittals for the project. The contractor will mobilize to the site in December 2017. The project is within budget and scheduled to complete in May 2018. (P2546) Rancho San Diego Pump Station Rehabilitation: On April 30, 2014, the District and the San Diego County Sanitation District (Sanitation District) executed a reimbursement agreement for the improvements to the Rancho San Diego Pump Station that were expected to be completed on or about March 2016. The Sanitation District awarded a construction contract to T C Construction Company Inc. on September 14, 2016. Start-up and testing of the pump station is scheduled to begin in April 2018. (S2027) Formation of Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP): In September 2014, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), Water Code Sections 10720- 10736.5, requires the formation of GSA(s) and GSP(s) throughout California including the District’s service area. The San Diego Formation (SDF) aquifer overlaps the District as well as other water retailers, including the City of San Diego (City), Sweetwater Authority (SWA), Otay Water District, and California American Water (CalAm). In March 2016, the City applied to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to modify the SDF aquifer boundaries. In August 2017, the City solicited the District’s participation in a voluntary cooperative groundwater monitoring association per Water Code Sections 10927(g) and 10935 which would supplement the District’s ongoing participation in United States Geological Survey (USGS) via SWA. However, City, SWA, and District staff have most recently concluded that the voluntary cooperative groundwater monitoring association is not necessary since the agencies are considering forming GSA(s). A meeting has been set up with SWA, CalAm, Imperial Beach, and the District to discuss the alternatives and see if there is any interest in forming a joint GSA. (P1210) Pure Water Update: The Pure Water Project (Project) would construct facilities that have the ability to produce an annual average daily flow of 30 MGD in 2021, which in turn would reduce total suspended solids discharged to the ocean. The Project will expand the existing North City Water Reclamation Plant (NCWRP) and construct an adjacent North City Pure Water Facility. On September 7, 2017, the City of San Diego released the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The draft EIR and associated technical appendices are available at this link: https://www.sandiego.gov/water/purewater/purewatersd/reports The Metro JPA submitted comments on November 21, 2017, to be included in the final document considered by the decision-making 9 authorities. A copy of the comment letter is attached (See Attachment A). Executive orders B-37-16 and B-40-17: These executive orders directed the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to permanently prohibit practices that waste water. On November 2, 2017, the SWRCB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to adopt a regulation related to permanent prohibitions against wasteful water uses including prohibiting the irrigation of turf on publically owned or maintained medians and parkways. Included in the SWRCB’s process is the opportunity to provide public comments on the proposed permanent prohibitions, with comments due to the SWRCB by December 26, 2017. California Urban Water Agencies (CUWA), a non- profit corporation of 11 major urban water agencies that are responsible for serving drinking water to about 70% of California’s population, has drafted a comment letter based on input from the District and other Water Authority member agencies. A draft copy of this letter is attached (See Attachment B). Otay Ranch Village 3: Village 3 is located along the future extension of Heritage Road south of Otay Ranch Village 2, east of the Otay Landfill, and north of the future extension of Main Street in the City of Chula Vista. Village 3 proposes to construct approximately 1,265 dwelling units that consist of single-family residential, single-family high-density residential, multi-family residential, and commercial/mixed use. Between February 2017 and April 2017, the District entered into four (4) construction agreements with HomeFed Village III Master, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Developer), to construct both potable and recycled water facilities for Otay Ranch Village 3. These Developer funded construction agreements total $8.2 million. The Developer, as part of the agreements, has provided bonding to the District for the construction of the facilities. The District became aware of the presence of methane gas and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on the Village 3 Project in mid- October 2017. The District suspended approvals for projects in the Village 3 development on November 2, 2017 since methane gas and VOCs could potentially impact the District’s water facilities. The District’s key concern was regarding the lifespan of the pipeline system and the reaction of any of its materials to methane gas or VOCs. The District requested from the Developer all reports and documents related to the methane gas and VOCs issue within Village 3. The Developer fulfilled the District’s request by providing the relevant reports and documents. The Developer’s methane gas and VOCs specialist, GeoKinetics, also presented the results from the Village 3 “Assessment of Potential Environmental Exposure Risks for 10 Water Distribution System” report to District staff on December 13, 2017, which validated “the concentrations at which the VOCs have been detected in the subsurface at the site are much too low for those VOCs to have any impact on the water distribution systems.” The specialist also concluded in his presentation and the GeoKinetics report that “at the low concentrations at which the VOCs have been detected there will be no degradation or damage to the pipe materials, or detectible impacts to the quality of the water that is conveyed by the pipe.” The District’s methane gas and VOCs specialist, Ninyo & Moore, evaluated the reports and the potential impact to the District’s potable and reclaimed water distribution system due to the presence of methane gas and VOCs and concurred with the GeoKinetics report findings. District staff has concluded from the reports and documents provided by the Developer, as well as through its own review and evaluation, that neither the water facilities nor the water service will be adversely impacted by the low levels of methane gas or VOCs detected at the development site. The District did, however, learn from one manufacturer that there is a potential for a limitation with the warranty on one of the parts within the system. The District and Developer have signed a Memorandum of Understanding so that HomeFed will assume the obligations under the manufacturer’s warranty if the manufacture denies a warranty claim within the time periods provided by the warranties. The District has withdrawn its suspension of all approvals for projects in the Village 3 Development without the need for any further mitigation of the site at this time. An informational report was provided to the Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee at a meeting held on December 12, 2017. Committee Action notes from the meeting are attached (See Attachment C). (D0954-090246, -090274, -90275, -090287) For the month of October and November 2017, the District sold 15 meters (25.5 EDUs), generating $222,083 in revenue. Projection for this period was 47.2 meters (61.2 EDUs), with budgeted revenue of $1,350,417. Total revenue for Fiscal Year 2018 is $1,545,984 against the annual budget of $3,241,000. Water System Operations (reporting for October and November): Out of 66 K-12 schools in the District, 45 (one school requested testing then later opted out so no samples were taken) requested to 11 be tested; 44 have a sampling plan completed; 44 have collected samples and; 44 have received results. The results came in for the last school on September 14, 2017. All results found were below action levels. Staff time for the school lead sampling is being tracked. It takes staff approximately 12 hours to complete lead testing from the initial contact from the school up until the reviewing of the Lab reports and discussing the results with the school. On October 2, a planned shutdown on Pogo Row in Otay Mesa was performed to replace a defective 6-inch gate valve for an air vac. The shutdown affected one commercial meter and one construction meter. A water trailer was on site during the duration of the shutdown which was from 8:00am to 12:00pm. On October 3, the City of San Diego provided staff with the results of the hydraulic model to be able to utilize the Otay Mesa Rd/Heritage interconnect. Flows can be 2000 GPM up to 5000 GPM depending on their pump utilization. On October 4, Operations and Finance staff met with the City of San Diego representatives to discuss the consumption usage discrepancy for recycled billing and 30-inch recycled pipeline hydraulics along with meter consumption. On November 1, staff again met with City of San Diego representatives to reconcile and note variances for the month of October 2017. On October 10, water system operators assisted the Inspection Department with a planned shutdown to isolate the recycled main line on Bob Pletcher Parkway for a developer to remove a temporary 6-inch riser and install a thrust block. On October 10, Sweetwater Authority (SWA) requested to have the Douglas Emergency interconnect open in order to fill one of their smaller reservoirs due to nitrification issues. The connection remained open until October 16. The total units consumed were 14,737 and Customer Service will invoice accordingly. On October 13, the Govenernor signed AB 746 (lead testing in schools), which will require schools that were built prior to January 1, 2010, and have not been tested for lead, to do so by July 1, 2019. Community water systems are responsible for the sampling and analysis of the schools. The State Water Resources Control Board is expected to develop guidance for community water systems so they can conform with this new law. At this time it appears that the schools that have been tested under the Lead 12 Testing in Schools Program will not be required to be tested again and this requirement will only include grades K-12. On October 14, the on-call water systems operator received a call regarding spilling of the groundwater tanks at the Rancho San Diego Shopping Center. The pumps filling the ground water tanks were running on and spilling water, draining through the parking lot. This was “Weir Construction” working for the District for the sewer rehabilitation program along Campo Rd. The contractor immediately remedied the issue. On October 18, an unplanned shutdown was performed at 1044 Via Miraleste, Chula Vista due to a saddle failure. Twenty-five residential homes were affected from 9:00am to 11:00am. A water trailer was on site during the shutdown. On October 19, SDCWA began their one-week pilot program of injecting chlorine at the Mission Trails FRS to mitigate nitrification issues. SDCWA will discuss the outcome in January 2018. On October 20, an unplanned shutdown at 1507 Enfield Street in Spring Valley was performed due to a break on the 6-inch ACP pipe. The shutdown affected 19 residential meters and it lasted 6.0 hours. A water trailer was on site for all affected customers. On October 23, an unplanned shutdown on Hillsdale Road in front of Valhalla High School was performed due to failure on the 12-inch steel main. Seventeen meters were affected including Valhalla High School and the trailer park to the north. Staff were able to highline Valhalla High School and the trailer park reducing the shutdown to 15 meters. The duration of the shutdown was 24-hours due to the difficulty of the repair. Three water trailers were on site for all affected customers. On October 26, an unplanned shutdown was performed at 435 Paraiso Avenue in Spring Valley due to a break on the 6-inch ACP main. The shutdown lasted seven hours. A water trailer was on site during the duration of the shutdown. On November 1, the City of San Diego notified staff of a recycled flow interruption due to pump maintenance until Friday November 3. The City was able to provide the District with limited flow (1400 GPM) utilizing a jockey pump, enough to meet some of the demands. On November 2, a planned shutdown on the intersection of Enfield Street and Walbollen Street in Spring Valley was performed to replace a defective 6-inch gate valve. While isolating the valves 13 for the shutdown, an 8-inch valve on the intersection of Walbollen Street and Cameron Drive began leaking and had to be replaced as well. A total of 52 residential meters were affected and three water trailers were on site. The duration of the shutdown was from 8:00am to 4:00pm. On November 8, an unplanned shutdown at 409 Camino Elevado was performed due to a service lateral being hit by a private contractor. Eight homes were affected from 1:30pm to 3:00pm. Due to the short duration of the shutdown, there was not a water trailer on site. On November 15, a planned shutdown on Vista Vereda was performed to install a new 12-inch gate valve to minimize the impact on future shutdowns. Thirty-three homes were affected and four water trailers were on site. On November 16, a leak was discovered on the 24-inch recycled line on Alta Road in Otay Mesa. The main was isolated until repairs were completed in December. Two irrigation meters were high-lined. On November 16, Helix Water District requested no flows on FCF 14 from December 5 until December 7 to perform maintenance at the R.M. Levy Treatment Plant. On November 21 and November 22, an APCD Inspector conducted their annual SOURCE (emissions) tests at the 870-1 Pump Station on engines 3, 4 and 5. All three engines passed testing and will continue to operate as usual. On November 25, an unplanned shutdown was performed at 3207 Via Caliente Del Sol in Jamul. A private contractor hit a lateral line and crews had to be called in for repairs. A total of 25 customers were affected for 1.5 hours. Due to the short duration of the shutdown, there was not a water trailer on site. On November 30, the City of San Diego South Bay Reclamation Plant notified staff that a shutdown of the recycled system was scheduled for December 1 from 4:00am to 12:00pm due to UV wash-down. On December 1, SDG&E’s newly approved electricity peak usage hours came into effect. These new hours (4:00pm to 9:00pm/365 days a year) have been programed in the District’s SCADA system to avoid pumping during these times whenever possible to continue to keep energy costs as low as possible. 14 Purchases and Change Orders: The following table summarizes purchases and Change Orders issued during the period of October 30, 2017 through December 4, 2017 that were within staff signatory authority: Date Action Amount Contractor/ Consultant Project 10/30/17 C.O. $15,000.00 Clarkson Laboratory and Supply, Inc. Various 11/13/17 C.O. $8,317.94 Ace Electric OWD Administration and Operations Parking Lot Improvements, Phase II – Pavement Rehabilitation (P2555) 11/16/17 P.O. $2,100.00 Safety-R-Us, LLC Confined Space Training 11/20/17 P.O. $4,000.00 County of San Diego Industrial Hygiene Services 11/27/17 Drafted a Response Letter $1,771.00 Risk Management Professionals, Inc. OSHA Audit Follow-up 12/4/17 P.O. $4,500.00 Safety-R-Us, LLC Hazwoper Training 15 Water Conservation and Sales: October 2017 usage was 4% lower than October 2013 usage and November 2017 usage was 1% higher than November 2013. Since November 2016, customers have saved an average of 14% over 2013 levels. The October potable water purchases were 2,772.2 acre-feet which is 12.0% above the budget of 2,475.0 acre-feet. The cumulative purchases through October were 11,397.6 acre-feet which is 5.8% above the cumulative budget of 10,772.2 acre-feet. 16 The October recycled water purchases and production were 409.2 acre-feet which is 13.7% above the budget of 359.9 acre-feet. The cumulative production and purchases through October were 1,872.5 acre-feet which is 4.5% above the cumulative budget of 1,792.0 acre-feet. The November potable water purchases were 2,400.8 acre-feet which is 9.7% above the budget of 2,188.5 acre-feet. The cumulative purchases through November were 13,798.4 acre-feet which is 6.5% above the cumulative budget of 12,960.7 acre-feet. 17 The November recycled water purchases and production were 320.1 acre-feet which is 2.7% above the budget of 311.6 acre-feet. The cumulative production and purchases through November were 2,192.6 acre-feet which is 4.2% above the cumulative budget of 2,103.6 acre-feet. Potable, Recycled, and Sewer (Reporting up to the month of October): Total number of potable water meters: 49,733. Recycled water consumption for the month of October: o Total consumption: 446.4 acre-feet or 145,404,468 gallons. o Average daily consumption: 4,690,467 gallons per day. o Total cumulative recycled water consumption since July 1, 2017: 1934.4 acre-feet. o Total number of recycled water meters: 721. Wastewater flows for the month of October: o Total basin flow: 1,215,226 gallons per day. This is a decrease of 21% from October 2016. o Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro: 401,479 gallons per day. o Total Otay flow: 813,806 gallons per day. o Flow Processed at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility: 763,613 gallons per day. October flows were normal, the treatment plant treated as much flows without treating SVSD flows: total basin flow was 37.67 MG 18 of which 25.23 MG was Otay’s portion, the treatment plant treated 23.67 MG sending 1.56 MG to the Metro. o Flow to Metro from Otay Water District: 50,194 gallons per day. By the end of October there were 6,109 wastewater EDUs. Potable, Recycled, and Sewer (Reporting up to the month of November): Total number of potable water meters: 49,743. Recycled water consumption for the month of November: o Total consumption: 328.5 acre-feet or 106,996,912 gallons. o Average daily consumption: 3,566,564 gallons per day. o Total cumulative recycled water consumption since July 1, 2017: 2262.9 acre-feet. o Total number of recycled water meters: 722. Wastewater flows for the month of November: o Total basin flow: 1,514,810 gallons per day. This is a decrease of .37% from November 2016. o Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro: 500,450 gallons per day. o Total Otay flow: 1,014,433 gallons per day. o Flow Processed at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility: 538,567 gallons per day. o Flow to Metro from Otay Water District: 475,877 gallons per day. By the end of October there were 6,109 wastewater EDUs. Attachments: Attachment A – Pure Water Update - Metro Wastewater JPA Comment Letter Attachment B – Executive Order B-37-16 & B-40-17 – CUWA Draft Comment Letter Attachment C – Committee Action Notes from the Engineering, Operations & Communications Meeting on December 12, 2017, Regarding Village 3 Project ATTACHMENT A Merno W¡srewArER JPA 276 Fourlh Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91950 619*476-2557 www.metrolpa.oro Jerry Jones, Chair November 21,2017 VIA üS. rnd Electronic Mril DSDEAS@sandiego.gov Mr. Mark Brunette Senior Environmental Planner City of San Diego Department Serviiss,Ccnter LZ22FtrstAvenue, MS 501 1..,: .San Diego, CA 92101 'Rs Comments on Draft EIR/EIS for the hrre Water San Diego Progranrn NoirthCity Project-Project No,L49!ló21l SCH No 210ó0E1016 Dear Mr. Brunette: Metro JPA appreciates the opþoitunity to comment on the North City Project DraftEIRÆIS. Metro JPA is a joint powen¡ authority organized pursuant to the California loint Exercise of Poyers Act, Government Code section 6500 et seq. for the purpose of representing its member agÞncies' interests in the operation and management of the San Diego regional sewer system. Metro JPA's member agencies are the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajog, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, National City, and Poway the læmon Grove SanitationDistrict; the Padre Dam Municipal WaÍer District and Otay Water Disrict; and the County of San Diego Sanitation District (collectively, "Member Agencies"). Metro JPA has identified several aspects of the Draft EIR/EIS for the North City rü/ater Reclamation Plant Project ('DEIR') that the City of San Diego (*City') that Metro JPA iequests the City reconsider and/or clarify to provide a complete analysis of the Project's impacts. Metro JPA's intènt in providing thesg comments is to assist the City with development'oia'sound environmental analysis of the proposed project, and ensure that the project is constructed in a manner that makes the best use of the project's role in the metro system. The Jo¡nt Powers Authority Proactively Addressing RegionalWastewater lssues Chula Vista r Coronado . Del Mar r El Cajon . lmperial Beach . La Mesa. Lemon Grove Sanitation DistrictNational Cíty. g¡¿y1¡yater District o Poway. Padre Dam Municipal Water D¡strictCounty of San Diego, representing East Otay, Lakeside/Alpine, Spring Valley & Winter Gardens Sanitation Districts DRAFT December 12, 2017 The Honorable Felicia Marcus, Chair and Members of the State Water Resources Control Board c/o Ms. Jeanine Townsend, Clerk of the Board State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 Sent via email to: commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov Subject: Comment Letter – Prohibiting Wasteful Water Use Practices Dear Chair Marcus and Members of the Board: The undersigned water agencies in the San Diego region are pleased to provide the following comments on the proposed regulation prohibiting wasteful water use practices. First, and foremost, we support long-term water use efficiency as an integral part of a diverse portfolio of water management strategies to ensure a reliable water supply for California. In the San Diego region, we have been “Making Conservation a California Way of Life” for over 25 years, with potable per capita use decreasing by over 40 percent since the early 1990s. We are committed to continuing this effort into the future. The following comments on the proposed prohibitions reflect our commitment to advancing water use efficiency through flexible approaches, practical implementation, acknowledging local ordinances and cost-effective programs. Our comments are as follows: 1. Exclude the specific metric that defines reasonable rainfall as “at least one tenth of one inch of rain.” We support a general guideline for measurable rainfall rather than a specific quantity. Using a specific metric will make it more difficult for agencies to implement, primarily because rainfall amounts can vary significantly within a community due to micro-climates. Excluding the specific metric and providing the general guidelines of “measurable” will allow for more practical implementation locally. 2. Remove prohibition to “serve drinking water other than upon request” in eating or drinking establishments. The State Water Board should exclude the drinking water only upon request requirement and reserve it as a water shortage emergency measure/communication to “ratchet up” shortfall urgency. It is helpful to keep a few arrows in a drought emergency quiver, and this measure provides a good public visual and call to action during an emergency. Furthermore, serving drinking water at eating or drinking establishments is: a) not a waste, but rather a beneficial Chair Marcus December 12, 2017 Page 2 use; b) by nature, difficult to enforce; c) supportive of water agency messaging to “drink from the tap”; and d) a healthy and cost-effective beverage alternative. We support the requirement that hotels/motels provide guests the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily. This is a good, common business practice that most hotel/motels already practice. 3. The prohibition against irrigation of turf in medians and parkways must take into account the cost impact to public entities and potential tree mortality. The State Water Board’s economic analysis associated with implementation of the proposed regulation states that there is no cost imposed on local agencies, with the exception of urban water agencies. The analysis fails to acknowledge and identify the cost impact to local municipalities who own and maintain the public median strips and parkways that will need to be retrofitted. The prohibition will place a significant financial burden on cities. This is especially true with cities that administer landscape maintenance districts (LMDs). LMDs are areas within a city that receive a special benefit of landscape improvements above and beyond services that the city typically provides. These areas usually encompass medians and large sections of right-of-way that are between the street and the sidewalk that often have mixed turf and trees. Revenues collected by a city (as an assessment on a resident’s property tax bill) pay for landscape maintenance, water, and capital projects within LMDs, which are subject to Proposition 218. Notably, many LMDs are on a fixed budget year-to-year and do not have a consumer price index built into the annual assessment. These factors make it very difficult or even impossible to do capital projects within the LMD, such as the conversion of turf to drought tolerant landscaping or the installation of drip irrigation. Additionally, many of these same turf areas have significant amounts of trees that do not easily adapt to drip irrigation. Based on the cost impacts and potential tree mortality, we provide the following specific comments on the proposal to prohibit irrigation of ornamental turf in medians and parkways: a) Remove parkways from the proposed prohibition of turf irrigation. These landscaped areas are often maintained by private businesses or homeowners, even though the property is owned by the local municipality. Further complicating the issue, these landscape areas are often irrigated on the same system as the landscaping in front of the business or residence. They are also often used by residents when walking their dogs or jogging through the community. b) Exclude turf medians and parkways that contain trees. This approach will avoid the unintended consequences of tree mortality for communities that cannot financially afford the irrigation and landscape retrofitting costs and must shut off irrigation systems to comply. Chair Marcus December 12, 2017 Page 3 c) Provide grant funding to assist public entities with conversions and phase-in implementation to allow entities time to plan, budget, and allocate resources. For this regulation to be successful, it must result in conversions from turf grass to well- maintained, California-friendly landscaping, to provide examples to citizens throughout the state that “water-wise” can be beautiful. On the other hand, if this regulation results in medians with dead turf and trees, it will likely have the opposite effect. Many cities and counties do not have the financial resources to convert their medians, and as a result, they will simply stop watering. Providing the resources and time to public entities will allow for well-planned landscape transformations. d) Allow irrigation of existing turf medians and parkways with recycled water. Water agencies have made significant investments to transition from using potable water to recycled water for these areas. This investment has allowed communities to become more regionally sustainable and reduce reliance on the Bay-Delta, consistent with the Governor’s Water Action Plan. These past investments must be acknowledged and the final regulation allow agencies to continue utilizing recycled water on existing turf medians and parkways. The regulation could contain a prohibition that any new or renovated median to be irrigated with recycled water cannot be planted with turf. e) The State Water Board should coordinate with land use planning agencies, such as California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities, and directly with cities and counties to solicit their input. As mentioned above, the permanent regulation will impact most cities and counties in the state of California and the State Water Board must reach out to these municipalities and solicit their input. 4. Health and safety exemptions should be clearly specified within the prohibition. Section 963(b)(2)(A) of the proposed regulation mentions that water use is not prohibited “to the extent necessary to address an immediate health and safety need.” We request that this language be included within the list of prohibitions to clarify the health and safety exemptions upfront. The list of prohibitions will be widely distributed and is the text that media outlets are likely to highlight. In addition, we request removing the word “immediate” from this sentence to provide local agencies with more flexibility in how they address health and safety needs that may be unique to their service areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment of the proposed regulation on water use prohibitions. SUBJECT/PROJECT: D0954-090246 -090274 -090275 -090287 Informational Item – Otay Ranch Village 3 – Request for Information Concerning Methane and VOC at Village 3 and Otay Water District’s Course of Action COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this informational item at a Committee Meeting held on December 12, 2017, and the following comments were made: Staff provided an overview of the District’s request for information concerning methane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at Otay Ranch Village 3, the District’s discussion of activities and meetings that have transpired to date and its course of action. Staff indicated that there are four (4) construction agreements with HomeFed Village III Master, LLC (Developer), to construct both potable and recycled water facilities for Otay Ranch Village 3. All four (4) constructions agreements total $8.2 million. It was noted that the Developer has constructed approximately 25,000 linear feet of distribution main to date. However, this main has not been tied directly into the District’s system. Pages 2 through 4 provides a timeline of activities and meetings between the District and Developer that have taken place since August 2017. Staff noted that on October 24, 2017, the District received a public inquiry from a potential Village 3 home buyer regarding concerns over “VOCs and methane found in the soil and perched groundwater.” District staff immediately communicated the inquiry to the Developer and requested that the Developer provide all information available. On November 3, 2017, the Developer transmitted to the District a Site Assessment and Human Health Vapor Risk Assessment 7 Report for Village 3 dated August 17, 2017. The Developer also provided a response to the October 24, 2017, public inquiry. The District has retained consultant expertise from the District’s As-Needed contract with Ninyo & Moore to assist in the review and evaluation of the information provided by the Developer. In an effort to review the issue, District staff shared the Developer’s report with the water pipeline and appurtenance suppliers and manufacturers and requested feedback. S&B Technical Products, the manufacturer of the pipe seals (gaskets), noted that the recommended compound to use in this environment is FKM; which provides greater resistivity to aromatic compounds. Staff also received feedback from a Mueller Company representative who verbally noted that the Company may not honor the warranty for the valves. Currently, a written response is pending from Mueller Company. In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that there is a 1-year standard warranty for gaskets. Since the writing of the staff report, the Developer transmitted a report titled “Assessment of Potential Environmental Exposure Risks for Water Distribution System” for Otay Ranch Village III dated December 4, 2017 by GeoKinetics Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers. Staff indicated that a California Registered Professional Engineer, with expertise in VOCs and methane mitigation, reviewed the data provided in the Developer’s Site Assessment and Human Health Vapor Risk Assessment Report for Village 3 dated August 17, 2017, along with the materials submittals for the water facilities installed within Village 3. The December 4, 2017 report concludes and states that, “the concentrations at which the VOCs have been detected in the subsurface at the site are much too low for those VOCs to have an impact on the water distribution systems.” Additionally, the report states that, “very high factors of safety exist with respect to this issue and that the water distribution systems will not be impacted by the very low levels of VOC vapors that have been detected at the site.” Staff noted that the District sent the GeoKinetics’ report to Ninyo & Moore for their independent review. Ninyo & Moore has stated as part of their preliminary review that the GeoKinetics’ report provides a reasonable analysis and 8 discussion that seems to cover the concerns that the District may have regarding the presence of the noted contaminants and their potential effects on the piping and gasket materials used for the project. In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that Ninyo & Moore indicated that the nearby landfill is a potential source of the methane and VOCs at the development site. Staff discussed that the developer has taken a proactive measure on this issue by adding ventilating systems on all homes within Village 3, including areas that are not impacted by methane and VOCs as presented in the Site Assessment and Human Health Vapor Risk Assessment Report for Village 3 dated August 17, 2017. It was noted that the ventilating structures should help stabilize the area, which may help with any impact to the District’s facilities. The Committee inquired if other utility agencies have been notified about the Village 3 issue. Staff stated that the District has communicated with SDG&E who indicated that their mitigation measure is to prevent methane from entering their vaults by sealing them. Staff indicated that the District has considered to have its facilities (pressure reducing stations and meters) for the development above ground to meet mitigation measures for the District’s purposes. In response to a question from the Committee, Legal Counsel stated that if the District were to accept the project and maintain the water system, there is a 4-year statute of limitations to sue the developer should any issues/impacts occur; provided they are still in business. Staff highlighted that before accepting the project, the District should consider the concern of insurance and warranty coverage for pipeline materials. As previously stated, Mueller Company has indicated that they are not willing to provide a warranty for valves. This would be a dilemma for the District if it were to accept the project and not have any insurance or warranty for pipeline materials. The Committee inquired if there was any news coverage on the Village 3 issue. Staff stated that several news stations have reported that this matter is HomeFed’s issue. It has also been reported that the Otay Water District is not selling any meters to the developer until the impacts of the methane and 9 VOCs are understood and resolved. The District, in cooperation with the developer, is working toward a resolution as it pertains to water pipelines and facilities. The District received coverage from iNewsource, KPBS, the Voice of San Diego, 10 News, NBC 7, and ABC 10, CBS 8, and Univision KBNT17. They are reporting that the Otay Water District is looking into this matter as a safety issue related to its pipelines and facilities. In addition, Tweets are saying that the District is doing a great job by not selling meters to the developer for the safety of the consumer. Staff stated they would provide news coverage of the Village 3 issue to all board members via email following the committee meeting. In response to a question from the Committee, staff stated that District staff is communicating with homeowners and public members who are calling the District with questions concerning Village 3. The Committee inquired if Operations’ staff looked into other issues, besides methane and VOCs, that may occur in the future. Staff stated that there would be additional maintenance costs if forced ventilation mitigation systems are required for underground vaults in Village 3. Staff recommended that the Village 3 water facilities planned for underground vaults be raised above ground. Upon completion of the discussion, the Committee accepted staffs’ report and recommended that this informational item be incorporated into the General Manager’s report, but could be placed on the January 3, 2018, Regular Board meeting agenda at the General Manager’s discretion. Subsequent to the Committee meeting, staff met with the Developer and GeoKinetics, the Developer’s methane gas and VOCs specialist. An updated “Assessment of Potential Environmental Exposure Risks for Water Distribution System” report for Otay Ranch Village 3 dated December 13, 2017 was provided to the District as a result of that meeting. Reference materials consisting of relevant reports and documents were also provided by the Developer. The District’s methane gas and VOCs specialist, Ninyo & Moore, evaluated the reports and the potential impact to the District’s potable and reclaimed water distribution system due to the presence of methane gas and VOCs and concurred with the GeoKinetics report findings. The District and the Developer’s parent company have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to address warranty concerns. That MOU states that the Developer’s parent company will assume the obligations under the manufacturer’s warranty if the manufacture 10 denies a warranty claim within the time periods provided by the warranties. As a result of these actions, the District has withdrawn its suspension of all approvals for projects in the Village 3 Development without the need for any further mitigation of the site at this time. The District released meters as of December 20, 2018. The District does not anticipate that the Otay Water District’s meter release will delay any scheduled closings within the development. Check Total 5,013.66 4,696.58 4,540.98 9,371.07 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 2049311 11/21/17 18088 8X8 INC 2093091 11/06/17 TELECOM SYSTEM 8.52 8.52 2049151 10/25/17 18088 8X8 INC 2074683 10/01/17 TELECOM SYSTEM 4,901.82 2077253 10/05/17 TELECOM SYSTEM 111.84 2049152 10/25/17 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1015247 10/02/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 809.66 1015484 10/05/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 666.55 1015441 10/04/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 664.63 1014991 09/27/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 621.41 1016441 10/05/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 591.63 1015062 09/28/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 477.34 1015061 09/28/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 467.74 1015483 10/05/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 397.62 2049276 11/15/17 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1016379 10/23/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 480.22 480.22 2049235 11/08/17 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1015728 10/10/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 917.22 1016016 10/16/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 697.28 1015888 10/12/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 679.03 1015837 10/11/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 624.29 1016204 10/19/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 468.70 1015887 10/12/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 385.14 1016176 10/18/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 385.14 1015838 10/11/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 384.18 2049312 11/21/17 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1016742 10/30/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 2,027.50 1017097 11/06/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,538.63 1016549 10/26/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 960.45 1016457 10/24/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 864.40 1016918 11/01/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 831.75 1016743 10/30/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 825.02 1016741 10/30/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 539.77 1016917 11/01/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 521.52 1017098 11/06/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 510.96 1016550 10/26/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 480.22 1016933 11/02/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 270.85 2049236 11/08/17 18048 ACE ELECTRIC INC 309302017 10/10/17 PARKING IMPROVEMENT (ENDING 9/30/17)100,486.25 100,486.25 2049313 11/21/17 18048 ACE ELECTRIC INC 410312017 10/25/17 PARKING IMPROVEMENT (ENDING 10/31/17)35,718.05 35,718.05 2049198 11/01/17 18414 ACE ELECTRIC INC Ref002491822 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000240359 2,046.00 2,046.00 Page 1 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 5,228.50 3,104.00 13,690.00 2049277 11/15/17 18448 ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SVCS Ref002493373 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000224625 2,046.00 2,046.00 2049314 11/21/17 12174 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 54 10/30/17 DISINFECTION SYSTEM (ENDING 10/27/17)8,381.25 8,381.25 2049153 10/25/17 12174 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 53 09/26/17 DISINFECTION SYSTEM (ENDING 9/22/17)2,935.00 2,935.00 2049315 11/21/17 11462 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 1424 10/25/17 DEVELOPER PLAN REVIEW (5/6/17-10/20/17)2,070.00 2,070.00 2049316 11/21/17 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131515022 11/01/17 AQUA AMMONIA 2,097.50 131515021 11/01/17 AQUA AMMONIA 1,548.00 131515024 11/01/17 AQUA AMMONIA 1,389.50 131515023 11/01/17 AQUA AMMONIA 193.50 2049154 10/25/17 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131509119 09/27/17 AQUA AMMONIA 2,322.00 131509118 09/27/17 AQUA AMMONIA 522.50 131509120 09/27/17 AQUA AMMONIA 259.50 2049237 11/08/17 15024 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 2109302017 10/10/17 UTILITY LOCATING SERVICES (9/1/17-9/30/17)20,310.00 20,310.00 2049238 11/08/17 14256 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 657119 10/06/17 INSURANCE CONSULTING (OCT-DEC 2017)7,250.00 7,250.00 2049155 10/25/17 14462 ALYSON CONSULTING CM201753 09/05/17 MGMT/INSP (8/1/17-8/31/17)3,070.00 CM201761 10/08/17 MGMT/INSP (9/1/17-9/30/17)2,880.00 CM201762 10/08/17 MGMT/INSP (9/1/17-9/30/17)2,880.00 CM201759 10/08/17 MGMT/INSP (9/1/17-9/30/17)2,250.00 CM201756 10/08/17 MGMT/INSP (3/1/17-9/30/17)1,350.00 CM201758 10/08/17 MGMT/INSP (9/1/17-9/30/17)900.00 CM201760 10/08/17 MGMT/INSP (9/1/17-9/30/17)330.00 CM201757 10/08/17 MGMT/INSP (9/1/17-9/30/17)30.00 2049278 11/15/17 17264 ARTIANO SHINOFF 216482 10/16/17 LEGAL SERVICES (SEPT 2017)47,339.49 47,339.49 2049199 11/01/17 05758 AT&T 9001100117 10/01/17 TELEPHONE SERVICES (9/1/17-10/1/17)126.61 126.61 2049317 11/21/17 07785 AT&T 000010356384 10/12/17 TELEPHONE SERVICES (9/12/17-10/11/17)5,150.36 5,150.36 2049318 11/21/17 18122 AT&T BUSINESS 172881921 10/27/17 INTERNET CIRCUITS (9/20/17-10/10/17)750.54 750.54 2049239 11/08/17 17613 BIENVENUE, DONALD 11062017DB 11/06/17 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 204.00 204.00 2049319 11/21/17 12577 BLASTCO INC 1109302017 10/24/17 978-1 & 850-2 RESERVOIRS (ENDING 9/30/17)66,804.00 66,804.00 2049279 11/15/17 18453 BLUE PACIFIC ENGINEERING Ref002493379 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000239785 1,752.29 1,752.29 2049280 11/15/17 18388 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE & DEVELOP Ref002493375 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000232240 798.88 798.88 2049240 11/08/17 08156 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 697285 10/23/17 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY (THRU 9/30/17)5,186.50 Page 2 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 11,270.35 3,616.00 7,484.00 696664 10/17/17 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY (THRU 7/31/17)3,153.55 697284 10/23/17 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY (THRU 8/31/17)2,390.30 697282 10/23/17 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY (THRU 8/31/17)496.00 697283 10/23/17 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY (THRU 8/31/17)44.00 2049320 11/21/17 08156 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 700095 11/09/17 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY (THRU 10/31/17)2,255.00 2,255.00 2049321 11/21/17 11409 BURTECH PIPELINE INC 2700111717 11/17/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 1,955.26 1,955.26 2049200 11/01/17 18412 CALMEX ENGINEERING INC Ref002491820 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000239648 640.21 640.21 2049281 11/15/17 04071 CAPITOL WEBWORKS LLC 28817 10/31/17 OTHER AGENCY FEES 45.00 45.00 2049241 11/08/17 15177 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 0161656 10/16/17 DESIGN/CONST FOR 870-2 PS (8/1/17-9/30/17)28,181.25 28,181.25 2049322 11/21/17 17022 CASTLE ACCESS INC 0223095181 11/01/17 COLOCATION SERVICES 2,083.25 2,083.25 2049282 11/15/17 18450 CENTURY 21 AWARD Ref002493376 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000233708 30.98 30.98 2049283 11/15/17 18446 CHERYL GELFAND Ref002493371 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000223193 167.48 167.48 2049284 11/15/17 15256 CIGNA GROUP INSURANCE / LINA 9267111317 11/13/17 VOLUNTARY SUPPLEMENTAL LIFE INSURANCE 4,361.40 4,361.40 2049242 11/08/17 13946 CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1112017 11/01/17 ASSESSMENT/SPECIAL TAX (FY 2017-2018)108.98 108.98 2049156 10/25/17 04119 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 92635 09/30/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (9/21/17-9/24/17)1,018.00 92636 09/30/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (9/25/17-9/26/17)832.00 92238 09/05/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (8/31/17-9/3/17)638.00 92634 09/30/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (9/5/17-9/7/17)567.00 92633 09/30/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (9/5/17-9/9/17)533.00 92637 09/30/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING 28.00 2049323 11/21/17 04119 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 93210 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/20/17-10/24/17)1,434.00 93208 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/16/17-10/21/17)1,250.00 93207 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/13/17-10/15/17)1,066.00 93212 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/27/17-10/29/17)1,028.00 93203 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/2/17-10/3/17)832.00 93204 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/6/17-10/8/17)602.00 93211 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/25/17-10/28/17)532.00 93205 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/10/17)206.00 93206 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/12/17)178.00 93209 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/18/17)178.00 93213 10/31/17 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING (10/30/17)178.00 2049243 11/08/17 03288 COMPUTER PROTECTION 23032CPT 10/18/17 OUTSIDE SERVICES 4,956.25 4,956.25 Page 3 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 32,624.00 27,624.00 664,178.44 2,142.00 8,649.07 374.46 2049324 11/21/17 17923 CONCORD UTILITY SERVICES 2161 11/03/17 REGISTER REPLACEMENT FY18 20,204.00 2158 10/27/17 REGISTER REPLACEMENT FY18 12,420.00 2049244 11/08/17 17923 CONCORD UTILITY SERVICES 2147 10/13/17 REGISTER REPLACEMENT FY18 16,616.00 2154 10/20/17 REGISTER REPLACEMENT FY18 11,008.00 2049157 10/25/17 18331 CORE & MAIN LP H855671 10/03/17 METER UPGRADES 387,490.21 H874528 10/05/17 METER UPGRADES 208,067.41 H898422 10/05/17 METER UPGRADES 34,903.77 H833141 10/03/17 METER UPGRADES - RECYCLE 33,717.05 2049325 11/21/17 18331 CORE & MAIN LP I040939 11/03/17 INVENTORY 2,325.25 2,325.25 2049158 10/25/17 05622 CORRPRO COMPANIES INC 459423 09/30/17 COATING INSPECTION (9/1/17-9/30/17)14,320.50 14,320.50 2049326 11/21/17 05622 CORRPRO COMPANIES INC 464233 10/30/17 COATING INSPECTION (10/1/17-10/31/17)4,936.00 4,936.00 2049201 11/01/17 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DPWAROTAYMWD091710/10/17 EXCAVATION PERMITS (SEPT 2017)2,232.00 2,232.00 2049327 11/21/17 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DPWAROTAYMWD101711/16/17 EXCAVATION PERMITS (OCT 2017)8,366.30 8,366.30 2049285 11/15/17 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 2003193E602351017 11/04/17 SHUT DOWN TEST 535.50 2003193E602151017 11/04/17 SHUT DOWN TEST 535.50 2003193E602481017 11/04/17 SHUT DOWN TEST 459.00 2003193E602421017 11/04/17 SHUT DOWN TEST 459.00 2003193E622601017 11/04/17 SHUT DOWN TEST (10/5/17)153.00 2049159 10/25/17 02122 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 227315100417 10/04/17 SETTLEMENT OFFER 450.00 450.00 2049245 11/08/17 17770 COX BUSINESS 6702102517 10/25/17 TELECOM SVCS / METRO-E (10/24/17-11/23/17)8,381.59 9601102617 10/26/17 TELECOM SVCS / METRO-E (10/25/17-11/24/17)133.74 0301102817 10/28/17 TELECOM SVCS / METRO-E (10/28/17-11/27/17)133.74 2049160 10/25/17 17770 COX BUSINESS 6801101317 10/13/17 TELECOM SVCS / METRO-E (10/12/17-11/11/17)240.72 6701101417 10/14/17 TELECOM SVCS / METRO-E (10/14/17-11/13/17)133.74 2049202 11/01/17 18406 CRISTINA ACOSTA Ref002491814 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000216690 9.77 9.77 2049246 11/08/17 00693 CSDA, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 111617 11/07/17 BUSINESS MEETING - CSDA 60.00 60.00 2049161 10/25/17 04443 CSI SERVICES INC 7766 09/12/17 COATING INSPECTION (8/18/17-9/7/17)11,559.50 11,559.50 2049247 11/08/17 04443 CSI SERVICES INC 7804 10/13/17 COATING INSPECTION (9/11/17-9/29/17)10,991.00 10,991.00 2049203 11/01/17 18410 CYNTHIA LANZ Ref002491818 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000232576 28.10 28.10 2049204 11/01/17 18399 DONALD C BICKEL 0390102417 10/24/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 47.21 47.21 2049286 11/15/17 17612 ECS IMAGING INC 12628 10/26/17 SOFTWARE SUPP/RENEWAL (11/25/17-11/25/18)22,408.00 22,408.00Page 4 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 9,989.80 379.85 2049286 11/15/17 17612 ECS IMAGING INC 12628 10/26/17 SOFTWARE SUPP/RENEWAL (11/25/17-11/25/18)22,408.00 22,408.00 2049205 11/01/17 08023 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 0084467IN 10/01/17 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (SEPT 2017)805.00 805.00 2049328 11/21/17 08023 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 0084716IN 10/31/17 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (OCT 2017)795.00 795.00 2049329 11/21/17 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0613128 10/25/17 INVENTORY 551.03 551.03 2049162 10/25/17 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0607754 09/27/17 INVENTORY 4,664.50 4,664.50 2049248 11/08/17 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0611025 10/12/17 INVENTORY 9,412.48 06110251 10/17/17 INVENTORY 577.32 2049163 10/25/17 17888 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003400917 09/30/17 ONLINE DOCUMENTS (MONTHLY)99.00 99.00 2049330 11/21/17 17888 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003401017 10/31/17 ONLINE DOCUMENTS 99.00 99.00 2049164 10/25/17 16469 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 090014 10/05/17 COFFEE SERVICES 680.60 680.60 2049331 11/21/17 16469 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 091794 11/02/17 COFFEE SERVICES 903.23 903.23 2049206 11/01/17 02591 FITNESS TECH 10648 10/01/17 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE (OCT 2017)135.00 135.00 2049207 11/01/17 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2492209 11/02/17 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 56.93 56.93 2049208 11/01/17 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2492211 11/02/17 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 100.00 100.00 2049287 11/15/17 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2493442 11/16/17 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 79.63 79.63 2049165 10/25/17 18397 FRED SIMAYTIS 6707101818 10/23/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 371.01 371.01 2049332 11/21/17 13563 FRIENDS OF THE WATER 411 10/30/17 GARDEN TOURS (OCT 2017)3,800.00 3,800.00 2049166 10/25/17 17855 GASTELUM, HECTOR 080217083017 10/17/17 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (8/2/17-8/30/17)231.12 090617092817 10/18/17 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (9/6/17-9/28/17)148.73 2049167 10/25/17 08665 GRAHAM RESEARCH CONSULTANTS GG101917 10/19/17 EMPLOYEE/MANAGEMENT TRAINING 4,500.00 4,500.00 2049333 11/21/17 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 16175 10/31/17 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (OCT 2017)8,909.50 8,909.50 2049168 10/25/17 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 16074 09/29/17 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (SEPT 2014)8,909.50 8,909.50 2049249 11/08/17 18235 GROUPWARE TECHNOLOGY INC 62631 10/11/17 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,565.00 3,565.00 2049334 11/21/17 00174 HACH COMPANY 10694242 10/27/17 HACH APA6000 3,238.82 3,238.82 2049250 11/08/17 10973 HDR ENGINEERING INC 1200080132 10/14/17 SEWER RATE STUDY (9/2/17-9/30/17)1,402.50 1,402.50 2049251 11/08/17 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC 62721 10/12/17 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (9/1/17-9/30/17)10,295.71 10,295.71 2049169 10/25/17 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC 62577 10/03/17 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (7/24/17-8/31/17)10,625.08 10,625.08 2049335 11/21/17 13349 HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES 2017100048 11/03/17 LAND SURVEYING (9/30/17-10/27/17)2,412.00 2,412.00 Page 5 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 4,798.49 18,538.65 2049252 11/08/17 15622 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 0125482 10/15/17 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (8/26/17-9/30/17)2,488.49 0125441 10/13/17 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (8/26/17-9/30/17)1,350.00 0125439 10/13/17 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (8/26/17-9/30/17)960.00 2049209 11/01/17 17816 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 2033220 09/30/17 GAS DETECTION PROGRAM 704.58 704.58 2049336 11/21/17 17816 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 2042249 10/31/17 GAS DETECTION PROGRAM (OCT 2017)704.58 704.58 2049170 10/25/17 08969 INFOSEND INC 127305 09/29/17 BILL PROCESSING SRVCS 326.30 326.30 2049253 11/08/17 08969 INFOSEND INC 126674 09/29/17 BILL PROCESSING SRVCS (SEPT 2017)12,339.56 126673 09/29/17 BILL PROCESSING SRVCS (SEPT 2017)3,990.03 126877 10/03/17 BILL PROCESSING SRVCS (SEPT 2017)2,209.06 2049210 11/01/17 18404 INHO HONG Ref002491812 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000154057 71.37 71.37 2049211 11/01/17 17106 IWG TOWERS ASSETS II LLC 418468 11/01/17 ANTENNA SUBLEASE 1,673.00 1,673.00 2049288 11/15/17 18440 JACKSON WITTE Ref002493365 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000121475 12.96 12.96 2049337 11/21/17 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 739836 11/06/17 CHLORINE GAS 1,837.80 1,837.80 2049171 10/25/17 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 736026 09/29/17 CHLORINE GAS 1,837.80 1,837.80 2049254 11/08/17 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 737411 10/12/17 CHLORINE GAS 1,837.80 1,837.80 2049289 11/15/17 18445 JOHN DAVID LLANO Ref002493370 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000222481 103.22 103.22 2049290 11/15/17 18452 JULIO SALAZAR Ref002493378 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000239443 161.08 161.08 2049291 11/15/17 18449 KELLY COLLARD Ref002493374 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000225084 19.36 19.36 2049255 11/08/17 11293 KENNY'S CLEAN SWEEP 102317 10/23/17 STREET SWEEPING 620.00 620.00 2049172 10/25/17 18398 KERR PROJECT SERVICES 6000101817 10/23/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 45.98 45.98 2049212 11/01/17 18407 KEVIN MEYER Ref002491815 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000221782 30.58 30.58 2049256 11/08/17 05840 KIRK PAVING INC 6624 10/18/17 PAVING SERVICE 8,587.00 8,587.00 2049257 11/08/17 02063 LA MESA - SPRING VALLEY 4148 09/20/17 WCG - BUS TRANSPORTATION 295.00 295.00 2049213 11/01/17 18400 LAMBERTO DE LEON JR 1183102517 10/25/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 45.68 45.68 2049173 10/25/17 15810 LANCE PICOTTE SAFETY CONSLTNG OWD100517 10/08/17 TRAINING (10/5/17)1,200.00 1,200.00 2049338 11/21/17 15615 LAYFIELD USA CORPORATION E07310 10/27/17 RESERVOIR COVER MAINT (9/25/17-10/26/17)52,950.00 52,950.00 2049339 11/21/17 07784 LICON, HECTOR 110817 11/16/17 SAFETY BOOTS 150.00 150.00 2049214 11/01/17 18405 LINDA GONZALES Ref002491813 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000194602 20.65 20.65 Page 6 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 312.50 3,033.55 2049258 11/08/17 17969 LONDON MOEDER ADVISORS 1425 11/02/17 CONSULTANT SERVICES 3,150.00 3,150.00 2049215 11/01/17 18401 MARISOL CASTELLANOS Ref002491809 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000002514 9.03 9.03 2049292 11/15/17 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0020552IN 11/01/17 REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 978.52 978.52 2049174 10/25/17 16608 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC 992282 10/05/17 870-2 PS INSPECTION SERVICES (ENDING 9/3/17)5,130.00 5,130.00 2049175 10/25/17 09581 MICHAEL R WELCH PHD PE 7148 10/02/17 ENGINEERING SERVICES (5/1/17-9/29/17)1,200.00 1,200.00 2049216 11/01/17 18408 MICHELLE CHASE Ref002491816 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000231760 33.83 33.83 2049259 11/08/17 16613 MISSION RESOURCE CONSERVATION 382 11/01/17 WATERSMART SERVICES (OCT 2017)187.50 381 10/01/17 WATERSMART SERVICES (SEPT 2017)125.00 2049217 11/01/17 18413 NANCY SMITH Ref002491821 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000239677 48.77 48.77 2049218 11/01/17 16255 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Ben2492199 11/02/17 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 10,041.20 10,041.20 2049293 11/15/17 16255 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Ben2493432 11/16/17 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 9,732.20 9,732.20 2049294 11/15/17 18444 NATURE'S IMAGE INC Ref002493369 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000217181 1,779.42 1,779.42 2049219 11/01/17 18172 NIGHTCODERS 123 10/20/17 WEB CONSULTING 3,065.00 3,065.00 2049176 10/25/17 00761 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 211662 09/27/17 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (7/29/17-8/25/17)2,964.50 2,964.50 2049340 11/21/17 00761 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 212531 11/02/17 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (8/26/17-9/29/17)3,049.00 3,049.00 2049260 11/08/17 07447 NTU TECHNOLOGIES INC 10049 10/12/17 POLYMER 929 TOTE 3,288.53 3,288.53 2049295 11/15/17 18064 NYHART 0134519 10/31/17 ACTUARIAL SERVICES (OCT 2017)2,607.50 2,607.50 2049261 11/08/17 06856 ORPAK USA INC 50136 09/01/17 GPS TRACKING SYSTEM 1,525.75 49961 07/01/17 GPS TRACKING SYSTEM 1,507.80 2049177 10/25/17 06856 ORPAK USA INC 50223 10/01/17 GPS TRACKING SYSTEM 1,525.75 1,525.75 2049341 11/21/17 06856 ORPAK USA INC 50276 11/01/17 GPS TRACKING SYSTEM 1,525.75 1,525.75 2049342 11/21/17 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY INC 317446 10/27/17 INVENTORY 473.02 473.02 2049178 10/25/17 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY INC 316960 09/30/17 INVENTORY 8,469.15 8,469.15 2049262 11/08/17 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY INC 317386 10/11/17 INVENTORY 2,640.95 2,640.95 2049179 10/25/17 18240 PACKET FUSION INC JC10389 10/05/17 PHONE PROVISIONING 390.00 390.00 2049220 11/01/17 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 103117 10/31/17 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 769.29 769.29 2049296 11/15/17 18443 PHILLIP HOSKING Ref002493368 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000187066 112.34 112.34 2049343 11/21/17 15081 PINOMAKI DESIGN 5626 11/01/17 GRAPHIC DESIGN 95.00 95.00 Page 7 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 26,027.04 83,475.78 2049343 11/21/17 15081 PINOMAKI DESIGN 5626 11/01/17 GRAPHIC DESIGN 95.00 95.00 2049344 11/21/17 06419 PLANT SOUP INC 1147 11/05/17 PROFESSIONAL WRITING SERVICES 1,181.25 1,181.25 2049221 11/01/17 03351 POSADA, ROD 102217102617 10/27/17 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMB (10/22/17-10/26/17)1,139.10 1,139.10 2049345 11/21/17 16029 POTABLE DIVERS INC 10142017 11/02/17 RESERVOIR INSPECTIONS 24,200.00 10142017B 11/02/17 RESERVOIR INSPECTIONS 1,827.04 2049222 11/01/17 07860 PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE CO B00824906 10/30/17 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 1,985.76 1,985.76 2049263 11/08/17 14776 RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES INV00965 10/12/17 COMP & BENEFITS STUDY 2,500.00 2,500.00 2049264 11/08/17 18435 RAYMOND SORIANO 9003110117 11/02/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 485.66 485.66 2049223 11/01/17 18411 RENUKA ZELLARS Ref002491819 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000233485 104.11 104.11 2049180 10/25/17 15647 RFYEAGER ENGINEERING LLC 17160 10/04/17 CORROSION SERVICES (7/1/17-9/30/17)14,960.00 14,960.00 2049346 11/21/17 15647 RFYEAGER ENGINEERING LLC 17179 11/01/17 CORROSION SERVICES (10/1/17-10/31/17)21,140.00 21,140.00 2049297 11/15/17 18442 RICHARD FIELDER Ref002493367 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000184437 162.27 162.27 2049181 10/25/17 08972 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 0057357 10/09/17 CAMPO ROAD SUPPORT SVCS (8/26/17-9/29/17)3,041.00 3,041.00 2049347 11/21/17 08972 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 0057851 10/26/17 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SVCS (826/17-9/29/17)1,705.67 1,705.67 2049348 11/21/17 00521 RICK POST WELD & WET TAPPING 11663 10/30/17 WET TAP 12"X 18"950.00 950.00 2049182 10/25/17 00521 RICK POST WELD & WET TAPPING 11634 10/05/17 WELD REPAIR 1,000.00 1,000.00 2049298 11/15/17 18438 ROBERT SHAFFER Ref002493362 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000005420 63.27 63.27 2049183 10/25/17 14744 ROLANDO CANA 2117102317 10/23/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 200.00 200.00 2049184 10/25/17 02620 ROTORK CONTROLS INC CI14953 09/28/17 ACTUATOR FOR 624 164.90 164.90 2049299 11/15/17 18439 ROY E WILLIAMS Ref002493364 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000045083 34.53 34.53 2049265 11/08/17 02586 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR 201700583 10/02/17 ASSESSOR DATA (SEPT 2017)125.00 125.00 2049349 11/21/17 02586 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR 201700680 11/01/17 ASSESSOR DATA (OCT 2017)125.00 125.00 2049266 11/08/17 00003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTH 0000001591 10/23/17 WATERSMART PROGRAM 449.00 449.00 2049224 11/01/17 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 102417 10/24/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)57,242.86 102517 10/25/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)16,545.03 101817 10/18/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)9,032.48 102217 10/22/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)655.41 2049185 10/25/17 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 101717 10/17/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)35,138.01 35,138.01 2049267 11/08/17 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 102517a 10/25/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)62,191.79 Page 8 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 71,704.59 230.00 185.00 13,875.58 2049267 11/08/17 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 102517a 10/25/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)62,191.79 110117 11/01/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)8,343.22 102417a 10/24/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)1,169.58 2049300 11/15/17 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 110117a 11/01/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)7,324.22 7,324.22 2049268 11/08/17 07676 SAN MIGUEL FIRE PROTECTION SMG29930 10/11/17 BUSINESS INSPECTION 394.00 394.00 2049301 11/15/17 18441 SIEMPRE VIVA BUSINESS PARK W Ref002493366 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000147549 266.06 266.06 2049186 10/25/17 00258 SLOAN ELECTRIC COMPANY 0068940 09/29/17 SM DRUM SCREEN MOTOR 4,191.22 4,191.22 2049225 11/01/17 18403 SONIA FARRAR Ref002491811 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000088601 12.43 12.43 2049226 11/01/17 18409 SONYA DEWBERRY Ref002491817 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000232043 45.24 45.24 2049302 11/15/17 18451 SOUTHLAND HOME MORTGAGE LLC Ref002493377 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000239277 160.61 160.61 2049303 11/15/17 14257 SOUTHWEST VALVE & EQUIPMENT 6021 09/25/17 MUD VALVES 3,608.62 3,608.62 2049350 11/21/17 03516 SPECIAL DISTRICT RISK 71850001112017 11/20/17 PROPERTY DEDUCTIBLE 12,000.00 12,000.00 2049304 11/15/17 00274 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 54504111017 11/09/17 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 115.00 8314110917 11/09/17 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 115.00 2049187 10/25/17 01460 STATE WATER RESOURCES 101717 10/17/17 APPLICATION FEE 622.00 622.00 2049305 11/15/17 05755 STATE WATER RESOURCES 26281110917 11/09/17 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 105.00 45290110917 11/09/17 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 80.00 2049269 11/08/17 03263 STRUNKS JR, DALE 116409 10/23/17 PRESCRIPTION SAFETY GLASSES 380.00 380.00 2049188 10/25/17 18395 SUBSITE LLC SO171146 04/07/17 CAMERA REPAIR 6,196.90 6,196.90 2049189 10/25/17 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 442633 09/29/17 UNLEADED FUEL 9,229.50 442634 09/29/17 DIESEL FUEL 4,646.08 2049306 11/15/17 18376 SVPR COMMUNICATIONS 1190 10/01/17 COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT (OCT 2017)2,500.00 2,500.00 2049270 11/08/17 17704 T&T JANITORIAL INC 20114141 09/30/17 JANITORIAL SERVICES (SEPT 2017)4,780.00 4,780.00 2049351 11/21/17 03770 TEAMAN RAMIREZ & SMITH INC 82418 11/14/17 AUDITING SERVICES FY17 17,888.00 17,888.00 2049352 11/21/17 03608 TELLIARD CONSTRUCTION OWD13017 10/30/17 BEARING REPLACEMENT 4,830.00 4,830.00 2049227 11/01/17 18402 THOMAS CUMMINGS Ref002491810 10/30/17 UB Refund Cst #0000040390 34.20 34.20 2049190 10/25/17 17967 TRI COUNTY PUMP COMPANY 15988 09/29/17 PUMP REPLACEMENT 25,496.97 25,496.97 2049271 11/08/17 15257 TRUESDALE, DENNIS 102217 10/22/17 SAFETY BOOT REIMBURSEMENT 150.00 150.00 2049191 10/25/17 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF 920170488 10/01/17 UNDERGROUND ALERTS (MONTHLY)544.60 544.60 Page 9 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 158.36 414.09 174,303.65 31,849.00 26,663.34 2049353 11/21/17 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF 1020170491 11/01/17 UNDERGROUND ALERTS (MONTHLY)552.85 552.85 2049192 10/25/17 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 46706 09/26/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (9/26/17-10/23/17)79.18 46705 09/26/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (9/26/17-10/23/17)79.18 2049272 11/08/17 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 46710 09/26/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (9/26/17-10/23/17)97.37 46708 09/26/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (9/26/17-10/23/17)79.18 46709 09/26/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (9/26/17-10/23/17)79.18 46711 09/26/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (9/26/17-10/23/17)79.18 46707 09/26/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (9/26/17-10/23/17)79.18 2049228 11/01/17 00350 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 3951103017 10/30/17 2049230 11/01/17 07674 US BANK CC20171023123 10/23/17 PATROLLING SERVICES (SEPT 2017)110.00 110.00 174,303.65 PREPAID POSTAGE MACHINE 6,000.00 6,000.00 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 2049231 11/01/17 06829 US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 1890861 09/28/17 2049273 11/08/17 06829 US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 1924077 10/26/17 PATROLLING SERVICES (OCT 2017)110.00 110.00 2049354 11/21/17 08028 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SD177605 11/01/17 MGMT/INSP (10/1/17-10/31/17)27,119.00 SD23601 11/01/17 MGMT/INSP (10/1/17-10/31/17)4,730.00 2049193 10/25/17 08028 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SD177604 10/01/17 MGMT/INSP (9/1/17-9/30/17)21,928.00 21,928.00 2049307 11/15/17 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2493438 11/16/17 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 14,322.48 14,322.48 2049232 11/01/17 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2492205 11/02/17 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 14,426.52 14,426.52 2049308 11/15/17 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2493440 11/16/17 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 829.27 829.27 2049233 11/01/17 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2492207 11/02/17 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 879.27 879.27 2049309 11/15/17 18447 VERONICA RAMIREZ Ref002493372 11/13/17 UB Refund Cst #0000223456 75.00 75.00 2049355 11/21/17 10340 WAGEWORKS INC INV358216 10/24/17 FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCT (OCT 2017)386.00 386.00 2049356 11/21/17 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 549775 11/15/17 ALARM MONITORING (DEC 2017)1,881.92 1,881.92 2049194 10/25/17 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 537668 08/25/17 SECURITY SYST UPGRADE 13,954.88 533909 08/08/17 1655-1 ALARM INSTALL 6,777.82 537823 08/29/17 870-1 PS ALARM INSTALL 5,930.64 2049195 10/25/17 15726 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 2744 09/30/17 HYDRAULIC MODELING (ENDING 9/30/17)1,555.00 1,555.00 2049357 11/21/17 15726 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 2782 10/31/17 HYDRAULIC MODELING (ENDING 10/31/17)1,692.50 1,692.50 2049310 11/15/17 03781 WATTON, MARK 101217102717 11/09/17 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMB (10/12/17-10/27/17)954.87 954.87 2049234 11/01/17 03781 WATTON, MARK 090117092917 10/30/17 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMB (9/1/17-9/29/17)880.68 Page 10 of 11 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 10/19/2017 - 11/21/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 980.19 1,125.00 250.00 080717082417 10/30/17 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (8/7/17-8/24/17)99.51 2049274 11/08/17 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL INC 116784 09/08/17 BEE REMOVAL 375.00 117706 10/13/17 BEE REMOVAL 125.00 117851 10/19/17 BEE REMOVAL 125.00 117472 10/04/17 BEE REMOVAL 125.00 116988 09/12/17 BEE REMOVAL 125.00 116921 09/08/17 BEE REMOVAL 125.00 116753 09/07/17 BEE REMOVAL 125.00 2049358 11/21/17 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL INC 118176 10/31/17 BEE REMOVAL 125.00 118435 10/13/17 BEE REMOVAL 125.00 2049196 10/25/17 18173 WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK 309302017 10/09/17 RETENTION/WEIR CONSTRUCTION (9/1/17-9/30/17)7,803.00 7,803.00 2049275 11/08/17 13483 WHITE NELSON DIEHL EVANS LLP 103017 10/30/17 TAX SEMINAR 790.00 790.00 2049197 10/25/17 18101 WIER CONSTRUCTION CORP 309302017 10/09/17 SEWER REPLACEMENT (9/1/17-9/30/17)148,257.00 148,257.00 Amount Pd Total:2,303,022.53 Check Grand Total:2,303,022.53 Page 11 of 11 Check Total 5,122.20 10,122.13 8,855.32 DISINFECTION SYSTEM (ENDING 11/24/17)1,627.50 1,627.50204948312/20/17 12174 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 55 11/30/17 18,945.14 2049360 11/29/17 18258 ADP LLC 503621619 11/17/17 PAYROLL IMPLEMENTATION (ENDING 11/16/17)2,712.50 2,712.50 1,072.20 1,072.20 2049482 12/20/17 18048 ACE ELECTRIC INC 00017541 11/29/17 RETAINAGE RELEASE 18,945.14 SHAREPOINT SERVICES (10/4/17-10/25/17)1,725.00 1,725.00 2049481 12/20/17 18122 ACC BUSINESS 173192219 11/27/17 INTERNET CIRCUITS (10/11/17-11/10/17) 2049399 12/06/17 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 7701 11/08/17 1017855 11/28/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 336.16 1017786 11/22/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 240.11 1018000 11/30/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 547.45 1017952 11/29/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 533.05 1018149 12/04/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 678.07 1017784 11/22/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 576.27 1017866 11/27/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 799.09 1017785 11/22/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 768.36 1018001 11/30/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 960.45 1018148 12/04/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 865.36 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,544.40 1017854 11/22/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,006.55 1017503 11/16/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 125.82 2049480 12/20/17 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1017867 11/27/17 1017184 11/08/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 383.22 1017460 11/15/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 280.45 1017461 11/15/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 528.24 1017358 11/13/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 384.18 1017359 11/13/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 871.12 1017222 11/09/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 672.31 1017223 11/09/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,056.49 1017459 11/15/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,039.20 1,849.82 1017504 11/16/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,840.21 1017671 11/20/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,091.07 TELECOM SYSTEM 24.45 24.45 2049398 12/06/17 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES INC 1017672 11/20/17 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 2049446 12/13/17 18088 8X8 INC 2075906 10/03/17 TELECOM SYSTEM 5,071.15 2095276 11/28/17 TELECOM SYSTEM 51.05 2049479 12/20/17 18088 8X8 INC 2098158 12/01/17 11.35 2049359 11/29/17 18088 8X8 INC 2086695 11/01/17 TELECOM SYSTEM (NOV 2017)5,025.16 5,025.16 Amount 2049397 12/06/17 18088 8X8 INC 2094728 11/14/17 TELECOM SYSTEM 11.35 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 11/22/2017 - 12/20/2017 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Page 1 of 8 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 11/22/2017 - 12/20/2017 13,790.00 REGISTER REPLACEMENT FY18 21,312.00204941012/06/17 17923 CONCORD UTILITY SERVICES 2167 11/10/17 500.00 2049451 12/13/17 15256 CIGNA GROUP INSURANCE / LINA 9267121217 12/12/17 VOLUNTARY SUPPLEMENTAL LIFE INSURANCE 3,986.91 3,986.91 299.00 299.00 2049489 12/20/17 01828 CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 737170072251 12/04/17 TITLE REPORT 500.00 14-INCH FORCE MAIN (ENDING 10/31/17)130,433.10 130,433.10 2049364 11/29/17 01788 CHAVARELA, GERARDO 112217 11/22/17 REIMBURSEMENT 2049409 12/06/17 17466 CHARLES KING COMPANY 610312017 11/07/17 84.85 2049450 12/13/17 18515 CHARLES & JANET DEERING 0003120817 12/11/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 511.16 511.16 2,124.92 2,124.92 2049363 11/29/17 18461 CHANDRA JOHNSON Ref002493554 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000141642 84.85 DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION FOR 870-2 PS 18,286.50 18,286.50 2049488 12/20/17 17022 CASTLE ACCESS INC 0223095376 12/01/17 COLOCATION SERVICES 2049408 12/06/17 15177 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 0162487 11/16/17 11,501.77 2049487 12/20/17 00192 CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT 145941121817 12/18/17 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 270.00 270.00 115,831.60 115,831.60 2049407 12/06/17 08490 CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST 110312017 11/09/17 RETENTION/TC CONST (ENDING 10/31/17)11,501.77 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 253.29 253.29 2049406 12/06/17 12577 BLASTCO INC 1210312017 11/15/17 978-1 & 850-2 RESERVOIRS (ENDING 10/31/17) 2049486 12/20/17 17613 BIENVENUE, DONALD 12142017DB 12/14/17 1,718.75 2049405 12/06/17 00145 BARRETT ENGINEERED PUMPS 106974 11/20/17 DRUM PUMPS 3,742.42 3,742.42 2,468.70 2,468.70 2049404 12/06/17 18477 BARBARA H MCLAUGHLIN 120117 12/01/17 U-18 SERIES 1978 SEWER BONDS 1,718.75 TELEPHONE SERVICES (10/12/17-11/11/17)3,711.06 3,711.06 2049403 12/06/17 11519 BACKFLOW APPARATUS & VALVE CO 829669 11/08/17 TEMP BACKFLOWS 2049485 12/20/17 07785 AT&T 000010494776 11/12/17 18,870.72 2049449 12/13/17 18511 ASHLEIGH BRADY Ref002495402 12/11/17 UB Refund Cst #0000240135 75.00 75.00 42.99 42.99 2049362 11/29/17 17264 ARTIANO SHINOFF 216724 11/13/17 LEGAL SERVICES (OCT 2017)18,870.72 UB Refund Cst #0000222458 23.99 23.99 2049448 12/13/17 18503 ANGELA ZACARIAS Ref002495394 12/11/17 UB Refund Cst #0000186388 CM201768 11/16/17 MGMT/INSP (10/1/17-10/31/17)800.00 2049361 11/29/17 18465 AMANDA STEIGER Ref002493558 11/27/17 CM201765 11/16/17 MGMT/INSP (10/1/17-10/31/17)2,550.00 CM201764 11/16/17 MGMT/INSP (10/1/17-10/31/17)900.00 3,520.00 CM201763 11/16/17 MGMT/INSP (10/1/17-10/31/17)3,140.00 CM201767 11/16/17 MGMT/INSP (10/1/17-10/31/17)2,880.00 UB Refund Cst #0000232142 35.24 35.24 2049402 12/06/17 14462 ALYSON CONSULTING CM201766 11/16/17 MGMT/INSP (10/1/17-10/31/17) 2049447 12/13/17 18507 ALCIRA GONZALEZ Ref002495398 12/11/17 16,266.00 2049401 12/06/17 06261 ALCANTARA, CYNTHIA 112417 12/04/17 EMPLOYEE PROGRAM 412.90 412.90 3,880.00 3,880.00 2049400 12/06/17 15024 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 2210312017 11/16/17 UTILITY LOCATING SVCS (10/1/17-10/31/17)16,266.00 2049484 12/20/17 11462 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 1425 11/29/17 DEVELOPER PLAN REVIEW (10/21/17-11/24/17) Page 2 of 8 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 11/22/2017 - 12/20/2017 33,644.00 612.00 2,423.00 23,741.00 8,410.51 374.46 TELECOM SVCS / METRO-E (11/28/17-12/27/17)133.74 133.74204949112/20/17 17770 COX BUSINESS 0301112817 11/28/17 TELECOM SVCS / METRO-E (11/12/17-12/11/17)240.72 6701111517 11/15/17 TELECOM SVCS / METRO-E (11/14/17-12/13/17)133.74 2049366 11/29/17 17770 COX BUSINESS 6801111217 11/12/17 TELECOM SVCS / METRO-E (11/24/17-12/23/17)8,276.77 9601112517 11/25/17 TELECOM SVCS / METRO-E (11/25/17-12/24/17)133.74 092861995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09286 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)374.00 2049412 12/06/17 17770 COX BUSINESS 6702112417 11/24/17 092901995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09290 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)374.00 092791995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09279 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)374.00 092851995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09285 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)374.00 092771995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09277 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)374.00 105651998RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 10565 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)374.00 092871995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09287 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)374.00 049832003RI2017 09/26/17 PERMIT FEES # 04983 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)374.00 092881995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09288 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)374.00 092891995RI2017 11/22/17 PERMIT FEES # 09289 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)510.00 092801995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09280 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)377.00 092831995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09283 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)733.00 092911995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09291 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)597.00 032311982RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 03231 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)869.00 095031996RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09503 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)733.00 019891982RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 01989 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)1,107.00 002332009RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 00233 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)869.00 PERMIT FEES # 09281 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)10,305.00 092761995RI2017 09/28/17 PERMIT FEES # 09276 (DEC 2017-DEC 2018)4,275.00 5346101717 10/17/17 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (12/31/17-12/31/18)469.00 2049365 11/29/17 02122 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 092811995RI2017 09/28/17 5351101717 10/17/17 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (12/31/17-12/31/18)469.00 5345101717 10/17/17 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (12/31/17-12/31/18)469.00 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (12/31/17-12/31/18)547.00 5348101717 10/17/17 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (12/31/17-12/31/18)469.00 2003193E62344111712/04/17 SHUT DOWN TEST (11/29/17)153.00 2049453 12/13/17 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 5349101717 10/17/17 2003193E62330111712/04/17 SHUT DOWN TEST (11/20/17)153.00 2003193E62332111712/04/17 SHUT DOWN TEST (11/20/17)153.00 25.00 25.00 2049490 12/20/17 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 2003193E62329111712/04/17 SHUT DOWN TEST (11/20/17)153.00 UB Refund Cst #0000240871 58.80 58.80 2049411 12/06/17 02612 COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES 101717 10/17/17 BUSINESS MEETING 2049452 12/13/17 18512 CONRAD TORRES Ref002495403 12/11/17 REGISTER REPLACEMENT FY18 21,312.00 2170 11/17/17 REGISTER REPLACEMENT FY18 12,332.00 2049410 12/06/17 17923 CONCORD UTILITY SERVICES 2167 11/10/17 Page 3 of 8 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 11/22/2017 - 12/20/2017 5,734.26 2,810.00 18,209.90 UB Refund Cst #0000239795 2,581.12 2,581.12204937011/29/17 18473 HAZARD CONTRUCTION Ref002493566 11/27/17 8,909.50 2049418 12/06/17 18235 GROUPWARE TECHNOLOGY INC 63101 11/07/17 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,325.00 1,325.00 150.00 150.00 2049501 12/20/17 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 16290 11/29/17 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (NOV 2017)8,909.50 CRADLEPOINT ROUTERS 2,682.38 2,682.38 2049459 12/13/17 10291 GOIN, JEFF 103117 12/08/17 SAFETY BOOTS 2049500 12/20/17 03537 GHA TECHNOLOGIES INC 9988562 11/29/17 PLC MODULES 15,297.01 S118687833002 11/28/17 PLC MODULES 2,912.89 2049499 12/20/17 10817 GEXPRO S118687833001 11/28/17 2,880.16 2049458 12/13/17 14480 GARCIA, GERMAN 120417 12/08/17 SAFETY BOOTS 150.00 150.00 3,800.00 3,800.00 2049498 12/20/17 03094 FULLCOURT PRESS 32496 11/29/17 PRINTING 2,880.16 WILO RZP PUMP 6,843.45 6,843.45 2049417 12/06/17 13563 FRIENDS OF THE WATER 415 11/30/17 GARDEN TOURS (NOV 2017) 2049497 12/20/17 01535 FLO-SYSTEMS INC F1665617B234 11/22/17 135.00 2049369 11/29/17 18466 FLOIT PROPERTIES Ref002493559 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000223035 1,887.24 1,887.24 1,007.53 1,007.53 2049496 12/20/17 02591 FITNESS TECH 10718 12/01/17 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE (DEC 2017)135.00 ONLINE DOCUMENTS 99.00 99.00 2049495 12/20/17 16469 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES 094141 12/04/17 COFFEE SERVICES 2049494 12/20/17 17888 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003401117 11/30/17 INVENTORY 1,637.80 0613820 11/20/17 INVENTORY 1,172.20 2049416 12/06/17 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0612855 11/09/17 0615792 11/21/17 INVENTORY 929.46 0615791 11/21/17 INVENTORY 371.74 38.76 2049493 12/20/17 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 06157921 11/22/17 INVENTORY 4,433.06 27.80 27.80 2049457 12/13/17 18509 FANNIE MAE Ref002495400 12/11/17 UB Refund Cst #0000233566 38.76 UB Refund Cst #0000205689 58.90 58.90 2049456 12/13/17 18506 ERNEST WYLIE Ref002495397 12/11/17 UB Refund Cst #0000216360 2049455 12/13/17 18505 ERIKA CRUZ Ref002495396 12/11/17 27,000.00 2049368 11/29/17 18458 ERICA NAVALES Ref002493550 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000041012 35.63 35.63 43.21 43.21 2049415 12/06/17 03725 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH 93376137 11/16/17 ESRI ENTERPRISE PROG (10/12/17-10/11/18)27,000.00 LASERFICHE LICENSES 13,230.00 13,230.00 2049454 12/13/17 18510 EDWARDO SOTO Ref002495401 12/11/17 UB Refund Cst #0000233996 2049492 12/20/17 17612 ECS IMAGING INC 12714 11/29/17 4,589.24 2049367 11/29/17 18468 DANIEL REYES Ref002493561 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000224344 10.02 10.02 10,612.00 10,612.00 2049414 12/06/17 11797 D&H WATER SYSTEMS INC I20171228 11/17/17 TACHOMETER MICRO2000 4,589.24 2049413 12/06/17 04443 CSI SERVICES INC 7849 11/09/17 COATING INSPECTION (10/1/17-10/27/17) Page 4 of 8 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 11/22/2017 - 12/20/2017 9,580.37 17,264.67 17,266.52 316,793.65 REPAIR PARTS 486.77 486.77204946612/13/17 16044 NAPA AUTO PARTS 852461 09/14/17 600.00 2049465 12/13/17 16613 MISSION RESOURCE CONSERVATION 383 12/01/17 WATERSMART SERVICES (NOV 2017)125.00 125.00 68.82 68.82 2049424 12/06/17 11876 MICHAEL D KEAGY REAL ESTATE 102417 10/24/17 APPRAISAL SERVICES (ENDING 10/24/17)600.00 REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 3,628.24 3,628.24 2049378 11/29/17 18456 MELVIN MONTANO 4535112217 11/22/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 2049377 11/29/17 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0020837IN 11/17/17 76.94 2049464 12/13/17 18504 MARK JACKSON Ref002495395 12/11/17 UB Refund Cst #0000187582 61.51 61.51 55.00 55.00 2049463 12/13/17 18501 MARILOU PAJE Ref002495392 12/11/17 UB Refund Cst #0000162645 76.94 CRANE INSPECTIONS (NOV 2017)975.00 975.00 2049462 12/13/17 18500 LOURDES RONQUILLO Ref002495391 12/11/17 UB Refund Cst #0000072588 2049505 12/20/17 12276 KONECRANES INC SDG001013377 12/07/17 56.65 2049423 12/06/17 05840 KIRK PAVING INC 6655 11/17/17 PAVING SERVICES 12,762.15 12,762.15 8.92 8.92 2049376 11/29/17 18464 KENNETH BREVIG Ref002493557 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000217666 56.65 CUSTOMER REFUND 2,633.18 2,633.18 2049375 11/29/17 18469 KATE CRAFTS Ref002493562 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000224595 2049422 12/06/17 15465 JORGE AHUAGE 5917120617 12/06/17 26.51 2049374 11/29/17 14304 JILL DUNN Ref002493553 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000120460 61.55 61.55 30.14 30.14 2049373 11/29/17 18462 JESUS SEVILLA Ref002493555 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000197544 26.51 ANTENNA SUBLEASE (DEC 2017)1,673.00 1,673.00 2049461 12/13/17 18508 JEFFREY FERRY Ref002495399 12/11/17 UB Refund Cst #0000232641 2049372 11/29/17 17106 IWG TOWERS ASSETS II LLC 421007 12/01/17 SEWER REHABILITATION (ENDING 8/31/17)309,382.70 208312017 11/21/17 SEWER REHABILITATION (ENDING 8/31/17)7,410.95 128061 11/02/17 BILL PROCESSING SVCS (OCT 2017)2,207.92 2049504 12/20/17 17988 INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES LLC 108312017 11/21/17 BILL PROCESSING SVCS (OCT 2017)11,778.95 127848 10/31/17 BILL PROCESSING SRVCS (OCT 2017)3,279.65 2049371 11/29/17 08969 INFOSEND INC 127849 10/31/17 11,773.11 129239 11/30/17 BILL PROCESSING SVCS (NOV 2017)3,278.04 129571 12/04/17 BILL PROCESSING SVCS (NOV 2017)2,213.52 GAS DETECTION PROGRAM (NOV 2017)704.58 704.58 2049503 12/20/17 08969 INFOSEND INC 129240 11/30/17 BILL PROCESSING SVCS (NOV 2017) 2049502 12/20/17 17816 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 2050631 11/30/17 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (10/1/17-10/27/17)7,845.37 0126052 11/09/17 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (10/1/17-10/27/17)1,735.00 2049460 12/13/17 15622 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 0126056 11/10/17 545.08 2049421 12/06/17 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMNTL PLANNING INC 63190 11/13/17 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (10/1/17-10/31/17)7,944.21 7,944.21 3,056.25 3,056.25 2049420 12/06/17 10973 HDR ENGINEERING INC 28 11/17/17 CORROSION SERVICES (8/6/17-10/28/17)545.08 2049419 12/06/17 10973 HDR ENGINEERING INC 1200084488 11/07/17 SEWER RATE STUDY (10/1/17-10/28/17) Page 5 of 8 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 11/22/2017 - 12/20/2017 6,600.00 112217 11/22/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)37,644.80 112017a 11/20/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)561.43 888.99 2049433 12/06/17 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 112617 11/26/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)73,554.46 125.00 125.00 2049432 12/06/17 00003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTH 0000001598 11/16/17 WATERSMART PROGRAM 888.99 UB Refund Cst #0000232188 57.44 57.44 2049471 12/13/17 02586 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR 201700767 12/01/17 ASSESSOR DATA (NOV 2017) 20171108147 11/08/17 CONFINED SPACE TRAINING 2,100.00 2049384 11/29/17 18471 SALVADOR MONTES Ref002493564 11/27/17 1,000.00 1,000.00 2049431 12/06/17 18033 SAFETY-R-US LLC 20171031146 10/31/17 HAZWOPER TRAINING (10/31/17-11/2/17)4,500.00 DESIGN SERVICES (8/26/17-10/27/17)11,874.95 11,874.95 2049511 12/20/17 00521 RICK POST WELD & WET TAPPING 11687 11/27/17 WELDING FORCE MAIN 2049510 12/20/17 08972 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 17829D5 11/21/17 1,953.22 2049430 12/06/17 08972 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 0057970 11/14/17 CAMPO ROAD SUPP SVCS (9/30/17-10/27/17)12,937.18 12,937.18 1,175.59 1,175.59 2049470 12/13/17 18502 REYLENN CONSTRUCTION Ref002495393 12/11/17 UB Refund Cst #0000173183 1,953.22 CUSTOMER REFUND 81.10 81.10 2049429 12/06/17 18475 RAYMOND FRANCISCO 1911113017 11/30/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 2049469 12/13/17 18514 RAYMOND BELTRAN 2026121117 12/11/17 6,853.71 2049383 11/29/17 18467 RAQUEL CHACON Ref002493560 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000223927 25.02 25.02 266.93 266.93 2049509 12/20/17 05736 QUEST SOFTWARE INC 1000820881 11/29/17 KACE RENEWAL 6,853.71 DESIGN SERVICES (ENDING 10/26/17)1,750.00 1,750.00 2049382 11/29/17 18472 PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC Ref002493565 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000233341 2049428 12/06/17 03613 PSOMAS 135671 11/17/17 7,500.00 2049427 12/06/17 17992 PROSPECTRA CONTRACT FLOORING 23134625 08/31/17 FLOOR COVERING RPLMNT (THRU 8/31/17)172,344.25 172,344.25 170.00 170.00 2049426 12/06/17 10819 PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE 171234 11/20/17 VIBRATION TESTING (OCT 2017-SEPT 2018)7,500.00 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 455.02 455.02 2049508 12/20/17 15081 PINOMAKI DESIGN 5643 12/01/17 GRAPHIC DESIGN 2049468 12/13/17 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 121217 12/12/17 262.06 2049381 11/29/17 18470 PAL GENERAL ENGINEERING Ref002493563 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000229930 1,668.16 1,668.16 1,095.00 1,095.00 2049507 12/20/17 17527 OTERO, TENILLE 090117113017 12/20/17 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (9/1/17-11/30/17)262.06 ACTUARIAL SERVICES (NOV 2017)595.00 595.00 2049380 11/29/17 03215 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL 11212017MO 11/21/17 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 2049425 12/06/17 18064 NYHART 0134958 11/21/17 9,732.20 2049506 12/20/17 00761 NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND 213245 11/27/17 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (9/30/17-10/27/17)3,830.75 3,830.75 9,182.20 9,182.20 2049379 11/29/17 16255 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Ben2493598 11/30/17 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 9,732.20 REPAIR PARTS 486.77 486.77 2049467 12/13/17 16255 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Ben2495427 12/14/17 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 2049466 12/13/17 16044 NAPA AUTO PARTS 852461 09/14/17 Page 6 of 8 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 11/22/2017 - 12/20/2017 112,099.84 120,671.21 3,661.58 19,079.00 17,157.37 52.44 36.98 36.98 UB Refund Cst #0000213236 1,839.82 1,839.82 2049392 11/29/17 18459 TOM VITTON Ref002493551 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000043930 100117103117 10/23/17 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (OCT 2017)17.66 2049391 11/29/17 18463 TIERRA DATA INC Ref002493556 11/27/17 750.00 750.00 2049390 11/29/17 14177 THOMPSON, MITCHELL 110117113017 11/27/17 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (NOV 2017)34.78 SUPERVISORY TRAINING 399.00 399.00 2049517 12/20/17 02795 THE HARTFORD INSURANCE CO 11443121317 12/13/17 INSURANCE PREMIUM 2049439 12/06/17 03236 THE CENTRE FOR ORGANIZATION TCFOE2087 11/15/17 218,533.54 2049389 11/29/17 18460 TERESA HAYES Ref002493552 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000094252 75.00 75.00 4,780.00 4,780.00 2049438 12/06/17 01834 TC CONSTRUCTION CO INC 110312017 11/09/17 HILLSDALE RD PROJECTS (ENDING 10/31/17)218,533.54 COMMUNICATION CONSULTANT (NOV 2017)2,500.00 2,500.00 2049437 12/06/17 17704 T&T JANITORIAL INC 20174242 10/31/17 JANITORIAL SERVICES (OCT 2017) 444437 11/08/17 DIESEL FUEL 6,761.93 2049516 12/20/17 18376 SVPR COMMUNICATIONS 1194 11/01/17 5,214.88 5,214.88 2049436 12/06/17 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 444436 11/08/17 UNLEADED FUEL 10,395.44 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL 80.00 80.00 2049388 11/29/17 15974 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL Ben2493596 11/30/17 MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION TO LTD 2049474 12/13/17 05755 STATE WATER RESOURCES 5191120817 12/08/17 WD0127507 12/18/17 ANNUAL FEE (7/1/17-6/30/18)2,088.00 WD0127073 12/18/17 ANNUAL FEE (7/1/17-6/30/18)2,062.00 115.00 115.00 2049515 12/20/17 01460 STATE WATER RESOURCES WD0127727 12/18/17 ANNUAL FEE (7/1/17-6/30/18)14,929.00 TERTIARY INF VALVES 9,843.60 9,843.60 2049387 11/29/17 00274 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 68982112217 11/22/17 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 2049514 12/20/17 14257 SOUTHWEST VALVE & EQUIPMENT 5019 11/30/17 18.60 2049435 12/06/17 18474 SOCAL ARTISAN FOODS INC 12858 11/28/17 BUSINESS MEETING - SPECIAL BOARD MTG 398.68 398.68 1,683.00 1,683.00 2049386 11/29/17 18457 SHEENA LAWRIE Ref002493549 11/27/17 UB Refund Cst #0000010803 18.60 OTHER AGENCY FEES 613.48 613.48 2049473 12/13/17 18516 SHAKIR DANIEL 3910120817 12/11/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 12/14/17 SAFETY GLASSES 325.00 325.00 2049434 12/06/17 05512 SD COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL PROG SD10037201718 11/27/17 2,097.02 112117 11/21/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)1,564.56 2049513 12/20/17 15086 SAVAGE, DEANDRE DS121417 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)170,174.14 170,174.14 2049512 12/20/17 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 120317a 12/03/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 112017 11/20/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)55.83 2049472 12/13/17 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 120317 12/03/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)85,062.72 111617 11/16/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)35,552.66 112917 11/29/17 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)339.15 2049385 11/29/17 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 103117 10/31/17 Page 7 of 8 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 11/22/2017 - 12/20/2017 572.45 174,445.39 28,918.00 206,359.00 Amount Pd Total:2,409,996.17 Check Grand Total:2,409,996.17 10,861.00 10,861.00 2049445 12/06/17 18101 WIER CONSTRUCTION CORP 410312017 11/14/17 SEWER REPLACEMENT (10/1/17-10/31/17)206,359.00 ALARM MONITORING (JAN 2018)1,941.92 1,941.92 2049444 12/06/17 18173 WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK 410312017 11/14/17 RETENTION/WEIR CONST (10/1/17-10/31/17) 2049523 12/20/17 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 553883 12/15/17 816.00 2049478 12/13/17 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 542148 09/27/17 SECURITY SYST UPGRADE 13,138.15 13,138.15 1,881.92 1,881.92 2049443 12/06/17 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 550236 11/09/17 SECURITY ALARM REPLMT 816.00 FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCT (NOV 2017)386.00 386.00 2049396 11/29/17 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION 545538 10/15/17 ALARM MONITORING (NOV 2017) 2049522 12/20/17 10340 WAGEWORKS INC INV399971 11/24/17 704.27 2049395 11/29/17 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2493606 11/30/17 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 829.27 829.27 14,301.87 14,301.87 2049477 12/13/17 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2495435 12/14/17 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 704.27 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 14,270.67 14,270.67 2049394 11/29/17 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2493604 11/30/17 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN SD23602 12/01/17 MGMT/INSP (11/1/17-11/30/17)880.00 2049476 12/13/17 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2495433 12/14/17 4,555.61 4,555.61 2049521 12/20/17 08028 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SD177606 12/01/17 MGMT/INSP (11/1/17-11/30/17)28,038.00 PATROLLING SERVICES (NOV 2017)110.00 110.00 2049520 12/20/17 03190 VALCO INSTRUMENTS CO INC 90350277 11/29/17 ROTORS & STATOR CAPS 2049475 12/13/17 06829 US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 1959628 11/23/17 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY)174,445.39204944212/06/17 07674 US BANK CC20171122241 11/22/17 51125 10/24/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (10/24/17-11/20/17)79.18 51123 10/24/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (10/24/17-11/20/17)79.18 51120 10/24/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (10/24/17-11/20/17)79.18 51119 10/24/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (10/24/17-11/20/17)79.18 97.37 51122 10/24/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (10/24/17-11/20/17)79.18 51121 10/24/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (10/24/17-11/20/17)79.18 UNDERGROUND ALERTS 437.35 437.35 2049393 11/29/17 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 51124 10/24/17 PORT. TOILET RENTAL (10/24/17-11/20/17) 2049519 12/20/17 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF 1120170489 12/01/17 257.89 2049518 12/20/17 17586 UNDERGROUND PIPELINE SOLUTIONS 00017351 06/29/17 RETAINAGE RELEASE 7,562.34 7,562.34 2049440 12/06/17 18476 TOMMIE VERDELL 2320113017 11/30/17 CUSTOMER REFUND 257.89 Page 8 of 8