Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-14 Board Packet 1 OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DISTRICT BOARDROOM 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY October 1, 2014 3:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS OF JULY 2, 2014 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 CONSENT CALENDAR 6. ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION, UNLESS A REQUEST IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PARTICULAR ITEM: a) APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE DISTRICT’S PURCHASING MAN- UAL SECTION 12, DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY, IN ORDER TO STREAMLINE AND EXPEDITE THE DISPOSAL PROCESS, PRO- VIDE CLARITY TO INTENT, AND TO ALIGN DISPOSAL PROCEDURES WITH DISTRICT POLICY b) APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH OLYMPUS & ASSO- CIATES, INC. FOR THE 944-1, 944-2 & 458-2 RESERVOIR INTE- RIOR/EXTERIOR COATINGS AND UPGRADES PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,206,008 2 c) APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH RAP ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE 870-1 RESERVOIR ACCESS ROAD PAVING PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $207,362.02 d) APPROVE UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 33622 WITH CALTRANS FOR ROUTES 11/125/905 CONNECTOR RAMPS BLOW OFF RELOCATION PROJECT e) APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. FOR THE DESIGN OF THE OTAY MESA DESALINATION CONVEYANCE AND DISINFECTION SYSTEM PROJECT DECREASING THE CONTRACT BY $364,774 RE- SULTING IN A LOWER CONTRACT AMOUNT WITH AECOM OF AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $3,681,932 ACTION ITEMS 7. ADMINISTRATION, FINANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4243 SUPPORTING THE CITY OF SAN DI- EGO’S NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT AS PART OF A LONG-RANGE REGIONAL WATER REUSE PLAN WITH THE GOAL OF REALIZING A SECONDARY EQUIVALENT POINT LOMA WASTEWATER TREATMENT (KENNEDY) 8. ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS a) APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH PIPELINE INSPECTION & CONDITION ANALYSIS CORPORATION FOR INSPEC- TION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF THE RALPH W. CHAPMAN WATER RECYCLING FACILITY 14-INCH FORCE MAIN IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $302,092 (MARCHIORO) 9. BOARD a) DISCUSSION OF THE 2014 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR INFORMATIONAL ITEM 10. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMA- TIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS: a) ANNUAL DIRECTOR’S EXPENSE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 (BENHAM) 3 b) FISCAL YEAR-END 2014 STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE PLAN REPORT (STEVENS) REPORTS 11. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT a) SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE 12. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS 13. PRESIDENT’S REPORT/REQUESTS RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION 14. CLOSED SESSION a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION [GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9] 1 CASE 15. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 16. REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. THE BOARD MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION 17. ADJOURNMENT 4 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 September 26, 2014, 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 September 26, 2014. /s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT July 2, 2014 1. The meeting was called to order by Vice President Gonzalez at 3:31 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Directors Present: Croucher, Gonzalez, Robak and Thompson Directors Absent: Lopez (out of town on planned vacation) Staff Present: General Manager Mark Watton, Attorney William Shinoff, 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 Information Technology and Administration Adolfo Segura, 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 Thompson and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Robak and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Lopez to approve the agenda. 5. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 19, 2014 A motion was made by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Robak and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Robak and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Lopez to approve the minutes of the special meeting of May 19, 2014. 2 6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA 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: Director Robak pulled items 6a, AWARD A PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT TO ICF INTERNATIONAL IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $375,000 DURING FISCAL YEARS 2015, 2016 AND 2017 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2017); and 6c, AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO RBF CONSULTING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND INSPECTION SUPPORT OF THE 870- 2 PUMP STATION PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $853,485, for discussion. Upon a motion by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Thompson and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Robak and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Lopez to approve the following consent calendar items: b) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED HYDRAULIC MODELING SERVICES AGREEMENT TO WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $175,000 FOR FISCAL YEARS 2015 AND 2016 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2016) d) REJECT ALL BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 624 PRESSURE ZONE PRESSURE REDUCING STATIONS PROJECT e) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4236 TO ESTABLISH THE TAX RATE FOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 27 AT $0.005 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014- 2015 f) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4237 TO CONTINUE WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGES FOR DISTRICT CUSTOMERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015 TO BE COLLECTED THROUGH PROPERTY TAX BILLS 3 g) ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 544 AMENDING SECTION 23.04, CROSS- CONNECTIONS AND BACKFLOW DEVICES, OF THE DISTRICT’S CODE OF ORDINANCES Vice President Gonzalez presented item 6a for discussion: a) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT TO ICF INTERNATIONAL IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $375,000 DURING FISCAL YEARS 2015, 2016 AND 2017 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2017) In response to a question from Director Robak, Environmental Compliance Specialist Lisa Coburn-Boyd stated that the District has worked with ICF International for quite a long time for as-needed environmental services. General Manager Mark Watton indicated that the District also works with other environmental firms, such as RECON and Helix Environmental, on other environmental matters. Director Thompson commented that for smaller projects, the District should consider selecting two to three firms to be “on-call” for projects when needed. He believes that this would result in the District receiving better pricing for projects as the pool of firms would need to compete for the projects. He shared that when he was with the County, the agency selected a pool of firms for each project and the firms understood that they would need to compete for the County projects. In response to Director Thompson’s comments, Chief of Engineering Rod Posada indicated that next month, the District plans to award contracts to two companies for As-Needed Design Engineering Services for CIP projects. The purpose is to have the two companies compete against each other for certain tasks. Mr. Posada indicated that it will be a pilot project and if it is successful, it will be implemented for all such services. Director Thompson stated that he believes that this would provide an element of competition as he felt the District’s current selection process negates the element of competition. Director Croucher stated that staff had looked at this issue and had discussed the efficiency of staff because of the time and effort it takes to go through so many different processes. He indicated that one of the primary items that was discussed is the firm’s ability to meet the District’s needs and quality of service. He agreed with Director Thompson and indicated that consistency of process should be considered too. Vice President Gonzalez indicated that staff plans to launch a pilot program which would address Director Thompson’s concern and requested to see the results of the pilot program. 4 In response to a question from Director Robak, Environmental Specialist Lisa Coburn-Boyd stated that the hourly rate at the bottom of Attachment B of the staff report is the aggregate of all the different positions that could be working on the project. The firm would produce a scope of work, a list of workers that will be working on that task, and the workers’ rates. Ms. Coburn-Boyd noted that the District can always make revisions to what firms submit. Upon a motion by Director Thompson, seconded by Director Robak and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Robak and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Lopez to approve staffs’ recommendation. Vice President Gonzalez presented item 6c for discussion: c) AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO RBF CONSULTING FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AND INSPECTION SUPPORT OF THE 870-2 PUMP STATION PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $853,485 Director Robak commented that the District should have staff with the capability of performing construction management. He inquired why the District does not have a person on staff with this kind of expertise currently. Chief of Engineering Rod Posada indicated that the 870-2 Pump Station Project required at least four to five different experts; an instrumentation person, construction manager, inspector, electrician and mechanic, and several experts in different traits. The consultants are only used for very specialized work. The District is not looking just for construction management, but is hiring many different skills. General Manager Mark Watton stated that the District is really hiring a team, as Chief of Engineering Posada described. It would not be cost effective to staff all of the different expertise. He indicated that the District is trying to avoid hiring staff and then laying them off when the District doesn’t have enough work to keep them busy fulltime. Mr. Watton indicated that a lot of the District’s CIP Projects are managed in-house. He noted that a while back, staff had indicated that if the District were to build another 5 miles of 36-inch pipeline, it would likely hire project and inspection managers for the project. Director Croucher stated that he believes that this matter was discussed in the District’s Budget Workshop that was held on May 19, 2014. In that meeting, staff indicated that there was a substantial amount of savings for the District through a reduction in personnel with the inclusion of necessary contracts. As this 5 information was provided to the board at that time, Director Croucher indicated that he supports staff’s recommendation because he believes it is based upon the board’s policy and direction given at the time of the Budget Workshop. Director Croucher made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation. Director Thompson seconded the motion and indicated that he wished additional information. Engineering Manager Dan Martin indicated in response to comments and questions from Director Thompson, that the RBF contract includes construction management and planning, but does not include the actual construction of the project. The budget for the overall project is $16.5 million. The projected final cost to this point, with all the contracts that the District has in place, is $2.5 million. It was noted that the $2.5 million does not include the construction of the project which is still in the design phase. The Scope of Work will be performed by RBF with the exception of the instrumentation details. RBF will retain a subcontractor to provide this service. The actual scope of work RBF will perform is engaging the construction manager at the 30% design stage where constructability reviews and value engineering is performed. Staff feels that if the District can engage construction managers at an early stage, it will provide savings on the project and on the construction when it starts. Mr. Martin indicated a negotiated piece in the Scope of Work is to have RBF’s instrumentation staff provide a commissioning plan up front which would be included in the specifications. This will ensure that a development plan will be in place once construction commences. Staff also indicated that RBF’s contract includes inspection services. That is, RBF will be responsible for the inspection oversight of the contract and will not bill the District for inspection costs. The motion by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Thompson carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Robak and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Lopez to approve staffs’ recommendation. ACTION ITEMS 8. ADMINISTRATION, FINANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 4238 AMENDING SECTION (C) (6) (e) OF THE DISTRICT’S BOARD OF DIRECTOR’S POLICY 8 TO PROVIDE MORE EFFICIENT AND STREAMLINED REPORTING AND MORE CLOSLY ALIGN ITS LANGUAGE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53065.5 Senior Accountant Wales Benham indicated that staff is requesting that the board adopt Resolution No. 4238 to amend the Board of Director’s Policy 8, 6 Section (C) (6) (e), to provide more efficient and streamlined reporting and more closely align its language with the requirements outlined in Government Code Section 53065.5. Please reference the Committee Action notes (Attachment A) attached to staff’s report for the details of Mr. Benham’s report. General Manager Mark Watton indicated that this item was presented at the Finance, Administration and Communications Committee on June 18, 2014. As the item is a board policy, the Committee requested that it be brought to the full board for consideration. Mr. Watton also indicated that Director Thompson had inquired about the savings that would be realized by providing board and committee packets electronically to the members of the board. Staff’s response is reflected within the Committee Action notes (Attachment A) of the staff report. Director Thompson stated that he requested this item be brought to the board to be transparent and provide information to the public with regard to the use of computer equipment and technology to increase efficiency and reduce District cost. Upon a motion by Director Croucher, seconded by Director Thompson and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Robak and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Lopez to approve staffs’ recommendation. b) APPROVE A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES ON OTAY MESA Public Services Engineering Manager Dan Martin indicated that staff is requesting that the board place a temporary moratorium on the installation of new recycled water facilities in the Otay Mesa area. The District’s recycled water system is located primarily in the Central part of the District. The recycled water system delivers recycled water to customers and is primarily used for irrigation purposes. The District’s ongoing operating costs in support of recycled water include maintaining this separate system and performing inspections of the end user and of regulatory cross-connection testing as required by the State of California. Please reference the Committee Action notes (Attachment A) attached to staff’s report for the details of Mr. Martin’s report. General Manager Mark Watton indicated that this item was reviewed by the Finance Administration and Communications Committee and the committee supported staffs’ recommendations and requested that staff provide an update on the moratorium in six-month. He reported that staff has met the new Utility Director and continues to meet with City of San Diego staff to initiate a dialog and try to solve some of the issues in the Otay Mesa area. He shared that the City’s 7 cost for production was originally $350. Proposition 26 is more specific on how cost for production charges are assessed, who gets charged as a user, and that any excess fees above the actual cost of production would go back to the participating agencies. Mr. Watton indicated that District staff has reviewed the City’s proposed cost study that included a recycled water cost of $800/$900 an acre-foot, which District staff found questionable. The District referred to Proposition 26 and noted to the City some of the problems and issues associated with the cost study. The City pulled the report and hired another firm to review the study and it is believed the new study is proposing $566 an acre-foot. District staff, though, has not yet seen the revised cost study. Mr. Watton also shared that the City is in the process of moving demineralization equipment from the north city west to the Otay Mesa area near the reclamation plant. With other challenges and disputes occurring in the Otay Mesa area with the City, it has resulted in the District having to reevaluate matters in the area. General Manager Watton wished to note that though there are ongoing disputes at one level with the City, he thought it was important to note that the District’s daily interactions with regard to emergency connections, shut-downs, any cooperative issues needed to operate the District’s water system or the City’s water system, these relationships are excellent and are working very well day in and day out. He stated he wished to reiterate that while there are some problems from a contract perspective, the District continues to have a very good working relationship with the City with regard to water deliveries in an emergency. Director Thompson indicated that the Finance, Administration and Communications Committee is aware of this fairly complex set of circumstances between the District and City. He stated that he felt that the District needs to make smart business decisions for its ratepayers and the recommendation to not invest $23 million into a project that may end up producing nothing would avoid a burden to the District’s ratepayers. He stated that he believes that it is also important, as a public agency, to have good cooperation with other agencies and he hopes during this moratorium period that public discussion would be held at a higher level. He indicated that one question that has not been answered is the economic impact on the Otay Mesa area and the prospect for jobs if recycled water is not available for certain industrial uses for cost savings. This may impact prospective employers’ decision when selecting a location for their business. At this time, there is no agreement between the District and the City for recycled water. Director Thompson stated that the District’s first and foremost obligation is to protect its ratepayers. Over the next year, the District will either completely abandon this concept of recycled water in the Otay Mesa area or have tremendous cooperation because the District and the City would receive pressure from other organizations for cheaper water to entice business owners to the area. General Manager Watton stated that the District’s and City’s system in the Otay Mesa area is not cohesive. Part of the $23.5 million investment is to tie the systems together, including a supply line. Mr. Watton indicated that he has met with County supervisors about the impacts to the water supply. He stated that the District can review the impacts in further depth, as well as water availability in 8 the future and an alternative for providing potable water, then bring the information back to the board in the future. Mr. Watton shared that the City wishes to do indirect potable reuse (IPR), which will be part of their plan which will be submitted to the EPA in January for their permit/waiver renewal. Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem commented that the economic impact to the Otay Mesa area is the cost of a higher rate for water, potable versus recycled. He believes that irrigation water is probably a minor impact relative to the cost of capacity fees and the cost related to the installation of an additional system for recycled water for irrigation and commercial purposes. Director Robak commented that this is a very complicated situation that has evolved over many years and is a conflict as the District has to make a decision on whether to invest more money into something that could be functionally obsolete. He inquired if staff is recommending a moratorium in the Otay Mesa area because of the uncertainty of capacity and insufficient water in the future. General Manager Watton stated yes and that the District’s capacity was predicated on the City having sufficient capacity for a peak summer load, which the District is rapidly approaching but it will likely not be met and the District will need to supplement with potable water. In response to a question from Director Robak, General Manager Watton stated the District could manage $566 acre-foot for recycled water, but the question is what the additional cost would be if de-salters are added; plus the City plans to advertise this over a 3-year period which would likely add another $200. Mr. Watton indicated that at a Joint Power Authority’s (JPA) meeting, the JPA had requested that the City postpone its de-salters project until the numbers can be run to determine cost. City staff had indicated that the project is already in progress. The City has a requirement for 1,000 TDS or less and they are at 1,000 or exceeding the limit. Staff has communicated the District’s issues verbally and in writing. Director Croucher indicated that at some point the City will understand this complex situation. The District, however, will get to a point where it will need to make a solid decision for its ratepayers and the board will have to support that decision. He stated that if the moratorium does not change the current situation, then getting out is the best thing to do. Director Thompson stated that if the District decides to support a permanent moratorium, it would have to pay approximately $1 million to $1.5 million of capacity charges to the CWA. He indicated that he felt it would not be right to request that the property owners pay the capacity fee since they were required to install purple pipe for the use of recycled water on their landscapes. Because the properties would be utilizing recycled water on their landscapes, they did not pay the normal capacity fee for their properties. He also indicated that the City is using some of the District’s facilities without paying for its use and the District will have to reserve its rights and establish that this is a cost that our ratepayers 9 should not be paying. Additionally, if the District supports a permanent moratorium, it should analyze how to preserve its rights to request that the City pay for the capacity fees. General Manager Watton stated that the District has been preserving its rights through annual letters and cost estimates to the City and will add the moratorium in the Otay Mesa area to the list. He indicated that he has informed the City’s Water Utilities Director that the District’s board is considering this issue so there is no surprise to the City. Mr. Tim Smith of Chula Vista requested to address this item with the board and indicated that he is not in opposition or support of this item. He commented that industries and customers have paid for the extra purple pipe in the ground. He inquired if there is any consideration for them as they incurred a cost to put the purple pipe in the ground in Otay Mesa and would they be in opposition of a plan by the board to eliminate any delivery of recycled water. General Manager Watton stated that that has been part of the discussion and staff will be putting together another review of this issue and will include a discussion in that area. The report that will be presented to the board at a future date. Upon a motion by Director Thompson, seconded by Director Robak and carried with the following vote: Ayes: Directors Croucher, Gonzalez, Robak and Thompson Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Director Lopez to approve staffs’ recommendation. 9. BOARD a) DISCUSSION OF THE 2014 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR Director Thompson indicated that he will not be able to attend the July 2014 Finance, Administration and Communications Committee meeting as he will out of town on prescheduled vacation. There were no changes to the 2014 Board Meeting Calendar. INFORMATIONAL ITEM 10. THE FOLLOWING ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM: 10 a) FISCAL YEAR 2014 THIRD QUARTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REPORT Engineering Manager Dan Martin provided an update on the District’s third quarter of FY 2014 Capital Improvement Program. He indicated that the FY 2014 budget is broken into 63 projects totaling $13.9 million. The overall expenditures for the second quarter are $5.9 million which is approximately 43% of the FY 2014 budget. Please reference the Committee Action notes (Attachment A) attached to staff’s report for the details of Mr. Martin’s report. In response to a question from Director Robak, Engineering Manager Bob Kennedy indicated that the District is being reimbursed for most of the expenditures for the SR-11 Utility Relocations Sequence I (P2453) Project. Director Thompson stated that he really appreciates staff’s efforts to align the District’s CIP budget forecast with actual expenditures. REPORTS 11. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT Prior to providing his report to the board, General Manager Watton received a service award for ten (10) years of dedicated service. . Vice President Gonzalez stated that General Manager Watton’s knowledge over the past 10 years has brought a lot of stability and credibility to the District and that his leadership is a reflection of District’s employees’ outstanding performance. General Manager Watton presented information from his report which included a Leak Detection Project that detects leaks through listening devices in meters and the valves in pipelines, the Employee Picnic and Holiday Dinner schedule, NIMS/SEMS/ICS Program Review/Training, a possible Water Conservation Demonstration Garden in collaboration with Otay Ranch Town Center, Southwestern College or the City of Chula Vista. Mr. Watton also provided a report on the Rosarito Desalination Project and indicated that NSC Agua filed their environmental documents with SEMARNAT, the equivalent to the Environmental Protection Association (EPA), for the desalination project and for the first segment of the conveyance pipeline to Tijuana. He also indicated that the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) will commence seawater testing this month, and next week the State Department will visit the District. Staff plans to provide them a tour of the proposed facilities on both sides of the border. General Manager Watton also indicated with regard to water supply issues that if the drought continues, CWA may implement water allocations. However, he believes the District is prepared for water allocation should they be implemented next year as it has diversified its water supplies and resources over the years. 11 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE Director Croucher stated that MWD continues the next stage with discussions of the bills, reclassifications, and clarifications with judges. One of the biggest issue has been the water bond and its progress with Legislatures which has been going in circles. General Manager Mark Watton stated that Legislature has gone home for the summer, so the bond is on hold until August. Director Croucher shared that water conservation programs continue with the CWA taking the lead. He also shared that CWA finalized the General Manager’s and General Counsel’s evaluations, and that next month CWA will be moving forward with nominations for Board Officers who will hold office for the next two years. He noted that the Water Conservation Garden will be participating with surrounding agencies through the CWA August Legislative Conservation Outreach and a pre-committee will be held at the Garden which will include a tour of its facilities. General Manager Watton shared that CWA is endorsing the completion of the Bay Delta BDCP’s environmental process. CWA, however, is not endorsing the project although there is a lot of pressure to do so. Mr. Watton believes that the water contractors on the State water project are starting to understand the issues related to the Bay Delta BDCP and are starting to ask more about the financial side of the Bay Delta BDCP. There are some who would like to bypass the environmental process and get approval of the project without a good financial analysis. Some of the agencies, including CWA, are questioning the financial liability of the BDCP and the Delta residents are not too thrilled with the idea that a massive tunnel project will be going through their areas. Developers claim that the project can be completed in 8 years, but it may take up to 10 or 20 years. The Boston Dig, which is smaller than the Bay Delta, took 30 years to complete. Director Thompson inquired about the State Water Bond discussion; if there was a possibility that the District’s Desalination Project on the U.S. side could be funded or partially funded by the State if the water bond were approved. General Manager Watton indicated that through CWA, the District has had some input into the bond discussion. Senator Hueso has authored a proposal for about $10.5 billion and it includes language to bring funding to Southern California. The proposal mentions Desalination and Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) as water projects that could receive funding. It is uncertain though whether the District will be successful in getting the funding as it is not ear marked, but it is noted as a qualifier for project funding. General Manager Watton indicated that the polling of the public, however, indicates that the bond will not be successful if it were in the tens of billions, but it may have a chance of passing if the it were proposed in the single digits ($1 to $9 billion). The speaker proposed a bond for $8 billion and the governor is proposing a $6 billion bond. There is disagreement in the Legislature as to 12 whether they should support a smaller bond or get the vote to remove the $11 billion bond from the ballot in November. We’ll know more when the Legislature returns from its recess in late August. 12. DIRECTORS' REPORTS/REQUESTS Director Thompson stated that he missed the original tour of the Rosarito Desalination Plant site in Mexico and would like to go on the next tour if possible. He also shared that he is serving on the Chula Vista Redevelopment Oversight Board and indicated that the District is one of four agencies, along with the City of Chula Vista, that oversees the constriction of the redevelopment agency and its assets. He stated that the reason there are taxing entities like the Redevelopment Oversight Board is that there are redevelopment agencies that are not motivated to sell for the highest and best prices. The Board’s role is to ensure that redevelopment agencies stay honest, perform work that needs to be accomplished on behalf of the public, and have a reasonable process for disposing of assets. Director Gonzalez shared that the District participated in a Garden Family Plant Fair at the Eastlake Home Depot and an International Friendship Event in Chula Vista. He also shared information about the Gonzalez Scholarship Program that gives back to the kids of the City of Chula Vista by providing funds for college programs and computer equipment. He indicated that the Program recently participated in an event to clean up Rice Canyon in Chula Vista. 13. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Vice Gonzalez adjourned the meeting at 5:26 p.m. ___________________________________ President ATTEST: District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL SUBMITTED BY: Kent Payne Purchasing and Facilities Manager APPROVED BY: Adolfo Segura, Assistant Chief, Admin Services and IT German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF THE DISTRICT'S PURCHASING MANUAL TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve amendments to the District’s Purchasing Manual Section 12, Disposal of Surplus Property, as identified in “Attachment B” in order to streamline and expedite the disposal process, provide clarity to intent, and to align disposal procedures with District policy. COMMITTEE ACTION: See “Attachment A”. PURPOSE: To request that the Board amend the District’s Purchasing Manual as presented in “Attachment B” in order to streamline and expedite the disposal process, provide clarity to intent, and to align disposal procedures with District policy. ANALYSIS: The Board of Directors establishes the operational guidelines and procedures with respect to purchasing materials, equipment, and services necessary to conduct the District’s business as well as 2 procedures for the disposition of surplus items. These procedures are defined and published in the District’s Purchasing Manual. As a normal course of business, the manual is reviewed periodically and changes are recommended that are intended to improve the operation of the District. Surplus Value Criteria and Thresholds Sections 12.1.b and 12.1.c establish the level of authority at which the General Manager may declare items trash, scrap, or surplus. Currently, the General Manager has the authority to declare property surplus and dispose of it only if the original acquisition price of the individual item does not exceed $5,000, regardless of the current residual value. This results in the General Manager periodically presenting to the Board a list of items, most of which have little or no residual value. In order to streamline and expedite the process, the recommendation is to delegate to the General Manager the authority to declare property surplus if the estimated residual value of the individual item is $10,000.00 or less, regardless of the original acquisition price. The items that are declared surplus would continue to be disposed of pursuant to the existing guidelines. Typically, items with a residual value are disposed of by sale through public auction. Items with no remaining useful life are sold for scrap value. Clarifying Language Sections within 12.1 GENERAL have been updated to clarify the intent of each section. Section 12.1.b has been modified to clearly address the disposition of items that retain a useful life and value in the market place but are surplus to the needs of the District. Section 12.1.c has been modified to clearly address the disposition of items that have little or no value to the District nor in the market place. Policy Alignment Section 12.2.1 Auction Sale: Subsection a.4) By Sale to District Employees, has been deleted in its entirety in order to align disposal procedures with the District’s policy that District property shall not be sold to nor given away to District employees. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer None. 3 STRATEGIC GOAL: This action supports the District’s goal to ensure financial health through formalized policies, prudent investing, and efficient operations. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Report Attachment B – Strike-thru Copy, Section 12.1.b and 12.1.c Attachment C – Proposed Copy, Section 12.1.b and 12.1.c ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: AMENDMENT OF THE DISTRICT'S PURCHASING MANUAL TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance, Administration and Communications Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 16, 2014, and the following comments were made:  Staff is recommending that the Board approve amendments to the District’s Purchasing Manual, Section 12, Disposal of Surplus Property, in order to streamline and expedite the diposal process, provide clarity to intent, and to align disposal procedures with District policy.  It was indicated that the Board of Directors establishes the operational guidelines and procedures with respect to purchasing materials, equipment, and services necessary to conduct the District’s business as well as procedures for the disposition of surplus items.  As a normal course of business, the Purchasing Manual is reviewed periodically and changes are recommended that are intended to improve the operation of the District.  Sections 12.1.b and 12.1.c of the Purchasing Manual establishes the level of authority at which the General Manager may declare items trash, scrap, or surplus. Currently, the General Manager has the authority to declare property surplus and dispose of it only if the original acquisition price of the item does not exceed $5,000, regardless of the current residual value. This results in the General Manager periodically presenting to the Board a list of items where most have little or no residual value.  In order to streamline and expedite the process, staff is recommending that the Board delegate to the General Manager the authority to declare property surplus if the estimated residual value of the individual item is $10,000 or less, regardless of the original acquisition price.  The items that are declared surplus would continue to be disposed of pursuant to the existing guidelines. It was indicated that, typically, items with a residual value are disposed through sale at a public auction. Items with no remaining useful life are sold for scrap value.  The committee suggested that language within the Purchasing Manual concerning District property be modified to state that District employees could purchase District surplused equipment as long as they participate as individuals in the public process/auction. The new language is included in attachment B to staffs’ report.  It was indicated that the $10,000 threshold was discussed in two different contexts in the past. The first was with regard to determining the definition of a capital item. The second was that $10,000 is the same level of authority that the General Manager is provided to settle claims. Upon completion of the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent item. Section 12 – Disposal of Surplus Property 12.0 PURPOSE: To provide a standardized method for disposing of materials, supplies and other property, excluding real property, that is surplus to the needs of the District. 12.1 GENERAL: a. a. It is staff’s responsibility to keep the District’s inventories as low as possible and to standardize materials, supplies and equipment used so asin order to minimize the number of articles carried in stock while ensuring that District operations, functions, and requirements can be effectively met. b. Surplus Items - To accomplish this, theThe District’s General Manager shall not less than annually develop, on an as need basis, an inventory of propertiesy that is are surplus to the District’s needs. which retain a useful life and value in the market place. Said inventory shall be and presented it to the Board of Directors at a regularly scheduled board meeting. At and at a minimum, the information provided shall include the quantity and description of the surplus property and a proposed method for said property’sits disposal. The General Manager or his/her designee may declare items with a residual value less than $10,000.00 as surplus to the needs of the District and authorize their disposal. to be trash, scrap, or, for items for which the acquisition cost was $5000.00 or less, as surplus and authorized for disposal. Where the acquisition costresidual value of an item exceedsed $5000.00$10,000.00, only the Board of Directors may declare the property, as surplus and authorized for its disposal. c. Items of Little or No Value – Items that have no value to the District and little or no value in the market place except as scrap or for a purpose other than its originally intended use, tThe General Manager or his/her designee shall have authority to declare District said propertiesy as trash or scrap and for items for which the acquisition cost was $5000.00 or less, as surplusauthorize their disposal. For purposes of this section, “trash” is defined as an item that has no value to the District or in the market place and “scrap” is defined as an item that has no value to the District but may have a nominal value in the market place as a raw or scrap material or for a purpose other that its originally intended use. The General Manager shall inform the Board, through the General Manager’s report presented during a regular board meeting, of any declaration of trash or scrap when the acquisition costvalue of the item was greater than $510,000. 12.2 PROCEDURE: Once property has been declared surplus it shall be the responsibility of the Purchasing and Facilities Manager, in a manner provided herein and approved by the General Manager, to dispose of the surplus property. All property shall be disposed of “as is-where is”, with no warranty or guarantee as to serviceability or usability and where applicable, paid in full in U.S. currency prior to delivery. District property tags shall be removed from the surplus property prior to its disposal. District employees, as private individuals, may purchase District surplus property by participating in auction sales as prescribed in Section 12.2.1 Auction Sale. 12.2.1 Auction Sale: a. Disposal of surplus property may be accomplished through auction sale. 1) Through consignment of items to a vendor, a private auctioneer, licensed and bonded to do business in San Diego County, to sell on behalf of the District. Where authorized by the General Manager, the Purchasing and Facilities Manager shall enter into an agreement with the vendor that has the potential of generating the most market interest and, therefore, the highest net proceeds for the District. The consignment vendor shall, at its expense, advertise the item for sale and shall accept offers for the District, with the District having final acceptance authority. 2) By advertising for sale in a newspaper of general circulation or in any other manner approved by the General Manager. Newspaper ads shall be placed at least two (2) weeks prior to the sale date and shall identify the property for sale. Sealed bids will be solicited unless otherwise directed by the Purchasing and Facilities Manager and the property will be sold to the highest bidder. Bid security shall be provided by requiring that a ten percent (10%) guarantee accompany each bid or aggregated bid. Such bid security shall be in the form of a certified check, cashier’s check, or money order payable to the order of the District. Payment of the balance of the total bid must be made by the successful bidder within twenty-four (24) hours after the award. In the event the successful bidder fails to pay the balance of his bid, the bid security will be forfeited and the award will be made to the next highest responsible bidder. The successful bidder shall be responsible for all required permits, fees and licenses. The property shall be removed from District premises in a time frame established by the Purchasing and Facilities Manager. 3) By participation in a joint municipal/public agency public auction. Where authorized by the General Manager, the District may dispose of surplus property through participation in a joint municipal/public agency auction. 4) By sale to District Employees. Where authorized by the General Manager, the District may dispose of surplus property by sale to District employees through a sealed bid process. a) The General Manager or the Purchasing and Facilities Manager shall ascertain the fair market value of such property and shall post a description of the property together with its fair market value at the District’s business and field offices and shall therein invite the employees to submit sealed informal bids. No bid shall be accepted which is below the stated fair market value for said property. Award shall be made to the highest bidder. b) The Board of Directors, the General Manager and any employee designated by the General Manager, shall be excluded from bidding and shall not be allowed to purchase such surplus property. c) Any employee purchasing such property must certify to the District that such property purchased is for the sole use of the employee and not for resale. Sale of, or gift of said property within one year from the date of purchase may constitute grounds for immediate employee termination. d) The successful bidder shall be responsible for all required permits, fees and licenses. The property shall be removed from District premises in a time frame established by the Purchasing and Facilities Manager. Section 12 – Disposal of Surplus Property 12.0 PURPOSE: To provide a standardized method for disposing of materials, supplies and other property, excluding real property, that is surplus to the needs of the District. 12.1 GENERAL: a. It is staff’s responsibility to keep the District’s inventories as low as possible and to standardize materials, supplies and equipment in order to minimize the number of articles carried in stock while ensuring that District operations, functions, and requirements can be effectively met. b. Surplus Items - The General Manager shall develop, on an as need basis, an inventory of properties that are surplus to the District’s needs. The General Manager or his/her designee may declare items with a residual value less than $10,000.00 as surplus to the needs of the District and authorize their disposal. Where the residual value of an item exceeds $10,000.00, only the Board of Directors may declare the property surplus and authorize its disposal. c. Items of Little or No Value – Items that have no value to the District and little or no value in the market place except as scrap or for a purpose other than its originally intended use, the General Manager or his/her designee shall have authority to declare said properties trash or scrap and authorize their disposal. 12.2 PROCEDURE: Once property has been declared surplus it shall be the responsibility of the Purchasing and Facilities Manager, in a manner provided herein and approved by the General Manager, to dispose of the surplus property. All property shall be disposed of “as is-where is”, with no warranty or guarantee as to serviceability or usability and where applicable, paid in full in U.S. currency prior to delivery. District property tags shall be removed from the surplus property prior to its disposal. District employees, as private individuals, may purchase District surplus property by participating in auction sales as prescribed in Section 12.2.1 Auction Sale. 12.2.1 Auction Sale: a. Disposal of surplus property may be accomplished through auction sale. 1) Through consignment of items to a vendor, a private auctioneer, licensed and bonded to do business in San Diego County, to sell on behalf of the District. Where authorized by the General Manager, the Purchasing and Facilities Manager shall enter into an agreement with the vendor that has the potential of generating the most market interest and, therefore, the highest net proceeds for the District. The consignment vendor shall, at its expense, advertise the item for sale and shall accept offers for the District, with the District having final acceptance authority. 2) By advertising for sale in a newspaper of general circulation or in any other manner approved by the General Manager. Newspaper ads shall be placed at least two (2) weeks prior to the sale date and shall identify the property for sale. Sealed bids will be solicited unless otherwise directed by the Purchasing and Facilities Manager and the property will be sold to the highest bidder. Bid security shall be provided by requiring that a ten percent (10%) guarantee accompany each bid or aggregated bid. Such bid security shall be in the form of a certified check, cashier’s check, or money order payable to the order of the District. Payment of the balance of the total bid must be made by the successful bidder within twenty-four (24) hours after the award. In the event the successful bidder fails to pay the balance of his bid, the bid security will be forfeited and the award will be made to the next highest responsible bidder. The successful bidder shall be responsible for all required permits, fees and licenses. The property shall be removed from District premises in a time frame established by the Purchasing and Facilities Manager. 3) By participation in a joint municipal/public agency public auction. Where authorized by the General Manager, the District may dispose of surplus property through participation in a joint municipal/public agency auction. STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Cameron Assistant Civil Engineer II Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager PROJECT: P2531-001103 P2532-001103 P2535-001103 DIV. NO.: 2 & 5 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to Olympus & Associates, Inc. for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a construction contract to Olympus & Associates, Inc. (Olympus) and to authorize the General Manager to execute a construction contract with Olympus for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project in an amount-not-to exceed $1,206,008 (see Exhibits A-1 & A-2 for Project locations). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a construction contract with Olympus for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project in an amount- not-to exceed $1,206,008. 2 ANALYSIS: In June 2013, the District’s corrosion consultant, V&A Consulting Engineers, completed a Corrosion Control Program (CCP) that addressed the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of corrosion protection systems for the District’s steel reservoirs and buried metallic piping. The CCP included a reservoir maintenance schedule that showed the 944-1 (0.3 MG), 944-2 (3.0 MG), and the 458-2 (1.8 MG) Reservoirs were due to be recoated on both the interior and exterior surfaces. In addition to replacing the coatings of the reservoirs, structural upgrades will be added to comply with the current American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for both Federal (OSHA) and State (Cal-OSHA) levels. An external inspection of the reservoir was performed in 2008 by Utility Service Company, Inc. as part of a multiple tank investigation. An internal inspection was completed in March 5, 2014 by HDR, Inc. (HDR). The recommended coating and structural upgrades, developed with input from engineering and operations staff, are as follows: replace the twenty (20) year old coating on the interior and exterior surfaces, replace the existing level indicators, install a new fall prevention device on the interior ladder, modify anode access ports, replace all anodes, replace the roof vents, install new safety cable lanyards, and add miscellaneous tank penetrations for chlorination and sampling. These upgrades will ensure compliance with AWWA, OSHA, and Cal-OSHA requirements as well as upgrade antiquated equipment on the tank. The Project was advertised on July 23, 2014 on the District’s website and several other publications including the San Diego Daily Transcript. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on August 7, 2014, which was attended by seven (7) contractors. Two (2) 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 August 20, 2014, with the following results: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT CORRECTED BID AMOUNT 1 Olympus & Associates, Inc. Reno, NV $1,206,008.00 2 Advanced Industrial Services, Inc., Los Alamitos, CA $1,252,690.00 3 Farr Construction, Sparks, NV $1,471,771.00 $1,471,770.00 4 Blastco, Inc. Downey, CA $1,592,470.00 5 Paso Robles Tank, Inc. Laguna Hills, CA $1,609,626.00 $1,609,632.52 3 6 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. Alpine, CA $1,946,230.00 7 Utility Service Co., Inc. Perry, GA $1,561,377.00 $2,064,763.92 The Engineer’s Estimate is $1,499,000. The 458-2 Reservoir was part of the 624-2 and 458-2 Reservoir coating project that was bid in August of 2013. On the day of the bid opening, October 29, 2013, three (3) bids were received late due to a FedEx plane arriving late into San Diego. Following District policy, the late bids were returned unopened. Also, the low bidder did not hold the proper certification, as required by the contract documents, and was considered unresponsive. Therefore, per staff’s recommendation, the Board elected to reject all bids. The 624-2 Reservoir Coating was rebid two weeks later and the 458-2 Reservoir was delayed until this fiscal year to avoid the reservoir being out of service during the summer months. The table below describes both the cost of rebidding the 624-2 and the 458-2 reservoirs and the overall savings. Name Original Bid Amount 8/29/13 458-2 Rebid 8/20/14 624-2 Rebid 10/29/13 Difference (+/-) Costs Incurred Between Bids Total Savings 458-2 $446,514 $404,100 -$42,414 $8,080 $34,334 624-2 $1,251,603 $1,199,000 -$82,603 $14,569 $68,034 Total Savings $102,368 Staff reviewed the submitted bids for conformance with the contract requirements and determined that Olympus was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Olympus holds a Class C-33, Painting and Decorating, Contractor’s License, which meets the contract document’s requirements, and is valid through April 30, 2016. Olympus also holds a current QP-2 certification from the Society for Protective Coatings, which was also a requirement. Four (4) references were contacted and all indicated a good performance record on similar projects. An internet background search of the company was performed and revealed no outstanding issues with this company. Staff has verified that the bid bond provided by Olympus is valid. Staff will also verify that Olympus’ Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond are valid prior to execution of the contract. 4 FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2531, as approved in the FY 2015 budget, is $240,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $239,801. See Attachment B-1 for the budget detail. The total budget for CIP P2532, as approved in the FY 2015 budget, is $950,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $750,132. See Attachment B-2 for the budget detail. The total budget for CIP P2535, as approved in the FY 2015 budget, is $640,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $570,634. See Attachment B-3 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 for all three (3) CIP’s. 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 P2531 & P2532 - 944-1 & 2 Reservoir Int-Ext Coating\Staff Reports\10-01-14, Staff Report, 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Coating(KC-BK).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B-1 – Budget Detail for P2531 Attachment B-2 – Budget Detail for P2532 Attachment B-3 – Budget Detail for P2535 Exhibit A-1 – Location Map for 944-1 & 944-2 Exhibit A-2 – Location Map for 458-2 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2531-001103 P2532-001103 P2535-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to Olympus & Associates, Inc. for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/ Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 15, 2014, and the following comments were made:  Staff recommended that the Board award a construction contract to Olympus & Associates, Inc. (Olympus) and to authorize the General Manager to execute a construction contract with Olympus for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project in an amount-not-to exceed $1,206,008.  Staff discussed that the 458-2 and 624-2 Reservoirs coating project were previously bid in August 2013 but were rejected at the October 2013 meeting because the low bidder was deemed unresponsive and three (3) bids were received late and returned unopened.  The project was delayed three months due to rebidding of the project. The 624-2 Reservoir project went out for rebid, and the 458-2 was removed from the project and postponed for a year to avoid having the reservoir out of service during the summer months.  Staff discussed the advertising and selection process and indicated that the District received seven (7) bids on August 20, 2014. Results of the process are shown on Pages 2 and 3 of the staff report.  Olympus submitted the lowest responsible bid. Staff reviewed the bid for conformance and checked references that showed a good overall performance record.  It was noted that as a result of rebidding both the 624-2 and the 458-2 Reservoirs, the District saved over $100,000. That savings includes the cost to rebid each Reservoirs. Details of the costs are provided on Page 3 of the staff report. Following the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board on the consent calendar. ATTACHMENT B-1 – Budget Detail for P2531 SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2531-001103 P2532-001103 P2535-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to Olympus & Associates, Inc. for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/ Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project Date Updated: 8/21/14 Budget 240,000 Planning Standard Salaries 468 468 - 468 Consultant Contracts 3,411 3,411 - 3,411 HDR ENGINEERING INC Regulatory Agency Fees 25 25 - 25 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN Total Planning 3,904 3,904 - 3,904 Design Standard Salaries 4,144 3,144 1,000 4,144 Service Contracts 45 45 - 45 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Construction Contracts 90 90 - 90 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC Total Design 4,279 3,279 1,000 4,279 Construction Standard Salaries 8,479 279 8,200 8,479 Construcion Contract 198,228 - 198,228 198,228 OLYMPUS & ASSOCIATES Service Contracts 7,500 - 7,500 7,500 HDR-SPECIALTY INSPECTION 5,000 - 5,000 5,000 ALYSON CONSULTING-CM Project Closeout 3,000 - 3,000 3,000 CLOSEOUT Project Contingency 9,911 - 9,411 9,411 5% CONTINGENCY Total Construction 232,118 279 231,339 231,618 Grand Total 240,301 7,462 232,339 239,801 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District P2531-944-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Projected Final Cost ATTACHMENT B-2 – Budget Detail for P2532 SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2531-001103 P2532-001103 P2535-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to Olympus & Associates, Inc. for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/ Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project Date Updated: 8/21/14 Budget 950,000 Planning Standard Salaries 468 468 - 468 Consultant Contracts 3,411 3,411 - 3,411 HDR ENGINEERING INC Regulatory Agency Fees 25 25 - 25 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN Total Planning 3,904 3,904 - 3,904 Design Standard Salaries 8,007 6,007 2,000 8,007 Service Contracts 45 45 - 45 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Total Design 8,052 6,052 2,000 8,052 Construction Standard Salaries 60,112 112 60,000 60,112 Construcion Contract 583,680 - 583,680 583,680 OLYMPUS & ASSOCIATES Service Contracts 30,000 - 30,000 30,000 HDR-SPECIALTY INSPECTION 25,200 - 25,200 25,200 ALYSON CONSULTING-CM Project Closeout 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 CLOSEOUT Project Contingency 29,184 - 29,184 29,184 5% CONTINGENCY Total Construction 738,176 112 738,064 738,176 Grand Total 750,132 10,068 740,064 750,132 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District P2532-944-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Projected Final Cost ATTACHMENT B-3 – Budget Detail for P2535 SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2531-001103 P2532-001103 P2535-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to Olympus & Associates, Inc. for the 944-1, 944-2, & 458-2 Reservoir Interior/ Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Project Date Updated: 8/21/14 Budget 640,000 Planning - - - - Total Planning - - - - Design Standard Salaries 11,581 9,581 2,000 11,581 Professional Legal Fees - - - - STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF Consultant Contracts 2,715 2,715 - 2,715 CSI SERVICES INC Service Contracts 4,802 4,802 - 4,802 MAYER 89 89 - 89 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Total Design 19,187 17,187 2,000 19,187 Construction Standard Salaries 53,070 3,070 50,000 53,070 Construcion Contract 424,100 - 424,100 424,100 OLYMPUS & ASSOCIATES Service Contracts 47 47 - 47 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 30,000 - 30,000 30,000 HDR-SPECIALTY INSPECTION 13,000 - 13,000 13,000 ALYSON CONSULTING-CM Regulatory Agency Fees 25 25 - 25 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN Project Closeout 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 CLOSEOUT Project Contingency 21,205 - 21,205 21,205 5% CONTINGENCY Total Construction 551,447 3,142 548,305 551,447 Grand Total 570,634 20,329 550,305 570,634 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District P2535-458-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Projected Final Cost OTAY WATER DISTRICT 944-1 & 944-2 Reservoirs Exterior/Interior Coating ProjectLocation Map EXHIBIT A-1 CIP P2531CIP P2532 F P:\\WORKING\CIP P2531 & P2532 - 944-1 & 2 Reservoir Int-Ext Coating\Graphics\Exhibits-figures\Reservoir Location Map Exhibit 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 !\ VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTSDIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?ò Aä%&s ?p ?Ë F 0 200100 Feet VISTA DIEGO RD SR-94 CAMPO RD944-1Tank0.5 MG Steel Reservoir 944-2 Tank0.5 MG Steel Reservoir "Cé ¹r $R $R $R ¹r ¹r $R ¹r ¹r B r a n d y w i n e A v e O l y m p i c P k w y Morro Point Dr W P o i n t D r Point Barrow Dr Point la Jolla Dr P o i n t D e f i a n c e C t Laguna Point Ct Malibu Point Ct Diablo Point Ct San Pedro Point Ct O l y m p i c P k w y 066065 ! VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTS ?ò Aä ?Ë ;&s DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?p F P:\WORKING\CIP P2493 & P2535 624-2 & 458-2 Reservoir Coating\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\458-2 Location.mxd OTAY WATER DISTRICT458-2 Reservoir Interior/ExteriorCoating and Upgrades EXHIBIT A-2 CIP P2535F 458-2 Tank1.75 MG Steel Reservoir STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Howard Almgren Senior Civil Engineer Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager PROJECT: P2515-001103 DIV. NO.: 2 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to RAP Engineering, Inc. for the 870-1 Reservoir Access Paving Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a construction contract to RAP Engineering, Inc. (RAP Engineering) and to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with RAP Engineering for the 870-1 Reservoir Access Road Paving Project in an amount-not-to exceed $207,362.02 (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 RAP Engineering for the 870-1 Reservoir Access Road Project in an amount-not-to exceed $207,362.02. 2 ANALYSIS: The 870-1 Reservoir is a 10.98 million gallon reservoir in Otay Mesa near the end of Alta Road (see Exhibit A for Project location). The reservoir receives a daily inspection to observe its general condition. Regular maintenance activities or operation are necessary and the existing perimeter dirt road is difficult to travel on any day but can be very difficult during rainy days. The perimeter dirt road, approximately 2,100-feet in length, is in need of repair and the roll gate at the site entrance needs to be replaced. The new road will be 12-feet wide, paved with asphalt concrete on imported crushed aggregate base. The road will also include a “staging” area or vehicle turn around at the reservoir entrance to facilitate future maintenance projects. The Project was advertised on July 18, 2014 on the District’s website and several other publications including the San Diego Daily Transcript. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on July 29, 2014, which was attended by seven (7) contractors. One (1) addendum was 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 August 19, 2014, with the following results: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT 1 RAP Engineering, Inc. Vista, CA $207,362.02 2 A.M. Ortega G.E.C., Inc. Lakeside, CA $210,423.97 3 LC Paving & Sealing, Inc. San Marcos, CA $223,401.00 4 Portillo Concrete, Inc. Lemon Grove, CA $225,614.00 5 TC Construction Co. Santee, CA $226,310.00 6 A.B. Hashmi, Inc. San Diego, CA $238,915.00 7 SRM Contracting & Paving San Diego, CA $246,500.00 8 Kirk Paving, Inc. Lakeside, CA $248,316.00 9 Visionary Construction & Consulting, Inc. Escondido, CA $267,881.82 10 Ramona Paving and Construction Corp. Ramona, CA $284,785.00 The Engineer’s Estimate is $250,000. 3 Three (3) bids were received and were determined to be non- responsive. They were from Miller Paving Corporation, Spring Valley, CA,(incomplete bid); Koch-Armstrong General Engineering, Inc., Lakeside, CA, (Addendum No. 1 not acknowledged in bid); and Eagle Paving Company, Inc., Poway, CA (bid bond not included in bid). Staff reviewed the bids submitted for conformance with the contract requirements and determined that RAP Engineering was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. RAP Engineering holds a Class A, General Engineering, Contractor’s License, which meets the contract document’s requirements, and is valid through June 30, 2015. The reference checks indicated an excellent performance record on similar projects. An internet background search of the company was performed and revealed no outstanding issues with this company. RAP Engineering previously worked with the District’s Operations Department on one previous project and completed the work within budget and on schedule. Staff verified that the bid bond provided by RAP Engineering is valid. Staff will also verify that RAP Engineering Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond are valid prior to execution of the contract. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2515, as approved in the FY 2015 budget, is $550,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $435,553.06. See Attachment B for the budget detail for CIP P2515. 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 for CIP P2515. 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.” 4 LEGAL IMPACT: None. HA/BK:jf P:\WORKING\CIP P2515 - 870-1 Reservoir Paving\Staff Reports\BD 10-1-14\BD 10-01-14, Staff Report, 870-1 Award Construction Reservoir Access Road Paving Project To RAP (HA-BK-RP).Docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2515-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to RAP Engineering, Inc. for the 870-1 Reservoir Access Paving Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 15, 2014, and the following comments were made:  Staff recommended that the Board award a construction contract to RAP Engineering, Inc. (RAP Engineering) and to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with RAP Engineering for the 870-1 Reservoir Access Road Paving Project in an amount-not- to exceed $207,362.02.  Staff stated that the 870-1 Reservoir is a 10.98 MG reservoir in Otay Mesa near the end of Alta Road, and the reservoir receives a daily inspection to observe its general condition.  Staff stated that the existing perimeter dirt road to the reservoir is difficult to travel on any day and can be very difficult on rainy days. The road is in need of repair and the roll gate at the site entrance needs to be replaced.  The proposed new road will be 12 feet wide, 2,100 feet long and paved with asphalt concrete. A “staging” area or vehicle turn around at the reservoir entrance is included to facilitate future maintenance projects.  Staff discussed the advertising and selection process and indicated that ten (10) bids were received. Three (3) additional bids were received and determined by staff to be non-responsive. It was noted that the lowest bid was one of the non-responsive bids and that staff did contact the firm to advise them of their non-responsive bid. Within 24 hours the firm wrote a letter to the District requesting to withdraw its bid as it had several errors; the firm left out items in their bid and also had mathematical errors.  RAP Engineering of Vista, California, was the lowest responsible bidder with a bid of $207,362. The firm has an active Class A license and their Bid Bond was valid. RAP Engineering’s contractor and project manager references were excellent, including one project for the District’s Operations Department.  It was indicated that the FY 2015 Budget is sufficient to support this project. Following the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board on the consent calendar. ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2515-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to RAP Engineering, Inc. for the 870-1 Reservoir Access Paving Project Budget DetaiP25Project - 8/ Date Updated: 8/29/2014 Budget 550,000 Phases Equipment Distribution 350 350 - 350 Total Planning 350 350 - 350 Planning Consultant Contracts 19,890 19,890 - 19,890 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC Regulatory Agency Fees 2,231 2,231 - 2,231 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN Service Contracts 125 125 - 125 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 115 115 - 115 THE STAR-NEWS PUBLISHING CO Standard Salaries 33,740 33,740 - 33,740 Total Planning 56,152 56,152 - 56,152 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 7,615 7,615 - 7,615 MTGL INC 2,716 2,716 - 2,716 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 1,425 1,425 - 1,425 ALTA LAND SURVEYING INC Service Contracts 109 109 - 109 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 2,284 2,038 246 2,284 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 12 12 - 12 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 1,300 1,300 - 1,300 INLAND AERIAL SURVEYS INC Standard Salaries 116,485 112,485 4,000 116,485 Total Design 131,947 127,701 4,246 131,947 Construction Standard Salaries 22,774 2,774 20,000 22,774 Construction Contract 207,362 - 207,362 207,362 RAP ENGINEERING, INC. Construction Management Contract 19,200 - 19,200 19,200 ALYSON CONSULTING Total Construction 249,336 2,774 246,562 249,336 Grand Total 437,784 186,976 250,808 437,784 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District p2515-870-1 Reservoir Paving Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost 27/2014 OTAY WATER DISTRICT870-1 RESERVOIR PAVINGLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A CIP P2515F P:\\working\CIP P2515-870-1 Reservoir Paving\Staff Reports\Exhibit A !\ VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTSDIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?ò Aä%&s ?p ?Ë F 0 800400 Feet PROJECT SITE 870-1RESERVOIR EAST MESADETENTIONFACILITY 571-1RESERVOIR A LT A R O A D OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARY STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Marchioro Senior Civil Engineer Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager PROJECT: P2453- 003102 DIV. NO. 2 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Approve Utility Agreement No. 33622 with Caltrans for Routes 11/125/905 Connector Ramps Blow Off Relocation Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) authorize the General Manager to execute Utility Agreement No. 33622 with Caltrans for Routes 11/125/905 Connector Ramps Blow Off Relocation Project (see attached Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute Utility Agreement No. 33622 with Caltrans for Routes 11/125/905 Connector Ramps Blow Off Relocation Project. 2 ANALYSIS: The Board previously approved a separate utility agreement and a construction contract associated with the SR-11 freeway on July 13, 2013 and January 4, 2014 respectively. The attached utility agreement (Exhibit C) constitutes the second round of potable water utility relocations associated with the freeway. Caltrans required a new/separate utility agreement to comply with Caltrans’ funding requirements. The attached utility agreement includes relocation of an existing 6- inch potable water blow off to accommodate a new freeway overpass. Responding to a request from Caltrans, staff submitted a claim letter dated March 28, 2014, which was revised August 12, 2014, for the utility conflict. The District has prior and superior rights for the relocation. The total planning, design, inspection, and closeout costs incurred by the District for this relocation are estimated to be $74,000. The calculated depreciation cost for the existing blow off is $7,000. The total cost that Caltrans will reimburse the District at completion of the construction work is estimated at $67,000. Consistent with the conditions of all other utility agreements between the District and Caltrans, actual costs may not exceed 125 percent of the estimated cost in the agreement without a revised amendment being executed. The District’s relocations will be constructed through a construction contract administered by the District separately from Caltrans’ freeway construction project. Staff anticipates that the above-described relocations will be awarded for construction at the January 7, 2015 Board Meeting. The installation of the pipelines, including the tie-ins, will not adversely affect any District customers. Staff will coordinate the necessary short-term shutdowns to minimize the impact on system operations. A future Utility Agreement will be presented to the Board for future phases of the SR-11 freeway project including the future SR-11 alignment from Enrico Fermi Drive to a future Port of Entry facility and the U.S. border with Mexico. 3 FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total planning, design, inspection, and closeout costs incurred by the District for this relocation are estimated to be $74,000. The calculated depreciation cost for the existing blow off is $7,000. The total net cost that Caltrans will reimburse the District at completion of the construction work is estimated at $67,000. The total budget for CIP P2453, as approved in the FY 2015 budget, is $2,250,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, accounting for the previous agreement and the attached agreement, is $1,113,430. See Attachment B for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budget for CIP P2453 is sufficient to support the Project. Finance has determined that 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund for CIP P2453. 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. JM/BK:jf P:\WORKING\CIP P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations\Staff Reports\BD 10-01-14, Staff Report, SR-11 Utility Agreement No. 33622 with Caltrans.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Caltrans signed Utility Agreement ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2453-003102 Approve Utility Agreement No. 33622 with Caltrans for Routes 11/125/905 Connector Ramps Blow Off Relocation Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 15, 2014, and the following comments were made:  Staff recommended that the Board authorize the General Manager to execute Utility Agreement No. 33622 with Caltrans for Routes 11/125/905 Connector Ramps Blow Off Relocation Project.  Staff indicated that an existing 6-inch blow off at the current terminus of the SR 125 freeway along Otay Mesa Road must be relocated to accommodate a new freeway overpass. The blow off will be relocated as soon as possible.  It is anticipated that the blow off relocation construction contract will be awarded at the January 7, 2015, regular board meeting.  Staff noted that this is the second round of potable water utility relocations associated with the SR 11 freeway. Caltrans required a new/separate utility agreement to comply with Caltrans’ funding requirements.  Staff stated that the District has prior and superior rights for the relocation. Caltrans will pay for the relocation minus depreciation of the existing facilities. The total cost of the project is $74,000. The depreciation was estimated at $7,000. Following the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board on the consent calendar. ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2453-003102 Approve Utility Agreement No. 33622 with Caltrans for Routes 11/125/905 Connector Ramps Blow Off Relocation Project Date Updated: 8/21/2014 Budget 2,250,000 Planning/Design/Construction - Sequence 1 Standard Salaries 189,428 154,916 34,512 189,428 STAFF LABOR Consultant Contracts 80,450 61,864 18,586 80,450 ATKINS 2,763 2,763 - 2,763 V & A CONSULTING ENGINEERS 970 970 - 970 ALTA LAND SURVEYING INC 4,901 4,901 - 4,901 NARASIMHAN CONSULTING SERVICES 2,561 2,561 - 2,561 CPM PARTNERS INC 30,000 11,550 18,450 30,000 ALYSON CONSULTING Professional Legal Fees 121 121 - 121 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF Service Contracts 1,382 1,382 - 1,382 US BANK 1,382 1,382 - 1,382 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT 2,985 2,985 - 2,985 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 84 84 - 84 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Construction Contract 992,380 84,263 908,117 992,380 COFFMAN SPECIALTIES 49,619 4,435 45,184 49,619 REGENTS BANK 24,063 - 24,063 24,063 CLOSEOUT Total - Sequence 1 1,383,089 334,176 1,048,913 1,383,089 Planning/Design/Construction - 6-inch Blow Off Standard Salaries 19,000 9,483 9,517 19,000 STAFF LABOR Service Contracts 1,500 1,500 1,500 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 3,500 - 3,500 3,500 ALYSON CONSULTING Construction Contract 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 CONSTRUCTION COST EST Total - 6-inch Blow Off 74,000 9,483 64,517 74,000 Grand Total 1,457,089 343,660 1,113,430 1,457,089 Reinbursement Agreements (961,521) - (961,521) (961,521) CALTRANS UTILITY AGREEMENT (285,380) (285,380) (285,380) FUTURE CALTRANS AMENDMENT (74,000) - (74,000) (74,000) CALTRANS UTILITY AGREEMENT Grand Total (1,320,901) - (1,320,901) (1,320,901) Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Projected Final Cost Vendor/Comments Vendor/Comments Otay Water District p2453-SR-11 Utility Relocations Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost ?ò Aä Sanyo Ave Otay Mesa Rd Airway Rd Piper Ranch Rd Harvest Rd Otay Mesa Rd !VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTS ?ò Aä ?Ë ;&s DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?p F P:\WORKING\CIP P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A, Blowof Relocation-Location Map.mxd OTAY WATER DISTRICTPOTABLE 6-INCH BLOW OFF RELOCATIONLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A CIP P2453F 0 650325Feet EXISTING BLOW OFF RELOCATEDBLOW OFF PROPOSEDSR-11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Page 1 of 4 UTILITY AGREEMENT RW 13-5 (REV 6/2012) DISTRICT 11 COUNTY SD ROUTE 11 POST MILE 0.40 -0.40 PROJECT ID 1113000167 EA 288811 FEDERAL PARTICIPATION X073 (108) OWNER’S FILE NUMBER SR 11/125/905 Connector Ramps Blowoff Relocation CIP P2453 FEDERAL PARTICIPATION On the Project Yes No On the Utilities Yes No Owner Payee Data No. VC0000020910 or Form STD 204 is attached UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 33622 DATE ______________ The State of California acting by and through the Department of Transportation, herein after called “STATE” proposes to construct northbound connectors in San Diego County, in and near San Diego at State Route (SR) -11/125/905 separation, and NAME: Otay Water District ADDRESS: 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd., Spring Valley, CA 91978 hereinafter called “OWNER,” owns and maintains a 6-inch potable water blowoff assembly located in the median of Otay Mesa Road within the limits of State’s project which requires relocation to accommodate STATE’s project. It is hereby mutually agreed that: I. WORK TO BE DONE: In accordance with Notice to Owner No. 33622 dated August 21, 2014, OWNER shall relocate the 6-inch potable water blowoff assembly. All work shall be performed substantially in accordance with OWNER’s SR 11/125/905 Connector Ramp Blowoff Relocation CIP P2453 approved August 19, 2014 consisting of seven sheets, a copy of which is on file in the District office of the Department of Transportation at 4050 Taylor Street, MS 310, San Diego, CA, 92110. Deviations from the OWNER’s plan described above initiated by either the STATE or the OWNER, shall be agreed upon by both parties hereto under a Revised Notice to Owner. Such Revised Notices to Owner, approved by the STATE and agreed to/acknowledged by the OWNER, will constitute an approved revision of the OWNER’s plan described above and are hereby made a part hereof. No work under said deviation shall commence prior to written execution by the OWNER of the Revised Notice to Owner. Changes in the scope of the work will require an amendment to this Agreement in addition to the Revised Notice To Owner. II. LIABILITY FOR WORK: The existing facilities are lawfully maintained in their present location and qualify for relocation at STATE expense under the provisions of Section 703 of the Streets and Highways Code. III. PERFORMANCE OF WORK: OWNER agrees to perform the herein described work with its own forces or to cause the herein described work to be performed by the OWNER’s contractor, employed by written contract on a continuing basis to perform work of this type, and to provide and furnish all necessary labor, materials, tools, and equipment required therefore, and to prosecute said work diligently to completion. Use of out-of-state personnel (or personnel requiring lodging and meal “per diem” expenses) will not be allowed without prior written authorization by STATE’s representative. Requests for such authorization must be contained in OWNER’s estimate of actual and necessary relocation costs. Accounting Form FA-1301 is to be completed and submitted for all non- State personnel travel per diem. OWNER shall include an explanation why local employee or contract labor is not considered adequate for the relocation work proposed. Per Diem expenses shall not exceed the per diem expense amounts allowed under the State’s Department of Personnel Administration travel expense guidelines. Exhibit B -----uTitiTY-A:GREEMENT-(cont-;) age2of4 RW 13-5 (REV 6/2012) ----------------------------------------------- Pursuant to Public Works Case No. 2001-059 determination by the California Department of Industrial Relations dated October 25, 2002, work performed by OWNER's contractor is a public work under the defmition of Labor Code Section 1720(a) and is therefore subject to prevailing wage requirements. OWNER shall verify compliance with this requirement in the administration of its contracts referenced above. IV. PAYMENTFORWORK: The STATE shall pay its share of the actual and necessary cost of the herein described work within 45 days after receipt of three (3) copies of OWNER's itemized bill, signed by a responsible official of OWNER's organization and prepared on OWNER's letterhead, compiled on the basis of the actual and necessary cost and expense. The OWNER shall maintain records of the actual costs incurred and charged or allocated to the project in accordance with recognized accounting principles. The OWNER's billing cost to the STATE is $74,000.00. It is understood and agreed that the STATE will not pay for any betterment or increase in capacity of OWNER's facilities in the new location and that OWNER shall give credit to the STATE for the "used life" or accrued depreciation of the replaced facilities and for the salvage value of any material or parts salvaged and retained or sold by OWNER. Not more frequently than once a month, but at least quarterly, OWNER will prepare and submit progress bills for costs incurred not to exceed OWNER's recorded costs as of the billing date less estimated credits applicable to completed work. Payment of progress bills not to exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made under the terms of this Agreement. Payment of progress bills which exceed the amount of this Agreement may be made after receipt and approval by STATE of documentation supporting the cost increase and after an Amendment to this Agreement has been . executed by the parties to this Agreement. The OWNER shall submit a final bill to the STATE within 360 days after the completion of the work described in Section I above. If the STATE has not received a final bill within 360 days after notification of completion of OWNER's work described in Section I of this Agreement, and STATE has delivered to OWNER fully executed Director's Deeds, Consents to Common Use or Joint Use Agreements, if required for OWNER's facilities, STATE will provide written notification to OWNER of its intent to close its file within 30 days and OWNER hereby acknowledges, to the extent allowed by law, that all remaining costs will be deemed to have been abandoned. If the STATE processes a fmal bill for payment more than 360 days after notification of completion of OWNER's work, payment of the late bill may be subject to allocation and/or approval by the California Transportation Commission. The fmal billing shall be in the form of an itemized statement of the total costs charged to the project, less the credits provided for in this Agreement, and less any amounts covered by progress billings. However, the STATE shall not pay fmal bills which exceed the estimated cost of this Agreement without documentation of the reason for the increase of said cost from the OWNER and approval of documentation by STATE. Except, if the fmal bill exceeds the OWNER's estimated costs solely as the result of a Revised Notice to Owner as provided for in Section, I, a copy of said Revised Notice to Owner shall suffice as documentation. In either case, payment of the amount over the estimated cost of this Agreement may be subject to allocation and/or approval by the California Transportation Commission. In any event if the final bill exceeds 125% of the estimated cost of this Agreement, an Amended Agreement shall be executed by the parties to this Agreement prior to the payment of the OWNER'S fmal bill. Any and all increases in costs that are the direct result of deviations from the work described in Section I of this Agreement shall have the prior concurrence of STATE. Detailed records from which the billing is compiled shall be retained by the OWNER for a period of three years from the date of the fmal payment and will be available for audit by State and/or Federal auditors. Owner agrees to comply with Contract Cost Principles and Procedures as set forth in 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31, et seq., 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 645 and/or 18 CFR, Chapter 1, Parts 101, 201, et al. If a subsequent State and/or Federal audit determines payments to be unallowable, OWNER agrees to reimburse STATE upon receipt of STATE billing. Exhibit B UTILITY AGREEMENT (cont.) Page 3 of 4 RW 13-5 (REV 6/2012) UTILITY AGREEMENT NO. 33622 V. GENERAL CONDITIONS: All costs accrued by OWNER as a result of STATE's request of November 5, 2013 to review, study and or prepare relocation plans and estimates for the project associated with this Agreement may be billed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If STATE's project which precipitated this Agreement is canceled or modified so as to eliminate the necessity of work by OWNER, STATE will notify OWNER in writing and STATE reserves the right to terminate this Agreement by Amendment. The Amendment shall provide mutually acceptable terms and conditions for terminating the Agreement. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the passage of the annual Budget Act by the State Legislature and the allocation of those funds by the California Transportation Commission. OWNER shall submit a Notice of Completion to the STATE within 30 days of the completion of the work described herein. It is understood that said highway is a Federal aid highway and accordingly, 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 645 is hereby incorporated into this Agreement. In addition, the provisions of 23 CFR 635.410, BA, are also incorporated into this agreement. The BA requirements are further specified in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), section 1518; 23 CFR 635.410 requires that all manufacturing processes have occurred in the United States for steel and iron products (including the application of coatings) installed on a project receiving funding from the FHWA. OWNER understands and acknowledges that this project is subject to the requirements of the BA law (23 U.S.C., section 313) and applicable regulations, including 23 CFR 635.410 and FHWA guidance and will demonstrate BA compliance by collecting written certification(s) from the vendor(s) or by collecting written certification(s) from the manufacturer(s) (the mill test report (MTR). All documents obtained to demonstrate BA compliance will be held by the OWNER for a period of three (3) years from the date the final payment was received by the OWNER and will be made available to Caltrans or FHWA upon request. One set of copies of all documents obtained to demonstrate BA compliance will be attached to, and submitted with, the final invoice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above written. Exhibit B ----UTILITY AGREEMENT (cont.) RW 13-5 (REV 6/2012) Page4 of4 ~~----------------------------~-~-------------------~~~~~~~~~~~=-----!-=-=~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above_ parties have executed this Agreement the_ day and_ yearabove written. By ---::-o:b~==t-=-="'-=-1==1==---­Name Title APPROVAL RECOMMENDED: Bys~~~ Name SYNDI~TTER Title Utility Coordinator Right of Way Division OWNER: OTAYWATERDISTRlCT By ------------- Name Title By -------------Name Title Date Date THISAGREEMENTSHALLNOTBEEXECUTEDBYTHESTATEOFCAL~ORNIA-DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION UNTIL FUNDS ARE CERT~IED. DO NOT WRITE BELOW-FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES ONLY SPECIAL DIST UNIT DESIGNATION FFY FA II .AY3l} PROJECT ID FUNDING VERIFIED: REVIEW/REQUEST FUNDING: Sign:> Sign> 8'--r.\~2~ ~~ K-\~-\'-\ Print> J Date Print> SYNDI~UTTER Date R/W Planning and Management Utility Coordinator THE ESTIMATED COST TO STATE FOR ITS SHARE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK IS $74,000.00 CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure shown here. ~ --(1,.... ......... _ p.;;o., --r7J ..._... n Planning and Management ITEM CHAP STAT F¥ ~6·~:ff10· :;..J ;)..{) /:J.... Jfo/13 Distribution: 2 originals to RJW Accounting 1 original to Utility Owner 1 original to Utility File Date AMOUNT ~~ (5{)() ·lYD FUND TYPE PROJECTID AMOUNT Design Funds $ Construction Funds $ RWFunds 288819 $74,000.00 Vendor/Customer: VC00000209~\0 Address ID: ADOO$\ Exhibit B STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager CIP./G.F. NO: P2451- 001102 DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to the Contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for the Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board approve Amendment No. 2 to the existing contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) for design of the Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Project decreasing the contract by $364,774 resulting in a lower contract amount with AECOM of an amount not-to-exceed $3,681,932 (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 with AECOM (see Exhibit B) for the Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Project (Project) decreasing the contract by $364,774. 2 ANALYSIS: At the November 3, 2010 Board Meeting, AECOM was awarded a professional engineering services contract for the Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Project. The contract amount approved by the Board was an amount not-to- exceed $3,910,297 to be completed by the end of Fiscal Year 2016. The District restricted AECOM’s work to miscellaneous studies until January 24, 2013 when AECOM was authorized to initiate work on the preliminary design of a large diameter pipeline 3.5 miles long, a pump station, and a disinfection facility, along with the environmental surveys and studies for CEQA/NEPA compliance. In April 2014, the Board approved an amendment to the original contract for additional environmental surveys and project management. The new contract amount, after approval of the amendment, is $4,046,706 and the completion date of the Project was extended to June 30, 2018. The environmental work for the Project has been ongoing since January 2013 and has included coordination with the State Department for the Presidential Permit (PP) application that was submitted to the State Department in November 2013. Due to the need for a PP, the State Department assumes the role of lead agency for the NEPA component of the Project’s CEQA/NEPA environmental analysis. The State Department must comply with the regulations of the Council for Environmental Quality which has very specific Conflict of Interest guidelines. These guidelines state that there can’t be any suggestion of financial interest in the construction of the project by the firm that is completing the project’s environmental work. The original contract with AECOM includes construction services support for the Project and the State Department sees this as a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, this amendment of the original contract will remove the construction services component, resulting in a decrease of the contract amount by $364,774. There will not be a change in the contract completion date for the Project, which remains at June 30, 2018. Since the construction services support will not be able to be provided by AECOM, the District will add these services to the scope of work for the Construction Management of the project. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2451, as approved in the FY 2015 budget, is $30,000,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding 3 commitments and forecast, including this contract, are $6,066,535.61. See Attachment B for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budget is sufficient to support this Project. Finance has determined that 40% of the funding is available from the Expansion Fund and 60% of the funding will be available from the Betterment Fund for CIP P2451. 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 LCB/BK/RP:jf P:\WORKING\CIP P2451 Desalination Feasibility Study\Staff Reports\Board 10-01-14\BD 10-01-14, Staff Report, AECOM Amendment No-2 (LCB-BK).doc Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Contract Amendment No. 2 ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2451-001102 Amendment No. 2 to the Contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for the Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 15, 2014, and the following comments were made:  Staff recommended that the board approve Amendment No. 2 to the existing contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) for design of the Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Project decreasing the contract by $364,774 resulting in a lower contract amount with AECOM of an amount not-to-exceed $3,681,932.  Staff indicated that AECOM was awarded a professional engineering services contract for the Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Project on November 3, 2010 in an amount not- to-exceed $3,910,297.  In April 2014, the board approved amendment #1 to the contract which increased the contract amount by $136,409 for additional environmental survey work and project management. The new contract amount, after amendment #1 is $4,046,076.  The environmental work for the Project has been proceeding and has included coordination with the State Department for the Presidential Permit (PP) application that was submitted to the State Department. Due to the need for a PP, the State Department is the lead agency for the NEPA component of the Project’s CEQA/NEPA environmental analysis.  The State Department must comply with the regulations of the Council for Environmental Quality which has very specific Conflict of Interest guidelines. These guidelines state that there cannot be any suggestion of financial interest in the construction of the project by the firm that is completing the project’s environmental work.  The original contract with AECOM includes construction services support for the Project and the State Department sees this as a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, this amendment of the original contract will remove the construction services component, resulting in a decrease of the contract amount by $364,774. There will be a change in the contract completion date for the Project.  Since the construction services support will not be able to be provided by AECOM, the District will add these services to the scope of work for the Construction Management of the project.  Staff requested that the Committee recommend to the Board that Amendment #2 to the District’s contract with AECOM Technical Services be executed, removing the construction support services task and reducing the contract amount by $364,774, resulting in a new contract amount of $3,681,932.  Staff indicated that the State Department signed the MOU for the project so that the District could begin the CEQA/NEPA process with a condition that the District’s board approves Amendment #2. Following the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board on the consent calendar. ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2451-001102 Amendment No. 2 to the Contract with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for the Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Project Level Title1 Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment Projected Final Cost Vendor Planning $98,577.34 $98,577.34 $98,577.34 CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC $13,311.19 $13,311.19 $13,311.19 CPM PARTNERS INC $71,529.59 $71,529.59 $71,529.59 MARSTON+MARSTON INC $437,200.00 $371,200.00 $66,000.00 $437,200.00 HECTOR I MARES-COSSIO $26,700.00 $26,700.00 $26,700.00 REA & PARKER RESEARCH $4,172.90 $4,172.90 $4,172.90 SALVADOR LOPEZ-CORDOVA $267,066.00 $160,355.05 $106,710.95 $267,066.00 SILVA SILVA INTERNATIONAL Travel $20,046.35 $20,046.35 $20,046.35 STAFF Printing $60.59 $60.59 $60.59 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC $162,041.07 $162,041.07 $162,041.07 GARCIA CALDERON & RUIZ LLP $43,174.50 $43,174.50 $43,174.50 SOLORZANO CARVAJAL GONZALEZ Y $16,609.76 $16,609.76 $16,609.76 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 REBECA SOTURA NICKERSON $105.50 $105.50 $105.50 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT $17,500.00 $17,500.00 $17,500.00 BUSTAMANTE & ASSOCIATES LLC $32,340.00 $32,340.00 $32,340.00 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER Standard Salaries $909,497.19 $909,497.19 $909,497.19 Total $2,120,431.98 $1,947,721.03 $172,710.95 $2,120,431.98 $5,108.75 $5,108.75 $5,108.75 MARSTON+MARSTON INC $120,520.00 $22,320.00 $98,200.00 $120,520.00 MICHAEL R WELCH PHD PE $8,818.00 $8,818.00 $8,818.00 CPM PARTNERS INC $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 ATKINS $3,681,932.00 $862,634.03 $2,819,297.97 $3,681,932.00 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC Legal Fees $7,761.19 $7,761.19 $7,761.19 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF Travel $3,174.39 $3,174.39 $3,174.39 STAFF $342.80 $342.80 $342.80 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE LLC $114.08 $114.08 $114.08 REPROHAUS CORP Standard Salaries $113,002.94 $113,002.94 $113,002.94 Total $3,945,774.15 $1,028,276.18 $2,917,497.97 $3,945,774.15 Construction Standard Salaries $329.48 $329.48 $329.48 Total $329.48 $329.48 $329.48 Budget $30,000,000.00 Total $6,066,535.61 $2,976,326.69 $3,090,208.92 $6,066,535.61 March 23, 2005 through August 30, 2014 Design Consultant Contracts Service Contracts Consultant Contracts Legal Fees Service Contracts 571-136.7 MG 870-110.9 MG OTAY MESA RD EN R I C O F E R M I D R AL T A R D DONOVAN STATEPRISON RD DONOVAN STATEPRISON G. F. BAILEYDETENTION FACILITY !V!V ÍÒ PROPOSEDPUMP STATION A PROPOSEDTREATMENTFACILITY PR O P O S E D P I P E L I N E A 1.25 MILES SA N Y O R D SR - 1 1 FUTURE SR-11 FUT U R E PR O P O S E D P I P E L I N E B !V!V PROPOSEDPUMP STATION B USAUSA MEXICOMEXICO OWD Boundary OWD Boundary P:\ W O R K I N G \ C I P P 2 4 5 1 D e s a l i n a t i o n F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y \ G r a p h i c s \ E x h i b i t s - F i g u r e s | E x h i b i t A . m x d F 0 2,0001,000 Feet OTAY WATER DISTRICT Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection Facility ProjectEXHIBIT A §¨¦ §¨¦ §¨¦ §¨¦ ÃÅ ÃÅ ÃÅ ÃÅ ÃÅ ÃÅ ÃÅ ÃÅ ^_ PROJECTSITE VICINITY MAP NTS DIV. 5 DIV. 2 DIV. 1 DIV. 3 DIV. 4 5 8 8 805 11 9454 94 125 905 125 905 125 3.2 mi. 3.7 mi. 24 mi. Existing OWD Pipelines Proposed Pipeline A Proposed Pipeline B Mexico Pipeline CIP P2451 Contract No. 0001124 EXHIBIT B SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. RELATIVE TO THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE OTAY MESA CONVEYANCE AND DISINFECTION SYSTEM This Second Amendment (“Amendment”) to the original Agreement for Professional Engineering Services is made and entered into as of the _____ day of ______________, 2014, by and between the OTAY WATER DISTRICT ("District"), and AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. ("Consultant"). R E C I T A L S A. District and Consultant entered into that certain Professional Services Agreement dated January 3, 2011 (the "Original Agreement"), under which Consultant agreed to provide the services therein described in connection with the District’s Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System (the “Services”). The Original Agreement was amended on June 16, 2014 (the “Amended Original Agreement”). B. The Amended Original Agreement is due to expire on June 30, 2018 and the Services are 21% complete. C. District and Consultant desire to enter into this Agreement to amend certain specific terms and conditions of the Amended Original Agreement as indicated below. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. Exhibit A to the Amended Original Agreement, setting forth the Services to be provided by Consultant, is hereby amended and supplemented by the attached Exhibit A, Revised and Supplemented Scope of Work, attached to this Second Amendment and incorporated herein by reference. This revision deletes Task 20, Construction Phase Services. CIP P2451 Contract No. 0001124 2. The parties agree that the aggregate amount paid by the District to the Consultant for the Professional Engineering Design Services rendered by Consultant in excess of the original Agreement shall be decreased by an amount not to exceed Three Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Four Dollars ($364,774). Therefore, the total compensation paid by the District for Services described in the amended original contract and this second amendment shall not exceed Three Million Six Hundred Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Two Dollars ($3,681,932). 3. The parties agree that all terms and conditions of the Amended Original Agreement not modified or amended by this Second Amendment, including without limitation all indemnity and insurance requirements, are and shall remain in full force and effect. 4. This Second Amendment is subject to the venue, choice of law and interpretation provisions of the Original Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Second Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first above written. OTAY WATER DISTRICT By: ____________________________ Mark Watton Its: General Manager Date: ___________________________ CONSULTANT: AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. By: Name: Its: Date: Approved as to form: By: _______________________ General Counsel Approved as to form: By: _______________________ Its: _______________________ P:\WORKING\CIP P2451 Desalination Feasibility Study\Agreements-Contracts-RFPs\AECOM\Second Amendment to Existing Agreement.doc Task No.Description Labor Subconsultant Other Direct Costs Fee Previous Fee Difference 20 Construction Phase Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $364,774.00 ($364,774.00) *Tasks 1-19, 21-22 $3,681,932.00 Total ($364,774.00) Total $3,681,932.00 * Tasks 1-6, 8-19 and 22 are not modified or amended by the Second Amendment. The Consultant's fee for these tasks are provided for reference. Exhibit A REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTED SCOPE OF WORK Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\ENGRPLAN\2015\BD 10-1-14\Change Order No 2 with AECOM\Exhibit A, Second Amendment_Revised and Supplemented Scope of Work.xlsx STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager PROJECT: S1502- 001000 DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 4243 Supporting the City of San Diego’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant and to support the Pure Water San Diego Program GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 4243 (Attachment B) supporting the City of San Diego’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as part of a long-range regional water reuse plan with the goal of realizing a secondary equivalent Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (PLWTP). The Pure Water San Diego Program, as a new local sustainable water supply, could also avoid or downsize future imported water projects. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To request that the Board consider supporting the City of San Diego’s NPDES permit as part of a long-range regional water reuse plan. The Clean Water Act of 1972 requires wastewater to be treated to achieve certain protections before ocean discharge. The Ocean Pollution Reduction Act (OPRA) of 1994 allowed the City of San Diego to apply for modified NPDES permits allowing the PLWTP to continue operating at an Advanced Primary Treatment Level while meeting or exceeding all 2 general and specifically negotiated regulatory obligations. To remain operating at the Advanced Primary Treatment Level, the City of San Diego is seeking passage of federal legislation, with support from the environmental community, the proposal called Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II (OPRA II). OPRA II will allow the City of San Diego’s NPDES permit to be based on secondary equivalency with a commitment to implement potable reuse of wastewater. Resolution No. 4243 supports the City of San Diego’s NPDES permit application. A summary of the basis of the Application for the PLWTP 2015 NPDES Modified Permit Renewal is included with Attachment C. ANALYSIS: The Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a coalition of municipalities and special districts in the southern and central portions of San Diego County that share in the use of the City of San Diego's (City) regional wastewater collection and treatment facilities. This coalition represents 35% of the flow and $65 million of the annual budget in relation to the Metro wastewater system. The JPA member agencies include the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, National City, and Poway, the Lemon Grove Sanitation District, the Padre Dam Municipal and Otay Water Districts, and the County of San Diego on behalf of the County Sanitation Districts. Otay Water District contributes approximately 0.5% of the wastewater flow to the Metro wastewater system. Members of the JPA believe that permanent acceptance of a smaller Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant as an Advanced Primary Treatment plant can be achieved through development and implementation of a comprehensive, systematic Regional Water Reuse Plan (Plan). This Plan must increase public awareness, further catalyze customer action through individual water conservation and implement a variety of agency-specific and collaborative large-scale potable water reuse projects. These include indirect potable reuse (IPR), resulting in significant off-loading of the treatment demand on the PLWTP. The City’s PLWTP is currently permitted to treat 240-million gallons of wastewater per day (MGD). The current permit allows treatment to an Advanced Primary Level and is set to expire on July 31, 2015. It takes approximately one year to collect and assemble the data required for the permit application that must be submitted no later than January 2015. That process began in January of this year (2014). 3 The City has 20 years of ocean monitoring data demonstrating that the Advanced Primary PLWTP consistently protects the ocean. The City has estimated the cost of upgrading the PLWTP from Advanced Primary to Full Secondary Treatment Level to $3.5 billion. This high cost of the upgrade, combined with the projected high costs for creating a reliable potable water supply, has led the City to the conclusion that it is possible to divert flow from PLWTP and to treat a portion of this diverted flow to a level suitable for IPR and maintain PLWTP at Advanced Primary without impacting the ocean environment. The product of years of collaboration between stakeholders and technical experts, the Recycled Water Study outlines a concept to divert almost 100 MGD of wastewater that would otherwise have been treated. If this goal can be achieved, the lower flow to the PLWTP could preclude the need for upgrading to a Full Secondary Level, and use the diverted flow to offset the region’s future potable water import needs. The City has successfully completed a 1 MGD Advanced Water Purification Demonstration Project that treats wastewater and yields product water of similar quality to distilled water. The City is expected to present a report on the status of the Pure Water San Diego implementation strategy at a meeting of the City Council prior to submission of the modified NPDES permit renewal application. The City is looking for all stakeholders to approve and support the City’s efforts to develop the budget, structure, staffing, contracts, regulatory packages, legislative strategy, and public outreach programs necessary to support Pure Water San Diego. Part of the consideration of next five year permit is to reduce the total suspended solids (TSS) from the permitted 13,598 tons to 12,000 tons commencing on December 21, 2015. If OPRA II legislation is passed, the TSS will be further reduced to 9,942 tons by December 31, 2027. In addition, funding will be allocated for planning and design work of facilities with the next five (5) years. Current indications are that the City will request, at the Metro Commission meeting of October 2, 2014, the Commission’s support of the City’s January 2015 permit application including many of the details discussed above. The Summary of the Basis of the Application for the PLWTP 2015 NPDES Modified Permit Renewal also provides a schedule for starting various elements of the project including issuing the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic EIR no later than January 30, 2015 and issuing a Notice to Proceed for the first project design no later than January 30, 2017. 4 FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer None. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Resolution 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 innovative in providing water services at affordable rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.” LEGAL IMPACT: The District’s Legal Counsel has reviewed and approved Resolution No. 4243 as to form and legality. BK/RP:jf P:\WORKING\CIP S1502 - City of San Diego Metro Water Issues\Staff Reports\Bd 10-01-14, Staff Report Metro JPA Pure Water Program\Revised Staff Report\BD 10-01-14, Staff Report, Metro JPA-Revised, (BK- RP).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Resolution No. 4243 Attachment C – Summary of the Basis of Application for the PLWTP 2015 NPDES Modified Permit Renewal Attachment D – Metro JPA Power Point Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: S1502-001000 Adopt Resolution No. 4243 Supporting the City of San Diego’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant and to support the Pure Water San Diego Program COMMITTEE ACTION: The Finance, Administration and Communications Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 16, 2014, and the following comments were made:  Staff is recommending that the Board approve Resolution No. 4243 supporting the City of San Diego’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as part of a long-range regional water reuse plan with the goal of realizing a secondary equivalent Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant.  The Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority was formed in 1988. Thirty-five percent of the flow to the Metro Wastewater System is from 11 of the 12 member agencies. The twelfth agency, City of San Diego, accounts for 65% of the flow. The City also owns the system.  Otay WD is a member agency of the Metro Commission and its flow to the Metro system is about 0.5% of the total flow.  The San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater System is comprised of: - The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (PLWTP) with a treatment capacity of 240 million gallons per day (MGD). - North City Water Reclamation Plant (NCWRP) with a treatment capacity of 30 MGD. - South Bay Water Reclamation Plant with a treatment capacity of 15 MGD. - Metro Biosolids Center - Point Loma Ocean Outfall - Metro Wastewater Pump Stations and many of miles of pipeline  The PLWTP is an Advanced Primary Treatment Plant. The plant removes 87 to 88% of solids from water treated at the plant. Secondary Treatment removes 90% of the solids. It was noted that there is only a 2% to 3% difference between Advanced Primary versus Secondary Treatment, however, there is a large difference in the cost. The NCWRP and the SBWRP removes 99% of solids which is termed tertiary treated water.  In 1972, the Clean Water Act was enacted to establish secondary treatment standards for all wastewater discharge.  As the PLWTP is an Advanced Primary Treatment Plant, the City acquires a special waiver every five years from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue to operate as an Advanced Primary Treatment Plant. The State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Coastal Commission also have input into the approval of the City’s permit/waiver.  Staff indicated that in 1994 legislation was passed by Congressman Filner titled, Ocean Pollution Reduction Act (OPRA), which is only applicable to the PLWTP. The legislation allows the PLWTP to operate as an Advanced Primary Treatment Plant.  The present PLWTP permit will expire on July 31, 2015 and the application for renewal of the permit must be submitted by January 2015.  In the past, the City has received the support of the environmental community for a waiver for the PLWTP. However, it is very unlikely the City will receive such support in its request to renew the permit in 2015.  To avoid the requirement to upgrade the PLWTP to Secondary and comply with the Clean Water Act, the City is proposing creating a new local diversified water supply which would save $3.5 billion to upgrade the plant to Secondary. It was noted that the reason the cost to upgrade the plant is so high is that there is no available space to expand and, thus, the upgrades would need to be built upward.  The City has been exploring options to avoid having to upgrade the PLWTP to Secondary and is requesting Federal Legislation, OPRA II, which would allow the PLWTP to be declared an Advanced Primary treatment plant and allow resources to be allocated for alternative water resources; specifically, potable reuse. It was indicated that the City has 20+ years of ocean monitoring data consistently demonstrating that the Advanced Primary PLWTP does not impact the ocean.  To match the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Discharge for Secondary, the PLWTP will reduce its TSS discharge from the permitted 13,600 metric tons to 9,942 metric tons. This would be accomplished by reducing the amount of water processed by the PLWTP. The diverted water (approximately 100 MGD) will be highly treated through an advanced treatment process which would yield water similar in quality to distilled water. This water will be then be fed to the San Vicente or Otay Reservoir where it will be mixed with raw water and retreated to provide for potable water supply (Indirect Potable Reuse).  Staff is recommending that the board support the City of San Diego’s program that: - Provides a new local sustainable water supply (approximately 83 MGD) - Allows the PLWTP to meet secondary equivalency by reducing TSS emissions - Avoids billions of dollars in capital, financing, energy and operating costs - Continues to protect the ocean environment  By adopting Resolution No. 4243, the District is supporting the City’s NPDES Permit Application to provide for the: - PLWTP to remain at the Advanced Primary Treatment Level - Passage of new federal legislation supporting secondary equivalency - Commitment to implement potable reuse of wastewater  It was discussed that the City of San Diego’s Council will be approving this direction and is requesting that all member agencies of the Metro Commission express their support of the City’s plans.  The committee indicated that if the Otay WD supports the City’s plan, it should be communicated to the City that, while it supports the City’s plan, it would like a fair and equitable cost allocation for the studies, etc., and how the new water supply will be allocated/shared. Staff indicated that there have been discussions that possibly the water would be distributed by CWA as a part of the regional water supply. It was also noted that there will need to be discussions on who benefits from the payments from CWA to the City for this new supply. Staff will need to stay in front of all the issues.  Staff stated that the District’s share of the $3.5 billion to upgrade the PLWTP to Secondary is approximately $20 million (0.5% share in PLWTP).  It was indicated that cost allocations have not yet been discussed with regard to the City’s proposed plan, but the District’s staff is involved in all meetings concerning financial and economic discussions with regard to the Metro Commission.  It was also noted that the City has not yet considered within their proposal that Padre Dam MWD may start treating their own sewage which will reduce their flow to the Metro Commission by approximately 20 MGD. Upon completion of the discussion, the committee supported staffs’ recommendation and presentation to the full board as an action item. ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. 4243 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AS A MEMBER OF AND WITH THE METRO WASTEWATER JPA/METRO COMMISSION, SUPPORTING THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO’S NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) FOR THE POINT LOMA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WHEREAS, the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (PLWTP) is a regional facility in the Metro Wastewater System, operated by the City of San Diego, permitted to treat 240 million gallons of wastewater per day to an Advanced Primary Level, serving a 12 member Joint Powers Authority that comprises approximately 35% of the total flow in the Metro Wastewater System/ PLWTP; and WHEREAS, the Clean Water Act of 1972 requires that wastewater be treated to achieve certain protections before ocean discharge and the permitting of wastewater treatment plants, and wastewater treatment plant permits must be renewed every five years; and WHEREAS, the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act (OPRA) of 1994 allowed the City of San Diego to apply for modified NPDES permits allowing PLWTP to continue operating at an Advanced Primary Treatment Level while meeting or exceeding all general and specifically negotiated regulatory obligations including ocean protection requirements; and WHEREAS, the City of San Diego has 20 years of ocean monitoring data demonstrating that the Advanced Primary PLWTP consistently protects the ocean environment; and WHEREAS, the City of San Diego and Stakeholders from the environmental community have agreed upon a definition for secondary equivalency and will use their best efforts to have federal legislation passed in accordance with the proposal called Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II (OPRA II). Generally, OPRA II will allow the City’s NPDES permit to be based on secondary equivalency with a commitment to implement potable reuse of wastewater and allow the PLWTP to remain operating at the Advanced Primary Treatment Level; and WHEREAS, the current modified permit for the PLWTP expires on July 31, 2015, and City of San Diego staff need to submit an application to renew the NPDES permit by January 30, 2015. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District as follows:  That the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District desires the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant to remain operating at an Advanced Primary Treatment Level.  That the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District supports the concept of secondary equivalency for the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant and desires the passage of federal legislation in accordance with the proposal call Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II (OPRA II). Generally, OPRA II will allow the City’s NPDES permit to be based on secondary equivalency with a commitment to implement potable reuse of wastewater and allow the PLWTP to remain operating at the Advanced Primary Treatment Level.  That the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District supports the City of San Diego’s NPDES Permit Application for the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant as further described in the attached Basis of Point Loma Application.. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Otay Water District on the 1st day of October, 2014: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: __________________________ President ATTEST: _____________________________ District Secretary August 15, 2014 Summary of the Basis of the Application for the PLWTP 2015 NPDES Modified Permit Renewal The application will be based on: a. Compliance with CWA section 301(h) requirements for waivers. (required) b. Compliance with CWA section 301(J) requirements (Ocean Pollution Reduction Act). (required) c. Point Loma will remain as a Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment Plant with a capacity of 240 mgd. d. It will also contain specific provisions voluntarily included to enhance the application: These include the following provisions that would be included in the final modified NPDES permit as program goals, as well as some enforceable permit requirements. e. The goals related to water produced will be calculated based on wastewater in the applicant’s wastewater system and wastewater systems connected to the applicant’s wastewater system: New Enforceable Provision Request What is in current permit Cap TSS mass emissions (metric tons/year): 12,000 – Commencing no later than December 31, 2015 TSS mass emissions have been reduced 1mt/yr in each permit cycle: 13,600 in 1995 permit 13,599 in 2002 permit 13,598 in 2010 permit(current permit) Issue NTP for pre-design for the at least 15 mgd: No later than July 28, 2014 N/A Issue Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic EIR: No later than January 30, 2015 N/A Issue NTP for first project Design for at least 15 mgd: No later than January 30, 2017 N/A Include in application as future goals, subject to approval of the OPRA II legislation Cap TSS mass emissions (metric tons/year): 11,500 - Commencing on December 31, 2025 9,942 - Commencing of December 31, 2027* *equivalent to Pt Loma at secondary and full capacity (240 mgd) 13,600 in 1995 permit 13,599 in 2002 permit 13,598 in 2010 permit(current) Produce at least 15 mgd of Potable Reuse Water: No later than December 31, 2023 N/A Produce at least 30 mgd of Potable Reuse Water (cumulative total): No later than December 31, 2027 N/A Produce at least 83 mgd of Potable Reuse Water (cumulative total): No later than December 31, 2035 N/A IPR-DPR Regional Water Reuse Plan Secondary Equivalency for the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant ATTACHMENT D Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority •Formed 1988 •35% of Flow & Cost of SD Metro WW System •Twelve Member Agencies •Formed 1988 •35% of Flow & Cost of SD Metro WW System •Twelve Member Agencies 2 San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater System •PLWTP: 240 MGD •North City Water Reclamation Plant (NCWRP): 30 MGD •South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP): 15 MGD •Metro Biosolids Center (MBC) •Point Loma Ocean Outfall (PLOO) •South Bay Ocean Outfall (SBOO) •Metro Wastewater Pump Stations/Pipelines 3 Wastewater Treatment Levels •Primary o 65% Solids Removal •Advanced Primary (PLWTP) o 87/88% Solids Removal •Secondary o 90% Solids Removal •Tertiary (NCWRP, SBWRP) o 99% Solids Removal 4 PLWTP Permit Background Clean Water Act of 1972 established secondary treatment standards for all discharges. •pH (acidity) •Total Suspended Solids (TSS) •Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 5 PLWTP Permit Background Wastewater Treatment Plant MUST get a Permit or Modified Permit every 5 years •Environmental Protection Agency •Regional Water Quality Control Board •State Water Resources Control Board •California Coastal Commission 6 PLWTP Permit Background (cont’d) Wastewater Treatment Plant MUST get a Permit or Modified Permit every 5 years Environmental Community Support for another San Diego Waiver to meet secondary treatment requirements at PLWTP is unlikely •Current Permit EXPIRES July 31, 2015 •Permit application due January 2015 7 Challenge Avoid Upgrade of Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant to Secondary •Saving Billions of Dollars •Create a New, Local, Diversified Water Supply $3.5 Billion 8 Solution •Obtain legislation so that the discharge from Pt. Loma is considered equivalent to secondary for purposes of compliance with the CWA standards –No more modified permit renewals required every five years –Provides certainty for the ratepayer and planners –Resources can be allocated for other issues •Achieve Equivalent Total Suspended Solids Discharge –Pt Loma’s current rated capacity is 240MGD. At secondary (30mg/l TSS discharge) it would put out 9,942 metric/tons per year of TSS –Set a cap on TSS discharge from Pt Loma to never exceed 9,942 mt/yr –Keep current permitted removal rate for TSS: 80% –Set a maximum level of TSS in the effluent: 60 mg/l 9 San Diego Recycled Water Study NCWRP (30 MGD) Alternative AWPF (52.8 MGD)(2032) SBPS(2022) AWPF (15 MGD) (2026) Otay Reservoir San Vicente ReservoirAWPF(15 MGD) (2023) SBWRP (15 MGD) SBOO PLOO PLWTP(143 MGD) SBWTP (29 MGD [2022] 18 MGD [>2050] 47 MGD ) Wet Weather Storage by 2050: (28 Million Gallons) 10 San Diego Water Reuse Demonstration Project •Proved ability to purify wastewater at operational flow rates •Quality of water similar to distilled water— Far Superior to Current Raw Water Sources 11 12 Metro JPA Recommendation •Create a Long Range Regional Water Reuse Program focused on potable water reuse that: –Provides new, local, sustainable water supply (≈83 MGD) –PLWTP to meet secondary equivalency –Avoids billions of dollars in capital, financing, energy and operating costs –Continues to protect the ocean environment 13 Metro JPA Recommendation •Approve Resolution Supporting City’s NPDES Permit Application: –PLWTP to remain Advanced Primary Treatment Level –Passage of new federal legislation supporting secondary equivalency –Commitment to implement potable reuse of wastewater 14 15 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Marchioro Senior Civil Engineer Bob Kennedy Engineering Manager PROJECT: R2116- 001101 DIV. NO. 3 APPROVED BY: Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Award of a Professional Services Contract for Inspection and Condition Assessment of the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility 14-inch Force Main to Pipeline Inspection & Condition Analysis Corporation GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award a professional services contract to Pipeline Inspection & Condition Analysis Corporation (PICA) and authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with PICA for inspection and condition assessment of the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility (RWCWRF) 14-inch Force Main in an amount not-to-exceed $302,092 (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 professional services contract with PICA for inspection and condition assessment of the RWCWRF 14-inch Force Main in an amount not-to- exceed $302,092. 2 ANALYSIS: The District owns and operates the RWCWRF 14-inch cement mortar lined, coal-tar epoxy coated steel force main. The 1980 era, 3.1 mile long steel force main, which has pressures up to 400 psi, conveys reclaimed water from the RWCWRF to a hydraulic structure (Junction Box) north of the Salt Creek Golf Course. At the Junction Box, the force main transitions to a gravity main and the pipe material transitions from steel to asbestos-cement pipe. The entire force main traverses an environmentally sensitive area designated as an environmental preserve. The preserve contains an active river (Sweetwater River) which drains to the Sweetwater Reservoir through very rough/steep terrain. District staff are concerned that RWCWRF chlorine residuals could shorten the force main’s life expectancy. District staff recently repaired two (2) leaks in the upper (lower pressure) portions of the steel force main. District staff also completed a traditional above- grade noise based leak detection survey in May 2014 and did not find any leaks. The District requires the services of a professional consulting firm to provide inspection and condition assessment of the 14-inch force main. In accordance with the Board of Directors Policy Number 21, the District initiated the consultant selection process on July 9, 2014, by placing an advertisement in the San Diego Daily Transcript, and posting the Project on the District’s website for Professional Consulting Services. The advertisements attracted Letters of Interest and Statements of Qualifications from four (4) consulting firms. A Pre-Proposal Meeting was held on July 29, 2014. Five (5) people representing four (4) prime consulting firms attended the meeting. On August 12, 2014, proposals were received from the following three (3) consulting firms: 1. PICA (Miami, FL) 2. Pure Technologies (San Diego, CA) 3. RBF Consulting (San Diego, CA) The firm that submitted a letter of interest, but did not propose, was Rock Solid Group located in Australia. After the written proposals were evaluated and ranked by a five- member review panel consisting of District Engineering and Operations staff, it was determined that all three (3) proposals ranked 3 sufficiently to warrant being invited to make an oral presentation and respond to questions from the panel. After conducting the interviews on August 27, 2014, the panel completed the consultant ranking process and concluded that PICA had the best approach to the Project and provided the best overall value to the District. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in Exhibit B. As suggested in the written proposals, and confirmed during the interviews, PICA and their civil engineering sub consultant (Brown & Caldwell), was the only team that could fulfill the entire Request for Proposal (RFP) scope which required civil engineering interpretation/calculations based on remaining wall thickness of the steel pipe. Remaining wall thickness is needed to quantitatively estimate the probability of pipe failure and remaining life expectancy and also recommend improvements with cost estimates and corresponding effect on life expectancy. PICA’s inspection tool (SeeSnake®) can also pinpoint the location and size of existing defects to facilitate development of effective action plans for repairs. Pure Technologies’ inspection tool (SmartBall®) can detect active leaks, air pockets, and stress anomalies within about 10 feet accuracy; however, the SmartBall® technology could not provide remaining wall thickness of the steel pipe. Pure Technologies has other tools that can provide remaining wall thickness data, but none would be suitable for the pipe diameter associated with this effort. RBF’s team proposed closed circuit television (CCTV), an option for helium leak detection, and another option for high definition CCTV. Similar to Pure Technologies, RBF’s team could not estimate remaining wall thickness of the steel pipe. PICA submitted the Company Background Questionnaire as required by the RFP and staff did not find any outstanding issues. In addition, staff checked their references and performed an internet search on the company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the internet search. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP R2116, as approved in the FY 2015 budget, is $1,500,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, including this contract, are $340,210. See Attachment B for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that the budget for CIP R2116 is sufficient to support the Project. 4 Finance has determined that 100% of the funding is available from the Betterment Fund for CIP R2116. 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. JM/BK:jf P:\WORKING\CIP R2116 - 14-Inch FM Assessment and Repair\Staff Reports\BD 10-01-14, Staff Report, 14-inch FM Inspection.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – Summary of Proposal Rankings ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: R2116-001101 Award of a Professional Services Contract for Inspection and Condition Assessment of the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility 14-inch Force Main to Pipeline Inspection & Condition Analysis Corporation COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 15, 2014, and the following comments were made:  Staff recommended that the Board award a professional services contract to Pipeline Inspection & Condition Analysis Corporation (PICA) and authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with PICA for inspection and condition assessment of the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility (RWCWRF) 14-inch Force Main in an amount not-to-exceed $302,092.  Staff would like to gain a better understanding of the condition and remaining life expectancy of the pipe for a few reasons: o District staff has recently repaired two (2) leaks in the upper portions of the steel force main as an emergency o All air-vac and in-line valves were replaced about 5 years ago. The replaced valves were found severely corroded. The new valves are already showing corrosion. o The consequence of failure is high. The entire force main traverses an environmental preserve which drains to the Sweetwater Reservoir.  Staff contacted several experts before the selection process. Condition assessment work is very specialized and there are three (3) commonly recognized inspection specialty firms in the world which offer substantially different assessment approaches including Pure Technologies which has contracts with SDCWA, PICA headquartered in Canada with offices in the United States, and Rock Solid located in Australia.  Staff discussed the advertising and selection process that was in accordance with Policy 21 and stated that the District received three (3) proposals. 6  It was noted that Rock Solid, located in Australia, dropped out before submitting a proposal as the scope of work required construction work such as dewatering and removal and reinstallation of valves that Rock Solid was not positioned to provide.  Staff indicated that five (5) staff members ranked the proposals and the result of the analysis are shown in Exhibit A of the staff report.  Staff highlighted that PICA and their civil engineering sub- consultant (Brown & Caldwell), was the only team that could fulfill the entire Request for Proposal scope which required civil engineering interpretation/calculations based on remaining wall thickness of the steel pipes; the other technologies did not offer all the information necessary to prepare the assessment.  Staff checked PICA’s references, reviewed their Company Background Questionnaire form, and performed an internet search on the company and did not find any significant issues.  The Committee inquired if staff has considered total replacement of the Ralph Chapman Water Recycling Facility 14-inch Force Main as opposed to spending funds to inspect and assess the condition of the current pipeline. The Committee questioned if it would be better to apply the inspection/condition assessment costs towards total replacement. Staff stated that the life expectancy for this pipe is approximately 75 years. The pipeline has been in place for about half of its expected life. The recent repairs to the pipeline appeared to be the result of improperly placed backfill that damaged the exterior coating causing corrosion on the exterior of the pipe. The existing pipe on each side of the repairs appeared to be in good shape suggesting localized issues. Staff does not have enough information to make a strategic decision to determine if total replacement is required at this time. The inspection and condition assessment of the pipeline will provide information to aid the decision.  The Committee commented that the selection panel’s scores suggest that Pure Technologies’ (Pure) met the District’s RFP requirements at half the price of PICA. The scope of work included in the RFP was developed and written in a manner that allowed several different condition assessment technologies to be evaluated by District staff. Within the written proposals, Pure and the other respondents to the RFP provided information that they were capable of performing some of the inspection and condition assessment. However, during the oral interviews, staff determined that PICA’s solution was the only one that 7 could provide the level of condition assessment required by the project since the PICA solution can quantitatively estimate the remaining life expectancy of the pipe through civil engineering interpretation/calculations based on remaining wall thickness of the steel pipe which is critical information that the other technologies could not provide. In response to the Committee’s question, District staff stated that PICA is best positioned to meet the needs of the project. Upon completion of the discussion, the committee received staffs’ report and supported presentation to the full board as an action item. The following was provided after the Committee meeting in response to the Committee’s inquiry questions:  The cost to replace the project’s 3.1 miles of 14-inch high pressure steel pipe through the environmentally sensitive area is estimated to be in excess of $10 million. Additionally, environmental permitting for total replacement is anticipated to be very challenging requiring an Environmental Impact Report and extensive offsite mitigation of multiple endangered species. The data obtained from PICA will predict the remaining life expectancy of the pipe. This information will assist staff in making decisions that will maximize the life of the assets while strategically planning for their replacement. The cost of the inspection and condition assessment contract represents approximately three percent of the estimated cost of replacement. 6 ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: R2116-001101 Award of a Professional Services Contract for Inspection and Condition Assessment of the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility 14-inch Force Main to Pipeline Inspection & Condition Analysis Corporation Date Updated: 8/28/2014 Budget 1,500,000 Planning Standard Salaries 37,011 7,011 30,000 37,011 Consultant Contracts 302,092 - 302,092 302,092 PICA Total Planning 339,103 7,011 332,092 339,103 Design 001102 Consultant Contracts 420 420 - 420 HDR ENGINEERING INC Service Contracts 152 152 - 152 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT Standard Salaries 535 535 - 535 Total Design 1,107 1,107 - 1,107 Construction - - - - Total Construction - - - - Grand Total 340,210 8,118 332,092 340,210 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District r2116-RecPL - 14-Inch, 927 Zone, Forcemain Ass Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost OTAY WATER DISTRICTINSPECTION AND CONDITION ASSESSMENTOF THE RWCWRF 14-INCH FORCE MAIN EXHIBIT A CIP R2116F P:\WORKING\CIP R2116 - 14-Inch FM Assessment and Repair\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A, Location Map.mxd C A M P O R D JAMACHA SALTCREEKGOLFCOURSE JUNCTION BOX 14-INCH FORCE MAIN 12-INCH GRAVITY MAIN RALPH W. CHAPMANWATERRECYCLINGFACILITY " BLVD !\ ?Ë ?Ë J A M A C H A R D JAMACHA BLVD SWEETWATERRESERVOIR SWEETWATER RI V E R OTAY WATERDISTRICT SWEETWATERAUTHORITY VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE NTSDIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ?ò Aä%&s ?p ?Ë!\ F 0 0.50.25 Miles EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS Inspection and Condition Assessment of the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility 14-Inch Force main Qualifications of Team Responsiveness and Project Understanding Technical and Management Approach INDIVIDUAL SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN AVERAGE SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN Proposed Fee* Consultant's Commitment to DBE TOTAL - WRITTEN Additional Creativity and Insight Strength of Project Manager Presentation and Communication Skills Responses to Questions INDIVIDUAL TOTAL - ORAL AVERAGE TOTAL ORAL TOTAL SCORE 30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N Y/N 15 15 10 10 50 50 150 Poor/Good/ Excellent Dan Martin 28 24 27 79 15 14 10 10 49 Jose Martinez 25 23 27 75 14 14 10 10 48 Steve Beppler 28 22 25 75 15 14 9 10 48 Howard Almgren 25 22 25 72 13 13 8 8 42 Kevin Cameron 27 23 28 78 15 14 9 10 48 Dan Martin 27 23 20 70 10 12 6 6 34 Jose Martinez 28 19 25 72 9 12 8 7 36 Steve Beppler 25 19 23 67 9 11 7 6 33 Howard Almgren 26 18 21 65 8 10 5 5 28 Kevin Cameron 27 22 23 72 9 13 7 5 34 Dan Martin 26 23 23 72 8 14 7 7 36 Jose Martinez 25 21 22 68 10 13 7 6 36 Steve Beppler 23 18 23 64 8 9 6 6 29 Howard Almgren 26 18 20 64 7 8 8 5 28 Kevin Cameron 26 20 20 66 8 12 7 5 32 *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 Review Panel. Firm PICA Pure RBF****Average of four price options ranging from $184,145 to $259,261 provided in RBF's cost proposal Fee $302,092 $144,492 $221,703 Score 1 15 8 47 32 RATES SCORING CHART* RBF 67 8 Y 75 107 124 Excellent Pure 69 15 Y 84 33 117 MAXIMUM POINTS PICA 76 1 Y 77 WRITTEN ORAL REFERENCES Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\ENGRPLAN\2015\BD 10-1-14\Award Contract for Inspection and Condition Assessment of the RWCWRF 14-Inch Force Main\Exhibit B.xls STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board Meeting MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 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 2014 Calendar of Meetings GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: At the request of the Board, the attached Board of Director’s meeting calendar for 2014 is being presented for discussion. PURPOSE: This staff report is being presented to provide the Board the opportunity to review the 2014 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 2014 G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting Calendar 10-1-14.doc Board of Directors, Workshops and Committee Meetings 2014 Regular Board Meetings: Special Board or Committee Meetings (3rd Wednesday of Each Month or as Noted) January 7, 2014 February 5, 2014 March 11, 2014 April 8, 2014 May 7, 2014 June 4, 2014 July 2, 2014 August 6, 2014 September 3, 2014 October 1, 2014 November 5, 2014 December 3, 2014 January 21, 2014 February 19, 2014 March 17, 2014 April 16, 2014 May 21, 2014 June 18, 2014 July 16, 2014 August 20, 2014 September 17, 2014 October 15, 2014 November 19, 2014 December 17, 2014 SPECIAL BOARD MEETINGS: BOARD WORKSHOPS: STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Wales Benham Senior Accountant PROJECT: DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2014 Board of Directors’ Expenses GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To present the Board of the Directors’ expenses for Fiscal Year 2014. ANALYSIS: The California Government Code Section 53065.5 requires special districts, at least annually, to disclose any reimbursement paid by a district within the immediately preceding fiscal year. This Staff Report and attached documentation fulfills this requirement. (See Attachment B for the Summary and C-H for Details.) FISCAL IMPACT: None. 2 STRATEGIC GOAL: Prudently manage District funds. LEGAL IMPACT: Compliance with state law. Attachments: Attachment A Committee Action Attachment B Director’s Expenses and per Diems Attachment C-H Director’s Expenses Detail ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Fiscal Year 2014 Board of Directors’ Expenses COMMITTEE ACTION: This item was presented to the Finance, Administration and Communications Committee at a meeting held on September 16, 2014. The expenses for each director from July 1, 2013 thru June 30, 2014 were presented. It was indicated that the total expenditures for the fiscal year was $26,742.76. The average of the total expenses from 2000 to 2014 was $38,501. The committee noted that they did research and found that the Otay WD spends 2½ times less in directors’ expenses than an agency of comparable size to the District. The committee felt that it is possible that a board can oversee an agency at a reasonable cost. Following the discussion, the committee accepted the report and recommended that it be presented to the full board as an informational item. BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ EXPENSES AND PER DIEMS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING October 1, 2014 ATTACHMENT B California Government Code Section 53065.5 and Otay Water District’s Code of Ordinances Policy 8 require that staff present the Expenses and Per Diems for the Board of Directors on an Annual basis: •Fiscal Year 2014. •The expenses are shown by Board member and expense type. •This presentation is in alphabetical order. •This information was presented to the Finance, Administration, and Communications Committee on September 16, 2014 and updated for the Board meeting on October 1, 2014. Board of Directors’ Expenses and Per Diems Fiscal Year 2014 to Date (Jul 2013 – Jun 2014) Director Croucher $1,600.00 Director Gonzalez $6,461.17 Director Lopez $10,122.07 Director Robak $1,443.38 Director Thompson $7,327.34 Total $26,953.96 OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD EXPENSES July 1, 2013 -June 30, 2014 Croucher Gonzalez Lopez Robak Thompson Total Business Meetings $ - $ - $ 314.00 $ 155.00 $ 90.00 $ 559.00 Director's Fees 1,600.00 2,500.00 7,500.00 1,200.00 5,500.00 18,100.00 Mileage Business - 138.39 384.96 67.04 289.94 873.61 Mileage Commuting - - 428.63 21.34 452.92 898.41 Conferences and Seminars - 2,440.00 500.00 - - 2,940.00 Travel - 1,382.78 994.48 - 994.48 3,371.74 Total $ 1,600.00 $ 6,461.17 $ 10,122.07 $ 1,443.38 $ 7,327.34 $ 26,953.96 Meetings Attended 1633963266243 Meetings Paid 16 25 75 12 55 183 Board of Directors’ Expenses and Per Diems Fiscal Years 2000-2014 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: Geoffrey Stevens, Chief Information Officer PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2012 – 2014 YEAR-END STRATEGIC PLAN AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: See “Attachment A”. PURPOSE: To provide a final report on the District’s Strategic Performance Plan for FY 2012-2014. ANALYSIS: The District has completed the FY 2012-2014 Strategic Plan. Results for Performance Measures are mixed, but overall positive. For example, Strategic Objectives, with 85% complete or on schedule are slightly below the target of 90%, however, staff significantly exceeded the combined target for Performance Measures with 88% on target versus the 75% goal. In addition, 14 of 16 benchmarked items were on or above target. Strategic Plan Objectives Strategic Plan Objectives are designed to ensure that the District is making the appropriate high-level changes necessary to move the agency in the planned direction to meet new challenges and harness opportunities. Objective results for FY 2014 were slightly below target at 85% complete, ahead or on schedule. These results are marginally lower than the previous year. 33/39 or 85% of Strategic Objectives Meet or Exceed Expectations Strategic Objectives Not On Schedule: 1.1.1.1 CAREY, A Enhance communications with customers using our new phone system 3.1.2.16 STALKER, G Replace SCADA software system 3.1.2.25 STALKER, G Implement wireless radio and data network for field operations 4.1.1.4 WILLIAMSON, K Negotiate a successor Memorandum of Understanding for represented employees for 2014 and beyond, and related compensations and benefits for unrepresented employees 3.1.1.8 KENNEDY, R Update Water Facilities Master Plan 3.1.1.2 KENNEDY, R Update the 2007 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) to acquire and/or additional potable and recycled water supplies and enhanced resource reliability Performance Measures Performance measures are designed to track the day-to-day performance of the District. These items measure the effectiveness and efficiency of daily operations. The overall goal is that at least 75% of these measures be rated “on target”. Results for the fourth quarter Performance Measures are well above target with 38 of 43 (88%) items achieving the desired level or better. 38/43 or 88% of Performance Measures Are On or Above Target Items Not On target 1.4.104 RAMIREZ,O Health & Safety Severity Rate (QualServe) 2.2.200 MARTIN,D CIP Project Expenditures vs. Budget 2.3.203 MARTIN,D Project Closeout Time 5.1.500 VACLAVEK,J Unplanned Disruptions (QualServe) 5.2.503 HOLLY,R Planned Recycled Water Maintenance Ratio in $ QualServe Benchmarking Perspective The District participates in a benchmarking program sponsored by AWWA. We utilize 16 measures designed by QualServe. The District is on target for 14 of 16 measures or 88%. The two items not on target are Health & Safety Severity Rate and Unplanned Disruptions. Category Measure Target Result Target Met Sewer Ops Collection System Integrity (QualServe) 3.5 0 Yes Sewer Ops Direct Cost of Treatment per MGD (QualServe) 1050 833.87 Yes Sewer Ops O&M Cost per MG Processed of Wastewater (QualServe) 1925 1383.03 Yes Sewer Ops Sewer Overflow Rate (QualServe) 0 0 Yes Sewer Ops Planned Wastewater Maintenance Ratio in $ (QualServe) 77.00 84.71 Yes Customer Relations Unplanned Disruptions (QualServe) .7 1.57 No Customer Relations Technical Quality Complaint (QualServe) 9 5.19 Yes Customer Relations Billing Accuracy (QualServe) 99.8 99.99 Yes Customer Relations Planned Water Service Disruption Rate (QualServe) 2.5 2.4 Yes Water Ops Distribution System Loss (QualServe) 5% 4.5 Yes Water Ops Potable Water Compliance Rate (QualServe) 100% 100 Yes Water Ops O&M Cost per Account (QualServe) 512 482 Yes Water Ops Water Distribution System Integrity (QualServe) 4 15.82 Yes Water Ops Planned Potable Water Maintenance Ratio in $ (QualServe) 66% 70.2 Yes Business Ops Debt Coverage Ratio (QualServe) 148.6 1.97 Yes Org Dev Health & Safety Severity Rate (QualServe) 30 36.63 No The Strategic Plan results are presented to both the Administration and Finance Committee and the Engineering and Operations Committee with a specific focus on the most relevant information for each Committee (see Attachment B). All of the Strategic Plan results and associated details are provided in a real-time, interactive web-based application available to the Board on the Board Virtual Private Network (VPN). Next Steps The Board has adopted the FY 2015 – 2018 Strategic Plan along with the FY 2016 Budget. Staff will report back to the Board on March 2016 on the progress from quarters one and two of the 2015-2018 Strategic Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer Informational item only, no fiscal impact. STRATEGIC GOAL: Strategic Plan and Performance Measure reporting is a critical element in providing performance reporting to the Board and staff. LEGAL IMPACT: None Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B - Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2012 – 2014 YEAR-END STRATEGIC PLAN AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORT COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations and Water Resources and the Finance, Administration and Communications Committees reviewed this item at a meeting held on September 15 and 16, 2014, respectively. The following comments were made:  Staff indicated that the District completed its 2012-2014 Strategic Plan and that on May 19, 2014, the board approved the District’s 2015-2018 Strategic Plan.  A PowerPoint presentation on the Strategic Plan FY 2014 Year-End Report was provided to the Committee.  Staff indicated that 33 out of 39, or 85%, of the Strategic Objectives Meet or Exceed Expectations. The target is 90%. It was indicated that the objectives that are not on schedule is mainly due to timing issues. The 6 objectives that are not on schedule follows: o 1.1.1.1 Enhance communications with customers using our new phone system: Objective was not met due to the new version of the phone software that will be installed once available. o 3.1.2.16 Replace SCADA software system: Objective was not met because of the start-up of the project which affected the goal to meet the objective deadline. However, this objective is now on track. o 3.1.2.25 Implement wireless radio and data network for field operations: Objective was not met because of the start-up of the project which affected the goal to meet the objective deadline. However, this objective is now on track. o 4.1.1.4 Negotiate a successor Memorandum of Understanding for represented employees for 2014 and beyond, and related compensations and benefits for unrepresented employees: Objective did not meet the June 30, 2014 deadline but is now on track. o 3.1.1.8 Update Water Facilities Master Plan: Objective was not met due to lack of information from SANDAG.  Staff discussed the Performance Measures, which 38 of 43 (88%) were on or above target.  Staff indicated that the Gallons Per Capita Per Day (1.3.103) is on target mainly because District customers are conserving water. The District’s target is to be below 172 Gallons Per Capita Per Day.  The Health & Safety Severity Rate (1.4.104, Qualserve) did not meet its target. This objective is a ratio measure of the number of lost time days over the number of total employee labor days. It was indicated that this measure can easily be below target if only one (1) employee is out for an extended period of time, which is the current situation. This measure is a reflection of two (2) employees who have been out for an extended period of time and not of a pattern of many injuries.  In response to an inquiry from the committee, staff indicated that the target is 30% for the Health & Safety Severity Rate and the District is above that target.  Staff indicated that the Safety Training Hours Per Employee (1.4.106) exceeded the target number of hours set for training. Staff is continuing to review this objective as the District just doesn’t want to exceed the goal, but wants to assure that the training that the District is providing is the appropriate amount of training to accomplish the District’s safety objective.  The CIP Project Expenditure vs. Budget (2.2.200) is under target due to unforeseen issues that are beyond the District’s control. These issues delay projects which impact the reconciliation of project expenditures and budget. Staff would like to be closer to the target since the District has already allocated the money. The result is that the District has additional funds available which come with an interest cost. It was noted that the added cost is more a result of the unanticipated general downturn in the economy, not just this one year’s results.  Project Closeout Time (2.3.203)is another measure in which the delay of one (1) project, due to reasons beyond the District’s control, can impact the measure negatively. Staff is considering revising this measure by looking at a group of projects by phase (i.e. planning, design and construction) as opposed to measuring the entire project to completion. The committee cautioned staff in changing the measure in such a way that the historical data is lost. It was noted, however, to consider only historical data that is worth keeping.  The Answer Rate (3.1.300) is above target with a 98% anwer rate. The target is 97%. This reflects a very high level of management occurring in the District’s call center.  The O&M Cost Per Account (3.2.301, Qualserve) is on target. Staff noted in response to an inquiry from the committee that the District’s target is set higher than the Qualserve benchmark because the District provides both water and sewer/wastewater services. Because the comparison group was quite small in the Qualserve survey, it wasn’t a good comparable measure. Staff had discussed this a couple years ago at the board level and it was decided to set the target higher than Qualserve. The District’s target is to be below $510.40 for O&M Costa per account in a single year.  Overtime Percentage (3.2.303) is on target overall. The overtime measure is set by budget. The Committee commented that the District will see employees working overtime as vacancies in positions, vacations and workers compensation injuries occur.  The Website Hits (4.4.402) significantly exceeded the District’s target. Staff will likely adjust this target because when the target was set, it was not anticipated that many of the visits to the District’s website were from customers wishing to pay their bill.  The District did not meet its target for Unplanned Disruptions (5.1.500, Qualserve). This objective is measured on a per account basis. Staff indicated that only a small number of homes/accounts whose service is disrupted would impact the measure negatively. Because the District has condensed developments, if there was a main break, an entire street of 25 homes could be impacted by the break. These homes would be included in the unplanned disruption measure. The measure only allows for 47 homes/accounts to be impacted by unplanned disruptions annually for the District to meet the target. In response to an inquiry from the committee, staff indicated that this measure is targeted to breaks in a pipeline only. If a hydrant or air vac was hit and impacted homes, these would not be included in the measure. It was indicated in response to another inquiry from the committee that this measure is for potable only. Staff did look at a recycled measure, but it was not carried over.  The Planned Recycled Water Maintenance Ratio in $ (5.2.503) did not meet the District’s target. Staff indicated that in the first quarter, the District had a large break on the recycled system which was very costly to fix (this repair was covered by insurance). In the third and fourth quarter there was a leak on the District’s forcemain. Because these issues increased the District’s maintenance cost, the District did not meet the target for this measure.  Customer Satifaction (1.1.100) is measured once a year and the District is coming up on a new measurement period in December 2014 to January 2015. The contract is in place to perform the survey and staff is working on developing the new survey.  It was discussed that board members have access to the Strategic Plan information via the extranet and the committee encouraged board members to review the information on the extranet and contact staff with any questions that they might have rather than waiting until the information is presented at the committee and board meetings.  Staff indicated that the next step is to implement the FY 2015- 2018 Strategic Plan. The first quarterly results for the FY 2015 Strategic Plan will be provided to the board around February or March 2015. Then in May 2015 staff will present the FY 2016 Strategic Plan as part of the FY 2016 Budget. Following the discussion, the committees recommended presentation to the full board as an informational item. Strategic Plan FY 2014 Year- End Report (Final Year of FY 2012 – 2014 Strategic Plan) 33/39 (85%) Objectives On Target 38/43 (88%) Measures On Target Department Overview Engineering and Operations Committee Engineering Operations Finance, Administration and Communications Committee IT Finance Detailed Presentation of Performance Measures Next Steps FY15 – 18 Plan is in progress Board will see results in February 2015 – March 2015 Board will review Stategic Plan as part of FY16 Budget. Questions? STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: October 1, 2014 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:  Small, Minority and Disadvantaged Business Outreach – The District, through its partnership with the San Diego Contracting Opportunities Center, held a “Doing Business with Otay Water District” seminar on September 16th. Forty-five companies RSVP’d with 38 attending. Twenty-six completed evaluation forms; 13 rated the seminar Excellent, 12 Very Good, and 1 Good. All rated the seminar as informative in areas such as government contracting law and regulations as well as District purchasing requirements. The District looks forward to its next workshop in the spring of 2015.  Purchase Orders – There were 130 purchase orders processed in July with an adjusted total value of $434,350. Thirty-four percent of the value was on blanket orders, exceeding Purchasing’s 15% strategic plan objective. Human Resources:  Employee Recognition Luncheon – The District’s Recognition Luncheon and BBQ was held on Wednesday, September 24th at the Operations Center. Each department presented its awards.  Benefits – HR is working with our Benefit Consultant to review the third party administrator for our dental plan and Short and Long Term Disability coverage. In addition, they are assisting 2 HR with preparing for Open Enrollment, which will be held during the month of October.  Implementation of MOU – HR worked with the Association to finalize the new MOU, coordinated with Payroll to implement all pay adjustments, and communicated all changes to the management team and employees.  Recruitments – HR is currently recruiting for Systems Operations Manager and Pump Mechanic I/II.  New Hires/Promotions – There was one new hire in the month of September: Senior SCADA/Instrumentation Technician. Safety & Security:  District’s Safety & Security New Hire Orientation – Reviewed and refined the process and it is now available online via SharePoint.  Training: o Incident Command System Instructor Lead Training: Staff has secured, via the San Diego Urban Area Safety Initiative (SD- UASI), no-cost onsite training classes for Emergency Response, ICS-300 and ICS-400. Training will take place on the dates below:  ICS 300 – December 9-11, 2014  ICS 400 - February 11-12, 2015 This training initiative saves the District $32,000 in off- site training costs. o Staff completed Web Based Emergency Operations Center (WebEOC) training at the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING:  Cityworks Work Order System – Replacement of the District’s legacy GBA work order system is progressing as scheduled. A beta system configuration is being built and we expect to be testing by the end of October. Overall, the project is at 60% completion.  GE iFIX SCADA System – Replacement of the District’s legacy Factory Link SCADA system is progressing as scheduled. A beta system configuration is being built and we expect to be testing 3 by middle of November. Overall, the project is at 60% completion.  Tegile Storage Area Network (SAN) System – Replacement of the District’s legacy HP SAN or data storage cabinet is progressing as scheduled. The new Tegile SAN’s will go into production at the end of the month. FINANCE:  FY 2014 Financial Audit – Teaman, Ramirez and Smith, LLP has completed fieldwork related to the fiscal year 2014 financial audit and staff has begun preparing the related financial statements and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The CAFR will be submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Excellence in Financial Reporting award by the December 31st deadline.  Budget Award Submittals – Staff has submitted the FY2015 Operating and Capital Budgets to GFOA and CSMFO for the budget award programs. The responses to the submittals are expected to be delivered in early 2016.  August Water Use Drops 5% in District - In response to a Level 2 Supply Alert declaration imposing mandatory water restrictions and an extensive regional promotional campaign to conserve water, the District’s water use was reduced by 5% in August 2014 when compared to August 2013. Even though temperatures were warmer than average in August 2014, District customers have responded positively to the call to conserve water. In the county, the CWA reported a year-over-year reduction in potable water use of 6% in August based on data submitted by the 24 member agencies.  Turf Removal Rebates - The MWD and CWA reported that their respective turf removal rebate programs have generated large increases in applications this summer. Since the start of the fiscal year, the MWD has recorded over $50 million worth of turf removal rebate applications. The CWA has reported that their number of applications has doubled this summer compared to previous summers.  Outreach Events – The Drought Tolerant Plant Fair will be held at the Eastlake Parkway Home Depot on Saturday, October 11, 2014. 4  Financial Reporting: o For the twelve months ended August 31, 2014, there are total revenues of $17,358,382 and total expenses of $16,924,957. The revenues exceeded expenses by $433,425. o The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and in the Investment Portfolio Details as of August 31, 2014 total $81,106,417.75 with an average yield to maturity of 0.60%. The total earnings year-to-date are $84,896.63. ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS: Engineering:  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 completed work in Sanyo Avenue to isolate and remove a portion of the existing 12-inch main. The first group is on schedule and within budget and is anticipated to complete by June 2015. Construction contract award for the second group of relocations, including the relocation of an existing 6-inch potable water blow off, will be presented at the January 2015 Board Meeting. The second group is on schedule and within budget. (P2453)  870-1 Reservoir Access Road Paving: This project consists of paving the existing perimeter dirt road around the 870-1 Reservoir. The project was advertised on July 18, 2014, and bids were opened on August 19, 2014. This item will be presented at the October 2014 Board Meeting to award a construction contract. The low bidder was RAP Engineering Inc. for $207,362.02. The project is on schedule and within budget. (P2515)  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. The project was advertised on July 23, 2014, and bids were opened on August 20, 2014. The low bidder was Olympus & Associates for $1,206,008. This item will be presented at the October 2014 Board Meeting to award a 5 construction contract. The project is on schedule and within budget. (P2531, P2532, P2535)  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. This project was advertised on July 31, 2014. A Pre-Bid meeting was held on August 21, 2014. Bids were opened on September 11, 2014. The low bidder was Arrieta Construction for $529,490. This item will be presented at the November 2014 Board Meeting to award a construction contract. The project is on schedule and within budget. (S2033)  Rosarito Desal: Staff, together with the District’s consultants and representatives from NSC Agua, held a telephone conference call on August 6, 2014 to discuss the project and coordinate on complying with the California Water Resources Control Board Drinking Water Program regulatory requirements. On August 27, 2014, staff met with the public outreach teams from both NSC Agua and the District to coordinate the message being presented to business organizations, government and opinion leaders. On September 2, 2014, NSC Agua submitted the environmental documentation to SEMARNAT for the conveyance pipeline from El Florido to the U.S./Mexico border. (P2451)  870-2 Pump Station Replacement: This project consists of a new pump station to replace the existing Low Head 571-1 and High Head 870-1 Pump Stations. The project is currently transitioning from the preliminary design phase to the 30% design level. A value engineering workshop was held with the design consultant (Carollo), the Value Engineering and Construction Management Consultant (RBF), and District staff on August 25, 2014. The project in on schedule and within budget. (P2083)  Water Facilities Master Plan Update: This project will update the District’s existing Water Resources Master Plan that was previously updated in October 2008 and revised in May 2013. The consultant (Atkins) obtained and reviewed SANDAG and Series 13 population data and dissected six years of recent District sales data to establish baselines for each District pressure zone and service area. The project is on schedule and within budget. (P1210)  For the month of August 2014, the District sold 11 meters (15 EDUs) generating $142,316 in revenue. Projection for this period was 12.8 meters (15.3 EDUs) with budgeted revenue of 6 $140,758. Total revenue for Fiscal Year 2015 is $407,937 against the annual budget of $1,689,093. Water Operations:  Total number of potable water meters is 49,291.  The August potable water purchases were 3,276.4 acre-feet which is 0.3% below the budget of 3,287.6 acre-feet. The cumulative purchases through August is 6,768.3 acre-feet which is 5.7% above the cumulative budget of 6,402.2 acre-feet. The August 2013 water purchase was 3,456 acre-feet. Water use in August 2014 declined by 5% compared to August 2013.  The August recycled water purchases and production was 541.6 acre-feet which is 8.6% above the budget of 498.5 acre-feet. The cumulative production and purchases through August is 1,153.0 acre-feet which is 21.3 % above the cumulative budget of 950.7 acre-feet. 7  Recycled water consumption for the month of August is as follows: o Total consumption was 535 acre-feet or 174,260,812 gallons and the average daily consumption was 5,621,317 gallons per day. o Total recycled water consumption as of August for FY 2015 is 1076.1 acre-feet. o Total number of recycled water meters is 707.  Wastewater flows for the month of August were as follows: o Total basin flow, gallons per day: 1,593,759. o Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro, gallons per day: 527,693. o Total Otay flow, gallons per day: 1,066,066. o Flow Processed at the Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility, gallons per day: 1,064,856. o Flow to Metro from Otay Water District, not including solids, was 1,210 gallons per day.  By the end of August there were 6,089 wastewater EDUs. REVENUES: Potable Water Sales Recycled Water Sales Potable Energy Charges Potable System Charges Potable MWD & CW A Fixed Charge 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 Recycied 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 to Sewer General Fund OPEB Trust Potable General Fund Sewer Replacement Total Expenses EXCESS REVENUES(EXPENSE) F:/MORPT/FS2015-0814 $ s $ $ $ $ OT A Y WATER DISTRICT COMPARATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY FOR TWO MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31 ,2014 Annual Budget Actual Budget 45,669,500 $ 9,579,458 $ 9,433,000 8,826,600 2,223,240 2,097,700 2,145,600 459,085 420,400 12,337,500 1,876,244 1,873 ,000 10,936,200 1,854,816 1,853,500 870,300 183,553 177,300 80,785,700 16,176,396 15,854,900 3,007,700 463 ,528 466,100 51 ,500 10,440 8,600 1,150,600 188,000 191 ,800 301 ,800 48,000 50,300 1,947,800 304,892 332,500 3,763,700 63,825 37,800 77,400 11,000 12,900 553,800 92,300 92,300 91,640,000 $ 17,358,382 $ 17,047,200 34,521,500 $ 7,464,500 $ 7,064,400 1,601,500 440,402 415,500 1,901 ,400 312,092 312,200 1,792,200 297,316 297,400 4,741 ,200 780,352 780,400 701 ,400 99,665 99,600 1,800,000 302,890 302,000 47,059,200 9,697,218 9,271,500 2,838,400 646,270 653,200 19,747,600 3,260,960 3,371 ,100 3,619,800 590,261 615,917 5,009,200 534,048 606,990 410,000 36,800 68,333 2,538,900 423,200 423,200 3,530,000 588,300 588,300 3,270,200 545,000 545,000 705,000 117,500 117,500 553,800 92,300 92,300 647,100 107,900 107,900 1,583,800 264,000 264,000 127,000 21,200 21 ,200 91,640,000 $ 16,924,957 $ 16,746,442 -$ 433,425 $ 300,758 Exhibit A YTD Variance Var 0/o $ 146,458 1.6% 125,540 6.0% 38,685 9.2% 3,244 0.2% 1,316 0.1% 6,253 3.5% 321,496 2.0% (2,572) (0.6%) 1,840 21.4% (3,800) (2.0%) (2,300) (4.6%) (27,608) (8.3%) 26,025 68.8% (1,900) (14.7%) 0.0% $ 311,182 1.8% $ (400,100) (5.7%) (24,902) (6.0%) 108 0.0% 84 0.0% 48 0.0% (65) (0.1%) (890~ (0.3%) { 425 ,717) {4.6%) 6,930 1.1% 110,140 3.3% 25,657 4.2% 72,942 12.0% 31,533 46.1 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% $ (178,514) (1.1%) $ 132,667 9/23/2014 8:21 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 53,735,000.00 2,000,000.00 81,784.76 13,072,020.57 10,270,913.59 79,159,718.92 2,037,694.80 81,197,413.72 August 31 Month Ending 42,503.75 83,310,656.34 0.60% OTAY Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary August 31, 2014 Market Value 53,728,712.35 2,001 ,300.00 81,784.76 13,075,925.84 10,181,000.00 79,068,722.95 2,037,694.80 81 ,106,417.75 Fiscal Year To Date 84,896.63 83,516,322.46 0.60% Book Value 53,737,177.03 2,002,314.45 81,784.76 13,072,020.57 10,270,913.59 79,164,210.40 2,037,694.80 81,201,905.20 %of Days to YTM YTM Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. 67.88 1,017 816 0.737 0.747 2.53 878 725 0.558 0.566 0.10 730 508 0.030 0.030 16.51 1 1 0.256 0.260 12.97 1 1 0.452 0.458 100.00% 714 573 0.615 0.624 0.235 0.239 714 573 0.615 0.624 1 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. ~~~~--~~~ -:;c-=--7 :.;::""" Joseph•Bea6hem~ cifiTef Finaritral Officer Reporting period 08/01/2014-08/31/2014 Run Date: 09/1612014 -08:17 f -17-ly Portfolio OTAY AP PM (PRF _PM1) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.3b OTA Y WATER DISTRICT INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REVIEW August 31, 2014 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 September 17, 2014. They went on to say: "In determining how long to maintain the current 0 to 114 percent target range for the federal funds rate, 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 developments. The Committee continues to anticipate, based on its assessment of these factors, that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run goal, and provided that longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored. " Despite the large drop in available interest rates, the District's overall effective rate of return at August 31, 2014 was 0.60%, which was one 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 of 0.26% for the month of August 2014. 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: August 31, 2014 Investment State Limit Ota:y Limit Ota:y Actual 8.01: Treasury Securities 100% 100% 0 8.02: Local Agency Investment Fund (Operations) $50 Million $50 Million $13.07 Million 8.02: Local Agency Investment Fund (Bonds) 100% 100% 0 8.03: Federal Agency Issues 100% 100% 68.64% 8.04: Certificates ofDeposit 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 MarkerMutual Funds 20% 10% 0 -- 8.08: San Diego County Pool 100% 100% 12.65% 12.0: Maximum Single Financial Institution 100% 50% 2.51% $55,739,491 68.6% OtayWater District Investment Portfolio: oS/31/2014 Total Cash and Investments: $81,201,905 $2,119,480 2.6% OBanks (Passbook/Checking/CO) •Pools (LAIF & County) OAgencies & Corporate Notes $23,342,934 28.7% Target: Meet or Exceed 100% of LAIF Ill 0.70 .. c Ql s 0.60 Ill Ql > 0.50 ..5 c 0 E :I .. Ql a:: Performance Measure FY-15 Return on Investment Month •LAIF •Otay c Difference CUSIP Investment# Federal Agency Issues-Callable 3133EC6F6 3133EC7H1 313382YY3 3134G4PXO 3133EDKF8 3135GOXR9 3134G4WJ3 3130A2HW9 3130AOVG2 3135GOYW7 3134G54N2 3134G55T8 3130A25S1 3136G1XZ7 3134G5A47 3134G55X9 3134G4WH7 3130A1Q84 3130A1RB6 3130A1RB6 3130A1SE9 3134G56A8 3134G56NO 3136G23GO 3130A1ZX9 3134G5BL8 2258 2260 2268 2277 2291 2269 2284 2303 2281 2276 2293 2295 2299 2274 2301 2298 2285 2292 2289 2290 2288 2297 2300 2304 2296 2302 Issuer Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Farm Credit Bank Fannie Mae Average Balance Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Bank Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Mortgage ---=--=---- Subtotal and Average Federal Agency Issues -Coupon 54,446,892.45 3135GOYE7 2286 Federal National Mortage Assoc Subtotal and Average 2,002,359.87 Certificates of Deposit -Bank 2050003183-6 2283 California Bank & Trust -------- Subtotal and Average 81,784.76 Run Date: 09/16/2014 • 08:17 OTAY Portfolio Management Portfolio Details -Investments August 31, 2014 Purchase Date 12/05/2012 12/17/2012 05/22/2013 12/27/2013 04/29/2014 06/06/2013 03/19/2014 07/07/2014 02/25/2014 12/04/2013 05/28/2014 06/12/2014 06/19/2014 12/19/2013 06/30/2014 06/10/2014 03/20/2014 05/08/2014 05/15/2014 05/15/2014 05/19/2014 06/16/2014 06/26/2014 08/15/2014 05/22/2014 07/17/2014 04/01/2014 01/22/2014 Par Value 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 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 2,000,000.00 53,735,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 81 ,784.76 81,784.76 Market Value 3,004,890.00 3,005,490.00 1,996,940.00 1,995,740.00 1,999,100.00 1,998,640.00 2,000,520.00 1 ,998,820.00 2,002,280.00 2,002,340.00 2,002,460.00 1 ,999, 720.00 1,997,860.00 1,995,080.00 1,998,160.00 1,998,300.00 1,998,200.00 1,999,680.00 1,031 ,040.30 2,707,732.05 1,999,340.00 2,000,700.00 1,999,260.00 2,000,220.00 1,995,960.00 2,000,240.00 53,728,712.35 2,001 ,300.00 2,001,300.00 81 ,784.76 81,784.76 Stated Book Value Rate 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 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 2,002,177.03 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 2,000,000.00 53,737,177.03 2,002,314.45 2,002,314.45 81 ,784.76 81,784.76 0.350 0.340 0.350 0.500 0.550 0.550 0.625 0.660 0.700 0.750 0.750 0.700 0.700 0.670 0.650 0.810 0.900 1.010 1.020 1.020 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.050 1.050 1.220 0.625 0.030 Page 1 YTM Days to Maturity S&P 360 Maturity Date AA 0.345 273 06/01/2015 350 08/17/2015 539 02/22/2016 665 06/27/2016 697 07/29/2016 7 36 09/06/2016 749 09/19/2016 767 10/07/2016 816 11/25/2016 816 11/25/2016 819 11/28/2016 833 12/12/2016 0.335 AA 0.345 0.493 0.542 AA 0.542 0.616 0.651 0.690 0.685 0.740 AA 0.690 0.690 840 12/19/2016 0.661 840 12/19/2016 0.641 851 12/30/2016 0. 799 921 03/10/2017 0.888 931 03/20/2017 0.996 980 05/08/2017 1.006 987 05/15/2017 1.006 987 05/15/2017 0.986 991 05/19/2017 0.986 1,019 06/16/2017 0.986 1,029 06/26/2017 1.036 1,079 08/15/2017 1.036 1,086 08/22/2017 1.203 1,142 10/17/2017 0.737 0.558 0.558 0.030 0.030 816 725 08/26/2016 725 508 01/22/2016 508 Portfolio OT A Y AP PM (PRF _PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.3b Average CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) LA IF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAIF BABS 2010 9012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Subtotal and Average 11,001,052.83 San Diego County Pool SO COUNTY POOL 9007 San Diego County Subtotal and Average 13,496,720.04 Total and Average 83,310,656.34 Run Date: 09/16/2014-08:17 OTAY Portfolio Management Portfolio Details -Investments August 31, 2014 Purchase Date Par Value Market Value 13,072,020.57 13,075,925.84 07/01/2014 0.00 0.00 13,072,020.57 13,075,925.84 10,270,913.59 10,181,000.00 10,270,913.59 10,181,000.00 79,159,718.92 79,068,722.95 Book Value 13,072,020.57 0.00 13,072,020.57 10,270,913.59 10,270,913.59 79,164,210.40 Stated Rate 0.260 0.228 0.458 Page 2 YTM Days to Maturity S&P 360 Maturity Date 0.256 0.225 --------- 0.256 0.452 --------- 0.452 0.615 573 Portfolio OTAY 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-10 COPS 9010 STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 STATE OF CALIFORNIA UBNA-2010 BOND 9013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Average Balance Total Cash and Investments Run Date: 09/16/2014 -08:17 Average Balance 0.00 83,310,656.34 OTAY Portfolio Management Portfolio Details -Cash August 31, 2014 Purchase Date Par Value 10,005.64 2,950.00 1,944,939.77 07/01/2014 27,891 .35 1,687.43 5,042.30 07/01/2014 51.89 07/01/2014 45,126.42 81,197,413.72 Market Value Book Value 10,005.64 10,005.64 2,950.00 2,950.00 1,944,939.77 1,944,939.77 27,891 .35 27,891.35 1,687.43 1,687.43 5,042.30 5,042.30 51.89 51.89 45,126.42 45,126.42 81,106,417.75 81,201,905.20 Stated Rate S&P 0.010 0.250 0.010 0.010 Page 3 YTM Days to 360 Maturity 0.010 0.000 0.247 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.615 573 Portfolio OTAY AP PM (PRF _PM2) 7.3.0 CUSIP Investment # Fund Issuer Security Type: Federal Agency Issues-Callable 3134G4WH7 3134G54N2 3134G4WJ3 3134G55T8 3134G56A8 3134G5BL8 3134G56NO 3134G5A47 3134G55X9 3134G4PXO 3136G1XZ7 3135GOYW7 3136G23GO 3130A1RB6 3130A1RB6 3130A2HW9 3130A1XA1 3130A1Q84 3130A2551 3130A1ZX9 3130A1SE9 313382YY3 3130AOVG2 3133EC7H1 3133EC6F6 3133EDKF8 3135GOXR9 2285 2293 2284 2295 2297 2302 2300 2301 2298 2277 2274 2276 2304 2290 2289 2303 2294 2292 2299 2296 2288 2268 2281 2260 2258 2291 2269 Run Date: 09/1612014 -08:18 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 FHLMC FHLMC FHLMC FHLMC FHLMC FHLMC FHLMC FHLMC FHLMC FHLMC FNMA FNMA FNMA FHLB FHLB FHLB FHLB FHLB FHLB FHLB FHLB FHLB FHLB FFCB FFCB FFCB FANM Subtotal OTAY Interest Earnings Sorted by Security Type -Fund August 1, 2014-August 31, 2014 Period Yield on Beginning Book Value Ending Par Value Beginning Book Value Ending Maturity Current Yield This Interest Earned 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 2,000,000.00 2,002,258.26 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,705,000.00 2,705,000.00 1,030,000.00 1,030,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 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 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 53,735,000.00 53,737,258.26 Book Value Date Rate Period 2,000,000.00 03/20/2017 2,000,000.00 11/28/2016 2,000,000.00 09/19/2016 2,000,000.00 12/12/2016 2,000,000.00 06/16/2017 2,000,000.00 10/17/2017 2,000,000.00 06/26/2017 2,000,000.00 12/30/2016 2,000,000.00 03/10/2017 2,000,000.00 06/27/2016 2,000,000.00 12/19/2016 2,002,177.03 11/25/2016 2,000,000.00 08/15/2017 2,705,000.00 05/15/2017 1 ,030,000.00 05/15/2017 2,000,000.00 10/07/2016 0.00 08/26/2016 2,000,000.00 05/08/2017 2,000,000.00 12/19/2016 2,000,000.00 08/22/2017 2,000,000.00 05/19/2017 2,000,000.00 02/22/2016 2,000,000.00 11/25/2016 3,000,000.00 08/17/2015 3,000,000.00 06/01/2015 2,000,000.00 07/29/2016 2,000,000.00 09/06/2016 53,737,177.03 0.900 0.750 0.625 0.700 1.000 1.220 1.000 0.650 0.810 0.500 0.670 0.750 1.050 1.020 1.020 0.660 0.650 1.010 0.700 1.050 1.000 0.350 0.700 0.340 0.350 0.550 0.550 0.075 0.063 0.052 0.058 0.083 0.102 0.083 0.054 0.068 0.042 0.056 0.058 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.055 0.056 0.084 0.058 0.088 0.083 0.029 0.058 0.028 0.029 0.046 0.046 0.062 ------ Adjusted Interest Earnings Amortization/ Adjusted Interest Accretion Earnings 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,250.00 0.00 1,041 .67 0.00 1 '166.66 0.00 1,666.67 0.00 2,033.33 0.00 1 ,666.67 0.00 1,083.34 0.00 1,350.00 0.00 833.34 0.00 1 '116.67 -81.23 1,168.77 0.00 933.33 0.00 2,299.25 0.00 875.50 0.00 1 '1 00.00 0.00 902.78 0.00 1 ,683.34 0.00 1 '166.67 0.00 1 '750.00 0.00 1 ,666.67 0.00 583.33 0.00 1 '166.66 0.00 850.00 0.00 875.00 0.00 916.67 0 00 916.66 -81.23 33,562.98 Portfolio OTAY AP IE (PRF _IE) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.3b Ending CUSIP Investment# Fund Issuer Par Value Security Type: Federal Agency Issues -Coupon 3135GOYE7 2286 99 FNMA 2,000,000.00 Subtotal 2,000,000.00 -- Security Type: Certificates of Deposit-Bank 2050003183-6 2283 99 CB&T 81,784.76 Subtotal 81,784.76 Security Type: Union Bank RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 99 CA 1,687.43 UNION OPERATING 9004 99 CA 1,944,939.77 UNION MONEY 9002 99 CA 10,005.64 RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 99 CA 5,042.30 Subtotal 1,961,675.14 Security Type: Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) LA IF 9001 99 CA 13,072,020.57 Subtotal 13,072,020.57 -- Security Type: San Diego County Pool SD COUNTY POOL 9007 99 SDC 10,270,913.59 Subtotal 10,270,913.59 Total 81,121,394.06 Run Date: 09/16/2014-08:18 OTAY Interest Earnings August 1, 2014-August 31, 2014 Beginning Ending Maturity Current Yield This Book Value Book Value Date Rate Period 2,002,411 .56 2,002,314.45 08/26/2016 0.625 0.047 2,002,411 .56 2,002,314.45 0.047 -- 81,784.76 81,784.76 01/22/2016 0.030 0.003 81,784.76 81,784.76 0.003 31,968.96 1,687.43 0.010 0.001 1,443,972.46 1,944,939.77 0.250 0.021 10,003.40 10,005.64 0.010 0.056 84,618.98 5,042.30 0.010 0.001 1,570,563.80 1,961,675.14 0.020 9,972,020.57 13,072,020.57 0.260 0.024 9,972,020.57 13,072,020.57 0.024 -------- 15,270,913.59 10,270,913.59 0.458 0.034 15,270,913.59 10,270,913.59 0.034 82,634,952.54 81,125,885.54 0.051 Interest Earned 1,041 .66 1,041 .66 - 2.11 2.11 0.21 308.44 5.59 0.56 314.80 2,429.28 2,429.28 5,250.03 5,250.03 42,682.09 Page 2 Adjusted Interest Earnings Amortization/ Accretion -97.11 -97.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 -178.34 Adjusted Interest Earnings 944.55 944.55 2.11 2.11 0.21 308.44 5.59 0.56 314.80 2,429.28 2,429.28 ----- 5,250.03 5,250.03 42,503.75 Portfolio OTAY AP IE (PRF _IE) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.3b CUSIP Investment# Issuer: STATE OF CALIFORNIA Union Bank UNION MONEY 9002 UNION OPERATING 9004 RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014 Issuer Percent of Portfolio 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 18.609% Issuer: California Bank & Trust Certificates of Deposit -Bank Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal 0.101% Issuer: Fannie Mae Federal Agency Issues-Callable Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal 2.463% Issuer: Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Agency Issues-Callable Subtotal and Balance Run Date: 09/16/2014 -06:19 OTAY Activity Report Sorted By Issuer August 1, 2014-August 31, 2014 Par Value Beginning Current Transaction Balance Rate Date 0.010 0.250 0.010 0.010 1 ,654,130.83 0.260 9,972,020.57 11,626,151.40 81,784.76 81,784.76 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 Purchases or Deposits 6,557,059.83 639,361 .04 0.31 0.62 0.00 7,196,421.80 7,700,000.00 7,700,000.00 14,896,421.80 0.00 0.00 Par Value Redemptions or Withdrawals 6,557,057.59 138,393.73 30,281.84 79,577.30 7,547.37 6,812,857.83 Ending Balance 2,037,694.80 ------- 4,600,000.00 4,600,000.00 11,412,857.83 0.00 0.00 13,072,020.57 15,109,715.37 81,784.76 81,784.76 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 Portfolio OTAY AP DA (PRF _DA) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.3b Percent CUSIP Investment# Issuer of Portfolio Issuer Subtotal 9.853% Issuer: Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Agency Issues-Callable 3130A1XA1 2294 Federal Home Loan Bank Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal 21.842% Issuer: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Agency Issues-Callable Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal 24.631% Issuer: Federal National Mortage Assoc --- Federal Agency Issues-Callable 3136G23GO 2304 Federal National Mortage Assoc Subtotal and Balance Federal Agency Issues -Coupon Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal 9.853% Issuer: San Diego County San Diego County Pool SD COUNTY POOL 9007 San Diego County Subtotal and Balance Issuer Subtotal 12.649% Total 100.000% Run Date: 09/1612014 -08:19 OTAY Activity Report August 1, 2014-August 31, 2014 Par Value Beginning Current Transaction Purchases or Balance Rate Date Deposits 8,000,000.00 0.00 0.650 08/26/2014 0.00 19,735,000.00 0.00 19,735,000.00 0.00 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 0.00 1.050 08/15/2014 2,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.458 0.00 15,270,913.59 0.00 15,270,913.59 0.00 82,713,849.75 16,896,421.80 Par Value Redemptions or Withdrawals 0.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 18,412,857.83 Page 2 Ending Balance 8,000,000.00 17,735,000.00 17.735,000.00 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 - 2,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 10,270,913.59 10,270,913.59 81,197,413.72 Portfolio OTAY AP DA (PRF _DA) 7.2.0 Report Ver. 7.3.3b CUSIP Investment# Fund: Treasury Fund 3134G4WH7 3134G54N2 3134G4WJ3 3134G55T8 3134G56A8 3134G5BL8 3134G56NO 3134G5A47 3134G55X9 3134G4PXO 3136G1XZ7 3135GOYW7 3135GOYE7 3136G23GO 3130A1RB6 3130A1RB6 3130A2HW9 3130A1XA1 3130A1Q84 3130A25S1 3130A1ZX9 3130A1SE9 2285 2293 2284 2295 2297 2302 2300 2301 2298 2277 2274 2276 2286 2304 2290 2289 2303 2294 2292 2299 2296 2288 313382YY3 2268 3130AOVG2 2281 RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 UBNA-2010 BOND 9013 PETTY CASH 9003 PAYROLL 9005 LAIF BABS 2010 9012 UNION OPERATING 9004 UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014 Run Date: 09/16/2014 -08:19 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 99 Investment Class Maturity Date Fair Value 03/20/2017 Fair Value 11/28/2016 Fair Value 09/19/2016 Fair Value 12/12/2016 Fair Value 06/16/2017 Fair Value 10/17/2017 Fair Value 06/26/2017 Fair Value 12/30/2016 Fair Value 03/10/2017 Fair Value 06/27/2016 Fair Value 12/19/2016 Fair Value 11/25/2016 Fair Value 08/26/2016 Fair Value 08/15/2017 Fair Value 05/15/2017 Fair Value 05/15/2017 Fair Value 10/07/2016 Fair Value 08/26/2016 Fair Value 05/08/2017 Fair Value 12/19/2016 Fair Value 08/22/2017 Fair Value 05/19/2017 Fair Value Fair Value Amortized Amortized Amortized Amortized Fair Value Amortized Amortized 02/22/2016 11/25/2016 OTAY GASB 31 Compliance Detail Sorted by Fund -Fund August 1, 2014-August 31, 2014 Beginning Invested Value 1,993,760.00 1,999,720.00 1,998,580.00 1,996,320.00 1,996,220.00 1 ,995,180.00 1,994,280.00 1,994,500.00 1,993,920.00 1,998,340.00 1,990,800.00 1,997,340.00 1,999,000.00 0.00 2,701 ,699.90 1 ,028, 743.40 1,995,400.00 1,994,600.00 1,995,240.00 1,994,200.00 1,989,860.00 1,994,720.00 1,995,240.00 1,998,960.00 31 ,968.96 51.89 2,950.00 27,891.35 0.00 1 ,443, 972.46 52,673.79 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 2,000,000.00 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 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 639,361 .04 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 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,281 .84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 138,393.73 7,547.37 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 0.00 Change in Market Value 4,440.00 2,740.00 1,940.00 3,400.00 4,480.00 5,060.00 4,980.00 3,660.00 4,380.00 -2,600.00 4,280.00 5,000.00 2,300.00 220.00 6,032.15 2,296.90 3,420.00 5,400.00 4,440.00 3,660.00 6,100.00 4,620.00 1,700.00 3,320.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ending Invested Value 1,998,200.00 2,002,460.00 2,000,520.00 1,999,720.00 2,000,700.00 2,000,240.00 1,999,260.00 1,998,160.00 1,998,300.00 1,995,740.00 1,995,080.00 2,002,340.00 2,001 ,300.00 2,000,220.00 2,707,732.05 1,031 ,040.30 1,998,820.00 0.00 1,999,680.00 1,997,860.00 1,995,960.00 1,999,340.00 1,996,940.00 2,002,280.00 1,687.43 51.89 2,950.00 27,891 .35 0.00 1,944,939.77 45,126.42 Portfolio OTAY AP GD (PRF_GD)7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3b OTAY GASB 31 Compliance Detail Sorted by Fund -Fund Investment Maturity Beginning Purchase CUSIP Investment# Fund Class Date Invested Value of Principal Fund: Treasury Fund LA IF 9001 99 Fair Value 9,974,999.71 0.00 UNION MONEY 9002 99 Amortized 10,003.40 0.00 RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 99 Amortized 84,618.98 0.00 3133EC7H1 2260 99 Fair Value 08/17/2015 3,005,130.00 0.00 3133EC6F6 2258 99 Fair Value 06/01/2015 3,005,220.00 0.00 3133EDKF8 2291 99 Fair Value 07/29/2016 1 ,996,140.00 0.00 20500031 83-6 2283 99 Amortized 01/22/2016 81 ,784.76 0.00 3135GOXR9 2269 99 Fair Value 09/06/2016 1 ,995,120.00 0.00 SD COUNTY POOL 9007 99 Fair Value 15,192,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 82,541,148.60 2,000,000.00 Total 82,541 ,148.60 2,000,000.00 Run Date: 09/16/2014 -08:19 Addition Redemption to Principal of Principal 7,700,000.00 4,600,000.00 6,557,059.83 6,557,057.59 0.62 79,577.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,000,000.00 14,896,421 .80 18,412,857.83 14,896,421 .80 18,412,857.83 Adjustment In Value Amortization Change in Adjustment Market Value 0.00 926.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 360.00 0.00 -330.00 0.00 2,960.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,520.00 0.00 -11,000.00 0.00 81,705.18 0.00 81,705.18 Page 2 Ending Invested Value 13,075,925.84 10,005.64 5,042.30 3,005,490.00 3,004,890.00 1 ,999, 100.00 81,784.76 1,998,640.00 10,181,000.00 81 ,106,417.75 81,106,417.75 Portfolio OTAY AP GO (PRF_GD) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3b Security ID 3134G5BL8 3134G4PXO 3134G5A47 3134G55T8 3134G56NO 3134G55X9 3134G56A8 3134G54N2 3134G4WH7 3134G4WJ3 3136G23GO 3135GOYW7 3136G1XZ7 3130AOVG2 3130A1SE9 313382YY3 3130A25S1 3130A2HW9 3130A1RB6 3130A1Q84 3130A1ZX9 3130A1RB6 3133EDKF8 3133EC7H1 3133EC6F6 3135GOXR9 Investment# Fund 2302 2277 2301 2295 2300 2298 2297 2293 2285 2284 2304 2276 2274 2281 2288 2268 2299 2303 2289 2292 2296 2290 2291 2260 2258 2269 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 Run Date: 09/16/2014 -08:20 OTAY Duration Report Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type Through 08/31/2014 Issuer Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal Home Loan Mortgage Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal National Mortage Assoc Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Home Loan Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Federal Farm Credit Bank Fannie Mae 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 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 2,002,177.03 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 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2, 705,000.00 2,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 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 1,030,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,705,000.00 2,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 Market Current Value Rate 2,000,240.00 1.220000 1,995,740.00 .5000000 1,998,160.00 .6500000 1,999,720.00 .7000000 1,999,260.00 1.000000 1,998,300.00 .8100000 2,000,700.00 1.000000 2,002,460.00 . 7500000 1,998,200.00 .9000000 2,000,520.00 .6250000 2,000,220.00 1.050000 2,002,340.00 . 7500000 1,995,080.00 .6700000 2,002,280.00 . 7000000 1,999,340.00 1.000000 1,996,940.00 .3500000 1,997,860.00 .7000000 1,998,820.00 .6600000 1,031,040.30 1.020000 1,999,680.00 1.010000 1,995,960.00 1.050000 2,707,732.05 1.020000 1 ,999,100.00 .5500000 3,005,490.00 .3400000 3,004,890.00 .3500000 1,998,640.00 .5500000 YTM Current 360 Yield 1.203 0.493 0.641 0.690 0.986 0.799 0.986 0.740 0.888 0.616 1.036 0.685 0.661 0.690 0.986 0.345 0.690 0.651 1.006 0.996 1.036 1.006 0.542 0.335 0.345 0.542 1.216 0.618 0.690 0.706 1.013 0.844 0.987 0.695 0.936 0.612 1.046 0.515 0.778 0.649 1.012 0.454 0.747 0.688 0.982 1.016 1.119 0.982 0.574 -0.026 0.133 0.686 Maturity/ Modified Call Date Duration 10/17/2017 06/27/2016 12/30/2016 12/12/2016 06/26/2017 03/10/2017 06/16/2017 11/28/2016 03/20/2017 09/19/2016 08/15/2017 11/25/2016 12/19/2016 11/25/2016 05/19/2017 02/22/2016 12/19/2016 10/07/2016 05/15/2017 05/08/2017 08/22/2017 05/15/2017 07/29/2016 08/17/2015 06/01/2015 09/06/2016 3.054 1.808 2.306 2.255 2.768 2.488 2.740 2.215 2.507 2.028 2.901 2.208 2.274 2.212 2.666 1.469 2.274 2.079 2.654 2.635 2.920 2.654 1.897 0.960 0.749 1.993 Portfolio OTAY AP DU (PRF _DU) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3b OTAY Duration Report Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type Through 08/31/2014 Investment Book Par Securi~ ID Investment # Fund Issuer Class Value Value 3135GOYE7 2286 99 Federal National Mortage Assoc Fair 2,002,314.45 2,000,000.00 2050003183-6 2283 99 California Bank & Trust Amort 81,784.76 81,784.76 LAIF 9001 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair 13,072,020.57 13,072,020.57 LAIF BABS 2010 9012 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair 0.00 0.00 SO COUNTY 9007 99 San Diego County Fair 10,270,913.59 10,270,913.59 Report Total 79,164,210.40 79,159,718.92 Run Date: 09/1612014 -08:20 Page 2 Market Current YTM Value Rate 360 2,001,300.00 .6250000 0.558 81,784.76 .0300000 0.030 13,075,925.84 .2600000 0.256 0.00 .2280000 0.225 10,181,000.00 .4580000 0.452 79,068,722.95 Current Yield 0.592 0.030 0.260 0.228 0.458 0.613 Maturity/ Modified Call Date Duration 08/26/2016 1.970 01/22/2016 1.390 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.548 Portfolio OTAY AP DU (PRF _DU) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3b Check Total 14,048.17 13,358.58 20,384.15 CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description 2041256 09/17/14 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES 950629 08/25/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,995.11 Amount 2041255 09/17/14 15416 24 HOUR ELEVATOR INC 13596 08/01/14 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE (AUG 2014)420.00 950280 08/20/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,144.69 950631 08/25/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,134.88 951088 08/29/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,826.40 950513 08/22/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,459.55 420.00 951270 09/01/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 744.49 950415 08/21/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 674.85 950418 08/21/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 958.32 950994 08/28/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 829.82 950891 08/27/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,027.96 950274 08/20/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 974.01 950995 08/28/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 374.70 2041161 09/03/14 01910 ABCANA INDUSTRIES 950075 08/18/14 950996 08/28/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 468.86 950277 08/20/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 434.53 949495 08/11/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,252.58 949448 08/08/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 991.67 949713 08/13/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,328.11 949889 08/15/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,321.25 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,777.35 949130 08/06/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,441.89 949026 08/05/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 727.81 949784 08/14/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 694.46 949215 08/07/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 785.68 949783 08/14/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 729.77 950076 08/18/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 907.31 949496 08/11/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 823.94 SHAREPOINT SERVICES (6/27/14-7/29/14)1,500.00 1,500.00 2041163 09/03/14 03317 ADVANCED CALL PROCESSING INC 20143271 08/05/14 TELEPHONE SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 949217 08/07/14 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 576.76 2041162 09/03/14 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 4394 08/06/14 DEVELOPER PROJECTS (7/1/14-8/1/14)27,442.29 08/25/14 DISINFECTION SYSTEM (ENDING 7/25/14)40,506.92 40,506.92 2041164 09/03/14 11462 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 1312 08/08/14 13,487.96 20143274 08/13/14 DESKTOP PHONES 6,896.19 2041257 09/17/14 12174 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 20 Page 1 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 27,842.29 2,825.63 2,578.13 5,079.00 18.20 1,923.95 4,050.00 1213 08/06/14 DESIGN SVCS (7/1/14-8/1/14)400.00 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT (8/5/14-8/8/14)1,320.00 OE01068647 08/28/14 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT (8/11/14-8/15/14)1,258.13 2041165 09/03/14 11803 AEROTEK ENVIRONMENTAL OE01066317 08/21/14 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT (8/25/14-8/29/14)1,505.63 OE01070948 09/04/14 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT (8/18/14-8/22/14)1,320.00 2041258 09/17/14 11803 AEROTEK ENVIRONMENTAL OE01073322 09/11/14 131349042 08/25/14 AQUA AMMONIA 382.80 2041260 09/17/14 13753 AIRGAS USA LLC 9921108779 08/31/14 AQUA AMMONIA 3,399.60 131349040 08/25/14 AQUA AMMONIA 1,296.60 2041259 09/17/14 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131349041 08/25/14 46.35 46.35 2041166 09/03/14 13753 AIRGAS USA LLC 9030654135 08/18/14 AIR BOTTLES 221.53 AIR BOTTLES 46.35 46.35 2041106 08/27/14 13753 AIRGAS USA LLC 9920375981 07/31/14 AIR BOTTLES MONITORING SVC 980-1 & 2 RES (8/25/14-8/31/14)9.10 165044 08/25/14 MONITORING SVC 1485-2 PS (8/25/14-8/31/14)9.10 2041168 09/03/14 14811 ALARMS UNLIMITED INC 165029 08/25/14 221.53 2041167 09/03/14 15024 AIRX UTILITY SURVEYORS INC 10 08/13/14 LAND SURVEYING (7/1/14-7/31/14)5,627.00 5,627.00 165028 08/25/14 FACILITY CONVERSIONS 409.00 2041107 08/27/14 15795 ALEGRIA REAL ESTATE FUND IV Ref002435671 08/25/14 FACILITY CONVERSIONS 933.48 165722 08/26/14 FACILITY CONVERSIONS 581.47 2041213 09/10/14 14811 ALARMS UNLIMITED INC 165043 08/25/14 244.09 244.09 2041214 09/10/14 02362 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES # 509 0509005702577 08/25/14 TRASH SERVICES (SEPT 2014)530.33 UB Refund Cst #0000207028 249.99 249.99 2041108 08/27/14 15777 ALLAN FARIAS Ref002435652 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000049140 MGMT/INSP (7/1/14-7/31/14)2,400.00 CM201429 08/08/14 MGMT/INSP (7/1/14-7/31/14)1,650.00 2041169 09/03/14 14462 ALYSON CONSULTING CM201430 08/08/14 530.33 2041261 09/17/14 02362 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES # 509 0509005704165 08/25/14 TRASH SERVICES (SEPT 2014)192.71 192.71 219.00 219.00 2041109 08/27/14 15774 ANDREW FLORES Ref002435649 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000014574 9.36 PAGERS (AUG 2014)203.75 203.75 2041262 09/17/14 02730 AMERICAN PAYROLL ASSOCIATION 192213 07/31/14 MEMBERSHIP DUES (ANNUAL) 2041215 09/10/14 06166 AMERICAN MESSAGING L11095700I 09/01/14 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SEPT 2014)314.43 314.43204121609/10/14 08967 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS EAP 41246 08/25/14 9.36 2041170 09/03/14 00002 ANSWER INC 10399 08/22/14 ANSWERING SERVICES (MONTHLY)1,110.00 1,110.00 Page 2 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 2041263 09/17/14 07785 AT&T 000005711254 09/01/14 TELEPHONE SERVICES (MONTHLY) 420.00 2041171 09/03/14 03407 ATKINS, SUSAN 082814 08/28/14 COMPUTER LOAN 1,027.82 1,027.82 1,229.08 1,229.08 2041264 09/17/14 12810 ATKINS 1201284 08/28/14 DESIGN SERVICES (6/27/14-7/27/14)420.00 4,622.40 4,622.40 2041267 09/17/14 12684 BALDWIN & SONS LLC 0909091214 09/12/14 W/O REFUND D0909-090175 384.52 CUSTOMER REFUND 708.20 708.20 2041266 09/17/14 11519 BACKFLOW APPARATUS & VALVE CO 677900 08/01/14 BACKFLOWS 2041265 09/17/14 15808 AURY MCDANIEL 2410091014 09/12/14 UB Refund Cst #0000034428 6.77 6.77 2041218 09/10/14 15570 BEYOND IDEAS LLC OWD2 09/01/14 CONSULTING SERVICES 2041217 09/10/14 15802 BARBARA ZAMPETTI Ref002435903 09/08/14 384.52 2041110 08/27/14 15788 BARBARA BURNS Ref002435664 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000203767 164.41 164.41 75.00 2041219 09/10/14 08156 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER 575732 08/27/14 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY (JULY 2014)4,841.00 4,841.00 4,950.00 4,950.00 2041172 09/03/14 15772 BONITA OPTIMIST FOUNDATION 091314 08/12/14 PUBLIC RECOGNITION 75.00 150.00 150.00 2041268 09/17/14 01004 CALOLYMPIC SAFETY 3307081 08/25/14 CAL-GAS, REG, HOSE 961.02 APPLICATION FEE - OPERATION BUDGET 150.00 150.00 2041221 09/10/14 01060 CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF 090814A 09/08/14 APPLICATION FEE - CAPITAL BUDGET 2041220 09/10/14 01060 CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF 090814 09/08/14 UB Refund Cst #0000197426 26.06 26.06 2041112 08/27/14 04653 CARO, PATRICIA PC081814 08/21/14 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 2041111 08/27/14 15786 CARLYN BLEVINS Ref002435662 08/25/14 961.02 2041173 09/03/14 04071 CAPITOL WEBWORKS LLC 26488 07/31/14 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY 45.00 45.00 51,387.50 2041113 08/27/14 15723 CATHERINE ARENA Ref002435032 07/14/14 UB Refund Cst #0000203575 22.48 22.48 43.78 43.78 2041174 09/03/14 15177 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC 136279 08/12/14 DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION (7/1/14-7/31/14)51,387.50 974.99 974.99 2041115 08/27/14 15773 CHRISTINE DELGADO Ref002435648 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000013012 66.64 UB Refund Cst #0000195400 103.88 103.88 2041175 09/03/14 15800 CHAN, SIU MAN POLLY 082714 08/28/14 COMPUTER LOAN 2041114 08/27/14 15785 CECILIA SANDLIN Ref002435661 08/25/14 AD&D & SUPP LIFE INS (AUG 2014)4,451.75 4,451.75 2041269 09/17/14 04119 CLARKSON LAB & SUPPLY INC 74895 08/31/14 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 2041117 08/27/14 15256 CIGNA GROUP INSURANCE / LINA 9267081014 08/10/14 66.64 2041116 08/27/14 01719 CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF 080714 08/07/14 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 175.00 175.00 632.00 Page 3 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 2,133.00 361.68 4,303.45 3,000.00 74896 08/31/14 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 161.00 74894 08/31/14 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 154.00 74893 08/31/14 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 274.00 74899 08/31/14 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 178.00 74897 08/31/14 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 322.00 74898 08/31/14 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 322.00 SR-11 RELOCATIONS (ENDING 7/31/14)84,262.63 84,262.63 2041177 09/03/14 08160 COMPLETE OFFICE 16356420 08/12/14 TONERS 74730 08/31/14 BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTING SERVICES 90.00 2041176 09/03/14 15395 COFFMAN SPECIALTIES INC 1 08/12/14 16348511 08/11/14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 83.05 2041118 08/27/14 12334 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC DS1263968 07/31/14 2,007.42 2,007.42 2041178 09/03/14 08160 COMPLETE OFFICE 16348510 08/08/14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 278.63 2,231.25 2,231.25 2041270 09/17/14 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEH2010HUPFP21278508/21/14 UPFP PERMIT RENEWAL (9/30/2014 - 9/30/2015)292.00 TAPE STORAGE (JULY 2014)426.96 426.96 2041179 09/03/14 00134 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 082514 08/25/14 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FEE INTERNET SERVICES (8/29/14-9/28/14)1,500.00 6701082914 08/29/14 INTERNET SERVICES (8/29/14-9/28/14)1,500.00 1461 09/04/14 SEWER SERVICE (7/1/14-6/30/15)157.06 2041271 09/17/14 02756 COX COMMUNICATIONS SAN DIEGO 9601082914 08/29/14 292.00 2041222 09/10/14 07494 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1458 09/04/14 SEWER SERVICE (7/1/14-6/30/15)4,146.39 32.65 32.65 2041272 09/17/14 14905 DART CONTAINER 0846091214 09/12/14 W/O REFUND D0846-060066 566.93 BUSINESS MEETING 39.00 39.00 2041119 08/27/14 15791 DANIEL PIKE Ref002435667 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000205571 2041223 09/10/14 00693 CSDA, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 082114 08/21/14 UB Refund Cst #0000181775 26.65 26.65 2041122 08/27/14 00319 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 100114 08/21/14 CERTIFICATION RENEWAL 2041121 08/27/14 13320 DENNIS DILLON Ref002435658 08/25/14 566.93 2041120 08/27/14 15775 DAVID CREEDON Ref002435650 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000038133 84.67 84.67 95.00 2041225 09/10/14 08023 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 0065925IN 09/02/14 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (JULY 2014)766.00 766.00 60.00 60.00 2041224 09/10/14 02447 EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION 5458083114 08/31/14 RECYCLING SERVICES (AUG 2014)95.00 31.18 31.18 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (QUARTERLY)1,228.00 1,228.00 2041226 09/10/14 15805 ENGRACIA LIZARRAGA Ref002435907 09/08/14 UB Refund Cst #0000203559 2041123 08/27/14 00331 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT 2384082114 08/11/14 Page 4 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 890.00 1,005.00 616.01 2,175.12 1,258.90 2041180 09/03/14 03227 ENVIROMATRIX ANALYTICAL INC 4080488 08/11/14 LAB ANALYSIS (7/25/14-7/31/14)445.00 LAB ANALYSIS (8/8/14-8/14/14)445.00 445.00 2041124 08/27/14 02939 ESCARCEGA, LUIS 081214 08/21/14 SAFETY BOOT REIMBURSEMENT 4080680 08/18/14 LAB ANALYSIS (8/1/14-8/7/14)445.00 2041273 09/17/14 03227 ENVIROMATRIX ANALYTICAL INC 4080862 08/25/14 L0180225 08/22/14 OUTSIDE LAB SERVICES (8/5/14)255.00 2041275 09/17/14 15396 EVOQUA WATER TECHNOLOGIES LLC 901842690 08/28/14 150.00 150.00 2041274 09/17/14 14320 EUROFINS EATON ANALYTICAL INC L0181207 08/27/14 OUTSIDE LAB SERVICES (8/12/14)750.00 128.55 128.55 2041182 09/03/14 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 0483170 08/05/14 HYDRANT PARTS 2,360.80 ENCORE 700 1,170.72 1,170.72 2041181 09/03/14 15765 EZAUTOMATION 75860 08/14/14 HMI EQUIPMENT 04831701 08/20/14 HYDRANT PARTS 59.81 2041227 09/10/14 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 04761971 07/25/14 2,360.80 2041276 09/17/14 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS # 1083 04831702 08/25/14 HYDRANT PARTS 556.20 ONLINE DOCUMENTS (MONTHLY)99.00 99.00 2041125 08/27/14 12187 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003400714 07/31/14 ONLINE DOCUMENTS (MONTHLY) 2041277 09/17/14 12187 FIRST AMERICAN DATA TREE LLC 9003400814 08/31/14 GATE CAPS 1,272.24 04731442 07/25/14 GATE CAPS 902.88 137.49 2041278 09/17/14 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES - SD 025159 08/20/14 COFFEE SUPPLIES 17.40 17.40 99.00 99.00 2041183 09/03/14 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES - SD 024587 08/06/14 COFFEE SUPPLIES 137.49 5,396.00 5,396.00 2041126 08/27/14 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2435718 08/28/14 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 81.00 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE (AUG 2014)135.00 135.00 2041279 09/17/14 11501 FLUID CONSERVATION SYSTEMS INC 3375 07/15/14 LEAK DETECTION EQUIPMENT 2041184 09/03/14 02591 FITNESS TECH 9165 08/01/14 PAINT 621.53 621.53 2041127 08/27/14 15780 GIACOMO LALICATA Ref002435655 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000143904 2041280 09/17/14 07224 FRAZEE INDUSTRIES INC 63540 08/20/14 81.00 2041228 09/10/14 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2435950 09/11/14 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 81.00 81.00 550.00 2041185 09/03/14 00101 GRAINGER INC 9516921096 08/13/14 FLUKE MULTIMETER 1,159.11 23.21 23.21 2041229 09/10/14 00131 GOVERNMENT FIN OFFICERS ASSN 090814 09/08/14 APPLICATION FEE 550.00 LANDSCAPING SERVICES (AUG 2014)8,909.50 8,909.50 9516606929 08/13/14 FLUKE MULTIMETER 99.79 2041281 09/17/14 12907 GREENRIDGE LANDSCAPE INC 12302 08/29/14 Page 5 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 7,200.00 85.86 7,310.00 1,684.65 2041230 09/10/14 00174 HACH COMPANY 8954417 07/30/14 HACH PM SERVICE 1,259.79 2041282 09/17/14 00174 HACH COMPANY 8950392 07/28/14 HACH ANALYZERS 2,077.27 2,077.27 12,009.54 12,009.54 2041186 09/03/14 00174 HACH COMPANY 8985223 08/18/14 HACH APA6000 1,259.79 5,423.04 5,423.04 2041187 09/03/14 10973 HDR ENGINEERING INC 7 08/15/14 CORROSION SERVICES (6/29/14-7/26/14)20,062.99 HACH 25 MIC FILTER 611.17 611.17 2041128 08/27/14 02795 HARTFORD INSURANCE CO, THE Ben2435704 08/28/14 MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION TO LTD 2041283 09/17/14 00201 HARRINGTON INDL PLASTICS LLC 004E8741 08/21/14 114 09/09/14 BI-NATIONAL CONSULTANT SVCS (AUG 2014)3,600.00 2041129 08/27/14 00062 HELIX WATER DISTRICT 9980081214 08/12/14 20,062.99 2041284 09/17/14 04472 HECTOR I MARES-COSSIO 113 09/09/14 BI-NATIONAL CONSULTANT SVCS (JULY 2014)3,600.00 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (7/1/14-7/25/14)7,010.00 0102531 08/13/14 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (7/1/14-7/25/14)300.00 2041231 09/10/14 15622 ICF JONES & STOKES INC 0102530 08/13/14 WATER USAGE (6/5/14-8/7/14)42.93 0341081214 08/12/14 WATER USAGE (8/12/14-8/25/14)42.93 1,159.35 1,159.35 2041188 09/03/14 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 628470 CREDIT MEMO -3,000.00 PLANT SERVICES (AUG 2014)205.00 205.00 2041286 09/17/14 03077 JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA INC SDO08140139 08/01/14 JANITORIAL SERVICES (AUG 2014) 2041285 09/17/14 02372 INTERIOR PLANT SERVICE INC 9051 08/20/14 FUEL ISLAND MAINTENANCE 1,026.69 1,026.69 2041287 09/17/14 02269 JENAL ENGINEERING CORP 141697 08/29/14 DUSTO INSPECTIONS (AUG 2014) 628457 08/11/14 CHLORINE TP 4,684.65 2041189 09/03/14 02269 JENAL ENGINEERING CORP 141590 08/12/14 184.19 2041131 08/27/14 15797 JIMMY HODGES Ref002435673 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000209031 44.48 44.48 100.00 100.00 2041130 08/27/14 15778 JIM JOAQUIN Ref002435653 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000072900 184.19 30.00 30.00 2041288 09/17/14 05840 KIRK PAVING INC 5651 08/27/14 AS NEEDED PAVING SERVICES FY15 1,200.00 UB Refund Cst #0000206862 37.19 37.19 2041232 09/10/14 15715 JOSE SEGURA Ref002435904 09/08/14 UB Refund Cst #0000059612 2041132 08/27/14 15794 JOSE LUIS CASTRO Ref002435670 08/25/14 AICPA DUES 235.00 235.00 2041133 08/27/14 15787 LAARISSA CAREY Ref002435663 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000198192 2041289 09/17/14 14808 KOEPPEN, KEVIN 2550091114 09/11/14 1,200.00 2041190 09/03/14 14808 KOEPPEN, KEVIN 090314 09/03/14 COMPUTER LOAN 2,368.59 2,368.59 24.22 24.22 2041290 09/17/14 12843 LAWTON GROUP, THE 51870 09/05/14 INTERNSHIP AGREEMENT (8/25/14-8/31/14)275.00Page 6 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 550.00 6,475.00 437.50 51876 09/12/14 INTERNSHIP AGREEMENT (9/1/14-9/7/14)275.00 2041233 09/10/14 12843 LAWTON GROUP, THE 51866 08/29/14 2041290 09/17/14 12843 LAWTON GROUP, THE 51870 09/05/14 INTERNSHIP AGREEMENT (8/25/14-8/31/14)275.00 43,947.90 43,947.90 2041192 09/03/14 03607 LEE & RO INC LR16599 08/05/14 INTERCONNECTION (6/1/14-7/25/14)8,465.30 INTERNSHIP AGREEMENT (8/18/14-8/24/14)275.00 275.00 2041191 09/03/14 09511 LAYFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 00015221 06/27/14 RETAINAGE RELEASE 0001559080414 08/04/14 CONSULTANT SERVICES 875.00 2041291 09/17/14 06273 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1392111 08/31/14 8,465.30 2041234 09/10/14 15597 LEONARD H VILLARREAL 1559082414 08/24/14 CONSULTANT SERVICES 5,600.00 18,395.70 18,395.70 2041135 08/27/14 15796 LORENE PEARCY Ref002435672 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000207896 30.36 ATTORNEY SERVICES (THRU 8/31/14)3,737.50 3,737.50 2041134 08/27/14 06273 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1391004 07/31/14 ATTORNEY SERVICES (THRU 7/31/14) INVENTORY 20,754.49 20,754.49 2041136 08/27/14 15781 MAUREEN GUARCELLO Ref002435656 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000158142 2041293 09/17/14 05329 MASTER METER INC 126054 08/22/14 30.36 2041292 09/17/14 10512 MAIL MANAGEMENT GROUP INC 082214 09/11/14 MAILOUT 275.00 275.00 0088216IN 08/13/14 REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 155.00 0088215IN 08/13/14 REPROGRAPHICS SERVICES 85.00 117.55 117.55 2041137 08/27/14 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0088217IN 08/13/14 REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 197.50 1,910.67 1,910.67 2041294 09/17/14 01824 MERKEL & ASSOCIATES INC 14082602 08/26/14 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (7/1/14-8/15/14)12,488.31 REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 195.00 195.00 2041235 09/10/14 15803 MCMILLIN ROLLING HILLS RANCH L Ref002435905 09/08/14 UB Refund Cst #0000174010 2041193 09/03/14 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 0088329IN 08/19/14 UB Refund Cst #0000172618 116.95 116.95 2041140 08/27/14 15792 MIRANDA REAL ESTATE Ref002435668 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000205926 2041139 08/27/14 15782 MICHELLE IBARRA Ref002435657 08/25/14 12,488.31 2041138 08/27/14 15793 MICHAEL BURDT Ref002435669 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000206358 13.71 13.71 2,592.20 2041236 09/10/14 00237 MISSION JANITORIAL & ABRASIVE 41928201 07/10/14 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 154.78 154.78 40.18 40.18 2041295 09/17/14 00237 MISSION JANITORIAL & ABRASIVE 42617300 08/27/14 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 2,592.20 340297519 08/05/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 114.17 UNIFORM SERVICES 405.42 340298631 08/12/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 398.38 2041194 09/03/14 15136 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 340297520 08/05/14 Page 7 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 1,249.73 1,212.88 574.01 2,065.19 340297524 08/05/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 89.75 340298630 08/12/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 68.25 2041296 09/17/14 15136 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 340200785 08/26/14 340299451 08/18/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 89.75 340298634 08/12/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 84.01 340201602 09/01/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 93.43 340200545 08/25/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 89.75 340299699 08/19/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 114.17 340200784 08/26/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 114.17 UNIFORM SERVICES 399.09 340299700 08/19/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 398.27 CUSTOMER REFUND 231.07 231.07 2041238 09/10/14 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2435942 09/11/14 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN S340200128 08/26/14 UNIFORM SERVICES 4.00 2041237 09/10/14 15806 NAMIR NAMO 4419090814 09/08/14 7,058.27 2041297 09/17/14 00745 NEWARK 25443200 07/30/14 RESISTORS / TIMERS 477.61 477.61 6,883.27 6,883.27 2041141 08/27/14 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2435710 08/28/14 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 7,058.27 363.51 725551887001 08/21/14 TONER CARTRIDGES 210.50 2041195 09/03/14 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 723137631001 SAFETY BOOTS REIMBURSEMENT 145.78 145.78 2041298 09/17/14 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 727139194001 08/28/14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2041142 08/27/14 03215 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL 082114 08/21/14 UB Refund Cst #0000212313 1,295.78 1,295.78 2041299 09/17/14 13115 ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS LLC S4430409002 08/26/14 ENGINEERING SERVICE 08/05/14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 109.25 109.25 2041143 08/27/14 15798 OFTEDAHL & JACKSON CONST Ref002435674 08/25/14 W/O REFUND D0910-090176 384.52 384.52 2041196 09/03/14 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY 300242 08/08/14 INVENTORY 2041300 09/17/14 15813 OTAY VILLAGE (SD) ASLI V LLLP 0910091214 09/12/14 1,231.20 S4437251001 08/25/14 SUPPORT SERVICE (8/19/14-8/18/15)725.00 S4430409001 08/19/14 ENGINEERING SERVICE 108.99 51.89 2041301 09/17/14 05497 PAYPAL INC 34573486 08/31/14 PHONE PAYMENT SVCS (AUG 2014)54.10 54.10 1,875.96 1,875.96 2041144 08/27/14 15776 PAUL LOZANO Ref002435651 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000039484 51.89 657.43 657.43 RAGS 388.80 388.80 2041239 09/10/14 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 090814 09/08/14 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 2041197 09/03/14 08398 PEERLESS MATERIALS COMPANY 40074 08/11/14 Page 8 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 19,598.95 2041198 09/03/14 15081 PINOMAKI DESIGN 4583 08/18/14 GRAPHIC DESIGN 85.00 MAGNETIC LOCATORS 2,369.41 2,369.41 2041302 09/17/14 01733 PRICE TRONCONE &12863 08/13/14 ANTENNA SUBLEASE (OCT-DEC 2014) 2041200 09/03/14 01151 PRES-TECH MANUFACTURER'S 7825 08/15/14 85.00 2041199 09/03/14 03351 POSADA, ROD 082014082214 08/26/14 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMB (8/20/14-8/22/14)1,166.53 1,166.53 3,924.48 2041201 09/03/14 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYSTEM Ben2435706 08/28/14 BI-WEEKLY PERS CONTRIBUTION 172,849.86 172,849.86 4,335.00 4,335.00 2041303 09/17/14 13059 PRIORITY BUILDING SERVICES 40529 08/01/14 JANITORIAL SERVICES (AUG 2014)3,924.48 1,639.22 1,639.22 2041305 09/17/14 01342 R J SAFETY SUPPLY CO INC 32775600 08/22/14 HIP PAC RECERTIFICATION 197.50 BI-WEEKLY PERS CONTRIBUTION 191,405.44 191,405.44 2041202 09/03/14 01342 R J SAFETY SUPPLY CO INC 32736900 08/13/14 HARNESS 2014 2041304 09/17/14 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RET SYSTEM Ben2435938 09/11/14 CAMPO ROAD SUPPORT (7/1/14-7/25/14)16,787.85 16,787.85 2041306 09/17/14 00521 RICK POST WELD & WET TAPPING 9790 08/26/14 RICK POST WELDING 2041204 09/03/14 08972 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY 0038732 08/14/14 197.50 2041203 09/03/14 15414 REGENTS BANK 1 08/12/14 RETENTION/COFFMAN (ENDING 7/31/14)4,434.88 4,434.88 60.60 2041146 08/27/14 15784 ROLANDO ENRIQUEZ Ref002435660 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000188153 36.77 36.77 870.00 870.00 2041145 08/27/14 15779 ROBERT CLARK Ref002435654 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000097455 60.60 10,117.44 S100042043001 08/25/14 INVENTORY 7,102.08 S100042078002 08/26/14 16" 914 FCA 2,228.23 W/O REFUND D0808-060056 1,979.70 1,979.70 2041308 09/17/14 09148 S & J SUPPLY COMPANY INC S100040339001 08/26/14 AIR-VAC #354 2041307 09/17/14 15812 ROSINA VISTA LP 0808060056 09/12/14 WELDING SERVICES 1,170.00 1,170.00 2041147 08/27/14 03752 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF Ben2435716 08/28/14 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION S100042078001 08/26/14 16" PLATED A307 GRADE A BOLT KIT 151.20 2041205 09/03/14 11596 SAN DIEGO CONSTRUCTION WELDING 9497 08/12/14 460.90 2041309 09/17/14 00247 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT 1563082614 08/26/14 LEGAL ADVERTISING 376.20 376.20 460.90 460.90 2041240 09/10/14 03752 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF Ben2435948 09/11/14 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 460.90 082214 08/22/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)28,616.58 082514 08/25/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)24,210.98 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)68,003.94 081814 08/18/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)52,067.84 2041206 09/03/14 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 082414 08/24/14 Page 9 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 187,946.52 151,895.33 440.00 6,444.00 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)50.71 50.71 2041241 09/10/14 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 090214 09/02/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 2041310 09/17/14 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 090414 09/04/14 082214a 08/22/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)14,159.74 082114 08/21/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)887.44 090314a 09/03/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)5,595.31 2041242 09/10/14 12080 SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, THE 486355 09/04/14 85,015.91 090314 09/03/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)34,696.86 082614 08/26/14 UTILITY EXPENSES (MONTHLY)26,587.25 750.00 750.00 2041148 08/27/14 15790 SARAH ALBERTS Ref002435666 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000204102 21.73 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 357.74 357.74 2041311 09/17/14 07676 SAN MIGUEL FIRE PROTECTION 082014 08/20/14 SPONSORSHIP W/O REFUND D0711-090166 101.56 101.56 2041314 09/17/14 13610 SHARP CHULA VISTA MEDICAL CTR 0675090187 09/12/14 W/O REFUND D0675-090187 2041313 09/17/14 15811 SD - SCANNELL DEVELOPMENT 0711091214a 09/12/14 21.73 2041312 09/17/14 15811 SD - SCANNELL DEVELOPMENT 0711091214 09/12/14 W/O REFUND D0711-060107 4,435.22 4,435.22 4G29041 07/29/14 LABORATORY SERVICES 220.00 2041243 09/10/14 13327 SILVA-SILVA INTERNATIONAL 1409 09/01/14 2,011.32 2,011.32 2041315 09/17/14 15307 SIERRA ANALYTICAL LABS INC 4G23002 07/23/14 LABORATORY SERVICES (7/16/14)220.00 8,235.00 8,235.00 2041207 09/03/14 03592 SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION 3757209 08/06/14 MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 83,546.14 DESAL PROJ CONSULTANT (AUG 2014)4,000.00 4,000.00 2041149 08/27/14 03612 SIMON WONG ENGINEERING 17549 07/31/14 WOODEN TRESTLE IMPROVEMENT (ENDING 7/31/14) REPLACE AIR CONDITIONER 4,691.00 C54210 08/11/14 AC MAINTENANCE (MONTHLY)1,068.00 2041208 09/03/14 15176 SOUTHCOAST HEATING &J11367 08/12/14 83,546.14 2041316 09/17/14 11618 SOUTH COAST COPY SYSTEMS AR158670 08/29/14 COPIER MAINTENANCE (SEPT 2014)1,682.59 1,682.59 2014-15 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 1,840.48 1,840.48 2041245 09/10/14 15804 STACEY KNEESHAW Ref002435906 09/08/14 UB Refund Cst #0000193434 2041244 09/10/14 03516 SPECIAL DISTRICT RISK 47965 08/27/14 C54227 08/11/14 AC MAINTENANCE (MONTHLY)480.00 C54218 08/11/14 IT AC MAINTENANCE (MONTHLY)205.00 195.00 2041317 09/17/14 12809 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF 95780 08/22/14 LEGAL SERVICES (JULY 2014)16,816.62 16,816.62 44.44 44.44 2041150 08/27/14 13564 STAR-NEWS PUBLISHING CO, THE 0203080814 08/08/14 AD - COMMUNITY EVENT 195.00 UNLEADED FUEL 13,606.62204131809/17/14 10339 SUPREME OIL COMPANY 401361 08/21/14 Page 10 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 21,200.04 3,744.00 320.02 1,094.51 CM800 REPAIR & CALIBRATION 761.89 761.89 2041209 09/03/14 03770 TEAMAN RAMIREZ & SMITH INC 206268615 08/12/14 AUDIT SERVICES FOR FY 2014 (THRU 7/31/14) 2041319 09/17/14 15593 SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS LLC 13200 08/29/14 401363 08/21/14 DIESEL FUEL 7,593.42 2,560.00 2041151 08/27/14 15789 TIERA MARSHALL Ref002435665 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000203958 15.29 15.29 10,000.00 10,000.00 2041320 09/17/14 03608 TELLIARD CONSTRUCTION OWD62014 08/20/14 FILTER GEARDRIVE INSTALL 2,560.00 561.76 561.76 2041152 08/27/14 15799 TURNKEY HOMES AND LOANS 9029082514 08/25/14 CUSTOMER REFUND 4.95 CONSULTANT SERVICES (THRU 7/31/14)850.00 850.00 2041321 09/17/14 00870 TRANSCAT INC 902836 08/28/14 EQUIPMENT CALIBRATIONS 2041210 09/03/14 15398 TIMMONS GROUP INC 162437 08/12/14 ADM FEES COPS 2007 (7/1/14-6/30/15)1,872.00 13720 07/30/14 ADM FEES FOR 93 COPS (7/1/14-6/30/15)1,872.00 2041246 09/10/14 13047 UNION BANK NA 13721 07/30/14 4.95 2041322 09/17/14 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF 820140486 09/01/14 UNDERGROUND ALERTS (MONTHLY)424.50 424.50 2041211 09/03/14 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 1142172828 07/17/14 1142269283 08/22/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (8/22/14-9/18/14)79.98 1142269282 08/22/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (8/22/14-9/18/14)79.98 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (8/22/14-9/18/14)80.08 1142269476 08/23/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (8/23/14-9/19/14)79.98 2041247 09/10/14 15675 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 1142269284 08/22/14 1142192701 07/25/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (7/25/14-8/21/14)80.08 1142129181 06/27/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (6/27/14-7/24/14)79.98 1142107642 06/19/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (6/19/14-7/16/14)98.17 1142129183 06/27/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (6/27/14-7/24/14)80.08 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (7/17/14-8/13/14)98.17 1142246889 08/14/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (8/14/14-8/27/14)98.17 1142192700 07/25/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (7/25/14-8/21/14)79.98 1142192797 07/26/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (7/26/14-8/22/14)79.98 1142152634 07/09/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (7/9/14-8/5/14)79.98 1142192699 07/25/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (7/25/14-8/21/14)79.98 1142129182 06/27/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (6/27/14-7/24/14)79.98 1142129297 06/28/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (6/28/14-7/25/14)79.98 PREPAID POSTAGE MACHINE 6,000.00 6,000.00 2041249 09/10/14 07674 US BANK 2212082214 08/22/14 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY) 1142221285 08/06/14 PORTABLE TOILET RENTALS (8/6/14-9/2/14)79.98 2041248 09/10/14 00350 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 104339510914 09/08/14 25,292.39 555.00 555.00 2041153 08/27/14 07674 US BANK OP081814 08/22/14 CAL CARD EXPENSES 25,292.39Page 11 of 12 Check Total CHECK REGISTER Otay Water District Date Range: 8/21/2014 - 9/17/2014 Check #Date Vendor Vendor Name Invoice Inv. Date Description Amount 6,517.93 6,925.97 25,292.39 2041212 09/03/14 07674 US BANK AD072214 07/22/14 CAL CARD EXPENSES (MONTHLY)17,778.54 17,778.54 2041153 08/27/14 07674 US BANK OP081814 08/22/14 CAL CARD EXPENSES 25,292.39 4,359.11 4,359.11 2041252 09/10/14 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2435944 09/11/14 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 12,107.05 POSTAGE 286.72 286.72 2041251 09/10/14 03190 VALCO INSTRUMENTS CO INC 90258859 07/30/14 HACH APA6000 2041250 09/10/14 08402 US POSTMASTER 09042014 09/05/14 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 1,520.85 1,520.85 2041253 09/10/14 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2435946 09/11/14 BI-WEEKLY 401A PLAN 2041155 08/27/14 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2435714 08/28/14 12,107.05 2041154 08/27/14 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2435712 08/28/14 BI-WEEKLY DEFERRED COMP PLAN 11,632.15 11,632.15 240.00 2041157 08/27/14 03329 VERIZON WIRELESS 9729039971 07/21/14 WIRELESS SERVICES (6/22/14-7/21/14)3,840.46 1,426.24 1,426.24 2041156 08/27/14 15770 VENTURA URGENT 9971082114 08/21/14 RECRUITMENT 240.00 WIRELESS SERVICES (7/22/14-8/21/14)4,934.17 9730749283 08/21/14 WIRELESS SERVICES (7/22/14-8/21/14)1,254.10 2041323 09/17/14 03329 VERIZON WIRELESS 9730749279 08/21/14 9729039975 07/21/14 WIRELESS SERVICES (6/25/14-7/21/14)2,456.27 9729039977 07/21/14 WIRELESS SERVICES (7/8/14-7/21/14)221.20 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 230.76 230.76 2041254 09/10/14 15709 WASHINGTON STATE SUPPORT Ben2435952 09/11/14 BI-WEEKLY PAYROLL DEDUCTION 9730749285 08/21/14 WIRELESS SERVICES (7/22/14-8/21/14)737.70 2041158 08/27/14 15709 WASHINGTON STATE SUPPORT Ben2435720 08/28/14 3,040.00 2041324 09/17/14 15726 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 1092 08/31/14 HYDRAULIC MODELING (ENDING 8/31/14)1,600.00 1,600.00 230.76 230.76 2041159 08/27/14 15726 WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 1076 07/31/14 HYDRAULIC MODELING (ENDING 7/31/14)3,040.00 21.22 21.22 Amount Pd Total:1,595,348.81 Check Grand Total:1,595,348.81 UB Refund Cst #0000176889 160.00 160.00 2041160 08/27/14 15783 XILONEN NAUNGAYAN Ref002435659 08/25/14 UB Refund Cst #0000187220 2041325 09/17/14 09646 WELLS FARGO BANK 2192082614 09/12/14 Page 12 of 12