Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-15 Board Packet 1 OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DISTRICT BOARDROOM 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY April 1, 2015 3:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 2015 AND REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2015 5. PRESENTATION FROM THE CHALDEAN AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COM- MERCE (BEN KALASHO, PRESIDENT) 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 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) AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ABHE AND SVOBODA, INC. (A & S) FOR THE 850-3 RESERVOIR INTERIOR COATING PRO- JECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $366,720 b) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRON- MENTAL CONSULTANTS (NINYO & MOORE) IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO- EXCEED $175,000 FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR (4) YEARS (FY 2015 THROUGH FY 2018, ENDING JUNE 30, 2018) 2 ACTION ITEMS 8. ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS a) APPROVE THE UPDATED WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND VERI- FICATION REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 2015 FOR THE OTAY RANCH PLANNING AREA 12 FREEWAY COMMERCIAL PROJECT AS RE- QUIRED BY SENATE BILLS 610 AND 221 (COBURN-BOYD) 9. BOARD a) DISCUSSION OF THE 2015 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR REPORTS 10. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT a) SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE 11. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS 12. PRESIDENT’S REPORT/REQUESTS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 13. CLOSED SESSION a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] PATRICIA MOSS v. OTAY WATER DISTRICT, et. al.; CASE NO. 37-2014- 00005818-CU-OE-CTL b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] RAND ENGINEERING INCORPORATED v. AMERICAN PRIDE GENERAL EN- GINEERING, INC. et al.; CASE NO. 37-2014-00039316-CU-OR-CTL RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 14. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION 15. ADJOURNMENT 3 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 March 27, 2015, 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 March 27, 2015. /s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT January 27, 2015 1. The meeting was called to order by President Lopez at 12:10 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Directors Present: Croucher, Lopez, Robak, Smith and Thompson Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, Asst. General Counsel Richard Romero, Asst. GM German Alvarez, Chief of Engineering Rod Posada, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Information Technology Geoff Stevens, Chief of Operations Pedro Porras, Asst. Chief of Administration and Information Technology Adolfo Segura, Asst. Chief of Operations Jose Martinez, 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 Robak and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Lopez, 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. WORKSHOP 6. DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 2015 – 2018 STRATEGIC PLAN AND A REVIEW OF STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS [SWOT ANALYSIS] 2 General Manager Watton indicated that the District’s Strategic Plan (or hybrid Business Plan) has been one of the foundational documents from which the District has been operating from in conjunction with the budget. He stated that the Strategic Plan is utilized to develop the budget which is scheduled to be presented at the Board Budget Workshop scheduled in May 2015. He indicated that the goal for today’s Workshop is to receive the Board’s feedback on the SWOT Analysis and the Strategic Plan Objectives. He noted that the District has been utilizing the same format for its Strategic Plan for 11 years and it has been successful with the plan. Staff feels that the format still works for the District and it will be the same platform from which the District will work for the next three (3) years. Chief of Information Technology Geoff Stevens reviewed the District’s Mission and Vision statements and indicated that they have not changed (see attached document). He stated that while they could change, they really shouldn’t change. He shared that staff did do a couple wordsmith changes, but in essence, it has not changed. He also presented the District’s Statement of Values and indicated that it did not change as well. He indicated many strategic plans do not include a Key Challenge, but the concept behind a Key Challenge is as a focusing tool. He read the District’s Key Challenge statement: “Our key challenge, as District staff, is to quantify and demonstrate our commitment and ability to optimize our resources, business processes, and technology to achieve the strategic plan goals. We, as a team, commit to regularly assess and document how our decisions and work practices accomplish our goals and objectives.” He stated that staff is making a commitment to assess it processes periodically and to apply measurements to the District’s programs to demonstrate that it is achieving its strategic plan goals. He presented the Balance Scorecard Goals and indicated that it is an inclusive methodology for strategic planning. It provides categories (Customer, Financial, Business Processes, and Learning and Growth) in which the organization then identifies objectives for the categories, which assures that the organization is focused on these issues. The theory is if the organization does a good job in identifying objectives, it will do a good job in planning for the organization. He stated that SWOT Analysis was a product of the Harvard Business School and was introduced in the 1960’s. He indicated that the District has identified its Mission, Vision and Values which sets the direction of the organization. The District then identified its smartest ideas, which are its objectives. The SWOT Analysis is an exercise that looks at pros and cons and determines which objectives are potentially the most beneficial from a strategic perspective. He noted that there is not a one-to-one match intended between the SWOT Analysis and the objectives. It’s more of an overview, to assure that things have been 3 considered. Similar to strategy mapping where the District looks at its management strengths as a base and then moves towards the top to the District’s customers where business and finances join. Staff would like to receive the board members feedback and thoughts on staffs’ analysis. Chief of Information Technology Stevens indicated that staff held three (3) sessions on the Balance Scorecard and SWOT Analysis. He then reviewed the staff analysis of the District’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats:  Strengths: o Strategic Planning o Experienced and focused management team o Experienced, knowledgeable, and dedicated workforce (workforce brings previous work experiences) o Sound financial strength o Credibility with the Board o Strong support from the Board of Directors  Weaknesses: o Need for more comprehensive and integrated asset management program o Dependent on imported water o Inability to keep good relationship with other local agencies o Not as advanced as could be in social media to improve customer communication and awareness  Opportunities: o Ability to develop process improvement o Leverage new systems and technology o Using tools and technology to improve customer knowledge o Water supply/water sources o Emergency planning/emergency response time o Leveraging asset management  Threats: o Reduction of water supply/water resources o Increased rates (power cost, BDCP, CWA, desalination, etc.) o Regulatory mandates o Danger of complacency o Sewer rates o Aging infrastructure o Cyber security and terrorists acts Director Croucher indicated that he felt that the Otay Water District is the only agency that truly operates day-to-day, weekly, and long term with a Strategic Plan. He complimented staff and the entire organization for their work and participation in the District’s Strategic Plan. He noted that all staff and members of the board have access to the Strategic Plan and its status reports. He indicated that an organization’s strength and weaknesses is its people. It’s the 4 employees’ expertise and their historical knowledge of the organization. He stated that as employees reaches the end of their career, the District needs to mold and train the new upcoming employees. He stated that he felt that the District has implemented technology that is cutting edge, but not bleeding edge and he is very comfortable where the District has gone with technology. He stated that staff and the board have discussed the District not being on the bleeding edge of technology as, at that level, the District is basically paying to beta test new unproven technology. He noted that the District is proactively exploring new water supplies, such as, reclaimed and desalination for its customers who, ultimately, the District is accountable to. He stated customers concerns are availability of water supply, quality and cost. He lastly suggested that the District change the third item listed under Weaknesses to, “Dealing with constantly changing staffing, political initiatives, etc. of partner agencies.” Director Thompson commented with regard to the weakness, “Dealing with constantly changing staffing, political initiatives, etc. of partner agencies,” that it is one of the District’s largest challenge to it achieving its goals as the District must partner with multiple agencies, which is a very difficult and complex process. He stated because of this, it takes time to come to consensus/agreement. It was also discussed that the District is addressing those items that are identified as weaknesses and threats and that they would be part of the next discussion concerning SWOT Analysis and Strategic Planning. Director Smith suggested that staff change the item listed under Opportunities for Water Supply/Water Sources to, “Diversify water supply/water sources.” He also asked that, “Succession planning,” be added as an item. Director Smith also suggested that the District consider identifying an Agency Liaison, such as, an Engineering/Planning position who is responsible for reaching out to the different agencies ahead of projects to discuss and coordinate with these agencies. He lastly suggested that, “Pipeline condition assessment,” possibly be added as a weakness depending on how far along the District is in downloading pipeline data assessments into the GIS System. It was discussed that the District is far along in that process, but it still has further to go. In response to an inquiry from Director Robak, Chief of Information Technology Stevens indicated that approximately three (3) years ago the District performed a Best Management Practice study on its Operations utilizing CMOM (Capacity, Management, Operations and Maintenance). He explained that CMOM is a Federal program that compares collection systems across the Country. The program identifies a list of generalized best practices, wherein, the District is rated against these best practices. Staff indicated that the District is in good shape. Chief of Water Operations Porras also indicated that the District utilized a consultant every two years to review and advise the District on where it can improve its electrical consumption to find savings. This company receives compensated by taking a percentage of any savings they identify. The 5 consultant, however, found during three (3) different reviews that the District is already doing all it can to save electricity. It was noted that the District also utilizes the Qualserve benchmarks to compare the District’s operations with agencies throughout the United States, reviews articles in various publications, including the Harvard Business Review, to see if suggestions in the articles would be beneficial to the District, etc. Staff also shared that the District has been utilizing electronic maps in the field for seven (7) plus years, whereas most public agencies are still utilizing paper maps in the field. Also, in each of the last two years, staff presented six (6) studies to the senior team that summarizes what Best Practices are and reviewed Black & Veatch’s study regarding enterprise utilities. It was stated that the District is always looking at ways to improve its operations, financial statements, its transparency, etc. Director Thompson observed that the most savings realized by the District is through the implementation of technology. He stated that he would like the District to review its process with regard to testing and incorporating technological advancements. He stated that a lot of technology is being introduced rapidly and asked if the District has a system to review its work processes and determine if it can be done better by implementing new technology. Staff indicated that that is a theme throughout the objectives for all departments. Performance goals are set with specific objectives within the departments to review business processes, work flows, unit costs, the possibility of sharing resources within and between departments, etc. Staff also attends conferences to be apprised of new technology that may benefit the District. Staff shared that another way that business processes and workflows are evaluated is when employees leave or retire. The open job classification is then reviewed to see if the position is still relevant, can be integrated with other functions, etc. This review is the reason that the District has been able to reduce its fulltime equivalents (FTEs), while still increasing workload and productivity. It was noted in response to a suggestion by Director Thompson, that a new objective has already been created that summarizes the results of the District’s process improvements in both technology and in staffing. Staff agreed with Director Thompson that they could articulate this information better and that it could be strengthened in the District’s Strategic Plan. President Lopez noted that the Strategic Plan provides the District’s constituents a view of what the District is doing and is something that can be provided to the public if they have questions. He stated that the board strongly supports the Strategic Plan and he is proud to have anyone look at the District’s website and provide feedback on what the District is dong. He stated that he always receives positive feedback from those who do review the District’s website. 6 Chief of Information Technology Stevens thanked the board for their feedback and indicated that staff will be taking their comments and integrating them into the District’s SWOT Analysis. Staff then presented each of the District’s department objectives within the Strategic Plan. He stated that part of the process is getting the right objectives. He stated the assumption is if you put the right things in place and do the right things, then the District will accomplish its strategies. He noted that all the departments include an objective titled, “Department level manuals and business functions.” This objective is to document all the District’s business processes, provide for succession planning and cross training. In response to an inquiry from Director Smith, staff indicated that the District does have a lot of its business processes documented.  Operations: 1. Evaluate replacing the District’s two-way (Motorola) radio system 2. Expand the Leak Detection Program 3. Electric power and fuel management practices 4. Optimize inventory management 5. Streamline work processes  Engineering: 1. Evaluate efficiencies for delivering capital assets 2. Planning will address dependency on imported water 3. Evaluate recycled water planning 4. Sewer system consolidation 5. Streamline work processes  Administration and Information Technology: 1. Optimize SCADA Program 2. Continue to enhance the Asset Management Program 3. Optimize GPS/GIS Technology 4. Enhance physical and cyber security 5. District Emergency Response Program 6. Streamline procurement and contractor on-boarding process via web-based eProcurement Technology 7. Negotiate a successor Memorandum of Understanding for represented employees for 2017 and beyond and related compensation and benefits for unrepresented employees with emphasis on making necessary update to Employee Health Benefits related to Health Care Reform 8. Evaluate Eden’s self-service option within HR Module 9. Evaluate opportunities to combine or transfer similar work functions  Finance: 1. Strengthen internal audit program 7 2. Enhance cost benefit analysis 3. Enhance communications with District customers 4. Evaluate current and new CIS Systems 5. Improve and streamline meter related processes 6. Evaluate and enhance District’s water conservation programs and services 7. Streamline work processes General Manager Watton indicated that staff will be taking the comments from the board and going back to develop and publish the Strategic Plan for the May budget workshop. Director Smith remarked that the District, through its programs, encourages its customers to conserve and by customers doing so, the District must charge them more for water. He stated that there is a fine line in how much an agency encourages conservation through its water conservation programs as it impacts the District’s finances. He indicated that there is also confusion expressed in the paper by customers with regard to the public being asked to conserve, while the cities and water districts continue to allow growth. It was discussed that by continuing to educate the public it can help give them perspective on water issues. Director Thompson indicated that one of the items he did not see under the District’s strengths is the District’s fairly good relationship with its customer base. The District has built up quite a bit of trust through its communications and he noted that customers rarely attend the District’s meetings to complain, which tells him that customers understands the District’s situation. Director Croucher noted that the District is not for or against growth. Otay WD only supplies water to its customers and is not involved in the decision for growth or no growth. He clarified that the Otay WD is responsible for planning and securing water supply resources and for signing off on whether it can supply the water required by new developments. It does not determine whether growth should or should not occur. Chief of Information Technology Steven indicated that staff will take the board’s feedback from today’s discussion and will recalibrate the objectives and Balance Scorecard measures. Staff will also add as a strength, the District’s good relationship with its customers, as suggested by the board. He stated that the board will be provided the second quarter Strategic Plan results in the next month and will see the Strategic Plan again at the FY 2016 Budget Workshop. The board thanked staff for their good work on the Strategic Plan and on their work at CWA by providing good feedback on behalf of the District and its ratepayers on CWA proposed rates, etc. 8 7. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Lopez adjourned the meeting at 2:07 p.m. ___________________________________ President ATTEST: District Secretary 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT February 4, 2015 1. The meeting was called to order by President Lopez at 3:34 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Directors Present: Croucher, Lopez, Robak, Smith and Thompson Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, Asst. General Counsel Richard Romero, Chief of Engineering Rod Posada, Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem, Chief of Information Technology Geoff Stevens, Chief of Operations Pedro Porras, Asst. Chief of Administration and Information Technology Adolfo Segura, Asst. Chief of Operations Jose Martinez, District Secretary Susan Cruz and others per attached list. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Director Thompson, and seconded by Director Croucher and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Lopez, Robak, Smith and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the agenda. 5. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 2015 A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Lopez and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Lopez, Robak, Smith and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 2 to approve the minutes of the regular board meeting of October 1, 2014 and special board meeting of December 5, 2014. 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 No one wished to be heard. 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 Thompson and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Lopez, Robak, Smith and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None to approve the following consent calendar items: a) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO AEGIS ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT (AEGIS) FOR AS-NEEDED PLAN REVIEW, INSPECTION, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPER POTABLE AND RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $400,000, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) FISCAL YEARS (FYs 2015 AND 2016) WITH THE CONTRACTUAL END DATE OF JUNE 30, 2017 b) APPROVE AN ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH THE AUDITING FIRM OF TEAMAN, RAMIREZ AND SMITH, INC., TO PROVIDE AUDIT SERVICES TO THE DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015 c) APPROVE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE WHEELING RATE FOR THE DELIVERY OF TREATY WATERS TO MEXICO TO $70.37 FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2015 AND SET MEXICO’S PLANNED PROJECT AND EMERGENCY REPAIR RESERVE FUND REQUIREMENT AT $70,000 d) ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 549 AMENDING SECTION 1.03.A, DATE OF ELECTION, OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES 3 ACTION ITEMS 8. BOARD a) DISCUSSION OF THE 2015 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR There were no changes to the board meeting calendar. 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) DEMONSTRATION OF THE DISTRICT’S DASHBOARD Asst. Chief of Administration and Information Technology Segura presented an informational report on the District’s new web based “Dashboard” which is proposed to be available to the public on the District’s website in the following month after receiving the board’s feedback. The Dashboard is similar to the San Diego County Water Authority’s (CWA) Dashboard which they launched in early 2014. The Dashboard will provide information on the District’s water supply reliability, water distribution and facilities, and financials. It will provide a customer centric layout that facilitates user friendly navigation. Mr. Segura provided a demonstration of each of the panels in the Dashboard. Please reference the Committee Action notes attached to staff’s report (Attachment A) for the details of Mr. Segura’s report. In response to an inquiry from Director Thompson, it was indicated that the number of person’s visiting the Dashboard can be tracked along with the time the visitor spent reviewing information on the Dashboard. Staff can also develop analytics into the tracking mechanism to provide statistical data. Mr. Segura indicated, in response to an inquiry from Director Thompson, that updating the Dashboard data monthly is the best option at this time. He noted that some of the Dashboard data will be updated quarterly, but the majority of the information will be updated monthly. Staff will also have a disclaimer window which will display when the Dashboard is launched by a visitor, similar to CWA’s, indicating that the information presented in the Dashboard is updated on a monthly basis. Director Croucher commended staff on their work on the Dashboard. He stated that it provides a lot of good information that is requested by the public. Director Robak indicated that he felt the Dashboard provided good data for the public and it responds to the goals of the District being more customer focused. 4 He stated he understands that this is developing technology, but he would like to see, real time, where customers can see their water use today versus their use in past years so they may be aware of their usage. He indicated that he felt the WordPress platform displays better on a cell phone, however, when you click on the bill pay page, it is not mobile friendly. He suggested that the District focus on areas the customer can really benefit from and felt that bill pay would be the highest priority, second is providing customers’ their water use data from year to year, then information on what the District/Region is doing. Mr. Segura indicated that that would be part of Phase II of this project. Currently, the District is in Phase I where the goal was to redesign the website and Phase II of the project will be to implement an app that would allow customers to view data associated with their account. Mr. Segura indicated that the app would be introduced by the end of the summer. Mr. Segura confirmed, in response to an inquiry from Director Smith, that the District’s Consumer Confidence Report (Water Quality Report) is available on the District’s website. The District’s financial audit report is also available on the District’s website. He stated that there are many things that can be added to the website, however, the District must be careful that the site doesn’t get too crowded or busy as that causes visitors to lose interest in the website. REPORTS 10. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT General Manager Watton presented information from his report that included an update on Tyler Technologies selecting Mr. Bill Poulin, Database Administrator, to present at the 2015 Tyler Technologies Conference in May 2015; GIS Manager, Ms. Ming Zhao, will be presenting the District’s paper on, “Integrate CCTV Data in GIS Work Flow,” at an upcoming ESRI Regional Water Conference; the California Friendly Landscape Contest; the kick-off of FY 2016 Budget process; the District receiving the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for FY 2014-2015 from the Government Finance Officers Association for the eleventh year in a row; the North-South District Interconnect Pipeline Project; the Rosarito Desalination Project; and the Integrated Resource Plan. In response to an inquiry from Director Robak regarding the handout, “Water Desalination Report,” that was placed on the dias, General Manager Watton indicated that the State of Baja would like to entertain some discussions with the States of Arizona, California and Nevada regarding Colorado River water trades. At this time, discussions have not occurred. He stated that CONAGUA has a public project that they have been working on, which is not feasible due to number of reasons, including issues with the land. He stated that he did not wish to review the issues in detail at this time. However, CNA feels that the private project is more preferable as it places the project at the Federal Level and opens 5 the talk with the United States. Now there is some competition and confusion around the issue of a public versus private project. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE Director Croucher indicated that next month he will bring back a two (2) page document listing the current rebates that are available from CWA, MWD and SDG&E. He stated that he will continue to bring these lists to the board. He shared with regard to the artificial turf discount program that he has brought back to CWA some of the comments and questions from the Otay WD board members. He also shared that he will be traveling to Sacramento next month with CWA’s Legislative, Conservation and Outreach Committee to visit with some of the legislators. He indicated that if there is opportunity for the District’s board members to have access to meet with some of our local legislators, he will let the District’s board members know and that he would include the District’s members who have interest in those meetings. He indicated that he will also be bringing back a list of all the outside organizations that CWA is a member. He lastly shared that CWA will be performing another public outreach/opinion survey and if there are questions the board would like to have included in the survey, to please let staff know. General Manager Watton indicated that the General Managers of CWA’s member agencies have agreed on a recommendation on CWA’s rate structure and it is ready to be presented to CWA’s board. He stated that it is not Otay WD’s first choice, but it is a compromise position and of the compromises, he felt it is the best option for Otay WD. He noted with regard to the conservation incentives, that one of the discussions they are having at CWA, particularly now that MET has provided rebates of $100 million, is where the money is best directed for the best return in water savings, especially when such a large amount of money is being spent. He stated that there will be more discussions on this this issue. Another issue occurring at CWA is the change in board member representatives. He indicated that many years ago, it would be a notable event to have an agency change a board member representative to CWA, even through elections or retirement. He stated that CWA just had six (6) new representatives appointed, with one being Director Jose Presiado from South Bay Irrigation District/Sweetwater Authority. He indicated that this amount of turnover is unprecedented. He stated that the changes overs present challenges at CWA as it takes time to bring them up to speed on the issues at CWA. He noted that he and Director Croucher are now one of the most senior members on CWA’s board. He lastly shared with regard to a handout, Water Desalination Report, placed on the dias for members of the board that it indicates Poseidon Water has completed its first wet test of the seawater intake pump at the Carlsbad Desalination Plant. He stated that it appears to be working and the plant is still 6 on target to start production of desalination water by November 2015, which is ahead of schedule. 11. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS Director Robak observed with regard to the turf replacement program that other agencies similar in size to the District, such as Helix WD, have had twice as many customers applying and receiving rebates from the turf replacement program than the District. He asked if the District was promoting the program. General Manager Watton indicated that, yes, the program is promoted in the customer mailers, newsletter, website, etc. He noted that a District’s customer, Oak Grove Middle School, received the largest rebate from the program. Director Robak also shared that the Los Angeles Times published an article three to four weeks ago on the turf replacement program and the article indicated that a Los Angeles golf course had a turf replacement project which cost $1.12 million, however, they received a rebate check from MWD for $1.62 million. He commented that he did not feel that that was an appropriate use of the program funds. He also stated that CWA relies on grant funding and inquired why they do not provide money for such programs. General Manager Watton indicated that there is a philosophical discussion regarding that issue. It is felt that the ratepayers from lower income areas would be subsidizing the wealthier ratepayers and golf courses in, for instance, Rancho Santa Fe. A discussion on this and the rebate of $1.62 million to one customer/golf course is scheduled for discussion at CWA. How do they justify utilizing a large portion of the budget on one ratepayer when that money is coming from ratepayers in low income areas as well. There will also be discussion at CWA if the turf replacement program is really worth the investment as it is quite a lot of money for a very small return on acre feet water savings. It is questioned whether we should be doing other things to provide incentives for water savings. If we can get grant funding that is targeted for the turf replacement program, then it is fine, but utilizing ratepayer money is debatable. Director Croucher indicated that one of the things that CWA is also working on is getting some of the funding back to San Diego from the rebate funds, State Bond funding, etc. This year, San Diego has gained success with the California State Water Bond. In the past, San Diego residents have paid into the California State bonds and for every $3 it sends to the State only $1 comes back to the San Diego region. With the new proposed water bond, San Diego resident will pay 10% of the bond and will receive 11% back to the San Diego region. San Diego is making progress in getting funding back to the local area. He also shared with regard to the rebates from the conservation programs, CWA is trying to streamline the rebate process. Instead of San Diego residents having to go to MWD, or other local agencies for the rebate or other incentives, that they be centralized and maybe all go through CWA. 7 In response to an inquiry from Director Smith, Director Croucher indicated that CWA’s Conservation Action Committee is working with Nora Jaeske’s Organization. Her organization works with HOA’s to educate them on current laws and conservation. He stated one of the new laws that they are discussing is that HOA’s cannot force residents to have green lawns. It was noted that formalized legislation is being worked on to make it a formal State law and not just a directive from the California State Governor, Jerry Brown. Director Thompson indicated that the HERO (Home Energy Renovation Opportunity) program can provide financing through deferred property taxes to fund residents’ home projects, such as, the installation of solar energy systems and water conserving landscapes. He suggested that the District utilize its website to educate the District’s customers on the availability of the program. Director Thompson also requested that if there is an opportunity, he would like to go on a site tour. He also reported on the Water Conservation Garden (Garden) and indicated that they are discussing the renewal of the contract with the non- profit organization that is running the operations of the Garden. He stated they have been a good partner and are requesting a five (5) year contract renewal at the same rate of $500,000 per year. He indicated that there was quite a bit of discussions at the Garden board meeting and some of the partners had discussed reducing their contributions to the Garden. The original contribution of the partners was based on their proximity to the Garden. Director Thompson indicated that he did not feel that this was an appropriate criteria in determining each partners’ contribution and felt that the partners needed data on how many customers from their respective agencies were utilizing the Garden and its programs. He stated that the District should receive in the next three months some form of contract for the operations of the Garden for approximately $500,000 for the board’s consideration. General Manager Watton indicated that subsequent to that Garden Board meeting, staff met with the Garden’s Executive Director, Mr. John Bolthouse, and discussed with him that the District needed information on what additional value the District would receive by increasing its funding support. Director Thompson lastly reported that he would be attending the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Oversight Committee meeting next week. Director Smith indicated that he attended the District’s Engineering, Operations and Water Resources Committee meeting in December 9, 2014. He also met with the Chiefs of each of the District’s Departments on December 18. He stated that he noted during his discussion with the Chiefs that through the implementation of technology and the opportunity for cross train staff, it has allowed the District to reduce its fulltime staff positions. He thanked staff for the introduction to each of their respective departments. He also reported that he attended in January the District’s Engineering, Operations and Water Resources Committee (January 20) the Special Board meeting (January 27). He lastly requested that he be added to the list to tour the Poseidon Desalination Plant whenever the next tour occurs. 8 12. PRESIDENT’S REPORT President Lopez reported on meetings he attended during the month of January 2015 (a list of meetings he attended is attached). He thanked the members of the board for their attendance of the Special Board meeting to discuss the District’s Strategic Plan and SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) Analysis. He stated that he felt that the Strategic Plan is one of the most important things that they accomplish as members of the board. 13. CLOSED SESSION The board recessed to closed session at 4:39 p.m. to discuss the following matter: a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] ALVA ROBERSON v. OTAY WATER DISTRICT; CASE NO. 37-2014-00084219- CI-PO-CT The board reconvened at 5:07 p.m. and Asst. General Counsel, Mr. Richard Romero, reported that the board met in closed session and took no reportable actions. 14. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Board, President Lopez adjourned the meeting at 5:07 p.m. ___________________________________ President ATTEST: District Secretary 9 President’s Report February 4, 2015 Board Meeting A) Meetings attended during the Month of January 2015: 1) January 3: a. Attended a meeting of the District’s Ad Hoc Salt Creek Golf Course Committee. Attendees: Director Thompson, General Manager Watton, Chief Financial Officer Beachem, Finance Mgr. Koeppen and General Counsel Shinoff b. Board Agenda Briefing. Met with Director Thompson, General Manager Watton and General Counsel Dan Shinoff to review items that will be presented at the January Board Meeting. 2) January 7: Attended the District’s Regular Board Meeting. 3) January 8: Attending a meeting of the District’s Ad Hoc Salt Creek Golf Course Committee. Attendees: Director Thompson, General Manager Watton, Chief Financial Officer Beachem and Finance Mgr. Koeppen 4) January 9: Met with Mssrs. Bill McWethy and Fred Grand to discuss the Salt Creek Golf Course. Attendees: Director Thompson, General Manager Watton, Chief Financial Officer Beachem, Finance Mgr. Koeppen and Asst. General Counsel Romero 5) January 21: Attended the District’s Finance, Administration and Communications Committee. Reviewed, discussed, and made recommendation on items that will be presented at the February board meeting. 6) January 27: Attended the District’s Special Board Meeting. The board discussed the District’s FY 2015 to 2018 Strategic Plan and review District Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT Analysis) 7) January 30: Board Agenda Briefing. Met with Director Thompson, General Manager Watton and General Counsel Dan Shinoff to review items that will be presented at the February Board Meeting. STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: April 1, 2015 SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Cameron Associate Engineer Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager PROJECT: P2542-001103 DIV. NO.: 5 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. for the 850-3 Reservoir Interior Coating Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a construction contract to Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. (A & S) and to authorize the General Manager to execute a construction contract with A & S for the 850-3 Reservoir Interior Coating Project in an amount not-to-exceed $366,720 (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a construction contract with A & S for the 850-3 Reservoir Interior Coating Project in an amount not-to-exceed $366,720. 2 ANALYSIS: In May 2012, the exterior coating of the 850-3 (3.0 MG) Reservoir was replaced by Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. (AIS). As part of the contract, AIS upgraded the cathodic anodes and made repairs to the roof’s center vent. While the reservoir was out of service, the District’s corrosion consultant, V & A Consulting Engineers (V & A), inspected the interior coating. V & A identified that the coating on the interior floor and portions of the roof were in need of replacement within the next 2-3 years. V & A indicated that the premature failure of the floor was due to delamination, which appears to be related to workmanship rather than material failure. To avoid having the reservoir out of service for an extended period of time during the summer months, Staff elected to create a separate CIP for the interior coating work. The 850-3 Reservoir’s interior coating was last replaced in 2004 by Techno Coatings, Inc. (Techno Coatings). Typically, the coating will last an average of 15 years. The coating process was inspected by Jim Isom & Associates (JIA). JIA was retained by the District as a full-time third party coating inspector to verify and document the surface preparation and coating processes. JIA’s inspection reports are not detailed and appear incomplete. The interior coating is comprised of a three (3) coat system. The manufacturer sets a maximum coating thickness for each coat. The reports from JIA document the thicknesses of the first and second coats, but they did not show the thickness of the third coat, or the overall coating thickness, as required in the specifications. In 2012, V & A measured thicknesses in the failed portion at 60 mils, which is excessive for these types of applications. Staff reviewed all the documentation and it appears that the coating was improperly applied by the contractor, then accepted by the District’s hired coating inspector. Unfortunately, JIA’s business license was suspended in 2005. A google search for the company did not return any results. JIA has not performed any work for the District since 2004. Techno Coatings is still in business, and has bid on previous District projects, although unsuccessfully. Staff discussed the issue with the District’s Legal Counsel, and they are evaluating the District’s options. In the time since 2004, Staff has been proactive in obtaining a better understanding of the coating process and specifications. The third party coating inspector’s certification requirements were increased from a Certified Coating Inspector (CCI) Level I to a CCI Level III. Also, the District’s Inspectors have become more familiar with the coating requirements, and are able to do high level QA/QC on both the contractor’s and the inspector’s work. They are also 3 scheduled to take a six day training course to become CCI Level I certified. In addition to the increased inspection requirements, the District has also had two (2) corrosion engineering firms and two (2) well- respected coating inspection firms independently review the reservoir coating specifications and provide comments. Those comments were incorporated into the specifications, and the District has had good success with reservoir coating projects over the past 5 years. The 850-3 Reservoir Interior Coating project’s specifications were completed in-house, and the Project was advertised on January 7, 2015 on the District’s website and several other publications including the San Diego Daily Transcript. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on January 15, 2015 which was attended by four (4) contractors. Three (3) addenda were sent out to all bidders and plan houses to address questions and clarifications to the contract documents during the bidding period. Bids were publicly opened on January 28, 2015, with the following results: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT 1 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. Jordan, MN $366,720 2 Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. Los Alamitos, CA $366,900 3 Blastco, Inc. Downey, CA $384,919 4 Simpson Sandblasting & Special Coating, Inc. Fontana, CA $389,760 5 Paso Robles Tank, Inc. Laguna Hills, CA $408,000 6 Cor-Ray Painting Santa Fe Springs, CA $437,000 The Engineer’s Estimate is $370,000. Staff reviewed the submitted bids for conformance with the contract requirements and determined that A & S was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. A & S holds a Class A, General Engineering Contractor’s License and a Class C-33, Painting and Decorating Contractor’s License, which meets the contract document’s requirements, and is valid through March 31, 2017. A & S also holds a current QP-1 certification from the Society for Protective Coatings, which is also a requirement. 4 Staff received a letter from the Painters & Allied Trades Compliance (PATC) committee that claimed A & S was a non-responsible bidder (see Exhibit B). The letter states that A & S had previously violated State Labor Codes, and received several safety violations on past projects. Staff forwarded the letter to A & S, and requested a response. A & S responded to the claims (see Exhibit C), and noted that PATC has sent similar letters in the past when A & S has been the low bidder, most recently for the County of Los Angeles’ Department of Public Works (see Exhibit D). As stated in the County of Los Angeles’ Staff Report to the County Supervisors and A & S’s response, A & S agreed to a no-fault settlement in 2011 with the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Apprenticeship Standards, in the amount of $3,500. A & S’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) records show very minor fines which happened over five (5) years ago, and $1.3 million in restitution being withheld which occurred in the mid-1990’s. This happened in Connecticut where A & S was awarded three (3) contracts to paint bridges, and based on their own research, paid what they thought were appropriate prevailing wages. Ultimately, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) determined certain classifications were entitled to higher hourly rates. The $1.3 million was not a penalty as alleged in the PATC’s letter. Three (3) references were contacted and all indicated a good performance record on similar projects. An internet background search of the company was performed and revealed an article from Construction Today which described A & S as a forty two (42) year old company with four (4) offices across the nation. The article described some of the other agencies A & S has worked with including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of the Navy. A highlighted project in the article was a $41 million dollar steel repair and recoating of a bridge in Rhode Island (see Exhibit E for the article). No outstanding issues were revealed with this company during the internet search. Staff also contacted the County of Los Angeles’ Project Manager for the San Gabriel Dam Penstock Coating Project, as noted in the County of Los Angeles’ Staff Report. A & S is still completing this work, and the Project Manager stated A & S has done an excellent job up to this point, and the job is on schedule and on budget. Staff has verified that the bid bond provided by A & S is valid. Staff will also verify that A & S’ Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond are valid prior to execution of the contract. 5 FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2542, as approved in the FY 2015 budget, is $480,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $474,568. See Attachment B for the budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budget is sufficient to support the Project. Finance has determined that 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund. 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. KC/BK:jf P:\WORKING\CIP P2542 850-3 Interior Coating\Staff Reports\04-01-15, Staff Report, 850-3 Reservoir Interior Coating(KC- BK).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Painters & Allied Trades Compliance Letter Exhibit C – Response Letter from Abhe & Svoboda Exhibit D – Painters and Allied Trades Compliance complaint and Staff Report to the County of Los Angeles Supervisors Exhibit E – Article from Construction Today ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2542-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. for the 850-3 Reservoir Interior Coating Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on March 12, 2015, and the following comments were made:  Staff recommended that the Board award a construction contract to Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. (A & S) and to authorize the General Manager to execute a construction contract with A & S for the 850-3 Reservoir Interior Coating Project in an amount not-to- exceed $366,720.  Staff discussed that the exterior coating on the 850-3 Reservoir was replaced in May, 2012. While the tank was out of service, the District’s corrosion consultant, V & A conducted an inspection of the interior coating. Staff indicated that the results of the inspection showed portions of the roof and floor had begun to crack. V & A noted that the coating was too thick, which was the probable cause for the cracking, and suggested the coating be replaced in the next 2-3 years.  It was noted that the 850-3 Reservoir’s interior coating was last replaced in 2004 by Techno Coatings, Inc. (Techno Coatings). Since 15 years is the average life of coatings, staff reviewed the documents from the previous coating application.  The coating process requires a full-time inspector to monitor the coating procedures. The tolerances for temperature, cure duration, and thickness is very small; and meeting the coating manufacturer’s specification is crucial to the success of the coating. In 2004, Jim Isom & Associates was retained by the District as a full-time third party coating inspector to verify and document the surface preparation and coating processes.  Staff reviewed Jim Isom’s reports of the coating application, which appeared to be incomplete and do not specify the final coating thickness which should have been 18-20 mils. V & A measured thicknesses as much as 60 mils, which is excessive for this type of application.  Staff stated that it appears the contractor improperly applied the coating, the thicker coating was accepted by the District hired Coating Inspector Jim Isom. Mr. Isom has not worked with the District since this project, and it seems his business license was suspended in 2005.  Since 2004, Staff has increased the certification requirements for coating inspectors from Level 1 to Level III, and the District’s specifications have been reviewed and modified by two corrosion engineering and two (2) coating inspection forms. The District’s Engineers and Inspectors are also becoming more familiar with the details of the reservoir coating process; a training course is also planned in the next fiscal year.  Staff discussed the selection process and indicated that the results of the process are shown in a table on Page 3 of the staff report.  Abhe & Svoboda submitted the lowest bid, which staff reviewed for conformance and checked references that showed a good overall performance record.  It was noted that during the review process, Staff received a letter from the Painters & Allied Trades Compliance (PATC) committee claiming Abhe & Svoboda was not a responsible bidder. (Shown as Exhibit B) Abhe & Svoboda was asked to respond to the claims while Staff concurrently evaluated the company’s history and checked their references. Abhe & Svoboda’s response stated the claims made by the Trust were minor violations, and in some cases over twenty (20) years old. (Shown in Exhibit C)  Staff indicated that Abhe & Svoboda’s references indicated the contractor had done excellent work on past projects, and they would be a viable choice on future projects. Staff did an internet search and uncovered a similar letter from the Painters & Allied Trades Compliance regarding Abhe & Svoboda issued in 2013. The letter was addressed to the County of Los Angeles’ Department of Public Works (County) on their San Gabriel Dam Penstock Coating Project (Project). Staff contacted the Project Manager at the County of Los Angeles, and he stated the County’s Staff recommended to the County Board of Supervisors that the claims made by the Trust were minor irregularities and awarded the project to Abhe & Svoboda. The Project Manager highly commended the Contractor on their performance and progress on the Project. Exhibit D provides the LA County Board of Supervisors’ staff report.  Together with the information from the County of Los Angeles and the contacted references, Staff makes the recommendation to award a construction contract to Abhe & Svoboda in the amount of $366,720 for the subject project.  The Committee commented that another candidate’s (Advanced Industrial Services) bid was approximately $180 more than Abhe & Svoboda and inquired if staff considered awarding the contract to Advanced Industrial Services since there was a protest against Abhe & Svoboda. Staff stated no because for this type of project, the protocol requires that the District award the contract to the lowest responsive bidder, which in this case was Abhe & Svoboda. Legal Counsel also indicated that a non- responsibility finding involves due process concerns, which the District is required to allow the contractor to respond and address those concerns. Abhe & Svoboda responded to the protest letter and District staff was satisfied with their response and determined that the claims made by the Trust were invalid.  The Committee commented that staff should monitor painting specifications every other year as it seems to change often. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item. ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail For P2542 SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2542-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. for the 850-3 Reservoir Interior Coating Project Date Updated: 1/27/15 Budget 480,000 Planning Standard Salaries 278 278 - 278 Total Planning 278 278 - 278 Design Standard Salaries 12,000 6,444 5,556 12,000 Service Contracts 1,234 1,234 - 1,234 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS Total Design 13,234 7,678 5,556 13,234 Construction Standard Salaries 35,000 - 35,000 35,000 Construcion Contract 366,720 - 366,720 366,720 ABHE & SVOBODA, INC. Service Contracts 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 HDR-SPECIALTY INSPECTION 18,000 - 18,000 18,000 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Project Closeout 3,000 - 3,000 3,000 CLOSEOUT Project Contingency 18,336 - 18,336 18,336 5% CONTINGENCY Total Construction 461,056 - 461,056 461,056 Grand Total 474,568 7,956 466,612 474,568 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District P2542 - 850-3 Reservoir Interior Coating CommittedExpenditures Outstanding Commitment & Projected Final Cost 33 33 33 33 Wieghorst Way C a ll e N a r a n j aC a ll e A l b a r a V i a E u c a l i p t o P:\WORKING\CIP P2542 850-3 Interior Coating\Staff Reports\Exhibit A.mxd 850-3Reservoir Site EXHIBIT A !\ VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTSDIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?ò Aä%&s ?p ?Ë F OTAY WATER DISTRICT 850-3 (3.0 MG) RESERVOIR INTERIOR COATINGLOCATION MAP CIP P2542 F PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES COMPLIANCE ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST 1155 Corporate Center Dr., Monterey Park, CA 91754 Phone: (626) 792-3019 * Fax: (626) 798-0528 February 11, 2015 Mr. Kevin Cameron, Project Manager Otay Water District Purchasing 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd Spring Valley, CA. 91978 Via Fax: (619) 670-8920 Via Email kcameron@ota wvater•gov Re: Project Name: Otay Water District 850 3 Reservoir Coatings-Storage Tanks Bidder: Abhe & Svoboda Dear Mr. Cameron: Painters and Allied Trades Compliance is a joint labor-management committee that works diligently to insure fairness and compliance by all contractors in the bidding and performance of Public Works projects. It is our understanding that Abhe & Svoboda ("the Contractor") is a bidder on the project listed above. The purpose of this letter is to inform you why we believe the contractor is a Non- Responsible bidder. On July 9, 2009 the Division of Industrial Relations Division of Apprenticeship Standards found that the Contractor failed to comply with Labor Code §1777.5 and §1777.7. While no penalty was assessed, the Contractor was warned that "after receipt of this notice, any failure to comply with applicable apprenticeship regulations will be considered a knowing and possible intentional violation." See Exhibit 1. Despite this warning, subsequently, on October 28, 2011 the Contractor paid a$3,500 fine to settle charges that it violated Labor Code §1777.5. See Exhibit 2. On August 22, 2014 the Department of Industrial Relations Division of Labor Standards Enforcement found that the Contractor failed to comply with Labor Code §1777.7. The Contractor was assessed a Civil Penalty of $90,900. See Exhibit 3. In addition, since July 16, 2008, the Contractor has repeatedly violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) and regulations promulgated under that act. We have attached search results for your records from the OSHA website. Please note that every year from 2008 through the present year, this company has continued to have these violations. See Exhibit 4. These violations are in addition a reported federal court decision affirming a$1.3 million penalty against the Contractor for failing to pay its painting employees the wages to which they were entitled under the Davis-Bacon Act. See Exhibit 5. Furthermore, on August 1, 2013, the Contractor was penalized for a total of $1,929,000 by the Mackinac Bridge Authority from the State of Michigan. See Exhibit 6. For these reasons, the Contractor should be considered a Non-Responsible bidder. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincere y, Monica Sevaj l Case Investigator Enclosure: Lettersfrom Department ofIndustrial Relations, Division ofApprenticeship Standards; Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, (Exhibit 1, 2, & 3) OSHA Records (Exhibit 4) Federal Court Order (Exhibit 5) Mackinak Bridge Authority Liquidated Damages (Exhibit 6) STA7'E OF CAUFORNIA DiVISION OF APPRENT[CESHIP STRNDARDS 55 Golden Gate Avenue, lOth F)oor San Fr nc co, CA 44702 Tel: (415} 7[Xi 497A F z: (C1 7Qi-54T! Juty 9, 2009 Gail Svoboda, RMO Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. PO 9ox 251 Prior Lake, MN. 55372 Exhibit 1 Arnold ADORESS REPLYTO: Dro. oJApprentiashipStaiuGrds P. O. Bu 10603 Sna frm ixo, CA 9 7 2-Ob03 Gourrnor RE: Robert B. Dieme Water Treatment Plaat West WashwAter Taak Refurbiahment, Yorb L'eadA DAS Comptaint # 2009-0337 Aear Mr. Svoboda , Our rcview of Division of Apprenticeship Standaxds (DAS) records raised concerns about yow campany's compliance with Labor Code 1777.5 for the work performed on the Robert B. Diemer Water T'reatment Piant West Washwater Tank Refurbishment, Yorba Linda, CA. Given yaur inability to obtain registered apprendces for the duration of this project, we are taking this opportunity to remind you that as a member of an approved apprenticeship program, you were expected to employ apprentices in the appropriate ratio by the end of the project. (Our files indicate only one requtst for Dispatch, datod 9/ 15/08,) Although we are not assessing penalties for your fa.ilure to employ apprentices on this particular job,.we are enclosing information which details the requirements of applicable excerpts from the California Labor Code, This letter vith the attachmeats belo v vill sesve as formal aotiticAtion ofyour obli ations unde= Labor Code § 1777.5 and 177?.7: 1. Apprentices on PubIic Works Summary of Requirements, 2. the Public Contract Award Notification form (DAS 140), 3. Requtst for Dispatch ofApprentic s (form DAS 142j, 4. the Training Fitnd Contribution form (CAC 2j. 5. ae v requiremeat (Notice otChaa e in Reaul t oa 230.1 effective for projacts bid Jnly l, 2049 aad later. 1 JUL i 2(k 9 BYCpMpLIA1vCE Oarwebsite at http://www.dir.ca ov/DAS/PublicWorksForms,htm also lists this and additionai information of interest.) As you become familiar with the enclosed material, you well want to highlight the change to Regulation 230.1, which applies to projects bid July 1, 2009 and after. This change requires the contractor to not only request the dispatch of apprentices in writing at least 72 hours before the date apprentices are needed, but also further pursue dispatch, if apprentices ara not dispatched and employed. In such a case, the contractvr must requesi apprentice dispatch fro7n another cummittee (in craft) in the geographic area and must request from each such committee, either consecutivety or simultaneously, until ratios axe met or the cantractor has requested from aIl such committses in the gcographic area. (All requests must be in writing and within a timeframe to meet rati rcquirements.) Pcnalties for noncompliance with the provisions involving employment of apprentices on public warks are assessed when a vioiation is committed knowingly." Evidence of a knowing violation includes previous employmcnt of apprentioes on public projects, the sigriing of a contract with a public agency that refers to apprenticeship requirements in the contract documents, or previous notification by DAS of apprenticeship requirements on public works. Att r secaipt of this notice, aay failure to comply with applicable sppreaticeship regu s tions qi]1 be caas dered a lcaowing aad possibly intoatioas l violation. In future investigations of allcged violations on public works prnjects, the fact of this notice wil] be considered in determining the seriousness of the violation and imposition of penalties. If you have questions, please call me at 415) 355- 5472. erely, Q Pacia Parker Sr. Apprenticeship Consultant Enclosures Cc: Bill Quisenberry, Southern California Painting, Drywall Finishers, Floor ayers, & Glaziers JAC Public Works Don Slider, Metropolitan Water District of 5outhern California Gayle Stewart, Painting & Decorating Contractors of America Fi{e 'i JUC 14 2QI BY MMn,rsxr Exhibit 2 STA7'E OF CALIAORIYlA EDMUNp C. BROWN, JR., Gatsrnor DEI'ARTMBNTOF INDUSfRIAL RHLATIONS www,dir,ce,qov Diviei0n of Apprenhceahip Standard 455 Colden Gnte AvOnue, 10 Atoor ADDRGSS REPLYTp; Snn Pia cveo. CA 9l1D2 Diu. o/ApprcnNashipSMudandr7ei; (41', i 4924 Psx; (415) 7035218 P. O.O s1060,) SrtN FmHtitm, G19f7?-06Qi pctober 28, 201 J David Grant, A.rea Manager Abhe 8a Svoboda, Inc. 880 Tavem Road Alpine, CA 91901 RE; Settlement Ea le Mouat,fa Pnmping Plaat DAB Complaiat # 2011-0282 DeFtr Mr. Grant, The Division of Apprenticeship Standards has received your check of $ 3,500.00 in fuli settlement of Notice of Camplaint for the work you performed at Eagla Mountain !'umping Plant, I have enclosed a copy of the fu11y executed Settlement Agreement. DAS considers this compiaint closed, Sincerely, yu`°`v - :' w^ Sarah Chen Industrial Relatians Representative Cc: Painters & Allied Trados Compliance Adminiatrative Trust The Metropoiitan Water District oC Saulhern Califomia File s :,: , .. i uV 0 : 7G11 r:•r :.. .,t;:- REVISED SETTL N NT AGREEMENT In !he matter ojthe Complaintfiled undrr Labnr Code 1777,5 againstAbhc & Svobarlu Jn, D.4S Complatn! l 2011-0282 Eagle Mounlain Pranpixg PlructJ 1, P rties; (1) The Stale of California, Departmeiit of Indastrial Relations, Division of Apprenticeship Standerds ("DAS") and (2) Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. ,have agro d to resalve a dispute ovar the ebove noted Public Works Complaints fled with the DAS. 2. Subject: O 3uly 5, 2011 DAS received a Complaint from the Painters and Allied Trades Compliance Adminishetive Trust ("C`.omplaint'7 atleging that Abhe & Svoboda,lnc, had failed to request dispatch nnd employ apprendces from ali appticablc programs in the geographic area end falled to make training contribvtions as required by LaborCode § 1777,5 ia relation to the work performed an the projxt set forth above. A notice of Compleint was sent on October 7, 20I 1. 3. Agrecment: In order to avoid the hazards and uncertainty of litigatioa and to reso7ve any and all claims for pcnalty that DAS may have in connection with this Compleint, Abiie & Svobode, Inc. agrees to pay 53,500 which DAS agrces to accept as full satisfaation for any penalti s which may be owed in conneation with this Complaint. 4. Weiver: Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. aad DAS cnter into ttiis settlement egreement freely and voluntarily. Abhe Bc Svoboda, Inc. and DAS hcreby waive any right of appea! that they now i ave or here iec acquire arisiag out of and by reasons of the dispute settted herein, Notico: Notice is hereby given to Abhe & Svoboda, Iac, and Abhe & Svohode, Inc. aclrnowledges raceipt of aucl Notice of Califomia L.abor Gade Sxtion 1777.5 requirements relating to employment of regisured apprentices on publie worics projeets. For this purpose, a copy of the Excerpts from the California Labor Code Relating to Appremtices on Public Works, and a eopy of tl e Stunmary of Requirements, Apprentices on Poblic Works, are attached hereto and made a part of this Settloment Agreement. DATE: _. DA: a so y'Z W 8 Np S/, Z' // o N I,j k JSyl! David C3rant, Area Mannger Abhe & Svoboda, Tnc. c.. %,—. _. Diar e REVnik, Chief ''' Divisian ofAppreaticeship Standards bepartment of Indasfriel R lations Labor Commissioner, Siate of California Dcpaztmtnt of Industrial Retations Division ofLabor Standards Enforcement Bureau ofField Enforcement- Pubiic Works 7718 Meany Avenue Bakersfield, GA 933Q8 TEL: 661-587-3040 FAX: 661-587-3081 DATE Exhibit 3 Edmund G. Brown 1r., Governor o. „ r., t 0 i' : c tfowri nR pyRefvb CaseNo: IdN_F CiV1L PENaCTY "= liQ R_CO E SE ITOFT"i777:T. __._.._._._ . Labor Code secrion 1777.5, and duly adopted regulations pertaining thereto, set forth the duries and obligadons of contractors and/or subcontractors conceming the employment of apprentices upon public works. Violations of these duties and obligations may result vz the imposirion ofmonotary penalties enforced by the Labor Commissioner, orhis or her designee or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the "Division"), in accordance with Labor Code secrion 1777.7. The Labar Commissioner, by and through the Division has conducted an invesrigation and determined that violations ofLabor Code section 1777.5 have been Irnowingly committed by the contractor and/or subcontractar ideatified above on the above-named project, and therefore issues this Determination of Civil Penalty. The nature of the vioiations ofthe Labor Code and the basis for the Determination ofCivil Penalty are as follows: Violation of Labor Code § 1?77.7: Failure to comply with provisions involving employment of ap renrices; Failure to submit coniract award information for Laborers; Failure to request a dispatch ofLaborer apprentices; Failure to employ Taborer apprentices. The period ofnon-compliance is 914/2012-7/3/2013, a peiiod of3Q3 days at $340/violation. The I}ivision has determined that the total amount of penalties assessed under Labor Code section 1777.7 is: $90,900.00 Please refer to page 2 for specific Informativn conceming your Right to ObtaIn Review of this Determination. Please refer to page 3 for specific information on your Opportunity for Settlement Meetiag. SPECIAL N4TE TO AWARDYNG BODY AND PRIME CONTRACTOR: Refer to page 4 for your vithholding obligations, if any. STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER By Dina Morsi Industrial Relations Representative PW p+«we7rtoto Page 1 of 4 Notice of Right to Obtain Revie v - Formai Hearing An affected contractor, subcontractor, or responsible officer may obtain review of this Determinarion ofCivil Penalty by transmitting a written request to the office of the Labor Coinmissioner that appears below within 60 days after sc.Yrvice vf the Determination of Civil Penalty. In accordance with Labor Code section 1777.7(c)(2), the provisions ofLabor Code section 1742 shall apply to the review ofthis Determination ofCivil i'enalty. To obtain a hearing, a written Request for Review must be transmitted to the followfng address: Labor Comnussioner, State of California Determination Review Office 2031 Howe Ave., Suite 100 Sacramerito CA 9S$2'S_...__......_.. _......___. A Request for Review either shall clearly identify the Determinarion of Civil Penalty from which zeview is sought, including the date of the Determination, or it shall include a copy ofthe Detenninarion as an attachment Failure to attach a copy of this Determination to your Request for Review may delay timely processing of your Request for Review. The Request for Review shall also set forth the basis upon which the Deteimination is being contested. In accordance with Labor Code section 1742, the contractor or subcontractor shatl be provided an opporlunity to review evidence to be utilized by the Labor Cornmissioner at the hearing within 20 days ofthe Labor Commissioner's receipt ofthe written Request for Review. Failure by a contractor, subcontractor, or responsible officer to submit a timely Request for Review will result in a final order which shall be 6inding on the contractor, subcontractor, or responsible officer. Labor Code section 1777.7(e)(1). In accardance with Labor Code section 1742(d) and Labor Code secrian 1777.1(c)(4), a certified copy of a final order may be filed by the Labor Commissioner in the office of the clerk of the superior court in any county in which the affected contractor or subcontractor has property or has or had a place ofbusiness. The clerk, immediately upon the filing, shall enter judgment for the State against the person assessed in the amount shown on the certified order. continued on next page) Page 2 of 4 Opportunity for Settlement Meeting You may request to meet with the Labor Commissioner or his or her designee to attempt ta settle a dispute regazding this Dctcrmination ofCivil Penalty. Such a request nnust be made in wriring and received at tl e following address within thirty {30) days following the service ofthis Determination: Dina Morsi 7718 Meany Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 Requesting a settlement meeting does not extend the 6o-day period during which a formal hearing may be requested. Payment of Penalty Payment of the assessed penalties must be made by check ar money order payable ta the Division ofLabor Standaxds Enfarcetnent with a copy ofthe Detenninarion of Civil Penalty and mailed to: SEate of California, Department of Indusirial Relations Division of Labor Standards F,nforcement, Castuering Unit 2031 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95825-0196 continued on next page) Page 3 of 4 Statutory Withholding Obligations 1. Awarding Body Withholding Obligations In accordance with Labor Code section 1727(a), before making payments to the contractor of money due under a contract for public work, the awarding body shall withhold and retain therefrom all amounts rec uued to sa6sfythis Detecminarion ofCivil Pen_ _The amount reguired.___^ ___._...._._..______._---__...---._._._ ._._-.--. --._ _.._._...._ _._ . to sarisfy this Determination of Civil Penalty shali not be disbursed by the awarding body - unril receipt of a final order that is no longer subject to judicial review. The amount which must be withheld and retAined by the awarding body pursuant to this Defermination of Civil Penalty is: Total Withholding Amount: 2. Prime Contractor Withholding Obligations: 90,900.00 In accordance with Labor Code section 1727(b), ifthe awarding body has nat retained sufficient money under the contract to satisfy this Determination ofCivil Peaalty based on a subcontracto s violations, the contractor shall, upon the request of the Labor Commissioner, withhold sufficient money due the subcontractor under the contract ro satisfy the assessment and transfer the money to the awarding body. This amount shall not be disbarsed by the awarding body until receipt ofa final order that is no longer subject to judicial review. If this box is checked, the Iabor Conmussioner hereby requests fliat the grixne contractor withhold the foilowing amount from money due the subcontractor and transfer the money to the awarding body to satisfy this assessment: Total Withholding Amovnt: Distribution: Awarding Body Surety(s) on Bond Prime Coniractor Subcontractor Page 4 oi 4 40,90U.00 STATE F CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - DNTSION F LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMEI`TT CERTIFICATIUN OF SERVICE BY A'IAIL C.C.P. 1013a) OR CERTIFIED MAIL I, Linda Rodriguez , do hereby certify that I am a resident of oz employed in the County of Kern , over 18 years of age, and not a party to the within action, and fliat I am employed at and my business address is: On August 22, 2014 Codc Secrion 1777.7 Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Bureau ofField Enforcement 7718 Meany Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 I sen•ed the within: (1) Detennination ofCivil Penalty - Labor by placing a true copy thereof in an envelope addressed as follows: Caltrans De artment of Transportatio 2d15 E. Shields Ave., #100 Fresno, CA 93720 _ w__ ____ Camillo Prandini Abhe & Svoboda, Inc 181 0 Diar+ Lane_ _----- Jordan, MN 55372 ____ w____ Gail Stuart Svoboda and then sealing the envelope and with postage and certified mail fees (if applicable) thereon fully prepaid, and then depositing it in the United States mail in Bakersfield by: X Ordinary first class mail X Certified mail Registered mail I certify underpenalty ofperjury that tlreforegoing is true and correct E uted on Aueust 22. 2014 , a# Bakersfield , County of SIGNATURE STATE CASE NO. 44-40863-148 PW 34 cww e•+r a, K , Califomia Establishment Search Results Page Page 1 of 1 I W '" -1 i t xd mm .<..,.....w,..—,.....a... ,...... . OSHA HSS t eedsisanRe_ t r • rtews tter rt5s 1s , yt iNa 1l i tpaQeItelpf il7 ca pational Safeiy & Health Administration We Can Heip What`s New Offices A w s.; «. ! r ,; F ;, . . ... : ? ., __ „_ . _= e E ;.__ k, Establishment Abhe Date Range 02/11/2008 to 02/11/2015 Please note thatinspedions which are known to be incomplete willhave the identifyingActivity Nr shown in italic. Information fo these open cases is especially dynamic, e.g., violationsmay be addedorde%ted. O(fice all State all I I f 4€ I 1 to Sesr+c { Result Page: 1 2 G2t i . electA{I 1 F24;; Activity Opened r RID [ St f 1 978649.015 OS/22/2014 0111100 ME r . -- — - 2 957993.015 € 02/06/2014 0215800 NY 3 892791.015 02/15/2013 :'> 0112000 GT 3` 4 744922A15 11/19/2012 0112300 RI i 5 704278A15 10/24/2012 ; 0112300 RI 6 480679.015 ; 06/19/2012 0936300 HI 7 313645525 ; 06/OS/2012 0950635 CA m', ` 8 i 316265735 ; 06/Ol/2012 0951510 HI 9 315947838 10/20/2011 i 1054191 ( OR 10 ? 315177634 ; 08/25/2011 1055340 WA i 11 315177584 08/25/2011 F 1055340 I WA 12 3149ll147 04/07/2011 ( 0112300 C RI 13 315422691 ` 03/29/2011 1054112 OR j14 313257230 j 08/26/2010 . 0552651 ! MI i15 313329039 10/07/2009 0552651 MI 16 311823645 ; 09/11/2009 0419700 j FL r," 17 313369266 07/OS/2009 { 0316400 WV 18 310629696 11/26/2008 0112600 MA 19 311479463 E 11/12/2008 0155010 VT 20 ` 311479158 11/12/2008 0155010 VT YPe Prog Related FatJCat Planned Referral Planned Planned Accident Planned Referral Planned Planned Planned Complaint Planned Complaint Complaint Planned Complaint Planned Planned Complete Partial No Insp/Process Inactive Partial Complete Complete Partial Complete Partial Complete Complete Complete Partial Partial Partial Complete No Insp/Process Inadive Partial Complete Complete Results 1- 20 of 21 By Date SIC ( NAICS i Vio ; Establishment Name 238320 Abhe & Svoboda Inc. 238320 Abhe & Svoboda Inc. 237310 ?Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. 237310 Abhe & Svoboda Inc. 237310 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. t 237310 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. 1731 238210 I Abhe & Svoboda 1629 : 237990 jAbhe & Svoboda Inc 1721 238320 1?Abhe & Svoboda Inc i 1721 238320 7 Abhe & Svoboda Inc 1721 238320 18 $Abhe & Svoboda Inc i622 237310 Abhe & Svoboda Inc. 4 1721 238320 1 Abhe & Svoboda Inc 1611 ; 237310 2(Abhe & Svoboda Inc f _. 1721 , 238320 (Abhe & Svoboda r -- .. ...._..... .__. ._....... 1721 3 238320 ` Abhe & Svoboda,Inc. 1721 238320 Abhe & Svoboda j 1721 j 238320 2 Abhe & Svoboda Inc. 1721 237310 Abhe And SvobodaI 1721 j 238320 ( Abhe & Svoboda Inc https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment. search?establishment=Abhe&state=all&offic... 2/ 11 /2015 Establishment Search Results Page Page 1 of 1 OSHA RSS Fer,dsGs_at+pRE Rf r r'i}!I',ii'i!'-.'1 r,s t r ass eds Occupaiional afety & Health Adminiskral on INe Can Heip wnac's New Offices i Y or1c.:: k ' !a&iaei ' . t , x ' " ' w. w,www. , .:.Y.,.._.__...._ _. . . U....... _ .___....e.: ,....:_1:"Ja..e.s"UU :."w,ubs.x ?..:,aw.w. T .. ...md' S'`La.'„a._ _'_- Establishment Date Range o2/ii/2oos to o2/ii/zois Please note that inspedions which are known to be incomplete will have the identifyingActivityNr shown initalic. Infoimation forthese open cases is especially dynamic, e.g., violations may be addedorde%ted. Office all........ State all sa't BY ( I Name t7 1 Srabe to Search Q, ' Result Page: 1 2 I Gek De d1! -Al ! Rese : 3_ Activity € Opened 21 ; 312426190 07/16/2008 RID ; St ? TYPe i Sc ; SIC [ NAICS 0552700 MN Referral ; Partial i ll21 i 238320 Results 21 - 21 of 21 ey oate Establishment Name Svoboda Inc https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment. search?establishment=Abhe&state=all&offic... 2/ 11 /2015 Inspection Detail Page 1 of 9 OSHA 5'# SHRR€ _Ri_t._'. x...RSSFecds .. . . . . .... . . ... N2WSIett2r .... RSS'F r'.ds. Oaupational Safety & Health Administration We Can iieEp wnar5 r,W i orf , tkme :::wc s P i.r Enf m t a&k, ..''r; P d l ra _ Ssr ue 4 . . .. _ ...... _,. _ a n._a . _ E _ _ _ _ ____ . _.. _. Ca9e 5tatus: Cl05ED Inspection: 978649.015 - Abhe 8 Svoboda Inc. Inspecdon Information - ce: Augusta Nr: 978649.015 Report ID:O111100 Open Date: OS/22/2014 Abhe & Svoboda Inc. Bldg 29 Pnsy Kittery, ME 03904 Union Status: NonUnion SIC: NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contradors Mailing: 18100 Dairy Lane, Jordan, MN 55352 Inspection Type: Prog Related Scope: Complete Advanced Notice: N Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Close Conference: OS/22/2014 Emphasis: L:Eisaof,N:Ctarget Close Case: 06/27/2014 Case Status: CL£D Case Status: CLOSED Inspection: 957993.015 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc. Inspection Information - Office: Syracuse Nr: 957993.015 Report ID:0215800 Open Date: 02/06/2014 Abhe & Svoboda Inc. 76 Barnhart Island Road I Massena, NY 13662 SIC: i NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering ContradorsMailing: 18100 Dairy Lane, Jordan, MN 55352 Inspedion Type: Fat/Cat Scope: Partial Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Union SWtus: NonUnion Advanced Notice: N Close Conference: 02/06/2014 Close Case:05/29/2014 Related Activity: Type ID Safety Health Accident 871311 Yes Case Status- CLOSED Case Status: CLOSED Inspection: 892791.015 - Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. Inspection Information - ce: Hartford Nr: 892791.015 Report ID:0112000 Open Date: 02/15/2013 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. Various Locations iThomaston, CT 06778 SIC: Union Status: NonUnion https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=978649.015&id=95799... 2/ 11 /2015 Inspection Detail j NAICS: 237310/ Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction G Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Inspedion Type: Planned Scope: No Insp/Process Inadive Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Emphasis: N:Ctarget case 5tatus: Advanced Notice: N Close Conference:02/15/2013 Close Case:02/15/2013 n Gse Status,CIOSED InspecGion: 744922.015 - Abhe 8 Svoboda Inc. Inspection Infortnation - OfFce: Providence Nr: 744922.015 Report ID:0112300 Open Date: 11/19/2012 iAbhe & Svoboda Inc. Newport Bridge Newport, RI 02840 j NAICS: 237310/ Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Prior Wke, MN 55372 Union Status: Union Inspection Type: Referrel Scope: Partial Advanced Notice: N Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Close Conference: OS/13/2013 Emphasis: L:Fall Close Case: 06/11/2013 Related Activity: Type ID Safety Health Referral671792 Yes Ca Stetus: CLOSED Case 5tatus: CEOSED Inspection: 704278.015 - Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. Inspection Information - Office: Providence Nr: 704278.015 Report ID:0112300 Open Date: 10/24/2012 Abhe & Svoboda,Inc. Newport Pell Bridge153 Bay View Drive Jamestown, RI 02835 Union Status: NonUnion SIC: NAICS: 237310/ Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction i Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Prior Lake, MN 55372 i Inspection Type: Planned Scope: Complete Advanced Notice: N Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Close Conference: 10/24/2012 Emphasis: N:Lead,L:FaiI,N:Ctarget Close Case: 12/OS/2012 Case SYatus: CLOSfD Case Status: CLOSED Inspection: 480679.015 - Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. Inspection Information - OfPce: &Nbsp; Nr: 480679.015 Report ID:0936300 Open Date: 06/19/2012 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. Peari Harbor - 5-1058 Pearl Harbor, HI 96860 Union Status: NonUnion SIC: NAICS: 237310/ Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Po Box 251, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Inspedion Type: Planned Scope: Complete Advanced Notice: N Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Close Conference: 06/19/2012 Page 2 of 9 https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=978649.015&id=95799... 2/ 11 /2015 Inspection Detail Emphasis: L:Hicon Close Case: 08/27/2012 Case Status: CLOSED Inspection: 313645525 - Abhe & Svoboda Inspection Information - ce: Ca Torrance Nr: 313645525 Report ID:0950635 Open Date: 06/OS/2012 Abhe & Svoboda 3171 N Gaffey St San Pedro, CA 90731 Union Status: NonUnion SIC: 1731/Eledrical Work NAICS: 238210/Eledrical Contradors Mailing: 880 Tavern Rd, Alpine, CA 91901 Inspection Type: Accident Scope: Partial Advanced Notice: N Ownership: Private Safery/Health: Safety Close Conference: il/28/2012 Planning Guide: Safety-Construction Close Case: 11/30/2012 Emphasis: S:Construction (Cship) Related Activity: Type ID Safety Health Accident 362460677 Accident Investigation Summary i Summary Nr: 202531109 Event: 06/OS/2012 Employee Is Killed At Work Site, Possible Heart Actack iAt 3:20 p.m. on June 4, 2012, Employee #1 was part of a team working to repair and replace the lining of underground fuel tanks. The team was scraping and sandblasting the interior lining of the concrete tanks. This work was occurring at a military base in San Pedro, CA. The tank the team was working on had a capacity of two million gallons of marine grade diesel fuel. Employee #1 was working at grade level, assuring that the sand blast pot was kept full. He had complained the night G before that he did not feel well. On the morning of the incident, he complained that he still did notifeelwell. His foreman, Employee #2, asked if he would like to return to his motel room. He refused, and after lunch he stated that he was feeling a little better. At approximately 3:00 p.m., his partner, Employee #3, went to get some more sand. Upon his return, he found Employee #1 lying face down with his hands at his sides and legs straight out. Employee #1 was unresponsive and did not have a pulse. Another team member, Employee #4, initiated CPR until paramedics arrived. Ultimately, Employee #1 was pronounced dead by the paramedics. His surface injuries indicated that he had fallen on his face. He had trauma to his nose and left eyebrow from the fall. The investigation report cites a possible heart attack. The coroner subsequently determined that this fatality was due to a chronic medical condition. This incident was reported to the Torrance office of Cal/OSHA by the Los i Angeles Fire Departrnent at 4:00 p.m. on June 5, 2012. A Cal/OSHA investigator responded immediately and arrived on site at 4:20 p.m. Because the site is a military base, an opening wnference was held with the base commander and a foreman for the employer. Both gave permission to continue the inspection. The employer, ABHE & Svoboda Inc., Alpine, CA, is a contractor specializing in custom paint coatings. Keywords: construction, tank cleaning, sand pot, maintenance, heart attack, fall, forehead, nose I Inspection Degree Nature Occupation i 1 313645525 Fatality Other Construction laborers Inspection: 316265735 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc Inspection Information - Offce: Hawaii Nr: 316265735 Report ID:0951510 Open Date. 06/Ol/2012 Abhe & Svoboda Inc 91-161 Olai St Kapolei, HI 96707 Union Status: NonUnion SIC: 1629/Heavy ConstruQion, Not Elsewhere Classified NAICS: 237990/Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction Inspedion Type: Planned Scope: Complete Advanced Notice: N Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Health Close Conference: 06/Ol/2012 Planning Guide: Health-Construction Close Case: 06/Ol/2012 Inspection: 315947838 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc Page 3 of 9 https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=978649.015&id=95799... 2/ 11 /2015 Inspection Detail Inspection Information - Office: Or Health 1-Portland Nr:315947838 Report ID:1054191 Open Date:10/20/2011 Abhe & Svoboda Inc Astoria Bridge 422 Gateway Ave Ste 220 Astoria, OR 97103 Union SWtus: NonUnion SIC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contractors inspecaon iype: rcererrai Scope: Partial Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Health Planning Guide: Health-Construction Emphasis: N:Lead tteiatear+aiwty: iype iu aarecy Referral 202997367 Violation Summary E Serious Willful Repeat Other'UnclassTotal E Initial Violations 1 r 1 Current Violations: 1 ! = 1 Inidal Penalty. 105 ; ; , lOSi Current Penalty, SOS€ ] SOS; FfA Amount ; ; Close Conference: 02/22/2012 Close Case: 06/25/2012 Violation Items ID Type Standard Issuance Abate Curr; Init FW; Contest WstEvent 1. O1001A Serious 19260407 B 03/09/2012 10/20/2011 $105 $105 $0 03/27/2012 W- Empr Withdrew 2. 030016 Serious 19260152 CO3 03/09/2012 04/09/2012 $0 $0 $0 03/27/2012 W- Empr Withdrew 3. 01001C Serious 19260152 D02 03/09/2012 04/09/2012 $0 $0 $0 03/27/2012 W- Empr Withdrew Inspection: 315177584 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc Inspection Information - Office: Washington Region 4 Nr: 315177584 Report ID:1055340 Open Date: 08/25/2011 Abhe & Svoboda Inc Washington Side Astoria Bridge Chinook, WA 98614 Union SWtus: NonUnion SIC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contractors Mailing: Po Box 251, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Inspection Type: Planned Scope: Complete Advanced Notice: N Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Health Close Conference: 02/14/2012 Emphasis: L:Constr Close Case: 12/24/2013 Violation Summary Serious WiIIful;Repeat Other,Unclass`TOtal Initlal Violatlonsj 16i 1; 6; 23; r _ --- € Current Violatlons; 9 9i ' 18' Initial Penalty(24305.55'15000` e ;39305.55 Current Penalty; 27750i j27750j f '',......... FfA Amount = ? 11 0#Dp t+81115 zo ry st aa a i: nu te c a ca, 2. 111 SA Seticx s 155176090181 02/24/2012 /02/2013 $7 $15p00 $4 03/08 2. itOQt6Series1551?fi0901Q3 OZ/24/2012 t19/D2/2013 $fl $Q $R d3/48 i 3. 2QOfl1AOUter1551760902(!S 4# B2j24/2012 OS/02/2013 0 $1500 0U3(t18 4. 0200f8 Otlter 15517613t13 A 02/24/2012 Q&J25/201i $0 30 $flA3/Q8 oee ea s. gxoo c serr wws sssi t az coz o2J2a/ioiZ a31 e/z iz #o fo ;o a ues 6. 02o zn Other issi 6t os az' oi/z l2asz t afot/ZO13 #0 #x5 # U31t 6 7. 020ti28 Ott r 15517615U1 Q2/24J2012 OSJQZ/2013 #4 #0 $0 03(06 IDeleted 8, 0 A Sertou5 1551761105 02/24/2012 63/OS%2012 gtl $154U $0 03/08 Defeted 9. Q20038 Serbus 84218030 02j29/24i2 J25/2011 $ '$U #0-43108 l0. QZ8a4 Se iou5 15517511Q202 02/24/20#2 48JU2/2013 $9611 $150 30'ff31Q8 Page 4 of 9 2012 F - Formai SettlemenC 012 F - Farn Settlerx t 2012 F - Fwmai Settlement ( 2012 P - Form215Gttiert trt ( zalz F - Famalsettlement 412 F - Formai 5ettlement 1012 F - Fprm Settlernent 2012 F - Fortn SeGlert nt 2412 F - Fptmat Settlement 2012 F - famal 5ettlement j https://www.osha. gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=978649.015 &id=95 799. 2/11/2015 Inspection Detail Deleted 11. 02005 Serious 1551761502 H Deleted 12. 02006A Serious 8421500501 A Deleted 13. 020066 Serious 8421500501 B Deleted 14. 02006C Serious 8421500502 15. 02007 Serious 84213005 16. 02008 Serious 8422001002 17.02009 Other 8421800502 18. 02010 Serious 842120050205 19. 02011 Serious 8421701504 Deleted 20. 02012 Serious 1551761705 Deleted 21. 02013 Serious 1551761902 C 22. 02014 Serious 1550036002 D 23. 02015 Serious 81720035 24.02016A Serious 1551761502 H 25. 420168 Serious 8421500501 A 26. 02016C Serious 8421500501 B 27. 02016D Serious 8421500502 28.03001 Other 1550002011 29. 03002 Other 1550014002 B 30. 03003 Other 155176110205 31. 03004 Other 842120100204 32. 03005 Other 8421201002 E 33.03006 Other 81720015 02/24/2012 08/25/2011 $0 02/24/2012 08/25/2011 $0 02/24/2012 08/25/2011 $0 02/24/2012 OS/25/2011 $0 02/24/2012 OS/25/2011 $2306 02/24/2012 08/25/2011 $2306 02/24/2012 08/25/2011 $0 02/24/2012 08/02/2013 $2306 02/24/2012 OS/25/2011 $2306 02/24/2012 03/08/2012 $0 02/24/2012 03/08/2012 $0 02/24/2012 08/25/2011 $2306 02/24J2012 03/OS/2012 $2306 07/12/2013 07/12/2013 $2306 07/12/2013 07/12/2013 $0 07/12/2013 07/12/2013 o 07/12/2013 07/12/2013 $0 02/24/2012 OS/25/2011 $0 02/24/2012 08/25/2011 $0 02/24/2012 08/02/2013 $0 02/24/2012 08/02/2013 $0 02/24/2012 OS/25/2011 $0 02/24/2012 03/08/2012 $0 2250 1500 0 0 1500 500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1250 2306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inspection: 315177634 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc Inspection Information - Office: Washington Region 4 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/OS/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settiement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/OS/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/OS/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 F - Formal Settlement 0 F - Formal Settlement 0 F - Formal Settlement 0 F - Formal Settiement 0 03/OS/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/OS/2012 F - Formal Setdement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/OS/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement 0 03/08/2012 F - Formal Settlement Nr: 315177634 Report ID:1055340 Open Date: 08/25/2011 Abhe & Svoboda Inc Washington Side Astoria Bridge Chinook, WA 98164 Union Status: NonUnion 35IC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contractors Mailing: 17066 Revere Way Po Box 251, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Inspection Type: Planned Scope: Complete Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Emphasis: L:Constr i Violation Summary Serious[WiIlfuljRepeat Other UnclassToWl ; Initial Violations 8 7 15= Current Violationsl 3! 4j i 7€ Initial Penalty 17700' ; i !17700 CurrentPenalty 3500 ; 3500 FfA Amount, = i Advanced Notice: N Ciose Conference: 10/25/2011 Ciose Case: O1/07/2013 ViolaGon Items ID Type Standard Issuance Abate Curr$ Init Fta; Contest LastEvent 1. 01001 Serious 87440006 11/16/2011 11/20/2011 $1500 $2700 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlement Deleted 2. 01002 Other 155003300604 11/16/2011 11/20/2011 $0 $2700 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlement Deleted 3. 01003 Serious 1550033001 A 11/16/2011 OS/25/2011 $0 $1800 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlement 4. 01004 Serious 155245100201 17 11/16/2011 11/20/2011 $1500 $1800 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlement S. 03005 Seriou5 87430020 11/16/2011 11/20/2011 $500 $2700 $0 12/07/2011 F- FOrmal Settiement Deleted 6. 01006 Serious 155003300605 11/16/2011 11/20/2011 $0 $2700 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlement Deleted 7. 01007 Serious 1555560012 11/16/2011 11/20/2011 $0 $2700 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlement Deleted 8. OS008 Serious 87420034 11/16/2011 11/20/2011 $0 $600 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlement 9. 02001 Other 155001400402 il/16/2011 il/20/2011 $0 $0 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlement 10. 02002 Other 1550026003 G il/16/2011 08/25/2011 $0 $0 y0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlemen[ Deleted 11. 02003 Other 1550033005 A 11/16/2011 08/25/2011 $0 $0 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlement Deleted 12. 02004 Other 155003300201 11/16/2011 11/29/2011 $0 $0 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlemen[ Deleted 13. 02005 Other 024294230302 11/16/2011 il/24/2011 $0 $0 $0 12/07/2011 F- FormalSettlement 14. 02006 Other 155001400404 11/16/2011 il/20/2011 $0 $0 $0 12/07/2011 F- Formal Settlement 15.02007 Other 155003300604 11/16/2011 12/14/2012 $0 $0 $0 - Inspection: 314917147 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc. Page 5 of 9 https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=978649.015&id=95799... 2/ 11 /2015 Inspection Detail Inspection Information - OfFce: Providence Nr: 314917147 Report ID:0112300 Open Date: 04/07/2011 Aone v0000a inc. Newport Bridge Newpart, RI 02840 SIC: 1622/Bridge, Tunnel, and Elevated Highway Construction I NAICS: 237310/ Highway, Street, and Bridge Construdion Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Prior Wke, MN 55372 in yecu n iyNe:naiurou Scope: Complete Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Plannino Guide: SafeN-Construction Close Conference: 04/07/2011 Close Case: OS/04/2011 Inspection: 315422691 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc Inspection Information - OfFce: Or Safety 2-Portland Nr:315422691 ReportID:1054112 Open Date:03/29/2011 Abhe & Svoboda Inc Astoria Bridge Astoria, OR 97103 Union Status: NonUnion SIC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contradors Mailing: National Registered Agents Inc 325 13th St Ne Ste, Salem, OR 97301 Inspection Type: Complaint Scope: Partial Advanced Notice: N Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Close Conference: 04/25/2011 Planning Guide: Safety-Construdion Close Case: 09/29/2011 Related Adivity: Type ID Safety Health Complaint 208254938 Yes j Violation Summary I Serious WillfuljRepeatCOtherjUnclass Total' Initial Violations 1 E 1 urrentViolations 1 = i li Initial Penalty 450! ' 450; CurrentPenaltyC 450! , ; 450i FfA Amount ' , 'l Violation Items _ _ _ _ _ ID Type Standard Issuance Abate Curr; Init; Fta; Contest LastEvent 1. 01001 Serious 701076003 A 06/Ol/2011 06/11/2011 $450 $450 $0 06/30/2011 L- State Settlement Inspection: 313257230 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc Inspection Information -ce: Michigan Safety Cnst Nr: 313257230 Report ID:0552651 Open Date: 08/26/2010 Abhe & Svoboda Inc I 76 Mackinaw Bridge St Ignace, MI 49781 Union Status: NonUnion SIC: 1611/Highway and Street Construction, Except Elevated Highways NAICS: 237310/ Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Inspection Type: Planned Scope: Partial Advanced Notice: N Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Close Conference: 08/26/2010 Planning Guide: Safety-Construdion Close Case: 12/09/2010 Emphasis: S:Construction Yblatlon St t mary aerousjwitlfutiRepeatl0tlier UndassjTotal 3 .. Page 6 of 9 https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=978649.015&id=95799... 2/ 11 /2015 Inspection Detail Initlal Violationsl I 2 2 Current ViolaUOns' 2; 2E Initlal Penalty ' ^ Current Penalty ' i FfA Amount Violation Items ID Type Standard Issuance Abate Curr Init Fta Contest LastEvent 1. 01001 Other 4084012302 09/23/2010 09/28/2010 $0 $0 $0 - 2.01002 Other40841123 09/23/2010 09/28/2010 $0 $0 $0 - Inspection: 313329039 - Abhe & Svoboda Inspection Information - Office: Michigan Safety Cnst Nr:313329039 Report ID:0552651 Abhe & Svoboda I N415 I 75 StIgnace, MI49781 SIC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contractors Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Inspection Type: Complaint Scope: Partial Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Planning Guide: Safety-Construction Emphasis: 5: Construction Related Activity: Type ID Safety Health Complaint 206371809 Yes Nr: 311823645 Open Date: 10/07/2009 Union Status: NonUnion Advanced Notice: N Close Conference: 10/07/2009 Close Case: 10/07/2009 Inspection: 311823645 - Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. Inspection Information - ce: ]acksonville Report ID:0419700 Open Date: 09/11/2009 Abhe & Svoboda,Inc. 8904 Dames Point Road Jacksonville, FL 32226 SIC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contractors Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Prior Wke, MN 55372 Inspection Type: Complaint Scope: Complete Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety L: FaII,S: Commercial Emphasis: Constr,S:Fall From Height,S:Struck-By Related Activity: Type ID Safety Health Complaint 207372327 Yes Union Status: NonUnion Advanced Notice: N Close Conference: 09/il/2009 Close Case: 10/07/2009 Inspection: 313369266 - Abhe & Svoboda Inspection Information - Office: Charleston Nr: 313369266 Report ID:0316400 Open Date:07/08/2009 Abhe & Svoboda i I-79 Kenton Meadows Bridge Frametown, WV 26623 Union SWtus: NonUnion jSIC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging i NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contractors Mailing: 79 Brownstone Ave, Portland, CT 06480 Inspedion Type: Planned Scope: No Insp/Process Inadive Advanced Notice: N Ownership: Private Page 7 of 9 https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=978649.015&id=95799... 2/ 11 /2015 Inspection Detail Safety/Health: Safety Planning Guide: Safery-Construction Emphasis: L:Bridge Clase Conference: 07/08/2009 Close Case:07/08/2009 Inspection: 310629696 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc. Inspedion Information - Office: Springfield Nr: 310629696 Report ID:0112600 Open Date: 11/26/2008 Abhe & Svoboda Inc. 213 Royal Street iChicopee, MA 01020 Union Status: NonUnion SIC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contradors Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Po Box 251, Prior lake, MN 55372 Inspection Type: Complaint Scope: Partial Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Health L: Constrep, L: FaII,N: Lead,S:Commercial Emphasis: Constr,S:Fall From Height,S: Lead,S: Noise Related Activity: Type ID Safety Health Complaint 206124711 Yes Yes olation Initial Initlal Current FfA Advanced Notice: N Close Conference:l2/18/2008 Close Case:01/30/2009 Violation Items ID Type Standard Issuance Abate Curr Init FW Contest LastEvent 1. 01001 Other 19100134 C01 12/29/2008 Ol/02/2009 $0 $825 $0 I- Informal Settlement 2. 01002 Serious 19100134 I07 12/29/2008 O3/02/2009 $1925 $1925 $0 I- Informal Settlemen[ Inspection: 311479463 - Abhe And Svoboda Inspection Information - ce: Vermont Nr: 311479463 Report ID:O155010 Open Date: 11/12/2008 Abhe And Svoboda S733 Vt Rt 14 Sharon, VT 05065 SIC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging NAICS: 237310/ Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Inspection Type: Planned Scope: Complete Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Safety Planning Guide: Safety-Construdion Emphasis: L:Fall Union Status: NonUnion Advanced Notice: N Close Conference: 11/12/2008 Close Case: 12/04/2008 Inspection: 311479158 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc Inspection Information - Office: Vermont Nr: 311479158 Report ID:O155010 Open Date: 11/12/2008 iAbhe & Svoboda Inc 5733 Vt Route 14 At Sharon Bridge Sharon, VT 05065 SIC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contradors Union Status: NonUnion E Page 8 of 9 https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=978649.015&id=95799... 2/ 11 /2015 Inspection Detail Mailing: 17066 Revere Way, Prior Lake, MN 55372 Inspedion Type: Planned Scope: Complete Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Health Planning Guide: Health-Construdion Emphasis: S:Lead,S:Site SpecificTargeting Advanced Notice: N Ciose Conference: 11/12/2008 Close Case: 09/01/2010 Page 9 of 9 https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=978649.015&id=95799... 2/ 11 /2015 Inspection Detail Page 1 of 1 OSHA , y; 355 ecds 7faae ._.. jt . i 4ewsletfer - Rss°eecfs .. . . . . . . Occupationat Safety & Health Adm nistration We Can Heip wnar's New Offices SHA rkame Wia tc . R ul ::m t Tsata T c 4 t€1+ s M . w _ y. • _ w , ._. ._t w.. __. ._ _ _ _ .: a . . Inspection: 312426190 - Abhe & Svoboda Inc Inspection Information - Office: MinneSOW Nr:312426190 Report ID:0552700 Open Date:07/16/2008 Abhe & Svoboda Inc 17066 Revere Way Prior Lake, MN 55372 SIC: 1721/Painting and Paper Hanging NAICS: 238320/Painting and Wall Covering Contractors Inspection Type: Referral Scope: Partial Ownership: Private Safety/Health: Nealth Emphasis: S:Lead Related Activity: Type ID Safety Referral 200514727 Health Yes Union Status: NonUnion Advanced Notice: N Close Conference: 07/16/2008 Close Case: 07/22/2008 https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.inspection_detail?id=312426190 2/ 11 /2015 Exhibit 4 Case 1:04-cv-01973-JR Document 24 Filed 0812S/OB Page 7 cf6 tn1IT D 8T11T 9 DI$TRICT CODRT FOR TEiL DI8TRICT 0!' CObW i1 A6RE 6 SVOGODA, INC., , Plaintiff, , Civil Action No. 09-1973 (JR) ELAINE CKAO, Secretary, U.S. , Department of Labor, , Defendant. . a'"7_ Plaintiff Abhe and Svogoda, Inc. (A s S), a construction company, seeks judicial revieW of a decision by the Lnbor Department's Adriinistrative Review Board IBoazd) in a dispute arising under the Federal-Aid Highways Act, 23 U.S.C. 4 101, et sea•, and the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. § 3141, et sgg. I previously dismissed three of the four counts of plaintiff's compl.aint. The zemaining co nt al2eges that the plaintiff lacked fair warninq af the rule on which the Board based its decision. The parties have filed cross-motions for sumr ary judqment (16, 18j. For the reasons discussed below, the government's motion for summary judqment (16) will be qranted, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judqment (181 will be d ni d. 1. BdCkqround In 1994 and 1995, A 3 S entered into three contracts with the Connectieut Department of Tcanspartation Co clean and a..«, o 'e'w.r...'{' an..+y+ 7 Case 1:04 v-01973-JR Document 24 Filed 0$/25 06 P1ge 2 of 6 paint bridges. The projects received federal funds, and were accordingly sub7ect to the prevailinq wage determinations of the Davis-Bacon Act. After conducting its own research on Connecticut practices, A i S paid painter's zates to employees who actua2ly painted the b idqes, but paid only the lower carpe tec's rates or Iaborer's rates to employees who performed tasks associated with bridge paintinq te•q•, decontamination showezinq, waste cleanup). In 1996, when the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division was notified of this practice, he launched an investiga ion. After su=veying the local area practices, the Administrator deternined that all workezs on the bridge cleaning and painting jobs should have been paid painters' ates, and that A 6 S had thus underpaid certain ernployees. To i cover back wzges, DOL withheLd 51.3 mi;.lion in contract payments from A b S-- the amount of the underpayments by A s S and three of its subcontractors. An administrative law judge upheld the Administrator's decision. The 8oard affirmed the ALJ's decision ar,d, on OctoDer 15, 2004, denied A s S s motion for reconsideration. '—'~ 2. Analvsis Aa a general prir ciple, parties to government conCracts are obliged to know all applicable Legal principles. Sgg P TC Petroleun, Inc. V. Sandecs, 860 F. 2d 1104, lllZ-12 (D.C. C1r. 19881("[P]arties dealing with the government are expeCted to know 2 - Case t:04-c+-01973-JR Document 24 Filed 08l25/O6 Page 3 af 8 the law.". Before this court, and in all the adjudications below, the government has relied heavily on what it believes to be a"lonqstandinq prinCiple" established by Frv Bcothers, 123 WAB No. 76-06 lJune 14, 19771. Davis-Bacon wage determinations list only job classifications and theiz corresponding minimum waqe and frinqe benefit rates; they do not contain job descriptions. Frv Brothers stated that the job content -- or task lists -- for classifications in Davis-Bacon waqe determinations must be ba3ed on locally prevalling practices, anci that, where union rates prevail, the proper classification of duties under the waqe determination :s established by the area practice of union contractors siqnatory to the televant collective barqaininq agreemen. As the Hoard explained: If] a const=uction contractor who is now bound by the classifications of wozk at which the majority ot employees in the area are wozkinq is free to classify or reclassify, grade or subqrade traditional craft work as he wishes, such a contractor can, with respect to waqe rates, take almost any job away from the group of contractors and the employees who work for them who have established the locality waqe standard. There wili be little left to the Davis-Bacon Act.... Such a contractor could change his own practice according to what he believed each employee was worth for the work he was doing. Id. at 17. In Connecticut, according to the government, all bridqe-related work was included in tne job content of the Local paintets' unions. Therefore all workers on the bridqe projects should have been paid at painters' wage rates. 3 - Case t:04-cw-01973-JR Oocument 24 Filed OSl25/06 Page 4 of 6 A& S dssezts, howevez, that it did not have fair warr,inq of the governmer.t's ceiiance on Frv Brsthe s, and that Frv Brothers was not published 1n any official publication prioz to the award of the covered conttacts to A& S. Nor, they arque, was the decision incorpocated by reference anywhere in the published bid specifications, wage determinations, or regulations that were availaDle to A 6 S at the Lime of the bidding and aWard of the contracts at issue. f'rv B=others, plaintlff contends, is a ciassic example of the "secret law" frowned upon by the Court of Appeals, See e.Q., Gates & Fox Co. v Occuoational Safetv , Health Review, 790 F. 2d 154, 156 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("An employer ,.. is entitled to fair no[ice in dealinq with his government. .., (Sjtatutes and regulations which a22ow monetdry penalties against those who violate them ... must give an employer fair warning of the conduct it prohibits or requires."), The vithholding of funds without fair notice, A 6 S asserts, is a due procesS violation. An agency may choose to establish new principles through rulemaking, but due process requires that, when it does so, it provide natice "which is reasonably calculatec3 to ir.form a21 those whosp leqally protected interest may be affected by the nev principle." i,Qbil Exploration and Producinq,_Narth America. c. V, FERC, 881 F.2d 193, 199 ISth Cit. 1989). In Mobil, however, the new adjudication-based rule that FERC wanted to 4 - Case 1:04-cv-01973-JR Document 24 Filed d8125106 Page 5 of 6 enforce had only neen p bLished in the original opinion, in two sentences buried in an "othetwise r.outine" order. Further, thdt order was available far review only at EERC's offices, on a bulletin board covered with glass, on which only the first paqe of any order was visible. The important lanquage in the order was not published anywhere except in a commercial reporting service, along with volumes of other routine ozders. Undet these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit held that FERC had not provided the piaintiff with fair warning of the new rule. The Frv Brothers decision, howevcr, was not "seoret law." Before A& S entered into the relevant co tracts in 1993/1994, at least two cases in this court had cited, not just Frv Brotk ers, but the precise lanquage upon which the government relies today. See Hldq. & Constr. Trades' Dea't v. Donovan, 543 F. Supp. 1282, 1285 (D.D.C. 1962), affirmed in oart and reve sed in non-relevant Part, 112 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 19821; Tele-Sentrv Seeuritv Inc. v. Secretarv of Labor, 1991 WL 178135 (D.D.C. 2991). Frv Brothers was the heavily cited precedent for a final rule :ssued by the Department of Labor in 1989. See 54 F.R. 4234 19891. Fuzther, the Wage Appeals Board, predecessor to the Administrative Review 6oard, regularly cited Frv Brothers 1n its opinions between 1477 and 1994. See, e.q., Prime Roofina, Inc., WAB Case No. 92-15, 1993 DOL Waqe App. Bd. LEXIS 19 (July 16, 1993); Trataros Construction Cora., WAB Case No. 92-03, 1993 DOL 5 - Casa 1:04-cv-01973-JR Document Z4 Filed 08I25/06 Page 6 ot 6 Wage App. Bd. LEXIS 12 tApri] 2A, 1993). Plaintiff may indeed have been unaware of the rule announced in Frv Brot ers, but it is not unreasonable to hold plaintiff responsible for knowinq the rule. "There is no grave injustice in holdinq parties to a reasonable knowledge of the Iaw." AT Petraleum, 860 F.Zd at 1112. Plaintiff's vatious vther clairns of lack of fair war4inq are either variations of their initial claim, dressed up in different language, or are claims that are more appropriately considered challenges to the Administrator's wage dec.ermination in this case. To the extent they are the first, they are addressed above; to the extent they are the second, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear hem. 5ee, e.a., Universities Research Ass'n v, Coutu, 450 U.S. ?54, T6I n.10 1981). r +t r r r An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum. JAMES ROBERT50N United StaLes District Judqe 6 - r " I'H(/ 1'1'\' Exhibit 5 STATE OF MICHIGAN RICK SNYDER, Governor VS ,nari MACI:INAC BRIDGE AUTHORITY N42S I-75 Sr. [crvncE, M cHIOAN 49781 906-643-7600 Fnx: 906-643-7668 WiLLIAM H. GNODTKE, CHAIRMAA BARBARA J, BROMT7. VICE CHAIR MUNRAY D. WIKOL PATRICK F, GLEASON KIRK T. STEUDLE, P.E.. ptaecrox August I, 2013 Mr. Patrick Gleason 5215 North State Road Davison, Michigan 48423 R. DAN MUSSER,1[( RO6ERT C.STRUCK ANDY DILLON, TRE SL'0.ER ROBERTJ, 5WEENEY, P.E. F:]CGCI:TIV[ SGCRETARY Subject: Liquidated Damages for Cantract 86000 M00215; North Side Span Painring Project Dear Mr. Gleason: The total liquidated damages incuned by Abhe & Svoboda for the above referenced project was six hunclred forty three days (643) at Three Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($3,000.00) per day for a total penalty of One Million Nine Hundred Twenty Nine Thousand and 00/I00 Dollars a 1 9Z9,000.00). If you have any other questions or need any more information please call me at 906-643-7600. Sincerely, Robert J. Sweeney, P.E. Executive Secretary GAIL FARBER, Director July 11, 2013 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS "To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service" 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA,CALIFORNIA 91 803-7 33 1 Telephone: (626)458-5100 http://dpw.lacounty.gov ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX ]460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE: C_'~ TO: Each Supervisor FROM: Gail Farber ~ ~,~.~- Director of Pu is Works SAN GABRIEL DAM PENSTOCK COATING AND VALVE REPAIR CONTRACTOR ABHE ~ SVOBODA, INC. Public Works recently advertised a project to repair and rehabilitate the valves and penstocks at San Gabriel Dam. This project is essential to maintain the functionality of the facility. After bids were opened on July 2, 2013, Public Works received the attached protest letter dated July 3, 2013, from Painters and Allied Trades Compliance Administrative Trust (Trust) alleging that the apparent lowest responsible bidder, Abhe & Svoboda, Inc., was potentially a nonresponsible contractor. The protest states that Abhe & Svoboda, Inc., has violated State Labor Codes and received several safety violations. We acknowledge that the contractor should have reported a labor compliance violation that occurred within the last three years in his/her bid documents. However, as noted in the contract solicitation documents, the County reserves the right to waive minor inconsistencies within the bid document. Abhe & Svoboda, Inc., agreed to a no-fault settlement in 2011 with the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Apprenticeship Standards, in the amount of $3,500 for failure to employ apprentices and make training contributions as required. We are not aware of any other State of California violations. Based on this, we have made the determination that Abhe & Svoboda, Inc.'s, failure to disclose these violations does not warrant us finding them nonresponsible. We reviewed the Occupational Health and Safety Act records that were submitted by the Trust and did not find them to be evidence of an adverse safety record. The allegation made by the Trust regarding Abhe and Svoboda, Inc., being penalized $1.3 million by the United States Department of Labor (DOL) was found to be a relatively minor matter. The incident occurred in the mid-1990's when the contractor was awarded three contracts in Connecticut to paint bridges and based on their own research paid what they thought were appropriate prevailing wages. Ultimately, the rates were challenged, and the DOL determined the contractor's workers, for certain Each Supervisor July 11, 2013 Page 2 classifications, were entitled to higher hourly rates. The $1.3 million is the amount withheld by the DOL to make restitution to the affected workers and not a penalty as alleged in the Trust's letter. We believe that Abhe & Svoboda, Inc., is a responsible contractor, and delaying the award of this project would not serve the public's interest. We intend to award this project to Abhe & Svoboda, Inc., using the authority delegated to the Chief Engineer of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District in our adopt, advertise, and award letter that was approved by the Board on May 21, 2013. If you have any questions, please call me or your staff may contact Bill Winter, Deputy Director, at (626) 458-4018. KA:sc O:ISectionlAdministretionl6oard\Each SupervisorlSan Gabriel Dam Penstock.doc Attach. cc: Chief Executive Office County Counsel Executive Office ~~ ~~~c~~~?~~ ~~~ ~ ~~°~F end ~[~~~~ ~~~E~~~~~,~ ~~d'~t C/~;. ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~fy 3, 213 `pia Ee~i~ed ~aFt # iQl ~ ~7~~~ Q(~C~O X23 ~ 62 1 ~?ia fax: (626) 4~~-41 ~Q mss. fail Ferber Diiectar Caunty of Las Angeles Department of Public Works 900 South Freemont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91X02 PROJECT: San Gabriel Dam Penstock Coating 8t Valve Repair RE: Bidding Contractor- Abhe si Svoboda Inc Dear: Ms. Farber: Painters and Allied Trades Compliance is a joint labor-management committee that works diligently to insure fairness and compliance by all contractors in the bidding and performance of Public Works projects. It is our understanding that Abhe 8i Svoboda ("the Contractor") is a bidder on the project listed above. It is our belief that the Contractor is allon-Responsible bidder. Therefore, we respectfully suggest that no award should be made to the Contractor. On July 9, 2009 the Division of Industrial Relations Division of Apprenticeship Standards found that the Contractor failed to comply with Labor Code § 1777.5 and § 1777.7. While no penalty was assessed, the Contractor was warned that "after receipt of this notice, any failure to comply with applicable apprenticeship regulations will be considered a knowing and possible intentional violation. See Exhibit 1. Despite this warning, subsequently, on October 28, 2011 the Contractor paid a $3,500 fine to settle charges that it violated Labor Code § 1777.5. See Exhibit 2. In addition, since October 24, 2007, the Contractor has repeatedly violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) and regulations promulgated under that act. We have attached search results for your records from OSHA website. Please note that every year from 2008 — 2013, this company has continued to have these violations. See Exhibit 3. These violations are in addition a reported federal court decision affirming a $1.3 million penalty against the Contractor for failing to pay its painting employees the wages to which they were entitled under the Davis-Bacon Act. See Exhibit 4. Of course, these are ali labor (aw violations that the Contractor was required to report under the May 21, 2013 memorandum addressed to the Board of Supervisors, which states at page 3 that: "To ensure that the contract is awarded to a responsible contractor with a satisfactory history of performance, bidders are required to report violations of the False Claims Act, criminal convictions, civil litigation, defaulted contract with the County, complaints filed with the Contractor's State License Board, labor /aw/payrol/ vio/atlons, and debarment actions. As provided for in Board Policy No. 5. 140, the information reported by the contractor will be considered before making a recommendation to award." We do not know if the above violations were reported, but we respectfully urge the Board to double-check if they were. (f not, that alone may be grounds to find the Contractor is not responsible. Far these reasons, the Cantractor should be considered allon-Responsible bidder. `:T~°c~ r~F~g1~:~v~rereEzc~sI~'ar~4.lacti~rTarro~°e°aw`' ~~~°rsir~~r ~1're.Tu~ ~de~ioiz¢EL~¢rev2cFQ~2es o~D~tr°ic~ Ca~nctFi~To. ~6 ~~~«~e ~c~c~ ~~~~~c~~~ ~- ~o ~~~c~ c~ ~~ 6f,~o~a have any c~~aestions, please feel free ~o cc~r~tact n1e. Sincerely, ~' Nidia Henriquez Case /nvestigator Enc: Letters from Department of /ndustria/ Re/ations, Division ofApprenticeship Standards, (Exhibit18t2J OSHA Records (Exhibit 3) Federal Court Order (E~iibit 4J cc: Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles: Mark Ridley-Thomas Gloria Molina Don Knabe Zev Yaros[aysky Michael D. Antonovich Assistant Directors of Public Works: Mark Pestrella, PE Jacob Williams, Architect Vincent Harris, Sr. Advisor Si Special Assistant Fax:(213) 680-3283 Fax:(213) 613-1739 Fax:(213) 626-6941 Fax:(213) 625-7360 Fax:(213) 974-1010 E-mail: mpestrella@dpw.lacounty.gov E-mail: jjwi[lia@dpw.lacounty.gov E-mail: vharris@bos.lacounty.org "~'~Qiz~rzg~~T~u°ea~eitic~sl'or.~I~~t~e~ 7'a~aa°c=o us" ~erts~~:~g L Its JL~°ESe~icf-ia~ve~k ~ouit~crtes o,~'Bis~z°sec Couraci~Ieto. ?G Construction Today - Abhe & Svoboda Inc. file:///P|/WORKING/CIP%20P2542%20850-3%20Interior%20Coating/Staff%20Reports/Exhibits/Construction%20Today%20-%20Abhe%20&%20Svoboda%20Inc..html[2/27/2015 9:11:21 AM] Abhe & Svoboda Inc. Sometimes, the final touch that can help distinguish a structure is the last coat of paint. That addition of color can make it far more memorable, or even help restore an aged structure to its original glory. And that is what Abhe & Svoboda Inc. strives to do in its work. Based in Prior Lake, Minn., the company is a leader in the coatings industry with a project portfolio that includes towers, bridges and dams. “We also do structural renovations, as far as structural steel and concrete repairs,” Project Engineer Ryan Glen says. Abhe & Svoboda started operations 42 years ago and today also has offices in Kapolei, Hawaii; Alpine, Calif.; Portland, Conn.; and Gaines, Mich. The company’s portfolio includes the Indianapolis Motor Speedway; Pearl Harbor; San Diego International Airport, the Black Canyon Dam at Payette River, Idaho; Yaquina Bay Bridge in Newport, Ore.; and Aloha Stadium in Aiea, Hawaii. The company also has worked in Cuba, Australia, Spain and Guam. “We will essentially work anywhere,” Glen says. “We have had the opportunity to bid and work on projects in almost every state.” Although Abhe & Svoboda primarily serves an industrial customer base, the company is not limited to only those clients in its work. Instead, “We [also] work for various federal governmental agencies,” Glen explains. “We do a lot of work [for the] Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation [and] the Department of the Navy.” LOYAL EMPLOYEES A strong factor in the company’s success is its team of experienced workers, Glen says. “We’ve had a lot of field personnel that have been with us for a long time,” he says. “[They like to] travel with us and like working with us.” This includes Glen himself, who has been with Abhe & Svoboda for 15 years. “I like working with the people,” he says, adding that he enjoys the fact that the work at the company is not repetitious. “All of our projects are similar but not the same,” he says. “Every project is unique in its own way. There are special designs that have to be done for [a project] to make it work correctly.” For example, on its Tainter Gate Repair project at the Whitney Lake Dam in Texas, the company came up with an access system on the dam so all its equipment was stationary on the shore, eliminating the need to stage equipment from barges. PROTECTING LANDMARKS Share this post CT Staff Writer Search HOME FEATURED CONTENT SECTIONS SERVICES ABOUT CONTACT SUBSCRIBE Construction Today - Abhe & Svoboda Inc. file:///P|/WORKING/CIP%20P2542%20850-3%20Interior%20Coating/Staff%20Reports/Exhibits/Construction%20Today%20-%20Abhe%20&%20Svoboda%20Inc..html[2/27/2015 9:11:21 AM] Abhe & Svoboda’s current projects include work worth more than $41 million on the Newport/Pell Bridge for the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority. The cable-suspended bridge crosses Narragansett Bay and connects Jamestown to Newport, R.I. “We’re doing steel repairs and protective coatings on the suspended spans of the bridge,” Glen explains. “There are two side spans that are roughly 770 feet long and the main span is 1,600 feet long.” The company also is performing abrasive blasting, painting structural steel and suspension cables work. “We’re about 25 percent complete on it right now,” Glen says. Abhe & Svoboda plans to be finished with the project by October 2012. It also is rehabilitating 17 dam gates at the Whitney Lake Dam in Clifton, Texas, for the Fort Worth district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “We are completing abrasive blasting and recoating them,” he describes. In a contract worth more than $14.5 million, the company also is completing structural steel repairs on the dam. “We’re probably about 90 percent complete,” Glen says, noting that the company expects to finish work on the project by this September, which is two months ahead of schedule. One of the keys to finishing the project early, Glen notes, was finding ways to access the dam gates without staging any equipment on the water. Instead, “All of our equipment is staged on land,” he says. “We used special scaffolding systems that we’ve utilized on our bridge projects,” he continues. “We were able to work on multiple gates at a time in order to get the project done in a timely manner.” According to Glen, a key factor to the success of the company’s projects is its vendors. In addition, because it uses many vendors repeatedly, Abhe & Svoboda knows exactly what it needs from them to accomplish a project and make it successful, he says. Abhe & Svoboda’s key vendors include Kleen Blast. ROOM FOR EXPANSION Abhe & Svoboda plans to grow in select markets. “We want to be able to expand various markets if possible,” Glen says. “[But] we’re very happy with the markets we’re currently in. “There’s always room for expansion if the economy allows it,” he asserts. “There are projects available to [us] in various areas, with painting in regards to surface prep and steel renovations. We can tackle a variety of [jobs].” Contact Construction Today 79 West Monroe St., Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 312.676.1100 312.676.1101 Click here for a full list of contacts. Information Featured Content Free Digital Subscription! Free Print Subscription! Site Policies Digital Edition Check out our latest Digital Edition! Click here for the archives. Copyright © 2014 Construction Today Monthly. All Rights Reserved. STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: April 1, 2015 SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Cameron Associate Civil Engineer Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager PROJECT: VARIOUS DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Award of As-Needed Geotechnical Services Contract to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants in an amount not to exceed $175,000 for Fiscal Years 2015 through 2018 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a professional As-Needed Geotechnical Services contract to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants (Ninyo & Moore) and to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with Ninyo & Moore in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000 for a period of four (4) fiscal years (FY 2015 through FY 2018), ending June 30, 2018. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a professional As-Needed Geotechnical Services agreement with Ninyo & Moore in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000 for a period of four (4) fiscal years (FY 2015 through FY 2018), ending June 30, 2018. 2 ANALYSIS: The District will require the services of a professional geotechnical consultant in support of the District’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the next four (4) fiscal years. It is more efficient and cost effective to issue an as-needed contract for geotechnical 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 for other disciplines such as engineering design, construction management, electrical, and environmental services. The District will issue task orders to the consultant for specific projects during the contract period. The consultant will then prepare a detailed scope of work, 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. The anticipated CIP projects that are estimated to require geotechnical services for the duration of this contract are listed below: CIP DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST P2040 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG $20,000 P2083 870-2 Pump Station Replacement $10,000 P2325 10” to 12” Oversize, 1296 Zone, PB Road- Rolling Hills Hydro PS/PB Bndy $5,000 P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations $10,000 P2508 Pipeline Cathodic Protection Replacement Program $20,000 P2528 30-Inch Potable Water Pipeline Manifold at 624 Reservoirs $20,000 R2116 14” Forcemain Assessment and Repair $10,000 R2117 RWCWRF Contact Basin Expansion Project $10,000 S2024 Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement $15,000 S2033 Sewer System Various Locations Rehabilitation $25,000 TOTAL: $145,000 The geotechnical scopes of work for the above projects are estimated from preliminary information and past projects. Therefore, staff believes that a $175,000 cap on the As-Needed Geotechnical Services contract is adequate, while still providing additional capacity for unforeseen support needs by the District. 3 This As-Needed Geotechnical Services contract does not commit the District to any expenditure until a task order is approved to perform work on a CIP 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 on professional services. The District solicited geotechnical services by placing an advertisement on the Otay Water District’s website on January 14, 2015 and with various other publications including the San Diego Daily Transcript. Fourteen (14) firms submitted a letter of interest and a statement of qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for As-Needed Geotechnical Services was sent to all fourteen (14) firms resulting in nine (9) proposals received by February 12, 2015.  Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.  Geocon, Inc.  Group Delta Consultants  Kleinfelder  Koury Engineering  Leighton Consulting  MTGL, Inc.  Ninyo & Moore  RMA Group The five (5) firms that chose not to propose are AMEC Foster Wheeler, EEI Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions, Nova Services, Inc., Salem Engineering Group, and Twining, Inc. In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, staff evaluated and scored all written proposals. Ninyo & Moore received the highest score for their services based on their experience, understanding of the scope of work, proposed method to accomplish the work, and their composite hourly rate. Ninyo & Moore was the most qualified consultant with the best overall rating or ranking. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in Attachment B. Ninyo & Moore submitted the Company Background Questionnaire as required by the RFP and staff did not find any significant 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. Based upon the review of all the hourly composite rates, staff did not negotiate with Ninyo & Moore to lower their proposed rates because their composite rate was the lowest of the nine (9) consultants that submitted proposals. 4 FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The funds for this contract will be expended for a variety of projects, as previously noted above. This contract is for as-needed professional 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 on a specific CIP project. 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 CIP projects noted above. The Finance Department has determined that the funds to cover this contract are available as budgeted for these projects. 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. KC/BK:jf P:\WORKING\As Needed Services\Geotechnical\FY 2016-2018\Staff Report\4-1-15-Staff Report-As-Needed Geotechnical Engineer.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Various Award of As-Needed Geotechnical Services Contract to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants in an amount not to exceed $175,000 for Fiscal Years 2015 through 2018 COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on March 12, 2015, and the following comments were made:  Staff recommended that the Board award a professional As-Needed Geotechnical Services contract to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants (Ninyo & Moore) and to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with Ninyo & Moore in an amount not-to-exceed $175,000 for a period of four (4) fiscal years (FY 2015 through FY 2018), ending June 30, 2018.  Staff stated that the As-Needed Geotechnical Engineering Services contract will provide the District with the ability to obtain consulting services in a timely and efficient manner on an as-needed basis. A list of the proposed CIP projects is included on Page 2 of the staff report. It was noted that $30,000 is included in the contract amount for future unanticipated work.  It was discussed that in accordance with Policy 21, Staff advertised a Request for Proposal on January 14, 2015. Fourteen (14) firms submitted a letter of interest and nine (9) firms submitted a proposal. Five (5 staff members ranked the proposal and the results of the analysis are shown in Attachment B.  Staff indicated that Ninyo & Moore received the highest score from the panel, and scored very well on the Fee portion as well. Staff checked Ninyo & Moore’s references, reviewed their Company Background Questionnaire form, and performed an internet search on the company and did not find any significant issues. 6  It was highlighted that Nino & Moore’s references, which included Padre Dam Municipal Water District, City of Chula Vista, and the City of San Diego rated them highly and would use them again on future contracts.  The Committee inquired if the project’s four-year contract addresses rates that may increase with inflation. Staff stated that they believe the contractor made adjustments in their bid to cover the cost of inflation.  The Committee inquired if the District has a requirement to contract with Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) firms. Staff stated that although the District does not require its consultants or contractors to be DBE firms, candidates are asked to document in their proposal if they are affiliated with the Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) program or if they hire sub-contractors associated with the program. The District encourages the commitment of consultants and contractors to help out disadvantaged business owners. The Committee commented that it is great that the District is committed to helping out disadvantage business owners because it follows what was intended by the law. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item. 7 SUBJECT/PROJECT: Various Award of As-Needed Geotechnical Services Contract to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants in an amount not to exceed $175,000 for Fiscal Years 2015 through 2018 Qualifications of Team Responsiveness and Project Understanding Technical and Management Approach INDIVIDUAL SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN AVERAGE SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN Proposed Rates* Consultant's Commitment to DBE TOTAL SCORE 30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 Poor/Good/ Excellent Dan Martin 27 23 26 76 Steve Beppler 27 23 26 76 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 28 23 26 77 Mike O'Donnell 28 23 27 78 Michael Kerr 26 23 26 75 Dan Martin 27 24 27 78 Steve Beppler 28 23 27 78 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 28 23 27 78 Mike O'Donnell 28 23 29 80 Michael Kerr 25 23 25 73 Dan Martin 26 23 26 75 Steve Beppler 26 23 27 76 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 27 23 27 77Mike O'Donnell 25 22 26 73 Michael Kerr 28 23 26 77 Dan Martin 25 21 25 71 Steve Beppler 27 20 25 72 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 27 22 24 73 Mike O'Donnell 26 20 26 72 Michael Kerr 28 24 26 78 Dan Martin 24 20 23 67 Steve Beppler 23 22 23 68 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 26 20 24 70 Mike O'Donnell 26 22 26 74 Michael Kerr 24 22 26 72 Dan Martin 26 22 25 73 Steve Beppler 27 23 26 76 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 28 24 28 80 Mike O'Donnell 28 22 27 77 Michael Kerr 26 23 26 75 Dan Martin 25 21 25 71 Steve Beppler 25 21 25 71 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 27 22 26 75 Mike O'Donnell 27 23 28 78Michael Kerr 25 22 27 74 Dan Martin 27 23 28 78 Steve Beppler 28 23 27 78 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 28 23 27 78 Mike O'Donnell 29 24 29 82 Michael Kerr 27 23 28 78 Dan Martin 24 22 24 70 Steve Beppler 24 19 27 70 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 27 23 27 77 Mike O'Donnell 27 22 27 76 Michael Kerr 26 23 27 76 Firm CT & E Geocon Group Delta Kleinfelder Koury Engr.Leighton MTGL Ninyo & Moore RMA Group Fee $1,810 $2,417 $2,515 $2,505 $2,258 $2,727 $1,865 $1,794 $1,958 Score 15 6 4 4 8 1 14 15 13 *Note: Review Panel does not see or consider proposed fee when scoring other categories. The proposed fee is scored by the PM, who is not on the Review Panel. RATES SCORING CHART RMA Group 74 13 Y 87 Ninyo & Moore 79 15 Y 94 Excellent MTGL, Inc.74 14 Y 88 Leighton Consulting 76 1 Y 77 Koury Engineering 70 8 Y 78 Kleinfelder 73 4 Y 77 Group Delta Consultants 76 4 Y 80 Geocon, Inc.77 6 Y 83 Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 76 15 Y 91 ATTACHMENT B SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS As-Needed Geotechnical Services WRITTEN REFERENCES MAXIMUM POINTS STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: April 1, 2015 SUBMITTED BY: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager CIP./G.F. NO: D0933- 090217 DIV. NO. 1 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (February 2015) for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) approve the Water Supply Assessment Report (WSA&V Report) dated February 2015 for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 February 2015 WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project, as required by Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 (SB 610 and SB 221). ANALYSIS: The City of Chula Vista submitted a request to the District for an updated 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. The original WSA&V Report for the Freeway Commercial Project was approved by the District Board of Directors in July 2013. An updated WSA&V Report is needed because of changes in the configuration of the Project and in the Project’s potable and recycled water demands. 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 February 2015 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 City of Chula Vista (City). Prior to transmittal to the City, 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 C, Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project WSA&V Report is provided as Exhibit D. For the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project, the City 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 Reports, in compliance with SB 610 and SB 221 requirements, was made by the City 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. 3  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. The Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project is located along the southern boundary of Olympic Parkway and includes development on both sides of Town Center Drive. Baldwin and Sons development concept for the approximately 34.5 acre site includes multi-family residential, hotel, commercial, and a park site. The Project site is planned for 650 residential units, 310 hotel rooms, and up to 25,000 square feet of commercial development. The current entitlement on the property was for the entire 34.5 acres to be commercial with up to 347,000 square feet of building space. The expected potable water demands for the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project are 0.208 million gallons per day (MGD) or about 233 acre-feet per year (AFY). This is 173 AFY higher than the demand estimate in the District’s 2010 Water Resources Master Plan Update and the District’s 2010 UWMP (60 AFY)and 46 AFY higher than the 2013 WSA&V Report projections (187 AFY). The projected recycled water demand for the proposed Project is approximately 0.035 MGD or about 38.8 AFY, representing about 16% of total Project water demand. The table below illustrates the changes in the project since the 2013 report. Land Use WSA&V (May 2013) WSA&V (Feb 2015) Area (ac.) Dwelling Units Average Potable Demand (AFY) Average Recycled Demand (AFY) Area (ac.) Dwelling Units Average Potable Demand (AFY) Average Recycled Demand (AFY) Multi- Family Residential 448 129 22.7 650 188 33.0 Hotel (2) 257 33 0 310 39 0 Commercial 14.5 25 3.4 4.0 6 1.0 Park 1.0 0 2.4 2.0 0 4.8 Total 187 233 38.8 The 173 AFY increase is accounted for through the Accelerated Forecasted Growth demand increment of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP. As documented in the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP, the Water Authority is planning to meet future and existing demands which include the demand increment associated with the accelerated forecasted growth. The Water Authority will assist its member agencies in tracking the environmental documents 4 provided by the agencies that include water supply assessments and verifications reports that utilize the accelerated forecasted growth demand increment to demonstrate supplies for the development. In addition, the next update of the demand forecast for the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP will be based on SANDAG’s most recently updated forecast, which will include the Project. Therefore, based on the findings from the District’s 2010 UWMP and the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP, this Project will result in no unanticipated demands. The request for compliance with SB 221 requirements was made by the City because the Project will exceed the SB 221 criteria of a proposed residential development subdivision of 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 City, 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project WSA&V Report. The reimbursement was accomplished via an $8,000 deposit the Project proponents placed with the District on December 16, 2014. STRATEGIC GOAL: The preparation and approval of the WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Strategic Goal 3.1.1, “Actively manage water supply and demand.” 5 LEGAL IMPACT: Approval of a WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project in form and content satisfactory to the Board of Directors would allow the District to comply with the requirements of Senate Bills 610 and 221. LC-B/BK:jf P:\WORKING\WO D0933 Freeway Commercial\Staff Report\BD 04-01-15, Staff Report, PA12 Freeway Commercial WSA-V, (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 – Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project WSA&V Report Exhibit D – Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: D0933-090217 Approval of Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (February 2015) for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on March 12, 2015, and the following comments were made:  Staff requested that the Board approve the Water Supply Assessment Report (WSA&V Report) dated February 2015 for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project, as required by Senate Bills 610 and 221.  Staff indicated that the City of Chula Vista requested that the District prepare the WSA and Verification Report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project. SB 610 requires that the District honor the City’s request, and that board approval for the submittal of the WSA&V Report to the City of Chula Vista is required. Exhibit A provides the location of the project site.  Plans for the Project are provided on page 3 of the staff report. Staff indicated that the current plan is to develop 28.7 acres of the 34.5 acre site and includes two hotels, 650 multi-family residential dwellings, 25,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail and a park. Overall, the total water demand of the project is 46 AFY higher for potable and 20.3 higher for recycled than what was previously approved by the Board in May 2013.  Staff noted that the 46 AFY increase in demand over what was previously approved is accounted for through the Accelerated Forecasted Growth (AFG) demand increment of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP.  It was indicated that the first WSA&V for the Project had been approved for the use of 127 AFY of the AFG demand increment; the total approved use is now 173 AFY. Staff stated that based on the findings from the District’s and the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMPs, this Project will result in no unanticipated demands.  A PowerPoint presentation was provided to the Committee that included the following: o Background of Senate Bills 610 and 221, which became effective on January 1, 2002, and its intent and how it relates to the WSA&V Report o Land use plan and description for the Otay Ranch PA12 Freeway Commercial Project o Changes since the 2013 WSA&V and the Potable demand estimates for the Otay Ranch PA12 Freeway Commercial Project o Otay Water District’s and the San Diego County Water Authority’s Urban Water Management Plan o Otay Water District’s Projected Balance of Supply and Demand o Projected and Historical Potable Water Fiscal Year Demands  It was noted that the Otay Ranch PA12 Freeway Commercial Project’s WSA&V Report includes (2) two other Otay Water District Planned Local Water Supply Projects: o Rosarito Ocean Desalination Project (20,000-50,000 AFY) o Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well (300 AFY)  A slide was presented that showed the Water Authority Supplies, which included IID Water Transfer, ACC and CC Lining, and the Carlsbad Desalination project.  Staff indicated that the status of the current water supply situation is documented in the WSA&V Report with the intent that the water agencies plan to develop sufficient water supplies to meet demands. Staff believes that the Board has met the intent of SB 610 and 221 statutes in that Land use agencies and water suppliers have demonstrated strong linkage. The Otay Ranch PA12 Freeway Commercial Project WSA&V Report clearly documents the current water supply situation. Staff believes that based on existing documentation, the WSA&V Report demonstrates and documents that sufficient water supplies are planned for and are intended to be acquired and also identifies the actions necessary to develop the supplies for a 20-year planning horizon.  In response to a question by the Committee, staff stated that a change in the density of the Project’s plan caused an increase in the project’s potable and recycled water demand. The developer decided that it would be more beneficial to develop multi-family residential dwellings instead of commercial developments.  In response to a question by the Committee, staff stated that the Millenia Annexation Project is taking place near the vicinity of the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project. These two projects are just the beginning of development in the area; staff anticipates that it may take up to (10) ten years for build out of the vicinity.  Staff indicated that the District and the City of Chula Vista have worked well together to align projected water supply and demands for projects.  In response to a comment by the Committee, staff stated that the Accelerated Forecasted Growth (AFG) demand increment of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP helps balance the District’s projected water supply and demand to avoid future water supply shortages.  The Committee commented on the reasonable fee of $8,000 to complete the WSA&V Report Update. Staff stated that they work with consultants, who is hired by developers, to prepare the WSA&V Report Update and has become more efficient at preparing WSA&V Report Updates over the years as they are prepared on a regular basis.  The Committee inquired about including a notation in the WSA&V Report Update about the risk of water supply associated with the City of San Diego’s Pure Water Program that may result in the City taking recycled water from the District. Staff indicated that the notation is outside of the planning period but staff will include it in future WSA&V Report Updates. Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as an action item. 1 EXHIBIT B Background Information The Otay Water District (District) prepared the updated February 2015 Water Supply Assessment and Verification (WSA&V) Report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project at the request of the City of Chula Vista (City). The City’s WSA&V request letter dated February 25, 2015 was received by the District on February 25, 2015 so the 90-day deadline for the District to provide the Board an approved WSA&V Report to the City ends May 25, 2015. The Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 February 2015 WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project has been prepared by the District in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the Water Authority, and the City, 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 221are addressed in the May 2013 WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project. The expected potable water demands for the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project are 0.208 million gallons per day (MGD) or about 233 acre-feet per year (AFY). This is 173 AFY higher than the demand estimate in the District’s 2010 Water Resources Master Plan Update and District’s 2010 UWMP and 46 AFY higher than the 2013 WSA&V report first done for the project. The projected recycled water demand for the proposed Project is approximately 0.035 MGD or about 38.8 AFY, representing about 16% of total Project water demand. The 173 AFY increase in demand is accounted for through the Accelerated Forecasted Growth demand increment of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP. As documented in the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP, the Water Authority is planning to meet future and 2 existing demands which include the demand increment associated with the accelerated forecasted growth. The Water Authority will assist its member agencies in tracking the environmental documents provided by the agencies that include water supply assessments and verifications reports that utilize the accelerated forecasted growth demand increment to demonstrate supplies for the development. In addition, the next update of the demand forecast for the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP will be based on SANDAG’s most recently updated forecast, which will include the Project. Therefore, based on the findings from the Otay WD’s 2010 UWMP and the Water Authority’s 2010 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 2010 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 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 October 2010, approved the update of their Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP). The 2010 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 Federal Court ruling on previous operational limits on Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect the Delta species. Water agencies are still trying to determine what effect the ruling will have on State Water Project (SWP) deliveries. Actual supply curtailments for MWD are contingent upon fish distribution, behavioral patterns, weather, Delta flow conditions, and how water supply reductions are divided between state and federal projects.  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. 3 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 (December 11, 2012), the Water Authority’s current preferential right is 17.22% of MWD’s supply, while the Water Authority accounted for approximately 25% 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. 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 2010 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project WSA&V Report does not in any way guarantee water supply to the Project. 4 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. So the best the District can do right now is to state 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project WSA&V Report, the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project proponents can proceed with the draft environmental documentation required for the CEQA review process. The water supply 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project. Some recent actions regarding water supply assessments and verification reports by Otay Water District are as follows:  The Board approved the Otay Ranch L.P. Otay Ranch Preserve and Resort Project Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report on February 4, 2009.  The Board approved water supply assessment and verification reports for the City of Chula Vista Village 8 West Sectional Plan Area and Village 9 Sectional Plan Area on January 5, 2011.  The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the San Diego- Tijuana Cross Border Facility on February 2, 2011.  The Board approved the water supply assessment for the County of San Diego Rabago Technology Park on April 6, 2011.  The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the Pio Pico Energy Center Project on October 5, 2011.  The Board approved the water supply assessment report for the Hawano Project on March 7, 2012.  The Board approved the water supply assessment reports for the Sunroad Otay Plaza and Otay Tech Center Projects on March 6, 2013. 5  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. Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project and the existing and other planned development projects within the District. Accordingly, after approval of a WSA&V Report for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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: 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project as a water supply assessment report consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 610. The City of Chula Vista, as lead agency under the CEQA for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project. Senate Bill (SB) 221 Water Supply Verification: The District's Board of Directors approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project as a water supply verification report, consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 221. The City, within their process of approving the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project, may cite the approved WSA&V Report as verification of intended sufficient water supply to serve the Project. OTAY WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND VERIFICATION REPORT Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial D0933-090217 Prepared by: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist and Robert Kennedy, P.E. Engineering Manager Otay Water District in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc. and San Diego County Water Authority February 2015 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report February 2015 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1 - Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Section 2 - Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Section 3 - Project Description ................................................................................................................ 10 Section 4 – Otay Water District ............................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Urban Water Management Plan ........................................................... 13 Section 5 – Historical and Projected Water Demands .......................................................................... 14 5.1 Demand Management (Water Conservation) ........................................ 19 Section 6 - Existing and Projected Supplies ........................................................................................... 22 6.1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2005 Regional Urban Water Management Plan ............................................. 23 6.2 San Diego County Water Authority Regional Water Supplies ................ 24 6.3 Otay Water District .............................................................................. 41 6.3.1 Availability of Sufficient Supplies and Plans for Acquiring Additional Supplies .................................................. 42 6.3.1.1 Imported and Regional Supplies ................................. 43 6.3.1.2 Recycled Water Supplies ........................................... 46 Section 7 – Conclusion: Availability of Sufficient Supplies .................................................................. 53 Source Documents ...................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix A: Otay Ranch PA 12 Freeway Commercial Regional Location Map Appendix B: Otay Ranch PA 12 Freeway Commercial Proposed Development Plan Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 1 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report February 2015 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Executive Summary The Otay Water District (Otay WD) prepared this Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report (WSA&V Report) at the request of the City of Chula Vista (City) for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. Baldwin and Sons submitted a Specific Planning Area (SPA) Amendment to the City for the development of the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. This study is only for the FC-2 portion of the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project as the FC-1 site has already been developed. Otay WD approved a WSA&V Report for the project that was prepared in May 2013, but the land use plan has since changed. Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project Overview and Water Use The Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project is included within a land use planning document known as the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan (Otay Ranch GDP). The County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista jointly prepared and adopted the Otay Ranch GDP. The Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project is located within a portion of the Otay Ranch GDP. The project is a part of the designated 14 villages and five planning areas within the Otay Ranch GDP area. The Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch GDP on October 28, 1993, which was accompanied by a Program Environmental Impact Report EIR-90-01 (SCH #89010154). As the Otay Ranch area has developed over time, the Otay Ranch GDP has been periodically amended to address land use and circulation element issues specific to individual Villages. The Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project is located along the southern boundary of Olympic Parkway and includes development on both sides of Town Center Drive. Baldwin and Sons development concept for the approximately 34.5 acre site includes multi-family residential, hotel, commercial, and a park site. The project site is planned for 650 residential units, 310 hotel rooms, and up to 25,000 square feet of commercial development. The current entitlement on the property was for the entire 34.5 acres to be commercial with up to 347,000 square feet of building space. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 2 The expected potable water demands for the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project are 0.208 million gallons per day (mgd) or about 233 acre feet per year (AFY). This is 173 AFY higher than the demand estimate in the District’s 2010 Water Resources Master Plan Update and District’s 2010 UWMP and 46 AFY higher than the 2013 WSA&V Report projections. The projected recycled water demand for the proposed project is approximately 0.035 mgd or about 38.8 AFY, representing about 16% of total project water demand. The 173 AFY increase in demand is accounted for through the Accelerated Forecasted Growth demand increment of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP. As documented in the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP, the Water Authority is planning to meet future and existing demands which include the demand increment associated with the accelerated forecasted growth. The Water Authority will assist its member agencies in tracking the environmental documents provided by the agencies that include water supply assessments and verifications reports that utilize the accelerated forecasted growth demand increment to demonstrate supplies for the development. In addition, the next update of the demand forecast for the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP will be based on SANDAG’s most recently updated forecast, which will include the Project. Therefore, based on the findings from the Otay WD’s 2010 UWMP and the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP, this project will result in no unanticipated demands. The Water Authority’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) provides for a comprehensive planning analysis at a regional level and includes water use associated with accelerated forecasted development as part of its municipal and industrial sector demand projections. These housing and commercial units were identified by the San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG) in the course of its regional housing needs assessment, but are not yet included in existing general land use plans of local jurisdictions. The demand associated with accelerated forecasted residential development is intended to account for SANDAG’s land-use development currently projected to occur between 2035 and 2050, but has the likely potential to occur on an accelerated schedule. SANDAG estimates that this accelerated forecasted residential and commercial development forecasted could occur within the planning horizon (2015 to 2035) of the 2010 UWMP. This land-use is not included in local jurisdictions’ general plans, so their projected demands are incorporated at a regional level. When necessary, this additional demand increment, termed Accelerated Forecasted Growth, can be used by member agencies to meet the demands of development projects not identified in the general land use plans. Planned Imported Water Supplies from the Water Authority and MWD The Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 3 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 may require water supply assessment and/or verification reports for proposed land developments that are not within the Otay WD, Water Authority, nor MWD jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed annexations) or that have revised land use plans than what is reflected in the existing growth forecasts. Proposed land areas with pending or proposed annexations or revised land use plans typically result in the creation of higher demand and supply requirements than 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. 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 Integrated Resource Plan (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 MWD’s 2010 update to the IRP (2010 IRP Update) includes a planning buffer supply intended to mitigate against the risks associated with implementation of local and imported supply programs. The planning buffer identifies an additional increment of water that could potentially be developed if other supplies are not implemented as planned. As part of implementation of the planning buffer, MWD periodically evaluates supply development to ensure that the region is not under or over developing supplies. Managed properly, the planning buffer will help ensure that the southern California region, including San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet future demands. Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face climatological, environmental, legal, and other challenges that impact water source supply conditions, such as the court rulings regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues and the recent drought impacting the western states. Challenges such as these will always 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 4 In Section ES-5 of MWD’s 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2010 RUWMP), MWD states that MWD has supply capacities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands from 2015 through 2035. 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. MWD’s 2010 RUWMP identifies potential reserve supplies in the supply capability analysis (Tables 2-9, 2-10, and 2- 11), which could be available to meet the unanticipated demands such as those related to the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project. 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 2010 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 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Development Program In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Water district 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 and are in response to the regional water supply issues. These new alternative water supply projects are not currently developed and are in various stages of the planning process. A few examples of these projects include the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well project, the North District Recycled Water Supply Concept and the Rosarito Ocean Desalination Facility project. The Water Authority and MWD next forecast and supply planning documents would capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by the Otay WD. Findings Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 5 The WSA&V Report identifies and describes the processes by which water demand projections for the proposed Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project as a water supply assessment report consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 610. The City as lead agency under CEQA for the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project EIR amendment 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. 2. Senate Bill 221 Water Supply Verification: The Otay WD Board approved WSA&V Report may be incorporated into the City’s Tentative Map approval process for the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project as a water supply verification report, consistent with the requirements of the legislation enacted by SB 221. The City, within their process of approving the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project’s Tentative Map, may cite the approved WSA&V Report as verification of intended sufficient water supply to serve the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 6 Section 1 - Purpose The Planning Area 12 project is located in the Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial core area. This report is being prepared for the FC-2 site only within Planning Area 12 as the FC-1 site has already been developed. The northern portion of Planning Area 12 is identified as FC-2 in the August 2004 approved SPA plan and allows for up to 347,000 square feet of commercial development on 34.5 acres. Baldwin and Sons submitted a SPA amendment to the City of Chula Vista (City) for the development of the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. The City requested that Otay WD prepare a WSA&V Report for the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. A WSA&V Report was prepared for the project in May 2013, but the land use plan has since changed. The current Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project description is provided in Section 3 of this WSA&V Report. This WSA&V Report for the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project has been prepared by the Otay WD in consultation with Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., the Water Authority, and the City 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, 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 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 City 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project, and reasonably foreseeable planned future water demands served by Otay WD. The Otay WD Board of Directors approved WSA&V Report is planned to be used by the City in its evaluation of the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project under the CEQA and Tentative Map approval processes. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 7 Section 2 - Findings The Otay WD prepared this WSA&V Report at the request of the City for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. Baldwin and Sons submitted a SPA amendment application to the City for the revised development plan of the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. The Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project is located within the jurisdictions of the Otay WD, the Water Authority, and MWD Water District of Southern California (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 demands for the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project are 0.208 million gallons per day (mgd) or about 233 acre feet per year (AFY). This is 173 AFY higher than the demand estimate in the District’s 2010 Water Resources Master Plan Update and District’s 2010 UWMP and 46 AFY higher than the projections in the 2013 WSA&V Report. The projected recycled water demand for the proposed project is approximately 0.035 mgd or about 38.8 AFY, representing about 13% of total project water demand. The 173 AFY increase in demand is accounted for through the Accelerated Forecasted Growth demand increment of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP. As documented in the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP, the Water Authority is planning to meet future and existing demands which include the demand increment associated with the accelerated forecasted growth. The Water Authority will assist its member agencies in tracking the environmental documents provided by the agencies that include water supply assessments and verifications reports that utilize the accelerated forecasted growth demand increment to demonstrate supplies for the development. In addition, the next update of the demand forecast for the Water Authority’s 2015 UWMP will be based on SANDAG’s most recently updated forecast, which will include the Project. Therefore, based on the findings from the Otay WD’s 2010 UWMP and the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP, this project will result in no unanticipated demands. The Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project development proponents are required to use recycled water for irrigation and other appropriate uses. The primary benefit of using recycled water is that it will offset the potable water demands by an estimated 38.8 AFY. The WRMP Update and the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) anticipated that the land area to be utilized for the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project would use both potable and recycled water. The Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP provides for a comprehensive planning analysis at a regional level and includes water use associated with accelerated forecasted development as part of its municipal and industrial sector demand projections. These housing and commercial Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 8 units were identified by the SANDAG in the course of its regional housing needs assessment, but are not yet included in existing general land use plans of local jurisdictions. The demand associated with accelerated forecasted residential development is intended to account for SANDAG’s land-use development currently projected to occur between 2035 and 2050, but has the likely potential to occur on an accelerated schedule. SANDAG estimates that this accelerated forecasted residential and commercial development forecasted could occur within the planning horizon (2015 to 2035) of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP. This land-use is not included in local jurisdictions’ general plans, so their projected demands are incorporated at a regional level. When necessary, this additional demand increment, termed Accelerated Forecasted Growth, can be used by member agencies to meet the demands of development projects not identified in the general land use plans. 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 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, nor MWD jurisdictions (i.e. pending or proposed annexations) or that have revised land use plans 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 proposed Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project, along with existing and other projected future users, as well as the actions necessary to develop these 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. The Otay Water District 2010 UWMP included 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 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 Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 9 Otay WD has 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 Draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. The Otay WD 2015 target is 171 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and the 2020 gpcd target at 80 percent of baseline is 152 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 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. In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Water District 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 new 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 North District Recycled Water Supply Concept and the Rosarito Ocean Desalination Facility project. The Water Authority and MWD next forecast and supply planning documents would capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by the Otay WD. Water supplies necessary to serve the demands of the proposed Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project, along with existing and other reasonably foreseeable projected future users, as well as the actions necessary and status to develop these supplies, will be identified and included within the water supply planning documents of the Water Authority and MWD. This WSA&V Report demonstrates and verifies that with development of the resources currently identified and those that may be additional acquired, that there is sufficient water supplies being planned for and is intended to be developed over the next 20-year planning horizon to meet the projected demand of the proposed Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project and the existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned development projects within the Otay WD. This WSA&V Report includes, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, proposed water supply projects, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. This WSA&V Report incorporates by reference the current Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 10 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 to verify and document that sufficient water supplies are being planned for and are intended to be acquired to meet projected water demands of the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project and the 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. 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 (44,883 acre-feet (AF) in 2015 to 56,614 AF in 2035 per the Otay Water District 2010 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 6.4 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 demonstrate and verify that sufficient water supplies are being planned for and are intended to be acquired, as well as the actions necessary and status to develop these supplies are and will be further documented, to serve the proposed Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project and the existing and other reasonably foreseeable planned 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project is located within the City of Chula Vista, California. Refer to Appendix A for a regional location map of the proposed project. The Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project is included within a land use planning document known as the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan (Otay Ranch GDP). The County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista jointly prepared and adopted the Otay Ranch GDP. The project is a part of the designated 14 villages and five planning areas within the Otay Ranch GDP area. The Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Project current development plan approval is dependent on the City’s eventual adoption of their Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA) amendment. The Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Otay Ranch GDP on October 28, 1993, which was accompanied by a Program Environmental Impact Report EIR-90-01 (SCH #89010154). Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 11 The approximately 23,000 acre Otay Ranch is a master-planned community that includes a broad range of residential, commercial, retail, and industrial development interwoven with civic and community uses, such as libraries, parks, and schools, together with an open space preserve system consisting of approximately 11,375 acres. The Baldwin and Sons proposed development concept for the approximately 34.5 acre Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project is planned as a combination of land uses as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Otay Ranch PA 12 Freeway Commercial FC-2 Proposed Land Uses Location Land Use Description Area Dwelling Units PA 12 Freeway Commercial Multi-Family Residential --- 650 units PA 12 Freeway Commercial Hotel --- 310 rooms PA 12 Freeway Commercial Commercial 4.0 acres --- PA 12 Freeway Commercial Park 2.0 acres --- The proposed development within Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial consists of 650 multi-family residential units, 310 hotel rooms, commercial, and a park. The project is located along the southerly edge of Olympic Parkway on both sides of Town Center Drive. Refer to Appendix B for the proposed development plan of the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. The City has identified discretionary actions and/or permit approval requirements for the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project. The projected potable and recycled water demands and resulting water supply requirements associated with the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project have considered the discretionary actions and/or permit approvals and are incorporated into and used in this WSA&V Report. The water demands for the proposed Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project are 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 12 The Otay WD currently relies on the Water Authority for 100 percent of its treated potable water supply. 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 the vast majority of its imported supply from MWD, but is in the process of 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 effective treatment capacity of 1.2 mgd or about 1,300 AFY to produce recycled water. On May 18, 2007 an additional source of recycled water supply, at least 6 mgd or about 6,720 AFY, 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 2010 WRMP Update and the Otay WD 2010 UWMP includes 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 2-1 contained within the Otay WD 2010 WRMP Update 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 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 2010 figure of approximately 198,616 to an estimated 284,997 by 2035. Land use Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 13 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 Otay Mesa Community Plan, 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 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 12.17 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. 4.1 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 2011 and subsequently submitted the plan to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The Otay WD 2010 UWMP is currently being reviewed by DWR. As required by law, the Otay WD 2010 UWMP includes projected water supplies required to meet future demands through 2035. In accordance with Water Code Section 10910 (c)(2) and Government Code Section 66473.7 (c)(3), information from the Otay Water District 2010 UWMP along with supplemental information from the Otay WD WRMP Update have been utilized to prepare this WSA&V 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 14 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. The 2020 urban water use target may be updated in a supplier’s 2015 UWMP. In 2015, urban retail water suppliers will be 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). 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 has 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 Draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. The Otay WD 2015 target is 171 gpcd and the 2020 gpcd target at 80 percent of baseline is 152 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 Otay Mesa Community Plan, 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 is utilized in the preparation of the Otay WD 2010 WRMP, and Otay WD 2010 UWMP to develop the forecasted demands and supply requirements. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 15 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 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 February 26, 2010, the SANDAG Board of Directors accepted the Series 12: 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 also are used by local governments for planning, including the Water Authority’s 2010 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 2010 through 2035. These savings estimates were then factored into the baseline municipal and industrial demand forecast. A separate agricultural model, also used in prior modeling efforts, was used to forecast agricultural water demands within the Water Authority service area. This model estimates agricultural demand to be met by the Water Authority’s member agencies based on agricultural acreage projections provided by SANDAG, crop distribution data derived from the Department of Water Resources and the California Avocado Commission, and average crop-type watering requirements based on California Irrigation Management Information System data. 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 16 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 will 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 next forecast 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 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. A few examples of these alternative water supply projects include the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well project, the North District Recycled Water Supply Concept and the Rosarito Ocean Desalination Facility project. The Water Authority and MWD next forecast and supply planning documents would capture any increase in water supplies resulting from any new water resources developed by the Otay WD. In addition, MWD’s 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan identified potential reserve supplies in the supply capability analysis (Tables 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11), which could be available to meet any unanticipated demands. The Water Authority and MWD’s next forecast and supply planning documents would capture any increase in necessary supply resources resulting from any new water supply resources. The Otay WD water demand projection methodology 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 acre- feet 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 17 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, 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 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 WRMP 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). The potable net acreage is then multiplied by the unit demand factor corresponding to its respective land use. This approach is used in the WRMP 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. 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 2. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 18 Table 2 Historical and Projected Potable Water Fiscal Year Demands (AF) Water Use Sectors 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Single Family Residential 21,233 17,165 23,633 28,312 33,600 37,211 40,635 Multi-Family Residential 3,095 3,605 3,444 4,126 4,897 5,423 5,922 Commercial & Industrial 1,657 2,243 1,844 2,209 2,622 2,904 3,171 Institutional & Governmental 2,262 1,867 2,518 3,017 3,580 3,965 4,330 Landscape 6,458 3,732 10,134 12,141 14,408 15,957 17,425 AFG* 743 743 743 743 743 Other 2,426 584 2,700 3,235 3,839 4,252 4,643 Unaccounted for 547 23 608 729 865 958 1,046 Totals 37,668 29,219 45,626 54,511 64,554 71,412 77,914 * Accelerated Forecasted Growth Increment Source: Otay Water District 2010 UWMP. The historical and projected recycled water demands for Otay WD are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Historical and Projected Recycled Water Fiscal Year Demands (AF) Water Use Sector 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Landscape 4,090 4,000 4,400 5,000 5,800 6,800 8,000 Totals 4,090 4,000 4,400 5,000 5,800 6,800 8,000 Source: Otay Water District 2010 UWMP, Table 10. Using the land use demand projection criteria as established in the WRMP Update, the current projected potable water demand for the proposed Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project, which now proposes 650 multi-family residential units, 310 hotel rooms, commercial, and park land uses, is shown in Table 4and totals approximately 0.208 mgd or about 233 AFY. The existing land use plan for the project that was used in the WRMP Update included 34.5 acres of commercial development and resulted in a projected water use of 60 AFY. Thus, projected water demands for the property would be increased by 173 AFY as a result of the proposed land use change. This is 46 AFY more than was projected in the May 2013 WSA&V Report. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 19 Table 4 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Projected Potable Water Annual Average Demands Location (Land Use) Quantity Potable Water Factor Net Potable Acreage/Units Unit Rate Average Demand Multi-Family Residential 650 units 85% 255 gpd/unit 165,750 Commercial 4.0 ac 90% 3.6 1,785 gpd/ac 6,428 Hotel 310 rooms 115 gpd/room 35,650 Park 2.0 ac 0 0 2,155 gpd/ac 0 Total 207,828 gpd (0.208 mgd) The current projected recycled water demand for the proposed Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project is provided in Table 5, which totals approximately 0.035 mgd or about 38.8 AFY, representing about 16% of total Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project demand. Table 5 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Projected Recycled Water Average Demands Location (Land Use) Quantity Recycled Water Factor Net Recycled Acreage Unit Rate Average Demand Multi-Family Residential 650 units 15% 45 gpd/unit 29,250 Commercial 4.0 ac 10% 0.4 2,155 gpd/ac 1,078 Park 2.0 100% 2.0 2,155 gpd/ac 4,310 Total 34,638 gpd (0.035 mgd) 5.1 Demand Management (Water Conservation) Demand management, or water conservation is a critical part of the Otay WD 2010 UWMP and its long term strategy for meeting water supply needs of the Otay WD customers. Water Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 20 conservation, is frequently the lowest cost resource available to any water agency. The goals of the Otay WD water conservation programs are to:  Reduce the demand for more expensive, imported water.  Demonstrate continued commitment to the Best Management Practices (BMP).  Ensure a reliable water supply. The Otay WD is signatory 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. Water conservation programs are developed and implemented on the premise that water conservation increases the water supply by reducing the demand on available 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 2 and 3 take into account implementation of water conservation measures within Otay WD. As one of the first signatories to the MOU Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, the Otay WD has made BMP implementation for water conservation the cornerstone of its conservation programs and a key element in its water resource management strategy. As a member of the Water Authority, Otay WD also benefits from regional programs performed on behalf of its member agencies. The BMP programs implemented by Otay WD and regional BMP programs implemented by the Water Authority that benefit all their member agencies are addressed in the Otay WD 2010 UWMP. 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 conservation 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 Supervisor 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 these functions provide for operating personnel to monitor the water supply source flow rates, reservoir levels, turn 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 21  Water Conservation Ordinance California Water Code Sections 375 et seq. permit public entities which supply water at retail to adopt and enforce a water conservation program to reduce the quantity of water used by the people therein for the purpose of conserving water supplies of such public entity. 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 finds and determines 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 and that the conservation of such water be encouraged 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 is currently engaged in a number of conservation and water use efficiency activities. Listed below are the current programs that are either on-going or were recently concluded:  Residential Water Surveys: 1,349 completed since 1994  Large Landscape Surveys: 194 completed since 1990  Cash for Water Smart Plants Landscape Retrofit Program: over 217,600 square feet of turf grass replaced with water wise plants since 2003  Rotating Nozzles Rebated: 3,170  Residential Weather-Based Irrigation Controller (WBIC) Incentive Program: 231 distributed or rebated since 2004  Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washers: 7,187 rebates since 1994  Residential ULFT/HET Rebate Program: 22,376 rebates provided between 1991-2010  Outreach Efforts to Otay WD Customers - the Otay WD promotes its conservation programs through staffing outreach 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 through the Water Authority’s marketing efforts.  School Education Programs- the Otay WD funds school tours of the Water Conservation Garden, co-funds Splash Labs, provides classroom water themed kits, Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 22 maintains a library of school age appropriate water themed books, DVDs, and videos, and runs both a school poster contest and a water themed photo contest.  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 As a signatory to the MOU Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, the Otay WD is required to submit biannual reports that detail the implementation of current water conservation practices. The Otay WD voluntarily agreed to implement the fourteen water conservation BMP’s beginning in 1992. The Otay WD submits its report to the CUWCC every two years. The Otay WD BMP Reports for 2005 to 2010, as well as the BMP Coverage Report for 1999-2010, are included in the Otay WD 2010 UWMP. The Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial project will implement the CUWCC Best Management Practices for water conservation such as installation of ultra low flow toilets, development of a water conservation plan, and potential beneficial use of recycled water, all of which are typical requirements of development projects within the City of Chula Vista. 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. 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 Otay WD with 100 percent of its potable water, through two delivery pipelines, referred to as Pipeline No. 4 and the Helix Flume. 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 diversify their water supply resources. The description of local recycled water supplies available to the Otay WD is also discussed below. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 23 6.1 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2005 Regional Urban Water Management Plan In November 2010, MWD adopted its 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP). The 2010 RUWMP 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 2010 RUWMP, MWD also utilized the current 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 2010 RUWMP documents the availability of these existing supplies and additional supplies necessary to meet future demands. 6.1.1.1 MWD Supplies MWD’s Integrated Resources Plan (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 2010 update to the IRP (2010 IRP Update) includes a planning buffer supply intended to mitigate against the risks associated with implementation of local and imported supply programs. The planning buffer identifies an additional increment of water that could potentially be developed if other supplies are not implemented as planned. As part of implementation of the planning buffer, MWD periodically evaluates supply development to ensure that the region is not under or over-developing supplies. Managed properly, the planning buffer will help ensure that the southern California region, including San Diego County, will have adequate supplies to meet future demands. In November 2010, MWD adopted its 2010 RUWMP in accordance with state law. The resource targets included in the preceding 2010 IRP Update serve as the foundation for the planning assumptions used in the 2010 RUWMP. MWD’s 2010 RUWMP contains a water supply reliability assessment that includes a detailed evaluation of the supplies necessary to meet demands over a 25-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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 24 As stated in MWD’s 2010 RUWMP, that 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 2015. The 2005 RUWMP 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 2010 RUWMP can be found on the World Wide Web at the following site address: http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/RUWMP/RUWMP_2010.pdf Water supply agencies throughout California continue to face 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 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 Metropolitan Capital Investment Plan As part of MWD’s annual budget approval process, a Capital Investment Plan is prepared. 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 2010 UWMP in June 2011. The updated Water Authority 2010 UWMP identifies a diverse mix of local and imported water supplies to meet future demands. A copy of the updated Water Authority 2010 UWMP can be found on the internet at http://www.sdcwa.org/2010-urban-water-management-plan Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 25  Deliveries of conserved agricultural water from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) to San Diego County have increased annually since 2003, with 70,000 ac-ft of deliveries in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. These quantities will increase annually to 200,000 ac-ft/yr by 2021, and then remain fixed for the duration of the transfer agreement.  As part of the October 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), the Water Authority was assigned MWD’s rights to 77,700 ac-ft/yr 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. 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. 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, and an increasing amount of conserved agricultural water from IID. 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. As calculated by MWD, the Water Authority’s preferential right as of December 11, 2012 is 17.22 percent of MWD’s supply, while the Water Authority accounted for approximately 25 percent of MWD’s total revenue. 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 2010 RUWMP, MWD Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 26 states that MWD has supply capacities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands from 2015 through 2035. 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 2010 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 and water saved from the AAC and CC lining projects. The CC lining project is complete and the Water Authority has essentially completed construction of the AAC lining project. Table 6 summarizes the Water Authority’s supply sources with detailed information included in the sections to follow. Deliveries from MWD are also included in Table 6, which is further discussed in Section 6.1 above. The Water Authority’s member agencies provided the verifiable local supply targets for groundwater, groundwater recovery, recycled water, and surface water, which are discussed in more detail in Section 5 of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP. Table 6 Projected Verifiable Water Supplies – Water Authority Service Area Normal Year (AF) Water Supply Sources 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Water Authority Supplies (2) MWD Supplies 358,189 230,601 259,694 293,239 323,838 Water Authority/IID Transfer 100,000 190,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 AAC and CC Lining Projects 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 Proposed Regional Seawater Desalination (1) 0 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 Member Agency Supplies Surface Water 48,206 47,940 47,878 47,542 47,289 Water Recycling 38,660 43,728 46,603 48,278 49,998 Groundwater 11,710 11,100 12,100 12,840 12,840 Groundwater Recovery 10,320 15,520 15,520 15,520 15,520 Total Projected Supplies 647,285 675,089 717,995 753,619 785,685 Source: Water Authority 2010 Urban Water Management Plan – Table 9-1. Note 1: On November 29, 2012, the Water Authority approved a water purchase agreement with Poseidon for 48,000 AFY with the right to purchase up to 56,000 AFY Note 2: The Water Authority’s 2010 WWMP includes water use associated with accelerated forecasted development including the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial and the 173 AFY additional demand. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 27 Section 5 of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP also includes a discussion on the local supply target for seawater desalination. Seawater desalination supplies represent a significant future 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 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. If the project becomes operational in 2016, it will more than double the amount of local supplies developed in the region since 1991. The desalination plant itself will be fully financed, built, and operated by Poseidon. The Water Authority will purchase water from the plant under a water purchase agreement. The new pipeline connecting the desalination plant with the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct will be owned and operated by the Water Authority, but responsibility for design and construction will reside with Poseidon through a separate Design-Build Agreement. The Water Authority will be 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. 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, 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 Water Purchase Agreement (WPA). The Water Authority’s existing and planned supplies from the IID transfer and canal lining projects are considered “drought-proof” supplies and should be available at the yields shown in Table 6 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 2010 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 2010 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 DMP, adopted in May 2006, provides the Water Authority Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 28 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 throughout the San Diego region. 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 1998 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. 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, in violation of California’s constitution. The QSA parties appealed this decision and are continuing to seek validation of the contracts. The appeal is currently pending in the Third District Court of Appeal. A stay of the trial court judgment has been issued during the appeal. Implementation of the transfer provisions is proceeding during litigation. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 29 Expected Supply Deliveries into San Diego County from the transfer began in 2003 with an initial transfer of 10,000 AFY. The Water Authority received increasing amounts of transfer water each year, according to a water delivery schedule contained in the transfer agreement. In 2012, the Water Authority will receive 90,000 AFY. The quantities will increase annually to 200,000 AFY 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 the IID 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 will take delivery of the transfer water through its Colorado River Aqueduct. In exchange, MWD will deliver to the Water Authority a like quantity and quality of water. The Water Authority will pay MWD’s applicable wheeling rate for each acre-foot of exchange water delivered. According to the water exchange agreement, MWD will make delivery of the transfer water for 35 years, unless the Water Authority elects 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 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 30 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 transportation charge in 2010 was $314 per acre-feet. 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. 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 31 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). 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 32 (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 ac-ft/yr 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 The AAC lining project makes 67,700 AF 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 AF of Colorado River water each year available for allocation. The 2003 Allocation Agreement provides for 16,000 AFY of conserved canal lining water to be allocated to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Parties. The remaining amount, 77,700 AFY, is to be available to the Water Authority, with up to an additional 4,850 AFY available to the Water Authority depending on environmental requirements from the CC lining project. For planning purposes, the Water Authority Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 33 assumes that 2,500 AF of the 4,850 AF will be available each year for delivery, for a total of 80,200 AFY of that supply. According to the Allocation Agreement, IID has call rights to a portion (5,000 AFY) 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 10, 2003, Exchange Agreement between the Water Authority and MWD also provides for the delivery of the conserved water from the canal lining projects. The Water Authority will pay 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 will also be 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. 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 34 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 AF 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. 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 35 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. 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). Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 36 6.2.1.3 Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project Development of seawater desalination in San Diego County will assist 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 currently being 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 2010 UWMP. The Carlsbad Desalination Project has obtained all required permits and environmental clearances and, when completed, will provide a highly reliable local supply of 48,000 to 56,000 AFY 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, was selected by Poseidon to be 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, 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 establishes the commercial and technical terms for implementation of the desalination product pipeline improvements. These improvements consist of an approximate 10-mile long, 54-inch diameter conveyance pipeline connecting the Desalination Plant to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct. The pipeline will generally be constructed within Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 37 improved streets in commercial and industrial areas in the cities of Carlsbad, Vista, and San Marcos. The Water Authority will own the Project Water Pipeline Improvements upon execution of the Design-Build Agreement, and upon completion and acceptance of construction, the Water Authority will assume operational control of all pipeline improvements. Expected Supply When completed, the Project will provide a highly reliable local supply of 48,000 to 56,000 AFY of supply for the region, available in both normal and dry hydrologic conditions. 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. When the project becomes operational in 2016, it will more than double 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 consist of an approximate 10-mile long, 54-inch diameter conveyance pipeline connecting the Desalination Plant to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct. The pipeline will generally be constructed within improved streets in commercial and industrial areas in the cities of Carlsbad, Vista, and San Marcos. The Water Authority will own the Project Water Pipeline Improvements upon execution of the Design-Build Agreement, and upon completion and acceptance of construction, the Water Authority will assume operational control of all pipeline improvements. The Water Authority will be 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 The plant and the offsite pipeline will be 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 38 A preliminary September 2012 unit cost estimate was $2,300/AF. The Water Authority’s water purchase costs will 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 The City of Carlsbad prepared an Addendum to the Carlsbad EIR (“Addendum”) which was adopted on September 15, 2009, and reflects minor and immaterial design modifications to the Project site plan, appurtenant facilities, and water delivery pipeline network. The environmental documents and permits are found at the following link: http://www.carlsbad-desal.com/EIR.asp The Water Authority, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, adopted a resolution on November 29, 2012 approving a Second Addendum to the Carlsbad Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Final EIR and First Addendum that evaluates the environmental impacts of several proposed facility modifications that are necessary to allow for operational flexibility and efficiency in receiving and delivering desalination product water. These modifications include: a realignment of a portion of the approved desalination pipeline, the addition of chemical injection at the approved San Marcos Aqueduct Connection site, the relining of a portion of Pipeline 3, the addition of a pipeline and expanded flow control facility at Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant and a replacement of the San Marcos Vent on Pipeline 4. Impacts associated with the proposed modifications would not result in a Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 39 new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously evaluated in the Carlsbad FEIR or the First Addendum. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified and the First Addendum was approved, and that have since been identified. Therefore, the Second Addendum satisfies the CEQA requirements for the proposed project modifications. 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 link: http://www.sdcwa.org/rwfmp-peir Sub regional Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) 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, 2011. The environmental documents and permits are found at the following link: 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 2010 Urban Water Management Plan http://www.sdcwa.org/2010-urban-water-management-plan Drinking Water Permit (October 2006). The California Department of Health Services approved the Conditional Drinking Water Permit on October 19, 2006. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 40 Coastal Development Permit The Project is fully permitted, with the California Coastal Commission issuing the following permits: Coastal Development Permit No. E-06-013, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (December 2008), Marine Life Mitigation Plan (December 2008), Erosion Control Plan (November 2009), Landscaping Plan (September 2009), Lighting Plan (August 2009), Construction Plan (September 2009), and Water Pollution Control Plan (September 2009); the California Department of Public Health issuing Conceptual Approval Letter dated October 19, 2006; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board issuing NPDES Permit No. CA0109223 and Notice of Intent to Discharge for Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities (WDID #9 37C361181); the City of Carlsbad issuing Redevelopment Permit RP 05-12(A), Specific Plan 144 with Amendment 144(J) SP 144(J), Habitat Management Plan Permit Amendment HMP 05-08(A), Precise Development Plan PDP 00-02(B), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for EIR 03-05(A), Development Agreement DA 05-01(A), Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Program (September 2009), and Coastal Development Permit 04-41; the State of California State Lands Commission issuing an Amendment of Lease PRC 8727.1 (August 2008). The environmental documents and permits are found at the following link: http://www.sdcwa.org/carlsbad-desalination-project-approved-permits-and-plans State Lands Commission Lease Application (Amendment of Lease PRC 8727.1 August 2008). Amends lease of land by Cabrillo Power I LLC (Cabrillo) from the State Lands Commission for the lands where the project will be constructed. Cabrillo and Poseidon entered into agreement on July 1, 2003, authorizing Poseidon to use those lands to construct the project. 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 2005 UWMP and the 2002 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan. These CIP projects, which are most recently described in the Water Authority’s Adopted Multi-Year Budget, include projects valued at $3.50 billion. These CIP projects are designed to meet projected water supply and delivery needs of the member agencies through 2035. The Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 41 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:  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, complete the projects required under the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), 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 WD 2010 Water Resources Master Plan Update and the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan contain comparisons of projected supply and demands through the year 2035. 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 42 The Otay WD expansion of the market areas for the use of recycled water within the watersheds upstream of the Sweetwater Reservoir, Otay Mesa, and the Lower Otay Reservoir will increase recycled water use and thus require less dependence on imported water for irrigation purposes. The supply forecasts contained within this WSA&V Report do consider development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater, recycled water market expansion, and seawater desalination supplies by the Otay WD. 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 7. 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 ac-ft/yr. 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 essentially completing construction and commencement of operations 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 43 Table 7 Historic Imported and Local Water Supplies Otay Water District Calendar Year Imported Water (AF) Recycled Water (AF) Total (AF) 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 2011 30,158 3,880 34,038 2012 31,268 4,155 35,423 2013 31,844 4,390 36,234 2014 33,409 4,595 38,004 Source: Otay Water District operational records. 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. In calendar year 2010 the supply to Otay WD was 29,270 AF of supply from the Water Authority. An additional 4,090 AF of recycled water was supplied from the City of San Diego and from the District’s Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility. The demand for potable water within the Otay WD is expected to increase to about 77,177 AF by 2035 as per the Otay WD 2010 UWMP. 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 44 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 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 AFY 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, New Water Supply 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 45 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 AFY 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 to 50% share 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 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 46 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 and on the Otay Mesa. 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, and other development projects. The Otay WD projects that annual average demands for recycled water will increase to 8,000 AFY by 2035. About 1,300 AFY 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 the quest 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’s 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’s recycled water system and market area. The purpose of the North District Recycled Water System Development Project, Phase I Concept Study, is 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 47 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. At this time, the effluent limit that is of concern is total nitrogen. An examination as to how the treatment process might be modified to enhance nitrogen removal and an action plan is being developed. 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 ac-ft/yr. This saved imported water could then be used to offset new potable water demands. Recycled Water System Facilities The Otay WD has and continues to construct recycled water storage, pumping, transmission, and distribution facilities to meet projected recycled water market demands. For nearly 20 years, millions of dollars of capital improvements have been constructed. The supply link 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 are complete 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 48 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 ac-ft per year of recycled water from the SBWRP at an initial price of $350 per acre-foot. The Otay WD 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. 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 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 WD 2010 UWMP, the WRMP Update, and the Otay WD March 2007 Integrated Water Resources Plan (2007 IRP) both 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 a few 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 49 The development and/or acquisition of potential groundwater supply projects by the Otay WD has been resurrected and evolved 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’s water supply portfolio consistent the Otay WD 2007 IRP. 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 aree groundwater well projects that the Otay WD is pursuing to develop as new local water supplies. They are known as the Middle Sweetwater River Basin Groundwater Well, and the Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well. 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 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 50 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 AFY. Currently, that 12.5 percent quantity could be on the order of 1,000 AFY. 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 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 AFY 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 51 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 CDPH 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. 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 AFY. 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 likely not be designed or operated by the Otay WD as the lead agency, 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 52 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 CDPH 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 CDPH 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 participated 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 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 to establish water supply resource acquisition terms through development of a Principles of Understanding document. 6.3.2 Otay WD 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 WD WRMP 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 precede through the land use jurisdictional agency approval processes, Otay WD prepares water system requirements specifically for the proposed Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 53 development project consistent with the Otay WD WRMP 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 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 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 Integrated Resources Plan (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 2010 update to the IRP includes a planning buffer supply intended to mitigate against the risks associated with implementation of local and imported supply programs and for the risk that future demands could be higher than projected. The planning buffer identifies an additional increment of water that could potentially be developed when needed and if other supplies are Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 54 not fully implemented as planned. As part of implementation of the planning buffer, MWD periodically evaluates supply development, supply conditions, and projected demands to ensure that the region is not under or over developing supplies. Managed properly, the planning buffer will help ensure that the southern California region, including San Diego County, will have adequate water supplies to meet long-term future demands. In Section ES-5 of their 2010 RUWMP, MWD states that MWD has supply capacities that would be sufficient to meet expected demands from 2015 through 2035. 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. MWD’s 2010 RUWMP identifies potential reserve supplies in the supply capability analysis (Tables 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11), 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 2010 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 55 agreements relevant to the identified water supply needs for the proposed Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project. This WSA&V 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project and the existing and other planned development projects to be served by the Otay WD. Table 8 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 2010 was 33,270 acre feet. The demand for FY 2010 is 5,635 acre feet lower than the demand in FY 2005 of 38,905 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 9 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and supplies for the Otay WD service area under single dry year conditions. Table 9 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 2018. The multiple dry year conditions for periods ending in 2023, 2028, and 2033 are provided in the Otay Water District 2010 UWMP. The projected potable demand and supply requirements shown the Tables 8 and 9 are from the Otay Water District 2010 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 9. The recycled water supplies are assumed to experience no reduction in a dry year. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 56 Table 8 Projected Balance of Water Demands and Supplies Normal Year Conditions (AF) Description FY 2015 FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030 FY 2035 Demands Otay WD Demands 44,883 53,768 63,811 70,669 77,171 Previous Water Authority Accelerated Forecasted Growth Demands 570 570 570 570 570 PA 12 Freeway Comm. Demands 173 173 173 173 173 Additional Conservation Target 0 (7,447) (13,996) (17,895) (20,557) Total Demand 45,626 47,064 50,558 53,517 57,357 Supplies Water Authority Supply 40,483 41,321 44,015 45,974 48,614 Water Authority Accelerated Forecast Growth Increment 743 743 743 743 743 Recycled Water Supply 4,400 5,000 5,800 6,800 8,000 Total Supply 45,626 47,064 50,558 53,517 57,357 Supply Surplus/(Deficit) 0 0 0 0 0 The 743 (570+173) AFY increase in demand is accounted for through the Accelerated Forecasted Growth demand increment of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP. Table 9 presents the forecasted balance of water demands and supplies for the Otay WD service area under single dry year and multiple dry year conditions as from the Otay WD 2010 UWMP. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 57 Table 9 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 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Demands Otay WD Demands 37,176 41,566 43,614 46,385 50,291 Total Demand 37,176 41,566 43,614 46,385 50,291 Supplies Water Authority Supply 33,268 37,535 39,460 42,108 45,891 Recycled Water Supply 3,908 4,031 4,154 4,277 4,400 Total Supply 37,176 41,566 43,614 46,385 50,291 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 6.4% increase in demand over normal conditions for each year in addition to new demand growth. Table 9 also 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 2015. In evaluating the availability of sufficient water supply, the Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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, and the Otay WD Desalination 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 58 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 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 59 Source Documents City of Chula Vista, Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial SB 610 and SB 221 Compliance request letter received February 25, 2015. City of Chula Vista, “Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Sub-regional Plan, The Otay Ranch Joint Planning Project,” October 1993 amended June 1996. County of San Diego, “East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Area,” adopted July 27, 1994. Otay Water District, “2010 Water Resources Master Plan Update,” Revised 2013. Atkins and Otay Water District, “Otay Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan,” June 2011. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., “Otay Water District Integrated Water Resources Plan,” March 2007 San Diego County Water Authority, “Urban Water Management Plan 2005 Update,” November 2005 amended May 2007. MWD Water District of Southern California, “Regional Urban Water Management Plan,” November 2005. Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., “Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial SAMP Amendment ” memorandum, February 8, 2015. 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. Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 60 Boyle Engineering Corporation, “Groundwater Treatment Feasibility Study Ranch del Ray 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. 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 Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 1 Appendix A Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Regional Location Map OTAY WATER DISTRICTPA-12 FREEWAY COMMERCIALVICINITY MAP APPENDIX A WO D0933F C:\Users\donald.bienvenue\Desktop\D0933-Appendix A.mxd E A S T L A K E O L Y M P I C P A R K W A Y PA R K W A Y BIRCH ROA D SR-125 SR-125 O T A Y L A K E S R D 0 1,100550 Feet PROJECT SITE Otay Water District Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial 2 Appendix B Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Proposed Development Plan Otay Water DistrictBoard of Directors Meeting April 1, 2015 Water Supply Assessment & Verification Report Update for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project SB 610 & SB 221 Compliance EXHIBIT D BACKGROUND Senate Bills 610 and 221 became effective on January 1, 2002. Primary Intent: Improve the link between water supply availability and land use decisions. SB 610 requires a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) to be included in the CEQA documents for a project. SB 221 requires a Water Supply Assessment & Verification (WSA&V), also included in the CEQA documents. Board approval required for submittal of the WSA&V Report to the City of Chula Vista. 2 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project Total Water Demand 233 AFY Potable / 38.8 AFY Recycled 3 •28.7 acres developed of the 34.5 acre site •Two hotels –310 units •650 multi-family residential dwellings •25,000 sq.ft. of commercial/retail •Park Land Use Description WSA&V (May 2013)WSA&V (Feb 2015) Area (acres) Dwelling Units Area (acres) Dwelling Units Multi-Family Residential 448 650 Hotel (2)257 310 Commercial 14.5 4.0 Park 1.0 2.0 Changes since the 2013 WSA&V Potable water demand has increased to 233 AFY, 46 AFY higher than 2013 report. Recycled water demand has increased to 38.8 AFY, 20.3 AFY higher than 2013 report. Land Use has changed. 4 WSA&V Report Acknowledges the challenges for regional and local water supply agencies in meeting demands and that a diversified portfolio is needed to serve existing and future needs. The Report documents planned water supply projects and the actions necessary to develop the supplies. Description of how water supply is planned and available for the project and for existing and future development over a 20-year planning horizon, under normal and in single-dry and multiple-dry years. 5 6 Otay Water District Planned Water Supply Projects Project Supply (AF) Rosarito Ocean Desalination Project 20,000-50,000 Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well 300 Water Authority Supplies Project 2015 2020 2025 2030-2035 IID Water Transfer 100,000 190,000 200,000 200,000 ACC and CC Lining 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 Carlsbad Desalination 0 56,000 56,000 56,000 Total:180,200 326,200 336,200 336,200 Water Supply Projects 7 Otay Water District Projected Balance of Supply and Demand Source: Table 8 of the Otay Ranch PA 12 Freeway Commercial WSA&V Report. *Rosarito Desalination Project not included, will be added to future supplies when a Water Purchase Agreement is approved by the OWD Board. Description FY 2015 FY 2020 FY 2025 FY 2030 FY 2035 Demands Otay WD Demands 44,883 53,768 63,811 70,669 77,171 Previous Water Authority Accelerated Forecasted Growth Demands 570 570 570 570 570 PA 12 Freeway Comm. Demands 173 173 173 173 173 Additional Conservation Target 0 (7,447)(13,996)(17,895)(20,557) Total Demand 45,626 47,064 50,558 53,517 57,357 Supplies Water Authority Supply 40,483 41,321 44,015 45,974 48,614 Water Authority Accelerated Forecast Growth Increment 743 743 743 743 743 Recycled Water Supply 4,400 5,000 5,800 6,800 8,000 Total Supply 45,626 47,064 50,558 53,517 57,357 Supply Surplus/(Deficit)0 0 0 0 0 The 743 (570+173) AFY increase in demand is accounted for through the Accelerated Forecasted Growth demand increment of the Water Authority’s 2010 UWMP. 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 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project 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. 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Board of Directors approve Senate Bills 610 & 221 updated Water Supply Assessment & Verification Report dated February 2015 for the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 Freeway Commercial Project 10 QUESTIONS? STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: April 1, 2015 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 2015 Calendar of Meetings GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: At the request of the Board, the attached Board of Director’s meeting calendar for 2015 is being presented for discussion. PURPOSE: This staff report is being presented to provide the Board the opportunity to review the 2015 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 2015 G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting Calendar 4-1-15.doc Board of Directors, Workshops and Committee Meetings 2015 Regular Board Meetings: Special Board or Committee Meetings (3rd Wednesday of Each Month or as Noted) January 7, 2015 February 4, 2015 March 4, 2015 April 1, 2015 May 6, 2015 June 3, 2015 July 1, 2015 August 5, 2015 September 2, 2015 October 7, 2015 November 4, 2015 December 2, 2015 January 21, 2015 February 18, 2015 March 18, 2015 April 15, 2015 May 20, 2015 June 17, 2015 July 15, 2015 August 19, 2015 September 16, 2015 October 21, 2015 November 18, 2015 December 16, 2015 SPECIAL BOARD MEETINGS: May 19, 2015 Budget Workshop/Special Board Meeting 3:00 pm STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: April 1, 2015 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: Purchasing and Facilities:  Purchase Orders – There were 132 blanket and regular purchase orders in effect during February with an adjusted total value of $346,981. In addition, there were 222 Cal-Card transactions totaling $105,895. By value, Cal-Card represents 23% of all purchases; blanket orders 41%; and regular PO’s 36%. Human Resources:  Employee Information Meeting - The District held employee information meetings on March 11th. These meetings are held every six months to provide employees with relevant information regarding key District projects and District updates. The meeting this month included updates on the drought, 14-inch force main assessment program, AMR, and strat plan; and disaster and emergency preparedness information.  Recruitments – HR is preparing to recruit for a Systems Support Analyst, a Utility Crew Leader, a Utility Worker I/II, and a Reclamation Plant Operator I/II/III.  New Hires – There were no new hires in the month of March. Safety & Security:  Emergency Preparedness Information – Family emergency preparedness and resources information was shared with staff during the employee information meetings. 2  WebEOC Training Exercise – Staff completed the monthly exercise, which consisted of filling out the FEMA ICS General Message Form 213 and e-mailing a screenshot of the completed form to colvera@sdcwa.org.  Safety Training/ Meetings – Staff attended a workshop on Improvised Explosive Device Awareness/Bomb Threat management, and the annual Public Agency Safety and Risk Management meetings (PASMA and PARMA). Information Technology and Strategic Planning:  Technology Security Audit - IT Staff began work with technology firm, AltuisIT, to conduct a cyber-security and vulnerability assessment of the District’s IT and SCADA technology environments. Staff and AltuisIT will review core voice, data, firewall and general traffic communication components and update with security measures where necessary. The objective is to harden our overall system protection from unauthorized intrusions. Staff will also be updating our mitigation and recovery processes.  Customer Mobile Application - IT Staff began work with Infosend, the District’s eBusiness solution for bill process, to test a new mobile bill paying application. The mobile application will allow District customers to pay their bills directly from their mobile device and also view their billing and usage history. Elsinore Water District is currently piloting the application with their customers. Upon successful piloting, estimated at three months, staff will work on deploying to a test group. Finance:  Insurance Provider - The District periodically performs a market review of its property, liability and automobile insurance services to ensure those services are provided at market rates. During March 2015, staff completed a request for proposal process of these insurance services. The conclusion resulted in the District maintaining services with the current provider, SDRMA, at a savings of $60,000 per year versus fiscal year 2015 rates.  State Water Conservation Regulations Expanded - On March 17th, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted an expanded emergency regulation to respond to the ongoing drought situation in the state. In addition to the current regulations put into effect last year, the state has added that water only be served at restaurants upon customer request and that hotels provide guests with the option of not having towels laundered daily. The state is also mandating that all urban water suppliers limit the number of days per week that customers can 3 irrigate outdoors. Otay already addresses these new regulations through its Water Shortage Response Program. However, we will continue to monitor and encourage additional conservation.  Board of Directors Expenses – Attached is the Board of Directors Expenses for the 2nd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2015 (FY 2015). Expenses for the quarter totaled $5,070.94 for a total of $10,742.26 for the first two quarters of FY 2015.  ID Consolidation - Proposition 218 Notices were recently mailed to customers to inform them of the pending Improvement District (ID) consolidations affecting their ID. There are 62 parcels in ID1 and 6 parcels in ID5 that will pay more in availability fees than they are currently paying. The remaining parcels will not pay any more in availability fees than they are currently paying. The District has received seven (7) protest letters and has also received 36 emails and phone calls with various questions related to the consolidation.  Financial Reporting: o For the eight months ended February 28, 2015, there are total revenues of $60,849,171 and total expenses of $60,299,901. The revenues exceeded expenses by $549,270. o The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and in the Investment Portfolio Details as of February 28, 2015 total $84,374,597 with an average yield to maturity of 0.64%. The total earnings year-to-date are $354,359.44. ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS: Engineering:  927 Zone, Forcemain 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. The forcemain facility appears to be in good condition, with the exception of the repairable localized defects, based on Pipeline Inspection and Condition Analysis Corporation’s (PICA) assessment of the upper 4,000 feet of the forcemain completed in early 2015. Staff is preparing for PICA to inspect the lower 12,000 feet of forcemain next winter in addition assembling bid documents for the repair of localized defects, replacement of 15 existing blow offs, and replacement of the existing cathodic protection system. The project is on schedule and within budget. (R2116) 4  SR-11 Potable Water Utility Relocations: This project consists of two (2) groups of potable water relocations to accommodate the construction of the future SR-11 right-of-way and connector ramps. The first group includes relocation of existing pipelines in Sanyo Avenue and utility easements and is currently in the construction phase. The contractor, Coffman Specialties Inc., has relocated the 10-inch and 12-inch mains and has started work to lower the District’s 18-inch transmission main to accommodate the Caltrans freeway retaining wall footings. The second group consists of relocating a 6- inch blow off in Otay Mesa Road and is currently in the construction phase. It is anticipated that this construction contract will reach substantial completion in April 2015 (ahead of schedule). The contractor, TC Construction Co., Inc., anticipates construction to relocate a 6-inch blow off in April 2015. The overall project is on schedule and within budget. (P2453)  North-South District Interconnect Pipeline: This project consists of installing approximately 5.2 miles of 30-inch diameter pipe from H Street in Chula Vista to Paradise Valley Road in Spring Valley. Staff has resumed evaluation of alternative pump station sites previously completed in Fiscal Year 2011. (P2511)  944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades: This project consists of removing and replacing the interior and exterior coatings of the 944-1 0.3 MG Reservoir, the 944-2 3.0 MG Reservoir, and the 458-2 1.8 MG Reservoir along with providing structural upgrades to ensure the tanks comply with both State and Federal OSHA standards as well as American Water Works Association and County Health Department standards. A construction contract was awarded by the Board on October 1, 2014 to Olympus & Associates. The contractor has completed the interior coating of the 944-2 Reservoir and is scheduled to continue with the exterior coating work at the 944-2 Reservoir in April 2015. The contractor began removal of the existing coating from the interior floor, roof, and walls during March 2015 at the 458-2 Reservoir. It is anticipated that work to apply the new interior coating at the 458-2 Reservoir will begin in April 2015. The overall project is behind schedule. The District’s Construction Manager is working with the contractor on a recovery schedule. The overall project is within budget. (P2531, P2532, P2535)  Ralph W. Chapman Water Reclamation Facility (RWCWRF) Return Activated Sludge (RAS) Pumps Replacement Project: This Project consists of removal and replacement of the existing 5 horsepower (HP) RAS pumps with upgraded 20 HP units. On 5 January 7, 2015, the Board awarded a construction contract to Cora Constructors, Inc. During February 2015 the contractor initiated submittals for the project. It is anticipated that the review and approval of submittals will be completed by end of March/April 2015. The project is on schedule and within budget. (R2111)  Calavo Basin Sewer System Rehabilitation: This project consists of removing and replacing approximately 1,200 linear feet of 8-inch PVC sewer pipeline and construction of 220 feet of new 8-inch PVC sewer pipeline in the residential streets of the Calavo Gardens area near Avocado Boulevard. A construction contract was awarded by the Board on October 1, 2014 to Arrieta Construction. Notification of the upcoming construction work was mailed out to residents. Construction work continued on Fury Lane and Calle Verde during March 2015. It is anticipated that work will begin on New Morning Road in April 2015. The project is on schedule and within budget. (S2033)  Rosarito Desalination: Staff and representatives from NSC Agua continue to coordinate on complying with the California Water Resources Control Board Drinking Water Program regulatory requirements. The work on the EIR/EIS for the project are proceeding. All of the technical reports to support the EIR/EIS are complete and being reviewed by staff and the State Department. The draft document for public review is anticipated to be ready in late April/May 2015. The MIA (Mexican EIR) for the Desalination Plant has been approved and NSC Agua expects that the MIA’s for the pipeline will be approve by the spring of 2015. NSC Agua is working on the submittal of the APP (Public-Private Partnership) documents to the Baja California government by late March/April 2015. (P2451)  Disposal of Real Estate Properties Declared Surplus by the Board: On January 15, 2015, the District advertised for Real Estate Brokerage Services to support the disposal of properties declared surplus by the Board. Five brokerage firms submitted proposals that contained their statement of qualifications and pricing information including the proposed commission rate. The Norberg Group was selected due to their years of experience and proposed pricing that reflected the lowest commission rate. On March 13, 2015, the District entered into listing agreements with the Norberg Group for six properties that were declared surplus by the Board. The Board has authorized the General Manager to dispose of the properties. The term of the agreements is for six months and the established gross commission rate is eight (8) percent which will be split evenly between the listing agent and cooperating buyer’s agent. The Norberg Group has listed and begun marketing the properties. 6  Jamul Indian Village: District staff has responded to a request from the Jamul Indian Village to reconfigure the existing water main which was constructed to serve the Jamul Indian Reservation in June of 1983 at the request of the U.S. Government. The requested reconfiguration consists of the removal of the existing public main and construction of a new service adjacent to State Route 94 for the Jamul Indian Village’s Hollywood Casino project. On February 2, 2015, the Jamul Indian Village purchased a 4-Inch commercial meter from the District to serve their project.  For the month of February 2015, the District sold 12 meters (56 EDUs) generating $516,000 in revenue. Projection for this period was 12.8 meters (15.3 EDUs) with budgeted revenue of $140,758. Total revenue for Fiscal Year 2015 is $2,677,044 against the annual budget of $1,689,093. Water Operations:  Total number of potable water meters is 49,364.  The February potable water purchases were 2,017.5 acre-feet which is 6.8% above the budget of 1,888.6 acre-feet. The cumulative purchases through February is 20,939.3 acre-feet which is 1.3% below the cumulative budget of 21,215.3 acre- feet.  The February recycled water purchases and production was 225.8 acre-feet which is 13.9% above the budget of 198.2 acre-feet. The cumulative production and purchases through February is 2,910.3 acre-feet which is 5.3% above the cumulative budget of 2,763.7 acre-feet. 7  Recycled water consumption for the month of February is as follows: o Total consumption was 194.9 acre-feet or 63,487,248 gallons and the average daily consumption was 2,267,402 gallons per day. o Total recycled water consumption as of February for FY 2015 is 2,992.8 acre-feet. o Total number of recycled water meters is 707.  Wastewater flows for the month of February were as follows: o Total basin flow, gallons per day: 1,608,358. o Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro, gallons per day: 532,427. o Total Otay flow, gallons per day: 1,075,806. o Flow Processed at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility, gallons per day: 745,018. o Flow to Metro from Otay Water District was 330,913 gallons per day.  By the end of February there were 6,090 wastewater EDUs. Attachment: Board of Directors’ Expenses 2nd Quarter (10/1/14 - 12/31/14) YTD (7/1/14 - 12/31/14) CROUCHER, GARY 500.00$ 1,000.00$ GONZALEZ, DAVID 300.00 1,000.00 LOPEZ, JOSE 1,684.80 3,472.20 ROBAK, MARK 974.54 2,174.22 SMITH, TIM 340.32 340.32 THOMPSON, MITCHELL 1,271.28 2,755.52 5,070.94$ 10,742.26$ FY2015 REVENUES: Potable Water Sales $ Recycled Water Sales Potable Energy Charges Potable System Charges Potable MWD & CW A Fixed Charges Potable Penalties Total Water Sales Sewer Charges Meter Fees Capacity Fee Revenues Betterment Fees for Maintenance Non-Operating Revenues Tax Revenues Interest Transfer from Potable General Fund Total Revenues $ EXPENSES: Potable Water Purchases $ Recycled Water Purchases CWA-Infrastructure Access Charge CWA-Customer Service Charge CWA-Emergency Storage Charge MWD-Capacity Res Charge MWD-Readiness to Serve Charge Subtotal Water Purchases Power Charges Payroll & Related Costs Material & Maintenance Administrative Expenses Legal Fees Expansion Reserve Betterment Reserve Replacement Reserve New Supply Fee Transfer toSewer General Fund OPEB Trust Potable General Fund Sewer Replacement Total Expenses $ EXCESS REVENUES(EXPENSE) $ F:/MORPT/F$2015-0215 OTAY WATER DISTRICT COMPARATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY FOR EIGHT MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2015 Annual Budget Actual Budget 45,669,500 $ 30,413,494 $ 31,I40,700 8,826,600 6,126,425 6,109,500 2,I45,600 I,497,836 1,473,800 I2,337,500 7,874,354 7,860,400 10,936,200 7,322,829 7,345,400 870,300 652,868 597,600 80,785,700 53,887,806 54,527,400 3,007,700 1,932,429 I,933,100 51,500 63,787 34,300 l,I50,600 770,071 767,IOO 30I,800 I88,123 301,800 1,947,800 1,305,207 1,294,200 3,763,700 2,260,048 2,182,900 77,400 72,500 51,600 553,800 369,200 369,200 9I,640,000 $ 60,849,171 $ 61,461,600 34,521,500 $ 23,155,979 $ 23,568,100 1,601,500 984,862 1,207,900 I,901,400 1,257,606 I,258,200 1,792,200 1,193,584 I, 192,200 4,741,200 3,134,271 3,14I,200 701,400 433,322 433,000 1,800,000 I,211,555 1,200,000 47,059,200 31,371,179 32,000,600 2,838,400 2,127,605 2,025,800 19,747,600 13,282,236 13,464,700 3,619,800 2,243,325 2,450,625 5,009,200 2,502,022 3,008,926 410,000 136,335 273,333 2,538,900 1,692,600 1,692,600 3,530,000 2,353,300 2,353,300 3,270,200 2,180,100 2,180,100 705,000 470,000 470,000 553,800 369,200 369,200 647,100 431,400 431,400 1,583,800 1,055,900 1,055,900 127,000 84,700 84,700 91,640,000 $ 60,299,901 $ 61,861,184 $ 549,270 $ ~399,584~ Exhibit A YTD Variance Var 0/o $ (727,206) (2.3%) 16,925 0.3% 24,036 I.6% 13,954 0.2% (22,571) (0.3%) 55,268 9.2% ~639,594l ~1.2%l (67I) (0.0%) 29,487 86.0% 2,97I 0.4% (113,677) (37.7%) 11,007 0.9% 77,I48 3.5% 20,900 40.5% 0.0% $ (612,429) (1.0%) $ 412,121 1.7% 223,038 18.5% 594 0.0% (1,384) (0.1 %) 6,929 0.2% (322) (0.1%) ~II ,555) ~I.O%l 629,421 2.0% (101,805) (5.0%) 182,464 1.4% 207,299 8.5% 506,904 16.8% I36,999 50.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% $ 1,561,283 2.5% $ 948,853 3/23/2015 10:56 AM Investments Federal Agency Issues-Callable Federal Agency Issues -Coupon Certificates of Deposit-Bank Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) San Diego County Pool Investments Cash Passbook/Checking (not included in yield calculations) Total Cash and Investments Total Earnings Current Year Average Daily Balance Effective Rate of Return Par Value 55,735,000.00 8,000,000.00 81,784.76 8,585,947.78 11 ,294,298.31 83,697,030.85 811,692.42 -- 84,508,723.27 February 28 Month Ending 51,345.43 85,735,468.81 0.78% Month End Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary February 28, 2015 Market Book Value Value 55,687,280.50 55,736,061.32 8,007,060.00 8,001 ,731.79 81,784.76 81 ,784.76 8,585,779.32 8,585,947.78 11,201 ,000.00 11,294,298.31 83,562,904.58 83,699,823.96 811 ,692.42 811,692.42 84,37 4,597.00 84,511,516.38 Fiscal Year To Date 354,359.44 83,635,589.81 0.64% %of Days to YTM YTM Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. 66.59 993 780 0.865 0.877 9.56 925 234 0.395 0.400 0.10 730 327 0.030 0.030 10.26 1 1 0.262 0.266 13.49 1 1 0.563 0.571 100.00% 751 542 0.717 0.727 0.215 0.218 751 542 0.717 0.727 I hereby certify that the investments contained in this report are made in accordance with the District Investment Policy Number 27 adopted by the Board of Directors on May 7, 2014. The market value information provided by Interactive Data Corporation. The investments provide sufficient liquidity to meet the cash flow requirements of the District for the next six months of expenditures. rze::;d~ J~chem, Chief Financial Officer Reporting period 02/01/2015-02/28/2015 Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/2015 12:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015-12:14 Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP PM (PRF _PM1) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 OT A Y WATER DISTRICT INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REVIEW February 28, 2015 INVESTMENT OVERVIEW & MARKET STATUS: The federal funds rate has remained constant now for over 5 years. On December 16, 2008, at the Federal Reserve Board's regular scheduled meeting, the federal funds rate was lowered from 1.00% to "a target range of between Zero and 0. 25%" in response to the nation's ongoing financial crisis, as well as banking industry pressure to ease credit and stimulate the economy. This marked the ninth reduction in a row since September 18, 2007, when the rate was 5 .25%. There have been no further changes made to the federal funds rate at the Federal Reserve Board's subsequent regular scheduled meetings, the most recent of which was held on March 18, 2015. In determining how long to maintain the current 0 to lf4 percent target range for the federal funds rate, they went on to say: "the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. Consistent with its previous statement, the Committee judges that an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate remains unlikely at the April FOMC meeting. The Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term. This change in the forward guidance does not indicate that the Committee has decided on the timing of the initial increase in the target range. " Despite the large drop in available interest rates, the District's overall effective rate of return at February 28, 2015 was 0.64%, which was two basis point above the previous month. At the same time the LAIF return on deposits has improved over the previous month, reaching an average effective yield of0.266% for the month of February 2015. Based on our success at maintaining a competitive rate of return on our portfolio during this extended period of interest rate declines, no changes in investment strategy regarding returns on investment are being considered at this time. This desired portfolio mix is important in mitigating any liquidity risk from unforeseen changes in LAIF or County Pool policy. In accordance with the District's Investment Policy, all District funds continue to be managed based on the objectives, in priority order, of safety, liquidity, and return on investment. PORTFOLIO COMPLIANCE: February 28, 2015 Investment State Limit Ota:y Limit !)tav Actual 8.01: Treasury Securities 100% 100% 0 8.02: Local Agency Investment Fund (Operations) $50 Million $50 Million $8.6 Million 8.02: Local Agency Investment Fund (Bonds) 100% 100% 0 8.03: Federal Agency Issues 100% 100% 75.42% 8.04: Certificates of Deposit 30% 15% 0.10% 8.05: Short-Term Commercial Notes 25% 10% 0 8.06: Medium-Term Commercial Debt 30% 10% 0 8.07: Money Market Mutual Funds 20% 10% 0 8.08: San Diego County Pool 100% 100% 13.36% 12.0: Maximum Single Financial Institution 100% 50% .96% $63,737,793 75.4°/o Otay Water District Investment Portfolio: 02/28/2015 Total Cash and Investments: $84,511,516 $893,477 1.1 °/o C Banks (Passbook/Checking/CO) •Pools (LAJF & County) CAgencies & Corporate Notes $19,880,246 23.5°/o Target: Meet or Exceed 100% of LAIF J!J 0.90 c Q) 0.80 E -tn Q) 0.70 > -= c 0 c ... ~ -Q) 0:: Performance Measure FY-15 Return on Investment Month LAIF •Otay c Difference CUSIP Investment# Federal Agency Issues-Callable 3134G4PXO 3133EDKF8 3134G4UCO 3135GOXR9 3134G4WJ3 3133EECX6 3130A3FY5 3134G55T8 3130A25S1 3136G1XZ7 3134G5A47 3130A35R1 3133EElR9 3134G55X9 3134G4WH7 3134G56A8 3134G56NO 3136G23GO 3130A1ZX9 3130A3MH4 3134G5Bl8 3134G5lH6 3133EECG3 3133EECG3 3136G2A23 3134G5PP4 3130A3N59 31315PW88 2277 2291 2305 2269 2284 2313 2309 2295 2299 2274 2301 2306 2317 2298 2285 2297 2300 2304 2296 2314 2302 2307 2311 2312 2308 2310 2315 2316 Issuer Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Home loan Mortgage Fannie Mae Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Home loan Bank Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal Home loan Bank Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal Home loan Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home loan Bank Federal Home loan Bank Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home loan Mortgage Federal Home loan Bank Federal Agricultural Mortgage Average Balance ----------------- Subtotal and Average 57,021,815.35 Federal Agency Issues -Coupon 3133EC6F6 3133EC7H1 3135GOYE7 2258 2260 2286 Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal National Mortage Assoc Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/2015 12:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015-12:14 Month End Portfolio Management Portfolio Details -Investments February 28, 2015 Purchase Date 12/27/2013 04/29/2014 09/08/2014 06/06/2013 03/19/2014 11/25/2014 11/28/2014 06/12/2014 06/19/2014 12/19/2013 06/30/2014 10/06/2014 01/27/2015 06/10/2014 03/20/2014 06/16/2014 06/26/2014 08/15/2014 05/22/2014 12/29/2014 07/17/2014 10/30/2014 11/20/2014 11/20/2014 11/28/2014 12/12/2014 12/29/2014 01/08/2015 12/05/2012 12/17/2012 04/01/2014 Par Value 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,030,000.00 2,705,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 55,735,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 Market Value 1,995,780.00 1,996,900.00 2,000,720.00 1,994,980.00 1,999,140.00 1,997,060.00 1,998,420.00 1,999,780.00 1,999,580.00 1,998,500.00 1,999,140.00 2,000,060.00 1,996,340.00 1,995,500.00 2,000,720.00 2,000,480.00 1,994,580.00 1,996,860.00 1,996,820.00 2,006,820.00 2,002,600.00 1,996,760.00 1,030,309.00 2,705,811.50 1,996,700.00 2,000,580.00 1,986,340.00 2,000,000.00 55,687,280.50 3,001 ,320.00 3,001,980.00 2,003,760.00 Stated Book Value Rate 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,002,014.10 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,999,047.22 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,030,000.00 2,705,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2, 000.000.00 55,736,061.32 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,001 ,731 .79 0.500 0.550 0.650 0.550 0.625 0.610 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.670 0.650 0.850 0.625 0.810 0.900 1.000 1.000 1.050 1.050 1.000 1.220 1.100 1.140 1.140 1.200 1.250 1.125 1.300 0.350 0.340 0.625 Page 1 YTM Days to Maturity S&P 360 Maturity Date 0.493 0.542 0.570 AA 0.542 0.616 0.602 0.690 AA 0.690 0.690 0.661 0.641 0.838 0.616 0.799 0.888 0.986 0.986 1.036 1.036 0.986 1.203 1.085 1.124 1.124 1.184 1.233 1.110 1.282 0.865 AA 0.345 0.335 0.558 484 06/27/2016 516 07/29/2016 516 07/29/2016 555 09/06/2016 568 09/19/2016 635 11/25/2016 635 11/25/2016 652 12/12/2016 659 12/19/2016 659 12/19/2016 670 12/30/2016 677 01/06/2017 698 01/27/2017 7 40 03/1 0/2017 750 03/20/2017 838 06/16/2017 848 06/26/2017 898 08/15/2017 905 08/22/2017 943 09/29/2017 961 10/17/2017 97 4 10/30/2017 995 11/20/2017 995 11/20/2017 1,003 11/28/2017 1,017 12/12/2017 1, 034 12/29/2017 1,044 01/08/2018 780 92 06/01/2015 169 08/17/2015 544 08/26/2016 Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP PM (PRF _PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 CUSIP Investment# Issuer Subtotal and Average Certificates of Deposit -Bank 2050003183-6 2283 California Bank & Trust Subtotal and Average Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) LA IF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAIF BABS 2010 9012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Subtotal and Average San Diego County Pool SO COUNTY POOL 9007 San Diego County Subtotal and Average Total and Average Data Updated: SET _ME8: 03/18/2015 12:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015 -12:14 Average Balance 8,001,781.73 81,784.76 6,364,519.21 12,080,012.60 85,735,468.82 Month End Portfolio Management Portfolio Details -Investments February 28, 2015 Purchase Date Par Value Market Value 8,000,000.00 8,007,060.00 01/22/2014 81,784.76 81,784.76 81,784.76 81,784.76 8,585,947.78 8,585,779.32 07/01/2014 0.00 0.00 8,585,947.78 8,585,779.32 11,294,298.31 11,201,000.00 11,294,298.31 11 ,201,000.00 83,697,030.85 83,562,904.58 Stated Book Value Rate 8,001,731.79 81,784.76 0.030 81,784.76 8,585,947.78 0.266 0.00 0.267 8,585,947. 78 11,294,298.31 0.571 11 ,294,298.31 83,699,823.96 Page 2 YTM Daysto Maturity S&P 360 Maturity Date 0.395 234 0.030 327 01/22/2016 --------- 0.030 327 0.262 0.263 --------- 0.262 0.563 --------- 0.563 0.717 542 Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP PM (PRF _PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP Investment # Issuer Union Bank UNION MONEY 9002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETTY CASH 9003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNION OPERATING 9004 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PAYROLL 9005 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESERVE-1 0 COPS 9010 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 STATE OF CALIFORNIA UBNA-201 0 BOND 9013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Average Balance Total Cash and Investments Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/2015 12:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015 -12:14 Month End Portfolio Management Portfolio Details -Cash February 28, 2015 Average Purchase Balance Date Par Value 10,004.02 2,950.00 704,938.35 07/01/2014 27,891.35 6,944.34 18,847.49 07/01/2014 0.00 07/01/2014 40,116.87 0.00 85,735,468.81 84,508,723.27 Market Value Book Value 10,004.02 10,004.02 2,950.00 2,950.00 704,938.35 704,938.35 27,891.35 27,891 .35 6,944.34 6,944.34 18,847.49 18,847.49 0.00 0.00 40,116.87 40,116.87 84,37 4,597.00 84,511,516.38 Stated Rate S&P 0.010 0.250 0.010 0.010 Page 3 YTM Daysto 360 Maturity 0.010 0.000 0.247 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.717 542 Portfolio OTAY NL! AP PM (PRF _PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP Investment# Fund Fund: Treasury Fund UBNA-2010 BOND 9013 99 LAIF 9001 99 UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014 99 3133EECG3 2312 99 3133EELR9 2317 99 3133EECX6 2313 99 3133EDKF8 2291 99 3133EECG3 2311 99 3133EC7H1 2260 99 3133EC6F6 2258 99 2050003183-6 2283 99 3135GOXR9 2269 99 SO COUNTY POOL 9007 99 31315PW88 2316 99 Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/201512:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015-12:14 Investment Class Amortized Fair Value Amortized Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Amortized Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Month End GASB 31 Compliance Detail Sorted by Fund -Fund Maturity Beginning Purchase Date Invested Value of Principal 0.00 0.00 4,685,855.84 0.00 48,821 .02 0.00 11/20/2017 2,717,118.40 0.00 01/27/2017 1,998,400.00 0.00 11/25/2016 2,001,780.00 0.00 07/29/2016 1 ,999,180.00 0.00 11/20/2017 1,034,614.40 0.00 08/17/2015 3,002,520.00 0.00 06/01/2015 3,001 ,860.00 0.00 01/22/2016 81,784.76 0.00 09/06/2016 1,998,800.00 0.00 13,227,000.00 0.00 01/08/2018 2,002,940.00 0.00 Subtotal 84,619,940.24 0.00 Total 84,619,940.24 0.00 Addition Redemption to Principal of Principal 0.00 0.00 3,900,000.00 0.00 0.00 8,704.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 6,827,942.15 6,939,776.57 6,827,942.15 6,939,776.57 Adjustment in Value Amortization Change in Adjustment Market Value 0.00 0.00 0.00 -76.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 -11 ,306.90 0.00 -2,060.00 0.00 -4,720.00 0.00 -2,280.00 0.00 -4,305.40 0.00 -540.00 0.00 -540.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3,820.00 0.00 -26,000.00 0.00 -2,940.00 0.00 -133,508.82 0.00 -133,508.82 Page 2 Ending Invested Value 0.00 8,585,779.32 40,116.87 2,705,811.50 1,996,340.00 1,997,060.00 1,996,900.00 1,030,309.00 3,001,980.00 3,001,320.00 81,784.76 1,994,980.00 11,201,000.00 2,000,000.00 84,37 4,597.00 84,37 4,597.00 Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP GD (PRF _GD) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.5 CUSIP Investment # Fund: Treasury Fund 3134G56NO 2300 3134G55X9 2298 3134G56A8 2297 3134G5A47 2301 3134G4PXO 2277 3134G4WH7 2285 3134G4WJ3 2284 3134G5BL8 2302 3134G55T8 3134G4UCO 3134G5PP4 3134G5LH6 3136G2A23 3135GOYE7 3136G1XZ7 3136G23GO 3130A3N59 3130A3MH4 2295 2305 2310 2307 2308 2286 2274 2304 2315 2314 3130A1ZX9 2296 3130A25S1 2299 3130A35R1 2306 3130A3FY5 2309 3130A1SE9 2288 RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 UNION OPERATING 9004 PAYROLL 9005 UNION MONEY 9002 PETTY CASH 9003 LAIF BABS 2010 9012 Fund 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/201512:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015-12:14 Investment Class Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Fair Value Amortized Amortized Amortized Amortized Amortized Amortized Fair Value Maturity Date 06/26/2017 03/10/2017 06/16/2017 12/30/2016 06/27/2016 03/20/2017 09/19/2016 10/17/2017 12/12/2016 07/29/2016 12/12/2017 10/30/2017 11/28/2017 08/26/2016 12/19/2016 08/15/2017 12/29/2017 09/29/2017 08/22/2017 12/19/2016 01/06/2017 11/25/2016 05/19/2017 Month End GASB 31 Compliance Detail Sorted by Fund -Fund February 1, 2015 -February 28, 2015 Beginning Invested Value 2,001,120.00 2,000,260.00 2,001,920.00 2,003,620.00 1,997,920.00 2,001,940.00 1,999,900.00 2,004,000.00 2,001,320.00 2,003,360.00 2,002,320.00 2,003,280.00 2,004,680.00 2,006,480.00 2,001,420.00 2,002,140.00 1,996,040.00 2,009,880.00 2,000,080.00 2,001,440.00 2,000,060.00 2,000,700.00 2,000,680.00 18,846.88 6,944.04 708,072.37 27,891 .35 10,001 .18 2,950.00 0.00 Purchase of Principal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Addition to Principal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.30 890,587.22 0.00 2,037,354.02 0.00 0.00 Redemption of Principal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 893,721.24 0.00 2,037,351.18 0.00 0.00 Adjustment in Value Amortization Adjustment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Change in Market Value -6,540.00 -4,760.00 -1,440.00 -4,480.00 -2,140.00 -1,220.00 -760.00 -1,400.00 -1,540.00 -2,640.00 -1 ,740.00 -6,520.00 -7,980.00 -2,720.00 -2,920.00 -5,280.00 -9,700.00 -3,060.00 -3,260.00 -1 ,860.00 0.00 -2,280.00 -680.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ending Invested Value 1,994,580.00 1,995,500.00 2,000,480.00 1 ,999,140.00 1,995,780.00 2,000,720.00 1 ,999,140.00 2,002,600.00 1,999,780.00 2,000,720.00 2,000,580.00 1,996,760.00 1,996,700.00 2,003,760.00 1,998,500.00 1,996,860.00 1,986,340.00 2,006,820.00 1,996,820.00 1,999,580.00 2,000,060.00 1,998,420.00 0.00 18,847.49 6,944.34 704,938.35 27,891.35 10,004.02 2,950.00 0.00 Portfolio OTAY NL! AP GD (PRF _GD) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.5 CUSIP Investment# Issuer: STATE OF CALIFORNIA Union Bank Issuer Percent of Portfolio UNION MONEY 9002 UNION OPERATING 9004 RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 RESERVE-1 0 BABS 9011 UBNA-FLEXACCT 9014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA Subtotal and Balance Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) LAIF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal 11.120% Issuer: California Bank & Trust Certificates of Deposit -Bank Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal Issuer: Federal Agricultural Mortgage Federal Agency Issues-Callable Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal Issuer: Fannie Mae Federal Agency Issues-Callable Subtotal and Balance Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/2015 12:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015 -12:14 0.097% 2.367% Month End Activity Report Sorted By Issuer February 1, 2015 -February 28, 2015 Par Value Beginning Current Transaction Balance Rate Date 0.010 0.250 0.010 0.010 823,526.84 0.266 -- 4,685,947.78 5,509,474.62 81,784.76 81,784.76 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 Purchases or Deposits 2,037,354.02 890,587.22 0.30 0.61 0.00 2,927,942.15 3,900,000.00 3,900,000.00 6,827,942.15 0.00 0.00 Par Value Redemptions or Withdrawals 2,037,351.18 893,721 .24 0.00 0.00 8,704.15 2,939,776.57 0.00 0.00 2,939,776.57 0.00 0.00 Ending Balance 811,692.42 8,585,947.78 9,397,640.20 81,784.76 81,784.76 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP DA (PRF _DA) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 Percent CUSIP Investment# Issuer of Portfolio Issuer Subtotal 2.367% Issuer: Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Agency Issues-Callable Subtotal and Balance Federal Agency Issues -Coupon Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal 18.619% Issuer: Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Agency Issues-Callable 3130A1SE9 2288 Federal Home Loan Bank Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal Issuer: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Agency Issues-Callable Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal Issuer: Federal National Mortage Assoc --- Federal Agency Issues-Callable Subtotal and Balance Federal Agency Issues -Coupon Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal Issuer: San Diego County Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/2015 12:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015 -12:14 14.200% 28.399% 9.466% Month End Activity Report February 1, 2015 -February 28, 2015 Par Value Beginning Current Transaction Balance Rate Date 2,000,000.00 9,735,000.00 6,000,000.00 15,735,000.00 1.000 02/19/2015 14,000,000.00 14,000,000.00 24,000,000.00 24,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 Par Value - Purchases or Redemptions or Deposits Withdrawals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 2 Ending Balance 2,000,000.00 9,735,000.00 6,000,000.00 15,735,000.00 12,000,000.00 12,000,000.00 24,000,000.00 24,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP DA (PRF _DA) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 CUSIP Investment # Issuer Percent of Portfolio Issuer: San Diego County San Diego County Pool SD COUNTY POOL 9007 San Diego County Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal 13.365% Total 100.000% Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/2015 12:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015 -12:14 Month End Activity Report February 1, 2015 -February 28, 2015 Par Value Beginning Balance 13,294,298.31 13,294,298.31 84,620,557.69 Current Transaction Rate Date 0.571 Purchases or Deposits 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,827,942.15 Par Value Redemptions or Withdrawals 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6,939,776.57 Ending Balance 11 ,294,298.31 11 ,294,298.31 84,508,723.27 Page 3 Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP DA (PRF _DA) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 CUSIP Investment# Fund: Treasury Fund 3134G56NO 3134G55X9 3134G56A8 3134G5A47 3134G4PXO 3134G4WH7 3134G4WJ3 3134G5BL8 3134G55T8 3134G4UCO 3134G5PP4 3134G5LH6 3136G2A23 3135GOYE7 3136G1XZ7 3136G23GO 3130A3N59 2300 2298 2297 2301 2277 2285 2284 2302 2295 2305 2310 2307 2308 2286 2274 2304 2315 3130A3MH4 2314 3130A1ZX9 2296 3130A25S1 2299 3130A35R1 2306 3130A3FY5 2309 3130A1SE9 2288 RESERVE-1 0 BABS 9011 RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 UNION OPERATING 9004 UNION MONEY 9002 LA IF 3133EECG3 9001 2312 Fund 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/2015 12:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015-12:14 Security Type MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 FAC MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 PA1 PA1 PA1 PA1 LA1 MC1 Month End Interest Earnings Sorted by Fund -Fund February 1, 2015 -February 28, 2015 Yield on Beginning Book Value Ending Par Value Beginning Book Value Ending Maturity Current Annualized 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 18,847.49 6,944.34 704,938.35 10,004.02 8,585,947.78 2,705,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,002,133.04 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,001,828.90 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 18,846.88 6,944.04 708,072.37 10,001 .18 4,685,947.78 2,705,000.00 Book Value Date Rate Yield 2,000,000.00 06/26/2017 2,000,000.00 03/10/2017 2,000,000.00 06/16/2017 2,000,000.00 12/30/2016 2,000,000.00 06/27/2016 2,000,000.00 03/20/2017 2,000,000.00 09/19/2016 2,000,000.00 10/17/2017 2,000,000.00 12/12/2016 2,002,014.10 07/29/2016 2,000,000.00 12/12/2017 2,000,000.00 10/30/2017 2,000,000.00 11/28/2017 2,001 ,731.79 08/26/2016 2,000,000.00 12/19/2016 2,000,000.00 08/15/2017 2,000,000.00 12/29/2017 2,000,000.00 09/29/2017 2,000,000.00 08/22/2017 2,000,000.00 12/19/2016 2,000,000.00 01/06/2017 2,000,000.00 11/25/2016 0.00 05/19/2017 18,847.49 6,944.34 704,938.35 10,004.02 8,585,947.78 2,705,000.00 11/20/2017 1.000 0.810 1.000 0.650 0.500 0.900 0.625 1.220 0.700 0.650 1.250 1.100 1.200 0.625 0.670 1.050 1.125 1.000 1.050 0.700 0.850 0.700 1.000 0.010 0.010 0.250 0.010 0.266 1.140 1.086 0.880 1.086 0.706 0.543 0.978 0.679 1.325 0.760 0.628 1.358 1.195 1.304 0.615 0.728 1.141 1.222 1.086 1.141 0.760 0.923 0.760 1.014 0.010 0.009 0.553 0.519 0.361 1.238 Adjusted Interest Earnings Interest Amortization/ Adjusted Interest Earned Accretion Earnings 1,666.67 1,350.00 1,666.67 1,083.34 833.34 1,500.00 1,041 .67 2,033.33 1,166.66 1,083.34 2,083.33 1,833.33 2,000.00 1,041 .66 1,116.67 1,750.00 1,875.00 1,666.66 1,750.00 1,166.67 1,416.66 1,166.67 1,000.00 0.14 0.05 300.41 3.98 1,298.71 2,569.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -118.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 -97.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,666.67 1,350.00 1,666.67 1,083.34 833.34 1,500.00 1,041 .67 2,033.33 1,166.66 964.40 2,083.33 1,833.33 2,000.00 944.55 1,116.67 1,750.00 1,875.00 1,666.66 1,750.00 1,166.67 1,416.66 1 '166.67 1,000.00 0.14 0.05 300.41 3.98 1,298.71 2,569.75 Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP IE (PRF _IE) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 CUSIP Investment# Fund Fund: Treasury Fund 3133EELR9 2317 99 3133EECX6 2313 99 3133EDKF8 2291 99 3133EECG3 2311 99 3133EC7H1 2260 99 3133EC6F6 2258 99 2050003183-6 2283 99 3135GOXR9 2269 99 SO COUNTY POOL 9007 99 31315PW88 2316 99 Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/201512:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015 -12:14 Security Ending Type Par Value MC1 2,000,000.00 MC1 2,000,000.00 MC1 2,000,000.00 MC1 1,030,000.00 FAC 3,000,000.00 FAC 3,000,000.00 BCD 81 ,784.76 MC1 2,000,000.00 LA3 11,294,298.31 MC1 2,000,000.00 Subtotal 84,437,765.05 Total 84,437,765.05 Month End Interest Earnings February 1, 2015 -February 28, 2015 Beginning Ending Maturity Current Annualized Book Value Book Value Date Rate Yield 1,999,005.56 1,999,047.22 01/27/2017 0.625 0.706 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 11/25/2016 0.610 0.663 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 07/29/2016 0.550 0.597 1,030,000.00 1,030,000.00 11/20/2017 1.140 1.238 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 08/17/2015 0.340 0.369 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 06/01/2015 0.350 0.380 81 ,784.76 81 ,784.76 01/22/2016 0.030 0.030 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 09/06/2016 0.550 0.597 13,294,298.31 11,294,298.31 0.571 0.519 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 01/08/2018 1.300 1.412 --- 84,543,862.82 84,440,558.16 0.798 84,543,862.82 84,440,558.16 0.798 Interest Earned 1,041 .67 1,016.66 916.67 978.50 850.00 875.00 1.91 916.66 5,291 .37 2,166.67 51,519.82 51,519.82 Page 2 Adjusted Interest Earnings Amortization/ Accretion 41.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -174.39 -174.39 Adjusted Interest Earnings 1,083.33 1,016.66 916.67 978.50 850.00 875.00 1.91 916.66 5,291 .37 2,166.67 51,345.43 51,345.43 Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP IE (PRF _IE) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.5 Month End Duration Report Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type Through 02/28/2015 Security ID 3135GOXR9 3136G1XZ7 3134G4PXO 3134G4WJ3 3134G4WH7 3133EDKF8 3134G55T8 3130A1ZX9 3134G56A8 3134G55X9 3130A25S1 3134G56NO 3134G5A47 3134G5BL8 3136G23GO 3134G4UCO 3130A35R1 3134G5LH6 3136G2A23 3130A3FY5 3134G5PP4 3133EECG3 3133EECG3 3133EECX6 3130A3MH4 3130A3N59 31315PW88 3133EELR9 Investment# Fund 2269 2274 2277 2284 2285 2291 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 Issuer Fannie Mae Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Agricultural Mortgage Federal Farm Credit Bank Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/2015 12:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015 -12:14 Investment Class Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Book Value 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,002,014.10 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,030,000.00 2,705,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,999,047.22 Page 1 Par Value 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,030,000.00 2,705,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 Market Current Value Rate 1,994,980.00 .5500000 1,998,500.00 .6700000 1,995,780.00 .5000000 1 ,999,140.00 .6250000 2,000,720.00 .9000000 1,996,900.00 .5500000 1,999,780.00 .7000000 1,996,820.00 1.050000 2,000,480.00 1.000000 1,995,500.00 .8100000 1,999,580.00 .7000000 1,994,580.00 1.000000 1 ,999,140.00 .6500000 2,002,600.00 1.220000 1,996,860.00 1.050000 2,000,720.00 .6500000 2,000,060.00 .8500000 1,996,760.00 1.100000 1,996,700.00 1.200000 1,998,420.00 .7000000 2,000,580.00 1.250000 1,030,309.00 1.140000 2,705,811.50 1.140000 1,997,060.00 .6100000 2,006,820.00 1.000000 1,986,340.00 1.125000 2,000,000.00 1.300000 1,996,340.00 .6250000 YTM Current 360 Yield 0.542 0.661 0.493 0.616 0.888 0.542 0.690 1.036 0.986 0.799 0.690 0.986 0.641 1.203 1.036 0.570 0.838 1.085 1.184 0.690 1.233 1.124 1.124 0.602 0.986 1.110 1.282 0.616 1.055 0.712 0.661 0.653 0.882 0.661 0.706 1.115 0.990 0.922 0.712 1.119 0.674 1.170 1.115 0.624 0.848 1.162 1.533 0.746 1.240 1.129 1.129 0.696 0.866 1.372 1.300 0.722 Maturity/ Modified Call Date Duration 09/06/2016 12/19/2016 06/27/2016 09/19/2016 03/20/2017 07/29/2016 12/12/2016 08/22/2017 06/16/2017 03/10/2017 12/19/2016 06/26/2017 12/30/2016 10/17/2017 08/15/2017 07/29/2016 01/06/2017 10/30/2017 11/28/2017 11/25/2016 12/12/2017 11/20/2017 11/20/2017 11/25/2016 09/29/2017 12/29/2017 01/08/2018 01/27/2017 1.497 1.784 1.314 1.535 2.021 1.401 1.764 2.434 2.255 1.999 1.783 2.281 1.814 2.567 2.416 1.402 1.826 2.608 2.676 1.716 2.717 2.662 2.662 1.718 2.535 2.766 2.786 1.889 Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP DU (PRF _DU) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.5 Month End Duration Report Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type Investment Securi~ ID Investment# Fund Issuer Class 3133EC6F6 2258 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 3133EC7H1 2260 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 3135GOYE7 2286 99 Federal National Mortage Assoc Fair 2050003183-6 2283 99 California Bank & Trust Amort LA IF 9001 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair LAIF BABS 2010 9012 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair SO COUNTY 9007 99 San Diego County Fair Report Total t = Duration can not be calculated on these investments due to incomplete Market price data. Data Updated: SET_ME8: 03/18/201512:13 Run Date: 03/18/2015-12:14 Through 02/28/2015 Book Par Value Value 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,001,731.79 2,000,000.00 81 ,784.76 81,784.76 8,585,947.78 8,585,947.78 0.00 0.00 11,294,298.31 11,294,298.31 83,699,823.96 83,697,030.85 Page 2 Market Current YTM Value Rate 360 3,001 ,320.00 .3500000 0.345 3,001 ,980.00 .3400000 0.335 2,003,760.00 .6250000 0.558 81,784.76 .0300000 0.030 8,585,779.32 .2660000 0.262 0.00 .2670000 0.263 11,201,000.00 .5710000 0.563 83,562,904.58 Current Yield 0.262 0.208 0.498 0.030 0.266 0.267 0.571 0.763 Maturity/ Modified Call Date Duration 06/01/2015 0.252 08/17/2015 0.463 08/26/2016 1.477 01/22/2016 0.896 t 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.460t Portfolio OTA Y NL! AP DU (PRF _DU) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.5 Check Total 7,060.69 9,061.37 9,590.06 4,295.40 LAND SURVEYING (1/1/15-1/31/15)7,202.50 7,202.50 131374348 02/25/15 AQUA AMMONIA 1,602.00 2042510 03/04/15 15024 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 16 02/11/15 14,853.21 2042603 03/18/15 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131374349 02/25/15 AQUA AMMONIA 2,693.40 71,458.40 71,458.40 2042602 03/18/15 11462 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 1318 02/19/15 DEVELOPER PROJECTS (1/10/15-2/6/15)14,853.21 CAL 2000 (CHLORINE GENERATOR)567.00 567.00 2042509 03/04/15 12174 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 25 02/12/15 DISINFECTION SYSTEM (ENDING 1/30/15) 2042601 03/18/15 14479 ADVANCED CALIBRATION DESIGNS 26175 02/23/15 960208 02/19/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 466.90 960513 02/26/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 431.59 960690 03/02/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 520.85 960514 02/26/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 493.38 960367 02/23/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 707.21 960207 02/19/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 539.48 960144 02/18/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,329.09 960425 02/24/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,115.26 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,996.09 960119 02/17/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,990.21 2042600 03/18/15 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES 960255 02/20/15 959773 02/10/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 474.75 959575 02/05/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 356.06 959893 02/12/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 487.50 959896 02/12/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 479.65 959574 02/05/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 692.50 960058 02/16/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 640.51 959625 02/06/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 980.88 959754 02/09/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 805.30 959824 02/11/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,347.73 959920 02/13/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,218.25 16,390.00 2042508 03/04/15 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES 959579 02/05/15 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,578.24 420.00 420.00 2042599 03/18/15 15285 A & D FIRE SPRINKLERS INC S489 02/23/15 FIRE EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION 16,390.00 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE (1/2/15)268.00 268.00 2042598 03/18/15 15416 24 HOUR ELEVATOR INC 17739 02/01/15 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE (FEB 2015) 12202320 01/30/15 COMMUNITY OUTREACH / DESAL (JAN 2015)2,887.08 2042507 03/04/15 15416 24 HOUR ELEVATOR INC 17274 01/07/15 Amount 2042506 03/04/15 15645 (W)RIGHT ON COMMUNICATIONS INC 12202319R 01/30/15 COMMUNITY OUTREACH (A) (JAN 2015)4,173.61 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Page 1 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 11,360.00 38.50 2042463 02/25/15 16096 CARMEN GIANDONI Ref002439039 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000012002 902.65 902.65 26.00 26.00 2042607 03/18/15 02758 CARMEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 7863 02/27/15 DESTRUCTION SERVICES (2/26/15)38.50 UB Refund Cst #0000084118 88.10 88.10 2042462 02/25/15 16102 CARLY SELIGA Ref002439046 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000158846 2042461 02/25/15 16100 CARLOS GONZALEZ Ref002439043 02/23/15 372.85 2042460 02/25/15 01004 CALOLYMPIC SAFETY 336514 01/19/15 SODIUM HYDROXIDE 131.20 131.20 375.00 375.00 2042517 03/04/15 08490 CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST 101312015 02/04/15 RETENTION / ARRIETA 372.85 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY (THRU 1/31/15)2,812.00 2,812.00 2042606 03/18/15 16171 BURGIN, BRUNO 03162015BB 03/17/15 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 2042605 03/18/15 08156 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 593315 02/24/15 2,090.00 2042516 03/04/15 03584 BIOTECHNICAL SERVICES INC 1401318 02/09/15 EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION 1,200.00 1,200.00 150.00 150.00 2042560 03/11/15 15570 BEYOND IDEAS LLC OWD04 03/01/15 CONSULTING SERVICES (12/1/14-03/01/15)2,090.00 UB Refund Cst #0000121291 95.00 95.00 2042515 03/04/15 06520 BENSKIN, RONALD 022415 03/02/15 SAFETY BOOT REIMBURSEMENT 2042459 02/25/15 15932 BART JARVIS Ref002439044 02/23/15 15,261.46 2042559 03/11/15 16121 AUDREY MCNEIL Ref002439343 03/09/15 UB Refund Cst #0000001883 49.68 49.68 7,084.15 7,084.15 2042514 03/04/15 12810 ATKINS 1806936 02/11/15 2015 WFMP UPDATE (11/3/14-12/28/14)15,261.46 UB Refund Cst #0000182511 24.70 24.70 2042513 03/04/15 05753 ARRIETA CONSTRUCTION INC 101312015 02/04/15 CALAVO PHASE 1 (ENDING 1/31/15) 2042558 03/11/15 16124 ARMANDO MEDINA Ref002439347 03/09/15 307.74 2042512 03/04/15 01509 ARC ERGONOMICS 43205 02/04/15 ROLLERMOUSE PRO 634.88 634.88 1,110.00 1,110.00 2042557 03/11/15 08967 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS EAP 41288 02/23/15 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG (MAR 2015)307.74 PAGERS (FEB 2015)252.54 252.54 2042458 02/25/15 00002 ANSWER INC 11251 02/22/15 ANSWERING SERVICES (MONTHLY) 2042556 03/11/15 06166 AMERICAN MESSAGING L1109570PC 03/01/15 CM201510 02/04/15 MGMT/INSP (1/1/15-1/31/15)1,150.00 CM201509 02/05/15 MGMT/INSP (1/1/15-1/31/15)900.00 CM201506 02/04/15 MGMT/INSP (1/1/15-1/31/15)2,850.00 CM201508 02/04/15 MGMT/INSP (1/1/15-1/31/15)1,650.00 27.11 2042511 03/04/15 14462 ALYSON CONSULTING CM201507 02/04/15 MGMT/INSP (1/1/15-1/31/15)4,810.00 13,025.00 13,025.00 2042457 02/25/15 16106 ALEXANDRA VINSON Ref002439050 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000213094 27.11 2042604 03/18/15 15024 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 17 03/02/15 LAND SURVEYING (2/1/15-2/28/15) Page 2 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 1,186.00 24,999.16 2,822.00 LAB ANALYSIS (2/13/15-2/19/15)510.00204261603/18/15 03227 ENVIROMATRIX ANALYTICAL INC 5030375 03/02/15 675.00 2042523 03/04/15 03227 ENVIROMATRIX ANALYTICAL INC 5020472 02/09/15 LAB ANALYSIS (1/26/15-2/2/15)480.00 480.00 731.57 731.57 2042615 03/18/15 08023 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 0068259IN 01/31/15 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (JAN 2015)675.00 SLUDGE HAULING (2/4/15-2/5/15)2,175.00 2,175.00 2042522 03/04/15 16117 EARL HEM 4223030215 03/02/15 CUSTOMER REFUND 2042521 03/04/15 05959 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 0000359155 02/11/15 73.19 2042520 03/04/15 01797 DELL ENTERPRISES 196876 02/05/15 RETIREMENT PLAQUE 64.26 64.26 356.00 356.00 2042467 02/25/15 16099 DAVID LIPPS Ref002439042 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000076040 73.19 EXCAVATION PERMITS (JAN 2015)1,110.70 1,110.70 2042614 03/18/15 02122 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 2014121901214 12/19/14 PERMIT FEES # 01214 (MAR 2015 - MAR 2016) 2042562 03/11/15 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DPWAROTAYMWD011502/06/15 EXCAVATION PERMITS (DEC 2014)1,925.60 DPWAROTAYMWD0115a02/06/15 EXCAVATION PERMITS (JAN 2015)896.40 11/30/14 TAPE STORAGE (NOV 2014)443.08 443.08 2042613 03/18/15 00099 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DPWAROTAYMWD1214a01/13/15 14,377.72 19676CPT 02/19/15 UPS REPLACEMENT 10,621.44 2042519 03/04/15 12334 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC DS1265637 INTERNET CIRCUITS (MAR 2015)3,047.00 3,047.00 2042612 03/18/15 03288 COMPUTER PROTECTION 19670CPT 02/19/15 UPS REPLACEMENT 2042561 03/11/15 15616 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC 0001030115 03/01/15 77825 02/27/15 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 166.00 77826 02/27/15 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 166.00 77827 02/27/15 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 246.00 77824 02/27/15 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 192.00 60.00 2042611 03/18/15 04119 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 77823 02/27/15 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 416.00 4,373.37 4,373.37 2042610 03/18/15 08895 CITY OF LA MESA 16965 03/12/15 LIVE SCAN SERVICES 60.00 GARDEN TOUR (1/21-22/15)540.00 540.00 2042466 02/25/15 15256 CIGNA GROUP INSURANCE / LINA 9267022515 02/25/15 AD&D & SUPP LIFE INS (MAR 2015) 2042609 03/18/15 02026 CHULA VISTA ELEM SCHOOL DIST AR044171 02/17/15 10,420.00 2042608 03/18/15 14673 CGR MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LLC 10316005 02/19/15 PROJECT MANAGEMENT (12/31/14-2/13/15)23,844.73 23,844.73 72,317.50 72,317.50 2042465 02/25/15 15177 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 138728 12/09/14 DESIGN 870-2 PS (11/1/14-11/30/14)10,420.00 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 2,033.94 2,033.94 2042518 03/04/15 15177 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 139795 02/10/15 DESIGN 870-2 PS (1/1/15-1/31/15) 2042464 02/25/15 04653 CARO, PATRICIA pc02202015 02/20/15 2042463 02/25/15 16096 CARMEN GIANDONI Ref002439039 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000012002 902.65 902.65 Page 3 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 1,000.00 2,363.99 5,954.70 1,799.00967016301402/18/15 WAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 578.73 136.25 136.25 2042623 03/18/15 00101 GRAINGER INC 9670092601 02/18/15 INSULATED TOOLS 1,220.27 GPS MODEMS 286.21 286.21 2042622 03/18/15 02634 GRACIA, GUSTAVO 030315 03/03/15 SAFETY BOOTS REIMBURSEMENT 2042530 03/04/15 14948 GPS INSIGHT LLC 923903 08/11/14 81.00 2042621 03/18/15 13563 FRIENDS OF THE WATER 236 03/02/15 GARDEN TOURS (2/3/15-2/20/15)4,340.00 4,340.00 81.00 81.00 2042566 03/11/15 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2439648 03/12/15 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 81.00 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 390.00 390.00 2042470 02/25/15 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2439122 02/26/15 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 2042565 03/11/15 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2439646 03/12/15 62.93 2042469 02/25/15 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2439120 02/26/15 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 390.00 390.00 130.20 130.20 2042564 03/11/15 11962 FLEETWASH INC x427650 02/13/15 VEHICLE WASHING 62.93 VEHICLE WASHING 39.06 39.06 2042529 03/04/15 11962 FLEETWASH INC x422790 02/06/15 VEHICLE WASHING 2042620 03/18/15 11962 FLEETWASH INC x431470 02/20/15 232.75 2042528 03/04/15 02591 FITNESS TECH 9425 02/01/15 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE (FEB 2015)135.00 135.00 262.45 262.45 2042527 03/04/15 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES - SD 034808 02/13/15 COFFEE SUPPLIES 232.75 ONLINE DOCUMENTS 99.00 99.00 2042619 03/18/15 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES - SD 035378 03/02/15 COFFEE SUPPLIES 2042618 03/18/15 12187 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003400215 02/28/15 INVENTORY 4,050.00 0501680 02/04/15 AIR-VAC PARTS 1,904.70 2042526 03/04/15 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0501825 02/10/15 750.00 2042525 03/04/15 14320 EUROFINS EATON ANALYTICAL INC L0203335 02/10/15 OUTSIDE LAB SERVICES (1/20/15-1/21/15)215.00 215.00 321.93 321.93 2042617 03/18/15 14320 EUROFINS EATON ANALYTICAL INC L0204954 02/23/15 OUTSIDE LAB SERVICES (2/9/15)750.00 UB Refund Cst #0000205527 22.07 22.07 2042563 03/11/15 16129 ERIKA MEDINA Ref002439352 03/09/15 UB Refund Cst #0000208658 2042468 02/25/15 16105 ERICA PRETZER Ref002439049 02/23/15 LABORATORY CERTIFICATION 1,377.53 745256 02/16/15 LABORATORY CERTIFICATION 986.46 5020820 02/23/15 LAB ANALYSIS (2/9/15-2/12/15)135.00 2042524 03/04/15 02259 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE 744579 02/09/15 LAB ANALYSIS (2/13/15-2/19/15)510.00 5020697 02/18/15 LAB ANALYSIS (2/4/15-2/10/15)355.00 2042616 03/18/15 03227 ENVIROMATRIX ANALYTICAL INC 5030375 03/02/15 Page 4 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 17,819.00 6,701.57 57,332.65 90.03 5,200.00 3,854.75 13,798.93 15,297.53 BILL PRINTING SERVICES (FEB 2015)11,648.47 89822 02/27/15 BILL PRINTING SERVICES (FEB 2015)3,649.06 2042630 03/18/15 08969 INFOSEND INC 89823 02/27/15 0105976 02/20/15 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (1/1/15-1/30/15)985.00 0105971 02/20/15 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (12/1/15-1/30/15)965.00 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (1/14/15-1/30/15)7,012.50 0105983 02/20/15 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (1/1/15-1/30/15)4,836.43 2042629 03/18/15 15622 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 0105969 02/20/15 0105465 01/26/15 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (11/22/14-12/31/14)745.00 0105466 01/26/15 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (10/25/14-12/31/14)240.00 -210.00 0105442 01/23/15 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (11/22/14-12/31/14)1,991.00 0105443 01/23/15 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS (11/22/14-12/31/14)1,088.75 2042474 02/25/15 15622 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 0105464 CREDIT MEMO 00029158 02/27/15 TRAFFIC CONTROL (2/27/15)1,280.00 00029132 02/25/15 TRAFFIC CONTROL (2/25/15)1,200.00 02/26/15 TRAFFIC CONTROL (2/26/15)1,400.00 00029126 02/24/15 TRAFFIC CONTROL (2/24/15)1,320.00 46.67 4001021015 02/10/15 WATER USAGE (12/5/14-2/6/15)43.36 2042628 03/18/15 06511 HUDSON SAFE-T-LITE RENTALS 00029146 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (1/1/15-1/31/15)6,411.72 6,411.72 2042473 02/25/15 00062 HELIX WATER DISTRICT 3986021015 02/10/15 WATER USAGE (12/5/14-2/6/15) 2042627 03/18/15 02008 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL 51869 02/17/15 10 02/26/15 CORROSION SERVICES (9/28/14-11/1/14)21,901.00 11 02/26/15 CORROSION SERVICES (11/2/14-11/29/14)10,152.04 111.61 2042626 03/18/15 10973 HDR ENGINEERING INC 13 02/26/15 CORROSION SERVICES (12/27/14-1/24/15)25,279.61 1,150.00 1,150.00 2042567 03/11/15 16130 HAZARD CONSTRUCTION CO.Ref002439353 03/09/15 UB Refund Cst #0000208766 111.61 SCADA INTERFACE 1,320.00 1,320.00 2042532 03/04/15 15370 HALAX2 INC 105 02/03/15 SOFTWARE PROGRAMMING 2042472 02/25/15 00174 HACH COMPANY 9221210 01/30/15 HACH ANALYZERS 3,405.29 9266197 03/02/15 HACH APA6000 3,296.28 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000214072 1,872.03 1,872.03 2042625 03/18/15 00174 HACH COMPANY 9216640 01/28/15 8,909.50 12742 01/27/15 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (JAN 2015)8,909.50 2042471 02/25/15 16109 GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DI Ref002439053 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (FEB 2015)8,909.50 8,909.50 2042531 03/04/15 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 12659 12/22/14 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (DEC 2014) 2042624 03/18/15 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 12828 02/26/15 Page 5 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 1,123.10 371.25 1,826.17 115.39 115.39 2042537 03/04/15 00237 MISSION JANITORIAL & ABRASIVE 44788700 02/06/15 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 1,826.17 REPROGRAPHICS 34.18 34.18 2042482 02/25/15 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 21443272 01/23/15 CLARIFIER BAFFLE WALL MATERIALS 2042481 02/25/15 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0091773IN 02/19/15 25.32 2042536 03/04/15 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0091756IN 02/23/15 REPROGRAPHICS 575.48 575.48 69.01 69.01 2042480 02/25/15 16107 MARISHA WILLIAMS Ref002439051 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000213162 25.32 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (FEB 2015)6.90 6.90 2042573 03/11/15 16122 MARIA HAYES Ref002439344 03/09/15 UB Refund Cst #0000003822 2042572 03/11/15 03019 LOPEZ, JOSE 020115022815 03/06/15 5,750.00 2042479 02/25/15 03019 LOPEZ, JOSE 010115013115 02/04/15 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (JAN 2015)9.20 9.20 245.16 245.16 2042478 02/25/15 13749 LONDON GROUP REALTY ADVISORS 1029 02/20/15 ECONOMIC OUTLOOK REPORT 2016-2021 5,750.00 INTERNSHIP AGREEMENT (2/2/15-2/6/15)247.50 247.50 2042635 03/18/15 12843 LAWTON GROUP, THE 52023 03/06/15 INTERNSHIP AGREEMENT (1/23/15-1/27/15) 2042477 02/25/15 12843 LAWTON GROUP, THE 52009 02/13/15 INTERNSHIP AGREEMENT (2/9/15-2/13/15)247.50 52020 02/27/15 INTERNSHIP AGREEMENT (2/16/15-2/20/15)123.75 2042535 03/04/15 12843 LAWTON GROUP, THE 52015 02/20/15 500.00 2042534 03/04/15 15810 LANCE PICOTTE SAFETY CONSLTNG 0205150R 02/05/15 SAFETY TRAINING (1/22/15)240.00 240.00 33.74 33.74 2042634 03/18/15 12276 KONECRANES INC SDG00984639 02/19/15 HOIST INSPECTION 500.00 UB Refund Cst #0000207220 49.73 49.73 2042571 03/11/15 16123 KEVIN ALEXANDER Ref002439346 03/09/15 UB Refund Cst #0000045394 2042570 03/11/15 16127 JOE KRAWCZYK Ref002439350 03/09/15 27.83 2042476 02/25/15 16097 JOANN HOLDERMAN Ref002439040 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000036452 61.86 61.86 35.69 35.69 2042475 02/25/15 16101 JESSEL PAYTE Ref002439045 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000124029 27.83 DUSTO INSPECTIONS (FEB 2015)100.00 100.00 2042569 03/11/15 16125 JERAD HARGIS Ref002439348 03/09/15 UB Refund Cst #0000197509 647017 02/25/15 CHLORINE TP 3,123.10 2042633 03/18/15 02269 JENAL ENGINEERING CORP 15542 02/26/15 5,328.74 2042632 03/18/15 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 647037 CREDIT MEMO -2,000.00 205.00 205.00 2042568 03/11/15 13899 INTERMEDIA.NET INC 1503001494 03/01/15 EMAIL SERVICES (2/2/15-3/2/15)5,328.74 BILL PRINTING SERVICES (JAN 2015)1,960.44 1,960.44 2042631 03/18/15 02372 INTERIOR PLANT SERVICE INC 10931 02/20/15 PLANT SERVICES (FEB 2015) 2042533 03/04/15 08969 INFOSEND INC 89000 02/04/15 Page 6 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 1,313.44 1,145.85 1,266.24 163.34 54.10 1,720.04 1,720.04 2042640 03/18/15 05497 PAYPAL INC 39125252 02/28/15 PHONE PAYMENT SVCS (FEB 2015)54.10 RESERVOIR COATING (ENDING 1/30/15)193,769.35 193,769.35 2042577 03/11/15 16126 PACIFIC GREEN LANDSCAPE INC Ref002439349 03/09/15 UB Refund Cst #0000205444 753800078001 02/04/15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 29.80 2042576 03/11/15 15856 OLYMPUS AND ASSOCIATES INC 2 03/04/15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 82.06 753800303001 02/04/15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 51.48 756857858001 02/23/15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 19.97 2042539 03/04/15 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 753911028001 02/04/15 756583396001 02/24/15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 107.99 756583395001 02/20/15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 45.19 756382154001 02/19/15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 280.55 755230078001 02/12/15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 154.98 OFFICE SUPPLIES 345.68 756583066001 02/20/15 OFFICE SUPPLIES 311.88 2042639 03/18/15 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 757162458001 02/24/15 10,953.27 2042638 03/18/15 00745 NEWARK 26205660 02/18/15 CRIMPING KIT 343.44 343.44 11,153.27 11,153.27 2042483 02/25/15 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2439108 02/26/15 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 10,953.27 UNIFORM SERVICES 100.95 100.95 2042575 03/11/15 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2439634 03/12/15 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 340227690 02/16/15 UNIFORM SERVICES 100.95 2042574 03/11/15 15136 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 340226599 02/09/15 340225748 02/03/15 UNIFORM SERVICES 122.28 340226844 02/10/15 UNIFORM SERVICES 122.28 UNIFORM SERVICES 400.17 340226845 02/10/15 UNIFORM SERVICES 400.17 S340228355 02/17/15 UNIFORM SERVICES 73.44 2042538 03/04/15 15136 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 340225749 02/03/15 340229002 02/23/15 UNIFORM SERVICES 100.95 340230251 03/02/15 UNIFORM SERVICES 94.15 340227940 02/17/15 UNIFORM SERVICES 122.28 340229223 02/24/15 UNIFORM SERVICES 122.28 UNIFORM SERVICES 400.17 340229224 02/24/15 UNIFORM SERVICES 400.17 2042637 03/18/15 15136 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 340227941 02/17/15 1,826.17 2042636 03/18/15 00237 MISSION JANITORIAL & ABRASIVE 44788701 02/18/15 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 232.37 232.37 2042537 03/04/15 00237 MISSION JANITORIAL & ABRASIVE 44788700 02/06/15 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 1,826.17 Page 7 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 1,028.16 125.00 150.00 150.00 2042488 02/25/15 02586 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR 201500951 02/10/15 ASSESSOR DATA (1/5/15)125.00 UB Refund Cst #0000066527 137.80 137.80 2042487 02/25/15 01700 RUBALCAVA, GILBERT 021715 02/23/15 SAFETY BOOT REIMBURSEMENT 2042486 02/25/15 16098 ROBERT WOMER Ref002439041 02/23/15 474.09 2042544 03/04/15 16112 ROBERT TAYLOR OR KAREN TAYLOR 030215 03/02/15 CLAIM SETTLEMENT 405.00 405.00 137.32 137.32 2042651 03/18/15 16170 ROBERT ACKERLY 2424031215 03/13/15 CUSTOMER REFUND 474.09 WELDING REPAIRS (2/5/15 & 2/12/15)1,956.00 1,956.00 2042581 03/11/15 03741 RIVAS, JUAN 030115 03/05/15 SAFETY BOOT REIMBURSEMENT 2042650 03/18/15 00521 RICK POST WELD & WET TAPPING 9919 02/19/15 22,612.03 2042543 03/04/15 00521 RICK POST WELD & WET TAPPING 9903 02/04/15 REPAIR WELDING SVCS 420.00 420.00 192.71 192.71 2042649 03/18/15 08972 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 0041161 02/19/15 CAMPO ROAD SUPPORT (1/1/15-1/30/15)22,612.03 TRASH SERVICES (MAR 2015)530.33 530.33 2042542 03/04/15 15857 REPUBLIC SERVICES INC #509 0509005910097 02/25/15 TRASH SERVICES (MAR 2015) 2042580 03/11/15 15857 REPUBLIC SERVICES INC #509 0509005908555 02/25/15 112.14 2042485 02/25/15 16103 RANDAL BIGELOW Ref002439047 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000196860 75.00 75.00 116.69 116.69 2042579 03/11/15 08412 RAFAEL PEREZ JR Ref002439345 03/09/15 UB Refund Cst #0000014802 112.14 UB Refund Cst #0000214892 7.15 7.15 2042484 02/25/15 16104 RACHEL YOUNG Ref002439048 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000204086 2042578 03/11/15 16131 RAAD AL SAMARIE Ref002439354 03/09/15 SAFETY SUPPLIES 903.42 33313301 02/13/15 SAFETY SUPPLIES 124.74 2042541 03/04/15 01342 R J SAFETY SUPPLY CO INC 33313300 02/04/15 176,421.57 2042648 03/18/15 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYSTEM Ben2439636 03/12/15 BI-WEEKLY PERS CONTRIBUTION 176,606.11 176,606.11 1,355.00 1,355.00 2042540 03/04/15 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYSTEM Ben2439110 02/26/15 BI-WEEKLY PERS CONTRIBUTION 176,421.57 BUSINESS CARDS 30.08 30.08 2042647 03/18/15 03613 PSOMAS 104170 02/23/15 AS-NEEDED DESIGN (ENDING 1/29/15) 2042646 03/18/15 15642 PRINT BUTTON, THE 7778 02/19/15 1,799.02 2042645 03/18/15 03274 PREMIER PHOTOGRAPHY 1781 02/24/15 OUTSIDE SERVICES 205.20 205.20 87,500.00 87,500.00 2042644 03/18/15 03351 POSADA, ROD 030115030515 03/09/15 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMB (3/1/15-3/5/15)1,799.02 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 571.35 571.35 2042643 03/18/15 15948 PICA PIPELINE INSPECTION AND 103 02/28/15 INSPECTION ASSESSMENT (12/18/14-2/28/15) 2042642 03/18/15 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 031715 03/17/15 2042641 03/18/15 08398 PEERLESS MATERIALS COMPANY 45617 02/19/15 RAGS 388.80 388.80 Page 8 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 114,686.68 1,753.00 500.00 2,146.69 2,146.69 2042586 03/11/15 03516 SPECIAL DISTRICT RISK 0001022515 02/25/15 PROPERTY DEDUCTIBLE 500.00 2014-15 WORKERS' COMP (4/1/15-6/30/15)65,408.00 65,408.00 2042493 02/25/15 03516 SPECIAL DISTRICT RISK 49982 02/10/15 ADDITIONAL INSURANCE 2042656 03/18/15 03516 SPECIAL DISTRICT RISK 50348 03/02/15 C55450 02/10/15 AC MAINTENANCE (MONTHLY)480.00 C55440 02/10/15 AC MAINTENANCE (MONTHLY)205.00 2,500.98 2,500.98 2042550 03/04/15 15176 SOUTHCOAST HEATING &C55432 02/10/15 AC MAINTENANCE (MONTHLY)1,068.00 DESAL PROJ CONSULTANT (FEB 2015)4,000.00 4,000.00 2042549 03/04/15 15771 SMART DESIGN COMMERCIAL 458 02/10/15 FLOORING REMODEL 2042585 03/11/15 13327 SILVA-SILVA INTERNATIONAL 1503 03/01/15 235.00 2042548 03/04/15 15307 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABS INC 5C02002 03/02/15 LABORATORY SERVICES (2/18/15)230.00 230.00 235.00 235.00 2042492 02/25/15 15307 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABS INC 5B19004 02/19/15 LABORATORY SERVICES (2/11/15)235.00 GEARDRIVE SEAL 43.85 43.85 2042655 03/18/15 15307 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABS INC 5C11062 03/11/15 LABORATORY SERVICES (3/4/15) 2042491 02/25/15 14785 SEW-EURODRIVE INC 216024 01/26/15 1,844.67 2042547 03/04/15 07783 SCRIPPS CENTER FOR EXECUTIVE 25755 01/31/15 EXECUTIVE PHYSICAL 1,949.63 1,949.63 46.49 46.49 2042654 03/18/15 07783 SCRIPPS CENTER FOR EXECUTIVE 25827 02/28/15 EXECUTIVE PHYSICAL 1,844.67 LANDSCAPE CONTEST ADVERTISEMENT 21.82 21.82 2042490 02/25/15 16108 SANDY MILLER Ref002439052 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000214016 022415 02/24/15 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)777.89 2042546 03/04/15 15471 SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT 791.11 02/17/15 61,347.03 022515 02/25/15 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)28,156.62 021915 02/19/15 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)24,405.14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)66,040.69 66,040.69 2042584 03/11/15 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 022615 02/26/15 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 2042653 03/18/15 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 030615 03/06/15 900.00 2042652 03/18/15 00247 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 491096 02/25/15 BID ADVERTISEMENT 102.30 102.30 460.90 460.90 2042545 03/04/15 00003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTH 0000001166 02/10/15 MWD SCWS - HEWs 900.00 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 460.90 460.90 2042489 02/25/15 03752 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF Ben2439118 02/26/15 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 2042583 03/11/15 03752 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF Ben2439644 03/12/15 125.00 2042582 03/11/15 02586 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR 201501617 03/05/15 ASSESSOR DATA (2/11/15)125.00 125.00 2042488 02/25/15 02586 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR 201500951 02/10/15 ASSESSOR DATA (1/5/15)125.00 Page 9 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 699.62 1142633271 01/14/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (1/9/15-2/5/15)79.98 1142633270 01/14/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (1/9/15-2/5/15)79.98 1142666844 01/30/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (1/30/15-2/26/15)79.98 1142655728 01/25/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (1/21/15-2/17/15)79.98 1142687571 02/07/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (2/6/15-3/5/15)79.98 1142687569 02/07/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (2/7/15-3/6/15)79.98 1142726182 02/24/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (2/18/15-3/17/15)79.98 1142687572 02/07/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (2/6/15-3/5/15)79.98 1142633272 01/14/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (1/9/15-2/5/15)80.08 1142567336 12/22/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (12/12/14-1/8/15)80.08 1142612197 01/11/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (1/1/15-1/28/15)98.17 1142687574 02/07/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (2/6/15-3/5/15)80.08 547.50 2042553 03/04/15 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 1142666416 01/30/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (1/29/15-2/25/15)98.17 150.00 150.00 2042660 03/18/15 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF 220150480 03/01/15 UNDERGROUND ALERTS (MONTHLY)547.50 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT (2/1/15-3/6/15)26.00 26.00 2042499 02/25/15 15257 TRUESDALE, DENNIS 020715 02/23/15 SAFETY BOOTS REIMBURSEMENT 2042659 03/18/15 14177 THOMPSON, MITCHELL 020115030615 03/10/15 11.94 2042591 03/11/15 14177 THOMPSON, MITCHELL 020115022815 02/18/15 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (FEB 2015)36.23 36.23 184.61 184.61 2042590 03/11/15 16128 THOMAS LYNN Ref002439351 03/09/15 UB Refund Cst #0000207455 11.94 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 184.61 184.61 2042589 03/11/15 15926 TEXAS CHILD SUPPORT UNIT Ben2439650 03/12/15 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 2042497 02/25/15 15926 TEXAS CHILD SUPPORT UNIT Ben2439124 02/26/15 5,000.00 2042496 02/25/15 16095 TERRY DARDEN Ref002439038 02/23/15 UB Refund Cst #0000004417 161.56 161.56 1,900.00 1,900.00 2042658 03/18/15 02376 TECHKNOWSION INC 2562 02/23/15 SCADA UPGRADES 5,000.00 CUSTOMER REFUND 375.61 375.61 2042588 03/11/15 01834 TC CONSTRUCTION CO INC 102282015 03/02/15 BLOW OFF RELOCATION (ENDING 2/28/2015) 02/26/15 MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION TO LTD 4,891.09 4,891.09 2042551 03/04/15 16116 TAI PHAM 2266030215 03/02/15 488.05 0332618IN 02/26/15 PLOTTER PAPER & CARTRIDGES 211.57 2042495 02/25/15 15974 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL Ben2439106 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL 90.00 90.00 2042657 03/18/15 03738 STEVEN ENTERPRISES INC 0332600IN 02/26/15 PLOTTER PAPER & CARTRIDGES 2042587 03/11/15 05755 STATE WATER RESOURCES 7789030915 03/09/15 2042494 02/25/15 05755 STATE WATER RESOURCES 6746022315 02/23/15 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL 90.00 90.00 Page 10 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 1,476.32 178.15 105,895.23 7,045.36 3,336.93 ALARM SYSTEMS (1/15/15)12,189.00 412408 02/15/15 MONTHLY SERVICES 24.99 2042498 02/25/15 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION, THE 405590 01/22/15 412410 02/15/15 MONTHLY SERVICES 24.99 412409 02/15/15 MONTHLY SERVICES 24.99 412405 02/15/15 MONTHLY SERVICES 24.99 412407 02/15/15 MONTHLY SERVICES 24.99 1485 PS INSTALLATION (THRU 2/12/15)3,186.99 412406 02/15/15 MONTHLY SERVICES 24.99 9740971575 02/21/15 WIRELESS SERVICES (1/22/15-2/21/15)184.42 2042552 03/04/15 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION, THE 412623 02/12/15 9740971573 02/21/15 WIRELESS SERVICES (1/22/15-2/21/15)1,362.14 9740971574 02/21/15 WIRELESS SERVICES (1/22/15-2/21/15)479.28 8,150.93 8,150.93 2042596 03/11/15 03329 VERIZON WIRELESS 9740971569 02/21/15 WIRELESS SERVICES (1/22/15-2/21/15)5,019.52 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 5,553.92 5,553.92 2042502 02/25/15 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2439116 02/26/15 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 2042595 03/11/15 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2439642 03/12/15 13,404.65 2042594 03/11/15 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2439640 03/12/15 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 13,452.63 13,452.63 105.00 105.00 2042501 02/25/15 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2439114 02/26/15 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 13,404.65 SECURITY SERVICES (FEB 2015)900.20 900.20 2042500 02/25/15 01878 VACLAVEK, JACOB 7992021915 02/19/15 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL REIMBURSEMENT 2042663 03/18/15 06829 US SECURITY ASSOCIATES INC 962656 02/28/15 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY)105,895.23204259303/11/15 07674 US BANK CC20150223198 02/23/15 594.27 2042592 03/11/15 16132 UPWARD TREND Ref002439355 03/09/15 UB Refund Cst #0000215266 75.37 75.37 4,984.45 4,984.45 2042597 03/12/15 00335 UNITED STATES POSTMASTER 031015 03/10/15 POSTAGE 594.27 PREPAID POSTAGE MACHINE 6,000.00 6,000.00 2042554 03/04/15 00335 UNITED STATES POSTMASTER 49952115 02/11/15 POSTAGE 2042662 03/18/15 00350 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 3951011715 03/17/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (2/26/15-3/25/15)98.17 1142742441 02/28/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (2/27/15-3/26/15)79.98 1142567333 12/22/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (12/13/14-1/9/15)79.98 2042661 03/18/15 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 1142742123 02/28/15 1142567335 12/22/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (12/12/14-1/8/15)79.98 1142567334 12/22/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (12/12/14-1/8/15)79.98 1142633269 01/14/15 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (1/10/15-2/6/15)79.98 1142583503 12/29/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (12/24/14-1/20/15)79.98 Page 11 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 34,791.90 412985 02/20/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413258 02/26/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412999 02/20/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412996 02/20/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413005 02/20/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413002 02/20/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413069 02/23/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413067 02/23/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413073 02/23/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413071 02/23/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413077 02/23/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413075 02/23/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413141 02/24/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413139 02/24/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413146 02/24/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413144 02/24/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412924 02/19/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413151 02/24/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412817 02/17/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412931 02/19/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412822 02/17/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412819 02/17/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412877 02/18/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412824 02/17/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412881 02/18/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412879 02/18/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412886 02/18/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412883 02/18/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412927 02/19/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 680.00 412889 02/18/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 655.00 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 1,882.98 413407 03/02/15 TREATMENT PLANT INSTALLATION (2/27/15)1,108.00 2042666 03/18/15 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION, THE 412988 02/20/15 405591 01/01/15 ALARM SYSTEMS (COMPLETED 2/13/15)7,309.00 409211 01/22/15 ALARM SYSTEMS 3,950.90 ALARM SYSTEMS (1/15/15)12,189.00 405585 01/27/15 ALARM SYSTEMS 11,343.00 2042498 02/25/15 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION, THE 405590 01/22/15 Page 12 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 413147 02/24/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/23/15-3/31/15)36.00 413152 02/24/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/23/15-3/31/15)36.00 413142 02/24/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/23/15-3/31/15)36.00 413145 02/24/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/23/15-3/31/15)36.00 413078 02/23/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/20/15-3/31/15)39.00 413140 02/24/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/23/15-3/31/15)36.00 413074 02/23/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/20/15-3/31/15)39.00 413076 02/23/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/20/15-3/31/15)39.00 413070 02/23/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/20/15-3/31/15)39.00 413072 02/23/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/20/15-3/31/15)39.00 413006 02/20/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/19/15-3/31/15)40.00 413068 02/23/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/20/15-3/31/15)39.00 413000 02/20/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/19/15-3/31/15)40.00 413003 02/20/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/19/15-3/31/15)40.00 412989 02/20/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/19/15-3/31/15)40.00 412997 02/20/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/19/15-3/31/15)40.00 412932 02/19/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/18/15-3/31/15)41.00 412986 02/20/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/19/15-3/31/15)40.00 412936 02/19/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/18/15-3/31/15)41.00 412925 02/19/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/18/15-3/31/15)41.00 412887 02/18/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/17/15-3/31/15)42.00 412890 02/18/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/17/15-3/31/15)42.00 412882 02/18/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/17/15-3/31/15)42.00 412884 02/18/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/17/15-3/31/15)42.00 412878 02/18/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/17/15-3/31/15)42.00 412880 02/18/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/17/15-3/31/15)42.00 412823 02/17/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/16/15-3/31/15)43.00 412825 02/17/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/16/15-3/31/15)43.00 412818 02/17/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/16/15-3/31/15)43.00 412821 02/17/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/16/15-3/31/15)43.00 413324 02/27/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 272.00 412928 02/19/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/18/15-3/31/15)66.97 413265 02/26/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 412935 02/19/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 272.00 413260 02/26/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 413262 02/26/15 FACILITY SECURITY CONVERSIONS 451.00 Page 13 of 14 Check Total Amount CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 2/19/2015 - 3/18/2015 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 20,287.95 247.36 247.36 Amount Pd Total:1,738,837.19 Check Grand Total:1,738,837.19 HYDRANT METER ACCESSORIES 1,351.02 1,351.02 2042505 02/25/15 03151 ZHAO, MING 120714121114 01/22/15 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMB (12/7/14-12/11/14) 2042504 02/25/15 15751 ZENNER PERFORMANCE METERS INC 0025048IN 08/11/14 115.00 2042555 03/04/15 15596 WEBB INFORMATION SYSTEMS 6826 01/23/15 DESKTOP COMPUTERS 7,862.40 7,862.40 144.33 144.33 2042668 03/18/15 01343 WE GOT YA PEST CONTROL 95274 02/27/15 BEE REMOVAL 115.00 HYDRAULIC MODELING (ENDING 1/31/15)1,030.00 1,030.00 2042667 03/18/15 03781 WATTON, MARK 020115022815 03/16/15 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT (FEB 2015) 2042503 02/25/15 15726 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 1284 01/31/15 0.00 2042665 03/18/15 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION, THE 0.00 0.00 413325 02/27/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/26/15-3/31/15)33.00 2042664 03/18/15 15807 WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION, THE 0.00 413263 02/26/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/25/15-3/31/15)34.00 413266 02/26/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/25/15-3/31/15)34.00 413259 02/26/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/25/15-3/31/15)34.00 413261 02/26/15 MONTHLY SERVICES (2/25/15-3/31/15)34.00 Page 14 of 14